17 Questions About 9/11
9/11 Proof
Wednesday, April 4, 2007
1. Don't all the high-level officials agree on what happened on 9/11?
No. Numerous present and former high-level military leaders and politicians have questioned the administration's version of 9/11.
2. Isn't 9/11 a partisan political issue, where extremists in one party are simply trying to smear the other party for political gain?
No, credible people from across the political spectrum question 9/11, including prominent conservatives, prominent liberals, and prominent centrists.
3. Isn't it disrespectful to the victims of 9/11 and their families to question the events of that day?
No. Many of the families of the victims question the official story and are demanding that the truth be disclosed. The same is true of many dying heroes - the first responders who worked tirelessly to save lives on and after 9/11 - and are soon to become victims of the 9/11 attacks themselves. See this article.
4. Isn't it clear that Muslims carried out 9/11, and the war on terror is a clash of civilizations and religions? Therefore, isn't 9/11 skepticism harmful to our faith?
Actually, 9/11 truth is a vital issue for all people of faith. That is why prominent Christian theologians state that 9/11 was an inside job, and prominent Jewish scholars and rabbis say that uncovering the truth of 9/11 has the power to bring positive, lasting change to our nation and to our world.
5. Isn't this kind of thinking really a psychological problem? And isn't it promoted by anti-semites?
Not at all. Some very prominent psychologists question the government's version of 9/11, as do many people of Jewish faith.
6. Aren't conspiracy theories anti-American, and isn't all the questioning of 9/11 part of what's wrong with America today?
Questioning our government is part of what it means to be a patriot and to love your country. People who question 9/11 are patriots who love their country.
7. Doesn't questioning 9/11 distract from much more important issues facing America today?
On the contrary, it is one of the very most important issues facing our country, and is closely connected with other problems we face.
8. But the government would NEVER hurt its own people. At least not intentionally.
Actually, the U.S. government -- and many other Western governments -- have done so before. Initially, the Joint Chiefs of Staff actually approved a plan to carry out terrorist attacks and kill U.S. citizens and blame it on Cuba, as a justification for invading Cuba. And a government informant has stated that he tried to stop the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, but that the FBI intentionally let the bombing happen . There are many other examples of other governments killing their own people for political gain, and the U.S. government doing killing its own as well.
As additional examples of the U.S. government letting U.S. citizens die based upon deceptions, many people breathed in highly toxic dust near ground zero, after the government knowingly misrepresented the risk, going as far as discouraging first responders from wearing masks. The U.S. government also misled the American people into the Iraqi war, causing thousands of American deaths.
9. Terrorists crashing planes into the World Trade Center and Pentagon was wholly unexpected in 2001, wasn't it?
No, it was not unexpected.
10. But there is always confusion in any battle situation. Wasn't it the "fog of war" which prevented a successful response to the 9/11 attacks?
It was not the fog of war. Instead, it was the multiple war games, including hijack exercises involving real planes, and the injection of fake radar blips onto air traffic controller's screens which prevented the good people in the military from stopping the attacks from succeeding against their targets in New York and at the Pentagon.
11. Wouldn't a huge conspiracy involving thousands of people have been necessary to carry out 9/11, and wouldn't someone have spilled the beans by now if there really was a conspiracy?
Not necessarily. In fact, a small handful of people could have pulled it off.
12. Let's get back to the government's failure to stopping or intercepting the attacks. If the U.S. government wasn't perfect in stoping the 9/11 attacks, wasn't it due to a series of innocent mistakes or -- at the very worst -- incompetence?
Initially, the incompetence argument doesn't really pan out, and appearances may be deceiving. And there are many examples of the U.S. faking intelligence in order to promote its political goals.
Moreover, the government has not acted like it is trying to close vulnerabilities or fix problems which supposedly were unforeseeable before 9/11. Why wouldn't such vulnerabilities be corrected if they were the real cause of 9/11?
And there has been a clear government cover-up of the facts of 9/11. Why would the government work so hard to cover up the true facts of 9/11, going so far as to repeatedly misrepresent the facts and change its story, if incompetence was the only problem with the official story?
And, apparently, fake evidence was planted to implicate certain people for 9/11. Why would fake evidence be needed if the offical was true? Do innocent people plant fake evidence?
13. Didn't a government agency come clean about their mistaken timeline, solving the whole 9/11 "conspiracy" once and for all?
Norad's newest "confession" is just the latest of multiple, completely conflicting versions of what happened on 9/11 (also listen to this interview).
Moreover, the latest statements by the military simply attempt to scapegoat one government agency, since the previous attempts to blame other agencies made no sense.
14. Isn't talk about "demolition" of the Twin Towers just a crazy theory by a couple of nutty people?
In fact, a lot of credible eyewitness testimony supports this theory, and more and more credible experts are discussing this theory every day.
15. But no one could have planted all of the explosives needed to bring down the Twin Towers without people noticing, right?
No, that is not true.
16. If rogue elements within the U.S. government did cause 9/11, why would they have used bombs to bring down the Twin Towers, when crashing planes into the buildings would have been sufficient to act as a "Pearl Harbor" type justification for war?
Apparently, for its shock and awe effect, which made for a very overwhelmed, afraid, and thus compliant population.
17. I've heard claims made by the so-called "9/11 Truth Movement" which have turned out to be false. Doesn't that invalidate the whole 9/11 thing?
No, for two reasons. First, there are so many lines of evidence which overwhelmingly prove that 9/11 was an inside job, that even if one or two theories are disproven, the basic thesis still stands.
Moreover, there are some people who are simply sloppy in their thinking, and who throw out unfounded theories which do not stand up to scrutiny. In addition, there are, unfortunately, disruptive people who are working hard to make crazy claims to intentionally discredit the movement. This is a traditional tactic for undermining those who question the government.














Comments Policy
Source: http://911proof.com/F
April 5, 2007 - 12:00 ET by libertyordeathSource: http://911proof.com/FactSheet.html
Was the moon landing also fak
April 5, 2007 - 12:05 ET by florida_chadWas the moon landing also faked?
Perhaps you could start ano
April 5, 2007 - 21:41 ET by WhichWingPerhaps you could start another thread on that subject.
Somebody here is a little def
April 6, 2007 - 10:56 ET by UnsaneSomebody here is a little defensive.
So, WW, since you are so fond of conspiracy theories, who really shot JFK?
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
I'm pretty sure the moon land
April 5, 2007 - 22:03 ET by mandrakeI'm pretty sure the moon landing was faked. My logic is this. If you look at the Saturn V rocket...the thing is enormous. 300 feet tall with 5 million pounds thrust. It took that much power to escape the gravity well of earth.
Now if you look at the LEM...the thing is smaller than my kitchen. We are expected to believe that tiny thing could launch back into orbit around the moon. Yeah I know the moons gravity is just 1/6 that of the earths..but the difference in scale just doesn't make sense.
Good lord, don't they teach N
April 6, 2007 - 02:35 ET by NL207Good lord, don't they teach Newtonian Mechanics up in ah, Canada, ah?
How much does a Saturn V weigh? How much does a LEM weigh on the moon?
The LEM ascent module had a mass of about 4,547 Kg. The ascent motor generated about 15,600 newtons of thrust. A newton is a kilogram*meter per second per second. That's good for a 3.43 meter/sec/sec initial acceleration and more as fuel is expended. The engine was designed to burn 435 seconds to get the LEM ascent module back into lunar orbit with some fuel to spare as a safety margin.
The moon's escape velocity is 2.4 Km/sec. Do the math. Even ignoring the mass decline with fuel burn, The LEM reaches 1.7 Km/sec. Allow for the fuel load declining and you have orbit.
I know NL, I'm having a bout
April 6, 2007 - 02:42 ET by mandrakeI know NL, I'm having a bout of insomnia. I'm bored ...I was just having a 'reach out and annoy someone' moment..sorry it was you ;)
Next time you try to annoy so
April 6, 2007 - 02:44 ET by NL207Next time you try to annoy someone, make sure you don't look stupid while you are doing it. And if the urge to annoy overtakes you again, just reach for the scotch bottle. They do sell the stuff up there in Canada, ah, don't they?
Interesting link, LibertyorDe
April 6, 2007 - 12:53 ET by ArmedDadInteresting link, LibertyorDeath.It got me thinking about controlled demolition and the chaos of planes hitting buildings.Controlled demolition is exactly that,with every possible condition controlled to achieve a building collapse.Pair that with the chaos caused by plane impacts into buildings and raging fires introducing numerous unknown variables into the equation.This seems to be at odds with the idea of controlled demolition.
previously posted
April 8, 2007 - 13:45 ET by misterbillpreviously posted--- to Tumbler--applies to you also.
I may not be a proctologist, but I sure can tell an a$$h*%le from what he writes!
You sir, are a very sick person. You do not deserve citizenship. We are bound by the Constitution to allow you this freedom to parade your sickness!
Where ’s the coward that would not dare to fight for such a land?
Sir Walter Scott
Here, It's "Hey, Stupid!
April 5, 2007 - 18:02 ET by AvatarHere, It's "Hey, Stupid!" time for you my friend:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/blogs/911myths/4213805.html
Fresh from the pages of Popular Mechanics, individuals with higher IQs than 150 LibertyorDeaths, explain your fabled inside job theory on WTC 7.
The Avatar
That's funny, people can po
April 5, 2007 - 21:38 ET by WhichWingThat's funny, people can point you to hundreds of websites with expert testimony saying that 9/11 was an inside job and you'll hear none of it. And you think your trump card is the Popular Mechanics report. Does it raise any questions in your mind that the lead researcher of that project was Benjamin Chertoff, cousin to Micheal Chertoff, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security? Or that they pick and choose aspects of the "9/11 truth movement" to debunk while steering clear of others?
Why is it that, by citing &qu
April 6, 2007 - 11:05 ET by UnsaneWhy is it that, by citing "hundreds of websites with expert testimony", you insist on exposing your biggest problems on here?
1) Source evaluation
2) Critical thinking
When I was younger, I was taught not to believe everything I read and saw. When the Internet came around, I used to laugh at and openly mock those who believe everything they saw on the Internet, for If It Is On The Internet, It Must Be True.
I suggest you read City In The Sky. Since you are either too scared or too lazy to do proper soure evaluation, I will do it for you. The two authors of the book are New York Times journalists. As you may know, the Times is extremely hostile to the Bush administration and conservatism in general. Therefore, if 9/11/01 was an "inside job", they have MAJOR incentive to uncover such a conspiracy. Yet, for some reason, they did not. (I eagerly anticipate your excuse as to why that did not happen.)
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
Well that settles it, if th
April 6, 2007 - 22:55 ET by WhichWingWell that settles it, if the New York Times did not expose it, then it couldn't possibly be true. Keep in mind that this is the same paper that was accused of treason for exposing the CIA's secret jails and wiretapping. They were calling for the editor to be hanged in the MSM. I'm sure an investigation into 9/11 would be received much better, don't you?
Would you not agree that if a
April 7, 2007 - 00:24 ET by UnsaneWould you not agree that if any media organization had anything to gain from exposing such a conspiracy, it would in fact be the New York Times? Two big reasons: last time I checked, their city was directly effected by the attacks and their hostility towards Bush and conservatism in general that rivals even yours.
By the way, lots of MSM organizations, who would be more than HAPPY to expose something like this to cause the impeachment of Bush, haven't uncovered anything, in spite of the obvious incentives to do so. Why is that?
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
Dear Witchwing,Always a con
April 7, 2007 - 00:45 ET by bulletproofDear Witchwing,
Always a conspiracy theory for your type. Let me assure you that while we at the Illuminati are enthralled by your perpetuation of stupidity among the gathering hordes of experts at the UN Scientific body clamoring to declare upon the US the scandal of all ages, we find that your logic is actually a hinderance (because logic it ain't); therefore, we have decided (as often we do) that you are to be slated for "reintegration". BTW, can you speak Amharic?
Oh, and please remember to say "Hi" (or "High") to the Mothership when it comes to beam you away.
Have you seen the reactions
April 7, 2007 - 18:40 ET by WhichWingHave you seen the reactions people get when they go on any of the Fox programs expressing their views about 9/11? It usually begins and ends with them being declared an idiot, or a kook, or a kool aid drinking nut. You would just love the NYTimes to run a story on 9/11 so you could all gather around and throw more stones at them. Call for the hanging of the editors, and declare them traitors. Even if the official story is ONE HUNDRED PERCENT true, questioning it in the open media looks to be a career ending move.
Since the majority of the MSM
April 7, 2007 - 22:04 ET by UnsaneSince the majority of the MSM hate Bush with a passion, why haven't they uncovered this grand conspiracy? They have the greatest incentive to do so, and have had one since about 12 September 2001 or so, but yet, nothing has been uncovered. Why is that?
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
Here's a left wing PBS map for you WhichWing
April 6, 2007 - 11:21 ET by SportPoliticsHere's a left wing PBS map for you WhichWing. Click the little numbered buildings to get a picture view.
What is clear by the colored and numbered building destruction levels is that the falling towers leveled out a pattern of destruction consistent with what one would expect.
When you see how many buildings were crushed, and partially demolished, it becomes harder to listen to the whining conspiracists.
I learned something at that site,this many years later. A CHURCH (Saint Nicholas Church) was completely crushed to the ground under the collapse of the towers. Now, I've been to and read extrensively every what really happened 911 site I have been able to find, and not once did they tell me a church was completely crushed.
It's pretty bad when years and years of conspiracy studies leave out even just the basic set of facts, and focus on only what makes their case, to the ignorant, more believable.
I think it's a shame how "truth seekers" lie.
I didn't want to click on y
April 6, 2007 - 22:59 ET by WhichWingI didn't want to click on your link for fear of being accused of not evaluating my sources, so you'll have to answer this for me. Was the church a steel-framed 47-story building that "collapsed due to fire?"
That's the way, WW. Get spa
April 7, 2007 - 00:27 ET by UnsaneThat's the way, WW. Get spanked severely, and then whine about it at every turn. Though I must say I appreciate your newfound skepticism, even if selective. Broadbased skepticism comes with time, I guess...
But, I, having been to Ground Zero more than two years later, I can bet the church was even BETTER built than the WTC7 you are obsessing over. I would imagine that it was built with basic brick and stone construction, which is superior to the steel and glass of the WTC (when mixed with burning jet fuel). If you don't believe that, then perhaps you should ask yourself why the Empire State Building did not survive a strike by a B-29 in 1946 (IIRC, it was 1946).
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
Uh, I think the Empire Stat
April 7, 2007 - 18:28 ET by WhichWingUh, I think the Empire State Building did survive that strike. And I find it ironic that you are encouraging skepticism, so long as it is not about the official story.
Well, I guess I didn't have e
April 7, 2007 - 22:13 ET by UnsaneWell, I guess I didn't have enough coffee to drink this morning. Excuse the hell out of me!
I find it even MORE ironic that you question everything but the conspiracy. In fact, it absolutely enrages you if anyone dares question your grand conspiracy.
I encourage skepticism everywhere. Even about what you laughably call the "official story". What, WhichWing, did the government rough up every single reporter in the country and make damn sure they ALL said and did the same things? The problem is that this damnable thing called common sense, paired with this other damnable thing called reality, get in the way.
I sure would LOVE to hear how the WTC complex was rigged with explosives without anyone knowing; without anyone detecting a order of explosives that large; how they could all be placed there in a matter of days; and why did they wait until a day when terrorists flew planes into the buildings in order to do what they did. But the fact is that you can't answer any of those very commonsensical questions; you'll just whine the cop-out that not even the government knows that much about it. Well, sorry, but even your conspiracy theories MUST be conducted in the full view of PEOPLE and WITNESSES at SOME point in time!
But, I guess you need to cling to your fantasy like Linus needs his security blanket...
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
I sure would LOVE to hear h
April 8, 2007 - 07:44 ET by WhichWingI sure would LOVE to hear how the WTC complex was rigged with
explosives without anyone knowing;
Carefully.
without anyone detecting a order of
explosives that large;
2, or even 3, P.O. boxes.
how they could all be placed there in a matter
of days;
Quickly.
and why did they wait until a day when terrorists flew planes
into the buildings in order to do what they did.
I would guess the planes surprised them and they had to rush to the detonators. The WTC7 guy had to rush into town from Philly, and he couldn't get there until 5 pm.
So that settles that. Welcome to the dark side.
It is clear that you have n
April 8, 2007 - 08:16 ET by Free StinkerIt is clear that you have never worked in an office with more than 10-15 employees.
But then, you're not trying to advance an argument, but rather you're here to disrupt things, eh?
Or maybe he has an adolescent
April 8, 2007 - 13:31 ET by UnsaneOr maybe he has an adolescent desire for attention...
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
You need to go through all 20
April 8, 2007 - 13:30 ET by UnsaneYou need to go through all 20 of my questions and answer them one by one.
"Carefully." What a joke! Let's see here, there were at LEAST 65,000 people employed in the Twin Towers. That's not counting visitors and tourists who were there each day. This, in the heart of a city with MILLIONS of people.
You mean to tell me that will these MILLIONS of people, that there was not one single witness?
"Carefully."
Sorry, WhichWing, but you will need a LOT more than 2 or 3 P.O. Boxes for explosives of this magnitude. And are you seriously talking about mailing explosives through the same exact entity that would not permit me to accept aerosol cans through the mail? There's my proof that you lack even the slightest bit of common sense...
You, WhichWing, are not very bright. I won't even bother addressing the rest of your post.
Familiarize yourself with logistics before going any further in your grand conspiracy. No, it does not take a matter of days to deploy explosives in an operational building. It takes time just to set up explosives in an abandoned building!
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
I'm sorry, I thought you mi
April 9, 2007 - 07:33 ET by WhichWingI'm sorry, I thought you might recognize sarcasm. I was sure my comment about the PO boxes would give it away.
Here's a question though. The claim is that the towers collapsed because a few of the core columns were damaged during the plane impact and the fires that followed. If that is possible, then why do you insist that it would take days and days of planning and tons of explosives? If you really could collapse a building by damaging its support system in just one or two locations, couldn't you do the same with explosives? See what I'm getting at?
If these buildings were aband
April 11, 2007 - 10:35 ET by UnsaneIf these buildings were abandoned, that would make life easier, but that is all. You would still need a great many explosives to make it happen. You would still need to look at the structure to see where they get placed, and even then, the activity required would demand that others would see what was going on.
As one who has supervised the loading of explosives on aircraft, it isn't as apple-pie easy as you dream it is...even the transport and deployment on the ground.
Even so, you are not dealing with abandoned buildings, you are dealing with fully functioning ones well-populated with office employees, customers, tourists and other visitors. This, in a city with millions of people. Do YOU see what I am getting at? Of course not...
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
"Do YOU see what I am
April 11, 2007 - 16:48 ET by WhichWing"Do YOU see what I am getting at? Of course not..."
I see what you are getting at, but you've completely discounted what I've said, and nearly discounted your own statement at the same time. You contend that the building collapsed due to the structure being damaged in a couple of places. So shouldn't you be able to accomplish the same thing with explosives in the same places? If not, then how could it be done with planes? Wouldn't it cheaper and quicker to fly planes into buildings rather that set up all those demolition charges? (Obviously not a realistic idea, just making a point.)
Read City In The Sky and get
April 11, 2007 - 23:18 ET by UnsaneRead City In The Sky and get back to me.
You simply will not be happy until I agree with your silly conspiracy theory.
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
I'm sorry, I realize I didn
April 11, 2007 - 23:46 ET by WhichWingI'm sorry, I realize I didn't make my statement clear. (That is not sarcasm) I didn't mean to imply that the towers were taken out with just a few demolition charges in a couple of places. I was simply trying to refute your claim that it would take hundreds of people lots of time to set it up by comparing the fairly insignificant damage done by the planes. (Insignificant in comparison to a pre-planned demolition.) If enough damage can be done to cause collapse by one source, another source should be able to accomplish the same task with as little destructive force.
Just so you know, I don't care if you ever believe one side or the other. I'm just trying to make clear why I've come to believe what I believe. Just as you've done for what you believe.
P.S. You've recommended City In The Sky on a couple of occasions, so I looked it up. After reading through a few reviews, both positive and negative, I've gathered that it is mostly about the life of the WTC in general. Including acquiring the land, construction, getting government support and other things, and also touches on the attack that took them down. Anyway, was wondering why you were mentioning the book. Is it the post-911 section, the pre-911, or the book as a whole?
In Unsane's world, a day with
April 12, 2007 - 00:29 ET by UnsaneIn Unsane's world, a day without a book is a day without sunshine. So, I recommend reading the whole thing, back from the very beginning when the idea of a World Trade Center came about, all the way up to the section which details the attacks, to the point of showing sketched showing how exactly the planes entered the buildings, and a detailed account of what happened.
You can try to refute my claim that it would take a large staff all you want, but the fact of the matter is, the more people that were there, the less time it COULD take. I suppose one person could do it all, but that would be a real b*#!h, don't you agree? The point you are failing to see is that you are dealing with one with a lengthy background in logistics. The first thing I thought of when reading these silly theories is "How?"
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
You need to read more...this
April 11, 2007 - 13:13 ET by Mean Gene Dr. LoveYou need to do more research and critical thinking...this was all in the news in the days and weeks following the 9/11 attacks.
Because of the massive amounts of damage and the fires caused by the airliners colliding with the WTC, the twin towers structually failed from the top down causing a domino-effect chain reaction...one floor collapsing upon another until the massive momentum of the increasing mass in motion brought them down. To implode a building as you describe with explosives in one or two locations is a crap-shoot.
Here is a link about implosions (step through each of the 5 pages...pages 3 and 4 are especially relevant to this discussion). Anyone that would be installing explosive charges MUST have access to the concrete or steel supports in a structure. In an occupied building it would be impossible to accomplish this feat without being noticed. It is a huge, time consuming job, and is a pretty precise science. There is no room for error, and in an occupied building, there would be too many variables that could cause an accidental detonation. They also take measures to make sure the building will come down...so one or two places is not an option in your conspiracy theory.
Here is a building that was gutted for demolition that was less than half the size of WTC 7. "Workers prepared the structures for the explosives by precutting the steel members and loading 592 explosive charges in 388 positions."
And even if it is possible to weaken a few critical support columns, it would still take weeks of planning and installation of explosives to accomplish the task.
Another thing is that there are very few companies with the experience, expertise, and insurance to successfully plan and execute a building demolition of this type.
Start using your brain to reason and logically come to conclusions rather than not questioning everything the conspiracy freaks tell you.
"I'd rather be bald than to pretend that I'm not!" --Mean Gene Dr. Love on comb-overs.
"Start using your brain
April 11, 2007 - 16:44 ET by WhichWing"Start using your brain to reason and logically come to
conclusions rather than not questioning everything the conspiracy
freaks tell you."
I'll do that if you'll agree to question what the government tells you on occasion. What some of you don't realize is that I am familiar with the official story, that's where I started. Then I started to look at other opinions. You, on the other hand, took the first story as the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. You question nothing about the events of 9/11? If so, that's fine, I'm just asking.
Don't ya just hate when you
April 11, 2007 - 16:47 ET by MightyMouthDon't ya just hate when you click "Recent Comments" and get propelled into a pile of doggy poo?
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
You assume I haven't looked a
April 11, 2007 - 17:10 ET by Mean Gene Dr. LoveYou assume I haven't looked at the conspiracy theories. You are wrong in your assumption.
The conspiracy theories don't pass the logic or reason tests. The official story does. So, through my research, reasoning, and logic the official story is true. Having read and considered the conspiracy crap, it doesn't add up...it makes a good plot for a spy novel or a movie but, in reality they stand up to neither logic nor reason.
When does your search for truth cease? When you find the story that fits your preconceived notions or implicates a government conspiracy and cover-up? Or is it when all the evidence points to a reasonable and logical conclusion?
Like many of us have said before...if this was a government conspiracy someone (or more likely many people) would have come forward or otherwise blown the whistle on this. People can't keep secrets...especially on an operation THAT big.
If you question everything the government tells you, you will not have enough time to live a productive life. You are a slave to these conspiracy theories...try the truth...the truth will set you free.
"I'd rather be bald than to pretend that I'm not!" --Mean Gene Dr. Love on comb-overs.
"When does your search
April 11, 2007 - 22:22 ET by WhichWing"When does your search for truth cease? When you find the story that
fits your preconceived notions or implicates a government conspiracy
and cover-up? Or is it when all the evidence points to a reasonable and
logical conclusion?"
When did yours cease? I asked before, not sure if it was you or not, do feel like you have been told everything there is to know about 9/11, or do you think they are withholding any information?
.....
April 8, 2007 - 07:48 ET by Jack BauerYou still here. You're like a case of the clap before penicillin was invented
I'd tell you to go fuck yourself, you evil dumb prick, but even that's beyond your mental capacities.
I truly hate scum like you. And I mean that from the bottom of my heart. Personally I think anyone engaging you here as if you were some sort of human-being is wasting their time.
Hope you get hit by an unmanned drone.
Wow, you sound like you are
April 9, 2007 - 07:39 ET by WhichWingWow, you sound like you are filled with even more hate and rage than Unsane. You could at least make clear who you are addressing with your comment. Was it me? (I'm guessing so) Was it "LibertyorDeath?" Or was it everyone in the thread?
Hope you had a happy Easter!
Me? Hate and rage? Nah.
April 11, 2007 - 10:37 ET by UnsaneMe? Hate and rage? Nah. I save that not for people, but for ideas firmly rooted in adolescent psychobabble...
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
Does it only become adolescen
April 11, 2007 - 16:51 ET by WhichWingDoes it only become adolescent psychobabble when it doesn't match your psychobabble?
How unfortunate for you that
April 11, 2007 - 23:16 ET by UnsaneHow unfortunate for you that what I type, especially in regards to foreign policy, is firmly anchored in history and a study/observation of international relations that easily is longer than the time you have lived.
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
There is no precedent for A
April 11, 2007 - 23:36 ET by WhichWingThere is no precedent for America in history. Not a lasting one anyway. And America's history is fairly short, as you know. So who's history is this all based on?
Um, WORLD history. When one
April 12, 2007 - 00:33 ET by UnsaneUm, WORLD history. When one studies history, one begins to get a grasp of human nature in ways not usually possible.
I have some specializations, but those will be my secret.
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
Not to point us way off int
April 12, 2007 - 00:55 ET by WhichWingNot to point us way off into another direction, but I'm wondering which nation's history would provide the most insight. Keeping in mind that most of the world's greatest crumbled in the end. (If you could find it in your heart, if even just this once, don't take this post as a fire starter in any way. I don't know how to phrase an inquiry without looking as if I'm predisposed to one answer or another.)
All."HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF
April 12, 2007 - 22:22 ET by UnsaneAll.
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
Does it only become adolescen
April 11, 2007 - 16:51 ET by WhichWingDoes it only become adolescent psychobabble when it doesn't match your psychobabble?
I clicked post twice, but I'll leave it so that it might help you to convince others that I'm nothing but a nut.
Have him ring me up at Aun
April 12, 2007 - 00:00 ET by WhichWingHave him ring me up at Aunt Bee's place, she's got fresh pie.
Aunt Bea and "fresh pie&
April 12, 2007 - 00:12 ET by MobiusStripAunt Bea and "fresh pie" don't quite sit well together for me, but it's nice to have you around. We'll let Otis out tomorrow and Barney will figure out that Andy has his bullet, after all. ...
and you can fit the whole pie--
April 16, 2007 - 18:22 ET by misterbilland you can fit the whole pie--in that big piehole of yours without a brain behind it.
Sir Walter Scott
Sir Walter Scott said that?
April 17, 2007 - 07:37 ET by WhichWingSir Walter Scott said that?
Bigtimer- just checking in fo
April 11, 2007 - 23:23 ET by MobiusStripBigtimer- just checking in for the day. You were going to cite some sites re. US oil production. Maybe I missed you. Are you there?
\
Mob,What part of fool me once
April 11, 2007 - 23:30 ET by bigtimerMob,
What part of fool me once didn't you understand last night nit-wit?
I sent those links to you twice., on two seperate days...as I stated last night.
I am done with you troll.
Then ask me a question of val
April 11, 2007 - 23:47 ET by MobiusStripThen ask me a question of value or consequence. I'm waiting. As far as the "fool me once" schtick, google your grand leader that still hasn't got it right. and he's from Texas!
Listen you outright liar abou
April 11, 2007 - 23:51 ET by bigtimerListen you outright liar about every little thing you post..
Kiss my arse....after you get up off of your good knee...what you say...you are already standing...
LMAO!
Poor little midget...pretending to be a big man....Bill Maher in disguise!
He was being honest about t
April 12, 2007 - 00:11 ET by WhichWingHe was being honest about this one. The actual saying is:
"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."
The president came close:
"There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says,
fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again."
—President George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002
Here's a video clip that might get a chuckle out of you, provided you have a sense of humor.
http://politicalhumo...
That's a great vid but no one
April 12, 2007 - 00:21 ET by MobiusStripThat's a great vid but no one here will deign to look at it, WW. Not only a hard-to-botch adage, but also says a lot about Bush's mindset and intelllect. The second part of the statement reveals his insecurity and need for control. Explains a lot of his actions and inability to take counsel. Very sad.
Did you have enough standing
April 12, 2007 - 00:29 ET by MobiusStripDid you have enough standing to check out that video, BT, or are you still on your two knees?
You are edging so close to go
April 12, 2007 - 00:34 ET by bigtimerYou are edging so close to going over the cliff....
going...going...
My fear is oh-so palpable! H
April 12, 2007 - 00:47 ET by MobiusStripMy fear is oh-so palpable! Her fear so very laughable! Both left in unbearable pain- Who cries Uncle first?
Wait for the next installment of: BIGTIMER VS MOBIUS!!!
9/11 nonsense
April 16, 2007 - 14:14 ET by LionKing1. Don't all the high-level officials agree on what happened on 9/11?
No. Numerous present and former high-level military leaders and
politicians have questioned the administration's version of 9/11.
Interestingly enough, when I click on the link to see who these leaders and politicians are, no names are provided. (I think we have another conspiracy going on)
Moonbat! Bigfoot is waitin
April 16, 2007 - 18:14 ET by WhichWingMoonbat! Bigfoot is waiting for you in the UFO!
By the way, here's what you are looking for.
WingBat ???
April 17, 2007 - 15:54 ET by LionKingFirst, it is Mr. Moonbat to you. Second, Bigfoot is a resident of Area 51, not in an UFO (get a clue).
The link you provided is a list of people that have issues with the partisan 911 Commission Report. I am pretty sure that the Commission does not speak for the Bush Administration.
Perhaps the Commission coul
April 18, 2007 - 07:39 ET by WhichWingPerhaps the Commission could of spoken for the Bush administration if they hadn't been so opposed to it.
But, in all fairness, you are right, it isn't specifically what you were looking for.
911
April 17, 2007 - 18:52 ET by Jerry MackI suppose everyone has to believe in something. The only purpose that the 911 conspiracy theory serves is that when these conspiracy believing keyboard jockies get together is that they have something to talk about. At their next convention they should invite the reputed expert Rosie ODonnell as their keynote speaker.
Jerry Mack-- Rosie
April 17, 2007 - 19:14 ET by misterbillJerry Mack-- Rosie. I know you were being facetious, but in truth, Ms. O'Donnell would lend great weight to the convention.
Bout a ton and a half!The lib
April 17, 2007 - 19:20 ET by Clear thinkerBout a ton and a half!
The liberal MSM has become an enemy of the USA.