Are Our Leaders Really Incompetent … Or Just Pretending?

reply to post by maxella1


Because if there is strong evidence that those Arabs did not do it, it is automatically also strong evidence of a giant cover up. As of now there isn't any evidence of that, that is why you only find 911 conspiracies in the fringes of the web. Most people (including me) require adequate evidence in order to be convinced of something.

Maybe you don't care about the world around you, but if you do, you will find evidence for what you believe very important.

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by maxella1

 

Because if there is strong evidence that those Arabs did not do it, it is automatically also strong evidence of a giant cover up. As of now there isn't any evidence of that, that is why you only find 911 conspiracies in the fringes of the web. Most people (including me) require adequate evidence in order to be convinced of something.

Maybe you don't care about the world around you, but if you do, you will find evidence for what you believe very important.

No evidence of a giant cover up? That's nice.

I realize that it must be very hard for you to step back and look at the story we were told again but the fact is that you're in the fringes not me. And I'm okay with it and I don't care what you believe but don't insult my intelligence because the Government already did that.

I was at ground zero on 9/12, i watched the towers blow up from across the east river, i personaly know and work with people who were there when the towers blew up. I worked at many building collapses scenes over the years.

And I'm telling you that the story told by commissioner Bernard Kerik ( who just happens to be a convicted felon serving time in prison right now) that unidentified FBI agent found a passport that belonged to one of the hijackers is as credible as anything you say here.

And if you can believe anything that These people say then you need to buy my bridge, I'll hook you up with a good price because I like you.

reply to post by maxella1


There is a huge difference between believing everything the government says and not accepting all those impossible conspiracy theories you hear about on these forums as if it was the truth.

In fact, I don't care much about what the government says, as their function is not to tell us what is true and what is not is not. For that we use science. Anyone who uses the government as source for their believes is in my opinion not very clever. Got to say that I don't know anyone like that, everyone I know has a healthy or unhealthy distrust towards the government.

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by maxella1

 

There is a huge difference between believing everything the government says and not accepting all those impossible conspiracy theories you hear about on these forums as if it was the truth.

In fact, I don't care much about what the government says, as their function is not to tell us what is true and what is not is not. For that we use science. Anyone who uses the government as source for their believes is in my opinion not very clever. Got to say that I don't know anyone like that, everyone I know has a healthy or unhealthy distrust towards the government.

What kind of science proves that these 19 idiots outsmarted all of our defenses ?

reply to post by maxella1


All the data that demonstrates that they indeed succeeded in flying those planes into those buildings. If they failed at outsmarting the defenses, they would have failed at hitting their targets. In fact, one plane very likely did fail.

I don't need any government telling me this.

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by maxella1

 

All the data that demonstrates that they indeed succeeded in flying those planes into those buildings. If they failed at outsmarting the defenses, they would have failed at hitting their targets. In fact, one plane very likely did fail.

I don't need any government telling me this.

edit on 26-10-2012 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)

I didn't ask you if they succeeded, I want to know what science proves that it was these 19 people that succeed?

reply to post by maxella1


On historical events, science has limited value. But we can still apply its methods. In science, hypothesis's that are unsupported by evidence are rejected, and hypothesis that are supported by evidence are accepted. The hypothesis that there was anyone else than those hijackers involved is not supported by evidence. There isn't even any suspect. So we can discard that hypothesis, until perhaps one day evidence surfaces. For the hypothesis that the planes were hijacked there is very strong evidence. So we do accept that hypothesis.

I don't need any government to come to this conclusion.

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by maxella1

 

On historical events, science has limited value. But we can still apply its methods. In science, hypothesis's that are unsupported by evidence are rejected, and hypothesis that are supported by evidence are accepted. The hypothesis that there was anyone else than those hijackers involved is not supported by evidence. There isn't even any suspect. So we can discard that hypothesis, until perhaps one day evidence surfaces. For the hypothesis that the planes were hijacked there is very strong evidence. So we do accept that hypothesis.

I don't need any government to come to this conclusion.

I see, so If I show you evidence that will support another hypothesis will you consider hypothetically speaking that my hypothesis should be also accepted because it is also supported by evidence of my hypothesis?

reply to post by maxella1


If your evidence is convincing, then of course. Only a fool would deny the facts.

But when you come with evidence of the quality that was posted earlier (operation northwood), then of course no one but a couple of naive people will accept your hypothesis.

reply to post by -PLB-


The only difference is that nobody found their passports.

reply to post by maxella1


To the less observant person that could probably indeed be the only difference.

reply to post by maxella1


To the less observant person that could probably indeed be the only difference.

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by maxella1

 

To the less observant person that could probably indeed be the only difference.

Please go ahead and point out the differences (other than that nobody pretended that they found Beaves passport at ground zero) for world around you that you care so much about.

reply to post by maxella1


Been posted already. Security camera, passenger lists, phone calls. Background research revealed flight training etc.

Question, what would you accept as evidence? And is this reasonable? (prediction: no answer to this question)

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by maxella1

 

Been posted already. Security camera, passenger lists, phone calls. Background research revealed flight training etc.

Question, what would you accept as evidence? And is this reasonable? (prediction: no answer to this question)

I would accept all of the above.. But lets be real here... Security camera from the wrong airport boarding the Wrong airplane. passenger list released didn't have these people, only after people asked did they release a new list. Background research reveals that they were watched by every agency who we pay for protection, that they liked drugs and strippers which contradicts the profile of Islamic terrorists. They were drawing attention to themselves everywhere they went. The suitcase in the rent a car story belongs in worlds dumbest criminals episode. I already said how I feel about the passport miracle. All that's left is the audio from the planes which is same as what I provided to back up my hypothesis of beaves and butthead did 9/11. Oh yeah and the red bandana too, i would believe if they didn't pretended that they found it in the wreckage.




And I return back to what I already said many times.. It makes no difference who hijacked the planes because the number one suspects are those who covered it up. Innocents does not need to be covered up.

Originally posted by maxella1

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by maxella1

 

Been posted already. Security camera, passenger lists, phone calls. Background research revealed flight training etc.

Question, what would you accept as evidence? And is this reasonable? (prediction: no answer to this question)

I would accept all of the above.. But lets be real here... Security camera from the wrong airport boarding the Wrong airplane. passenger list released didn't have these people, only after people asked did they release a new list. Background research reveals that they were watched by every agency who we pay for protection, that they liked drugs and strippers which contradicts the profile of Islamic terrorists. They were drawing attention to themselves everywhere they went. The suitcase in the rent a car story belongs in worlds dumbest criminals episode. I already said how I feel about the passport miracle. All that's left is the audio from the planes which is same as what I provided to back up my hypothesis of beaves and butthead did 9/11. Oh yeah and the red bandana too, i would believe if they didn't pretended that they found it in the wreckage.




And I return back to what I already said many times.. It makes no difference who hijacked the planes because the number one suspects are those who covered it up. Innocents does not need to be covered up.

edit on 26-10-2012 by maxella1 because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-10-2012 by maxella1 because: (no reason given)

Here we go again with the nonsense. Airport in on it, American airlines in on it, victims in on it. And voilla, you can discard the actual evidence based on something you saw in a Youtube video. How can you be so sure that these Youtube videos are not packed with lies? Which is easily demonstrably to be the case by the way

If you are going to believe all this crap, no evidence will do. You will always invent a reason to discard it. And lets face it, you have nothing to offer as alternative. Just hand waving and incredulity.

At least you unintentionally acknowledged there is not at all only one difference with that beavis and buthead youtube.

reply to post by -PLB-

Here we go again with the nonsense. Airport in on it, American airlines in on it, victims in on it. And voilla, you can discard the actual evidence based on something you saw in a Youtube video. How can you be so sure that these Youtube videos are not packed with lies? Which is easily demonstrably to be the case by the way

Why would the Airport or the American Airlines and most importantly why would the victims be in on it? I hear this nonsense only from debunkers for some reason. Is that supposed to scare me and make me stop posting my opinions? It doesn't work.

Why are you so anti-YouTube in the first place? Do you realize that a lot of official videos are on YouTube?

If you are going to believe all this crap, no evidence will do. You will always invent a reason to discard it. And lets face it, you have nothing to offer as alternative. Just hand waving and incredulity.

I did not invent the airport in Portland video the government did. Why can't you show me "scientific" and "logical" video of them boarding one of the 9/11 planes?

It is not my job to offer alternatives and I can't even if I wanted to. Don't you see that you are waving hands here and not me?

Here is a question for you.. Do you agree that a video from another airport getting on another airplane is not evidence that these two hijacked one of the planes by any stretch of imagination?

At least you unintentionally acknowledged there is not at all only one difference with that beavis and buthead youtube.

You misunderstood what I mean.. The only evidence that has a small chance of being real is the Audio recording from the planes because everything else is obviously made up.

reply to post by -PLB-

Your primary source is Youtube?

Can you point out what is so wrong with this YouTube video as a source?

How does this relate to the conspiracy? Was FEMA part of the conspiracy in your version? Including all its employees?

This one relates to your coincidence theory..

reply to post by maxella1


Because people can confuse days, happens all the time. A tiny bit more background research reveals this. Just like a tiny bit of background research reveals that there was a victim list and a passenger list. Guess who was not on the victim list.

No time to reply on the rest of your post, maybe some other day, though I am a bit busy atm.

reply to post by -PLB-

Because people can confuse days

And that's why you hate YouTube?

A tiny bit more background research reveals this.

Yeah it reveals a tiny bit of even more coincidences...

NEW YORK CITY OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT HOLDS TRIAL POINT-OF-DISPENSING DRILL (TRIPOD)

USDOJ Assistant Attorney General Deborah J. Daniels said, "The Office of Justice Programs, through its Office for Domestic Preparedness, is pleased to support the New York City TriPOD Exercise. We look forward to strengthening our partnership with the City of New York, through continued strong support of its domestic preparedness activities."

If you don't know what is the Office of Domestic Preparedness don't feel bad because a lot of people don't.

May 8, 2001: Cheney to Oversee National Effort for Responding to Domestic Attacks, but No Action Is Taken before 9/11

According to Bush, the ONP “will coordinate all Federal programs dealing with weapons of mass destruction consequence management within the Departments of Defense, Health and Human Services, Justice, and Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency, and other federal agencies.”

FEMA: No prior knowledge of 9-11

The Federal Emergency Management Agency has said it did not have urban search and rescue teams in place in New York City prior to the Sept. 11 attacks, contrary to an Internet-based rumor alleging otherwise.

So Mr. Tom Kenney said " We arrived on late Monday night, and went into action on Tuesday morning. And not until today did we get a full opportunity to work the entire site." ~~~~~CONFUSED.

NYC OEM Press release said "TriPOD had originally been scheduled to take place on September 12th, 2001, at Pier 92—which ironically had served as the temporary home of OEM shortly after the terrorist attacks on 9/11.~~~~~~~ COINCIDENCE..

FEMA said it did not have urban search and rescue teams in place in New York City prior to the Sept. 11 attacks~~~~~~~~~ CONFUSED

Giuliani said "the reason Pier 92 was selected as a command center was because on the next day, on September 12, Pier 92 was going to have a drill, it had hundreds of people here, from FEMA, from the Federal Government, from the State, from the State Emergency Management Office, and they were getting ready for a drill for biochemical attack. So that was gonna be the place they were going to have the drill. The equipment was already there, so we were able to establish a command center there, within three days, that was two and a half to three times bigger than the command center that we had lost at 7 World Trade Center. And it was from there that the rest of the search and rescue effort was completed." ~~~~~~~ CONFUSED and a COINCIDENCE...

Long Debunked "Rumor" Validated by Giuliani

Although reports indicate that Cheney never convened any meetings of this Task Force prior to September 2001, it seems that there must have been some sort of planning involved with the organization and scheduling of Operation TRIPOD for September 12, 2001. With all of the unpleasant news of 9/11, it must have pleased Cheney that the scheduling of this drill made the pre-assembled emergency team immediately available to New York City. Who would have thought?

So do you see how perfectly this thing fits into your coincidence theory? Nothing but a bunch of confused individuals and coincidences...