ANZACs and war and stuff

[Madness]

I guess I should quit this thread really

You said that last week. Don't ask me to post a fucking link to it either.

[imdying]

Thought I'd make a post listing all of the insults Katman and Ed traded... this is what I ended up with... It's not pretty reading.



You are being a disingenuous idiot, stop it!

You are making yourself appear the bigoted fool you are.

You are as Pussy is, dumb and dumber.

Maybe I'm missing something, but how old are you?

You are rather slow aren't you?

Don't you read much?

you clearly either are totally ignorant

you will be far too stupid to read or comprehend anything.

As usual you simply ignore anything relevant in your lame attempts to convince anyone you have a point.

For the mentally challenged among us here, of course I did. :weird:

I'm over this thread. The few moronic conspiracy theorists who continue to spout absolute crap on here

Yup! You idiots are beyond help... :doh:

Logic and facts are wasted on these idiots

You dumbo's

Well of course you are far more highly qualified to judge, aren't you... :rolleyes:

You are so thick

How dumb does one have to be

That's why I have given up, those with a brain cell or two understand clearly and have shown so, the idiots never will.

Now wait for the idiots

As I said several times, I have seen virtually every video and interview including that one and it is crap. But as I also said, you keep on proving me right about you every day...

of course you have to have at least one brain cell to see that.

There are enough gullible idiots like you

your stupidity and mischievous agenda

I cannot believe how stupid the conspiracy theorists are.

Their opinions, no matter how farcical, over-ride any facts presented. Sadly I agree that the time has come to consign this thread to PD as truly the idiots now posting are spouting total crap that fits the description of POINTLESS DRIVEL to a 'T'

their dogged ignorance.

Comments like that simply prove how dumb you are, sorry.


Katman, I couldn't actually find any of yours. How do you do it? You've taken a lot of insults from an adult who professes to have an imaginary friend, with retaliating... good effort.

[Drew]

Yes, I'm going with the theory that explosives were used in Building 7.Why only there?

[Drew]

Katman, I couldn't actually find any of yours. How do you do it? You've taken a lot of insults from an adult who professes to have an imaginary friend, with retaliating... good effort.Clearly he has a skill, that hypocrites like yourself lack.

[Katman]

Why only there?

I didn't say only there Drew.

[Drew]

I didn't say only there Drew.True.

Well I've certainly seen no evidence to support explosives, other than the rate of fall. I am not a demolition expert, and I don't know any. I'm not going to take the word of a bunch of people professing to be experts in the field, but can't get themselves in the mainstream media to get their message out.

As I've said, there are millions of rising reporters itching to break a huge story. Surely some of them think as you do. Surely if there really was irrefutable evidence they'd be presenting it.

[imdying]

Clearly he has a skill, that hypocrites like yourself lack.My imaginary friends are wholy in my own mind, and not pushed on to me by anybody else :msn-wink:

[Katman]

I'm not going to take the word of a bunch of people professing to be experts in the field, but can't get themselves in the mainstream media to get their message out.

As I've said, there are millions of rising reporters itching to break a huge story. Surely some of them think as you do. Surely if there really was irrefutable evidence they'd be presenting it.

Mainstream media (i.e. your 6 o'clock news and your broadsheet newspapers) aren't as impartial as you might think Drew.

[Drew]

Mainstream media (i.e. your 6 o'clock news and your broadsheet newspapers) aren't as impartial as you might think Drew.

Don't put words in my mouth, you haven't heard come out of it before. Even then try and apply context.

I am often heard to complain about the one sided sensationalist bullshit, the masses are force fed at 6pm.

[Katman]

Don't put words in my mouth, you haven't heard come out of it before. Even then try and apply context.



I'm not putting words in your mouth Drew - I'm answering your question as to why some reporter hasn't "broken the story".

The internet is largely the only method available for getting across an alternative theory.

[Drew]

I'm not putting words in your mouth Drew - I'm answering your question as to why some reporter hasn't "broken the story".

The internet is largely the only method available for getting across an alternative theory.

Nope. Paying for TV air time would be the best way I'd think. Don't fuck around for a network or production company to back it, they might be in on the conspiracy.

C'mon, there must be a few rich as fuck types who believe as you do. Make a docco, pay good people to investigate/direct/present, and get it out there.

If it's as big an issue as you say, that's not a huge ask.

[oneofsix]

Nope. Paying for TV air time would be the best way I'd think. Don't fuck around for a network or production company to back it, they might be in on the conspiracy.

C'mon, there must be a few rich as fuck types who believe as you do. Make a docco, pay good people to investigate/direct/present, and get it out there.

If it's as big an issue as you say, that's not a huge ask.

You can't have that otherwise you end up with shit like Watergate :shutup:

[Katman]

Nope. Paying for TV air time would be the best way I'd think. Don't fuck around for a network or production company to back it, they might be in on the conspiracy.

C'mon, there must be a few rich as fuck types who believe as you do. Make a docco, pay good people to investigate/direct/present, and get it out there.

If it's as big an issue as you say, that's not a huge ask.

There's been documentaries made Drew.

Getting a TV producer to run a story is not as simple as just handing over money.

[Drew]

There's been documentaries made Drew.

Getting a TV producer to run a story is not as simple as handing over money.
Fuckin is if you hand over enough of it!

[Edbear]

Yes, I'm going with the theory that explosives were used in Building 7.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center_controlled_demolition_conspirac y_theories
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/22/nyregion/22wtccnd.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/1227842
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tacYjsS-g6k
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debunking_9/11_Myths:_Why_Conspiracy_Theories_Can't_Stand_Up_t o_the_Facts



Thought I'd make a post listing all of the insults Katman and Ed traded... this is what I ended up with... It's not pretty reading.

Katman, I couldn't actually find any of yours. How do you do it? You've taken a lot of insults from an adult who professes to have an imaginary friend, with retaliating... good effort.

Like you, imdying, he restricts it mainly to vitriolic red rep. If I think someone is being an idiot I say it right out, not hiding behind the scenes. There are two members here who red rep me, you and Katman, and your language is appalling. So don't come on here in public and make out you're all righteous and controlled when in fact you are foul mouthed cowards trying to hide your real personalities.

[Katman]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center_controlled_demolition_conspirac y_theories
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/22/nyregion/22wtccnd.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/1227842
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tacYjsS-g6k
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debunking_9/11_Myths:_Why_Conspiracy_Theories_Can't_Stand_Up_t o_the_Facts


We could swap links all day Ed but I'm more interested in your answer to the question - is it bollocks that Building 7 fell at freefall speed or bollocks that NIST tried to hide that fact?

[Edbear]

We could swap links all day Ed but I'm more interested in your answer to the question - is it bollocks that Building 7 fell at freefall speed or bollocks that NIST tried to hide that fact?

So show me where NIST "tried to hide" anything.

The fact is that there were no explosives used, but you just cannot seem to get your head around that. And you expoect people to take you seriously?

[Katman]

So show me where NIST "tried to hide" anything.


Almost seven years after the collapse of Building 7 NIST released a draft report in which they used a blatantly flawed method to determine the buildings rate of fall.

They concluded that it fell at 40% slower than the speed of freefall.

After being given a lesson in Applied Physics and Mathematics by a high school physics teacher they conceded that the building did actually fall at almost exactly freefall speed.

Are NIST just not very good at their job?

[imdying]

Like you, imdying, he restricts it mainly to vitriolic red rep.Twisting the truth again there Ed... my public vitriol is there for all to see... ask the moderators... I expect I still have my own thread in their section :bleh:

Yes you get a lot of red from me; that's quite simple, you're a fuckwit who deserves it :)

[Drew]

Are NIST just not very good at their job?More plausible than anything you've presented so far I'm afraid.

[Drew]

Yes you get a lot of red from me; that's quite simple, you're a fuckwit who deserves it :)(Sarcasm font/)Oh yeah, that'll learn him alright.(/end)

[Katman]

More plausible than anything you've presented so far I'm afraid.

So if they're not very good at their job why would anyone accept their theory that the failure of one single supporting column could bring a building down uniformly at freefall speed?

[Drew]

So if they're not very good at their job why would anyone accept their theory that the failure of one single supporting column could bring a building down uniformly at freefall speed?
If they're not very good at their job, the "one single column" bit is moot too.

[imdying]

(Sarcasm font/)Oh yeah, that'll learn him alright.(/end)Who cares if it does? :sleep:

[Drew]

Who cares if it does? :sleep:
"...you're a fuckwit who deserves it :)"


Erm, it would appear that you do.

[Edbear]

Almost seven years after the collapse of Building 7 NIST released a draft report in which they used a blatantly flawed method to determine the buildings rate of fall.

They concluded that it fell at 40% slower than the speed of freefall.

After being given a lesson in Applied Physics and Mathematics by a high school physics teacher they conceded that the building did actually fall at almost exactly freefall speed.

Are NIST just not very good at their job?

Link to the report?


Twisting the truth again there Ed... my public vitriol is there for all to see... ask the moderators... I expect I still have my own thread in their section :bleh:

Yes you get a lot of red from me; that's quite simple, you're a fuckwit who deserves it :)

As with the others you have always been consistent in your failure to provide any facts or verifiable evidence for your posts criticising me. Like the other couple of members I could name you doggedly ignore anything you can't refute and prefer to attack me personally.

I couldn't care less what you think of me personally and if you think your childish red rep bothers me you are deluded in the extreme.

What you and the others like you fail to understand, (mind you, you would need an IQ that registers in the positive to get this), is that your silliness only discredits you.

[Katman]

If they're not very good at their job, the "one single column" bit is moot too.

Yes, that's sort of what I'm implying Drew.

Supposedly they have proven their theory using some sort of scale model but interestingly they refuse to release that model for any sort of peer review.

[Katman]

Link to the report?


Are you serious Ed?

Here you go...www.google.com

[Drew]

Yes, that's sort of what I'm implying Drew.

Supposedly they have proven their theory using some sort of scale model but interestingly they refuse to release that model for any sort of peer review.

Intersting site. The simulations are quite interesting too.

http://wtcdata.nist.gov/

[Edbear]

Are you serious Ed?

Here you go www.google.com

This one?
http://www.nist.gov/el/wtc7final_112508.cfm

Or this one?
http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtc7.cfm

Feel free to show me the cover up.

[Katman]

This one?
http://www.nist.gov/el/wtc7final_112508.cfm

Or this one?
http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtc7.cfm

Feel free to show me the cover up.

Do you know the difference between a draft report and a final report Ed?

[Edbear]

Do you know the difference between a draft report and a final report Ed?

Did you read the reports?

[Drew]

If they're not very good at their job, the "one single column" bit is moot too.




Or this one?
http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtc7.cfm

Feel free to show me the cover up.

Fuck, I should have looked into what Steve was saying earlier.

Look at that map, and the floor area that becomes unsupported when you remove column 79.

Whoever the engineer that signed that off before construction, better have disappeared to a remote island before the masses got to him.

[Katman]

Did you read the reports?

Did you find the draft report?

Let's watch NIST's specialists handle those difficult questions again.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGMvnwjUizY

[Drew]

Did you find the draft report?

Let's watch NIST's specialists handle those difficult questions again.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGMvnwjUizY
I see two dudes, pretty embarrassed trying not to look stupid. They fail, but the final report seems pretty solid to me.

[Katman]

I see two dudes, pretty embarrassed trying not to look stupid. They fail, but the final report seems pretty solid to me.

Actually, the guy at 6.37 is how I picture Ed.

[Edbear]

Did you find the draft report?

Let's watch NIST's specialists handle those difficult questions again.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGMvnwjUizY

Did you read the reports so you can point out the cover up? You keep asking dumb questions without answering any. Not smart at all. Typical of you and why I am now going to ignore you again until such time as pigs fly and you actually answer direct questions and read stuff.

[Banditbandit]

There are plenty of eye witness accounts of hearing explosions just prior to the collapse of Building 7 Ed.

No .. the eye witnesses accounts (even if they use the word explosions) is of loud noises that sounded like explosions ... could be caused by a number of things - doesn't have to be explosives ..

(Oh .. fuck .. walk away ..)

[Drew]

you actually answer direct questions and read stuff.But how will you know?

[Katman]

But how will you know?

He'll peek.

[Drew]

There are plenty of eye witness accounts of hearing explosions just prior to the collapse of Building 7 Ed.Missed this one. You can't hear it on any of the footage I've seen.

I imagine the inside of the building would have made a bit of a din as it came down, while the outside still looked to be intact.

[Edbear]

He'll peek.

But I sure won't hold my breath...

[Madness]

:facepalm:

[Katman]

Missed this one. You can't hear it on any of the footage I've seen.

I imagine the inside of the building would have made a bit of a din as it came down, while the outside still looked to be intact.

Perhaps there's some confusion as to which building eye witness accounts of explosions relate to.

I'd imagine that by the time WTC 7 came down the area would have been extensively evacuated anyway.

[Drew]

I'd imagine that by the time WTC 7 came down the area would have been extensively evacuated anyway.
People still have to run in some of the footage. I don't think there was a huge expectancy for it to come down the way it did.

[SPman]

Another Scottish thread in the making........................:baby:

[scumdog]

Perhaps there's some confusion as to...

Sums up the majority of posts on this thread...<_<

[Hinny]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center_controlled_demolition_conspirac y_theories
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/22/nyregion/22wtccnd.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/1227842
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tacYjsS-g6k
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debunking_9/11_Myths:_Why_Conspiracy_Theories_Can't_Stand_Up_t o_the_Facts
.

And that is what you base your opinion on?

Can't have been a demolition job because tens of thousands of pounds of explosives would have had to be used.
Yet it fell down without any explosives being used according to the links you just posted.
Don't these two things contradict each other in your world?

[Ocean1]

Can't have been a demolition job because tens of thousands of pounds of explosives would have had to be used.
Yet it fell down without any explosives being used according to the links you just posted.
Don't these two things contradict each other in your world?

They do in yours?

You might want to review those statements.

[Edbear]

They do in yours?

You might want to review those statements.

He is competing with Katman to see who can be the most inane. You may need to spell it out in simple words but I don't rate your chances...

[Katman]

It's well worth setting a couple of hours aside to watch this.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/OQgVCj7q49o" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

It addresses virtually every point that has been raised in this thread.

(Doesn't mention the ANZACs though).

[Hinny]

They do in yours?

You might want to review those statements.

Ed's debunking theory proof:
1/ The towers could not have been blown up as it would have taken tens of thousands of tonnes of explosives to do it.

Ed's reason for the towers coming down:
2/ An aeroplane flew into the building and the kerosene caught on fire causing global collapse.

If the towers came down because of a kerosene fire, does that not then put a lie to the first statement?
ie. If the second statement is true then the first cannot be true.
Equally, if the towers needed tens of thousands of tonnes of high explosive to demolish them then the second statement must be false.
You can't have it both ways.

Simple logic.

[Hinny]

Paraphrasing David Griffin '911 The Myth and the Reality'

The truth of the Myth is taken on faith.
If some people have the bad taste to question the truth, the keepers of the faith do not enter the debate rather they ignore them or denounce them.
Any questioning of the sacred Myth is seen as Sacrilege.

This is precisely what we see here on this thread.

[Edbear]

I call a tie between Hinny and Katman... :lol: :killingme :weird:

[oneofsix]

I thought Hinny was referring to Katman and other conspiracy theorists when he posted that to question them was considered Sacrilege.

[Banditbandit]

I call a tie between Hinny and Katman... :lol: :killingme :weird:

Bwhahaha .. yeah .. leave them in the corner to compare consiracy theories ...

[Katman]

Bwhahaha .. yeah .. leave them in the corner to compare consiracy theories ...

Perhaps you should watch the video that I linked to above.

Plenty of eye witness accounts of hearing explosions and plenty of accounts of the presence of molten metal in the rubble - a fact that NIST tried to deny.

[Banditbandit]

Perhaps you should watch the video that I linked to above.

Plenty of eye witness accounts of hearing explosions and plenty of accounts of the presence of molten metal in the rubble - a fact that NIST tried to deny.

Yeah ... and plenty of people heard a third gunman on grassy knoll .. I suppose you know who that was ...

[Katman]

And in case anyone thinks that the twin towers couldn't possibly have been controlled demolitions because they collapse from top to bottom (instead of the more common practice of demolishing the lower floors first) here's a couple of examples using that method.

http://youtu.be/syzKBBB_THE

http://youtu.be/GVQaVgJne6c

[Katman]

Yeah ... and plenty of people heard a third gunman on grassy knoll .. I suppose you know who that was ...

Well, you could always watch the video and thus avoid arguing from a position of ignorance.

(And it's probably not wise using as an example, an event that also has many serious questions surrounding the official story, when trying to discredit a post).

[Banditbandit]

Well, you could always watch the video and thus avoid arguing from a position of ignorance.

(And it's probably not wise using as an example, an event that also has many serious questions surrounding the official story, when trying to discredit a post).

I'm sorry but I am not trying to discredit any post. I am trying to provide counterarguments to what I think are statments with litle or no foundation .. I am not into "discredit" ...

Second, listening to a video will give me no indication whatsoever of whereabouts in the area that is being filmed that the sound is coming from - my sound comes out of my speakers in front of me .. I have no way to tell if the origin point of the sound is in relation to the microphone that recorded it live.

And finally, I was not making a serious point ... "the third gunman on the hill" is a joke point referencing a very famous conspiracy theory ...

Laugh a little ...

[Katman]

I am trying to provide counterarguments to what I think are statments with litle or no foundation .. I am not into "discredit" ...


Really?

Do you call the post quoted below a counter-argument?


Yeah ... and plenty of people heard a third gunman on grassy knoll .. I suppose you know who that was ...

[Katman]

Second, listening to a video will give me no indication whatsoever of whereabouts in the area that is being filmed that the sound is coming from - my sound comes out of my speakers in front of me .. I have no way to tell if the origin point of the sound is in relation to the microphone that recorded it live.


There's a lot more to the video than just listening to explosions.

There's a lot of very compelling evidence in it.

[Banditbandit]

Really?

Do you call the post quoted below a counter-argument?

No ... I don't ... as I indicated I consider it a joke ... that's a very different thing.

Have you no sense of humour ???

[Katman]

Have you no sense of humour ???

What's that?

[Ocean1]

Ed's debunking theory proof:
1/ The towers could not have been blown up as it would have taken tens of thousands of tonnes of explosives to do it.

Ed's reason for the towers coming down:
2/ An aeroplane flew into the building and the kerosene caught on fire causing global collapse.

If the towers came down because of a kerosene fire, does that not then put a lie to the first statement?
ie. If the second statement is true then the first cannot be true.
Equally, if the towers needed tens of thousands of tonnes of high explosive to demolish them then the second statement must be false.
You can't have it both ways.

Simple logic.

But that wasn't your objection to his logic.

You said:


Can't have been a demolition job because tens of thousands of pounds of explosives would have had to be used.
Yet it fell down without any explosives being used according to the links you just posted.

And there's no conflict there whatsoever.

In fact both of your summary statements say exactly the same thing: The building fell down without explosives being used.

Which, far from posing some irrefutable counter argument simply suggests that you're horribly confused about it all.

Outside of which, even your presumably intended contention that it couldn't have been a fire if it wasn't an explosion simply isn't true.

So, your logic might be simple, but correct it certainly isn't.

[Katman]

Anyone feel up to debating the evidence presented in the video I linked to yet?

[Kickaha]

2/ An aeroplane flew into the building and the kerosene caught on fire causing global collapse.
You say that like it's a Cessna instead of a commercial Airliner weighing in at up to 186,880kg and like there's nothing else in the building that would burn

Plenty of eye witness accounts of hearing explosions and plenty of accounts of the presence of molten metal in the rubble - a fact that NIST tried to deny.
How many explosions? because from the controlled demoliton I watched in real life on a building a fraction of the size of WTC there's a whole lot of banging going on plus you can see the flashes inside the building as they blow

Got a link to them denying it?

Some interesting stuff about temparatures and burning

http://www.debunking911.com/ironburns.htm
http://911myths.com/html/wtc_molten_steel.html

[Katman]

Got a link to them denying it?


Clearly you haven't watched the video yet - it's in there.

[Katman]

How many explosions? because from the controlled demoliton I watched in real life on a building a fraction of the size of WTC there's a whole lot of banging going on plus you can see the flashes inside the building as they blow


Do you reckon that the company who carried out the demolition you watched would have the same level of technology and sophistication available to them that the U.S. government might?

[Hinny]

You say that like it's a Cessna instead of a commercial Airliner weighing in at up to 186,880kg and like there's nothing else in the building that would burn

How many explosions? because from the controlled demoliton I watched in real life on a building a fraction of the size of WTC there's a whole lot of banging going on plus you can see the flashes inside the building as they blow

Got a link to them denying it?

Some interesting stuff about temparatures and burning

http://www.debunking911.com/ironburns.htm
http://911myths.com/html/wtc_molten_steel.html

If the statement is true that it would need tens of thousands of tons of high explosive to demolish the building then clearly even if the entiremass of the plane was Kerosene then it would not have been sufficient to bring the building down. Remember the South tower with the huge fireball coming out the side. There's where most of that went.
The woman standing in the hole of the major impacted tower - obviously not very hot there.
The guys walking down the stairs past the fire - they didn't think it was very hot.
The firefighters who got to the damaged floors and reported they could deal with the fire with a couple of hoses.
This is the fire you are claiming has the destructive ability of tens of thousands of tonnes of high explosive.
You have got to be kidding.

The links you posted were interesting.
I assume you now accept what I had previously stated that there were pools of molten steel in the rubble 2 months after the collapse.

The latter link was a bit difficult to follow but I persevered. His conclusions are, in my opinion, not supported by the 'evidence' he presented.

The first poster resorts to the inane name calling that is typical of those I referred to above.
Completely loses me when he starts quoting scripture.

[Hinny]

When George Bush Senior was caught lying in his Live video 'to the World' Angela D'Audney made the succinct response "Well I guess that shows the first casualty of War is the Truth".

Plenty of people think the destruction of the Larry's buildings - the Twin Towers and WTC7 - was a means to get the general populace to approve them going to war. That only his buildings fell down and not those between the towers and WTC7 did seem odd.
Those that reject that point of view argue that the govt. would not go and kill three thousand of its own citizens.
I would suggest that there would have been very little loss of life had the calls not been made telling people there was nothing to worry about and to go back to work.
Others say the Govt. is so inept they couldn't organise such a thing. "Couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery"!

The tragic events of Sept. 11 2001 raised questions that should not be left unanswered as they have been. And not left to 'God Botherers' to explain by quoting the Bible - for God's sake!
The families deserve answers. The world deserves answers. The Govt. has a moral duty to explain and if wrong is been found to have been done the perpetrators must be brought to justice.
Successive administrations have blocked access to items which could very simply put to rest a lot of speculation and conjecture.- for example confiscated video footage of the Pentagon. Calls for information under the Freedom of information act are ignored or rejected.
Instead they continue to obfuscate, reject and deny.
These actions alone, in my book, say they have something to hide.
Too many coincidences for them to be plausible; to any but the ardent 'believers' for whom no amount of proof would suffice.
Too many changes of story when parts of the story; become unravelled they merely alter the story. In the same manner the reasons for going to Invade Iraq.
Too little official action or information from the 'Authorities'. - although there does seem to be anonymous action from 'Authorities'. - Some have speculated on the source of financing of some of the 'information' that is disseminated over the web and through the media.
Maybe if Dick Cheney was waterboarded we might get some answers.
I pretty sure it would not take the 147 near death experiences that Khalid Sheik Mohammed endured before he confessed: "I was responsible for the 9/11 operation, from A to Z."
He also confessed to


Organizing the 1993 World Trade Center bombing (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center_bombing),
The Bali nightclub bombings (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bali_nightclub_bombings),
Richard Reid's attempted shoe bombing,
Planning the attacks on Heathrow Airport (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heathrow_Airport) and Big Ben clock tower (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clock_Tower,_Palace_of_Westminster) in London,
Daniel Pearl's murder in 2002,
Planned assassination (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination) attempts on Pope John Paul II (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_John_Paul_II), Pervez Musharraf (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pervez_Musharraf) and Bill Clinton (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton)


Was he a busy boy or just tired of the torture?
What might Cheney reveal?

[Hinny]

How many explosions? because from the controlled demoliton I watched in real life on a building a fraction of the size of WTC there's a whole lot of banging going on plus you can see the flashes inside the building as they blow



Some interesting stuff about temparatures and burning



If you are referring to the destruction of 'the Grand Chancellor' building then you must surely have noticed the similarity in the way that building and WTC7 came down.

Was the 'interesting stuff' about temperatures and burning the 1000 degree heat he quoted for steel to burn or the 2,800 degree temperature he quoted three lines later?

[Hinny]

But that wasn't your objection to his logic.

You said:



And there's no conflict there whatsoever.

In fact both of your summary statements say exactly the same thing: The building fell down without explosives being used.

Which, far from posing some irrefutable counter argument simply suggests that you're horribly confused about it all.

Outside of which, even your presumably intended contention that it couldn't have been a fire if it wasn't an explosion simply isn't true.

So, your logic might be simple, but correct it certainly isn't.

Time to re-read I suggest.
Your assertion is patently incorrect.

[Ocean1]

Time to re-read I suggest.
Your assertion is patently incorrect.

I did. Just for you.

The two statements still refuse to contradict each other. You're still wrong.

[Madness]

Ed's debunking theory proof:
1/ The towers could not have been blown up as it would have taken tens of thousands of tonnes of explosives to do it.

Ed's reason for the towers coming down:
2/ An aeroplane flew into the building and the kerosene caught on fire causing global collapse.

If the towers came down because of a kerosene fire, does that not then put a lie to the first statement?
ie. If the second statement is true then the first cannot be true.
Equally, if the towers needed tens of thousands of tonnes of high explosive to demolish them then the second statement must be false.
You can't have it both ways.

Simple logic.

Makes perfect sense to me. In fact I think you'd have to be a bit thick (as pig shit) not to grasp the point you've made there.

[Hinny]

I did. Just for you.

The two statements still refuse to contradict each other. You're still wrong.

I'll try again; just for you.

The building fell down without explosives being used.

The building would have needed tens of thousands of tons of high explosives to bring it down.

Clearly if statement one is correct then statement two cannot be correct.

The confusion may lie in me not elucidating the fact that the explosives were assumed to be used in conjunction with the aeroplane crash.

Better?

[Ocean1]

I'll try again; just for you.

The building fell down without explosives being used.

The building would have needed tens of thousands of tons of high explosives to bring it down.

Clearly if statement one is correct then statement two cannot be correct.

The confusion may lie in me not elucidating the fact that the explosives were assumed to be used in conjunction with the aeroplane crash.

Better?

No.

Assume, for a moment, (and I understand this might be difficult) that something other than an explosive device caused the building to fall down. A spontaneous existence failure of several steel columns, say.

Now, magically both statements are perfectly correct, no?

If not then try step #1 again...

[Kickaha]

If you are referring to the destruction of 'the Grand Chancellor' building then you must surely have noticed the similarity in the way that building and WTC7 came down.

I didn't notice a huge mechanical arm, diggers and other assorted demoliton equipment being used for WTC7, so no I didn't see any similarity at all
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/6882687/Last-moments-of-the-Grand-Chancellor

[Crasherfromwayback]

Yeah...it's like...

http://usahitman.com/dwccbctmi/

[Edbear]

Yeah...it's like...

http://usahitman.com/dwccbctmi/

When anyone refuses to acknowledge proven and verifiable facts and proceeds to oversimplify their argument ignoring the actual sequence of events they are of questionable mental capacity.

It has been clearly proven that explosives were not used, that commercial aircraft were used in all four incidents.

These proven facts are consistently denied by conspiracy theorists.

What more can be said?

[Katman]

It has been clearly proven that explosives were not used, that commercial aircraft were used in all four incidents.



What more can be said?

Remember Building 7?

[oneofsix]

Remember Building 7?

Yeah, Building 7 had the guts knocked out of it by Building 1 and set on fire from the side not in the video, the video shows an empty shell collapsing. So your point is?

[Katman]

Yeah, Building 7 had the guts knocked out of it by Building 1 and set on fire from the side not in the video, the video shows an empty shell collapsing. So your point is?

It certainly didn't have the guts knocked out of it and the fires were certainly not consuming the building.

The reality is that very little of the official story has been conclusively proven.

The 911 Commission offered no proof of anything (and interestingly, totally ignored the collapse of Building 7) while NIST (a government agency) have been repeatedly shown to have displayed highly questionable methods of investigation.

What is needed is an entirely independent investigation.

Trouble is, that would cost a fortune to carry out - and you can bet that the government won't be offering up any funding.

[Katman]

When anyone refuses to acknowledge proven and verifiable facts......

What has been proven and verified about the collapse of Building 7?

NIST have simply given an explanation and said "trust us, our computer simulation proved it". Trouble is, they refuse to offer up for independent verification, their method of working this out .

As I've said before Ed, governments love people like you. You'll accept any story that's offered as an official explanation without the slightest murmur.

That's a classic sign of government control.

[Edbear]

Another notable symptom of conspiracy illness is the refusal to look at all the evidence and focus on one thing in a belief that one relatively minor inonsistency renders everything questionable. Consistently accusing those of sounder mind of being brainwashed by the Govt.

And as I have pointed out before, only conspiracy websites will tell the truth no matter how often they and their so-called experts are proved wrong. Remember how insistent was the expert opinion that claimed a specific type of missile was used against the Pentagon and definitely was not an aircraft? Claiming the video evidence as proof?

[Katman]

Claiming the video evidence as proof?

Where's the video evidence that it was a plane?

[Katman]

Another notable symptom of conspiracy illness is the refusal to look at all the evidence and focus on one thing in a belief that one relatively minor inonsistency renders everything questionable.


I would hardly call the collapse of Building 7 "one relatively minor inconsistency".

If there are dodgy dealings going on with regard to Building 7 it most certainly calls into question the whole official version of events of that day.

[oneofsix]

It certainly didn't have the guts knocked out of it and the fires were certainly not consuming the building.

The reality is that very little of the official story has been conclusively proven.

The 911 Commission offered no proof of anything (and interestingly, totally ignored the collapse of Building 7) while NIST (a government agency) have been repeatedly shown to have displayed highly questionable methods of investigation.

What is needed is an entirely independent investigation.

Trouble is, that would cost a fortune to carry out - and you can bet that the government won't be offering up any funding.

That pics post earlier show the guts knocked out of it and the fires consuming the building but because they came from a site that debunked the conspiracy they have to be wrong according to your dogma, don't they? Even though the conspiracy can't refute them by putting up pics of that side of the building without the 10 floors missing.
The Conspiracy theory mentions the fire service not actively fighting the fires and then extends this to mean there were no fire personal to be pulled out of the building therefore the fire chief's comment about pulling it must mean demolition :facepalm: not actively fighting the fires because there is no water due to building 1 & 2 taking out the supply doesn't mean fire people weren't there trying to rescue people etc.

Keeping a disbelieving eye on TPTB is recommended but muddying the waters with fantasy is Hollywood's job and tends to provide cover for their real conspiracies.

[Katman]

Even though the conspiracy can't refute them by putting up pics of that side of the building without the 10 floors missing.


Can you put up any photos of the building with "10 floors missing"?

[Katman]

The Conspiracy theory mentions the fire service not actively fighting the fires and then extends this to mean there were no fire personal to be pulled out of the building therefore the fire chief's comment about pulling it must mean demolition :facepalm: not actively fighting the fires because there is no water due to building 1 & 2 taking out the supply doesn't mean fire people weren't there trying to rescue people etc.


There are accounts from firefighters at the scene stating that the fires were virtually under control and expressing disbelief that the building actually collapsed.

[oneofsix]

Can you put up any photos of the building with "10 floors missing"?

gave the link pages ago

[Katman]

gave the link pages ago

I only remember you putting up a video that showed black smoke coming from the building - that obscured any view of the damage to the building.

[oneofsix]

I only remember you putting up a video that showed black smoke coming from the building - that obscured any view of the damage to the building.


at the time you complained about the lack of visible flame which was answered by (I think) Mashman but it was pretty obvious that there was a big hole in the side of the building and the text pointed out the rubble from building 1 laying in a direct line to building 7

But here is a question; you have been given a viable explanation for the collapse of Building 7, the media love to expose the Govt. in cover-ups, aka Watergate, Bill Clinton and Sex gate, the excuses for the Iraq war, etc and you still choose to believe that the collapse of building 7 was a Govt conspiracy even though it didn't pay a part in the declaration of the "War on Terror", why?

[Katman]

at the time you complained about the lack of visible flame which was answered by (I think) Mashman but it was pretty obvious that there was a big hole in the side of the building and the text pointed out the rubble from building 1 laying in a direct line to building 7

It has been pointed out that black smoke is indicative of an oxygen starved fire - i.e. one that's not burning particularly hotly.

I also pointed out that black smoke could just as easily be from the burning of plastic items - i.e. lots of smoke from very little fire.

No-one's denying that the building suffered impact damage from the collapse of the tower. It is extremely unlikely though that it suffered sufficient damage to cause it to collapse.

[Katman]

But here is a question; you have been given a viable explanation for the collapse of Building 7, the media love to expose the Govt. in cover-ups, aka Watergate, Bill Clinton and Sex gate, the excuses for the Iraq war, etc and you still choose to believe that the collapse of building 7 was a Govt conspiracy even though it didn't pay a part in the declaration of the "War on Terror", why?

Of course it had a part to play. It was a significant event on the day of 9/11.

Can you not understand that if there is serious doubt as to the veracity of the story we are being fed about Building 7 then it calls into question what we are being told about the entire events of that day?

[oneofsix]

Of course it had a part to play. It was a significant event on the day of 9/11.

Can you not understand that if there is serious doubt as to the veracity of the story we are being fed about Building 7 then it calls into question what we are being told about the entire events of that day?

If there was serious doubt but there isn't and even if there was it could have been just limited to Building 7 but your point is an example of type conspiracy speak. You star t with an "if" and end with a factual type statement instead of the conditional style, now a good conspiracy would then have a second factual statement based on the premise the statement in the first sentence is a fact instead of a conditional if. IF there is serious doubt it COULD call into question.

Why do you say it is extremely unlikely WTC 7 suffer significant damage from WTC 1's collapse? Because it hasn't happened before? because a couple Govt servants that never expected to be involved in investigating what could have been an act of war were caught out by a hastily prepared draft of a report? Because of some video showing 1.25 seconds of freefall in a 5.9 second collapse from behind the backside of a wall? or because it isn't as much fun to say the govt story is more likely than the conspiracy?

[Katman]

If there was serious doubt but there isn't and even if there was it could have been just limited to Building 7 but your point is an example of type conspiracy speak. You star t with an "if" and end with a factual type statement instead of the conditional style, now a good conspiracy would then have a second factual statement based on the premise the statement in the first sentence is a fact instead of a conditional if. IF there is serious doubt it COULD call into question.


No, if there was serious doubt it would therefore call into question.....

There is most certainly serious doubt surrounding the story we're being told (by a government agency) regarding the collapse of Building 7.

[scumdog]

I see this has dropped down to a five person thread:blink:...

[Katman]

Why do you say it is extremely unlikely WTC 7 suffer significant damage from WTC 1's collapse? Because it hasn't happened before? because a couple Govt servants that never expected to be involved in investigating what could have been an act of war were caught out by a hastily prepared draft of a report?

Hastily prepared?

It took them 3 years to release the draft report.

[oneofsix]

No, if there was serious doubt it would therefore call into question.....

There is most certainly serious doubt surrounding the story we're being told (by a government agency) regarding the collapse of Building 7.

Nope If & could. If there was doubt over 7 it still doesn't necessarily follow that no planes crashed into 1 & 2 however it could mean there was something in 7 that someone wanted to hide or for some reason wanted 7 gone so it is still a could. Even then you have the issue of "serious doubt", so far it has been amusing at best.

[oneofsix]

Hastily prepared?

It took them 3 years to release the draft report.

You don't work for the government. Bet it took a few weeks to prepare after much fucking around with terms of reference, dept. responsibilities etc. This wasn't a type of report anyone in the USA ever expected to have to prepare, a possible act of war in their borders.

[Katman]

....however it could mean there was something in 7 that someone wanted to hide or for some reason wanted 7 gone so it is still a could.

See, now you're getting somewhere.

If "there was something in 7 that someone wanted to hide or for some reason wanted 7 gone" then it would be a clear indication that someone had advance warning of the attack.

[oneofsix]

I see this has dropped down to a five person thread:blink:...

yeah, not all of us have better things to do. :lol: You get out and enjoy the winter riding.

[bogan]

http://www.explosm.net/db/files/Comics/Dave/theonlyplaneicoulddisguisemypenisasisanairbusa380a ndthatsahilariousquipaboutmygiganticpenisgirthnonp lanetypesalsodontdisguiseyourdickasastealthbombert hathasconnoctationsthatlllandyouinprison.png


I see this has dropped down to a five person thread:blink:...

Are we sure they are all real people? It could just be a conspiracy by powers unknown...

[oneofsix]

See, now you're getting somewhere.

If "there was something in 7 that someone wanted to hide or for some reason wanted 7 gone" then it would be a clear indication that someone had advance warning of the attack.

You are drawing too long a bow. It took several hours for 7 to collapse after 1 and 2 were hit and then they had to rely on 1 collapsing towards 7 to act as cover. It would be easier to sent in someone dressed as a fireman to plant the explosives once 7 had been compromised, after all their secret wouldn't be at risk until after 7 was damaged. Given how badly TPTB are at covering up anything significant, Contra-Iran for example, it seems like fantasy.

[Katman]

You are drawing too long a bow. It took several hours for 7 to collapse after 1 and 2 were hit and then they had to rely on 1 collapsing towards 7 to act as cover. It would be easier to sent in someone dressed as a fireman to plant the explosives once 7 had been compromised, after all their secret wouldn't be at risk until after 7 was damaged.

I doubt you'd find any demolition expert who would agree that the planning and the rigging of Building 7 for such a precise collapse could be achievable in anything like the time from when the towers collapsed to when Building 7 collapsed.

[Hinny]

Since we can't get anywhere with agreeing there was a lot of fishy stuff that happened that day and the decision to go to war was questionable.
At least the UN was able to decide that was the case when Colon Powell went off to present his case with a big smile on his face and good luck wishes from the media personnel covering the story.
Let us debate the latest bullshit emanating from the U.S.A., and its puppet master Israel, concerning Iran.
Widely branded as a Rogue state - a Nuclear threat etc.
The anti-Muslim propaganda program being waged seems pretty intense.
Is Iran deserving of this condemnation?
Is it a threat to the security of the world?
Would John Key send troops off to support a Anglo/American/Israeli plan to topple the govt. of Iran?
Would Julia Gillard send troops off to support a Anglo/American/Israeli plan to topple the govt. of Iran?

[scumdog]

Wow, did THIS thread ever die off suddenly, did all the main contributors realise the hoss they was floggin' had long since been made into glue??

[Akzle]

Wow, did THIS thread ever die off suddenly, did all the main contributors realise the hoss they was floggin' had long since been made into glue??

so how IS your mother...

[scumdog]

so how IS your mother...
Zzzzzrrrrrr...the sound if a fishing reel when something's been snagged...

[Katman]

Wow, did THIS thread ever die off suddenly, did all the main contributors realise the hoss they was floggin' had long since been made into glue??

So have you watched the video in post #801 yet?

[Edbear]

Zzzzzrrrrrr...the sound if a fishing reel when something's been snagged...

Hook, line and sinker... :yes: Like a stuck record, no matter how much longer you play it or play it again, it will never progress beyond this point.

[Katman]

Hook, line and sinker... :yes: Like a stuck record, no matter how much longer you play it or play it again, it will never progress beyond this point.

You could always give the video a watch Ed.

[Edbear]

You could always give the video a watch Ed.

Did you miss the bit where I said I watched it?

Nothing alters the fact that no explosives were used in any of the buildings.

Nothing changes, including your deafening silence on proof that so many, so-called experts, have been shown to be blowing it out of their Southern orifices.

It matters not one jot what anyone posts, you will never concede any facts or evidence contrary to your blind attachment to a conspiracy, right or wrong. Notice you are now in a majority of one?

[Katman]

Did you miss the bit where I said I watched it?



I don't believe you Ed.


Nothing changes, including your deafening silence on proof that so many, so-called experts, have been shown to be blowing it out of their Southern orifices.


As opposed to the Government mouth-pieces that you choose to call experts Ed?

[oneofsix]

Zzzzzrrrrrr...the sound if a fishing reel when something's been snagged...

Jeez Scummy are you snowed in or something? Get bored with the Buell thread?

[bogan]

Wow, did THIS thread ever die off suddenly, did all the main contributors realise the hoss they was floggin' had long since been made into glue??

Oh come on Scummy, the panties were almost unbunched, now they have to start all over again...

[scumdog]

Sorry guys, I should have know better - but I was bored and thought I could be entertained by seeing the usual crew rebunch their panties!!;)

[Katman]

Sorry guys, I should have know better - but I was bored and thought I could be entertained by seeing the usual crew rebunch their panties!!;)

http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/36053884.jpg

[Hinny]

You could always give the video a watch Ed.

Ed's reply 'Did you miss the bit where I said I watched it?'

I guess that shows the lights are on but there's nobody home.

[Madness]

Ed's reply 'Did you miss the bit where I said I watched it?'

I guess that shows the lights are on but there's nobody home.

It's the drugs :yes:

[Hinny]

Or:

https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTWBJHT8JIpdtzeD8TlZMz4i7iCyo0Bt-F0dXTgwMonPLrMudaL

[Katman]

Ed's reply 'Did you miss the bit where I said I watched it?'

I guess that shows the lights are on but there's nobody home.

Nah, that's just Ed's standard response.

It certainly doesn't mean he actually watched it.

[Robert Taylor]

Back more on topic I discovered during a visit to St Pauls that General Sir Ian Hamilitons remains are incarcerated in the crypt. Bearing in mind his appalling generalship at Anzac Cove ( sending many needlessly to their death ) I was disgusted that he is amongst truly worthy war heroes.

[Hinny]

Back more on topic I discovered during a visit to St Pauls that General Sir Ian Hamilitons remains are incarcerated in the crypt. Bearing in mind his appalling generalship at Anzac Cove ( sending many needlessly to their death ) I was disgusted that he is amongst truly worthy war heroes.

To be fair it was Churchill's plan - instigated against advice from those who had a lot more sense.
That he is regarded as a worthy war hero disgusts me.

[Drew]

Is it Stalin's home town, that is practically a huge memorial to him? Whomever it was, (I only saw a little bit of the docco and my memory sucks), seems pretty sick to immortalise monsters thus.

[Hinny]

Is it Stalin's home town, that is practically a huge memorial to him? Whomever it was, (I only saw a little bit of the docco and my memory sucks), seems pretty sick to immortalise monsters thus.

That is Gori in Georgia.

They took down his statue in 2010. The pro-western President said a statue to Stalin had no place in the Georgia of the 21st Century.
A senior Communist Party official queried "How could they treat the memory of a person who saved the planet in this way?"

Interestingly he was a God Botherer like the other great mass murderers George Bush and Tony Blair. Bloody Hypocrites.

[oldrider]

That is Gori in Georgia.

They took down his statue in 2010. The pro-western President said a statue to Stalin had no place in the Georgia of the 21st Century.
A senior Communist Party official queried "How could they treat the memory of a person who saved the planet in this way?"

Interestingly he was a God Botherer like the other great mass murderers George Bush and Tony Blair. Bloody Hypocrites.

Hmmmmm, Interesting judgement by an "anonymous forever" bike rider who lives in an isolated little town on the bottom of the world! :hitcher: (freedom of speech forever) :yeah:

[Hinny]

Hmmmmm, Interesting judgement by an "anonymous forever" bike rider who lives in an isolated little town on the bottom of the world! :hitcher: (freedom of speech forever) :yeah:

Stalin studied to become a priest. That makes him a God botherer in my book.
Bush and Blair were responsible for the deaths of an estimated four million people. That makes them Mass murderers in my book.
Both of them are known God Botherers.
Since the greater mass of earth is in the hemisphere opposed to the one I live in that would make us at the top of the world.
And I live in a <strike>God Forsaken Hole</strike> errmmm 'Super City'.

[Banditbandit]

Since the greater mass of earth is in the hemisphere opposed to the one I live in that would make us at the top of the world.


We are on top of the world because of the way most people visualize the direction the Earth orbits the Sun. The majority of the people asked: If you are looking down on the sun from above, which way goes the Earth go? say it orbits clockwise (this is the orbit around the sun, not the spin around the axis) ..

If that is the case then when you look down on the sun and see the Earth, the pole facing you is the South Pole. If you say looking down on the sun and the Earth orbits anti-clockwise then North is the Top pole. So by popular conception South is the pole at the top.


(And yes, it does matter .. even if you flip the picture the Earth still moves clockwise ... )

[Hinny]

Did you miss the bit where I said I watched it?


I don't believe you Ed.


Wasting time - I couldn't remember seeing that so I looked back over Eds posts.
The reason you would not have seen the bit where he said he had watched it would be because he never posted any such thing.
Dreaming again? ... or being untruthful?

To imagine that he had watched it, and still stubbornly cling to the fantasy he promotes, beggars belief.
Although, I guess, the closed mind is capable.
The simple mind may not be able to comprehend - another option.

[Crasherfromwayback]

Wasting time - I couldn't remember seeing that so I looked back over Eds posts.
The reason you would not have seen the bit where he said he had watched it would be because he never posted any such thing.
.

Sprung!!!!!!

[oldrider]

Stalin studied to become a priest. That makes him a God botherer in my book.
Bush and Blair were responsible for the deaths of an estimated four million people. That makes them Mass murderers in my book.
Both of them are known God Botherers.
Since the greater mass of earth is in the hemisphere opposed to the one I live in that would make us at the top of the world.
And I live in a <strike>God Forsaken Hole</strike> errmmm 'Super City'.

Not actually a criticism of any thing that you said, think or do, just that you can do it from your obscure isolated position/locality in the world.

I wonder how much longer such freedom of speech on the internet will last!

Probably didn't word my post intention very well!

[Hinny]

Not actually a criticism of any thing that you said, think or do, just that you can do it from your obscure isolated position/locality in the world.

I wonder how much longer such freedom of speech on the internet will last!

Probably didn't word my post intention very well!

Do we have freedom of speech on the internet now?
Two long posts I wrote would not upload.
These contained speech which may have been construed as attacks on the US and the criminals behind the throne of power.
I also pointed out the criminal behaviour of John Key. I pointed out that by giving financial aid and moral support to the rebels who overthrew the govt. of Libya he became a war criminal.
Internet access became difficult to impossible despite rebooting the modem and the computer several times.
A paranoid person may have concluded I was being censored.
How could one determine if that was in fact happening?
What would one have to write to trigger the algorithm that would lead to blocking of access?
Is our access totally free of monitoring and censorship?
Would this control be undertaken by the GCSB? - previously illegally and in the future legally.
Are reports of access denial and censorship just drivel from conspiracy theorists?

[Hinny]

http://content.yieldmanager.edgesuite.net/atoms/68/0a/e5/85/680ae58581c4e128f9e66bfb17016ed8.gif

Poor buggers.

Not long before 911 Donald Rumsfeld was saying the defence dept. couldn't account for 2.3 Trillion dollars. That's 2.3 football fields of pallets of $100 bills - stacked two high!
Well the investigation into that came to nought with the destruction of WTC7.
Now the US is going cap in hand to the rest of the world to feed its people.
Can't imagine you would get to be a supersized yank on 12.5 cents per meal.

[Katman]

Not long before 911 Donald Rumsfeld was saying the defence dept. couldn't account for 2.3 Trillion dollars. That's 2.3 football fields of pallets of $100 bills - stacked two high!
Well the investigation into that came to nought with the destruction of WTC7.


That was convenient, wasn't it?

[Oscar]

Not long before 911 Donald Rumsfeld was saying the defence dept. couldn't account for 2.3 Trillion dollars. That's 2.3 football fields of pallets of $100 bills - stacked two high!
Well the investigation into that came to nought with the destruction of WTC7.
Now the US is going cap in hand to the rest of the world to feed its people.
Can't imagine you would get to be a supersized yank on 12.5 cents per meal.


Nuthin like taking a small grain of truth and making it fit your half arsed conspiracy.
The only thing that is correct is that the DoD couldn't account for that figure and their accounting problems had been public knowledge since 1996.

That particular amount wasn't hidden, and whereas Rumsfeld may have mentioned it the day before 9/11, it was announced as early as March 2000:


Pentagon's finances in disarray

By JOHN M. DONNELLY The Associated Press 03/03/00 5:44 PM Eastern

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The military's money managers last year made almost $7 trillion in adjustments to their financial ledgers in an attempt to make them add up, the Pentagon's inspector general said in a report released Friday.

The Pentagon could not show receipts for $2.3 trillion of those changes, and half a trillion dollars of it was just corrections of mistakes made in earlier adjustments.

As for the cover-up, the DoD was putting out press releases after 9/11:

Zakheim Seeks To Corral, Reconcile 'Lost' Spending
By Gerry J. Gilmore
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, Feb. 20, 2002 -- As part of military transformation efforts, DoD Comptroller Dov S. Zakheim and his posse of accountants are riding the Pentagon's financial paper trail, seeking to corral billions of dollars in so-called "lost" expenditures.

For years, DoD and congressional officials have sought to reconcile defense financial documents to determine where billions in expenditures have gone. That money didn't fall down a hole, but is simply waiting to be accounted for, Zakheim said in a Feb. 14 interview with the American Forces Information Service. Complicating matters, he said, is that DoD has 674 different computerized accounting, logistics and personnel systems.

Most of the 674 systems "don't talk to one another unless somebody 'translates,'" he remarked. This situation, he added, makes it hard to reconcile financial data.

Billions of dollars of DoD taxpayer-provided money haven't disappeared, Zakheim said. "Missing" expenditures are often reconciled a bit later in the same way people balance their checkbooks every month. The bank closes out a month and sends its bank statement, he said. In the meanwhile, people write more checks, and so they have to reconcile their checkbook register and the statement.

DoD financial experts, Zakheim said, are making good progress reconciling the department's "lost" expenditures, trimming them from a prior estimated total of $2.3 trillion to $700 billion. And, he added, the amount continues to drop.


This site should have a sub-forum named - sucker for a good conspiracy :brick:

[scumdog]

Nuthin like taking a small grain of truth and making it fit your half arsed conspiracy.
The only thing that is correct is that the DoD couldn't account for that figure and their accounting problems had been public knowledge since 1996.

That particular amount wasn't hidden, and whereas Rumsfeld may have mentioned it the day before 9/11, it was announced as early as March 2000:



As for the cover-up, the DoD was putting out press releases after 9/11:



This site should have a sub-forum named - sucker for a good conspiracy :brick:

"Must spread rep":2thumbsup

[Katman]

An interesting article.

http://rockcreekfreepress.tumblr.com/post/285492999/flt77fdr

[Hinny]

Nuthin like taking a small grain of truth and making it fit your half arsed conspiracy.
The only thing that is correct is that the DoD couldn't account for that figure and their accounting problems had been public knowledge since 1996.

That particular amount wasn't hidden, and whereas Rumsfeld may have mentioned it the day before 9/11, it was announced as early as March 2000:



As for the cover-up, the DoD was putting out press releases after 9/11:



This site should have a sub-forum named - sucker for a good conspiracy :brick:

It does give a good idea of the money being churned over in the name of 'defence'.
2.3 trillion in the pipeline awaiting balancing of the cheque book. Yeah right.
Anyway, don't you agree that money could be better spent?
Educating their people might be a good start.

[Oscar]

An interesting article.

http://rockcreekfreepress.tumblr.com/post/285492999/flt77fdr

Not really.

The FDR contained data not only for flight 77, but also for the 11 previous flights.
In 41 hours of data, the parameter never changed from '0'. It seems unlikely, although not impossible, that the cockpit door wasn't opened once during any of this time.

[Oscar]

It does give a good idea of the money being churned over in the name of 'defence'.
2.3 trillion in the pipeline awaiting balancing of the cheque book. Yeah right.
Anyway, don't you agree that money could be better spent?
Educating their people might be a good start.

It's pretty rich that you talk about educating people when you're quite happy to repeat any old drivel about 9/11.
Maybe you should seek some education?

[Hinny]

It's pretty rich that you talk about educating people when you're quite happy to repeat any old drivel about 9/11.
Maybe you should seek some education?

Can I deduce from your comments that you believe the official 911 story?

[Oscar]

Can I deduce from your comments that you believe the official 911 story?

You can deduce nothing.

However, if you're willing give me a sensible alternative story, I'll listen.
Bear in mind though, none of the alternatives I've seen are in any way sensible.

For example:


Flight 77 never took off. So what made the big hole in the ground?
The cockpit door was never opened. So how do you account for the voices on the cockpit voice recorder? The cellphone calls by passengers?
The WTC was blown up. So why did I see a plane hit it? Why would "they" go to the trouble of having a plane hit it, when a massive explosion blamed on a bomb in the car park would have been simpler and more believable?

[Oscar]

Occam's razor (also written as Ockham's razor from William of Ockham, and in Latin lex parsimoniae) is a principle of parsimony, economy, or succinctness used in logic and problem-solving.
It states that among competing hypotheses, the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions should be selected.

[Katman]

Another interesting video to watch.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0apdJca5OMA

[Katman]

It states that among competing hypotheses, the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions should be selected.

That the failure of a single column could bring WTC7 down in a uniform pattern at free fall speed is a rather large assumption.

[Katman]

Not really.

The FDR contained data not only for flight 77, but also for the 11 previous flights.
In 41 hours of data, the parameter never changed from '0'. It seems unlikely, although not impossible, that the cockpit door wasn't opened once during any of this time.

So now we're to believe that the FDR was faulty?

[Oscar]

So now we're to believe that the FDR was faulty?

Nope. That parameter wasn't installed on that model Boeing.

Can you explain the cockpit voice recording?
The phone calls from passengers?

[Oscar]

That the failure of a single column could bring WTC7 down in a uniform pattern at free fall speed is a rather large assumption.

As opposed to an elaborate conspiracy involving flying TWO aircraft into WTC 1 & 2, and then demolishing three buildings with controlled charges and all the while pretending that it was a terrorist attack?!!!


You're funny.

[Oscar]

......................................


http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20070116135846/uncyclopedia/images/8/83/Tumbleweed01.gif






.

[Katman]

As opposed to an elaborate conspiracy involving flying TWO aircraft into WTC 1 & 2, and then demolishing three buildings with controlled charges and all the while pretending that it was a terrorist attack?!!!


You're funny.

It's not that far fetched really.

Operation Northwoods proved that the American government will consider some pretty radical ideas if they want to go to war badly enough.

[Oscar]

It's not that far fetched really.



Come on, you're kidding, ain't you?



If you were going to carry off the plan that you're hinting at, why confuse the issue with hijacked planes?
Just blow the buildings up and blame it on terrorists.

You might also want to explain why the US Govt. would kill so many people, in so many different buildings, when one well placed bomb would have achieved...what?
An un-winable war in Afghanistan?


Also, the US Security Services are currently leaking like a sieve - where is the smoking gun?

[mashman]

Come on, you're kidding, ain't you?

If you were going to carry off the plan that you're hinting at, why confuse the issue with hijacked planes?
Just blow the buildings up and blame it on terrorists.

You might also want to explain why the US Govt. would kill so many people, in so many different buildings, when one well placed bomb would have achieved...what?


As an excuse to implement TSA, retinal scanning, inboard air marshals, access to airline data etc... (pretty pointless without aircraft involved) Then again, no govt or institution would slump that low and indulge themselves in such barbaric behaviour, irrespective of their history (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unethical_human_experimentation_in_the_United_Stat es)

[Katman]

If you were going to carry off the plan that you're hinting at, why confuse the issue with hijacked planes?


Flying planes into buildings is a far greater spectacle to galvanise public opinion towards a cause.

Besides, I'm not necessarily suggesting that the American government planned the event, merely that they are appearing to have been complicit to the fact.

[Oscar]

As an excuse to implement TSA, retinal scanning, inboard air marshals, access to airline data etc... (pretty pointless without aircraft involved) Then again, no govt or institution would slump that low and indulge themselves in such barbaric behaviour, irrespective of their history (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unethical_human_experimentation_in_the_United_Stat es)

Ahh, the brains of the outfit has arrived.

You say 9/11 was an excuse to implement barbaric behaviour, yet your link says that this has been going on since 1840.
Try again...

[Oscar]

Flying planes into buildings is a far greater spectacle to galvanise public opinion towards a cause.

Besides, I'm not necessarily suggesting that the American government planned the event, merely that they are appearing to have been complicit to the fact.

Complicit?
How?

There is simply no hard evidence beyond supposition like that surrounding the fate of WTC7.

You have yet to satisfy Occam.

[mashman]

Ahh, the brains of the outfit has arrived.

You say 9/11 was an excuse to implement barbaric behaviour, yet your link says that this has been going on since 1840.
Try again...

You said "Come on, you're kidding, ain't you?" in response to "It's not that far fetched really.", I was merely showing you that this sort of act would not be far fetched given past behaviour. And in response as to why not just bomb the buildings, I gave you the TSA etc... But please don't let me stop you making yet another story up... as always, it's entertaining.
Try again.

[Katman]

The cockpit door was never opened. So how do you account for the voices on the cockpit voice recorder? The cellphone calls by passengers?


On 9/11 Ted Olson held a press conference stating that he'd had a number of phone conversations with his wife who was on Flight 77.

In 2006 though the FBI claimed that there were never any phone conversations between them on that day.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/ted-olson-s-report-of-phone-calls-from-barbara-olson-on-9-11-three-official-denials/8514

Sounds odd to me.

[Katman]

Nope. That parameter wasn't installed on that model Boeing.


Link please?

[Oscar]

Link please?



A potentially explosive claim made by one conspiracy site is that the cockpit door on American 77, the flight that hit the Pentagon, was monitored on the flight data recorder and that this data showed the door was never opened. The site claims that the FDR data was obtained from the NTSB under the Freedom of Information Act and that the cockpit door parameter shows that the door did not open in flight. The site claims that this information was discovered eight years after the fact by an Australian researcher.

This claim cannot be closely examined because the link on the site’s page that purports to allow a download of the FDR data is a dead link. As a professional pilot, I can say that it is unlikely that the cockpit door was monitored on the FDR. Prior to 9/11, cockpit doors were not hardened as they are today and it is unlikely that they were monitored.

http://www.examiner.com/article/more-9-11-myths-cockpit-doors-marvin-bush-and-building-7

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/The_Cockpit_Door

[Oscar]

On 9/11 Ted Olson held a press conference stating that he'd had a number of phone conversations with his wife who was on Flight 77.

In 2006 though the FBI claimed that there were never any phone conversations between them on that day.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/ted-olson-s-report-of-phone-calls-from-barbara-olson-on-9-11-three-official-denials/8514

Sounds odd to me.

So the inability of an Old Man to recall a telephone conversation five years after the event is a pointer to conspiracy?

[Oscar]

You said "Come on, you're kidding, ain't you?" in response to "It's not that far fetched really.", I was merely showing you that this sort of act would not be far fetched given past behaviour. And in response as to why not just bomb the buildings, I gave you the TSA etc... But please don't let me stop you making yet another story up... as always, it's entertaining.
Try again.

If you have any proof of your claims, feel free to post them.
In the meantime, you're saying that I'm making stories up because I don't relive a far fetched conspiracy theory.
You and logic are rarely in the same nieghbourhood...

[Katman]

So the inability of an Old Man to recall a telephone conversation five years after the event is a pointer to conspiracy?

He supposedly held the press conference on the same day as the attack.

[Katman]

http://www.examiner.com/article/more-9-11-myths-cockpit-doors-marvin-bush-and-building-7

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/The_Cockpit_Door

So you previously asked "What about the cockpit voice recorder?" and you now give us a link that indicates that the CVR was destroyed in the crash.

I thought FDRs were supposed to be able to withstand any sort of crash.

[scumdog]

He supposedly held the press conference on the same day as the attack.

We don't do 'supposedly' 'it is believed' 'it is suspected' 'sources say'etc when looking for facts.

Except in Womans Weekly and shit magazines like that.

[Oscar]

He supposedly held the press conference on the same day as the attack.

So what?

It's a piece of confusing minutia.
Surely in a conspiracy involving the Govt. the Airline and the FBI, these three bodies would not contradict a star witness in public.

[Katman]

We don't do 'supposedly' 'it is believed' 'it is suspected' 'sources say'etc when looking for facts.

Except in Womans Weekly and shit magazines like that.

Yeah, you guys do "let's stick this thing here and then we can say he did it".

[Oscar]

So you previously asked "What about the cockpit voice recorder?" and you now give us a link that indicates that the CVR was destroyed in the crash.

I thought FDRs were supposed to be able to withstand any sort of crash.

FRD & CVR: Completely different pieces of equipment.
Your conspiracy-fu is weak, grasshopper.

[Katman]

Surely in a conspiracy involving the Govt. the Airline and the FBI, these three bodies would not contradict a star witness in public.

I know. It's weird, isn't it?

[mashman]

If you have any proof of your claims, feel free to post them.
In the meantime, you're saying that I'm making stories up because I don't relive a far fetched conspiracy theory.
You and logic are rarely in the same nieghbourhood...

I'm merely believing the testimony of the experts. If there are enough of those experts that say something doesn't smell right and given that we're talking 9/11, then it's entirely possible that what you call fiction is anything but. Throwing Occam's Razor into the mix shows nothing more than your usual bias. Like I've said before, you're just a dickhead and as it turns out, not even a smart one.

[Katman]

FRD & CVR: Completely different pieces of equipment.
Your conspiracy-fu is weak, grasshopper.

So what was your referance to the CVR about then? (If you knew that the CVR was destroyed).

[Oscar]

Yeah, you guys do "let's stick this thing here and then we can say he did it".

I have yet to see a convincing reason why anyone would want to fake the attack in such a Heath Robinson way, when 10 kilos of semtex would have achieved the same result, politically and militarily.
Answer the "why" and we'll talk about the "how".

[Katman]

I have yet to see a convincing reason why anyone would want to fake the attack in such a Heath Robinson way, when 10 kilos of semtex would have achieved the same result, politically and militarily.
Answer the "why" and we'll talk about the "how".

They tried that in 1993 and failed.

[Oscar]

I'm merely believing the testimony of the experts. If there are enough of those experts that say something doesn't smell right and given that we're talking 9/11, then it's entirely possible that what you call fiction is anything but. Throwing Occam's Razor into the mix shows nothing more than your usual bias. Like I've said before, you're just a dickhead and as it turns out, not even a smart one.

Testimony of the Experts?
You plonker - what you mean is that you're scanning the web for evidence to support your bias.

Show one "expert" who supports your theory.

Even your ad hominems are weak - as you tend to post drivel, if you think I'm a dickhead, it's a epithet I will wear with pride.

[Oscar]

So what was your referance to the CVR about then? (If you knew that the CVR was destroyed).

I apologise, it was not usable (I'm new to 911 conspiracy) I was referring to the Flight 93 CVR.

[Oscar]

They tried that in 1993 and failed.

I wondered if that was going to come up.
In what respect did they fail?

[Katman]

Show one "expert" who supports your theory.


Are you serious?

There are plenty of Engineers, Architects, Scientists etc who have placed their names in support of the refuting of the official story.

[Katman]

I wondered if that was going to come up.
In what respect did they fail?

Did the building collapse?

[Oscar]

Are you serious?

There are plenty of Engineers, Architects, Scientists etc who have placed their names in support of the refuting of the official story.

I was talking to Mushbrain.

His theory was based on the fact that the US was naughty in 1840.

[mashman]

Testimony of the Experts?
You plonker - what you mean is that you're scanning the web for evidence to support your bias.

Show one "expert" who supports your theory.

Even your ad hominems are weak - as you tend to post drivel, if you think I'm a dickhead, it's a epithet I will wear with pride.

It's ALL in the thread. It's ALL in the documentaries. ALL being both sides. Contrary to your claim of bias, I believe that the official story could be true, but given the evidence from the deniers, not the conspiracy guys, but the structural engineers, the demolition experts etc... there's enough evidence to cast doubt over the official story.

[mashman]

I was talking to Mushbrain.

His theory was based on the fact that the US was naughty in 1840.

My comment in regards to previous atrocities against their own people (more than just the 1840's) wasn't a theory at all, it had a context that you chose to ignore. Weak and kinda insulting to those who fought for your freedom to say so.

[Ocean1]

Throwing Occam's Razor into the mix shows nothing more than your usual bias. Like I've said before, you're just a dickhead and as it turns out, not even a smart one.

You're showing your usual disinclination to absorb anything that fails to agree with your opinion. It's not a simple fact you can ignore like you do the rest, it's an analytical tool. And in this case it's implementation is entirely appropriate, and it strongly suggests that there's fuck all dodgy going on there outside of the recorded and commonly accepted causes.

I've introduced you to Mr Occam before. Given his utility at cutting through bullshit it doesn't surprise me that you find his application disturbing and haven't retained his usually useful acquaintance at all.

[Katman]

(I'm new to 911 conspiracy)

Me too, but I'm finding the research enlightening.

Are you?

[mashman]

You're showing your usual disinclination to absorb anything that fails to agree with your opinion. It's not a simple fact you can ignore like you do the rest, it's an analytical tool. And in this case it's implementation is entirely appropriate, and it strongly suggests that there's fuck all dodgy going on there outside of the recorded and commonly accepted causes.

I've introduced you to Mr Occam before. Given his utility at cutting through bullshit it doesn't surprise me that you find his application disturbing and haven't retained his usually useful acquaintance at all.

:killingme... you can't see the irony in that statement can ya. Have fun dear.

[Oscar]

It's ALL in the thread. It's ALL in the documentaries. ALL being both sides. Contrary to your claim of bias, I believe that the official story could be true, but given the evidence from the deniers, not the conspiracy guys, but the structural engineers, the demolition experts etc... there's enough evidence to cast doubt over the official story.

So what ARE you saying?
You aren't biased?

I see all these claims about WTC7 and Flight 77 etc, but not one, single, irrefutable piece of evidence that contradicts the conclusion that AQ planned and executed the whole thing.
The conspiracy theorists are just that - theorists.
Sure there's interesting shit like the way WTC7 fell down, and the confusing testimony that came out, etc.
But in an operation that would have needed to have involved hundreds of people over the whole of the continental USA, we still have no one, 12 years after the fact that has come forward and said - "I was involved".

Why is that?
This is a Govt. that is bleeding intelligence at the moment.
Why no mention in wiki-leaks?
Nothing from the Russian spy's operating in DC?
Nothing from the British MI6 whistle-blowers mentioned earlier?

[Oscar]

Me too, but I'm finding the research enlightening.

Are you?

I find the self-confirming nature of internet conspiracy very interesting.

[Oscar]

My comment in regards to previous atrocities against their own people (more than just the 1840's) wasn't a theory at all, it had a context that you chose to ignore. Weak and kinda insulting to those who fought for your freedom to say so.

I fought my own fights, DIckhead.

[Katman]

So what ARE you saying?
You aren't biased?

I see all these claims about WTC7 and Flight 77 etc, but not one, single, irrefutable piece of evidence that contradicts the conclusion that AQ planned and executed the whole thing.
The conspiracy theorists are just that - theorists.
Sure there's interesting shit like the way WTC7 fell down, and the confusing testimony that came out, etc.
But in an operation that would have needed to have involved hundreds of people over the whole of the continental USA, we still have no one, 12 years after the fact that has come forward and said - "I was involved".

Why is that?
This is a Govt. that is bleeding intelligence at the moment.
Why no mention in wiki-leaks?
Nothing from the Russian spy's operating in DC?
Nothing from the British MI6 whistle-blowers mentioned earlier?

Ask Barry Jennings.

Oh no, that's right, you can't - he's dead.

http://barryjenningsmystery.blogspot.co.nz/

[Kickaha]

there's enough evidence to cast doubt over the official story.
Doubt isn't the same as proof

There are plenty of Engineers, Architects, Scientists etc who have placed their names in support of the refuting of the official story.
So are there no Engineers, Architects, Scientists etc who support the official story?

[Katman]

Doubt isn't the same as proof

So are there no Engineers, Architects, Scientists etc who support the official story?

Can you name any entirely independent one who does?

[Katman]

Doubt isn't the same as proof


Doubt is certainly sufficient to warrant an independent investigation.

[mashman]

Doubt isn't the same as proof

It's good enough for the legal system. Where there is doubt, they don't throw the person in jail.

[Hinny]

I apologise, it was not usable (I'm new to 911 conspiracy) I was referring to the Flight 93 CVR.

You lack of knowledge demonstrates clearly that you are new to the whole questioning of the official story.
Posting links to justify your assertions of facts, eg 'FDR parameter not installed', with the unequivocal truth as contained in the statement 'as a professional pilot it is unlikely the doors were monitored', is just being silly.

The events that took place on Sept 11 2001 and the subsequent moves by Govts around the world were and remain extremely important.
The behaviour of the US Govt. is probably the biggest reason to suspect official involvement. Guilty behaviour implying guilt.
Just as George Bush 1 was caught out lying by new technology (Peter Arnett broadcasting directly from the field) his son and cohorts have been also.
The greatly increased ability to communicate has enabled the dissection and examination of the official story in minutiae by experts and their findings have been disseminated to the world.
Your 'professional pilot' saying it was unlikely the cockpit door was monitored or later it was unlikely although not impossible the door would not have been opened during flight throughout the 11 previous flights prior is hardly sufficient to satisfy even the most rudimentary standards of proof.

What is of great importance is the realisation that we live in a connected world now and we should not simply accept the stories Govts. feed us without questioning.
The truth is out there and the truth will set you free. With the 911 story it seems the truth is getting closer and closer to being discovered and govts. are working harder and harder to prevent that happening. There actions speak volumes.
'Understanding the mechanics, motives and politics of what really happened before, during and after 9-11 is crucial to the prevention of the total destruction of the American Constitution and the traditional American way of life.
History is clear that whatever calamity happens to America, happens to the remainder of the globe. Hence, the American version of “globalization” is to be feared with serious and grievous trepidation'. http://physics911.net/omholt/ Part One of An Online Journal of 9-11 by Ralph Omholt

How are we to react to the next 'atrocity'.
The new 'New Pearl Harbour'. Simply go along with the official story and send our ANZAC fighting forces off to participate in another of their adventures?
John Key certainly seems raring and ready to go - committing our troops to support an invasion of North Korea.
I bet he believes the official story of 911.

[mashman]

So what ARE you saying?
You aren't biased?

I see all these claims about WTC7 and Flight 77 etc, but not one, single, irrefutable piece of evidence that contradicts the conclusion that AQ planned and executed the whole thing.
The conspiracy theorists are just that - theorists.
Sure there's interesting shit like the way WTC7 fell down, and the confusing testimony that came out, etc.
But in an operation that would have needed to have involved hundreds of people over the whole of the continental USA, we still have no one, 12 years after the fact that has come forward and said - "I was involved".

Why is that?
This is a Govt. that is bleeding intelligence at the moment.
Why no mention in wiki-leaks?
Nothing from the Russian spy's operating in DC?
Nothing from the British MI6 whistle-blowers mentioned earlier?

You know my reasons for siding with the conspiracy theorists. There are too many inconsistencies for 1 side to be believed over another, BUT, given that there are experts who honestly believe that the FACTS that back up the official story are questionable, I'm going with them as I wouldn't put it past a govt to allow these sorts of things to happen. Anything I say after this point will be "conspiracy", but I'm not foolish enough to believe that there aren't people in this world that would allow these sorts of things to happen and then do nothing about them other than to start planning for the fallout.


I fought my own fights, DIckhead.

What? Did you get ripped off by a finance company or something?

[mashman]

......................................


http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20070116135846/uncyclopedia/images/8/83/Tumbleweed01.gif

.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8IkbCeZ9to

[Hinny]

regarding the use of Occams razor ...
... it's an analytical tool. And in this case it's implementation is entirely appropriate, and it strongly suggests that there's fuck all dodgy going on there outside of the recorded and commonly accepted causes..

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/ekQ_Ja02gTY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>





I see all these claims about WTC7 and Flight 77 etc, but not one, single, irrefutable piece of evidence that contradicts the conclusion that AQ planned and executed the whole thing.
The conspiracy theorists are just that - theorists.
Sure there's interesting shit like the way WTC7 fell down, and the confusing testimony that came out, etc.
But in an operation that would have needed to have involved hundreds of people over the whole of the continental USA, we still have no one, 12 years after the fact that has come forward and said - "I was involved".

Yet not one piece of evidence that concludes that AQ planned and executed the whole thing.
Not one person who has come forward and said - "I was involved".

You cannot be serious.

[Virago]

Conspiracy theories are easy to concoct, and generally impossible to disprove - in the exact same way that it's impossible to actually prove anything.

I have recently learned that a significant number of Jews sold their homes in Christchurch, in the weeks and months before the big shake. So was there a Jewish conspiracy involved? My evidence says so - unless you can prove otherwise. You can't? Then the conspiracy stands.

My doubts over-ride your evidence and common sense, until you can prove otherwise.

Proof. The onus of proof is always on the other party. Keep up the good work. :crazy:

[Oscar]

You lack of knowledge demonstrates clearly that you are new to the whole questioning of the official story.
Posting links to justify your assertions of facts, eg 'FDR parameter not installed', with the unequivocal truth as contained in the statement 'as a professional pilot it is unlikely the doors were monitored', is just being silly.

.

I accept what a professional pilot says (and what he says about reinforced cockpit doors prior to 9/11 is fact), and I'm being silly?

Then you post ridiculous and unproven statements like "The behaviour of the US Govt. is probably the biggest reason to suspect official involvement. Guilty behaviour implying guilt."
They look guilty so they are? It's that simple?

"The events that took place on Sept 11 2001 and the subsequent moves by Govts around the world were and remain extremely important."
This is true, but it proves nothing.

You're still asking me to accept a theory based on suppositions and innuendo. whilst the obvious answer is the simplest.

[Katman]

Conspiracy theories are easy to concoct, and generally impossible to disprove - in the exact same way that it's impossible to actually prove anything.

I have recently learned that a significant number of Jews sold their homes in Christchurch, in the weeks and months before the big shake. So was there a Jewish conspiracy involved? My evidence says so - unless you can prove otherwise. You can't? Then the conspiracy stands.

My doubts over-ride your evidence and common sense, until you can prove otherwise.

Proof. The onus of proof is always on the other party. Keep up the good work. :crazy:

Feel free to make an issue of it if it's important to you.

[Katman]

whilst the obvious answer is the simplest.

Regardless of it's countless flaws?

[Oscar]

You know my reasons for siding with the conspiracy theorists.

I don't actually. I had assumed some sort of chemical imbalance, however.

[Oscar]

Regardless of it's countless flaws?

Until a less flawed one comes along.

[Ocean1]

regarding the use of Occams razor ...
You cannot be serious.


I see you're not a fan of logic tools.

Have you got past step 1 yet? http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/158226-ANZACs-and-war-and-stuff?p=1130554688#post1130554688

[Kickaha]

Regardless of it's countless flaws?
So there's no flaws in any of the other theories put forward? ie controlled demoliton

[mashman]

Conspiracy theories are easy to concoct, and generally impossible to disprove - in the exact same way that it's impossible to actually prove anything.

I have recently learned that a significant number of Jews sold their homes in Christchurch, in the weeks and months before the big shake. So was there a Jewish conspiracy involved? My evidence says so - unless you can prove otherwise. You can't? Then the conspiracy stands.

My doubts over-ride your evidence and common sense, until you can prove otherwise.

Proof. The onus of proof is always on the other party. Keep up the good work. :crazy:

Just for you (http://uncensored.co.nz/2011/03/04/was-the-christchurch-earthquake-a-terrible-natural-disaster-or-was-it-a-terrible-man-made-disaster/)

[Katman]

Assume, for a moment, (and I understand this might be difficult) that something other than an explosive device caused the building to fall down. A spontaneous existence failure of several steel columns, say.


So why would NIST claim that it was the failure of a single column?

[Katman]

So there's no flaws in any of the other theories put forward? ie controlled demoliton

And you don't think there's cause for an independent investigation?

[Ocean1]

So why would NIST claim that it was the failure of a single column?

No idea.

Could it be, I wonder, that they think it was the failure of a single column?

Just, y'know putting it out there...

[Katman]

No idea.

Could it be, I wonder, that they think it was the failure of a single column?

Just, y'know putting it out there...

And you think the failure of a single column could allow a building to fall in the manner that WTC7 did?

[Robert Taylor]

To be fair it was Churchill's plan - instigated against advice from those who had a lot more sense.
That he is regarded as a worthy war hero disgusts me.

Absolutely, and Wiston Spencer made some shocking decisions. But to be similarly fair he had a record of not being afraid to be in the frontline. When he lost being First Lord of the Admiralty he went and fought in the trenches in France

Ian Hamilton was ''the Johnie on the spot'' at Anzac cove and demonstrably had a callous disregard for the wellbeing of the colonial troops he was in charge of. He just kept feeding them towards the Turkish machine guns on high ground.

[Kickaha]

So why would NIST claim that it was the failure of a single column?
There were failures in other areas before the "single" column collapsed

Eventually, a girder on Floor 13 lost its connection to a critical column, Column 79, that provided support for the long floor spans on the east side of the building (see Diagram 1). The displaced girder and other local fire-induced damage caused Floor 13 to collapse, beginning a cascade of floor failures down to the 5th floor. Many of these floors had already been at least partially weakened by the fires in the vicinity of Column 79. This collapse of floors left Column 79 insufficiently supported in the east-west direction over nine stories.

And you don't think there's cause for an independent investigation?
Any event of that magnitude should always have an independent investigation, but if it confirmed what the Goverment said you wouldn't believe it anyway and you didn't answer the question

[Oscar]

regarding the use of Occams razor ...

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/ekQ_Ja02gTY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>




Yet not one piece of evidence that concludes that AQ planned and executed the whole thing.
Not one person who has come forward and said - "I was involved".

You cannot be serious.

Not one piece of evidence?
Really....

http://vault.fbi.gov/9-11%20Commission%20Report

[Hinny]

I see you're not a fan of logic tools.

Have you got past step 1 yet? http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/158226-ANZACs-and-war-and-stuff?p=1130554688#post1130554688

Obviously; but that you can't understand the logic of my posts speaks volumes.

[Kickaha]

Not one piece of evidence?
Really....

http://vault.fbi.gov/9-11%20Commission%20Report

Goverment lackeys, it's all part of the conspiracy;)

[Katman]

Any event of that magnitude should always have an independent investigation, but if it confirmed what the Goverment said you wouldn't believe it anyway and you didn't answer the question

That's a rather outrageous claim Warwick.

Let's have the independent investigation and see whether you're right.

[Ocean1]

And you think the failure of a single column could allow a building to fall in the manner that WTC7 did?

No idea, I'm neither familiar with the building nor qualified to comment.

I do know that it's not unusual for buildings to be structurally reliant on a single structural member, though.

[Oscar]

Govermant lackeys, it's all part of the conspiracy;)

I suppose - unless you can link it to the Joos or the CIA, it's not valid...

[Ocean1]

Obviously; but that you can't understand the logic of my posts speaks volumes.

Aye, it does.

[Katman]

Goverment lackeys, it's all part of the conspiracy;)

Now you're starting to get it Warwick.

[Kickaha]

Let's have the independent investigation and see whether you're right.

Be a good lad and get it underway then

[Katman]

No idea, I'm neither familiar with the building nor qualified to comment.

I do know that it's not unusual for buildings to be structurally reliant on a single structural member, though.

One single column of 80 odd others?

Don't give up you day job and become an Architect.

[Katman]

Be a good lad and get it underway then

The growing support to the idea that the official story doesn't stack up will hopefully achieve that.

[Ocean1]

One single column of 80 odd others?

Don't give up you day job and become an Architect.

Right you are, we'll leave that to you and the experts, eh?



BTW, architects don't design building structures.

[Hinny]

I accept what a professional pilot says (and what he says about reinforced cockpit doors prior to 9/11 is fact), and I'm being silly?

Dude, you are quoting an unnamed person, claiming to be a professional pilot as his sole credential, saying he thought it was unlikely the doors were monitored as proof of your assertion there was no monitoring device on the door.
FFS get with the programme.

Nothing to prove there was not a monitoring device on the door.

The questions surrounding the black boxes are a whole kettle of fish in themselves.
How could they survive when the rest of the plane 'vapourised' - to use the official term.

[Katman]

BTW, architects don't design building structures.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/architect

[Kickaha]

The questions surrounding the black boxes are a whole kettle of fish in themselves.
How could they survive when the rest of the plane 'vapourised' - to use the official term.
Just a guess with no official supporting information but they'd be fucking useless as a recording device if they couldn't survive a plane crash

[Oscar]

Dude, you are quoting an unnamed person, claiming to be a professional pilot as his sole credential, saying he thought it was unlikely the doors were monitored as proof of your assertion there was no monitoring device on the door.
FFS get with the programme.

Nothing to prove there was not a monitoring device on the door.

The questions surrounding the black boxes are a whole kettle of fish in themselves.
How could they survive when the rest of the plane 'vapourised' - to use the official term.

Shit, now you're being silly.


These devices are designed to survive a crash, that's what they're for:brick:
Do some research.

[Ocean1]

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/architect

Very good. Maybe you really do get what you pay for...

Anyway, Architects make pretty pictures, the guys that design the structures are Engineers.

[Katman]

Anyway, Architects make pretty pictures, the guys that design the structures are Engineers.

Don't give up your day job to be either then.

[Katman]

Shit, now you're being silly.


These devices are designed to survive a crash, that's what they're for:brick:
Do some research.

Do you believe that planes can 'vapourise' in a crash?

[Ocean1]

Don't give up your day job to be either then.

That could be tricky...

[Katman]

That could be tricky...

Yes, I'm aware you're an Engineer.

Maybe you're just not a very good one.

[Hinny]

Absolutely, and Wiston Spencer made some shocking decisions. But to be similarly fair he had a record of not being afraid to be in the frontline. When he lost being First Lord of the Admiralty he went and fought in the trenches in France

Ian Hamilton was ''the Johnie on the spot'' at Anzac cove and demonstrably had a callous disregard for the wellbeing of the colonial troops he was in charge of. He just kept feeding them towards the Turkish machine guns on high ground.

The videos that play at the War Museum at Waiouru concerning those events bring tears to your eyes.
It is easy to see how US actions will be creating more 'terrorists' than eliminating them.
After reading the heart wrenching story of the result of a US drone strike in Pakistan I can certainly sympathise with those who may regard the US as the home of the devil and want to exact revenge.
It is ingrained into our psyche to exact revenge, through the modern media, and I suspect more so in many of the countries currently under attack from the US and its allies.

As for Churchill his stint in the trenches should hardly have been sufficient to right the wrongs. Falling on his sword would have been the honourable thing to do.
His behaviour it appears didn't get any better later on.
We now see the current US and UK govts. following his lead by ignoring the 'rules of war' - the Treaties and Conventions that are supposed to govern their behaviour.
To me that is as inexcusable as the modern penchant for kicking people when they are down in fights which appears to have led to the recent death of a young lad in Ak.
The age old 'Queensbury Rules' understanding that governed getting or giving a bit of biff when I was young has gone out the window. Similarly the Geneva convention is ignored by the monsters in power. W and his puppet masters had the Iraqis lay down their arms and then proceeded to try and wipe them off the face of the earth. John Pilger reported pilots struggling to find a target bigger than an outhouse. Obama seems to think he has the right to kill people around the world at his will. They justify killing their own people without any form of justice. It is bizarre! Remember the 'Butcher of Baghdad' - 'killing his own people'. Now we have the butcher of Washington killing his own people. It is as if he has been brainwashed and knows not what he does.
Mind control is probably more easily achieved in times of high stress. This may be what has happened.
The man with the big gun has a licence to kill - anyone, anywhere, anytime.
Don't need no stupid laws to tell him what he can and can't do. He's got Bebe for that.

[Ocean1]

Yes, I'm aware you're an Engineer.

Maybe you're just not a very good one.

Could be, you'd probably have to talk to my clients about that.


If you ever saw the need for an informed opinion.

[Hinny]

Just a guess with no official supporting information but they'd be fucking useless as a recording device if they couldn't survive a plane crash

Engine's be fucken useless if they couldn't stand the heat of a fuel rich, open air kerosene fire.

[Katman]

Could be, you'd probably have to talk to my clients about that.


If you ever saw the need for an informed opinion.

Clearly you consider yourself more qualified than these guys.

http://www.ae911truth.org/

[Hinny]

Shit, now you're being silly.


These devices are designed to survive a crash, that's what they're for:brick:
Do some research.

It would appear:
Never before have crashed planes vapourised; as both the Pentagon plane and the Shanksville plane are alleged to have.
Never before has a plane nose-dived into the ground and wreckage be found six miles away.
Never before have steel framed skyscrapers fallen down after a fire.
Never before has a kerosene fire and falling concrete caused steel to turn to dust.

To answer an earlier question about the hole the Shanksville plane was alleged to have fallen into - What caused it I don't know but people have proffered photographic evidence to show the hole was there before the plane crashed.
Witnesses comments that there was not a plane to be found were debunked by one woman who offered a photo of a 3/4 full jumbo bin of collected wreckage and stated that 90% of the plane had been recovered.

[Katman]

Any event of that magnitude should always have an independent investigation, but if it confirmed what the Goverment said you wouldn't believe it anyway and you didn't answer the question

The fact is Warwick, if an independent investigation proved beyond doubt that the official sotry was true it would actually come as some sort of relief.

I mean, who actually wants to believe that a government could be guilty of such a cover up?

If the investigation proved otherwise though, could you claim the same relief?

[Hinny]

Nope. That parameter wasn't installed on that model Boeing.

Can you explain the cockpit voice recording?
The phone calls from passengers?

Plenty of questions have certainly been asked about the phone calls from passengers since cell phones didn't work from aeroplanes then and the seat phones had been taken out.
A debunker said the calls weren't from cell phones they were from seat phones and offered a photo of seat phones in an aircraft of the same airline he flew in a year later that had seat phones as proof they could have been made from seat phones. I've flown in many aircraft with seat phones back in the days before 911. None of them worked. Does that prove none of the passenger phone calls were real? Similar standard of proof to the debunker I would have thought.

[Hinny]

Very good. Maybe you really do get what you pay for...

Anyway, Architects make pretty pictures, the guys that design the structures are Engineers.

Engineers said the fires caused the steel trusses to pull the columns inward in the twin towers.
They said fires caused the trusses to push the columns outward in the WTC7.
This one was interesting as it caused a larger column, buttressed by the rest of the building, to collapse rather than a perimeter column that had no support from the outside.
Is that logical? That it should work against the area of most resistance.

[Kickaha]

Do you believe that planes can 'vapourise' in a crash?
No, but a plane is a fairly flimsy structure, watch a few crash videos where they flew planes into solid objcts and there's fuck all left of them, but I'm sure all those bits of plane they found were planted,probably at the same time they wired the buidings for explosives


It would appear:
Never before have crashed planes vapourised; as both the Pentagon plane and the Shanksville plane are alleged to have.
Never before has a plane nose-dived into the ground and wreckage be found six miles away.
Never before have steel framed skyscrapers fallen down after a fire.
Never before has a kerosene fire and falling concrete caused steel to turn to dust.

So they use one word like vapourised and all of a sudden it means everything else said is rubbish? what if they'd said disentergrated would that make it right?

"Never before" have those things happened doesn't mean they wont ever happen again

[Drew]

And you think the failure of a single column could allow a building to fall in the manner that WTC7 did?No, but it's not like there was a fire that did nothing to the building but damage that single column.

The huge unsupported floor span with that column gone, would have colapsed. That seems to have started a cave in of floors, and then once things were dropping pretty quickly, the exterior walls came down with reletive lack of impedence.

You asked me about this, and I provided links to the NIST site, that answered.

Who's ignoring stuff now?

[Katman]

Who's ignoring stuff now?

I don't think I'm ignoring anything Drew.

http://rememberbuilding7.org/nist-collapse-model/

"Relative lack of impedance" is hardly the same as free fall.

And besides, NIST are a government agency that were tasked with coming up with an explanation.

Hardly what you'd call an independent investigation.

[Katman]

So they use one word like vapourised and all of a sudden it means everything else said is rubbish? what if they'd said disentergrated would that make it right?


You haven't been paying attention, have you Warwick?

In 60 or so pages there's been a lot more discussed than just the incorrect use of one word.

[Katman]

<img src="http://www.pentagoncity.net/911/911WTC7Damage.gif"/>

The column in question is also quite a distance from the impact damage from the tower collapsing.

[Hinny]

So they use one word like vapourised and all of a sudden it means everything else said is rubbish? what if they'd said disentergrated would that make it right?

Disentergrated - you writing with an American accent now?

The word vapourised was used to explain the lack of evidence of a plane crashing into the Pentagon.
The plane apparently vapourised.
Even the engines burnt up in the fire.
Get a reality check!

[Robert Taylor]

The videos that play at the War Museum at Waiouru concerning those events bring tears to your eyes.
It is easy to see how US actions will be creating more 'terrorists' than eliminating them.
After reading the heart wrenching story of the result of a US drone strike in Pakistan I can certainly sympathise with those who may regard the US as the home of the devil and want to exact revenge.
It is ingrained into our psyche to exact revenge, through the modern media, and I suspect more so in many of the countries currently under attack from the US and its allies.

As for Churchill his stint in the trenches should hardly have been sufficient to right the wrongs. Falling on his sword would have been the honourable thing to do.
His behaviour it appears didn't get any better later on.
We now see the current US and UK govts. following his lead by ignoring the 'rules of war' - the Treaties and Conventions that are supposed to govern their behaviour.
To me that is as inexcusable as the modern penchant for kicking people when they are down in fights which appears to have led to the recent death of a young lad in Ak.
The age old 'Queensbury Rules' understanding that governed getting or giving a bit of biff when I was young has gone out the window. Similarly the Geneva convention is ignored by the monsters in power. W and his puppet masters had the Iraqis lay down their arms and then proceeded to try and wipe them off the face of the earth. John Pilger reported pilots struggling to find a target bigger than an outhouse. Obama seems to think he has the right to kill people around the world at his will. They justify killing their own people without any form of justice. It is bizarre! Remember the 'Butcher of Baghdad' - 'killing his own people'. Now we have the butcher of Washington killing his own people. It is as if he has been brainwashed and knows not what he does.
Mind control is probably more easily achieved in times of high stress. This may be what has happened.
The man with the big gun has a licence to kill - anyone, anywhere, anytime.
Don't need no stupid laws to tell him what he can and can't do. He's got Bebe for that.


With respect to England I guess you'd say that they are paying for their history, in many ways.

[Ocean1]

No idea, I'm neither familiar with the building nor qualified to comment.


Clearly you consider yourself more qualified than these guys.

http://www.ae911truth.org/


Fascinating, how you can make that leap of... err, what is that, dude, that takes the place of logic in your head, that makes you believe the exact opposite of what's in front of your face?