Mind Explaining These Things To Me?

Btw - Nice rant, Faust. Just goes to show how little evidence or even critical thinking a right-winger needs to form a strong opinion on something he knows little about.

You were doing quite well explaining your tilt theory, but saying Faust made his decision solely based on politics doesn't hold water & I think by now you're above giving low blows.......

.............aren't you? True, even if a person holds to a certain partisan belief, that in no way determines their knowledge on a subject....true, so rise above the smoke....

Ok, bye bye!

Maybe I could've worded it a bit nicer, or made my remark more subtle, but these rants come from nothing but the social garbage we're bombarded with 24/7, ie, conspiracy theorists are loons unconditionally and our government would never harm its own citizens for a power boost, etc., and especially prone to this kind of talk is a particular political party, and this is nothing new. If any of it was presented factually, and not as a baseless rant, I wouldn't have so much of a problem, as it would be easier to address. But how do you make an argument against "liberals are stupid" and "you're a liberal and you believe crazy things"? And I'll let you take a wild guess as to what political party promotes such a line of thought.

Originally posted by DaTerminator
Now I'm a big skeptic of 9/11 conspiracies. I've heard alot of irrational takes on the subject from illuminati mind-controlled people hijacking airliners to ufo's crashing into the pentagon. To me, this is all irrational and if you would like to prove me wrong go ahead.

I watched the towers burn. I watched as the second jet crashed into the side of the building while people watched in terror. I have seen video footage of the 19 terrorists entering the plane and heard audio of the telephone calls concerning the hijackers. I find it insulting to believe anything other than that islamic terrorists led by Osama Bin Laden materminded and executed the 9/11 attacks. Where is your logic? Mind explaining these things to me?

Even a basic logical thinker knows that even if the conspiracies are wrong you are still buying into US propaganda.

I personally believe 9/11 was set up by our very own government, but I am very welcome to the fact that I could be wrong. Assuming that I am wrong, chances are it was al Qaeda.

Assuming once again that I am right, al Qaeda does not hate America because of it's freedoms and our lifestyle. Though they are certainly at odds with us because of it, you haven't seen them attacking Amsterdam or Canada have you?

While we are the ideological symbol of freedom -- barring the recent additions of the Patriot Acts and I'm sure more freedom strippers to follow -- this has nothing to do with our music, respect for women, or even porno available in your local store.

The attacks would have to do with our policies in the Middle East. Our censure of the muslims while our support for their enemies. Our oil driven support of Saudi Arabia -- possibly one of the most infested with terroists.

"There could be no other reason for backing Saudi Arabia, a regime that, since its founding, has deliberately fostered an Islamic ideology, whose goals -- unlike bin Laden's -- can be met only with annihilating all non-Muslims."



[edit on 20-8-2005 by white4life420]

Sorry for 3 posts in a row. This is the last one. I have to, this thread is unbelievable.



1) Who the heck suggested that the reason the Gov picked the wrong hijackers was because their identities were stolen?

Hey, I can't hijack a plane because I'm on a government watch list. That's okay, I'll just steal someone elses identity... who is also on a government watch list


2) How can anyone cite the tilt as proof that the towers were not demolished?

As I posted on the other thread, look up the definition of inertia. Fine, I'll do it agian for you:

Inertia -- Physics. The tendency of a body to resist acceleration; the tendency of a body at rest to remain at rest or of a body in straight line motion to stay in motion in a straight line unless acted on by an outside force.

The top of the building was clearly leaning heavily to one side. For the tower to correct itself, the supports on the other side would have had to buckle and give way. Considering the definition of inertia, it would have been easier for the tip of the tower to proceed in its initial tilt.

Originally posted by Faust
Uh-huh, something i know little about eh? Well, for starters, i'm not a "right-winger". I'm a Conservative borderline Moderate.

The mere thought that you have to analyze every person and cage them into some political party says enough about you.
But then to call yourself a conservative borderline moderate. Lmao.
You're borderline allright.

The Bush administration goes a lot deeper then just left or right wing, that's a thing alot of you don't notice obviously. Bush is a pawn. It's not a matter of wing vs wing. It's a matter of the world against the dumbest man in control of a country.
And what's more funny is the fact that while the US should be overpowering/dethroning it's own president. It goes abroad picking wars because another leader is a bad boy ?

Joke of the century ..

And then you expect everyone arround you to support to army. What for really? Your army is CAUSING terrorism for probably the entire century and for the entire world.
Or maybe you're one of those people who believes you're actually erradicating it? Wich would further prove your borderline mental state.


/rant

Been reading this thread from the beginning, kind of. It's a waste. Terminator, you could've checked out other threads. And besides that, the first couple of posts already show your faulty argumentation, as there's not much objectivity and logic to them. Mainly it's personal belief and opinion, feeling, and also insults and the likes. As soon as those things come in, what's the point of arguing? Not that you aren't entitled to your opinion and beliefs; like anybody else you can have them, but to make an argument with those, heh heh. No
And all you people that don't accept the official story, but the conspiracy, you are actually letting this get to you, lol.

Just my observation
Have a nice day.

You're absolutely right Zes, I haven't been registered for more then a week but I've thought about giving up on a daily basis

Originally posted by Zes
Been reading this thread from the beginning, kind of. It's a waste. Terminator, you could've checked out other threads. And besides that, the first couple of posts already show your faulty argumentation, as there's not much objectivity and logic to them. Mainly it's personal belief and opinion, feeling, and also insults and the likes. As soon as those things come in, what's the point of arguing? Not that you aren't entitled to your opinion and beliefs; like anybody else you can have them, but to make an argument with those, heh heh. No

And all you people that don't accept the official story, but the conspiracy, you are actually letting this get to you, lol.

Just my observation

Have a nice day.

Where is my faulty arguement? I have come into this thread and practically debunked everything but you still insist that you have the upper hand. You guys will never budge your position no matter what type of solid evidence to the contrary that I throw at you. I have given you detailed reports about the trade tower collapse, the pentagon crash, Bin Laden claiming responsibility and you still insist that Bush's henchman carried out the bombings. So far I fail to find any solid evidence on your part which has withstood debunking. You guys just openly embrace these ridiculous theories out of blind hate for President Bush and America. As I said, if anyone in the world besides you takes this seriously then we would have a massive national investigation. Instead, I know nobody in real life who takes you guys as anything but fools.

If you are planning on convincing me instead of whining and telling me how wrong I am without substantiation, please present your "evidences" and inconsistancies in bullet format with reliable sources noted.

Originally posted by DaTerminator
Where is my faulty arguement? I have come into this thread and practically debunked everything but you still insist that you have the upper hand. You guys will never budge your position no matter what type of solid evidence to the contrary that I throw at you. I have given you detailed reports about the trade tower collapse, the pentagon crash, Bin Laden claiming responsibility and you still insist that Bush's henchman carried out the bombings. So far I fail to find any solid evidence on your part which has withstood debunking. You guys just openly embrace these ridiculous theories out of blind hate for President Bush and America. As I said, if anyone in the world besides you takes this seriously then we would have a massive national investigation. Instead, I know nobody in real life who takes you guys as anything but fools.

If you are planning on convincing me instead of whining and telling me how wrong I am without substantiation, please present your "evidences" and inconsistancies in bullet format with reliable sources noted.

Lol, it took me a while to recover from that one.
But ok, you've won, you mighty debunker you.
Case closed, person ignored.

And btw, I just went trough the thread again, you have provided exactly one link with a totally bogus investigation. If anything WE are then ones debunking you.. Not the other way around, but here, to answer your original question, here's proof that Bush was behind the attacks. In bullet form!

1. Silverstein buys and insures WTC buildings
   
   
2. Bush's brother decides to disable electricity in the WTC weeks before the attacks, with it, disabling id systems and cameras. Bomb sniffing dogs removed.
   
   
3. A list of people are warned that attacks will happen in lower manhatten on september 11.
   
   
4. September 11: More people warned of an imminent attack, however, mighty US airforce unable to intercept astray planes.
   
   
5. [color=DarkGray]Bush' brother stands down as head of security at the WTC. might be false.
   
   
6. "We are fa - mi - ly" www.counterpunch.org...
   
   
7. Two WTC towers and the pentagon hit by a plane. Numerous
   eye-witnessess say these were not american airlines. Others state the opposite
   
   
8. Video evidence proving 'the opposite' was removed from the surrounding pentagon area within minutes, witnesses are told to keep their mouth shut.
   
   
9. Later investigation shows inconsistencies with the theory that a boeing hit the pentagon piloted by an unexperienced pilot.
   
   
10. Rumsfeld says a plane and missile hit the pentagon.
    
    
11. Evidence of the crash at the pentagon, just like at the WTC is quickly removed. Pictures of the evidence that was found is unconclusive but shows different inconcistencies with a boeing 757.
    
    
12. Meanwhile in New York, for the first time in history, 3 towers collapse from a fire, in a perfectly vertical manner, without resistance. All evidence, from high pressured air shooting out of windows stories below the collapse, the massive "pyroclastic flows", to the pulverized concrete and the footprint of the collapse point to a controlled demolition.
    
    
13. Numerous explosions heard and witnessed from upclose to back that theory up.
    
    
14. Explosions in the basement (a demolition would need columns at the base of the tower to brake) wich are powerfull enough to rip off entire pieces of the marble wall and wrinkle heavy steel doors like it were tin foil.
    
    
15. WTC 7 collapsed hours later. Nobody knows why, although the owner of the building said they decided to pull it. Many say a fire caused the collapse, but no evidence from that day shows these fires.
    
    
16. A passport from the supposed hijacker turns up unscratched on the streets of New York. A passport is made out of paper.
    
    
17. 7 out of 8 blackboxes were destroyed that day. A black box is made out of the strongest alloy known to men.
    
    
18. The owner of the passport turns out to be alive.
    
    
19. Silverstein earns 7 billion in insurance money.
    
    
20. Bush decides to fly the Laden family to safety.
    
    
21. Bush decides to try his new guns in Afghanistan, everyony believes he's looking for Osama, but after he gets bored looking states "we don't really care about him". Bush doesn't care about the person who killed 3000 americans ?
    
    
22. A lot of the hijackers turn up to be alive. Atta, the supposed ringleader, called his father on september 12.
    

I'm sure I'm forgetting important things because this list is about 1/20th of the "coincidences" that happend on or before/after 9/11 pointing to a coverup. Some call it blatantly obvious. Others are still in denial.

[edit on 20-8-2005 by Shroomery]

[edit on 20-8-2005 by Shroomery]

WOW! You know when you watch Conspiracy Theory, Enemy Of THe State and other movies alike, after it's over you need to disconnect from it and continue with an ordinary life. It really isn't healthy on the mind.

Having said that, it really isn't healthy for me to come on this forum every other day to read/post. It's a lost cause to try and help people see the light. This light cannot ever exist for these people because they're paranoid of the unknown and think the government is out to undermine them in the most ludachrist and elaborate ways.

Most psychologists would suggest that people who are lost, alone, sad, frightened,...etc. want to make others feel the same way so they themselves nolonger feel "alone." Conspiracy theorists are known to fit into this category.

Originally posted by Shroomery
here's proof that Bush was behind the attacks

Bush's brother decides to disable electricity in the WTC weeks before the attacks, with it, disabling id systems and cameras. Bomb sniffing dogs removed.

Proof? That's an assertion, not the same thing at all. Not a very plausible assertion, either, as Marvin Bush left the Securacom board in the financial year 2000 ( www.tpj.org... ).

[edit on 20-8-2005 by ashmok]

Originally posted by DaTerminator

Originally posted by Zes
Been reading this thread from the beginning, kind of. It's a waste. Terminator, you could've checked out other threads. And besides that, the first couple of posts already show your faulty argumentation, as there's not much objectivity and logic to them. Mainly it's personal belief and opinion, feeling, and also insults and the likes. As soon as those things come in, what's the point of arguing? Not that you aren't entitled to your opinion and beliefs; like anybody else you can have them, but to make an argument with those, heh heh. No

And all you people that don't accept the official story, but the conspiracy, you are actually letting this get to you, lol.

Just my observation

Have a nice day.

Where is my faulty arguement? I have come into this thread and practically debunked everything but you still insist that you have the upper hand. You guys will never budge your position no matter what type of solid evidence to the contrary that I throw at you. I have given you detailed reports about the trade tower collapse, the pentagon crash, Bin Laden claiming responsibility and you still insist that Bush's henchman carried out the bombings. So far I fail to find any solid evidence on your part which has withstood debunking. You guys just openly embrace these ridiculous theories out of blind hate for President Bush and America. As I said, if anyone in the world besides you takes this seriously then we would have a massive national investigation. Instead, I know nobody in real life who takes you guys as anything but fools.

If you are planning on convincing me instead of whining and telling me how wrong I am without substantiation, please present your "evidences" and inconsistancies in bullet format with reliable sources noted.

I've already stated your falseness in general. Must I do so again? Okay, here it is.
Example: you mentioned something in the sense of.... that "you find it insulting there are people that actually believe such conspiracies. And you find it irrational, etc., etc., and you don't believe it, bla blah. So let's have a look at that, now shall we?
What does belief have to do with it? I will exemplify this with the following: suppose it's a fact I have won the lottery; I won 3 million dollars, and I'd tell you. Suppose you wouldn't believe me. Would it matter? Would your belief change the fact I had actually won the 3 million? No, it would not. This goes for anybody.
Insulting. What does "insulting" have to do with the case? People have died, and people suffer. Yeah, we all know that, and it's terrible. But because you find it insulting, well-- does it really matter? No, in the case of finding the truth, and researching it, it does not matter.
Irrational. There's nothing irrational about questionining the issues that have been questioned. I will tell you what's irrational. People "believing blindly" in what authorities say.
And furthermore -- and you're not the only one I have noticed -- you are too much led by emotion. You also apply known dirty debating tactics (such as ridicule, name-calling, etc.).
You also make quick wrong judgments. Blind hate? Ridiculous theories? You know nobody in real life blah blah, fools blah blah? It doesn't matter who you know in real life that wouldn't take it serious or whatever. It is irrelevant.
Now, you did all those things I mentioned, and you started with it in the first couple of posts. Anybody who tries to make a case or something with those methods will not succeed. With all respect, have your opinions and beliefs, and all that stuff. It doesn't influence the facts or the truth, and hopefully you understand that.
There's enough evidence shown by researchers who are on this forum that effectively counters the official story of this matter. Like others stated, you asked for proof, but it was just there for you to find. That's also a nice tactic.

Originally posted by Faust
WOW! You know when you watch Conspiracy Theory, Enemy Of THe State and other movies alike, after it's over you need to disconnect from it and continue with an ordinary life. It really isn't healthy on the mind.

Having said that, it really isn't healthy for me to come on this forum every other day to read/post. It's a lost cause to try and help people see the light. This light cannot ever exist for these people because they're paranoid of the unknown and think the government is out to undermine them in the most ludachrist and elaborate ways.

Most psychologists would suggest that people who are lost, alone, sad, frightened,...etc. want to make others feel the same way so they themselves nolonger feel "alone." Conspiracy theorists are known to fit into this category.

LOL.

Trying to get personal again. Nice ridiculing/name-calling tactic.

Originally posted by ashmok

Originally posted by Shroomery
here's proof that Bush was behind the attacks

Bush's brother decides to disable electricity in the WTC weeks before the attacks, with it, disabling id systems and cameras. Bomb sniffing dogs removed.

Proof? That's an assertion, not the same thing at all. Not a very plausible assertion, either, as Marvin Bush left the Securacom board in the financial year 2000 ( www.tpj.org... ).

[edit on 20-8-2005 by ashmok]

Ok, perhaps you're right, I'll remove the line and add a new one regarding Marvin.

Oh, last post in this thread.
Since there are some people here that are trying to get personal (especially Terminator and Faust) by personally attacking conspiracy theorists (hell, I'm not even a conspiracy theorist yet am defending them).... Here's some questions for you...?
Aren't you afraid yourself? Afraid that your so-called "happy lives" change? That things you believed in are just possibly not true? Do you feel threatened in your position? It's a shame to just be on some side. It's as if you have concluded something already, before knowing both (or more) sides of the story. How can one conclude without being objective and just? Research things from all sides, and if you can't, critically follow what others (from all sides) research.
I have the "luxury" of "being neutral" and keeping the mind clear. I wonder if you have that luxury too.

Well, I would like to stay around in this thread, but I will not, since it's a waste. I've said what I said and it's nothing personal to anybody
Good day.

Bush's brother decides to disable electricity in the WTC weeks before the attacks, with it, disabling id systems and cameras. Bomb sniffing dogs removed.

So? What evidence does this give that the Bush family was involved in the attacks? Do you think camera footage would have mattered? It would have all been completely destroyed anyway. And obviously most electricity was still on. You can't run an office building without electricity.

A list of people are warned that attacks will happen in lower manhatten on september 11.

September 11: More people warned of an imminent attack, however, mighty US airforce unable to intercept astray planes.

Source please. I have heard that the CIA and FBI might have known that something was to occur around September of 2001, but I highly doubt they knew all the details.

Bush' brother stands down as head of security at the WTC.

Again, what evidence does this provide that he was involved in the attacks? This could have been the result of a mere coincidence. You need much more than this. People retire and resign from things all the time and they don't imply a terrorist attack.

Two WTC towers and the pentagon hit by a plane. Numerous
eye-witnessess say these were not american airlines. Others state the opposite.

And video taken right before the first plane crash clearly shows an american airlines jet. Also, if these were not american airlines jets then what happened to the passengers?

Video evidence proving 'the opposite' was removed from the surrounding pentagon area within minutes, witnesses are told to keep their mouth shut.

Source please. The FBI and CIA don't want the media getting a hold of everything. They often times take evidence for examination. I need the source on where witnesses were told to keep there mouth shut. Again, this is not out of the ordinary and provides no evidence for any cover-up.

Later investigation shows inconsistencies with the theory that a boeing hit the pentagon piloted by an unexperienced pilot.

I'm afraid not. The only sketchy and most likely made up evidence that supports the theory that a boeing did not hit the pentagon has been debunked.

Rumsfeld says a plane and missile hit the pentagon.

Where? Source Please. And even if he did, it could be an easy mistake for an old man.

Evidence of the crash at the pentagon, just like at the WTC is quickly removed. Pictures of the evidence that was found is unconclusive but shows different inconcistencies with a boeing 757.

Wrong. There are numerous peices of evidence which obviously imply the impact of a large aircraft presumably a 757. Not to mention that it was tracked on radar by civilians.

Meanwhile in New York, for the first time in history, 3 towers collapse from a fire, in a perfectly vertical manner, without resistance. All evidence, from high pressured air shooting out of windows stories below the collapse, the massive "pyroclastic flows", to the pulverized concrete and the footprint of the collapse point to a controlled demolition.

I have shown multiple sources which prove quite the contrary. Most fires don't start with an airliner crashing into the building. And even if this was a "controlled demolition" which it most likely was not, how does this provide evidence for some national conspiracy?

Numerous explosions heard and witnessed from upclose to back that theory up.

I've seen video over and over again and it provides no evidence to suggest a controlled demolition. The first floor collapse clearly comes from the weakened floors where the impact was on both towers.

Explosions in the basement (a demolition would need columns at the base of the tower to brake) wich are powerfull enough to rip off entire pieces of the marble wall and wrinkle heavy steel doors like it were tin foil.

Just where and when were these explosions in the basement. I have seen footage from inside the towers when they collapsed from the lobby floor and there was no indication of any explosion on ground level whatsoever.

WTC 7 collapsed hours later. Nobody knows why, although the owner of the building said they decided to pull it. Many say a fire caused the collapse, but no evidence from that day shows these fires.

They probably did demolish it and for good reason. The collapse of the towers nearby probably rendered it structurally unstable. This provides no evidence for any conspiracy.

A passport from the supposed hijacker turns up unscratched on the streets of New York. A passport is made out of paper.

Source please. Also, how does this provide evidence for a conspiracy? It doesn't. The guy was obviously on the airplane that crashed nonetheless.

7 out of 8 blackboxes were destroyed that day. A black box is made out of the strongest alloy known to men.

Oh. Wow! This must hint a national conspiracy...not.

The owner of the passport turns out to be alive.

Source please. If they found his passport lying on the ground near the towers there is no way he could be alive no matter where he fits in to the equation, hijacker or not.

Silverstein earns 7 billion in insurance money.

Source. And also just how does this mean that Bush was involved in conspiracy? The company would have made that money (if it is true) conspiracy or not.

Bush decides to fly the Laden family to safety.

Source please. And even so, this provides no evidence for conspiracy. This was probably in good nature because the family did not commit crimes and if they continued to live with Osama then they would probably end up dead.

Bush decides to try his new guns in Afghanistan, everyony believes he's looking for Osama, but after he gets bored looking states "we don't really care about him". Bush doesn't care about the person who killed 3000 americans ?

I can almost guarantee you that is not true. What's your source? And even so, Bush has never been a charimatic person and often makes mistakes or studders.

A lot of the hijackers turn up to be alive. Atta, the supposed ringleader, called his father on september 12.

False. The reports from mid october of 2001 state that four of the first alledged hijackers identities were called into doubt. This in no way means that a lot of the alledged hijackers are alive now roaming the streets. And what is your source on Atta calling his father on the 12? He is a known terrorist for god's sake!! You can even watch him get on the plane!

If you cannot refute my claims I'd be inclined to say that your theory, still, holds no water.


[edit on 20-8-2005 by DaTerminator]

Geesh! (pounds head)...Is it just me or does there seem to be an echo in here?

And will somebody tell me how come my smilies don't work? : o

ok, bye bye


[edit on 20-8-2005 by ABC_123]

So? What evidence does this give that the Bush family was involved in the attacks? Do you think camera footage would have mattered? It would have all been completely destroyed anyway. And obviously most electricity was still on. You can't run an office building without electricity.

No, indeed you can't, it's also impossible to track or check up on anyone going in those floors, yet those are the facts, and don't forget that this was the first time in history.

And video taken right before the first plane crash clearly shows an american airlines jet. Also, if these were not american airlines jets then what happened to the passengers?

No, that's a lie. And I suggest you show me that video. And I'll remind you that the plane we are looking for has 2 engines.

Where? Source Please. And even if he did, it could be an easy mistake for an old man.

www.defenselink.mil...

Wrong. There are numerous peices of evidence which obviously imply the impact of a large aircraft presumably a 757. Not to mention that it was tracked on radar by civilians.

Air traffic controller Danielle O'Brien, who had earlier that morning cleared Flight 77 for take-off from Dulles, certainly didn't think it was a Boeing 757 that she was tracking on radar as it approached Washington. What she initially saw was "an unidentified plane to the southwest of Dulles, moving at a very high rate of speed ... I had literally a blip and nothing more."

Ms. O'BRIEN: And it went six, five, four, and I had it in my mouth to say three and all of a sudden the plane turned away. In the room it was almost a sense of relief. 'This must be a fighter. This must be one of our guys sent in--scrambled to patrol our Capitol and to protect our president.' And we sat back in our chairs and breathed for just a second. In the meantime, all of the rest of the planes are still flying and we're taking care of everything else. And the plane turned back. He continued in the right-hand turn, made a 360 degree maneuver.

billstclair.com...

Not to mention not one of those pieces found could ever be retraced to the 757. The weelhub was too small, there's only one engine instead of two, part of the engine is missing the triangular bezels.

I have shown multiple sources which prove quite the contrary. Most fires don't start with an airliner crashing into the building. And even if this was a "controlled demolition" which it most likely was not, how does this provide evidence for some national conspiracy?

Your definition of proof is obviously very different. You accept a story just because it says what you want to hear, without going through the facts yourself. Or, god forbid, the bloody obvious.
You still haven't explained me why there was air rushing out of the windows with an immense speed, steel being catapulted upwards! Explosions, and the dust to proof it, the footprint of the collapse.
Your theory just says "well floors sagged, dropped onto eachother, tower went boom". While avoiding all the other evidence.
I don't WANT it to be a demolition, I wish you could prove me wrong, the fact is, you're still failing to this day and you will keep failing if all you do is selectively pick your evidence to match your story.

And are you telling me Al Qaeda planted demolitions in all 3 buildings ? Or that somehow those demolition charges were placed on september 11 ?

Just where and when were these explosions in the basement. I have seen footage from inside the towers when they collapsed from the lobby floor and there was no indication of any explosion on ground level whatsoever.

www.americanfreepress.net...
www.prisonplanet.com...
www.prisonplanet.tv...

yeah yeah prisonplanet ...

Oh. Wow! This must hint a national conspiracy...not.

Obviously you selectively pick this line out, leaving the previous and the following out of the picture, if you're unable to connect the dots between these 3 lines. Then something is seriously wrong with you and all that's left for me is feel sorry for you.

Source please. If they found his passport lying on the ground near the towers there is no way he could be alive no matter where he fits in to the equation, hijacker or not.

911research.wtc7.net...
theunjustmedia.com...
or
www.cnn.com...

Source. And also just how does this mean that Bush was involved in conspiracy? The company would have made that money (if it is true) conspiracy or not.

www.construction.com...
Notice how he went to trial to get double his money.
911research.wtc7.net...

Source please. And even so, this provides no evidence for conspiracy. This was probably in good nature because the family did not commit crimes and if they continued to live with Osama then they would probably end up dead.

www.washingtonpost.com...

You do realize they shipped them from the US to Saudi-Arabia ? Not the other way around. When nobody was allowed to fly they shipped 13 family members of your prime suspect to their home country.

I can almost guarantee you that is not true. What's your source? And even so, Bush has never been a charimatic person and often makes mistakes or studders.

Q Mr. President, in your speeches now you rarely talk or mention Osama bin Laden. Why is that? Also, can you tell the American people if you have any more information, if you know if he is dead or alive? Final part -- deep in your heart, don't you truly believe that until you find out if he is dead or alive, you won't really eliminate the threat of --

THE PRESIDENT: Deep in my heart I know the man is on the run, if he's alive at all. Who knows if he's hiding in some cave or not; we haven't heard from him in a long time. And the idea of focusing on one person is -- really indicates to me people don't understand the scope of the mission.

Terror is bigger than one person. And he's just -- he's a person who's now been marginalized. His network, his host government has been destroyed. He's the ultimate parasite who found weakness, exploited it, and met his match. He is -- as I mentioned in my speech, I do mention the fact that this is a fellow who is willing to commit youngsters to their death and he, himself, tries to hide -- if, in fact, he's hiding at all.

So I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you.

www.whitehouse.gov...

False. The reports from mid october of 2001 state that four of the first alledged hijackers identities were called into doubt. This in no way means that a lot of the alledged hijackers are alive now roaming the streets. And what is your source on Atta calling his father on the 12? He is a known terrorist for god's sake!! You can even watch him get on the plane!

www.worldmessenger.20m.com...
www.guardian.co.uk...



[edit on 20-8-2005 by Shroomery]

No, that's a lie. And I suggest you show me that video. And I'll remind you that the plane we are looking for has 2 engines.

It's funny how you freak out whenever I say things like that. Indeed, I will show you the video if I can. I saw the video on 9/11 when watching the news.

Not to mention not one of those pieces found could ever be retraced to the 757. The weelhub was too small, there's only one engine instead of two, part of the engine is missing the triangular bezels.

Actually all of them can. I will refer you to the essay on the subject right here on AboveTopSecret:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Your definition of proof is obviously very different. You accept a story just because it says what you want to hear, without going through the facts yourself. Or, god forbid, the bloody obvious.

No that would be you in this case. I and others have shared numerous essay's done by professionals which show how the collapse took place. All you can offer is "it looked like a demolition".

www.americanfreepress.net...
www.prisonplanet.com...
www.prisonplanet.tv...

yeah yeah prisonplanet ...

Biased conspiracy theorist sites aren't what I would consider reliable. Find information from more reliable sources such as national or international news agencies.

Obviously you selectively pick this line out, leaving the previous and the following out of the picture, if you're unable to connect the dots between these 3 lines. Then something is seriously wrong with you and all that's left for me is feel sorry for you.

WTF? How does that make something wrong with me? You said that 7 out of 8 black boxes were destroyed, I asked how that provides evidence for your conspiracy. Doing what your doing now by wasting time saying how wrong I am is a tell-tale sign of one side of the debate running out of arguements.

911research.wtc7.net...
theunjustmedia.com...
or
www.cnn.com...

None of those links say anything about a passport of the alledged hijacker being found at ground zero at the pentagon. All they share is the crew and passenger victims of the crash excluding the hijackers.

You do realize they shipped them from the US to Saudi-Arabia ? Not the other way around. When nobody was allowed to fly they shipped 13 family members of your prime suspect to their home country.

I still fail to see how this provides evidence for your conspiracy. They probably had them deported because of security reasons.

www.whitehouse.gov...

So? No where in that does it say that Bush does not care about Bin Laden. NO WHERE! Bush is simply stating the truth: that this war on terror is not meant soley to be against Bin Laden and the Al-Queada organization, but all terrorist cells and organizations in the world. You are just grabbing at thin straws now.

www.worldmessenger.20m.com...
www.guardian.co.uk...

Again, liberal conspiracy theorist websites are not reliable sources when searching for the truth. The official report which you showed me from the BBC from october of 2001 states that four of the hijacker's identities are called into doubt, not that all the hi-jackers are alive and well kickin it in the streets.

I think it is you who are selecting your evidence.

Zes, i'm glad you're neutral. My first post on page 5 shows my original stance on this topic. Creating theories and sharing them with others to get an insight on different perspective is fine. Yet to actually come out and STATE them as fact is outright dangerous.

As far as "name-calling", i just call people as i see them. For example: Michael Moore's 9-11 lies makes him a fat bloated orangutang. Oh my, did i just call him an orangutang? What i meant to call him was a independent film maker who happens to shave all his monkey hair off to fool humans that he's one of them.