To Those Who Think 9/11 truthers are crazy

Originally posted by dalepmay
You're missing a very important piece to the puzzle. The government HAS answered all the questions.

Sorry but most of the evidence and official reports have not been released yet.

I suggest you do research before posting.

[edit on 25-1-2010 by REMISNE]

reply to post by REMISNE


But they answered the questions - you - just assume they are lying because otherwise your conspiracy narrative crumbles. Face it, even if they released all the reports and let you personally handle the evidence you would just accuse them of fabrication. In so far as you are concerned they are liars if they don't and liars if they do.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Dude, are you for real?

Yes thanks.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Just becuase it's independent it doesn't mean the material it contains has any more credibility. I shouldn't have to point that out.

I'm not trying to say they are, the point is a lot of what went unnoticed before, doesn't nowadays. Information is information regardless of where it comes from, and it's up to you to research it.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Pick a conspiracy website, any conspiracy web site, and I'll prove it to you.

Three websites, same story, prove away...

prisonplanet.com

wattsupwiththat.com

dailymail.co.uk

Three websites, same story, prove away...

Bait and switch. You do know this is the 9/11 conspiracy forum, not the global warming conspiracy forum, yes?

Originally posted by blood0fheroes
Ok, when I say what we know and do not know, let me assure you Im not saying it didnt happen that way, Im merely stating that we dont KNOW that it did; from a strictly "Rene Descartes" way of thinking. Personally, I have not spoken with these witnesses, nor have I seen interviews with them...Therefore I do not KNOW... I remember I was in Graffonweir (sp?) Germany, prepping for a training exercise while I watched the twin towers being struck on live news....however I saw NO coverage of the pentagon. I can only KNOW (most of) what i have seen....You tracking?

All right, fine, but the thing is, neither did I. During 9/11 I was out in a field in rural Virginia working as an extra in a Hollywood movie (a story for another day...) and only got to see the video of the actual plane impacts perhaps two years after the fact becuase of the moratorium.

I myself am analyzing it as a court of law would- by looking at the evidence and listening to eyewitnesses. The evidence is this- the Pentagon is out in the middle of an industrial park with office buildings, residences, and a major highway running nearby. Every eyewitness withiin line of sight of the Pentagon, from a taxi driver to an immigrant tending the lawn, all reported seeing the exact same thing- a large plane hitting the Pentagon- so I have to believe the consensus that this is what happened.

If these conspriacy theorists disagree with the known facts, it's up to them to give us a scenario that better fits the facts, and so far, all they've done is give us convoluted stories that only create more questions than they do answers. Accusing everyone under the sun of being a secret gov't disinformation agent entirely becuase they're giving testimony that doesn't conform to any conspriacy theory isn't explaining anything- they're simply repeating the original conspiracy in different terms, which by definition is circular logic. Can we agree on that, at least?

Originally posted by Sean48
Sure dave, we all know the reason for 911

Bush wanted to push forward the PNAC agenda.

All right, fine, Bush milked the attack for all it was worth. We all know that already. I'm still going to side in with Gore Vidal here, who said that everything the Bu#es touch gets screwed up, and they couldn't have pulled off any 9/11 conspiracy even if they wanted to. Even if YOU wanted them to.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Bait and switch.

It was you who said...

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
I've seen many of these web sites and looked at their material, and I can cay with 100% certainly that it's not some of the time or even most of the time, but rather ALL of the time, these web sites are deliberately withholding some critical piece of information that, if we knew about it, it would convince us of the exact opposite of what they're trying to convince us of.

...so regardless of what forum this is, I've just contradicted that statement.

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by aristocrat2
There are only two ways to beat the Pentagon batteries.

1. The batteries are deliberately stood down.

what missile batteries are you on about?

US ones, DUH!

The Exocet sank HMS ANtelope,

No they did not, HMS Antelope was hit by a bomb, which exploded whilst it was being disarmed.

...But they did sink the HMS Sheffield, the Atlantic Conveyor and nearly totalled HMS Gloucester.

WOW, that was a cheap point you tried to score with, eh?

One big group of flying objects was programmed in to be ignored, missiles and planes belonging to YOUR ALLIES. Hence the EXOCET, as it had been built in France was invisible to the British ships during the Falklands War.

Garbage, more misinformation from you!

Why, laughably unreliable ones like:-

THE TIMES and TELEGRAPH in London and the BBC in 1982

"The development of software for ballistic-missile defense," by H. Lin, Scientific American, vol. 253, no. 6 (Dec. 1985), p. 48.

There, really unreliable sources, not like you who are happy to rely on people in the streets of Manhattan and several "thousand Arabs".

Incidentally, this all happened again in 1987 when the USS Stark was whacked by an Exocet for precisely the same reason.

Also, when it arrived in the Far East, 6 of its missiles had been used.

Source for that claim?

Royal Navy records and numerous newspapers refering to HMS Trafalgar which was indeed test firing missiles in the area. Guess the Royal Navy can't be relied upon to know where any of their ships are ever. can they? No clue at all. Not like your well informed Arabs in the streets of Cairo.

Anyway, pity it was not a Tomohawk thet hit the Pentagon!

No evidence to back this wild claim by you whatsoever.

One of then which was still on an antiquated one was USAAF Langley

WTF is USAAF Langley?

The USA has an Aier Force. I know this must come as a shock to you, probably as you haven't heard it from any of your reliable Arab sources that your country has an air force, but yes, it does. (Do you want sources to prove that your country has an air force buy the way?)

Exactly what "antiquated radar" did the base have?

Non-Nato standardised ones that still operate independently of NORAD.

So, who controls the British missiles?

The poms, of course

WOW!!! A FAT BALD LIE THERE.

WHo loads them on the ships and even organises what their paintwork looks like?

The poms once again

ANOTHER FAT BALD LIE!
(This is a place for discussion, not for telling bare-faced lies for fun, Sonny.)

When Tony Blair came to power, despite his Labour Party being dead against contracting out, he left maintenance of the UK's submarines and missiles with a private contractor.

Source for that claim?

Sadly I have now reliable sources such as Arabs from a bazaar in Cairo to rely on, only mainstream newspapers like the INdependent.

www.independent.co.uk...

Nothing to see, just another "Truther", telling the Truth as another bare-faced Aussie pretends its all made up.

Originally posted by KyoZero

Originally posted by Crito
WTC-7 was brought down by controlled demolition, of that there can be no debate.

I guess you are the final authority then? No debate

And to the poster who said "if it's rubbish then walk away"

Precisely why I stay out of that forum altogether. I don't think the truthers are close to getting an absolute answer...probably never will but they sure taught themselves as perfection in human form and their logic is infallible

oh well

-Kyo

[edit on 24-1-2010 by KyoZero]

[edit on 24-1-2010 by KyoZero]

WTC 7 was, without a shadow of a doubt, brought down by demolition.

[edit on 1/25/2010 by Termite197]

Originally posted by ll__raine__ll
something else that confounds me is ...

knowing the controversy surrounding this case ... how come osama bin laden (assuming he really does want to blow up america) doesn't just put out one of his infamous videos and claim he was just an fbi or cia pawn and that he really had little or nothing to do with 9/11?

what better way to rip a country apart then that?

...or better yet, put out as video renouncing all the OTHER videos attributed to him as being admissions of guilt I.E. the Al Jazeera broadcast, that all these armchair video experts here are renouncing becuase one video shows him wearing a different hat than the other videos.

I will grant that the ones recovered from Afghanistan may be "iffy", but the only reason I can see why he wouldn't come forward and say that those videos weren't from him is becuase he really WAS behind the 9/11 attack. It would be pointless for him to come forward and say, "yeah, I admit I am responsible for the attack, but that wasn't me in the video admitting I am responsible for the attack."

Click here to learn more about this warning.

I'm surprised to see this topic being revisited, for most people it is 'case closed'. It's been conclusively proved that 911 was an inside job, along with 7/7 and now the toxic vaccine false flag. It's well known that Rockefeller's people are the ones behind them.

From scanning through this thread it's clear we have an army of Disinfo Agents, just as Obama recently admitted was the plan.

Originally posted by Neo-V™
...so regardless of what forum this is, I've just contradicted that statement.

STRAW MAN ARGUMENT (n): an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.

If it's that important to you, I concede you know more about global warming hoaxes than I do, but I don't think you're going to get too many people here to agree with you that when I said "conspiracy web sites" I was referring to the ones pushing global warming hoaxes. Are these silly bait and switch and strawman argument games all I'm going to be seeing from you, from now on?

*** ATTENTION ***


Please, make your point, argue your stance or whatever, but do so in a civil manner not attacking or making the OP or any other member the point of your post.

Thank You

Carry On.

reply to post by MightyAl

1. How did the buildings collapse so perfectly all in a simultaneous fashion, despite building 7 not being hit by a plane?

2. Why was Building 7 not even mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report?

3. Why were interceptor jets not scrambled for more than 30 minutes after it was obvious that four airliners had gone off course?

4. Why did the missile batteries at the Pentagon fail to stop the strike on the Pentagon?

5. Why were the fighter jets at Andrews Air Force Base just 12 miles from D.C. never scrambled? But rather jets from Virginia that arrived too late because they were not flying at maximum speed?

6. Why has their been little or no mention of the NORAD exercises in the major media or the 9/11 commission report? How come a similar exercise occured on 7/7 in London?

7. Why was vital evidence, including the buildings' structural steel, destroyed through rapid removal and destruction by US government officials with no investigation?

8. Why did Flight 93 leave behind an 8-mile-long debris trail before being destroyed?

9. Why did the US government not respond to warnings from a dozen countries that an attack on American soil was imminent?

10. How come nothing was done when the Pentagon officers identified Mohammed Atta as a potentially dangerous member of Al Quaida a full year before the 9/11 attacks?

11. How did certain people know to short sell American and United Airlines stocks as well as Morgan Stanley (occupied 22 floors of the WTC) stocks ahead of the attacks?

Wow - some much stupid in so little space!

1 Neat demolition?

Look again

Damage to 30 West Broadway



Barclay St is a 4 lane highway - debris from WTC 7 crossed road to smash
this building

Damage to Verizon (140 West St)



Verizon suffered 1 billion in damage to it from collapse of WTC 7

2. Why WTC 7 not mentioned in 911 Commision

Because it was Irrelevant - 911 Commission was established to investigatehow hijackers were able to enter country, receive flight training
and hijack 4 airlines WTC 7 was collateral damage - smashed and set on fire when WTC 1 collpased on it

3 Jets were launched at 8:40 Am in response to hijacking of American 11
before first airctaft impact. Could not reach NYC in time to stop it or
United 175

4. Missile Batteries? What idiot web site get that from? Considering
Pentagon is only mile from Regean National Airport explain how would
tell difference from normal jet aircraft and hijacked aircraft?

5. Jets were launched from Langley because it was designated by NORAD
as alert site (there were only 7 sites in country with 14 fighters)
Just because you have an airbase does not mean have aircraft on alert,
fully fueled, armed, with pilots ready. It is expensive to do so and wears
out the equipment and pilots. Why not response at max speed - Simple
Sherlock, because you RUN OUT OF FUEL! Even then fighters from Otis
sent toward WTC went supersonic (usually a no-no_ to avoid sonic booms.

Could go on...

Originally posted by aristocrat2
US ones,

except that there were no missile batteries on the Pentagon - care to point them out? Again, where are they, what type of missiles....

No evidence to back this wild claim by you whatsoever.

why do you ignore the 757 undercarriage, the 757 engines, the 757 passengers dna....

The USA has an Aier Force.

The USAAF has not been around since 1947, so what are you on about?

Non-Nato standardised ones that still operate independently of NORAD.

once again, exactly what model radar did the base have? Why are you refusing to answer, it is because you have no clue at all...

www.independent.co.uk...

Wromg again, Tomahawk missiles are maintained by MDBA
www.indymediascotland.org...

Nothing to see, just another "Truther", telling lies

Originally posted by jameshawkings
I'm surprised to see this topic being revisited, for most people it is 'case closed'. It's been conclusively proved that 911 was an inside job, along with 7/7 and now the toxic vaccine false flag. It's well known that Rockefeller's people are the ones behind them.

From scanning through this thread it's clear we have an army of Disinfo Agents, just as Obama recently admitted was the plan.

I really don't believe they are dis-info

Most OS peeps cannot bring themselves to believe their Gov could do
such things as the 911 event.

To admit that, would rock their world to the core, the Thread should be, Why Are OS Peeps Crazy?

they are in the minority now.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
STRAW MAN ARGUMENT (n): an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.

LOL!! The "argument" we are having is about "independent media" sites, and your claim that....

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
I've seen many of these web sites and looked at their material, and I can cay with 100% certainly that it's not some of the time or even most of the time, but rather ALL of the time, these web sites are deliberately withholding some critical piece of information that, if we knew about it, it would convince us of the exact opposite of what they're trying to convince us of.

...so it might help if you pay attention to what YOU are actually coming out with.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
but I don't think you're going to get too many people here to agree with you that when I said "conspiracy web sites" I was referring to the ones pushing global warming hoaxes.

I'm referring to them in general, and linked to one of the biggest "conspiracy sites", so you could prove your claim "ALL of the time, these web sites are deliberately withholding some critical piece of information", but you didn't.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Are these silly bait and switch and strawman argument games all I'm going to be seeing from you, from now on?

Perhaps if you grasped what YOU'RE saying you'd see I'm not using strawman arguments.