9-11 and Al-Qaeda

[Angel_Master]

We already had a thread about the 9-11 conspiracy theories, and a link was posted to a very well-researched technical article in of all places Popular Mechanics that explained and debunked much of what the conspiracy theorists claimed.

Of course, for someone who can't distinguish neo-Nazi propaganda from reality, I'm sure the facts won't make a difference.

I missed that post/thread, and couldn't find it now. I found that artical using Google.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=1&c=y

http://www.911truth.org/

Are there important unanswered questions or not?

I find the most compelling argument to be the very speedy clean up of the whole thing, i.e. destruction of evidence before solid conclusions could be made and it seems many people who could not have been anything but biased where involved in the investigation, and the fact that the investigation of physical evidence was very limited compared with much smaller and less important incidents. We are left with depending largely on what various people have said and a lot of conjecture. Then there is also the huge question of motivation. What was to be gained by this event and by whom? And I still ask who is Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda? I see the very timely documentary on CCN telling us this again. Very interesting to see the vast difference between the relevant material CCN broads versus the relevant material the BBC broadcasts.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/09/03/do0309.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2006/09/03/ixopinion.html

http://www.wnymedia.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1981&Itemid=35

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=3836

http://www.mosnews.com/news/2005/03/21/shebarsh.shtml

[zeusbheld]

We already had a thread about the 9-11 conspiracy theories, and a link was posted to a very well-researched technical article in of all places Popular Mechanics that explained and debunked much of what the conspiracy theorists claimed.

Of course, for someone who can't distinguish neo-Nazi propaganda from reality, I'm sure the facts won't make a difference.

I missed that post/thread, and couldn't find it now. I found that artical using Google.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=1&c=y

http://www.911truth.org/

you couldnt find this thread?? the one that's right on the "politics and social issues" page of TF????? are you ******* kidding?????

apparently your invested zero effort and/or you have no investigative skills at all. that is a stunningly feeble effort even by TF standards. the bar is incredibly low, you still failed to clear it.

I find the most compelling argument to be the very speedy clean up of the whole thing, i.e. destruction of evidence before solid conclusions could be made and it seems many people who could not have been anything but biased where involved in the investigation, and the fact that the investigation of physical evidence was very limited compared with much smaller and less important incidents.

you find that compelling? so you admit you are moved by complete horseshit? have you done any investigation on your own or do you only read what you want to believe? oh wait, don't answer that, you already did by demonstrating your inability to find a thread a few slots below yours on the page.

WHAT speedy cleanup? WHAT "destruction of evidence"? i lived 2.25 miles from the world trade center. the cleanup was constant and energetic but hardly speedy, except if you measure it in geological time. sorry but that is an utterly, shockingly clueless thing to say.

who are these people who "could not have been anything but biased" ?? do you have even the faintest clue what you're talking about?

firemen? volunteer firemen from around the country? paramedics and engineers? mafiosi? left-leaning political activists so far left that they're on the FBI's watch list? all of the above at various times had acces to the physical evidence which was a bout what you'd expect of a completely destroyed building--mostly dust and body parts, papers scattered far into brooklyn, and pureed body parts, many of which were unidentifiable (i believe they dna-identified most if not all of what they found).

We are left with depending largely on what various people have said and a lot of conjecture.

are you one of those people dumb enough to believe that the plane my friend saw fly over his house and into the world trade center was blue-screened in? oh right, but eyewitnesses would fall into the category of "what various people said" wouldnt it.

there may be some open questions but only people who didnt live ANYWHERE near new york at the time are naiive or stupid enough to believe "documentaries" like loose change.

Then there is also the huge question of motivation. What was to be gained by this event and by whom?

this, actually, IS an interesting question. it is either dangerously, naively stupid or insane to pretend that islamist extremists didn't fly airplanes into the world trade center. on the other hand, perhaps part of the reason these fairy tales are so persistent.

i do believe there is an open question of whether the US government were aware of the threat, if so, to what degree, and was it a matter of tacit collusion (allowing it to happen) or merely that no one really took it seriously, especially in terms of scale and scope?

the rumor that someone wanted to fly airplanes into the wtc was circulating well before 9/11. in fact my ex GF heard it about 2 months before, while shooting a video for pfizer in "windows on the world."

this may be an open question. all the rest of the conspiracy theories i've seen are plausible if a) you've never seen any of it first-hand you're extremely gullible, and c) you have little enough awareness of physics or of demolitions that stories of a 'demolition' at the wtc sound plausible.

And I still ask who is Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda?

you "ask,"? really? in spite of the question mark your statement reads more like a statement. mewhat do you think? that neither bin laden nor al quaeda exist?

come on stop being coy, it isn't compelling when you dont back it up with anything.

I see the very timely documentary on CCN telling us this again. Very interesting to see the vast difference between the relevant material CCN broads versus the relevant material the BBC broadcasts.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/09/03/do0309.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2006/09/03/ixopinion.html

http://www.wnymedia.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1981&Itemid=35

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=3836

http://www.mosnews.com/news/2005/03/21/shebarsh.shtml

given your track record with posting links you may or may not have even read yourself, which are often to websites of dubious integrity (including neo nazi agitprop), i may or may not click the links.

read the other thread, come up with specific, substantial arguments if you expect to engage in dialogue. don't be this lazy and disingenuous, and you'll have a better starting point.

[Angel_Master]

Okay, I didn't look very hard for the thread, just looked for an obvious title. Good thread will read though it when I have the time. i_love_somtam's posts definitely warrant some well thought out responses. And very good posting by FB2. Good not to jump to conclusions too quickly. Many have made this mistake. There definitely are some pretty ridiculous arguments out there that do tend to tarnish any serious enquires into what really happened. Be careful you don't accuse people of holding views they don't based on association. That is simply unfair.

I really wish I had more time to spend on this, but getting very busy with work, and so wish to have a life outside this, so my time is very limited. I just want to encourage people to think and see some of the not so mainstream points of view. It is just so easy to accept what one sees on CCN without even trying as fact and basically the whole truth and feel like you have this fairly compressive grasp of world affairs.

[Loburt]

equally interesting, seems to be consensus that the us/uk should engage in dialogue with AQ. i guess much depends on whether AQ is willing to enter the mainstream. i suspect not

I don't think there is any consensus that the US/UK should engage in dialogue with al-Qaeda. There is a consensus the US/UK should be talking to Syria and Iran.

[zeusbheld]

Okay, I didn't look very hard for the thread, just looked for an obvious title. Good thread will read though it when I have the time. i_love_somtam's posts definitely warrant some well thought out responses. And very good posting by FB2. Good not to jump to conclusions too quickly. Many have made this mistake. There definitely are some pretty ridiculous arguments out there that do tend to tarnish any serious enquires into what really happened. Be careful you don't accuse people of holding views they don't based on association. That is simply unfair.

if i "accused" you of holding any views it's based on this, WHICH YOU WROTE:

I find the most compelling argument to be the very speedy clean up of the whole thing, i.e. destruction of evidence before solid conclusions could be made and it seems many people who could not have been anything but biased where involved in the investigation, and the fact that the investigation of physical evidence was very limited compared with much smaller and less important incidents.

are you saying you can back up those assertions with actual facts? still waiting.

sorry for wrongly accusing you of saying WHAT YOU SAID.

It is just so easy to accept what one sees on CCN without even trying as fact and basically the whole truth and feel like you have this fairly compressive grasp of world affairs.

it is just so easy to post vague generalizations, and nothing specific, without even READING about facts, and to claim to have an open mind and thus feel like you have this fairly "compressive" (what the **** does compressive mean by the way) grasp of world affairs. in fact there's NOTHING easier than doing what you did. GET OFF YOUR ASS AND SAY SOMETHING SPECIFIC.

say something specific once in a while. everyone has a job, if you invested 10 minutes' effort your post would have had a lot more content than it did so dont give us that horseshit about your'e so busy with work. so you have to work for a living. boo ******* hoo, you're probably the first person EVER to have to do that. stop making excuses, back it up or shut up. and stop pretending you didnt express an opinion, and that you're just open minded and curious, that's just spineless and disingenuous.

[thaibel]

I looked a week ago to a documentary made by some non-believers about what happened on 9/11. Never had a laugh like than. You don't even have to be a scientist to see at least some contradicting things in it:

- They interviewed an eye witnesses who saw that the planes flying into the WTC towers were missiles. I think you can find at least hundreds (if not thousands) who has seen clearly that it were planes? To rely on eye witnesses is a very tricky thing anyway (do u know still the color of shirt your friend was wearing yesterday when you went for a beer?). I remember that a boy got stabbed last year in Brussels Central station and most of the eye witnesses there were convinced that they looked North-African. Later they could arrest the man and he was from eastern Europe.

- They said that the towers were already prepared before 9/11. There was more activity in the basements of the towers. And they supposed they were putting dynamite there. And after that they said again that people witnessed the fact that there was an explosion at the basement before the towers collapsed. When you see the collapsing of the towers, one can see that the collapsing started at the upper half of the towers, just about where the planes hit the towers. I don?t believe that a skyscraper is build to withstand a serious attack by a major bomb (and a plane full of kerosene is a bomb). It?s made to withstand serious nature challenges (earthquakes, typhoons ?? ).

- Also they tried again to confuse people saying that the plane hitting the pentagon was in fact a missile. Because the hole it made was too small. The pentagon is not a civil building like the skyscrapers, it?s a damned military building and for that reason build as a bunker. Of course that the damage of the pentagon is less than of other buildings. They also said that one can?t see any big parts of the plane, like the wings. Of course anyone knows that the wings are the kerosene tanks of a plane, and will be normally completely destroyed. And you can?t compare the crash of a plane in a field to a plane that really throws itself in a building. And if they showed a bigger part of the plane on the pictures, they said it could be from every Boeing 757. Of course they all look the same. This is really ridiculous.

For sure the politicians like Bush (his ratings were the lowest ever) took a lot of benefits out of it on a political way. The same did the group of hawks around him (Wolinski, Rumsfeld, ??) to start their war against Iraq were they were dreaming of since long, as the Americans were ready for it at that moment. And for sure there were a few organizations like the Mossad (Israeli Intelligence) that predicted such an attack.

But the ones, who believe in a conspiracy, came never with any evidence. If their theory is right they must find at least one who was part of this conspiracy to talk? As it would have a lot (too much even) of people involved in such a well planned conspiracy action.

[711_Dimsum]

Well, Im not going to go into length about it, but I've followed it as much as anyone who had a healthy interest about what really happened, and I do think there's more behind it.

I dont agree with all the consiracys.I do think the U.S, government is hiding something, but it could be as simple as just more embarressment about how ill prepared they were for this situation or how they managed to go about it like keystone cops.

There is some evidence they just makes me just shudder.

I remember about half a year or so after Sept 11/01, I'm not sure of his name, but a high profile intelligence advisor to the president commented on MSNBC that when this all happened, Bush told him to find a link to Iraq.When he insisted there was no link, Bush, as he put it, said, 'Dont even come back to me unless you find a connection between all of this and Iraq' Thats scary, and this was also before the invasion of Iraq.Secondly, the fact that no data recorders were found in any of the planes that hit the towers is scary enough.Anyone that can do their own research into the materials surrounding the data recorders knows, this just doesnt happen.Strangely enough, and you can take this with a grain of salt, some figherfighters claimed they were present when FBI agents recovered the data recorders, so who knows.

[eagle]

I've heard so much about that day and watched it "live" on TV. Ahh the modern world :shock:

All i can say for sure is seeing how the Goverment including FBI CIA and the acting administration handled it all I feel about as safe as a bug on a busy sidewalk knowing they are all watching out for us "citizens"

The smell of BS is strong in the air but I have no idea why for sure ( except that it may be the Pres hasn't had his ranch boots cleaned) so I will wait for more experts to confuse me :twisted:

[zeusbheld]

I remember about half a year or so after Sept 11/01, I'm not sure of his name, but a high profile intelligence advisor to the president commented on MSNBC that when this all happened, Bush told him to find a link to Iraq.When he insisted there was no link, Bush, as he put it, said, 'Dont even come back to me unless you find a connection between all of this and Iraq' Thats scary, and this was also before the invasion of Iraq.

THAT is interesting, if true. do you have any links? names? the one thing that conspiracy theorists got right is the motive.

the project for the new american century's report, "rebuilding america's defenses" (2000) states:

Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event ? like a new Pearl Harbor.

Secondly, the fact that no data recorders were found in any of the planes that hit the towers is scary enough.Anyone that can do their own research into the materials surrounding the data recorders knows, this just doesnt happen.

anyone CAN do their own research, in this case, apparently *you* did not. the 'black box' is not INDESTRUCTIBLE. indestructible materials only exist in comic books, an example being the adamantium used in wolverine's claws and skeleton.

when a greek aircraft crashed in the mountains, the cockpit voice recorder was missing: "The voice recorder's internal components were ejected from the container when the plane crashed, Tsolakis said." .

either it can happen, and happens sometimes, or maybe the greek plane crash was faked by the US government...

Strangely enough, and you can take this with a grain of salt, some figherfighters claimed they were present when FBI agents recovered the data recorders, so who knows.

it may require an entire case of salt.

even more strange. i used to LIVE in new york, i've MET REAL LIVE FIREFIGHTERS, NOT WATCHED THEM ON TV, and NONE of them know these alleged firefighters. (mr demasi and mr bellone). what happened? who were they? i think it is proof that SPACE ALIENS destroyed the world trade center!!! seriously don't you find it a little bit odd that no one in the fire department has heard of these guys??? or maybe the governement "silenced" the entire fire department, right? also, don't you find it a little bit odd, that the alleged firefighters who saw the black box used their story to try to sell their book?

sorry i didnt post links to all these gems but here's one: www.google.com.

what's the point of mentioning something you know is dodgy?

maddox as usual says it best.

[eagle]

the twenty dollar bill is proof enough :shock: ahhh do I get to keep the twenty

[Loburt]

sure. but I keep the hundred.

[711_Dimsum]

I remember about half a year or so after Sept 11/01, I'm not sure of his name, but a high profile intelligence advisor to the president commented on MSNBC that when this all happened, Bush told him to find a link to Iraq.When he insisted there was no link, Bush, as he put it, said, 'Dont even come back to me unless you find a connection between all of this and Iraq' Thats scary, and this was also before the invasion of Iraq.

THAT is interesting, if true. do you have any links? names? the one thing that conspiracy theorists got right is the motive.

the project for the new american century's report, "rebuilding america's defenses" (2000) states:

Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event ? like a new Pearl Harbor.

Secondly, the fact that no data recorders were found in any of the planes that hit the towers is scary enough.Anyone that can do their own research into the materials surrounding the data recorders knows, this just doesnt happen.

anyone CAN do their own research, in this case, apparently *you* did not. the 'black box' is not INDESTRUCTIBLE. indestructible materials only exist in comic books, an example being the adamantium used in wolverine's claws and skeleton.

when a greek aircraft crashed in the mountains, the cockpit voice recorder was missing: "The voice recorder's internal components were ejected from the container when the plane crashed, Tsolakis said." .

either it can happen, and happens sometimes, or maybe the greek plane crash was faked by the US government...

Strangely enough, and you can take this with a grain of salt, some figherfighters claimed they were present when FBI agents recovered the data recorders, so who knows.

it may require an entire case of salt.

even more strange. i used to LIVE in new york, i've MET REAL LIVE FIREFIGHTERS, NOT WATCHED THEM ON TV, and NONE of them know these alleged firefighters. (mr demasi and mr bellone). what happened? who were they? i think it is proof that SPACE ALIENS destroyed the world trade center!!! seriously don't you find it a little bit odd that no one in the fire department has heard of these guys??? or maybe the governement "silenced" the entire fire department, right? also, don't you find it a little bit odd, that the alleged firefighters who saw the black box used their story to try to sell their book?

sorry i didnt post links to all these gems but here's one: www.google.com.

what's the point of mentioning something you know is dodgy?

maddox as usual says it best.

I didnt say there were indestructable.Maybe do the math and find out what the chances are that two flight recorders both go missing from two different planes in the same area.Secondly, I saw the broadcast myself, no links, I just formed my own opinion based on what was in front of me.Third, what's the point of mentioning it if it's dodgy?, probably no different then you responding to my post.

[zeusbheld]

I didnt say there were indestructable.

didnt say you did.

you said it "just doesn't happen." that implies it is impossible. there is a big differnece between impossible and improbable.

the link i cited showed a crash wherein not only was the cockpit voice recorder's casing wrecked but the recorder itself was missing. (admittedly the wreckage wasn't buried under thousands of tons of pulverized concrete so it's not strictly apples-to-apples.)

Maybe do the math and find out what the chances are that two flight recorders both go missing from two different planes in the same area.

so *you* have done the math, RIGHT?--please post it then, instead of sitting back smugly and posting vague, untestable claims, k?

the odds against something improbable happening are staggering.

...

[Angel_Master]

if i "accused" you of holding any views it's based on this, WHICH YOU WROTE:

I find the most compelling argument to be the very speedy clean up of the whole thing, i.e. destruction of evidence before solid conclusions could be made and it seems many people who could not have been anything but biased where involved in the investigation, and the fact that the investigation of physical evidence was very limited compared with much smaller and less important incidents.

are you saying you can back up those assertions with actual facts? still waiting.

sorry for wrongly accusing you of saying WHAT YOU SAID.

It is just so easy to accept what one sees on CCN without even trying as fact and basically the whole truth and feel like you have this fairly compressive grasp of world affairs.

it is just so easy to post vague generalizations, and nothing specific, without even READING about facts, and to claim to have an open mind and thus feel like you have this fairly "compressive" (what the f*ck does compressive mean by the way) grasp of world affairs. in fact there's NOTHING easier than doing what you did. GET OFF YOUR ASS AND SAY SOMETHING SPECIFIC.

COMPREHENSIVE

I don't think that I have a comprehensive understanding of what happened. I have a lot of unanswered questions. I feel that my intelligence is being insulted by the feeble answers that I have been given for some of those questions and much more grievously insulted by those questions that have been ignored. I'm not posting here to spell it all out for anyone according to my point of view; others who I agree with have already done that. If you can answer some of those questions, by all means take your pick and have at it.

I wasn't saying that you did accuse me of holding any views I didn't. It was just a general defensive comment, and in fact you did indirectly. Some of the stuff that I've seen on some sites regarding 9-11 is quite unbelievable. The idea for example that no planes ever even hit the World Trade Centre seems quite ridiculous. It bothers me that some of those who don't believe the official government sponsored hypothesis get so lost in their own little world and waste time on such seemingly preposterous ideas. It accomplishes nothing but casts doubt on the much more credible points.

I have read most of the material available at the links that I have posted. Not always word for word of course, much of it is redundant, so no need. I have made my best effort to only post links to what seems to me to be fairly credible nformation which I believe probably has a good deal of truth in it. I see no need to regurgitate what others have already documented very well.

You are very quick to ridicule my posting of links in general and the websites they link to in general without bothering to give one shred of evidence to back up your claims.

It would be just great if I could go out and investigate some of this information that has been presented as fact by both the Bush administration and those who believe it was an inside job. However, I don't have the time or money to go any further than what I can find out online.

I did note with interest some comments you made about being there and did you offering to make a documentary of the clean up, is that right? Now that would really be something of value had you made such a documentary. I am wondering if you just were not needed. Or was it in fact true that had you wanted to make a documentary entirely on your own you would not have been allowed to do it? I read that people who did try to take pictures of the wreckage had their footage destroyed by security people at the scene and where told it was not permitted. How about you did you get at least a few close up shots of the wreckage? Please do show us that such stories are not true. I expect that some close up shots of some of the sheared ends of those huge pieces of steel would go a long way to showing how they where severed. I wonder why we haven't seen any. Where there any tests for traces of explosives done? If we wanted to do one now could we? Where is that steal now? You mean there aren?t even a few pieces anywhere that might help settle this matter?

The Bush administration and all those in support of it have given us nothing but hypotheses and conjecture about exactly what happened. I don?t have to present any more evidence to prove this point. All they have said speaks for its self. Read it again and see for yourself. If you need a copy of the 9-11 commission report I can sent it to you. Have any of the most significant hypotheses they have made been tested and found to be true? If so where is the documentation? I haven?t seen it.

There should be an evidence locker somewhere on this one, and there certainly doesn?t seem to be, and precious little photographic evidence for something so monumental that really happened. Yes we have all see those same terrible blurry photos recycled hundreds of times over. But I?m talking about photographic evidence of the aftermath that would silence those who have been asking questions for a long time now, yes, almost since the day it happened, as the PM article stated. They should have known they where going to need this kind of evidence. I want to see the 9-11 Commission Report brought before the Supreme Court or an independent judiciary committee. If it can stand up to that I will be content, but never until then. And don't try to tell me that is what the 9-11 Commission Report was. I don't need to re-document that they where not independent. They where appointed by Bush and his administration. Go read up if you doubt it. You can find that information in the links I have posted which also have ample references that will prove that conclusively.

I do however hope to see evidence that will back up the official report if it is available. If you have any more than what has already been posted please do post.

[Angel_Master]

Well, was searching for information about the New York fire fighters who wrote a book about 9-11 that zeusbheld was attempting to discredit. I didn't find any mentions yet. It should be fairly easy to prove if those guys are in fact frauds out to make a buck like zeus is suggesting. They would have after all worked at a specific station at a specific time. If they did I'm sure they have no trouble stating those precise details, and anyone could call up their former co-workers and ask. They either they did or did. zeus you should be ashamed of such a weak rebuttal. How many New York fire fighters are there? How likely is it that you would happen to know anyone who knew these guys?

Anyway I did end up here, a notable account of many of the questions that have been asked and theories that have been put forward and some accounting of the number of people who believe their is some credibility to some of these theories. I see an admirable effort to remain neutral and report only facts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories

[frankenburner2]

.... some accounting of the number of people who believe their is some credibility to some of these theories. I see an admirable effort to remain neutral and report only facts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories

i haven't read every word posted thus far...too much to sift through.....BUT...Steve..this one jumps out at me....does this imply that since there are alot of people who believe it, it must be true? or at the very least, believable? if that's the case, i know a few million creationists that would agree with your way of thinking.

Just because alot of people believe something to be be true...doesn't make it true! Afterall, 30,000+ TF members think i'm a complete pain in the ass, but you and I both know THAT isn't true!(wait a minute, maybe that's a bad example)

[Loburt]

Wikipedia is basically contributor controlled.

It's not like Encyclopedia Britannica where the information is thoroughly reviewed by acknowledged experts wit a track record of recognized accomplishments in the fields the entries pertain to before being published.

Anything in wikipedia should always be double and triple checked with other more credible sources. The site contains many errors.

Relying on wikipedia in a debate such as this is extreme intellectual laziness.

[Angel_Master]

.... some accounting of the number of people who believe their is some credibility to some of these theories. I see an admirable effort to remain neutral and report only facts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories

i haven't read every word posted thus far...too much to sift through.....BUT...Steve..this one jumps out at me....does this imply that since there are alot of people who believe it, it must be true? or at the very least, believable? if that's the case, i know a few million creationists that would agree with your way of thinking.

Just because alot of people believe something to be be true...doesn't make it true! Afterall, 30,000+ TF members think i'm a complete pain in the ass, but you and I both know THAT isn't true!(wait a minute, maybe that's a bad example)

lol.. I'm saying that an independent judiciary inquiry into what happened is required. Let?s see if the Bush administrations claims can hold up or not. Enough debate by those who are not in a position to demand answers and collect and analyse hard evidence.

The wkipedia article obviously not in any way conclusive, but it does show that the claims of wrong doing are very far reaching and numerous. It is also a useful starting point for further personal investigation. With these kinds potent accusations any efforts to prevent a new investigation stinks. I would expect innocent people would be begging for it in a desire to clear their names.

[Loburt]

A judicial inquiry is not required for intelligent people to know that the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were not blown up by the US Government, an agency of the US Government or the Mossad.

They were destroyed by al-Qaeda, which used commercial jetliners flown by 19 hijackers mostly of Saudi Arabian citizenship.

By the way, how do you like teaching in Saudi Arabia?

[Angel_Master]

A judicial inquiry is not required for intelligent people to know that the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were not blown up by the US Government, an agency of the US Government or the Mossad.

They were destroyed by al-Qaeda, which used commercial jetliners flown by 19 hijackers mostly of Saudi Arabian citizenship.

By the way, how do you like teaching in Saudi Arabia?

Teaching here is fine. Almost everyone is genuinely pleasant and friendly. The social life is a little dull, but liveable. The money is a lot better than Thailand. I notice a general lack of ambition compared to westerners. Life is really pretty easy for most people here.

[frankenburner2]

...the claims of wrong doing are very far reaching and numerous.

same question......just because alot people say it isn't so...doesn't mean it isn't.

the reason your gonna lose this debate, regardless of who it is with, is that you're arguing based on speculation, half-truths, inuendo, and conjecture....your debaters are mostly refering to scientific/provable data.

just say..."i don't believe what they've told me.".....not...I don't beleive what they've told, lots of other people don't beleive what they've told me, therefore we MUST be right!"

creationist arguement: "fossil history has evolutionary gaps million of years wide and we cannot prove that this thing evolved from that thing, therefore there must be a God..there are no other explanations"

[i_love_som_tam]

lol.. I'm saying that an independent judiciary inquiry into what happened is required. Let?s see if the Bush administrations claims can hold up or not. Enough debate by those who are not in a position to demand answers and collect and analyse hard evidence.

Have you taken a look at the 9/11 report? That was a bi-partisan investigation into the events on that day. I know it's dry reading, probably not as exciting and controversial as the conspiracy crap that you are reading, but I think it sums it all up. :roll:

[zeusbheld]

lol.. I'm saying that an independent judiciary inquiry into what happened is required. Let?s see if the Bush administrations claims can hold up or not. Enough debate by those who are not in a position to demand answers and collect and analyse hard evidence.

Have you taken a look at the 9/11 report? That was a bi-partisan investigation into the events on that day. I know it's dry reading, probably not as exciting and controversial as the conspiracy crap that you are reading, but I think it sums it all up. :roll:

good point. a report exists. i have yet to see a conspiracy theorist refute it point by point or even show any indication of having read it.

if you make claims, it is up to YOU to support them. YOU claimed that the hard evidence has not been collected or analyzed adquately and have done nothing to support that claim.

OH WAIT. my bad, you posted a link to weakiepedia.

[farangy]

lol.. I'm saying that an independent judiciary inquiry into what happened is required. Let?s see if the Bush administrations claims can hold up or not.

There was a bipartisan investigation... Their report is available for download online: http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf

[lizardo]

i believe 9/5 never happened....

wait...thats today.... lemme re check my sources