Thread in Support of the Official Story

reply to post by deadmessiah


Unfortunately/Fortunately Iraq didn't have any Weapons of Mass Destruction to pose any threat to any nation beyond Israel.

I hear people saying this proves that the U.S would have planted them, if they were complicit in 9/11. But, as George Dubya said 'Fool me once, then shame on me, I mean me, no, I mean you. Fool me twice then shame on, um, on, um, on, um, um, D'oh'

Originally posted by deadmessiah
Woah, I forgot to add. Under this sort of thinking, Iraq would have had every right to attack us because we posed as a threat to them and also had WMD's.

Iraq did attack us. They fired on US (and UK) planes enforcing the UN no-fly-zones thousands of times.

Originally posted by hmdphantom
reply to post by hooper

 

Well, you asked for it. Here it is. I am providing the link to the American Society of Civil Engineers Pentagon Building Performance Study.

Civil Engineers won't lie ?

They won't be bribed ?

Is that true?

Oh people are being bribed to hush now.



What a rubics cube this is indeed.

anyone who prostitutes the official story like that is highly suspect. I hope they gave you a raise lol

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by hmdphantom

 

We requested that the then government of Afghanistan turn him over for trial. They refused. They were also offering support to the organization. We went to get him and terminate the organization. Could have been avoided.

Yep, could have been avoided if Bush accepted the offer to hand Osama over to a third country to stand trial but hey that wasn't good enough for Bush. Apparently Bush determines ones guilt

"There's no need to discuss innocence or guilt. We know he's guilty"

www.guardian.co.uk...

Well, you asked for it. Here it is. I am providing the link to the American Society of Civil Engineers Pentagon Building Performance Study.

I'm a tradesman. Inside Wireman to be specific. I have dealt with Civil Engineers for almost 30 years. They are not "Gods" to me. I find "Civil Engineers" to be fallible, like the rest of us mortals and to be completely out of touch with the "American Society of Civil Engineers". Do you honestly think that your neighborhood "Civil Engineer", who may well be very talented, has ANY say over the "American Society of Civil Engineers"?

More importantly...all this is nonsense. The evidence is overwhelming that what we have been told is not true. I don't know what really happened. I'm not sure I ever will know...I do know that at best we have been fed half truths.

reply to post by hmdphantom


You pay people enough money they will say anything

You pay people enough money they will say anything

Nah, does not have to be that sinister. Social pressure is often more effective. In the case of the "Society of XXX Engineers", it's easy to get them to sign off...most of these debates are silly. If I was sitting on the fence regarding 9/11 these childish titles alone would make me take the time to investigate the subject.
My current favorite "I was a Deluded 9/11 Truther". So...you were so fooled you now denigrate your belief by calling yourself a "Truther" and you think I'm going to trust your critical thinking skills?

From an interview with Lee Hamilton, co-chair of the faith-based 9/11 commission.

"""Don't take our word on that: the engineers and the architects have studied this thing in extraordinary detail, and they can tell you precisely what caused the collapse of those buildings. What caused the collapse of the buildings, to summarize it, was that the super-heated jet fuel melted the steel super-structure of these buildings and caused their collapse. There's a powerful lot of evidence to sustain that point of view, including the pictures of the airplanes flying into the building.

Now, with regard to Building 7, we believe that it was the aftershocks of these two huge buildings in the very near vicinity collapsing. And in the Building 7 case, we think that it was a case of flames setting off a fuel container, which started the fire in Building 7, and that was our theory on Building 7.

Now we're not the experts on this, we talked to the engineers and the architects about this at some length, and that's the conclusion we reached.

Solomon: Let me just ask you one more question on that. One counter-argument - or there's two, I guess - one is that that fire very rarely, and has never, forced buildings constructed like the World Trade Centers to ever collapse, because steel doesn't melt at temperatures that can be reached through a hydro-carbon fire, and that there's other.. in other words, there are countless cases of other buildings that have been on fire that have not collapsed.

Hamilton: - but not on fire through jet fuel, I don't think you have any evidence of that. But here again, I'm not the expert on it. We relied on the experts, and they're the engineers and the architects who examined this in very great detail.

Solomon: A question which has remained: Why did the debris of World Trade Center 7, of which nobody died there, so there was no real urgency to move the debris away, and that there have been questions: why wasn't it examined closer? Why was essentially evidence from what could have been a crime scene - or was a crime scene - removed very quickly from there?

Hamilton: You can't answer every question when you conduct an investigation. Look, you've to got to remember that on this day, chaos and confusion were the mark, and peoples' overwhelming concern was to try to save as many lives as possible, not to explain why a particular building collapsed. So it's not unusual to me that we, and the Commission - and anybody else, for that matter - cannot answer every question. I go back to what I say earlier: whenever you conduct an investigation, you cannot answer every question.

Solomon: But should the Commission have .. I guess the question some people keep asking, should the Commission have asked more questions about the removal of the debris?

Hamilton: Look, you can say that about almost every phase of our investigation, 'you should have asked this, you should have asked that, you should have spent more time' - you're conducting an investigation, you have a time limit, you don't have unlimited time, you have a budget limit, you cannot go down every track, you cannot answer conclusively every question."""

Monday, August 21 2006 - 9/11 Commission
Truth, Lies and Conspiracy - Interview with Lee Hamilton

www.911truth.org...

reply to post by hooper

The "people" via their government were harboring a terrorist and terror organization that was responsible for the murder of 3000 citizens of another country.

You mean the government which was installed by the USA and NOT the Afghan people via a democracy?

Where does Iraq fit in again?

You should ask the Afghan people, they are doing most of the killing.

Don't worry about the hundreds of thousands of civilians killed in these wars at the hands of the American people via their government (going by your logic of course). I mean, it doesn't compare to 3000 westerners does it?

Originally posted by hooper

Originally posted by deadmessiah
You are aware that no WMD's were ever found in Iraq, right? The only WMD's discovered were Bush's words of mass deception.

So? Should we have waited till he had some and then attack?

"Preventive war was an invention of Hitler. Frankly, I would not even listen to anyone seriously that came and talked about such a thing."

-Dwight D. Eisenhower

reply to post by hooper

The "people" via their government were harboring a terrorist and terror organization that was responsible for the murder of 3000 citizens of another country.

"Al Queda" (database in arabic) never claimed responsibility for those attacks actually, neither did Osama. They were happy about it, although they have never claimed responsibility, Osama bin laden never claimed responsibility and he isnt even 'officially' wanted for THAT crime (check the FBI database).

As far as responsibility goes you are way off my friend. Also here is a bit of reality for you:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/33025f25f441.jpg[/atsimg]

The death of 3000 Americans apparently justifies this........DISGUSTING

Originally posted by Vardoger
The offical story meaning how a jumbo jet

First error - Flight 77 was NOT a jumbo jet...

somehow completely vaporized on impact

second error, it did not completely vaporise. Why lie and claim it did? many pictures of aircraft debris found inside and outside the Pentagon are readily available on the internet.

except for one of the engines which was from another class of aircraft all together?

third error - the engines found were RB211 from a 757

when they are still holding over 80 video feeds directly filming the impact and arn't releasing under "national security."

fourth error - that is just not true, just another lie.

The only data release of the actual impact is 5 frames? where you can't see anything? except....no jet

fifth error - you can see a jet

So your whole post is full of errors, just like most 9/11 conspiracy theorists

reply to post by spoor


Hooper and Spoor are the same guy I think, sorry to throw that out there although I think it's true....

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by ANOK

 

Hooper, when we ask for an explanation of the collapses what we really want is YOUR explanation, a detailed post explaining why YOU think the OS is correct, with evidence to support your claims.

What claims? That the buildings collapsed? You need evidence? That there were no explosives? I don't know what that "evidence" would look like.

All we ever get from you is a link to someone else's work. We want to debate YOU not someone else's through a proxy, YOU.

Tell ya what - show me where my proxies are wrong and then I'll debate you.

When we reply to a post like this we are debating someone elses work, not YOU. YOU are simply hiding behind other peoples work.

What do you mean hiding? I paid for it.

When are YOU going to explain the collapses? Specifically how the laws of motion apply, you know that pesky 'equal opposite reaction and momentum conservation laws', that you proved you are clueless about?

When are you going to learn that simply retyping those words over and over and over again does not prove that you have any clue what they mean. First prove you could understand something that complex.

Pretty clever evasive maneuver here, notice how the questions are dodged, it's ATS 101 if you have nothing to back yourself up......Oh I forgot, other than the fairytale that IS the NIST report. Very clever evasive maneuver here people....

reply to post by sir_slide


Most likely.

Lee Hamilton, co-chair of the 9/11 faith-based commission, practically made fun of the gullible people who believe the official fables.

Monday, August 21 2006 - 9/11 Commission
Truth, Lies and Conspiracy - Interview with Lee Hamilton

"""Look, I can go before any audience in America today and I can raise so many questions about 9/11 - raise questions, not answer questions, raise questions - about the investigation. And everbody in the audience will walk out saying 'the government misled us or lied to us.' It's a very easy thing to do! I can raise questions about our own report!"""

"""I don't believe for a minute that we got everything right. We wrote a first draft of history."""

"""'the Commission was set up to fail.'"""

Etc. This interview is essential reading.

www.911truth.org...

Its never going to end. We spend too much time arguing the same thing over and over and over and over and over and over.........its freakin clear the official story is Bull doo doo, but the fact still remains, the evidence is gone and the bastards got away with it.

Accept it, and sleep easy. Just know that WE the people KNOW the TRUTH.

No justice but by our hands

No peace but by our agenda

More gems from Mr. Hamilton:

"""Tom Kean and I were substitutes - Henry Kissinger and George Mitchell were the first choices; we got started late; we had a very short time frame - indeed, we had to get it extended; we did not have enough money - 3 million dollars to conduct an extensive investigation. We needed more, we got more, but it took us a while to get it.

We had a lot of skeptics out there, who really did not want the Commission formed. Politicians don't like somebody looking back to see if they made a mistake.
The Commission had to report right, just a few days before the Democratic National Convention met, in other words, right in the middle of a political campaign. We had a lot of people strongly opposed to what we did. We had a lot of trouble getting access to documents and to people. We knew the history of commissions; the history of commissions were they.. nobody paid much attention to 'em.

So there were all kinds of reasons we thought we were set up to fail. We decided that if we were going to have any success, we had to have a unanimous report, otherwise the Commission report would simply be filed."""

Monday, August 21 2006 - 9/11 Commission
Truth, Lies and Conspiracy - Interview with Lee Hamilton

www.911truth.org...

reply to post by deadmessiah


Actually, your post isnt quite true. Over 500 chemical/gas warheads WERE found in Iraq. They were old, but they still had supposedly been destroyed. In addition, at a base near Karbala, all the necessary items for making hundreds more chemical weapons were found in a camouflaged, partially underground bunker........the chemicals were labeled by the civilian inspectors as pesticides. And as we all know, farmers keep their chemicals hidden on military bases......

reply to post by vipertech0596


Link or stink.