Buddhists for 9/11 Truth

Originally posted by Bordon81
reply to post by filosophia

 

Well, the Mossad did have access to the security, so I'd say that is a big enough suspicion. Sorry, I can't link you to the Mossad website where they admit they pulled off 9/11, however I can link to a website that has Netanyahu saying 9/11 was good for Israel.

The Mossad knew about 911 but they were not the primary planners. Actually any of the military contractors would have profited from a middle east terrorist threat. Probably the brains of the operation came from Lockheed Martin or if they were trolling for terrorist communications maybe Lockheed Intercept.

US/Israel are one and the same. What's good for the US foreign policy is good for Israel, and vice versa, since they are both controlled by the same people.

So let me get this straight: You can't debunk the paper on nano thermite, so instead you say it is not peer reviewed in order to discredit it, but it's not the authors fault no one is trying to debunk it. Perhaps I'm using too much technical terms, I could care less if an established organization went through the rigorous process of peer review, I would be happy with any, any link which debunks the paper in full. But, you can't provide that, and instead call me a liar for saying it was peer reviewed, so I'm deeply sorry for that, I just assumed you debunkers would have an official organization decry the paper for being absolutely unscientific, a lie, full of omissions, but, you can't even do that. Why not?

reply to post by filosophia


You clearly haven't even bothered to read this link. You don't have any evidence that Mossad supplied nanothermite despite claiming it. You don't even know that Mossad is a civilian organisation.

I don't think we can continue any debate as you're obviously just guessing at what you think happened and assuming it's true.

Originally posted by filosophia
so instead you say it is not peer reviewed in order to discredit it,

Stop telling lies again, YOU claimed it was peer reviewed, I simply asked you who peer reviewed. Since then all you have been doing is anything but stating who peer reviewed it. You claim it was peer reviewed, so tell us who peer reviewed it. Unless the peer review is another of your lies?

Originally posted by filosophia
reply to post by GoodOlDave

 

The time discrepancy is important because if Cheney was there earlier, he was in charge when the pentagon was struck, and if he was not there in time, he was not in charge. The 9/11 commission has Cheney there later, so that he was not in charge when the pentagon was struck.

This argument is based upon a false assumption. Cheney was vice president and he received orders from the president, so he wasn't in charge of anything. He wasn't in charge of the gov't- Bush was still president and it was Bush who issued the order to gound all air traffic and issued the order to shoot down the hijacked aircraft. He wasn't in charge of NORAD- it was that general and that Canadian Naval captain. All Cheney did was relay Bush's orders and Cheney didn't need to be in any bunker to receive communications from Bush. This was all covered in the 9/11 commission report and if you're devoted to the truth as you claim then it was your obligation to know this already.

It's obvious Griffin is simply grasping at straws here with this time discrepency bit. All it proves is that noone was looking at their watch as the events were proceeding.

Are you serious? Can you seriously tell me that you take this as an indication of someone's accomplished piloting? Knowing full well that the flight instructor (in the USA) that tested Atta said he was a horrible pilot. I really can't believe you would take Atta's girlfriend's remarks as any indication of his piloting skills.

Yet more bad information. Atta received his commercial pilot's license fromn the FAA in December 2000 so this "bad piilot" bit is just rubbish those damned fool conspiracy web sites are putting out. What they gloss over is that trainees are being tested on all the skills necessary to be a qualified airline pilot, including takeoff, communicating with ground controllers, landings, navigation, all of that. The hijackers didn't care about learning how to take off since the regular pilots did that. They didn't care about landing since it was a suicide mission. They likewise didn't care about communicating with ground controllers since his plan was illegal. All they needed to know to pull off the attack was learning how to use the autopilot to get there and how to steer the craft once they were there.

You know what I find frustrating is that you posted this whole flowery sounding writeup explaining how you're so devoted to the truth and yet by your own posts you have demontrated no devotion to learning the truth whatsoever. All you're doing is repeating the exact same nonsense every other truther is mindlessly repeating that's been thoroughly debunked time after time after time. Would you mind explaining yourself?

"All they needed to know to pull off the attack was learning how to use the autopilot to get there and how to steer the craft once they were there."

They learned how to use the autopilot to get there? To get where? How did they learn how to use the autopilot and properly steer a Boeing 767 when they never trained on such an airplane? You are talking about the same guys who had trouble keeping a Cessna in the air during training, right? By the way, does this autopilot also automatically lower the plane's altitude to the optimum height for striking the Tower? Does this autopilot also keep the plane from breaking up while traveling at ridiculous speeds so close to sea level? Yep, sounds like a piece of cake for a cavedweller who couldn't even keep a Cessna in the air.

Sign me up. I think the OP brought up some significant points. I think a lot of problems we face could be overcome if we could only have the awareness necessary to see past our egoic thinking and the illusion of sensory reality.