9/11 What evidence would make you believe in a conspiracy?

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
Here's an interesting link

Do you have any other sources to verify the information from that site?

No, I haven't found another site as good as this one. The molten metal information is based on chemistry so I guess I could post a chemistry site if you like?

Because i normally try to verify infomration and use more the 1 source.

Excellent so I can find another biased site to verify my sources like you do ?

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
Although I have seen gaps in reports, potentially missing facts, etc... I haven't seen any evidence to directly suggest a conspiracy involving our government.

So please tell me how can you still believe the official story when you have no aactual evindece and there are so many questions still unanswered?

I won't keep going over this with you. There is actual evidence to support the governments conclusion. It has been posted here by many different people.

Originally posted by jfj123

No, I haven't found another site as good as this one. The molten metal information is based on chemistry so I guess I could post a chemistry site if you like?

The information presented on that site is good. I know it's the polar opposite of www.thegubmintdunit.com but skipping over the biassed bits still leaves sound and realistic information to be considered.

[edit on 4/6/2008 by Pilgrum]

Originally posted by Pilgrum

Originally posted by jfj123

No, I haven't found another site as good as this one. The molten metal information is based on chemistry so I guess I could post a chemistry site if you like?

The information presented on that site is good. I know it's the polar opposite of www.thegubmintdunit.com

but skipping over the biassed bits still leaves sound and realistic information to be considered.

[edit on 4/6/2008 by Pilgrum]

Thanks for the input I thought the science part of the site was pretty solid myself.

And then you have Stanley Hilton...
Bob Doles Chief of Staff (if you dont know, he is no slouch)
Has in his possession Documents that incriminate our
Executive Branch of Government with Mass Murder
- Documents - that Bush Authorized 911 and Stated they
had rehersals of 911 and that would explain why Bush
non-shalantly brushed off the news that the second plane
hit WTC North Tower, He ASSUMED it was another Rehersal.
and then you have Sieble Edmonds, Indira Singh, Larry Silverstien,
Rudy guilliani, WTC7, Police Radio Traffic, The Event, Who was in town for the show, The 911 Ommission Report, Bush Taking 2 years to start a contribed commission of ommision about 911, Shanksville, Pentecon,
Camp King David *where are the Tail Sections, they always survive thats why the flight data recorder and location beacon are always in the part that survives disasters like lockerbee, UK. and plowing into a mountain at 500 miles an hour... Aircraft Manuvers near impossible, no video released that we know was confescated that shows a aircraft hitting the pentecon and they have the video -
etc... etc... I can go on for about 5361 move characters... but you know
this is treason - the reason we have a word like treason - betrayal of the worse possible kind.


[edit on 4-6-2008 by 888LetsRoll]

reply to post by 888LetsRoll


Could you format your paragraph properly first? It's really hard to understand what you're saying. One sentence just runs into another one.

And what's a "pentacon"?

Hehe, just poking!

Originally posted by scottie18

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Straight Razor
Actual evidence rather than pathetic fiction.

I have been asking for actual evidence for years. But seems like the people that still beleive the official story are not looking for evidence because that might prove the officaial story wrong.



[edit on 2-6-2008 by ULTIMA1]

1) I would think someone who claims to work at the NSA would be able to spell, something you have consistently proven to be unable to do.

2) It's funny how you can take what you say above and reverse it and it fits you perfectly.

3) Still waiting for the proof of your accusations about me and for you to answer my questions coward.

[edit on 2-6-2008 by scottie18]

Still waiting Mr. Liar.

reply to post by 888LetsRoll


I'll have to second HLR's question. Gonna ask ya about the spelling 'pentecon'

I know, we make spelling errors, but a long post, with run-on sentences, doesn't help YOUR case much.


As pertains to the 9/11 'conspiracy' theory, could you, 888LetsRoll, please focus a direction of interest. Would it be the Pentagon? Or the WTC?

Pick one, then stay there please. Thanks.

Originally posted by jfj123
No, I haven't found another site as good as this one.

There are several better sites then this. Try 911research.com for 1.

Excellent so I can find another biased site to verify my sources like you do ?

Well i happen to also use professional and government research sites, you should try it sometime.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
No, I haven't found another site as good as this one.

There are several better sites then this. Try 911research.com for 1.

Excellent so I can find another biased site to verify my sources like you do ?

Well i happen to also use professional and government research sites, you should try it sometime.

Oh you mean like www.911research.com?
First, it's not a government website. And what exactly is a "professional" website?

Second, since you're claiming the government is involved in the "conspiracy", why would you use their sites? Obviously they're not going to post something incriminating if they're covering up the biggest act of treason of our time????


Third, can you tell me why www.911research.com is better then the site I posted? Please be specific. Thanks.
[edit on 5-6-2008 by jfj123]

[edit on 5-6-2008 by jfj123]

Also, would you care to dispute a specific point, or continue to make a blanket generalization about the information that has been presented?

Originally posted by jfj123
Second, since you're claiming the government is involved in the "conspiracy", why would you use their sites?

Well i see you do not read my post or misquote me.

I never stated the government was involved in any conspiracy.

I have stated the the governemtn had plenty of warnings and could have done somethign to stop the attacks.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
Second, since you're claiming the government is involved in the "conspiracy", why would you use their sites?

Well i see you do not read my post or misquote me.

You're right, I do not misquote you.
You're wrong, I did read your post.

I never stated the government was involved in any conspiracy.

I have stated the the governemtn had plenty of warnings and could have done somethign to stop the attacks.

Then you agree with the official story? If you don't agree with the official story and the government says the official story is correct, then you are saying the government is lying and covering up the truth. If they are lying a covering up the truth, then that would be a conspiracy. Thus you believe the government is involved in a conspiracy. It's pretty black and white really.

So do you believe "the official story" ? YES or NO
if YES then your search for "the truth" is over.
if NO then you believe in the government conspiracy.

[edit on 6-6-2008 by jfj123]

Originally posted by jfj123
So do you believe "the official story" ? YES or NO
if YES then your search for "the truth" is over.
if NO then you believe in the government conspiracy.

Let me try to make this simple again.

1. NO i do not believe the official story, (no evidence to support it).

2. NO i do not believe in a government conspiracy, (no evidence to support it).

As stated i am trying to find out what really happened.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
So do you believe "the official story" ? YES or NO
if YES then your search for "the truth" is over.
if NO then you believe in the government conspiracy.

Let me try to make this simple again.

1. NO i do not believe the official story, (no evidence to support it).

The government says there is evidence so you agree that the government is part of the conspiracy. Glad we solved that

Originally posted by jfj123
The government says there is evidence so you agree that the government is part of the conspiracy. Glad we solved that

Why do you have to be so immature to lie and misquote what i post.

Please quote where i stated the government is part of the conspiracy or everyone here will see that you lied.

Conspiracy Theorists bring up the fact that the towers were the first steel high rises to fall from fire in history. The fact is the towers had other firsts that day they never seem to include.

There were a lot of firsts for the WTC. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been hit with a plane traveling 500 miles an hour and had its fire proofing removed from its trusses. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever had its steel columns which hold lateral load sheared off by a 767. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been a building which had its vertical load bearing columns in its core removed by an airliner.

www.debunking911.com...

So looks like the WTC's were full of firsts unless someone has any evidence to suggest any comparably built buildings of similar height and mass, have had any of these things happen to them ???

I also really like this explanation of how conspiracy theorists operate by breaking up facts so they're taken out of context and twisted.

But it wasn't the impact which the NIST said brought the building down. That's a conspiracy theorist straw man. They show an interview with a construction manager who said the buildings steel skin should have held up by redistributing the load. He's right. This is EXACTLY what the NIST said happened. It wasn't the impact alone which the NIST said brought down the towers. It was a combination of factors. The only way conspiracy theorists can attack the report is by separating these factors and attacking them individually. It's like taking a car accident apart and saying the car shouldn't have skidded off the road because the factory said the car could grip up to .97 g's. While that might be true, the conditions on the road must be factored in. Was there rain, dirt, gravel, anything which could have contributed to the crash? Conspiracy theorists are engaged in deliberate disinformation when they talk about these factors in a vacuum. They KNOW these factors can't be separated

www.debunking911.com...

Originally posted by jfj123
In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been hit with a plane traveling 500 miles an hour and had its fire proofing removed from its trusses.

Gee you really should learn how to do research.

I have shown several steel buidligns that has longer lasting fires and more structural damage then the towers and they did not collapse.



[edit on 7-6-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by jfj123
But it wasn't the impact which the NIST said brought the building down.

It wasn't the impact alone which the NIST said brought down the towers. It was a combination of factors.

But the original NIST computer model stated that NETHER the plane impacts or fires brought down the towers.

Also NIST originally stated the towers were a panckae collapse, later they changed thier story and stated it WAS NOT a pancake.

I WISH NIST WOULD MAKE UP ITS MIND AND STOP CHANGING THEIR STORIES.




[edit on 7-6-2008 by ULTIMA1]