# 9/11--Was it an inside job?



## Sensei Payne

It has been many years since that Tragic day...and many lives lost, and I just want to say as the one to start this thread. I have the utmost respect for the dead and the families who have been directly effected by the events on 9/11. Let it be the direct victims, soliders who have been deployed, fought,were injured, and even lost there lives in the Middle East doing there duty. 

I hope that going forward with this, all others will remember that this thread is not debating if 9/11 was bad, or saying that the event itself was faked...because we all know..it happened, the death and loss was real..and we are all effected by it to this very day.

What I hope to discuss here, is who truely was behind the 9/11 attacks. Do we take what our American Government tells us as the true story, blindly and faithfully.

Or do we look at the facts and the damage and all evidence provided and start to truely understand what happened, in all its detail.

I for one do not believe that a group of cave dwellers, from the other side of the planet would be able to coordinate with military percision a attack on that scale..With nothing but box cutters at there disposal. I have seen many documentaries, including "loose Change", and "Zeitguist"..along with several other docs that I have found floating around on Netflix...Double checked to see if the facts match up...and derived that the story they are telling us..is not what really happening...

So...That all being said..what is your opinions and views. They will be met with respect.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

I will make a comment on the meta-data rather than the data itself.  It is my observation that the people most often involved in pushing forward the theory that the coordinated terrorist attack on the USA on 9/11 was a conspiracy involving the US government are quite often involved in other conspiracy theories as well.  This, as much as anything else, is compelling information for me.

I always ask a simple question to proponents of such conspiracy theories.  Is there any way that you could be persuaded to change your opinion?  Most often, the answer that I get is something along the lines of _"No, because I'm right."_ At that point, I believe we are talking about belief as opposed to science or fact; the person involved is emotionally invested in their point of view and there is literally nothing that could change their minds.

My personal opinion is that the facts speak for themselves.  The attacks were not a conspiracy of the US government.  I am open to having my mind changed, but I have looked at a lot of the conspiracy sites, and I have been mostly annoyed by the lack of scientific method and lack of understanding of fairly basic engineering issues.


----------



## Big Don

It WAS an inside job!
Who was inside? 20 Muslim terrorist sons of bitches.


----------



## Sensei Payne

As where I remain open to Theories from all directions based on the facts...I gotta say...the explaination that the 9/11 comission report gives us...is just completely impossible.

1) Building 7 collapsing due to fire, when the building was designed to take greater damage than it actually had

2)The "Plane" that crashed into the penagon, all being burned up in the fire, not so much as a black box, not to mention pieces that were found, were found to be pieces from a plane that weren't even from the type of plane that crashed into the building.

There are just so many gleeming holes in the story that it just can't be true...there is just no possible way.


----------



## Ken Morgan

Seriously?
Come on, conspiracy theories are almost all horse ****, because people are just not that good at keeping secrets. This would have been the mother of all secrets involving hundreds if not thousands of people.  They couldnt even cover up the hotel break in from Watergate, and you expect them to cover up something of this magnitude??
People just are not that competent.


----------



## Sukerkin

There are still unanswered questions with regard to this tragedy, it is true.  I put myself as "Undecided" on this issue but not because I necessarily think that the US government was complicit by action in the attack.

Complicit by inaction, maybe but as to whether that inaction was deliberate policy or simple mistake I can't say.

One point that always sticks in my head is that that footage of Building 7 falling has ever looked to me like a series of demolition charges running up the building but that is hardly evidence given that I am not a civil engineer.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

Inside job. Just as Pearl Harbor, the Iraq invasion, the Vietnam war and the Spanish-American war were.  Conspired and arranged.
and yes, I'll expand on all those shortly.


----------



## Twin Fist

anyone that thinks 9-11 was an inside job is a .................wrong,

not just wrong but more wrong than has been recorded in the history of being wrong

they are wrong on a level approaching epic wrongness.

there is *no possible way* it could have been an inside job

for no other reason than this:

the us government is 100% incapable of keeping a secret


i normally call truthers barking loon's and go off on rants of epic and biblical proportions, but i am trying to cut back on my rants in accordance with the new rules round these parts.....

I hope you are happy Bob......oh the headache i am gonna have for not going off on this topic....


----------



## Sensei Payne

Twin Fist said:


> anyone that thinks 9-11 was an inside job is a .................wrong,
> 
> not just wrong but more wrong than has been recorded in the history of being wrong
> 
> they are wrong on a level approaching epic wrongness.
> 
> there is *no possible way* it could have been an inside job
> 
> for no other reason than this:
> 
> the us government is 100% incapable of keeping a secret
> 
> 
> i normally call truthers barking loon's and go off on rants of epic and biblical proportions, but i am trying to cut back on my rants in accordance with the new rules round these parts.....
> 
> I hope you are happy Bob......oh the headache i am gonna have for not going off on this topic....


 

I think that the blaring holes in the 9/11 commission report would be enough for the "secret".  The Report itself was an insult to American Intellegence.



> The Project for the New American Century (PNAC), a non-profit organization founded in 1997 by prominent Republican leaders, called for a transformation of America to exercise military total spectrum dominance and unchallenged worldwide hegemony. The PNAC program, in a nutshell: America's military must rule out even the possibility of a serious global or regional challenger anywhere in the world. The regime of Saddam Hussein must be toppled immediately, by U.S. force if necessary. And the entire Middle East must be reordered according to an American plan. PNAC's most important study notes that selling this plan to the American people will likely take a long time, "absent some catastrophic catalyzing event like a new Pearl Harbor." (PNAC, Rebuilding America's Defenses (1997), p.51)
> 
> A catalyzing catastrophe did come, and since September 11 the policies that PNAC promoted have been put in place by PNAC's own members. They occupy nearly all of the key positions in the Bush administration national security apparatus. Paul Wolfowitz, who was under oath alongside Rumsfeld at the March 23 testimony, signed on to the PNAC document which specifically referred to a "new Pearl Harbor" in a favorable light (in September 2000).
> 
> Donald Rumsfeld was a signatory to the PNAC mission statement, along with administration stalwarts Dick Cheney, John Negroponte, Elliot Abrams, Otto Reich and Zalmay Khalilzad, as well as Jeb Bush. For all of them, the Project for a New American Century amounts to a kind of public oath. The mission statement and the entire PNAC plan were published on the web at newamericancentury. org, years before the Bush administration came to power.
> 
> Since all of this information is open source, how is it that the commission managed to entirely ignore it when they questioned Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Myers?


http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20040527220940331


----------



## Twin Fist

there is no way it was an inside job, you are wrong, and i can shred any point you try to make instantly, thats how much time i have spent looking into this over the last 10 years

you are wrong, dont make me prove it.

or do, i could use the fun


----------



## Sensei Payne

Why don't you just share your point.


I think we would all love to here it.


----------



## Sensei Payne

Twin Fist said:


> there is no way it was an inside job, you are wrong, and i can shred any point you try to make instantly, thats how much time i have spent looking into this over the last 10 years
> 
> you are wrong, dont make me prove it.
> 
> or do, i could use the fun


 

I will make it even easier for you...here is a list of all the reasons to doubt the *OFFICIAL STORY of 9/11*

*



			THE DAY ITSELF - EVIDENCE OF COMPLICITY
		
Click to expand...

*


> 1) *AWOL Chain of Command*
> a. It is well documented that the officials topping the chain of command for response to a domestic attack - George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Myers, Montague Winfield - all found reason to do something else during the actual attacks, other than assuming their duties as decision-makers.
> b. Who was actually in charge? Dick Cheney, Richard Clarke, Norman Mineta and the 9/11 Commission directly conflict in their accounts of top-level response to the unfolding events, such that several (or all) of them must be lying.
> *2) Air Defense Failures*
> *a. The US air defense system failed to follow standard procedures for responding to diverted passenger flights. *
> *b. Timelines: The various responsible agencies - NORAD, FAA, Pentagon, USAF, as well as the 9/11 Commission - gave radically different explanations for the failure (in some cases upheld for years), such that several officials must have lied; but none were held accountable. *
> *c. Was there an air defense standdown?*
> *3) Pentagon Strike*
> *How was it possible the Pentagon was hit 1 hour and 20 minutes after the attacks began? Why was there no response from Andrews Air Force Base, just 10 miles away and home to Air National Guard units charged with defending the skies above the nation''s capital? How did Hani Hanjour, a man who failed as a Cessna pilot on his first flight in a Boeing, execute a difficult aerobatic maneuver to strike the Pentagon? Why did the attack strike the just-renovated side, which was largely empty and opposite from the high command? *
> 
> *4) Wargames*
> *a. US military and other authorities planned or actually rehearsed defensive response to all elements of the 9/11 scenario during the year prior to the attack - including multiple hijackings, suicide crashbombings, and a strike on the Pentagon. *
> *b. The multiple military wargames planned long in advance and held on the morning of September 11th included scenarios of a domestic air crisis, a plane crashing into a government building, and a large-scale emergency in New York. If this was only an incredible series of coincidences, why did the official investigations avoid the issue? There is evidence that the wargames created confusion as to whether the unfolding events were "real world or exercise." Did wargames serve as the cover for air defense sabotage, and/or the execution of an "inside job"?*
> 
> *5) Flight 93*
> *Did the Shanksville crash occur at 10:06 (according to a seismic report) or 10:03 (according to the 9/11 Commission)? Does the Commission wish to hide what happened in the last three minutes of the flight, and if so, why? Was Flight 93 shot down, as indicated by the scattering of debris over a trail of several miles?*
> 
> 
> *THE DAY - POSSIBLE SMOKING GUNS *
> *6) Did cell phones work at 30,000 feet in 2001? How many hijackings were attempted? How many flights were diverted?*
> *7) Demolition Hypothesis*
> *What caused the collapse of a third skyscraper, WTC 7, which was not hit by a plane? Were the Twin Towers and WTC 7 brought down by explosives? (See "**The Case for Demolitions**," the websites **wtc7.net** and **911research.wtc7.net**, and the influential article by physicist **Steven Jones**. See also items no. 16 and 24, below.) *
> 
> *FOREKNOWLEDGE & THE ALLEGED HIJACKERS *
> 
> *8) What did officials know? How did they know it?*
> *a. Multiple allied foreign agencies informed the US government of a coming attack in detail, including the manner and likely targets of the attack, the name of the operation (the "Big Wedding"), and the names of certain men later identified as being among the perpetrators.*
> *b. Various individuals came into possession of specific advance knowledge, and some of them tried to warn the US prior to September 11th.*
> *c. Certain prominent persons received warnings not to fly on the week or on the day of September 11th.*
> 
> *9) Able Danger, Plus - Surveillance of Alleged Hijackers*
> *a. The men identified as the 9/11 ringleaders were under surveillance for years beforehand, on the suspicion they were terrorists, by a variety of US and allied authorities - including the CIA, the US military''s "Able Danger" program, the German authorities, Israeli intelligence and others. *
> *b. Two of the alleged ringleaders who were known to be under surveillance by the CIA also lived with an FBI asset in San Diego, but this is supposed to be yet another coincidence. *
> *10) Obstruction of FBI Investigations prior to 9/11*
> *A group of FBI officials in New York systematically suppressed field investigations of potential terrorists that might have uncovered the alleged hijackers - as the Moussaoui case once again showed. The stories of Sibel Edmonds, Robert Wright, Coleen Rowley and Harry Samit, the "Phoenix Memo," David Schippers, the 199i orders restricting investigations, the Bush administration''s order to back off the Bin Ladin family, the reaction to the "Bojinka" plot, and John O''Neil do not, when considered in sum, indicate mere incompetence, but high-level corruption and protection of criminal networks, including the network of the alleged 9/11 conspirators. (Nearly all of these examples were omitted from or relegated to fleeting footnotes in The 9/11 Commission Report.) *
> 
> *11) Insider Trading*
> *a. Unknown speculators allegedly used foreknowledge of the Sept. 11th events to profiteer on many markets internationally - including but not limited to "put options" placed to short-sell the two airlines, WTC tenants, and WTC re-insurance companies in Chicago and London. *
> *b. In addition, suspicious monetary transactions worth hundreds of millions were conducted through offices at the Twin Towers during the actual attacks. *
> *c. Initial reports on these trades were suppressed and forgotten, and only years later did the 9/11 Commission and SEC provide a partial, but untenable explanation for only a small number of transactions (covering only the airline put options through the Chicago Board of Exchange). *
> 
> *12) Who were the perpetrators?*
> *a. Much of the evidence establishing who did the crime is dubious and miraculous: bags full of incriminating material that happened to miss the flight or were left in a van; the "magic passport" of an alleged hijacker, found at Ground Zero; documents found at motels where the alleged perpetrators had stayed days and weeks before 9/11. *
> *b. The identities of the alleged hijackers remain unresolved, there are contradictions in official accounts of their actions and travels, and there is evidence several of them had "doubles," all of which is omitted from official investigations.*
> *c. What happened to initial claims by the government that 50 people involved in the attacks had been identified, including the 19 alleged hijackers, with 10 still at large (suggesting that 20 had been apprehended)? http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/sns-worldtrade-50suspects,0,1825231.story*
> 
> 
> *THE 9/11 COVER-UP, 2001-2006*
> *13) Who Is Osama Bin Ladin?*
> *a. Who judges which of the many conflicting and dubious statements and videos attributed to Osama Bin Ladin are genuine, and which are fake? The most important Osama Bin Ladin video (Nov. 2001), in which he supposedly confesses to masterminding 9/11, appears to be a fake. In any event, the State Department''s translation of it is fraudulent.*
> *b. Did Osama Bin Ladin visit Dubai and meet a CIA agent in July 2001 (Le Figaro)? Was he receiving dialysis in a Pakistani military hospital on the night of September 10, 2001 (CBS)?*
> *c. Whether by Bush or Clinton: Why is Osama always allowed to escape?*
> *d. The terror network associated with Osama, known as the "base" (al-Qaeda), originated in the CIA-sponsored 1980s anti-Soviet jihad in Afghanistan. When did this network stop serving as an asset to covert operations by US intelligence and allied agencies? What were its operatives doing in Kosovo, Bosnia and Chechnya in the years prior to 9/11? *
> 
> *14) All the Signs of a Systematic 9/11 Cover-up*
> *a. Airplane black boxes were found at Ground Zero, according to two first responders and an unnamed NTSB official, but they were "disappeared" and their existence is denied in The 9/11 Commission Report. *
> *b. US officials consistently suppressed and destroyed evidence (like the tapes recorded by air traffic controllers who handled the New York flights).*
> *c. Whistleblowers (like Sibel Edmonds and Anthony Shaffer) were intimidated, gagged and sanctioned, sending a clear signal to others who might be thinking about speaking out. *
> *d. Officials who "failed" (like Myers and Eberhard, as well as Frasca, Maltbie and Bowman of the FBI) were given promotions.*
> 
> *15) Poisoning New York*
> *The White House deliberately pressured the EPA into giving false public assurances that the toxic air at Ground Zero was safe to breathe. This knowingly contributed to an as-yet unknown number of health cases and fatalities, and demonstrates that the administration does consider the lives of American citizens to be expendable on behalf of certain interests. *
> *16) Disposing of the Crime Scene *
> *The rapid and illegal scrapping of the WTC ruins at Ground Zero disposed of almost all of the structural steel indispensable to any investigation of the collapse mechanics. (See also item no. 23, below.) *
> *17) Anthrax*
> *Mailings of weapons-grade anthrax - which caused a practical suspension of the 9/11 investigations - were traced back to US military stock. Soon after the attacks began in October 2001, the FBI approved the destruction of the original samples of the Ames strain, disposing of perhaps the most important evidence in identifying the source of the pathogens used in the mailings. Were the anthrax attacks timed to coincide with the Afghanistan invasion? Why were the letters sent only to media figures and to the leaders of the opposition in the Senate (who had just raised objections to the USA PATRIOT Act)? *
> *18) The Stonewall *
> *a. Colin Powell promised a "white paper" from the State Department to establish the authorship of the attacks by al-Qaeda. This was never forthcoming, and was instead replaced by a paper from Tony Blair, which presented only circumstantial evidence, with very few points actually relating to September 11th.*
> *b. Bush and Cheney pressured the (freshly-anthraxed) leadership of the Congressional opposition into delaying the 9/11 investigation for months. The administration fought against the creation of an independent investigation for more than a year. *
> *c. The White House thereupon attempted to appoint Henry Kissinger as the chief investigator, and acted to underfund and obstruct the 9/11 Commission.*
> 
> *19) A Record of Official Lies *
> *a. "No one could have imagined planes into buildings" - a transparent falsehood upheld repeatedly by Rice, Rumsfeld and Bush. *
> *b. "Iraq was connected to 9/11" - The most "outrageous conspiracy theory" of all, with the most disastrous impact.*
> *20) Pakistani Connection - Congressional Connection*
> *a. The Pakistani intelligence agency ISI, creator of the Taliban and close ally to both the CIA and "al-Qaeda," allegedly wired $100,000 to Mohamed Atta just prior to September 11th, reportedly through the ISI asset Omar Saeed Sheikh (later arrested for the killing of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl, who was investigating ISI connections to "al-Qaeda.") *
> *b. This was ignored by the congressional 9/11 investigation, although the senator and congressman who ran the probe (Bob Graham and Porter Goss) were meeting with the ISI chief, Mahmud Ahmed, on Capitol Hill on the morning of September 11th.*
> *c. About 25 percent of the report of the Congressional Joint Inquiry was redacted, including long passages regarding how the attack (or the network allegedly behind it) was financed. Graham later said foreign allies were involved in financing the alleged terror network, but that this would only come out in 30 years. *
> *21) Unanswered Questions and the "Final Fraud" of the 9/11 Commission: *
> *a. The September 11th families who fought for and gained an independent investigation (the 9/11 Commission) posed 400-plus questions, which the 9/11 Commission adopted as its roadmap. The vast majority of these questions were completely ignored in the Commission hearings and the final report. *
> *b. The membership and staff of the 9/11 Commission displayed awesome conflicts of interest. The families called for the resignation of Executive Director Philip Zelikow, a Bush administration member and close associate of "star witness" Condoleezza Rice, and were snubbed. Commission member Max Cleland resigned, condemning the entire exercise as a "scam" and "whitewash." *
> *c.The 9/11 Commission Report is notable mainly for its obvious omissions, distortions and outright falsehoods - ignoring anything incompatible with the official story, banishing the issues to footnotes, and even dismissing the still-unresolved question of who financed 9/11 as being "of little practical significance."*
> 
> *22) Crown Witnesses Held at Undisclosed Locations *
> *The alleged masterminds of 9/11, Khalid Sheikh Mohamed (KSM) and Ramzi Binalshibh, are reported to have been captured in 2002 and 2003, although one Pakistani newspaper said KSM was killed in an attempted capture. They have been held at undisclosed locations and their supposed testimonies, as provided in transcript form by the government, form much of the basis for The 9/11 Commission Report (although the Commission''s request to see them in person was denied). After holding them for years, why doesn''t the government produce these men and put them to trial? *
> 
> *23) Spitzer Redux *
> *a. Eliot Spitzer, attorney general of New York State, snubbed pleas by New York citizens to open 9/11 as a criminal case (**Justicefor911.org**). *
> *b. Spitzer also refused to allow his employee, former 9/11 Commission staff member Dietrich Snell, to testify to the Congress about his (Snell''s) role in keeping "Able Danger" entirely out of The 9/11 Commission Report.*
> *24) NIST Omissions*
> *After the destruction of the WTC structural steel, the official Twin Towers collapse investigation was left with almost no forensic evidence, and thus could only provide dubious computer models of ultimately unprovable hypotheses. It failed to even test for the possibility of explosives. (Why not clear this up?)*
> 
> *25) Radio Silence*
> *The 9/11 Commission and NIST both allowed the continuing cover-up of how Motorola''s faulty radios, purchased by the Giuliani administration, caused firefighter deaths at the WTC - once again showing the expendability, even of the first responders. *
> *26) The Legal Catch-22*
> *a. Hush Money - Accepting victims'' compensation barred September 11th families from pursuing discovery through litigation.*
> *b. Judge Hallerstein - Those who refused compensation to pursue litigation and discovery had their cases consolidated under the same judge (and as a rule dismissed).*
> 
> *27) Saudi Connections*
> *a. The 9/11 investigations made light of the "Bin Ladin Airlift" during the no-fly period, and ignored the long-standing Bush family business ties to the Bin Ladin family fortune. (A company in which both families held interests, the Carlyle Group, was holding its annual meeting on September 11th, with George Bush Sr., James Baker, and two brothers of Osama Bin Ladin in attendance.) *
> *b. The issue of Ptech.*
> *28) Media Blackout of Prominent Doubters*
> *The official story has been questioned and many of the above points were raised by members of the US Congress, retired high-ranking officers of the US military, the three leading third-party candidates for President in the 2004 election, a member of the 9/11 Commission who resigned in protest, a former high-ranking adviser to the George W. Bush administration, former ministers to the German, British and Canadian governments, the commander-in-chief of the Russian air force, 100 luminaries who signed the "9/11 Truth Statement," and the presidents of Iran and Venezuela. Not all of these people agree fully with each other, but all would normally be considered newsworthy. Why has the corporate-owned US mass media remained silent about these statements, granting due coverage only to the comments of actor Charlie Sheen?*
> 
> 
> *GEOPOLITICS, TIMING AND POSSIBLE MOTIVES *
> *29) "The Great Game" *
> *The Afghanistan invasion was ready for Bush''s go-ahead on September 9, 2001, with US and UK force deployments to the region already in place or underway. This followed the failure earlier that year of backdoor diplomacy with the Taliban (including payments of $125 million in US government aid to Afghanistan), in an attempt to secure a unity government for that country as a prerequisite to a Central Asian pipeline deal. *
> *30) The Need for a "New Pearl Harbor"*
> *Principals in US foreign policy under the current Bush administration (including Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle and others) have been instrumental in developing long-running plans for worldwide military hegemony, including an invasion of the Middle East, dating back to the Ford, Reagan and Bush Sr. administrations. They reiterated these plans in the late 1990s as members of the "Project for a New American Century," and stated a clear intent to invade Iraq for the purpose of "regime change." After 9/11, they lost no time in their attempt to tie Iraq to the attacks.*
> *31) Perpetual "War on Terror"*
> *9/11 is supposed to provide carte-blanche for an open-ended, global and perpetual "War on Terror," against any enemy, foreign or domestic, that the executive branch chooses to designate, and regardless of whether evidence exists to actually connect these enemies to 9/11.*
> *32) Attacking the Constitution*
> *a. The USA PATRIOT Act was written before 9/11, Homeland Security and the "Shadow Government" were developed long before 9/11, and plans for rounding up dissidents as a means for suppressing civil disturbance have been in the works for decades.*
> *b. 9/11 was used as the pretext to create a new, extra-constitutional executive authority to declare anyone an "enemy combatant" (including American citizens), to detain persons indefinitely without habeas corpus, and to "render" such persons to secret prisons where torture is practiced.*
> *33) Legal Trillions*
> *9/11 triggers a predictable shift of public spending to war, and boosts public and private spending in the "new" New Economy of "Homeland Security," biometrics, universal surveillance, prisons, civil defense, secured enclaves, security, etc.*
> 
> *34) Plundered Trillions?*
> *On September 10, 2001, Donald Rumsfeld announced a "war on waste" after an internal audit found that the Pentagon was "missing" 2.3 trillion dollars in unaccounted assets. On September 11th, this was as good as forgotten.*
> *35) Did 9/11 prevent a stock market crash? *
> *Did anyone benefit from the destruction of the Securities and Exchange Commission offices at WTC 7, and the resultant crippling of hundreds of fraud investigations? *
> *36) Resource Wars *
> *a. What was discussed in the Energy Task Force meetings under Dick Cheney in 2001? Why is the documentation of these meetings still being suppressed? *
> *b. Is Peak Oil a motive for 9/11 as inside job?*
> *37) The "Little Game"*
> *Why was the WTC privatized just before its destruction?*
> 
> 
> *HISTORY*
> *38) "Al-CIA-da?" *
> *The longstanding relationship between US intelligence networks and radical Islamists, including the network surrounding Osama Bin Ladin. (See also point 13d.)*
> 
> *39) Historical Precedents for "Synthetic Terror" *
> *a. In the past many states, including the US government, have sponsored attacks on their own people, fabricated the "cause for war," created (and armed) their own enemies of convenience, and sacrificed their own citizens for "reasons of state." *
> *b. Was 9/11 an update of the Pentagon-approved "Project Northwoods" plan for conducting self-inflicted, false-flag terror attacks in the United States, and blaming them on a foreign enemy?*
> 
> *40) Secret Government *
> *a. The record of criminality and sponsorship of coups around the world by the covert networks based within the US intelligence complex.*
> *b. Specifically also: The evidence of crime by Bush administration principals and their associates, from October Surprise to Iran-Contra and the S&L plunder to PNAC, Enron/Halliburton and beyond.*


----------



## Tez3

Twin Fist said:


> anyone that thinks 9-11 was an inside job is a .................wrong,
> 
> *not just wrong but more wrong than has been recorded in the history of being wrong*
> 
> they are wrong on a level approaching epic wrongness.
> 
> there is *no possible way* it could have been an inside job
> 
> for no other reason than this:
> 
> the us government is 100% incapable of keeping a secret
> 
> 
> i normally call truthers barking loon's and go off on rants of epic and biblical proportions, but i am trying to cut back on my rants in accordance with the new rules round these parts.....
> 
> I hope you are happy Bob......oh the headache i am gonna have for not going off on this topic....


 
Love the Blackadderism!


----------



## Big Don

First, kindly refer to this BRILLIANT post.





Sensei Payne said:


> I will make it even easier for you...here is a list of all the reasons to doubt the *OFFICIAL STORY of 9/11*


*



			It is well documented that the officials topping the chain of command  for response to a domestic attack - George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld,  Richard Myers, Montague Winfield - all found reason to do something else  during the actual attacks, other than assuming their duties as  decision-makers.
		
Click to expand...

They have these wonderful inventions called cellular telephones... No, no one was out of touch. The President of the United States is NEVER more than 60 seconds from a phone.



How was it possible the Pentagon was hit 1 hour and 20 minutes after  the attacks began? Why was there no response from Andrews Air Force  Base, just 10 miles away and home to Air National Guard units charged  with defending the skies above the nation''s capital? How did Hani  Hanjour, a man who failed as a Cessna pilot on his first flight in a  Boeing, execute a difficult aerobatic maneuver to strike the Pentagon?  Why did the attack strike the just-renovated side, which was largely  empty and opposite from the high command? 

Click to expand...

Because no one in their right mind, except conspiracy theorists, which leaves out the, in their right mind bit, would shoot down a commercial passenger plane full of people, especially over a major metropolitan area.



What caused the collapse of a third skyscraper, WTC 7, which was not hit by a plane? 

Click to expand...

There are two other possible contributing factors still under  investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were  designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With  columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely  have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces,  thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.  

 Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no  firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was  fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency  generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a  generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the  basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working  hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the  fire] for a long period of time."  



Did 9/11 prevent a stock market crash? 

Click to expand...

 No, the stock market crashed that day, and stayed down for MONTHS.



			Did cell phones work at 30,000 feet in 2001?
		
Click to expand...

Cell phones work on radio signals, the signals spread out in a sphere, as no part of 30000 feet is farther than the 40 miles which cell phones can be from a tower, YES, basic 3d grade science says yes. Secondly, it wasn't cell phones from the passenger's pockets, IIRC, but rather the $5 a min airphones from the seatbacks in the plane. Cost concerns don't matter much when you're about to die...



 The USA PATRIOT Act was written before 9/11, Homeland Security and the "Shadow Government" were developed long before 9/11

Click to expand...

Bovine Feces. Patently untrue.



Media Blackout of Prominent Doubters

Click to expand...

 The obviously insane are often ignored in polite conversation.
In conclusion, Oh for ****'s sake, not this stupid **** AGAIN.

​*


----------



## Archangel M

Dude..use the search function.

This topic has been beaten to death here.


----------



## Big Don

Archangel M said:


> Dude..use the search function.
> 
> This topic has been beaten to death here.


QFT & AMEN Brother!


----------



## Makalakumu

I think it was an inside job in some way.  There are too many people who knew explicit details of what was happening before and at the time of the attacks to say it was just another government SNAFU.  The official story is incredulous and extraordinary does not stand up to scrutiny, even to people who believe that 19 hijackers were responsible.  

Does this mean that I believe every conspiracy theory out there about 9/11?  No.  Sure, most of it is speculation and ********.  We have everything from no planes and lasers from space to twelve headed reptile aliens, but that's the nature of the beast.  Topics like this attract paranoid craziness.  It's a mistake and a fallacy to lump everything in with the nutters, though.  

Sometimes crazy stuff is real.  And sometimes governments do bad things to their citizens to manipulate them.  That happens for real.

I support an independent investigation of the facts by people who are willing to look at every shred of evidence and are willing to share every shred of evidence with anyone who would like to double check.  Despite the assertions to the contrary, we have not had an investigation like this.  Freedom of information acts have been and are being denied because of national security reasons or the evidence has simply been destroyed.  The rational response is to BE skeptical in this situation.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

Define inside job.

If we're talking down to the minute detailed whowhatwherewhen, then no.

If we're talking dereliction of duty, leaving defenses down over a period of time, and basically inviting an attack, then yet.

It's called creating a reason for war, and the US government has a proven track record of doing just that. But don't take my word for it. I'm just a loon.


----------



## Twin Fist

if you think they KNEW what was gonna happen and let it? then yes, you might be a loon


----------



## Bob Hubbard

False Flag Event.


----------



## Twin Fist

thats a wild accusation.


----------



## Sukerkin

Even Churchill allegedly did something very similar, for very pragmatic reasons, during the Second World War (to conceal the fact that we'd broken the Enigma code).

If you don't think your government would do such a thing when it suited their foreign policy purposes, John, then there is no real way to convince you and I wouldn't even try to do so.  I go so far as to give them the benefit of the doubt that they didn't expect the Twin Towers to fall but that's about as much leeway as I'd give the Machiavellian bastards.

You have to keep in mind all the time that the PM/President, for all the pomp, is just a figurehead for the machine of government and that that machine really doesn't care whose in the 'big chair' or what nominal political wing that person represents.  That's why nothing ever really changes, fundamentally, after an election.


----------



## Big Don

Twin Fist said:


> thats a wild accusation.


You said wild... the word is nutso, iirc...


----------



## Twin Fist

I am not gonna call the site owner "nutso" Don.............


----------



## Big Don

Twin Fist said:


> I am not gonna call the site owner "nutso" Don.............


No, not the person, the accusation.


----------



## Twin Fist

still....red lights going off in my head mean time to back up.....


----------



## Bob Hubbard

one site makes some interesting claims
http://911proof.com/index

with tons and tons of links, etc.

It all can't be BS.

The laws of probability say so.  The US hadn't seen more than 1 hijacking in 20 years, all of a sudden -4- planes get nailed in 1 day?  Highly improbable unless there was some level of cooperation.  
Since terrorists haven't been able to follow up with anything near that level in 10 years....that also makes 9/11 a highly improbable event as a 1-off.

The truth is not what we were told.
It's also not what most of the nutters out there spew.

But, a simple question:
[FONT=&quot]"What was President Bush doing sitting in a classroom for half an hour after he was told that the country was under attack?  Why didn&#8217;t the Secret Service rush him away from where everyone knew he was, unless they knew he wasn&#8217;t a target?  If they knew that, how?"[/FONT]

But.  If the question is, do I believe that the Bush Administration was capable of a False Flag event, the answer is Yes. Their proven contempt for the US Constitution and numerous illegal actions prove there were members capable of anything.


----------



## Archangel M

[yt]TPMS6tGOACo[/yt]


----------



## Archangel M

I just cant understand how people can reconcile a belief in government ineptitude on one hand and believe that this same government could pull off an operation of the scale, complexity, and sheer immensity (and still nobody has blabbed) of a 9/11 on the other. 

The belief that all those buildings could have been wired for demolition under the noses of all those thousands of people alone illustrates an ignorance of demolitions at the best or a willful belief in movieland fantasy about slapping a few blocks of C4 with LED timers by hot CIA operatives at the worst.

Blech....


----------



## Bob Hubbard

See, I don't buy the 'demo' argument.  Alot of the 'tinfoil' arguments...well they fall into fantasy and you really really have to reach for it.


----------



## Big Don

For eight years people kept screaming "Bush is stupid" and yet, for 7 of that they also claim he is behind (MIHOP) or complicit (LIHOP) in a huge conspiracy. The dumbest evil genius evar?


----------



## Bob Hubbard

Don, I wouldn't trust Dubya to tie his own shoes without help.

But I'd be ok hunting with him.

Cheney on the other hand....well...he does have a lot of Sith in him....


----------



## Sensei Payne

Twin Fist said:


> if you think they KNEW what was gonna happen and let it? then yes, you might be a loon


 

What happened after 9/11?

We went to Iraq...and we well know Osama wasn't there....so what was the point?


Profitand Power!

And we never would have been able to go to "War" without 9/11

Not to mention the enfringement on basic freedoms with the Patriot Act, scaring the adverage citizen into submission.

9/11 was the excuse for our government to move more toward a totalitarian system, keeping to poor, poorer, and the rich, richer.


And how are they able to keep all of this up?

They keep us in a perpetual state of fear. With underwear bombers, TSA pat downs, and so called "home grown" Terrorists.

So really, 9/11 worked more in the favor of our government, more so than any other event in history...it gave them the control they want.

Our Constitution is slowly being dissolved due to the events on 9/11...

Demanding a real investigation of the September 11th crimes isn't just a patriotic duty, but a matter of survival


----------



## MA-Caver

If the government wants to satisfy everyone that it was NOT an inside job then why are the videos of the plane crashing into the Pentagon still under lock and key? The security and surveillance cameras that were all around and functioning outside the grounds of the building, from banks to gas-stations and whatever... all those vids have still not been released. 

Having been to the Pentagon and all that... obviously the powers that be see something so top-secret that I can't see when I'm looking at the outside of the building, so this is why they can't release the videos... unaltered preferably of course, because we might see something that blows something so top-secret and billions of dollars will have to be spent to re-do it or come up with something more. 

Show the videos... c'mon.


----------



## yorkshirelad

MA-Caver said:


> If the government wants to satisfy everyone that it was NOT an inside job then why are the videos of the plane crashing into the Pentagon still under lock and key? The security and surveillance cameras that were all around and functioning outside the grounds of the building, from banks to gas-stations and whatever... all those vids have still not been released.
> 
> Having been to the Pentagon and all that... obviously the powers that be see something so top-secret that I can't see when I'm looking at the outside of the building, so this is why they can't release the videos... unaltered preferably of course, because we might see something that blows something so top-secret and billions of dollars will have to be spent to re-do it or come up with something more.
> 
> Show the videos... c'mon.


 
Didn't you see the videos? I did. I saw planes flying into buildings. I saw people jumping to there deaths. I saw home video footage of people running away from the collapse. I saw a lot of footage. If you want the videos from the local Chevron station then go and ask them......But they'll probably refuse to show you it.


----------



## Twin Fist

the gas stations film WAS released, for the Padilla trial

it sowed nothing, wrong angle.


----------



## Makalakumu

I've been talking about this since 2002 and finally, I stepped back and asked myself why was I attracted to this position about 9/11, because I knew that it wasn't entirely rational.  

Without going into too many personal details, I simply don't trust the people in power to do the right thing.  It's a deep seated issue with authority that I deal with and now, because of this personal reflection, I have to force myself to consider that people in the government really are telling the truth and that it all happened the way they say they did.  

When I look at the story with that lens, it simply does not explain all of the evidence.  AND there is no way that anyone can independently verify this version of events because evidence has either been destroyed or classified.  

Therefore, in the rational corner of my mind, the one that uses logic, the one that I consciously attempt to separate from my underlying bias, I can understand how people can be skeptical of the government and the official story of 9/11...and even give them the benefit of the doubt.

For all practical purposes, we could simply just be looking at the single biggest cluster**** in American History.  Even that needs to be weighed on the evidence and after a point, it becomes too difficult to explain all of the coincidences and all of the simultaneous failures that had to occur for it to be the giant Charlie Foxtrot the government says it was.  It's preposterous, really, because if the government could screw up this badly, they couldn't even be trusted to tie their own shoes.  Maybe that really was the case, but the probability of that is pretty low considering how well the government does other things, like blowing things up on massive scales.

In the end, none of us know what really happened.  No one has seen the evidence for themselves and we must trust the stories that other people say about it.  When these stories claim extraordinary things, they should be bringing an extraordinary amount of evidence to prove it and they should prove it to anyone who wants to look...or no one should believe it.

This is a huge problem because one of the biggest changes we've had in our culture in over a hundred years is occurring right now and we really don't know what happened in the event that is supposed to have precipitated these changes.  

If I have to watch my children be virtually strip searched and/or groped before getting on a plane or going to the mall or a sporting event, I want to be convinced beyond all doubt that it is necessary.  9/11 is changing what it means to be an American and I believe that our society *deserves *a consensus on this issue before we bankrupt ourselves with war and destroy our founding documents.

Anyone here who is claiming they KNOW what happened needs to take a hard look at themselves and ask themselves why they really think that.  I don't know and you don't know and god dammit we need to get our heads together and figure this **** out quick or our society WILL change for generations.


----------



## jks9199

MA-Caver said:


> If the government wants to satisfy everyone that it was NOT an inside job then why are the videos of the plane crashing into the Pentagon still under lock and key? The security and surveillance cameras that were all around and functioning outside the grounds of the building, from banks to gas-stations and whatever... all those vids have still not been released.
> 
> Having been to the Pentagon and all that... obviously the powers that be see something so top-secret that I can't see when I'm looking at the outside of the building, so this is why they can't release the videos... unaltered preferably of course, because we might see something that blows something so top-secret and billions of dollars will have to be spent to re-do it or come up with something more.
> 
> Show the videos... c'mon.


I was going to stay out of this.

If you're going to bring up the Pentagon and imply it wasn't a plane, then you're telling me that several people I know are liars because they saw, with their own eyes, a plane hit the Pentagon.

Was September 11th an inside job?  I don't think in any deliberate fashion.  It was the culmination of years of planning, as well as years of neglect and complacence at multiple levels of government and society.  It's that simple, and that complex at the same time.  Folks... until September 11th, 2001, "terrorism" was something that happened "over there" for way too many people.  Even today, most people don't understand what terrorism is, or how terrorists really work.


----------



## Archangel M

jks9199 said:


> I was going to stay out of this.
> 
> If you're going to bring up the Pentagon and imply it wasn't a plane, then you're telling me that several people I know are liars because they saw, with their own eyes, a plane hit the Pentagon.
> 
> Was September 11th an inside job?  I don't think in any deliberate fashion.  It was the culmination of years of planning, as well as years of neglect and complacence at multiple levels of government and society.  It's that simple, and that complex at the same time.  Folks... until September 11th, 2001, "terrorism" was something that happened "over there" for way too many people.  Even today, most people don't understand what terrorism is, or how terrorists really work.



QFT..for some reason, some people find it easier to believe in a gvt cover-up than they can in a gvt ****-up. Even though the gvt has proven over and over again that its better at the latter than the former.


----------



## Makalakumu

Archangel M said:


> QFT..for some reason, some people find it easier to believe in a gvt cover-up than they can in a gvt ****-up. Even though the gvt has proven over and over again that its better at the latter than the former.



Maybe the government covered up a **** up?

What people need to keep in mind is that even the people who were commissioned by the government said they were lied to, denied evidence, the investigation was grossly underfunded, political theater and essentially wrong.  While these people are not saying in was an inside job by any means, they ARE saying that we don't know what happened.  

So, if you think you know what happened, you don't.  It's that simple...and that complex.


----------



## SensibleManiac

What really is sad is the way that many of the "truthers" who are people who have lost loved ones are disrespected. Now I'm not an American but it was really sad to see several people, one who had lost his dad, protesting about how the investigation into 9/11 is worthles and demanding a further invetigation only to be insulted on every level. 
The documentary was called 9/11 truth or something like that, I can dig it up if anyone hasn't seen it and wants to.
Some of the concerns of people who have lost loved ones are very valid. Whether there's any truth to the conspiracy or inside job, I think at the very least people who lost loved ones deserve more respect and understanding then being called nuts, given the finger by Geraldo (what an A$$) and yelled at and insulted.

These people feel that the memory of their loved ones is worth more in terms of the questions raised. They feel they deserve to have answers, and I agree.

To have family members of firefighters and volunteers who helped search for victims ridiculed and insulted is really sickening. Despite what people think, respect is in order here. 
Their loved ones went into the fire and chaos selflessly to save people and lost their lives doing so, to call the family members of these heroes nuts is like spitting in the faces of the firefighters and volunteers. 

Again I don't remember the exact name of the documentary off hand but can get it if anyone wants to see it. It doesn't prove anything about 9/11, just that we should be more respectful.


----------



## Makalakumu

SensibleManiac said:


> I think at the very least people who lost loved ones deserve more respect and understanding then being called nuts, given the finger by Geraldo (what an A$$) and yelled at and insulted.



FWIW, Geraldo actually changed his mind regarding 9/11.  Not that I think that this will add a shred of credibility to any conspiracy theory, it's just interesting how one person can go from denouncing everything to a position of skepticism.


----------



## Big Don

maunakumu said:


> FWIW, Geraldo actually changed his mind regarding 9/11.  Not that I think that this will add a shred of credibility to any conspiracy theory, it's just interesting how one person can go from denouncing everything to a position of skepticism.


Three words as to Geraldo's credibility: Al Capone's Vault.


----------



## Twin Fist

i swear to god if someone posts loose change i will ****ing lose it....


----------



## Big Don

Twin Fist said:


> i swear to god if someone posts loose change i will ****ing lose it....


----------



## Twin Fist

Don,
consider yourself kicked in the nuts


----------



## Sensei Payne

I gotta admit, "Loose Change" was the first Doc that I saw that made me start to look at 9/11 in a different light...and thats back when it was just a super long youtube video, and since then there have been several revisions, till the finally had the final cut..which can be Netflix'ed.

But this isn't where I stopped, there have been serveral other independent researchers to take a look at the available evidence...and most of which, have all been VERY compelling.

Lets point out the fact that these documentaries are backed up by HARD evidence, and not just conjecture, blind opinion or Nationalist Pride.  So not even to raise an eyebrow to the FACTS and the EVIDENCE perpetuates the worlds view on an average American...IGNORANT.


----------



## Sukerkin

Twin Fist said:


> Don,
> consider yourself kicked in the nuts


 
He gets kudos for excellent lateral thinking tho' .


----------



## Twin Fist

loose change has been completely, uttery, totally debunked and proven step by step total bull crap


----------



## Sensei Payne

Twin Fist said:


> loose change has been completely, uttery, totally debunked and proven step by step total bull crap


 

Again like I said..its not the only resourse that I am basing my opinion on...I know there are issues with some of the research..I am not debating that...but some of the points they made were very convincing.

Loose Change has LESS holes in it, that the whole of the 9/11 Commission Report put together by our Government.


----------



## Twin Fist

loose change is nothing BUT holes put together in a basement apartment by 3 community college drop outs


----------



## Sensei Payne

Twin Fist said:


> loose change is nothing BUT holes put together in a basement apartment by 3 community college drop outs


 

And the 9/11 Commission report was put together by greedy politicians that would allow the sacrafice of American lives to make there wallets fatter and to further there political Agenda...

Still doesn't change that fact that you seem to follow it blindly..had where I have admited flaws in at least some of the materials attempting to support my opinions.


----------



## Archangel M

Ahhh 20-somethings...arent they cute at that age?


----------



## Sensei Payne

Archangel M said:


> Ahhh 20-somethings...arent they cute at that age?


 

Would you care to explain?


----------



## Sensei Payne

Look my point being that I have admitted that there a few holes in there research in the movie "Loose Change". That is a fact...

The problem is not ALL of the info in the movie "Loose Change" is flawed at all.

That being said...if there is at least a portion of a Doc like that found to be true, then we have a larger problem than trying to debunk the research that has already been debunked years earlier...our problem lies with the 9/11 commission report, Government officials Fudged the facts, and in all intentions, LIED!

To many lives were lost to make mistakes about what happened...and there are plenty of mistakes within the report.

We need to Re-Open the Investigation in 9/11, thats all I would want.  Preferably independantly researched from an Unbiased position.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

*Only warning.
Behave.
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=96378

*


----------



## yorkshirelad

sensei payne said:


> would you care to explain?


 
I didn't see Bob's warning....flippant remark removed!


----------



## punisher73

jks9199 said:


> I was going to stay out of this.
> 
> If you're going to bring up the Pentagon and imply it wasn't a plane, then you're telling me that several people I know are liars because they saw, with their own eyes, a plane hit the Pentagon.
> 
> *Was September 11th an inside job? I don't think in any deliberate fashion. It was the culmination of years of planning, as well as years of neglect and complacence at multiple levels of government and society. It's that simple, and that complex at the same time. Folks... until September 11th, 2001, "terrorism" was something that happened "over there" for way too many people. Even today, most people don't understand what terrorism is, or how terrorists really work*.


 
Correct, read "Rogue Warrior" by Marcinko and what he did with Red Cell in regards to how easy it was to break into top military bases around the country and world and how that was covered up that it "didn't happen".  Our bases and response to home terrorism at the time was very much "it can't happen here" attitude.  We got caught with our pants down.

Then figure into what had happened and terrorism policies in place at the time.  At the time, no plane had ever been hijacked and crashed into something, they all were hijacked and taken somewhere, we were operated on a false belief.  Just look to law enforcement and how they "messed up" Columbine during that shooting.  Why?  Policy and procedure in place had them set up perimeters and wait for SWAT to show up. Now, just like 9/11 the polices have been changed to consider the otherside.

Won't release the Pentagon building footage?  Why?  Ever stop to think what might be on there besides a plane crashing?  How about other weaknesses that were shown that we don't want out there.  Or security capabilities that are there they we don't want advertised to our enemies.


----------



## Sensei Payne

punisher73 said:


> Won't release the Pentagon building footage? Why? Ever stop to think what might be on there besides a plane crashing? How about other weaknesses that were shown that we don't want out there. Or security capabilities that are there they we don't want advertised to our enemies.


 
Could you give me a hypothetical example what what might that be? I tried to use my imagination on that one...but I just couldn't


----------



## Bob Hubbard

Sensei Payne said:


> Could you give me a hypothetical example what what might that be? I tried to use my imagination on that one...but I just couldn't


Camera placement, location of pop up trip wires, etc.  Rough speculation there.


----------



## Sensei Payne

I think that if they REALLY wanted to debunk the whole thing..they would just release the video...release the hard evidence and then they can shut us "Truthers" up.


----------



## Makalakumu

Can something like this EVER be debunked EITHER way on the internet?


----------



## Sensei Payne

maunakumu said:


> Can something like this EVER be debunked EITHER way on the internet?


 

Probably not, but discussion, breeds awareness, awareness sparks interest, interest turns to passion, passion gets something done.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

maunakumu said:


> Can something like this EVER be debunked EITHER way on the internet?


Nope.  Because there are still people today who doubt the moon landings or Holocaust happened.


----------



## Big Don

Sensei Payne said:


> I think that if they REALLY wanted to debunk the whole thing..they would just release the video...release the hard evidence and then they can shut us "Truthers" up.


Yeah, to hell with national security.


----------



## yorkshirelad

I think it's hard for some people to believe that certain things happen. It's difficult to believe that a hand full of men with box cutters can take down the two most iconic structures in Manhattan, bring the financial world to a temporary halt, and destroy a portion of the pentagon, all within a single morning. It's hard for people to believe that a single, disturbed gunman can single-handedly, kill the most powerful man in the world, all while he's being protected by the most sophisticated security detail the world has to offer. But these things happen, and they will continue to happen. Why? Because when men are willing to die to achieve their objectives, it's hard for them to be stopped.

When we don't want to accept the above facts, we try to compensate by creating conspiracy theories. I know many die hard Elvis fans, who insist the guy's still alive, because when he did die, they didn't want to accept it. It's the same story with Bruce Lee.

Let's just face the facts, WE"RE VUNERABLE PEOPLE!! I know it's hard to accept, but it's true!


----------



## Makalakumu

yorkshirelad said:


> I know it's hard to accept, but it's true!



It's also true that we live in a society that is absent of virtue.  The debate about whether 9/11 is an inside job illustrates this.  Realize that even if 19 hijackers stormed the planes and rammed them into various iconic structures that this did not occur in a vacuum.  They did not do this because they hate our freedoms.  It's a response to our foreign policy over the last 50 years.  The West has intervened in people's lives in immoral ways and that has created this anger against us.  And in response to these attacks we've invaded and bombed seven more countries.  We killed millions of people.  We've spread toxic nuclear waste over thousands of square miles, polluting them forever.  

At the same time, our population acts like wicked, immature, amoral, toadies toward anyone who points out that this is evil and questions the motivations of a government that reacts explosively and deliberately on plans they laid years before years before the attacks occurred.  We've attacked others and we've attacked ourselves in response to this.  The essence of Liberty in which our country was founded upon has become meaningless.  

In the grand scheme of things, the "how" of these attacks doesn't matter as much as the response.  The response tells everyone what they need to know about who we are as a people.  One way or another we allowed this to happen so we could turn that evil outward and make it thousands of times worse.  A wise man once said to me, "If we want to fight Osama Bin Laden, we need to fight the Osama in us."

9/11 was an inside job.  We attacked others and attacked ourselves and unleashed a torrent of evil on this world that will most assuredly come right back in one form or another until the cycle is broken or we are all dead.  I know it's hard to accept, but it's true!


----------



## Sensei Payne

I never said we weren't attack..lol..thats a FACT!

I am just saying were not getting the whole truth.


----------



## Makalakumu




----------



## Sensei Payne

Bob Hubbard said:


> Nope. Because there are still people today who doubt the moon landings or Holocaust happened.


 

But those things actually happened...

Although I believe that the moon landing happened, I don't belive it happened when it did...there was this strong push beat the Russians, but thats a different debate.

The point of me creating this thread wasn't really to prove or disprove anything happened...the reason for it was to spark discussion about RE-opening the investigation on 9/11 through independent investigators.

I don't trust the government story...there are to many holes in it...and yes, there are some really far fetched theories out there about what happened...but one this is for certain.  The worst tragedy of our time happened about a decade ago..and we still don't know the full story...and that is what I am truely after.


----------



## Twin Fist

we cant know everything about it becasue the only people that knew everything were turned into air pollution in the process.

there are only holes because you want there to be holes

there is nothing else to say, this crap is only kept alive becasue people refuse to admitt that it was really THAT simple to do......


----------



## Sensei Payne

There is no way that, that pilot was able to make a precision turn like that to hit the pentagon.

Why was there Particals of Thermite at Ground Zero? And Molten Steel spewing from the towers before they fell?

Why did the towers fall at free fall speeds?

and the list goes on...we need another investigation into what really happened...if not for us "paranoid conspirosy Theorists" but for the families of those who died, to provide closeure and healing.

I didn't lose anyone personally..but if I lost my Dad...my brother...my mother...sister...ANYONE of my family...I would have a deep and wide hole missing in my life..and I would want to know why it was put there..and then have those those who TRUELY attack us pay.

i just find it sad that even if one doesn't think that 9/11 was an inside job, that they would be aginst having a True third party investigation done on what evidence is provided..its almost like people are afraid to know the truth, and would rather accept the fairy tale provided.  This is not meant to be insultive..its just how the general public is...they would rather be told that everything is ok, and that there government will protect them instead of hearing truth, and killing the fox in the hen house.


----------



## CanuckMA

Sensei Payne said:


> There is no way that, that pilot was able to make a precision turn like that to hit the pentagon.


 
Because outside of takeoff and landing, if you don't really care flying a plane is not all that difficult.

[/quote]Why was there Particals of Thermite at Ground Zero? [/quote]

There was not. 

Thermite is a lousy demolition tool. It is hard to control and impossible to focus. You also need massive amounts to do that kind of damage. And if you think a professional explosives team could have wired those buildings without anybody noticing, you have no clue how to wire a building for demolition.

http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm




> And Molten Steel spewing from the towers before they fell?


 
large aluminium planes burning? metal studs in the wall? Metal supports?



> Why did the towers fall at free fall speeds?


 
Because large, well engineered structures are built to withstand certain forces, but are really brittle on other. Buildings are designed to withstand shearing forces at angles to the structure. Starigh up and down foerces, not so much. When the top floor started down, there really was not a whole lot to stop them.



> and the list goes on...we need another investigation into what really happened...


 
The 'list' is bunk.


----------



## Big Don

It is fairly hard to slide a car sideways too, but, I can do that. Flying a plane really isn't that difficult, as Canuck mentioned, take off and landing are the hard parts, landing being the more difficult of the two.
Why did the plane that hit the pentagon virtually disintegrate? Well, planes are built of the lightest materials possible, it was moving at several hundred miles per hour and it hit a CONCRETE WALL. Why are cars in bad accidents on freeways nearly unrecognizable? It must be a conspiracy...


----------



## elder999

CanuckMA said:


> Because outside of takeoff and landing, if you don't really care flying a plane is not all that difficult.
> 
> Why was there Particals of Thermite at Ground Zero? There was not.
> 
> Thermite is a lousy demolition tool. It is hard to control and impossible to focus. You also need massive amounts to do that kind of damage.


 
Not to mention that "thermite" is just ferric oxide and aluminum, along with an igniter like magnesium, or just high heat from a fire.

let's see ferric oxide would be rust in the building, aluminum would be the planes and a hundred other things, and the thing was burning for days. 

Particles of thermite at Ground Zero. Easy peasy....



CanuckMA said:


> And if you think a professional explosives team could have wired those buildings without anybody noticing, you have no clue how to wire a building for demolition.


 
Actually, there are several ways to wire the buildings for demolition without anyone noticing. Phone circuitry, for starters. Nonetheless, we saw both buildings hit by planes on TV, over and over again, for months. This one is on the level of "no one ever landed on the moon, it was a soundstage in California...." :lfao:



CanuckMA said:


> The 'list' is bunk.


Indeed. :lfao:


----------



## Big Don

CanuckMA said:


> The 'list' is bunk.


I think you mean debunked...


----------



## CanuckMA

elder999 said:


> Actually, there are several ways to wire the buildings for demolition without anyone noticing. Phone circuitry, for starters.


 

Still need to open up walls to place the charges, patch 'em up, prime, paint and hope nobody notices, and hope you have phone wires running where you want them.


----------



## elder999

CanuckMA said:


> Still need to open up walls to place the charges, patch 'em up, prime, paint and hope nobody notices, and hope you have phone wires running where you want them.


 
I can't say anymore about this, so I'll reiterate:



elder999 said:


> Actually, there are several ways to wire the buildings for demolition without anyone noticing. *Phone circuitry, for starters*.


 
Though I will add this, and add that the Mythbusters didn't go far enough....and maybe were told not to..:lfao:


----------



## K-man

I can't understand how so many Americans can believe that their leaders would be party to murdering 3000 odd people in the middle of New York City.  There are dozens of sites debunking the conspiracy theories but they must be wrong because they don't support the conspiracy theorists.  :erg: Funny that!

Here is a site with lots of information explaining some of the  theories. Enjoy!  :asian:

http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/06/debunking-911-conspiracy-theories.html


----------



## Archangel M

CanuckMA said:


> Still need to open up walls to place the charges, patch 'em up, prime, paint and hope nobody notices, and hope you have phone wires running where you want them.



Not to mention the phones not working...demolitions are "daisychained by shock tube or det cord...not "wires" and phone lines (even if you could use them for demo) are never going to run to all of the structural points of the building you would require.


----------



## Sensei Payne

I guess I am going to have to agree to disagree.

I seem to be just as adament about reopening an investigation, as most of you feel that the book should be closed and remain that way.

If this thread got at least one person to look further than the official story, then this thread was a great success.

Thank you all for your input.


----------



## elder999

Archangel M said:


> Not to mention the phones not working...demolitions are "daisychained by shock tube or det cord...not "wires" and phone lines (even if you could use them for demo) are never going to run to all of the structural points of the building you would require.


 
In large plants like the World Trade Center, there really are any number of ways to conceal a demolition, and the phones themselves are daisy chained-the phone, and work on the phone system, present just one way that the set up could be concealed. This clearly was not the case in this instance, but to say that it couldn't be done is , well, *wrong.  *It couldn't be done the way we're accustomed to seeing it done, but it wouldn't have had to have been, would it? Of course, this isn't what happened, but it *can* be done. 



Sensei Payne said:


> I guess I am going to have to agree to disagree.
> 
> I seem to be just as adament about reopening an investigation, as most of you feel that the book should be closed and remain that way..


 
Further investigation? Sure. Look into how the hero, "America's mayor," Rudolph Giuliani, pretty much made the decision to have people's bodies transported to the dump with dmolition debris, and the other coverups like that. How much we might have known before hand, how little we did about it, how diplomacy hindered us from doing anything about it? Absolutely.

THose buildings, though, were knocked down by planes crashing into them, and I'd put anyone who believes otherwise on the same pade as those "young earthers" who insist that the planet is only 6000 years old, and that man inhabited it at the same time as dinosaurs....:lfao:


----------



## jks9199

Big Don said:


> It is fairly hard to slide a car sideways too, but, I can do that. Flying a plane really isn't that difficult, as Canuck mentioned, take off and landing are the hard parts, landing being the more difficult of the two.
> Why did the plane that hit the pentagon virtually disintegrate? Well, planes are built of the lightest materials possible, it was moving at several hundred miles per hour and it hit a CONCRETE WALL. Why are cars in bad accidents on freeways nearly unrecognizable? It must be a conspiracy...


Actually, sliding a car sideways isn't hard at all, if you know how.  I can make you slide your car, I can slide my car...  It's fun, but not much use..

The rest of that?  Folks, it's simple.  If you want to question something, you can always raise more.  Especially if the folks who did it aren't around anymore to answer questions.


----------



## Makalakumu

48% of New Yorkers call for new investigation

This was inspired by the Building What? campaign.  

The number of professionals is over 1500 now.


----------



## Big Don

maunakumu said:


> 48% of New Yorkers call for new investigation
> 
> This was inspired by the Building What? campaign.
> 
> The number of professionals is over 1500 now.


 Six percent of Americans think Elvis is alive
Statistically, some of them are professionals


----------



## Sensei Payne

These numbers..



maunakumu said:


> 48% of New Yorkers call for new investigation
> 
> This was inspired by the Building What? campaign.
> 
> The number of professionals is over 1500 now.


 
And these numbers..



Big Don said:


> Six percent of Americans think Elvis is alive
> Statistically, some of them are professionals


 

Have NOTHING to do with each other. In fact its a little insulting to the families who lost loved ones on 9/11 and soldiers who lost there lives in the conflicts there after.

There are legit reserch groups from ALL OVER the world. Calling for the case be reopened and reinvestigated...to many lives were lost for mistakes...to many lives were lost for justice not to be done.


----------



## Twin Fist

there can be no justice when the people that did it died in the act...................


----------



## Bob Hubbard

You're both right.

The government's investigation was only done with resistance, was done poorly, and has a number of bits of sloppy research.

The guys flying the planes are beyond the reach of our justice. You just have to believe there's something else after you check out and that it's dealt with them. In the mean time, we do what we can to prevent a repeat and go after those who would try.

Now based on a number of headlines I've seen lately, there is 1 mid-east group that's seen a lot of turn over in head count and has many new openings in key positions as the previous holders of those spots were turned into, well, splats.


----------



## CanuckMA

On one side you have 19 nut jobs hijacking 4 planes and flying them into buildings resulting in masive loss of lives and property.

On the other side, you have the US government involved in a conspiracy involving hundreds if not thousands of individual to fake option 1.

At some point, you have to admit that Occam's Razor wins.


----------



## Sensei Payne

I know you can't punish those who flew the plans..thats a no brainer...but you can, punish those who allowed and facilitated the acts in the first place.

and if there is a LARGER plot behind the attacks...it needs to be exposed for the world to see.


----------



## Twin Fist

KSM-in custody
UBL-currently at the bottom of the ocean

yep, its done

you can relax now


----------



## Sensei Payne

Twin Fist said:


> KSM-in custody
> UBL-currently at the bottom of the ocean
> 
> yep, its done
> 
> you can relax now


 

First of all I don't belive in that story 100% either...I belive Bin laden is Dead...not recently...they say that there are pictures of his corpse..then show them...a burial at sea??? Unbeliveable...

The guy died years ago of kidney failure.

Oh no TF the true culprits have NOT be brought to justice...not yet.


----------



## Sukerkin

On the subject of gaining restitution against the perpetrators (or more prosaically, the planners) of the attack against one of the symbols of the international finanacial system.  The force that has done the most damage against them does not carry a gun - it is democracy itself and the ideals it embraces.

The terrorists groups cause has taken more damage from the recent Arab Spring events and their aftermath than all the fighting and spilling of blood in Afghanistan and elsewhere.  When the Muslim Brotherhood, especially some of their younger membership, is becoming a moderate organisation then things are changing for the better.  This is especially the case in Egypt, which is by far the most populous and therefore socially influential of the Arab states.

If any of you can access the BBC Podcasts then there is a good half hour Analysis programme that covers this ground:

*Egypt's New Islamists 13 Jun 11*

    Mon, 13 Jun 11
 Duration:
*29 mins* 
 Edward  Stourton asks if the Egyptian revolution spells the end of old-style  Islamism. As groups like the Muslim Brotherhood embrace democracy, how  will they - and Egypt - change?


----------



## Big Don

Sensei Payne said:


> These numbers..
> 
> And these numbers..
> 
> Have NOTHING to do with each other. In fact its a little insulting to the families who lost loved ones on 9/11 and soldiers who lost there lives in the conflicts there after.
> .


Aside from both groups not living in reality with the rest of us, no, they don't.
No, insulting to the families is implying the US Government murdered their kin.


----------



## Makalakumu

CanuckMA said:


> On one side you have 19 nut jobs hijacking 4 planes and flying them into buildings resulting in masive loss of lives and property.
> 
> On the other side, you have the US government involved in a conspiracy involving hundreds if not thousands of individual to fake option 1.
> 
> At some point, you have to admit that Occam's Razor wins.



There might be an assumption here...this is a false dichotomy...the truth might not be any of those options.  If you think there are no gaps in the story and you know what happened, you don't.  Even the 9/11 commissioners have said that they were lied to, denied evidence, and that the report was political theater.  

At some point, you have to admit to yourself that you WANT to believe this story is bulletproof.  Take a moment for some reflection and ask yourself why.


----------



## Makalakumu

Big Don said:


> Aside from both groups not living in reality with the rest of us, no, they don't.
> No, insulting to the families is implying the US Government murdered their kin.



Our government has never murdered it's own.


----------



## Sensei Payne

Big Don said:


> Aside from both groups not living in reality with the rest of us, no, they don't.
> No, insulting to the families is implying the US Government murdered their kin.


 

Wouldn't be the frist time Americans were murdered for the greater good...for example.
Japanese-American internment camps
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese-American_internment

Many Americans lost there lives for the so called "greater good" there.

Or what about the American persecution of Africans, Slavery, and Jim Crow laws...they were Americans too.

And now with 9/11 there is a who NEW social class...the Global Elite...the top 4% who own all the wealth in the world...They feel like they are better than all of us, and can treat us like chattle...putting us all into economic slavery and keeping us in a constant state of fear.

Now a days its not really based on Race as much as it used to...its based on Economic position.  As long as it benifits the rich...which 9/11 has..they do9n't care who has to die.  It happened to Japanese, to Africans, to Irish...and now everyone who isn't in the Global 4% elite.


----------



## CanuckMA

maunakumu said:


> At some point, you have to admit to yourself that you WANT to believe this story is bulletproof. Take a moment for some reflection and ask yourself why.


 

The official story may not be bullet proof, but the truther's story looks like fishnet stockings on comparison.


----------



## Twin Fist

oh....i cant do it. i just cant. I will get banned for sure...

bye


----------



## Makalakumu

CanuckMA said:


> The official story may not be bullet proof, but the *truther's* story looks like fishnet stockings on comparison.



The problem with this statement is that you are just lumping everything together under one label.  For example, which *truther *story are you talking about?  The fact that the official story is NOT an explanation should be enough to give ANYONE food for thought.  Instead, people choose to engage in the above fallacy.  Why is that?

If the official story were repeatable by the qualified skeptics who had access to all of the relevent evidence, then there is no reason to question it.  The fact that it is composed of admitted lies, distortions, and that evidence was hidden or destroyed turns this story into a fishnet stocking.  

No one should believe it.


----------



## Archangel M

Lies to cover bureaucratic asses because they were caught asleep at the switch is different in scope and scale compared to "They hid the presence of thermite" which implies the "controlled demo" argument once again. Of course the comission was probably lied to, we are talking about politicians and political appointees here. It's a false dichotomy to imply complicity/conspiracy simply because some bureaucrat lied to cover his *** or point the finger at another gvt org.


----------



## Sukerkin

Good point, *Angel*.  

I do concur that 'conspiracy' to cover negligence is apt to appear to the investigative eye as indistinguishable from 'conspiracy' to commit (or permit) an act of terrorism on American soil.

Simply put, lies breed mistrust and, where there is no 'incontrovertible' truth to see and, therefore, counteract the lies, alternative explanations are apt to flourish.

I admit that certain aspects of the official line have always made me uneasy tho', for they are points that are not augmentative to simple "*** covering" for a mistake e.g. the rapidity with which debris was cleared and interprative evidence destroyed (such as shipping the beams of the WTC to India (IIRC) for re-smelting).


----------



## Makalakumu

Archangel M said:


> Lies to cover bureaucratic asses because they were caught asleep at the switch is different in scope and scale compared to "They hid the presence of thermite" which implies the "controlled demo" argument once again. Of course the comission was probably lied to, we are talking about politicians and political appointees here. It's a false dichotomy to imply complicity/conspiracy simply because some bureaucrat lied to cover his *** or point the finger at another gvt org.



I agree.  I guess my main objection now, so long after the event, is that so many people are claiming a level of certainty that just isn't there.  No matter what you believe might have happened, no one really knows the full picture of what actually did.  I say let's stop pretending that we are certain about this.  There is plenty of reason to doubt many of the main points in the narrative of the story.


----------



## elder999

maunakumu said:


> I agree. I guess my main objection now, so long after the event, is that so many people are claiming a level of certainty that just isn't there. No matter what you believe might have happened, no one really knows the full picture of what actually did. I say let's stop pretending that we are certain about this. There is plenty of reason to doubt many of the main points in the narrative of the story.


 
Here's the full _picture_:



Looked an awful lot like a goddam *plane* to me, ten years later and it *still* looks like a goddam plane. :angry:


----------



## Big Don

elder999 said:


> Here's the full _picture_:
> 
> 
> 
> Looked an awful lot like a goddam *plane* to me, ten years later and it *still* looks like a goddam plane. :angry:


Come on Elder, you know fire doesn't melt steel, don't you? [/Rosie o'fatness]


----------



## Big Don

maunakumu said:


> There is plenty of reason to doubt many of the main points in the narrative of the story.


Really?


----------



## Makalakumu

elder999 said:


> Here's the full _picture_:
> 
> 
> 
> Looked an awful lot like a goddamn *plane* to me, ten years later and it *still* looks like a goddamn plane. :angry:



Thank you Captain Obvious...LOL!


----------



## Makalakumu

Big Don said:


> Really?



No, not really.  I was just kidding.  :seppuku:


----------



## Big Don

maunakumu said:


> No, not really.  I was just kidding.


I had hoped you were.


----------



## elder999

maunakumu said:


> Thank you Captain Obvious...LOL!


 
And, sorry-irreverent as I am, ten years later and I still have a goddam hard time with this:





and I'm not about to goddam "LOL" over it, and *goddam anybody who does.* :angry:

Every "truther" _*spit*_s on the truth, that was there for all of us to see that day, and diminishes that truth, and minimizes the real lessons that should be learned from that day to focus on-what?


----------



## elder999

On the other hand, I did get a chuckle out of the ad at the top of this page:





..sorry, though, John. As I've posted elsewhere, I lost a few friends that day.........


----------



## Sensei Payne

Listen, no one here is doubting the actual happenings at the WTC.

People died. It happened..and it was a very sad day.



WE "truthers" Are NOT spitting on those who lost there lives that day... We are seeking JUSTICE and CLOSURE for the families.

We want Truth, we want the REAL story.

BUt don't paint us up being disrespectful and in denial...we well know what happened...we just want to know why.


----------



## CanuckMA

Sensei Payne said:


> Listen, no one here is doubting the actual happenings at the WTC.
> 
> People died. It happened..and it was a very sad day.
> 
> 
> 
> WE "truthers" Are NOT spitting on those who lost there lives that day... We are seeking JUSTICE and CLOSURE for the families.
> 
> We want Truth, we want the REAL story.
> 
> BUt don't paint us up being disrespectful and in denial...we well know what happened...we just want to know why.


 

And of course that HAS to fit your version of the events. 

Because the one that has 19 terrorists doinf the deed simply cannot be true.


----------



## elder999

Sensei Payne said:


> Listen, no one here is doubting the actual happenings at the WTC.
> 
> People died. It happened..and it was a very sad day.
> 
> 
> 
> WE "truthers" Are NOT spitting on those who lost there lives that day... We are seeking JUSTICE and CLOSURE for the families.
> 
> We want Truth, we want the REAL story.
> 
> BUt don't paint us up being disrespectful and in denial...we well know what happened...we just want to know why.


 
You *are *being disrespectful. You *are* in denial. By even going anywhere near the words "controlled demolition" you *are* doubting the actual happenings.

As for why it happened, you can look at this thread:



			
				el Brujo de la Cueva said:
			
		

> *The first question you should ask about your enemy is why he is your enemy in the first place.*
> _&#8212;Joseph Sobran, writing about Sept. 11th just hours after it happened._
> 
> 
> In 1973 I went to boarding school fresh from a suburban home in Peekskill, N.Y. Up to that time the only foreigners I&#8217;d ever met were my family&#8217;s friends from Portugal and Canada, my best friend&#8217;s parents from Holland, my friend&#8217;s Italian relatives, and a few Japanese and Korean martial arts teachers, but almost none of them count because by the time I met them they were all naturalized citizens and not foreigners anymore. In school I&#8217;d also met some Puerto Ricans, but they weren&#8217;t foreigners at all because as the song says, &#8220;Nobody knows in America, Puerto Rico&#8217;s in America.&#8221;
> 
> The first real foreigners I met were some Middle Eastern students when I was a freshman. They came from a place I&#8217;d never even heard of before. Just a a little more than a decade earlier, in June of 1961, their country had achieved its independence from the same country we&#8217;d won our independence from&#8212;Britain. We did it with guns. Theirs was peaceful.
> 
> I&#8217;d been invited into a dorm room to participate in a political discussion. The Kuwatis were nice, well-dressed, and congenial. They weren&#8217;t poor, disenfranchised camel drivers. They came from well-to-do families rich from oil revenues. The conversation, when I got there, was why they didn&#8217;t like Americans. The one who spoke the most made it very clear: he didn&#8217;t hate Jews, he hated Iraelis; he didn&#8217;t hate us, but he hated the American government. He and his friends hated us because we were over there and because we were meddling in their affairs.
> 
> They said Europeans and Americans had moved in there and taken the best land and had moved the Arabs at gunpoint into camps where they were now refugees. I didn&#8217;t believe it for a minute. I knew our country would never stand for that. He likened what we had allowed happen to the Palestinians to what the U.S. did to the Indians, which is why I'd been brought into the discussion. They took the Indians land and expected them to do nothing about it. Of course, from the time Europeans first set foot in the New World, there were four centuries of Indian wars. I felt uncomfortable when he pointed this out, but I didn&#8217;t give in. I continued to argue with them. This was more than 30 years ago.
> 
> Over the past five years we kept hearing the question, in reference to 9/11:_ &#8221; why? why? why did they do it?&#8221;_ The official line is that they did it because they hate our freedoms and our democracy. Mortimer Zuckerman, Editor-in-Chief of U.S. News and World Report, refers to &#8220;...the so-called root causes of terrorism, alleged to be poverty and despair.&#8221; This, despite the fact that many of the hijackers came from middle class or wealthy families&#8212;and even Osama bin Laden is himself a multimillionaire.
> 
> While we&#8217;re trying to figure out why they did it, is anyone listening to what they&#8217;re saying? They keep telling us why again and again, but no matter how many times they say it, we keep trying to guess what their _real_ reasons were.
> 
> Here&#8217;s what they have been saying since at least 1973 when I started boarding school: *They did it because we support Israel, because we meddle in their affairs, and because we&#8217;re over there.* (It may have been Ken Burn&#8217;s series on the Civil War where I heard this, but a Yankee soldier is reputed to have asked of a Rebel soldier, &#8220;You don&#8217;t own any slaves, so why are you fighting?&#8221; The rebel&#8217;s reply: &#8220;Because you&#8217;re down here.&#8221; Sound familiar?)
> 
> Even our so-called friends are trying to tell us why they did it, but when they do, we rebuke them. Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal tried to give $10 million to New York, but because he indicated that part of the reason the terrorists attacked us was because of our policies toward the Palestinians and suggested we change them, Mayor Giuliani of New York City turned the gift down saying, &#8220;I entirely reject that statement. There is no moral equivalent for this [terrorist] act. There is no justification for it. The people who did it lost any right to ask for justification for it when they slaughtered 4,000 or 5,000 innocent people.&#8221;
> 
> Of course, the prince wasn&#8217;t justifying the act. As a friend, who is willing to help out, he was telling us the reasons the terrorists did it, but for saying something we don&#8217;t want to hear, we figuratively slapped him in the face.
> 
> There is not one politician in this country who is publicly willing to entertain the notion that the act was retribution for our foreign policy (though I wonder what they say privately). In fact, any suggestion the attacks came about as a response to U.S. policy is met with immediate censure that borders on censorship. It&#8217;s considered unpatriotic to suggest that perhaps the United States government helped bring this on, but the rest of the world knows this is true.


----------



## Sensei Payne

CanuckMA said:


> And of course that HAS to fit your version of the events.
> 
> Because the one that has 19 terrorists doinf the deed simply cannot be true.


 

I never said Terrorists didn't do it...thats all splitting hairs. Why it had to happen..who on our side of the fence knew it was going to happen...why are they covering up WTC7, "Pull it" situation. The list goes on and on.

FYI, you are aware that the CIA DOES in fact set up Terrorist groups, recruit and set up plots and the say "arrest" them in a supposed sting operation...they do it with American Milita groups today as well.


----------



## elder999

Sensei Payne said:


> I never said Terrorists didn't do it...thats all splitting hairs. Why it had to happen..who on our side of the fence knew it was going to happen...why are they covering up WTC7, "Pull it" situation. The list goes on and on.


 
"The list" is largely b.s., concocted by people who have no real understanding of the mechanics-they are either too specialized, or completely out of their depth. WTC7 is a perfect example of this.

As for how much our government knew, etc. Well, nearly 70 years later, people continue to speculate about how much Roosevelt knew about Pearl Harbor beforehand, and whether or not he permitted it to take place and get us into the war. Fact is, you don't get to know what "the government knew," not about Pearl Harbor, or Roswell, or the JFK assasination, or the RFK assasination,or the MLK assassination, or the Malcom X assassination, or about Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster, for that matter. 

You just get to waste air,  Bob's bandwidth, and my patience by babbling on and on about it.


----------



## Sensei Payne

elder999 said:


> You just get to waste air, Bob's bandwidth, and my patience by babbling on and on about it.


 

Keeping the matter closed is whats disrespectful.  The families and the dead deserve more than what petty story that you and our government has fooled themselves into beliving.

Don't try and demonize those who are after the truth..instead of rolling over and taking the spoon fed story the government wants to give you.


----------



## CanuckMA

Sensei Payne said:


> Keeping the matter closed is whats disrespectful. The families and the dead deserve more than what petty story that you and our government has fooled themselves into beliving.
> 
> Don't try and demonize those who are after the truth..instead of rolling over and taking the spoon fed story the government wants to give you.


 

But why can't the truth be what the investigation came with.

The problem with 'truthers' is that they are coonvinced that only their version of events can possibly be the truth.


----------



## Big Don

Sensei Payne said:


> I never said Terrorists didn't do it...thats  all splitting hairs.


No, you implied the US government was complicit, which, IMO is worse. If you were one of those loons who claimed they were Extra terrestrial aliens, you'd be nuts, just not malevolently so.





> Why it had to happen..who on our side of the fence  knew it was going to happen...why are they covering up WTC7, "Pull it"  situation. The list goes on and on.FYI, you are aware that the CIA DOES in fact set up Terrorist groups,  recruit and set up plots and the say "arrest" them in a supposed sting  operation...they do it with American Milita groups today as  well.





Big Don said:


> First, kindly refer to this BRILLIANT post.


 Apparently you did not. Nor did you read this, from this thread...





> There are two other possible contributing factors still under  investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were  designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With  columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely  have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces,  thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.
> 
> Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no  firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was  fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency  generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a  generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the  basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working  hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the  fire] for a long period of time."





> FYI, you are aware that the CIA DOES in fact set up Terrorist groups,  recruit and set up plots and the say "arrest" them in a supposed sting  operation...they do it with American Milita groups today as  well.


 Yep, sure they do. They assisinated Santa Claus in 95 and the Green Berets have been delivering gifts the past 16 years so no one will suspect the TRUTH...

In conclusion, Oh for ****'s sake, not this stupid **** AGAIN.

​


----------



## Sensei Payne

Again, we're going to have to agree to disagree.

Alls I ask for is further investigation by an independent group.

Putting all conjecture aside, all theories, etc

What happened on 9/11 was horrible, and if the 9/11 Commission report is 100% correct then the Government has nothing at all to fear by having a third party look into it deeper.

There are plenty of non profit groups out there ready to do hard research on the events.

So really the question is, why not have someone else take a look?  Get more info on the situation, more points for view...more in depth research. It won't hurt anybody will it?  If anything it will give more closure to the families.  The only people it would possibly hurt are those who are living the lie of the commission report and the NIST reports(Government run research company, that researched why the towers fell at free fall speeds.)

If we catch them in a lie, then we have found our culprits...and if I and other "Truthers" are wrong, what happens.....Nothing at all, except maybe we will shut up about it.


----------



## Big Don

Sensei Payne said:


> Again, we're going to have to agree to disagree.


 Because Popular Mechanics is run by the government?





> If we catch them in a lie, then we have found our culprits...and if I and other "Truthers" are wrong, what happens.....Nothing at all, except maybe we will shut up about it.


That's the funniest thing I've read this week.


----------



## elder999

Sensei Payne said:


> Again, we're going to have to agree to disagree.
> 
> Alls I ask for is further investigation by an independent group.
> 
> Putting all conjecture aside, all theories, etc
> 
> What happened on 9/11 was horrible, and if the 9/11 Commission report is 100% correct then the Government has nothing at all to fear by having a third party look into it deeper.
> 
> There are plenty of non profit groups out there ready to do hard research on the events.
> 
> So really the question is, why not have someone else take a look? Get more info on the situation, more points for view...more in depth research. It won't hurt anybody will it? If anything it will give more closure to the families. The only people it would possibly hurt are those who are living the lie of the commission report and the NIST reports(Government run research company, that researched why the towers fell at free fall speeds.)
> 
> If we catch them in a lie, then we have found our culprits...and if I and other "Truthers" are wrong, what happens.....Nothing at all, except maybe we will shut up about it.


 

Well, as Don pointed out, Popular Mechanics has pretty much debunked every single stinking little truther farrago there is.

Additionally, this webpage says:



> The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (also known as the 9-11 Commission), an* independent, bipartisan commission* created by congressional legislation and the signature of President George W. Bush in late 2002, is chartered to prepare a full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, including preparedness for and the immediate response to the attacks. The Commission is also mandated to provide recommendations designed to guard against future attacks


----------



## Sensei Payne

The commission was set up and run by our very own government...

it can't be trusted to be the full truth.


----------



## Makalakumu

No one knows what happened.  No investigation has really dug out this story.  For some reason, the people posting in this thread need to believe this version of events...and this isn't going to be changed over a discussion of the internet.  It actually takes a lot of soul searching to sit back and consider both sides of this issue and admit that you don't know what happened.


----------



## Makalakumu

elder999 said:


> You *are *being disrespectful. You *are* in denial. By even going anywhere near the words "controlled demolition" you *are* doubting the actual happenings.



Save your judgment for yourself.

What are you going to do as this number grows?



elder999 said:


> As for why it happened, you can look at this thread:



Then you believe it was an inside job.  Blowback = inside job.

Save your judgment for yourself.  When you consider the horror of our foreign policy and the destruction we spread across the globe, the step toward letting it happen on purpose and making it happen on purpose becomes smaller and smaller.

You're almost there and you are criticizing people who are one or two steps ahead.


----------



## Big Don

maunakumu said:


> Save your judgment for yourself.
> 
> What are you going to do as this number grows?


I will continue to point and laugh and pity the crazy people.





> Then you believe it was an inside job.  Blowback = inside job.


That is an insane conclusion. Did you miss this: 





> *They did it because we support Israel, because we meddle in their affairs, and because were over there.*





> Save your judgment for yourself.  When you consider the horror of our foreign policy


 Oh the horror, sending billions of dollars for food and medicine, what bastards we are...





> and the destruction we spread across the globe, the step toward letting it happen on purpose and making it happen on purpose becomes smaller and smaller.



You're almost there and you are criticizing people who are one or two steps ahead.[/quote]
Being steps ahead on the road to forcible commitment isn't an enviable position.


----------



## Sensei Payne

Big Don said:


> Oh the horror, sending billions of dollars for food and medicine, what bastards we are...


 

You are aware that we are the reason why the drug cartels, the Taliban, and Al queda all have Automatic weapons right?


----------



## Big Don

Sensei Payne said:


> You are aware that we are the reason why the drug cartels, the Taliban, and Al queda all have Automatic weapons right?


Yeah, because they are a cheap, easy way to intimidate people, as well as being effective people killers.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

Plus the ATF helped supply the cartels, and the CIA trained both the Taliban and Osama's buddies.


----------



## Makalakumu

Big Don said:


> I will continue to point and laugh and pity the crazy people.That is an insane conclusion.  Oh the horror, sending billions of dollars for food and medicine, what bastards we are...Being steps ahead on the road to forcible commitment isn't an enviable position.



Blowback = inside job because blowback means our foreign policy caused the attacks.  As far as main points in the narrative go, how about "they attacked us because of our freedom" bit?  You just posted a refutation of the official story.  How about considering your own position?


----------



## Big Don

maunakumu said:


> Blowback = inside job because blowback means our foreign policy caused the attacks.


 If their reaction to our foreign policy is why THEY ATTACKED, that does NOT make the US Government complicit. It isn't our fault they are murderous animals, that is their choice. 





> As far as main points in the narrative go, how about "they attacked us because of our freedom" bit?  You just posted a refutation of the official story.  How about considering your own position?


"they attacked us because of our freedom" was never given as the sole reason, ever, not once.


> *They did it because we support Israel, because we meddle in their affairs, and because we&#8217;re over there.*


 Refutes the official story? How?


----------



## Makalakumu

Big Don said:


> It isn't our fault they are murderous animals, that is their choice.



This says all we need to know about why you believe what you believe.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

Funny question time.

How many terrorist attacks have there been against the following nations since 1990:
Canada
Australia
New Zealand

Now how many against the US? UK? Israel? 

Now compare the amount of mid-east medling those 6 nations do.

I wonder what we'd find?


----------



## Big Don

Bob Hubbard said:


> Funny question time.
> 
> How many terrorist attacks have there been against the following nations since 1990:
> Canada
> Australia
> New Zealand
> 
> Now how many against the US? UK? Israel?
> 
> Now compare the amount of mid-east medling those 6 nations do.
> 
> I wonder what we'd find?


I wouldn't include Israel's existence in the term meddling...


----------



## Bob Hubbard

I would, considering that prior to 1948 it didn't exist. I also look at the actions of it's military in ship seizures, the execution of civilians in towns under their control, and a long list of atrocities.  However if it will make anyone feel better, they can leave the actions of the nation of Israel out of the equation and simply compare the other 5.


----------



## Big Don

Bob Hubbard said:


> I would, considering that prior to 1948 it didn't exist.


 Saudi Arabia wasn't a nation until 1932, Jordan since 1921, and Iran in 1938, but, their mere existence you don't blame?





> I also look at the actions of it's military in ship seizures,


 Would you let someone supply the neighbor that keeps shooting at your home? I sure as hell would not.





> the execution of civilians in towns under their control, and a long list of atrocities.


 Which, compared to the atrocities committed against them make them pikers.





> However if it will make anyone feel better, they can leave the actions of the nation of Israel out of the equation and simply compare the other 5.


Yeah, I tend to fly into a murderous rage when people give me boatloads of money and aid too...


----------



## elder999

maunakumu said:


> Save your judgment for yourself.
> 
> What are you going to do as this number grows?


 
I've posted elsewhere-I'm not going to bother looking for it-about how when I arrived in Los Alamos, the town was going through a lot of conflict over teaching "Intelligent Design" in the schools system, most of it led by a lab chemist named John Baumgartner-a good scientist who is more than capable of twisting the evidence to his own ends. "Intelligent Design," you'll agree, John, isn't a valid theory in the scientific sense of the word; it is, at best, a postulate, or hypothesis-it is neither testable nor disprovable. 

So, what are *you* going to do as this list grows? 



> *A list of creation scientists who are/were contributors to science*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr. Raymond Damadian &#8211; Inventor of the MRI device
> Dr. Raymond Jones &#8211; CSIRO Gold Medal; detoxified Leucaena for livestock consumption
> Dr. Keith Wanser &#8211; 48 published papers, seven U.S. patents (Professor of Physics, Cal State Fullerton)
> Dr. Russell Humphreys &#8211; Successful planetary magnetic predictions (nuclear physicist, Sandia National Laboratories )
> Dr. Kurt Wise &#8211; Ph.D. in paleontology under Stephen J. Gould at Harvard
> Jules H. Poirier &#8211; Designer of radar FM altimeter on Apollo Lunar Landing Module
> Dr. Sinaseli Tshibwabwa &#8211; Discovered seven new species of fish in the Congo
> Dr. Saami Shaibani &#8211; &#8220;International Expert&#8221; by the US Depts of Labor and Justice; 100 published articles; B.A. (Hon.), M.A., M.S., D.Ph.; physics professor and researcher


I mean, how many world-class scientists does it take to convince you that there is a God? :lfao:

Of course, people are free to believe whatever crap they like. I believe that by occasionally staying up all night in a hot, smoky teepee with a bunch of other people, singing and praying throughout the night while eating bitter hallucinogenic cactus, we can have communion with the Creator. Some of these guys, in spite of all evidence to the contrary (and there are lots, and lots and lots more of them on that list) believe that the earth is young to the tune of less than 10,000 years old, that conventional science has got it all wrong, and that the universe was set in motion by that same Creator in seven 24 hr. (rather than allegorical) days. 


So yeah, as your list grows, so does the one I've shown. And the one of otherwise competent scientists who believe in Bigfoot, Roswell aliens, the Chupacabra, HAARP weather control experiments, the secret Nazi base at the center of the earth and it's entrance in Anarctica, Atlantis, the lost kingdom of Mu, the Illuminati, the Divine Immortals, the Count St. Germain, Tesla's death ray, and the Loch Ness Monster.

So, I'll probably say the same thing I'm saying right now, John: *So ****ing what?*



maunakumu said:


> Then you believe it was an inside job. Blowback = inside job.


 
This is insulting to both of us. That you can twist the meaning of blowback to equate it with an inside job is completely beneath you. Yes, our actions and our foreign policy have-and continue to have-grave consequences. Yes, I'll say-and take the heat for it-that 9/11 was a case of our own chickens coming home to roost. That's not an inside job, _*and not at all what Sensei Payne, you and the rest of the truthers imply when you call into doubt the evidence of what happened and its interpretation*_-to say otherwise is completely dishonest, and I thought better of you, at least, than that.




maunakumu said:


> Save your judgment for yourself. When you consider the horror of our foreign policy and the destruction we spread across the globe, the step toward letting it happen on purpose and making it happen on purpose becomes smaller and smaller.
> 
> You're almost there and you are criticizing people who are one or two steps ahead.


 
Ahead of what, exactly, John? I've lived down the rabbit hole for a long time, now, wishing I'd taken the goddam blue pill. If I think about it, I can probably even come up with a demonstration that doesn't completely violate OPSEC to at least give you a hint of the things that I *know* about, well ahead of you.

In the meantime, though, you're so full of the machine's disinformation you only _*think*_ you're ahead, when, in reality,truthers-are just a sad, relatively intelligent schlubs (_schlub_:*nobody*) who believe everything they read, and what they read happens to be *crap; *all too often, they suffer from overspecialization (one look at my resume shows that I'm way not guilty of that) which has led to an inability to discern the big picture, and over focus on the details-the "science" behind the truther movement is a good example: a bunch of guys who got wrapped up around a detail here or there and think "aha!" when the reality is the bigger picture that they're not seeing-you know, the one where the *goddam planes were crashed into the building*. 

Of course, if you want to think there were elements of the government that knew 9/11 or something like it was coming and did nothing so they could take advantage of it later, that is another story altogether, and *not* exactly an "inside job." If you want to talk about glaring sins in how seriously the threat was taken and the glaring sins of omission and commision that took place in the years after the first WTC attack, that's another story, and one worthy of discussion, though, again, ala Roosevelt and Pearl Harbor,most of us will never really know, because, contrary to popular belief, people *can* keep secrets, and we do. 

But if you want to talk about controlled demolitions, secret removals of vast amounts of gold prior to the attack, or the suspect nature of the collapse of WTC7, well, you're right there with Atlanteans, the Count St. Germain, Tesla's death ray, HAARP conspirasists, those "contrail" nutters (knew I left someone out the last time :lfao: ) and UFO abductees as far as I'm concerned: down the road and around that corner where the buses don't go anymore, on *Crazy Street.*

Or, maybe, _Just Plain Ignorant Drive._ :lfao:


----------



## elder999

Big Don said:


> Saudi Arabia wasn't a nation until 1932, Jordan since 1921, and Iran in 1938, but, their mere existence you don't blame?


 
Oh yeah. Blame their existence too-after all, they largely exist as problems because of our meddling, especially Iran.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

I just made a point. Not going to get into the Israel thing here. But one side committing atrocities doesn't excuse another from doing similar.  I wonder though if you think it was ok for them to open fire on a former US Congresswoman's ship......or block medical aid for weeks while they mop up witnesses in one town.....or run a bulldozer over a protester (unarmed).
But that's another topic I think.

Ignore Israel.

Compare the meddling rates of the US, UK, Canada, New Zealand and Australia, then cross reference them with Islamic Terrorist attacks against sovereign targets.
I wonder who will top the "we stuck our noses in the hornets nest lots of times. Whyd we get stung? I don't understand" list.

I bet it's those damn annoying Canadians.


----------



## Makalakumu

elder999 said:


> So yeah, as your list grows, so does the one I've shown.



What is the ultimately the deciding factor in all cases, in all lists?



elder999 said:


> This is insulting to both of us. That you can twist the meaning of blowback to equate it with an inside job is completely beneath you.



The idea deserves considering that a choice was made KNOWING that blowback may happen.  And then there are those who said they really WANT blowback to happen.  And then there are those who said they really NEED blowback to happen.  And then there are those who just went out made it happen.



elder999 said:


> Ahead of what, exactly, John?



It's just a matter of scale.  Look at the scale of atrocity we've perpetrated before and after 9/11 and ask yourself if people could let it happen or even plan it.  That's all I meant.  I'm not some supermind.

Just think about it and merge the scales of what has happened.  It's not that big of a jump *ahead *to LIHOP or MIHOP.


----------



## elder999

maunakumu said:


> What is the ultimately the deciding factor in all cases, in all lists?.
> 
> .


 
.

On the 'droid, now, so:_pancake bunny._



maunakumu said:


> It's just a matter of scale. Look at the scale of atrocity we've perpetrated before and after 9/11 and ask yourself if people could let it happen or even plan it. That's all I meant. I'm not some supermind.
> 
> Just think about it and merge the scales of what has happened. It's not that big of a jump *ahead *to LIHOP or MIHOP.


 
It is a big jump. We're not meant to know such things. The people who know of them-if they exist- will never speak of them, never be subject to any investigation, independent or otherwise, never do anything but go on about their business until they reach a ripe old age and die, or die otherwise going on about their business. That's the nature of such things-we'll never know if elements in government _let it happen on purpose,_ which is a truly possible scenario, or were just completely clueless. In my opinion, the years between the first WTC bombing in 1993 and 9/11 indicate that they were just completely clueless, but I'm just some guy on the internet.

Here, though, you like conspiracies. Google "George H.W. Bush, Kennedy assassination" :



> *9,400,000* results for
> george h w bush kennedy assassination


 
there are some interesting *facts* there, but not much in the way of _truth_, and that's the nature of these things: you and I aren't meant to know, and so we *won't,* and those that *do* know never, ever, ever speak of it again, and live to a ripe old age of jumping out of planes, driving fast boats, and, basically, waiting to die and take their secrets with them.


----------



## Archangel M

[yt]VdRz2oTjCog[/yt]

It's my opinion that some people are more prone to this conspiracy stuff than others. Some psychologists explain it thus:

http://www.usnews.com/science/articles/2009/05/26/the-inner-worlds-of-conspiracy-believers



> &#8220;Arguments advanced by conspiracy theorists tell you more about the believer than about the event,&#8221; Goertzel says.
> 
> Swami&#8217;s finding that 9/11 conspiracy believers frequently spoke with likeminded individuals supports the notion that &#8220;conspiracy thinkers constitute a community of believers,&#8221; remarks historian Robert Goldberg of the University of Utah in Salt Lake City. Goldberg has studied various conspiracy theories in the United States.
> 
> Conspiracy thinkers share an optimistic conviction that they can find &#8220;the truth,&#8221; spread it to the masses and foster social change, Goldberg asserts.


----------



## Makalakumu

Riddle me this, those of you who believe the government is benign or even benevolent.  How many megadeaths was one 9/11?  That is the scale that people are arguing against.

Oh, and I agree that we'll never know.  We aren't meant to.  I am a schlub in the eyes of the controllers.  Speaking of megadeaths, ever wonder how many plans the government has that include causing your own death for the greater good?  

And, btw, I'll handle my paranoia if you handle your own psychosis.  LOL!  That's worth a laugh isn't it?


----------



## elder999

> "...choose between two admittedly regrettable, but nevertheless, distinguishable post-war environments: one where you've got 20 million people killed, and the other where you


 
This was the rationale behind "StarWars," the *S*rategic *D*efense *I*nitiative-a move away from *M*utually *A*ssured *D*estruction towards *OFF*, that's *O*pportunity *F*or *F*irst strike, and part of what bankrupted the old Soviet Union, when we convinced them that we were there. 

It's also part and parcel of the kind of long term thinking that goes into things like Obamacare: health care for the masses, or boondoggle for the insurance companies? 

I visited a slaughter house once, where they were killing sheep and pigs. The pigs just marched right into this machine that decapitates them, one after the other. The pigs, on the other hand, once they saw the first pig decapitated, began to squeal and crowded away from the ramp that led to the machine. In a world of sheep, I've become a pig, who is doing his best to stay out of the machine-or, at least, convince it of his cooperation. That's about all any of us can hope for, really....I mean, 9/11 was about 0.03% of a megadeath, wasn't it? Until we're hit with a superplague or worldwide famine, I like those odds, as long as I can keep my head down, and stay out of tall buildings......


----------



## Archangel M

maunakumu said:


> Riddle me this, those of you who believe the government is benign or even benevolent.  How many megadeaths was one 9/11?



A term coined by a RAND egghead and used in a Kubrick movie? That's your evidence??


----------



## Makalakumu

Archangel M said:


> A term coined by a RAND egghead and used in a Kubrick movie? That's your evidence??



LOL!  I think you missed the point.  Megadeth is the SOLUTION!!!

:bangahead:


----------



## Sensei Payne

All other evidence of that very day aside.

After 9/11 there was a chain reaction...

a chain reaction that has cost us many of our freedoms...

The patriot act, Nude body scanners, TSA pat downs, The Constant state of fear, the war in Iraq/afganistan/Lybia, the failed search for WMDs

The Government has exibited and displayed more control and has moved toward more of a police state since the events on 9/11, and 9/11 is how the justifty walking all over the constitution.

Is this what our Founding Fathers had in mind for us...I think not.

History shows that total control is the beginning of the end for a government, getting "To big for there own britches" seems to be a steady trend in history.(IE THe Romans, The Germans, the English,etc)

The problem is, we are now the American Empire, and no longer the United States, and that American Empire is run by Corperations.  Since 9/11, those Corperations have flexed that muscle through Congress and Two Horrible Presidents.


----------



## elder999

Sensei Payne said:


> The Government has exibited and displayed more control and has moved toward more of a police state since the events on 9/11, and 9/11 is how the justifty walking all over the constitution.
> 
> Is this what our Founding Fathers had in mind for us...I think not.


 
We were moving towArds a police state before 9/11.





Sensei Payne said:


> The problem is, we are now the American Empire, and no longer the United States, and that American Empire is run by Corperations. Since 9/11, those Corperations have flexed that muscle through Congress and Two Horrible Presidents.


 
The argument could be made that we have been an empire since Roosevelt was president-Teddy, not FDR-and yes, those corporations are running us-it's inevitable. In our lifetimes, total body scanning will be in more than just airports-it's also inevitable.

Screaming that something is unconstitutional, when it pretty much *isn't*, isn't going to make it go away. Like Obama's birth certificate, the body scanners and groping are a distraction from the real issues. We could do a lot more for security by implementing el Al's security measures. Many of them, though, *are* ,arguably unconsitutional.

The same with 9/11-the commonly accepted narrative of those events *is* the whole story, even if it isn't. Belief that those events occurred otherwise is, likewise, a distraction. While those events are used to justify so much, something else would have been used, inevitably, to justify those things. "9/11, the real story" is a distraction from the questions you should really be asking.


----------



## jks9199

With the volume of US air travel, El Al's security measures are impractical.  They are manpower intensive, training intensive, and very time consuming.  We simply cannot do it with the volume of travel.  It'd be roughly the same as simply trying to have everyone riding a bus or subway pass through a magnetometer.  In theory, it can be done.  In reality?  Nope.


----------



## CanuckMA

jks9199 said:


> With the volume of US air travel, El Al's security measures are impractical. They are manpower intensive, training intensive, and very time consuming. We simply cannot do it with the volume of travel. It'd be roughly the same as simply trying to have everyone riding a bus or subway pass through a magnetometer. In theory, it can be done. In reality? Nope.


 

Have you ever been through Ben Gurion?

They are less intrusive than at US airports. They are training intensive. They rely on just thnn chep rent-a-cops. 

But they are scalable. It's not a matter of more manpower, it's a atter of better manpower.


----------



## Big Don

El Al, of course realizes and operates on the idea that the main threat to airliners are Islamic Terrorists. The US is too hamstrung by political correctness to admit that, let alone operate on that premise.


----------



## CanuckMA

El Al operates on the premise that anyone can be a terrorist. I get questioned regularly as well. They may skew towards a profile, but I certainly won't get a pass because I'm Orthodox. And the security is not just at a checkpoint. They observe behaviour everywhere in the airport.


----------



## Tez3

Big Don said:


> El Al, of course realizes and operates on the idea that the main threat to airliners are Islamic Terrorists. The US is too hamstrung by political correctness to admit that, let alone operate on that premise.


 

Underestimating your enemies is never a good thing and assuming that an Islamic terrorist is going to walk up to an aircraft dressed in such a way that screams suicide bomber is ridiculous. They may as well carry a big sign that says 'I am an Islamic terrorist'.

During the height of the Troubles in Northern Ireland the IRA took to recruiting English students who were sympathetic to the IRA's cause but however had no history of support or connections to them. This made them hard to find and track down. Profiling was of no use in these cases.

Canuck is correct, El Al assume anyone can be a terrorist, they do have a few nuts who succumb to things like Jerusalem syndrome to deal with etc so need to watch out for more than Islamic dangers. There are also some criminal elements to watch out for which while they may be of no direct danger to the flight may not be welcome on board generally. Isreal survives by taking no chances and being ever vigilant, the day they start taking things for granted ie the only terrorists are going to be looking like terrorists then things will turn bad very quickly.


----------



## Sensei Payne

elder999 said:


> Screaming that something is unconstitutional, when it pretty much *isn't*, isn't going to make it go away. Like Obama's birth certificate, the body scanners and groping are a distraction from the real issues. We could do a lot more for security by implementing el Al's security measures. Many of them, though, *are* ,arguably unconsitutional.
> 
> The same with 9/11-the commonly accepted narrative of those events *is* the whole story, even if it isn't. Belief that those events occurred otherwise is, likewise, a distraction. While those events are used to justify so much, something else would have been used, inevitably, to justify those things. "9/11, the real story" is a distraction from the questions you should really be asking.


 

Standing up, when something is unconstitutional, is always the right thing to do...something isn't "Pretty much" unconstitutional..it either is or it isn't...and the events that I described following 9/11 most positively are.

The commonly accepted narrative, truely can't be the WHOLE story, or we wouldn't be having this convorsation today.  So many people around the world see the holes in the "accepted" story.  

The reason why we want to point out all the issues with 9/11, the real story, is because if you can unravel part of the story..you can trace it all the way back, and show the tyrants for what they are.


----------



## elder999

Sensei Payne said:


> Standing up, when something is unconstitutional, is always the right thing to do...something isn't "Pretty much" unconstitutional..it either is or it isn't...and the events that I described following 9/11 most positively are.


 
Some of the events following 9/11 were unconstitutioal. The searches that occur in airports are not. 




Sensei Payne said:


> The commonly accepted narrative, truely can't be the WHOLE story, or we wouldn't be having this convorsation today. So many people around the world see the holes in the "accepted" story.


 
The same could be said in reference to conversations about the Loch Ness monster, the Chupacabra, Bigfoot, UFOs, the secret Nazi base in Anarctica, the Illuminati, whether or not FDR was aware of the Japanese plan to attack Pearl Harbor, the Kennedy assassinaition, the faked moon landing,the secret Nazi base on the moon, the death of Princess Diana, and our secret reptilian overlords. All conversations people are having, all wldley disproven conspiracy theories, supported by the merest shred of facts.



Sensei Payne said:


> The reason why we want to point out all the issues with 9/11, the real story, is because if you can unravel part of the story..you can trace it all the way back, and show the tyrants for what they are.


 
Simply not going to happen. The story we've got is the real story, no matter how much doubt there is-even it's not the whole story, it's the only one we're ever going to have.There will be no "unraveling," no revelations, no smoking gun. In the future, individuals will come forward saying they have parts of the "real story," that Paul WOlfowitz met with Osama Bin Laden in Marakesh, or that the head of Pakitani intelligence was staying in the White House in the days before 9/11. Some of them will be true but  coincidental and irrelevant, some of them ill be complete fabrications-*none* of them will change the story. 

What youshoud be focusng on instead of this distraction, is the constitutionality of the USA PATRIOT Act. The coming infringments on the 2nd Amendment. The role of the U.N. in U.S. law. The corporate takeover of our food and water supplies. Corporate control over everything we put into our bodies-corporate contol of all medicine. Al things that the legal groundwork is being set for, or has already taken place-quietly and legally.

Instead, you'l go on about 9/11 being an inside job, while your freedoms are legally whittled away....


----------



## jks9199

The thing about 9/11 is that we want a better explanation than a group of "3rd World terrorists" pulled one over on the "mightiest nation on the planet."  We want a "truth" that reinforces our view that the US is the strongest, best nation on the planet, and has no need to fear anyone else.  The only people strong enough to take us down are "evil us."

Sorry.  The truth is that Al Queda and Osama Bin Laden aren't "3rd World Terrorists."  They're just plain terrorists, educated in more than few cases by our own military, intellegence and colleges, trained and hardened by decades of war.  They think long term, and they plan meticulously.  9/11 wasn't the result of a few weeks of planning, or a "hey, let's try this."  I'd have to look up -- but some of the perpetrators had been in the US for years.  They had studied and planned, working around our vulnerabilities.  They exploited our ignorance, our complacency, and our reactions to prior hijackings.

That's important to understand.  Until 9/11, the routine response to a hijacking situation was to sit tight, and wait for the plane to land.  Then, the options were either wait 'em out or storm the plane.  The hijackers on 9/11 exploited that:  They took control of the planes, and on 3 out of the 4, the passengers didn't expect anything but the usual scenario.  

We all aided and abetted the terrorists.  We assumed that "terrorism happened somewhere else", to other people.  We carefully avoided labeling terrorist activities that had happened here as terrorism.  We refused to acknowledge how terrorists work, and we still refuse to acknowledge that we DO NOT make friends in a lot of the ways we try to help other countries and people.  Especially when we stomp roughshod over their cultures and try to make them like us.  Or when we assume that we're the best and our ways are the best.  (Just look at some of the heat on this forum across national lines...  And that's with fairly reasonable folks.)

There was a conspiracy involved in 9/11; in fact, I'll say there were two.  The first, clearly and obviously, was the terrorists.  That one involved at least 20 people, probably many more.  The other?  That was all of us who conspired to live out a myth without accepting the reality of terrorism, and of the people out there who don't like us.


----------



## Sensei Payne

> *Building 7's Collapse *
> 
> *Features of a Textbook Implosion *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [SIZE=-1]These three images (cropped from larger photographs) show WTC 7 at three different moments in its collapse. [/SIZE]
> The total collapse of WTC 7 at 5:20 PM on 9/11/01 shows all of the features of an implosion engineered through controlled demolition.
> Controlled demolition is the use of pre-positioned explosive charges to destroy structures. Depending on the nature of the structure and constraints imposed by its surroundings, a controlled demolition may require a great deal of precision in its planning and execution. That is especially true of tall steel buildings in urban settings, given the natural tendency of such structures to topple. Controlled demolitions of buildings in cities are designed to implode the structures, making them sink into their footprints and fold in on themselves into a small consolidated rubble piles
> 
> 
> 
> Observing the collapse of 47-story WTC 7 shows it to have all of the features of an implosion engineered by controlled demolition.
> 
> The collapse of the main structure commences suddenly (several seconds after the penthouse falls).
> The building sinks in a precisely vertical manner into its footprint.
> Puffs of dust emerge from the building's facade early in the event.
> The collapse is total, producing a rubble pile only about three stories high.
> The main structure collapses totally in under 7 seconds, only about a second slower than it would take a brick dropped from the building's roof to reach the ground in a vacuum.


If there is one hole in the story...there are always others.

Lies beget MORE lies





> *Other Skyscraper Fires *
> 
> *Fires Have Never Caused Skyscrapers to Collapse *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [SIZE=-1]The One Meridian Plaza fire [/SIZE]
> Excepting the three 9-11 collapses, no fire, however severe, has ever caused a steel-framed high-rise building to collapse. Following are examples of high-rise fires that were far more severe than those in WTC 1 and 2, and Building 7. In these precedents, the fires consumed multiple floors, produced extensive window breakage, exhibited large areas of emergent flames, and went on for several hours. The fires in the WTC towers did none of these things.
> <A shape=rect name=onemeridian>*The One Meridian Plaza Fire*
> 
> One Meridian Plaza is a 38-floor skyscraper in Philadelphia that suffered a severe fire on February 23, 1991. The fire started on the 22nd floor and raged for 18 hours, gutting eight floors and causing an estimated $100 million in direct property loss. [SIZE=-1]1  [/SIZE] [SIZE=-1]2  [/SIZE] [SIZE=-1]3  [/SIZE] It was later described by Philadelphia officials as "the most significant fire in this century".
> The fire caused window breakage, cracking of granite, and failures of spandrel panel connections. [SIZE=-1]4  [/SIZE] Despite the severity and duration of the fire, as evidenced by the damage the building sustained, no part of the building collapsed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [SIZE=-1]The First Interstate Bank fire [/SIZE]
> <A shape=rect name=firstinterstate>*The First Interstate Bank Fire*
> 
> The First Interstate Bank Building is a 62-story skyscraper in Los Angeles that suffered the worst high-rise fire in the city's history. From the late evening of May 4, 1988 through the early morning of the next day, 64 fire companies battled the blaze, which lasted for 3 1/2 hours. The fire caused extensive window breakage, which complicated firefighting efforts. Large flames jutted out of the building during the blaze. Firefighting efforts resulted in massive water damage to floors below the fire, and the fire gutted offices from the 12th to the 16th floor, and caused extensive smoke damage to floors above. The fire caused an estimated $200 million in direct property loss. [SIZE=-1]5  [/SIZE]
> A report by Iklim Ltd. describes the structural damage from the fire:
> In spite of the total burnout of four and a half floors, there was no damage to the main structural members and only minor damage to one secondary beam and a small number of floor pans. [SIZE=-1]6  [/SIZE]
> <A shape=rect name=newyorkplaza>*The 1 New York Plaza Fire*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [SIZE=-1]Close-up of the First Interstate Bank fire
> Photo: New York Board of Underwriters [/SIZE]
> 1 New York Plaza is a 50-story office tower less than a mile from the World Trade Center site. It suffered a severe fire and explosion on August 5, 1970. The fire started around 6 PM, and burned for more than 6 hours. [SIZE=-1]7  [/SIZE]
> <A shape=rect name=caracastower>*Caracas Tower Fire*
> 
> The tallest skyscraper in Caracas, Venezuela experienced a severe fire on October 17, 2004. The blaze began before midnight on the 34th floor, spread to more than 26 floors, and burned for more than 17 hours. Heat from the fires prevented firefighters from reaching the upper floors, and smoke injured 40 firefighters.
> Lax enforcement of fire codes in Venezuela was blamed for the malfunctioning of water pumps and a lack of fire extinguishers inside of the building. Because the building was empty when the fire broke out, no civilians were killed or injured. [SIZE=-1]8  [/SIZE]
> *The Windsor Building Fire*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [SIZE=-1]The Windsor Building fire [/SIZE]
> A more recent case of a severe high-rise fire is the one that destroyed the Windsor Building in Madrid, Spain on February 12, 2005. The Windsor fire was more severe than any of the fires described above, and the incident has been widely publicized, with comparisons to the fires in the three World Trade Center skyscrapers on 9/11/01. However, the Windsor Building, unlike all the buildings mentioned above, was framed in steel-reinforced concrete rather than steel. Hence it is described on a separate page, which notes differences between the response of these different types of structures to fires.
> [SIZE=-1]9  [/SIZE]


 

So if WTC7 was brought down by fire and fire alone...it is the only skyscraper in the HISTORY of skyscrapers, to be brought down that way.  Sounds a little to implausible to me.

Even if Terrorists from a third party country had the best military training the US had to offer, and had the best planner in history...without the resources, there is no way anyone could pull that off..without of course, help from the inside, and from someone with enough authority and security access to keep every single honest Military officer and Intellegence agent, in the Dark.


----------



## Sukerkin

Those two points are ones that have tickled at my 'engineers spider sense' since I first learned of them, *SP*.  They are indeed suspicious and, like any 'normal' alibi, once you cast doubt on one part then the whole becomes suspect.

However, my question, in all seriousness and without rancour, is what in your estimation will be gained by railing against the 'official line' when all that happens is that any query is then brushed off as 'Conspiracy Theory lunacy' by the wider media?


----------



## elder999

Sensei Payne said:


> So if WTC7 was brought down by fire and fire alone...it is the only skyscraper in the HISTORY of skyscrapers, to be brought down that way. Sounds a little to implausible to me.


 
I suppose it's also the only one to be damaged by the collapse of another building, and left to burn without any firefighting for more than 6 hours, too, and that may have something to do with it being less than implausible, but hey-you're going to think whatever you want.

Oh, btw, remember what I posted up thread about spitting on the truth and the memory of those that died that day by even mentioning controlled demolition? 

You just *did*.


----------



## Sensei Payne

Sukerkin said:


> However, my question, in all seriousness and without rancour, is what in your estimation will be gained by railing against the 'official line' when all that happens is that any query is then brushed off as 'Conspiracy Theory lunacy' by the wider media?


 


elder999 said:


> Oh, btw, remember what I posted up thread about spitting on the truth and the memory of those that died that day by even mentioning controlled demolition?
> 
> You just *did*.


 

IDK Sukerkin..I get labeled as the bad guy for asking questions.  Elder has accused me several times of "spitting on the memory" of the people who died that day, but I really don't see it that way.  I see it as fleshing out the facts from fiction. Asking questions is truely the only way to get to the truth. Face it Elder, the official story has holes, big ones, and I am also willing to admit that the jury is still out on a lot of the other theories that are out there...but facts are facts.

Am i spitting on God by saying I believe in Dinosuars or the Big Bang, or even Evolution?

No...and at one time or another, one could even be put to death for blasphamy...and it was all in the name of Science.

In America, in some circles, such as the one that elder is residing.  Its a SIN and a CRIME to even mention that there could possiblly be a shread of evidence that our "Christ-Like" American Government could even be involved with anything like what happened on 9/11...the problem is, our Government is involved with a WHOLE lot of 9/11 like events all around the world and through out History.

All in all, me asking questions and presenting evidence that the official story has holes, and those holes point fingers at *our American Government.*  Doesn't make me a bad guy, doesn't necessarily make me a good one either, but what it does make me, is a truth seeker, and when undeniable evidence is presented, my mind will be made up completely.

Faith is for God, not for Governments.


----------



## elder999

Sensei Payne said:


> IDK Sukerkin..I get labeled as the bad guy for asking questions. Elder has accused me several times of "spitting on the memory" of the people who died that day, but I really don't see it that way. I see it as fleshing out the facts from fiction. Asking questions is truely the only way to get to the truth. Face it Elder, the official story has holes, big ones, and I am also willing to admit that the jury is still out on a lot of the other theories that are out there...but facts are facts.
> 
> Am i spitting on God by saying I believe in Dinosuars or the Big Bang, or even Evolution?
> 
> No...and at one time or another, one could even be put to death for blasphamy...and it was all in the name of Science.
> 
> In America, in some circles, such as the one that elder is residing. Its a SIN and a CRIME to even mention that there could possiblly be a shread of evidence that our "Christ-Like" American Government could even be involved with anything like what happened on 9/11...the problem is, our Government is involved with a WHOLE lot of 9/11 like events all around the world and through out History.
> 
> All in all, me asking questions and presenting evidence that the official story has holes, and those holes point fingers at *our American Government.* Doesn't make me a bad guy, doesn't necessarily make me a good one either, but what it does make me, is a truth seeker, and when undeniable evidence is presented, my mind will be made up completely.
> 
> Faith is for God, not for Governments.


 
You spit on their memory by yielding to distraction, and not focusing on the real questions and issues-and the collapse of WTC #7 is a distraction. Other steel trussed buildings (not "skyscrapers") have collapsed due to fire: the McCormic center in Chicago collapsed in a mere 30 minutes. It's a lack of understanding of the processes and variables involved that permitted this to happen that leads to just the sort of *errant nonsense* that your spouting here. The building had no firefighting for more than 6 hours. The building had been damaged by the collapse of the Twin Towers-indeed, the building had been abandoned because of that visible damage, and fear that the building would collapse-to say that it "collapsed from a fire" is only part of the story. And just because it fell into its footprint doesn't mean it needed to have been a controlled demolition-the building collapsed;*gravity* did the rest.

For the record, there's nothing wrong with asking questions; you just aren't asking the right ones. There's nothing wrong with presenting evidence-it's just that your evidence *isn't evidence at all.*

Now,here is a presentation from _Structure Magazine_, explaining the mechanism of WTC's collapse:

http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/2007-11/SF-WTC7-Gilsanz-Nov07.pdf

http://www.structuremag.org/article.aspx?articleID=284


----------



## Sensei Payne

> <A shape=rect name=fema>
> *FEMA on Building 7*
> 
> 
> Despite the inescapable logic of the above, the official theory for the collapse, as published in Chapter 5 of the FEMA report goes as follows:
> 
> At 9:59 AM (after the South Tower collapse), electrical power to the substations in WTC 7 was shut off.
> Due to a design flaw, generators in WTC 7 started up by themselves.
> Debris from the collapsing North Tower breached a fuel oil pipe in a room in the north side of the building. (This means the debris had to travel across WTC 6 and Vesey Street -- a distance of at least 355 feet -- penetrate the outer wall of WTC 6, and smash through about 50 feet of the building, including a concrete masonry wall.)
> This, and other debris (that also made the journey across Building 6 and Vesey Street), managed to start numerous fires in the building. (Unfortunately, this event did not prompt anyone to turn off the generators.)
> The backup mechanism (that should have shut off the fuel oil pumps when a breach occurred) failed to work, and the fuel oil (diesel) was pumped from the tanks on the ground floor to the fifth floor where it ignited. The pumps emptied the tanks of all 12,000 gallons of fuel.
> The extant fires raised the temperature of the spilled fuel oil to the 140 degrees F required for it to ignite.
> The sprinkler system malfunctioned and failed to extinguish the fire.
> The burning diesel fuel heated trusses to the point where they lost most of their strength, precipitating a total collapse of Building 7.
> The last point is the greatest stretch, since it asks us to believe that an event that would be expected only to cause the sagging of a floor instead led not only to total collapse, but to such a tidy collapse that directly adjacent buildings were scarcely even damaged. This is surprising behavior for a steel-framed skyscraper designed to survive fires, hurricanes, and earthquakes.
> 
> After laying out this highly improbable scenario, the FEMA report authors conclude:
> The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue.
> Unfortunately for investigators hoping to resolve this issue, nearly all of the evidence had already been destroyed by the time the FEMA report was published.


 
Really Elder...I hope your right..I really hope that I am wrong...I do not wish to get into a
duck season...Rabbit season style convo with you, or anyone else for that matter...

Respectfully, I do hope your right.

As with anything people are going to conclude there own hypothisis, and perhaps, we will never really know what happened for 100% certainty.  But through research and Healthy debate...maybe one day...the evidence to truely close the book on 9/11 will become available.

But until then, I am going to keep an open mind, and *always* ask questions.


----------



## elder999

Sensei Payne said:


> Really Elder...I hope your right..I really hope that I am wrong.


 

*I'm* not right. The_ science_ *is* right, though-it's just that truthers can't understand it.


----------



## Big Don

elder999 said:


> I suppose it's also the only one to be damaged by the collapse of another building, and left to burn without any firefighting for more than 6 hours,


*With BIG *** FUEL TANKS INSIDE THE BUILDING!!!*


> too, and that may have something to do with it being less than implausible, but hey-you're going to think whatever you want.
> 
> Oh, btw, remember what I posted up thread about spitting on the truth and the memory of those that died that day by even mentioning controlled demolition?
> 
> You just *did*.


*What caused the collapse of a third skyscraper, WTC 7, which was not hit by a plane? *There  are two other possible contributing factors still under  investigation:  First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were  designed to  transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With  columns on the  south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely  have been  communicated to columns on the building's other faces,  thereby  exceeding their load-bearing capacities.  

 Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no   firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was   fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency   generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a   generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the   basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working   hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the   fire] for a long period of time."


----------



## Big Don

elder999 said:


> *I'm* not right. The_ science_ *is* right, though-it's just that truthers can't understand it.


It isn't that they can't understand it. They are like flat earther's or Holocaust deniers, in that they REFUSE all explanations that don't feed their delusions.


----------



## Sukerkin

Wasn't the FEMA disaster management HQ supposed to be in the basement of Building 7?  Or am I making that up from conspiracy snippets I've heard here and there?

If it was, wouldn't you think there's be more effort put into saving the place?


----------



## Sukerkin

Big Don said:


> It isn't that they can't understand it. They are like flat earther's or Holocaust deniers, in that they REFUSE all explanations that don't feed their delusions.



Tempting as it is, we really can't just throw out such dismissive blanket statements, Don.  

After all, I, with my agnostic-nearly-athesist and British Liberal views might think the same about American Republican thinkers or religious people - sometimes I slip and actually do say as much, I know {blush} - but I really shouldn't.

Believe me, I now what it feels like to want to reach into the computer screen and shake some 'sense' into someone, screaming something akin to "Why can't you see!!!!!?" :lol:.  But even if we could it wouldn't really help; it'd just harden attitudes and then everything devolves down from intelligent debate to a circle of "'Tis so!" ... "No t'aint!" et al.


----------



## Archangel M

elder999 said:


> *I'm* not right. The_ science_ *is* right, though-it's just that truthers can't understand it.


 
Can't understand it or refuse to even consider it?


----------



## Makalakumu

elder999 said:


> *I'm* not right. The_ science_ *is* right, though-it's just that truthers can't understand it.



How would you know the science is right if no one is allowed to see the evidence and repeat the conclusions?


----------



## CanuckMA

maunakumu said:


> How would you know the science is right if no one is allowed to see the evidence and repeat the conclusions?


----------



## Sensei Payne

maunakumu said:


> How would you know the science is right if no one is allowed to see the evidence and repeat the conclusions?


 


CanuckMA said:


>


 

I think I know where you are going with this maunakumu...but I think CanuckMA needs more of an explaination.


----------



## elder999

Sukerkin said:


> Wasn't the FEMA disaster management HQ supposed to be in the basement of Building 7? Or am I making that up from conspiracy snippets I've heard here and there?
> 
> If it was, wouldn't you think there's be more effort put into saving the place?


 
It was the New York City Office of Emergency Management. It was on the 23rd floor. I was directly involved in setting it up-prior to the 1993 bombing, there was no NYCOEM. After the '93 bombing, the city and the Port Authority approached the New York Power Authority, which had an emergency management office and joint operations center at Indian Pt. #3. I was in the training department,was directly involved in emergency management at IP#3, and was one of several people consulted to develop the NYCOEM. I got a tour of the WTC facilities, met and befriended lots of people who worked there, and spent quite a few days helping  develop plans for the OEM's Emergency Operations Center-which, in many people's opinion (mine included), shouldn't have been at the WTC in the first place. The collapse of the building (WTC 7) was anticipated, and it was abandoned before it happened.

Like I said, I lost a few friends that day.


----------



## Makalakumu

Where is the evidence? Can a group of qualified skeptics repeat the official conclusions?


----------



## elder999

maunakumu said:


> Where is the evidence? Can a group of qualified skeptics repeat the official conclusions?


 

Sure. Build a couple of steel framed towers 107 stories in height, and an additional 47 story bldg. adjacent to them. Fly a couple of 767s into each tower, so they collapse from impact and fire damage, with some debris impacting the adjacent 47 story bldg. Set the 47 story bldg. on fire, and let it burn for 6 hours or more.


----------



## Makalakumu

elder999 said:


> Sure. Build a couple of steel framed towers 107 stories in height, and an additional 47 story bldg. adjacent to them. Fly a couple of 767s into each tower, so they collapse from impact and fire damage, with some debris impacting the adjacent 47 story bldg. Set the 47 story bldg. on fire, and let it burn for 6 hours or more.



Where is the evidence?


----------



## elder999

maunakumu said:


> Where is the evidence?


 

Well, we all saw those things happen on TV. For most, that's evidence enough of what happened. However, if you mean the actual debris, most of it has long been carted off to the dump.

You can, however, review the National Institute of Standards and Technology report on 9/11: here and the FEMA report here. 

"Where is the evidence?" Sounds like an atheist to me.....:lfao:


----------



## Makalakumu

elder999 said:


> Well, we all saw those things happen on TV. For most, that's evidence enough of what happened. However, if you mean the actual debris, most of it has long been carted off to the dump.



They started carting away debris as if there was no investigation pending and it wasn't a crime scene.  Human remains, everything, has been slagged and remade into other things...including a brand new battle ship.  How appropriate...



elder999 said:


> You can, however, review the National Institute of Standards and Technology report on 9/11: here and the FEMA report here.



I've reviewed both of these in other threads.  That aside, how can anyone know if these are good investigations if no qualified skeptic is able to reproduce their results?



elder999 said:


> "Where is the evidence?" Sounds like an atheist to me.....:lfao:



LOL!  Yup.


----------



## elder999

maunakumu said:


> They started carting away debris as if there was no investigation pending and it wasn't a crime scene. Human remains, everything, has been slagged and remade into other things...including a brand new battle ship. How appropriate...


 
And that was totally America's mayor, Rudy Giuliani's doing. If you want to call that a conspiracy, well, I'll buy into that, but it wasn't part of any cover up.

There was nothing to cover up. Planes flew into those buildings for all to see.





maunakumu said:


> I've reviewed both of these in other threads. That aside, how can anyone know if these are good investigations if no qualified skeptic is able to reproduce their results?


 
A qualified skeptic is completely capable of reproducing their results. Build two towers, another building, crash two 767s, etc. Short of that, computer modeling might tell the story, but that's far too tweakable, either way.


----------



## swivel63

maunakumu said:


> Where is the evidence?



evidence of what?  that planes flew into the buildings?

planes take out existing vertical members + increased heat to decrease capacity of existing members + no reduction in vertical load = catastrophic collapse.


----------



## swivel63

elder999 said:


> And that was totally America's mayor, Rudy Giuliani's doing. If you want to call that a conspiracy, well, I'll buy into that, but it wasn't part of any cover up.
> 
> There was nothing to cover up. Planes flew into those buildings for all to see.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A qualified skeptic is completely capable of reproducing their results. Build two towers, another building, crash two 767s, etc. Short of that, computer modeling might tell the story, but that's far too tweakable, either way.



this was done at a rudimentary level by one of my old college profs

Pentagon Sim

http://www.purdue.edu/uns/html4ever/020910.Sozen.Pentagon.html

Twin Towers Sim

http://www.purdue.edu/uns/x/2007a/070612HoffmannWTC.html


----------



## Ken Morgan

I&#8217;m staying outta this one, but&#8230;.

When I worked in the steel business, I remember seeing a piece of cold rolled steel, 4&#8221;x6&#8221;x12&#8217; fall from maybe 36&#8221; in the air onto a mat of solid rubber and snap in two when it hit. I&#8217;ve seen structural steel bend like a piece of modelling clay when it gets a simple knock. The real strength to a tall building isn&#8217;t the steel per say, it&#8217;s in the thousands of little rivets holding it all together, and I can melt a rivet into a mass of metal goo with a set of torches in no time at all. I can only imagine the affect thousands of gallons of jet fuel, burning well beyond the melting point of steel would have on these little tiny rivets. 

Add that to the fact that while the building is designed to take the weight of the floors above it, it was not designed to take the momentum of the weight of the floors above it falling eight stories onto it. Remember mechanical design in HS when you had to build a bridge outta little piece of balsa wood? Then a weight was applied until the bridge was broken? Does anyone really seriously think that that bridge could sustain the same weight it if was dropped onto it from 4&#8217;?? 

OK the political science/history/education guy is back to watching this thread&#8230;.carry on.
opcorn:


----------



## Big Don

elder999 said:


> A qualified skeptic is completely capable of reproducing their results. Build two towers, another building, crash two 767s, etc. Short of that, computer modeling might tell the story, but that's far too tweakable, either way.


I've seen this idiocy bandied about:


----------



## Sukerkin

:chuckles:  Well it's a scalable, practical, demonstration of principle ... but I doubt the scaling is accurate in this instance.

Chaps, it really would be better if we discussed the issues rather than cast mockery at each other.

Even Elder hasn't got his usual perspective on this one and for the first time that I can recall has been making emotive and belittling statements about things that are not simply a matter of opinion.  That's probably due to emotion over-ruling his analytical side for a change (boy do I know what that is like post-bike-accident-brain-damage ) but it is not a good thing in a discussion about an event of such consequence as this one.


----------



## Archangel M

_New Rule: Crazy people who still think the government brought down the Twin Towers in a controlled explosion have to stop pretending that I'm the one that's being naïve. How big a lunatic do you have to be to watch two giant airliners packed with jet fuel slam into buildings on live TV igniting a massive inferno that burned for two hours and then think, "Well, if you believe that was the cause?" Stop asking me to raise this ridiculous topic on this show and start asking your doctor if Paxil is right for you. _*-Bill Maher*


Refer back to THIS thread:

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=85202&highlight=9/11+conspiracy&page=7

One of my better posts on THAT one:



> If the conspiracy nuts were arguing that the hijackers were "assets" of some sort that were manipulated by the gvt..that would at least be plausable IMO.
> 
> First we have to believe in the controlled demo of THREE downtown NYC buildings with tens to hundreds of tons of "therimte/explosives" wired into them without detection. Not only did they have to be secretly wired they had to be timed to coinside with the strikes of the planes and perfectly synchronized and intert enough to not be ignited by the crashes and resultant fires. Not to mention the fact that the crashes had to be in a precise location of the building; otherwise the "show blow" wouldn't look right.
> 
> Then there is all the rest of 9/11...missiles launched into the pentagon...faked flight 93 crash/shoot down...all the investigators and people involved kept quiet????
> 
> And as to "professionals" and their sanity...
> 
> In the UK an MI5 employee thinks that the planes flown into the WTC were really missiles....we all saw planes because they were shrouded by holograms....
> 
> .....
> 
> ....yeah...holograms.
> 
> Please. Go peddal that all this crazy elsewhere.


----------



## Archangel M

9/11 truthers = Psychology not physics.


----------



## Makalakumu

Archangel M said:


> 9/11 truthers = Psychology not physics.



Sure.  I think I said that in my first post on this thread.  I've had to do a lot of soul searching to understand why this sticks with me and why I insist on an opinion so very different then the majority.  

There's a whole lotta underlying psychology there.

In the same vein, when I ask a simply question like, how do you know it's a good investigation when most of the evidence was carted off before the investigation began and there's no way a qualified skeptic can check the results because the rest of the "evidence" is gone, classified, or simply non-existent?

I'm not just talking about the whole controlled demo explanation.  

The bottom line, IMO, is that people are insisting on the veracity of a story that has no way of being verified anymore.  Posters are telling skeptics that they essentially have to accept an appeal to authority.  What is the psychology driving that?  Does that psychology pop up anywhere else in our society?  What do you think the consequences of this type of thinking might be?


----------



## Sensei Payne

Sukerkin said:


> :chuckles:  Well it's a scalable, practical, demonstration of principle ... but I doubt the scaling is accurate in this instance.
> 
> Chaps, it really would be better if we discussed the issues rather than cast mockery at each other.
> 
> Even Elder hasn't got his usual perspective on this one and for the first time that I can recall has been making emotive and belittling statements about things that are not simply a matter of opinion.  That's probably due to emotion over-ruling his analytical side for a change (boy do I know what that is like post-bike-accident-brain-damage ) but it is not a good thing in a discussion about an event of such consequence as this one.



it really does seem that whenever a theory is suggested that strays from the official FEMA story.  A lot of people on here have allowed there emotions get the best of them...when us so called "truthers" are just asking for another third party investigation.


----------



## elder999

Sukerkin said:


> :chuckles: Well it's a scalable, practical, demonstration of principle ... but I doubt the scaling is accurate in this instance.
> 
> Chaps, it really would be better if we discussed the issues rather than cast mockery at each other.
> 
> Even Elder hasn't got his usual perspective on this one and for the first time that I can recall has been making emotive and belittling statements about things that are not simply a matter of opinion. That's probably due to emotion over-ruling his analytical side for a change (boy do I know what that is like post-bike-accident-brain-damage ) but it is not a good thing in a discussion about an event of such consequence as this one.


 
Hardly, Marc. Is it an emotional issue for me? Sure. To this very day, I can't think of Rick Rescorla, one of the finest men I've ever known-and only knew for a short time and in a limited context-without cryingpb*I can only hope, that when the day comes, I can die half as bravely*. I lost friends and classmates, firemen and policemen, a goddam telephone splicer and a secretary on that day.It's unconscionable to me that a facility like that operated without a site-wide evacuation plan. I could go on, and on about the mistakes that were made before and after 9/11.Make no mistake, though, I'm completely confident that events took place almost exactly as they are portrayed:

Planes flew into those buildings, and that's what led to their collapse.

Damage from their collapse, and hours of unfought fire led to the collapse of WTC 7.

All of the science, all the available _evidence_, my expertise as a mechanical and nuclear engineeer, physics PhD., federally certified demolition and munitions technician, HAZMAT technician, emergency management incident commmander, and human being tell that the official story is true, and that those who doubt it are falling into the familiar if forgivable pattern of doubting all that the government has to say, because, well, the government* lies*-and I say that as a longtime government employee.Yes, the government lies. The lie may have been that the administration at the time was completely surprised by the events-but that's not what's being questioned-what's being questioned is that the planes took down those buildings, and of that, *I* have no doubt.

There was no black bag, special ops, secret controlled demolition. There was no government complicity-at least, none that we'll *ever *know about. There is no secret story behind the face of these events: planes were piloted to crash into those towers, and they collapsed. Their collapse damaged WTC 7. A fire burned in WTC 7 for more than 6 hours without being fought at all. It was clear that the building was going to collapse, and it was abandoned.The building collapsed. End of story.



Sensei Payne said:


> it really does seem that whenever a theory is suggested that strays from the official FEMA story. A lot of people on here have allowed there emotions get the best of them...when us so called "truthers" are just asking for another third party investigation.


 

Haven't allowed my emotions to get the best of me. There have been no less than 4 third party investigations, that all have concluded the same thing. Every *stupid *theory that the "truthers" have come up with has been repeatedly debunked. Various qualified personnel have examined what evidence there is, and, based on the construction of the buildings and the events that we know took place, concluded that the planes and subsequent after effects took down those buildings. What part of that is so hard to understand? What part of that is it that *your* emotions won't allow you to accept? How is it that I, a degreed engineer with a PhD. in physics, with more than 25 years experience in various fields of endeavor, as well as direct experience with the structures in question, can accept the evidence and its analysis, and, for doing that-rationally analyzing the evidence and its investigation, I get called "emotional," *by a goddam 24 year old computer programmer who was barely in high school in Kentucky when these events took place?* :lfao:


----------



## Ken Morgan




----------



## Sensei Payne

Ken Morgan said:


>



I counter your Pen and Teller with another one of there episodes...

one how Martial Arts...is BULLSH**

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcbe3Ao0ThU


----------



## Ken Morgan

Sensei Payne said:


> I counter your Pen and Teller with another one of there episodes...
> 
> one how Martial Arts...is BULLSH**


 
Their......:angel:


----------



## Makalakumu

elder999 said:


> All of the science, all the *available evidence*, my expertise as a mechanical and nuclear engineeer, physics PhD., federally certified demolition and munitions technician, HAZMAT technician, emergency management incident commmander, and human being tell that the official story is true, and that those who doubt it are falling into the familiar if forgivable pattern of doubting all that the government has to say, because, well, the government* lies*-and I say that as a longtime government employee.Yes, the government lies. The lie may have been that the administration at the time was completely surprised by the events-but that's not what's being questioned-what's being questioned is that the planes took down those buildings, and of that, *I* *have no doubt*.



Lets make something clear.  Big Don is right.  I have issues, probably am crazy and am in need of serious shock therapy.  I also brought my first child into this world when the Vice President was telling me that we would have war for the rest of our lives.  I watched this happen and turned off the TV and my first thought was, "great, who are we going to bomb into the stone age now?"  How's that for horror?  

That's who you are dealing with.  However, now that I'm finished with the pity party I threw for myself, even I can see that the position you hold is totally inconsistent.  Lets forget a minute that hundreds of highly qualified professionals in the fields directly related to this issue have expressed doubts about the official explanation.  You are telling us that the government has a long history of lying.  You are acknowledging that all of the evidence has NOT been analyzed and you agreed earlier that it had been removed and destroyed.  And you are telling people that you have *no doubt* about what happened.

Before you bring up the idea that scientists regularly use absolute language and don't mean it, I think your other posts show that you really *do *mean it.  This is an *impossible* position and I think you know that.  Other people on this thread also share this position and I'm curious about the psychology behind it.  Have you ever considered the consequence of thinking like this?  How does this thinking appear in other areas of your life?  Anyone who thinks like this about certain issues literally cannot change their thinking to any other idea no matter the reasoning or evidence, because those things don't matter.  Also.  *This is the hallmark of the rigid thinking that** causes events like the one we are discussing!* 

And that's the irony here.  This kind of thinking appears in just about every bad thing about the world I can think of.


----------



## elder999

maunakumu said:


> Lets make something clear. Big Don is right. I have issues, probably am crazy and am in need of serious shock therapy. I also brought my first child into this world when the Vice President was telling me that we would have war for the rest of our lives. I watched this happen and turned off the TV and my first thought was, "great, who are we going to bomb into the stone age now?" How's that for horror?
> 
> That's who you are dealing with. However, now that I'm finished with the pity party I threw for myself, even I can see that the position you hold is totally inconsistent. Lets forget a minute that hundreds of highly qualified professionals in the fields directly related to this issue have expressed doubts about the official explanation. You are telling us that the government has a long history of lying. You are acknowledging that all of the evidence has NOT been analyzed and you agreed earlier that it had been removed and destroyed. And you are telling people that you have *no doubt* about what happened.
> 
> Before you bring up the idea that scientists regularly use absolute language and don't mean it, I think your other posts show that you really *do *mean it. This is an *impossible* position and I think you know that. Other people on this thread also share this position and I'm curious about the psychology behind it. Have you ever considered the consequence of thinking like this? How does this thinking appear in other areas of your life? Anyone who thinks like this about certain issues literally cannot change their thinking to any other idea no matter the reasoning or evidence, because those things don't matter. Also. *This is the hallmark of the rigid thinking that** causes events like the one we are discussing!*
> 
> And that's the irony here. This kind of thinking appears in just about every bad thing about the world I can think of.


 
 Nothing rigid about it. 

On September 11, 2001, at 7:45 AM mountain time, I was asleep. I was asleep when the planes crashed into the trade center. I heard about it when my wife called me from work, and I told her to come home, because-well, the *lab* is a target, and I wanted her home. I didn't see the TV footage until days later, because, at the time, I hadn't watched TV for nearly a decade, and had no television service.

I'm not even going to get into the whys and wherefores of all the various reasons I have to doubt the government: I'm black, the descendent of freed slaves. I'm Native American, the descendent of people hunted and hounded out of their way of life-who saw promise after promise from the government broken.

I *worked* for the government, for years-took part in secret operations before 9/11, got special briefings afterward. I've got a pretty clear picture of how the government is capable of lying-has lied in the past and will lie in the future. In spite of all that, I believe what I saw happen-over, and over, and *over* again on television-and the analysis afterward. Fer ChrissakesL

*PLANES FLEW INTO THOSE BUILDINGS.THEY FELL.PART OF THEM FELL ON WTC 7. IT BURNED,AND FELL.* 

You want to talk about conspiracy? I'm open to all sorts of things outside of those *facts*, I'm more than open to that. Those are facts, though-incontrovertible, and undeniable. All the "evidence" that gets presented to the contrary has been soundly and repeatedly debunked. You wanna talk about how the head of Pakistani intelligence was staying in the White House on 9/11? (he was) I'm totally down with that. You wanna talk about how the WTC had just stood down from a long security alert on 9/11, resulting in a reduction of security personnel on site(it had)-I'm down with that. 

You wanna talk "controlled demolition," secret inside complicity? 

*TALK TO YOUR SHRINK*, and maybe, get a bigger dose for your meds, cause that talks right outta crazyville, and I'm not having any, at this point.


----------



## Makalakumu

elder999 said:


> Nothing rigid about it.



That's about as rigid as a 19 year old who overdosed on Viagra.  Maybe the fact that certain people can't imagine a way for the government to do this IS the reason they aren't doing it for the government?  Perhaps you just lack creativity...

There's lots of things I don't know.  As I get older, this list grows.  I saw the same facts you did.  



elder999 said:


> *PLANES FLEW INTO THOSE BUILDINGS.THEY FELL.PART OF THEM FELL ON WTC 7. IT BURNED,AND FELL.*



The difference is that I think that we do not know HOW this happened.  I can imagine scenarios in which controlled demolition doesn't play a factor.  Neither do planes or fires or falling debris.  I can imagine a scenario where we may never know how those buildings came down.  The difference is that I'm open to being wrong.



elder999 said:


> You want to talk about conspiracy? I'm open to all sorts of things outside of those *facts*,  I'm more than open to that. Those are facts, though-incontrovertible,  and undeniable. All the "evidence" that gets presented to the contrary  has been soundly and repeatedly debunked. You wanna talk about how the  head of Pakistani intelligence was staying in the White House on 9/11?  (he was) I'm totally down with that. You wanna talk about how the WTC  had just stood down from a long security alert on 9/11, resulting in a  reduction of security personnel on site(it had)-I'm down with that.



Let It Happen on Purpose and Made It Happen On Purpose is not a big jump when you consider a government that plans for Megadeaths.  We're back to that again.



elder999 said:


> You wanna talk "controlled demolition," secret inside complicity?
> 
> *TALK TO YOUR SHRINK*, and maybe, get a bigger dose for your meds, cause that talks right outta crazyville, and I'm not having any, at this point.



Self knowledge is a *****.  There is a little kernel of fear inside every true believer that the big daddy really is a mass murderer and is totally out of control.  Washington is like the Eye of Sauron and as long as it's eye is turned outward on foreigners or brown people, American's breath a sign of relief.  Of course anyone who has been under that gaze knows the truth.  3000 dead ain't **** for the Military Industrial Complex.  The truth is that 19 hijackers could have knocked those buildings down.  And it's only a matter of time before people wake up to the Eye on them.  Maybe people will also wake up to the fact that the Eye has been on them again and again and again and again and again....

That's the fear.  You know the Eye is coming and you keep on hoping that you have a little more time.

Pass the Prozac and Vodka because we're having a REAL crazy party now!!!  LOL!


----------



## Tez3

Why do people want this to be a conspiracy? It may be or not though I favour not but what is making people want it to be your own government so much? Does the thought that there are people out there who hate America so much they'd kill thousands this way disturb them so much they'd prefer it to be their own people that has done this to them?  Why the willingness to believe it could be done by your own people? 
All governments have secrets, have done things they shouldn't and have done them to their own people but I can't understand American's fervent patriotism with it's people saying at the same time their government did this to them. Why would they do it anyway? If they wanted a war they could find reasons, as with Iraq, without killing thousands of their own people. It's convulated and a bit sad that people really believe a government could be that organised and that clever when we all know governments are like sieves and most often it's left hand doesn't know what it's right hand is doing. If governments were organised enough to do this we'd have no recession!


----------



## Sukerkin

I think that the rationale behind the suggestion that the attack on the WTC was manufactured to give a pretext for war in the Middle East comes largely from an oft quoted leaked policy document.

Hang on a sec whilst I ask the Tinternet ...

... well, after much searching I decided to let that one go.  Nearly all the links I followed were quite unpleasantly anti-Semitic in their content.  It seems that a very large portion of the WTC conspiracies point to the Jews being behind it all.  That's not one I'd heard before and it makes little sense to me .


----------



## Sensei Payne

Tez3 said:


> It's convulated and a bit sad that people really believe a government could be that organised and that clever when we all know governments are like sieves and most often it's left hand doesn't know what it's right hand is doing. If governments were organised enough to do this we'd have no recession!


 

By looking at me...you would never know that I am a Martial Artist.  You would never know that I hold a second degree black belt.  You would never know that I can fight.  All based on appearences, unless you actually pick a fight with me, come to my class, or know me personally...you would never know, and I like to keep it that way. 

Our Government shares a lot of these qualities.

By looking at them, you wouldn't think that they want war, or could even fight one effectively...with all the relief money this country pumps out, you wouldn't think that they would be capable of it...but it is.  You wouldn't think that a country that works so hard to protect would be willing to sacrifice thousands to advance their cause...but they will and do, and I am not just talking about 9/11.

My point here is what you see the in the government, and what they actually do, are two different things.  Mostly they are just for appearences.  The whole two party system...for apperences, both parties are in bed together.  The Presidential Elections? All apperences, the Electoral College gets the final say either way, and your vote doesn't matter.  

You really can't tell me that our government isn't capable of it, because history dictates...it is.


----------



## Tez3

Sensei Payne said:


> By looking at me...you would never know that I am a Martial Artist. You would never know that I hold a second degree black belt. You would never know that I can fight. All based on appearences, unless you actually pick a fight with me, come to my class, or know me personally...you would never know, and I like to keep it that way.
> 
> Our Government shares a lot of these qualities.
> 
> By looking at them, you wouldn't think that they want war, or could even fight one effectively...with all the relief money this country pumps out, you wouldn't think that they would be capable of it...but it is. You wouldn't think that a country that works so hard to protect would be willing to sacrifice thousands to advance their cause...but they will and do, and I am not just talking about 9/11.
> 
> My point here is what you see the in the government, and what they actually do, are two different things. Mostly they are just for appearences. The whole two party system...for apperences, both parties are in bed together. The Presidential Elections? All apperences, the Electoral College gets the final say either way, and your vote doesn't matter.
> 
> You really can't tell me that our government isn't capable of it, because history dictates...it is.


 
So, what your saying is that you actually live in a country that isn't in the least free, is worse than a Soviet state, you have no control over your government and all the debates and arguments for freedom, rights etc are all just bollocks? Why do you stay there then?

So what are all these awful things your governments, with their secret police and shadowy men black have done? Your country hasn't been a country long enough to have such a history, I doubt even the Soviets and the Nazis actually killed thousands and blamed someone else, they killed millions but did it quite blatently.

Btw how do you know I wouldn't pick you out as a martial artist? How do you know I couldn't tell you can fight?  I'm a pretty good profiler and there are 'tells' for everything. Anyway, why would I assume on meeting you that you couldn't fight, I always assume people can, that way you don't get caught out. Looking at the American Armed Forces I'd assume America could defend it self and fight very well.
 Give me a good reason why American would sacrifice Americans in such a thing as 9/11? What cause did it further? A war can declared for almost any reason a country wants so why would it have to kill thousands of its own people to declare war on another country? There was little enough reason to invade Iraq the first time or even the second really, there was no need to blown up Americans up to justify that war. 

I suspect you may have watched too much television.


----------



## Tez3

Sukerkin said:


> I think that the rationale behind the suggestion that the attack on the WTC was manufactured to give a pretext for war in the Middle East comes largely from an oft quoted leaked policy document.
> 
> Hang on a sec whilst I ask the Tinternet ...
> 
> ... well, after much searching I decided to let that one go. Nearly all the links I followed were quite unpleasantly anti-Semitic in their content. It seems that a very large portion of the WTC conspiracies point to the Jews being behind it all. That's not one I'd heard before and it makes little sense to me .


 
Sadly I have heard it quite a few times, it's part of the 'Jews run the world' theory where we are responsible for just about most things. I would expect it from certain Muslim extremists but they actually mostly boast about the 'blow to Americans' they inflicted, it tends to be the extreme right wing anti semitic groups like Combat 18, BNP etc that blame us for it. Not quite sure how the Jews would have done it, we rarely agree enough on the small things of life never mind run the world.


----------



## CanuckMA

Tez3 said:


> Sadly I have heard it quite a few times, it's part of the 'Jews run the world' theory where we are responsible for just about most things. I would expect it from certain Muslim extremists but they actually mostly boast about the 'blow to Americans' they inflicted, it tends to be the extreme right wing anti semitic groups like Combat 18, BNP etc that blame us for it. Not quite sure how the Jews would have done it, we rarely agree enough on the small things of life never mind run the world.


 
Parts of it comes from the observations that a large number of Orthodox Jews were not there that morning. It was in the middle of Selichot. Orthodox Jews were attenting longer than usual morning services.


----------



## Archangel M

The point of debating this with these two (AGAIN) is starting to fade. Nothing is being said here that hasn't been said in the other 9/11 threads here. Manu want's to start with the "experts in the field say" strategy again. If you go back to:

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=85202&highlight=9/11+conspiracy

We discussed that ad nauseam. And again I say "So What?"


----------



## Tez3

CanuckMA said:


> Parts of it comes from the observations that a large number of Orthodox Jews were not there that morning. It was in the middle of Selichot. Orthodox Jews were attenting longer than usual morning services.


 
I guess they must have stopped in the middle of services to detonate all the necessary things that needed detonating then? > shakes head sadly<

It's one of the things that makes me laugh when people blame 'the Jews', they seem to have little understanding of who or what we are. A good many Jews wouldn't have been at service, would have been at work because they, like many Christians only go somewhere like a church or shul when it's a wedding, funeral or a major festival if then even, these and the Ultra Orthodox, the Orthodox, the Liberal, the Reform etc etc are all different so would not sit down and plot to take over the world, they'd be arguing over female rabbis, should men and women sit together etc etc and that's just the relatively non religious arguments.You can't get all groups of Jews to agree on the right of Israel to exist so how would you get them to plot to take over the world, blow up Americans etc?


----------



## Tez3

Archangel M said:


> The point of debating this with these two (AGAIN) is starting to fade. Nothing is being said here that hasn't been said in the other 9/11 threads here. Manu want's to start with the "experts in the field say" strategy again. If you go back to:
> 
> http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=85202&highlight=9/11+conspiracy
> 
> We discussed that ad nauseam. And again I say "So What?"


 
Is there a 'season' for these arguments? Perhaps when news is slow or a bit dull it comes up? Or perhaps a full moon?


----------



## Big Don

Tez3 said:


> Is there a 'season' for these arguments? Perhaps when news is slow or a bit dull it comes up? Or perhaps a full moon?


*lu·na·cy [loo-nuh-see] *


noun, plural -cies.  1. insanity; mental disorder. 

2. *intermittent insanity, formerly believed to be related to phases of the moon. *


----------



## Sensei Payne

Tez3 said:


> So, what your saying is that you actually live in a country that isn't in the least free, is worse than a Soviet state, you have no control over your government and all the debates and arguments for freedom, rights etc are all just bollocks? Why do you stay there then?


 
I have no choice, economically and of course to much family to just up root. Of course, I love my country, the people, the places...just because I don't like the leadership doesn't mean I should leave.



Tez3 said:


> So what are all these awful things your governments, with their secret police and shadowy men black have done? Your country hasn't been a country long enough to have such a history, I doubt even the Soviets and the Nazis actually killed thousands and blamed someone else, they killed millions but did it quite blatently.


 
Paramilitary group called *Blackwater.* This mercenary group is under no military jurisdiction. Has tortured illegally detained prisoners. Killed innocents in the Middle east in cold blood. The laundry list goes on for miles.



Tez3 said:


> Btw how do you know I wouldn't pick you out as a martial artist? How do you know I couldn't tell you can fight? I'm a pretty good profiler and there are 'tells' for everything. Anyway, why would I assume on meeting you that you couldn't fight, I always assume people can, that way you don't get caught out.


 
When I tell people that I teach classes, the most common reaction is, "Oh really, you don't seem the type." and I ask, "why do you say that?" and the normal response is. "Your just so easy going and nice." You with your own training may pick up on it, but there are only a few suttle cues that give it away.



Tez3 said:


> Looking at the American Armed Forces I'd assume America could defend it self and fight very well.
> Give me a good reason why American would sacrifice Americans in such a thing as 9/11? What cause did it further? A war can declared for almost any reason a country wants so why would it have to kill thousands of its own people to declare war on another country? There was little enough reason to invade Iraq the first time or even the second really, there was no need to blown up Americans up to justify that war.


 
And thats just it...there was no reason to go either time...the Government had to have a real good reason to get congress and the adverage American to back the cause. They lied to us and told us they had WMDs, when now a classified doc was leaked confirming this. Why else would they want to go to war? Greed and Power. Oil, Black Gold...keep making the rich, richer and the poor, poorer and scared. 



Tez3 said:


> I suspect you may have watched too much television.


 
Not really. I do a lot of reading more than anything...Netflix if I have the time.


----------



## Tez3

Sensei Payne said:


> I have no choice, economically and of course to much family to just up root. Of course, I love my country, the people, the places...just because I don't like the leadership doesn't mean I should leave.
> 
> You are saying all leaderships are the same though. Not Just the one at the time of 9/11 or the one now.
> 
> 
> 
> Paramilitary group called *Blackwater.* This mercenary group is under no military jurisdiction. Has tortured illegally detained prisoners. Killed innocents in the Middle east in cold blood. The laundry list goes on for miles.
> 
> All countries do nasty things to their enemies, doesn't mean they blow their own people or allies up, well, not on purpose anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> When I tell people that I teach classes, the most common reaction is, "Oh really, you don't seem the type." and I ask, "why do you say that?" and the normal response is. "Your just so easy going and nice." You with your own training may pick up on it, but there are only a few suttle cues that give it away.
> 
> I expect they are just being polite. Nothing more boring than other peoples hobbies and activities.
> 
> 
> 
> And thats just it...there was no reason to go either time...the Government had to have a real good reason to get congress and the adverage American to back the cause. They lied to us and told us they had WMDs, when now a classified doc was leaked confirming this. Why else would they want to go to war? Greed and Power. Oil, Black Gold...keep making the rich, richer and the poor, poorer and scared.
> 
> There's gold in Aghanistan? No, didn't think so, yes it would help the arms industry to have a continuous war but the government can easily lie, they have already, they don't need to kill thousands of Americans to go to war.
> 
> 
> 
> Not really. I do a lot of reading more than anything...Netflix if I have the time.


 
No idea what Netflix is, I'd try books, classics etc


----------



## Archangel M

If you all are REALLY openminded and "do your research". Read the Journal of 9/11 Debunking.

http://www.jod911.com/

I'm betting you don't.


----------



## Sukerkin

That looks an interesting site, *Angel*.  I've not seen it before - I did all my 'listening' (via the Net) to the conspiracy theories a while back and credible 'rebuttal evidence' was thin on the ground back then :tup:.

I shall have a good read and catch up ...

... the No Missile Defences at the Pentagon one caught my eye - if true that really surprises me.


----------



## Sensei Payne

You are saying all leaderships are the same though. Not Just the one at the time of 9/11 or the one now.
I am saying that there are polictical figures that are nothing more than puppets..the existed then and they exist now.
All countries do nasty things to their enemies, doesn't mean they blow their own people or allies up, well, not on purpose anyway.
There have been many cases where the American Government has been caught red handed at killing and enfringing on the rights of its people. For example, the extermination of Native Americans, Detaining "Combatants" without due process and in some situations executing them in closed military tribunals, etc
I expect they are just being polite. Nothing more boring than other peoples hobbies and activities.
Probably
There's gold in Aghanistan? No, didn't think so, yes it would help the arms industry to have a continuous war but the government can easily lie, they have already, they don't need to kill thousands of Americans to go to war.

Black Gold is Oil...and Iraq and Afganistan are satilite points for our military.  Basicly putting a gun to the head of the oil distributors.  If you had someone elses army in the back yard, waiting for you to mess up, wouldn't you be up tight too?  Our two wars that we are fighting have nothing to do with Terrorists or WMDs, or even Freeing a people..all of those things I can get behind.  But instead, its for Oil...and in order for the people with Power get the go ahead to go to that war for oil...they needed a noble cause...9/11 was that cause...we were an angry country at that time...we wanted to get those who hurt us back, and quickly. The American people were blind to the true threat, and thats the one within.
No idea what Netflix is, I'd try books, classics etc You should really check it out. www.netflix.com  its better than any blockbuster or Redbox anywhere...and if you haven't read "1984" by George Orwell...get on that fast.


----------



## Sukerkin

:chuckles:  I don't necessarily disagree with your views on the motivations of the power groups, altho' I am rather of the opinion that there is very little that can be done about it as they *are* the ones with all the power, money and influence.

One point, I think it is a pretty safe bet that most of us here (non-American's at least) have read "1984" and "Animal Farm".  

Many of us have also been around the track a few times and are pretty well educated and well read in general so it is okay to make some assumptions about the level of  understanding of politics on this board i.e. we can keep up if the subject dances around a bit .


----------



## elder999

Sukerkin said:


> :One point, I think it is a pretty safe bet that most of us here (non-American's at least) have read "1984" and "Animal Farm"..


 
Both of them were part of the curriculum when I was in 6th grade. 



Sensei Payne said:


> There have been many cases where the American Government has been caught red handed at killing and enfringing on the rights of its people. For example, the extermination of Native Americans, Detaining "Combatants" without due process and in some situations executing them in closed military tribunals, etc


 
Actually, in the case of the Indians, they were in no way thought of as "American people," or, in many instances, *people*. 



Sensei Payne said:


> Black Gold is Oil...and Iraq and Afganistan are satilite points for our military. Basicly putting a gun to the head of the oil distributors. If you had someone elses army in the back yard, waiting for you to mess up, wouldn't you be up tight too? Our two wars that we are fighting have nothing to do with Terrorists or WMDs, or even Freeing a people..all of those things I can get behind. But instead, its for Oil...and in order for the people with Power get the go ahead to go to that war for oil...they needed a noble cause...9/11 was that cause...we were an angry country at that time...we wanted to get those who hurt us back, and quickly. The American people were blind to the true threat, and thats the one within.


 
Sigh.

It is, as usual, more complex than that.I can see your point, but that's the way government works. And yes, if it was in their interests to allow 9/11 to take place, there were those in power who may well have done so-unfortunately, we'll never know, and no amount of speculation or investigation is going to do otherwise for us. Else we'd know all about the JFK assassination, and whether or not FDR allowed Pearl Harbor to take place, and whether or not the Roswell UFO crash was actually a UFO crash, a Soviet misinformation project or a weather balloon. In spite of what many might say to the contrary, people keep secrets, and secrets get kept.


----------



## Makalakumu

This discussion has pretty much resulted in the same as every other discussion on the matter and I don't really have much to add other then some self deprecating humor and good-natured trolling.

I've got one little message for *Sensei Payne*.

Empire = Murder + Suicide.

The very best thing to do about this is nothing.  I've been very foolish over the years getting involved in these debates, getting heated, and attempting to create a movement with other people to try and change things.  This is a matter that cannot and will not ever be "revealed" no matter how big the movement gets.  It's best to let it go and save the aggravation, or perhaps troll and pretend you're loony because that's way that people in America see Truthers.

Eventually, all of the violence WILL turn on the citizens (again) and the whole system will come crashing down.  It always does.  Every Empire ends in Totalitarianism and Collapse because of certain economic and political realities that go along with building an Empire.  We're no different and the sooner it happens the better.  So, don't stand in the way.  You just make yourself a target.  *Let the snake eat it's own tail and make decisions accordingly.  *

I wish someone would have told me (and that I would have listened) this ten years ago so I wouldn't have wasted so much time, but I'm kind of slow and maybe a little crazy for real, who knows.  

In the meantime, check out www.freedomainradio.com.  The principles of Empire are combated by the principles of Liberty.  The root of this tree of evil is the idea that one group of people can use force to get what they want.


----------



## Big Don

maunakumu said:


> Empire = Murder + Suicide.


No no no. Empire = Star Wars + Lando - Kenobi + Yoda


----------



## Tez3

I do actually know what 'black gold is' and of course I've read Animal Farm, I read it in primary school.

Of course the Iraq wars were for oil, we all knew that when they started. Do you mean there are people who didn't know that?


----------



## Sensei Payne

Tez3 said:


> Of course the Iraq wars were for oil, we all knew that when they started. Do you mean there are people who didn't know that?


 

Apparently so...but it seems that no one is angry about being lied to about WMDs and the like.  If someone asked me to do something, and I found out that it was under false pretenses...I would just drop what I was doing asap...but it doesn't seem that we have done that, and even with the current administration.  I know Obama had most recently enacted an exit stratagy, but really its to little to late.


----------



## swivel63

the hijackers weren't mere cave dwellers.  most of them were highly educated.  

and these "cave dwellers" repelled the red army for almost an entire decade.


----------



## Sensei Payne

swivel63 said:


> the hijackers weren't mere cave dwellers. most of them were highly educated.
> 
> and these "cave dwellers" repelled the red army for almost an entire decade.


 

With our supplies and intel. You make my point stronger toward it being an inside job.


----------



## swivel63

Sensei Payne said:


> With our supplies and intel. You make my point stronger toward it being an inside job.



just because we helped the muj in the 80s doesn't mean that we helped these terrorist in the 2000s.


----------



## Sensei Payne

swivel63 said:


> just because we helped the muj in the 80s doesn't mean that we helped these terrorist in the 2000s.


 

The CIA has connection out there. Bin laden was one of them...It is completely plusable that they did help them in the 2000's the same way as the 80s


----------



## swivel63

Sensei Payne said:


> The CIA has connection out there. Bin laden was one of them...It is completely plusable that they did help them in the 2000's the same way as the 80s


 
plausible according to whom?  we had huntng bin laden since the mid 90s.  so he went from sometimey ally to most wanted back to sometimey ally?  no.  

and the towers weren't taken down by bombs, either.


----------



## Twin Fist

plausible only if you want it to be

that is the real questionm why do you want this cock brained BS story to be true

why do you refuse to consider self evident truths?

why do you want to believe the government did this despite a literal mountain of facts that prove yout o be not only wrong but deluded as well?

why do you crave this BS to be true?


----------



## Sensei Payne

Twin Fist said:


> plausible only if you want it to be
> 
> that is the real questionm why do you want this cock brained BS story to be true
> 
> why do you refuse to consider self evident truths?
> 
> why do you want to believe the government did this despite a literal mountain of facts that prove yout o be not only wrong but deluded as well?
> 
> why do you crave this BS to be true?


 

Because the so called BS, is pointing out the glaring holes in the FEMA version of the story. 

Many eye witness accounts and third party un-government funded research groups have clearly pointed this out.


----------



## CanuckMA

Cameras captured planes crashing in the buildings.

Ask LEOs about eye witnesses. Most eye witnesses could not pick out a clown in a linup of penguins.


----------



## Ken Morgan

CanuckMA said:


> Cameras captured planes crashing in the buildings.
> 
> Ask LEOs about eye witnesses. Most eye witnesses could not pick out a clown in a linup of penguins.


----------



## swivel63

Sensei Payne said:


> Because the so called BS, is pointing out the glaring holes in the FEMA version of the story.
> 
> Many eye witness accounts and third party un-government funded research groups have clearly pointed this out.



glaring holes in one person's argument doesn't fill glaring holes in another person's argument.


----------



## Twin Fist

there are no glaring holes

there was no thermite, and thermite isnt used to take down buildings anyway

WTC 7 fell because it was on fire from internal diesel fuel lines and half way torn down from debris hitting it, not from controlled demo

dozens of eye witnesses saw the plane hit the pentagon

millions saw teh planes hit the towers, there was no controlled demo

your entire story is crap


----------



## Sensei Payne

Twin Fist said:


> there are no glaring holes
> 
> there was no thermite, and thermite isnt used to take down buildings anyway
> 
> WTC 7 fell because it was on fire from internal diesel fuel lines and half way torn down from debris hitting it, not from controlled demo
> 
> dozens of eye witnesses saw the plane hit the pentagon
> 
> millions saw teh planes hit the towers, there was no controlled demo
> 
> your entire story is crap


 
I doubt the story FEMA offers..I doubt the 9/11 commission report...and I doubt what any politician has to say.  Find me evidence from another party besides something that is government funded.


----------



## Big Don

Sensei Payne said:


> I doubt the story FEMA offers..I doubt the 9/11 commission report...and I doubt what any politician has to say.  Find me evidence from another party besides something that is government funded.


Popular mechanics did a HUGE article debunking all this idiocy, SEVEN AND A HALF YEARS AGO. I quoted from it and linked to it on the first page of this thread.
Popular Mechanics is NOT government funded...
HERE IS ANOTHER LINK TO IT.


----------



## Big Don

*"Everyone is entitled*  to his own opinion," the great Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York  was fond of saying. "He is not entitled to his own facts." 

 It has been 3-1/2 years since the September 11 attacks. In that time,  the American people have questioned why we were caught off guard and  have demanded to know the whole story behind the events of that terrible  day. But as a society we accept the basic premise that a group of  Islamist terrorists hijacked four airplanes and turned them into weapons  against us.   

 Sadly, the noble search for truth is now being hijacked by a growing  army of conspiracy theorists. A few of these skeptics make a responsible  effort to sift through the mountain of information, *but most ignore all  but a few stray details they think support their theories.* In fact,  many conspiracy advocates demonstrate a maddening double standard. They  distrust every bit of the mainstream account of 9/11, *yet happily  embrace the flimsiest evidence to promote their wildest notions: that  Osama bin Laden attacked the United States with help from the CIA; *


----------



## Archangel M

> many conspiracy advocates demonstrate a maddening double standard. They distrust every bit of the mainstream account of 9/11, *yet happily embrace the flimsiest evidence to promote their wildest notions: that Osama bin Laden attacked the United States with help from the CIA; *


 
Aint THAT the truth?


----------



## elder999

Sensei Payne said:


> I doubt the story FEMA offers..I doubt the 9/11 commission report...and I doubt what any politician has to say. Find me evidence from another party besides something that is government funded.


 
THe same holds true for the nonsense you're selling: find me evidence of an alternate scenario.


THere John, now *I* sound like an atheist....:lfao:


----------



## jks9199

Sukerkin said:


> ... the No Missile Defences at the Pentagon one caught my eye - if true that really surprises me.



What goes up must come down...

Look at any map of the area around Washington, DC.  Where would you want a blown up aircraft falling?  What about an anti-aircraft missile that misses?  Where is it going to go?

Don't know about you, Sukerkin, but I'm not all that keen on either miscellaneous plane parts or falling ordinance landing in my backyard...


----------



## Archangel M

jks9199 said:


> What goes up must come down...
> 
> Look at any map of the area around Washington, DC. Where would you want a blown up aircraft falling? What about an anti-aircraft missile that misses? Where is it going to go.
> 
> Don't know about you, Sukerkin, but I'm not all that keen on either miscellaneous plane parts or falling ordinance landing in my backyard...


 
Not to mention it's close proximity to a major airport. How would you like to be landing there knowing you were being tracked by automatic AAA?


----------



## Makalakumu

elder999 said:


> THe same holds true for the nonsense you're selling: find me evidence of an alternate scenario.
> 
> 
> THere John, now *I* sound like an atheist....:lfao:



Nice.  Now we are getting somewhere!

Imagine a story in which over 99% of the physical evidence was destroyed before it could be analyzed.  Now, imagine that this evidence was collected, after an effort to "clean up" had begun.  Now, imagine that the physical evidence that *was *collected, was actually collected by a group of people who did not perform the analysis.  How much faith would you have in that story?

How could you say, with any certainty, that you KNOW what happened?


----------



## elder999

maunakumu said:


> How could you say, with any certainty, that you KNOW what happened?


 
I *saw* the story's genesis, again and again, on video, with my own two eyes-many, many, many people that I trust saw it unfold on live television. I have eyewitness testimony. I have fairly extensive-in spite of your dismissal of it-analysis of what evidence there was, but what evidence there was needs n o analysis: we have the eyewitnesses, the testimony of those on the ground, and video that tell us that *planes flew into the goddam buildings, and they fell, damaging WTC, which collapsed from subsequent fire damage.*

Your arguments are really obtuse-acceptable philosophically, perhaps, but all of America has the evidence of their senses.C'mon.


----------



## Sukerkin

jks9199 said:


> What goes up must come down...
> 
> Look at any map of the area around Washington, DC.  Where would you want a blown up aircraft falling?  What about an anti-aircraft missile that misses?  Where is it going to go.
> 
> Don't know about you, Sukerkin, but I'm not all that keen on either miscellaneous plane parts or falling ordinance landing in my backyard...



I quite agree, my friend - it's just that, whilst I might not be a rabid conpsiracy theorist, I don't put much stock in a government actually caring about that aspect when it came to defending a primary military asset.  Hence, my surprise in the assertion that there are no missile defences around the Pentagon.

I can see the rationale and concur as a person; I just don't find that governments work with the same scale of values.


----------



## Makalakumu

elder999 said:


> I *saw* the story's genesis, again and again, on video, with my own two eyes-many, many, many people that I trust saw it unfold on live television. I have eyewitness testimony. I have fairly extensive-in spite of your dismissal of it-analysis of what evidence there was, but what evidence there was needs n o analysis: we have the eyewitnesses, the testimony of those on the ground, and video that tell us that *planes flew into the goddam buildings, and they fell, damaging WTC, which collapsed from subsequent fire damage.*
> 
> Your arguments are really obtuse-acceptable philosophically, perhaps, but all of America has the evidence of their senses.C'mon.



At one point in time in my waste of time arguing this, I was told that  it was too complicated to simply look at it and draw conclusions. Now, I'm told that's its so simple anyone can understand what happened. 

A simple philosophic standard invalidated the whole thing because the argument is obtusely not valid. To be fair, there are no competing theories that have better evidence and if there was this same argument would be leveled at them.  Hell, I could hurl  this argument at the controlled demo argument as well. 

What strikes me about this debate now is peoples willingness to grasp at unreason for intrinsic reasons. I'm a hypocrite, I know and until I admitted I could be wrong about it at all, I couldn't see this simple philosophic test. 

We don't know what happened.  There is no valid explanation.  It's a shame that I've wasted my activist creds on conspiracy theory.  This realization would have saved me a lot of time.


----------



## elder999

maunakumu said:


> At one point in time in my waste of time arguing this, I was told that it was too complicated to simply look at it and draw conclusions. Now, I'm told that's its so simple anyone can understand what happened.
> 
> A simple philosophic standard invalidated the whole thing because the argument is obtusely not valid. To be fair, there are no competing theories that have better evidence and if there was this same argument would be leveled at them. Hell, I could hurl this argument at the controlled demo argument as well.
> 
> What strikes me about this debate now is peoples willingness to grasp at unreason for intrinsic reasons. I'm a hypocrite, I know and until I admitted I could be wrong about it at all, I couldn't see this simple philosophic test.
> 
> We don't know what happened. There is no valid explanation. It's a shame that I've wasted my activist creds on conspiracy theory. This realization would have saved me a lot of time.


.


----------



## Sensei Payne

maunakumu said:


> Nice.  Now we are getting somewhere!
> 
> Imagine a story in which over 99% of the physical evidence was destroyed before it could be analyzed.  Now, imagine that this evidence was collected, after an effort to "clean up" had begun.  Now, imagine that the physical evidence that *was *collected, was actually collected by a group of people who did not perform the analysis.  How much faith would you have in that story?
> 
> How could you say, with any certainty, that you KNOW what happened?



And the doubt still looms..

oh and also, i don't believe Osama was behind it...he was a patsy.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

The idea that a plane would hit a major skyscraper, in a pre arranged way, so that carefully positioned explosives could then bring it down in a controlled manner....with no one involved saying anything 10 years later....is unlikely. 
Highly improbable.

Unless.

The explosives had been part of the original construction.
Those involved in their installation didn't know what they were installing.
Those who did were in position in the building and willing to die too.
(sounds like the opening to an XFiles movie)

Now, we have -3- different buildings in NYC, all secretly wired when they were built.
Their detonations controled to minimize 'splash damage'.
Keyed to go off when exposed to flaming jet fuel.
A special never heard of material that can withstand years of exposure and neglect.

Using Area 51 holograms to hide ...

ok, sorry.  That's just nuts.

Islamic Extremists, infiltrated the US, -legally-.
They avoided being red flagged, avoided detection, blended in, infiltrated the US.
They used our own people to help them, because they blended in and because the security folks, ****ed up. Repeatedly.
Negligence, incompetence, 'politics', poor judgment, poor follow up, poor communications and plain old 'cant happen here'.

There was no 'wired for explosion'.
No 'shear bolts'. No 'controlled detonation'. No 'holograms'.

4 planes were hijacked.
3 hit their targets.
1 hit the ground. 

People died.

Do I think there are those in power or who were in power that knew more? That may have had information that could have lessened or even stopped it?
Yes.
Do I honestly think that it was a False Flag?
No.
Do I think it was planned by the US Government?
No.
Do I think Dubya was 'in' on it?
No.
Do I think people over react to it all?
Yes.
Do I think we need to better secure our borders, keep better track of non-citizens, and better screen those we allow in?
Yes.
Has my opinion of all this stuff changed over the years?
Yes.

Beyond that...I'm personally done with it all. My heart goes out to everyone who lost a friend, a coworker, a family member, a child, a spouse in the attacks. I hope that they someday, find peace. 

Pax.


----------



## Makalakumu

Bob Hubbard said:


> The idea that a plane would hit a major skyscraper, in a pre arranged way, so that carefully positioned explosives could then bring it down in a controlled manner....with no one involved saying anything 10 years later....is unlikely.
> Highly improbable.
> 
> Unless.



Unless, who knows?  Bob, people stop themselves from doing things with self limiting thoughts.  What if these self limiting thoughts were applied to thinking about making something like this happen?  What if your socialization against thinking evil things makes it impossible for you to imagine REAL ways to do evil things?  It always goes back to Megadeaths for me.  What are people who think in Megadeaths capable of?  Can you even imagine being in those shoes?  What kind of mind does it take to think that way?  What else are they capable of?


----------



## Makalakumu

Sensei Payne said:


> And the doubt still looms..
> 
> oh and also, i don't believe Osama was behind it...he was a patsy.



Maybe he was a patsy.  Maybe Osama isn't his real name.  Maybe he doesn't really have a birth certificate?  LOL!

No investigation will ever be able to explain this because almost all of the evidence was carted away and slagged.  There is no chance to really support any theory.  *People are superimposing conclusions on places where only questions should exist.*


----------



## Makalakumu

elder999 said:


> Pancake bunny.



Why can't you admit that you don't know?  Ya'll take a listen to this.


----------



## Sukerkin

I love the "painted into a corner" cover on that book!  Been there a couple of times myself in my university days - tricksy-tricksy economics professors .


----------



## Indie12

Bob Hubbard said:


> The idea that a plane would hit a major skyscraper, in a pre arranged way, so that carefully positioned explosives could then bring it down in a controlled manner....with no one involved saying anything 10 years later....is unlikely.
> Highly improbable.
> 
> Unless.
> 
> The explosives had been part of the original construction.
> Those involved in their installation didn't know what they were installing.
> Those who did were in position in the building and willing to die too.
> (sounds like the opening to an XFiles movie)
> 
> Now, we have -3- different buildings in NYC, all secretly wired when they were built.
> Their detonations controled to minimize 'splash damage'.
> Keyed to go off when exposed to flaming jet fuel.
> A special never heard of material that can withstand years of exposure and neglect.
> 
> Using Area 51 holograms to hide ...
> 
> ok, sorry. That's just nuts.
> 
> Islamic Extremists, infiltrated the US, -legally-.
> They avoided being red flagged, avoided detection, blended in, infiltrated the US.
> They used our own people to help them, because they blended in and because the security folks, ****ed up. Repeatedly.
> Negligence, incompetence, 'politics', poor judgment, poor follow up, poor communications and plain old 'cant happen here'.
> 
> There was no 'wired for explosion'.
> No 'shear bolts'. No 'controlled detonation'. No 'holograms'.
> 
> 4 planes were hijacked.
> 3 hit their targets.
> 1 hit the ground.
> 
> People died.
> 
> Do I think there are those in power or who were in power that knew more? That may have had information that could have lessened or even stopped it?
> Yes.
> Do I honestly think that it was a False Flag?
> No.
> Do I think it was planned by the US Government?
> No.
> Do I think Dubya was 'in' on it?
> No.
> Do I think people over react to it all?
> Yes.
> Do I think we need to better secure our borders, keep better track of non-citizens, and better screen those we allow in?
> Yes.
> Has my opinion of all this stuff changed over the years?
> Yes.
> 
> Beyond that...I'm personally done with it all. My heart goes out to everyone who lost a friend, a coworker, a family member, a child, a spouse in the attacks. I hope that they someday, find peace.
> 
> Pax.


 
Just out of curiousity Pax, what are you basing this opinion on?


----------



## swivel63

Sensei Payne said:


> And the doubt still looms..
> 
> oh and also, i don't believe Osama was behind it...he was a patsy.



doubt ALWAYS looms.  does that mean that it's the complete opposite of what the official story is?


----------



## Big Don

Indie12 said:


> Just out of curiousity Pax, what are you basing this opinion on?


His firm grasp of REALITY?


----------



## Sukerkin

Just a quick clarification, *Indie*, "Pax" was not the posters name; the poster was Bob Hubbard {MT site owner}.

"Pax" is Latin for "Peace" and I think Bob puts that at the end to show that, no matter how argumentative the subject, he is not posting to offend ... could be wrong there of course .


----------



## Bob Hubbard

maunakumu said:


> Unless, who knows?  Bob, people stop themselves from doing things with self limiting thoughts.  What if these self limiting thoughts were applied to thinking about making something like this happen?  What if your socialization against thinking evil things makes it impossible for you to imagine REAL ways to do evil things?  It always goes back to Megadeaths for me.  What are people who think in Megadeaths capable of?  Can you even imagine being in those shoes?  What kind of mind does it take to think that way?  What else are they capable of?



My mind...sees things. I can walk in the thoughts of evil. I can honestly see possibilities.
It is possible the government was directly behind it.
It is possible that 'Islamic Terrorists' have infiltrated to the highest of offices.
It is possible that a vast and elaborate conspiracy has existed for years, and that 9/11 was the pinnacle.
It's all possible.
I'm looking at probable.
But trust me.  I can think of stuff that would scare the pants off you.
(see my suggestion for the Fall of the US in a previous post)



Indie12 said:


> Just out of curiousity Pax, what are you basing this opinion on?



10 years of deep digging the various conspiracy theories, numerous debates, research, laws of physics and probability, and discussion with some of those directly involved.



Big Don said:


> His firm grasp of REALITY?



Don, I'm an Egyptian. I live in de Nile. 



Sukerkin said:


> Just a quick clarification, *Indie*, "Pax" was not the posters name; the poster was Bob Hubbard {MT site owner}.
> 
> "Pax" is Latin for "Peace" and I think Bob puts that at the end to show that, no matter how argumentative the subject, he is not posting to offend ... could be wrong there of course .



Yup.  :asian:


----------



## elder999

maunakumu said:


> Why can't you admit that you don't know? Ya'll take a listen to this.


 
Because I *do.* While the evidence of which you speak-which would, presumably, in _your_ world, prove that archons of the Bavarian Illuminati, using secret alien stealth technology, set charges in the buildings, and that the planes were an elaborate hoax and that Osama Bin laden (who bragged more than once about 9/11 on video-oh, I guess the U.S. government made those too?) was a patsy-the "evidence" of which you speak is completely unecessary:

*We know planes hit the twin towers.*

We know how much the planes and their fuel weighed, and how fast they were traveling.

We know the construction of the buildings, and where they were hit-in the case of South Tower, we know precisely where it was hit from video.

Because we know the weight of the planes, how fast they were traveling,where they hit, and how the buildings were constructed, we can calculate and/or model nearly precisely what sort of damages were done to the buildings on impact.

We can further calculate, given the materials inside the building, probable effects from impact on fireproofing, and fuel load, precisely how hot the fire might have gotten at ceiling level in the impact zones.

We can quickly determine from this the loss of strength to the steel-not "melting" but enough heating took place to approach melting and quickly cause a loss of integrity.

As an important digression, the way I got into device neutralization? Just an interest in *fire science*-it was a requirement at Indian Point for me to be a firefighter, and I had to go to school for it every year-pretty much hated it. Most of the Hudson Valley, where I grew up, is dependent upon volunteer fire departments and ambulance corps, and we received better training than most volunteer firemen-I was coaxed into joining the local fire department through a sense of community obligation. Though the local fire department, I wound up taking classes in arson-investigation, and, after that, classes on recognizing explosive decices-from there it wasn't that big a step to neutralizing them.

In any case, one of the little* facts *I picked up along the way was this, and it's important that one think of the fires at the WTC as "room fires" after the planes' impact and fuel's ignition: the peak temperature _at the ceiling_ in a house fire can reach as high as *1200 degrees centigrade* _within the first two minutes._

I'll repeat that : the temperature at the ceiling in a house fire-where, presumably, there are only ordinary combustibles-can reach 1200 degrees centigrade within the first two minutes.

That's 2192 degrees fahrenheit.

Even if the ceiling only averaged 900 degrees centigrade-which seems more likely given the flame charactersitics apparent from the video footage- that's 1652 degrees F.

The melting point of structural steel like that used at the WTC? About 1517 degrees fahrenheit-and this temperature needn't have been sustained at all in order to weaken the steel substantially-given the way that the building was constructed, it fell just the way it should under those conditions. 

These are *facts*, based on *evidence*. Other explanations are-to misuse Ockham's Razor as so many others do-largely superfluous. You can say that little grey men from Area 51 set the fires, or that it was a controlled demolition. I'm even familiar-unlike others-of several ways that it could have been done. It's entirely possible to make the buildings shake themselves to bits, and they'd probably have fallen about the same way. In any case,though:

*We all saw the planes hit the buildings*, and, given the evidence: the buildings, construction,etc.-no further explanation is necessary.

T


----------



## Sukerkin

Much as I have my admitted doubts about the 'public' story on the WTC attack, it is really hard to argue against such detailed rebuttals as that when it comes to the civil engineering nitty-gritty :bows:.


----------



## Makalakumu

elder999 said:


> ...precisely how hot the fire *might *have gotten at ceiling level in the impact zones.



Thousands of experts with as much or more experience then you have disagreed.  Four more have joined since this thread began, btw.  



elder999 said:


> *We all saw the planes hit the buildings*, and, given the evidence: the buildings, construction,etc.-no further explanation is necessary.



Never mind the fact that you don't really know what happened.  A simple philosophic test invalidates the whole argument, because the explanation, based on the evidence, is preposterous.  If you can use your experience and *guess *at the actual forces and stresses involved, other people with as much or more experience can *guess *at other values.  In the end, there is no way to determine what happened because the evidence is gone.  No new investigation is possible.


----------



## Archangel M

"Experts"...right.


----------



## elder999

maunakumu said:


> Thousands of experts with as much or more experience then you have disagreed. Four more have joined since this thread began, btw.
> 
> 
> 
> Never mind the fact that you don't really know what happened. A simple philosophic test invalidates the whole argument, because the explanation, based on the evidence, is preposterous. If you can use your experience and *guess *at the actual forces and stresses involved, other people with as much or more experience can *guess *at other values. In the end, there is no way to determine what happened because the evidence is gone. No new investigation is possible.


 

Except I'm not "*guessing*", John:

Weight of a fueled 767: 395,000 lbs. 
Weight of a fueled 767, less travel distance from Boston to the WTC, per flight path data from the plane's transponders: 390,000 lbs.

Those are *facts*, not guesses-they are, at worst, good ballpark estimates.

Speed of planes as they struck the WTC, _based on estimates from video footage and transponder data_:480 mph.

All of the data on the b uildings themselves was a matter of public record. 

No new investigation is _necessary._


----------



## Archangel M

On your "experts":

http://ae911truth.info/wordpress/topten/changing-list/



> The key to the AE911Truth presentation is a list of &#8220;all&#8221; characteristics of controlled demolition. Any presenter for the group gives this list first and then compares features of the WTC collapses to the list. As the talk progresses, the presenter checks each off and thus appears to demonstrate that the WTC collapses had to be controlled demolitions.
> 
> However, the group possesses no credible authority for presenting such a list. The founder, Richard Gage, is an architect by training, not a demolition expert. Since it&#8217;s evident that the group has simply drawn the list up based on things they think they observe in the collapses, the list is actually an example of the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy.
> 
> For example, AE911Truth changes the list based on whether they believe they can demonstrate the characteristic. This was done recently when Gage admitted that he could not prove the existence of &#8220;squibs&#8221; in the collapse of 7 World Trade. Instead of recognizing the weakness of his argument, he simply changed the list for 7 World Trade to eliminate the &#8220;squibs&#8221; feature.
> 
> Indeed, the current version of the presentation slideshow first gives a list of CD characteristics, then changes it slightly for 7 World Trade, and then changes it even more substantially for the Towers. AE911Truth cannot win even when it stacks the deck for itself!



http://ae911truth.info/wordpress/topten/sources/



> Richard Gage freely admits to borrowing from others, but never to the extent you would imagine.
> 
> His entire presentation rests on the work done by others, people like Steven Jones, Jim Hoffman, Kevin Ryan, and David Ray Griffin. He also uses clips from and promotes a variety of 9/11 conspiracy films. The most predominant are 911 Mysteries and Loose Change. A variety of other arguments long seen in the debunking wars make their way into the presentation. I&#8217;ve seen evidence that even the slides that make up his presentation came from the slideshows of others.
> 
> In doing so, Gage is resting on broken reeds. Almost every one of these people are speaking outside their areas of expertise.
> 
> The closest are Steven Jones, a physicist, and Kevin Ryan, a chemist. Jones, once caught up in the cold fusion debacle, was released from his position at Brigham Young University once his stance on 9/11 conspiracies became an issue. He has not been able since to publish any of his scientific work supporting 9/11 theories in respected peer-reviewed journals, for his papers demonstrate a lack of attention to control and a leap to judgment. Ryan used his company&#8217;s email to question the import of tests done by it for NIST&#8217;s report on the Towers. The tests were far outside his area of expertise, and his misrepresentations in the letter got him fired from UL.
> 
> Jim Hoffman is a software engineer who has speculated that &#8220;hot sheets of air&#8221; caused the perimeter columns in the Towers to appear as if they were bowing. 911Mysteries and all versions of Loose Change are riddled with errors from beginning to end.
> 
> And finally, David Ray Griffin, the most consistently respected member of the 9/11 Truth Movement, is a professor of theology and philosophy of religion. He possesses the credentials not of a scientist, but a prophet. And his several books on 9/11 demonstrate this. Ryan Mackey&#8217;s methodical critique of one lengthy chapter, On &#8220;Debunking 9/11 Debunking&#8221; 2.1, shows how completely wrong Griffin is on almost every claim he made. (He got the date right.)
> 
> Indeed, the only original contribution I&#8217;m aware of Richard Gage adding to his presentation is the AIA logo, an architects&#8217; organization in which he is a member. However, even that has been scrubbed off the site after he and others were supposed to &#8220;crash&#8221; the annual meeting of the organization. This leaves him solely with the motley crew from which he&#8217;s cobbled his presentation.



Experts....

[yt]G2y8Sx4B2Sk[/yt]


----------



## granfire

Interesting how serious this 'inside job' idea is being taken.

The farthest (furthest?) I would be willing to entertain the idea is that there might have been knowledge in the intelligence community that was largely disregarded...
(as I had the impression that throughout history there has been a series of incidences that seemed to have been allowed to happen though prior knowledge indicated an impending danger. But with hindsight being 20/20, it's hard to tell for sure)


----------



## Makalakumu

Archangel M said:


> Experts....



These are real people, not strawmen.  Please listen to the link on cognitive dissonance because it explains why people would rely on fallacy rather then admit that someone else *might *have a point that is different then your own.


----------



## elder999

maunakumu said:


> Please listen to the link on cognitive dissonance because it explains why people would rely on fallacy rather then admit that someone else *might *have a point that is different then your own.


 
And, philosophically, is a valid argument for someone believing the world is flat, or that the man on the grassy knoll was George H.W. Bush, or that the universe was created by a benevolent and eternal man in the sky, who watches over and loves us all...(_where's the evidence? where's the evidence?_) 

None of which negates that we all saw planes fly into those buildings. Any case you make has to start from there.


----------



## Big Don

elder999 said:


> None of which negates that we all saw planes fly into those buildings. Any case you make has to start from there.


QFT and to add link


----------



## Archangel M

AE911truth is ALL about the controlled demo argument....so here we go again.


----------



## Makalakumu

Archangel M said:


> AE911truth is ALL bout the controlled demo argument....so here we go again.





> *Please Take Notice That:    *
> *    On Behalf of the People of the United States of America, the    undersigned Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth and    affiliates hereby petition for, and demand, a truly    independent investigation with subpoena power in order to    uncover the full truth surrounding the events of 9/11/01     specifically the collapse of the World Trade Center Towers and    Building 7.  We believe there is sufficient doubt about    the official story to justify re-opening the 9/11 investigation.    The new investigation must include a full inquiry into the    possible use of explosives that might have been the actual cause    of the destruction of the World Trade Center Twin Towers and Building 7.    *
> *    Sincerely,    *
> *    The Undersigned    *



This is the most important part of the petition, IMO.  Pointless as it the demand is because the evidence has been slagged, there is sufficient reason to doubt and demand a new investigation.

The controlled demo theory suffers from the same invalidating test that afflicts the official story.  It's a dead end.


----------



## Archangel M

The first half of their cause is overshadowed by the moonbat lunacy of the second. All of these "experts" are tunnel visioned into the movieland fantasy of spooks with C4 and "thermite". If you doubt that airplanes could have brought the towers down, what is the other possibility????


----------



## Archangel M

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...9/conspiracy-theorists-is-the-truth-out-there



> The strongest predictor of belief in 9-11 conspiracies was belief in other conspiracies. To quote Swami and colleagues: "believing that John F. Kennedy was not killed by a lone gunman or that the Apollo moon landings were staged increases the chances that an individual will also believe 9-11 conspiracy theories." People build a consistent world view. For these conspiracy theorists, their consistent world view is that the truth is always being covered up. Although this may seem like an obvious finding in retrospect, this didn't have to be true. People could have picked their conspiracy theories based on their political views - then these notions would not have all hung together. But no, people who believe some conspiracy theories are more likely to accept new conspiracy theories.


----------



## Makalakumu

Archangel M said:


> http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...9/conspiracy-theorists-is-the-truth-out-there



To quote a paraphrase a previous source, a sign of cognitive dissonance is when an individual points it out in others and is unable to recognize it in themselves.


----------



## Archangel M

Out with it then. What is it that YOU think happened? You believe in the controlled demo argument dont you? If not, what? You dont believe in the 9/11 story...you claim to not believe in the controlled demo argument BUT you don't believe the engineering explanation for the collapse. 

What I cant believe is that people think the government thought that the towers collapse was a necessary component of their "false flag operation" flying plane loads of innocent people into buildings wouldn't have been enough? Pulling that off alone wouldn't have been complicated enough? Lets toss in some controlled demo??

Please.


----------



## Tez3

Archangel M said:


> Out with it then. What is it that YOU think happened? You believe in the controlled demo argument dont you? If not, what? You dont believe in the 9/11 story...you claim to not believe in the controlled demo argument BUT you don't believe the engineering explanation for the collapse.
> 
> What I cant believe is that people think the government thought that the towers collapse was a necessary component of their "false flag operation" flying plane loads of innocent people into buildings wouldn't have been enough? Pulling that off alone wouldn't have been complicated enough? Lets toss in some controlled demo??
> 
> Please.


 
Isn't it all over complicated? If the government wanted reasons to start wars etc and thought blowing up buildings would do it, why go to the lengths of flying planes into them? An old fashioned bomb would have had the same effect, no sneaking around putting in explosives where ever they were supposed to have, all that stuff, just a bomb and someone Arabic claiming responsibility. Of course I may be missing the point and conspiracies are supposed to be complicated and convoluted so only 'certain' people can see the truth!


----------



## elder999

Tez3 said:


> Isn't it all over complicated? If the government wanted reasons to start wars etc and thought blowing up buildings would do it, why go to the lengths of flying planes into them? An old fashioned bomb would have had the same effect, no sneaking around putting in explosives where ever they were supposed to have, all that stuff, just a bomb and someone Arabic claiming responsibility. Of course I may be missing the point and conspiracies are supposed to be complicated and convoluted so only 'certain' people can see the truth!


 

Oh, no, Irene-the planes we all saw flying into the buildings were holograms, and the destruction of the buildings was due to controlled detonations set up months in advance, the hijackers were prearranged digital patsies who never really existed, as were the passengers and flight crews.




maunakumu said:


> To quote a paraphrase a previous source, a sign of cognitive dissonance is when an individual points it out in others and is unable to recognize it in themselves.


 
*Irony*, thy name is maunakumu......*JESUS H. CHRIST!!!!<facepalm!>*[ :lfao:


----------



## Archangel M

I mean..just think about the overcomplexity of the whole thing. The necessity of the planes hitting the EXACT floors so that the collapse didn't happen above or below the impact site. Twice. Not to mention that the impact/fires/etc didn't cut connections between charges, detonation telemetry etc? The whole thing, from the set-up to the execution, would have been so complex that it would have all but been impossible to pull off. The risk of a Murphy's law **** up ruining the whole thing would have scrapped such a plan.


----------



## jks9199

swivel63 said:


> doubt ALWAYS looms.  does that mean that it's the complete opposite of what the official story is?


The standard of proof in a criminal trial is "beyond a *reasonable*  doubt."  The word reasonable is in there because you can always  generate a doubt or a "what if."   What if the guy who actually robbed  the bank was the long lost, separated at birth twin that nobody knew  existed, not the defendant who was arrested?  What if there really are  shape-shifting aliens or monsters _a la _*Fringe*, *The X-Files*, or *The Twilight Zone*.  But are those reasonable doubts?  Not to most of us.

Is there doubt about 9/11?  Of course.  But are those doubts  reasonable?  Not in my opinion.  The physics and engineering supports  that the buildings went down because they were hit by planes.  My  experience with people tells me that massive conspiracies are unlikely  to succeed or be kept secret long.  

Do we know the full story?  Nope.  There are details that we don't know  and will never know; the people with those answers are no longer around  to answer.  But the basic story is simple, and it's what has been  presented:  A group of terrorists executed a horrifying plan  successfully, exploiting multiple weaknesses and failures in our systems  to do so.  Planes full of fuel struck two of the tallest buildings in  the world, subjecting them to multiple stresses in ways that had never  been seen before (and, God willing, will never be seen again!), and the  buildings collapsed.  In doing so, collateral damage took out a third  building that was very close, and integrated into the complex where  those skyscrapers were.  Meanwhile, another plane struck the Pentagon.   One saving grace there was that it hit a recently fortified side; why  that was could be anything from approach path to dumb luck.  A fourth  plane didn't hit its target through the heroic sacrifice of the  passengers and crew on board.  

All of this happened, as I've said more than once now, through a  combination of careful planning and target selection by the terrorists  and complacency, negligence, and downright ignorance on the part of  people here at all levels of the government and outside the government,  as well.


----------



## elder999

jks9199 said:


> . My experience with people tells me that massive conspiracies are unlikely to succeed or be kept secret long. .


 
Oh, but they have. That's not a valid argument at all.

Otherwise, I agree with your post.


----------



## Archangel M

elder999 said:


> Oh, but they have. That's not a valid argument at all.
> 
> Otherwise, I agree with your post.



If they REALLY have you wouldn't know about them.


----------



## jks9199

One more thought...

Did someone within the government know it was going to happen?  I wouldn't be at all surprised if a thorough review of all the intelligence data available found indications and missed signals or other things that, had they been properly recognized, would have prevented it.  They were missed.  See comments above about complacence, etc.

I will state with confidence that counter-terrorism experts did foresee large, complicated plans.  I know because I had some of them as instructors over the years.  My first serious counter-terrorism training was in the early to mid 90s; I'd have to look up some notes to be more precise.  We came up with some pretty scary plans in that class -- and I'll freely admit, none of us came up with hijackers taking control of planes and flying them into buildings.  I'm willing to bet that if someone received a travel brief or training about how to handle hijackings at 7 AM on 9/11, they would have been advised to go along with the hijackers; it was pretty standard because 9/11 was just about the first time that hijackers took control of aircraft to use them as missiles.  I sure can't think of another incident, though there may have been one.


----------



## jks9199

elder999 said:


> Oh, but they have. That's not a valid argument at all.
> 
> Otherwise, I agree with your post.


I didn't say "never succeed or be kept secret."  I merely said "are unlikely to..."  After all, if one has been kept secret, then, by definition, I wouldn't know about it, right?


----------



## elder999

jks9199 said:


> I didn't say "never succeed or be kept secret." I merely said "are unlikely to..." After all, if one has been kept secret, then, by definition, I wouldn't know about it, right?


 
@archangel as well: it only has to be kept secret long enough to succeed-then you might just know about it, when it makes no difference. 

9/11 is a good example of this.


----------



## Makalakumu

elder999 said:


> *Irony*, thy name is maunakumu......*JESUS H. CHRIST!!!!<facepalm!>*[ :lfao:



LOL!  Actually, I've been thinking of changing my name to *obtusekumu*...


----------



## Makalakumu

Archangel M said:


> Out with it then. What is it that YOU think happened? You believe in the controlled demo argument dont you? If not, what? You dont believe in the 9/11 story...you claim to not believe in the controlled demo argument BUT you don't believe the engineering explanation for the collapse.
> 
> What I cant believe is that people think the government thought that the towers collapse was a necessary component of their "false flag operation" flying plane loads of innocent people into buildings wouldn't have been enough? Pulling that off alone wouldn't have been complicated enough? Lets toss in some controlled demo??
> 
> Please.



I don't know what happened.  My intuition says it was an inside job somehow, but I've been clawing back from that and asking myself what explanation can REALLY be supported?  The answer is none at all.  Ever.  When two structural engineering professionals can sit down at the table and look at the same evidence and give you completely different conclusions, that should tell you something about the quality of the evidence present.


----------



## Archangel M

Only if you believe that all structural engineers are equal.....


----------



## Sukerkin

Come on now, Angel, you know better than to take a cheap shot like that.  

Not all professionals are equal, I agree but when it comes to tangible things like engineering if there is a wide divergence of opinion from the same starting event then there is clearly something debateable in the data.

It's not like a social science, such as economics :angel:, where there is much that is suppositon and interpretation of observation from the most chaotic of samples of all (human beings).

Engineering has 'fiddle factors' too, make no mistake but these tend to be "Calculate the predicted maximum stress this is designed to take and then triple it".

When the Twin Towers fell, that was a mechanical engineering failure *caused*, in my view, by a policy failure.  A policy failure in more than one place I would argue.  

Two I would point to in particular are failures in the Intelligence Services (understandable given the tide of 'threats' from which they have to sift the real from the imagines) and in the construction oversight that plagues all large projects.  It is the former that allowed the attack to take place but it is the latter that caused the disaster.

Those towers were designed from the outset to withstand precisely what happened to them.  Not a deliberate aircraft impact but an accidental one.  Admittedly those specs were for smaller planes but the reason that the towers really fell is that the construction was nit-picked and penny-pinched down the quality scale.  Whether graft or 'economy measures' I guess we'll never know.


----------



## elder999

maunakumu said:


> I don't know what happened. My intuition says it was an inside job somehow, but I've been clawing back from that and asking myself what explanation can REALLY be supported? The answer is none at all. Ever. When two structural engineering professionals can sit down at the table and look at the same evidence and give you completely different conclusions, that should tell you something about the quality of the evidence present.


 



Archangel M said:


> *Only if you believe that all structural engineers are equal...*..


 

Indeed. It also brings to mind that I've seen scientists back away from data or deny it when it didn't support heir preordained conclusions.Some scientists, anyway. 

However, the numbers-strict calculations-don't lie. The planes were full when they left Boston, and were 767-200's. We know how many passengers were on them and what the weather was for their flight path-based on that, we can come up with a reasonably accurate weight of the planes as projectiles. Ditto the amount of fuel left to add to the burn. Based on radar, video, and altitude, we can fairly accurately describe the speed of the planes. We also know what floor they crashed into-so we know what sort of structural damage would ahve been done on initial contact. We can also calculate, with a very slim margin of error, how much fire damage and deformation would have been done due to the fire, based on time of crash to time of collapse. All of these calculations add up to the buildings collapsing-the numbers don't lie, and the only way they can be made to is if the original calculations are disputed, and other values substituted for them-but the planes *were* 767-200s, and they *were* fully fueled. It *was* a relatively calm day, and they *did* fly from Boston to New York.

So: weight, speed and area of contact cannot be disputed. All support the conclusion that planes brought down the buildings and no other agents of destruction were involved or needed-it keeps coming back to this, John. It's not that I can't know: it's that *I can and I do,* just as accurately as, given the mass, temperature and ambient temperature(s) and relative humidity, I can tell you accurately within seconds how long it will take a block of ice to become a puddle, and then to evaporate.

*Math doesn't lie*, and, as you know, neither does science. I'd expect better from you.



Sukerkin said:


> Those towers were designed from the outset to withstand precisely what happened to them. Not a deliberate aircraft impact but an accidental one. Admittedly those specs were for smaller planes but the reason that the towers really fell is that the construction was nit-picked and penny-pinched down the quality scale. Whether graft or 'economy measures' I guess we'll never know.


 
They were designed, in 1961, for the 707-the largest jetliner that existed at the time. While the 707 is a little faster in terms of cruising speed, the 767 is significantly heavier. The building was also *not* engineered for the subsequent fire, from a nearly fully fueled 767, nor the dislodging of antiquated and somewhat decayed fireproofing from impact. Of course, these are the very factors that John's structural engineer will discount: that the fireproofing would have degraded over 40 years, and wasn't meant for impact-that the heavier 767 would deliver more energy at a slightly lower air speed, that the fires could reach the needed temperatures, etc., etc., etc. 

They are, of course, clearly wrong-since the buildings collapsed and all.


----------



## Sukerkin

Aye, I know what they were designed to take, *Elder*.  I also know that if they were built properly (as specified) they would have had enough of a safety factor to have a good chance of surviving what happened.

You know as well as I do that safety (aka fiddle) factors of between 300 and 1000 percent are not unknown when it comes to building projects (note that of course things may differ between our countries and note the provsio that my job-related knowledge only applies to power stations and substations).

As an aside, if you could point me to the sources that says that the towers were not designed to withstand massive fire, I'd be most grateful.


----------



## Archangel M

"Massive Fire" as in hundreds/thousands of gallons of jet fuel poured/ignited within the space of a few floors were unlikely to have peen planned for either.


----------



## Archangel M

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/


----------



## Sukerkin

Thanks for the link, Angel - too tired to delve into it now but I've saved it for later.

As an aside, it should be noted that all tall structures designated to be at risk from aircraft impact are generally designed to deal with the anticipated fires that would result (again note that this depends on the country).

I am not saying that the fires weren't a fundamental part of the collapse, what I am saying is that the WTC was jerry-built, as are most large structures.  The graft in construction has to be seen to be believed.


----------



## Archangel M

Addressing the "they were designed to take an aircraft impact":

http://www.science-writing.org/id29.html

Which they did...the impact didn't knock them over, they just didn't survive the intense fires afterwards.



> The most consequential designs that were not included in the Twin Towers were sufficient fire-suppression systems and fireproofing. Even though the towers were built to withstand the impact of a jetliner, they were not designed to withstand and remain standing during a fire of such great magnitude. The jet-fuel fire caused by the impact was impossible to contain in the Twin Towers. The World Trade Center had not been designed to fight hydrocarbon fires of such magnitude and high temperature &#8211; up to 1500 degrees Celsius. The fire-suppression system consisted of water sprinklers that were useless because water, at this temperature, would vaporize almost instantly. Instead, these fires had to be fought with chemical foam, which the Towers lacked (Ashley 2001).


----------



## Makalakumu

Archangel M said:


> Which they did...the impact didn't knock them over, they just didn't survive the intense fires afterward.



Seven minutes before the collapse, battalion chief Palmer is heard to say, "Ladder 15, we've got two isolated pockets of fire. We should be able to knock it down with two lines."  I noticed that wasn't in the documentary.

There's a lot we just don't know.  If the fires were so pervasive and extensive, how is this possible?  Imagine having the actual evidence to show the extent of the flames and the actual real effects...we don't have that.  It's gone.  How can you still claim that you *know *the fires brought the buildings down?


----------



## Archangel M

Because they fell, engineers and professionals investigating said the heat caused structural failure...and controlled demo is impossible.


----------



## elder999

maunakumu said:


> Seven minutes before the collapse, battalion chief Palmer is heard to say, "Ladder 15, we've got two isolated pockets of fire. We should be able to knock it down with two lines." I noticed that wasn't in the documentary.


 
You guys (truthers) take this quote out of context *a lot*.

_*Really pisses me off.*_:angry:
Recorded audio of the actual event..
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/wtcaudio/wtcaudio9.html



> "Battalion Seven Chief: "Battalion Seven ... Ladder 15, we've got two isolated pockets of fire. We should be able to knock it down with two lines. Radio that, 78th floor numerous 10-45 Code Ones."
> Ladder 15: "What stair are you in, Orio?"
> Battalion Seven Aide: "Seven Alpha to lobby command post."
> Ladder Fifteen: "Fifteen to Battalion Seven."
> Battalion Seven Chief: "... Ladder 15."
> Ladder 15: "*Chief, what stair you in?*"
> Battalion Seven Chief: "*South stairway Adam, South Tower*."


 
The plane impacted on the 80th floor. The unpopulated and unfurnished 78th floor, where Batallion Chief Orio Palmer was, was only impacted by one wingtip-and the fires he saw likely came from above.




maunakumu said:


> There's a lot we just don't know. If the fires were so pervasive and extensive, how is this possible? Imagine having the actual evidence to show the extent of the flames and the actual real effects...we don't have that. It's gone. How can you still claim that you *know *the fires brought the buildings down?


 
No, there's a great deal we know. THe fires were pervasive and extensive, and you guys are only paying attention to what you want to, instead of what evidence there is. 

I can claim that I know the fires brought the buildings down because I can deal with all the facts without stubbornly clinging to my created reality-unlike you and your ilk, who'd rather spit on the memory of those who died that day, like Battallion Chief Palmer.

Please *stop*.


----------



## elder999

double post, sorry (Really, *really* pissed off.)


----------



## Big Don

*There are none so blind as those, that will not see*


----------



## Makalakumu

elder999 said:


> Please *stop*...



This little tantrum is often repeated all over the internet and IRL and is merely a tool to shut people up.  Sorry to inform you, but the Building What? Campaign was put together by a group of the victim's family members.  Stop pretending like you and other people who agree with you are sole torchbearers for the families' honor.  

Noting this, how can you continue to say that you have no intrinsic motivations causing some kind of cognitive dissonance over this issue?  I'd wager that if you didn't you might acknowledge the victim's families who would really like to know what happened.


----------



## Makalakumu

Archangel M said:


> Because they fell, engineers and professionals investigating said the heat caused structural failure...and controlled demo is impossible.



What about the large group of structural engineers and professionals that say it is possible?  How could you possibly differentiate between those claims without over 99% evidence?


----------



## elder999

maunakumu said:


> This little tantrum is often repeated all over the internet and IRL and is merely a tool to shut people up. Sorry to inform you, but the Building What? Campaign was put together by a group of the victim's family members. Stop pretending like you and other people who agree with you are sole torchbearers for the families' honor.


 
Well, no sir, what I'm doing is asking you to *please stop lying, *which is what you're doing by taking quotes out of context, twisting the science so that it fits your agenda by omitting or dismissing salient facts, and all the other tactics of the truther movement. 

_Truth_ may be malleable, but *facts* are incontravertible-just as they are in this instance.



maunakumu said:


> Noting this, how can you continue to say that you have no intrinsic motivations causing some kind of cognitive dissonance over this issue? I'd wager that if you didn't you might acknowledge the victim's families who would really like to know what happened.


 

Well, since you're wrong about everything else, including what you've noted, I can continue to say that I have no cognitive dissonance over this particular issue-*you do. I mean, every bit of non-evidence you've brought up has been soundly debunked, or shown to be an arch manipulation, like your out of context quote, yet you stubbornly-obtusely-hang on to the "where's the evidence?" of your own, congintively dissonant Roswell-wannabe version of reality.* As for the families "who'd really like to know what happened" they've been bamboozled......led astray.....flimflammed.

Run *amok*.


----------



## Archangel M

Because structural engineers know bupkiss about what it means to pull off an actual clandestine operation. While I may not be "black bag" trained, I know a thing or two about operational planning. If you believe that a 3 building simultaneous demolition in co-ordination with aircraft strikes in occupied buildings is something that can be pulled off with nobody noticing outside of hollywood fantasy you need to have your prescription checked. Let alone the ability of the jets to strike EXACTLY where the demo was set to start the collapse PLUS the crash didn't disrupt the supposed demo set-up??

Please.

But of course believing in convoluted, over-complicated, impossible in the "real world" scenarios is what you conspiracy buffs are all about.


----------



## Archangel M

maunakumu said:


> What about the large group of structural engineers and professionals that say it is possible?  How could you possibly differentiate between those claims without over 99% evidence?



AE911Truth doesn't impress me. Most of them are "professional" artists, theologians, cold-fusion (moon landing conspiracy believing) loony professors, architects and assorted other wing-nut truthers. Plus I believe that George Bush and a number of other "Professionals" were entered into their rolls by various and sundry. I'd bet there are a few NASA physicists who are moon landing nuts as well...theres some in every crowd.

Im unimpressed.

Again:

http://martialtalk.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1408537&postcount=255


----------



## elder999

maunakumu said:


> What about the large group of structural engineers and professionals that say it is possible? How could you possibly differentiate between those claims without over 99% evidence?


 

You're missing the point.. 

While it's entirely possible to plot to wire the buildings for controlled demoilition, using the phone lines or_ other means_, it would have had to have started before the 1993 bombing in order to work. The 1993 bombing, BTW, while a different group, is demonstrative of the capabilities and planning of the elements we are dealing with. Osama bin Laden's initial denial of al Qaeda's responsibility for 9/11 is *also* indicative of their operational planning and capability: it was planned and carried out by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and bin Laden *did not know.* To coordinate the flights with the detonation of bombs would have been superfluous: the math tells me that the planes were enough. It doesn't have to be convoluted, complex or anything but what it seems to be on the face of it, with the evidence of the senses that all are capable of seeing: the planes flew into those buildings-impact and fire set up conditions for structural failure; the buildings fell, with debris falling onto WTC 7; WTC 7 burned for hours with no firefighting, and collapsed from fire and stuctural damage. 

You really don't need a forensic examination of the debris to reach this conclusion, though it would have been nice;the math should be enough for anyone-especially a science teacher, John. Who's being conginitively dissonant? :lfao:
A forensic examination  probably wouldn't be enough to keep conspiranuts from coming up with some alternate scenario, anyway, and I'm surprised we're not talking about missiles, or holograms, or something equally ludicrous.


----------



## Archangel M

_"These people (in the 9/11 truth movement) use the 'reverse scientific method.' They determine what happened, throw out all the data that doesn't fit their conclusion, and then hail their findings as the only possible conclusion."_

-Thomas Eagar, a professor of materials science and engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology


----------



## Makalakumu

elder999 said:


> Well, no sir, what I'm doing is asking you to *please stop lying, *which is what you're doing by taking quotes out of context, twisting the science so that it fits your agenda by omitting or dismissing salient facts, and all the other tactics of the truther movement.
> 
> _Truth_ may be malleable, but *facts* are incontravertible-just as they are in this instance.


 
Before you type something, you should look in the mirror and ask maybe if you are doing the same?  Perhaps, what you see is merely projection of what *you *are doing.  If you care to think about what Palmer's testimony means, you might understand why rational people would have questions.



elder999 said:


> Well, since you're wrong about everything else, including what you've noted, I can continue to say that I have no cognitive dissonance over this particular issue-*you do. I mean, every bit of non-evidence you've brought up has been soundly debunked, or shown to be an arch manipulation, like your out of context quote, yet you stubbornly-obtusely-hang on to the "where's the evidence?" of your own, congintively dissonant Roswell-wannabe version of reality.* As for the families "who'd really like to know what happened" they've been bamboozled......led astray.....flimflammed.
> 
> Run *amok*.



If you don't think you have cognitive dissonance about an emotionally charged issue, you have cognitive dissonance.

Wrong about *everything*!  LOL!  I thought I was the King of Hyperbole!


----------



## Makalakumu

Archangel M said:


> AE911Truth doesn't impress me. Most of them are "professional" artists, theologians, cold-fusion (moon landing conspiracy believing) loony professors, architects and assorted other wing-nut truthers. Plus I believe that George Bush and a number of other "Professionals" were entered into their rolls by various and sundry. I'd bet there are a few NASA physicists who are moon landing nuts as well...theres some in every crowd.
> 
> Im unimpressed.
> 
> Again:
> 
> http://martialtalk.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1408537&postcount=255



If there were crazy people who supported the official story, would that discount it?


----------



## Archangel M

No. You are definitely wrong about Pamers statement. Taking a specific transmission about what *one *man saw in *one *specific spot and extrapolating that into "evidence" of some sort of conspiracy is what you truthers do.


----------



## Makalakumu

elder999 said:


> You're missing the point..
> 
> While it's entirely possible to plot to wire the buildings for controlled demoilition, using the phone lines or_ other means_, it would have had to have started before the 1993 bombing in order to work. The 1993 bombing, BTW, while a different group, is demonstrative of the capabilities and planning of the elements we are dealing with. Osama bin Laden's initial denial of al Qaeda's responsibility for 9/11 is *also* indicative of their operational planning and capability: it was planned and carried out by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and bin Laden *did not know.* To coordinate the flights with the detonation of bombs would have been superfluous: the math tells me that the planes were enough. It doesn't have to be convoluted, complex or anything but what it seems to be on the face of it, with the evidence of the senses that all are capable of seeing: the planes flew into those buildings-impact and fire set up conditions for structural failure; the buildings fell, with debris falling onto WTC 7; WTC 7 burned for hours with no firefighting, and collapsed from fire and stuctural damage.
> 
> You really don't need a forensic examination of the debris to reach this conclusion, though it would have been nice;the math should be enough for anyone-especially a science teacher, John. Who's being conginitively dissonant? :lfao:
> A forensic examination  probably wouldn't be enough to keep conspiranuts from coming up with some alternate scenario, anyway, and I'm surprised we're not talking about missiles, or holograms, or something equally ludicrous.



If you create a computer model with the conclusion already decided upon, have you actually tested anything?  Or have you merely confirmed your own bias?


----------



## Archangel M

The official story is peer-reviewed and accepted by numerous professional associations. The wing-nut's theories?? Notsomuch.


----------



## Archangel M

maunakumu said:


> Before you type something, you should look in the mirror and ask maybe if you are doing the same?  Perhaps, what you see is merely projection of what *you *are doing. * If you care to think about what Palmer's testimony means*, you might understand why rational people would have questions.




BTW Battalion Chief Orio Palmer DIED on 911 in the South Tower. There was no "testimony"


http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b5a_1252615625


> The glaringly obvious logical problems with using Orio Palmers quote are:
> 
> Orio Palmer was in the South Staircase (Adam) on the South Tower which was not damaged because of large, heavily constructed elevator equipment which protected it.
> 
> Its not unreasonable to expect two small fires on a floor where only a wing tip entered. What was above those floors is the question not answered by the firemans quote.
> 
> The 78th floor was a sky lobby which didnt have much office furniture to catch fire. If there were two small fires on the 78th floor where just a wing tip entered, what must the 81st floor be like where the nose of the aircraft hit?
> 
> If there were small fires on the 78th floor just before collapse, does that mean the 78th floor never had larger fires?


----------



## Makalakumu

Archangel M said:


> No. You are definitely wrong about Palmers statement. Taking a specific transmission about what *one *man saw in *one *specific spot and extrapolating that into "evidence" of some sort of conspiracy is what you truthers do.



Ignoring an illustrative example in order to protect your own conclusion is what people with cognitive dissonance do.  It's not just one guy.  Hell, it could be 1517 guys and it wouldn't matter.

"The unexamined life is not worth living." - Socrates


----------



## Archangel M

Cognitive Dissonance.  Apparently this is the 2000's version of "THE TRUTH IS OUT THERE MAN!!!". 

Yawn. At least the X-Files had a hot red head.


----------



## granfire

Archangel M said:


> Cognitive Dissonance.  Apparently this is the 2000's version of "THE TRUTH IS OUT THERE MAN!!!".
> 
> Yawn. At least the X-Files had a hot red head.



Are you trying to tell me I am not hot?!


----------



## elder999

maunakumu said:


> Before you type something, you should look in the mirror and ask maybe if you are doing the same? Perhaps, what you see is merely projection of what *you *are doing. If you care to think about what Palmer's testimony means, you might understand why rational people would have questions.


 
Orio Palmer *died* in the South Tower's collapse. It wasn't "testimony," they were the last words ever heard from him.

By distorting and nusing those words out of context,you're spitting on his memory.....*again*.

By *denying* that you're spitting on his memory, you're demonstrating your own congnitive dissonance.






maunakumu said:


> If you don't think you have cognitive dissonance about an emotionally charged issue, you have cognitive dissonance.


 
Well, no. I recognize and have acknowledged just how emotionally charged it is for me.

In spite of that, I have debunked and pointed out the utter falsehood and manipulation of every bit of "contrary evidence," and I've also-quite dispassionately, given my usual hyperbole and snark-demonstrated precisely how one can reach the conclusions of the "official story" as being valid.

You, on the other hand, cling to falsehoods, half-truths, and out of context data-reverse engineering the science to fit your preconceived conclusions, and calling anyone who supports the official story "cognitively dissonant," as well as insisting that there "is no evidence," and that "we can't possibly *know*," when, in fact, there *is* evidence, and we *do* know.



maunakumu said:


> Wrong about *everything*! LOL! I thought I was the King of Hyperbole!


 
Well, what have you been right about on this entire thread? Honestly?


----------



## Archangel M

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=36c_1252510212


----------



## Archangel M

granfire said:


> Are you trying to tell me I am not hot?!




Photos?


----------



## Archangel M

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-shermer/911-truthers-a-pack-of-li_b_84154.html



> Ever since Skeptic magazine published an investigative article on the 9/11 "Truth Movement" and analyzed their claims, which were found wanting, I have been hounded by the so-called 9/11 "truthers" because I am the editor of the magazine and therefore am suppose to be a "skeptic" of the official explanation for 9/11.





> In the early 1990s I launched a full-scale investigation of the Holocaust deniers, initially as the cover story for Skeptic magazine and subsequently expanded into a book length treatment, Denying History: Who Says the Holocaust Never Happened and Why Do They Say it? The deniers employ this tactic of anomalies-as-proof to great effect. David Irving, for example, claims that there are no holes in the roof of the gas chamber at Krema 2 at Auschwitz-Birkenau. So what? So plenty, he says. No holes in the roof of the gas chamber at Krema 2 means that the eyewitness account of SS guards climbing up on the roof and pouring Zyklon-B gas pellets through the holes and into the gas chamber below where the prisoners were herded into, means that the eyewitness account is wrong, which means that no one was gassed in Krema 2, which means that no one was gassed at Auschwitz-Birkenau, which means that no one was gassed at any prison camp, which means that no Jews anywhere were systematically exterminated by the Nazis. In short, "no holes, no Holocaust," says David Irving, a slogan emblazoned on t-***** of his supporters at his London trial in which he sued a historian for calling him a Holocaust denier.
> 
> No holes, no Holocaust. No melted steel, no Al-Qaeda attack. The parallels are equal, and equally flawed. And just as I never imagined that Holocaust denial would wend its way into the mainstream press (Irving's trial was front page news for months), after my above conversation with the filmmaker I never imagined that 9/11 denial would get media legs. But now it has legs for days, and so we have been forced to provide a public response. To read our complete analysis of the claims of the 9/11 conspiracy theorists, go here.



The similarity in thought patterns across conspiracy memes is interesting.


----------



## Archangel M

I have....

[yt]a1Y73sPHKxw[/yt]

Cognitive Dissonance.


----------



## Makalakumu

elder999 said:


> Well, what have you been right about on this entire thread? Honestly?



Lol!  I've been right about being right!  :angel:


----------



## elder999

maunakumu said:


> Lol! I've been right about being right! :angel:


 
Well, (to reduce this argument to your absurd level) *no, you haven't.* :lfao:


----------



## Makalakumu

elder999 said:


> Well, (to reduce this argument to your absurd level) *no, you haven't.* :lfao:



*NOW*, I have!  You told me I was earlier! :lfao:



elder999 said:


> *Irony*, thy name is maunakumu......*JESUS H. CHRIST!!!!<facepalm!>*[ :lfao:



Right about being right and that's about it.


----------



## Sensei Payne

Being that this thread has gone on for so long, and that there are so many opinions on this topic that it really says a lot about how hot button it really is.

Staunch stances on both sides how brought up valid points all around..and this is healthy.

I have a feeling that the "9/11 inside job" Theories are going to be going on for generations to come.  Those who had lost loved ones are still going to ask more questions, and those like myself who are in search of the absolute truth, will still seek it.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

Stop the presses.
This just in.
Came into my email.
Ultra top secret stuff.



> This is the truth: The WTC was destroyed by 3 underground thermo-nuclear explosions.  They were detonated by the US government who used this as an excuse to lead the US and its allies into invading Afghanistan and Iraq. All these wars and deaths were based on a lie



Now please excuse me, I have to go shoot my email software.


----------



## Ken Morgan

Bob Hubbard said:


> Stop the presses.
> This just in.
> Came into my email.
> Ultra top secret stuff.
> 
> 
> 
> Now please excuse me, I have to go shoot my email software.


 
LOL!

What people fail to realise, is that nation-states never really need an excuse to do anything. If you want to hit someone, you just walk up and punch them in the nose. Its easier to ask forgiveness then to ask permission.


----------



## Sensei Payne

Ken Morgan said:


> LOL!
> 
> What people fail to realise, is that nation-states never really need an excuse to do anything. If you want to hit someone, you just walk up and punch them in the nose. Its easier to ask forgiveness then to ask permission.


 

IDK if that counts if *9/11 is an inside job.*


----------

