9/11 conspiracy theorists unite - Page 20 - GoFuckYourself.com

TheSquealer · 03-19-2012, 05:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mayabong

I'd love to know how Jet fuel made pockets of heat that were 2000 degrees under the rubble for 6 weeks after the crash.

Even Gouliani testified to this.

I'd love to know where you have proof that "jet fuel" was ever stated to be the cause of the continued fire. You don't have to be a genius to understand the jet fuel burned off rather quickly.

You guys make so many random and obviously wrong statements to raise suspicion - its so bizarre to watch at times.

Rochard · 03-19-2012, 06:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheSquealer

I'd love to know where you have proof that "jet fuel" was ever stated to be the cause of the continued fire. You don't have to be a genius to understand the jet fuel burned off rather quickly.

You guys make so many random and obviously wrong statements to raise suspicion - its so bizarre to watch at times.

Correct.

A fire is one thing. If I was to light some furniture on fire on the 78th floor, that's one thing, and it can quickly be put out.

A fire started by ten thousand gallons of jet fuel is a completely different thing. This explosion set fire to four or five floors instantly, and set EVERYTHING on those floors on fire instantly - plus sent fireballs down the elevator shaft to sky lobbies and the main lobby level.

The jet fuel did burn out after about ten minutes. But by that time there was a raging inferno.

Rochard · 03-19-2012, 07:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MediaGuy

Thermite isn't used in communications gear. It isn't used in building renovations either. It's used in exterior open-field conditions such as laying down rail road ties and connecting high-tension electrical cables.

Stop what your doing and read the page on Wikipedia about Thermite, would you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermite

It says "thermite is used for welding together thick copper wires for the purpose of electrical connections. It is used extensively by the electrical utilities and telecommunications industries".

It is used by electrical utilities and telecommunications industries - both of which was massive in the world trade center.

Your making it sound like it's impossible to find thermite and I'm trying to tell you that it's very common. Any telephone trunk is going to have it.

MediaGuy · 03-19-2012, 07:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by **********

But Greg, But Greg, but Greg. This is where you always screw up.

This is where you assume you understand what I am saying, but you are listening without hearing, or hearing more than what is said. For example:

Quote:

Originally Posted by **********

Even if this was the first time in history that a black box wasn't recovered, it is not automatic proof that there is a cover up.

This is true. But I didn't make the statement that not finding the black boxes was proof, automatic or otherwise, of anything.

I brought them up to illustrate the need for an investigation, being one of dozens if not hundreds of unusual, unlikely factoids about the events that day.

Quote:

Originally Posted by **********

You do this all the time.

Your precognitive "hearing" is at work again.

Quote:

Originally Posted by **********

You say that buildings never fell like that before, THEREFORE XYZ must be TRUE.

Actually, I say buildings never fell like that before, THEREFORE there should be investigation.

What I actually say:
The fact that not one but three historically unprecedented events such as buildings collapsing due to fire is another of the many, many unusual if not impossible occurrences on that day - if you consider the official story.

Since there was

molten metal under the buildings so long
so much (discounted) testimony of explosive events prior to collapse,
enormous amounts of liquefied iron in the dust
unignited thermate in the dust
rapid onset of the collapse events
symmetry in all three collapses
no resistance in their descents

among many other facts, I say the officially and popularly believed theory cannot be correct.

Quote:

Originally Posted by **********

Actually, it;s conspiracy theorists that overlook scientific fact in their zealous attempts to simultaneously deny reality and spin some kind of fantasy world where they are clued in to what?s really going on.

You're probably right in many cases, I don't know all conspiracy theories around that day. Certainly you're right about the government's conpiracy theory and those who believe it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by **********

I think you automatically push anything out that doesn't agree with your pre existing determination of 9/11 invents.

The only thing I "push out" is the conclusion arrived at from the official collapse theory's "probable sequence" of events, which is incomplete due to the omission of, or lack of, available data. I'm certain most of the statements are individually and scientifically correct.

:D

DWB · 03-19-2012, 07:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

Correct.

A fire is one thing. If I was to light some furniture on fire on the 78th floor, that's one thing, and it can quickly be put out.

A fire started by ten thousand gallons of jet fuel is a completely different thing. This explosion set fire to four or five floors instantly, and set EVERYTHING on those floors on fire instantly - plus sent fireballs down the elevator shaft to sky lobbies and the main lobby level.

The jet fuel did burn out after about ten minutes. But by that time there was a raging inferno.

To add to that, for it to be so hot people decided to leap to their death, really says a lot. Not only was everything on fire, but it was on fire at an extreme temperature.

DWB · 03-19-2012, 07:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

Stop what your doing and read the page on Wikipedia about Thermite, would you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermite

It says "thermite is used for welding together thick copper wires for the purpose of electrical connections. It is used extensively by the electrical utilities and telecommunications industries".

It is used by electrical utilities and telecommunications industries - both of which was massive in the world trade center.

Your making it sound like it's impossible to find thermite and I'm trying to tell you that it's very common. Any telephone trunk is going to have it.

That's not entirely true. I was an electrician many moons ago and we did a lot of commercial and industrial work (Procter & Gamble, GE, US Postal Service, and so on). Not once was thermite welding used during any job site I was ever on, and we had some big ones.

I'm not saying it's not used, but it's not as common (at least for most electrical work) as you are making it sound. However, for steel framing I could see how it would be used and I have no doubt it was used in the construction of those towers. I'm not surprised one bit that thermite was found in the rubble.

MediaGuy · 03-19-2012, 08:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

Stop what your doing and read the page on Wikipedia about Thermite, would you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermite

It says "thermite is used for welding together thick copper wires for the purpose of electrical connections. It is used extensively by the electrical utilities and telecommunications industries".

It is used by electrical utilities and telecommunications industries - both of which was massive in the world trade center.

Your making it sound like it's impossible to find thermite and I'm trying to tell you that it's very common. Any telephone trunk is going to have it.

It's commonly used in exterior conditions to create large, industrial joints and connections for trunk lines and high-tension electrical cabling. Ok. These things aren't found in buildings, they connect generating stations to centrals or transmission stations, substations, and the like, but the "smaller" extensions and connections are branched to progressively smaller network nodes and sub-transmission points (I don't know the technical terms) where the kind of thermite welding you're talking about is not found.

The main reason for doing it apart from stability and conductivity, is the fact that it's easier to bring a thermite welding kit or station to an impaired railroad tie or broken locomotive (or high-tension line tower in the middle of nowhere), than to do the opposite.

You're still showing me that thermite wasn't used in the construction or renovation of WTC buildings...

mayabong · 03-19-2012, 08:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheSquealer

I'd love to know where you have proof that "jet fuel" was ever stated to be the cause of the continued fire. You don't have to be a genius to understand the jet fuel burned off rather quickly.

You guys make so many random and obviously wrong statements to raise suspicion - its so bizarre to watch at times.

So your saying that office furnature burned at 2000+ degrees? For 6 weeks? What are you saying

Rochard · 03-19-2012, 08:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MediaGuy

It's commonly used in exterior conditions to create large, industrial joints and connections for trunk lines and high-tension electrical cabling. Ok. These things aren't found in buildings, they connect generating stations to centrals or transmission stations, substations, and the like, but the "smaller" extensions and connections are branched to progressively smaller network nodes and sub-transmission points (I don't know the technical terms) where the kind of thermite welding you're talking about is not found.

Well, there you have it. There was a sub station in the WTC. It was in the parking garage.

Rochard · 03-19-2012, 08:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MediaGuy

It's commonly used in exterior conditions to create large, industrial joints and connections for trunk lines and high-tension electrical cabling. Ok. These things aren't found in buildings, they connect generating stations to centrals or transmission stations, substations, and the like, but the "smaller" extensions and connections are branched to progressively smaller network nodes and sub-transmission points (I don't know the technical terms) where the kind of thermite welding you're talking about is not found.

WTC 7 was build OVER a Con Ed sub station.

Should I research this further?

porno jew · 03-19-2012, 09:13 AM

before you get sucked in, look at the sources for claims of thermite at ground zero. they are mostly misunderstandings and distortions of source material.

ir has been debunked. not many 9/11 conspiracy people even push this one any more.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

Stop what your doing and read the page on Wikipedia about Thermite, would you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermite

It says "thermite is used for welding together thick copper wires for the purpose of electrical connections. It is used extensively by the electrical utilities and telecommunications industries".

It is used by electrical utilities and telecommunications industries - both of which was massive in the world trade center.

Your making it sound like it's impossible to find thermite and I'm trying to tell you that it's very common. Any telephone trunk is going to have it.

Rochard · 03-19-2012, 09:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by porno jew

before you get sucked in, look at the sources for claims of thermite at ground zero. they are mostly misunderstandings and distortions of source material.

ir has been debunked. not many 9/11 conspiracy people even push this one any more.

Too late, we are way past that.

Seems to me the 9/11 so called truth movement doesn't question why thermite is present, but just accepts it as being reasonable that such a chemical would be on site. They seem to discuss how it could be used to cut steel beams, etc, and over all how it might have been used to take town the towers. However, it seems to me a lot of thermite would have been required to take the towers, and no one saw anything.

TheSquealer · 03-19-2012, 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mayabong

So your saying that office furnature burned at 2000+ degrees? For 6 weeks? What are you saying

See.. like all of your delusional ilk, you're retreating to the same tactic, attempting to bait me into a maze of circular logic and tired, already debunked talking points, where you'll try to keep my on the defensive with an endless barage of moronic questions that have been answered time and time again. All questions done under the guise of "just asking questions" and "just looking for the truth".

Did I say office furniture burned at 2000+ degrees for 6 weeks? No.

Did anyone say "aviation fuel" burned for 6 weeks? No.

You have an agenda... "the boogeyman did it".

Then you'll try to put me on the defensive by posing further questions which you are already well prepared to argue. It's basic forum trolling 101.

I have no agenda. I don't care who did what. I'm not defending any particular position other than it seems to be an obvious fact that two large planes hit the WTC causing massive damage to the structure and a massive explosion/fire which caused additional damage.

It's not an unreasonable conclusion to at least consider they collapsed due to massive structural damage and additional weakening of the structure by an intense fire.

If that's not on your list of possibilities -- then you're sick in the head and I hope and pray you did not pro-create.

The primary difference between yourself, similar people to you and me is that i'm not trying to prove a pre-determined answer/conclusion.

"the government did it" was your answer before it even happened, as it was happening and after it happened.

You can't be accurately said to be seeking "the truth" when you continually and willfully ignore any and all points that counter/dispute or refute your claims or conclusions.

9/11 is the new JFK for sick people. Finding inconsistencies, contradicting accounts or any other facts, do not prove a conspiracy of insane proportions.

At least mediaguy takes the time to argue every point in mind numbing detail. However, I would say again that if you've totally ruled out the possibility that two planes crashed into a building, damaging them considerable and started a massive fire weakening them even more, causing their eventual collapse.. then you I just pray you don't arm yourself and end up in a shopping center gunning people down because you're not that far away from the thinking that carries you to that type of "logical conclusion"

Slappin Fish · 03-19-2012, 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnyClips

Believe whatever the government tells you...now THAT is for sick people

Did you even read what he wrote?

Dirty F · 03-19-2012, 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by porno jew

ir has been debunked. not many 9/11 conspiracy people even push this one any more.

Haha that's so funny how say that. And it's true. They hype a theory for a while till they find out it's bullshit and move on to the next

And then you have the real bad cases (like a few people here) and they can't keep up with what's hot and what not and they keep crying about debunked theories for another 2 years before they catch up

Truthers....

Rochard · 03-19-2012, 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheSquealer

See.. like all of your delusional ilk, you're retreating to the same tactic, attempting to bait me into a maze of circular logic and tired, already debunked talking points, where you'll try to keep my on the defensive with an endless barage of moronic questions that have been answered time and time again. All questions done under the guise of "just asking questions" and "just looking for the truth".

Did I say office furniture burned at 2000+ degrees for 6 weeks? No.

Did anyone say "aviation fuel" burned for 6 weeks? No.

You have an agenda... "the boogeyman did it".

Then you'll try to put me on the defensive by posing further questions which you are already well prepared to argue. It's basic forum trolling 101.

I have no agenda. I don't care who did what. I'm not defending any particular position other than it seems to be an obvious fact that two large planes hit the WTC causing massive damage to the structure and a massive explosion/fire which caused additional damage.

It's not an unreasonable conclusion to at least consider they collapsed due to massive structural damage and additional weakening of the structure by an intense fire.

If that's not on your list of possibilities -- then you're sick in the head and I hope and pray you did not pro-create.

The primary difference between yourself, similar people to you and me is that i'm not trying to prove a pre-determined answer/conclusion.

"the government did it" was your answer before it even happened, as it was happening and after it happened.

You can't be accurately said to be seeking "the truth" when you continually and willfully ignore any and all points that counter/dispute or refute your claims or conclusions.

9/11 is the new JFK for sick people. Finding inconsistencies, contradicting accounts or any other facts, do not prove a conspiracy of insane proportions.

At least mediaguy takes the time to argue every point in mind numbing detail. However, I would say again that if you've totally ruled out the possibility that two planes crashed into a building, damaging them considerable and started a massive fire weakening them even more, causing their eventual collapse.. then you I just pray you don't arm yourself and end up in a shopping center gunning people down because you're not that far away from the thinking that carries you to that type of "logical conclusion"

Very nicely put.

I believe that certain people distrust our government from the outset here and they already have an opinion before seeing any of the facts. (At the same time, a lot more people will just believe the government version because they are too lazy to give it any thought at all.)

But if this was done by the US Government, don't you think the press would have figured it out yet? (Oh yeah, the press is controlled by the Israelis....)

bronco67 · 03-19-2012, 10:38 AM

By "unite" did you mean "circlejerk"?

Slappin Fish · 03-19-2012, 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnyClips

If the government said it was a militant group from Australia you'd be sitting here defending THAT story...because you worship authority

you should read TheSquealer's post... and then read it again

TheSquealer · 03-19-2012, 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slappin Fish

you should read TheSquealer's post... and then read it again

Well... considering that he believes we are all the children of aliens which really run the planet... do you really think thats going to change his position?

Medication and therapy are unlikely to change his position. He's only a few more delusional conclusions away from taking hand grenades into a shopping mall and tossing them into the crowd.

MediaGuy · 03-19-2012, 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

Well, there you have it. There was a sub station in the WTC. It was in the parking garage.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

WTC 7 was build OVER a Con Ed sub station.

Should I research this further?

Ok, that's verifiable info. Do you know if thermite was used to weld the final sub-station hookups?

Actually what's most important to know is if they would actually keep thermite on hand, in some sort of safe storage, for potential repairs, or rely on a thermite-welding service or department that wasn't local for this. Thermite is stable, but sensitive to the right atmospheric or external ignition agents. They wouldn't keep it stacked in big sacks.

Because if they didn't store thermite in the basement/sub-station (which would actually explain molten, lava-like flows of slag and other metal by-products), then thermite is still not really logical as a presence in the dust that issued from the collapses - unless the stored thermite found a pocket of air or another escape through the tons of material crashing down on it.

:D

Rochard · 03-19-2012, 11:53 AM

Snicker. This message is hidden because JohnnyClips is on your ignore list.

Rochard · 03-19-2012, 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MediaGuy

Ok, that's verifiable info. Do you know if thermite was used to weld the final sub-station hookups?

Actually what's most important to know is if they would actually keep thermite on hand, in some sort of safe storage, for potential repairs, or rely on a thermite-welding service or department that wasn't local for this. Thermite is stable, but sensitive to the right atmospheric or external ignition agents. They wouldn't keep it stacked in big sacks.

Because if they didn't store thermite in the basement/sub-station (which would actually explain molten, lava-like flows of slag and other metal by-products), then thermite is still not really logical as a presence in the dust that issued from the collapses - unless the stored thermite found a pocket of air or another escape through the tons of material crashing down on it.

:D

MediaGuy · 03-19-2012, 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

But if this was done by the US Government, don't you think the press would have figured it out yet? (Oh yeah, the press is controlled by the Israelis....)

As Dan Rather said about journalists poking at the Iraq invasion, but which applies even more to the whole 9/11 situation:

Quote:

...there was a time in South Africa that people would put flaming tires around peoples? necks if they dissented. And in some ways the fear is that you will be necklaced here, you will have a flaming tire of lack of patriotism put around your neck. Now it is that fear that keeps journalists from asking the toughest of the tough questions... And again, I am humbled to say, I do not except myself from this criticism.

Any doubt as to the official theory was so thoroughly suppressed in the press that it took loud-mouth, lunatic-seeming activists like Alex Jones to keep them anywhere near alive.

Only now eleven years later is the press actually starting to cast doubt and ask "tough questions":

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/01/us...pagewanted=all

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...wlaki-in-2002/

(These don't pertain to the collapses, directly, however they do poke at the weird, twisted thing lying in the dust there that is known as "The Official Story" or theory of 9/11)

TheSquealer · 03-19-2012, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnyClips

Right- set the "norms" in society which you had absolutely zero control over and then when the norms are questioned, your programming kicks in and attacks anyone who dares question the (RIDICULOUS) "norms". Oh my god he's crazy!! He actually thinks humans aren't alone in the universe, which is kind of big

You're not crazy for asking questions. You're crazy because you have a very perverted perception and interpretation of reality, because of your delusions and you're crazy for what you've came to believe.

And as many people have told you, no one has questioned the possibility of life in the universe. You keep making that leap in a weak attempt to create a distinctive line in the argument and make it black and white, because otherwise, you'd be forced to make a more detailed argument and get specific which you obviously can't and won't.

2MuchMark · 03-19-2012, 12:55 PM

Hey Mediaguy, I have an idea.

Does the presence of Thermite (or super thermite, or whateverthefuck thermite) *AUTOMATICALLY* prove to you that some one or some thing other than the planes were responsible for bringing down WTC's 1, 2 and 7?

Just a simple Yes or no. Bare with me - I'm testing something.

MediaGuy · 03-19-2012, 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

Awww...

Still, aren't those legitimate questions, considering how little has been anwered?

And even if the thermite can be explained (which it looksit), how about the unignited thermate?

Just sayin'

:D

Rochard · 03-19-2012, 01:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MediaGuy

As Dan Rather said about journalists poking at the Iraq invasion, but which applies even more to the whole 9/11 situation:

Any doubt as to the official theory was so thoroughly suppressed in the press that it took loud-mouth, lunatic-seeming activists like Alex Jones to keep them anywhere near alive.

Only now eleven years later is the press actually starting to cast doubt and ask "tough questions":

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/01/us...pagewanted=all

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...wlaki-in-2002/

(These don't pertain to the collapses, directly, however they do poke at the weird, twisted thing lying in the dust there that is known as "The Official Story" or theory of 9/11)

I didn't read your second link; I'm not responding to anything Fox news says. Ever.

The first link doesn't surprise me at all. Nearly all of the terrorists came from Saudi Arabia; It wouldn't surprise me at all if there was some kind of connection. Here in the US we see our government as one organization, but in a country like Saudi Arabia different areas of the government has different goals and doesn't always follow the "policy line".

And that's great that the press is asking questions.

But the questions they are asking indicates they believe that the government is telling the truth, at least about how it happened.

I believe it happened the way it's been explained to us. I also believe that there are some areas where the government was incorrect - sorry, we didn't have scientists at the point of impact watching exactly what happened, and we are having to piece it all together from tons of debris. But at the end of the day, two airplanes and a fire took out the towers.

Now, was some government agency in Saudi Arabia secretly planning this or funding this attack? Sure, anything is possible there.

DWB · 03-19-2012, 02:11 PM

A bunch of people arguing the same topic while both get all of their information from 3rd party sources and a government who has lied repeatably do the people.

Everyone is probably wrong.

MediaGuy · 03-19-2012, 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

I didn't read your second link; I'm not responding to anything Fox news says. Ever.

I respect that, and even more so since they canned Judge Napolitano...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

The first link doesn't surprise me at all. Nearly all of the terrorists came from Saudi Arabia; It wouldn't surprise me at all if there was some kind of connection. Here in the US we see our government as one organization, but in a country like Saudi Arabia different areas of the government has different goals and doesn't always follow the "policy line".

Well, it's all tribes, clans and families running different departments, government branches, etc... so...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

But the questions they are asking indicates they believe that the government is telling the truth, at least about how it happened.

I think it would take a while, even if there were any indicators the press felt it could report on, before they sided other than with the administration story.

And it's not as if there weren't government whistleblowers; they've just been gagged and threatened and otherwise silenced (before you bitch slap me, look up Sibel Edmonds, Anthony Schafer, April Gallop and others). And though most were Bush-era witnesses, I hate to think what and who have come out since Adolph Obama's administration took over the handling of whistleblowers and "enemies of the state" or whatever.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

I believe it happened the way it's been explained to us.

I don't. I don't believe the Israelis did it. I don't have a theory, per se - I have questions and doubts. I certainly don't believe the magical hijackers who appeared on the flight without getting on passenger manifests or appearing in properly time-stamped video were responsble - which doesn't mean I don't think they were there. I just don't know... or understand why so much secrecy on factors so obviously non-threatening to national security would be shrouded from public disclosure.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

I also believe that there are some areas where the government was incorrect - sorry, we didn't have scientists at the point of impact watching exactly what happened, and we are having to piece it all together from tons of debris.

We haven't had and didn't have the tons of debris from square one, which is one of my beefs with any official story that claims to be authoritative. Together with the debris appropriated from the FEMA exercise, NIST had about 250 or max 300 items to use; and they weren't doing forensics on them, remember.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

But at the end of the day, two airplanes and a fire took out the towers.

I think to state that squarely is to buy into an "investigation" based on too little findings, not enough facts, and a scattering of the voluminous testimony.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

Now, was some government agency in Saudi Arabia secretly planning this or funding this attack? Sure, anything is possible there.

Anything is possible here as well as there, though from your own thoughts on JFK and here I think you have a definite block in believing that agents within your own government could act in such a fashion.
But there have been possible, probable and verified acts against the US and US interests by, or with the ascent of, US agencies in the past... but that to me in no way validates any 9/11 conspiracy theory, it's just salient fact and beside the point...

:D

Rochard · 03-19-2012, 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MediaGuy

Anything is possible here as well as there, though from your own thoughts on JFK and here I think you have a definite block in believing that agents within your own government could act in such a fashion.
But there have been possible, probable and verified acts against the US and US interests by, or with the ascent of, US agencies in the past... but that to me in no way validates any 9/11 conspiracy theory, it's just salient fact and beside the point...
:D

I do believe our government is fully able to lie to the general public. That's the basic nature of a politician. I'm also not a fan of Bush and his administration, but I don't believe Bush and company intentionally did this, or even allowed it to happen I wouldn't believe it. Asleep at the wheel maybe, but they didn't intentionally allow it.

uno · 03-19-2012, 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by **********

So then.

Everything was pulverized. There were few of any plane parts that could be recovered. Therefore, a conspiracy?

And no, dude, it is not against "all probability". What now? Are you saying that the planes should have bounced off?

Again, there were a bunch of pieces of plane wreckage including wheels and engine parts around ground zero. It's all documented.

MediaGuy · 03-19-2012, 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

I do believe our government is fully able to lie to the general public. That's the basic nature of a politician. I'm also not a fan of Bush and his administration, but I don't believe Bush and company intentionally did this, or even allowed it to happen I wouldn't believe it. Asleep at the wheel maybe, but they didn't intentionally allow it.

Well just as ambiguously as you "believe" what you do, whether or not the Bushters made it happen or let it happen, I believe there are many precursors to one of those theses.

Although superficially the government claimed to have been surprised and unable to imagine these things could be achieved, we know from many sources and outlets that "the government" had in fact envisioned and drilled for these very sorts of attacks.

If you read the complete timeline of what happened, the number of times somebody was "asleep at the wheel" boggles the mind.

Why wouldn't or couldn't you believe that the Bush/Neo-Con Hawk Fundamentalism would allow them to believe that the sacrifice of 3000 souls was essential to "National Security" or the future of the Homeland or whatever these apparently mentally impaired individuals believed?

From what I've read, I'm ready to believe anything that comes out eventually, and nobody's "theory" will surprise me any more than the government's or their claim of utter surprise at what those supposed hijackers conjured up and acted on...

:D

Rochard · 03-19-2012, 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MediaGuy

If you read the complete timeline of what happened, the number of times somebody was "asleep at the wheel" boggles the mind.

I'm guessing your talking about the FBI report about that documented that there was someone in flight school that was less than interested in landing a plane. In hindsight it should have been a red flag. But when it was reported, it was non threatening and not remotely interesting. It was one of tens of thousands of FBI reports written each year.

We never saw this coming. It had never happened before.

MediaGuy · 03-20-2012, 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

I'm guessing your talking about the FBI report about that documented that there was someone in flight school that was less than interested in landing a plane. In hindsight it should have been a red flag. But when it was reported, it was non threatening and not remotely interesting. It was one of tens of thousands of FBI reports written each year.

We never saw this coming. It had never happened before.

Actually I was referring to what seems to be a stupendous lack of reaction by everyone to first one then multiple hijackings. It seems everyone was reporting then waiting for everyone else in the chain of command, and on emergency reporting protocol, to respond or "give word" or "confirmation" - or worse they would "leave urgent messages" and wait for call backs. Jets were ordered to scramble, but left sitting on standby.

Many US government heads were not at their post, or on vacation, or at conferences overseas or on flights to these.

Virtually all of the US's state emergency managers, including the head of FEMA and all senior FEMA staff, were at a conference somewhere in Colorado or Montana. And to their credit they managed to establish communications with their delegated staff or management promptly and efficiently.

The same can't be said of the airlines involved, like American whose central operations communications systems were down (in different ways) for unexplained "technical issues", or the FAA, which United was unable to reach at crucial moments after hijackings had started (it might be the other way around, but you get my point).

Then there were the dozens of training exercises happening on the same day, some part of larger exercises, some "impromptu" and some just isolated/independant and thus entirely coincidental.

Some theories say that the exercises allowed these systems to be ready to deal with the situations that day - though from the results it's hard to see how - other theories say that the exercises confused military response as to the "real-world" status of the events - even though when word first reached military central command (one of those operating training exercises that day - and who wasn't?) it was explicitly stated "this is not a test, not an exercise", and one of the commanders who had scripted the exercise said "The hijacking isn't supposed to happen for an hour."

Nobody seems to know how many training exercises were taking place that day: Army, navy, Marine corps, reserves and National Guard were all in training exercises, as were the Washington DC Police and the Washington Air Battalion, and even FEMA, which was already in New York for an exercise they obviously cancelled when the first crash occurred.

And of all the jet fighters that were out or on their way to training runs, most weren't called back or even knew about what was happening until after it was over.

To say that these various agencies didn't expect it or couldn't have predicted it is believable because most investigations into Ben Laden and/or "Al Qaeda" were canned (budget cuts? FBI treading on NSA or CIA territory?) and warnings were stifled (disbelieved, dismissed, or not considered "current"?) at the higher levels of government and security agencies.

So let's say hindsight is 20/20 - these executive government levels and agencies didn't only have warnings they may or may not have acted on, some specifically targeting the WTC, but they *had* practiced and drilled and written internally about such events as a plane being flown into government buildings (I think the CIA were training for a plane flying into Langley on 9/11) or multiple planes being hijacked or being used as missiles - look up "Bojinka" for example, which was a foiled terrorist operation.

I don't know which is crazier or scarier - the theory that the system was so screwed up attacks like these could happen "by accident", or the theory that they were somehow deliberately facilitated.

Dirty F · 03-20-2012, 02:54 PM

Mediaguy, we're at page 23 and you or your imbecile friends have failed to post any evidence that what happened was anything other than a bunch of terrorists flying into a tower which caused it to collapse. None...zero evidence. Absolutely nothing. Neither has ANY truther ANYWHERE been able to do that in the last 10 years.
Seriously, what does that tell you? You dumb fucking cunt.

MediaGuy · 03-20-2012, 04:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dirty F

Mediaguy, we're at page 23 and you or your imbecile friends have failed to post any evidence that what happened was anything other than a bunch of terrorists flying into a tower which caused it to collapse. None...zero evidence. Absolutely nothing. Neither has ANY truther ANYWHERE been able to do that in the last 10 years.
Seriously, what does that tell you? You dumb fucking cunt.

That last post wasn't about about the building collapse.

And though I've posted wjy I think the towers didn't collapse "naturally", I never said that there wasn't a bunch of terrorists that flew planes into the towers.

:D

2MuchMark · 03-20-2012, 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dirty F

You dumb fucking cunt.

What are you, 12?

If you disagree with someones opinions, say so and post your own. Otherwise, run along.

Dirty F · 03-20-2012, 06:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by **********

What are you, 12?

If you disagree with someones opinions, say so and post your own. Otherwise, run along.

That's the way i talk to dumb fucking cunts. Don't like it then put me on ignore.

Dirty F · 03-20-2012, 06:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MediaGuy

That last post wasn't about about the building collapse.

And though I've posted wjy I think the towers didn't collapse "naturally", I never said that there wasn't a bunch of terrorists that flew planes into the towers.

:D

You didn't answer my question.

Once again: the fact that in 10 years none of you idiots came up with ANY kind of evidence for your retarded claims, what does that tell you?

MediaGuy · 03-21-2012, 06:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dirty F

You didn't answer my question.

I wrote:

Quote:

I've posted wjy I think the towers didn't collapse "naturally", I never said that there wasn't a bunch of terrorists that flew planes into the towers.

That's not an answer? What I've posted in this thread has been what I consider to be evidence that office-fires and plane impacts weren't the only forces operating on the structures that day.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dirty F

Once again: the fact that in 10 years none of you idiots came up with ANY kind of evidence for your retarded claims, what does that tell you?

I can't answer for other idiots, and I only relay what I first thought from seeing it happen, then what independent findings have confirmed for me, especially since, as it grew, the official theory became less reconcilable with what appeared to have happened.

I tend to stay away from purely speculative idiots' claims, but I'll cite the findings and physical evidence engineer and scientist idiots report, both independent idiots and NIST idiots (who actually got most of their forensics from the idiots at FEMA).

Since the government idiots haven't come up with any hard evidence for their theory and the idiots at the FBI actually said they don't have any hard evidence linking the idiot Ben Laden to 9/11, I'll stick with the fact set that most credibly explains why the buildings collapsed, and most if not all of the weirdness that happened that day.

There *is* documented evidence of incendiaries and temperatures that could melt steel and produce iron by-products, among other indicators in the dust and rubble.

But those who refuse to accept any alternative to the government theory won't acknowledge that evidence, which makes them another kind of idiot entirely.

Rochard · 03-21-2012, 08:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MediaGuy

Actually I was referring to what seems to be a stupendous lack of reaction by everyone to first one then multiple hijackings. It seems everyone was reporting then waiting for everyone else in the chain of command, and on emergency reporting protocol, to respond or "give word" or "confirmation" - or worse they would "leave urgent messages" and wait for call backs. Jets were ordered to scramble, but left sitting on standby.

Many US government heads were not at their post, or on vacation, or at conferences overseas or on flights to these.

Virtually all of the US's state emergency managers, including the head of FEMA and all senior FEMA staff, were at a conference somewhere in Colorado or Montana. And to their credit they managed to establish communications with their delegated staff or management promptly and efficiently.

The same can't be said of the airlines involved, like American whose central operations communications systems were down (in different ways) for unexplained "technical issues", or the FAA, which United was unable to reach at crucial moments after hijackings had started (it might be the other way around, but you get my point).

Then there were the dozens of training exercises happening on the same day, some part of larger exercises, some "impromptu" and some just isolated/independant and thus entirely coincidental.

Some theories say that the exercises allowed these systems to be ready to deal with the situations that day - though from the results it's hard to see how - other theories say that the exercises confused military response as to the "real-world" status of the events - even though when word first reached military central command (one of those operating training exercises that day - and who wasn't?) it was explicitly stated "this is not a test, not an exercise", and one of the commanders who had scripted the exercise said "The hijacking isn't supposed to happen for an hour."

Nobody seems to know how many training exercises were taking place that day: Army, navy, Marine corps, reserves and National Guard were all in training exercises, as were the Washington DC Police and the Washington Air Battalion, and even FEMA, which was already in New York for an exercise they obviously cancelled when the first crash occurred.

And of all the jet fighters that were out or on their way to training runs, most weren't called back or even knew about what was happening until after it was over.

To say that these various agencies didn't expect it or couldn't have predicted it is believable because most investigations into Ben Laden and/or "Al Qaeda" were canned (budget cuts? FBI treading on NSA or CIA territory?) and warnings were stifled (disbelieved, dismissed, or not considered "current"?) at the higher levels of government and security agencies.

So let's say hindsight is 20/20 - these executive government levels and agencies didn't only have warnings they may or may not have acted on, some specifically targeting the WTC, but they *had* practiced and drilled and written internally about such events as a plane being flown into government buildings (I think the CIA were training for a plane flying into Langley on 9/11) or multiple planes being hijacked or being used as missiles - look up "Bojinka" for example, which was a foiled terrorist operation.

I don't know which is crazier or scarier - the theory that the system was so screwed up attacks like these could happen "by accident", or the theory that they were somehow deliberately facilitated.

But you accept these things are being "odd" or "out of the ordinary" when in fact they are perfectly ordinary. The military and the fifty states conduct thousands of training exercises on a yearly basis.

Yes, jets were ordered to scramble and then put on standby... Because no knew what was going on. In hindsight it all seems so perfectly obvious, but prior to 9/11 the very thought of having to shoot down our own passenger jets was something no one had even remotely considered.

porno jew · 03-21-2012, 08:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnyClips

They were conducting, on the morning of 9/11, planes being hijacked and rammed into the Pentagon, World Trade Center and White House at the exact same time they were hijacked...

Coincidence of coursre

that is just a lie. source? oh you have none except for your own delusions.

MediaGuy · 03-21-2012, 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

But you accept these things are being "odd" or "out of the ordinary" when in fact they are perfectly ordinary. The military and the fifty states conduct thousands of training exercises on a yearly basis.

Not everyone at the same time.

Each one of these taken on its own, or even a handful or *half* of them, certainly it's understandable - but taken together with all the other first-time occurences, coincidences, and "inadvertent" serendipitous events that day, does give one pause.

And with the ridiculous secretiveness of NSA, CIA, FBI and the other alphabet agencies about that day - the conspiracy theorists are sure to have a field day. The government is not helping by refusing to release video, for one instance, of the crash at the Pentagon, for example. If it happened the way they say it did, where's the threat to national security? What's on those tapes that isn't on News copter footage or the few frames they did release that would compromise anything?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

Yes, jets were ordered to scramble and then put on standby... Because no knew what was going on. In hindsight it all seems so perfectly obvious, but prior to 9/11 the very thought of having to shoot down our own passenger jets was something no one had even remotely considered.

Actually pilots are trained to be ready to ram even civilian airliners in these cases.

Depending what you read, there were quite a few people who knew what was going on, and had confirmation of the hijack, but everyone was waiting on someone to give the order...

Of course all the confusion about whom and when to call could have been due to Cheney's changing the standarod operating procedure and chain of command several months earlier. And maybe it was a result of the confusion on 9/11, that the order was changed back after 9/11.

Budget cuts in the Bush era seem to have disabled many NORAD "Alert" cold-war defense bases, and though these were "outward looking" as they say, it doesn't mean military pilots aren't prepared to do what it takes - and what they're ordered to do - to defend the country.

I don't remember the exact number but there were very few jets (on the order of three or something) available and not out on training or exercise runs that morning - if not for the whole country, then definitely for the entire eastern coast.

God or Providence or Allah was definitely on the hijackers' side that morning, if you're right ...

MediaGuy · 03-21-2012, 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by porno jew

that is just a lie. source? oh you have none except for your own delusions.

I would call it incorrectly remembered information, to be fair. All these simulations and exercises were conducted in the months and years before 9/11. That is all.

MediaGuy · 03-21-2012, 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnyClips

It still amazes me to this day, with the Internet age, people can AGREE that there are government secrets as well as top secret facilities with obviously ridiculous technology as we've all been made aware of through compartmentalization...but then someone claim they know the truth about everything

How the fuck would that be possible if you don't have access to top secret information?

You could say the same about conspiracy theorists and their ideas; and how can we "all be made aware" of anything if compartmentalization is so prevalaent?

:D

Rochard · 03-21-2012, 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MediaGuy

Not everyone at the same time.

Each one of these taken on its own, or even a handful or *half* of them, certainly it's understandable - but taken together with all the other first-time occurences, coincidences, and "inadvertent" serendipitous events that day, does give one pause.

And with the ridiculous secretiveness of NSA, CIA, FBI and the other alphabet agencies about that day - the conspiracy theorists are sure to have a field day. The government is not helping by refusing to release video, for one instance, of the crash at the Pentagon, for example. If it happened the way they say it did, where's the threat to national security? What's on those tapes that isn't on News copter footage or the few frames they did release that would compromise anything?

Actually pilots are trained to be ready to ram even civilian airliners in these cases.

Depending what you read, there were quite a few people who knew what was going on, and had confirmation of the hijack, but everyone was waiting on someone to give the order...

Of course all the confusion about whom and when to call could have been due to Cheney's changing the standarod operating procedure and chain of command several months earlier. And maybe it was a result of the confusion on 9/11, that the order was changed back after 9/11.

Budget cuts in the Bush era seem to have disabled many NORAD "Alert" cold-war defense bases, and though these were "outward looking" as they say, it doesn't mean military pilots aren't prepared to do what it takes - and what they're ordered to do - to defend the country.

I don't remember the exact number but there were very few jets (on the order of three or something) available and not out on training or exercise runs that morning - if not for the whole country, then definitely for the entire eastern coast.

God or Providence or Allah was definitely on the hijackers' side that morning, if you're right ...

Now your just on crack.

MediaGuy · 03-21-2012, 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

Now your just on crack.

Please, be specific... I've been on crack, and that's not it...

:D

Dirty F · 03-21-2012, 04:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

Now your just on crack.

He wasn't before? Just because he writes big pieces of text instead of the crazy one liners Johhnyimbecile does doesn't mean he's less of a whacko.

Rochard · 03-21-2012, 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MediaGuy

Please, be specific... I've been on crack, and that's not it...

:D

You seem to think that "drills" are something unusual. On any given day there are multiple military drills and simulations, and cities having their own "disaster drills". On any given day there is a dozen of these drills and simulations, and none of them had any impact on what happened on 9/11. Your trying to make something out of nothing here.

This entire discussion has been dropped by the 9/11 truth movement because no matter what day it happened on, there would be dozens of simulations and drills.

MediaGuy · 03-21-2012, 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnyClips

Drills involving hijacked airliners crashing into the WTC, Pentagon and WH on the morning of 9/11...yea, pure coincidence

Dude, really, those occurred but not on 9/11...

:D

03-19-2012, 10:38 AM	#967
bronco67 Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 29,035	By "unite" did you mean "circlejerk"? __________________

03-19-2012, 11:53 AM	#971
Rochard Jägermeister Test Pilot Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: NORCAL Posts: 70,258	Snicker. This message is hidden because JohnnyClips is on your ignore list. __________________ “The choice is no longer between right or left. The choice is between normal and crazy.” - Sarah Huckabee Sanders YNOT MAIL \| THE BEST ADULT MAILING SOLUTION

03-19-2012, 12:55 PM	#975
2MuchMark Videochat Solutions Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Canada Posts: 45,831	Hey Mediaguy, I have an idea. Does the presence of Thermite (or super thermite, or whateverthefuck thermite) AUTOMATICALLY prove to you that some one or some thing other than the planes were responsible for bringing down WTC's 1, 2 and 7? Just a simple Yes or no. Bare with me - I'm testing something. __________________ VideoChat Solutions \| Custom Software \| IT Support https://www.2much.net \| https://www.lcntech.com

03-19-2012, 02:11 PM	#978
DWB Giggity Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: S.E. Asia Posts: 31,779	A bunch of people arguing the same topic while both get all of their information from 3rd party sources and a government who has lied repeatably do the people. Everyone is probably wrong.

03-20-2012, 02:54 PM	#985
Dirty F Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 59,204	Mediaguy, we're at page 23 and you or your imbecile friends have failed to post any evidence that what happened was anything other than a bunch of terrorists flying into a tower which caused it to collapse. None...zero evidence. Absolutely nothing. Neither has ANY truther ANYWHERE been able to do that in the last 10 years. Seriously, what does that tell you? You dumb fucking cunt.