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

LOL

First off, writing in big/huge bold print....must have struck a chord.

gee....your feelings were hurt.

I did go through the architects and engineers report. I did it because I spent 20 years working with architects and engineers in the development of buildings. In fact the vast majority of time was spent with the development of office buildings.

The vast majority of architects and engineers don't have the training to knowledgably articulate exactly what happens with regard to the destruction of the buildings.

Their training scarcely touches something of this magnitude. There may be a few people with a tight level of expertise that would have the expertise to discuss this knowledgeably.

Some of the aspects of the architects and engineers report were either non-sensical or not direct discussions on the issues at hand. I suppose they were filler.

Those that believe there was a conspiracy should work to find out who did what. You continuously suggest a conspiracy while being unable to point to who might have been responsable.

Its not the damn elite. There is no grand elite that walks around trying to screw the non elite.

I suppose Tom Delay and Ted Kennedy were conspiring against everyone who is an employee. I suppose that every person who ever rose through the ranks through achievement ultimately got brought into some secret society that screws the underbelly of the world.

Its the ultimate naive, immature, or response of someone who has never worked, never been involved in a group trying to make decisions, and never interacted with others.

Get involved, go work someplace, try out your ideas in a real world scenario and then come back and report about conspiracies.

 

The worst thing about the 9/11 CT's is the cartoon physics. That will continue to blow my mind that some fall for it hook, line and sinker and commonly reiterate - freefall speeds, etc... The type of holes some of them expected to see in the building remind me of the roadrunner running "through" a rock wall - a perfect match.

 

No, you hurt my feelings when you take cheap shots at my parents. I just wanted to emphasize how hypocritical and intentionally obtuse your last post was. I think people probably skip over long quoted poster to poster discussions. It's important to expose your attempts to discredit the questions about 9/11, by discrediting me rather than addressing them on fact or merit.

This is all meaningless. You're telling me in 24 hours or less, you managed to go through all of the data on those sites, and ascertain that these engineers don't know enough to discuss the buildings falling?

I'm confused, because in your previous post, you claimed not to have spent substitive time, and now you are claiming you have. Which is it?

Which portions specifically?

That's why we want a new investigation, not a lynching. It's obvious you didn't even check out the information I sourced. The call is for a new investigation based on scientific anomalies and contradictory aspects of the Commission Report. Not to mention CIA destroyed evidence, politicization of the investigative process, and the incompleteness of the hearings.

Ramble, ramble, ramble.

It seems to me that once again you have been exposed for your lame attacks, and diversionary tactics. So now you have resorted to rambling on and on in vague circles, without addressing any points of fact.

I'll ask again. Does the truth fear investigation? Yes or no?

And while we are at it,

Since you are aware that the reason for entry into the Vietnam War was staged, based on government documents, and you have been made aware of Operation Northwoods and Operation Mongoose, do you not believe the government is capable of implementing such plans, or repeating such an event?

 

Can you explain how Building 7 fell?

Or why there was molten metal on the site days after the buildings had fallen?

Or why scrap has tested positive for thermate?

Or how all 3 buildings fell perfectly into their footprint, with a circular debris field?

Or how Ted Olsen's wife called him from a phone without service, or a phone that doesn't exist?

Or why most of the physical evidence was destroyed and not retained in a secure location?

Perhaps you know what happened to the black boxes from all 4 flights, that are missing but somehow the hijackers paper passports survived the crashes that brought down the towers?

Or how the hijackers boarded all 4 flights without being on the passenger manifests?

Maybe you can explain why the 9/11 Commission claims no black boxes were recovered at the WTC, when onsite investigators claim to have found 3 of the 4 black boxes?

Or maybe you can explain why the Flight 77 black box data indicates a different flight path and altitude than the official story, with the government refusing to comment?

It's time for a new investigation. Too many inconsistencies, too much new evidence that contradicts or questions the official account, which isn't even consistent with the 9/11 Commission Report.

 

Seems like your trooferism is shining through, now that ron paul has fallen off the planet! I remember commenting on how all the twoofers were shutting up about 9/11 in order to recruit others that were gullible, but not hip on the conspiracy stuff. Right on cue.

I'm reminded of this post I once made. Troofers are the laziest of lots. Unable to think for themselves, they copy and paste canards that others have put up on a web site and present them as their own. Then in the most lazy of fashion, demand others answer their false canards.

These are canards. Because the author has a lack of credibility, it would benefit you first to present why you believe they are true in the first place, then source hard evidence that they are. The problem in doing that, though, is that there is none. It all comes from a group of young angry white males with low IQs that exploit the suffering of 9/11 victims for profit by posing canards that have no factual basis while they line their pockets and bank accounts off the dumb and gullible.

To be honest, I'm not surprised at all you would fall for this stuff. Not surprised at all

 

Can you explain how Building 7 fell?
I have read pretty detailed material on that, which never contradicted logic or physics. When I watched alex jones and other ct's videos on it the guys who explained the physics only make me laugh or cry or just scream at my computer because they make me mad that they will lie to people, they know what they are saying is false if they are an "expert"

Or why there was molten metal on the site days after the buildings had fallen? Does this have to do with the hot spots that stayed that way for days?

Or why scrap has tested positive for thermate? wasn't this debunked

Or how all 3 buildings fell perfectly into their footprint, with a circular debris field? quite a large footprint conpared to controlled demolition. Someone should be fired, if not the whole company in charge. Which company did this job anyways??? I bet the clintons had him commit suicide.

Or how Ted Olsen's wife called him from a phone without service, or a phone that doesn't exist? I don't know this story. But she couldn't have since alex jones proved that cell phones absolutely could not have worked.

Or why most of the physical evidence was destroyed and not retained in a secure location? Cause rudy wanted to be president and the joos told him to hide the material?

Perhaps you know what happened to the black boxes from all 4 flights, that are missing but somehow the hijackers paper passports survived the crashes that brought down the towers? I have 4 black boxes here that have recordings of Bush telling the pilots to hit the buildings or their families die - oh woops, nevermind, I never said that.


Or how the hijackers boarded all 4 flights without being on the passenger manifests? wasn't that debunked along with the 19 have been seen alive since theory?


Maybe you can explain why the 9/11 Commission claims no black boxes were recovered at the WTC, when onsite investigators claim to have found 3 of the 4 black boxes? I have them...

Or maybe you can explain why the Flight 77 black box data indicates a different flight path and altitude than the official story, with the government refusing to comment? haven't read this one yet.

It's time for a new investigation. Too many inconsistencies, too much new evidence that contradicts or questions the official account, which isn't even consistent with the 9/11 Commission Report.

Is it really evidence or just more alex jones stories to make profit from.

 

I think you are wrong about the ones putting on the show - they don't have low IQ's, it is just that much of their followers do IE-AGS. Others just haven't taken the time to test the theories of the so called "experts" that are used to prop up the conspiracy.

 

Kinda funny, but not really.

 

It would benefit you to read posts before you respond with canned responses that are irrelevant.

Those are questions. I can't provide hard evidence, because I do not have the answers. That is why we need a new investigation. Unless some resident expert here can explain some of the most high profile unanswered questions even the government has avoided addressing.

Actually, a lot of 9/11 victim family members are part of the truth movement. If you recall, it was the victims families that had to march on Washington to get past Cheney's attempts to block an investigation.

But seriously, Scholars and Architects have some serious heavyweights. Many professionals, and several politicians. You can try to paint this as angry young men, but it's actually intelligent married professionals.

Actually, I'm not surprised you would continue a disinfo campaign as Will, NPT, Earl and now Debunked have done. The real questions is, why do you feel the truth should fear investigation?

 

The NIST hasn't even released their report yet. So which detailed information did you read?

The fires weren't hot enough to melt steel, let alone keep it in a liquid state days later. Remember, (supposedly) the towers didn't melt, they buckled. Also, there was melted metal at Building 7. That building wasn't hit by a plane.

Not to my knowledge. Source?

Another non-answer and attempt at ridicule by you. You may think anti-intellectualism serves you well, but I think most readers are now aware of that tactic here.

Apparently you think 9/11 is funny. Says a lot about you.

You did look at the Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice documentation I linked? It has nothing to do with Alex Jones these days.

Question for you debunked.

Should the truth fear investigation?

 

Very curious about the "disinfo campaign" I've waged here. I know Guerilla has called me a "psychotic" "class A nutjob" "stalker," but for the life of me, can't figure out why he keeps mentioning me in posts like this. Bad dreams?

 

^^ This is an attempt at disinfo.

Simple question about Olsen. He couldn't decide if his wife called on a cell, or the seatback phone. He finally settled on the seatback phone, because there was no cell coverage at that altitude, nor any record of a call according to the investigation.

Only problem is, that model of plane doesn't have seatback phones.

Just one of many inconsistencies from the investigation. Btw, kinda curious this guy was hooked up with an acquantaince or co-worker within a year or so of his wife dying on 9/11.

 

Not irrelevant at all. The post was a general observation I've had of "troofers" in regards to being lazy and copying/pasting canards (you do know what a canard is, right?) from others.

They are canards. They are constructed to presume something is true, when in fact it isn't. It presumes the premise of the question is already true and begs of the disagreeing party to prove why it isn't. Lazy. In fact, the presenter should provide evidence the canards are true in the first place. But that generally takes more work than most "troofers" I've encountered can offer.

Statement of opinion, in order to back your assertion, without any factual evidence. The "troof movement" is dead. Their outlandish claims debunked time and again. The lies, proven false, time and again.

I disagree. I'm not surprised that you are/were in fact a troofer, but they are proven wrong, time and again. How many times can they lie and be wrong, before someone starts to question those who are pretending to ask questions?

Which is it? You say they are questions that you don't know the answers to them, then accuse me of spreading disinfo...as if to say you accept the basis of the canards. Let me know when you make up your mind.

Again, I'm not surprised at all you would fall for this stuff.

I don't fear a new investigation. I don't believe a new investigation is necessary or warranted. Most rationale and logical people know that al qaida flew planes into the WTC. I'm not one to give aid and comfort to terrorists by trying to absolve them of their crimes. Why are you?

 

Actually, no, it's not disinformation, it's a statement of incredulity that the theory leapt to is that a man who has lost his wife is part of a massive government conspiracy that engineered his wife's death, or disappearance, or whatever - in addition to the death of 1000's of its own citizens. Occam's razor, as Guerilla likes to state, from time to time.

And, yep, call me a "psychotic Class A Nutjob uh, and Stalker," but I don't quite get too worked up about a guy who loses his spouse and then begins - hold on, folks - dating again within "a year or so." Zany, I know, but it can happen, if one lives in the real world.

Disinformation: RP did it to get publicity.

My statement: A grand WTF???

 

Low self esteem

That, and a combination of psychological projectionism. If he can project his own shortcomings on to you, me and others, then he will not have to account for them himself. Sometimes that tactic backfires.

I'm kinda glad he came out of the closet about his trooferism problem though. I suspected it all along and even questioned him about it before, but he had to protect ron paul, so he couldn't really talk about it.

Troofers make excellent entertainment

 

If you quote me, please do me the service of a precise response, not a general one. Btw, "troofer" is meant to be pejorative and mocking. Using that term is not conducive to a worthwhile discussion. I've been trying to teach the boys that anti-intellectualism masquerading as Conservatism is bad. Please work with me on this by keeping the discussion level high. And on topic.

That is a cop out. As I have told you numerous times, you should read the 9/11 Commission Report. This is all public knowledge, just because you lack the knowledge, and yet call people names, or continue to justify a holy war, means that you aren't posting in good faith.

LMAO. The Truth movement is exploding in size. This isn't Charlie Sheen anymore. Celebrity after politician after celebrity is coming out for a new investigation. Foreign governments are starting to question the inconsistencies and official account as well. That's why the European parliament had the Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice come to Brussels for a presentation on the 9/11 inconsistencies and ommissions.

I think we'll see a new investigation within 5 years. A lot will hinge on the NIST's report on Building 7, which they have stalled 6 years on, because frankly, no one can explain how a building just "falls down".

You haven't answered anything. Just pursued anti-intellectualism by name calling and disclaiming without proof.

Stick your fingers in your ears and shout "NYAH! NYAH! NYAH" and the transformation will be complete. You will become Sean Hannity.

Fall for what? These are questions I can't find answers to. If you know where the answers are, then let us know. Otherwise, I am lead to believe that a new and legitimate investigation is in order.

Well if you can't answer these questions, then I think a new investigation is in order. And I am sure you would agree, because you are sure the truth does not fear investigation.

Then most rational people could probably explain how the hijackers got VISAs. Or flight training. Or training in the 90s at government facilities. Or why they met in Vegas during the summer of 2001 and bought lap dances and partied on the strip. Or why none of the 9/11 Commission Recommendations for security improvements in light of the attacks have been implemented.

They're dead. There is no amount of aid or comfort I could give them that would make any difference. If the truth is that terrorism was committed by Al Queda, than a new investigation will verify that again. It actually reinforces your case, and as you said, you don't fear a new investigation.

You only need to be concerned that they will be absolved if the truth shows something different. And we know you aren't worried about that. Are you?

 

Thank you for holding me to a higher standard. Does this mean you will not be referring to me as a neocon, reicht winger and other such terms? You'll have to forgive me, but there is nothing "high level" about troofers or their rants.

An excellent strategy! Project onto the other party that they do not know what they are talking about and they need to read up on the issue! Man, that's classic! I detect a bit of victimhood status in there too!

In fact, what you are doing is copping out. I point this out earlier, in that my observation of "troofers" has been that they are lazy and do nothing more than present canards that are posed by others to be "troof."

I do commend you though. When backed into a corner, the best thing to do is become the victim and manufacture "foul balls" out of thin air. That certainly is a lot easier than going back and proving that the premise of the questions you copied/pasted from others are in fact, factual.

Work with me here, guerilla. You can't do that, so the most logical defense you have is to project and cry victim. Are you trying to convince me that you really are no better than that? OK, I accept.

LMAO! Puhleeze! A tooty fruity wrestler comes out and Ahamadinejad comes out, and suddenly it's "exploding!" No surprise you've taken up this cause.

No one can explain it? Are you being dishonest, or do you mean to say no one has explained it in a manner a troofer can understand?

I don't answer to dishonest canards. You haven't presented anything, other than questions manufactured by others.

So much for that "high level" discussion?

Personally, when I see canards that I can't find answers to, I accept them as being false. There are no answers to lies. Have you decided yet, if you are going to defend them as "troof" or if you just haven't found the answers you were looking for? Must be tough!

Like most honest and intelligent people, I can't answer lies. Of course, in typical "troofer" fashion, you've provided no substance that the canards are actually true. I wonder why?

Fresh canards without any evidence they are true? Typical troofer fashion. Just continue to lay false question after false question after false question out, believing that eventually they might get something to stick. Any sources to prove these are actually true?

Wow, such skill

It's already been verified they did so. Not everyone is intelligent enough to read the report or follow the news.

The truth is already known.

 

Andreas Von Buelow

Dr. Steven Jones

David Ray Griffin (the guy who gave the Presentation to the EU)

Jim Hoffman

Fujita Yukihisa

William Rodriguez

Paul Craig Roberts

Richard Gage (and literally dozens of architects and engineers, available at http://www.ae911truth.org/)

LOL. I like how many times you used "lies" and "canards" without addressing a single point in detail. I also liked the number of times you referred to anyone who questions the official account and it's numerous omissions and inaccuracies as a "troofer", implying that they are kooks.

But still, there are unanswered questions, and the movement to challenge for a new, independent investigation with subpoena power is well underway and growing.

You see, the one thing that got me going on 9/11 truth is that damn pesky Building 7. It's not mentioned anywhere in the Commission Report. 3 Buildings, 2 planes, 1 day. Something doesn't add up.

 

It is highly likely Lyndon Johnson used the manufactured Gulf of Tonkin act to escalate the war in Vietnam. It was during 1964, his first year in office after Kennedy's death.

There are 3 things to consider way beyond the outrageous claims of unending government conspiracy:

1. Had Kennedy been in office it is suggested he would have pulled out of Vietnam as he was not happy with the South Vietnamese government.
2. In that Johnson was more prone to fight in Vietnam, than Kennedy, had the Gulf of Tonkin event not occurred or been manufactured, a slow steady attrition of ever more battles might have provoked US involvement in Vietnam. There was no rousing anti war movement back in 1964.

3. there was a national willingness to confront the spread of Communism.

Anti communist support was very strong ranging from the far right extreme such as the John Birch Society, the mainstream republican party, and thorugh much of what one would call the Scoop Jackson wing of the Democratic party.

Operation Mongoose and Northwoods are Examples of Government Restraint​

Two different Pentagon spurred plans to attack/instigate war, deal with Cuba never received approval from either the President or the Secretary of Defense.

The plans were hatched, conceived, planned and then never generated action.

That absolutely shows the maturity and reasonabeness of government.

I have no problems with the Pentagon hatching plans that could be used to defend the US in one form or other. I depend on reasonable, mature, experienced and balanced people to protect my interests.

If anything the referenced situations of the Mongoose and Northwoods campaigns suggest that government can take rational and reasonable steps in its ultimate decisions.

Only someone who considers the government expressing thought as dangerous would take the ultimate result of Northwood and Mongoose as horrible. I'm glad they were conceived, quashed, and that the thinking came to light at a later time. It is intstructive to the population going forward.

 

Did you go through the evidence? Or is this just conjecture?

This is brilliant. You're actually rationalizing that the Pentagon saw fit to devise plans to fake terror attacks against American citizens. Amazing how deep the programming goes. Hey Earl, it's not a gas chamber, it's a communal shower!

Again, you're rationalizing the government conducting terror attacks against the American citizenry and blaming it on a foreign power, as an impetus for war, as "reasonable and mature". This sort of planning is "no problem" and "balanced".

I assume you also approve of the tactics used at Gitmo? Black sites? Renditon? Big fan of MKULTRA? Proud of the Tuskeegee experiments?


You called another thread loony today. I am now 100% sure you are qualified to make that distinction.