Why are people so insistant on 9/11 conspiracies?

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: Patrick Wolf
I don't know any of these conspiracies, but do any of them include our government purposedly killing nearly 3,000 Americans by crashing into the WTC, making it look like terrorists did it, just so they have a good reason to invade Iraq?

I sure hope not... cause that would be incredibly dumb.

N E W Y O R K, May 1, 2001
In the early 1960s, America's top military leaders reportedly drafted plans to kill innocent people and commit acts of terrorism in U.S. cities to create public support for a war against Cuba.

Code named Operation Northwoods, the plans reportedly included the possible assassination of Cuban émigrés, sinking boats of Cuban refugees on the high seas, hijacking planes, blowing up a U.S. ship, and even orchestrating violent terrorism in U.S. cities.

America's top military brass even contemplated causing U.S. military casualties, writing: "We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba," and, "casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation

The plans had the written approval of all of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and were presented to President Kennedy's defense secretary, Robert McNamara, in March 1962. But they apparently were rejected by the civilian leadership and have gone undisclosed for nearly 40 years.


source: http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92662&page=1

Actual Operation Northwoods documents: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/northwoods.pdf


You should also view this video that absolutely destroys the government's JFK cover-up.
JFK 2 - The Bush Connection:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2928756561478705121&q=jfk

This whole post is completely unrelated.

Actually, it proves that elements within the United States Government are 100% capable of conspiring against the America public to further specific agendas.

Which has nothing to do with what we were talking about, youre shifting gears again as usual. When one topic is beat down you shift to another. The worst part is you're out of topics and go in circles.

 

[noto12ious]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: noto12ious

ROFL now Acanthus is changing his story. Acanthus tried to deny the very existance of pre collapse explosions for days. William Rodriguez wasn't lying, and neither are all the other fire fighters + news reporters, etc. Rodriguez even helped evacuate a few of the WTC workers who were injured by the pre collapse explosions (in one case... explosions occured before the planes struck). STOP LYING ACANTHUS.

The one case is what i was arguing, youre an idiot, go quote me.

Im sick of you, i have never met anyone as irritating to talk to / debate. You simply cant be wrong on any occurence, even when you friggin contradict yourself.

Haha. Here's Acanthus trying to deny pre collapse explosions by explaining them away as "structural failure". Yeah, structural failure injured many people in the towers, right? :laugh: Why didn't those eyewitnesses say "structural failure" instead of explosions? If they were really just structural failures, why hasn't the government included the "explosions", I mean "structural failures" in their collapse models?



Some Acanthus quotes:

"Im saying firefighters and reporters in your videos are morons. Because they cherry picked the ones for your little videos."
http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...&STARTPAGE=9&FTVAR_FORUMVIEWTMP=Linear

(So according to Acanthus, our hero fire fighters and reporters are morons. Shame on him. Tsk tsk.) :thumbsdown:


"Again, for the 5th time in this thread, the internal supporting structure of the building likely failed before the outer superstructure, the "explosions" were the floors collapsing."
http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...STARTPAGE=16&FTVAR_FORUMVIEWTMP=Linear


"The "explosions" ahead of the buildings collapse as it fell...
The internal structure couldve failed before the outer structure"
http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...&STARTPAGE=9&FTVAR_FORUMVIEWTMP=Linear

Yup read the links and what we were discussing, you were talking about the "explosions" which are actually just rumbles. seconds before collapse. I stand by all of those statements.

1. Firefighters and reporters were under just a slight bit of duress on that day.
2. Firefighters and reporters are not engineers or physicists.
3. They can testify what they THINK they saw and heard, but it was such a unique experience that youre going to get innacuracies, innacuracies that the people that make consipiracy movies capitalize on.

Ladies and Gents, Acanthus... his own words:

"Im saying firefighters and reporters in your videos are morons. Because they cherry picked the ones for your little videos."
http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...&STARTPAGE=9&FTVAR_FORUMVIEWTMP=Linear

Enough said. :thumbsdown: Acanthus is clearly just a government apologist, and will badmouth anyone to uphold the official story, no matter how heroic the fire fighters were, or how blatant the coverup is. Very sad "human being" :laugh:

According to Acanthus, "rumbles" injured many American citizens in the basements of the towers. :roll:

Rumbles are distintcly different from demolition percussion.

And being heroic is obviously a prerequisite for a structural/civil engineering degree nowadays?

That quote is in reference to the cherrypicked people in the conpiracy theory thread that didn't know what they were looking at.

"Rumbles" don't injure many American citizens in the substructures of the towers. Stop lying, Acanthus :thumbsdown:

Shame on you for calling America's hero fighters and reporters a bunch of "morons". Shame. On. You. :thumbsdown:

Of course, emotion is what we should use instead of logic.

Rumbles can be explosions, rumbles can not be large scale "dynamite" explosions.

According to you they were just "rumbles" of structural failure. To everyone else on the ground that day, they were explosions. Who the hell is going to take you seriously? You continue to call the fire fighters on 9/11 "morons". :laugh:

 

[noto12ious]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: Patrick Wolf
I don't know any of these conspiracies, but do any of them include our government purposedly killing nearly 3,000 Americans by crashing into the WTC, making it look like terrorists did it, just so they have a good reason to invade Iraq?

I sure hope not... cause that would be incredibly dumb.

N E W Y O R K, May 1, 2001
In the early 1960s, America's top military leaders reportedly drafted plans to kill innocent people and commit acts of terrorism in U.S. cities to create public support for a war against Cuba.

Code named Operation Northwoods, the plans reportedly included the possible assassination of Cuban émigrés, sinking boats of Cuban refugees on the high seas, hijacking planes, blowing up a U.S. ship, and even orchestrating violent terrorism in U.S. cities.

America's top military brass even contemplated causing U.S. military casualties, writing: "We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba," and, "casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation

The plans had the written approval of all of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and were presented to President Kennedy's defense secretary, Robert McNamara, in March 1962. But they apparently were rejected by the civilian leadership and have gone undisclosed for nearly 40 years.


source: http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92662&page=1

Actual Operation Northwoods documents: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/northwoods.pdf


You should also view this video that absolutely destroys the government's JFK cover-up.
JFK 2 - The Bush Connection:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2928756561478705121&q=jfk

This whole post is completely unrelated.

Actually, it proves that elements within the United States Government are 100% capable of conspiring against the America public to further specific agendas.

Which has nothing to do with what we were talking about, youre shifting gears again as usual. When one topic is beat down you shift to another. The worst part is you're out of topics and go in circles.

Uh, yes it does. It helps to answer the poster's question if "our government purposedly killing nearly 3,000 Americans by crashing into the WTC, making it look like terrorists did it, just so they have a good reason to invade Iraq?". Our government is entirely capable of providing such a plan, as proven with Operation Northwoods 🙂 Stop lying, Acanthus :thumbsdown: Shame on you for calling 9/11 fire fighters "morons".

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: Patrick Wolf
I don't know any of these conspiracies, but do any of them include our government purposedly killing nearly 3,000 Americans by crashing into the WTC, making it look like terrorists did it, just so they have a good reason to invade Iraq?

I sure hope not... cause that would be incredibly dumb.

N E W Y O R K, May 1, 2001
In the early 1960s, America's top military leaders reportedly drafted plans to kill innocent people and commit acts of terrorism in U.S. cities to create public support for a war against Cuba.

Code named Operation Northwoods, the plans reportedly included the possible assassination of Cuban émigrés, sinking boats of Cuban refugees on the high seas, hijacking planes, blowing up a U.S. ship, and even orchestrating violent terrorism in U.S. cities.

America's top military brass even contemplated causing U.S. military casualties, writing: "We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba," and, "casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation

The plans had the written approval of all of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and were presented to President Kennedy's defense secretary, Robert McNamara, in March 1962. But they apparently were rejected by the civilian leadership and have gone undisclosed for nearly 40 years.


source: http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92662&page=1

Actual Operation Northwoods documents: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/northwoods.pdf


You should also view this video that absolutely destroys the government's JFK cover-up.
JFK 2 - The Bush Connection:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2928756561478705121&q=jfk

This whole post is completely unrelated.

Actually, it proves that elements within the United States Government are 100% capable of conspiring against the America public to further specific agendas.

Which has nothing to do with what we were talking about, youre shifting gears again as usual. When one topic is beat down you shift to another. The worst part is you're out of topics and go in circles.

Uh, yes it does. It helps to answer the poster's question if "our government purposedly killing nearly 3,000 Americans by crashing into the WTC, making it look like terrorists did it, just so they have a good reason to invade Iraq?". Our government is entirely capable of providing such a plan, as proven with Operation Northwoods 🙂 Stop lying, Acanthus :thumbsdown: Shame on you for calling 9/11 fire fighters "morons".

I didn't call all of them morons, I called the ones in your video morons. Which is about 1% or less of the NYPD that was present. You cant seem to grasp that those videos picked only eyewitnesses that gave goofy ass answers.

Keep beating it down though, after all once again that is certainly relevent to the subject at hand. :roll:

Again correlating motive doesnt answer any questions. We all know that it benefitted the bush admin. We need to look at physical evidence, not random facts.

What the hell did i lie about in the last post?

You're borderlining on harrassment, thats gotta be 10 posts in the thread now.

 

[NYHoustonman]

Just my opinion on the 'rumbles' thing, but only one sounded remotely like an explosion to me. Explosions that I've heard, and I admit I've only heard a very limited number, don't sound like 'rumbling...' they sound like, well, explosions, with the noise reaching a peak pretty much instantly, rather than gradually (that's the best I can explain it).


And 'everyone else on the ground that day' means nothing. I can see pretty easily how people would think those noises were explosions, but I have to disagree, except for the one immediately preceding the collapse of the second (closer, I guess tower One) tower (and, due to the sound delay, I don't think it actually came before the collapse but rather during it).

 

[Project86]

Notorious: you asked me to specify some things which proved some of you "smoking guns" were misleading or wrong. I did. You ignored that part of my post. That was exactly what I was refering to when I said you ignore the answers people give you. Now you will go on to say that it is an obvious FACT about the squibs, freefalling towers, precollapse explosions, etc, and nobody in this thread has been able to refute those facts. I brought up some stuff that may refute those, or at least offer extremely plausible and likely facts, as have many other posters. Yet you REFUSE to comment AT ALL about those. Why is that?

You keep talking about Mineta... I would like to discuss that as well but first lets finish the discussion that we started earlier.

BTW, as wacky as this thread has become, I have to admit it is extremely entertaining for a variety of reasons. Thank you. Oh and since no post seems to be complete without these, here you go: 🙂 😀 :laugh: :thumbsup: etc etc

 

[NYHoustonman]

Originally posted by: Project86
...you will go on to say that it is an obvious FACT about the squibs, freefalling towers, precollapse explosions, etc, and nobody in this thread has been able to refute those facts. I brought up some stuff that may refute those, or at least offer extremely plausible and likely facts, as have many other posters. Yet you REFUSE to comment AT ALL about those. Why is that?

That's the main reason I dislike many 'conspiracy theorists,' they never so much as acknowledge the other side of the argument.

And this guy's kinda got that 'I'm smarter than you' type attitude going on...

 

[Number1]

Originally posted by: NYHoustonman

Originally posted by: Project86
...you will go on to say that it is an obvious FACT about the squibs, freefalling towers, precollapse explosions, etc, and nobody in this thread has been able to refute those facts. I brought up some stuff that may refute those, or at least offer extremely plausible and likely facts, as have many other posters. Yet you REFUSE to comment AT ALL about those. Why is that?

That's the main reason I dislike many 'conspiracy theorists,' they never so much as acknowledge the other side of the argument.

And this guy's kinda got that 'I'm smarter than you' type attitude going on...

Yes he thinks that he is smarter then us. He is not as bad as Scott though. Noto12ious IS smart. He can twist any information and make it fit his delusion. Theodore Kaczynski is an extremely smart man to but look where he is now.
I had a close look at one of the link submitted by noto12 criticizing the 911 commission report.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid...griffin+9%2F11+duration%3Along&pl=true

The lecturer, David Ray Griffin is a theologian. He harshly criticizes the 911 commission report. Here are some of his points and my take on them:

? Assertion: 6 of the hijackers are still alive. Lecturer calls this is a well known fact totally ignored by the commission.
? My take: There where reports of hijackers sighting in the weeks after 911. This was reported by the BBC. The BBC later confirmed that there had been a CONFUSION and confirmed that there had been NO hijacker sightings.
? Assersion: Flying a plane into the pentagon is an unbelievably hard thing to do and some of the best pilots in the world would be unable to do this.
? My take: from what I have seen on the internet, it is not that difficult to fly a plane once it is in the air. The hijackers pilots all had some training so it would have been quite easy for them to do this. All they had to do was turn the plane and bring it down.
? Assertion: Wrong tower collapsed first, argues that the tower that was hit first should have collapsed first.
? My take: The second tower to be hit was hit much lower then the first one. Consequently the steel at this location was supporting a lot more weight. It stands to reason that with the steel heating up across the entire floor, it would have bent and failed sooner
? Assertion: Everybody admits there are no explanations for why building # 7 collapsed.
? My take: The authority concluded that it was not structurally sound after witnessing WTC1 and 2 collapse. They let it burn. It collapsed.
? Assertion: WTC7 owner made decision to pull it meaning implode the building. To prove this they show a video of the owned saying "I made the decision to pull it".
? My take: This is absurd. What does ?pull it means?? I think it means pull the firefighter out of the building. Monitor the situation. If it meant implode the building, it would mean that the owner had previously prepared the building so that it could easily be imploded. What a bunch of bull.
? Assertion: Guliano knew WTC7 was going to collapse because he said so on TV. How did he know because it never happened in history.
? My take: The guy just witnessed WTC1, 2 collapsed and has been talking to his emergency crews. Why wouldn?t he know it is going to collapse?
? Assertion: Pentagon attack. Smart terrorist would have known that the west wing was the worst place to hit, this is common knowledge.
? My take: Terrorist would be more then happy to hit the building at all.
? Assertion: Pentagon attack. Hole 20 feet diameter. Not big enough to fit a Boeing. The plane should have been parked outside on the lawn. Pictures shows no Boeing.
? My take: I have seen plenty of pictures of planes parts at the pentagon site. I have seen that movie of a fighter plane crashing into a cement wall and disintegrate into dust. It stands to reason that the plane disintegrated on impact and that only small parts would remain. The diameter of a Boeing fuselage is approximately the size of the hole at the Pentagon. Enough said.
? Assertion: CIA protecting president where not concerned when announcing news to president. Why didn?t they drag him away immediately?
? My take: This is proof of a conspiracy? There was no imminent threat on the president at this time. The president terminated the meeting and carried on. ??

To sum up: A bunch of lies easily debunked.

The lecturer admits that he DID NOT READ THE ENTIRE 911 COMMISSION REPORT. Yet he adamantly denounces the report as a lie. The biggest liar in this discussion is the lecturer.
NOT12IOUS, this is the kind of proof that you throw at us. One of many lies, whoops, I mean links, which you ?presented?. I don?t have the time or the patience to tear them all apart one by one. It has been done before and you refuse to acknowledge it.
The biggest liar here is YOU for so zealously and SHAMELESLY slandering your nation.

Main points:

Noto12ious think he is smarter then us by twisting everything to fit his belief
Links by noto12ious are nothing but a bunch of lies.
Conclusively proved that noto12ious is an idiot.
I win.

 

[noto12ious]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: Patrick Wolf
I don't know any of these conspiracies, but do any of them include our government purposedly killing nearly 3,000 Americans by crashing into the WTC, making it look like terrorists did it, just so they have a good reason to invade Iraq?

I sure hope not... cause that would be incredibly dumb.

N E W Y O R K, May 1, 2001
In the early 1960s, America's top military leaders reportedly drafted plans to kill innocent people and commit acts of terrorism in U.S. cities to create public support for a war against Cuba.

Code named Operation Northwoods, the plans reportedly included the possible assassination of Cuban émigrés, sinking boats of Cuban refugees on the high seas, hijacking planes, blowing up a U.S. ship, and even orchestrating violent terrorism in U.S. cities.

America's top military brass even contemplated causing U.S. military casualties, writing: "We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba," and, "casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation

The plans had the written approval of all of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and were presented to President Kennedy's defense secretary, Robert McNamara, in March 1962. But they apparently were rejected by the civilian leadership and have gone undisclosed for nearly 40 years.


source: http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92662&page=1

Actual Operation Northwoods documents: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/northwoods.pdf


You should also view this video that absolutely destroys the government's JFK cover-up.
JFK 2 - The Bush Connection:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2928756561478705121&q=jfk

This whole post is completely unrelated.

Actually, it proves that elements within the United States Government are 100% capable of conspiring against the America public to further specific agendas.

Which has nothing to do with what we were talking about, youre shifting gears again as usual. When one topic is beat down you shift to another. The worst part is you're out of topics and go in circles.

Uh, yes it does. It helps to answer the poster's question if "our government purposedly killing nearly 3,000 Americans by crashing into the WTC, making it look like terrorists did it, just so they have a good reason to invade Iraq?". Our government is entirely capable of providing such a plan, as proven with Operation Northwoods 🙂 Stop lying, Acanthus :thumbsdown: Shame on you for calling 9/11 fire fighters "morons".

I didn't call all of them morons, I called the ones in your video morons. Which is about 1% or less of the NYPD that was present. You cant seem to grasp that those videos picked only eyewitnesses that gave goofy ass answers.

Keep beating it down though, after all once again that is certainly relevent to the subject at hand. :roll:

Again correlating motive doesnt answer any questions. We all know that it benefitted the bush admin. We need to look at physical evidence, not random facts.

What the hell did i lie about in the last post?

You're borderlining on harrassment, thats gotta be 10 posts in the thread now.

Oh, so not only are you calling NYFD fire fighters "morons", but you're claling NYPD, news reporters, former U.S. military personel, paramedics, other rescue crews, and other heroic American citizens "morons". I'll keep pointing it out... just to show how delusional you really are. Since their testimonies don't agree with the official government story, they're all liars and "morons" according to you :laugh: Who's are we supposed to believe? Acanthus, who wasn't there, and calls all of the heroes"morons"? :thumbsdown:

Northwoods helped to answer his motives question. You were flat out lying when you said "Which has nothing to do with what we were talking about, youre shifting gears again as usual." Stop lying Acanthus...common theme about you isn't it?

"You're borderlining on harrassment, thats gotta be 10 posts in the thread now". Funny, you're the one following me and lying to uphold your viewpoint. Now you complain about harrassment? Who initiated the confrontations again? Oh that's right. You did. Shouldn't you be posting in other threads disparaging other American heroes as "morons"?

 

[noto12ious]

Originally posted by: NYHoustonman
Just my opinion on the 'rumbles' thing, but only one sounded remotely like an explosion to me. Explosions that I've heard, and I admit I've only heard a very limited number, don't sound like 'rumbling...' they sound like, well, explosions, with the noise reaching a peak pretty much instantly, rather than gradually (that's the best I can explain it).


And 'everyone else on the ground that day' means nothing. I can see pretty easily how people would think those noises were explosions, but I have to disagree, except for the one immediately preceding the collapse of the second (closer, I guess tower One) tower (and, due to the sound delay, I don't think it actually came before the collapse but rather during it).

"And 'everyone else on the ground that day' means nothing." Sure it does. It's called corroboration. Same deal with the corroboration of pre collapse basement explosions which injured numerous Americans. Engineers thought a "bomb" had gone off because the garages were destroyed. Same deal with lower level demolition type flashes before the buildings came down. So where are their testimonies in the official reports? The government picks and chooses testimonies that fit their story but omits everything else?

Admit one into evidence, you admit them all. Especially with corroboration.

 

[noto12ious]

Originally posted by: Project86
Notorious: you asked me to specify some things which proved some of you "smoking guns" were misleading or wrong. I did. You ignored that part of my post.

When did I ignore anything? I made it clear that not all the links in the "200+ smoking guns link" were 100% accurate. I've said that numerous times. I've also stated some of the links you provided were "good info", and I've clearly acknowledged I haven't done enough research in those areas to comment... "yet". If you REALLY have issues with those specific links, go forward your findings to the owner, "killtown". I'll look into them when I have more time, as there is a large amount of material to cover.

Originally posted by: Project86
That was exactly what I was refering to when I said you ignore the answers people give you.

Who's ignoring who? Oh, you mean how you ignored how I just provided numerous "molten steel" links that 911 myths conveniently failed to include? That was off a 30 second google search :laugh:

Originally posted by: Project86 Now you will go on to say that it is an obvious FACT about the squibs, freefalling towers, precollapse explosions, etc, and nobody in this thread has been able to refute those facts. I brought up some stuff that may refute those, or at least offer extremely plausible and likely facts, as have many other posters. Yet you REFUSE to comment AT ALL about those. Why is that?

I just destroyed Popular Mechanics's argument about pancaking floors causing squibs. 911 doesn't even mention it? So, where's the counter? 🙂

Freefalling speed ? Again, I already stated I haven't done enough research on both sides of the argument. Do you not read? There are so many varying accounts the "true" time it took for the colllapses. It was near free fall, however. As to the exact time, I don't know...I haven't done enough research. Should I spell that out for you again?

Pre collapse explosions? Already addressed. Too many corroborating accounts ... so why has every single investigating government agency ignored them? Cover-up.

Originally posted by: Project86
You keep talking about Mineta... I would like to discuss that as well but first lets finish the discussion that we started earlier.

Well, considering how brought up Mineta first, how about you address it? 🙂 Your points have already been addressed. I'm not removing the "200+ smoking guns" link. It's a great place for people to start researching. Give it up.

Originally posted by: Project86
BTW, as wacky as this thread has become, I have to admit it is extremely entertaining for a variety of reasons. Thank you. Oh and since no post seems to be complete without these, here you go: 🙂 😀 :laugh: :thumbsup: etc etc

Yeah, thanks for the laughs. Funny how you didn't address any of the material I provided as counters to 911 myths. I spent 30 seconds providing "molten steel" that you conveniently ignored. And you're saying that I "ignore" parts of your post? Hypocrite. I also gave a counter to the Windsor... actually many more examples were included in that 1 link I provided about the Windsor. Oh nevermind, you just conveniently ignored that too. Literally ignored. You didn't even acknowledge it. Hypocrite. At least I acknowledged your links as "good info" that I would look into later, or said I hadn't researched enough to comment about a particular issue. Hypocrite :laugh:

🙂 😀 :laugh: :thumbsup: , etc etc.

 

[noto12ious]

Originally posted by: NYHoustonman
That's the main reason I dislike many 'conspiracy theorists,' they never so much as acknowledge the other side of the argument.

And this guy's kinda got that 'I'm smarter than you' type attitude going on...

Funny, if anyone isn't "acknowledging" the other side of the argument, it was Project86. Notice how I just pointed out his hypocrisy in my earlier post?

Originally posted by: NYHoustonman
And this guy's kinda got that 'I'm smarter than you' type attitude going on.."

Not really. It's clear you don't understand what's been going on here... I'm just throwing back the same attitude all of these government apologists started against me. You see most of the apologists in this thread? They are the ones who started the "I'm smarter than you type of attitude", along with all of the name calling in previous threads. I'm just throwing it right back in their faces... and guess what? I'm enjoying it. You can tell they're pissed off. Proof: Acanthus. Proof: Mikemike ... I even ran him off his own "JFK" thread because I provided evidence he couldn't counter that absolutely destroyed the JFK coverup :thumbsup:

(Speaking of which: New visitors to this thread should watch this JFK video that absolutely destroys the government's cover-up of JFK.

JFK 2: The Bush Connection
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2928756561478705121&q=jfk )

Many posters have already pointed out huge holes in the government's cover-up of 9/11 :thumbsup: Mad props to all of you. I'm just continuing their efforts. The government apologists "love" me because I keep pointing a few of the biggest holes in the official story. They have no counter :laugh:

 

[Number1]

noto12ious

When was molten steel found?

How long after the collapse?

What caused the steel to melt initialy?

What caused the steel to stay melted for long periods of time?

How is molten steel relevant to this tread?

Don't repond with links if you are going to respond.

 

[noto12ious]

Originally posted by: Number1
noto12ious

When was molten steel found?

How long after the collapse?

What caused the steel to melt initialy?

What caused the steel to stay melted for long periods of time?

How is molten steel relevant to this tread?

Don't repond with links if you are going to respond.

Go read the other 9/11 threads. The molten steel issue has been addressed in detail in those threads...I'm not going to copy and paste the information again.

 

[Project86]

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: NYHoustonman
Just my opinion on the 'rumbles' thing, but only one sounded remotely like an explosion to me. Explosions that I've heard, and I admit I've only heard a very limited number, don't sound like 'rumbling...' they sound like, well, explosions, with the noise reaching a peak pretty much instantly, rather than gradually (that's the best I can explain it).


And 'everyone else on the ground that day' means nothing. I can see pretty easily how people would think those noises were explosions, but I have to disagree, except for the one immediately preceding the collapse of the second (closer, I guess tower One) tower (and, due to the sound delay, I don't think it actually came before the collapse but rather during it).

"And 'everyone else on the ground that day' means nothing." Sure it does. It's called corroboration. Same deal with the corroboration of pre collapse basement explosions which injured numerous Americans. Engineers thought a "bomb" had gone off because the garages were destroyed. Same deal with lower level demolition type flashes before the buildings came down. So where are their testimonies in the official reports? The government picks and chooses testimonies that fit their story but omits everything else?

Admit one into evidence, you admit them all. Especially with corroboration.

Please answer each one of these questions:

1: So are you saying that every statement that anyone made at all should have made it into the official report? If I was there, in the area, and made a comment to a news agency or something, should my statement be in the official report?

2: Is there any possible way that explosions/crashes/whatever they were can be explained by a combination of A: bad figures of speach from people under lots of stress, B: equipment (generators, fuel, etc) exploding throughout the building, C: support structures giving way and causing lots of stuff to fall before the entire collapse?
This seems to me to be a very plausible explanation, but you haven't even touched on why this would not or could not be the case.

3: Please PLEASE answer my post above! I called you out for not answering specific questions/issue that were brought before you. You then asked me "like what? show me!" and then when I do, you ignored that too! STOP EVADING THE QUESTIONS NOTORIUS

 

[EpsiIon]

I really don't understand how any of you get so worked up about this. Instead of calling each other names, why don't you simply exchange corroborated FACTS and come to some sort of consensus. Oh, sorry, I forgot: most of you would rather believe you're right than research what the other side has to say...

 

[Number1]

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: Number1
noto12ious

When was molten steel found?

How long after the collapse?

What caused the steel to melt initialy?

What caused the steel to stay melted for long periods of time?

How is molten steel relevant to this tread?

Don't repond with links if you are going to respond.

Go read the other 9/11 threads. The molten steel issue has been addressed in detail in those threads...I'm not going to copy and paste the information again.

noto12iously evading the questions?
What about my post on David Ray Griffin lecture? No answer there either.

 

[noto12ious]

Originally posted by: Project86

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: NYHoustonman
Just my opinion on the 'rumbles' thing, but only one sounded remotely like an explosion to me. Explosions that I've heard, and I admit I've only heard a very limited number, don't sound like 'rumbling...' they sound like, well, explosions, with the noise reaching a peak pretty much instantly, rather than gradually (that's the best I can explain it).


And 'everyone else on the ground that day' means nothing. I can see pretty easily how people would think those noises were explosions, but I have to disagree, except for the one immediately preceding the collapse of the second (closer, I guess tower One) tower (and, due to the sound delay, I don't think it actually came before the collapse but rather during it).

"And 'everyone else on the ground that day' means nothing." Sure it does. It's called corroboration. Same deal with the corroboration of pre collapse basement explosions which injured numerous Americans. Engineers thought a "bomb" had gone off because the garages were destroyed. Same deal with lower level demolition type flashes before the buildings came down. So where are their testimonies in the official reports? The government picks and chooses testimonies that fit their story but omits everything else?

Admit one into evidence, you admit them all. Especially with corroboration.

Please answer each one of these questions:

1: So are you saying that every statement that anyone made at all should have made it into the official report? If I was there, in the area, and made a comment to a news agency or something, should my statement be in the official report?

2: Is there any possible way that explosions/crashes/whatever they were can be explained by a combination of A: bad figures of speach from people under lots of stress, B: equipment (generators, fuel, etc) exploding throughout the building, C: support structures giving way and causing lots of stuff to fall before the entire collapse?
This seems to me to be a very plausible explanation, but you haven't even touched on why this would not or could not be the case.

3: Please PLEASE answer my post above! I called you out for not answering specific questions/issue that were brought before you. You then asked me "like what? show me!" and then when I do, you ignored that too! STOP EVADING THE QUESTIONS NOTORIUS

Are you going to address your hypocrisy, project86 ? 😉

1) I'm saying corroborating accounts of HUGE PRE COLLAPSE EXPLOSIONS should've been admitted into evidence by all investigative government agencies. Since they weren't, cover-up.

2) Absolutely. The very FACT the NIST and the 9/11 Commission ignored their testimonies to keep their official story is a clear sign of a cover-up. Why cover-up HUGE pre collapse explosions that would destroy their official story? 🙂

3) WTF? All of your points have already been addressed. How about YOU stop evading the answers I gave, answers which you literally ignored by not even acknowledging them? Hypocrite.

 

[noto12ious]

Originally posted by: Number1

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: Number1
noto12ious

When was molten steel found?

How long after the collapse?

What caused the steel to melt initialy?

What caused the steel to stay melted for long periods of time?

How is molten steel relevant to this tread?

Don't repond with links if you are going to respond.

Go read the other 9/11 threads. The molten steel issue has been addressed in detail in those threads...I'm not going to copy and paste the information again.

noto12iously evading the questions?
What about my post on David Ray Griffin lecture? No answer there either.

I was debating whether or not to respond your Griffin lecture post... you have decent points, some of which can be countered. Am I going to? Not really. most, if not all, have already been addressed in other 9/11 threads.

 

[Number1]

Originally posted by: EpsiIon
I really don't understand how any of you get so worked up about this. Instead of calling each other names, why don't you simply exchange corroborated FACTS and come to some sort of consensus. Oh, sorry, I forgot: most of you would rather believe you're right than research what the other side has to say...

Why can't we just get along and sign cumbaya??

LOL. It wouldn?t be fun if we didn't argue.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: Patrick Wolf
I don't know any of these conspiracies, but do any of them include our government purposedly killing nearly 3,000 Americans by crashing into the WTC, making it look like terrorists did it, just so they have a good reason to invade Iraq?

I sure hope not... cause that would be incredibly dumb.

N E W Y O R K, May 1, 2001
In the early 1960s, America's top military leaders reportedly drafted plans to kill innocent people and commit acts of terrorism in U.S. cities to create public support for a war against Cuba.

Code named Operation Northwoods, the plans reportedly included the possible assassination of Cuban émigrés, sinking boats of Cuban refugees on the high seas, hijacking planes, blowing up a U.S. ship, and even orchestrating violent terrorism in U.S. cities.

America's top military brass even contemplated causing U.S. military casualties, writing: "We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba," and, "casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation

The plans had the written approval of all of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and were presented to President Kennedy's defense secretary, Robert McNamara, in March 1962. But they apparently were rejected by the civilian leadership and have gone undisclosed for nearly 40 years.


source: http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92662&page=1

Actual Operation Northwoods documents: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/northwoods.pdf


You should also view this video that absolutely destroys the government's JFK cover-up.
JFK 2 - The Bush Connection:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2928756561478705121&q=jfk

This whole post is completely unrelated.

Actually, it proves that elements within the United States Government are 100% capable of conspiring against the America public to further specific agendas.

Which has nothing to do with what we were talking about, youre shifting gears again as usual. When one topic is beat down you shift to another. The worst part is you're out of topics and go in circles.

Uh, yes it does. It helps to answer the poster's question if "our government purposedly killing nearly 3,000 Americans by crashing into the WTC, making it look like terrorists did it, just so they have a good reason to invade Iraq?". Our government is entirely capable of providing such a plan, as proven with Operation Northwoods 🙂 Stop lying, Acanthus :thumbsdown: Shame on you for calling 9/11 fire fighters "morons".

I didn't call all of them morons, I called the ones in your video morons. Which is about 1% or less of the NYPD that was present. You cant seem to grasp that those videos picked only eyewitnesses that gave goofy ass answers.

Keep beating it down though, after all once again that is certainly relevent to the subject at hand. :roll:

Again correlating motive doesnt answer any questions. We all know that it benefitted the bush admin. We need to look at physical evidence, not random facts.

What the hell did i lie about in the last post?

You're borderlining on harrassment, thats gotta be 10 posts in the thread now.

Oh, so not only are you calling NYFD fire fighters "morons", but you're claling NYPD, news reporters, former U.S. military personel, paramedics, other rescue crews, and other heroic American citizens "morons". I'll keep pointing it out... just to show how delusional you really are. Since their testimonies don't agree with the official government story, they're all liars and "morons" according to you :laugh: Who's are we supposed to believe? Acanthus, who wasn't there, and calls all of the heroes"morons"? :thumbsdown:

Northwoods helped to answer his motives question. You were flat out lying when you said "Which has nothing to do with what we were talking about, youre shifting gears again as usual." Stop lying Acanthus...common theme about you isn't it?

"You're borderlining on harrassment, thats gotta be 10 posts in the thread now". Funny, you're the one following me and lying to uphold your viewpoint. Now you complain about harrassment? Who initiated the confrontations again? Oh that's right. You did. Shouldn't you be posting in other threads disparaging other American heroes as "morons"?

Following you? Ive posted in both 9/11 threads, you attack me in unrelated threads about rumsfeld... With crap i said in other threads, out of context of course.

Anyway, yes, all of the witnesses on your eyewitness video are morons. Take that and run with it. Because those witnesses were selected on the criteria of what they were going to answer.

2,000,000 people were there that day, this video managed to find 12 who give a retarded answer.

 

[Number1]

Acanthus
When quoting, could you please remove irrelevant information so we don't have to scroll down 10 pages just to read your answer.

No offence.

Thanks.

 

[Number1]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Anyway, yes, all of the witnesses on your eyewitness video are morons. Take that and run with it. Because those witnesses were selected on the criteria of what they were going to answer.

2,000,000 people were there that day, this video managed to find 12 who give a retarded answer.

I agree with you on this, only witnesses that concur with the wanted conclusion are used.

 

[Number1]

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: Number1I was debating whether or not to respond your Griffin lecture post... you have decent points, some of which can be countered. Am I going to? Not really. most, if not all, have already been addressed in other 9/11 threads.

Well thankyou.

 

[BrokenVisage]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Anyway, yes, all of the witnesses on your eyewitness video are morons...

Thanks for finally showing what a douchebag you are with moronic generalizations like that. You don't know how many other people were interviewed, or how intelligent any off them are! Obviously all "2,000,000 people" who were actually there within that 1 hour interval weren't interviewed, and I'll wager that not many more than 200 people that day and in the following weeks were. Who's to say there weren't more people claiming they heard bombs either? Why purposely not include the witnesses that heard explosions when they're trying to get opinions of people who were there to back up the theroy?? Are they irrelevant, or just moronic? Please, think before you post, I don't think you want to start calling FDNY workers morons.