justinb138 0 #26 April 23, 2007 Quote Those kids rip those PM guys to shreds! I love it! Actually, I see the other way around. It looks like they did little to no actual investigation of the crap they were claiming, and looked like idiots for the most part. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Stumpy 284 #27 April 23, 2007 Quote Those kids rip those PM guys to shreds! I love it! OK - even if ANY of the bs theories had any basis in anything other than some kids needs to make shit up because they are bored, and even if any of the theories had any basis in science or fact (which it has been proved time and time again that they don't), then how the F*** does a country that can't keep a blowjob secret, cover up a conspiracy that must have taken hundreds or thousands of people to set up. You are seriously stretching belief by implying that the administration is THAT competent. Unless wait - maybe Clintons blowjob was part of the conspiracy!! it was a distraction tactic planned years in advance!!! Shit this goes deeper than we thought and the Thetans planned it all along!!! Damn where is my foil hat! Okay now i am babbling. (but then the conspiracy theorists should recognise that - takes one to know one.)Never try to eat more than you can lift Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ExAFO 0 #28 April 23, 2007 "Mung Beans." What a terrible name for a food item.Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Stumpy 284 #29 April 23, 2007 Good point. Could be worse though. "Bung Means"Never try to eat more than you can lift Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #30 April 23, 2007 STILL no answers as to why none of the hijackers were made out to be Iraqis. oh well. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nanook 1 #31 April 23, 2007 Quote1. If a series of mistakes led to these two planes striking the towers, killing almost 3000 people, why have the folks that made the 'mistakes' not been charged, fired, relieved of duty or anything? cops fail to stop drunk drivers from killing all the time. They don't get fired. Even the Chief responsible for the particular jurisdiction doesn't get let go. They also "fail" to stop murderers all the time. Quote2. What about all the cars that were on the ground having engines burned up, various parts of the paint blistered, yet other parts untouched. Signs that the metals got so hot they melted the rubber off the rims but left the rims and steel belts from inside the tires? Loose papers all around making it obvious that the super hot fuel fires didn't reach the ground to melt the cars. It should have been all used up 'weakening' the 46 center columns around where the plane hit. Fires spreading by convection or conduction don't follow scripts written out by behaviorists. If this is an argument, it is seriously grasping at straws. Quote 3. The plane that hit the pentagon supposedly made a flyover of the pentagon at 7000 feet, circles around and hits the pentagon, in the only place specifically upgraded to handle a direct hit from a plane. (but they had no idea that could happen?) There was a 1 in 5 chance they would get the right wall. The odds are not too against it happening. Or it's the only wall that is not obstructed enough by nearby buildings and structures and therefore modified due to it's exposure. Anywhere else, the aircraft could never make an approach without hitting something else first. . .probably. Quote This all happened almost an HOUR after the first plane hit WTC1? (I would think we obviously know we are under attack, as two buildings have now been hit with planes) but fighters arrive to defend Washington 15 minutes after the pentagon is hit? That just sounds like way to many folks fell down on their jobs and we get back to the question of #1 You don't understand enough about how our defenses work to even think of questioning this. What use are the fighters? How are they more or less capable than a DDG, CG, ect. . .? What's the difference between shooting an aircraft down and the debris hits the ground(That whole seaboard is one huge megapolis), and it hitting a building? The aircraft is still striking heavy population areas regardless. Quote4. Why again didn't they trace all the put options placed on the two airlines in the week leading up to 911? Describe to me a "Short-Sell" option, what do you need to have to do it and why you would do that to an Airline Company. Mostly, tell me someone who would not put any type of buy or sell option on American. Only an idiot investment company would not bother to trade like that. What I am saying is at least half of private and company investors in the U.S and some Rest of World investors are responsible for that "weird" trade. Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Getting insurance money is hardly evidence of a conspiracy. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Of course not. However, since he took out the lease a mere 7 weeks prior to the attacks AND he was the sole leaser of the only 3 steel buildings to EVER collapse due to fires AND he was able to double his insurance settlement since it was classified as two attacks AND he is on record stating they were going to 'pull' building 7- he is either the luckiest MF I have ever seen in my life, or he was a central part of the biggest lie Bush and Co have told to date. Anyone know if Silverstein got insurance money for building 7 too? This also is not evidence for conspiracy. All the points made in that paragraph have one thing in common: A lot of things happened for the first time. I strongly suggest you not read the Guinness Book of World Records._____________________________ "The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ErricoMalatesta 0 #32 April 23, 2007 QuoteQuotePerhaps you can work with me here and give me your tinfoil hat reasoning for the U.S government or is it icke's reptilians? For carrying out a false flag terrorist act? As it is stated in the PNAC document "Rebuilding America's Defenses", they (PNAC) needed an event "like a new Pearl Harbor" for their plans to be realized. PNAC members are riddled throughout the current administration, and the event they were looking for happened on 911. They were able to invalidate the Constitution, Bill of Rights, Civil Rights in one document, which was obviously prepared well before 911, in 'The Patriot Act'. The second attack on America then allowed Bush to declare war on and occupy Afganistan, then Iraq, and soon Iran. Newsflash As is the nature of the world super power the U.S have been brutally expanding their economic and power interests since hmm, FOREVER. They don't need to fly planes into buildings for "new pearl harbours", they just go ahead and do what they want. As you have used sources I will too. Source: Pretty much every fucking decade, if not year, of the 20th century. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,120 #33 April 23, 2007 > If a series of mistakes led to these two planes striking the towers, > killing almost 3000 people, why have the folks that made the 'mistakes' > not been charged, fired, relieved of duty or anything? In 1970, 29 national guardsmen fired into a crowd of unarmed Kent State students, wounding nine students and killing four. The guardsmen were not fired, relieved of duty or convicted of anything. That was a much bigger "mistake." >2. What about all the cars that were on the ground having engines >burned up, various parts of the paint blistered, yet other parts untouched. Go to any plane crash where there has been a fire. Parts of the plane will be burned to ash, and parts a few inches away will have the paint still intact. It's the nature of intense fires. >Why again didn't they trace all the put options placed on the two airlines >in the week leading up to 911? How do you know they didn't? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites examiner2 0 #34 April 23, 2007 http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons edited for clicky. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites cumplidor 0 #35 April 23, 2007 QuoteIf the US government went to all of the trouble orchestrating the attacks & conjuring up a fake official story about it, then why didn't they bother to make even one of the hijackers an Iraqi? I'm not sure why but not sure how big of a deal that is either. While I understand where you are coming from, that it would make it easier later to easily justify later intentions, they have obviously shown they didn't need that to invade Iraq. He had already become glorified a villain in the US Media long before the 03 invasion. Besides that, they bombed the shit out of him quite a few times already years prior, so why again would they need Iraqis as hijackers? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites cumplidor 0 #36 April 23, 2007 QuoteActually, I see the other way around. It looks like they did little to no actual investigation of the crap they were claiming, and looked like idiots for the most part. Have you watched the Loose Change video in its entirety? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites willard 0 #37 April 23, 2007 QuoteQuote What unanswered questions? 1. If a series of mistakes led to these two planes striking the towers, killing almost 3000 people, why have the folks that made the 'mistakes' not been charged, fired, relieved of duty or anything? 2. What about all the cars that were on the ground having engines burned up, various parts of the paint blistered, yet other parts untouched. Signs that the metals got so hot they melted the rubber off the rims but left the rims and steel belts from inside the tires? Loose papers all around making it obvious that the super hot fuel fires didn't reach the ground to melt the cars. It should have been all used up 'weakening' the 46 center columns around where the plane hit. 3. The plane that hit the pentagon supposedly made a flyover of the pentagon at 7000 feet, circles around and hits the pentagon, in the only place specifically upgraded to handle a direct hit from a plane. (but they had no idea that could happen?) This all happened almost an HOUR after the first plane hit WTC1? (I would think we obviously know we are under attack, as two buildings have now been hit with planes) but fighters arrive to defend Washington 15 minutes after the pentagon is hit? That just sounds like way to many folks fell down on their jobs and we get back to the question of #1 4. Why again didn't they trace all the put options placed on the two airlines in the week leading up to 911? They could have arrested someone and asked them how the heck they knew to put those puts. BUT they didn't go after those folks and kinda stopped talking about it. Is that not an unanswered question? QuoteGetting insurance money is hardly evidence of a conspiracy. Of course not. However, since he took out the lease a mere 7 weeks prior to the attacks AND he was the sole leaser of the only 3 steel buildings to EVER collapse due to fires AND he was able to double his insurance settlement since it was classified as two attacks AND he is on record stating they were going to 'pull' building 7- he is either the luckiest MF I have ever seen in my life, or he was a central part of the biggest lie Bush and Co have told to date. Anyone know if Silverstein got insurance money for building 7 too? All those questions have been answered many times over. http://ourworld.cs.com/mikegriffith1/refute.htm Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites NCclimber 0 #38 April 23, 2007 Quote As it is stated in the PNAC document "Rebuilding America's Defenses", they (PNAC) needed an event "like a new Pearl Harbor" for their plans to be realized. At best, this is a rather creative interpretation of what was actually written. Then again, most people would read it as a blatant lie. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites idrankwhat 0 #39 April 23, 2007 Quote One thing the 9/11 conspiritards never explain: If the US government went to all of the trouble orchestrating the attacks & conjuring up a fake official story about it, then why didn't they bother to make even one of the hijackers an Iraqi?...... I think that the conspiracy to blow up the buildings stuff is overblown and very easy to argue against, thereby making it the perfect story. Propping it up and shooting it down clears the government of any wrong doing in most people's eyes. Now I'm not saying that this happened but I think this is a much more reasonable story for the conspiracy theorists. We all know that the PNAC was running our government at the time. They may have been willing to accept a "Pearl Harbor like event" in order to implement their ideas. (the notion of "acceptable losses") Everyone knew that aQ wanted to attack us, maybe with planes. Who's to say that they didn't simply deliberately pull resources from terror threat analysis and let an attack happen? There seems to be plenty of evidence that they turned a blind eye to terror issues and focused elsewhere early in 2001. Just a thought Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites philh 0 #40 April 23, 2007 Or much more likely the Bush govt was incompetent. Read Richard Clarkes book "Against All Enemies". He was inside the highest levels of the White House and the picture he paints is a dogmatic administration who were too stupid to listen to and act on the advice they were given. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #41 April 23, 2007 QuoteOr much more likely the Bush govt was incompetent. Read Richard Clarkes book "Against All Enemies". He was inside the highest levels of the White House and the picture he paints is a dogmatic administration who were too stupid to listen to and act on the advice they were given. Richard Clark, yea, now there is a credible source. Yea.........."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #42 April 23, 2007 Google "Gorelick wall"Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites idrankwhat 0 #43 April 23, 2007 Quote Google "Gorelick wall" But when you do that, make sure that you read past Ashcroft's first mention of the "wall". I wouldn't want you to miss the part where he admitted that there wasn't really a "wall". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,120 #44 April 23, 2007 >Richard Clark, yea, now there is a credible source. And Bob Woodward, and Colin Powell. Basically anyone who criticizes anything Bush does is not a credible source. That leaves - who? - Cheney and everyone who works for Bush (and of course his supporters.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites philh 0 #45 April 23, 2007 i think his story - that GWB's white house was too dogmatic and arrogant to take the Aq threat seriosuly is a lot more resonable than they plotted to kill thousands of their own people. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites NCclimber 0 #46 April 23, 2007 Quote Google "Gorelick wall" And "Able Danger", too. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,120 #47 April 23, 2007 Agreed. Occam's Razor in action. There's also a corollary to it, I forget who said it originally: If there are two possible explanations for something, and one involves malice, brilliant planning and a nationwide coverup, and the other involves simple incompetence - incompetence wins every time. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #48 April 23, 2007 Quote Quote Google "Gorelick wall" But when you do that, make sure that you read past Ashcroft's first mention of the "wall". I wouldn't want you to miss the part where he admitted that there wasn't really a "wall". WTF are you talking about? I could give a shit less about what Ashcroft said about it - the bald fact is that she DID issue directives that prevented information to pass between agencies. Of course, the 9/11 commission wasn't going to find one of it's own members culpable... Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #49 April 23, 2007 Quote >Richard Clark, yea, now there is a credible source. And Bob Woodward, and Colin Powell. Basically anyone who criticizes anything Bush does is not a credible source. That leaves - who? - Cheney and everyone who works for Bush (and of course his supporters.) That is not what I am saying at all"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Amazon 7 #50 April 23, 2007 QuoteAnd Bob Woodward, and Colin Powell. Basically anyone who criticizes anything Bush does is not a credible source. That leaves - who? - Cheney and everyone who works for Bush (and of course his supporters.) That is all part of that whole you is either with us or you is agin us....mentality that the paranoid in charge has with the world at large. AS long as you agree with him.. he is your biggest supporter... dissagree with him and the retribution begins. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 2 of 3 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
billvon 3,120 #33 April 23, 2007 > If a series of mistakes led to these two planes striking the towers, > killing almost 3000 people, why have the folks that made the 'mistakes' > not been charged, fired, relieved of duty or anything? In 1970, 29 national guardsmen fired into a crowd of unarmed Kent State students, wounding nine students and killing four. The guardsmen were not fired, relieved of duty or convicted of anything. That was a much bigger "mistake." >2. What about all the cars that were on the ground having engines >burned up, various parts of the paint blistered, yet other parts untouched. Go to any plane crash where there has been a fire. Parts of the plane will be burned to ash, and parts a few inches away will have the paint still intact. It's the nature of intense fires. >Why again didn't they trace all the put options placed on the two airlines >in the week leading up to 911? How do you know they didn't? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
examiner2 0 #34 April 23, 2007 http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons edited for clicky. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cumplidor 0 #35 April 23, 2007 QuoteIf the US government went to all of the trouble orchestrating the attacks & conjuring up a fake official story about it, then why didn't they bother to make even one of the hijackers an Iraqi? I'm not sure why but not sure how big of a deal that is either. While I understand where you are coming from, that it would make it easier later to easily justify later intentions, they have obviously shown they didn't need that to invade Iraq. He had already become glorified a villain in the US Media long before the 03 invasion. Besides that, they bombed the shit out of him quite a few times already years prior, so why again would they need Iraqis as hijackers? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cumplidor 0 #36 April 23, 2007 QuoteActually, I see the other way around. It looks like they did little to no actual investigation of the crap they were claiming, and looked like idiots for the most part. Have you watched the Loose Change video in its entirety? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
willard 0 #37 April 23, 2007 QuoteQuote What unanswered questions? 1. If a series of mistakes led to these two planes striking the towers, killing almost 3000 people, why have the folks that made the 'mistakes' not been charged, fired, relieved of duty or anything? 2. What about all the cars that were on the ground having engines burned up, various parts of the paint blistered, yet other parts untouched. Signs that the metals got so hot they melted the rubber off the rims but left the rims and steel belts from inside the tires? Loose papers all around making it obvious that the super hot fuel fires didn't reach the ground to melt the cars. It should have been all used up 'weakening' the 46 center columns around where the plane hit. 3. The plane that hit the pentagon supposedly made a flyover of the pentagon at 7000 feet, circles around and hits the pentagon, in the only place specifically upgraded to handle a direct hit from a plane. (but they had no idea that could happen?) This all happened almost an HOUR after the first plane hit WTC1? (I would think we obviously know we are under attack, as two buildings have now been hit with planes) but fighters arrive to defend Washington 15 minutes after the pentagon is hit? That just sounds like way to many folks fell down on their jobs and we get back to the question of #1 4. Why again didn't they trace all the put options placed on the two airlines in the week leading up to 911? They could have arrested someone and asked them how the heck they knew to put those puts. BUT they didn't go after those folks and kinda stopped talking about it. Is that not an unanswered question? QuoteGetting insurance money is hardly evidence of a conspiracy. Of course not. However, since he took out the lease a mere 7 weeks prior to the attacks AND he was the sole leaser of the only 3 steel buildings to EVER collapse due to fires AND he was able to double his insurance settlement since it was classified as two attacks AND he is on record stating they were going to 'pull' building 7- he is either the luckiest MF I have ever seen in my life, or he was a central part of the biggest lie Bush and Co have told to date. Anyone know if Silverstein got insurance money for building 7 too? All those questions have been answered many times over. http://ourworld.cs.com/mikegriffith1/refute.htm Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #38 April 23, 2007 Quote As it is stated in the PNAC document "Rebuilding America's Defenses", they (PNAC) needed an event "like a new Pearl Harbor" for their plans to be realized. At best, this is a rather creative interpretation of what was actually written. Then again, most people would read it as a blatant lie. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #39 April 23, 2007 Quote One thing the 9/11 conspiritards never explain: If the US government went to all of the trouble orchestrating the attacks & conjuring up a fake official story about it, then why didn't they bother to make even one of the hijackers an Iraqi?...... I think that the conspiracy to blow up the buildings stuff is overblown and very easy to argue against, thereby making it the perfect story. Propping it up and shooting it down clears the government of any wrong doing in most people's eyes. Now I'm not saying that this happened but I think this is a much more reasonable story for the conspiracy theorists. We all know that the PNAC was running our government at the time. They may have been willing to accept a "Pearl Harbor like event" in order to implement their ideas. (the notion of "acceptable losses") Everyone knew that aQ wanted to attack us, maybe with planes. Who's to say that they didn't simply deliberately pull resources from terror threat analysis and let an attack happen? There seems to be plenty of evidence that they turned a blind eye to terror issues and focused elsewhere early in 2001. Just a thought Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
philh 0 #40 April 23, 2007 Or much more likely the Bush govt was incompetent. Read Richard Clarkes book "Against All Enemies". He was inside the highest levels of the White House and the picture he paints is a dogmatic administration who were too stupid to listen to and act on the advice they were given. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #41 April 23, 2007 QuoteOr much more likely the Bush govt was incompetent. Read Richard Clarkes book "Against All Enemies". He was inside the highest levels of the White House and the picture he paints is a dogmatic administration who were too stupid to listen to and act on the advice they were given. Richard Clark, yea, now there is a credible source. Yea.........."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #42 April 23, 2007 Google "Gorelick wall"Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #43 April 23, 2007 Quote Google "Gorelick wall" But when you do that, make sure that you read past Ashcroft's first mention of the "wall". I wouldn't want you to miss the part where he admitted that there wasn't really a "wall". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #44 April 23, 2007 >Richard Clark, yea, now there is a credible source. And Bob Woodward, and Colin Powell. Basically anyone who criticizes anything Bush does is not a credible source. That leaves - who? - Cheney and everyone who works for Bush (and of course his supporters.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
philh 0 #45 April 23, 2007 i think his story - that GWB's white house was too dogmatic and arrogant to take the Aq threat seriosuly is a lot more resonable than they plotted to kill thousands of their own people. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #46 April 23, 2007 Quote Google "Gorelick wall" And "Able Danger", too. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #47 April 23, 2007 Agreed. Occam's Razor in action. There's also a corollary to it, I forget who said it originally: If there are two possible explanations for something, and one involves malice, brilliant planning and a nationwide coverup, and the other involves simple incompetence - incompetence wins every time. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #48 April 23, 2007 Quote Quote Google "Gorelick wall" But when you do that, make sure that you read past Ashcroft's first mention of the "wall". I wouldn't want you to miss the part where he admitted that there wasn't really a "wall". WTF are you talking about? I could give a shit less about what Ashcroft said about it - the bald fact is that she DID issue directives that prevented information to pass between agencies. Of course, the 9/11 commission wasn't going to find one of it's own members culpable... Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #49 April 23, 2007 Quote >Richard Clark, yea, now there is a credible source. And Bob Woodward, and Colin Powell. Basically anyone who criticizes anything Bush does is not a credible source. That leaves - who? - Cheney and everyone who works for Bush (and of course his supporters.) That is not what I am saying at all"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #50 April 23, 2007 QuoteAnd Bob Woodward, and Colin Powell. Basically anyone who criticizes anything Bush does is not a credible source. That leaves - who? - Cheney and everyone who works for Bush (and of course his supporters.) That is all part of that whole you is either with us or you is agin us....mentality that the paranoid in charge has with the world at large. AS long as you agree with him.. he is your biggest supporter... dissagree with him and the retribution begins. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
