Community > Politics, Current News & Events

Previous 1 2 … 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 … 37 38 Next

Topic: 9/11: A Conspiracy Theory
Jeanniebean Joined Wed 01/30/08 Posts: 40028	Fri 04/20/12 01:02 PM Edited by Jeanniebean on Fri 04/20/12 01:03 PM
The most important thing I understand is the the "official report" was not an independent investigation. 1. NIST was told to find a convincing explanation about how WTC 7 totally collapsed from an ordinary fire and the damage it sustained -without the use of EXPLOSIVES,- which (EXPLOSIVES) is the most likely hypothesis according to the NFPA manual. THEY DID NOT EVEN LOOK FOR EXPLOSIVES. 2. The 9/11 commission report was totally controlled by a close associate and of the Bush-Cheney administration and all evidence was completely controlled for the entire commission. These official reports are USELESS. They are MOOT. They have been COMPROMISED.

mightymoe Joined Sun 11/19/06 Posts: 37362	Fri 04/20/12 01:04 PM
Engineers and scientists are not always right, and they are not always in agreement. They are not to be worshiped, even though I've met some who thought otherwise. Yes but they have published documents on it, and universities have dont experiments and published them as well. I see no PUBLISHED documents for any of your theories. I have said this before, I don't have any theories. But I see no published documents on your theories either. But then that depends on what you want to define as "published." An Internet article or blog is considered "published." To people in the scientific community "published" has to mean in some scientific journal that THEY APPROVE OF. DUH. Its a good ol' boys club. I see you have never read one... not that it would matter. I have read the FEMA-ASCE report, and the 9/11 commission report. reading it and understanding the science behind it are two different things... your science is a bit different from the physics that is taught in schools. if you cannot understand how concrete turns to dust, or what heat does to metal, then you can read all these things a million times and it won't do you any good.... I understand what I read just fine. I'm sick you you people telling me what I don't understand. You are the ones who do not understand. i can't understand why you can't understand... understand?

Jeanniebean Joined Wed 01/30/08 Posts: 40028	Fri 04/20/12 01:13 PM
Engineers and scientists are not always right, and they are not always in agreement. They are not to be worshiped, even though I've met some who thought otherwise. Yes but they have published documents on it, and universities have dont experiments and published them as well. I see no PUBLISHED documents for any of your theories. I have said this before, I don't have any theories. But I see no published documents on your theories either. But then that depends on what you want to define as "published." An Internet article or blog is considered "published." To people in the scientific community "published" has to mean in some scientific journal that THEY APPROVE OF. DUH. Its a good ol' boys club. I see you have never read one... not that it would matter. I have read the FEMA-ASCE report, and the 9/11 commission report. reading it and understanding the science behind it are two different things... your science is a bit different from the physics that is taught in schools. if you cannot understand how concrete turns to dust, or what heat does to metal, then you can read all these things a million times and it won't do you any good.... I understand what I read just fine. I'm sick you you people telling me what I don't understand. You are the ones who do not understand. i can't understand why you can't understand... understand? That's okay. I know you can't understand. Understand?

Bestinshow Joined Mon 06/01/09 Posts: 5540	Fri 04/20/12 04:48 PM
An interview isn't a publication. A scientific journal is different. Saying something looks like something else isn't scientific either. With no chain of evidence and knowing exactly where the source material came from and having that documented from WTC to the lab where tested also wouldn't hold up. So again I say publications that hold up to scrutiny. I mean if you had money you could publish anything yourself. Whether a journal would publish it and whether it holds up to scrutiny is a main point. OMg you cant be that.......... The interview was about his scientific paper...............follow the darn link

Jeanniebean Joined Wed 01/30/08 Posts: 40028	Fri 04/20/12 05:28 PM
follow the link follow the link follow the link follow the link follow the link follow the link follow the link follow the link follow the link follow the link follow the link follow the link

Bestinshow Joined Mon 06/01/09 Posts: 5540	Sat 04/21/12 07:21 AM
Do you believe there is a U.S. government cover-up surrounding 9/11? Yes 89% 9447 votes No 11% 1201 votes Total: 10648 votes http://www.cnn.com/POLLSERVER/results/14340.exclude.html its funny how they treat the 911 skepetics like they are some type of fringe minority when in fact this poll indicates the exact opposit. But of course that would be reality based thinking something that is clearly lacking in many posters.

metalwing Joined Fri 11/14/08 Posts: 26218	Sat 04/21/12 08:14 AM
Do you believe there is a U.S. government cover-up surrounding 9/11? Yes 89% 9447 votes No 11% 1201 votes Total: 10648 votes http://www.cnn.com/POLLSERVER/results/14340.exclude.html its funny how they treat the 911 skepetics like they are some type of fringe minority when in fact this poll indicates the exact opposit. But of course that would be reality based thinking something that is clearly lacking in many posters. First of all, the truthers are a fringe minority, and largely so for using the kind of logic you exhibit in this post. The question uses the word "surrounding 9/11" which could mean anything. Any question that broad involving the government, the military, and government agencies like the FAA on something really big are going to have someone trying to cover their azz for screwing up somewhere. I am surprised the answer wasn't 100% But the truther clowns take examples like that and twist it to mean that 89% of the public thinks explosives were used to bring down the towers which is just a stupid lie. It doesn't mean that. If you asked a group of structural engineers who were experienced in forensic analysis "what the chance of explosives was?", you would get 0% in favor. Voting only counts if the voters are knowledgeable. Twisting the truth is just lying. Nothing the truthers put out is credible because they are known to twist everything.

Chazster Joined Tue 08/28/07 Posts: 6206	Sat 04/21/12 08:19 AM
An interview isn't a publication. A scientific journal is different. Saying something looks like something else isn't scientific either. With no chain of evidence and knowing exactly where the source material came from and having that documented from WTC to the lab where tested also wouldn't hold up. So again I say publications that hold up to scrutiny. I mean if you had money you could publish anything yourself. Whether a journal would publish it and whether it holds up to scrutiny is a main point. OMg you cant be that.......... The interview was about his scientific paper...............follow the darn link There I highlighted for you. I never said it wasn't a document. I said its not a document that would hold up to scientific scrutiny. You are the one that needs to read.

Bestinshow Joined Mon 06/01/09 Posts: 5540	Sat 04/21/12 08:21 AM
Do you believe there is a U.S. government cover-up surrounding 9/11? Yes 89% 9447 votes No 11% 1201 votes Total: 10648 votes http://www.cnn.com/POLLSERVER/results/14340.exclude.html its funny how they treat the 911 skepetics like they are some type of fringe minority when in fact this poll indicates the exact opposit. But of course that would be reality based thinking something that is clearly lacking in many posters. First of all, the truthers are a fringe minority, and largely so for using the kind of logic you exhibit in this post. The question uses the word "surrounding 9/11" which could mean anything. Any question that broad involving the government, the military, and government agencies like the FAA on something really big are going to have someone trying to cover their azz for screwing up somewhere. I am surprised the answer wasn't 100% But the truther clowns take examples like that and twist it to mean that 89% of the public thinks explosives were used to bring down the towers which is just a stupid lie. It doesn't mean that. If you asked a group of structural engineers who were experienced in forensic analysis "what the chance of explosives was?", you would get 0% in favor. Voting only counts if the voters are knowledgeable. Twisting the truth is just lying. Nothing the truthers put out is credible because they are known to twist everything. Sorry I will stick with the known date such as this poll and not your twisting of reality. Most people are not in the position to truly know what happened on 911 and the 911 commission itself admits they were lied to and misled as has been pointed out many times but since your so forgetfull here it is again. The senior counsel to the 9/11 Commission – John Farmer – says that the government agreed not to tell the truth about 9/11, echoing the assertions of fellow 9/11 Commission members who concluded that the Pentagon were engaged in deliberate deception about their response to the attack. Farmer served as Senior Counsel to the 9/11 Commission (officially known as the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States), and is also a former New Jersey Attorney General. Farmer’s book about his experiences working for the Commission is entitled The Ground Truth: The Story Behind America’s Defense on 9/11, and is set to be released tomorrow. The book unveils how “the public had been seriously misled about what occurred during the morning of the attacks,” and Farmer himself states that “at some level of the government, at some point in time…there was an agreement not to tell the truth about what happened.” http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2009/04/14/911-commissions-senior-council-claims-we-were-lied-to-about-norad-response/ You can google the quote and find it is accurate and true. After all this the rubes still stick to the offical story.......... God help us

Chazster Joined Tue 08/28/07 Posts: 6206	Sat 04/21/12 08:24 AM
Wow he says he found aluminum and rust powder.... why would there be rust or aluminum lol? Second he said nano thermite is explosive which it is not. And that there would have to be 10-100 tons of it. LOL

metalwing Joined Fri 11/14/08 Posts: 26218	Sat 04/21/12 08:44 AM
Do you believe there is a U.S. government cover-up surrounding 9/11? Yes 89% 9447 votes No 11% 1201 votes Total: 10648 votes http://www.cnn.com/POLLSERVER/results/14340.exclude.html its funny how they treat the 911 skepetics like they are some type of fringe minority when in fact this poll indicates the exact opposit. But of course that would be reality based thinking something that is clearly lacking in many posters. First of all, the truthers are a fringe minority, and largely so for using the kind of logic you exhibit in this post. The question uses the word "surrounding 9/11" which could mean anything. Any question that broad involving the government, the military, and government agencies like the FAA on something really big are going to have someone trying to cover their azz for screwing up somewhere. I am surprised the answer wasn't 100% But the truther clowns take examples like that and twist it to mean that 89% of the public thinks explosives were used to bring down the towers which is just a stupid lie. It doesn't mean that. If you asked a group of structural engineers who were experienced in forensic analysis "what the chance of explosives was?", you would get 0% in favor. Voting only counts if the voters are knowledgeable. Twisting the truth is just lying. Nothing the truthers put out is credible because they are known to twist everything. Sorry I will stick with the known date such as this poll and not your twisting of reality. Most people are not in the position to truly know what happened on 911 and the 911 commission itself admits they were lied to and misled as has been pointed out many times but since your so forgetfull here it is again. The senior counsel to the 9/11 Commission – John Farmer – says that the government agreed not to tell the truth about 9/11, echoing the assertions of fellow 9/11 Commission members who concluded that the Pentagon were engaged in deliberate deception about their response to the attack. Farmer served as Senior Counsel to the 9/11 Commission (officially known as the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States), and is also a former New Jersey Attorney General. Farmer’s book about his experiences working for the Commission is entitled The Ground Truth: The Story Behind America’s Defense on 9/11, and is set to be released tomorrow. The book unveils how “the public had been seriously misled about what occurred during the morning of the attacks,” and Farmer himself states that “at some level of the government, at some point in time…there was an agreement not to tell the truth about what happened.” http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2009/04/14/911-commissions-senior-council-claims-we-were-lied-to-about-norad-response/ You can google the quote and find it is accurate and true. After all this the rubes still stick to the offical story.......... God help us You conveniently break the story and events into parts to mean whatever you want them to mean. I have no doubt the Military came up with lame excuses as to why they failed to protect their country. Some of them of which I have personal knowledge. The same goes for the FAA and FBI. The three units together did not share information or act properly. This does not mean the attack was "planned". It means that the three are incapable of working together in a moment of crisis. Newsflash, few if any, government agencies work well together. None of this has anything to do with the physics of how and why the buildings were damaged the way they were. There is no amount of explanations using real science and real evidence that you appear to be able to understand and will not twist into "believing the government version" when it was never the government version. It is the version understood by those who understand math, science, structural engineering, REAL evidence, and REAL common sense and reported to the people who report to the government. What is your real agenda?

InvictusV Joined Sun 11/23/08 Posts: 5282	Sat 04/21/12 09:08 AM
Look at the financial collapse and how the government reacted. Barney Frank was on TV saying Fannie and Freddie were sound investments and a week later they collapsed. The part of this truther nonsense that builds these large bureaucratic albatrosses into some nimble fast reacting know everything beforehand could have only willfully allowed it to happen gods is really hilarious.. I get that they need people to think they are competent, but I have to ask how did FEMA handle the aftermath of Katrina when they knew for a week it could possibly wipe out the gulf coast? That is YOUR government at work.. The reality.. Not the fabricated hype.

InvictusV Joined Sun 11/23/08 Posts: 5282	Sat 04/21/12 09:15 AM
Do you believe there is a U.S. government cover-up surrounding 9/11? Yes 89% 9447 votes No 11% 1201 votes Total: 10648 votes http://www.cnn.com/POLLSERVER/results/14340.exclude.html its funny how they treat the 911 skepetics like they are some type of fringe minority when in fact this poll indicates the exact opposit. But of course that would be reality based thinking something that is clearly lacking in many posters. Last week, in one of the latest failed attempts to close the loop on political conspiracies, Ben Smith blogged one of the internals from the definitive 2006 Scripps poll on "9/11 Trutherism." "How likely is it that people in the federal government either assisted in the 9/11 attacks or took no action to stop the attacks because they wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East?" the poll asked. A full 22.6% of Democrats said it was "very likely." Another 28.2% called it "somewhat likely." This question is open to just a little misinterpretation. After all, it's well known, and true, that there were unspecific warnings about a mounting terrorist attack and they were not followed up on. But I've now seen the other questions and crosstabs from the poll. There were more specific conspiracy scenarios, and Democrats disproportionately agreed with them. How likely is it that the Pentagon was not struck by an airliner captured by terrorists but instead was hit by a cruise missile fired by the United States military? Only 11.9 percent of all voters believed that this was "somewhat" or "very" likely, but 21.1 percent of Democrats did. How likely is it that the collapse of the Twin Towers in New York was aided by explosives secretly planted in the building? A full 15.9 percent of all voters bought that; the number rose to 24.8 percent among Democrats. http://www.slate.com/content/slate/blogs/weigel/2011/04/25/democrats_and_trutherism.html

Conrad_73 Joined Sat 09/29/07 Posts: 22488	Sat 04/21/12 09:36 AM
Do you believe there is a U.S. government cover-up surrounding 9/11? Yes 89% 9447 votes No 11% 1201 votes Total: 10648 votes http://www.cnn.com/POLLSERVER/results/14340.exclude.html its funny how they treat the 911 skepetics like they are some type of fringe minority when in fact this poll indicates the exact opposit. But of course that would be reality based thinking something that is clearly lacking in many posters. First of all, the truthers are a fringe minority, and largely so for using the kind of logic you exhibit in this post. The question uses the word "surrounding 9/11" which could mean anything. Any question that broad involving the government, the military, and government agencies like the FAA on something really big are going to have someone trying to cover their azz for screwing up somewhere. I am surprised the answer wasn't 100% But the truther clowns take examples like that and twist it to mean that 89% of the public thinks explosives were used to bring down the towers which is just a stupid lie. It doesn't mean that. If you asked a group of structural engineers who were experienced in forensic analysis "what the chance of explosives was?", you would get 0% in favor. Voting only counts if the voters are knowledgeable. Twisting the truth is just lying. Nothing the truthers put out is credible because they are known to twist everything. Sorry I will stick with the known date such as this poll and not your twisting of reality. Most people are not in the position to truly know what happened on 911 and the 911 commission itself admits they were lied to and misled as has been pointed out many times but since your so forgetfull here it is again. The senior counsel to the 9/11 Commission – John Farmer – says that the government agreed not to tell the truth about 9/11, echoing the assertions of fellow 9/11 Commission members who concluded that the Pentagon were engaged in deliberate deception about their response to the attack. Farmer served as Senior Counsel to the 9/11 Commission (officially known as the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States), and is also a former New Jersey Attorney General. Farmer’s book about his experiences working for the Commission is entitled The Ground Truth: The Story Behind America’s Defense on 9/11, and is set to be released tomorrow. The book unveils how “the public had been seriously misled about what occurred during the morning of the attacks,” and Farmer himself states that “at some level of the government, at some point in time…there was an agreement not to tell the truth about what happened.” http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2009/04/14/911-commissions-senior-council-claims-we-were-lied-to-about-norad-response/ You can google the quote and find it is accurate and true. After all this the rubes still stick to the offical story.......... God help us actually they're not! They're just debunking your Opinions!

Bestinshow Joined Mon 06/01/09 Posts: 5540	Sat 04/21/12 01:40 PM
"If you asked a group of structural engineers who were experienced in forensic analysis "what the chance of explosives was?", you would get 0% in favor." What data do you have to support your zero % theory? On Feb. 19, 2010, Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth held a press conference at the Mariner's Club & Hotel in San Francisco, CA, USA, announced the milestone of having achieved in excess of 1,000 signatures from architects and engineers from around the world, demanding a new, truly independent investigation of the facts regarding the events of Sept. 11, 2001, saying that the conclusions drawn by the 911 Commission reek of cover-up, are not at all supported by the facts. The 80-minute press conference included presentations by •Richard Gage, founder of AE911Truth, who summarized how the facts support demolition being the cause of the World Trade Center buildings 1,2 and 7, not fire; •David Ray Griffin, author of "The Mysterious Collapse of WTC 7", talking about the questionable science of NIST, concluding that they lied and are party to the cover-up; •Steven E. Jones, professor Emeritus from BYU, who talked about evidence found in the WTC dust that can only be explained by intentional demolition; and •Eric Lawyer, founder of Firefighters for 911 Truth, who pointed out the many ways in which long-established protocols for handling crime scenes involving fire and building collapse were egregiously violated, consistent with a cover-up. Continue reading on Examiner.com 1000 Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth signatures press conference ignored by world media - National Breakthrough Energy \| Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/article/1000-architects-and-engineers-for-911-truth-signatures-press-conference-ignored-by-world-media#ixzz1si3dwoIN

mightymoe Joined Sun 11/19/06 Posts: 37362	Sat 04/21/12 01:51 PM
Do you believe there is a U.S. government cover-up surrounding 9/11? Yes 89% 9447 votes No 11% 1201 votes Total: 10648 votes http://www.cnn.com/POLLSERVER/results/14340.exclude.html its funny how they treat the 911 skepetics like they are some type of fringe minority when in fact this poll indicates the exact opposit. But of course that would be reality based thinking something that is clearly lacking in many posters. polls are meaningless, you know that...seems like yall are grasping at anything to prove your right. but with what little(none) evidence you have as a group,i guess you need to post this kind of nonsense...

Conrad_73 Joined Sat 09/29/07 Posts: 22488	Sat 04/21/12 01:57 PM
"If you asked a group of structural engineers who were experienced in forensic analysis "what the chance of explosives was?", you would get 0% in favor." What data do you have to support your zero % theory? On Feb. 19, 2010, Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth held a press conference at the Mariner's Club & Hotel in San Francisco, CA, USA, announced the milestone of having achieved in excess of 1,000 signatures from architects and engineers from around the world, demanding a new, truly independent investigation of the facts regarding the events of Sept. 11, 2001, saying that the conclusions drawn by the 911 Commission reek of cover-up, are not at all supported by the facts. The 80-minute press conference included presentations by •Richard Gage, founder of AE911Truth, who summarized how the facts support demolition being the cause of the World Trade Center buildings 1,2 and 7, not fire; •David Ray Griffin, author of "The Mysterious Collapse of WTC 7", talking about the questionable science of NIST, concluding that they lied and are party to the cover-up; •Steven E. Jones, professor Emeritus from BYU, who talked about evidence found in the WTC dust that can only be explained by intentional demolition; and •Eric Lawyer, founder of Firefighters for 911 Truth, who pointed out the many ways in which long-established protocols for handling crime scenes involving fire and building collapse were egregiously violated, consistent with a cover-up. Continue reading on Examiner.com 1000 Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth signatures press conference ignored by world media - National Breakthrough Energy \| Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/article/1000-architects-and-engineers-for-911-truth-signatures-press-conference-ignored-by-world-media#ixzz1si3dwoIN the old Investigating-by-Vote-Trick,as Maxwell Smart used to say!

Bestinshow Joined Mon 06/01/09 Posts: 5540	Sat 04/21/12 01:58 PM
Do you believe there is a U.S. government cover-up surrounding 9/11? Yes 89% 9447 votes No 11% 1201 votes Total: 10648 votes http://www.cnn.com/POLLSERVER/results/14340.exclude.html its funny how they treat the 911 skepetics like they are some type of fringe minority when in fact this poll indicates the exact opposit. But of course that would be reality based thinking something that is clearly lacking in many posters. polls are meaningless, you know that...seems like yall are grasping at anything to prove your right. but with what little(none) evidence you have as a group,i guess you need to post this kind of nonsense... Polls are now meaningless in your world eh? I am sure if the poll was in your favor it would be trumped and those of us who have grave doubts about the offical story of 911 would be dismissed as a fringe group. I can gureentee you when you find one lie its to cover another lie and another. When you start to peel the onion on 911 you find lie after lie and distortion after distortion. It was the main event to create our current police state one would think all you "true" americans would be all for an investigation that is meaningfull and honest and not the lies that were fed to the 911 commision.

Conrad_73 Joined Sat 09/29/07 Posts: 22488	Sat 04/21/12 02:03 PM
Do you believe there is a U.S. government cover-up surrounding 9/11? Yes 89% 9447 votes No 11% 1201 votes Total: 10648 votes http://www.cnn.com/POLLSERVER/results/14340.exclude.html its funny how they treat the 911 skepetics like they are some type of fringe minority when in fact this poll indicates the exact opposit. But of course that would be reality based thinking something that is clearly lacking in many posters. polls are meaningless, you know that...seems like yall are grasping at anything to prove your right. but with what little(none) evidence you have as a group,i guess you need to post this kind of nonsense... Polls are now meaningless in your world eh? I am sure if the poll was in your favor it would be trumped and those of us who have grave doubts about the offical story of 911 would be dismissed as a fringe group. I can gureentee you when you find one lie its to cover another lie and another. When you start to peel the onion on 911 you find lie after lie and distortion after distortion. It was the main event to create our current police state one would think all you "true" americans would be all for an investigation that is meaningfull and honest and not the lies that were fed to the 911 commision. Nonsense! Why fly Planes in the damn Buildings if you can blow them? Can still blame Terrorists! And add another point of uncertainty to the plot by inducing Fire along with the Explosives? Traditionally Fire and Explosive were never Friends! You all are getting more and more absurd,borrowing one of your favorite term!

Bestinshow Joined Mon 06/01/09 Posts: 5540	Sat 04/21/12 02:11 PM
Do you believe there is a U.S. government cover-up surrounding 9/11? Yes 89% 9447 votes No 11% 1201 votes Total: 10648 votes http://www.cnn.com/POLLSERVER/results/14340.exclude.html its funny how they treat the 911 skepetics like they are some type of fringe minority when in fact this poll indicates the exact opposit. But of course that would be reality based thinking something that is clearly lacking in many posters. polls are meaningless, you know that...seems like yall are grasping at anything to prove your right. but with what little(none) evidence you have as a group,i guess you need to post this kind of nonsense... Polls are now meaningless in your world eh? I am sure if the poll was in your favor it would be trumped and those of us who have grave doubts about the offical story of 911 would be dismissed as a fringe group. I can gureentee you when you find one lie its to cover another lie and another. When you start to peel the onion on 911 you find lie after lie and distortion after distortion. It was the main event to create our current police state one would think all you "true" americans would be all for an investigation that is meaningfull and honest and not the lies that were fed to the 911 commision. Nonsense! Why fly Planes in the damn Buildings if you can blow them? Can still blame Terrorists! And add another point of uncertainty to the plot by inducing Fire along with the Explosives? Traditionally Fire and Explosive were never Friends! You all are getting more and more absurd,borrowing one of your favorite term! Oh mr Conrad use some common sence eh? one cannot claim it would take so many tons of nano thermite to take down the twin towers in such a dramatic fashion an then claim well, just a plane impact would also do the trick.... a little jet fuel and an impact and "crash" straight down..... I say the plane was for propaganda and the crash for the drama and presto..... Iraq here we come and welcome to police state umerika. Now back to american idle......