9/11 Debate: Watch as Popular Mechanics debunk LooseChange in person

[Claymore]

Yawn.

I'm getting bored here.

The conspiracy theorists have not come up with a detailed theory of who did what, where, and when.

They have all sorts of contradictory ideas, and in many cases, cannot even agree on exactly the same evidence. (For example...it was a Predator! No, a cruise missile! No, an A-3 Airwarrior! Hell, maybe it was Superman...). In some cases, they have to postulate two different, and contradictory, things to explain evidence at a single event.

They are retrofitting ideas post facto in order to explain things, but the result is enormously over-complicated stuff that would make absolutely no sense if planned in advance.
(Like, why on earth would they want to destroy WTC7?)

They cannot produce backing from *anyone* who would be considered an expert in any of the relevant fields.

With suppositions only, they are prepared to ignore evidence from dozens of different competent sources.

Somehow, they believe that it's possible for all the thousands of people involved to keep all of the machinations totally secret, and that not a single co-conspirator, or person bribed/blackmailed would say a word about it to anyone.

The whole thing *all* rests on a single assumption: that a cabal within the government is prepared to murder thousands of citizens in a hugely convoluted scheme to achieve poorly-defined goals that could be easily reached without all the hoopla.

 

[kilo39]

I'm getting bored here.

The conspiracy theorists have not come up with a detailed theory of who did what, where, and when.

They have all sorts of contradictory ideas, and in many cases, cannot even agree on exactly the same evidence. (For example...it was a Predator! No, a cruise missile! No, an A-3 Airwarrior! Hell, maybe it was Superman...). In some cases, they have to postulate two different, and contradictory, things to explain evidence at a single event.

At this point any discussion has been primarily about WTC, not pentagon or flight 93. Try coming up for a reasonable explanation for WTC then we can discuss the rest.

More detailed theory? Now lets see: here I post links and documents but it does not add up to a detailed theory? Now let's see; if Northwoods isn't a theory, or project for a new america a theory; or planting nuclear devices, then what is? Who is the blind one here? Oh, you want a detailed timeline? How about you make one response to ANY of my points, for instance explosions in the basement, seismic records, physical evidence on the ground, alive people where there shouldn't be.

They are retrofitting ideas post facto in order to explain things, but the result is enormously over-complicated stuff that would make absolutely no sense if planned in advance.
(Like, why on earth would they want to destroy WTC7?)

Um no, Operation Northwoods (and others) require a very small team, and is literally 'a very simple plan'. And if you are still asking me "why on earth" then you really haven't been paying attention.

They cannot produce backing from *anyone* who would be considered an expert in any of the relevant fields.

Ag please Claymore: I am quoting materials professors and professor in fire engineering, members nominated by the Civil Engineers of America, but no they are "not qualified enough!" - PLEAZE. I am quoting members of FEMA who contributed to the reports. I am quoting the New York Times and universities of america - but these are not considered "experts" - please - they wrote the government reports.

With suppositions only, they are prepared to ignore evidence from dozens of different competent sources.

Ag please. Suppositions? Different competent sources? Explain swiss cheese, explain metal with "intergranular melting" - this is in the FEMA report!! I repeat again: I am quoting the governments own reports and the governments own experts... Page 3 of the FEMA report, the NIST faq etc. Who is the blind one here?

Somehow, they believe that it's possible for all the thousands of people involved to keep all of the machinations totally secret, and that not a single co-conspirator, or person bribed/blackmailed would say a word about it to anyone.

There are not "thousands of people." There is a small dedicated team who have the type of contacts that can make NORAD look the other way.

The whole thing *all* rests on a single assumption: that a cabal within the government is prepared to murder thousands of citizens in a hugely convoluted scheme to achieve poorly-defined goals that could be easily reached without all the hoopla.

What then is 3000 dead american troops - on the basis of wmd which were proven never to exist and were proven to be FALSELY CREATED reports to justify an unjust war, but ya, they would never kill their own citizens; perhaps you should go speak to some widows and orphans whose husbands and wives have been killed in a FALSE war created by GB and crew.

Not once have you made a response to my EVIDENCE: metal melted, 22 ton blocks thrown around like toys, woman standing in impact hole, fireman reports.

Ja, you are getting bored, probably because you are not paying attention and EVIDENCE comes a little too close to home in your neat little world.

Explain dna too damaged by heat to identify. Amazing how your "experts" just ignore these aspects of reality (but they are in the fema report.)

If you are bored, and have no interest in the deaths of thousands of americans in a jihad created by bush and crew, then don't post here.

 

[Claymore]

A hypothesis without sufficient detail does not a theory make make. Nor have you covered those basic questions: who, when, where and what.

A simple plan? How many thousands of people do you think it would take to cover up all this stuff you postulate? How many people in the CIA and elsewhere would it take to create a fake "Al-Quaeda" in the early 1990s, and fool organisations like British intelligence, Mossad etc.? The whole cover-up is completely ridiculous.

You postulate stuff to explain one phenomenon that directly contradicts other phenomena. You've finally resorted to suggesting imaginary weapons supposedly developed the year before, weapons that might explain some observations, but blow others out of the water.

Yes...I agree, you are quoting from experts. I'm not sure it counts if you're quoting them in material that does not support your position though, when you're disagreeing with them.

I can't decide if you lack critical thinking, or if you're critical only of small details and not the big picture. I'm not sure - you seem to lap up every possible anti-US governent explanation you see, chopping and changing as you see what looks like better one. Yes, there will always be things about 9/11 that are not fully understood; but then, there are often things in minor car collisions that are not fully understood either. Just because there are unexplained details does not mean that little green men did it.

 

[Pitbull]

@ Claymore & Kilo39

hehehehehe

Here we go again !

 

[kilo39]

@ Claymore & Kilo39

hehehehehe

Here we go again !

Later. Must run.

Just because there are unexplained details does not mean that little green men did it.

Great points Claymore. Will get back to you.

 

[Claymore]

I worked it out! I can't believe I've been so bloody daft! I've been taken in by a troll! Aargh!

I think what clued me in, Kilo39, is that you're too damn smart; your spelling and grammar are impeccable, and your debating skills are extremely cunning. You've cleverly led me up the garden path.

Nice going, Kilo; I feel stupid for having fallen for it for so long. *sigh*

 

[kilo39]

I worked it out! I can't believe I've been so bloody daft! I've been taken in by a troll! Aargh!

I think what clued me in, Kilo39, is that you're too damn smart; your spelling and grammar are impeccable, and your debating skills are extremely cunning. You've cleverly led me up the garden path.

Nice going, Kilo; I feel stupid for having fallen for it for so long. *sigh*

Patience Claymore, here you are asking me to plan the whole 911, and expecting me to do it in 24 hours though you will not acknowledge similar plans laid over years by the US Government.

A simple plan? How many thousands of people do you think it would take to cover up all this stuff you postulate? How many people in the CIA and elsewhere would it take to create a fake "Al-Quaeda" in the early 1990s, and fool organisations like British intelligence, Mossad etc.? The whole cover-up is completely ridiculous.

Mentioning Mossad, Military Intelligence, etc: these guys are a quasi-government within the government. Look at the happenings in South America, or the CIA drug trade, or even the defeat of the soviets in Afghanistan in the first place. As I've said before, the reality you think you live in is not reality at all. If you had any reading on covert operations they would no longer be covert would they? Mentioning secrets; let's remember the 2nd WW was won on secrets (and lots of blood) but if there were no secrets the war would have been lost, and that WAS literally thousands of people; yes, united in a common cause, but a secret nevertheless (breaking of enigma, special operations to keep it secret, etc.) Only a very small team has the overall picture, the minions simply do or die. Consider the death of Kennedy, um, so you're a single bullet, lone gunman believer?

Offhand I don't have an overall plan, but once we get to scenarios involving suitcase nukes then such things as cutting charges become less important. It would also seem that 'word is,' that WT7 was definitely a controlled demolition. (It is the timing that is giving me the problem.)

Looking at a nuke scenario then leaves pentagon, Flt 93 and the initial hijackings. I do not believe these "pilots" could hit these buildings on first try without guidance either directly in the aircraft (specific codes to program the autopilot,) or by homing beacons in the buildings. It really is not that easy, and if you give it any thought surely any logical hijacker would crash into the base of the building to do massive damage - here we have two neat hits at the top. Mmmm.

I don't have some overall plan (offhand) but I do have many instances of planning similar scenarios and a long list of other covert operations which the world would never have known of if it wasn't for the Freedom of Information Act, etc. A little thought: this bush gub has made more secrets and re-classified at a pace unknown ever before. What do they have to hide?

It is irrefutable that the Iraq war was based on falsely created 'evidence'. How then can you not conceive of similar scenarios fooling the world, and the american people? 3000 dead american troops attest to the bloodlust of GB and crew.

Okay, a simple plan if we acknowledge the possibility of nukes at WTC (and the evidence certainly seems to be pointing that way: swiss cheese.) Two other transponder controlled flights is all we have; surely any hijackers would have pushed onto the target, no matter the passengers screaming at the cockpit door (why then did they decide to 'take it in?')

The pentagon? Well I have yet to be shown a jet; an even easier scenario is these flights don't exist in the first place, simple blips on the radar and even these it seems they couldn't keep track of. Now let's see, aircraft switches transponder off, not the blip mind but the transponder; surely these esteemed controllers are aware, um, all others have transponders on so the one without must be the one in question?

Were not other 'suspicious' aircraft sighted in both 93 and pentagon occurrences? Yes there were. The amercans have been doing this stuff for years; false radar signatures etc. I really cannot understand that in all the documentation that's been posted you cannot think they have both the motive and the werewithal - far beyond any ragtag group from Saudi or wherever. In fact, if you look it straight in the face there is no way some group (who don't even know each other, according to BL) are going to pull this off without substantial backing from elements within the us gov - to believe anything else is being a troll and denying reality. The most successful terrorist happening ever - but it was planned by a raghead in afghanistan. Yup.

Now lets see, a 6ft4 man in constant need of dialysis but we don't know where he is. Oh sure, how narrow is your band of reality?

Recent sites found: Complete 911 Timeline (Look at the long list of covert operations!)

and offhand, not really what I was looking for but close enough: ENGINEERS ARE BAFFLED OVER THE COLLAPSE OF 7 WTC

 

[bb_matt]

I resurrected this thread just to say:-

There's a huge amount of stupid people on this forum.

It beggars belief when someone, in so many words says:-

"Yeah, well I don't believe it, but I don't have time to go and read all this stuff, but your wrong"

It's madness, it really is.

Do us and the world a favour - DON'T BREED - we've got enough morons in the world already, we don't need more.

How on earth can you have the affrontary to disagree with someone who has read HUGE amounts of information about something, when you have read none?

How the hell can you be opinionated about something you know nothing about, claiming "well, the experts told us, so it must be true"

How thick is that?

Hmmm, about as thick as 90% of the worlds population it would seem.

Bury your head in the sand, put the blinkers on, forgedda-bout-it, but for pities sake,

DON'T POST IF YOUR A CLUELESS OXYGEN THIEF !

 

[Highflyer_GP]

LOL @ oxygen thief I'm gonna start using that one.

PS: Good point. It's not just stupid, it's downright lazy.

 

[kilo39]

Thanks Guys. I wish I had something deep and philosopical to say but words escape me right now.

... all I can say is where were you when alan85 was calling me an idiot?!

- and bb_matt it's been awhile - 'clues' say you must be hanging out on TK?

 

[bb_matt]

Thanks Guys. I wish I had something deep and philosopical to say but words escape me right now.

... all I can say is where were you when alan85 was calling me an idiot?!

- and bb_matt it's been awhile - 'clues' say you must be hanging out on TK?

Hanging out in Odiham (that's the place where Garfields Dog hangs out)

9/11 - the debate rages on and on and on and on.

I've got my mind made up on this and had so years back - it was done by those who "back/control" the current US administration, period. Forget about Bush and his cronies, it goes deeper than them. Bottom line - power and those who have it.

You really think that if it served the best interests of those who hold the power, who wish to sway the world to gain more, would care about killing innocent people?

Of course they don't. Morals don't even come into this.

Lets talk about defence and defence hardware. Lets talk about oil and world dependence on that. Strategic locations. The "new american century", Pax Americana.

It's a total no-brainer, but what isn't a no-brainer and what is so amazingly complex, is exactly HOW they managed to fool the world - to create this terrorist threat which sent the US and allies into a seemingly stupid series of wars, with more to come.

The depth of this "conspiracy" is so convoluted, such a massive paper chase, so fraught with peril, that's it's nigh impossible to stop it, let alone point the finger of blame. It's devilishly complicated, but the underlying facts are all about the persuit of power - even to the point of philantrophy and shaping a "new world order".

We're very good at generalising about history after the fact - working out the history of the Roman Empire for instance, but we're not very good at prediciting current historical events and their outcome.

There IS a greater force at work here, make no mistake about that. History will teach us this.

Don't bury your head in the sand and just accept what you are told by the tube - don't assume that everyone is as "moral" as you are.

9/11 was done for a specific reason, to give an excuse to go to war in the middle east and take the oil.
Exactly what the other reasons are and what the end game may be, are unpredictable.

They are unpredictable because there are more forces at work than the USA and allies - we have Asia to worry about ...