PDA

View Full Version : To Jimnyc and Sertes Debate



-Cp
10-08-2007, 01:31 PM
First off Sertes is a complete tool if he really believes 9/11 was an inside job. Also - if he believes that, then he's yet another reason for folks to know and understand why it's sad when cousins marry.

Secondly, Jim - all one needs to do is point him to the Popular Mechanics 9/11report which provides unshakable proof that 9/11 was in fact carried out by our enemy:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=5

Right there - end of story, no need to drag it out in the other thread...

hjmick
10-08-2007, 01:57 PM
Hell, even Bill Maher thinks the 9/11 conspiracy crowd are out of touch.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ONERilOpjQ&mode=related&search=

If Bill won't blame Bush, well, enough said.

JackDaniels
10-08-2007, 04:31 PM
My own beliefs border on loony conspiracy theories, borderline anarchism, and militant atheism, and even I think the 9/11 truthers are full of shit!

:laugh2:

Gaffer
10-08-2007, 08:00 PM
My one question to the conspiracy crowd is why would the government go to all this trouble involving thousands of people to pull off such a hoax? What would they benefit that they couldn't just do?

mrg666
10-08-2007, 08:19 PM
My one question to the conspiracy crowd is why would the government go to all this trouble involving thousands of people to pull off such a hoax? What would they benefit that they couldn't just do?

statisicly the chance of getting caught out in this sort of thing far outweighs any benefits (wich are ? )

diuretic
10-08-2007, 08:21 PM
Ockham's Razor tells me that 9/11 was far too complex for a government to plot and carry out. It's the sort of operation that can only be done by a small, determined group. Also it requires fanatics. A bunch of nutters might commit suicide for a god but would you commit suicide for your government?

Sertes
10-11-2007, 07:29 PM
My one question to the conspiracy crowd is why would the government go to all this trouble involving thousands of people to pull off such a hoax? What would they benefit that they couldn't just do?

Invading other countries in plain defiance of UN resolutions (the Cheney doctrine)



The 'Wolfowitz doctrine' - which should really be called the 'Cheney doctrine' as it was prepared for Cheney, and Wolfowitz was merely the technician, the Eichmann if you will, who prepared the documents - is described as follows:

"As the New York Times explained it, the Wolfowitz Doctrine argues that America's political and military mission should be to 'ensure that no rival superpower is allowed to emerge. With its focus on this concept of benevolent domination by one power, the Pentagon document articulates the clearest rejection to date of collective internationalism.' Its core thesis, described by Ben Wattenberg in the April 12, Washington Times, is 'to guard against the emergence of hostile regional superpowers, for example, Iraq or China. America is No. 1. We stand for something decent and important. That's good for us and good for the world. That's the way we want to keep it.'"

The doctrine arose out of the post-Cold War giddiness that fell over Washington in the early 1990's, when it appeared that all obstacles to a New American Empire had suddenly fallen away. When it leaked out, it caused such a stir in Washington that Bush Senior had it buried away, and Cheney had to wait to the end of the Clinton interregnum to bring it back to life under Bush Senior's stupid son. The key to American rule of the world is a huge series of military bases encircling Russia and China, and providing American control over strategic assets, most notably oil. The Bush Administration economic plan, such as it is, seems to consist entirely of blackmailing the rest of the world into continuing to support the unsupportable American indebtedness by threatening to withhold access to oil. To that end, the series of bases (part of 'Baseworld') being built in Iraq is an absolutely necessary part of the Cheney plan. These multi-billion dollar bases - which aren't exactly a secret but are being covered up by the disgusting American media in its normal way, i. e., it simply doesn't mention them - are required to create effective American ownership of all Middle Eastern oil fields. They are the only tangible asset obtained from spending hundreds of billions of dollars on the Iraq debacle. The United States will not give them up.


And therein lies the rub. The rest of the world, through the UN, isn't going to be keen to bail the Americans out from the results of their neo-colonial folly and their blatant breach of international law. However, to save the people of Iraq from the violence of the continued American occupation, and to stop an Iraqi civil war, it might be possible to work something out. The American concession would have to be the total withdrawal of Americans from Iraq, as the world would hardly allow the bases, the main weapon of American blackmail through control of the oil fields, to remain. Since the Americans won't agree to that kind of withdrawal, UN rescue of the United States is impossible. When Condi Rice says the American commitment to Iraq is generational, she ain't kidding. The long-term effects of Cheney's mad ideas for world domination will result in the decline of American power, as the over-extension of the American Empire becomes more and more economically and politically expensive.

http://xymphora.blogspot.com/2005/06/cheney-doctrine-and-iraq.html

Sir Evil
10-11-2007, 07:30 PM
Invading other countries in plain defiance of UN resolutions (the Cheney doctrine)



http://xymphora.blogspot.com/2005/06/cheney-doctrine-and-iraq.html

:laugh2::laugh2:

what a tool...

Sertes
10-11-2007, 07:32 PM
Ockham's Razor tells me that 9/11 was far too complex for a government to plot and carry out. It's the sort of operation that can only be done by a small, determined group. Also it requires fanatics. A bunch of nutters might commit suicide for a god but would you commit suicide for your government?

No one is claiming the US gov did it.
The claim is some elements from the top of the US governative, military, and media complex did it.
That includes Planning, Executing and Covering it up.

Sir Evil
10-11-2007, 07:34 PM
No one is claiming the US gov did it.
The claim is some elements from the top of the US governative, military, and media complex did it.
That includes Planning, Executing and Covering it up.

Could we get some more of this solid evidence you provide perhaps on something like the roswell incident? I understand they are currently renting apartments in area 51 if interested.

Gaffer
10-11-2007, 07:37 PM
Invading other countries in plain defiance of UN resolutions (the Cheney doctrine)



http://xymphora.blogspot.com/2005/06/cheney-doctrine-and-iraq.html

The WTC attack was not necessary to go into iraq. iraq would have been invaded without the WTC attack. In fact WTC probably delayed plans to deal with saddam sooner than we did.

Sertes
10-11-2007, 07:40 PM
Could we get some more of this solid evidence you provide perhaps on something like the roswell incident? I understand they are currently renting apartments in area 51 if interested.

I just posted the recap here http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=137692&postcount=20

And no, I won't insult you back.

Gaffer
10-11-2007, 07:41 PM
No one is claiming the US gov did it.
The claim is some elements from the top of the US governative, military, and media complex did it.
That includes Planning, Executing and Covering it up.

The mission impossible team....right. Pulling off something like this would have taken the cooperation of thousands. There's no way it could be done.

Sir Evil
10-11-2007, 07:41 PM
I just posted the recap here http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=137692&postcount=20

And no, I won't insult you back.

:laugh2:

Sorry Sertes, could help myself on that one but just can't buy into conspiracy theories.

Sertes
10-12-2007, 03:47 AM
:laugh2:

Sorry Sertes, could help myself on that one but just can't buy into conspiracy theories.

Too bad, because even the governative version is a conspiracy theory, it's only the official one. That is, Osama Bin Laden conspirated and planned with aides, then 19 hijackers were sent to hit the U.S. for the execution of the plan.

You too are welcome to tell me where was Dick Cheney on 9/11/2001 at 9:30

One simple question, that even Jimnyc wasn't able to answer and had to dodge

jimnyc
10-12-2007, 04:42 AM
One simple question, that even Jimnyc wasn't able to answer and had to dodge

I dodged nothing, liar. Anyone here can go right through the debate and see that I answered you several times. The fact remains, my answer didn't even matter. You lost the debate the minute you offered the debate. I can't believe you even offered to debate knowing you had not one piece of evidence to backup your whacked out conspiracies. Don't feel sad though, there are other kooks out there who share your warped views.

Sertes
10-12-2007, 06:33 AM
I dodged nothing, liar. Anyone here can go right through the debate and see that I answered you several times. The fact remains, my answer didn't even matter. You lost the debate the minute you offered the debate. I can't believe you even offered to debate knowing you had not one piece of evidence to backup your whacked out conspiracies. Don't feel sad though, there are other kooks out there who share your warped views.

I'm not a liar, the thread is sealed right?
Link me where you answered where was Dick Cheney on 9/11/2001 at 9:30.

The 9/11 commission report you linked clearly states he was outside the bunker

Norman Mineta deposition under oath before the 9/11 commission states he was inside the bunker, in control, and he knew about the position of the incoming plane

Choose one or provide a third explanation, if you can. Answering "I was not with him" is a dodge, in a debate

jimnyc
10-12-2007, 06:56 AM
Norman Mineta deposition under oath before the 9/11 commission states he was inside the bunker, in control, and he knew about the position of the incoming plane

Choose one or provide a third explanation, if you can. Answering "I was not with him" is a dodge, in a debate

As explained, you are trying to imply that there was a stand down order given by Cheney since he knew the position of an incoming plane. I replied to this several times, including in my final recap. You choose to only believe what you read on conspiracy sites. That's fine with me, I really don't care if you believe the facts from 9/11 or not. I entered the debate to have a little fun and did just that. I supplied the entire thread with official documentation and evidence and you littered it with conspiracy theories.

Sertes
10-12-2007, 09:19 AM
As explained, you are trying to imply that there was a stand down order given by Cheney since he knew the position of an incoming plane. I replied to this several times, including in my final recap. You choose to only believe what you read on conspiracy sites. That's fine with me, I really don't care if you believe the facts from 9/11 or not. I entered the debate to have a little fun and did just that. I supplied the entire thread with official documentation and evidence and you littered it with conspiracy theories.

I think you regret to have entered the debate because I really gave something that shakes your beliefs. That would explain your sudden loss of style here and in your last post, where you played the cheap rhetoric card. Too bad because until that moment you've been the most prepared and polite one in two years I debate this issue.

Of course I presented NO DIRECT EVIDENCE at all, I'm not hiding it! If there was direct evidence, the conspiracy would be over since 9/12. But I presented a huge amount of INDIRECT EVIDENCE, trying to demonstrate the official version is fake, rather than proving my own conspiracy theory is true.
So I gave EVIDENCE of the official conspiracy theory being false, and provided a theory that's unproved but fits into ALL the evidence; but that is secondary.

Take the punch-out hole, for example: I wrote it could be produced by a shockwave, but FOR SURE no landing gear wheel can make a 12-foot round hole in a concrete wall.

And even if I cannot prove the smaller plane, the big one is not visible in the video, and in the damage

And the pools of molten steel could be produced by cutting charges, which burns to 2000°C are still unexplainable in the official version

And the wtc7 is still unexplained in the official version

So the stand down order is not proved. It's a theory. It's the "we didn't know" official theory that's PROVED FALSE by Mineta.

So, about Mineta, I wrote: "the people on board were sadly already doomed. all conditions for a shot-down were in effect, but it didn't happen".

Maybe I wasn't clear on the point of my posts, but I clearly answered to the first question "why you think 9/11 was an inside job" : Because the official version doesn’t stand up to close scrutiny in a number of critical issues.
I didn't prove my theory was right, I proved the official version is fake.

jimnyc
10-12-2007, 09:43 AM
I think you regret to have entered the debate because I really gave something that shakes your beliefs.

Quite the opposite. Reading the same old theories which have been debunked many times over the years, coupled with the efforts I put forth in searching myself, only strengthened the fact to me that the full and complete responsibility for what happened on 9/11 belongs to the hijackers of the doomed airliners.

I regret nothing, it was entertaining for me to provide the board with the real facts up against the ridiculous conspiracy theories that are floating around the internet.


I proved the official version is fake

You keep telling yourself that but in reality you didn't even come close to doing so. I suggest you continue calling every government official you can, internationally too, since you are so convinced you have this proof. Please get back to us with the results of your efforts.

Sir Evil
10-12-2007, 10:22 AM
I didn't prove my theory was right, I proved the official version is fake.

:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

Ok, now you are indeed a tool! You proved exactly squat other then the fact that people out there have their own theories that could fit something outside of the facts. Too bad the fake version is only boght into by internet hacks with nothing better to do while the media would'nt even touch it.

Sertes
10-12-2007, 11:10 AM
:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

Ok, now you are indeed a tool! You proved exactly squat other then the fact that people out there have their own theories that could fit something outside of the facts. Too bad the fake version is only boght into by internet hacks with nothing better to do while the media would'nt even touch it.

Which TV showed Mineta testimony?

Why do they kept showing the hits on the towers and the collapses, but never WTC7 and never the pentagon plane?

If you want to answer my first question directed to you before those two: where was Dick Cheney at 9:30 on 9/11/2001?

See, after thousands word, Jimnyc has yet to answer.

jimnyc
10-12-2007, 04:46 PM
I've answered you several times, you just don't like my answers. I don't play your little conspiracy games. I told you before that I prefer to deal in facts and not conspiracies. I entered the debate simply to expose the fact that the people falling for the crap all over the internet have zero evidence to backup their warped views. And I did just that.

You seem to think you can prove the official version of events are false though. So by all means, have at it! Like I said, please update us with your progress. :laugh2:

manu1959
10-16-2007, 12:46 PM
Invading other countries in plain defiance of UN resolutions (the Cheney doctrine)
http://xymphora.blogspot.com/2005/06/cheney-doctrine-and-iraq.html

can you link me to the UN resolutions clinton got approving:
his invasion of bosnia?......

launching missiles into iraq?........

sending special forces in to kidnap a somali war lord?......

Sertes
10-17-2007, 10:37 AM
can you link me to the UN resolutions clinton got approving:
his invasion of bosnia?......

launching missiles into iraq?........

sending special forces in to kidnap a somali war lord?......

You mistake me for someone who supports Clinton or the democrats. I'm not part of this fake dualism. Democrats are as guilty for covering up truths on 9/11 as the Republicans, for instance. Maybe Neocon are more guilty on 9/11 than the rest of the Republicans, but this has yet to be proven.
But to return to the point, to me the people in power are right when making the right decisions and wrong when making wrong decisions. I don't have to support their wrong choices just because they're of the same political party I voted. And I don't have to support someone who got elected president if he makes wrong calls of makes up stuff, like the forged wmd claims.
It's true to me even if I'm an Italian, because we got bad politician here too. Our bad politicians have less power than yours, that the only reason they make less impact. But they try, of course they try.

So Clinton was wrong too? We use to say two wrongs doesn't make one right.
Do you have similar quotes, in the USA?

jimnyc
10-17-2007, 10:51 AM
Hey, Sertes! Do you have an update for us concerning your efforts to alert the world leaders to your proof of the official version of events concerning 9/11 to be fake? Just curious as to who you've shown this proof to thus far. Many people around the world would just LOVE to get a hold of such proof if it existed!

Sertes
10-17-2007, 11:46 AM
Hey, Sertes! Do you have an update for us concerning your efforts to alert the world leaders to your proof of the official version of events concerning 9/11 to be fake? Just curious as to who you've shown this proof to thus far. Many people around the world would just LOVE to get a hold of such proof if it existed!

I'm not trying to alert world leaders, they already know. Giulietto Chiesa, one of the main characters in the Italian 9/11 truth movement is a head of defense commission of European Union. He wrote a book with Andreas Von Bulow, who supports the theory conspirators that remotely directed the planes on the twin towers worked from WTC7 and were killed on purpose on its own demolition. Fidel Castro supports at least the LIHOP theory, the "they let it happen on purpose". Others are guilty at least of keeping silence.

As for me, I'm trying to tell common people what media doesn't:

Mineta testimony
http://forum.anothersite.co.uk/showpost.php?p=3188574&postcount=1146

9/11 collapses explained, 911aetruth version
http://forum.anothersite.co.uk/showpost.php?p=3188570&postcount=1147

9/11 collapses explained by me
http://forum.anothersite.co.uk/showpost.php?p=2704334&postcount=250

I'm also on Digg (where I found this site) and on many Italian websites (luogocomune.net, focus.it, beppegrillo.it)

And you know what all the people I talked to in the last two years have in common? No one address Mineta testimony. So you're in good company.

But there are very qualified people doing much more than me: Richard Gage (head of "Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth") finally got the response from NIST: http://www.911blogger.com/node/12027

So, thanks for the concern, I'm doing good, even in spite of the harsh responses I got sometimes from self-styled "patriots".
We italians have a great debt to pay to americans, I hope I'm doing my part.

jimnyc
10-17-2007, 11:50 AM
Well, I'm glad you can find some nutcases to share your theories with! :laugh2:

Sertes
10-18-2007, 02:52 AM
Well, I'm glad you can find some nutcases to share your theories with! :laugh2:

The best ones are those who still believe 19 knife-armed caveman led by Ali Baba from a cave can defy the most heavily defended air space of the planet and score 3 collapses with only 2 planes.
Well, I guess everyone is entitled to an opinion, even if it's based on blind faith in spite of physics and evidence of the contrary

jimnyc
10-18-2007, 07:38 AM
More ramblings from the lobotomized rat. :rolleyes:

Gaffer
10-18-2007, 09:55 PM
The best ones are those who still believe 19 knife-armed caveman led by Ali Baba from a cave can defy the most heavily defended air space of the planet and score 3 collapses with only 2 planes.
Well, I guess everyone is entitled to an opinion, even if it's based on blind faith in spite of physics and evidence of the contrary

They weren't knives, they were box cutters. And I guarantee I could put you on your knees and and make you sing "Mammy" with one.

At the time no one could conceive of a bunch of loons using the planes as weapons instead of just landing and making demands. The policy until that time was let them do what they want until you could land.

The US never had fighters patrolling the air space of this country. Fighters could be scrambled in response to a threat, but they never patrolled the air space. That has always been done with radar. For the most part it still is.

The only person with blind faith here is you. Blindly following a conspiracy theory and ignoring facts.

Psychoblues
10-18-2007, 11:58 PM
Sillyness disguised as serious conversation yet reveals the original sillyness for what it actually is. Sillyness.

actsnoblemartin
10-19-2007, 12:06 AM
Bush cant even keep the new york times from published all our secrets, how could he cordinate this huge demolition, at the same time, the planes hit them?


First off Sertes is a complete tool if he really believes 9/11 was an inside job. Also - if he believes that, then he's yet another reason for folks to know and understand why it's sad when cousins marry.

Secondly, Jim - all one needs to do is point him to the Popular Mechanics 9/11report which provides unshakable proof that 9/11 was in fact carried out by our enemy:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=5

Right there - end of story, no need to drag it out in the other thread...

Psychoblues
10-19-2007, 12:41 AM
I already know many of your secrets, assnoble, and I didn't get any of them from the New York Times.



Bush cant even keep the new york times from published all our secrets, how could he cordinate this huge demolition, at the same time, the planes hit them?

Just exactly, what are you trying to hide?

actsnoblemartin
10-19-2007, 12:48 AM
and you wonder why i wont pos rep you ?. Look in the mirror buddy. I pos rep intelligent threads and posts, regardless if the person is liberal or conservative.

If that is wrong, then ill plead guilty to trying to pos rep intelletually honesty.


I already know many of your secrets, assnoble, and I didn't get any of them from the New York Times.




Just exactly, what are you trying to hide?

Sertes
10-19-2007, 03:02 AM
Bush cant even keep the new york times from published all our secrets, how could he cordinate this huge demolition, at the same time, the planes hit them?

No one is blaming Bush, that is a common misconception. He was in a room reading stories to kids, on national tv.

Instead the wereabout of the vice president are more interesting


At the time no one could conceive of a bunch of loons using the planes as weapons instead of just landing and making demands. The policy until that time was let them do what they want until you could land.

The US never had fighters patrolling the air space of this country. Fighters could be scrambled in response to a threat, but they never patrolled the air space. That has always been done with radar. For the most part it still is.

All the single things you say are true, but that doesn't mean the obvious end you're trying to demonstrate: that the planes coulndn't be intecepted if they indeed wanted to.

In fact after the second hit on the towers it was clear to everyone that america was under attack and they were using airplanes as weapons.
AA77 allegedly was able to fly for 20 minutes toward the most heavily defended airspace in the world, coming straight to washington d.c. , hitting the pentagon, while everyone was looking out for planes as threats.

For the missed intervention we have 2 opposite versions:

Official version
The 9/11 commission report places him outside the white house bunker, inaware of AA77 position, bearing, it also states he entered the white house bunker (PEOC) at 9:37, just moments before the plane hit.



American 77 began turning south, away from the White House, at 9:34. It
continued heading south for roughly a minute,before turning west and begin¬
ning to circle back.This news prompted the Secret Service to order the imme¬
diate evacuation of the Vice President just before 9:36. Agents propelled him
________________________________________
Page 40
40
THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT
out of his chair and told him he had to get to the bunker.The Vice President
entered the underground tunnel leading to the shelter at 9:37.
Source: http://64.233.167.104/custom?q=cache:sHwgJh0-VxAJ:www.gpoaccess.gov/911/pdf/sec1.pdf+dick+cheney+9:30&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=pub-0982790381073093

Norman Mineta deposition
Norman Mineta, minister of transportation, in a testimony under oath before the 9/11 commission:

M3q0uZAEd5w

He is into Whiteouse PEOC, he’s already in phone contact FAA number two in command, which is following the unidentified target in its trajectory toward the capital.
A young man enters the bunker to inform Cheney that the plane was 50 miles out, it's 9:25
At Langley, 105 miles away, Brad Derrig and Dean Eckmann got the order to scramble and will effectively be airborne at 9:30.
We have a target followed on radar, vice president knows that, and military fighters are in flight.
F16 flies at 1500 mph, even at half speed they could have intercepted the plane.
All conditions to down the plane and defend Washington D.C. are effective, if indeed the order was a “shoot down order”
But the plane comes to 30 miles, and the young man reports it to Cheney. Then it comes to 10, and the young man asks Dick Cheney “do the order still stand?” He snaps back “Of course the order still stands, have you heard anything on the contrary?”
Then the plane hits the pentagon.

If you think he mistook AA77 with UA93 you may watch this interview:
edDExK8PpWs
where he provided landmarks names:

http://i18.tinypic.com/6c5i2c2.jpg
Green: great falls park.
Upper yellow: Rosslyn
Lower yellow: National Airport
Red: the pentagon

A detail of the area between Rosslyn and the National Airport:
http://i14.tinypic.com/2rc49s0.jpg
Where I debated this: http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=137692&postcount=20

Coincidences
1) The PEOC access control computer broke down, so there's no corroborating evidence.
2) Mineta deposition is reported on 9/11 commission report, but the part I reported here is omitted (the part where the young man comes out to inform the vice president of the wereabouts of flight 77)

Question: are you here to seek the truth whatever it may be, or just to insult the man with the weird claims?

jimnyc
10-19-2007, 06:14 AM
Question: are you here to seek the truth whatever it may be, or just to insult the man with the weird claims?

Since I've already provided you with links debunking your missed intervention theory, I'll go with the latter, labratboy! :laugh2:

Sertes
10-19-2007, 06:46 AM
Since I've already provided you with links debunking your missed intervention theory, I'll go with the latter, labratboy! :laugh2:

Except that they answer nothing.

You still have your chanche to explain it yourself, as it's YOU that provided the link of the 9/11 commission report that's fully opposite to Mineta testimony

Sorry, you can't have the last word on this issue unless you actually answer where was Dick Cheney at 9:30 on 9/11/2001

jimnyc
10-19-2007, 06:50 AM
I don't need the last word, you can continue to post in this thread until you turn blue. The board laughs at you as well as every sane person on the planet. Your frothing at the mouth conspiracy rants are nothing more than comedic value to us.

Gaffer
10-19-2007, 10:31 AM
Who cares where Cheney was at 930 am.

Flight 77 was on a trajectory for the pentagon according to you. But then it was disappeared and replaced with a missile. So which is it? Either the plane hit it or a missile hit it.

All you nuts think it was just a matter of the planes could have been shot down. That is not a simple matter. You don't shoot down commercial jets over populated areas. And you have to be sure the plane was hijacked. There was a plane in the same area that had transponder trouble.

The biggest problem with you nutcases is you watch way too much television.

Sertes
10-19-2007, 11:22 AM
Who cares where Cheney was at 930 am.

Flight 77 was on a trajectory for the pentagon according to you. But then it was disappeared and replaced with a missile. So which is it? Either the plane hit it or a missile hit it.

All you nuts think it was just a matter of the planes could have been shot down. That is not a simple matter. You don't shoot down commercial jets over populated areas. And you have to be sure the plane was hijacked. There was a plane in the same area that had transponder trouble.

The biggest problem with you nutcases is you watch way too much television.

Nice straw-man move. You hide behind a weird claim no one made to dodge my question.


The straw man fallacy occurs when a statement misrepresents or invents an opponent's view (sometimes even the opponent is invented) in order to easily discredit it. The straw man fallacy does not consist of stating an opponent's position, but only in stating it inaccurately. The straw man argument is intended to give the appearance of successfully refuting the original argument, thus creating the impression that it has refuted a position that someone actually holds. A straw man is constructed expressly for the purpose of knocking it down
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Straw_man

Try again, this time answer on the real issue:

1) 9/11 commissin report clearly states Cheney was outside PEOC, unaware
2) Norman Mineta testified Cheney was in the PEOC, in command, in control of the situation, aware of plane location and heading

One makes Cheney guilty, the other Mineta.

PS: After 2 hits on the towers YOU DO shoot down hijacked planes coming straight toward washington, because they could have carried a NUKE, too, for what they knew at the time. But nice try, anyway.

PPS: If you lost someone at the pentagon that day, you would care where was Cheney at 930. See, I can use the "cheap rethoric" card, too.

Sir Evil
10-19-2007, 11:26 AM
PPS: If you lost someone at the pentagon that day, you would care where was Cheney at 930. See, I can use the "cheap rethoric" card, too.

Cheney was eating a pizza at that time, I saw him. :laugh:

Sertes
10-20-2007, 03:59 AM
Cheney was eating a pizza at that time, I saw him. :laugh:

I see no one can address the facts on the missed intervention :lalala:

Well, at least now you know them.

mrg666
10-20-2007, 04:03 AM
I see no one can address the facts on the missed intervention :lalala:

Well, at least now you know them.

round and round and round it goes :laugh2:

Sertes
10-20-2007, 04:05 AM
round and round and round it goes :laugh2:

...and no one still has a clue :dance:

mrg666
10-20-2007, 04:13 AM
...and no one still has a clue :dance:

and where it'll stop nobody knows
i forgot that :cool:

Abbey
10-20-2007, 09:20 AM
...and no one still has a clue :dance:

...and I had such hopes for you (being in Italy) to be an interesting addition to the board. :(

Sertes
10-20-2007, 10:54 AM
...and I had such hopes for you (being in Italy) to be an interesting addition to the board. :(

Ask away, I'm one of the few here that actually answers the questions posed.

Lest we forget:

In fact after the second hit on the towers it was clear to everyone that america was under attack and they were using airplanes as weapons.
AA77 allegedly was able to fly for 20 minutes toward the most heavily defended airspace in the world, coming straight to washington d.c. , hitting the pentagon, while everyone was looking out for planes as threats.

For the missed intervention we have 2 opposite versions:

Official version
The 9/11 commission report places him outside the white house bunker, inaware of AA77 position, bearing, it also states he entered the white house bunker (PEOC) at 9:37, just moments before the plane hit.



American 77 began turning south, away from the White House, at 9:34. It
continued heading south for roughly a minute,before turning west and begin¬
ning to circle back.This news prompted the Secret Service to order the imme¬
diate evacuation of the Vice President just before 9:36. Agents propelled him
________________________________________
Page 40
40
THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT
out of his chair and told him he had to get to the bunker.The Vice President
entered the underground tunnel leading to the shelter at 9:37.
Source: http://64.233.167.104/custom?q=cache:sHwgJh0-VxAJ:www.gpoaccess.gov/911/pdf/sec1.pdf+dick+cheney+9:30&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=pub-0982790381073093

Norman Mineta deposition
Norman Mineta, minister of transportation, in a testimony under oath before the 9/11 commission:

M3q0uZAEd5w

He is into Whiteouse PEOC, he’s already in phone contact FAA number two in command, which is following the unidentified target in its trajectory toward the capital.
A young man enters the bunker to inform Cheney that the plane was 50 miles out, it's 9:25
At Langley, 105 miles away, Brad Derrig and Dean Eckmann got the order to scramble and will effectively be airborne at 9:30.
We have a target followed on radar, vice president knows that, and military fighters are in flight.
F16 flies at 1500 mph, even at half speed they could have intercepted the plane.
All conditions to down the plane and defend Washington D.C. are effective, if indeed the order was a “shoot down order”
But the plane comes to 30 miles, and the young man reports it to Cheney. Then it comes to 10, and the young man asks Dick Cheney “do the order still stand?” He snaps back “Of course the order still stands, have you heard anything on the contrary?”
Then the plane hits the pentagon.

If you think he mistook AA77 with UA93 you may watch this interview:
edDExK8PpWs
where he provided landmarks names:

http://i18.tinypic.com/6c5i2c2.jpg
Green: great falls park.
Upper yellow: Rosslyn
Lower yellow: National Airport
Red: the pentagon

A detail of the area between Rosslyn and the National Airport:
http://i14.tinypic.com/2rc49s0.jpg
Where I debated this: http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=137692&postcount=20

Coincidences
1) The PEOC access control computer broke down, so there's no corroborating evidence.
2) Mineta deposition is reported on 9/11 commission report, but the part I reported here is omitted (the part where the young man comes out to inform the vice president of the wereabouts of flight 77)

Question: are you here to seek the truth whatever it may be, or just to insult the man with the weird claims?

Gaffer
10-20-2007, 02:17 PM
What difference does it make whether Cheney was in the bunker or out? Who is the mysterious "young man" you keep referring too?

If you had any concept of what the air traffic looks like over the US you would not be making the silly statements you do. Fighters have to be vectored to an area and then find their target. That takes more than 20 minutes. And as I said before, you don't just shoot down a plane over populated areas. It's not as simple as you see on television.

None of your postings is fact, its just off the wall speculation.

Kathianne
10-20-2007, 02:36 PM
Ask away, I'm one of the few here that actually answers the questions posed.

Lest we forget:

In fact after the second hit on the towers it was clear to everyone that america was under attack and they were using airplanes as weapons.
AA77 allegedly was able to fly for 20 minutes toward the most heavily defended airspace in the world, coming straight to washington d.c. , hitting the pentagon, while everyone was looking out for planes as threats.

For the missed intervention we have 2 opposite versions:

Official version
The 9/11 commission report places him outside the white house bunker, inaware of AA77 position, bearing, it also states he entered the white house bunker (PEOC) at 9:37, just moments before the plane hit.


Source: http://64.233.167.104/custom?q=cache:sHwgJh0-VxAJ:www.gpoaccess.gov/911/pdf/sec1.pdf+dick+cheney+9:30&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=pub-0982790381073093

Norman Mineta deposition
Norman Mineta, minister of transportation, in a testimony under oath before the 9/11 commission:

M3q0uZAEd5w

He is into Whiteouse PEOC, he’s already in phone contact FAA number two in command, which is following the unidentified target in its trajectory toward the capital.
A young man enters the bunker to inform Cheney that the plane was 50 miles out, it's 9:25
At Langley, 105 miles away, Brad Derrig and Dean Eckmann got the order to scramble and will effectively be airborne at 9:30.
We have a target followed on radar, vice president knows that, and military fighters are in flight.
F16 flies at 1500 mph, even at half speed they could have intercepted the plane.
All conditions to down the plane and defend Washington D.C. are effective, if indeed the order was a “shoot down order”
But the plane comes to 30 miles, and the young man reports it to Cheney. Then it comes to 10, and the young man asks Dick Cheney “do the order still stand?” He snaps back “Of course the order still stands, have you heard anything on the contrary?”
Then the plane hits the pentagon.

If you think he mistook AA77 with UA93 you may watch this interview:
edDExK8PpWs
where he provided landmarks names:

http://i18.tinypic.com/6c5i2c2.jpg
Green: great falls park.
Upper yellow: Rosslyn
Lower yellow: National Airport
Red: the pentagon

A detail of the area between Rosslyn and the National Airport:
http://i14.tinypic.com/2rc49s0.jpg
Where I debated this: http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=137692&postcount=20

Coincidences
1) The PEOC access control computer broke down, so there's no corroborating evidence.
2) Mineta deposition is reported on 9/11 commission report, but the part I reported here is omitted (the part where the young man comes out to inform the vice president of the wereabouts of flight 77)

Question: are you here to seek the truth whatever it may be, or just to insult the man with the weird claims?

Right, we read through that. Why do you keep bringing it up?

Abbey
10-20-2007, 05:22 PM
Ask away, I'm one of the few here that actually answers the questions posed.
...


Okey doke.

1. Can you tell us a little about yourself? (With no references to 9/11 or any American conspiracies).

2. Why do you think Europe is turning away from God, and how does Italy fit into that equation?

Sertes
10-20-2007, 06:13 PM
Okey doke.

1. Can you tell us a little about yourself? (With no references to 9/11 or any American conspiracies).

2. Why do you think Europe is turning away from God, and how does Italy fit into that equation?

Sure, no problem. Hope the moderators will tolerate this slight Off-topic.

1) My name is Riccardo Pizzirani, I'm 34 year old, and I live in Bologna (north Italy), the city that "invented" universities.
I choose to do civil services instead of going to the mandatory 1-year military service we are obliged to do here in Italy, I went to a drug-addicted rehab center and later to a safe house for people with psycological problems.
Now I work as an IT consultant/teacher, I have some small level Microsoft degrees beside my studies. I suck at soccer but I'm really good at MTG card game, I've been at world competition in '99.

2) IMHO Europe is turning away from God because of television propaganda, it pushes life models of self-gain, self-appleasement, that's just the opposite of the teaching of love of all the major religions. Once upon a time people worked the field and went to churches to seek redemption and got some knowledge. Now people are subject to so much advertisement, so much biased media that they're helplessy gaining the wrong teaching.
Italy is a country defined by its corruption and its hypocrisy, you can do anything, really anything, as long as you're not caught, it's good. You can go to sunday service and see mafia affiliated going to confession, you can turn on tv and see corrupted and convicted politicians praising the words of the pope.

Sertes
10-20-2007, 06:22 PM
Right, we read through that. Why do you keep bringing it up?

Because it shows that the 9/11 commission report is built on lies aimed at protecting Dick Cheney, the pentagon plane could be shot down but the vice president choose not to. Either that or Norman Mineta lied under oath and the 9/11 commission defused the lie by not reporting it. But tell me what had to gain Mineta from that lie. I know what the "vice" president gained from 9/11.
The main evidences in the 9/11 studies have always been the collapses (not the start of them) and Mineta deposition. This is a political forum, so I choose to highligh the one most in topic.

According to 9/11 CR, the pentagon plane struck at 9:37, just moments before the vice president entered the PEOC. Mineta testimonies "I went to the PEOC and the vice president was already there", and then "a young man entered the room and told the vice president the plane was 50 miles away".
You cannot have it both way.

Sertes
10-20-2007, 06:34 PM
What difference does it make whether Cheney was in the bunker or out?
Answered above


Who is the mysterious "young man" you keep referring too?
It's Norman Mineta that refers it in his deposition, from time 0:29 of the first video. Watch it, it's only 1:12 long.



If you had any concept of what the air traffic looks like over the US you would not be making the silly statements you do. Fighters have to be vectored to an area and then find their target. That takes more than 20 minutes.
Trust me when I say I do have "any concept of what the air traffic looks like", it's two years I study these issues.
In the nine months before 9/11 there were more than 60 planes who broke signaling with the control towers or steered out of planned course, they were intercepted within minutes, every single time.
And as I wrote, the F16 that were airborne at Langley at 9:30 could reach and shot down the pentagon plane flying at half speed, they could reach it well before using full speed. If the order was that, of course.



And as I said before, you don't just shoot down a plane over populated areas. It's not as simple as you see on television.
I don't watch television. And I repeat the same answer: after 2 hits on the towers it was clear that the people on board of any hijacked plane were doomed anyway. So you simply try to keep the human loss at minimum. So you try to intercept the planes as fast as you can. That didn't happen.
And again I ask you: what if the pentagon plane had a nuke on board? Would you leave it coming toward washington d.c.? They supposedly didn't know at the time

None of your postings is fact, its just off the wall speculation.
I posted a link to the 9/11 commission report and a 2 videos of Mineta, deposition and interview, and maps of the landmarks.
I can only show facts: it's upon you check them.

Gaffer
10-20-2007, 08:08 PM
Answered above


Nowhere above do you mention why Cheney would do all of this. There's nothing to be gained by any of the attacks. And whether he was in or out of a bunker is irrelevant. Cheney, as VP, has no authority over anything. He is the back up president and tie breaker in the senate.

It's Norman Mineta that refers it in his deposition, from time 0:29 of the first video. Watch it, it's only 1:12 long.

Then he was either wrong in his time frame or he is lying. Would he have a reason to lie about something like that?


Trust me when I say I do have "any concept of what the air traffic looks like", it's two years I study these issues.
In the nine months before 9/11 there were more than 60 planes who broke signaling with the control towers or steered out of planned course, they were intercepted within minutes, every single time.

That is made up crap by the troofers. Planes occasionally lose their transponders and sometimes go off course from their flight path. Prior to 9/11 they would not be intercepted by any military planes. As I said the military planes are on the ground until scrambled, especially before 9/11. There was no special watch or reaction prior to 9/11. Anyone that tells you there was is full of shit.

And as I wrote, the F16 that were airborne at Langley at 9:30 could reach and shot down the pentagon plane flying at half speed, they could reach it well before using full speed. If the order was that, of course.

They have to be vectored to the aircraft by the air controllers. Most of them headed east to intercept planes coming in from overseas. How do you identify a plane you can't see among a hundred other planes in the same area? The controllers have to direct you there through all the other aircraft that are flying there as well. when the aircrafts transponder is turned off they don't get critical information like altitude. All they get is a radar blip.




I don't watch television. And I repeat the same answer: after 2 hits on the towers it was clear that the people on board of any hijacked plane were doomed anyway. So you simply try to keep the human loss at minimum. So you try to intercept the planes as fast as you can. That didn't happen.
And again I ask you: what if the pentagon plane had a nuke on board? Would you leave it coming toward washington d.c.? They supposedly didn't know at the time

After two hits on the towers nothing was clear except that there appeared to be five planes with transponders off. One turned out to be a transponder failure. There was never a concern that these planes might have nukes. They were hijacked commercial airliners and were treated as such. Prior to 9/11 it was expected that hijackers would simply take the plane somewhere and make demands.

I posted a link to the 9/11 commission report and a 2 videos of Mineta, deposition and interview, and maps of the landmarks.
I can only show facts: it's upon you check them.

Your not showing facts, your showing speculation.

The 911 commission report was a joke at best. It should have been called the 911 partisan report. Or a better name would be the protect clinton at all costs report.

Abbey
10-20-2007, 10:08 PM
Sure, no problem. Hope the moderators will tolerate this slight Off-topic.

1) My name is Riccardo Pizzirani, I'm 34 year old, and I live in Bologna (north Italy), the city that "invented" universities.
I choose to do civil services instead of going to the mandatory 1-year military service we are obliged to do here in Italy, I went to a drug-addicted rehab center and later to a safe house for people with psycological problems.
Now I work as an IT consultant/teacher, I have some small level Microsoft degrees beside my studies. I suck at soccer but I'm really good at MTG card game, I've been at world competition in '99.

2) IMHO Europe is turning away from God because of television propaganda, it pushes life models of self-gain, self-appleasement, that's just the opposite of the teaching of love of all the major religions. Once upon a time people worked the field and went to churches to seek redemption and got some knowledge. Now people are subject to so much advertisement, so much biased media that they're helplessy gaining the wrong teaching.
Italy is a country defined by its corruption and its hypocrisy, you can do anything, really anything, as long as you're not caught, it's good. You can go to sunday service and see mafia affiliated going to confession, you can turn on tv and see corrupted and convicted politicians praising the words of the pope.

Thank you for answering. You didn't have to give your real name! We have a few IT guys on the board, including the board owner. And my hubby.

I am fascinated by the fact that Europe has gone from a bedrock of churchgoers to what it is now. I guess I had hoped that Italy, being so fervently Catholic, might be an exception to that trend.

Your English writing skills are so good; I am guessing that you did not always live in Italy?

LuvRPgrl
10-21-2007, 05:16 PM
statisicly the chance of getting caught out in this sort of thing far outweighs any benefits (wich are ? )

Statistically its impossible to occur.

There is a limit to how many people can share a secret and keep it a secret over time. The number of people needed to be involved is so astronomically high, its not even worth the time debating the loonies.

Anyone who is loony enough to even consider the prospect after two nanoseconds of thought on it, well, they say you cant win an arguement with a sick mind.

Sertes
10-22-2007, 07:48 AM
Statistically its impossible to occur.

There is a limit to how many people can share a secret and keep it a secret over time. The number of people needed to be involved is so astronomically high, its not even worth the time debating the loonies.

Anyone who is loony enough to even consider the prospect after two nanoseconds of thought on it, well, they say you cant win an arguement with a sick mind.

AGAIN?

Why plan and propose Operation Northwoods (back in the sixties!) if they believed that false-flag attacks requiring 200 people would later been exposed??

Yes, it's not worth the time debating the ostrich.

Sertes
10-22-2007, 08:03 AM
Nowhere above do you mention why Cheney would do all of this. There's nothing to be gained by any of the attacks. And whether he was in or out of a bunker is irrelevant. Cheney, as VP, has no authority over anything. He is the back up president and tie breaker in the senate.

These are very important matters, Gaffer, I have to respond to each of your points in separated posts.

This one, for instance.

What has to be gained I already highlighted: the self-appointed right for US to attack any country in the world is legitimated by 9/11.
They blamed Afghanistan for 9/11 and got away with it even without getting OBL.
After that they went to Iraq because it could pose a threat (yet to be proven)!
And now they say they're planning Iran because it could pose a threat too.
Jusfication? We have already been attacked, so we can and must protect ouselves with active action.
I can wrote it in many ways, but the substance is the same: the Cheney doctrine, the one highlighted in post #7 of this thread (that's the "above" I mentioned, I covered it above)
Never allow anyone to question american supremacy. For that you need to control energy worldwide and have full support at home.
http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=137708&postcount=7

---

As for VP being the one in command, maybe you don't know of the communication issue of 9/11: all communications with key elements of defense, intelligence and political power were cut off. The only one in charge was VP Cheney. Or, if you believe in the 9/11 commission report, no one was in charge when the pentagon plane struck.



CIA Director George Tenet: "With all hell breaking loose, it was hard to get calls through on the secure phone. Essentially, I was in a communications blackout between the St. Regis and Langley, the longest twelve minutes of my life."

As speaker of the House, Dennis Hastert was third in line for the presidency: "On that dreadful day I couldn't make the thing work. No matter what I did, I couldn't connect with the vice president. As the minutes passed, my frustrations grew."

Secretary of State Colin Powell was away in Lima, Peru: "I never felt more useless in my life than on the morning of the 11th of September. Phones [were] gone because of what happened here and what happened to the [communications] system here in Washington. They couldn't get a phone line through. I was able to get some radio communications--two radio spots on the way back--but for most of that seven-hour period, I could not tell what was going on here in my capital, and I'm the secretary of state!"

President George W. Bush reportedly experienced some serious problems in his attempts at contacting colleagues back in Washington. According to the 9/11 Commission Report: "The president told us he was frustrated with the poor communications that morning. He could not reach key officials, including Secretary Rumsfeld, for a period of time. The line to the White House shelter conference room--and the vice president--kept cutting off."

I cut the article to post the main points here, you can find the whole here: http://www.911blogger.com/node/12072

Gaffer
10-22-2007, 12:39 PM
These are very important matters, Gaffer, I have to respond to each of your points in separated posts.

This one, for instance.

What has to be gained I already highlighted: the self-appointed right for US to attack any country in the world is legitimated by 9/11.
They blamed Afghanistan for 9/11 and got away with it even without getting OBL.

Because Afghanistan was the base from which qaeda was operating. We have never needed a special reason to go after another country that is threatening us. Based on you CT al qaeda doesn't exist and no one is bombing and murdering people through out the world.


After that they went to Iraq because it could pose a threat (yet to be proven)!

It posed a major threat. One that has been proven over and over.


And now they say they're planning Iran because it could pose a threat too.
Jusfication? We have already been attacked, so we can and must protect ouselves with active action.

iran is an even bigger threat than saddam was. But that doesn't fall into your little fantasy so you chose to deny it. There is nothing wrong with eliminating a threat to your life before it can be implemented.


I can wrote it in many ways, but the substance is the same: the Cheney doctrine, the one highlighted in post #7 of this thread (that's the "above" I mentioned, I covered it above)

It's not the Chaney doctrine. It's the Bush doctrine. And has nothing to do with what you state below. That's made up Bullshit.
Never allow anyone to question american supremacy. For that you need to control energy worldwide and have full support at home.
http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=137708&postcount=7

---

As for VP being the one in command, maybe you don't know of the communication issue of 9/11: all communications with key elements of defense, intelligence and political power were cut off. The only one in charge was VP Cheney. Or, if you believe in the 9/11 commission report, no one was in charge when the pentagon plane struck.

The President was in charge. Communications or not the President is in charge. Everyone else just awaits orders. Chaney and the Speaker are moved to safe areas in case something happens to the president. They are in charge of NOTHING. As I said before, the 9/11 commision was just a bunch of politcal hacks. Their main job was to cover clinton's ass for the events leading up to 9/11.



I cut the article to post the main points here, you can find the whole here: http://www.911blogger.com/node/12072

It's always amazing how these sites, like the ones you post, always have such insight about what was going on when they weren't there to see it. They know what was said, what was thought and what was going on. I'm surprised the UFO connection hasn't been worked into this. It's common knowledge that extra-terrestrials have been running things around here since the 50's.

LuvRPgrl
10-22-2007, 07:13 PM
AGAIN?

Why plan and propose Operation Northwoods (back in the sixties!) if they believed that false-flag attacks requiring 200 people would later been exposed??

Yes, it's not worth the time debating the ostrich.

You are actually going to compare 9/11 with something so trivial that you had to let us know when it happened?

Besides, Mine isnt to say why or why not do it, just that IF the govt had conspired in 9/11, information would be leaking all over the place, hell, how many do you think knew about watergate? Were they able to manage to keep that a secret?

Its really quite hysterical to think people still entertain such ideas, it must be a serious need for entertainment.

Sertes
10-23-2007, 04:03 PM
You are actually going to compare 9/11 with something so trivial that you had to let us know when it happened?


You obviously never heard of it. Operation Northwoods is an actual plan for provoking a "response to Cuban attacks", an invasion of Cuba after a series of false-flag terrorists strikes in the US made by the US.
It called for sinking ships with Cuban exules, staging riots in major US cities, and downing an american airliner drone, TO START A WAR. The estimate is it needed about 200 people to be carried out. It was a single signature away from being approved (by a man called J.F.K. , if I remember correctly)

It proves three important points: that false-flag attacks exists, that they are planned even by the self-styled "good guys", and that 200 people in the military world are supposed to be able to keep this kind of secret forever.

Its date is only useful because for your own law after a set number of years all documentation that was once secret, eyes-only, becomes free for anyone to read. And Operation Northwoods just went public, some months ago.
So we can only guess what has been planned FROM the sixties UP TO yesterday.

You'll find plenty of references on Operation Northwoods, it's history, you cannot change it, there's even the pdf of the real pages.


Besides, Mine isnt to say why or why not do it, just that IF the govt had conspired in 9/11, information would be leaking all over the place, hell, how many do you think knew about watergate? Were they able to manage to keep that a secret?

If you haven't noticed, 9/11 leaked.

200 architects and engineers support the demolition theory rather than the collapse theory, the former head of nist fire division asked nist for a new investigation, last week even Nist has to concede they cannot explain the twin towers COLLAPSES, with WTC7 they didn't even try, the alleged hole in WTC7 Nist's Sunder talks about is not documented, the raging fires they talk about at WTC7 are not documented, no one can explain Mineta deposition nor the whole missed intervention on AA77, no one can find the engines at the pentagon, no one can find the rear tail damage on the pentagon face, no one has a real answer to what caused the third ring 12foot round punch out hole, of the 85 videos confiscated at the pentagon by FBI they released the only ones that never show the plane... for starters.

These are the leaks.

Of course Tv is not telling it, and truth has to fight the two "nothing has leaked" and "how many people would be needed?" MEMEs: small ideas that float on the internet with the purpose of providing people short, easy answers to issues they want to believe are settled the right way.
In fact yours is not a question like: "how many would have been needed for your crazy conspiracy to work?" but more a self-reassuring phrase "you're crazy, there would be needed too many people..."
Am I right?

And they make the trio with "americans would never did it to fellow americans" - which is proved wrong by Op Northwood too.

But the official version doesn't stand up to close scrutiny.

That's mine.

Sertes
10-23-2007, 04:08 PM
It's always amazing how these sites, like the ones you post, always have such insight about what was going on when they weren't there to see it. They know what was said, what was thought and what was going on. I'm surprised the UFO connection hasn't been worked into this. It's common knowledge that extra-terrestrials have been running things around here since the 50's.

Yes, that's funny, but you have some on-topic comment? I just told you NIST admitted that they cannot explain the twin towers collapses too

I'll post the image from the ORIGINAL pdf by NIST:
http://www.luogocomune.net/site/modules/news/library/nist5-o.gif

And when asked a clear answer to the potential energy issue (point 1) and to the fact that the underlying structure would have slowed the collapse to an halt (point 2), see what NIST answered

http://www.luogocomune.net/site/modules/news/library/nist4b-o.gif

Yep, NIST never find any explosives, it's easier if you are not looking for them.

LuvRPgrl
10-28-2007, 11:33 PM
You obviously never heard of it. Operation Northwoods is an actual plan for provoking a "response to Cuban attacks", an invasion of Cuba after a series of false-flag terrorists strikes in the US made by the US.
It called for sinking ships with Cuban exules, staging riots in major US cities, and downing an american airliner drone, TO START A WAR. The estimate is it needed about 200 people to be carried out. It was a single signature away from being approved (by a man called J.F.K. , if I remember correctly)

It proves three important points: that false-flag attacks exists, that they are planned even by the self-styled "good guys", and that 200 people in the military world are supposed to be able to keep this kind of secret forever.

Its date is only useful because for your own law after a set number of years all documentation that was once secret, eyes-only, becomes free for anyone to read. And Operation Northwoods just went public, some months ago.
So we can only guess what has been planned FROM the sixties UP TO yesterday.

You'll find plenty of references on Operation Northwoods, it's history, you cannot change it, there's even the pdf of the real pages.



If you haven't noticed, 9/11 leaked.

200 architects and engineers support the demolition theory rather than the collapse theory, the former head of nist fire division asked nist for a new investigation, last week even Nist has to concede they cannot explain the twin towers COLLAPSES, with WTC7 they didn't even try, the alleged hole in WTC7 Nist's Sunder talks about is not documented, the raging fires they talk about at WTC7 are not documented, no one can explain Mineta deposition nor the whole missed intervention on AA77, no one can find the engines at the pentagon, no one can find the rear tail damage on the pentagon face, no one has a real answer to what caused the third ring 12foot round punch out hole, of the 85 videos confiscated at the pentagon by FBI they released the only ones that never show the plane... for starters.

These are the leaks.

Of course Tv is not telling it, and truth has to fight the two "nothing has leaked" and "how many people would be needed?" MEMEs: small ideas that float on the internet with the purpose of providing people short, easy answers to issues they want to believe are settled the right way.
In fact yours is not a question like: "how many would have been needed for your crazy conspiracy to work?" but more a self-reassuring phrase "you're crazy, there would be needed too many people..."
Am I right?

And they make the trio with "americans would never did it to fellow americans" - which is proved wrong by Op Northwood too.

But the official version doesn't stand up to close scrutiny.

That's mine.

DUDE, you have no clue what a leak even is. Its NOT reasons you dont believe the govt version, its SOMEONE WHO WAS INVOLVED IN THE COVERUP COMING OUT AND ADMITTING THEY WERE INVOLVED IN THE COVERUP. NOW, WHO HAS STEPPED UP TO THE PLATE MAKING THAT CLAIM? You are just re gurgitating old dribble and didnt even hear what I said.

Sertes
10-29-2007, 08:27 AM
DUDE, you have no clue what a leak even is. Its NOT reasons you dont believe the govt version, its SOMEONE WHO WAS INVOLVED IN THE COVERUP COMING OUT AND ADMITTING THEY WERE INVOLVED IN THE COVERUP. NOW, WHO HAS STEPPED UP TO THE PLATE MAKING THAT CLAIM? You are just re gurgitating old dribble and didnt even hear what I said.

Let's see who is clueless on leaks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_leak


A leak in political and news circles is a release to the public of secret or confidential information without official authorisation, and without acknowledgement of the source of the leak.

Reasons for leaks

* Politicians and policy-makers may wish to judge the reaction of the public to their plans before committing (a trial balloon). Leaked information may be plausibly denied without blame for proposed unpopular measures affecting their perpetrators.
* People with access to confidential information may find it to their advantage to make it public, without themselves appearing to be responsible for publishing the information. For example, information which will embarrass political opponents, or cause damage to national security, may be leaked.
* People privy to secret information about matters which they consider to be morally wrong or against the public interest — often referred to as "whistleblowers" — may leak the information.

Well-known leaks
* A source known as Deep Throat leaked information related to the Watergate scandal.
* Columnist Robert Novak published a leak, outing CIA agent Valerie Plame.


It never was a requisite that the leak must come from within the conspiracy.
The wikipedia page for Political Leaks refers to Watergate scandal leak just as you mentioned, and it also states that "privy to secret information about matters which they consider to be morally wrong or against the public interest — often referred to as "whistleblowers" — may leak the information."

Former US minister of transportation Mineta deposition on the missed intervention falls into this category.

The same goes for worker's photo of the punch-out hole at the pentagon, which leaked.

The same goes for Nist's Sunder, which talks about a gaping hole at WTC7 and cannot produce the photo - it's his way to say the world Nist has no photo of the falbed WTC7 hole.

The same goes for former Nist fire department chief James Quintiere who reads the Nist report and asks for a new investigation. He knows how people worked there.

The same goes for the people who released the pentagon video in which the plane CANNOT BE SEEN while FBI agent deposition tells us that of the 85 videos confiscated at least 1 shows the plane.

People outside the conspiracy who get access to secret informations can only expose themselves this far, if people like you won't address even the blatant facts and the hard evidence.

But I'm also curious on why do you think that a man who has played even a small part in the planning, executing or coverup of a false-flag attack that killed 3000 of his own citizens would a day wake up and say "I'll denounce everyone". What are the chanches he would so abruptly change his mind? And even if he did, what would he face? Being hanged for high treason after spending some quality time in guantanamo bay (at best), or a bullet in the head by former collegues (at worst).

avatar4321
11-15-2007, 04:31 AM
can you link me to the UN resolutions clinton got approving:
his invasion of bosnia?......

launching missiles into iraq?........

sending special forces in to kidnap a somali war lord?......

You mistake me for someone who supports Clinton or the democrats. I'm not part of this fake dualism. Democrats are as guilty for covering up truths on 9/11 as the Republicans, for instance. Maybe Neocon are more guilty on 9/11 than the rest of the Republicans, but this has yet to be proven.
But to return to the point, to me the people in power are right when making the right decisions and wrong when making wrong decisions. I don't have to support their wrong choices just because they're of the same political party I voted. And I don't have to support someone who got elected president if he makes wrong calls of makes up stuff, like the forged wmd claims.
It's true to me even if I'm an Italian, because we got bad politician here too. Our bad politicians have less power than yours, that the only reason they make less impact. But they try, of course they try.

So Clinton was wrong too? We use to say two wrongs doesn't make one right.
Do you have similar quotes, in the USA?

I think you have majorly missed the point manu was bringing up. You seem to think he is accusing you of hypocrisy. The fact that you think this rather than seeing the true purpose is rather telling about how you feel about the strength of your own position. However, that isnt the point.

The point is that you claim 911 was orchastrated in order to allow Bush/Cheney to preemptively invade other nations without UN order. At least if what you said in response to Gaffer here on page 1 of the thread is true:



Invading other countries in plain defiance of UN resolutions (the Cheney doctrine)

The very fact that Clinton did so, and you even acknowledge that he did, completely undermines your motive for a conspiracy.

Which leads everyone back to the question: Why? What benefits could possibly come from this?

Sertes
11-15-2007, 06:45 AM
Then it's dishonest of you to use Ron Paul as part of your argument that 9/11 was an inside job, when even he does not believe your argument. You're trying to use someone of influence to give the appearance of being on your side, when the truth of the matter is the exact opposite.

I'm sorry if it turned out that way, I will list one at a time, so we settle this as we settled other facts:

1) Ron Paul doesn't support 9/11 inside job version
2) Ron Paul does support a second investigation
3) Both you and me don't know what he THINKS, but only what he SUPPORTS. If you're inside his head and know what he thinks, tell us how you got there. Otherwise don't tell us what he THINKS.

You may think that point 1 is stronger, and settles the issue, ok.
I think that point 2 is stronger, and shows he's working in the right direction, but he's doing as much as he can at this stage. Ok?



Can you explain "idiot" to me and what is a "conspiracy theory".

Sure, I'm an expert on both!

An idiot is someone that denies hard evidence or that solves 7 issues out of 10 and hope no one would notice.

A Conspiracy theory is the reconstruction of a crime committed by a group of people that assembled to plan and execute it.

When you try to put them together you got an idiot conspiracy theory like: "19 boxcutter-armed caveman defied the most advanced air defense in the world with invisibility, scoring 3 hits out of 4, and collapsing 3 buildings with only 2 planes and no explosives".

Or in a smaller scale, another idiot conspiracy theory is: "a vertical and horizontal structural failure caused by fires led to global collapse." and stops there. Tell us how it fell! Tell us why the steel melted!



Their "hypothesis" is more credible and supported by more facts than your conspiracies.

Is supported by a number of facts but at the same time it denies a couple of critical issues. That's why it's still an hypotesis and not an explanation, no one can blame NIST to have told the false if they're still working on it.
But they claim they're working on it since 2004, we're not THAT stupid.
Hence fact is there's no official explanation of WTC7 collapse.


As for your molten steel, I have read stories about this regarding WTC1 & 2 and posted explanations, can you give me links to support evidence of molten steel found at WTC7?

Sure, I can even do better, while I do that I present you (again) direct evidence of temperatures higher than those possible in the fires 5 days after (9/16/2001) in all the 3 basements, including that of WTC7:



The persistence of molten steel under the WTC for many weeks is extraordinary–––and anomalous. Evidently, the hot spots under the wreckage were not in the least fazed by heavy rain on September 14-15, nor by the millions of gallons of water that firemen and cleanup crews sprayed on the smoking ruins. Five days after the attack the US Geological Survey (USGS) found dozens of “hot spots” in the wreckage via remote sensing, i.e., an infrared spectrometer (AVIRIS). The two hottest spots were under WTC 2 and WTC 7. The USGS recorded surface temperatures as high as 747°C (1376°F)). Link (http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/thermal.r09.html)
The molten pools below the pile must have been at least twice as hot––––hot enough to evaporate rain and the water sprayed on the pile, long before it reached the bottom.


http://www.luogocomune.net/site/modules/911/911/5-WTC/molten/therma3bo.jpg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5n4splER9E

---

A word of praise here, Jim. It appears you're going to discuss even the central issues, I have to give you credit for that.

jimnyc
11-15-2007, 06:56 AM
I'm sorry if it turned out that way, I will list one at a time, so we settle this as we settled other facts:

1) Ron Paul doesn't support 9/11 inside job version
2) Ron Paul does support a second investigation
3) Both you and me don't know what he THINKS, but only what he SUPPORTS. If you're inside his head and know what he thinks, tell us how you got there. Otherwise don't tell us what he THINKS.

You may think that point 1 is stronger, and settles the issue, ok.
I think that point 2 is stronger, and shows he's working in the right direction, but he's doing as much as he can at this stage. Ok?

He's already stated on record that he wants the investigation further because of "incompetency" on that day, and already on record that he does not believe 9/11 was an inside job. These are facts. Anything else stated is trying to obfuscate the issue.


Sure, I can even do better, while I do that I present you (again) direct evidence of temperatures higher than those possible in the fires 5 days after (9/16/2001) in all the 3 basements, including that of WTC7:

I didn't ask about temperatures, I want direct evidence that molten steel was found in the basement of WTC7. I've seen reports about the 2 main towers, but never reports that molten steel was found in WTC7. In our debate, I gave evidence from experts as to why the temperatures were so high and how it effected the steel structure at WTC7. I also gave evidence explaining the "molten steel" at the main towers. I want direct links to reports of the molten steel at WTC7 so that I can read more about it, and then I'll answer to it as I did in our debate about what was found elsewhere.

Sertes
11-15-2007, 08:19 AM
The point is that you claim 911 was orchastrated in order to allow Bush/Cheney to preemptively invade other nations without UN order. At least if what you said in response to Gaffer here on page 1 of the thread is true:
No, the claim is similar, yet different at critical issues.
911 was orchestrated in order to allow Cheney (not Bush) to invade and occupy indefinitely other nations without UN order, shut down civil liberties at home, and get away with it.


The very fact that Clinton did so, and you even acknowledge that he did, completely undermines your motive for a conspiracy.

Ok, the moment you prove Clinton invaded and occupied indefinitely even one resource rich nation (opium, oil, you name it) then passed a couple of constitution shattering laws, and get away with it, I'll give you the point.

Sertes
11-15-2007, 08:49 AM
He's already stated on record that he wants the investigation further because of "incompetency" on that day, and already on record that he does not believe 9/11 was an inside job. These are facts. Anything else stated is trying to obfuscate the issue.

True.



I didn't ask about temperatures, I want direct evidence that molten steel was found in the basement of WTC7. I've seen reports about the 2 main towers, but never reports that molten steel was found in WTC7. In our debate, I gave evidence from experts as to why the temperatures were so high and how it effected the steel structure at WTC7. I also gave evidence explaining the "molten steel" at the main towers. I want direct links to reports of the molten steel at WTC7 so that I can read more about it, and then I'll answer to it as I did in our debate about what was found elsewhere.

No, the reports you saw are about WTC complex, which included WTC1, 2 and 7 too. Hence the satellite photo you can't dodge: molten steel was found in the basement of WTC7. Read the article, maybe even the linked site.
You can work on the claim of the "40 days later", because I don't have direct evidence of 40 days on WTC7, only 5.
Can we settle for that?

jimnyc
11-15-2007, 03:44 PM
No, the reports you saw are about WTC complex, which included WTC1, 2 and 7 too. Hence the satellite photo you can't dodge: molten steel was found in the basement of WTC7. Read the article, maybe even the linked site.
You can work on the claim of the "40 days later", because I don't have direct evidence of 40 days on WTC7, only 5.
Can we settle for that?

I believe I covered the explanation of "molten steel" in our original debate, and further explained how and why the temperatures raised so high. But here's a few more links to keep you busy:

http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_molten_steel.html
http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm

Sertes
11-16-2007, 03:01 AM
I believe I covered the explanation of "molten steel" in our original debate, and further explained how and why the temperatures raised so high. But here's a few more links to keep you busy:

http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_molten_steel.html
http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm

Yep, that's the best you can do, provide links.

Never take a side, never try to explain yourself here.

And when I show you that your links are just proving my point... another link. No acknowledgment of any point I make.

I'm still waiting to know why your link on the "Pentagon video" actually shows no plane in the frame where the plane SHOULD BE SEEN

I'm still waiting to know how ended the story on Donald Rumsfeld, DOD, being the one supposed to be in charge

I'm still waiting to see the photo of the 25% damage Nist' Sunder talks about in your linked sites

I'm still waiting to know why NIST has only a WORKING HYPOTESIS since 2004 and has not come up with an EXPLANATION on WTC7 collapse

And of course I'm still waiting a clear answer on what caused the 12-foot punchout hole at the third ring of the pentagon.

You posted links for all of them, I explained.

No issue is closed with by a link. ANSWERS close issues.

jimnyc
11-16-2007, 06:48 AM
Yep, that's the best you can do, provide links.

Never take a side, never try to explain yourself here.

What did you expect me to do, throw my engineer hat on and explain things to you and lie and give you conspiracies like you do? No, I give you irrefutable evidence, proof and explanations. And then you keep insisting a month later that all of your questions go unanswered when each and every one of them has been answered, multiple times.

I tried a few times to be polite with you and give you the time of day, but all you do is become agitated when continually proven wrong with facts, and further come back with your repetitive bullshit. What you have done, is given me an opportunity to delve even further into this subject than I have before and even further reinforce my beliefs and the facts. You've convinced no one, and the entire board laughs at you.

With that said, fuck off. :fu:

Sertes
11-19-2007, 11:47 AM
What did you expect me to do, throw my engineer hat on and explain things to you and lie and give you conspiracies like you do? No, I give you irrefutable evidence, proof and explanations. And then you keep insisting a month later that all of your questions go unanswered when each and every one of them has been answered, multiple times.

I tried a few times to be polite with you and give you the time of day, but all you do is become agitated when continually proven wrong with facts, and further come back with your repetitive bullshit. What you have done, is given me an opportunity to delve even further into this subject than I have before and even further reinforce my beliefs and the facts. You've convinced no one, and the entire board laughs at you.

With that said, fuck off. :fu:

I expect you to precisely tell us what is your opinion in all the issues that require only an opinion and no technical expertise.
I told you more than once that I didn't want to address in detail technical facts like the collapse. It suffices to say there's no official explanation for WTC7 collapse.
And I kept pointing to Mineta deposition because you didn't even clear out which side are you taking: the 9/11 commission report and his deposition under oath are diametrically opposite. You cannot have it both ways. Either the 9/11 commission report covers up for Cheney or Mineta lied under oath. If you find a third way, welcome, post it here.

I won't go technical on the last two links you provided, you didn't even realize that ONE CONTRADICTS THE OTHER! Technical expertise is not required to see that your "unofficial sources" doesn't even agree ON THE PREMISE OF THE DISCUSSION: THE MOLTEN METAL POOLS EXISTENCE!

1) From your first link http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_molten_steel.html



Proceed to the photos section ( http://web.archive.org/web/20020609005905/www.wtcgodshouse.com/photos.html ) and you’ll find something captioned “this is a picture of Tower #1 ..2 months later, molten steel”. Which looks like this.

http://www.911myths.com/assets/images/molten_steel.jpg
molten steel

Now maybe it’s just us, but we have some problems with that.

First, there’s no proof here other than the caption of when and where this was taken.

Second, whatever’s glowing red here clearly isn’t isn’t “molten” in the sense of “melted”.There may possibly be something dripping off one end, but we don’t know what that is.

Third, there seems an odd lack of conduction amongst the materials being picked up. We can see that the excavator has picked up a considerable amount of nearby material that presumably was very close to the same heat source, and it looks like glowing metal, but it’s completely black. There’s no orange -- bright red -- dull red transition across the materials, it’s just a straight orange to black. Steel isn’t a good conductor of heat, it’s true, but is that enough to explain the photo?

And fourth, we know there were underground fires at the site for some time. How hot could they get? Depends on the materials and the supply of oxygen, but in some cases the temperatures can be surprisingly high:



Hence, their conclusion:

[quote]
To finish, none of these stories prove there was molten (as in liquid) steel at the WTC. There's no evidence temperatures were hot enough to produce that (whatever the energy source), and some of the stories claiming "molten steel" have built-in implausibilities. There was certainly glowing metal, but this only indicates temperatures within the range of a fire.

2) From your second link http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm



Conspiracy sites like to bring up molten metal found 6 weeks after the buildings fell to suggest a bomb must have created the effect. The explanation doesn't go into the amount of explosive material needed because it would be an absurd amount. There is another explanation which is more plausible.

Before reading the below, it might be a good idea for the novice to read Mark Ferran's explanation on how "Iron Burns!!!"

http://www.debunking911.com/Molten.jpg

Oxidation of iron by air is not the only EXOTHERMIC reaction of iron (= structural steel which is about 98 % Fe, 1 % Mn, 0.2 % C, 0.2 % Si.....). There is at least one additional reaction of iron with the capability of keeping the rubble pile hot and cooking!

The reaction between IRON AND STEAM is also very EXOTHERMIC and fast at temperatures above 400 deg C. This reaction produces Fe3O4 AND HYDROGEN. It is the classic example of a REVERSIBLE REACTION studied in Chemistry labs at high school. But believe it or not, back at the turn of the century, the reaction of iron and steam was used as an industrial process for the manufacture of hydrogen.

I think iron and steam could have reacted in this way (at least for a while) and generated a lot of heat. What is more, the hydrogen released would have been converted back to water by reaction with oxygen, thereby generating even more heat. In this case spraying water on the rubble pile was like adding fuel to a fire!

Now add in gypsum reactions with H2 and CO and we have a great source of SO2 and/or H2S to sulfide the steel!

Perhaps the endless spraying of water on the rubble pile was not such a good idea!

SAME IDENTICAL PHOTO

But for the first site, the molten metal doesn't even exist.
And for the second site it exists but it may have formed from water spraying.
(And no one of them is an official source)

Which version do you support?

(Remember one site you supported carelessy claimed the opposite of what you though from fast reading, AA77 is not shown in the pentagon video when and where it should be plain visible)

jimnyc
11-19-2007, 11:52 AM
Dumbshit waits a week and comes back with more regurgitated crap. What part of "fuck off" didn't you understand? Nobody believes the crap you are posting. Nobody seems to be remotely interested in your non-stop conspiracies. Not a single person has been in the slightest bit persuaded by your garbage. You got absolutely pounded in the debate and the only vote you received was from yourself. Do yourself a favor and move on to topics that won't make you look like a tinfoil wearing dipshit. Either that or stay here and talk to yourself. Either way, I'm not participating with your endless theories.

hjmick
11-19-2007, 11:56 AM
Good Christ, is this tripe still going on?

Sertes
11-19-2007, 12:09 PM
Dumbshit waits a week and comes back with more regurgitated crap. What part of "fuck off" didn't you understand? Nobody believes the crap you are posting. Nobody seems to be remotely interested in your non-stop conspiracies. Not a single person has been in the slightest bit persuaded by your garbage. You got absolutely pounded in the debate and the only vote you received was from yourself. Do yourself a favor and move on to topics that won't make you look like a tinfoil wearing dipshit. Either that or stay here and talk to yourself. Either way, I'm not participating with your endless theories.

Hey! You told me "But here's a few more links to keep you busy", now you're blaming me for actually reading and addressing them?
Which part should people believe? It's YOU that posted this two contradicting links!

jimnyc
11-19-2007, 12:15 PM
Shut up, stupid

chesswarsnow
11-19-2007, 06:17 PM
Sorry bout that,

1. Basically what you have here, is the GD Muslims trying to get the whole 911 *Terrorist Attack* off of themselves, and onto those who were the victims.
2. Not going to happen, *CheckMate*!

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

Sertes
11-20-2007, 05:12 AM
Sorry bout that,

1. Basically what you have here, is the GD Muslims trying to get the whole 911 *Terrorist Attack* off of themselves, and onto those who were the victims.
2. Not going to happen, *CheckMate*!

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

I see you're not familiar with 9/11 Truth Movement:


110+ Senior Military, Intelligence Service, Law Enforcement, and Government Officials
250+ Engineers and Architects
60+ Pilots and Aviation Professionals
170+ Professors Question 9/11
190+ 9/11 Survivors and Family Members
110+ Entertainment and Media Professionals


http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/

All muslims? I doubt, but again who cares, as long as they're real patriots seeking truth I won't ask their religion.

Abbey
11-20-2007, 01:09 PM
Good lord.

http://www.geocities.com/torisstarburst/deadhorse.gif

chesswarsnow
11-21-2007, 09:13 AM
Sorry bout that,





I see you're not familiar with 9/11 Truth Movement:


110+ Senior Military, Intelligence Service, Law Enforcement, and Government Officials
250+ Engineers and Architects
60+ Pilots and Aviation Professionals
170+ Professors Question 9/11
190+ 9/11 Survivors and Family Members
110+ Entertainment and Media Professionals


http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/

All muslims? I doubt, but again who cares, as long as they're real patriots seeking truth I won't ask their religion.



1. But the all important question in your theory is *WHY*?
2. *WHY* would America attack itself?
3. I give no credence to your argument at all.
4. But for funnzees tell us all *WHY* we attacked ourselves?
5. This ought to be comical.:laugh2:

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

Sertes
11-21-2007, 01:30 PM
Sorry bout that,

1. But the all important question in your theory is *WHY*?
2. *WHY* would America attack itself?
3. I give no credence to your argument at all.
4. But for funnzees tell us all *WHY* we attacked ourselves?
5. This ought to be comical.:laugh2:

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

If the question is: "Why a rogue group within the top levels of the military, media and political establishment planned, executed and covered it up?" I have the answer.
But first let me clear out no one is blaming your nation as a whole nor your government as a whole, in fact the main leak came from a minister of your gov, minister of transportation Norman Mineta.

The answer is: POWER. To gain the self-appointed right to invade and occupy indefinitely other countries in plain defiance of UN resolutions (the Cheney doctrine, see post #7 of this thread), and getting away with it, at first with complete support by the population due to the shock effect, and later with all the laws that lower civil rights later (the "dissent equal treason" policy).
What started on 9/11 (or rather with Neocon's PNAC - Project for a New American Century) is still ongoing and it may last even after 2009. The plan called for creating the continued need for an american presence in the gulf. It also called, in the document "Rebuiliding american defenses" for a massive upgrade of military spending which would be "slow unless a catastrophic catalyzing event takes place - a second pearl harbour".

To further explain it, the goal of Afghanistan occupation is opium control, which give you heroin. Talibans were wrong in all other issues, but in 2001 they were burning opium fields because it was against their religion to grow them. Now Afghanistan resumed its place as the top opium producer in the world.
And the Iraq oil can give you money even if you don't drill it, as long as you control the majority of the other drills worldwide and sell the same quantity of oil at an increased price.
And even starting the Iran war without putting a single soldier on Iranian soil will close the Hormuz Strait, which will stop ONE THIRD of oil production WORLDWIDE and skyrocket the price to $200 a barrel.

The Afghanistan war was made to stop Al-quaeda (failed), to catch Osama Bin Laden (failed), to provide democracy and stability to the region (failed).
We know the truth on Iraq WMD, even if someone here doesn't accept it yet. The goal of stabilizing Iraq and giving them democracy is failed.
All major goals of the last 6 years have failed, or at least yet to be achieved. It may bad luck, bad planning, bad execution. Or maybe it was just what they wanted, instability and the perpetual need for an american army in the region IS the goal. Because from that it comes power.

---

Now I have a question for you, I hope you'll take the time to respond as I took mine to answer your question:

Why your president was left unprotected for 20 minutes after the second hit on the tower, in plain sight on live tv, for all terrorist to see and know his location?

Best wishes
Sertes, Italy

chesswarsnow
11-22-2007, 10:27 AM
Sorry bout that,

1. I don't get it, we attacked ourselves to gain oil reserves, and drugs?
2. Insane dude~a~rooney.
3. America isn't into imperialism, we are the land of the free.
4. We freed Iraq of a dictator, then gave them power to *VOTE*.
5. They voted and now have a *Baby Democracy*.
6. I don't think that they can handle *Democracy*, but they have a new door opened, that most people with logical minds would want to pass through.
7. But Islam isn't logical, its a religion of pure madness, and evil men.
8. As far as your question goes, here's my answer.
9. President Bush wasn't the target, it was all *Free Americans*.
10. Just everyday Americans walking around in glass buildings, doing there businesses.
11. The Pentagon, and a yet unknown target, most likely another building, Congress I'dd say.
12. President Bush wasn't in harms way, he was in a class room far away, and you terrorist types didn't have a far reaching enough hand to take him out or you would of, I suppose.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

Sertes
11-22-2007, 12:57 PM
Sorry bout that,

1. I don't get it, we attacked ourselves to gain oil reserves, and drugs?

No, a rogue group of power from within the governative, military and media complex of the united states planned, executed and covered the attack on some american citizens, to gain the self-appointed right to invade and occupy any nation.
Not to gain oil reserves and drugs, but to CONTROL oil worldwide and CONTROL the top drug producer worldwide.
In a struggle for limited resources you can become the dominant force by either acquiring one of the existing sources (afghanistan for opium) or by destroying the opposition (Iraq, Iran). Then you simply sell the same amount of oil to an higher price. And since oil is scarce and you also control who has it or who lounges it and starves in cold winter nights.
Let me tell you with the words of Robert Redford (1975!)

AYzs65mwXiw



11. The Pentagon, and a yet unknown target, most likely another building, Congress I'dd say.
12. President Bush wasn't in harms way, he was in a class room far away, and you terrorist types didn't have a far reaching enough hand to take him out or you would of, I suppose.


Ok, so they can fly undisturbed on a commercial jetliner for 20 minutes after the second hit on the towers, and then score a third hit on the pentagon, but they cannot reach the president in a well known and well publicized location.
Strange.
And secret service thinks just like you, that he wasn't in danger, since they left him there on live tv some 30 minutes.
I guess it's just another coincidence of that strange day.
Thanks for the answer

chesswarsnow
11-22-2007, 10:08 PM
Sorry bout that,

1. Ahh,...I get it, seeing it was the secret American group, they should of known to kill Bush too, and not leave him behind to tell his story, and launch his attacks on Iraq and others?
2. Damn you argue both sides of your dumb ass conspiracy.
3. You're either really dumb, or really stupid, which is it?
4. You stated, "We did this", and yet we didn't get Bush!
5. We missed our chance to get Bush and wasted our attacks on stupid soft targets, buildings that were just sitting like ducks on the waters.
6. Okay man, get a grip on what you're saying.
7. I think you're a greezy muslim bastard, sitting in Italy, trying to make this crap float.
8. But, ( I ) , *The Great CWN* ain't buying it.
9. From what you are saying, you ain't saying it was muslims trying to kill Bush or they would have.
10. Learn to be consistant dude~a~rooney.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

Sertes
11-23-2007, 06:38 AM
Sorry bout that,

1. Ahh,...I get it, seeing it was the secret American group, they should of known to kill Bush too, and not leave him behind to tell his story, and launch his attacks on Iraq and others?
2. Damn you argue both sides of your dumb ass conspiracy.
3. You're either really dumb, or really stupid, which is it?
4. You stated, "We did this", and yet we didn't get Bush!
5. We missed our chance to get Bush and wasted our attacks on stupid soft targets, buildings that were just sitting like ducks on the waters.
6. Okay man, get a grip on what you're saying.
7. I think you're a greezy muslim bastard, sitting in Italy, trying to make this crap float.
8. But, ( I ) , *The Great CWN* ain't buying it.
9. From what you are saying, you ain't saying it was muslims trying to kill Bush or they would have.
10. Learn to be consistant dude~a~rooney.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

Sorry SirJames,
Let's assume I'm muslim, black, fat, gay and communist.
Does it change the validity of my speech?
Does your laws discriminate against a selected group of political, religious, sexual, civil, personal choiches?
You should make up your mind really fast about the first amendment and discrimination, and stop the insults
Maybe by addressing the message rather than attacking the messenger
For example it's wrong even to make up funny conclusions from what I wrote and try to blame those conclusions on me:
I never wrote that if muslims would try to kill Bush they would have.
I just asked you to provide an explanation on something strange that happened that day:
Why secret service, after the second hit on the towers, when it was clear to all that america was under attack letf the president unprotected in that class, on a scheduled trip, on live tv! For almost 30 minutes!!
If you want my opinion, my conclusions, you have but to ask:
They were either instructed to do so, or they knew that in fact POTUS was in no danger whatsoever.
In the first case your pres is just another victim of 9/11, he was scared by the conspirators and forced to side with them, under them, to promote their wars and their policies.
In the second case is still to be explained how they knew your pres was not another target, how they knew at the time that no plane would come there to hit the school.
That's not arguing both points, it's just that if the official version is unbelivable and unexplainable them maybe some other theory is more consistent with all the evidence. You asked my opinion, you have it, it starts with facts first and builds a theory on them. The official version starts with Alquaeda and works backward, ignoring all the conflicting evidence. You can still believe it, out of faith, which is still respectable. I prefer facts and evidence, but that's just another (respectable) chioce.

Regards
Sertes, Italy

chesswarsnow
11-23-2007, 10:05 AM
Sorry bout that,

1. But your conspiracy has holes all through it.
2. And you're trying to balance a pyramid on its top.
3. With there being so much evidence that Islam attacked America, and yet you do back flips saying Americans did it to themselves.
4. Further saying that those who did this knew that they wouldn't attack and kill The President, so it couldn't be Islam, it had to be Americans who did it, because the President, was always protected.
5. And Islam would of tried to get the President, but seeing they didn't attempt it, it had to be self inflicted attacks.
6. You fit the profile of a hairy muslim, smoking a hooka pipe.
7. Dreaming up stories and posting them, for stupid people to perhaps believe.
8. That ain't going to happen here dude~a~rooney.:laugh2:
9. What I find funny too, is the fact that The President, wasn't on *Live TV*, he was in a small class room reading to children, and it was whispered to him in his left ear, that a plane had hit the first tower, but he wasn't whisked off until a short time later, it was being filmed but it wasn't *LIVE* and or on TV, at the time.
10. How you've twisted this into a *LIVE TV* broadcast is a part of your theory, which adds more lameness to it.:poke:


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

Sertes
11-23-2007, 02:51 PM
Sorry bout that,

1. But your conspiracy has holes all through it.
2. And you're trying to balance a pyramid on its top.
3. With there being so much evidence that Islam attacked America, and yet you do back flips saying Americans did it to themselves.
4. Further saying that those who did this knew that they wouldn't attack and kill The President, so it couldn't be Islam, it had to be Americans who did it, because the President, was always protected.
5. And Islam would of tried to get the President, but seeing they didn't attempt it, it had to be self inflicted attacks.

No I don't support this claim, it's your own flawed conclusion, don't blame it on me.
I think it was an inside job, and they wanted to scare the president, so they left him there unprotected to force him "resign" to the conspirators.



6. You fit the profile of a hairy muslim, smoking a hooka pipe.


That's because I am. Now, wanna make jokes on the fact I'm black, too?



7. Dreaming up stories and posting them, for stupid people to perhaps believe.


Eh, some people just believe any falsehood if it's told again and again.



8. That ain't going to happen here dude~a~rooney.:laugh2:


Please, keep up the insults! They really have an impact



9. What I find funny too, is the fact that The President, wasn't on *Live TV*, he was in a small class room reading to children, and it was whispered to him in his left ear, that a plane had hit the first tower, but he wasn't whisked off until a short time later, it was being filmed but it wasn't *LIVE* and or on TV, at the time.
10. How you've twisted this into a *LIVE TV* broadcast is a part of your theory, which adds more lameness to it.:poke:


You're both right and wrong. You're right he was not in *LIVE* tv. You're wrong on the fact that when the man whispered it was the first plane hit, because it was the second plane hit. And he stood there in the class for 7 minutes, doing nothing, as no one removed him to safety.

Thanks for correcting me on the *LIVE TV* issue (pulls up his fishing pole)

So we're left with the president of the United States that hears a plane hit a tower, starts his scheduled trip at 9:03 (as publicly announced on sept 7) and sits here, when a man come in and informs him that a second plane hit the towers, america was under attack. No one is grabbing him away, no one is doing anything to protect him, he basically sits there 7 minutes. Then he goes on the other room but won't leave the school until 9:30 - 9:35. Maybe secret service agents can shield him with their bodies if a plane tries to hit the school

Do you agree or do you have anything else to correct, James?

chesswarsnow
11-23-2007, 03:52 PM
Sorry bout that,

1. But it was the first plane, even if it was the second plane it wouldn't of made one iota of difference to me, or sane people.
2. When you are visiting the kids, as *The President* of the free world.
3. You don't carry a TV with you.
4. I myself didn't know when I first started watching the TV that morning that a Large Plane had first crashed into the first tower.
5. They were saying as I recall it was a small plane, Cessna or something like it.
6. As I was looking online my mother screamed in my ear, because I was on the phone with her, "They Did it Again!"
7. I said, "What tha hell?"
8. Went back to watching the TV, which was LIVE, and saw the aftermath of the hit.
9. Then there wasn't any doubt as to what was happening.
10. And if so thats when the *G* man whispered into President Bush's ear, thats understandable too.
11. Look get a full body hair removal and call me in the morning, and get off the dope.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

Sertes
11-23-2007, 05:24 PM
Sorry bout that,

1. But it was the first plane, even if it was the second plane it wouldn't of made one iota of difference to me, or sane people.


I expect your next message to start with something like "well, you're crazy, you convinced nobody, I'm outta here", because I won't put any bait here for you to catch.

So when you realize that you'll have nowere to go except to acknowledge my point, you'll scuttle away like all others did before you when I proved them wrong.

It's part of understanding to have kept eyes shut on a thing so big that hurts you. I know, we all passed through it.

But you know, the second plane made all the difference. A single plane hitting a tower can be a mistake, an error, an incident.

The second plane told everyone that america was under attack

That's what the man said to the president, even according to official sources.

You know, because you checked them already, while checking if the transmission went live or not.

Instead he stood there, while no one of those supposed to do so removed him to safety.

The two possibility why this happened either make him a victim of the conspiracy or a part of it, like I explained

Farewell James.

Try to pass the truth on, the sooner we stop the bastards, the better

...sorry bout that (opening your eyes)

chesswarsnow
11-23-2007, 06:00 PM
Sorry bout that,

1. But no, when the first plane hit the tower, I already knew it was some greezy muslim bastards!
2. I just didn't know the facts on what happened yet.
3. And when the second plane hit, everyone knew it was the greezy muslim bastards.
4. Anyway, your point isn't proven, just a lame theory, which doesn't make any sense.
5. I don't mind beating your brains out on this, every day for the next three years.
6. But can you take that much pounding?CWN~:slap:~Sertes

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

jimnyc
11-23-2007, 06:00 PM
I see the idiot is still rambling on claiming he's proved people wrong, yet has proven absolutely nothing of what I wrote wrong, only his long winded conspiracies. How many posts has he made now, and NOT ONE PIECE OF HARD EVIDENCE to prove his inane theories, and yet he's been given hundreds of pieces of hard evidence in return. I'm still cracking up at the janitor who is his great eyewitness, and the man who made the phone call who we later found out had retired 20 some odd years earlier! :laugh2:

Seriously, Sertes, why aren't you venturing off to a conspiracy forum somewhere where people might believe some of your crap? It's abundantly obvious here that not a single person is falling for the shit you spew and then you cry like a bitch when we tell you that you have theories of a crying little bitch.

I suggest everyone just let the little italian piece of tinfoil sit here to amuse himself and stop replying to him. He's worse than a broken record stuck on an old Devo song.

jimnyc
11-23-2007, 06:02 PM
Sorry bout that,


5. I don't mind beating your brains out on this, every day for the next three years.
6. But can you take that much pounding?:slap:Sertes

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

Therein lies the problem. He doesn't see it as a pounding as he's much too stupid. I'm betting he gets aroused every time someone replies to him. These truther nutters are a sick bunch!

Yurt
11-23-2007, 06:12 PM
I see the idiot is still rambling on claiming he's proved people wrong, yet has proven absolutely nothing of what I wrote wrong, only his long winded conspiracies. How many posts has he made now, and NOT ONE PIECE OF HARD EVIDENCE to prove his inane theories, and yet he's been given hundreds of pieces of hard evidence in return. I'm still cracking up at the janitor who is his great eyewitness, and the man who made the phone call who we later found out had retired 20 some odd years earlier! :laugh2:

Seriously, Sertes, why aren't you venturing off to a conspiracy forum somewhere where people might believe some of your crap? It's abundantly obvious here that not a single person is falling for the shit you spew and then you cry like a bitch when we tell you that you have theories of a crying little bitch.

I suggest everyone just let the little italian piece of tinfoil sit here to amuse himself and stop replying to him. He's worse than a broken record stuck on an old Devo song.


http://images.mmosite.com/news/2007/04/01/20070401201415207.jpg

Sertes
11-23-2007, 06:19 PM
I see the idiot is still rambling on claiming he's proved people wrong, yet has proven absolutely nothing of what I wrote wrong, only his long winded conspiracies. How many posts has he made now, and NOT ONE PIECE OF HARD EVIDENCE to prove his inane theories, and yet he's been given hundreds of pieces of hard evidence in return.

Sure, I'm still waiting to hear if those pools of molten steel existed or not? You posted two unofficial websites openly contradicting one another

And what about the punchout hole? Three answers from you (a landing gear pole, a landing gear wheel, don't know as I'm no engineer)

And Mineta testimony vs 9/11 commission version, you still have to answer on that

And let's review the evidence you got from the pentagon plane video, from your own website in the frame where the plane should be seen, it's missing

And when asked if another steel-framed high-rise building ever fell from fires alone before or after 9/11 (WTC7)... the closest you came up with were a 3 floors theater and an exibithion hall

Then when asked to document the massive damage or the raging fires... you didn't.

If you still don't see the pattern here Jim, I'm sorry for you.

Sertes
11-23-2007, 06:22 PM
Sorry bout that,

1. But no, when the first plane hit the tower, I already knew it was some greezy muslim bastards!
2. I just didn't know the facts on what happened yet.
3. And when the second plane hit, everyone knew it was the greezy muslim bastards.
4. Anyway, your point isn't proven, just a lame theory, which doesn't make any sense.
5. I don't mind beating your brains out on this, every day for the next three years.
6. But can you take that much pounding?CWN~:slap:~Sertes

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

Jokes are not a way out of it, James. It takes courage to accept what you know now, take your time and slowly read the debate. Look for the collapses and for Mineta testimony, those alone prove the inside job and point the finger in the right direction.

jimnyc
11-23-2007, 06:33 PM
I thought of having an "Idiot of the month" award, but unfortunately it wouldn't be fair to others as Sertes would run away with it month after month after month.

This dumb fuck still goes on about the debate even though the only person that read the debate that voted for him was himself! :laugh2:

You're on a roll, Sertes, you convinced one idiot of your story!

Sertes
11-23-2007, 06:47 PM
I thought of having an "Idiot of the month" award, but unfortunately it wouldn't be fair to others as Sertes would run away with it month after month after month.

This dumb fuck still goes on about the debate even though the only person that read the debate that voted for him was himself! :laugh2:

You're on a roll, Sertes, you convinced one idiot of your story!

Remember? They told that to Galileo, you're wrong because you're alone in your theory.

He had evidence, but evidence cannot break a faith.

Have you returned only to insult me and promote your faith, or do you have any of your missing answers?

Kathianne
11-23-2007, 06:54 PM
Remember? They told that to Galileo, you're wrong because you're alone in your theory.

He had evidence, but evidence cannot break a faith.

Have you returned only to insult me and promote your faith, or do you have any of your missing answers?

I knew Galileo, you are NO Galileo.

jimnyc
11-23-2007, 06:57 PM
I knew Galileo, you are NO Galileo.

More like Forrest Gump or Bobby Boucher! This dumbass should stick to rolling the pizza dough and making less reference to himself being someone of intelligence!

Yurt
11-23-2007, 06:58 PM
Remember? They told that to Galileo, you're wrong because you're alone in your theory.

He had evidence, but evidence cannot break a faith.

Have you returned only to insult me and promote your faith, or do you have any of your missing answers?

you're singing in your very own chior...

Yurt
11-23-2007, 06:59 PM
More like Forrest Gump or Bobby Boucher! This dumbass should stick to rolling the pizza dough and making less reference to himself being someone of intelligence!

Hey, it takes skill to make a GOOD pizza dough :poke:

jimnyc
11-23-2007, 07:03 PM
Hey, it takes skill to make a GOOD pizza dough :poke:

Well, that leaves Sertes out then! Maybe he can just mix the ingredients prior to rolling, so long as the ingredients are pre-measured for him?

Sertes
11-23-2007, 07:10 PM
Since I'm getting all the insults, at least let me remember what we're talking about:

1) Testimony under oath before 9/11 commission by Minister of Transportation Norman Mineta tells us that Dick Cheney was in the white house bunker at 9:30, in control, he knew the pentagon plane location, bearing, there was the possibility for a shotdown. Instead 9/11 commission report doesn't report this testimony and has its own version in which Cheney enters the bunker at 9:37, just as the pentagon plane hits. Either a minister is lying under oath or the 9/11 commission report covers up for Cheney.

2) A gravitational collapse cannot proceed through the path of most resistance while attaining free fall speed, and won't leave pools of molten steel in the basement that last days, while that's what we witnessed in WTC7 case.

3) No official source has an explanation of the collapse of WTC7 beside Nist "working hypotesys", which they are working on since 2004, and which doesn't account for point 2.

4) More than 200 real life architects and engineers, all listed with name, surname and qualify, tells us that the 3 collapses of 9/11 have more than 10 points in common with controlled demolitions while showing none of the elements of a gravitational collapse.

5) No one explained which part of AA77 made the 12-foot round punch-out hole at the pentagon, nor where have gone the two 4-tons engines, and why the damage done by the rear tail wing is missing in the pentagon face in first responders photo

6) No one explained why of the 85 video confiscated by FBI on 9/11 the only 3 given to press never show AA77, including the infamous "pentagon plane video" that should acutally show it, if it were there.

I'm a black muslim gay fat communist italian. Does this change anything during a discussion?

jimnyc
11-23-2007, 07:13 PM
Can anyone give me some tips on making homemade Chinese Stir Fry? Let's make something useful out of nothing and share our favorite cooking tips!

Here's on for you guys:

Before you cook your steak on the grill, preferably a Filet Mignon, brush over both sides a few times with some melted butter. The butter grilled into the meat gives it a great taste!

Kathianne
11-23-2007, 07:16 PM
Can anyone give me some tips on making homemade Chinese Stir Fry? Let's make something useful out of nothing and share our favorite cooking tips!

Here's on for you guys:

Before you cook your steak on the grill, preferably a Filet Mignon, brush over both sides a few times with some melted butter. The butter grilled into the meat gives it a great taste!

A friend of mine just gave me this recipe for a 'dip': bar-b-que chicken

Spread cream cheese over oven proof plate.

Add cooked cut up chicken.

Pour 2 cups bar b que sauce over it.

Top with shredded cheese of your choice.

Place in preheated oven, 325 until hot.

Serve with 'scoops' for dipping.

chesswarsnow
11-23-2007, 07:27 PM
Sorry bout that,

Sertes wrote:
"I'm a black muslim gay fat communist italian. Does this change anything during a discussion? "


1. You forgot *Hairy*.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

chesswarsnow
11-23-2007, 08:02 PM
Sorry bout that,



Okay here goes, the official report is in.


Since I'm getting all the insults, at least let me remember what we're talking about:

1) Testimony under oath before 9/11 commission by Minister of Transportation Norman Mineta tells us that Dick Cheney was in the white house bunker at 9:30, in control, he knew the pentagon plane location, bearing, there was the possibility for a shotdown. Instead 9/11 commission report doesn't report this testimony and has its own version in which Cheney enters the bunker at 9:37, just as the pentagon plane hits. Either a minister is lying under oath or the 9/11 commission report covers up for Cheney.


A. Cheney was taking cover, and watching it unfold on TV, like everyone else, Cheney, isn't the, *Military* problem was thus: Nobody believed that Islam could take such barbaric measure, and The *Military* forgot to contact *The Amazing Kreskin*, he predicted the attack, some 6 months before it happened, he wasn't listened too.




2)B. A gravitational collapse cannot proceed through the path of most resistance while attaining free fall speed, and won't leave pools of molten steel in the basement that last days, while that's what we witnessed in WTC7 case.



B. Gravity does what it does, and when any object begins to fall, it always falls at the same speed, Newtons Law, still being enforced.



3) No official source has an explanation of the collapse of WTC7 beside Nist "working hypotesys", which they are working on since 2004, and which doesn't account for point 2.


C. CWN's official Report states thus: When an object begins to fall, it falls always at same speed.




4) More than 200 real life architects and engineers, all listed with name, surname and qualify, tells us that the 3 collapses of 9/11 have more than 10 points in common with controlled demolitions while showing none of the elements of a gravitational collapse.


D. CWN's Report, says to these Neo~Liberals that they should *PROVE IT!*, or STFU, from this day forward, The sheer weight of these building will always bring them down in this fashion, also consider that the super structure was on the outside walls, which were damaged, creating this folding like a *DECK OF CARDS*.




5) No one explained which part of AA77 made the 12-foot round punch-out hole at the pentagon, nor where have gone the two 4-tons engines, and why the damage done by the rear tail wing is missing in the pentagon face in first responders photo



E. Okay I shall be the first to explain it, it goes like thus: The punch out was one of the engines, which was gathered up, the tail wing could do any damage because it was torn to pieces, during the crash into solid stone walls, reinforced.




6) No one explained why of the 85 video confiscated by FBI on 9/11 the only 3 given to press never show AA77, including the infamous "pentagon plane video" that should acutally show it, if it were there.


F. Okay, here is the CWN official explanation, it goes thus: The filmed was horrific in detail, and can't be released, in perfect detail, it could be seen, greezy arabs killing the hostages, and blowing their heads off just before the plane hit, nobody wants to see that.




I'm a black muslim gay fat communist italian. Does this change anything during a discussion?


You forgot: *Hairy*.


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

Yurt
11-23-2007, 08:22 PM
Since I'm getting all the insults, at least let me remember what we're talking about:

1) Testimony under oath before 9/11 commission by Minister of Transportation Norman Mineta tells us that Dick Cheney was in the white house bunker at 9:30, in control, he knew the pentagon plane location, bearing, there was the possibility for a shotdown. Instead 9/11 commission report doesn't report this testimony and has its own version in which Cheney enters the bunker at 9:37, just as the pentagon plane hits. Either a minister is lying under oath or the 9/11 commission report covers up for Cheney.

2) A gravitational collapse cannot proceed through the path of most resistance while attaining free fall speed, and won't leave pools of molten steel in the basement that last days, while that's what we witnessed in WTC7 case.

3) No official source has an explanation of the collapse of WTC7 beside Nist "working hypotesys", which they are working on since 2004, and which doesn't account for point 2.

4) More than 200 real life architects and engineers, all listed with name, surname and qualify, tells us that the 3 collapses of 9/11 have more than 10 points in common with controlled demolitions while showing none of the elements of a gravitational collapse.

5) No one explained which part of AA77 made the 12-foot round punch-out hole at the pentagon, nor where have gone the two 4-tons engines, and why the damage done by the rear tail wing is missing in the pentagon face in first responders photo

6) No one explained why of the 85 video confiscated by FBI on 9/11 the only 3 given to press never show AA77, including the infamous "pentagon plane video" that should acutally show it, if it were there.

I'm a black muslim gay fat communist italian. Does this change anything during a discussion?

:laugh2:

That is not proof, that is theory. I-S N-O-T fact.

All you have is THEORY. No facts. Nada. Zip.

Psychoblues
11-24-2007, 12:04 AM
So your game is legend in your own mind?





:laugh2:

That is not proof, that is theory. I-S N-O-T fact.

All you have is THEORY. No facts. Nada. Zip.

Please clarify?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!?!

Sertes
11-24-2007, 01:09 PM
2)B. A gravitational collapse cannot proceed through the path of most resistance while attaining free fall speed, and won't leave pools of molten steel in the basement that last days, while that's what we witnessed in WTC7 case.

B. Gravity does what it does, and when any object begins to fall, it always falls at the same speed, Newtons Law, still being enforced.


Please tell me James, which upper block of 30 floors will reach the ground first when they are set loose, the left one, the right one, both at the same time (assuming they proceed straight down)?

User Yurt is welcome to answer too.

http://img145.imageshack.us/img145/4955/untitled2at0.jpg

chesswarsnow
11-24-2007, 04:12 PM
Sorry bout that,

1. Oh did that experiment take place somewhere?
2. I don't think so.
3. Let me know when you got it set up.
4. I would be glad to take a look then.
5. I don't buy into you Islamic Theory.
6. You GD bastards did it, and most Americans want you bastards, dead or out of the country.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

Sertes
11-25-2007, 03:51 PM
Sorry bout that,

1. Oh did that experiment take place somewhere?
2. I don't think so.
3. Let me know when you got it set up.
4. I would be glad to take a look then.
5. I don't buy into you Islamic Theory.
6. You GD bastards did it, and most Americans want you bastards, dead or out of the country.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

Thanks for the racist remarks, patriot, it's nice they allow them to be posted here.
If or when you have the answer, post it. Until then let me discuss with someone who has the gut to look for truth even if it's unsettling.

n0spam4me
10-18-2009, 12:16 PM
How many here have read the "EMPEROR'S NEW CLOTHES"?

I think we should arrest the emperor for INDECENT EXPOSURE!

Please consider the FACTS here, given a controlled media, and on 9/11 the propaganda came on thick and fast, the fact remains...

The worlds greatest military power FAILED to defend even its own HQ,
and on 9/12 Donald Rumsfeld still had a job ....

(also where is the taxpayer outrage, YOUR tax dollars at work, a DEFENSE DEPARTMENT that fails to defend ...)

THREE steel framed buildings get destroyed by CONTROLLED DEMOLITION and people are buying the idea that it was total structural failure caused by the airliner crashes and the fires.....

LAME ... & MORE LAME!

WAKE UP AMERICA , smell the burnt REICHSTAG!