9-11 and Al-Qaeda

[zeusbheld]

COMPREHENSIVE

ah. IC.

I don't think that I have a comprehensive understanding of what happened. I have a lot of unanswered questions.

the one thing that is fairly certain is that any time anything happens there will be a lot of unanswered questions. it is highly unlikely that our species will ever have a truly comprehensive account of *anything*. however, some accounts are better than others. and some sources more credible than others.

and one should start with a fairly comprehensive search and reading list before one legitimizes points of contention without bothering to do one's homework, shouldn't one?

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.

if you mean on TF, the answers are nowhere near as feeble as attempting to find answers on TF. if you *really* wanted answers you'd do your homework, or at least read quite a bit more before you decided with such certainty the questions you are asking are legit.

sorry but asking leading, loaded questions, and starting a thread to do so, is manipulative and insults the intelligence of your audience. this being a web forum, you may find if you do that, and don't bother to do your homework, you might expect to end up hearing about it.

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.

hmmm. seems to me, i accused you of asking vague loaded, leading questions, which you did.

i accused you of not doing your homework, i stand by that too.

i accused you of making little or no effort, that seems obviously true.

i also accused you of making vague allegations based on your assumptions and offering no support for them. sorry, but presenting them as widely misleading is offensive.

i dont see where there's anything i need to apologize for, if i missed something please be more specific.

also i dont see where i did *anything* indirectly. if anything, looks to me like i was direct to the point of being rude. not going to apologize for that either, coz it's just how i roll.

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.

very true.

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.

what i find offensive about the vast majority of 9/11 conspiracy theorists is how shoddily they support their claims and, as you say, get so lost in their own little world.

even one site i saw which attempted to distance itself from some of the nuttier theories managed to present 'roosevelt-was-complicit-in-pearl-harbor-attacks' as something that's a) supported by lots of evidence (it aint) and widely accpeted as good historiography (it aint).

.

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.

because in a previous thread you indiscriminately posted links to anti-semitic propaganda sites that i had previously encountered while reseraching neo-nazis. i'm too lazy to go dig it up (in the isreal' thread) but if you insist i will.

that to me says either your'e anti semitic, a neo nazi, or you didnt really look at what you were doing. i choose to be generous and believe you dont actually do your homework.

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.

you haven't yet done much investigating on the internet. if you can afford an internet connection you still have a LOT of homework to do before you actually have to spend any money.

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?

no i didnt, plenty of parasites-- i mean filmmakers-- already did attempt to do so. gnerally after about the first day or two people without special skills weren't allowed on site, for a lot of reasons, none of which prove a conspiracy. people who were already working on the cleanup effort who had no special skills were allowed to stay.

by the way the documentary would have pretty much consisted of people using large machines to fill truck after truck full of rubble which was later trucked to a landfill or dumped in the ocean if i recall correctly.

the first few hours would have shown some sincerely hopeful rescue efforts (with a very few successes) that might be interesting, but the months (yeah months) that followed would be just trucks hauling rubble.

Now that would really be something of value had you made such a documentary.

oh really? it would be of value? to whom? why? and exactly how, unless i had access to goverment meetings, fema meetings, fdny meetings, etc? or do you have an inordinate fondness for watching trucks haul rubble away?

I am wondering if you just were not needed.

i, along with most of the other approximately 18 million or so people in the greater new york area with no special, appropriate skills.

i was not only not needed but completely useless. firemen, rescue workers and heavy machinery operators from all over the country and canada, on the other hand were welcomed onsite with open arms. i

was at least allowed past the soldiers onto the downtown half of manhattan, but that was only coz i lived there.

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?

i didnt work on the site so why would i have pictures?

see above. it became quite a circus, people who had no business there were discouraged from being there. it became a favorite spot of tourists quite quickly.

so are you saying if there was no conspiracy everyone would have been allowed to stop by and take pictures?

you seem to know an awful lot of what *i* should have done for someone who a) wasnt there and can't even be bothered to do his homework on the web. you proved you cannot even be bohered to find the other thread on here, let alone click provided links.

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.

sooner or later you can take these pictures yourself; when they reconstruct the site they are using some of the beams to make a monument.

and exactly HOW would it go a long way? do you believe structural engineer could look at the pictures and give a useful account, or maybe that some schmoe on the internet can?

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?

again, a few pieces will be used in the monument, last i heard.

check the links on the other thread, the air and dust was heavily analyzed by the EPA etc. no specific tests for explosives but there are a number of contaminants that SHOULD have shown up in the dust if it were a demolition. and the dust was everywhere. the government didnt hide it, nobody wanted to be covered by potentially-toxic dust so we got rid of it ourselves if it got in our apartments.

The Bush administration and all those in support of it have given us nothing but hypotheses and conjecture about exactly what happened.

a) can you support this? can you refute these hypotheses? start with the popular mechanics article, k?

how is this different from what you're doing?

are you saying that anyone who doesnt believe the conspiracy "questions" is in suport of the bush administration? if so, that is one of the worst insults i've ever been forced to endure while on the internet in any capacity. i'd sue you if i could figure out whether internet forums would fall under slander or libel.

actually you conspiracy nuts might as well apply for a job with the bush administration, spreading conspiracy rot helps distract from the stuff they're actually doing. let me know if they send you a christmas card.

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.

you havent looked. that might have something to do with it.

you haven't presented ANY evidence, but you've shown yourself to be completely unaware of any of the evidence is out there. i'm not going to feed you links until you a) read the popular mechanics article and offer actual evidence to support the hypotheses contained therein. can't wait until you do the "impossibility" of making cell phone calls in airplanes. waiting eagerly.

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.

what exactly evidence would you need? what would it look like? you seem to have a lot of faith in photography, are you that sure it is warranted?

there is quite a bit of evidence -- chemical analysis and such--that SHOULD have shown a demolition if there was one.

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.

that might be interesting. it seems unlikely to unearth the conspiracy you clearly yearn for (unlikely but not impossible, at least in terms of collusion/foreknowledge) but what it might do is stir up some indictments in terms of gross negligence for some of the intelligence fuckups involved, security measures not taken beforehand, etc.

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.

um. have you actually read the report? even just the summary? do you know what it says?

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.

could you please get off your ass and go read what is easily available to all google users before you ask someone else to prove that there's no conspiracy? if you did your homework even a little you might be taken more seriously.

[zeusbheld]

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 think it is pretty obvious that if the only person claiming something is you and your buddy, and you self-publish a book about it, your credibility is an open question--even if the claims were to turn out to be true.

again, for the one billionth time: if you make outrageous claims, the burden of supporting them with evidence is on you, not on skeptics to "prove it didnt happen that way."

and if a claim is already supported by evidence, and you want to claim something else happened than what the evidence seems to indicate, you need to either fit the widely-known evidence into your new theory, not ignore it, or refute the evidence.

otherwise your'e just talking noise. these guys did neither, although i've admittedly not read their book (for the above reasons, i am skeptical of their credibility).

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.

oh really? how woulld it be "easy to prove"? seems to me that unless the black boxes are found, or evidence is found that they were destroyed, the only thing that can be proven is what i've said:

two guys who worked in the cleanup of the wtc site claim they found the black boxes while driving around thousands of tons of rubble in an SUV (i saw the site at the time, btw, you couldnt exactly drive anywhere you want).

they also claim the boxes were whisked away by people in FBI jackets.

no one else has publicly corroborated their story; they claim this is because the government 'got to' everyone else.

these guys self-published a book about their experience.

about the only things in doubt about the account i have just presented are

a) whether the guys worked for the fire dept.--easily verifiable. however, if they didn't that would not prove that they didnt work on the cleanup.

either FDNY people have or havent heard that the black boxes were found.. no one i knew had heard it, but you'd have to interview all xxxxx (not gonna tell you, google it yourself) or so employees to know for sure.

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.

and again, what exactly will it prove? i'll be glad to make the calls, i'll be in new york in october.

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?

how likely is it that no one i talked to would have heard something as important as black boxes being found? or did the government 'get to' the other XXXXX emplyees? (i'm letting you assume the entire FDNY, although pretty much everyone i talked to were among the first responders and cleanup people, including some people i know fairly well--that's a MUCH smaller number than XXXXX).

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

wish i could remember where saint jay posted the weakiepedia cartoon :cry:

[Loburt]

The only thing the Bush Administration censored in the 9-11 Commission Report was 23 pages dealing with the role or your employers:

the Saudis.

I notice you're not asking questions about that.

[eagle]

The only thing the Bush Administration censored in the 9-11 Commission Report was 23 pages dealing with the role or your employers:

the Saudis.

I notice you're not asking questions about that.

shhhhhh sadam sadam sadam sadam sleep sleep sleep

[frankenburner2]

zeusbheld wins in the final round by tap out! (he also wins the award for super-quote-box-user of the year) wave to the little people!

[i_love_som_tam]

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.

What feeble answers and from whom have you gotten them from? If you could be more specific then maybe someone can steer you in the right direction.

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.

The Bush Adminsitration did not present the facts discovered by the 9/11 Commission. The bi-partisan group published and presented the facts after years of investigations and inquiries. Take the time to read the report. It's been suggested twice.

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.

Where did you read this? Can you cite the source? If the "security people" were confiscating and destroying footage then why is there so much of it published in books and film?

The only issues I have heard about footage are the lawsuits that have arisen by employers against their empolyees who were taking pix on company or city time and then having those pictures published in books. Everybody wants a piece of the pie.

One thing I don't think you realize is that the WTC site, for months after the destruction, was on gigantic crime scene. Any trespassers on tat crime scene could have been arrested. The media and public are not allowed to just waltz into a crime scene and start taking pictures without approval from the person in charge of that location.

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.

Take a course in physics and metallurgy. Maybe you will understand what speed (200+ miles per hour), weight (395,000 pounds maximum take off weight), impact and intense heat (1,341 F) will do to metal. Puhleeze. :roll:

USGS link regarding the temperature in the WTC based on thermal imaging:

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/thermal.r09.html

The Bush administration and all those in support of it have given us nothing but hypotheses and conjecture about exactly what happened.

As I recall, there were many extremely anti-Bush administration law makers were on the 9/11 Committee. The report is all based on fact after an exhaustive investigation.

FACT: 19 terrorists hijacked 4 jet airliners. Two were flown into the World Trade Center. One was flown into the Pentagon. One ended up in the woods in Pennsylvania.

FACT: 3,000 people of all faiths, races and nationalites were killed in these terrorist acts.

Are you confused about this?

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.

Have you made inquiries into the existence of an evidence storage facility?

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.

Why would the Supreme Court get involved? You don't consider the law makers that prepared the report a judiciary committee? The hear testimony as does the Supreme Court, they make rulings, as does the Supreme Court, they have the powers of to issue contempt citations and subpoenas, as does the Supreme Court.

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.

Actually they were not appointed by Bush. Study up on the American politics. The Congress and The Senate appoint who is on what committee in these matters, not the President. :roll:

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.

For one being so inquisitive you sure are a tad bit lazy to do the research yourself. Seek and ye shall find.

[Loburt]

FACT: 19 terrorists hijacked 4 jet airliners. Two were flown into the World Trade Center. One was flown into the Pentagon. One ended up in the woods in Pennsylvania.

You forgot to mention that most of them were from Saudi Arabia, as was Osama bin Laden, originally, and where Angel_Master is teaching now.

FACT: 3,000 people of all faiths, races and nationalites were killed in these terrorist acts.

Ah, but despite this fact, in Saudi Arabia they like to say 4,000 Jews did not show up for work in the Twin Towers on 9-11, and that the Israelis were actually involved in the attacks.

Do you agree with the Saudis about that, Angel_Master?

[Loburt]

I want to see the 9-11 Commission Report brought before the Supreme Court...

You mean the same Supreme Court that handed Bush the 2000 election?

The Supreme Court decides on constitutional issues. What constitutional issue is in contention here?

The truth and accuracy of a report is not in and of itself a constitutional issue.

Once again, for someone who poses as some sort of inquiring philosopher, you reveal a stunning lack of basic knowledge about the US, its system of government and its laws. You make statements that are out of touch with reality.

[zeusbheld]

zeusbheld wins in the final round by tap out! (he also wins the award for super-quote-box-user of the year) wave to the little people!

dont make me use a double-nested-backhand-name-parody quote box on you, hussy.

[Angel_Master]

Well, I see a lot of accusations of laziness by people who are not giving nearly the references that I did, a lot of supposition about what I haven't read, and a challenge to personally dissect the 9-11 Commission Report. I don't see that I have lost any argument here. I see one individual trying to use time to bully without investing any real effort himself. No further response warranted on that one. Anyone taking the time to read even half of the articles in the links I have posted along with my comments will see that it makes sense and that I have read a great deal. That doesn't mean you will believe it. It does come down to who you choose to believe is more credible.

In that the US government clearly had so much to gain from this and has also clearly taken advantage of this a great deal they are suspect. And they are suspect until all the evidence is examined and witnesses interrogated to the satisfaction of the majority. Polished television broadcasts that present a great deal of rhetoric and bluster and statements that can only be taken at face value by the vast majority of listeners don?t mean a thing, although some people are probably swayed by that. I feel a responsibility to counter.

No I don?t feel insulted by the responses on these forums. I accept that you?re doing the best you can. I was referring to the Popular Mechanics article and similar. They, like Bush, expect readers to bow before their ?great respectable authority? and just swallow whatever they say without much thought. It isn?t going to be that easy. I will be interested to read the book when it comes out. I hope to read about independent tests and studies that have been done in an attempt to openly find out if things could have in fact happened the way they have claimed it did. It is disappointing that they do not appear to have approached the issue with an open mind prepared to investigate, as any respectable scientist preparing to give an opinion would. Rather they appear to have approached the issue with their minds made up ready to argue rather than investigate. I expect much more from a ?respectable authority?.

[zeusbheld]

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.

For one being so inquisitive you sure are a tad bit lazy to do the research yourself. Seek and ye shall find.

"tad bit"?

not being able to find a thread in the TF politics forum (there arent that many threads) not skimming the thread when it was presented on a platter, not clicking the links, and not bothering to google the number of firefighters in new york (i timed it it took 1 minute 35 seconds to find a number) not even reading the summary of the 9/11 committee report, or the popular mechanics article which purports to dismiss as "mere hypotheses" (hypotheses are at least testable claims, one up on his game) qualifies as a 'tad bit' then bill gates is only a 'tad' wealthy.

[frankenburner2]

zeusbheld wins in the final round by tap out! (he also wins the award for super-quote-box-user of the year) wave to the little people!

dont make me use a double-nested-backhand-name-parody quote box on you, hussy.

i'm not really sure what that means.....but i am afraid nevertheless...

[Angel_Master]

FACT: 19 terrorists hijacked 4 jet airliners. Two were flown into the World Trade Center. One was flown into the Pentagon. One ended up in the woods in Pennsylvania.

You forgot to mention that most of them were from Saudi Arabia, as was Osama bin Laden, originally, and where Angel_Master is teaching now.

FACT: 3,000 people of all faiths, races and nationalites were killed in these terrorist acts.

Ah, but despite this fact, in Saudi Arabia they like to say 4,000 Jews did not show up for work in the Twin Towers on 9-11, and that the Israelis were actually involved in the attacks.

Do you agree with the Saudis about that, Angel_Master?

No, I don't believe that Jews were warned or that Israelis were involved. I have never heard any Saudi make that claim nor have I ever read that or anything even remotely similar in any news paper here. I do read a couple of local English language papers here every week. I have never read anything in them about 9-11, only some passing references to dealing with individuals with possible Al-Qaeda links. Most of the news focuses on local social issues affecting everyday people. Look if you think that my being in Saudi Arabia has something to do with my opinions you are way off base. I have yet to meet any Saudi who questions the official US government position on this. But many of them are interested to talk about politics and social issues, which they do quite openly I might add. So the issues do come up.

While some do think the Americans had it coming and show some pride in the idea that some Saudis were actually able to hurt the Americans, most are clearly very much against what happened and any other kind of violence. They do often bring up the fact that it is difficult for Saudis now to study in the US because of the racism and bigotry they are subjected to there, [they don't come right out and say this, but they get the point across similar to the way a Thai might do so] and most seem to be opting to study elsewhere.

[Angel_Master]

USGS link regarding the temperature in the WTC based on thermal imaging:

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/thermal.r09.html

And what was this supposed to prove?

[i_love_som_tam]

USGS link regarding the temperature in the WTC based on thermal imaging:

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/thermal.r09.html

And what was this supposed to prove?

did u bother reading it? did u bother reading the post? just showing you how i knew what the temp was in the WTC after the terrorists flew the planes into it. you know... backing up my statements with factual data.

[zeusbheld]

Well, I see a lot of accusations of laziness by people who are not giving nearly the references that I did

you posted a few random links, i've probably posted as many links on this thread and a lot more on the other thread which you ignore completely. so yeah i've given more references than you, if that is *your* criteriion, you are lazy in comparsion.

regardless of how many links you post you apparently haven't done enough research to ask a specific question. that is lazy.

you sit back and say "aha, it's all hypotheses" yet you dont even say what it is your'e refuting, let alone back it up with facts, that is LAZY.

a lot of supposition about what I haven't read,

if you've read it all you don't seem to know what it says, in which case i challenge your ability to comprehend what you read. or your honesty.

and a challenge to personally dissect the 9-11 Commission Report.

because you claim it is bullshit yet everything you say seems to indicate that you dont even know what it says. i doubt you have even read the summary. if not, then how do you know it's bullshit?

I don't see that I have lost any argument here. I see one individual trying to use time to bully without investing any real effort himself.

that would be you; you pose your psuedo-neutral questions and cannot even be bothered to look up where the same ****'s been gone over a thousand times.

why don't you say something specific, and look and see if it has been mentioned before somehwere, then respond to the specifics instead of being vague? it would be a shocking change of pace for you.

No further response warranted on that one. Anyone taking the time to read even half of the articles in the links I have posted along with my comments will see that it makes sense and that I have read a great deal. That doesn't mean you will believe it. It does come down to who you choose to believe is more credible.

In that the US government clearly had so much to gain from this and has also clearly taken advantage of this a great deal they are suspect.

well that proves that you havent read anything i've posted in this thread let alone the other one. i do recall posting a link verifying exactly that in response to 7_11. dimsum.

are you dishonest or just lazy?

And they are suspect until all the evidence is examined and witnesses interrogated to the satisfaction of the majority. Polished television broadcasts that present a great deal of rhetoric and bluster and statements that can only be taken at face value by the vast majority of listeners don?t mean a thing, although some people are probably swayed by that. I feel a responsibility to counter.

ok so far i dont think anyone but you has cited 'polished television broadcasts' and you have absolutely and pointedly refused to follow up on links to more in-depth or technical articles. maybe you arent lazy. maybe you really are dishonest.

No I don?t feel insulted by the responses on these forums. I accept that you?re doing the best you can. I was referring to the Popular Mechanics article and similar.

yet you were completely unable to mention ANYTHING the article actually says, let alone refute any of it? no i dont think you're blatantly dishonest and manipulative on these forums, i accept that you're doing the best you can. :lol"

They, like Bush, expect readers to bow before their ?great respectable authority? and just swallow whatever they say without much thought.

you have to include yourself in that number then. not only have you not said anything specific (except that i am morally culpable for not having made a documentary about the cleanup) you have not adressed anything specific that was said in ANY of the articles or even the posts on this thread!

It isn?t going to be that easy. I will be interested to read the book when it comes out. I hope to read about independent tests and studies that have been done in an attempt to openly find out if things could have in fact happened the way they have claimed it did. It is disappointing that they do not appear to have approached the issue with an open mind prepared to investigate, as any respectable scientist preparing to give an opinion would. Rather they appear to have approached the issue with their minds made up ready to argue rather than investigate. I expect much more from a ?respectable authority?.

it is disapponting that you do not appear to have approached the issue with an open mind prepared to investigate, and apparently cannot even be bothered to say who "they" are. if "they" are the popular mechanics article or the 9/11 report, why haven't you addressed a single point raised in either? not one? what are you hiding?

so far you have yet to address a single point in this or the other thread. so far you have yet to say anything that isn't vague.

still waiting.

[zeusbheld]

short version:

dear angel master: can you please, just once, say something specific instead of making vague allegations?

for example, i'd like to see you support your claim that all the many tons of rubble were swiftly removed and destroyed from the world trade center site.

looking forward to details, links, etc. don't worry, i promise not to hold my breath...

[frankenburner2]

short version:

05 Sep 2006 11:23 pm noted.

[i_love_som_tam]

Why why why does anyone even bother to debate Angel_Master? He is obviously a conspiracy theorist who probably believes the US government killed John F. Kennedy, Elvis is alive and there is a secret US/Alien base on the dark side of the moon.

I was in agreement with you until you brought up Elvis. And everyone knows that the secret US/Alien base is at Area 51 :wink:

My source for this is:

www.xfiles.com

[Loburt]

No, I don't believe that Jews were warned or that Israelis were involved. I have never heard any Saudi make that claim nor have I ever read that or anything even remotely similar in any news paper here. I do read a couple of local English language papers here every week. I have never read anything in them about 9-11, only some passing references to dealing with individuals with possible Al-Qaeda links. Most of the news focuses on local social issues affecting everyday people. Look if you think that my being in Saudi Arabia has something to do with my opinions you are way off base. I have yet to meet any Saudi who questions the official US government position on this. But many of them are interested to talk about politics and social issues, which they do quite openly I might add. So the issues do come up.

As we are now five years after the fact, I doubt the papers where you are are full of news about 9-11.

But the claims by Saudi and Arab media that the Jews were warned and Israel perpetrated the attacks has been widely documented. Check the Anti-Defamation League website. Don't like them? Take the time to send an email to Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch Asia and ask them about it, if you don't believe it.

Glad to hear that at least in this instance you're not falling for the lies.

[Angel_Master]

short version:

dear angel master: can you please, just once, say something specific instead of making vague allegations?

for example, i'd like to see you support your claim that all the many tons of rubble were swiftly removed and destroyed from the world trade center site.

looking forward to details, links, etc. don't worry, i promise not to hold my breath...

Okay, well you sit back and do nothing but cross your arms complacently and agree with the official story, confident that because you totally agree with the official story and believe the Bush administration to be blameless in the matter that you have nothing to prove or research in that matter.

I wish to avoid speculating about what happened exactly. I don't know. I have seen some convincing arguments, but nothing conclusive on many points. I don't doubt that the planes that they say where involved where in fact involved in all four cases. I see no reason for them not to be involved, or evidence that is in anyway conclusive that they were not involved. The only point I really question regarding the official story of what physically happened is the collapse of the towers. I find it very difficult to believe that they where not brought down by explosives. As for the charge that the rubble was quickly removed and there being none left to conclusively disprove the theory that explosives where used, I hope I am wrong. But so far I have no reason to believe that this is a false claim. See the link below.

I also intend to post information, time and energy permitting, here right in front of you that shows massive probability of collaboration and a cover up. I understand it is really too much to expect you to click the links I have posted and read everything to find the most significant points. But it is all there in the links I have post and those I will post. Discredit as you like but please do be specific yourself and try to stay on topic.

Discrediting really doesn't get any weaker than just calling someone a neo-Nasi or anti-Semite and leaving it at that like the person couldn't possibly have anything meaningful to say and is probably entirely dishonest and without integrity. How blind and narrow minded can you be? Everyone can have some mistaken opinions at times on some points while being quite accurate on other points.

And no one should be immune to having others question their motives and ethics for any reason no mater who they are. If those questioned are blameless it will come out. Let the truth speak for it's self.

Anyway I don't think you will be able to make those claims about the links below.

I don't need to dissect the 9-11 Commission Report, others already have.

Also note that bipartisan does not mean independent. There is every reason to believe that some Democrats had as much to gain from this as some Republicans did.

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

I post the link above primarily for the external links and because it provides a useful overview. Below is one of those links.

http://www.harpers.org/WhitewashAsPublicService.html

Here you will also find the documentation of the destruction of evidence that I was talking about.

http://911research.wtc7.net/post911/commission/report.html

[Angel_Master]

For all the video evidence I've seen claiming that 9/11 is a conspiracy and all the convincing evidence they supply - this one reason alone is enough to convince me otherwise (I have seen/read both sides ofthe story extensively). You may shut one person up...maybe even 100 - but there is no way you can control the greed and conscience of the sheer number of people it would have taken working in sync to rig a conspiracy of his magnitude. Someone would have confessed - it's human nature to not be able to keep secrets.

Plus for every person who says it wasn't real, there are almost 20(by no means even close to an accurate ratio which I suspect, is much higher) who say it was - mass brainwashing? No doubt some of America's motives for doing things are questionable - but I really find it very hard to believe that people could rig a catastrophe like this and get away with it.

This is a very significant point regarding rigging the buildings with explosives. I have not seen any direct evidence presented that this was done. Only claims of how it could have been done. But I think it would have taken a considerable amount of man power to pull this off and anyone involved in doing so could not have failed to be quite clear about what was being done, at least after the fact. And not one report of anyone coming forward on this point. I am not sure about how many people and how much time would have been needed to rig the building for explosives. It does seem that some demolitions experts considered it to have been possible.

As for the rest of the issues I think probably very few people knew any more than little bits and pieces, not nearly enough for any major expose.

As for professionals like structural engineers, I think they have a lot to loose for something they can't be sure about. They could easily be nearly shut out of their industries for expressing such views.

I think it is also conceivable that there are a significant number of people who would support and carry out such actions if they fervently believe it was for the greater good, after all the hijackers did. In this case they would not be alone in there actions so would not feel isolated and a pressure to beak down and come out. They could have the necessary support group to keep in under wraps. After all we are probably talking about people in secret intelligence.

So, yes, I think that it is possible. If a new inquiry is done and there is no evidence found to support that idea that explosives were used then I will not continue to hold this view.

Interesting mention by Loburt of a video documentary featuring the chief architect of the buildings. I would like to see that. I recall seeing years ago, a couple of years before it happened as I recall, a video on Discovery Channel about sky scraper construction that did include a bit about the 2 World Trade Centre towers and architect who designed and built them. I recall that they where revolutionary in their design and hailed by experts as one the best and strongest designs ever used.

[Angel_Master]

Why why why does anyone even bother to debate Angel_Master? He is obviously a conspiracy theorist who probably believes the US government killed John F. Kennedy, Elvis is alive and there is a secret US/Alien base on the dark side of the moon.

We all saw the second plane crash into the WTC on 09/11; it was on the news, filmed from many different angles by those who had responded to the first strike.

Conspiracy theorists claim explosives were placed in the basements of the towers and this is what actually brought them down. First of all, if they knew anything about demolitions they would know, you must drill holes in the concrete support columns and place the explosives inside. Furthermore, you would need miles of wire to connect all of the explosives, how would you hide the wire? Lastly, if you watch the collapse of both buildings, it starts at the top near the point of impact; the steel beams weakened by intense fire simply gave way to the weight of 20 plus stories above them. You can see the top 20 plus stories impacting one floor after another and pulverizing everything on those floors as it raced to the bottom.

Why is this so hard to comprehend? Why is such a simple thing so hard to believe? Are we to believe the US government trained these hijackers? The CIA bankrolled these terrorists so the President could attack Afghanistan and Iraq?

Did you not see Osama taking credit for these attacks immediately following there execution?

If you find it that difficult to comprehend such obvious factual evidence then maybe you should just find your way back to that yellow brick road and return to Oz. President Bush has made mistakes, as any human being will do, but I would rather have a President who takes action than one who runs and hides like say, Clinton? He turned tail and ran from Somalia of all places.

Yes, there were deficiencies in US security measures prior to 09/11 and many of them still exist today. That is the price we pay for an open and free society and we will gladly pay that price again to remain open and free.

I am proud to live in a nation where my daughter is entitled to the same education and career choices as my son. Where she can become anything she desires so long as she puts forth the effort to accomplish her goals. Rather than being wife number six in some backwards barbaric culture, which denies women even the most basic of human rights because the men are too weak to accept responsibility for their own actions. "I saw that woman?s skin and I wanted to rape her, she allowed sinful thoughts to creep into my mind, now she must die! Stone her!!

Is that the type of world you would rather live in? If so, Saudi Arabia may be a perfect fit for you, best of luck!

I guess it?s true: common sense really isn?t all that common.

Wow, this is clearly so far off base it hardly deserves a response.

Osama did not take credit for the attacks until long afterwards. Initial he denied any responsibility for the attacks. I was much later that he seems to have admitted responsibility. Furthermore, I don't question that he and Al-Qaeda members were involved.

Women are never stoned in Saudi Arabia for any reason whatsoever. Few men have more than on wife, if they do they must take care of each equally. i.e. equal house, car, and so on for each, a maximum of 4 wives is allowed. If women go out on the street without the required Islamic "abiyah" and head covering they are likely to be taken to jail for a day and then sent home with a scolding. And this is only true in Riyadh. In Dammam and Jeddah women are not usually even bothered if they don't cover up.

I was interested to read in the paper today about a woman who poured boiling water on her husband when we was lying down flirting with another woman on the phone. She had 5 children by him and he had repeatedly been unfaithful to her and constantly flirted with other women on the phone. So she had bugged the phone and taped his conversations. When he angrily dragged her off to the police station for assaulting him, the police arrested him and charged him with infidelity, but let her go.

You did have an interesting point about demolition charges. Actually the demolition charges would have had to have been planted throughout the buildings from top to bottom to explain the collapse starting right at the roof the way they did. (Note that they did not start at the impact zone.) Yes this would have required miles of wiring. Presumable there where service corridors throughout the buildings with very limited access where such wiring would have been run. I think it is possible that explosives planted inside the hollow steal columns and wires could easily have been made quit inconspicuous, especially with what ever else was probably in the same corridors. Anyway, I'm sure there are others who are in a much better position to either explain or refute this point than I am.

[eagle]

Why why why does anyone even bother to debate Angel_Master? He is obviously a conspiracy theorist who probably believes the US government killed John F. Kennedy, Elvis is alive and there is a secret US/Alien base on the dark side of the moon.

I was in agreement with you until you brought up Elvis. And everyone knows that the secret US/Alien base is at Area 51 :wink:

My source for this is:

www.xfiles.com

I just had lunch with Elvis :roll: you non believers

[mr_satori]

NOT BEING FUNNY GUYS BUT YOU DONT NEED WIRES TO DETONATE EXPLOSIVES ,,WHAT PLANET YOU BEEN LIVING ON,,,,,AND JUST AS A MATTER OF INTEREST,,,WHO DIDNT SEE THE PLANES HIT???'''IF YOU DID SEE THEM ,,COZ I FUKIN DID,,,IT MADE A BIG FUKIN MESSS,,,AND NONE OF THAT WAS FAKE,,,

edited - 2u