| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
 Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 4:44 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| SHERITON HOTEL wrote: | WTC all 7 buildings totally destroyed
Rest of surrounding Manhatten zero
BW may claim to see nothing odd in this scoreline but it sure as eggs stumps me! defies logic
BW and the rest of the official story fundermentalist zealots believe the only 9/11 truth is found in the editorials of Philip Zelikow and anyone who deviates from these tenets to any degree is mentally ill so why do they come here day after week after month after year? You wouldn't go to a mental home and try and forensically prove to some unfortunate that he was not Napoleon as he delusionally believed ad infinitum, that would call into question your own sanity.
The claim US military authorities initially announced there were no photos or CCTV of whatever piercing three rings of the Pentagon comes from Eric Huffschmid (among others) perhaps the US military authorities will sue if this claim is untrue, "let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories"
Today has been an education, I was being ironic when I said the critics really believed that that laughable OBL "9/11? I dunnit" home video he carelessly left out for his old pals in the CIA was genuine, it appears to a person they do!. I wonder what their spin on all that US military grade anthrax is!!! |
Wrong, wrong and wrong again. Many of the buildings surrounding the WTC complex were damaged, and the St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church was destroyed. The Deutsche Bank Building and 30 West Broadway were so badly damaged that they were later demolished. Other neighbouring buildings including 90 West Street and the Verizon Building suffered major damage, but have since been restored. Other buildings were also damaged. Why do you not carry out the simplest research for yourself, then perhaps you would not be so stumped?
No one said anyone who questions the 9/11 Commission Report was mentally ill, why do truthseekers tell such whoppers?
So Eric Huffschmid proves to be an unreliable source? No surprise there!
You do realise that al Jazeera, who know more about the subject than most, accept the OBL videos as genuine? They are no pals of Bush, who wanted to bomb them.
Glad you have been educated to an extent today, but there is still a considerable way to go, I fear! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
SHERITON HOTEL
Moderate Poster
Joined: 18 Jun 2006
Posts: 988
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 5:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
...Er, and the military grade anthrax? and who took the antidote?
Is there one 9/11 truth, yes or no?
what are your stats for WTC surounding building fires? The WTC seemed a lot more flamable than its neighbours didn't it? A new form of controlled demolition occured in WTC7 ...fires plus structural damage=CD style collapse, why didn't the whole of Manhatten go like dominoes? another 9/11 mystery
Huffscmid was wrong about the US authorities initially claiming there were no photos or CCTV of whatever piercing three rings of the Pentagon? are you claiming this as fact?
Were you happy with the Zelikow 9/11 commission? 440 days late, an initial funding 1/30th what was spent forcing Clinton to come clean over Monica, recieved only 20% of the documents it requested much of these blacked out, people testifying to pre-collapse explosions testimony binned, Bush and Cheyney appearing off camera, together, not under oath and no notes allowed, I mean what does make you suspicious, how do you cope with life with such a high suspicion threshold?
FFS! you believe that OBL december 01 video was genuine!!!
(have you any more information on that mystery weekend before 9/11 WTC computer refit company?) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 5:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SHERITON HOTEL wrote: | ...Er, and the military grade anthrax? and who took the antidote?
Is there one 9/11 truth, yes or no?
what are your stats for WTC surounding building fires? The WTC seemed a lot more flamable than its neighbours didn't it? A new form of controlled demolition occured in WTC7 ...fires plus structural damage=CD style collapse, why didn't the whole of Manhatten go like dominoes? another 9/11 mystery
Huffscmid was wrong about the US authorities initially claiming there were no photos or CCTV of whatever piercing three rings of the Pentagon? are you claiming this as fact?
Were you happy with the Zelikow 9/11 commission? 440 days late, an initial funding 1/30th what was spent forcing Clinton to come clean over Monica, recieved only 20% of the documents it requested much of these blacked out, people testifying to pre-collapse explosions testimony binned, Bush and Cheyney appearing off camera, together, not under oath and no notes allowed, I mean what does make you suspicious, how do you cope with life with such a high suspicion threshold?
FFS! you believe that OBL december 01 video was genuine!!!
(have you any more information on that mystery weekend before 9/11 WTC computer refit company?) |
I am really getting very fed up with answering your unsourced, unresearched, lazy, disjointed posts, regurgitating stuff you half remember from conspiracy websites.
I have done no research on the anthrax issue, which is a completely different subject.
You thought there where no other buildings damaged, I have put you right, now go and find out about them if you want to know more. If you think the WTC was more flammable, you show some evidence. Why should the rest of Manhattan go like dominos, when it was not hit by planes or debris?
Huffsmidt appears to be wrong since no one can verify what he claimed, but of course you won't even try to do anything for yourself.
I have written elsewhere about the 9/11 Commission.
Yes, I think all the OBL videos were genuine.
Scott Forbes said a few floors of one building were without power for a few hours, no one else has confirmed that, and it is obviously a totally inadequate time to plant explosives all over a building so carefully that no one noticed them. There is a whole thread about that, if you can be bothered to find it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SHERITON HOTEL
Moderate Poster
Joined: 18 Jun 2006
Posts: 988
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 7:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I ask Bushwacker if he's gotten any gen on the weekend before 9/11 WTC mystery refit company and who they were and... boing! once again knee jerk he starts going on about Scott Forbes allegedly being an unreliable witness, It really gets tiresome and repeatitive all this evasion, does he think we can't see him doing this?tsk!
The US military grade Anthrax as BW well knows I-S related and was all part of the Bush regime terror supplementary when support for never ending war was flagging soon after 9/11, this of course links to the ludicrous laughable OBL home video December 01.
My information is there was one small fire in one building outside the WTC, most of the WTC was a raging inferno , so once again a curious inbalance ...and I don't think WTC7 was hit by a plane. re. damage to surrounding buildings, this, of course begs the question why were steel beams heavier than a 767 being hurled the length of two football pitches? I'm sure BW the 9/11 oracle knows, can I pick your brains about the south tower impact? you can clearly see from several angles the 767's nose cone and fuselage penetrate through WTC2 INTACT, could a conventional B767 do this? surely it had to be modified ?(and I'm not suggesting 'no planes' so don't try to deflecct my question with that or lizards etc.)
What exactly DID BW write "elsewhere" about the Zelikow edited 911 commission report, I'm not clairvoyant, did he think it good bad indifferent or other? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 7:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SHERITON HOTEL wrote: | I ask Bushwacker if he's gotten any gen on the weekend before 9/11 WTC mystery refit company and who they were and... boing! once again knee jerk he starts going on about Scott Forbes allegedly being an unreliable witness, It really gets tiresome and repeatitive all this evasion, does he think we can't see him doing this?tsk!
The US military grade Anthrax as BW well knows I-S related and was all part of the Bush regime terror supplementary when support for never ending war was flagging soon after 9/11, this of course links to the ludicrous laughable OBL home video December 01.
My information is there was one small fire in one building outside the WTC, most of the WTC was a raging inferno , so once again a curious inbalance ...and I don't think WTC7 was hit by a plane. re. damage to surrounding buildings, this, of course begs the question why were steel beams heavier than a 767 being hurled the length of two football pitches? I'm sure BW the 9/11 oracle knows, can I pick your brains about the south tower impact? you can clearly see from several angles the 767's nose cone and fuselage penetrate through WTC2 INTACT, could a conventional B767 do this? surely it had to be modified ?(and I'm not suggesting 'no planes' so don't try to deflecct my question with that or lizards etc.)
What exactly DID BW write "elsewhere" about the Zelikow edited 911 commission report, I'm not clairvoyant, did he think it good bad indifferent or other? |
If you think you know something about Scott Forbes, why not tell us? Or I suppose you can't remember what website you read it on.
Your information about the fires is as vague, unsourced and unreferenced as the rest of what you write. Do you just make it up as you go along?
If you think a nose cone and fuselage penetrated the South tower intact, you are delusional.
If you cannot be bothered to look on another thread, I certainly cannot be bothered to direct you to it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SHERITON HOTEL
Moderate Poster
Joined: 18 Jun 2006
Posts: 988
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 7:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Larry O'Hara wrote: | | SHERITON HOTEL wrote: | | Isn't it more plausible that Saudis would get quickie US visas? just a thought. |
an irrelevant one: I still want an even half-credible answer to the question. |
...but don't you think it more plausible they'd give quickie US visas to Saudis than Iranians of Iraqis Mr. O'Hara? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SHERITON HOTEL
Moderate Poster
Joined: 18 Jun 2006
Posts: 988
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 8:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| In 'Loose Change two' where they accurately report the FBI alleged unpreccedented disappearance of F11 and F175's black box flight recorders you can clearly see whatever impacted the south tower exit the other side nose cone and fuselage intact, there I've given you a source and a link, happy? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Larry O'Hara
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 27 Oct 2006
Posts: 96
Location: depends
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 10:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SHERITON HOTEL wrote: | | Larry O'Hara wrote: | | SHERITON HOTEL wrote: | | Isn't it more plausible that Saudis would get quickie US visas? just a thought. |
an irrelevant one: I still want an even half-credible answer to the question. |
...but don't you think it more plausible they'd give quickie US visas to Saudis than Iranians of Iraqis Mr. O'Hara? |
I'll give you credit: at least you have sort of almost addressed the question. The question, which I will highlight in bold, as you haven't answered it, is (irrespective of who may be granted 'quickie' visas or not)
IF 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB DONE TO PUT AFGHANS/IRAQIS IN THE FRAME, WHY NOT PLANT DOCUMENTS PASSPORTS SHOWING ALLEGED HIJACKERS WITH DOCUMENTS (SUPPLEMENTARY IF NECESSARY)IRAQI/AFGHAN/IRANIAN/PALESTINIAN NAMES, OR LATER ON 'DISCOVERING' So_CALLED SAUDIS WERE IN REALITY AFGHANS/IRANIANs etc TRAVELLING ON FORGED DOCUMENTS, OR WITH DUAL CITIZENSHIP etc. I AM SURE YOU GET THE IDEA.
It is within the capabilities of US agencies to forge any kind of documents/ids etc: so why not use these tradecraft skills for 9/11, instead of having the embarrassing spectacle of so many Saudis in the frame? An elementary question--what a pity none of the great sleuths on here have any answer to it. Or even understand the question, probably. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 10:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SHERITON HOTEL wrote: | | In 'Loose Change two' where they accurately report the FBI alleged unpreccedented disappearance of F11 and F175's black box flight recorders you can clearly see whatever impacted the south tower exit the other side nose cone and fuselage intact, there I've given you a source and a link, happy? |
Why should I be happy that you are delusional?
Or that you do not know what a link is? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SHERITON HOTEL
Moderate Poster
Joined: 18 Jun 2006
Posts: 988
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 29, 2008 4:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Larry O'Hara wrote: | | SHERITON HOTEL wrote: | | Larry O'Hara wrote: | | SHERITON HOTEL wrote: | | Isn't it more plausible that Saudis would get quickie US visas? just a thought. |
an irrelevant one: I still want an even half-credible answer to the question. |
...but don't you think it more plausible they'd give quickie US visas to Saudis than Iranians of Iraqis Mr. O'Hara? |
I'll give you credit: at least you have sort of almost addressed the question. The question, which I will highlight in bold, as you haven't answered it, is (irrespective of who may be granted 'quickie' visas or not)
IF 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB DONE TO PUT AFGHANS/IRAQIS IN THE FRAME, WHY NOT PLANT DOCUMENTS PASSPORTS SHOWING ALLEGED HIJACKERS WITH DOCUMENTS (SUPPLEMENTARY IF NECESSARY)IRAQI/AFGHAN/IRANIAN/PALESTINIAN NAMES, OR LATER ON 'DISCOVERING' So_CALLED SAUDIS WERE IN REALITY AFGHANS/IRANIANs etc TRAVELLING ON FORGED DOCUMENTS, OR WITH DUAL CITIZENSHIP etc. I AM SURE YOU GET THE IDEA.
It is within the capabilities of US agencies to forge any kind of documents/ids etc: so why not use these tradecraft skills for 9/11, instead of having the embarrassing spectacle of so many Saudis in the frame? An elementary question--what a pity none of the great sleuths on here have any answer to it. Or even understand the question, probably. |
Can you prove the 9/11 terrorists were Saudis? I understand the FBI have no hard evidence against OBL and his gang ref.9/11 and we still await Condi Rice's smoking gun going on seven years! You see the pantomime villain OBL is a Saudi.
Can you answer the question the 'wacker refuses to as you seem an awfully clever well informed chap...did the US authorities lie when they initially said there were no CCTV's or photos of whatever impacting the Pentagon 9/11? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SHERITON HOTEL
Moderate Poster
Joined: 18 Jun 2006
Posts: 988
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 29, 2008 4:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | SHERITON HOTEL wrote: | | In 'Loose Change two' where they accurately report the FBI alleged unpreccedented disappearance of F11 and F175's black box flight recorders you can clearly see whatever impacted the south tower exit the other side nose cone and fuselage intact, there I've given you a source and a link, happy? |
Why should I be happy that you are delusional?
Or that you do not know what a link is? |
Why delusional? the evidence is there on film (unlike the evidence of F77 B757 impacting the Pentagon and making that tiny hole through 3 rings ) could a conventional jet airliner have penetrated all that steel and concrete intact? it MUST have been a modified craft. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KP50
Validated Poster
Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 526
Location: NZ
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 01, 2008 9:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Alex_V wrote: | | KP50 wrote: | | http://web.archive.org/web/20010921200613/www.washtimes.com/national/2 0010921-90259475.htm |
No direct quotes. That's the only reference I could find when I looked as well. I don't think it's enough to build a case that authorities lied about the security footage. |
Well if my Government was meant to serve me, I would be a little unhappy that it took 5 years to release footage there was no reason to conceal ..... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KP50
Validated Poster
Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 526
Location: NZ
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 01, 2008 9:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: |
No one has shown that there was any molten steel in any basement, let alone four. There are some stories about molten metal, but all the aluminium cladding and plane materials, and all the lead from stand-by batteries would melt long before any steel, so if there was molten metal, it is more likely to be that. Molten metal is not a feature of normal controlled demolition anyway, and if magically sideways acting thermite was used as well as as explosives, there is no reason for it to keep hot. fires in the debris pile explain high temperatures far better, another thing that actually has been said here many times.
|
So what you are saying is that hypothetically using something that would raise multiple columns of steel beyond melting point and then dumping tons of debris on top of it would not cause high temperatures? How is that exactly? Please explain - with diagrams if necessary. Especially with reference to how moderate office fires would in fact cause these high temperatures. People are itching to know, come back soon.
| Bushwacker wrote: | One ring of the Pentagon was penetrated, the rings were continuous on the first two floors.
|
Exactly - it was passing through solid building and not air, which some loonies may think would make it all the more remarkable that it made a hole at the other end while simultaneously turning to liquid. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Larry O'Hara
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 27 Oct 2006
Posts: 96
Location: depends
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 01, 2008 9:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| SHERITON HOTEL wrote: | | Larry O'Hara wrote: | | SHERITON HOTEL wrote: | | Larry O'Hara wrote: | | SHERITON HOTEL wrote: | | Isn't it more plausible that Saudis would get quickie US visas? just a thought. |
an irrelevant one: I still want an even half-credible answer to the question. |
...but don't you think it more plausible they'd give quickie US visas to Saudis than Iranians of Iraqis Mr. O'Hara? |
I'll give you credit: at least you have sort of almost addressed the question. The question, which I will highlight in bold, as you haven't answered it, is (irrespective of who may be granted 'quickie' visas or not)
IF 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB DONE TO PUT AFGHANS/IRAQIS IN THE FRAME, WHY NOT PLANT DOCUMENTS PASSPORTS SHOWING ALLEGED HIJACKERS WITH DOCUMENTS (SUPPLEMENTARY IF NECESSARY)IRAQI/AFGHAN/IRANIAN/PALESTINIAN NAMES, OR LATER ON 'DISCOVERING' So_CALLED SAUDIS WERE IN REALITY AFGHANS/IRANIANs etc TRAVELLING ON FORGED DOCUMENTS, OR WITH DUAL CITIZENSHIP etc. I AM SURE YOU GET THE IDEA.
It is within the capabilities of US agencies to forge any kind of documents/ids etc: so why not use these tradecraft skills for 9/11, instead of having the embarrassing spectacle of so many Saudis in the frame? An elementary question--what a pity none of the great sleuths on here have any answer to it. Or even understand the question, probably. |
Can you prove the 9/11 terrorists were Saudis? I understand the FBI have no hard evidence against OBL and his gang ref.9/11 and we still await Condi Rice's smoking gun going on seven years! You see the pantomime villain OBL is a Saudi.
Can you answer the question the 'wacker refuses to as you seem an awfully clever well informed chap...did the US authorities lie when they initially said there were no CCTV's or photos of whatever impacting the Pentagon 9/11? |
you haven't answered my simple question, highlighted in bold, nor has anybody else here, and instead you demand I answer one of your facile questions, directed at somebody else. Evasive doesn't quite sum it up, does it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KP50
Validated Poster
Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 526
Location: NZ
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 01, 2008 9:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Larry O'Hara wrote: | | SHERITON HOTEL wrote: | | Larry O'Hara wrote: | | SHERITON HOTEL wrote: | | Larry O'Hara wrote: | | SHERITON HOTEL wrote: | | Isn't it more plausible that Saudis would get quickie US visas? just a thought. |
an irrelevant one: I still want an even half-credible answer to the question. |
...but don't you think it more plausible they'd give quickie US visas to Saudis than Iranians of Iraqis Mr. O'Hara? |
I'll give you credit: at least you have sort of almost addressed the question. The question, which I will highlight in bold, as you haven't answered it, is (irrespective of who may be granted 'quickie' visas or not)
IF 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB DONE TO PUT AFGHANS/IRAQIS IN THE FRAME, WHY NOT PLANT DOCUMENTS PASSPORTS SHOWING ALLEGED HIJACKERS WITH DOCUMENTS (SUPPLEMENTARY IF NECESSARY)IRAQI/AFGHAN/IRANIAN/PALESTINIAN NAMES, OR LATER ON 'DISCOVERING' So_CALLED SAUDIS WERE IN REALITY AFGHANS/IRANIANs etc TRAVELLING ON FORGED DOCUMENTS, OR WITH DUAL CITIZENSHIP etc. I AM SURE YOU GET THE IDEA.
It is within the capabilities of US agencies to forge any kind of documents/ids etc: so why not use these tradecraft skills for 9/11, instead of having the embarrassing spectacle of so many Saudis in the frame? An elementary question--what a pity none of the great sleuths on here have any answer to it. Or even understand the question, probably. |
Can you prove the 9/11 terrorists were Saudis? I understand the FBI have no hard evidence against OBL and his gang ref.9/11 and we still await Condi Rice's smoking gun going on seven years! You see the pantomime villain OBL is a Saudi.
Can you answer the question the 'wacker refuses to as you seem an awfully clever well informed chap...did the US authorities lie when they initially said there were no CCTV's or photos of whatever impacting the Pentagon 9/11? |
you haven't answered my simple question, highlighted in bold, nor has anybody else here, and instead you demand I answer one of your facile questions, directed at somebody else. Evasive doesn't quite sum it up, does it? |
Larry, the fact that you ask such a question suggests to me that you need to broaden your reading range and move out of the cartoon "goodie/baddie" world that you seem to inhabit. The world is infinitely more complicated than you and I realise but at least I know that I don't understand it, whereas you give yourself away with your question.
Here's my take on it. There are really would-be terrorists. There are really security people trying to track down these terrorists while other security people make sure they don't. It makes the paper trail so much easier to produce when you need it. There is no black and white, only endless shades of grey. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SHERITON HOTEL
Moderate Poster
Joined: 18 Jun 2006
Posts: 988
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 01, 2008 1:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Larry O'Hara wrote: | | SHERITON HOTEL wrote: | | Larry O'Hara wrote: | | SHERITON HOTEL wrote: | | Larry O'Hara wrote: | | SHERITON HOTEL wrote: | | Isn't it more plausible that Saudis would get quickie US visas? just a thought. |
an irrelevant one: I still want an even half-credible answer to the question. |
...but don't you think it more plausible they'd give quickie US visas to Saudis than Iranians of Iraqis Mr. O'Hara? |
I'll give you credit: at least you have sort of almost addressed the question. The question, which I will highlight in bold, as you haven't answered it, is (irrespective of who may be granted 'quickie' visas or not)
IF 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB DONE TO PUT AFGHANS/IRAQIS IN THE FRAME, WHY NOT PLANT DOCUMENTS PASSPORTS SHOWING ALLEGED HIJACKERS WITH DOCUMENTS (SUPPLEMENTARY IF NECESSARY)IRAQI/AFGHAN/IRANIAN/PALESTINIAN NAMES, OR LATER ON 'DISCOVERING' So_CALLED SAUDIS WERE IN REALITY AFGHANS/IRANIANs etc TRAVELLING ON FORGED DOCUMENTS, OR WITH DUAL CITIZENSHIP etc. I AM SURE YOU GET THE IDEA.
It is within the capabilities of US agencies to forge any kind of documents/ids etc: so why not use these tradecraft skills for 9/11, instead of having the embarrassing spectacle of so many Saudis in the frame? An elementary question--what a pity none of the great sleuths on here have any answer to it. Or even understand the question, probably. |
Can you prove the 9/11 terrorists were Saudis? I understand the FBI have no hard evidence against OBL and his gang ref.9/11 and we still await Condi Rice's smoking gun going on seven years! You see the pantomime villain OBL is a Saudi.
Can you answer the question the 'wacker refuses to as you seem an awfully clever well informed chap...did the US authorities lie when they initially said there were no CCTV's or photos of whatever impacting the Pentagon 9/11? |
you haven't answered my simple question, highlighted in bold, nor has anybody else here, and instead you demand I answer one of your facile questions, directed at somebody else. Evasive doesn't quite sum it up, does it? |
Me evasive? that's rich! the US needed a route into Afghanistan for several clear motives and Al Quaeda were based there,then they told us a high ranking Al Quaeda operative had dental work in Baghdad some time toward the end of the last millenium making Iraq the next target, END OF'! . In the universe I inhabit when a neocon crazy administration first say there were no photos or CCTV's of whatever impacting the Pentagon 9/11 and causing that tiny hole through three rings of the facility then they repeatedly, when cornered, change there position on this initial claim that registers on my suspicion radar...but you don't see it that way, you find the question "facile" right? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alex_V
Wrecker
Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 1:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| KP50 wrote: | | Here's my take on it. There are really would-be terrorists. |
In accepting this simple premise you are seriously at odds with the majority of the truth movement. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alex_V
Wrecker
Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 2:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SHERITON HOTEL wrote: | | Me evasive? that's rich! the US needed a route into Afghanistan for several clear motives and Al Quaeda were based there,then they told us a high ranking Al Quaeda operative had dental work in Baghdad some time toward the end of the last millenium making Iraq the next target, END OF'! . In the universe I inhabit when a neocon crazy administration first say there were no photos or CCTV's of whatever impacting the Pentagon 9/11 and causing that tiny hole through three rings of the facility then they repeatedly, when cornered, change there position on this initial claim that registers on my suspicion radar...but you don't see it that way, you find the question "facile" right? |
You can't even prove the administration ever said there was no CCTV. And even if they did, you cannot prove that the motive was suspicious. That's why your whole point is meaningless - it just depends on us jumping to a conclusion about their motives, depending on where our political allegiances lie. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ian neal
Angel - now passed away
Joined: 26 Jul 2005
Posts: 3140
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 2:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Alex_V wrote: | | KP50 wrote: | | Here's my take on it. There are really would-be terrorists. |
In accepting this simple premise you are seriously at odds with the majority of the truth movement. |
Your evidence for this?
It is perfectly rational to both accept that there are people out there who fit GWB's defintion of a terrorist and to believe in false flag, state sponsored terror.
It is not an either / or world where either (1) ALL terrorist incidents are commited by non-state terrorists or (2) ALL terrorist incidents are false-flag, state sponsored terror. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alex_V
Wrecker
Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 3:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ian neal wrote: | Your evidence for this?
It is perfectly rational to both accept that there are people out there who fit GWB's defintion of a terrorist and to believe in false flag, state sponsored terror.
It is not an either / or world where either (1) ALL terrorist incidents are commited by non-state terrorists or (2) ALL terrorist incidents are false-flag, state sponsored terror. |
I agree with you. Let me rephrase. Many truthers believe that Al-Qaeda is a CIA-sponsored group, and that there is no direct terrorist threat to the US - they believe it has been created to suppress freedoms in the US and pursue aims in the middle-east.
In those terms, Larry's question still stands. If these fake terrorists were part of the inside job, why were they made Saudis? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KP50
Validated Poster
Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 526
Location: NZ
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 1:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Alex_V wrote: | | ian neal wrote: | Your evidence for this?
It is perfectly rational to both accept that there are people out there who fit GWB's defintion of a terrorist and to believe in false flag, state sponsored terror.
It is not an either / or world where either (1) ALL terrorist incidents are commited by non-state terrorists or (2) ALL terrorist incidents are false-flag, state sponsored terror. |
I agree with you. Let me rephrase. Many truthers believe that Al-Qaeda is a CIA-sponsored group, and that there is no direct terrorist threat to the US - they believe it has been created to suppress freedoms in the US and pursue aims in the middle-east.
In those terms, Larry's question still stands. If these fake terrorists were part of the inside job, why were they made Saudis? |
I'm not much concerned with what other "truthers" believe. Things are faked and things are real and the lines between the 2 are blurred. There had to be a paper trail for the terrorists pre 9/11 and that is much easier to achieve with real people who have links to other real people in the "terrorist" world, whatever that is. So to that extent, they weren't made Saudis, they already were Saudis.
Last edited by KP50 on Tue Apr 08, 2008 4:45 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 3:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | In those terms, Larry's question still stands. If these fake terrorists were part of the inside job, why were they made Saudis? |
gee i dunno! but it was obviously the afghan people and the iraqi peoples fault for what those saudi's did. 
assuming it was saudi's who did it that is, the response to 9/11 suggests otherwise.
it seems to have more to do with what the PNAC document says rather than those actually responsible for 9/11. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SHERITON HOTEL
Moderate Poster
Joined: 18 Jun 2006
Posts: 988
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 3:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Alex_V wrote: | | SHERITON HOTEL wrote: | | Me evasive? that's rich! the US needed a route into Afghanistan for several clear motives and Al Quaeda were based there,then they told us a high ranking Al Quaeda operative had dental work in Baghdad some time toward the end of the last millenium making Iraq the next target, END OF'! . In the universe I inhabit when a neocon crazy administration first say there were no photos or CCTV's of whatever impacting the Pentagon 9/11 and causing that tiny hole through three rings of the facility then they repeatedly, when cornered, change there position on this initial claim that registers on my suspicion radar...but you don't see it that way, you find the question "facile" right? |
You can't even prove the administration ever said there was no CCTV. And even if they did, you cannot prove that the motive was suspicious. That's why your whole point is meaningless - it just depends on us jumping to a conclusion about their motives, depending on where our political allegiances lie. |
and YOU can't even prove the US authorities admitted there were copious CCTV or photos of whatever impacting the Pentagon making that missile style hole through three rings of the facility and releasing this photographic evidence from day one and consistently holding to this position to this day, that would mean the judicial watch legal action to force the US government to release these films under 'freedom of information legislation'was all a dream like the death of Bobby Ewing in the TV soap opera 'Dallas'.
It would be a fact that the US authorities didn't want us to see film evidence of whatever impacted the Pentagon like they don't want to release the serial numbers of salvaged alleged F77 B757 componenets recovered from the crash site. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alex_V
Wrecker
Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 3:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SHERITON HOTEL wrote: | and YOU can't even prove the US authorities admitted there were copious CCTV or photos of whatever impacting the Pentagon making that missile style hole through three rings of the facility and releasing this photographic evidence from day one and consistently holding to this position to this day, that would mean the judicial watch legal action to force the US government to release these films under 'freedom of information legislation'was all a dream like the death of Bobby Ewing in the TV soap opera 'Dallas'.
It would be a fact that the US authorities didn't want us to see film evidence of whatever impacted the Pentagon like they don't want to release the serial numbers of salvaged alleged F77 B757 componenets recovered from the crash site. |
Still making the 'three rings' error I see.
I don't make any claims about what the US authorities claimed about the CCTV footage. You are repeating a claim that you cannot prove. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SHERITON HOTEL
Moderate Poster
Joined: 18 Jun 2006
Posts: 988
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 3:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well classy replyer Alex, did ther US authorities admit there were CCTV or or photos of whatever impacting the Pentagon 9/11 from day one and release this photographic evidence ...YES OR NO?
..and what is your Pentagon ring penetration count oh 9/11 oracle? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alex_V
Wrecker
Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 4:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SHERITON HOTEL wrote: | | Well classy replyer Alex, did ther US authorities admit there were CCTV or or photos of whatever impacting the Pentagon 9/11 from day one and release this photographic evidence ...YES OR NO? |
I'm not convinced that 'they' officially admitted anything. They certainly didn't release the CCTV frames they did have of the crash immediately (assuming 'they' knew they had them), but neither were they necessarily under obligation to do so. The CITGO videos were released later on, and contrary to years of perceived wisdom from the truth movement they showed nothing.
| Quote: | | ..and what is your Pentagon ring penetration count oh 9/11 oracle? |
I am happy to accept that truthers are the experts in ring penetration. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SHERITON HOTEL
Moderate Poster
Joined: 18 Jun 2006
Posts: 988
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 4:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ...You accept the truther Pentagon 9/11 ring penetration count...but you don't accept Eric Huffscmid, loose change , Dave von Kleist and others claim US authorities ever denied there were any CCTV's and or photos of whatever impacting the military facility 9/11 from day one? do you have a date for the release of the five frames with the wrong date and time on? Is it fact that the salvaged F77 B757 serial numbers are now deemed classified? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alex_V
Wrecker
Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 4:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SHERITON HOTEL wrote: | | ...You accept the truther Pentagon 9/11 ring penetration count... |
Actually I don't really, I was making a childish joke. You could say that the plane passed through three rings, but it's a misleading fact. The plane travelled along the ground floor, which isn't part of the ring structure. So really it travelled through internal walls, and then debris exited through an E ring hole consisting of two layers of unreinforced brickwork. This exit hole is presumably your 'missile-style' hole (it was round i grant you), but the implication that the plane passed through layer upon layer of concrete seems false.
| Quote: | | but you don't accept Eric Huffscmid, loose change , Dave von Kleist and others claim US authorities ever denied there were any CCTV's and or photos of whatever impacting the military facility 9/11 from day one? |
I would just like to see it proven with a direct quote, as I requested many posts ago. Once that is established I'm happy for you to speculate about what it means.
| Quote: | | do you have a date for the release of the five frames with the wrong date and time on? Is it fact that the salvaged F77 B757 serial numbers are now deemed classified? |
I've no idea. Enlighten me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alex_V
Wrecker
Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 5:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SHERITON HOTEL wrote: | | ...they don't want to release the serial numbers of salvaged alleged F77 B757 componenets recovered from the crash site. |
Let me guess! Lack of evidence (serial numbers) is evidence - evidence (debris, phone calls, witnesses, DNA, body parts, FDR) is not evidence. Makes perfect sense. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KP50
Validated Poster
Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 526
Location: NZ
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 9:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Alex_V wrote: | | Quote: | | ..and what is your Pentagon ring penetration count oh 9/11 oracle? |
I am happy to accept that truthers are the experts in ring penetration. |
 Thanks for making me laugh. I don't think Critic's Corner has made me laugh before .... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
