The Truth Behind 9/11

[WilDDog]

as i have said in previos posts, for a building to collapse into its own footprints all its 4 load bearing members must collapse at exactly the same time, and by looking at your picture of WTC 7 it would seem to me that it would be impossible for them all to collapse together, obviosly the SW corner must have gone first if there was so much damage to that corner. so this would indicate that somehow the 4 load bearing members were all made to collapse together.

 

What a load of absolute twaddle.

 

explain please. in YOUR OWN words

 

You don't have to shout using capitals. As it happens I've already explained , long before you came along.

 

Go fish.

[stevie]

explain please. in YOUR OWN words

 

Why dont you reply to Dr Dave and Chinahand stevie?

 

because i have already explained numerous times.

 

No you haven't. You've linked shite which they've very obviously debunked, but you've not got a reply to that have you? You can't think for yourself, you're a sheep.

 

Did you read http://biblequotes.blogspot.com/ yet?

 

hey now, how come it is ok for other people to print links to other sites, yet i'm not allowed to? i have to explain my whole arguement with my own words, yet other people are allowed to use links?

 

Slim, have you even read the post? she doesn't call Bush Satan, but says these people are Satanic! There is a difference Slim, surely you can comprehend this??

 

trust me, i am not a sheep. nowhere near in fact, it would seem you are in fact the sheep Slim, believing what you are told by the MSM, just like the bible freaks.

[ans]

because i have already explained numerous times.

 

I'm going to make this very simple for you. If you don't post a full and detailed explanation as you have been requested to on a number of occasions, you're banned. Ok?

 

And yes, I'm on the Bush conspiracy payroll designed to keep the masses from learning the truth by banning raving loonys from regional internet message boards.

[Slim]

hey now, how come it is ok for other people to print links to other sites, yet i'm not allowed to? i have to explain my whole arguement with my own words, yet other people are allowed to use links?

 

Because it's something you demanded that wilddog do, see?

 

Slim, have you even read the post? she doesn't call Bush Satan, but says these people are Satanic! There is a difference Slim, surely you can comprehend this??

 

Have you read it? She's clearly a nutter. She says anyone who voted for Bush believes him to be the second coming of jesus ffs. She recons people are voting for him to bring about the end of the world so that they can go to heavan.

 

trust me, i am not a sheep. nowhere near in fact, it would seem you are in fact the sheep Slim, believing what you are told by the MSM, just like the bible freaks.

 

You're more of a sheep than any of us. We follow our own minds, do our own thinking, where you can just point to THEREALLYWHATHAPPENEDTROOOOOOTH.COM and believe every word..

[Chinahand]

Stevie, I don't really agree with ans warning, but I'd take it seriously.

 

I think the issue is that your links are not coherent - they don't form a single theme, but just randomly and sometimes contradictorily raise issues. And I am afraid that often they are out of date with later information refuting them.

 

This is the whole issue Dr Dave and I have raised where do your random dots lead you - it really is not clear - at all!

 

You do not editorialize - you just post links. And you do not rely on evidence, but on opinion. I'm sorry but even if many millions of people believed in the things you believed in it isn't helpful to me - many millions of people believe communion wine is the blood of Christ or Aliens have sex with people in LA and New York - I think their beliefs are toss.

 

I really do not have a clear idea of your beliefs - I've posted a detailed examination of the links you've posted showing you post the most bizare mix of accusations - I've also challenged you with both links AND an analysis of why I think my links are more authoritive and worthwhile than your - its called evidence and science rather than the opinion of a psychologist happy clappy who believes Bush is satanic and the collapse of WTC7 PROVES IT (whatever IT is, I still have no idea) was a conspiracy.

 

When you post a link the only analysis of it comes from Slim, or me, or Dr Dave and they show the people involved are disengenuous, obsessed or - well how would you objectively describe Carol Wolman - a person who rambles about Satan, the end of days, and right wing conspiracies.

 

You put these links up to SUPPORT your arguments - shit you are your own worst enemy. No attempt to develop a coherent theme, no attempt to assess the value of your evidence, and you use the opinion of the most unbelieveable people.

 

Because you are so weak in your use of links to support your case we've given up and aked you to really try and explain what you believe. But you won't - its just childish. Every week or so you just post a random and irrelevent link and get people pissed off. Please stop it.

 

At least Crozza or Haxored account had some coherence within their ideas - you and tameelf (the whatreallyhappened twins), haven't posted anything of value whatsoever.

[Albert Tatlock]

Stevie, I don't really agree with ans warning, but I'd take it seriously.

 

I think the issue is that your links are not coherent - they don't form a single theme, but just randomly and sometimes contradictorily raise issues. And I am afraid that often they are out of date with later information refuting them.

 

This is the whole issue Dr Dave and I have raised where do your random dots lead you - it really is not clear - at all!

 

You do not editorialize - you just post links. And you do not rely on evidence, but on opinion. I'm sorry but even if many millions of people believed in the things you believed in it isn't helpful to me - many millions of people believe communion wine is the blood of Christ or Aliens have sex with people in LA and New York - I think their beliefs are toss.

 

I really do not have a clear idea of your beliefs - I've posted a detailed examination of the links you've posted showing you post the most bizare mix of accusations - I've also challenged you with both links AND an analysis of why I think my links are more authoritive and worthwhile than your - its called evidence and science rather than the opinion of a psychologist happy clappy who believes Bush is satanic and the collapse of WTC7 PROVES IT (whatever IT is, I still have no idea) was a conspiracy.

 

When you post a link the only analysis of it comes from Slim, or me, or Dr Dave and they show the people involved are disengenuous, obsessed or - well how would you objectively describe Carol Wolman - a person who rambles about Satan, the end of days, and right wing conspiracies.

 

You put these links up to SUPPORT your arguments - shit you are your own worst enemy. No attempt to develop a coherent theme, no attempt to assess the value of your evidence, and you use the opinion of the most unbelieveable people.

 

Because you are so weak in your use of links to support your case we've given up and aked you to really try and explain what you believe. But you won't - its just childish. Every week or so you just post a random and irrelevent link and get people pissed off. Please stop it.

 

At least Crozza or Haxored account had some coherence within their ideas - you and tameelf (the whatreallyhappened twins), haven't posted anything of value whatsoever.

A general observation...

 

...if some of Stevies posts are such absolute tosh (and I don't unecessarily disagree that they aren't) then why do you guys spend so many hours reading them and replying to them? In other threads you just ignore certain posts, posters and trolls etc. as we all do - yet this thread is different.

 

Why so? This particular issue seems to be becoming almost religious in itself.

 

Personally, I would find it an affront to free speech if Stevie were to be banned for having an opinion, regardless of what his opinion is, provided it was not rude or offensive. But some people seem to be sucking him down that route. If you feel he's the 'nutter on the bus' sat next to you - then I would suggest you just ignore him - instead of mobbing him.

 

Whether you like it or not, some people, including some relatives of those killed on 9/11, do not believe that all questions have been answered sufficiently. The real failure has been in not ensuring these issues have been addressed - and until that happens in sufficient depth there will be all sorts of differences of opinion, nutcases etc. involved.

 

In the meantime I suspect your real motives here are to tar anyone who dissents from the 'official view' with the same 'conspiracy nutcase' brush as you are tarring Stevie - and if that is not your motivation - I would be interested to know what is.

[Chinahand]

But Albert whether its Global Warming, Evolution, Flouride in Water or even 911 I think I'm consistent in using objectivity and evidence to refute subjective supposition. I don't think I've replied any differently to Stevie and Tameelf than I have to saveourwater, or you on Climate Change. In fact I've spent alot more time trying to pursuade Stevie to be more objective than saveourwater - As Stevie isn't a deliberate lobby group I've more patience with his more subjective claims.

 

I am not tarring anyone who dissents from the 'official view'.

 

I am very happy to examine America's foreign and political position - in fact I've posted often that this is a matter worth discussing and is far more worthwhile than going on about irrelevences like WTC7.

 

The use of ideology over evidence was the neocon triumph and the world is now reaping the results of their stupidity.

 

This is where 911 conspiracies get totally lost - there are very important issues attacking the 'official [neocon] view' that America needed to control resources and export its brand of political ideology - as it has successfully done with Likud in Israel. But attacking this 'official view' has nothing to do with planes crashing into the pentagon, WTC or whether Mohammed Atta behaved like a fundamentalist in Hamburg, but a secularist in a Florida strip joint.

 

Its odd - alot of the political motivations of the counter culture lament the lack of engagement of the 'masses' in important political issues - and then they ignore the important political issues and go on about George Bush's links to the Nazis. Hence some people claiming the 911 myth makers are patsies for the Neocons - let people obssess with irrelevencies while the real political decisions continue to be made.

 

I'd be happy to debate the 'official view', but I see this as having nothing to do with the meaning of the word "pull it" or what ever and I consistently ask Tameelf/Stevie to stop going on about irrelevencies and cut to the beef - BUT THEY WON'T - hence my annoyance and willingness to keep going on at the stupidity of their style of posting.

[Albert Tatlock]

But Albert whether its Global Warming, Evolution, Flouride in Water or even 911 I think I'm consistent in using objectivity and evidence to refute subjective supposition.

But you only seem to be generally passing on the 'objective' views of others on these particular issues. I consider that if we were back in the late 70s or early 80s you would be arguing with the same vigour about the dangers of 'global cooling' if the IPCC and the same level of political spin had been around to adopt it then, perhaps even in 1642 for backing 'the official' aim of executing Galileo, and in 1859 against Darwin's rejection of the 'official view' for the 'origin of species' given the 'official evidence' against it at the time. I think I am really questioning your method of thinking here, and your inherent trust of official information - whilst knocking those who believe that the governments of both the UK and the US have a demonstrably poor record - and all may not be as it seems - a theme proven time and time again throughout history.

[VinnieK]

if we were back in the late 70s or early 80s you would be arguing with the same vigour about the dangers of 'global cooling'

 

By all accounts, global cooling was pushed more by newspapers and sensationalist television than it ever was by a consensus of scientists - it was not the "official view", and there certainly wasn't the kind of broad acceptance amongst the scientific community that there is with regards to global warming.

 

in 1642 for backing 'the official' aim of executing Galileo,

 

The ideas which Galileo taught and which got him into so much trouble had already been accepted throughout the scientific community of Europe already - indeed they weren't even his ideas (ever heard of a guy called Copernicus?).

 

and in 1859 against Darwin's rejection of the 'official view' for the 'origin of species' given the 'official evidence' against it at the time.

 

But a great many scientists accepted Darwin's thesis at the time of publication, which became more and more accepted over time, something that would have been impossible if there had been a wholesale rejection of his views, and his work proved popular amongst the general populace as well, being the subject of many public lectures.

 

I think I am really questioning your method of thinking here, and your inherent trust of official information

 

You may have a point were Chinahand guilty of following the "official line" as you put it, but the fact is, every post he's written on these subjects has not been endorsing the government's opinion directly, but the opinion of the scientific community (which, yes, does occassionally tally with the official account). Looking at all the examples you've given above, such an approach would have yielded a good record:

 

Global cooling - Scientific community generally cautious until more evidence produced

Galileo/Copernicus - ideas accepted by scientists.

Darwin - Some opposition within scientific circles, but by no means the overwhealming majority, which soon melts away as more work is done on the subject.

 

In short, China trusts scientists, and you, apparently, do not.

[tameelf]

hey at least it's not only me that doesn't believe the government's version of 9/11

 

http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2007/...chologists.html

 

 

good link stevie

[stevie]

When you post a link the only analysis of it comes from Slim, or me, or Dr Dave and they show the people involved are disengenuous, obsessed or - well how would you objectively describe Carol Wolman - a person who rambles about Satan, the end of days, and right wing conspiracies.

 

You put these links up to SUPPORT your arguments - shit you are your own worst enemy. No attempt to develop a coherent theme, no attempt to assess the value of your evidence, and you use the opinion of the most unbelieveable people.

 

but china it was slim who posted the bibleblog link, not me?

 

I'm going to make this very simple for you. If you don't post a full and detailed explanation as you have been requested to on a number of occasions, you're banned. Ok?

 

And yes, I'm on the Bush conspiracy payroll designed to keep the masses from learning the truth by banning raving loonys from regional internet message boards.

 

ans, i am simply asking questions, please explain what is wrong with that?

 

have i ever said people are paid by the Bush payroll to stop people learning the truth? no, didn't think so.

 

if you want to ban me for asking questions then fair enough, up to you mr moderator. wouldn't do much for free speech though hey?

[ans]

Countdown to ban in twelve hours.

[Slim]

but china it was slim who posted the bibleblog link, not me?

 

That was following up on your link, it was the top fucking name on it you dipshit.

[Chinahand]

Whether you like it or not, some people, including some relatives of those killed on 9/11, do not believe that all questions have been answered sufficiently. The real failure has been in not ensuring these issues have been addressed - and until that happens in sufficient depth there will be all sorts of differences of opinion, nutcases etc. involved.

 

In the meantime I suspect your real motives here are to tar anyone who dissents from the 'official view' with the same 'conspiracy nutcase' brush as you are tarring Stevie - and if that is not your motivation - I would be interested to know what is.

 

I'd like to respond to this as it is important - many of the relatives of victims, and others, I suppose me included, ask whether there was a catastophic intelligence failure prior to 911.

 

There seems little doubt the Bush government downplayed and spun their failures into a story that 911 couldn't have been predicted - and the failure of the intelligence community to identify the plotters was catastropic, especially when it seems that they failed to see the big picture from all the pieces of evidence they had gathered. With hindsight the trail was reasonably clear and alot of it had been documented prior to 911. Some individual investigators had been even more closer, but failed to get their warnings out heeded or acted upon.

 

There is huge and justifiable anger about this - I agree with this anger - Bush did successfully scupper attempts at an open enquiry. But unless you are a long way up my scale of conpiracy this doesn't have anything to do with what the Conpiracy Theorists go on and on and on about. I put it at level 2 of my conspiracy scale - and that is as far down the scale I can get.

 

1] The pre attack intelligence was unclear and only with hindsight was it possible to identify the attacks were been planned.

2] The pre attack intelligence gave vauge hints of the plot, which should have been picked up and identified, but bureaucratic failure allowed it to remain uncovered.

3] The pre attack intelligence gave indications that an attack was being planned, but not its large scale scope - rather than follow this up a deliberate decision was taken to under resource it to give the US a wake up slap in the face. My basic idea is that they thought it was another car bomb or similar at the WTC - 50/100 killed/hurt, but America wakes up to the reality of terrorism in a dangerous world.

4] The pre attack intelligence gave a clear indication of the nature and scope of the attack, but the investigators are told to back off to allow it to occur in all its bloody glory.

5] The pre attack intelligence is clear, but the conspiracy activel helps the plotters realize their plans, but without collusion - the plotters have no idea they are being helped.

6] The conspiracy actively colludes with its enemies to allow the attack to occur.

7] The conspiracy runs the plot - organizing the plotters in a false flag operation.

8] The conspiracy runs the plot - organizing the plotters - and decides to fake additional explosions, hijackings etc while also undertaking insurance fraud and stock market manipulation to profit from the attack.

 

This doesn't deny the importance of the failures and the need to openly acknowledge and investigate them - I go back to the Falklands - the UK Foreign minister resigned over it - quite right too.

 

The total dereliction of responsibility of the entire Bush regime - and their then use of this issue to persue an entirely unconnected issue - Iraq - is one of the biggest inditements of Bush imaginable - I basically agree he has been the worst US president in History. But the idea he used his Nazi and Big Business connections to deliberately plan or allow 911 to occur is a fantasy world - I have seen no evidence what so ever for it and the suppositions the Conspiracists use to make their allegations are just distorted ravings.

 

I keep going back to my scale of Conspiracy - reading it again I suppose level 2 sounds a bit weak - vauge hints - but I do say "which should have been picked up and identified."

 

This is a serious failure - one I'm certain has been debated massively internally within intelligence agencies around the world. Try reading this Economist Special Report - Waiting for al-Qaeda's next bomb .

 

There are issues about whether an investigation could be done in public due to the confidentiality involved, but the way Bush evaded and spun the debate is a wrong on a huge scale.

 

It'll be up to historians - and maybe Democratic senators setting up commissions in the current Congress - to bring these issues to public light, but as far as I can see the beef of the issue is 1) that the intelligence community failed to fully identify the threat and their political masters failed to push them to further investigate and take action based on these limited threat assessments - and 2) they spun the failure after the event.

 

Its serious and needs to be investigated - but anything to do with what Stevie and Tameelf rave about - I don't think so.

[stevie]

Countdown to ban in twelve hours.

 

very amusing ans, in fact quite ironic. you are, in fact trying to stop free speech on the island with the oldest democracy in the world. no wonder the image of the island is drastically going downhill with people like you here.