100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: 9/11 Conspiracy Theories Get Destroyed | |
|---|---|
|
Edited by
Chazster
on
Fri 08/05/11 12:26 PM
|
|
I don't know how people could think it was a controlled demolition. Have you seen videos of those? The point that there are tons of super loud explosions before the collapse that sounds like a fireworks finale. That is for buildings much smaller than the WTC. There would be no "people thought they heard explosions" there would be people definitely heard them and they would be on the WTC videos as you can hear the sounds of the collapse so you should have heard the explosions prior to that. Not to mention demolitions implode from the bottom. The WTC started from where the plane crashed. Conspiracy theoriests can't claim its almost impossible to even hit the tower with a plane yet think they could have set explosives in advance to implode the building at the exact spots the planes hit.
Just some food for thought. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Can I ask a question here? Was there any wreckage of the plane that hit the Pentagon? This is video footage broadcast on 9-11-2001. Look closely. There are close-up shots of the rubble... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbJ2oA3KSxY&feature=related ...and that looks like a piece of turbine sitting among the concrete. Why would a missile or bomb have something like that? This is live broadcast video of from 9-11-2001. Bombs and missiles typically do not create such thick heavy smoke. Petroleum products do. It even shows a side-by-side view of the Pentagon and the Twin Towers. Both have the thick, heavy, black smoke. Most building fires I have seen do not create smoke like this. I once watched a furniture store burn, and it was the only building I saw in person to have such smoke in such a confined space. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOflyabs0_w&feature=related Another live broadcast video footage of the second plane hitting the WTC (including all commercials, and beginning at 8:30 am). Near the end of the clip, you can see the jet engines hanging underneath the wings as the plane approaches the towers. Unlike some Truther claims, there is no third underhang under the fuselage. And it definitely is not a missile or a smaller aircraft, and it was caught on live TV from helicopter and building cameras. http://www.archive.org/details/cbs200109110831-0912 Will any of this convince you? Probably not. I've already read a number of Truther claims, and watched a number of their videos. Quiet honestly, they never give references or qualifications for their information. It is all unsubstantiated theory, testimony for non-verifiable experts, and a bunch of altered videos. How is anyone supposed to believe these people when they refuse to give people a means to verify their credibility? You know, people made similar claims about FDR and Pearl Harbor. No matter what, the Japanese made their own decision regardless of anything FDR might do. Even if he suspected what might happen, FDR had pushed for a larger Navy for 20 years before becoming President. The reason was simple: any war brought to the U.S. would require a large scale naval effort. And look what happened? Even the Japanese Admiral Yamamoto suspected the Japanese has made a big mistake. Pearl Harbor spurred one of the largest expansions of the Navy in U.S. history, with an increasing focus on aircraft carriers. If not for that naval expansion, the war in the Pacific would have been forfeit, and a good chance the west coast would belong to Japan. If the U.S. Navy had been built up prior to Pearl Harbor, then Japan might never have attacked, preferring to let the U.S. sit out the war. Same thing with terrorism. We've needed to precautions against it for 20 years prior to 9/11. We never did. It became a wake-up call that spurred change. Not all of it is ideal. Some of it needs to be undone, in fact. But after all the hijackings, and the bombings at the Olympics, Oklahoma City, and WTC, we did exactly jacksh@t to improve our internal security against terrorism. The reason? The population always became indignant about invasion of privacy, no matter how small or necessary. A big shake up was needed, one that stirred the will of the masses. As much as it that was necessary, it does not mean that anyone in our government held all the cards and played all the hands. problem reaction solution What's the cover up? The government dropped the ball at numerous levels. Maybe on some levels, it was secretly intentional to gain leeway to improve internal security. Not on all levels. And 9/11 was certainly not masterminded by our own government just to achieve this end or any other. Everyone was calling for the heads of those responsible. The government couldn't sit idle. They knew it would take a long time to get Bin Laden. The population needed something to distract them, to buy the necessary time to get Bin Laden....and so it was proposed to take down Saddam Hussein, as should have been done 10 years earlier. Invading Iraq had a number of advantages: a regional base for operations, oil supply, a presence might cow Iran a bit, it would eliminate a dictator from power....one known to have used chemical weapons in the past, etc. So, going into Iraq had no legitimate reason, but it was a very attractive option in the war on terror - primarily because it took the focus of the hunt for Bin Laden. The cover up is that after the first WTC bombing, they lacked enough evidence to pursue anti-terrorist measures. The government needed more so they could be given a mandate to improve internal security. That evidence might then sway public opinion, especially if the same people were involved. So, it became a waiting game....waiting for the next strike. They never expected the form it would take. It was too incredulous. No one had done it before. Any relevant information had to be something meant to throw them off. But eventually, 9/11 led to a secondary cover up because the government did not want to admit they lacked legitimate reasons for going into Iraq....but it was a necessary evil in order to bring justice for the 9/11 attacks. The government had little choice: Americans were howling for Bin Laden's head on a spike. wheres the plane ????? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjCx-B6xjSY&feature=fvwrel |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_B7vmGVUAI
Great video shot on the ground near firefighters. Pause it at 11 seconds. How can debris be closer to the ground than the actual collapse if the building is falling at free fall? It can't. No explosives heard prior to the collapse. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Can I ask a question here? Was there any wreckage of the plane that hit the Pentagon? This is video footage broadcast on 9-11-2001. Look closely. There are close-up shots of the rubble... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbJ2oA3KSxY&feature=related ...and that looks like a piece of turbine sitting among the concrete. Why would a missile or bomb have something like that? This is live broadcast video of from 9-11-2001. Bombs and missiles typically do not create such thick heavy smoke. Petroleum products do. It even shows a side-by-side view of the Pentagon and the Twin Towers. Both have the thick, heavy, black smoke. Most building fires I have seen do not create smoke like this. I once watched a furniture store burn, and it was the only building I saw in person to have such smoke in such a confined space. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOflyabs0_w&feature=related Another live broadcast video footage of the second plane hitting the WTC (including all commercials, and beginning at 8:30 am). Near the end of the clip, you can see the jet engines hanging underneath the wings as the plane approaches the towers. Unlike some Truther claims, there is no third underhang under the fuselage. And it definitely is not a missile or a smaller aircraft, and it was caught on live TV from helicopter and building cameras. http://www.archive.org/details/cbs200109110831-0912 Will any of this convince you? Probably not. I've already read a number of Truther claims, and watched a number of their videos. Quiet honestly, they never give references or qualifications for their information. It is all unsubstantiated theory, testimony for non-verifiable experts, and a bunch of altered videos. How is anyone supposed to believe these people when they refuse to give people a means to verify their credibility? You know, people made similar claims about FDR and Pearl Harbor. No matter what, the Japanese made their own decision regardless of anything FDR might do. Even if he suspected what might happen, FDR had pushed for a larger Navy for 20 years before becoming President. The reason was simple: any war brought to the U.S. would require a large scale naval effort. And look what happened? Even the Japanese Admiral Yamamoto suspected the Japanese has made a big mistake. Pearl Harbor spurred one of the largest expansions of the Navy in U.S. history, with an increasing focus on aircraft carriers. If not for that naval expansion, the war in the Pacific would have been forfeit, and a good chance the west coast would belong to Japan. If the U.S. Navy had been built up prior to Pearl Harbor, then Japan might never have attacked, preferring to let the U.S. sit out the war. Same thing with terrorism. We've needed to precautions against it for 20 years prior to 9/11. We never did. It became a wake-up call that spurred change. Not all of it is ideal. Some of it needs to be undone, in fact. But after all the hijackings, and the bombings at the Olympics, Oklahoma City, and WTC, we did exactly jacksh@t to improve our internal security against terrorism. The reason? The population always became indignant about invasion of privacy, no matter how small or necessary. A big shake up was needed, one that stirred the will of the masses. As much as it that was necessary, it does not mean that anyone in our government held all the cards and played all the hands. problem reaction solution What's the cover up? The government dropped the ball at numerous levels. Maybe on some levels, it was secretly intentional to gain leeway to improve internal security. Not on all levels. And 9/11 was certainly not masterminded by our own government just to achieve this end or any other. Everyone was calling for the heads of those responsible. The government couldn't sit idle. They knew it would take a long time to get Bin Laden. The population needed something to distract them, to buy the necessary time to get Bin Laden....and so it was proposed to take down Saddam Hussein, as should have been done 10 years earlier. Invading Iraq had a number of advantages: a regional base for operations, oil supply, a presence might cow Iran a bit, it would eliminate a dictator from power....one known to have used chemical weapons in the past, etc. So, going into Iraq had no legitimate reason, but it was a very attractive option in the war on terror - primarily because it took the focus of the hunt for Bin Laden. The cover up is that after the first WTC bombing, they lacked enough evidence to pursue anti-terrorist measures. The government needed more so they could be given a mandate to improve internal security. That evidence might then sway public opinion, especially if the same people were involved. So, it became a waiting game....waiting for the next strike. They never expected the form it would take. It was too incredulous. No one had done it before. Any relevant information had to be something meant to throw them off. But eventually, 9/11 led to a secondary cover up because the government did not want to admit they lacked legitimate reasons for going into Iraq....but it was a necessary evil in order to bring justice for the 9/11 attacks. The government had little choice: Americans were howling for Bin Laden's head on a spike. wheres the plane ????? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjCx-B6xjSY&feature=fvwrel http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxa5dLSIWrM starting around minute 5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't know how people could think it was a controlled demolition. Have you seen videos of those? The point that there are tons of super loud explosions before the collapse that sounds like a fireworks finale. That is for buildings much smaller than the WTC. There would be no "people thought they heard explosions" there would be people definitely heard them and they would be on the WTC videos as you can hear the sounds of the collapse so you should have heard the explosions prior to that. Not to mention demolitions implode from the bottom. The WTC started from where the plane crashed. Conspiracy theoriests can't claim its almost impossible to even hit the tower with a plane yet think they could have set explosives in advance to implode the building at the exact spots the planes hit. Just some food for thought. i guess you never heard of smart bombs they were outfitting planes as missiles before they had missiles The Tomahawk missile provides a long-range, highly survivable, unmanned land attack weapon system capable of pinpoint accuracy. http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/bgm-109.htm http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19XXTArAGaM http://www.howstuffworks.com/cruise-missile.htm |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't know how people could think it was a controlled demolition. Have you seen videos of those? The point that there are tons of super loud explosions before the collapse that sounds like a fireworks finale. That is for buildings much smaller than the WTC. There would be no "people thought they heard explosions" there would be people definitely heard them and they would be on the WTC videos as you can hear the sounds of the collapse so you should have heard the explosions prior to that. Not to mention demolitions implode from the bottom. The WTC started from where the plane crashed. Conspiracy theoriests can't claim its almost impossible to even hit the tower with a plane yet think they could have set explosives in advance to implode the building at the exact spots the planes hit. Just some food for thought. i guess you never heard of smart bombs they were outfitting planes as missiles before they had missiles The Tomahawk missile provides a long-range, highly survivable, unmanned land attack weapon system capable of pinpoint accuracy. http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/bgm-109.htm http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19XXTArAGaM http://www.howstuffworks.com/cruise-missile.htm That has nothing to do with controlled demolition. Not to mention we have seen footage of the planes hitting the towers. As did tons of people in NY that were there. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Can I ask a question here? Was there any wreckage of the plane that hit the Pentagon? This is video footage broadcast on 9-11-2001. Look closely. There are close-up shots of the rubble... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbJ2oA3KSxY&feature=related ...and that looks like a piece of turbine sitting among the concrete. Why would a missile or bomb have something like that? This is live broadcast video of from 9-11-2001. Bombs and missiles typically do not create such thick heavy smoke. Petroleum products do. It even shows a side-by-side view of the Pentagon and the Twin Towers. Both have the thick, heavy, black smoke. Most building fires I have seen do not create smoke like this. I once watched a furniture store burn, and it was the only building I saw in person to have such smoke in such a confined space. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOflyabs0_w&feature=related Another live broadcast video footage of the second plane hitting the WTC (including all commercials, and beginning at 8:30 am). Near the end of the clip, you can see the jet engines hanging underneath the wings as the plane approaches the towers. Unlike some Truther claims, there is no third underhang under the fuselage. And it definitely is not a missile or a smaller aircraft, and it was caught on live TV from helicopter and building cameras. http://www.archive.org/details/cbs200109110831-0912 Will any of this convince you? Probably not. I've already read a number of Truther claims, and watched a number of their videos. Quiet honestly, they never give references or qualifications for their information. It is all unsubstantiated theory, testimony for non-verifiable experts, and a bunch of altered videos. How is anyone supposed to believe these people when they refuse to give people a means to verify their credibility? You know, people made similar claims about FDR and Pearl Harbor. No matter what, the Japanese made their own decision regardless of anything FDR might do. Even if he suspected what might happen, FDR had pushed for a larger Navy for 20 years before becoming President. The reason was simple: any war brought to the U.S. would require a large scale naval effort. And look what happened? Even the Japanese Admiral Yamamoto suspected the Japanese has made a big mistake. Pearl Harbor spurred one of the largest expansions of the Navy in U.S. history, with an increasing focus on aircraft carriers. If not for that naval expansion, the war in the Pacific would have been forfeit, and a good chance the west coast would belong to Japan. If the U.S. Navy had been built up prior to Pearl Harbor, then Japan might never have attacked, preferring to let the U.S. sit out the war. Same thing with terrorism. We've needed to precautions against it for 20 years prior to 9/11. We never did. It became a wake-up call that spurred change. Not all of it is ideal. Some of it needs to be undone, in fact. But after all the hijackings, and the bombings at the Olympics, Oklahoma City, and WTC, we did exactly jacksh@t to improve our internal security against terrorism. The reason? The population always became indignant about invasion of privacy, no matter how small or necessary. A big shake up was needed, one that stirred the will of the masses. As much as it that was necessary, it does not mean that anyone in our government held all the cards and played all the hands. problem reaction solution What's the cover up? The government dropped the ball at numerous levels. Maybe on some levels, it was secretly intentional to gain leeway to improve internal security. Not on all levels. And 9/11 was certainly not masterminded by our own government just to achieve this end or any other. Everyone was calling for the heads of those responsible. The government couldn't sit idle. They knew it would take a long time to get Bin Laden. The population needed something to distract them, to buy the necessary time to get Bin Laden....and so it was proposed to take down Saddam Hussein, as should have been done 10 years earlier. Invading Iraq had a number of advantages: a regional base for operations, oil supply, a presence might cow Iran a bit, it would eliminate a dictator from power....one known to have used chemical weapons in the past, etc. So, going into Iraq had no legitimate reason, but it was a very attractive option in the war on terror - primarily because it took the focus of the hunt for Bin Laden. The cover up is that after the first WTC bombing, they lacked enough evidence to pursue anti-terrorist measures. The government needed more so they could be given a mandate to improve internal security. That evidence might then sway public opinion, especially if the same people were involved. So, it became a waiting game....waiting for the next strike. They never expected the form it would take. It was too incredulous. No one had done it before. Any relevant information had to be something meant to throw them off. But eventually, 9/11 led to a secondary cover up because the government did not want to admit they lacked legitimate reasons for going into Iraq....but it was a necessary evil in order to bring justice for the 9/11 attacks. The government had little choice: Americans were howling for Bin Laden's head on a spike. wheres the plane ????? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjCx-B6xjSY&feature=fvwrel http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxa5dLSIWrM starting around minute 5 i didnt see the plane i didnt see the plane i didnt see the plane i didnt see the plane i just saw an explosion where are the other cameras please donate money to the pentagon for national security purposes they only can afford 1 old obsolete camera no wonder the terrorists are winning lol |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Can I ask a question here? Was there any wreckage of the plane that hit the Pentagon? This is video footage broadcast on 9-11-2001. Look closely. There are close-up shots of the rubble... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbJ2oA3KSxY&feature=related ...and that looks like a piece of turbine sitting among the concrete. Why would a missile or bomb have something like that? This is live broadcast video of from 9-11-2001. Bombs and missiles typically do not create such thick heavy smoke. Petroleum products do. It even shows a side-by-side view of the Pentagon and the Twin Towers. Both have the thick, heavy, black smoke. Most building fires I have seen do not create smoke like this. I once watched a furniture store burn, and it was the only building I saw in person to have such smoke in such a confined space. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOflyabs0_w&feature=related Another live broadcast video footage of the second plane hitting the WTC (including all commercials, and beginning at 8:30 am). Near the end of the clip, you can see the jet engines hanging underneath the wings as the plane approaches the towers. Unlike some Truther claims, there is no third underhang under the fuselage. And it definitely is not a missile or a smaller aircraft, and it was caught on live TV from helicopter and building cameras. http://www.archive.org/details/cbs200109110831-0912 Will any of this convince you? Probably not. I've already read a number of Truther claims, and watched a number of their videos. Quiet honestly, they never give references or qualifications for their information. It is all unsubstantiated theory, testimony for non-verifiable experts, and a bunch of altered videos. How is anyone supposed to believe these people when they refuse to give people a means to verify their credibility? You know, people made similar claims about FDR and Pearl Harbor. No matter what, the Japanese made their own decision regardless of anything FDR might do. Even if he suspected what might happen, FDR had pushed for a larger Navy for 20 years before becoming President. The reason was simple: any war brought to the U.S. would require a large scale naval effort. And look what happened? Even the Japanese Admiral Yamamoto suspected the Japanese has made a big mistake. Pearl Harbor spurred one of the largest expansions of the Navy in U.S. history, with an increasing focus on aircraft carriers. If not for that naval expansion, the war in the Pacific would have been forfeit, and a good chance the west coast would belong to Japan. If the U.S. Navy had been built up prior to Pearl Harbor, then Japan might never have attacked, preferring to let the U.S. sit out the war. Same thing with terrorism. We've needed to precautions against it for 20 years prior to 9/11. We never did. It became a wake-up call that spurred change. Not all of it is ideal. Some of it needs to be undone, in fact. But after all the hijackings, and the bombings at the Olympics, Oklahoma City, and WTC, we did exactly jacksh@t to improve our internal security against terrorism. The reason? The population always became indignant about invasion of privacy, no matter how small or necessary. A big shake up was needed, one that stirred the will of the masses. As much as it that was necessary, it does not mean that anyone in our government held all the cards and played all the hands. problem reaction solution What's the cover up? The government dropped the ball at numerous levels. Maybe on some levels, it was secretly intentional to gain leeway to improve internal security. Not on all levels. And 9/11 was certainly not masterminded by our own government just to achieve this end or any other. Everyone was calling for the heads of those responsible. The government couldn't sit idle. They knew it would take a long time to get Bin Laden. The population needed something to distract them, to buy the necessary time to get Bin Laden....and so it was proposed to take down Saddam Hussein, as should have been done 10 years earlier. Invading Iraq had a number of advantages: a regional base for operations, oil supply, a presence might cow Iran a bit, it would eliminate a dictator from power....one known to have used chemical weapons in the past, etc. So, going into Iraq had no legitimate reason, but it was a very attractive option in the war on terror - primarily because it took the focus of the hunt for Bin Laden. The cover up is that after the first WTC bombing, they lacked enough evidence to pursue anti-terrorist measures. The government needed more so they could be given a mandate to improve internal security. That evidence might then sway public opinion, especially if the same people were involved. So, it became a waiting game....waiting for the next strike. They never expected the form it would take. It was too incredulous. No one had done it before. Any relevant information had to be something meant to throw them off. But eventually, 9/11 led to a secondary cover up because the government did not want to admit they lacked legitimate reasons for going into Iraq....but it was a necessary evil in order to bring justice for the 9/11 attacks. The government had little choice: Americans were howling for Bin Laden's head on a spike. wheres the plane ????? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjCx-B6xjSY&feature=fvwrel http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxa5dLSIWrM starting around minute 5 the reporter even says it looks like a bomb went off not a plane. he says it looks like the oklahoma city bombing |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't know how people could think it was a controlled demolition. Have you seen videos of those? The point that there are tons of super loud explosions before the collapse that sounds like a fireworks finale. That is for buildings much smaller than the WTC. There would be no "people thought they heard explosions" there would be people definitely heard them and they would be on the WTC videos as you can hear the sounds of the collapse so you should have heard the explosions prior to that. Not to mention demolitions implode from the bottom. The WTC started from where the plane crashed. Conspiracy theoriests can't claim its almost impossible to even hit the tower with a plane yet think they could have set explosives in advance to implode the building at the exact spots the planes hit. Just some food for thought. i guess you never heard of smart bombs they were outfitting planes as missiles before they had missiles The Tomahawk missile provides a long-range, highly survivable, unmanned land attack weapon system capable of pinpoint accuracy. http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/bgm-109.htm http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19XXTArAGaM http://www.howstuffworks.com/cruise-missile.htm That has nothing to do with controlled demolition. Not to mention we have seen footage of the planes hitting the towers. As did tons of people in NY that were there. i never said it was a missile that hit the towers.i said they could of use missile guidance systems on the planes.those towers were hit perfectly wingtip to wingtip. they found thermite dust. why would our goverment send a crime seen to china?where did all the steel go?shouldnt that been kept for evidece. they say they didnt release the footage because it was evidence.where are the towers now? |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Fri 08/05/11 01:07 PM
|
|
Larry Silverstein. Follow the money. 500 million. i don't know what this means, i'll just leave it alone... Mossad agents laughing and dancing not suspicious enough for you? Them saying they were there to document the event not suspicious enough for you? not everything they post on the jewish hate sites is true, i have never heard of these dancing mossad people... All buildings owned by Silverstein not enough to cause suspicion? muslims hate jews? they have targeting the WTC for years before this Witnesses said they heard explosions not suspicious enough for you? All these 'investigators' and no one, not one person found anything to be suspicious about? this has been explained 2 or three times on the topic alone, and out of thousands of clean up workers NOT ONE found any type of bomb making materials? no wires, no chemicals, no pieces of a bomb, nothing. go figure, huh... How incompetent is that? Larry Silverstein caught on tape ordering to pull building #7 not PROOF ENOUGH FOR YOU? Again, this has been answered 4 time on here, you just don't comprehend the answer... I have heard Larry Silverstein's extremely lame lie. Too little too late, and not believable. I "comprehend" the answer, I just don't believe it.  If you haven't heard about the dancing Israeli's who were filming the event and celebrating that turned out to be Israeli Mosssad-- then you have not done your own investigating. It is a matter of record. Something the debunkers and you ignore. I don't know what "jewish hate sites" you are referring to. Just type in 5 dancing Israeli's on google and see what you will find. They were arrested and detained for nine weeks then let go. They were dressed like Arabs. But they were Israeli's. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2817159467101904541 A Mossad surveillance team made quite a public spectacle of themselves on 9-11. The New York Times reported Thursday that a group of five men had set up video cameras aimed at the Twin Towers prior to the attack on Tuesday, and were seen congratulating one another afterwards. (1) Police received several calls from angry New Jersey residents claiming "middle-eastern" men with a white van were videotaping the disaster with shouts of joy and mockery. (2) "They were like happy, you know … They didn't look shocked to me" said a witness. (3) [T]hey were seen by New Jersey residents on Sept. 11 making fun of the World Trade Center ruins and going to extreme lengths to photograph themselves in front of the wreckage. (4) Witnesses saw them jumping for joy in Liberty State Park after the initial impact (5). Later on, other witnesses saw them celebrating on a roof in Weehawken, and still more witnesses later saw them celebrating with high fives in a Jersey City parking lot. (6) "It looked like they're hooked in with this. It looked like they knew what was going to happen when they were at Liberty State Park." (7) One anonymous phone call to the authorities actually led them to close down all of New York's bridges and tunnels. The mystery caller told the 9-1-1 dispatcher that a group of Palestinians were mixing a bomb inside of a white van headed for the Holland Tunnel. Here's the transcript from NBC News: Dispatcher: Jersey City police. Caller: Yes, we have a white van, 2 or 3 guys in there, they look like Palestinians and going around a building. Caller: There's a minivan heading toward the Holland tunnel, I see the guy by Newark Airport mixing some junk and he has those sheikh uniform. Dispatcher: He has what? Caller: He's dressed like an Arab. (8) According to ABC’s 20/20, when the van belonging to the cheering Israelis was stopped by the police, the driver of the van, Sivan Kurzberg, told the officers: "We are Israelis. We are not your problem. Your problems are our problems. The Palestinians are your problem." (10) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Larry Silverstein. Follow the money. 500 million. i don't know what this means, i'll just leave it alone... Mossad agents laughing and dancing not suspicious enough for you? Them saying they were there to document the event not suspicious enough for you? not everything they post on the jewish hate sites is true, i have never heard of these dancing mossad people... All buildings owned by Silverstein not enough to cause suspicion? muslims hate jews? they have targeting the WTC for years before this Witnesses said they heard explosions not suspicious enough for you? All these 'investigators' and no one, not one person found anything to be suspicious about? this has been explained 2 or three times on the topic alone, and out of thousands of clean up workers NOT ONE found any type of bomb making materials? no wires, no chemicals, no pieces of a bomb, nothing. go figure, huh... How incompetent is that? Larry Silverstein caught on tape ordering to pull building #7 not PROOF ENOUGH FOR YOU? Again, this has been answered 4 time on here, you just don't comprehend the answer... I have heard Larry Silverstein's extremely lame lie. Too little too late, and not believable. I "comprehend" the answer, I just don't believe it. If you haven't heard about the dancing Israeli's who were filming the event and celebrating that turned out to be Israeli Mosssad-- then you have not done your own investigating. It is a matter of record. Something the debunkers and you ignore. I don't know what "jewish hate sites" you are referring to. Just type in 5 dancing Israeli's on google and see what you will find. They were arrested and detained for nine weeks then let go. They were dressed like Arabs. But they were Israeli's. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2817159467101904541 A Mossad surveillance team made quite a public spectacle of themselves on 9-11. The New York Times reported Thursday that a group of five men had set up video cameras aimed at the Twin Towers prior to the attack on Tuesday, and were seen congratulating one another afterwards. (1) Police received several calls from angry New Jersey residents claiming "middle-eastern" men with a white van were videotaping the disaster with shouts of joy and mockery. (2) "They were like happy, you know … They didn't look shocked to me" said a witness. (3) [T]hey were seen by New Jersey residents on Sept. 11 making fun of the World Trade Center ruins and going to extreme lengths to photograph themselves in front of the wreckage. (4) Witnesses saw them jumping for joy in Liberty State Park after the initial impact (5). Later on, other witnesses saw them celebrating on a roof in Weehawken, and still more witnesses later saw them celebrating with high fives in a Jersey City parking lot. (6) "It looked like they're hooked in with this. It looked like they knew what was going to happen when they were at Liberty State Park." (7) One anonymous phone call to the authorities actually led them to close down all of New York's bridges and tunnels. The mystery caller told the 9-1-1 dispatcher that a group of Palestinians were mixing a bomb inside of a white van headed for the Holland Tunnel. Here's the transcript from NBC News: Dispatcher: Jersey City police. Caller: Yes, we have a white van, 2 or 3 guys in there, they look like Palestinians and going around a building. Caller: There's a minivan heading toward the Holland tunnel, I see the guy by Newark Airport mixing some junk and he has those sheikh uniform. Dispatcher: He has what? Caller: He's dressed like an Arab. (8) According to ABC’s 20/20, when the van belonging to the cheering Israelis was stopped by the police, the driver of the van, Sivan Kurzberg, told the officers: "We are Israelis. We are not your problem. Your problems are our problems. The Palestinians are your problem." (10) it's what they call hearsay evidence, something that someone else said... a video on youtube hardly proves they are Israeli... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think there is sufficient evidence to prove that an internet troll is present. "In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[3] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion." Seldom is there a more emotion invoking topic than 9/11. An endless supply of undocumented and unverifiable obnoxious claims with science, fact, or reason having no mitigating effect would indicate that the poster is not trying to make legitimate points. He/she is just looking for a venue to insult others. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well apparently everyone likes to take the credit for 9-111. The alleged mastermind of the 9/11 attacks has admitted his role in them, and 30 other plots in a hearing at Guantanamo Bay, the Pentagon says. "I was responsible for the 9/11 operation, from A to Z," said Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in a partial transcript from a closed-door hearing. He also claims he was tortured at Guantanamo Bay. I don't know... It think these guys are just soldiers. I think they take orders from someone higher than Osama Bin Laden. Al-Qaida was responsible. Everyone associated with the 911 attacks was from Al-Qaida. Osama Bin Laden was the leader of Al-Qaida. There was no one in the organization higher than Bin Laden and Bin Laden did not take orders from anyone else apparently. Okay let's assume that is true. Let's assume that there was no one at all working on the inside of our government. Let's assume these terrorists did this all completely on their own. This means that what they said in that video about us being "stupid" and about the attack with planes being "so easy" is true. How incompetent are we that we did not heed the many warnings that just this kind of attack was going to happen. Then we just sit there for a whole hour between the first attack and the last plane and still we have not done anything to prevent this attack from continuing. What else was going on that we were so pre-occupied that we let this happen? Was there really an attempt at an assassination and coup? If so who was behind the coup? Who would have taken over the country if Bush had been killed in that attempt? Or are we as stupid and unprotected as Al-Qaeda said? I don't think anyone has ever said we didn't srop the ball. We had intelligence at the end of Clinton's Presidency from the Mossad that a large scale attack by AQ was going to happen possibly a hijacking and we were even given the name of a couple potential attackers. Not to mention the military should have had aircraft in the air at the first hint of a hijacking and the orders should have been shoot the plane down if it doesn't comply and that order wasn't given until 2 of the planes hit the towers. Very interesting that Mossad Knew so much about it. The dancing Israei's who were filming the event to document it were Mossad also. They were celebrating. They were questioned and released. How did they know it was going to happen that day at that time? Why were they celebrating? These questions, have they been answered to your satisfaction? I read somewhere that the fighters took too long to get there because they had been diverted somewhere over Canada on a training mission. No they wen't up from an Air Guard base in New York. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Can I ask a question here? Was there any wreckage of the plane that hit the Pentagon? This is video footage broadcast on 9-11-2001. Look closely. There are close-up shots of the rubble... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbJ2oA3KSxY&feature=related ...and that looks like a piece of turbine sitting among the concrete. Why would a missile or bomb have something like that? This is live broadcast video of from 9-11-2001. Bombs and missiles typically do not create such thick heavy smoke. Petroleum products do. It even shows a side-by-side view of the Pentagon and the Twin Towers. Both have the thick, heavy, black smoke. Most building fires I have seen do not create smoke like this. I once watched a furniture store burn, and it was the only building I saw in person to have such smoke in such a confined space. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOflyabs0_w&feature=related Another live broadcast video footage of the second plane hitting the WTC (including all commercials, and beginning at 8:30 am). Near the end of the clip, you can see the jet engines hanging underneath the wings as the plane approaches the towers. Unlike some Truther claims, there is no third underhang under the fuselage. And it definitely is not a missile or a smaller aircraft, and it was caught on live TV from helicopter and building cameras. http://www.archive.org/details/cbs200109110831-0912 Will any of this convince you? Probably not. I've already read a number of Truther claims, and watched a number of their videos. Quiet honestly, they never give references or qualifications for their information. It is all unsubstantiated theory, testimony for non-verifiable experts, and a bunch of altered videos. How is anyone supposed to believe these people when they refuse to give people a means to verify their credibility? You know, people made similar claims about FDR and Pearl Harbor. No matter what, the Japanese made their own decision regardless of anything FDR might do. Even if he suspected what might happen, FDR had pushed for a larger Navy for 20 years before becoming President. The reason was simple: any war brought to the U.S. would require a large scale naval effort. And look what happened? Even the Japanese Admiral Yamamoto suspected the Japanese has made a big mistake. Pearl Harbor spurred one of the largest expansions of the Navy in U.S. history, with an increasing focus on aircraft carriers. If not for that naval expansion, the war in the Pacific would have been forfeit, and a good chance the west coast would belong to Japan. If the U.S. Navy had been built up prior to Pearl Harbor, then Japan might never have attacked, preferring to let the U.S. sit out the war. Same thing with terrorism. We've needed to precautions against it for 20 years prior to 9/11. We never did. It became a wake-up call that spurred change. Not all of it is ideal. Some of it needs to be undone, in fact. But after all the hijackings, and the bombings at the Olympics, Oklahoma City, and WTC, we did exactly jacksh@t to improve our internal security against terrorism. The reason? The population always became indignant about invasion of privacy, no matter how small or necessary. A big shake up was needed, one that stirred the will of the masses. As much as it that was necessary, it does not mean that anyone in our government held all the cards and played all the hands. problem reaction solution What's the cover up? The government dropped the ball at numerous levels. Maybe on some levels, it was secretly intentional to gain leeway to improve internal security. Not on all levels. And 9/11 was certainly not masterminded by our own government just to achieve this end or any other. Everyone was calling for the heads of those responsible. The government couldn't sit idle. They knew it would take a long time to get Bin Laden. The population needed something to distract them, to buy the necessary time to get Bin Laden....and so it was proposed to take down Saddam Hussein, as should have been done 10 years earlier. Invading Iraq had a number of advantages: a regional base for operations, oil supply, a presence might cow Iran a bit, it would eliminate a dictator from power....one known to have used chemical weapons in the past, etc. So, going into Iraq had no legitimate reason, but it was a very attractive option in the war on terror - primarily because it took the focus of the hunt for Bin Laden. The cover up is that after the first WTC bombing, they lacked enough evidence to pursue anti-terrorist measures. The government needed more so they could be given a mandate to improve internal security. That evidence might then sway public opinion, especially if the same people were involved. So, it became a waiting game....waiting for the next strike. They never expected the form it would take. It was too incredulous. No one had done it before. Any relevant information had to be something meant to throw them off. But eventually, 9/11 led to a secondary cover up because the government did not want to admit they lacked legitimate reasons for going into Iraq....but it was a necessary evil in order to bring justice for the 9/11 attacks. The government had little choice: Americans were howling for Bin Laden's head on a spike. wheres the plane ????? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjCx-B6xjSY&feature=fvwrel http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxa5dLSIWrM starting around minute 5 i didnt see the plane i didnt see the plane i didnt see the plane i didnt see the plane i just saw an explosion where are the other cameras please donate money to the pentagon for national security purposes they only can afford 1 old obsolete camera no wonder the terrorists are winning lol It explains why there is no plane shot but it says there were over 100 witnesses. They even found the black box of the plane wow. Where is a picture of a missile if that is your only defense. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Of course it was a terrorist attack. I don't think anyone will argue that. And of course there was a conspiracy. We had advanced warning that such a thing might happen. They had been planning it for years. But the extent of exactly who was behind it, has not been made clear. Bin Laden and his cronies had been dreaming about such a thing for a long time, praying about it, praising God. Mossad had advanced knowledge of it to the extent that they had a film crew there to record the event.... Very strange. No they didn't. That was debunked years ago. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Fri 08/05/11 01:33 PM
|
|
They were arrested and held for 9 weeks Mightymoe. This is public record. Just admit you are wrong.
Nine weeks. They said that they were recording the event to document it.!!! This means that the Mossad knew about it in advance. They did warn us it would happen. They knew the date and time even. Why didn't they tell us the date and time?? Or did they? The first plane was filmed coming in and hitting the tower from the top of a building. You could watch its long approach across the sky. They had to know it was going to happen. Have you seen THAT VIDEO? Now if we have been warned... and were still not prepared for this, how stupid does that make us look? We ignored the warnings. But why were they celebrating??? Because this would be good for Israel. This would make them the victims again. They love that. They will now get more support and protection from America. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And who investigated 9-11? FEMA That's the same people who gathered up people in New Orleans and then took them to a stadium and then would not let them leave, would not bring them food or water and would not let relief vehicles come into the city with food and water. People died in that stadium. Fema is the same people who purposely knocked out communication towers in New Orleans so that police and fire workers could not communicate. After the towers were fixed, local law enforcement workers had to guard the communication tower with guns to keep FEMA from doing it again. This was on the Internet and on the news! FEMA-- The group who went around in New Orleans confiscating guns from law abiding citizen who needed them to protect their property. THAT'S WHO INVESTIGATED 9-11 and kept everyone else out. That is who you trust? Good luck with that. FEMA -- nearby counties in the disaster torn area around New Orleans put up guards with guns to KEEP FEMA OUT OF THEIR COUNTY after hearing what they were doing. Was FEMA there to help? Or were they there to enforce some kind of martial law? If they were helping, why did the local law have to guard their communication towers, and why did they nearby counties put up guards to keep them out? Sure, trust FEMA if you want. I don't. Wow, the 9/11 Committee was working for FEMA? I don't think so. The Senate and Congress hearing held on 9/11 were all ran by FEMA I dont think so. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is possible that you are mistaken. There is no evidence of a conspiracy at all but there is overwhelming evidence that it was an Al-Qaida terrorist attack. Without factual evidence the conspiracy theories are nothing more than a fantasy.  so all you people that think that bin laden was a mastermind.you are saying that our nsa,fbi,cia and government are a bunch of bumbling idiots and that one man or a handful of men can mastermind and fool them all. why do you waste yor time voting? or being part of anything? your basically saying that everybody at the nsa,fbi,cia are made up of idiots. why do we waste our time building stealth fighter/bombers if we can be taken out handful of men obviously far smarter than anybody we have working for our government. your saying that the terrorists are smarter than our nsa,fbi,cia all put together. wow!!!!!!!!!! instead of posting here you should be in the top special forces and in your free time you could be competing in the special olympics maybe get you junior spy kit out and im sure it should come with a magnifying glass and see if you can find the owl on the front of every dollar bill. its a clue and i think it was hidden there by the terrorists People can and will make mistakes, no matter who they are. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) was the entity that oversaw the investigations of the World Trade Center collapses and the Pentagon crash. FEMA was given the sole authority to investigate the incidents despite the fact that it is not an investigative agency. In effect, it functioned to prevent any genuine investigation.
For both the Pentagon and WTC crime scenes FEMA selected a volunteer panel of investigators from the American Society of Civil Engineers to create reports that bolstered the government's account of the attack. In both cases FEMA controlled the scope and parameters of the investigations. The farcical nature of the World Trade Center investigation is documented in the Congressional Record. A hearing on March 6, 2002, not long before the publication of FEMA's World Trade Center Building Performance Study attempted to explain why the investigation had been "hampered": http://911review.com/coverup/fema.html |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Lpdon
on
Fri 08/05/11 01:41 PM
|
|
That's bull crap. Everyone wants to think they were involved in investigating in an official capacity, but that is simply not true. Some of those you listed are not official investigators. In fact most of them are not. Who was really in charge? they had a role in some way, no matter how small... out of all those companies, all those people looking at figures, facts, information, comparisons, evidence and estimates N E V E R found any credible evidence of a plot? Larry Silverstein. Follow the money. 500 million. Mossad agents laughing and dancing not suspicious enough for you? Them saying they were there to document the event not suspicious enough for you? All buildings owned by Silverstein not enough to cause suspicion? Witnesses said they heard explosions not suspicious enough for you? All these 'investigators' and no one, not one person found anything to be suspicious about? How incompetent is that? Larry Silverstein caught on tape ordering to pull building #7 not PROOF ENOUGH FOR YOU? Those were NOT Mossad Agents. Mossad Agents NEVER let themselves get photographed or videotaped under ANY curcumstance. Not only to you get kicked out of the Mossad but it will also get you killed. |
|
|
|
|
