Mind Explaining These Things To Me?

I can't argue about facts with someone who thinks National geographic is a more reliable source then the guardian or american free press.

So as of now, not your theory, but you, are plain moot.

Don't take incredible offense to this statement, but I'm inclined to call you a moron. National Geographic is a well established international scientific organization out to find FACTS. The people who are involved in national geographic are trained PROFESSIONALS in their specialized fields. AmericanFreePress is a TABLOID. They share conjecture and speculation that rarily if at all ends up true. How many times has The National Inquirer been remotely right about anything?

If you believe that AmericanFreePress is more reliable then National Geographic or Discovery then you are quite frankly mad.

Squibs, squibs, squibs...

Totally ignored by the official story. Impossible without an explosion. You are looking at a massive explosion that is totally separate from the collapse. That much is totally obvious just from looking at the pic.

What have the experts said about these explosions, which were caught time and time again on video footage by major media? Nothing. Where are their expert opinions? Out to lunch?

They leave it out because it totally contradicts their theory. As you said yourself, work will be biased, and when there is evidence that totally blows their theory out of the water, of course they'll try to slight it.

And their explanation of the collapses is just as much a theory as our own. The only difference is that their theory is endorsed by those who commissioned it: our "elected" leaders.

No. The difference is that our theory has been researched and established by qualified professionals who understand building collapse better than you or me. Your theory is based purely on blurry video frames without any expert input. If you watch any closeup of the collapse it is quite clear that the cause of the collapse was the buckling of the outer columns, not some outside explosion. That explanation is supported by qualified experts. Besides, how is the squib idea even possible? The fire fighters who were inside of the building during the collapse reported no explosions prior to the collapse, just a loud rolling crash as the building came down upon them.

Is the squib idea possible? It is remotely possible, yes. Is it the most likely and supported explanation by scientific fact and research, no.


[edit on 23-8-2005 by DaTerminator]

Originally posted by Shroomery
I can't argue about facts with someone who thinks National geographic is a more reliable source then the guardian or american free press. So as of now, not your theory, but you, are plain moot.

Wow, a new sig line

Wow, a new sig line

Good idea. Mind if I use it too?

Yes, but non of you SOB's can explain why so many wittnesses claimed to have heard bombs, or felt bombs. Why so many claim the basement exploded, or firefighters felt bombs going off while in the building.

None of you people can even come close to giving an explaination as to why building 7 caught on fire. I suppose it could have been from debris... if the debris was able to hover in the sky for a few hours and then fall into the building.

How many of you can explain the coincidence of drills on 9/11 and on 7/7?

Or that fact that so many officials have come out claiming US government (of course only to be gagged and shelved)?

Why are so many relatives of those who died looking at government involvment? I didn't see that kind of reaction after Pearl Harbor.

Why does over 50% of New York -- keep in mind, this is the city it actually occured in -- think that 9/11 may involve some sort of conspiracy?

Why does the press, or the government for that matter, refuse to even acknolowdge the possibility of the conspiracies presence? Hell, being that these people passed the patriot act, you'd think they'd understand the theory behind "if you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to fear".

And more importantly, why is it that every official or expert that comes out gets discredited by not only the media, but the neo-cons on this site? You cannot cite your experts and then blatently disregaurd ours. Of course the media and the government discredit any individual who speaks against them. That does not take away from that person's story.

Originally posted by white4life420
Yes, but non of you SOB's can explain why so many wittnesses claimed to have heard bombs, or felt bombs. Why so many claim the basement exploded, or firefighters felt bombs going off while in the building.

None of you people can even come close to giving an explaination as to why building 7 caught on fire. I suppose it could have been from debris... if the debris was able to hover in the sky for a few hours and then fall into the building.

How many of you can explain the coincidence of drills on 9/11 and on 7/7?

Or that fact that so many officials have come out claiming US government (of course only to be gagged and shelved)?

Why are so many relatives of those who died looking at government involvment? I didn't see that kind of reaction after Pearl Harbor.

Why does over 50% of New York -- keep in mind, this is the city it actually occured in -- think that 9/11 may involve some sort of conspiracy?

Why does the press, or the government for that matter, refuse to even acknolowdge the possibility of the conspiracies presence? Hell, being that these people passed the patriot act, you'd think they'd understand the theory behind "if you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to fear".

And more importantly, why is it that every official or expert that comes out gets discredited by not only the media, but the neo-cons on this site? You cannot cite your experts and then blatently disregaurd ours. Of course the media and the government discredit any individual who speaks against them. That does not take away from that person's story.

It's easy, if the official story doesn't report about it, it never happend!
Case closed, arm the tanks!

I think it's best that we ignore those people who are convinced that no professionals ever investigated 9/11.
It's obvious they believe everyone with a skeptic view on 9/11 is a paranoid delusional nut and or anti-Bush and ignoring the facts that are so thouroughly proven.

Originally posted by an SOB
Yes, but non of you SOB's can explain why so many wittnesses claimed to have heard bombs, or felt bombs. Why so many claim the basement exploded, or firefighters felt bombs going off while in the building.

A building that has been hit by an airplane and is burning is goind to have a lot of loud noises going on.

Knowing that it was a terrorist attack, every loud bang is thought to be a bomb.

Why don't you explain how none of the hundreds of camcorders, news crews, radios, 911 calls, that day picked up any of the sounds of the bombs?

Originally posted by an SOB
None of you people can even come close to giving an explaination as to why building 7 caught on fire. I suppose it could have been from debris... if the debris was able to hover in the sky for a few hours and then fall into the building.

You don't know much about the timeline of the day do you?

WTC 7 was hit by debris from WTC 1 and caught fire like many of the other buildings did.

According to the firefighters, there was a huge hole in the south face of the building from the debris. That is why they didn't try to put out the fire and instead pulled back 600 feet from the building and let it burn, It burned for 7 hours before it collapsed.

Yes, but non of you SOB's can explain why so many wittnesses claimed to have heard bombs, or felt bombs. Why so many claim the basement exploded, or firefighters felt bombs going off while in the building.

Where are these claims? There were many firefighters who were in the building and reported no bombs.

None of you people can even come close to giving an explaination as to why building 7 caught on fire. I suppose it could have been from debris... if the debris was able to hover in the sky for a few hours and then fall into the building.

I didn't think it did catch fire, just collapsed. And even if it did catch fire that in no way implies a national conspiracy.

How many of you can explain the coincidence of drills on 9/11 and on 7/7?

Wait? Are you now implying that 7/7 was a conspiracy? This has gone to far!! There are also drills on many other dates besides those. Whats the beef?

Or that fact that so many officials have come out claiming US government (of course only to be gagged and shelved)?

Which officials? Where? When?

Why are so many relatives of those who died looking at government involvment? I didn't see that kind of reaction after Pearl Harbor.

Substantiate these claims.

Why does over 50% of New York -- keep in mind, this is the city it actually occured in -- think that 9/11 may involve some sort of conspiracy?

Where do you guys keep getting this statistic? Source please. I can almost gaurantee you that that is fiction.

Why does the press, or the government for that matter, refuse to even acknolowdge the possibility of the conspiracies presence? Hell, being that these people passed the patriot act, you'd think they'd understand the theory behind "if you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to fear".

Because why acknowledge the possibility of a conspiracy when they know that it isn't true? I understand your point that "if you've got nothing to lose then you have nothing to fear", but, for example, I'm not going to acknowledge the possibility that I brutally killed my brand new puppy because that is absurd.

And more importantly, why is it that every official or expert that comes out gets discredited by not only the media, but the neo-cons on this site? You cannot cite your experts and then blatently disregaurd ours. Of course the media and the government discredit any individual who speaks against them. That does not take away from that person's story.

Where are these experts? All I have seen so far is tabloid writers. I have yet to see a qualifeid expert with good credentials speak on behalf of the conspiracy community.

quote: Why does over 50% of New York -- keep in mind, this is the city it actually occured in -- think that 9/11 may involve some sort of conspiracy?

Where do you guys keep getting this statistic? Source please. I can almost gaurantee you that that is fiction.

www.zogby.com...
worldnetdaily.com...


Not to mention it was all over the news, atleast, here in Europe!
Goes to show how much your precious media is actually showing you, or how closely you're following the case.

Where are these experts? All I have seen so far is tabloid writers. I have yet to see a qualifeid expert with good credentials speak on behalf of the conspiracy community.

Hey guys, look at all the evidence over there, but you know what, lets turn arround, apply the ostrich tactic and DENY their is any. Yeah! Great plan.

You wouldn't recognize an expert if he was pissing on your toes.
National geographic, hah!

But here's one that should make things more clear for you.

www.amazon.com...

A quote from a review :

There are not words to describe the courage it will take anyone, conservative or liberal, left, right or center, to read this book from cover to cover and sit with the new world you will be looking at afterwards. Ahmed, through more than *six hundred* footnotes, political and historical analysis, quotes of everyone from European and Afghani political analysts to New York stockbrokers to American congressman and FBI agents--and some of the most erudite, plain language scholarship I have ever read--irrevocably changes one's view of history and current events such that one is left with the profoundly disturbing fact not by saying that his main theory is true, but by proving unqeustionably that it is POSSIBLE.

but seeing as you probably want something more easily digestible.. go for some of these mp3's/video's.

www.torrentreactor.net...
www.mininova.org...









[edit on 23-8-2005 by Shroomery]

I think it's best that we ignore those people who are convinced that no professionals ever investigated 9/11.
It's obvious they believe everyone with a skeptic view on 9/11 is a paranoid delusional nut and or anti-Bush and ignoring the facts that are so thouroughly proven.

1. There were plenty of professionals who investigated 9/11, and all of their research supported and elaborated the official story.

2. All talk. You speak of this overwhelming proof of conspiracy but all I see are weak and dubious arguements.

Originally posted by DaTerminator

I think it's best that we ignore those people who are convinced that no professionals ever investigated 9/11.
It's obvious they believe everyone with a skeptic view on 9/11 is a paranoid delusional nut and or anti-Bush and ignoring the facts that are so thouroughly proven.

1. There were plenty of professionals who investigated 9/11, and all of their research supported and elaborated the official story.

2. All talk. You speak of this overwhelming proof of conspiracy but all I see are weak and dubious arguements.

1. Completely avoiding the subject by acting like a tool, obviously one of your prime tactics, or maybe you just don't get it ?

2. yea, nat geo for teh win! I told you, discussing proof or facts with people like you is useless. You WON. Hip hip..


Why don't you read that book for some facts ? Should keep you quiet for a while, although I've long lost all hope to a quick or any recovery at all.
But you'll probably ignore it as all the perfectly good evidence outthere that raises questions to say the least and points out the blatantly obvious to say the truth.

I hope you realize that your attitude is exactly why America is hated in the entire world and why half of your country is ashamed to be American.

But nah, I don't think you do realize that or even want to face the possibility.

Not to mention it was all over the news, atleast, here in Europe!
Goes to show how much your precious media is actually showing you, or how closely you're following the case.

You REALLY need to work on your reading skills. Those websites showed that over 50% of New York's inhabitants thought that the government might have had some forknowledge about the attacks before they occured. Many others believe that, I believe that. The whole 9/11 incident was about the FBI and CIA's failure to act upon knowledge granted to them. Nowhere in that articel does it state that half of New York beleived that the government was involved in the attacks.

Hey guys, look at all the evidence over there, but you know what, lets turn arround, apply the ostrich tactic and DENY their is any. Yeah! Great plan.

I'd say that sentence fits your description even better. As of yet I haven't seen a single shred of convincing evidence for your little conspiracy.

You wouldn't recognize an expert if he was pissing on your toes.
National geographic, hah!

Um. Wow!! National Geographic is an organization made up of specialized experts in their given fields. Most of which have phd's. If you are going to claim that tabloid writers have more credibility than NG researchers then your are way beyond saving my friend.

But here's one that should make things more clear for you.

www.amazon.com...

A quote from a review :

Oh wow. Thats convincing. There are plenty of books written by complete loons that are allowed to be published. Who is this author? Is he a former FBI agent? A structural engineer? A firefighter on 9/11? an FAA operator on 9/11? I doubt it. Books, while they may be interesting, are not good for providing convincing proof to skeptics, they are only good at reassuring your prior beliefs. BTW, there are papers done on the internet exposing that book's fraud.

1. Completely avoiding the subject by acting like a tool, obviously one of your prime tactics, or maybe you just don't get it ?

huh. I speak the truth. I have yet to see a professional and qualified researcher on 9/11 come up with evidence to support the idea that the government was behind the attacks. If you would like to prove me wrong then do so.

2. yea, nat geo for the win! I told you, discussing proof or facts with people like you is useless. You WON. Hip hip..

Every time you say that your failing arguements become more apparent. You continue to say "no point in discussing proof or facts with people like you", but what you are secretly doing is giving me bullcrap because you know you have failed and can't come up with a convincing and unrefuted arguement.

If you think that you have convincing, unrefuted evidence for government involvement in some sort of 9/11 conspiracy then it is up to you to find it and show me. Right here, right now.

Why don't you read that book for some facts ? Should keep you quiet for a while, although I've long lost all hope to a quick or any recovery at all.

How can you be so sure that the author's words are objective facts? Did you varify whether or not the author's "proofs" were correct? Your faith in that author's word is NOT objetive proof or evidence. You cannot say that what that author says is the full truth if truth at all is proof of conspiracy. Proof does not involve any faith. "Proof" that involves faith is flawed. It is possilbe that the author is a credible person, but nonetheless that is not "proof."


[edit on 24-8-2005 by DaTerminator]

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by an SOB
Yes, but non of you SOB's can explain why so many wittnesses claimed to have heard bombs, or felt bombs. Why so many claim the basement exploded, or firefighters felt bombs going off while in the building.

A building that has been hit by an airplane and is burning is goind to have a lot of loud noises going on.

Knowing that it was a terrorist attack, every loud bang is thought to be a bomb.

Why don't you explain how none of the hundreds of camcorders, news crews, radios, 911 calls, that day picked up any of the sounds of the bombs?

Originally posted by an SOB
None of you people can even come close to giving an explaination as to why building 7 caught on fire. I suppose it could have been from debris... if the debris was able to hover in the sky for a few hours and then fall into the building.

You don't know much about the timeline of the day do you?

WTC 7 was hit by debris from WTC 1 and caught fire like many of the other buildings did.

According to the firefighters, there was a huge hole in the south face of the building from the debris. That is why they didn't try to put out the fire and instead pulled back 600 feet from the building and let it burn, It burned for 7 hours before it collapsed.

I could understand a couple of people saying they heard bombs. Not every media agent on the field, people who worked in the building, and firefighters in the building (and we aren't just talking when the plane hit, but before, after, and just before the collapse).

As for wtc7. I could be wrong, and correct me on this, but the first reports of fire that I've seen were sometime around 12 oclock.

Originally posted by DaTerminator
I'd say that sentence fits your description even better. As of yet I haven't seen a single shred of convincing evidence for your little conspiracy.

We'll just have to wait a couple of years till national geographic shows us what really happened.

Originally posted by DaTerminator

But here's one that should make things more clear for you.

www.amazon.com...

A quote from a review :

Oh wow. Thats convincing.

There are plenty of books written by complete loons that are allowed to be published. Who is this author? Is he a former FBI agent? A structural engineer? A firefighter on 9/11? an FAA operator on 9/11? I doubt it. Books, while they may be interesting, are not good for providing convincing proof to skeptics, they are only good at reassuring your prior beliefs. BTW, there are papers done on the internet exposing that book's fraud.

Complete loons eh ?
Goes to show how far you have your head stuck up your own ass and how little you've even read about the book. Hell, I don't think you've even finished reading the comment I pasted about it or you would've realized it contains more veryfiable sources then you can shake a stick at.

Nafeez M. Ahmed is Executive Director of the Institute for Policy Research & Development (IPRD) in Brighton, UK, an independent, interdisciplinary, non-profit think tank based in Brighton, UK. The IPRD conducts research and analysis of local and global society for the promotion of human rights, justice and peace. Nafeez Ahmed is also a former Researcher at the London-based Islamic Human Rights Commission (IHRC) a non-governmental organisation dedicated to research and advocacy on human rights. The IHRC specialises in human rights in relation to Muslim affairs and is a recognised authority in this field (IHRC reports have been used by the United Nations, Amnesty International, the British Home Office, etc.). Ahmed’s IHRC press releases have been used by many media outlets including Reuters, the Associated Press, The Guardian, The Independent, the Jewish Chronicle, and the London Jewish News. Ahmed was also an NGO delegate to the United Nations World Conference Against Racism (WCAR) in Durban, 2001, as member of an IHRC team. He delivered a paper at the Conference on lessons to be learned from South African apartheid for the Israel-Palestine conflict. Ahmed is the author of a variety of IHRC country reports on human rights practices including studies on racism in the UK, the conflict in Chechnya, repression in Turkey, the violation of civil rights in Tanzania and Zanzibar, religious discrimination in Papua New Guinea, among others. His work as a political analyst has included producing research papers on contemporary and historic conflicts around the world relating to U.S. and Western foreign policy, including those in Bosnia, Kosovo, Macedonia, Algeria, the Sudan, Iraq, Palestine, Afghanistan, Kashmir, East Timor, among others. Ahmed has also written extensively on the impact of globalisation. Many of these studies have received international acclaim, and have been featured by various organisations, journals, and news services. Ahmed has been an Oxfam Campaigner since 1996.

I think he knows alot more about the subject then you ever will.
But yet again, before even reading a single line of the facts presented to you, you call him a loon and you're certain that his book is fraud. Reality check ?

Is't it time a moderator puts in a warning here ? Or am I still to believe this is how discussions should go ? Flinging insults with every posts and denying we have any good sources goes against the motto of this site, IMO.
This is pure and utter bull# going on post after post..

Originally posted by DaTerminator
huh. I speak the truth. I have yet to see a professional and qualified researcher on 9/11 come up with evidence to support the idea that the government was behind the attacks. If you would like to prove me wrong then do so.

But.. the only qualified professionals are employed by nat geo and they've already made up their mind. Haven't they ?

Originally posted by DaTerminator
Every time you say that your failing arguements become more apparent. You continue to say "no point in discussing proof or facts with people like you", but what you are secretly doing is giving me bullcrap because you know you have failed and can't come up with a convincing and unrefuted arguement.

Somebody put this retard out of his misery.
If you keep telling us our evidence is made up by conspiracy theorists or tabloids, I'm not even gonna bother to look up more facts.

Originally posted by DaTerminator
How can you be so sure that the author's words are objective facts? Did you varify whether or not the author's "proofs" were correct? Your faith in that author's word is NOT objetive proof or evidence. You cannot say that what that author says is the full truth if truth at all is proof of conspiracy. Proof does not involve any faith. "Proof" that involves faith is flawed. It is possilbe that the author is a credible person, but nonetheless that is not "proof."

I think I can rest my case now .. but as you obviously wrote the reply without thinkig it trough, I'll explain it for you.

How can you be so sure about the government's objective words ?
They're the ONLY entity profiting from the war, yet you think everything presented by them is true because they're the so called experts. Hey, it's not that they lied about anything before right ?
This is where your faith for the government comes in. "Proof" that involves faith is flawed.

Most of the evidence that has been brought forth by those who believe an involvement MIGHT BE possible, are veryfiable, they quote their sources, they do exactly what is supposed to happen when looking for the truth or evidence about the truth. Encompass every possibility, then draw your conclusions

What the official story does is "look people, we're experts, this is how it went down on 9/11, and there'll be NO debating and what's more is, you can't look at our sources or how we've come up with our story, na na na nana na".

And before you go and deny this, think about all the family members of victims of 9/11 who are, till this day, still fighting for an independent investigation and transparancy of the current and completed investigations.

It's sickening to even assume that no experts ever spoke up to oppose the official story. They're gagged! Open your eyes.

Complete loons eh ?
Goes to show how far you have your head stuck up your own and how little you've even read about the book. Hell, I don't think you've even finished reading the comment I pasted about it or you would've realized it contains more veryfiable sources then you can shake a stick at.

All I said was that there are many books (on many subjects not just 9/11)out there that were written by lunatics and frauds that contain nothing but garbage. I'm not saying that this is the way your book is, I'm just stating that you can't claim that your little book proves conspiracy.

I think he knows alot more about the subject then you ever will.
But yet again, before even reading a single line of the facts presented to you, you call him a loon and you're certain that his book is fraud. Reality check ?

What? When did I call him a loon? Never! I said (as stated above) that you can't claim that the book proves anything because it is not objective evidence. Jeeze, learn how to read. I never said that I was certain his book was fraud, I said that some of his arguements have been refuted.

But.. the only qualified professionals are employed by nat geo and they've already made up their mind. Haven't they ?

Quit this nonsense. No, there are many, many civilians and government officials that have nothing to do with national geographic and there research has fully supported the official story. I have yet to see a qualifieid professional of any type come forward with evidence of a national government driven conspiracy.

Somebody put this retard out of his misery.
If you keep telling us our evidence is made up by conspiracy theorists or tabloids, I'm not even gonna bother to look up more facts.

Someone put this retard out of his misery. You continue to deny the truth. You have not given me one peice of evidence that does not come from passionate conspiracy theorists or tabloids. That is the truth. Now, if you still believe your theory to be true I would like evidence for this conspiracy that is legit.

How can you be so sure about the government's objective words ?
They're the ONLY entity profiting from the war, yet you think everything presented by them is true because they're the so called experts. Hey, it's not that they lied about anything before right ?
This is where your faith for the government comes in. "Proof" that involves faith is flawed.

The official story is based on research conducted by many hundreds of professionals across the country and the world, there are civilians, military personell, and government officials from many countries that forumlated the official story of what happened on 9/11. Hell, Al-Queada and Bin Laden have claimed responsibility for the attacks many, many times. You continue to deny this, however.

Quit this nonsense. No, there are many, many civilians and government officials that have nothing to do with national geographic and there research has fully supported the official story. I have yet to see a qualifieid professional of any type come forward with evidence of a national government driven conspiracy.

Maybe you're not looking hard enough ?
And where are those civilians investigating ? Wouldn't they be the same as those conspiracy theorist who believe the opposite ? Aren't the called coincidence theorists ?
And who are the experts that investigated this ? All I see is government funded 'professionals' come up with an explanation how fire brought down buildings. That is NOT what we want to know. It is focusing on a very little part of the subject and hoping people will swallow it whole.

Originally posted by Shroomery
Maybe you're not looking hard enough ?
And where are those civilians investigating ? Wouldn't they be the same as those conspiracy theorist who believe the opposite ? Aren't the called coincidence theorists ?
And who are the experts that investigated this ? All I see is government funded 'professionals' come up with an explanation how fire brought down buildings. That is NOT what we want to know. It is focusing on a very little part of the subject and hoping people will swallow it whole.

I think you are the one not looking hard enough. How about you spend your time finding the expert researchers who support your claim instead of telling me that I'm not looking hard enough.

We have numerous phone call recordings, documents, video of Al-Queada claiming responsibility, audio recordings of the hijackers on the airplanes, and many personal testimonies supporting the official story. All of these things put together pretty much proves beyond reasonable doubt that Al-Queda formulated and executed the September 11 attacks.

Your theory is a tiny minority based on shallow research and flimsy arguements. If you think I am wrong for the last time quit telling me how wrong I am and actually PROVE me WRONG for a change. Debating isn't about telling your opponent how much evidence there is and how much they are wrong, it is about providing evidence for your stance and then refuting the evidence brought by your opponent.

ignorant people think that OBL was not capable of something like this...

he is, infact, an EXPERT, at structural building or engineering or whatever it is called...

give him and his group some credit even if you hate him...

Originally posted by DaTerminator
Your theory is a tiny minority based on shallow research and flimsy arguements. If you think I am wrong for the last time quit telling me how wrong I am and actually PROVE me WRONG for a change. Debating isn't about telling your opponent how much evidence there is and how much they are wrong, it is about providing evidence for your stance and then refuting the evidence brought by your opponent.

You've had that chance ... we gave you perfectly good evidence, either you ignore it or you accuse it of being fraudulent or part of the big conspiracy theory.
Why don't you read nafeed's book or view some of the docu's ?

Maybe you could try answering these questions :

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Or to make it simple, answer one question, why did the government choose not to answer these ?

Originally posted by they see ALL
ignorant people think that OBL was not capable of something like this...
he is, infact, an EXPERT, at structural building or engineering or whatever it is called...
give him and his group some credit even if you hate him...

Quite an opening, infact it's the exact opposite, ignorant people don't know how the US government has been playing these same tricks for nearly a century, you think just because it's the new millenium that they're going to stop?
Try to connect all of the dots before you call other people ignorant, Sherlock.

i know that the US gov't makes their own enemies when they need to...

i also know that OBL was responsible (partly) for 9-11...