Humour Video : 9/11 conspiracy theories ridiculous. Al qaeda says.

Since Mongoose and Northwoods never got off the ground those are great examples of someone being mature and level headed within the government.

I suppose if you sit and develop cospiracy theories all day long.....the fact that someone might be level headed and block the ideas of someone else as being foreign to your way of thought.

 

And your reasoning is that because the government is not always corrupt or evil, it can never be?

Then how do you explain MKULTRA? Mockingbird? Tonkin?

Your non-answer on Tonkin is an indictment on how seriously you take what you say. Which apparently is not at all. You seem to have no problem taking a position without looking at evidence.

You use conspiracy as a pejorative, when in fact you perpetuate conspiracy by refusing to acknowledge what is on record, what is fact.

But I expect that. We've got neo-cons, and neo-libs on the forum. People who will sing the party line because they think the party acts in their interest. People who can rationalize a government planning attacks on their own citizens, or lying to get into a war, and then claim the people who use documented fact as evidence, are in some way deficient or obsessive.

Steel framed buildings have NEVER burned down before. 3 fell on the same day, with only 2 planes. If the heat from the jet fuel weakened the first 2, how did the 3rd fall?

Even the NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) can't answer that adequately, and has been stalling on it's report for years.

And since the third building "fell down" hours after the attacks, how could the 9/11 commission ignore that completely?

Do you not feel these are valid questions?

Or will you succumb to the same rigorous anti-intellectualism your neocon brethren do? Attack me, post meandering rhetoric, and refuse to answer clearly, in language that leaves no room for ambiguity?

Thousands and thousands of people around the world are waking up. These bogus wars, with their mass murder and plunder by profiteers have drawn unwanted attention, in a manner that sends the rats scurrying. Too bad their turds hang around to provide cover and excuses.

 

Excellent post and unfortunately spot-on in your analysis of our young friend.

Has anyone compiled a comprehensive list of all of the inane and insane things one would have to believe in order to buy into any of the popular 9/11 conspiracy theories?

 

You mean like the theory that low temperature burning jet fuel weakened 2 steel buildings and caused them to collapse demolition style, into their own footprint, when no steel building has ever fallen in that manner before?

Or the inane that Building 7 fell because of.... well, 6 years later, we still don't know why it fell.

Or perhaps why traces of commercial thermate were found on the scrap?

Or the melted steel (where it is admitted steel could not melt from the jet fuel) present days after the towers fell (according to expert eye witness reports)?

Or perhaps we can explain the telephone calls that were never made?

Or how the entire national air defense stood down, precisely during the time of the attack, on the exact day of the attack?

Or how the hijackers were reported to be drinking and partying in Vegas the summer before the attack?

Or how the FBI reported that they were up to suspicious activity, but no one did anything about it?

Or how in the wake of 9/11, not one government agent or employee was reprimanded?

Or how the CIA withheld video evidence from the 9/11 Commission, whose heads now say was compromised by government interference?

Or how none of the recommendations from the Commission have been instituted to make us safer from another attack?

Anyone want to take a shot at any of these?

Or is it just more disinfo and denial?

Where are the heroes who like to use words like conspiracy, moonbat and troofer? Why can't they answer these or any of the questions I have posed in this thread? If I am making things up, that should be simple to disprove, right? You could discredit Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice and Architects and Engineers for 9/11 immediately.

Or is the strategy to combat questions with Ad Hominem and denial?

 

What about Osama Bin Laden not being wanted for 9/11 on the FBI webpage?

 

Very good point. Remember how many millions of times we heard his name being repeated over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again within 24 hours of 9/11.

 

Agreed. Just read Earl's comments. Well done, Earl. I've corrected guerilla on Tonkin previously. I've corrected him on Northwoods also. I don't get the impression that "truth" is what he's looking for though.

See this post. I'm still waiting for you to prove the canards you've copied/pasted from others have any substance to them. Seems rather lazy to me, since many of "us" (not your kind of "us") have already debunked these lies before you were here. Too much trouble to put some effort into it? Or are you going to continue to blame everyone else for asking you to prove something first?

I agree with you here, that the "troofer" nonsense is disinfo and denial. I cherish these rare moments when we can agree.

See this post. Why can't you prove the canards you have copied and pasted from troofer sites are true?

Projection. Unfortunately you have failed to present any evidence the canards are true. Copying and pasting questions/canards from troofer sites is lazy. Asking others to prove them wrong is even lazier. Perhaps you are just now being suckered into all this nonsense, but there were many before you that failed.

Previously covered and corrected here.

 

You mean the most probably uneducated, brainwashed guys who crashed the planes masterminded everything

 

Bin Laden is not wanted for 9/11, and we have not pursued him into Pakistan, despite his committing the most heinous crime in the history of the country.



He's either dead, or he had nothing to do with it.

 

That's it? Opinion or fact? Not possible he did it, and is alive and well?

 

You won't own up to the criminality of the government, including but not limited to the gross negligence in allowing the attacks, investigating the attacks, and capturing Bin Laden.

Which means that the only other rational explanation can be that he is dead or he didn't do it.

Take your pick because if he did it, and he is alive and well, then the government is guilty of gross negligence leaving him free and unpunished for the most heinous crime in American history.

 

I'll pick gross negligence for $1000, Alex, as I've long maintained. A world apart from deliberately engineering the blowing to hell of masses of American citizens.

Beyond that, no, you're statements are not rational.

doesn't lead to:

Since negligence means he did do it (god, is this really this hard?), but we've seriously screwed up the effort to get him.

 

Great. Although there are still a lot of unanswered questions about 9/11, and several inconsistencies in the Commission Report.

Thanks for replying.

 

Anytime.

 

You two need to get a room

 

Building 7 had debris, a huge gash through its exterior, fires with no water available to put out fires and was built with a then new technology that greatly expanded the usage of load bearing columns from what was then in use. Per my experience the wide application of usage of load bearing columns with greatly expanded load bearing technology did not get wide spread usage for about 15 years after the construction of building 7.

It is quite possible that the initial development of a newer engineering technology which did not get wide spread application for 15 years was a function of the collapse. The initial study did give reasons for the collapse. Its experts had specific expertise in an area of specialty where few architects and engineers have any expertise.

If one distrusts government all the time, one can find conspiracy in anything and ask a myriad of questions on anything. The desctruction of the World Trade Center buildings was so unprecedented that while it merits investigation, which did occur the phenomena is dramatically outside of the expertise or expectations of any common construction concerns.

One who so distrusts government that he would rail against actions to protect young girls from rape, that he would side with Al Queda over some unknown, or non specified "government" conspirators that nobody has identified, that he would identify EVERY government action as negative and be unable to see benefits is expressing opinions of the ultra extreme.

I'm glad to see wiser heads in government eliminate plans such as Northwood and Mongoose, and act to protect the rights of young girls. There are benefits to government at various times. It is not the evil that the ultra extreme see at every turn.

 

Earl, you sneaky animal, do you really work for the National Institute of Science and Technology? They have been stalling their report for 6 years!

By golly, Earl has solved the mystery! WTC7 collapsed under a storm of blather and pseudo-intellectual meanderings! The sheer weight of mindless rhetoric collapsed it!

What sort of blood do you use to wash the innocent civilian blood off of your hands?

It's silly that you talk about protecting young girls, when you condone and encourage starving or dehydrating them to death, blowing up the hospitals where they get needed care, sniping their fathers who go out foraging for food in an urban wasteland of feces and destruction, raping their mothers and decapitating them with Hellfire missiles.

You sir, are the criminal of conscience, not me.

 

I'm sure if you wish to believe in conspiracies one can come up with questions every moment. After all nothing is perfect. One can criticize imperfection all day long.

I'm surprised at some of the questioning. Building 7 was constructed over an old con ed generator. The foundation built above the generator was developed to handle a building 25 stories tall. Building 7 was 47 stories tall.

In order to handle that weight and size, building 7 required load bearing additions and changes that are dramatically different than other buildings.

It is conceivable to imagine a building that was constructed with unusual levels of support columns and a unique support system necessary to double its capacity; to face structural problems from debris, fire, and a structural gash that would put undue pressure on its specially built load bearing system.

Since there is a second review being done I'll be interested to learn how they address this issue.






and to quote Ronald Reagon....."there you go again"

 

Just because building 7 was hit with debris and mabye was on fire does not justify the speed it fell at

 

How "fast" did it fall?

Before you answer you may want to research what real free-fall speed is, don't want to make yourself look foolish.