4 of 5
4
Those Who Believe 9/11 was an “Inside Job”...
Posted: 29 July 2007 09:54 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 46 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  67
Joined  2007-07-17

How is my claim any more outrageous than the claim that 19 Arabs with boxcutters who failed their flying tests snuck onto 4 planes simultaneously and directed them to their specific targets causing three steel-framed skyscrapers to collapse demolition style by fire for the first time in history all the while outsmarting the entire United States Military and Intelligence, including NORAD, the Pentagon, and the CIA?  No, no, my theory has the evidence on its side.

And it is non-sensical to discredit my sources when the only people you can quote are the ones who should be under investigation! It seems the only way you can defend your “my-dog-ate-my-homework” reasoning is by attacking the sources instead of the facts!
If you took five minutes to go through the evidence you would discover that most of the information I am sharing with you here has been published by mainstream periodicals and news agencies and/or has been conducted by thousands of reputable scientists, professors, engineers, architects, authors, government officials, FBI agents, CIA agents etc…

Your logic is exactly the same as the logic touted by Christian fundamentalists who defend their outlandish beliefs by saying “It’ is in the Bible” or “‘Cause God said so.” And also, it also doesn’t help your argument by throwing epithets at me.  You and I and everyone else should be able to have a discussion here without the use of slander and perjoratives, whether they are in written or pictured form.

The NIST report you quoted makes no mention of the molten steel found under all three buildings nor does it take into account that the buildings could not have fallen at freefall speed if the supposed pancake theory was valid.  It also does not explain its assertion that the central cores remained standing after the collapse. All it does is explain everything away as random fluke.  You should be ashamed of yourself for believing such a weak piece of propaganda.

The 1000lb chunk of metal I mentioned was found 8 miles from Flight 93’s crash site and so far, no one has been able to explain how it got there. Maybe you can.

The Pentagon crash site had no idetifiable wreckage from Flight 77.  There were no wings, no tail…just a bunch of scrap metal that could have come from anything.  NO WRECKAGE  Now, I’m not saying that it was a missle, but the absence of tell-tale wreckage is extremely odd and opens the door to other possibilities, such as the use of another, smaller plane. Flight 77 could have landed/been disposed of somewhere else for all we know.  Also, the footage released of the crash is laughably inadequate and proves nothing.  You should be appalled with the way the GOP and media have insulted our intelligence.

And the idea that by coincidence 9/11-like wargames were going on during the real attacks is ludicrous.  The wargames impeded the FAA and NORAD from taking express and proper action. They were planned on purpose to coincide to confuse the otherwise capable air-defense mechanisms.

A Few Likely False Flag Operations:

Northwoods, 9/11, 7/7, Pearl Harbor were just a few of them…

1605 - The infamous Guy Fawkes plot to blow up the English Parliament. Actually an institutional false flag plot used as a pretext for war with Spain. Official history still repeats this deception. 2

1898 - The sinking of the USS Maine in Havana harbor was immediately pinned on the Spanish and the rallying call became, “Remember the Maine! To hell with Spain.” William Randolph-Hearst enflamed anti-Spanish sentiment in his papers by claiming definitively that it was a Spanish plot. No reliable evidence was ever produced linking Spain to the event. It is now widely believed that the event was a mechanical failure or false flag operation.

1933 - The Reichstag Fire allows the Nazis to crack down on their opposition and take power. A naked cowering Dutch communist, Martin Van der Lubbe, is found on the scene and the Nazis immediately claim that the fire is a communist plot.

“The exact sequence of events will never be known, but Nazi storm troopers under the direction of Hermann Göring were also involved in torching the place. They had befriended the arsonist and may have known or even encouraged him to burn the Reichstag that night. The storm troopers, led by SA leader Karl Ernst, used the underground tunnel that connected Göring’s residence with the cellar in the Reichstag. They entered the building, scattered gasoline and incendiaries, then hurried back through the tunnel.” 3

After World War II, Operation Gladio was a “stay behind” operation by NATO, CIA, and MI6 to counter communist/leftist influence in Europe. These state-sponsored “secret armies” used false flag terrorism against their populations in order to frame left wing groups, influence elections, and justify increased “security.” Gladio has been confirmed by various governments and condemned by the European Parliament.

1954 - The Lavon Affair, a “scandal over a failed Israeli covert operation in Egypt known as Operation Suzannah, in which U.S. and U.K. targets in Egypt were bombed and evidence left implicating the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood; a textbook example of a false flag operation.” 4

 Signature 

“We are all happy; if we only knew it.”
- Fyodor Dostoevsky

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 July 2007 10:03 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 47 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1071
Joined  2007-06-20
baffledking - 29 July 2007 05:03 PM

Prove to me that the GOP had no foreknowledge.


Prove to me that the Democrat Party had no foreknowledge or active role in planning and carrying out 9/11. 

I can point to just as much “evidence” implicating high level Democrats in 9/11 as you can point to Republicans.  Of course, I’m a rational human being, and I realize that the “evidence” for either Democrat or Republican involvement in 9/11 is so weak as to be beyond silly. 

baffledking - 29 July 2007 05:03 PM

Prove to me that cellphones worked at 8000ft in 2001.

 
My cell phone worked in 2001, even when any cell tower was over 8,000 feet away from me.  I’d wager your 2001 cell phone also worked even when you were farther away than 8,000 feet from a cell tower.

Now you go tell the widows, widowers, and orphans of those who placed their cell phone calls from their hijacked planes on that day, that their dead loved ones never made those calls.  I dare you.  Say it to their face and see what happens.

 Signature 

There are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by the gradual and silent encroachment of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpation.

—James Madison

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 July 2007 12:11 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 48 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  53
Joined  2007-05-20

How is my claim any more outrageous than the claim that 19 Arabs with boxcutters who failed their flying tests snuck onto 4 planes simultaneously and directed them to their specific targets causing three steel-framed skyscrapers to collapse demolition style by fire for the first time in history all the while outsmarting the entire United States Military and Intelligence, including NORAD, the Pentagon, and the CIA?  No, no, my theory has the evidence on its side.

You say “arabs with box cutters” as if you were talking about neanderthals with rocks.  I’ll dissect your sentence for the sake of it.  Arabic terrorists who hate America, boarded a plane full of unarmed civilians, used sharpened box cutters to kill a flight attendent and threaten the rest of the passengers, convinced everyone aboard that this was a routine hijacking, and flew the planes into their targets at 500 mph.  They took flying lessons and coordinated their attacks to hit multiple targets at the same time.  Nothing here is even remotely unbelievable. 

And yet, you believe that even though we have all this evidence of everything I just stated, that it was all scripted and planned by the CIA, NORAD, the US government (in general), the GOP (in specific), and that they managed to get away with it (almost).  But you can’t even produce one witness or shred of evidence.  Yikes!

And it is non-sensical to discredit my sources when the only people you can quote are the ones who should be under investigation! It seems the only way you can defend your “my-dog-ate-my-homework” reasoning is by attacking the sources instead of the facts!  If you took five minutes to go through the evidence you would discover that most of the information I am sharing with you here has been published by mainstream periodicals and news agencies and/or has been conducted by thousands of reputable scientists, professors, engineers, architects, authors, government officials, FBI agents, CIA agents etc…

Your sources are not mainstream perodicals or news agencies.  I can only attack what you present as “evidence”, and so far most of it has been conspiracy nuts with an agenda.  Furthermore, it has all been weak arguments that prove nothing.

Your logic is exactly the same as the logic touted by Christian fundamentalists who defend their outlandish beliefs by saying “It’ is in the Bible” or “‘Cause God said so.” And also, it also doesn’t help your argument by throwing epithets at me.  You and I and everyone else should be able to have a discussion here without the use of slander and perjoratives, whether they are in written or pictured form.

Your logic is exactly the same as the logic touted by conspiracy nuts who defend their outlandish beliefs by saying, “I saw Loose Change, and he said all this stuff so it must be true”.  The problem is that you are working backwards from the view that it is certainly a conspiracy and trying to find evidence that fits your beliefs.  Rather than add up all these little random bits of unsubstantiated assumptions, why don’t you start with the reality that this conspiracy is improbable, unlikely, nearly impossible to pull off at such a large scale, and is stubborn toward any evidence against it. 

I don’t care if epithets hurt your feelings.  You are despicable to me that you would even be able to dream up such a shameful argument. 

The NIST report you quoted makes no mention of the molten steel found under all three buildings nor does it take into account that the buildings could not have fallen at freefall speed if the supposed pancake theory was valid.  It also does not explain its assertion that the central cores remained standing after the collapse. All it does is explain everything away as random fluke.  You should be ashamed of yourself for believing such a weak piece of propaganda.

I’m sorry, but I’m going to trust the specialists who were paid to examine every shred of evidence concerning the collapse of WTC over some hyped up conspiracy nuts who have let their imaginations run rampant.  At some point, you have to admit that this conspiracy has to be capped to be possible, and yet you keep folding conspirers into the umbrella.

I believe they say that the moltent “steel” is wreckage from the aluminum alloy plane.

The 1000lb chunk of metal I mentioned was found 8 miles from Flight 93’s crash site and so far, no one has been able to explain how it got there. Maybe you can.

I’m not an expert on the subject.  My guess is that the plane broke apart.  Your guess is that it was shot down, I assume.  Wait- is that your guess?  Wouldn’t that betray your favored conspiracy that we were using the planes to attack ourselves?  Or are you saying the wreckage was planted?  That is funny too.

The Pentagon crash site had no idetifiable wreckage from Flight 77.  There were no wings, no tail…just a bunch of scrap metal that could have come from anything.  NO WRECKAGE Now, I’m not saying that it was a missle, but the absence of tell-tale wreckage is extremely odd and opens the door to other possibilities, such as the use of another, smaller plane. Flight 77 could have landed/been disposed of somewhere else for all we know.  Also, the footage released of the crash is laughably inadequate and proves nothing.  You should be appalled with the way the GOP and media have insulted our intelligence.

The plane crashed into a heavily fortified building at unusually high speeds.  What happens when an unstoppable force hits an immovable object? 

Scrap metal that could have come from anything?  Puh-leeze.  Now you are imagining an army of conspirers planting plane parts and debris.  Talk to the people who were assigned to clean up that wreckage and ask them how they feel about your theories.  The footage of the crash doesn’t have to prove anything, and nobody said that it did anyway.  It’s just the footage that was recorded- good or bad that was the footage.

You say that Flight 77 could have landed somewhere else for all we know.  And yet, you don’t know.  You claim to know, but you have no proof of these claims.  You are now officially a deluded fool who believes conspiracy claims over actual evidence. 

And the idea that by coincidence 9/11-like wargames were going on during the real attacks is ludicrous.  The wargames impeded the FAA and NORAD from taking express and proper action. They were planned on purpose to coincide to confuse the otherwise capable air-defense mechanisms.

No they weren’t.  They were planned coincidentally. 

Wow.  I just used your same method of evidence, but I reversed it to suit my argument.  It’s really easy to do when I don’t have to back up my claims with evidence.  You see?  You can make any claim you want, but unless you have any rational argument other than “hmm…that seems odd” you are just talking.

A Few Likely False Flag Operations:

Northwoods- not actually an operation

, Pearl Harbor- we were actually attacked by the japanese.  remember from your history books?

were just a few of them…

1605 - The infamous Guy Fawkes plot to blow up the English Parliament. Actually an institutional false flag plot used as a pretext for war with Spain. Official history still repeats this deception. 2

1898 - The sinking of the USS Maine in Havana harbor was immediately pinned on the Spanish and the rallying call became, “Remember the Maine! To hell with Spain.” William Randolph-Hearst enflamed anti-Spanish sentiment in his papers by claiming definitively that it was a Spanish plot. No reliable evidence was ever produced linking Spain to the event. It is now widely believed that the event was a mechanical failure or false flag operation.

1933 - The Reichstag Fire allows the Nazis to crack down on their opposition and take power. A naked cowering Dutch communist, Martin Van der Lubbe, is found on the scene and the Nazis immediately claim that the fire is a communist plot.

Thanks for the ancient history lesson.  How is this relevant to your claim that our own government masterminded a plot to fly it’s own innocent citizens into towering skycrapers filled with innocent citizens, and into their own defense HQ filled with government employees, and that all of this was covered up without a trace of evidence?  Wow.  Everytime I put it like that, it seems more and more mental.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 July 2007 01:16 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 49 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1071
Joined  2007-06-20

What the “Screw Loose Change” People would have us believe happened in the opening months of 2001…

President Bush:  “Dick Cheney, come on in here to the Oval Office, I want to let you know what is going on.”

Dick Cheney:  “Yes Mr. President?” 

President Bush:  I want to attack my own country, killing thousands of innocent Americans and make it look like Arab Muslims did it.  Then we will be able to convince the American public to allow us to go to war in the Middle East.”

Dick Cheney:  “Why not just go to war in the Middle East without a set-up provocation?  Your predecessors did it.  Besides, you are the Commander in Chief.  You don’t need the public’s permission to use the Military.  And you only need Congress (which is on your side) to declare war, but not to actually use the Military.  And no Congress has declared war since WWII, so you don’t even have to worry about that.” 

President Bush:  “Gee, I never thought about that.”
 
Dick Cheney:  “Have you thought about anything regarding this?”

  President Bush:  “Down to the most miniscule detail.  Here’s what we’re going to do…

First we will have demolition teams cut steel and concrete load bearing supports in the World Trade Center Towers.  Then the team will drill holes in strategic points on certain floors of each of the Twin Towers, install explosives in those holes, and run wires from all the explosives to hidden detonators.  Oh, by the way, we will also do the same thing on WTC 7 just for the heck of it.” 

Dick Cheney:  “Mr. President, thousands of people are in those buildings at all hours 7 days a week.  People will see this and report it happening before we bring down the towers.”

President Bush:  “I never thought about that.  Gee, I hope no one sees anything.  And if anyone does see anything we’ll just pay them off with the money we will make from this attack.”

Dick Cheney:  “Yeah, Mr. President, about that money…just HOW will we make money from this?”

President Bush:  “Halliburton!” 

Dick Cheney:  “But Mr. President, I’m no longer with Halliburton.”

President Bush:  “Oh, I didn’t know that.  Oh well, we’ll still make millions from OIL!”

Dick Cheney:  “But Mr. President, war in the Middle East will drive the price of crude oil up, this will result in people driving less and hence, buying less gasoline, with the overall market forces keeping the profit margins of oil companies at a relative constant.  We will make the same even if we don’t plan this attack on America followed by war in the Middle East.”

President Bush:  “Gee, I never thought about that.  Oh well, who cares, I’ve already planned and set up everything in an impossibly short amount of time, so we’re going to go ahead as planned!” 

Dick Cheney:  “Ok Mr. President, but won’t people be suspicious when the Twin Towers just collapse?”

President Bush:  “I have that all planned out to the last detail.  Here’s how it is going to go down:  First we will somehow take control of 4 jet planes, perhaps by remote control, I’m still not sure exactly how!  Anyway, we will use the identities of existing Arab Muslim extremists as the alleged hijackers.  Granted, these Arab Muslims will be seen alive after the attacks, but who cares.  Anyway remember the explosives I had planted in certain floors of the WTC?  Well, two of these four planes will fly EXACTLY into each one of those floors where the explosives will be pre-planted.  We’ll let the fires from the crash burn a while, then we will detonate the explosives to make it look like the planes caused the buildings to collapse.”

Dick Cheney:  “Ok, and one of the planes will also crash into WTC 7, right?”

President Bush: “No.  We’ll just blow it up with no plane crashing into it.  No one will notice.  Oh, and the BBC knows about this.  I sure hope they don’t spill the beans before it all goes down.”

Dick Cheney:  “Mr. President, I don’t think you should have told the BBC.  They are no friend of yours.”

President Bush:  “Gee, I never thought about that.”

Dick Cheney:  “Is destroying WTC 7 even necessary?  I mean once we destroy the two towers of the WTC, I don’t thing the much smaller WTC 7 will need to be destroyed.”

President Bush:  “Look Dick, I’ve already arranged the demolition teams to do all this, I’m not stopping now!”

Dick Cheney:  “But Mr. President, won’t the crashing planes destroy all the wires and detonators of the explosives rendering them useless?”

President Bush:  “Gee Dick, I never thought of that.  Anyway, we will have another plane taken over by real Arab Muslim extremists who really aren’t on the plane at all and will turn up alive later, but who cares about that.  Anyway, this plane we will shoot down but won’t tell anyone we shot it down.”

Dick Cheney:  “Why won’t we tell anyone we shot that one down?  What is the purpose of shooting it down?  Why not just use it to crash into yet another building?

President Bush:  “Gee, I never thought about that.  Let me continue.  We are going to have a 4th plane, this one we will say crashes into the Pentagon!  BUT WAIT!  This plane will not really crash into the Pentagon at all!  Instead, we will have an American Military member fire a cruise missile at the Pentagon and tell the world it was the 4th plane!”

Dick Cheney:  Once again Mr. President, we have control of this plane like the other three.  Why not just go ahead and actually crash it into the Pentagon?  I mean someone might notice a cruise missile flying through the streets of Washington D.C.”

President Bush:  Gee, I never thought about that.  Who cares anyway?  We’ll do it my way. 
 
Dick Cheney:  “Won’t the Military member say anything after he fires on his own country?”

President Bush:  “Gee I never thought about that.”

Dick Cheney:  “Won’t anyone notice one of our multi-million dollar cruise missiles is missing?  I mean, this is not like a Military member taking home some pens from his office desk.  Those cruise missiles are cataloged, tracked, monitored and accounted for down to the last coat of paint on them.”

President Bush:  “Gee, I never thought about that.”

Dick Cheney:  “And how will we make people think Arab Muslims did this?”

President Bush: “Easy!  We will fake a video of Osama bin Laden.  On the video our actor playing Bin Laden won’t actually confess to doing it, we will simply ‘misinterpret’ what he really says – which will be from our script where he doesn’t confess.”

Dick Cheney:  “Why don’t you just have the actor state he did it in the first place since you are providing him with the script?”

President Bush:  “Gee, I never thought about that.”

Dick Cheney:  “Ok, but what about the 4th plane that never crashes into the Pentagon, yet we will be telling everyone that it crashed into the Pentagon?  What will we do with it and its passengers?”

President Bush:  “We will fly it someplace far away, then we will let everyone off and pay them off!  They will never talk!  Remember, we are going to make millions!”

Dick Cheney:  “After we get finished paying everyone off that needs to be paid off, we will net about one dollar and some change.  Do you really think it is worth it?”

President Bush:  “That’s one dollar and some LOOSE CHANGE!


rolleyes

 Signature 

There are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by the gradual and silent encroachment of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpation.

—James Madison

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 July 2007 12:24 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 50 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  67
Joined  2007-07-17

I agree, the Democrats certainly don’t deserve a “get out of jail free” card.  But this isn’t about Red vs. Blue.

Alas, the only argument you can come up with is that my sources must all be delusional (many 911 families belong to the Truth movement!) and that I must be a conspiracy “nut.”  Clearly you cannot refute the facts and have instead opted to put your faith in the same people who openly lied to you about WMDs, ties to al-Qaeda, stolen trillions from the Pentagon, election results and foreknowledge of terrorist attacks on 911 to name a few.  Or do you believe they found WMD afterall?  By your logic, anyone who is suspicious of their government is a “conspiracy nut.”

And you have also demonstrated clearly that you know next to nothing about Pearl Harbor if you still believe that it was “an unprovoked attack.”  Do some research, my friend, no tin-foil hat required.

And the other False Flags are important, too.  Northwoods didn’t happen (thanks to JFK and look what happened to him) but all the others did which should tell you that independently investigating 911 is not such a bad idea.

You need to get out of this mindset that “my government can do no wrong” and start to think for yourself.

P.S.  the molten (no t) metal was originally said to be aluminum from the plane, but they then realized that WTC 7 was not struck by a plane but had the same “lava-like” substance beneath it….oops….so what do they do?  Easy, they just decided not to mention WTC 7 or the molten metal in their report(s).  If you close your eyes, the world disappears, right?

 Signature 

“We are all happy; if we only knew it.”
- Fyodor Dostoevsky

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 July 2007 02:27 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 51 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  53
Joined  2007-05-20

Just because there are “many” 911 families attached to this “movement” doesn’t make your sketchy “facts” any more valid.  I’ve examined both sides of this issue.  I’ve watched “Loose Change” and even believed it, but then I took the time to google “debunk Loose Change” and found skeptics who consistently refuted the film’s faulty evidence and leaps in logic line-by-line.  Every time I hear new “evidence” that proves a conspiracy, it turns out to be circumstantial assumptions based on a tiny fact that has been misinterpreted by people who are desperate to blame Bush and the U.S.

You look at these “false flags” as precedent for our current government to commit mass murder with coordinated and planned terrorist attacks.  Yet, precedence is NOT PROOF of a deliberate conspiracy, and many of these accusations are clearly debatable.  I’ll leave those debates for another thread.

Feel free to continue your beliefs that your own government is evil.  I personally feel that they are stubborn, misguided, often wrong, arrogant, foolish, and ignorant, but that doesn’t make them malicious homicidal terrorist planners.  There are plenty of legitimate reasons to despise Bush without inventing an implausible conspiracy.

You should take a look at how emotional you are getting on the subject.  Clearly you’ve biased yourself on the issue.  These desperate attempts to blame the U.S. (blame the victim) are distancing you from reality.  Your friends and family must be concerned for you.  This is how it all starts- you get all excited from watching a few misguided youtube videos and then you are mailing packages rigged with bombs to professors that you hate.  Seriously, this type of blind belief to sketchy evidence is where people start forgetting that there is an easier evidence-based reality that doesn’t require an elaborate plot.

Please post any witnesses or concrete evidence that you have on this grand conspiracy.  I would also like to know how you think this can be pulled off, who was “in” on the conspiracy, and what the motivations are for this wide net of people you’ve included.  Otherwise, I’ll consider your argument a baseless opinion inspired by delusional and imaginative conspiracy nuts.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 July 2007 11:11 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 52 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  67
Joined  2007-07-17

Please post any witnesses or concrete evidence that you have on this grand conspiracy.

That is exactly what I have been doing here.  Short of a full-blown confession, what else would possibly convince you that it is a worthy hypothesis that elements within the government were complicit in the attacks and their planning?  Let’s reexamine some of the evidence I have presented here to you:

EYE-WITNESS ACCOUNT OF PRE-IMPACT EXPLOSION (BBC)
MORE WITNESSES TO WTC EXPLOSIONS
NORMAN MINETA’s TESTIMONY REGARDING STAND DOWN ORDERS
CNN WITNESS: NO PENTAGON WRECKAGE (FOX NEWS)
MOLTEN METAL AT WTC
“The jet fuel probably burned out in less than 10 minutes.”-Dr. Shyam Sunder, Lead Investigator for NIST.
The NIST Report itself says (p. 179): “The initial jet fuel fires themselves lasted at most a few minutes.”
THE PERFECT COLLAPSE OF WTC7 W/ FOREKNOWLEDGE (go to 3:59 to hear First Responder Indira Singh’s testimony about Firefighters’ foreknowledge of WTC7’s collapse)
BBC REPORTS 20 MINS EARLY ON WTC 7’s COLLAPSE
RUMSFELD SAYS F93 “SHOT DOWN”
HIJACKERS FOUND ALIVE, NO NAMES ON PASSENGER LIST, NO AUTOPSIES, FBI HAS NOT REVISED ITS LIST, UNABLE TO FLY PLANES, IMPOSSIBLE CELL PHONE CALLS, COCKPIT VOICE RECORDERS CAN’T RECORD CABIN, FBI AGENT’s WARNING ABOUT MOUSSAOI IGNORED 70 TIMES!!
9/11 WARGAMES BEFORE AND DURING THE ATTACK
WMD, SADDAM CONNECTION TO 9/11 DELIBERATE SHAM
BUSH GIVEN AFGHAN INVASION PLAN TWO DAYS BEFORE 9/11
FAKE OSAMA CONFESSION (fake Osama is wearing jewelry, forbidden in Islam, and is right-handed, real Osama wears no jewelry and is lefthanded)
FBI SAYS NO HARD EVIDENCE LINKING OSAMA TO 9/11

not to mention the warnings of the attack prior to 911, the CIA ties to al-Qaeda, Bush family ties to Bin Ladens, US ties to Iraqi chemical weapons, FBI meeting with Bin laden in Dubai before 911, suspicious “non-Muslim” behavior of terrorists before alleged hijacking, suspicious omissions of WTC 7 and eye-witness testimonies in 9/11 Comission, blatant lies by Condoleeza Rice and Cheney, Bush’s impossible account of first crash on TV and other historical examples of gov’t sponsered terror…etc…etc..

This conspiracy need only involve a few key players at the top who give incomplete orders to lower levels.  Problem is, it didn’t work, evidence leaked, people spoke out, slip-ups were made and now, millions around the world know about it including you.  You can poo-poo the evidence all you want and go back to watching Glen Beck on FOX or you can swallow your pride for a minute and start to check out this stuff for yourself.  I thought it was hogwash when I first heard about it too, but the evidence is rock solid. Popular Mechanics’ and NIST’s attempts to “debunk” Loose Change and other researchers have consistently failed to address the salient issues in question (for example, the molten metal under WTC 7, the freefall speeds of the collapses etc…) and instead use their articles as opportunities to ridicule and slander those researchers who challenge the official story.

Understand that anti-Nazi’s in Germany in the 1930’s and 40’s were seen by the majority to be unpatriotic “nuts” as were anti-communists under Lenin and Stalin (and Kruchev, Gorbachev etc…).  Realize that our media is owned by no more than six corporations and that
“t[]he media organizations in charge of vetting our images of war have become fewer and bigger — and the news more uniform and gung ho. Six huge corporations now control the major U.S. media: Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation (FOX, HarperCollins, New York Post, Weekly Standard, TV Guide, DirecTV and 35 TV stations), General Electric (NBC, CNBC, MSNBC, Telemundo, Bravo, Universal Pictures and 28 TV stations), Time Warner (AOL, CNN, Warner Bros., Time and its 130-plus magazines), Disney (ABC, Disney Channel, ESPN, 10 TV and 72 radio stations), Viacom (CBS, MTV, Nickelodeon, Paramount Pictures, Simon & Schuster and 183 U.S. radio stations), and Bertelsmann (Random House and its more than 120 imprints worldwide, and Gruner + Jahr and its more than 110 magazines in 10 countries). (full essay by Amy and David Goodman well worth reading)

If you government lies to you about going to war, winning elections, and improving the economy why wouldn’t they lie to you about a terrorist attack?  However improbable you think it may be it is certainly not impossible, we know that from history.

From all the evidence I have provided in this and my above posts please tell me what assertions in particular strike you as being unsubstantial. And by that I mean, not worth considering.

 Signature 

“We are all happy; if we only knew it.”
- Fyodor Dostoevsky

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 July 2007 01:52 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 53 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1071
Joined  2007-06-20
baffledking - 30 July 2007 11:11 PM

FAKE OSAMA CONFESSION (fake Osama is wearing jewelry, forbidden in Islam…

George Bush is Christian, and murder is forbidden in Christianity, so by your very logic, Bush must be innocent. 

baffledking - 30 July 2007 11:11 PM

CNN WITNESS: NO PENTAGON WRECKAGE

For starters, I now understand your screen name of Baffledking: As the old saying goes, “If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit!  You are the King of trying to Baffle with bullshit.  wink

You post multiple items that are all over the map making it impossible for a person with a life to respond to them all.  (And no, just because you have lots of links doesn’t prove your point.  Creationists can come up with just as many arguments for their contention.)  You never respond to the myriad of posts that handily debunk the bunk you have linked to.  For example, you falsely stated, “…no wreckage of Flight 77 at the Pentagon.”  Yet when I posted this picture of some of the 757 debris at the Pentagon…

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

…you apparently ignored it and went on to have the audacity to post a news report from the day of the attack that you titled, “CNN WITNESS: NO PENTAGON WRECKAGE”, and yet 33 freaking seconds into the video, the reporter says he can see parts of the airplane!!!  I quote from the very video you linked to, “I can see parts of the airplane that crashed into the building.” 
 
Since you have repeatedly and falsely stated there was no aircraft debris at the Pentagon, I’m going to ask this question of you again, since I don’t believe you answered it the first time I asked, but now I will do it in 3 parts:

PART I:
IF YOU DON’T BELIEVE FLIGHT 77 CRASHED INTO THE PENTAGON, JUST WHAT IN THE HELL DID THE DAMAGE AT THE PENTAGON?


PART II:
WHAT WAS THE PURPOSE OF USING HIJACKED PLANES TO CRASH INTO OTHER BUILDINGS, BUT THEN NOT USE HIJACKED FLIGHT 77 TO CRASH INTO THE PENTAGON?

PART III:
WHERE DO YOU BELIEVE FLIGHT 77 AND ALL OF ITS PASSENGERS WENT, HOW DID THEY GET THERE, WHO TOOK THEM THERE AND WHERE ARE THEY TODAY?

[ Edited: 01 August 2007 03:57 PM by Rocinante ]
 Signature 

There are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by the gradual and silent encroachment of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpation.

—James Madison

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 July 2007 03:10 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 54 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  53
Joined  2007-05-20

That is exactly what I have been doing here.  Short of a full-blown confession, what else would possibly convince you that it is a worthy hypothesis that elements within the government were complicit in the attacks and their planning?  Let’s reexamine some of the evidence I have presented here to you:

EYE-WITNESS ACCOUNT OF PRE-IMPACT EXPLOSION (BBC)

This is very interesting, but we don’t know the details about his situation.  Which tower was he in?  If there was an explosion to weaken the foundation, who was responsible?  Maybe it was terrorists.  This man never goes so far as to say that it was a conspiracy… even though it was suggested by the reporters interviewing him.

MORE WITNESSES TO WTC EXPLOSIONS

These testimonies are riddled with clues that indicate the witnesses jumped to conclusions.  “Seemed like demolition” is how many of them described it.  The truth is that none of them have ever witnessed skyscrapers collapsing before, and thus aren’t able to describe it in any other terms.  In fact, this was a first for the world- passenger jets flying full speed into very tall buildings.

NORMAN MINETA’s TESTIMONY REGARDING STAND DOWN ORDERS

Stand down orders?  Did you watch the video?  He talks about orders to shoot down the planes… not stand down.  We know now that those orders were not passed on because it was feared the wrong plane would be shot down.  I’m not sure what you wanted to prove with this video.  I watched it twice to see if I was missing anything.

CNN WITNESS: NO PENTAGON WRECKAGE (FOX NEWS)

This witness actually does describe wreckage from a plane that you completely ignore.  How do you explain the wreckage that he did see?  What possible explanation can you give for that?  As I understand it, the plane blasted through nearly to the other side.  Can you not fathom that this reporter, who only saw the outside, might not see the entire wreckage?

MOLTEN METAL AT WTC

“The jet fuel probably burned out in less than 10 minutes.”-Dr. Shyam Sunder, Lead Investigator for NIST.

The moltent metal argument is an argument from ignorance.  You think that because it can’t be easily explained that it must have some sinister explanation.  Thanks, but your opinion and interpretation isn’t a fact.

The NIST Report itself says (p. 179): “The initial jet fuel fires themselves lasted at most a few minutes.”

And did it go on to say anything else?  I thought NIST was part of the evil conspiracy.

THE PERFECT COLLAPSE OF WTC7 W/ FOREKNOWLEDGE (go to 3:59 to hear First Responder Indira Singh’s testimony about Firefighters’ foreknowledge of WTC7’s collapse)

This was all very interesting until I read this http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/index.php?title=7_World_Trade_Center.  NOt to mention the fact that your theory now includes firefighters and police as plotters of this secret conspiracy.

BBC REPORTS 20 MINS EARLY ON WTC 7’s COLLAPSE

This was even explained in the link that you provided.  CNN reported that WTC7 either had fallen or was expected to fall.  BBC probably jumped on the story when they heard about the report on CNN.  And, it doesn’t make any sense as proof of a conspiracy, which has been pointed out several times.

RUMSFELD SAYS F93 “SHOT DOWN”

You call that proof?  I believe he said that the “(terrorists) shot down the plane” if you follow the grammatical structure of his sequence.  So, is he saying that these terrorists literally shot down the plane?  No.  More than likely he chose a poor verb to describe the terrorists flying into the ground.  Even if you wanted to assume it’s a slip of the tongue, the fact that a perfectly logical explanation exists that explains the error means that it is NOT PROOF.

HIJACKERS FOUND ALIVE, NO NAMES ON PASSENGER LIST, NO AUTOPSIES, FBI HAS NOT REVISED ITS LIST, UNABLE TO FLY PLANES, IMPOSSIBLE CELL PHONE CALLS, COCKPIT VOICE RECORDERS CAN’T RECORD CABIN, FBI AGENT’s WARNING ABOUT MOUSSAOI IGNORED 70 TIMES!!

This guy was pretty convincing until I found this link.  http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/index.php?title=Hijackers debunking his claim that there weren’t hijackers, and that there wasn’t any of them on the manifests.  The rest of his top 10 list is not backed up by any evidence.  They are just him making claims that he doesn’t even attempt to prove.

9/11 WARGAMES BEFORE AND DURING THE ATTACK

Not proof.  I already explained this.  You can’t take a coincidence and turn it into an example of hard evidence.  This only proves that the U.S. was having war games that day.  So what?

WMD, SADDAM CONNECTION TO 9/11 DELIBERATE SHAM

I only see this as a good reason to impeach the president… if it could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.  This, however, can not be equated to deliberate self-inflicted mass murder against his citizens.  You just can’t make that connection.

BUSH GIVEN AFGHAN INVASION PLAN TWO DAYS BEFORE 9/11

I checked on this, and it does seem to be true.  Here you have another coincidence that actually disproves your theory.  If Bush was such an evil mastermind, he would’ve surely delayed this plan by a week.  This only shows that the administration recognized Al Qaeda as a threat, and had a plan of attack.  Remember that 9/11 was not the first time they attacked us.  And, I’m willing to concede that it may mean foreknowledge of an Al Qaeda terrorist attack, but again that does not prove a deliberate conspiracy to kill US citizens in an enormous and elaborate synchronized event.

FAKE OSAMA CONFESSION (fake Osama is wearing jewelry, forbidden in Islam, and is right-handed, real Osama wears no jewelry and is lefthanded)

Where did you get the information that Osama doesn’t wear jewelry?  It took me 10 seconds to find this photo here Nov3OsamaTVSpeech.jpg.  The still image of the grainy video that conspiracy theorists show doesn’t look like Osama, but if you freeze frame many other still images- it does look identical to Osama.  How do you explain that?

Why does he seem to be writing with his right hand?  Good question.  Maybe the video was mirrored (flipped horizontally) or maybe he was disguising his handwriting. 

FBI SAYS NO HARD EVIDENCE LINKING OSAMA TO 9/11

Borrowed response below:
Fact
In order to be listed on the FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitive list, the suspect must have been indicted for the crime. To indict Bin Laden formally for the 9/11 attacks would require presenting evidence in a court of law; such evidence linking Bin Laden to 9/11 would include intelligence sources, and Al-Qaeda detainees. Making such sources (and methods) publicly known, perhaps isn’t advised. In the Zacarias Moussaoui case, a big deal was made over access to detainee witnesses and about handling evidence from other intelligence sources.

In all, the 9/11 attacks were viewed as an “act of war”, and the U.S. government is responding accordingly. During the Clinton administration, terrorism was handled more as a matter of law enforcement. This change in how terrorism is handled may be yet another reason why the U.S. government has not bothered to formally indict Bin Laden for the 9/11 attacks.

Regarding this matter, FBI officials told the Washington Post:

“There’s no mystery here,” said FBI spokesman Rex Tomb. “They could add 9/11 on there, but they have not because they don’t need to at this point. . . . There is a logic to it.” [1]
The FBI also maintains a list of “Most Wanted Terrorists”. This list is accompanied by a note:

The alleged terrorists on this list have been indicted by sitting Federal Grand Juries in various jurisdictions in the United States for the crimes reflected on their wanted posters. Evidence was gathered and presented to the Grand Juries, which led to their being charged. The indictments currently listed on the posters allow them to be arrested and brought to justice. Future indictments may be handed down as various investigations proceed in connection to other terrorist incidents, for example, the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. [2]
A document released by the U.K. government, Responsibility for the terrorist atrocities in the United States, 11 September 2001 presents facts that link Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda to the 9/11 attacks.

The U.K. document further notes:

This document does not purport to provide a prosecutable case against Usama Bin Laden in a court of law. Intelligence often cannot be used evidentially, due both to the strict rules of admissibility and to the need to protect the safety of sources. But on the basis of all the information available HMG is confident of its conclusions as expressed in this document.

This conspiracy need only involve a few key players at the top who give incomplete orders to lower levels.  Problem is, it didn’t work, evidence leaked, people spoke out, slip-ups were made and now, millions around the world know about it including you.  You can poo-poo the evidence all you want and go back to watching Glen Beck on FOX or you can swallow your pride for a minute and start to check out this stuff for yourself. 

From all the evidence I have provided in this and my above posts please tell me what assertions in particular strike you as being unsubstantial. And by that I mean, not worth considering.

I can tell you for sure that I don’t watch FOX.  I can tell you also that I watched every link that you gave me and responded to all of them.  I appreciate that most of the links were not to conspiracy sites.  However, none of them proved anything, none of them named a conspirer, none of them explained how this plot was accomplished, and most of them were facts that could either be disputed or required a leap in logic- circumstantial cherry picking.

I think the interview with the gentleman who heard the pre-impact explosion was a solid point, but without the details of his situation, I’m only left with your speculation.  And, as I pointed out, others can speculate differently.  I also think that Osama’s video was a solid point (specifically the right hand/ left hand), but as I pointed out the jewelry and the bad resemblance could both be debunked.  So, then you are left with a bad video of Osama using his wrong hand, and I pointed out two speculations that do not include the CIA.

Everything else is misinterprations, false facts, speculations, or assumptions… and they don’t prove a conspiracy.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 July 2007 03:21 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 55 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  142
Joined  2007-06-17

I’m just posting this so that I can turn off the notifications.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 July 2007 03:39 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 56 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  67
Joined  2007-07-17

First of all Rocinante, I don’t see any picture besides a big green pouting face….not sure what it is.  A bad link? Also, my username comes from a Leonard Cohen song though I enjoyed your interpretation.

Also, the initial hole at the Pentagon (14ft) could not have been made by a Boeing 757 without leaving the carcass of the plane, including wings, fuselage, tail and engines at the crash site.  Have you seen pictures of plane crashes?  The amount of wreckage at the Pentagon is incongruent with the size of the plane and the size of the crash site.  The Popular Mechanics article (researched by Benjamin Chertoff, cousin of Michael Chertoff, Security for the Department of Homeland Security) ignores that fact that the 75 ft hole was made after the crash, when the roof collapsed yet they would have their readers believe that the plane’s impact caused the 75ft hole - simply not true once you factor in the fall of the roof.  Read their article again if you must.  Also, where did the wings go?  And the engines?  The tail?  Vaporized into molten steam from the fires maybe?  Forget Loose Change, forget Alex Jones, forget baffledking!  DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH.  Look up the news reports from the day, look up the Pentagon’s security system, look up airplane crashes, eye-witness testimonies, look up the flying experience of the alleged hijackers and the NTSB black box recording of F77.  Actually, about the black box:

Years after the event, the US National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) released the decoded data from the black box of Flight 77.  It shows the flight path of Flight 77 during it’s alleged hijacking up until an hour before the crash (why the recording stops 1hr before the crash is puzzling indeed).  Surprisingly, the black box shows multiple contradictions with the information published in the 9/11 Commission Report.  Such as:

- it [the black box] unequivocally shows that the plane was nowhere near the 5 light poles that were reportedly ripped from the ground by Flight 77 – a claim that appears in the Official 9/11 Commission Report.

- the last figure of altitude given was 273 feet above ground level. (The pentagon is 71 feet tall). This is from radio altitude so it’s accurate to within just several feet.

- The VOR (A data entry figure that is used to determine the distance from an object, in this case a transmitter at the Airport near the Pentagon) gives a last distance of 1.5 miles from F77 to the transmitter. Combine this information with the last figure of given altitude and also with speed of the plane (530 mph) and simply something just doesn’t add up.

- Analysis is ongoing (the spreadsheet of data is about 4 million cells of data long) but it does confirm that the flight path does NOT match up to the damage leading up to the Pentagon.

Interestingly the path DOES match up to eyewitness testimony, some of whom saw two planes and cemetery workers have reported that they saw a jet fly over the Pentagon at the time of the blast.

(Digg source)

(video presentation by Oxford’s Calum Douglas)

Before we start theorizing about conspiracies, we need to answer these glaring contradictions in the official story.

 Signature 

“We are all happy; if we only knew it.”
- Fyodor Dostoevsky

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 July 2007 04:07 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 57 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1071
Joined  2007-06-20
baffledking - 31 July 2007 03:39 PM

First of all Rocinante, I don’t see any picture besides a big green pouting face….not sure what it is.  A bad link?

I’m surprised you haven’t incorporated this into the conspiracy.  wink  I can see the picture quite clearly.  I’ll forgo the HTML coding and just post the URL from where I found the picture below.  Not that it matters.  I know you will come up with some excuse for it.

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm

I’ll ask one last time for your opinion on the three part question I posted above. 

Please take no offense in this, but debating this topic with you is like debating with a Creationist.  Creationists’ a priori belief comes from their blind acceptance of their opinion that the Bible is 100% correct.  Your a priori belief comes from your opinion that Bush is 100% evil.  Your blind hatred of the man has blinded you to all rationality on this subject (and probably many others.)

I’m curious how you felt about Clinton when he was President?  Speaking of which, since he was in office when it happened, what about the Oklahoma City Bombing?  Do you believe it went down pretty much as the authorities said it did and carried out by McVeigh and Nichols?

 Signature 

There are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by the gradual and silent encroachment of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpation.

—James Madison

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 August 2007 12:21 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 58 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  53
Joined  2007-05-20

DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH.  Look up the news reports from the day, look up the Pentagon’s security system, look up airplane crashes, eye-witness testimonies, look up the flying experience of the alleged hijackers and the NTSB black box recording of F77. 

Thanks for the suggestion.  I looked here and found all sorts of people who witnessed an American Airlines jet crash into the pentagon.  http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/911_pentagon_eyewitnesses.html.  You’ll also find a link at the bottom of that page that goes to witnesses who cleaned up the wreckage and pictures of the wreckage.  It might not be too late to apologize to them… or to the families of the people who died in D.C. that day.

I notice that the black box argument is derived from the plane’s distance to the pentagon before it stopped recording.  Distance doesn’t tell us anything because one would have to assume that the plane was going to crash directly into the pentagon as soon as it arrived there.  Wouldn’t it be possible that the terrorist realized his error in altitude, circled around, and approached again?  This seems much more likely than all the eye witnesses I linked to above hallucinating the plane crashing into the pentagon.

[ Edited: 01 August 2007 12:42 AM by ticktock ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 August 2007 07:59 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 59 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1071
Joined  2007-06-20
baffledking - 30 July 2007 11:11 PM

EYE-WITNESS ACCOUNT OF PRE-IMPACT EXPLOSION (BBC)

I highly doubt if this janitor is an expert on demolitions.  Getting his opinion on the collapse of the WTC just because he was in the building when the plane hit it would be like getting his opinion on your surgery just because his car ran over you.

baffledking - 30 July 2007 11:11 PM

MORE WITNESSES TO WTC EXPLOSIONS

They didn’t’ know what was going on at the time.  They were making snap decisions under extreme pressure of events that have never occurred before.  Every psychological study done on situations like these prove that initial eyewitness testimony in stressful situations is highly unreliable. 

baffledking - 30 July 2007 11:11 PM

NORMAN MINETA’s TESTIMONY REGARDING STAND DOWN ORDERS

What the hell does this have to do with anything?  How does this prove Bush did it?  Politicians make hasty and wrong decisions all the time.  It doesn’t prove malice on their part; it proves incompetence. 

baffledking - 30 July 2007 11:11 PM

CNN WITNESS: NO PENTAGON WRECKAGE (FOX NEWS)

Absolutely untrue.  As stated earlier, the reporter clearly states he can see plane debris.
 

baffledking - 30 July 2007 11:11 PM

MOLTEN METAL AT WTC
“The jet fuel probably burned out in less than 10 minutes.”-Dr. Shyam Sunder, Lead Investigator for NIST.
The NIST Report itself says (p. 179): “The initial jet fuel fires themselves lasted at most a few minutes.”

Believe it or not, jet fuel is not the only substance on this planet that burns.  In offices like the WTC there are other things that may actually burn if they are doused with burning jet fuel: carpets, wood, furniture, paper, human bodies, etc. 
 

baffledking - 30 July 2007 11:11 PM

THE PERFECT COLLAPSE OF WTC7 W/ FOREKNOWLEDGE (go to 3:59 to hear First Responder Indira Singh’s testimony about Firefighters’ foreknowledge of WTC7’s collapse)

It was not “perfect.”  When buildings collapse, they tend to fall DOWN, not up as you apparently believe.  And firefighters, having experience in this sort of thing, pretty much know when a building is going to collapse after burning for 7 freaking hours! 

baffledking - 30 July 2007 11:11 PM

BBC REPORTS 20 MINS EARLY ON WTC 7’s COLLAPSE

Remember when the national media reported that those West Virginia Coal Miners had been rescued alive?  Do you believe the media lied or that they made a mistake based on faulty information under highly stressful situations? 

baffledking - 30 July 2007 11:11 PM

RUMSFELD SAYS F93 “SHOT DOWN”

In 1976, Gerald Ford said Poland was not under communist control.  Ford was wrong.  Ford misspoke.  People do that.  I know you worship Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld, because you apparently think they are gods with omnipotent powers who never make mistakes.  I can assure you, they are all human.  They all make mistakes.  Some of them even misspeak.  Listen to a Bush speech sometime.  People misspeak, heck, before this post is over, I’ll bet I can find someplace where YOU misspeak!  smirk 

baffledking - 30 July 2007 11:11 PM

HIJACKERS FOUND ALIVE,

Absolute nonsense!  If they were the hijackers, how in the hell did they survive the crash and resulting inferno?!  They are dead! 

baffledking - 30 July 2007 11:11 PM

NO NAMES ON PASSENGER LIST,

Outright lie by that guy. 

baffledking - 30 July 2007 11:11 PM

NO AUTOPSIES,


Right here, right now, I demand you tell me how do you perform an autopsy on a body that has been pulverized from a nearly 500 MPH crash followed by being burned by several thousand degree fires, and then being pummeled among millions of pounds of falling debris!

baffledking - 30 July 2007 11:11 PM

FBI HAS NOT REVISED ITS LIST,

The FBI has not revised its list because they don’t need to. 

baffledking - 30 July 2007 11:11 PM

UNABLE TO FLY PLANES,

Completely untrue.  We know for a fact they took flight lessons!

baffledking - 30 July 2007 11:11 PM

IMPOSSIBLE CELL PHONE CALLS,

My cell phone worked while being 8,000 feet from a cell tower in 2001.  Your cell phone worked while being 8,000 feet away from a cell tower in 2001.  These were not impossible cell phone calls.  Perhaps you should talk to the family members who got some of those phone calls.

baffledking - 30 July 2007 11:11 PM

COCKPIT VOICE RECORDERS CAN’T RECORD CABIN,

The transcript of the CVR states the voice of a presumed passenger is heard while banging at the cockpit door!  Any CVR would clearly pick this up.  Do you freaking homework before posting this nonsense!   

baffledking - 30 July 2007 11:11 PM

FBI AGENT’s WARNING ABOUT MOUSSAOI IGNORED 70 TIMES!!

Wait a minute?!  I thought Moussaoui was as innocent as a baby?  Where are the FBI warnings that Bush is about to murder thousands of his own countrymen? 
And besides, Moussaoui has confessed to being the 20th hijacker.  He never implicated Bush in his confession. 

baffledking - 30 July 2007 11:11 PM

9/11 WARGAMES BEFORE AND DURING THE ATTACK

Wargames have been going on since before WWI.  So what?  Other nations have wargames as well.

baffledking - 30 July 2007 11:11 PM

WMD, SADDAM CONNECTION TO 9/11 DELIBERATE SHAM

So what?  How does this prove it wasn’t al-Q’aeda that did it?  Why didn’t Bush make it appear that Iraq carried out the attack?

baffledking - 30 July 2007 11:11 PM

BUSH GIVEN AFGHAN INVASION PLAN TWO DAYS BEFORE 9/11

So what?  All Presidents have contingency plans drawn up by the military for a variety of threats.  Clearly Afghanastan was a threat.  Clinton bombed it going after Osama.  Is Clinton in on this now along with Bush and the BBC? 

baffledking - 30 July 2007 11:11 PM

FAKE OSAMA CONFESSION (fake Osama is wearing jewelry, forbidden in Islam, and is right-handed, real Osama wears no jewelry and is lefthanded)

As I pointed out, this is not fake.  Perhaps the Rumsfeld tape is fake?  tongue rolleye  

baffledking - 30 July 2007 11:11 PM

FBI SAYS NO HARD EVIDENCE LINKING OSAMA TO 9/11

Untrue. 
“The FBI stated that evidence linking Al-Qaeda and bin Laden to the attacks of September 11 is clear and irrefutable.”

—Watson, Dale L., Executive Assistant Director, Counterterrorism/Counterintelligence Division, FBI (February 6, 2002). “The Terrorist Threat Confronting the United States”, Congressional Testimony before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Federal Bureau of Investigation.

baffledking - 30 July 2007 11:11 PM

not to mention the warnings of the attack prior to 911,

Yes, warnings by ISLAMIC EXTREMISTS, not by rogue GOP agents!  And besides, those warnings went back to at least 1993.  History lesson for you: Bush was not President in 1993! 

baffledking - 30 July 2007 11:11 PM

the CIA ties to al-Qaeda,

“While the charges that the CIA was responsible for the rise of the Afghan Arabs might make good copy, they don’t make good history…Former CIA official Milt Bearden, who ran the Agency’s Afghan operation in the late 1980s, says, “The CIA did not recruit Arabs,” as there was no need to do so…o the notion that the Agency funded and trained the Afghan Arabs is, at best, misleading.

“...that the CIA funded bin Laden or trained bin Laden—is simply a folk myth. There’s no evidence of this. In fact, there are very few things that bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri and the U.S. government agree on. They all agree that they didn’t have a relationship in the 1980s. And they wouldn’t have needed to. Bin Laden had his own money, he was anti-American and he was operating secretly and independently. The real story here is the CIA didn’t really have a clue about who this guy was until 1996 when they set up a unit to really start tracking him”

—CNN terrorism analyst and adjunct professor Peter Bergen

baffledking - 30 July 2007 11:11 PM

Bush family ties to Bin Ladens,

The bin Laden family had disowned Osama years ago.  Blaming bin Laden’s family for Osama’s crimes is no different than blaming all blacks just because one black man may have committed a crime.  In other words, it is bigoted.  The bin Laden family gave a million dollars to one of Jimmy Carter’s programs.  Are you now going to say Jimmy Carter was in on this as well as Bush, Clinton, the BBC, and how ever many other people and groups you claim are involved?

baffledking - 30 July 2007 11:11 PM

US ties to Iraqi chemical weapons,

I thought you said that Iraq had no WMDs?  So you are now admitting you were wrong and willing to state categorically that Saddam DID have WMDs? 

baffledking - 30 July 2007 11:11 PM

FBI meeting with Bin laden in Dubai before 911,

Assuming this is true (a BIG assumption), then it could be that the FBI was trying to negotiate his surrender for his involvement in the U.S.S. Cole bombing.  If they would have put a gun to his head and brought him back forcibly, I have no doubt you would have complained about that.

baffledking - 30 July 2007 11:11 PM

suspicious “non-Muslim” behavior of terrorists before alleged hijacking,

“ALLEGED” hijacking?!  Are you kidding me?!  Are you saying the passengers all agreed to be flown into those buildings?  How dare you?!  Ticktock is right!  You SHOULD apologize to every single family member who lost a loved one that day!
And besides, murder is decidedly non-Christian, and since Bush is a Christian, I guess you will now have to admit that Bush is free and clear of all your charges.

baffledking - 30 July 2007 11:11 PM

suspicious omissions of WTC 7 and eye-witness testimonies in 9/11 Comission,

The report was of the events that led up to that day, not the structural and metallurgic effects of how the buildings collapsed.

baffledking - 30 July 2007 11:11 PM

blatant lies by Condoleeza Rice and Cheney

All politicians lie.  Many of the youtube links you provide are outright lies.  Are you saying that Osama bin Laden has never lied?

baffledking - 30 July 2007 11:11 PM

, Bush’s impossible account of first crash on TV

For a person who attributes god-like powers to Bush, you then turn around and say it was impossible for him to see video that the rest of us eventually saw?  He was either provided a copy of the video due to his somewhat importance in him being the President of the United States, or he misspoke. 

baffledking - 30 July 2007 11:11 PM

and other historical examples of gov’t sponsered terror…etc…etc..

What about the historical examples of Islamic terrorism aimed at the United States?  Don’t you believe those?

baffledking - 30 July 2007 11:11 PM

You can poo-poo the evidence all you want and go back to watching Glen Beck on FOX

Glenn Beck is on CNN Headline News.  Why did you lie about this?  What nefarious plan do you have in mind when you lied about Glenn Beck being on FOX when he is really on CNN? 

(Do you see my point?  I’m not actually calling you a liar.  I realize you made a mistake.  But I don’t ascribe it to anything other than a simple mistake.  Rumsfeld made a mistake when he said “shot down.”) 

And besides, all the “evidence” you have provided has been irrefutably debunked.  And you have not answered the simple questions I posed above.  You have lost this debate.  Face it.  Good bye.

[ Edited: 02 August 2007 08:45 PM by Rocinante ]
 Signature 

There are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by the gradual and silent encroachment of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpation.

—James Madison

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 August 2007 10:36 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 60 ]
Jr. Member
Avatar
Rank
Total Posts:  6
Joined  2007-08-12

i am not a supporter of any conspiracy theories out there, but i think that we can all agree that the 9/11 Commission Report does have discrepancies in the explanation. also, it is factual and we can read documents that there have been previous terror attacks that the U.S. has performed in order to get a political agenda through. all i am trying to bring up is to keep and open mind and that it isn’t WAY out of the possibilities that our government would try and do something behind our back in order to get some leverage over the public.

Profile
 
 
   
4 of 5
4
 
‹‹ iS THIS still a democracy?      Madmen ››