I post a link to a video of an interview with two firemen who were there when it happened and you call them "idiots on youtube?"

That is vile.

They were there. You are a hopeless case who apparently believes the propaganda no matter what.

I'm through talking to you. You don't appear to be a reasonable person.

I certainly hope so. Others should be so lucky.

The saddest part to me is the real problems that are being ignored as a result of spending time on this garbage.

Yep, its a waste of time that's for sure.

Absurdity - The 911 conspiracy theories are the epitome of absurdity.

Synonyms: folly, asininity, bêtise, fatuity, foolery, foppery, idiocy, imbecility, inanity, insanity, lunacy, stupidity

Antonyms: prudence, sagaciousness, sagacity, sageness, sanity, sapience, sensibleness, soundness, wisdom

First of all, that itself is a pretty absurd statement.

The most absurd conspiracy theory of 9-11 is the 9-11 commission report.

Always!

Ummm, yes even Wikipedia has some of them posted!

Or for political purposes.

I don't present evidence and alternate theories of the events on 9-11 for political purposes. I'm not the least bit political.

I am simply against the drug lords and gun dealers that seem to be running this country. That does not exclude Obama who allows it simply because it is the nature of the beast of world economy and business as usual.

Both the 9-11 commission and NIST began their alleged "independent investigations" (which were neither independent or investigations) with the assumption that Al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden was responsible for the attack AND with the assumption that the planes alone caused the towers to collapse.

They designed their official report about how the towers fell according to computer simulations which simply estimated what kind of damage it would take for the towers to collapse without explosives.

They began their so-called "investigation" with the desired result already in mind (decided) and they deduced (via computer) the estimates what kind of damage it would take for a plane to cause the collapse from computer simulations. Those numbers and stats were deduced not from any actual evidence from the building, but from a computer simulation.

After they had that all figured out they said they had no need to look for explosives because they said they figured out how the planes could cause the buildings to collapse.

So they "assumed" or ignored all evidence of any explosives.

Why should they look for evidence of explosives?

1. Because they are supposed to be investigating... not just explaining.

2. Because the attack on the WTC in 1993 did involve explosives.

3. Because the security in the WTC was lax and anyone could have driven a truck loaded with explosives into the parking basement of the buildings.

4. Because countless witnesses, including firemen, said they heard numerous explosions, and some were injured by explosions before the plane even hit the tower.

5. Because a good investigation would never make assumptions and ignore evidence and witness accounts to that extent, unless they are doing it purposely and are only spinning a scripted story.

they began the investigation with information that planes had struck the building, the building caught fire, and it collapsed from the point of plane impact all the way to the ground. they then try to determine if that is true. they have to start with the facts available and work from there. once they find the most likely cause they make a ruling
http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/wtc_about.cfm

when a body is found full of bullet holes, they don't check it for lead poisoning. years later they don't called on ruling the death by gunshot wounds shoddy investigating because they never checked for lead poisoning

lies can not stand no matter how many times you try to brace them, truth doesn't need anything to support it

Before the plan hit isn't demolition. I dont trust that Rodriguez guy as he changed his story after the fact and when he changed it he then tried to sue the government.

Demolition explosions are immediately before a collapse. Some are still going off during the collapse. Please look at what you type before you type it. Even if you could prove a bomb blew up before the plan hit that isn't a demolition. Thats a bombing.

1. I am not saying that this was a professional standard run of the mill "demolitions" explosion. I am saying that there WERE EXPLOSIONS - or at the very least -- evidence of explosives should have been investigated and looked for. But it was not. All witness's statements about hearing or seeing other explosions were suppressed and ignored.

2. Explosions were heard before the planes hit.

3. The official story was completely changed also, but apparently you still believe them.... which official story to you believe? oh, that's right, the latest one. Before the NORAD tapes were revealed the official story believed the Military about their response.

The implication of the NORAD tapes, is that virtually the entire account by NORAD on September 18, 2001, which served as the "official story" from that date until the issuance of the 9-11 Commissin Report in July 2004--- was false.

The new introduction of the NORAD tapes, if they are genuine, significantly undermined the claims of the 9-11 truth movement that the military failed to intercept UA 175 and AA 77 because of a stand-done order and then shot down UA 93.

The NORAD tapes also present evidence that Major General Larry Arnold and Colonel Alan Scott purposely lied about their response.

So how did they explain the lie?

Michael Bronner, addressing this issue in terms of the question of why Scot and Arnold apparently lied, says that members of the 9-11 commission staff to whom he spoke said that "the false story... had a clear purpose."

(Michael Bronner wrote an essay entitled "9-11 live: The NORAD tapes." It was published in Vanity Fair in August 2006.)

So what was this "clear purpose" of the first false story? It was, according to staff member John Farmer, "to obscure mistakes on the part of the F.A.A. and the military, and to overstate the rediness of the military to intercept and if necessary, shoot down UAL 93.

The motivation to lie, in other words, was to cover up confusion and incompetence.

That same motivation is presumably thought to explain why the military as a whole acquiesced in the lie from September 18th 2001, until the 9-11 hearings in June 2004, when General Arnold was confronted with evidence from NORAD's tapes contradicting statement he had made at the hearing in May 2003.

However, although this explanation has been widely accepted, it is not really believable, but apparently the charge of being liars and being incompetent is better than the accusation that they had deliberately NOT intercepted the hijacked airliners.

We are asked to believe that Scott, Arnold and the others, in telling the earlier story, acted in a completely irrational manner and that they, while being guilty only of incompetence, told a lie that could have led to charges of murder and treason.

Nevertheless we must conclude this as long as we accept Bronner's presupposition that the tapes contain "the authentic military history of 9-11"

If this presupposition is false, then the tapes do not demonstrate anything except that the military, perhaps in collusion with members of the 9-11 commission, went to extraordinary lengths to fabricate audiotapes that would seem to rule out the possibility that the military and thereby members of the Bush-Cheney administration were complicit in the 9-11 attacks.

Is there any reason to suspect or believe that the 9-11 Commission as well as the Military, would have engaged in such deceit? Are there reasons to believe that the story as reflected in the tapes is false? Is there any way in which the tapes could have been altered?

The rhetorical answer to each one of these questions is "yes."

Would the 9-11 commission engage in deceit?

Yes they would. See my other thread.


http://mingle2.com/topic/show/309125