Conspiracy Theory 9/11 - The debate continues

[TheBloods]

ROFL! You assume that!

Without 9/11 they don't invade, so the question is moot.

(Assuming ....makes an ass of u and me!)

This is "serious converse"...?

Actually it is nearly the opposite of the reason I asked a simple question!

What questions?... show me the ones you refer too?

I've posted them in both threads. Try post 20 in this one. I also asked for motives in the last thread and you responded with some nonsense followed by abuse.

It is like playing... "I'll show you mine, if you show me yours "....with a little girl!

Again - this is "serious converse"...? When asked questions it's decent manners to answer them rather than expect your own questions to be answered and with restrictions on how.

btw:The outcome was a "War on Terror"... that is infinitely more flexible and vague "objective" ...than pinning it on any specific culprit directly.

The outcome is not particularly relevant. It assumes post hoc ergo propter hoc. What was the motive?

Interesting also that you assume something is dodgy because of some coincidences. You also tried again with weak links to historical events.

 

[Corpuscles]

Bloods see the edit in my last post above. My apology you were too quick to reply!

I belatedly realised .... you needed to start your research straight away.

Were the questions directed at me? If not, can't you just find them ( i don't know what to look for) and then post aimed directly to me.. and I'll have a crack at it for YOU!.

 

[TheBloods]

Pilger LOL!! Even Chomsky doesn't buy into it! Interesting that you trust the MSM when it suits you.

And you are trying to educate me! LOL - too funny!!

And I'll quote back Gellman, Freedman, Galbraith, Woodward, Ricks, Packer, Friedman, T. Christian Miller, Tyler, and others if you'd like me to dig further into my library.

None of them - all respected analysts and journalists - suggest anything like the US Government was behind the 9/11 attacks, regardless of how much they excoriate the US for its activities.
That Rumsfeld wanted to take advantage of an opportunity to attack Saddam is again an example of post hoc ergo propter hoc - it is not evidence of an inside job, especially when there is nothing else in the geopolitical sphere to support it.

As for the questions, I gave you the post #.

 

[Blight von Torp]

... not to mention that the only (few) express elevators went from 78th floor (below the kerosone impact level) ...only to ground floor!

Not to basement level C... (3rd down) ...where the machine shop and a 50 ton press and shop walls were annilated in clouds of smoke and concrete dust so thick that the engineers could not see more than 2 inches (their words).

That's right waspy. That's the evidence for you. The magic jet fuel / falling elevator theory doesn't cut it.

 

[waspy]

To the elevator yes. But you are dreaming if you think it would reduce the machine room to rubble. If you do, then please posit a theory.

There are also reports that the subway station caved in. Is that from your elevator as well?

My theory: The elevator(s) fell and destroyed some of the walls. Also fireballs traveled down the shaft and caused horrific burns to many workers. Any major damage such as subway stations caving in has not been documented anywhere credible so I'll believe that when I see it. I don't see why a falling elevator can't destroy some concrete walls, especially as I doubt that they were load bearing walls so were potentially fairly thin. I don't see how this theory can be proven wrong.

More about elevator shafts here:
http://911stories.googlepages.com/wtcelevatorshafts

Simply put, elevators #6 and 7 ran from the top to B4. Car 50 ran through all floors. The were several more than ran down to B1 (where Rodriguez was).

North tower: It was #50 that impacted at B4 (where McCabe, Morelli were). One of the freight elevators impacted at B1 (Rodriguez, Saltalamacchia, Griffith). There were also explosions and several fatalities in the lobby when a fireball struck.

So we are meant to take the graph of an anonymous internet poster over a peer reviewed paper - whatever you think of the journal. Give me a break.

The opinion of an anonymous internet poster is just as valid as an article written by an Asian Literature PhD and a mechanical engineer that is reviewed by Jones et al. Numerous credible people have attempted to submit papers to Jones but have been refused for no apparent reason other than the fact that they were not aboard the twoofer train.

 

[waspy]

... not to mention that the only (few) express elevators went from 78th floor (below the kerosone impact level) ...only to ground floor!

Not to basement level C... (3rd down) ...where the machine shop and a 50 ton press and shop walls were annilated in clouds of smoke and concrete dust so thick that the engineers could not see more than 2 inches (their words).

See post above.

Machine shop had a 50-ton press which weighed about 250kg. 50 ton is the hydraulic capacity. It was not annihilated, it was mentioned that it was "gone". Maybe it was buried in dust from an elevator impact at another floor.

Fits into a complete theory, now give me yours. Why use explosives on the basement levels? It didn't weaken the structure. It didn't bring the towers into a hole at the bottom. It makes no sense. Give me another reason or I'm going to stop replying to posts regarding basement explosions.

 

[Corpuscles]

Seeing as they copped out in the other thread, let's see if these questions can be answered by the Troofers:

1. If Al Qaeda were not responsible for 9/11, then why was Ahmed Shah Massoud’s assassination so well co-ordinated with the attacks on New York and Washington?

As far as I am aware the murder has never been solved? Thought to be either Al Qaeda or Taliban due to his opposition to them.

Are you suggesting Al Qaeda were in some way thinking that this would shock the American average Joe?

Do you know for sure what happened Bloods?

2. If 9/11 was a “false flag” operation intended to justify a pre-determined plan to invade Afghanistan, then why didn’t the CIA and other US government agencies do more to facilitate ties with the Northern Alliance?

Why would they epecially if it was a small contained secret with impact of such the seeming surprise?

3. Why did bin Laden and al-Zawahiri suddenly leave their known locations and go to ground, if they were not anticipating imminent military action by the USA?

Sheesh... did you watch the TV on sept 10th OZ time at all

Al Qaeda & Bin Ladens name was being bandied around that day. Most including journo's knew little about him other than his cooperation with the CIA during the Afghan V USSR war.

4. If 9/11 had been an inside job, and if there was a long-standing intention by Bush and his advisors to invade Afghanistan and overthrow the Taliban, then why did they have to scrabble around for a workable plan?

What? I suspect you mean Military invasion plan?

They wouldn't send advance letters to the generals!!! nor necessarily even key politicians like Colin Powell.

5. We are being asked to believe that the conspirators behind 9/11 decided that they would make the hijackers citizens of allies of the USA, not enemies. Why were they not given Iraqi, Iranian or Syrian identity?

Didn't have to be Afghani or Iraqi to achieve the result of acting as dumb patsies... could have even been an Aussie citizen for that matter

6. If the identities and the nationalities of the hijackers were faked, then why did the Saudi, Egyptian, Lebanese and UAE governments accept that citizens from their own countries were involved?

I am sure you realise the challege by many still alive persons named as being part of the 19?

However apparently some NON EXISTENT DNA crisps and smoke obviously appear (via the topsecret USA not released to the public detail of "identification investigation"? )to have been citizens of whoever USA says they were .You know Attas bags were the only ones that missed the flight luckily!!, and of course those magic.. tougher than tall buildings ...and fireball proof passports that survived better than 757's ..prove it all

7. What is a feasible motive for the Israeli government conniving in an act of mass murder on US soil?

Pass! I don't think enough investigation has taken place to identify clear any particular conspirator or culprit

8. Assuming that the “five dancing Israelis” story isn’t a complete fabrication, what kind of secret service recruits undercover agents who compromise themselves by acting so ostentatiously in public?

Probably ones that were happy. I am not certain of their agent status

9. If the WTC towers in New York City were destroyed by controlled demolitions rigged by US government agencies, then why were the fake terrorist attacks used to cover up these controlled demolitions so insanely convoluted?

Bloods... you are the expert on all things "insanely convoluted". I do not understand the "insanely convoluted" question

10. If the main motive behind the invasion was to build a natural gas pipe-line which would be under US control, then why was no attempt ever made to build one once the Taliban were overthrown?

I do not agree with premise or phrasing "main motive".
Oil definitely a factor.. but if you haven't got TV under your rock yet ? Then I advise USA are still a long long way from yet gaining control of Afghanistan



11. We are either supposed to believe that the Canadian Forces personnel assigned to NORAD were too stupid to notice anything amiss in their headquarters - and query it - or that the Canadian government and the Canadian Forces were complicit in 9/11. Which of these scenarios is true?

Do not understand question...maybe one of the posters suggested this ?But all that is known is NORAD WERE INCREDIBLY UNBELIEVABLY stupid and incomptent. Playing war games simulating terrorist attacks that very day!andleft no armed scramble jets ready to defend for real.

12. If Al Qaeda were set-up for the 11th September attacks, then why have its leaders and spokesmen repeatedly affirmed their responsibility for - and pride in - these attacks?

....If you are getting hung for the wrap after torture.. then may as well advance the causetoother followers.

Could be many different reasons.

13. If the hijacking and crashing of four passenger planes was engineered by the US government, then why did UA93 crash into an empty field in Pennsylvania?

Nose dived and completely disappeared hardly singing the ground but scattered some parts 8km includingthe wwweally twwooly terrorists bandana nicely preserved at the supposed site. The land of the free & brave populous are inspired & admire the fictitious in flight warriors.
Too many senarios to cover.

14. Finally, if the US government is institutionally ruthless enough to organise the massacre of thousands of its own citizens in a series of “false flag” attacks, then why is it too squeamish to arrange for the deaths of the supposed “truth-seekers” (David Griffin, Kevin Barrett, Steven Jones, Richard Gage, the Loose Change team, Alex Jones, etc.) who have exposed their complicity in one of the most heinous crimes a government can commit against its own people?

They are no threat at all when no serious independent enquiry is commissioned and it would look suspicious.

-------------------------------------------------------------

There you go Bloods. Plenty for you snipe and nit pick about there.

Jebus Holy Crust.. I didn't even credit you with being nearly as dumb as these questions show !!!!! You ought apply totheGuiness Book of records for the stupidy category!

I have no need of asking you any question... thick as a....

Oh! But there was one....YES OR NO?

 

[TheBloods]

It does help if you quote properly... anyway...

Seeing as they copped out in the other thread, let's see if these questions can be answered by the Troofers:

1. If Al Qaeda were not responsible for 9/11, then why was Ahmed Shah Massoud’s assassination so well co-ordinated with the attacks on New York and Washington?

As far as I am aware the murder has never been solved? Thought to be either Al Qaeda or Taliban due to his opposition to them.

Are you suggesting Al Qaeda were in some way thinking that this would shock the American average Joe?

Do you know for sure what happened Bloods?

So I'm the one meant to be stupid...!?!?
(Really, looking back, I can see this answer set the scene for the rest of your 'answers' and proves my point that you troofers have no idea, and when challenged have to resort to abuse.)

The point of the question is that Al Qaeda was able to co-ordinate an assassination of a major NA leader with the 9/11 attacks, hence making a US counterattack in Afghanistan more difficult.

2. If 9/11 was a “false flag” operation intended to justify a pre-determined plan to invade Afghanistan, then why didn’t the CIA and other US government agencies do more to facilitate ties with the Northern Alliance?

Why would they epecially if it was a small contained secret with impact of such the seeming surprise?

Again, you don't seem to get it. If the point of 9/11 was so that they could invade Afghanistan, why would they not prepare the ground better first.

3. Why did bin Laden and al-Zawahiri suddenly leave their known locations and go to ground, if they were not anticipating imminent military action by the USA?

Sheesh... did you watch the TV on sept 10th OZ time at all

Al Qaeda & Bin Ladens name was being bandied around that day. Most including journo's knew little about him other than his cooperation with the CIA during the Afghan V USSR war.

His name has been mentioned before in the news. Why would he know to go to ground that particular day?

4. If 9/11 had been an inside job, and if there was a long-standing intention by Bush and his advisors to invade Afghanistan and overthrow the Taliban, then why did they have to scrabble around for a workable plan?

What? I suspect you mean Military invasion plan?

They wouldn't send advance letters to the generals!!! nor necessarily even key politicians like Colin Powell.

So they can plan this huge 9/11 operation but don't have to foresight to plan for the military effect that the 9/11 operation is meant to produce? Surely you are kidding!?!

5. We are being asked to believe that the conspirators behind 9/11 decided that they would make the hijackers citizens of allies of the USA, not enemies. Why were they not given Iraqi, Iranian or Syrian identity?

Didn't have to be Afghani or Iraqi to achieve the result of acting as dumb patsies... could have even been an Aussie citizen for that matter

Again you miss the point - if they want to link it to be able to attack certain countries in the ME or CA, why not make the link clear?

6. If the identities and the nationalities of the hijackers were faked, then why did the Saudi, Egyptian, Lebanese and UAE governments accept that citizens from their own countries were involved?

I am sure you realise the challege by many still alive persons named as being part of the 19?

However apparently some NON EXISTENT DNA crisps and smoke obviously appear (via the topsecret USA not released to the public detail of "identification investigation"? )to have been citizens of whoever USA says they were .You know Attas bags were the only ones that missed the flight luckily!!, and of course those magic.. tougher than tall buildings ...and fireball proof passports that survived better than 757's ..prove it all

And if it was really an inside job, don't you think they would have had irrefutable evidence planted everywhere?

7. What is a feasible motive for the Israeli government conniving in an act of mass murder on US soil?

Pass! I don't think enough investigation has taken place to identify clear any particular conspirator or culprit

So you have no idea to this question (again).

8. Assuming that the “five dancing Israelis” story isn’t a complete fabrication, what kind of secret service recruits undercover agents who compromise themselves by acting so ostentatiously in public?

Probably ones that were happy. I am not certain of their agent status

Again, you have no idea to this question.

9. If the WTC towers in New York City were destroyed by controlled demolitions rigged by US government agencies, then why were the fake terrorist attacks used to cover up these controlled demolitions so insanely convoluted?

Bloods... you are the expert on all things "insanely convoluted". I do not understand the "insanely convoluted" question

How surprising...

10. If the main motive behind the invasion was to build a natural gas pipe-line which would be under US control, then why was no attempt ever made to build one once the Taliban were overthrown?

I do not agree with premise or phrasing "main motive".
Oil definitely a factor.. but if you haven't got TV under your rock yet ? Then I advise USA are still a long long way from yet gaining control of Afghanistan

They've been there for 9 years - no activity yet. So what is the motive?

11. We are either supposed to believe that the Canadian Forces personnel assigned to NORAD were too stupid to notice anything amiss in their headquarters - and query it - or that the Canadian government and the Canadian Forces were complicit in 9/11. Which of these scenarios is true?

Do not understand question...maybe one of the posters suggested this ?But all that is known is NORAD WERE INCREDIBLY UNBELIEVABLY stupid and incomptent. Playing war games simulating terrorist attacks that very day!andleft no armed scramble jets ready to defend for real.

This has been suggested by various 9/11 truthers.

12. If Al Qaeda were set-up for the 11th September attacks, then why have its leaders and spokesmen repeatedly affirmed their responsibility for - and pride in - these attacks?

....If you are getting hung for the wrap after torture.. then may as well advance the causetoother followers.

Could be many different reasons.

Again, you have no idea to this question.

13. If the hijacking and crashing of four passenger planes was engineered by the US government, then why did UA93 crash into an empty field in Pennsylvania?

Nose dived and completely disappeared hardly singing the ground but scattered some parts 8km includingthe wwweally twwooly terrorists bandana nicely preserved at the supposed site. The land of the free & brave populous are inspired & admire the fictitious in flight warriors.
Too many senarios to cover.

Again, you have no idea to this question.

14. Finally, if the US government is institutionally ruthless enough to organise the massacre of thousands of its own citizens in a series of “false flag” attacks, then why is it too squeamish to arrange for the deaths of the supposed “truth-seekers” (David Griffin, Kevin Barrett, Steven Jones, Richard Gage, the Loose Change team, Alex Jones, etc.) who have exposed their complicity in one of the most heinous crimes a government can commit against its own people?

They are no threat at all when no serious independent enquiry is commissioned and it would look suspicious.

Easy to get rid of them gradually in a series of accidents. But of course they are threat as they have uncovered this huge plot...

-------------------------------------------------------------

There you go Bloods. Plenty for you snipe and nit pick about there.

Jebus Holy Crust.. I didn't even credit you with being nearly as dumb as these questions show !!!!! You ought apply totheGuiness Book of records for the stupidy category!

I have no need of asking you any question... thick as a....

Laughable given both your inability to understand virtually any of the questions and your inability to answer pretty much all of them. Looking back through your 'answers', they are astoundingly ridiculous.

You've proved my point - truthers cannot justify any of their claims, cannot provide a motive and cannot even present a plausible story. If this was presented in court it would be thrown out immediately.

Oh! But there was one....YES OR NO?

No, cet par.

 

[Blues_Man]

Dear Mr Nivek48,

World Trade Center 7, to which I was referring, was not hit by an airplane.

Regards

p.s.

Here's a video of the collapse

[youtube]AsJQKpnkZ10[/youtube]

Those bloody dumb yanks ..a team of demolition experts have spent two days placing explosives connected by fuses and detonators , and not one person out of the thousands passing by bothered to stop and ask why they were doing it ...some even continued to work in the building whilst it was wired for explosion .
Maybe the cunning bastards used invisible cables and explosions ...or those invisible bombs that were smuggled into the other world trade centre towers to explode upon impact of a hijacked commercial airliner.

FFS do these morons ever stop to think what they are insinuating ..it's all right to have a theory ..but surely logic and commonsense must kick in somewhere .

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

wtf are you on about? I would have thought my opinions re the collapse of wtc7, molten metal, etc leave little doubt that I believe the Official Story to be a load of crap.

Not to date no. You have preferred to concentrate on WTC7, but have stopped short of declaring your allegiance to the truth movement on every contentious issue relating to the day, but I am glad you are firmly in the truther camp on all issues. Makes you fair game.

You see folks, if NIST had thought structural damage was an issue, I'm sure they would have mentioned it in their report.

They did, just not their initial summary report. In the final report however:

The conditions that lead to the collapse of WTC 7 arose from fires, perhaps combined with structural damage that followed the impact of debris from the collapse of WTC 1. The fires were fed by ordinary office combustibles.

Triggered by damage due to the falling debris and loss of lateral support to adjacent interior columns, the failure progressed westward in the region of floors 7 through 14, where the floors had been weakened by fires. This ultimately resulted in the collapse of the entire structure.

So yes, even though their conclusion is still that the fires caused the collapse, mostly due to the weakening of a key column that caused multiple floor collapse prior to the absolute collapse, they have acknowledged that structural damage may have played a part.

It's just that deniers like Popular Mechanics feel the need to enhance the NIST "thermal expansion" theory because it's a bit hard to sell.

Rhetoric.

What part of this don't you understand?

Probably the part where the final report comes out in November 2008, and the summary of that report was in October 2008.

Yes NIST still believe fire caused the collapse. They believe that without fire it would have stood, they believe that with sprinklers it would have stood. They seem to also acknowledge that the collapse was made easier by the damage to some columns, but as it would have come down anyway, fire is the ultimate culprit.

Have you read the NIST report? Do you disagree with the sequence of collapse? Why? What sequence do you believe occurred?

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Those bloody dumb yanks ..a team of demolition experts have spent two days placing explosives connected by fuses and detonators , and not one person out of the thousands passing by bothered to stop and ask why they were doing it ...some even continued to work in the building whilst it was wired for explosion .
Maybe the cunning bastards used invisible cables and explosions ...or those invisible bombs that were smuggled into the other world trade centre towers to explode upon impact of a hijacked commercial airliner.

FFS do these morons ever stop to think what they are insinuating ..it's all right to have a theory ..but surely logic and commonsense must kick in somewhere .

Would have had to be invisible wires as there were no demolition materials found in the rubble (aside from iron spheres that absolutely just had to be thermite of course).

Seismic readings for wtc7 lend themselves to building collapse rather than demolition as well.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

NORAD response times

American Airlines Flight 11 – Boston enroute to Los Angeles

FAA Notification to NEADS 0840*

Fighter Scramble Order (Otis Air National Guard Base, Falmouth, Mass. Two F-15s) 0846**

Fighters Airborne 0852

Airline Impact Time (World Trade Center 1) 0846 (estimated)***

Fighter Time/Distance from Airline Impact Location Aircraft not airborne/153 miles


United Airlines Flight 175 – Boston enroute to Los Angeles
FAA Notification to NEADS 0843

Fighter Scramble Order (Otis ANGB, Falmouth, Mass. Same 2 F-15s as Flight 11) 0846

Fighters Airborne 0852

Airline Impact Time (World Trade Center 2) 0902 (estimated)

Fighter Time/Distance from Airline Impact Location approx 8 min****/71 miles

American Flight 77 –Dulles enroute to Los Angeles
FAA Notification to NEADS 0924

Fighter Scramble Order (Langley AFB, Hampton, Va. 2 F-16s) 0924

Fighters Airborne 0930

Airline Impact Time (Pentagon) 0937 (estimated)

Fighter Time/Distance from Airline Impact Location approx 12 min/105 miles

United Flight 93 – Newark to San Francisco
FAA Notification to NEADS N/A *****

Fighter Scramble Order (Langley F-16s already airborne for AA Flt 77)

Fighters Airborne (Langley F-16 CAP remains in place to protect DC)

Airline Impact Time Location 1003 (estimated)

Fighter Time/Distance from Airline Impact Location approx 11 min/100 miles
(from DC F-16 CAP)

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

There you go Bloods. Plenty for you snipe and nit pick about there.

Jebus Holy Crust.. I didn't even credit you with being nearly as dumb as these questions show !!!!! You ought apply totheGuiness Book of records for the stupidy category!

I have no need of asking you any question... thick as a....

Oh! But there was one....YES OR NO?

Wow, just wow. You stumble and bumble over questions and then declare them all stupid and Bloods thick after the effort.

I've spent a lot of time seeing these tactics on forums and am genuinely surprised that you have regressed to this.

I don't think any neutral person could look at the questions, look at your responses and not think you have lost ground here.

 

[Corpuscles]

It does help if you quote properly... anyway...

So I'm the one meant to be stupid...!?!?
(Really, looking back, I can see this answer set the scene for the rest of your 'answers' and proves my point that you troofers have no idea, and when challenged have to resort to abuse.).

I popped in to remove the "stupid comments" as I knew that would get your knickers in a knot.I'll be busy the next few days ...maybe you can think up a few more questions and articulate them clearly next time?

The point of the question is that Al Qaeda was able to co-ordinate an assassination of a major NA leader with the 9/11 attacks, hence making a US counterattack in Afghanistan more difficult..

pfft...What one bloke?

Again, you don't seem to get it. If the point of 9/11 was so that they could invade Afghanistan, why would they not prepare the ground better first..

Do you not understand the word secret.? Such demonstratable elevation of action as you suggest might/would let the cat out of the bag

His name has been mentioned before in the news. Why would he know to go to ground that particular day?.

He would have known on 9/11 US time that he was copping blame. Pointless question!

So they can plan this huge 9/11 operation but don't have to foresight to plan for the military effect that the 9/11 operation is meant to produce? Surely you are kidding!?!.

ditto
Do you not understand the word secretaction of a few? Such demonstratable elevation of action as you suggest would let ... the cat out of the bag.They could not mobilise widespread miltary planning

Again you miss the point - if they want to link it to be able to attack certain countries in the ME or CA, why not make the link clear?
And if it was really an inside job, don't you think they would have had irrefutable evidence planted everywhere?.

Result was a vague "War on Terror " not any specifics.That gives much more flexibility and allows them not to be pinned down to specific actions.

So you have no idea to this question (again).

Again, you have no idea to this question.

How surprising...

They've been there for 9 years - no activity yet. So what is the motive?

This has been suggested by various 9/11 truthers.

Again, you have no idea to this question.

Again, you have no idea to this question..

I told you that and maybe you framed questions specifically for other posters????... as I don't follow what you are alluding to.

Also just because my answers doesn't have me leaping in praise for some marvellous insight you have hoped to reveal does not mean I don't see how far off from understanding what the so called "truthers" are on about.

Easy to get rid of them gradually in a series of accidents. But of course they are threat as they have uncovered this huge plot....

As I said not necessary and you are just being silly and fascious

Laughable given both your inability to understand virtually any of the questions and your inability to answer pretty much all of them. Looking back through your 'answers', they are astoundingly ridiculous.

You've proved my point - truthers cannot justify any of their claims, cannot provide a motive and cannot even present a plausible story. If this was presented in court it would be thrown out immediately..

But a independent court has not been allowed nor was acess to evidence either! Bush and Cheny even refused to give evidence under oath to the commission

No, cet par.

So you agree that the invasions would not likely have had support!
BINGO! some light is finally filtering through at last!


I'll be busy next few days...so have fun. Torment someone else, I hope you are happy someone tried not to ignor your ignorance!

Cheers

FFS! Bring on the footy season quick!
Go the Swans!

Corp

 

[waspy]

Hey Corp,

How about an answer about the basement explosives?

Let's see if you mention the same reasons that have been debunked time and time again.

 

[Corpuscles]

I don't think any neutral person could look at the questions, look at your responses and not think you have lost ground here.

But you are not neutral. Of couse you only see it your way. The questions and leading questions tactic was set up by Bloods simply to get ovation from the crowd of all you close minded lot, and provide ammo to snipe back as he did.

I knew that, but after his whine, gave him a chance to stop whinging about noone taking any notice of his rediculous questions! Rediculous because clearly he and most of you do not even consider what is contained in replies!

I paid respect to Waspy... when he talks fact and shows that he has spent time thinking his opinion through. The majority you lot are just sprouting cut and pasting things you have found on the interwebs or the Official CT!

It is very clear that you have not framed an opinion based on assessing both sides of the story.

In these discussions you guys miss the big picture of just how many MANY coincidences and anomolies, are present in the whole OCT!

..and resort yourselves to delivering labels like "Troofers" and derision .. eg you didn't rebuke Bluesman (clearly a naive inexperienced chap with no real idea) or others for calling me an idiot! ....rather you chimed in for a back slap or was that a turkey slap?


Hell.. if it wasn't for BVT ( I reckon he deserved a little bit of support) and a few others.... you lot would have to back & turkey slap alone!... and wouldn't have any discussion.

The fun/interest (fast running out of appeal) is musing about how easily fooled the sheep of the masses are!

It is very easy to take the safe majority side...

 

[Coolangatta]

Not a legal expert and haven't followed the case recently, but I'm not sure he has been indicted for the 9/11 attacks. I'll stand corrected if that's not the case. They may need corroborating testimony/admission from the Al Qaeda members they've already captured. Or straight from the horses mouth himself.

Either way, I don't think the FBI likes to accuse people unless they have been formally indicted and charged by a grand jury.

I've been reading on various sites (just how valid are they though?) that on the 5th of June 2006, chief of investigative publicity Rex Tomb said, "The FBI has no hard evidence connecting Usama Bin Laden to 9/11."

It's difficult to confirm the validity of these things (as well as whether OBL is still alive or not, or whether the government had advanced knowledge of 9/11), but just consider for a second if the department of justice and the FBI have NOT charged him for 9/11.

I thought Al Qaeda leaders were popping out of the woodwork on TV claiming responsibility. Doesn't that count as evidence? You say unless they hear it from the horses mouth himself.... I thought they did, though - I thought we all did.

Yep, clutching at straws I know but we were all shown on the news the infamous "confession" tape and the Pentagon were saying that this without doubt removes any doubt that Bin Laden was the 9/11 mastermind. Yeah, too bad the FBI/DoJ doesn't feel the same way.

But look, I can see where you guys (waspy, ODNB, Daytripper, Bloods) are coming from, there is a massive logical implausibility in the idea that the US/Israel were the real 9/11 masterminds, but there is also a massive logical implausibility in the FBI/Department of Justice not looking at the "confession" tape for hard evidence, but that is only IF they really haven't indicted him and said on the record that they don't have any evidence. You just don't know on the bloody internet.

 

[waspy]

OBL has evaded capture for years, maybe he is good at getting others to do his bidding without leaving a trail back to himself? Seems like a fairly clever guy and a master manipulator.

 

[Coolangatta]

OBL has evaded capture for years, maybe he is good at getting others to do his bidding without leaving a trail back to himself? Seems like a fairly clever guy and a master manipulator.

But he supposedly made a "confession" tape claiming responsibility for 9/11.

 

[EasternTiger]

I've been reading on various sites (just how valid are they though?) that on the 5th of June 2006, chief of investigative publicity Rex Tomb said, "The FBI has no hard evidence connecting Usama Bin Laden to 9/11."

Yeah I've read that one too. I quoted part of Tomb's statement a few posts back. Not sure how much has changed since 2006

Yep, clutching at straws I know but we were all shown on the news the infamous "confession" tape and the Pentagon were saying that this without doubt removes any doubt that Bin Laden was the 9/11 mastermind. Yeah, too bad the FBI/DoJ doesn't feel the same way.

The Pentagon used the 'confession tape' as part of a marketing strategy to sell a war. They can justify their actions on the grounds of national security.

A FBI/DOJ spokesperson would have their head on a platter if they came out on TV and made statements which could jeopardise an investigation, or the outcome of future trials.

But look, I can see where you guys (waspy, ODNB, Daytripper, Bloods) are coming from, there is a massive logical implausibility in the idea that the US/Israel were the real 9/11 masterminds,

Yeah it's almost impossible to fathom. I personally don't buy the 'they hate our freedom' spiel.

Bin Laden isn't some drop-out from the Iraqi army hell bent on blowing up some yanks. The guy is CIA trained and from a wealthy Saudi family.

9/11 wasn't just a typical terrorist attack, it was an act of war. They weren't attacking trains or buses. They were going after the highest level targets.

If Al Qaeda carried out the attacks, they had to know the US would respond in the strongest way.

What possible motive would OBL have to want the US Army back into the Middle East?

Who gains the most from the US being there?

Saudi Arabia or Israel?

but there is also a massive logical implausibility in the FBI/Department of Justice not looking at the "confession" tape for hard evidence, but that is only IF they really haven't indicted him and said on the record that they don't have any evidence. You just don't know on the bloody internet.

There's been doubt about the authenticity of the 'confession' tape for a long time.

 

[TheBloods]

But you are not neutral. Of couse you only see it your way. The questions and leading questions tactic was set up by Bloods simply to get ovation from the crowd of all you close minded lot, and provide ammo to snipe back as he did.

I knew that, but after his whine, gave him a chance to stop whinging about noone taking any notice of his rediculous questions! Rediculous because clearly he and most of you do not even consider what is contained in replies!

Exceptionally poor effort. As I explained the first time I posted these questions - they're not mine! So, as usual your claims are a nonsense. Just because you are incapable of thinking does not make them "rediculous" [sic] questions, but rather you demonstrate a profound lack of knowledge and background (despite your claims). Nevertheless each time your weak tactic is to dismiss them. The point of the questions is quite obvious - to understand inconsistent or illogical aspects to the Truthers' (which clearly includes you despite your protestations) belief of a "false flag" operation.

Your inability to understand the questions or provide any answers illustrates how little you know about what geopolitical events took place. And then you have the nerve to call me stupid, especially after all your grandstanding about needing to educate me, and light is gradually filtering through, and you're just smarter than everyone and helping out, and various other pathetic abuse. Really very very weak. You have failed utterly in your attempts to demonstrate that there is any motive (e.g. 'a general war on terror to allow them to do what they like' - what a laugh!) for 9/11 to be an inside job by the US Government.

Now I understand why you won't engage in "serious converse" with me - you're simply not capable. I won't waste my time engaging with you any more. Your responses to this are embarrassing and tedious.

 

[TheBloods]

Yeah it's almost impossible to fathom. I personally don't buy the 'they hate our freedom' spiel.

Bin Laden isn't some drop-out from the Iraqi army hell bent on blowing up some yanks. The guy is CIA trained and from a wealthy Saudi family.

9/11 wasn't just a typical terrorist attack, it was an act of war. They weren't attacking trains or buses. They were going after the highest level targets.

If Al Qaeda carried out the attacks, they had to know the US would respond in the strongest way.

What possible motive would OSL have to want the US Army back into the Middle East?

Who gains the most from the US being there?

Saudi Arabia or Israel?

Read George Friedman's "The Secret War" = an excellent analysis of Islamist motives (i.e. very roughly, bring the US into a Middle East war, where Islamic nations will combine to defeat them, and re-create the Caliphate).

 

[evo]

Read George Friedman's "The Secret War" = an excellent analysis of Islamist motives (i.e. very roughly, bring the US into a Middle East war, where Islamic nations will combine to defeat them, and re-create the Caliphate).

i was just reading the wiki page for that book. These two dot points interested me:

5. The real reasons behind George W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq and how WMDs became the cover for a much deeper game.

What does Friedman think was the real reason?

9. The strategic successes that are slowly leading the United States to victory

How is victory measured? What is the goal?

 

[EasternTiger]

Read George Friedman's "The Secret War" = an excellent analysis of Islamist motives (i.e. very roughly, bring the US into a Middle East war, where Islamic nations will combine to defeat them, and re-create the Caliphate).

That explanation gets bandied about a lot. If that was Al Qaeda's true motive (which it very well may have been) then the only logical conclusion we can reach is they are pathetic strategists. Or they may have been coerced or lead to believe the Middle East would support their cause

Let's not forget, the US under Clinton attacked an ally to protect the Kosovars, who are predominantly muslims. Al Qaeda apparently even sent operatives into Bosnia to help their muslim brothers there.

America comes to the rescue and saves the Albanians from the Serbs, and stops another debacle in Macedonia by selling out the christians there.

To show their gratitude for Kosovo, Al Qaeda wait until a Texan enters the white house and carry out 9/11. Apparently, for the purpose of drawing the Americans into a war in the Middle East, in the naive hope the islamic world would rise as one and defeat the infidels. Even though the US is helping muslims in Europe, and isn't in the Middle East theatre yet.

Does not make any sense.

The only logical reason Al Qaeda would carry out the attacks would be to whip up public outcry about US Foreign policy re: Israel.

While Israel would be hoping like hell the US enters the Middle East and strengthens their position.

So Al Qaeda unwittingly achieved Israels goal. The US is in the middle east for the long haul.

If anything, Israel should be building a statue of Bin Laden and giving him the keys to the city, while the other ME countries should be hunting him down for crimes against Islam.

Either way, the widely accepted belief AQ actually wanted the US to wage war in the middle east is very, very flimsy.

The motives surely must have been about Israel or Oil, or both.

 

[TheBloods]

i was just reading the wiki page for that book. These two dot points interested me:

What does Friedman think was the real reason?

How is victory measured? What is the goal?

Can't remember all the details, but here is some info.

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showpost.php?p=3882572&postcount=1