Learn the Truth about 9/11!

123457

Comments

  • Reply 121 of 152
    sammi josammi jo Posts: 4,634member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post




    For the whole NORAD thing, try reading Vanity Fair's 9-11 Live the NORAD Tapes.



    The NORAD Tapes story in Vanity Fair has been debunked. The real story is rather different they what is claimed in that article.



    More soon on this. I dont have time right now
  • Reply 122 of 152
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post


    The NORAD Tapes story in Vanity Fair has been debunked. The real story is rather different they what is claimed in that article.



    More soon on this. I dont have time right now



    Ah, goddamn it sammi! I just finished re-reading the whole thing! By tomorrow this'll be locked down.



    You notice the original phantom posters have disappeared? It's a conspiracy.



    I'm off, need laundry to do.
  • Reply 123 of 152
    [QUOTE=sammi jo;1169692]
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BRussell View Post


    How can we forget about them when that's exactly the kind of nonsense you people have been arguing proves something.



    I have never stated that the Twin Towers were destroyed as a result of a controlled demolition. I have asked questions, for sure.. but what is so wrong with that?







    Again, that is not what I have said. Please, if you want to defend the Bush Administration and its story, please don't misquote me, out words into my mouth, or attribute non-existent material and comments to me.



    ~



    If it was just incompetence, with no element of an "inside job", why are you people still defending the Bush Administration's incompetence? Do you think they should get away with allowing such a huge and deadly breach of national security with ZERO accountability? That is what it looks like! Are they so honest and truthful and transparent ... so Christlike that just to ask a leetle question or two is inappropriate? Or are you people so scared of upsetting the applecart that you just want things (corruption) to continue as normal, and just forget about it all?



    I spend time in here asking questions.... (the media won't ask them) hoping that this would be a reasonably open-minded forum in which to posequestions which have not been answered. The fact that some of you people try slap down people who just ask questions (I'm not even talking of alternative theories here, just simple questions)... is incredibly sad, a reflection of these bizarre times we live in.



    When the realization and subsequent execution of our administration's entire (and extreme, unsellable) agenda depended upon that event or a similar devastating incident, which happened allegedly "out of the blue with no warning", according to BushCorp... and then they lied as regards not envisaging hijackers crashing planes into buildings), it is appropriate that we challenge our leaders into providing us with a fuller and more complete story and defense, other than, or in addition to what we have been given. Over 50% of the American people want a real investigation into the attacks (as opposed to that quarter-assed exhibition of BS masquerading as a real inquiry). That is a democratic majority.. and the we the people are their bosses (allegedly). Give us, the majority what we want. If a fair and unbiased investigation into the attacks eventually got the Bush Administration off the hook and dispelled the widespread doubts and suspicion that has divided the country, this would at least provide a sense of closure for everyine, not least the relatives of those who died, many of whom think the official story stinks. Common sense has been stretched to such limits by the Bush Administration's claims of total innocence, that even despite the blanket taboo that exists within the mainstream media, material is evident that is making Joe Public bristle.



    The amount of time some of you people spend in here, defending the indefensible, is staggering. Frank?



    I will defend the actual events as they occurred on 9-11.



    I will defend the multitude of disconnects leading up to and on 9-11, by the FBI, by the CIA, by the Bush Administration, by the FAA, by the airlines involved, and by the military.



    I have never voted for (or supported) a Republican elected administration since I started voting in national elections in 1972.



    I will defend the clusterfrag that was 9-11, simply because the events that happen that day, would have most likely have under ANY administration (e. g. Gore).



    I mean, just look at the blog-o-smear, with respect to 911 or Ron Pail even, pretty much has no semblance to the underlying facts.



    I will always stand stedfast to the chain of evens as has been told to us, with respect to events leading up to and on 9-11, until such time that additional compelling data are presented.
  • Reply 124 of 152
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by franksargent View Post


    I will always stand stedfast to the chain of evens as has been told to us, until such time that additional compelling data are presented.



    The compelling evidence goes something like this:



    WMDs

    He's got 'em.

    These are mobile chemical production facilities.

    We know where they are.

    Iraq - Al Quaeda - Iraq



    Years later, we have no WMDs.



    I do not believe one word that any of these turkeys or anybody associated with them utters, and therefore question then entire thing.
  • Reply 125 of 152
    shetlineshetline Posts: 4,695member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post


    I do not believe one word that any of these turkeys or anybody associated with them utters, and therefore question then entire thing.



    So does that mean if George Bush says "the sky is blue" that it must be a lie, and that you start talking seriously and sternly about the need for "questioning" the blueness of the sky, and speculating fervently about orbiting blue light projectors or drugs in the water supply that make you see blue where blue doesn't really exist?



    It's one thing not to trust the Bush administration -- and I don't myself -- it's another to think that every little real or imagined inconsistency you can find adds up to making stupidities like controlled demolition of the WTC true, just because it's NOT what Bush and his cronies say happened.
  • Reply 126 of 152
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post


    The compelling evidence goes something like this:



    WMDs

    He's got 'em.

    These are mobile chemical production facilities.

    We know where they are.

    Iraq - Al Quaeda - Iraq



    Years later, we have no WMDs.



    I do not believe one word that any of these turkeys or anybody associated with them utters, and therefore question then entire thing.



    It was plane to see what happened on 9-11, subsequent events have nothing to do with what happened on 9-11, it's called causality.



    What happened after 9-11, is of course a different matter.
  • Reply 127 of 152
    vineavinea Posts: 5,585member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dave K. View Post


    Since we are on the topic...



    What is the official cause of why Building 7 fell when no plane hit it?



    Because a 47 story building built above a con-ed substation on a cassion foundation built for a 25 story building. And the fires lasted longer than the 2 hour and 3 hour ratings on the fire protection systems on the steel. With low water pressure the sprinklers were mostly non-functional.



    It was a wierd building that had been extensively modified...including holding a set of diesel generators and 24,000 gal. of diesel.
  • Reply 128 of 152
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post


    The NORAD Tapes story in Vanity Fair has been debunked. The real story is rather different they what is claimed in that article.



    More soon on this. I dont have time right now



    Meanwhile...







    A Day's Air Traffic as Seen From Space
  • Reply 129 of 152
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post


    Meanwhile...







    A Day's Air Traffic as Seen From Space



    Read every word of the Vanity Fair article. As to Cheney, et. al., all we can do now is wait and hope for a better future, but I'm forever the pessimist with respect to our political leadership



    BTW, thanks for the link.



    That this is such a sad and such a true story is very troubling , specifically considering subsequent acts (or lack thereof) by this administration.
  • Reply 130 of 152
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by franksargent View Post


    Read every word of the Vanity Fair article. As to Cheney, et. al., all we can do know is wait and hope for a better future, but I'm forever the pessimist with respect to our political leadership



    BTW, thanks for the link.



    That this is such a sad and such a true story is very troubling , specifically considering subsequent acts (or lack thereof) by this administration.



    If you haven't seen "9|11-The Filmmakers Commemorative -Edition (Naudet Brothers)" [link to poor quality video] rent it. In fact, I've seen it in budget bins. I'm getting it. It's the only true account in real time of what happened in NYC on 9-11. No other documentary does this, none.
  • Reply 131 of 152
    frank777frank777 Posts: 5,839member
    Just thought I'd point out that the investigators' hard work and determination have carried the day.
  • Reply 132 of 152
    marcukmarcuk Posts: 4,442member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post


    Just thought I'd point out that the investigators' hard work and determination have carried the day.



    One word:



    Thermite.
  • Reply 133 of 152
    nvidia2008nvidia2008 Posts: 9,262member
    What are Bush and Cheney going to do once they are out of office?
  • Reply 134 of 152
    nvidia2008nvidia2008 Posts: 9,262member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MarcUK View Post


    One word:

    Thermite.



    Yup, everyone should watch the original X-Files movie again. This came out first in 1998. Watch it today, and it should send a chill up your spine. Otherwise you all are alien-human hybrids. In which case, I want in!
  • Reply 135 of 152
    sammi josammi jo Posts: 4,634member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by franksargent View Post


    Read every word of the Vanity Fair article. As to Cheney, et. al., all we can do now is wait and hope for a better future, but I'm forever the pessimist with respect to our political leadership



    BTW, thanks for the link.



    That this is such a sad and such a true story is very troubling , specifically considering subsequent acts (or lack thereof) by this administration.



    I have read the Vanity Fair article, several times. I have also read counter arguments to it, several times, one of which appears in "Debunking 9/11 Debunking" (David Griffin). It won't do you any harm ( I trust) to have a look at the other side of the story, with testimony and material that Vanity Fair omitted. Part 1 of "Debunking" is some 70 pages of material which makes Bronner's Vanity Fair article appear at best, threadbare, at worst fraudulent. Using testimony and commentary from people at NORAD/NEADS/NMCC/FAA etc (not included in the Vanity Fair article of course), the facts point to the opposite conclusion: in other words, NORAD knew a hell of a lot more of what was going down that morning than what the Vanity Fair article leads its readers to believe.
  • Reply 136 of 152
    vineavinea Posts: 5,585member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post


    I have read the Vanity Fair article, several times. I have also read counter arguments to it, several times, one of which appears in "Debunking 9/11 Debunking" (David Griffin). It won't do you any harm ( I trust) to have a look at the other side of the story, with testimony and material that Vanity Fair omitted.



    Other than the $15 and several hours of your life lost to a pointless book. Skimming the reviews it's just more of the same nonsense about how there wasn't a plane at the Pentagon, and so on.



    I suppose in the 70's and 80's it was UFOs and the Burmuda Triangle books.

    90's I guess it was crop circles or ?.

    In the '00's it's 9/11 conspiracies.
  • Reply 137 of 152
    marcukmarcuk Posts: 4,442member
    yes, its far easier to just shut up and believe whatever they want you to believe.



    If we say them WMD in Iraq...If we say a plane hit the pentagon..



    One day soon, they'll just lock up people who dare to dissent the official propaganda.
  • Reply 138 of 152
    sammi josammi jo Posts: 4,634member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by vinea View Post


    Other than the $15 and several hours of your life lost to a pointless book. Skimming the reviews it's just more of the same nonsense about how there wasn't a plane at the Pentagon, and so on.



    Your statement about "no plane at the Pentagon" goes to prove that both you, or the "reviewers" you quote, haven't read it. Oh dear.



    Quote:

    I suppose in the 70's and 80's it was UFOs and the Burmuda Triangle books.

    90's I guess it was crop circles or ?.

    In the '00's it's 9/11 conspiracies.



    Especially that wild and wacky conspiracy story about the 19 losers, (a) who displayed zero lifestyle characteristics consistent with fundamentalist Islam (b) whose "best pilot" had no idea how to fly a light airplane (let alone perform, according to ATC, a "next to impossible maneuver" in a commercial airliner), (c) several of whom fraternized with members of the US military, law enforcement and intelligence communities prior to the attacks (d) seven of whom were reported alive after the attacks (e) who never appeared on the airline passenger manifests (f) whose alleged ringleader, a jewelry-wearing. womanizing, coke-snorting, hard drinking (muslim!) was funded by the head of Pakistan's ISI, who himself was in D.C., in a private meeting with Porter Goss and others on the morning of 9/11, (g) several of whom fraternized with jailed GOP lobbyist Jack Abramoff on his casino yacht prior to the attacks (h) whose videotaped presence at the departure gates in Boston and DC has no verifiable chain of custody re. authenticity... and further inconsistencies seemingly ad infinitum..... a few aspects amongst hundreds... and one doesn't need to go anywhere near "controlled demolition" to realize that the Bush/Cheney yarn 'does not compute'.



    If you wish to believe in the weirdest most unlikely conspiracy tale of them all, that's your prerogative. The only reason its gotten so far is because the media has run with what they were told to run with, and reiterated such until "reality" has been forcibly carved in the public psyche.



    As far as I am concerned, nobody has presented the US people and the world with a complete story regarding the attacks that makes sense as regards *every facet* of the attacks, and where the timeline isn't repeatedly violated, or changed on multiple occasions. One can reasonably give some leeway, but when the inconsistencies and absurdities in the "official storyline" are legion, when its proponents display such evasiveness and have demonstrably lied, then it is reasonable to express skepticism.



    As I have said before, I blame obody specifically re. the attacks, simply because I do not know who did it. It seems as if nobody else has any clue either. Like millions of others (and pratically the entire rest of the world), I would like to see a real, open and truly independent investigation with full subpoena power available to the panel, where all witnesses have to take an oath, ie no "executive privilege" BS.



    If such a rigorous inquiry found (scads of data and facts as of yet unknown) that Atta and the 19, with KSM and a few of his fundies on the side, were responsible, fair enough: we could all rest easier and get some closure on this. But to date, the wound is still open, gaping and is now infected.



    As Col. Bob Bowman (USAF) said recently: "the truth about 9/11, is that nobody knows the truth about 9/11". That reflects where I am with it, and it feels no better than on the day.
  • Reply 139 of 152
    vineavinea Posts: 5,585member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post


    Your statement about "no plane at the Pentagon" goes to prove that both you, or the "reviewers" you quote, haven't read it. Oh dear.



    These are listed by a POSITIVE review as subheadings not in the TOC:



    Lack of Expected Debris

    Big Plane, Small Hole

    Where's the Fire?



    Blah blah blah. More of Griffin's there was no airplane at the Pentagon nonsense. No airplane at the 93 crash site nonsense. WTC collapsed at freefall speeds nonsense.



    Despite real physical evidence and eyewitnesses. The guy is a nutjob.



    Oh dear. I guess they did read the book given they are nutjobs that liked what he said eh? Too bad nutjobs theories like "no plane" at the Pentagon have been completely debunked by everyone including other nutjob 9-11 conspiracists who complain that Griffin is a government planted nutjob trying to muddy the waters. Oh dear.
  • Reply 140 of 152
    sammi josammi jo Posts: 4,634member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by vinea View Post


    These are listed by a POSITIVE review as subheadings not in the TOC:



    Lack of Expected Debris

    Big Plane, Small Hole

    Where's the Fire?



    Blah blah blah. More of Griffin's there was no airplane at the Pentagon nonsense. No airplane at the 93 crash site nonsense. WTC collapsed at freefall speeds nonsense.



    Despite real physical evidence and eyewitnesses. The guy is a nutjob.



    Oh dear. I guess they did read the book given they are nutjobs that liked what he said eh? Too bad nutjobs theories like "no plane" at the Pentagon have been completely debunked by everyone including other nutjob 9-11 conspiracists who complain that Griffin is a government planted nutjob trying to muddy the waters. Oh dear.



    Has this degenerated into a "who is the biggest nutjob" contest? If so, leave me out. The most effective weapons that the rabid supporters of the official yarn, are namecalling and insults that would be considered immature by a 6th grader. When you have a more rational argument, as opposed to O'reilly fare, I might listen.
Sign In or Register to comment.