For the conspiracy theorists...

[jets24 6]

With the tens of thousands of firefighters in the area and considering that they lost over 300 men on 9/11, why aren't they questioning everything like you are? And please don't cut and paste the one guy who is doing that. I am speaking about thousands.

[Vikings4ever 500]

Hey, no fair bringing logic into the arguement!!!

[jets24 6]

Hey, no fair bringing logic into the arguement!!!

 

 

Sorry. My bad. I forgot. All the firefighters were in on it too.

[naomi 350]

Perhaps there are some that do. Many people would consider it in extremely poor taste or disrespectful to go down that road, so if there are some that do, they probably know that too. Unless most firefighters or their families have a really clear view of how things went down that seems to completely cancel out a government conspiracy theory, my guess is there are probably some that do question a lot of things.

[jets24 6]

Perhaps there are some that do. Many people would consider it in extremely poor taste or disrespectful to go down that road, so if there are some that do, they probably know that too. Unless most firefighters or their families have a really clear view of how things went down that seems to completely cancel out a government conspiracy theory, my guess is there are probably some that do question a lot of things.

 

But they don't call for an investigation as to why 300 of their comrades were killed that day?

You think if they actually believed the government was behind it, they would care about poor taste? Perhaps they haven't called for an investigation because they probably know more about buildings collapsing than any of us and realize that planes, full of fuel, hit the buildings and brought them down.

 

Waiting for GridIron to bring up the one guy who sued Bush about the "gag" order on him, so I can debunk him as well.

 

Face it. While our government has made many mistakes in Iraq, it is doing it's job in protecting us from further attacks on our soil and had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11.

[naomi 350]

But they don't call for an investigation as to why 300 of their comrades were killed that day?

You think if they actually believed the government was behind it, they would care about poor taste? Perhaps they haven't called for an investigation because they probably know more about buildings collapsing than any of us and realize that planes, full of fuel, hit the buildings and brought them down.

 

Perhaps.

 

Regarding your question, imagine if there are some that have those questions in the back of their mind...calling for that investigation is going to go over horribly with those who absolutely are sure in their minds Sept. 11th wasn't more than a foreign terrorist conspiracy. If publicly expressing there could be more to it means offending people who have lost loved ones and is something you'd be hard pressed to prove, yes, those questions won't be put out there.

 

 

FTR, I'm not a conspiracy theorist when it comes to 9/11. Not because I believe for sure everything happened how it's widely regarded, but because I don't have a way to prove anything about it.

[IndyTom 0]

People will continue to believe what they want to believe - and dismiss even the most rationale pieces of evidence.

 

If Gore won the presidency, 9/11 would still have taken place. However, the fringe left wackos would not be screaming "conspiracy", they would have found a way to blame Reagan or someone else.

[jets24 6]

Perhaps.

 

Regarding your question, imagine if there are some that have those questions in the back of their mind...calling for that investigation is going to go over horribly with those who absolutely are sure in their minds Sept. 11th wasn't more than a foreign terrorist conspiracy. If publicly expressing there could be more to it means offending people who have lost loved ones and is something you'd be hard pressed to prove, yes, those questions won't be put out there.

 

 

I can't deal in "what ifs" and "maybes". It's ridiculous already. And unless you believe in thse conspiracies Naomi, I suggest you stop this conversation. I have very little respect for people who deal in pretend scenarios just because it makes good discussion. I still haven't heard an answer from any of the theorists out there pertaining to the following question....

 

If you believe there was a conspiracy of this magnitude, how come not ONE credible person has ever come forward to admit it in 5 years? Not one? There had to be hundreds if not thousands involved to pull it off. Nobody will come forward? They could make billions of dollars with their story. NOT ONE! Nixon couldn't even spy on the Dems without having to resign. This is 5 focking years of investigating and the best this insane group can come up with is "what temperature does steel melt"? Are you really believing them if that is their best arguement for a conspiracy? Holy crap.

[naomi 350]

I can't deal in "what ifs" and "maybes". It's ridiculous already. And unless you believe in thse conspiracies Naomi, I suggest you stop this conversation. I have very little respect for people who deal in pretend scenarios just because it makes good discussion. I still haven't heard an answer from any of the theorists out there pertaining to the following question....

 

If you believe there was a conspiracy of this magnitude, how come not ONE credible person has ever come forward to admit it in 5 years? Not one? There had to be hundreds if not thousands involved to pull it off. Nobody will come forward? They could make billions of dollars with their story. NOT ONE! Nixon couldn't even spy on the Dems without having to resign. This is 5 focking years of investigating and the best this insane group can come up with is "what temperature does steel melt"? Are you really believing them if that is their best arguement for a conspiracy? Holy crap.

 

The question you posed in the OP was about the firefighters (and I assume that would extend to their family members). That is a what if. Someone would have to talk to them all to say something definitive. You started out asking how come none came forward, and assuming none did, I offered a what if rationale for a what if question.

 

As for credible people, that would have to be someone who knows many things well enough to present his case cleanly. He'd have to have his ###### really really together. That's hard to do, doesn't mean because it's hard that there's no basis for questioning.

 

The two following points speak directly to what you saying here:

 

1)We don't have the political enviroment for someone to make money off of those thoughts unless he/she REALLY had something to say.

 

2)Because someone doesn't have something to say yet does not have to mean there is no more truth that could be revealed.

 

It's difficult to not reference hypothetics when the whole thing is hypothetical. I'm assuming people can study things and have strong suspicions, but even so, unless someone knows A LOT, you won't get away from being hypothetical.

 

The questions you posed called for the response you got.

[jets24 6]

The question you posed in the OP was about the firefighters (and I assume that would extend to their family members). That is a what if. Someone would have to talk to them all to say something definitive. You started out asking how come none came forward, and assuming none did, I offered a what if rationale for a what if question.

 

As for credible people, that would have to be someone who knows many things well enough to present his case cleanly. He'd have to have his ###### really really together. That's hard to do, doesn't mean because it's hard that there's no basis for questioning.

 

The two following points speak directly to what you saying here:

 

1)We don't have the political enviroment for someone to make money off of those thoughts unless he/she REALLY had something to say.

 

2)Because someone doesn't have something to say yet does not have to mean there is no more truth that could be revealed.

 

It's difficult to not reference hypothetics when the whole thing is hypothetical. I'm assuming people can study things and have strong suspicions, but even so, unless someone knows A LOT, you won't get away from being hypothetical.

 

The questions you posed called for the response you got.

So, we should assume there was a conspiracy because we can't prove that it wasn't?

 

I bet you had sex with a goat. Now prove to me you haven't.

 

Your entire rationale is delusional.

[OakHeadFootball 1]

"Lack of evidence is not evidence"

 

The WTC7 report is supposed to be coming out soon (early spring). NIST has stated it will address the controlled demolition/explosives hypothesis even though it has already come forth saying they have found no indications of explosives being used at any of the WTC buildings. So, expect it to start all over again. Conspiracy theorists will most likely make the case NIST is covering for the Government and none of it is believable right from the get go. Ohh and then you will have "Loose Change The Final Cut" also supposedly coming out this year and you can expect more people to buy into it. Charlie Sheen is narrating it which I guess will make people believe it is actually credible.

 

I tend to agree it has a lot to do with agenda driven politics and you probably wont see the conspiracy movement dwindle away into obscurity until the current administration is changed that is unless Giuliani gets elected then it will most likely continue on for some time.

[Mrsteak21 0]

"Lack of evidence is not evidence"

 

The WTC7 report is supposed to be coming out soon (early spring). NIST has stated it will address the controlled demolition/explosives hypothesis even though it has already come forth saying they have found no indications of explosives being used at any of the WTC buildings. So, expect it to start all over again. Conspiracy theorists will most likely make the case NIST is covering for the Government and none of it is believable right from the get go. Ohh and then you will have "Loose Change The Final Cut" also supposedly coming out this year and you can expect more people to buy into it. Charlie Sheen is narrating it which I guess will make people believe it is actually credible.

 

I tend to agree it has a lot to do with agenda driven politics and you probably wont see the conspiracy movement dwindle away into obscurity until the current administration is changed that is unless Giuliani gets elected then it will most likely continue on for some time.

 

First off, Happy Easter to all....

 

Just because the NIST puts out a report doesnt mean that it is based on correct physics. There where many incorrect formulas and inconsistent theories used which relate in false claims.

 

Here is a quote jetsfan will like:

 

"NIST, of course, claims that it was the impact of the aircraft and the jet-fuel based fires, which caused the steel to weaken and bring about a collapse," Fetzer said. "But the buildings were designed to withstand such occurrences and the steel had been certified by UL to 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit for several hours without weakening. The fires only burned around 500 degrees for less than an hour (in the case of WTC-2) and an hour-and-a-half (in the case of WTC-2), so NIST really doesn't even reach the point at which a 'collapse' of any kind would be 'initiated.' The situation is quite remarkable."

 

I mean for god sakes people, there are pictures of people standing and waving from the holes where the jets crashed! If it was so hot to melt/weaken the steel (2,000 degress F) dont you think it would be too hot for people to stand there! You guys talk about common sense, but geez use some!

 

http://www.emediawire.com/releases/2007/3/emw515165.htm

[jets24 6]

First off, Happy Easter to all....

 

Just because the NIST puts out a report doesnt mean that it is based on correct physics. There where many incorrect formulas and inconsistent theories used which relate in false claims.

 

Here is a quote jetsfan will like:

 

"NIST, of course, claims that it was the impact of the aircraft and the jet-fuel based fires, which caused the steel to weaken and bring about a collapse," Fetzer said. "But the buildings were designed to withstand such occurrences and the steel had been certified by UL to 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit for several hours without weakening. The fires only burned around 500 degrees for less than an hour (in the case of WTC-2) and an hour-and-a-half (in the case of WTC-2), so NIST really doesn't even reach the point at which a 'collapse' of any kind would be 'initiated.' The situation is quite remarkable."

 

I mean for god sakes people, there are pictures of people standing and waving from the holes where the jets crashed! If it was so hot to melt/weaken the steel (2,000 degress F) dont you think it would be too hot for people to stand there! You guys talk about common sense, but geez use some!

 

http://www.emediawire.com/releases/2007/3/emw515165.htm

 

Ummm...seriously, do you have anything else? Anything?

[rallo 132]

we've been over the melting point for steel a million times... and did they have a thermometer in the building measure that the fire burned only at 500 degrees??? or did they just "guess" that's what it was because building materials burn at that temp... god forbid there was a gas leak from the impact of the plane (not jet fuel but natural gas or propane which has a burning temp well above the melting point of steel)

 

all the conspiracy theorist make it sounds like it absolutely happened... like they have hard evidence... like there is no way a fire in that building could have melted steel... (even though it didn't have to melt it) bottom line is that if there was a propane or natural gas leak the temp would have easily been high enough to ruin the buildings structural integrity...

 

do i know that this happened??? NO... but i know no more than the conspiracy phags know

[naomi 350]

So, we should assume there was a conspiracy because we can't prove that it wasn't?

 

I bet you had sex with a goat. Now prove to me you haven't.

 

Your entire rationale is delusional.

 

I never said we should assume there is one. If you read my posts you would know where I'm coming from.

 

It's simple. You're suggesting people who have questions and suspicions come out with them. All I'm saying is it's hard to prove anything regarding the entire event unless you're extremely well informed about it. The average person isn't going to be. You're taking the absence of people who might have questions expressing those questions publicly as indication everything happened as it seems, and ignoring the fact there might be other reasons to not put those questions forward. It's neither impetus to believe or disbelieve, it's just the state of things. When you start talking about the firefighters and what they might think and reasons for not coming out, understanding those are potential factors is applicable. If you don't like dealing with potentialitys, don't ask a question like you did. If we're going to talk more concretely, we'd have to know what all the firefighters think and why, and in the event they have questions-how they feel about expressing them. On the other hand we can talk in absolutes about things while lacking needed information, but I'll pass.

 

i like you better in the three degress of DeNiro thread :P

[Mrsteak21 0]

Ummm...seriously, do you have anything else? Anything?

 

I have plenty of ammo and each time i post it in threads like this you decide to ignore what i post and post something with a different point, just like in this instance. It is old and boring and i would rather avoid getting into this with you again. And please dont come back with the "its because i debunk everything you say" post that i know you will want to enter. You never have and never will debunk what i have because i have facts backed up by sound scientific research, not research that ignores physics or just dismissing claims without research like our friends at the NIST.

 

There are reasons that more and more people are opening their eyes and ears and questioning the govt's claims.... this is all going mainstream whether you like it or not!

 

if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it just might be a duck....

[Mrsteak21 0]

we've been over the melting point for steel a million times... and did they have a thermometer in the building measure that the fire burned only at 500 degrees??? or did they just "guess" that's what it was because building materials burn at that temp... god forbid there was a gas leak from the impact of the plane (not jet fuel but natural gas or propane which has a burning temp well above the melting point of steel)

 

all the conspiracy theorist make it sounds like it absolutely happened... like they have hard evidence... like there is no way a fire in that building could have melted steel... (even though it didn't have to melt it) bottom line is that if there was a propane or natural gas leak the temp would have easily been high enough to ruin the buildings structural integrity...

 

do i know that this happened??? NO... but i know no more than the conspiracy phags know

 

Buddy please stay out of this if you dont understand the facts or if you havent even looked over the govt. reports. Your Govt. made claim that the jet fuel (and only the jet fuel) burning weakened the steel and made the building fall. THERE WAS NO NATURAL GAS, ETC THAT WAS INVOLVED! Is that clear enough for you? If you dont believe me go google, i dont have the time to link stuff for you.

 

But lets say that there was not only the jet fuel but also the natural gas leak that you claim was possible. Lets say the temp was over 2000 degrees F for an extended amount of time (so the steel could weaken-even though it can withstand 2000 degrees for upwards of hours before weakening). If it was so hot then how the hell were people standing at the holes waving??? Metal holds heat very well and that steel would be freaking hot still, way too hot for people huh??? Are you not starting to see some holes in this story? Wise up....

 

Please dont patronize us and lump all conspiracy theorists in a group that "all believe it absolutely happened". I have been empashizing that because there are so many inconsistencies and incredible coincindences (SP) that people need to not completely dismiss the conspiracy claim. The govt could be behind 911, they could have looked the other way and let it happen, they could be in the dark and silverstein owner of WTC could have pulled it off to collect on the huge insurance policy is signed prior or it could have really happened like the govt says. The point is that there is so many holes in this story that it is preposterous to just dismiss conspiracists without doing research. Also, name calling doesnt increase your post's credibility and no you dont know more than me....

[rallo 132]

propane and natural gas can burn at over 1900 *C... melting point for highgrade steel is around 1400 * C... i'm pointing out the physics of it... it's crazy focknuts like rosie o'donnell that throw out "it's the first time in history that steel was melted by fire"

[IGotWorms 3,475]

If Gore won the presidency, 9/11 would still have taken place. However, the fringe left wackos would not be screaming "conspiracy", they would have found a way to blame Reagan or someone else.

 

Not true. Even if you discount a conspiracy, there is still no doubt that a Gore Administration would have placed a lot more emphasis on counter-terrorism and al-Qaeda than did the Bush Administration. Bush and his cronies simply didn't give a sh*t about counter-terrorism before 9/11.

[OakHeadFootball 1]

First off, Happy Easter to all....

 

Just because the NIST puts out a report doesnt mean that it is based on correct physics. There where many incorrect formulas and inconsistent theories used which relate in false claims.

 

Here is a quote jetsfan will like:

 

"NIST, of course, claims that it was the impact of the aircraft and the jet-fuel based fires, which caused the steel to weaken and bring about a collapse," Fetzer said. "But the buildings were designed to withstand such occurrences and the steel had been certified by UL to 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit for several hours without weakening. The fires only burned around 500 degrees for less than an hour (in the case of WTC-2) and an hour-and-a-half (in the case of WTC-2), so NIST really doesn't even reach the point at which a 'collapse' of any kind would be 'initiated.' The situation is quite remarkable."

 

I mean for god sakes people, there are pictures of people standing and waving from the holes where the jets crashed! If it was so hot to melt/weaken the steel (2,000 degress F) dont you think it would be too hot for people to stand there! You guys talk about common sense, but geez use some!

 

http://www.emediawire.com/releases/2007/3/emw515165.htm

 

 

UL did not certify the WTC steel. The buildings were not built to withstand such occurrences. The fires did not have to reach 2,000 degrees, numerous credible professionals concur.

 

Fetzer is a history and philosophy professor and one of the head wack jobs at "scholars for 9-11 truth", but take his word over countless professionals who actually have a background in things such as you know... engineering, demolition, metallurgy, forensics ect. Things that happen to be pertinent to the events.

 

Fetzer wont exclude the possibility that the WTC was brought down by a "death ray from outer space"

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_H._Fetzer

 

"During recent lectures, Fetzer encourages the study of the possibility that high-tech weapons, including ground or space-based directed-energy military weapons, may have been used to bring down the Twin Towers. [3] He has not endorsed any specific hypothesis about the destruction of the WTC, but he has expressed skepticism that conventional explosives, including thermite/thermate, could have brought about such devastating effects."

 

I'm sorry did you think a quote from a certified moon bat who endorses a military coup to overthrow the Bush administration and similarly endorses his fellow moon bat Judy Wood's space based weapons demolition of the WTC theory was either valid or credible to the conversation in some way?

[OakHeadFootball 1]

Buddy please stay out of this if you dont understand the facts or if you havent even looked over the govt. reports. Your Govt. made claim that the jet fuel (and only the jet fuel) burning weakened the steel and made the building fall. THERE WAS NO NATURAL GAS, ETC THAT WAS INVOLVED! Is that clear enough for you? If you dont believe me go google, i dont have the time to link stuff for you.

 

But lets say that there was not only the jet fuel but also the natural gas leak that you claim was possible. Lets say the temp was over 2000 degrees F for an extended amount of time (so the steel could weaken-even though it can withstand 2000 degrees for upwards of hours before weakening). If it was so hot then how the hell were people standing at the holes waving??? Metal holds heat very well and that steel would be freaking hot still, way too hot for people huh??? Are you not starting to see some holes in this story? Wise up....

 

Please dont patronize us and lump all conspiracy theorists in a group that "all believe it absolutely happened". I have been empashizing that because there are so many inconsistencies and incredible coincindences (SP) that people need to not completely dismiss the conspiracy claim. The govt could be behind 911, they could have looked the other way and let it happen, they could be in the dark and silverstein owner of WTC could have pulled it off to collect on the huge insurance policy is signed prior or it could have really happened like the govt says. The point is that there is so many holes in this story that it is preposterous to just dismiss conspiracists without doing research. Also, name calling doesnt increase your post's credibility and no you dont know more than me....

 

Your research is poor.

 

"Your Govt. made claim that the jet fuel (and only the jet fuel) burning weakened the steel and made the building fall."

 

No actually they attributed it to the large amounts of flammable materials, among other things, commonly found in office environments that were ignited by the exploding jet fuel.

 

Lets say the temp was over 2000 degrees F for an extended amount of time (so the steel could weaken-even though it can withstand 2000 degrees for upwards of hours before weakening

 

Who is claiming it has to reach 2,00 degrees F to sufficiently weaken? You? Ul did not certify the individual steel in the WTC. They certify entire assemblies. The claim it had to withstand 2,000 degrees for "upwards of hours" (whatever that means) is not true.

 

If it was so hot then how the hell were people standing at the holes waving???

 

Perhaps due to fire not being a static object and having this wee little tendency to consume fuel and move on. Perhaps inertia caused the large majority of flammables and fuel to be thrown or pushed away from the impact points making them relatively safe or perhaps all those people who jumped out the windows got it wrong and all the smoke pouring from the towers wasn't actually that bad or indicative of massive fire.

 

Wise up

 

silverstein owner of WTC could have pulled it off to collect on the huge insurance policy

 

More poor research, check your facts "o wise one", this is costing Silverstien billions. The claims he did it for insurance money holds no water under scrutiny, it has been sufficiently addressed to the point where it is not a valid claim. On a related note, the insurers of the WTC buildings did their own private investigations of the events and found no reason to suspect an "inside job". They stood to profit greatly if they could show that the attacks were self inflicted but they uncovered no grand conspiracy either. They must be incompetent or in on it also.

 

The point is that there is so many holes in this story that it is preposterous to just dismiss conspiracists without doing research

 

More like dismissing conspiracists that have failed to do proper research and who try to make holes that don't exist in the first place.

[jets24 6]

Not true. Even if you discount a conspiracy, there is still no doubt that a Gore Administration would have placed a lot more emphasis on counter-terrorism and al-Qaeda than did the Bush Administration. Bush and his cronies simply didn't give a sh*t about counter-terrorism before 9/11.

 

 

Wow. You got more than worms. You got a case of the crazies.

[jets24 6]

Bump for GridIron.

[IndyTom 0]

Not true. Even if you discount a conspiracy, there is still no doubt that a Gore Administration would have placed a lot more emphasis on counter-terrorism and al-Qaeda than did the Bush Administration. Bush and his cronies simply didn't give a sh*t about counter-terrorism before 9/11.

 

9/11 was 6 years in the making (logistics, training, flight school for the terrorists, phony paperwork, infrastructure - as outlined by the 9/11 Commission, etc etc) - all during the Clinton administration.

 

Are you suggesting that Gore (who wasn't exactly known for national security) planned to overhaul what Clinton had in place and would have prevented this?

 

The reality is - whomever was to be elected would have had only 8 months, after being sworn in, to devise a way to counter this. Honestly, had Gore won the election, I would not be screaming conspiracy or blaming Gore either.

[GridIronAssassin#1 0]

UL did not certify the WTC steel. UL conducted many tests with all of WTC's steel in the 1970s. The steel passed all those tests. "Certify" is a just a label that people trying to debunk the strength of the steel say didn't exist. Bottom line is that UL did test the steel and it did pass those tests. Whether the word certify was used back then is irrelevant. The buildings were not built to withstand such occurrences.(Wrong, John Skilling designed them to withstand such occurences.) The fires did not have to reach 2,000 degrees, numerous credible professionals concur.( A few pockets of fire reaching 2000 degrees farhenheit has nothing to do with the temperature of steel.)

Fetzer is a history and philosophy professor and one of the head wack jobs at "scholars for 9-11 truth", but take his word over countless professionals who actually have a background in things such as you know... engineering, demolition, metallurgy, forensics ect. Things that happen to be pertinent to the events.

 

Fetzer wont exclude the possibility that the WTC was brought down by a "death ray from outer space"

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_H._Fetzer

 

"During recent lectures, Fetzer encourages the study of the possibility that high-tech weapons, including ground or space-based directed-energy military weapons, may have been used to bring down the Twin Towers. [3] He has not endorsed any specific hypothesis about the destruction of the WTC, but he has expressed skepticism that conventional explosives, including thermite/thermate, could have brought about such devastating effects."

 

I'm sorry did you think a quote from a certified moon bat who endorses a military coup to overthrow the Bush administration and similarly endorses his fellow moon bat Judy Wood's space based weapons demolition of the WTC theory was either valid or credible to the conversation in some way? ( Well, I agree that some of Fetzer's ideas are whacked. Can't get around it.)

[jets24 6]

Bump for GridLiar to answer any of my questions in this thread.

[Sho Nuff 720]

First off, Happy Easter to all....

 

Just because the NIST puts out a report doesnt mean that it is based on correct physics. There where many incorrect formulas and inconsistent theories used which relate in false claims.

 

Here is a quote jetsfan will like:

 

"NIST, of course, claims that it was the impact of the aircraft and the jet-fuel based fires, which caused the steel to weaken and bring about a collapse," Fetzer said. "But the buildings were designed to withstand such occurrences and the steel had been certified by UL to 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit for several hours without weakening. The fires only burned around 500 degrees for less than an hour (in the case of WTC-2) and an hour-and-a-half (in the case of WTC-2), so NIST really doesn't even reach the point at which a 'collapse' of any kind would be 'initiated.' The situation is quite remarkable."

 

I mean for god sakes people, there are pictures of people standing and waving from the holes where the jets crashed! If it was so hot to melt/weaken the steel (2,000 degress F) dont you think it would be too hot for people to stand there! You guys talk about common sense, but geez use some!

 

http://www.emediawire.com/releases/2007/3/emw515165.htm

 

Ahh, the other moron.

 

I have plenty of ammo and each time i post it in threads like this you decide to ignore what i post and post something with a different point, just like in this instance. It is old and boring and i would rather avoid getting into this with you again. And please dont come back with the "its because i debunk everything you say" post that i know you will want to enter. You never have and never will debunk what i have because i have facts backed up by sound scientific research, not research that ignores physics or just dismissing claims without research like our friends at the NIST.

 

There are reasons that more and more people are opening their eyes and ears and questioning the govt's claims.... this is all going mainstream whether you like it or not!

 

if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it just might be a duck....

 

Your ammo has been shown to be completely harmless.

Old and boring is your failed attempts at showing anything...just like yoru buddy grid.

 

Everyone has debunked what you have...time and time again.

 

You, like Grid, have yet to bring a single fact supporting your conclusions...much less any scientific research.

 

There are reasons that not one single person since the event has brought one shred of credible evidence supporting these wild theories.

[edjr 5,784]

With the tens of thousands of firefighters in the area and considering that they lost over 300 men on 9/11, why aren't they questioning everything like you are? And please don't cut and paste the one guy who is doing that. I am speaking about thousands.

 

 

it's like being in the mafia... they know if they speak out, they will "disappear"

[jets24 6]

More bumpage for GridLiar

[lennie75 0]

I love all the people who follow around a fat, ugly, unintelligent, beligerant woman to give them ideas. Please tell me you don't actually believe this crap about us destroying the Twin Towers. Please don't...and I love the people who say people who come out will "disappear."

 

We live in a day where it is almost impossible to keep anything a secret. Adn all you need to do to protect yourself is sell your story to ET or Inside Edition. Do you think anyone would disappear after coming out in the national media.

 

I think the far left is commical...there is no rationality...just raw HATE. Get a life and move on with it!!!! Life is good...the economy is good...unemployment is at an alltime low....there have been no attacks on our soil, airlaines, energy sources, travel, etc.....we have free speech...except for Christians...Christians aren't even allowed to have Christmas Trees or Easter Bunnies...so you should be happy. You can now offset your "evil" ways of living by purchasing carbon offsets...this is a necessity since most liberals are weak-minded and can't live up to their own ideals.

 

Seriously though...why all the hate? Why the need to make wild accusations??!! Think about it...you say nicer things about people who want to kill us then you do your fellow Americans. Who cares if you don't have the same beliefs...Do you really need to hate someone just because he doesn'thave the same values...then at the same time cling to those who would rather see you dead!!!

[jets24 6]

more bumpage for GridLiarAss

[RLLD 3,588]

I think that the human mind, when faced with the kind of events such as those being discussed, can sometimes have a hard time assembling thoughts into a cohesive reality.

 

It is often easier for us to deny the truth rather than face it. I think there are a substantial number of people out there who simply lack the mental capacity to formulate thought of such a grand nature. The reality is just too immense for them, and the succumb to sensationalism.

 

Torrid fell into this when Bush won....

[30 Fat, Bald & Texan 5]

I'm no chemist or anything but I bet I can use jet fuel to create a fire that would bring just about anything down.

 

Someone also said there was no natural gas or anything else that might have caused steel to melt. Are you kidding? In a building that size?

[parrot 789]

You never have and never will debunk what i have because i have facts backed up by sound scientific research, not research that ignores physics or just dismissing claims without research like our friends at the NIST.

Please tell the one again where the jet engine parts at the Pentagon resemble those of a predator drone, even though a predator drone doesn't have a jet engine! That's one of my favorites!

[Mrsteak21 0]

UL did not certify the WTC steel. The buildings were not built to withstand such occurrences. The fires did not have to reach 2,000 degrees, numerous credible professionals concur.

 

Fetzer is a history and philosophy professor and one of the head wack jobs at "scholars for 9-11 truth", but take his word over countless professionals who actually have a background in things such as you know... engineering, demolition, metallurgy, forensics ect. Things that happen to be pertinent to the events.

 

Fetzer wont exclude the possibility that the WTC was brought down by a "death ray from outer space"

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_H._Fetzer

 

"During recent lectures, Fetzer encourages the study of the possibility that high-tech weapons, including ground or space-based directed-energy military weapons, may have been used to bring down the Twin Towers. [3] He has not endorsed any specific hypothesis about the destruction of the WTC, but he has expressed skepticism that conventional explosives, including thermite/thermate, could have brought about such devastating effects."

 

I'm sorry did you think a quote from a certified moon bat who endorses a military coup to overthrow the Bush administration and similarly endorses his fellow moon bat Judy Wood's space based weapons demolition of the WTC theory was either valid or credible to the conversation in some way?

 

 

Dont tell me you are quoting wikipedia!!!! You are hilarious, that stuff can be created by anyone, no wonder why colleges dont count it as a source....

 

 

Please tell the one again where the jet engine parts at the Pentagon resemble those of a predator drone, even though a predator drone doesn't have a jet engine! That's one of my favorites!

 

I admitted that i quoted the wrong plane on that one plain and simple. Keep using the strawman technique though it works well.

 

I'm no chemist or anything but I bet I can use jet fuel to create a fire that would bring just about anything down.

 

Someone also said there was no natural gas or anything else that might have caused steel to melt. Are you kidding? In a building that size?

 

You are wrong on the jet fuel part, do some research on it. Also i was quoting the NIST report that jet fuel and only jet fuel weakened the steel enough to fall.

[OakHeadFootball 1]

Dont tell me you are quoting wikipedia!!!! You are hilarious, that stuff can be created by anyone, no wonder why colleges dont count it as a source....

 

 

It is common knowledge smart guy. His idiocy is no big secret. Here he is discussing the finer points of the WTC collapse with Judy Wood (The lady who touts the theory that a spaced based weapons system was responsible for the WTC collapses) Since you feel Wiki is part of the conspiracy also you can hear it from the horses (ass) mouth.

 

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3804970279512923290

 

Excerpt

 

" Judy Wood: Part of my research work has been to look at engineering in nature. How does nature design structures? And perhaps we can copy those designs and use them in engineering designs. And one thing that struck me about the World Trade Centers is that they are very much like trees. Core, outer core, inner core. A tube within a tube design, and that's what allows a tree to wave in the breeze.

 

James Fetzer: Marvelous!

 

Judy Wood: But also I started thinking about how do trees come down? They don’t start turning into sawdust, ya know, from the top down.

 

(laughter)

 

Judy Wood: With sawdust flying out.

 

James Fetzer: That’s a perfect parallel, because what we actually have with the twin towers is they're blowing up from the top. Each floor is blowing up. So the sawdust, turning a tree into sawdust from the top, is perfect! Judy, absolutely a perfect analogy!

 

Judy Wood: And recently I gave a talk at an engineering conference where I showed some diagrams of the towers being built and I showed, “If this were a tree and the Keebler elves cut out this big chunk out of the side here, to put their, for their little house, where their dwelling is. Would that affect the towers?” And everyone in the room could see, that no, the way the structure is designed, it can’t bring it down.

 

James Fetzer: And the little house would be analogous to the plane impact?

 

Judy Wood: Right, you could have several planes, the planes hitting the towers were like a bullet being shot into a tree.

 

James Fetzer: Excellent! Excellent!"

 

 

 

Thats your expert MRSteak!

 

 

Here is a rather painful interview with Judy Wood, A "scholar for 9-11 truth". She reveals the babbling idiot that she truly is as she discusses her space based weapons theory.

 

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5...+wood&hl=en

[IGotWorms 3,475]

9/11 was 6 years in the making (logistics, training, flight school for the terrorists, phony paperwork, infrastructure - as outlined by the 9/11 Commission, etc etc) - all during the Clinton administration.

 

Are you suggesting that Gore (who wasn't exactly known for national security) planned to overhaul what Clinton had in place and would have prevented this?

 

The reality is - whomever was to be elected would have had only 8 months, after being sworn in, to devise a way to counter this. Honestly, had Gore won the election, I would not be screaming conspiracy or blaming Gore either.

 

Richard Clarke served as the "counter terrorism czar" under President's Clinton and George W. Bush. He also served in the Reagan Administration and the George H.W. Bush's Administration. When it comes to terrorism, the guy knows his stuff, and is as non-partisan as they come. Here is what he had to say before the 9/11 Commission:

 

COMMISSIONER ROEMER: You coordinated counterterrorism policy in both the Clinton and the Bush administrations. I want to know, first of all: Was fighting al Qaeda a top priority for the Clinton administration from 1998 to the year 2001? How high a priority was it in that Clinton administration during that time period?

 

CLARKE: My impression was that fighting terrorism, in general, and fighting al Qaeda, in particular, were an extraordinarily high priority in the Clinton administration -- certainly no higher priority. There were priorities probably of equal importance such as the Middle East peace process, but I certainly don't know of one that was any higher in the priority of that administration.

 

ROEMER: With respect to the Bush administration, from the time they took office until September 11th, 2001, you had much to deal with: Russia, China, G-8, Middle East. How high a priority was fighting al Qaeda in the Bush administration?

 

CLARKE: I believe the Bush administration in the first eight months considered terrorism an important issue, but not an urgent issue.

 

Well, president Bush himself says as much in his interview with Bob Woodward in the book "Bush at War." He said, "I didn't feel a sense of urgency."

 

George Tenet and I tried very hard to create a sense of urgency by seeing to it that intelligence reports on the al Qaeda threat were frequently given to the president and other high-level officials. And there was a process under way to address al Qaeda. But although I continued to say it was an urgent problem, I don't think it was ever treated that way.

 

...

 

CLARKE: My view was that this administration, while it listened to me, didn't either believe me that there was an urgent problem or was unprepared to act as though there were an urgent problem.

 

And I thought, if the administration doesn't believe its national coordinator for counterterrorism when he says there's an urgent problem and if it's unprepared to act as though there's an urgent problem, then probably I should get another job.

 

So, according to Clarke, the Clinton Administration considered terrorism and al-Qaeda to be the greatest external threat facing the country, whereas the Bush Administration adopted a much more non-chalant approach.

 

A Gore Administration would most likely have put just as much emphasis on fighting terrorism and al-Qaeda as did the Clinton Administration. When Richard Clarke and George Tenet were trying to get everybody's attention regarding intelligence indicating an impending attack during the summer of 2001, a Gore Administration just might have listened to them.

 

Lots more at the link too. I highly recommend reading through it:

 

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0403/24/bn.00.html