September 11, 2001 attacks were planned by the United States government

You seem to enjoy blowing things out of proportion... Obviously the US is not on a killing rampage, but how many innocents have been killed? The last number that I see trustworhy is from CNN in 2004 and that was 100,000. If the US military really is all that noble they need to reevaluate how they distinguish the terrorists from innocents because they are not doing a great job. Also, you say the US is in Iraq to keep terrorists out... when did this become their job? What happened that gave the US the title of World Police? And do they think the stream of terrorists is ever going to end? If the US did not rape the middle east of so many valuable resources than I doubt they would be so pissed off in the first place. If the US is there to keep terrorists out, why did they build a massive pipe line to carry oil to the Gulf of Oman?

 

They receive such memos on a daily basis, because the threat is permanent. Before 2001, terrorism on US soil was not a central issue like it is now.

It was a different context, you speak now taking into consideration the after 9/11, me the first i think of prior 9/11 under the influence of what happened next, we all do, our judgement of US secret service employees can't be objective, their errors could have had no consequences like 99% of the time.

They are humans and can't predict the future with a special computer algo

 

Ok.. well they did receive the threat memo... as you agree... Osama was at a US hospital in Dubai two months before the attacks... why did they not send someone to ask him about a few things? That would make sense to me...

 

Look, here is evidence that US secret services can be very incompetent.

Why do you think they randomly arrest US or foreign citizens of Muslim religion and send them to camps if they know that this people never did anything wrong?

They committed a lot of mistakes before 9/11, and they continued after, arresting/harassing all sorts of people that had nothing to do with Islamism or international terrorism.

It's pure incompetence.

The FBI doesn't arrest random Italians claiming that they head or participate in organized crime. It usually takes years of investigation, wiretapes, testimonies...etc to build up a case against such criminals.

I bet they didn't even have Arabic-speaking agents working in the US before 9/11, just like FBI agents didn't know Italian in the first part of the 20th Century.

 

Now you're pulling a Gtech, trying to use an example of weakening steel that is different from the scenario that actually happened on 911. The biggest hole in your argument is simple, and the same that I gave to Gtech: a oxy-acetylene torch wasn't used to weaken the steel on 911. The official government story said fire, and as Wiki said, fire from jet fuel is not hot enough to melt steel.

Who cares what a oxy-acetylene torch can do to steel? I never said it couldn't weaken steel. It is totally irrelevant in this argument, because it wasn't present on 911. Jet Fuel is what the government says weakened the steel, and this is a scientific impossibility. Jet fuel isn't hot enough, it only reaches a maximum of 980 C, and steel won't melt at less than 1130 C. On top of this, the steel in the WTC towers was fireproofed, by law it has to be fireproof. So it was further protected from being weakened from fire.

 

5th time. Steel loses 50% of its structural integrity at about 1500 degrees. Do you believe that the towers were designed to stand up, after losing 50% of its strength?

There was actually less fireproofing on the top floors due to the new asbestos rules put into affect during the wtc constrcution. the plane flying through the side of the building also blew off what was there already. so the insulation is irrelevant.

 

The reason why Steven Jones work is not peer reviewed is because his peers don't want to look at it. They're either in denial, or being paid off not to look at the evidence.

Lorien, you say Steven Jones has not credential? My GOD, he is a Professor in Physics! What do you mean he has no credibility. To get your PHD in Physics, you have to know a "little" bit about physics, and the structure of objects, don't you think?

 

Please go read the article on Jet fuel at Wiki. You are RIGHT LORIEN! Steel does begin to lose its structure at 1500 degrees, I never said it didn't. But steel will not melt at less than 1130 C, and Jet Fuel is only 980 C maximum. It is nowhere near 1500 C!

 

No. He did not submit it for peer review.

Don't you think this is a little peculiar? And do you honestly believe that every other structural engineer on the planet is involved in the conspiracy too?

 

Lorien, have you ever heard the saying that "history tends to repeat itself?" You ever heard that one before. The reason I mentioned past conspiracies is not because I want to get off topic, it is because I'm showing that our government is capable of carrying out attacks against their own people, because they've done it before!

 

Melting is a canard, tesla. The towers could not stand given that half the supporting structure's strength was gone. Think about it. You claim to be logical.

 

No. Tesla. All you are doing is avoiding the issues, entirely.

You have completely stopped debating the issues you've brought forth and are now stuck on "welp, it happened in the past, it'll happen again" and facts, reality and any sort of intellectual honesty has completely gone away.

Here's lets touch on this again. Put your logic to the test here:

I have the only possible answer and I do not even believe the conspiracy. Surely you can come up with it as well?

 

How many times in history has a scientist went against the establishment, and was ridiculed or harassed because of his believes, and was then later to be proven right? Lets see, I can think of a few........Copernicus, Galileo, these are just a couple of the men who fall under this category.

They went against established wisdom, and many years later, people finally said, you know what? These guys were right. The earth really is flat! The earth really isn't the center of the universe!

Steven Jones suddenly starts speaking out about 911, and he is conveniently removed from his post at BYU. Lorien, you have still dodged another question that addressed last night to Bogart and Gtech, and I will ask it again:

if 911 truth is such a dumb and crazy conspiracy, why did the history channel go to all the trouble to "debunk" it? Why not ignore it, and let it go away by itself? What are they afraid of?

 

Ratings? History channel airs a lot of things. I believe it also aired loose change a few years back, didn't it? Why? Ratings.

What does the history channel have to do with anything, Tesla?

 

It you really look at 911, it is pretty obvious that the attacks were not completed. The plane that crashed in Pennsylvania didn't hit its mark, which is believed to have been the Capital building. 911 was an attempted coup de tat, an attempt to overthrow the United States government. If the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania had successfully hit the Capital Building, or the White House, who knows where the country would be today?

I never said the people who did the 911 attacks were perfect. They hit 75% of their targets, so they were pretty close. I don't understand all the details of 911, and I may never know. But from what I do know, I can tell you that something smells really fishy, and history stands behind me, because they guys have pulled this type of stuff before.........and they will do it again. Governments around the world stage terror attacks. Its a thing they like to do.

 

I need to go check my emails and eat breakfast. I will come back to explain this in a little bit.

 

I see that you ignored my rebuttal to your earlier posts questioning why you support a President that flipped-flopped about bringing bin Laden to justice, and also has used the capture/killing of al Qaida lieutenants and Iraq's former leader as examples of why it's important to hunt, capture and eliminate these terrorists for the protection of America. Somehow it's not important for Bush to capture bin Laden but it is important to capture and kill Saddam Hussein and other al Qaida leaders like the group's second in command, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Bush called al-Zarqawi's death "a severe blow to al Qaeda, and it is a significant victory in the war on terror." So how come our leader calls bin Laden "not important" but the number two guy is? And how come Bush's supporters blindly accept his flip-flopping on it? Do the deaths of the 9/11 victims only matter to these people if it happens to them?

To paraphrase your own accusation to others, your own picking and choosing of answers says a lot, doesn't it?

 

Your avoiding again. Please reason this through, Tesla.

Plane for WTc1
Plane for wtc2
plane for pentagon
flight 93 (not sure where it was going)
blow up wtc7 with demolitions

What moron does that, seriously? You pretend to be a logical person. Try to make sense of that will ya?

Why would you break theme at wtc7 and do it with demolitions, when you have planes lined up for every other target? According to you, this has been planned for years (prior to Bush, even), so it look at lot of planning.

Why the fundamental flaw?

 

Actually, if you remember. The US Troops were not solely dedicated to finding Saddam or his sons. If they had intel, they;d strike. But they did not go out of their way and look for them exclusively. Eventually, they were caught; but it wasn't the primary goal. Killing the leadership does not stop the war.

Same with the others that are killed. If the intellligence is there, they got shot at, but going out of your way to kill them, when someone else will just take their place makes no sense, does it?

Nope. Your illogical canards I've already answered several times in various threads. Yet you bring them up time and time again. You are not interested anything but making speeches. And you've shown that yet again.

 

There is nothing to explain Tesla. You are just distracting from the events again. You have given up on debating the events of the day and are off on some wild tangent, probably to save face. I'm not sure why you are doing this.

I simply want you to reason through my question to you. That is all. Put your logic to the test for me, would ya?