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

Only Heath Ledger knows (knew?) the truth...

Do you think he's really dead?

 

Of course not. He is on the island with Elvis, Jim Morrison, and Hendrix.

 

Do you guys want me to tell you the 9/11 story about the White House Official who lied under oath? It's a good one, and another good reason for a new investigation!

 

Yes.
Sounds interesting.

 

Hah great!!

 

Guerilla, please spill the beans buddy. Anything that will get us closer to the truth would be great.

 

Ted Olson's Report of Phone Calls from Barbara Olson on 9/11: Three Official Denials
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8514

Olsen kept flipping between the stories that his wife called him from the plane, first by cell phone, then by seatback phone. But cellphones didn't have the tech in 2001 to work at that altitude, (not to mention, there is no record of a call), and the plane that was hijacked didn't have seatback phones.

Ted Olsen

9/11 liar.

 

Al Qaeda's #2 guy has once again claimed responsibility for 9/11. This time though, he has a special message for Iran, Hezbollah, and their "truther" allies.

"The purpose of this lie is clear — (to suggest) that there are no heroes among the Sunnis who can hurt America as no else did in history. Iranian media snapped up this lie and repeated it."​

Read the whole story at Al Qaeda No. 2 Accuses Iran of Spreading 9/11 Conspiracy Rumor

 

who cares what al quaeda says since al quaeda in the reality does not exist? scratch and win.. the truth..

 

h0h00h0h0h0h0h0h0h0

Al Qaeda sure is quite busy for an organization that doesn't exist.

Osama bin Laden and his happy band of Islamist murderers must really be Jews in the pay of the Mossad, all acting to discredit Islam.

 

"Spilling the beans" on Ted Olson:

Doozies afoot on this thread. Yep, the guy offed his wife for the life insurance. No, wait, she's in hiding in Mauritius. No, wait, Ted Olson was his wife, and he's now undercover as Ann Coulter. No, wait...

Occam's razor indeed.

 

Yes, and Bin Laden coordinated an attack by 4 hijacked airplanes from a cave in his bathrobe.

Yep, he defeated NORAD and the US Air Force, FBI, CIA, NSA with 19 guys who didn't show up on passenger manifests and took control of those 4 planes in less than hours, with box cutters as their weapon of terror.

The attack was so effective, that he brought down 3 steel framed buildings with 2 planes, the first three steel framed buildings to ever "burn" down.

Btw, the black boxes from all of the planes were missing, BUT they did find the paper passports of the hijackers.

No wonder you believe in Santa Claus.

 

Claim: "We have been lied to," announces the Web site AttackOnAmerica.net. "The first lie was that the load of fuel from the aircraft was the cause of structural failure. No kerosene fire can burn hot enough to melt steel." The posting is entitled "Proof Of Controlled Demolition At The WTC."

FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength — and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.

But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.

"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."

Source: http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=4


It seems that you will go to any lengths of dishonesty to avoid giving your friends in Al Qaeda credit for their hard work.

 

Popular Mechanics has been debunked by Scholars for 9/11 Truth.

AttackOnAmerica is not an authority site. Popular Mechanics deliberately sought out less than authoritative claims to address.

That's an attempt (albeit a lousy one) at disinfo Will.

An authoritative site is Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice.

And of course, Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth

 

Very good website, seen a cracking interview with Richard Gage (website founder) the other week.

 

Could you link it for Will and myself?

 

This one ?
http://mtl911truth.org/2008/04/06/richard-gage-interview-with-alex-jones/

 

Cheers buddy that's the one.

 

I've never spent any substitive amount of time looking at these conspiracy theories. IMHO they are crackpot's perspectives. Its astonishing in light of Al Queda's taking responsability for the attacks and the sum total of attacks it has managed to inspire around the world.

Then when I look at the full body of Guerilla's posts that focus on attacking any and every aspect of American involvement in any foreign effort at any time in the last 60 years, it adds to the upsurdity.

In Guerilla's eyes, FDR conspired to enable the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbour, the Japanese are blameless for their part in WWII, US involvement in any military action in any part of the world is inherently evil, any efforts to stop Communism by the US were inherently corrupt and villanous, Saddam Hussein was blameless for any action taken at any time against his own people and those of other lands, US involvement in the mideast is irrevocably wrong, etc. etc. etc.

Its astonishing. One would think that the US establishing troops in Europe, establishing and essentially creating NATO, and stemming the sweep of Communism across Europe never happened.

I'm sure several hundred million Europeans are essentially grateful that Russian style communism ultimately failed and there are greater levels of freedom throughout the continent.

Similarly, a costly stalemate in Korea ultimately led to a free and productive South Korea.

In the long history of military efforts, some turned out reasonably well, some didn't, some involved lots of death, and some didn't.

Regardless a theory that looks at every action by the US overseas as evil is one that would happily embrace a conspiracy theory involving the world trade center, the pentagon, the crashing of the plane in Pennsylvania, and the acceptance of the destruction by Al Queda all as some larger conspiracy in which the varied leaders of the US over 60 years have conspired again and again against the population.

Its ludicrous.

If one is for the total elimination of the US as a world power, the two fold efforts to spread freedom and block tyranny, one would attack any and every action under every conceivable notion.

Its a waste of time to deal with folks like this. Fortunately, they are typically found in the smallest of minorities and normally never get the slightest air time or are seen in the public eye. When they do emerge, they are typically quickly seen for what they are--crackpots.

Of course in this greater world their perspectives merge with those like the head of Iran, and/or Al Queda who have the most vile perspectives against the West. I guess in that vein they are a bit more dangerous.

I'm almost sorry I went through this and another one or 2 threads about a conspiracy with regard to the 9/11 attacks. They bring absurdity and/or hatred of the US to a new height of incredulousness.

 

I see, so you don't spend substitive time, but decide it's a crackpot theory. Exactly the problem.

The Japanese government has recently discussed 9/11 on national TV, and so called "crackpots" from Scholars for 9/11 Truth made a presentation to the European parliament.

But hey, you've already decided they are not "substitive" without spending any time on it. Rigorous intellectualism Earl. Rigorous.

The last 100 years.

This is exaggerated or false. What do you stand to gain from such slander?

Communism failed because socialism isn't a viable economic system. Eventually, governments become so oppressive and impoverished, they collapse under collective social pressure.

Did you ever look up the Bay of Tonkin incident after I informed you about it? If the government can fake a provocation for Vietnam, and the published Operation Northwoods and Operation Mongoose show that government has planned to use false flag attacks on American citizens to advance military agendas, why can you not even be bothered to look at evidence that the attack may have been contrived?

Is it that you are uncomfortable contemplating the idea, or you really think that government documents are faked, Vietnam wasn't contrived, FDR did not have advance warning of the Japanese attack, etc?

Hey, the truth is ugly. Denial is shameful.

If you think the Scholars and Architects for 9/11 truth are crackpots, so be it. You're talking about a lot of people, and the ranks are growing.

And the eventual insinuation that questioning the government must mean you are a terrorist sympathizer. Bush-esque neocon tactics.

But you didn't go through anything. All you did was issue Ad Hominem statements. You haven't tackled any of the 9/11 issues which are unanswered or conflict with the official report. You haven't addressed or refuting anything, merely engaging in petty slander and name calling, to attempt to discredit the poster, not the post.

Maybe it's because, you can't discredit the post. Maybe you can't handle the fact that if the government was behind 9/11 like it was behind the Bay of Tonkin, then you've mistakenly cheerlead the death of hundreds of thousands of people.

If you want to debate the positions on merit, as in, have an honest discussion, by all means Earl, I would be happy to participate. But these childish attacks and attempts to diminish the poster, while avoiding the facts or statements would be below most individuals with an iota of self-respect.

The truth doesn't fear investigation. Or do you not agree with that?