9/11 Panel Suspected Deception by Pentagon

[Ike90]

If the Saudi's are past peak, then everyone else is too. EXCEPT Iraq, Iran, and the Caspian Sea region,

That statement alone belies the accuracy of everything else you've posted. You simply don't know the subject ... at all.

 

[Wurm]

Just for the record:

I presume your nick was chosen because it's closely resembles your classic 98 pound weakling structure.

I picked this username because I happen to like the tune by Yes of the same name. My structure is about 92 lbs. heavier than your presumption.

"I presume you have posted 1535 times because you have no real friends."

So I must have about 3x fewer real friends than you do?

"I presume your location is "secure and undisclosed" because you like to sound faux cool."

Nope. I'm using the same phrase as ****-less Cheney, every time his presence was required when the country was "under attack by turrrurists", or during other national security matters. Kind of a satire, but I wouldn't expect your small mind to get it.

sat·ire ( P ) Pronunciation Key (s

t

r

)
n.

2. Irony, sarcasm, or caustic wit used to attack or expose folly, vice, or stupidity


"I presume you gobble up the conspiracy theory candy floss because it makes you feel superior - after all you are the only one that knows "THE TRUTH"."

There are millions of people around the world that have a pretty good inkling of what the Bu$hCo's have been up to. Unfortunately, you've simply refused to notice.

"The only part that really bothers me is that your wild paranoia will be imprinted on your daughter...."

Is that really a "concern" of yours, or yet more of you & your colleague's such as wolfux' desperate attempts at insult? I guess I'm the only one on this forum that has kids, (or admits to having them) because I've never seen any attacks involving other's children here.

Pretty disgusting and weak, Eldron. Surely you can do better?

"...why then is it so hard for you to believe George Bush when he says terrorists are to blame for 9/11?"

Der Chimpenfuhrer has been shown to be a liar many times over on several different subjects. To use his words: "...fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again."


Now that I've responded to your presumptions - tell us, what WAS your stand on apartheid? (THIS oughta be good... )

 

[Wurm]

That statement alone belies the accuracy of everything else you've posted. You simply don't know the subject ... at all.

Really? That remark proves nothing, but is a clever attempt by you to avoid responding to the relevant issues I raised above.

 

[Ike90]

Really? That remark proves nothing, but is a clever attempt by you to avoid responding to the relevant issues I raised above.

Actually, it's not even very clever, and I agree, it proves as much as most of your posts, namely nothing.

If I didn't know better, I'd suggest that your goal in this whole conspiracy theory business is simply to make drilling in the ANWR more palpable to people who see oil addiction as an eminently curable problem ... as many cyclists like me do.

Speaking of responding to relevant issues, why no retort to my suggestion that planting and then "discovering" WMDs in the Iraqi desert would have been far easier to pull off than secretly coordinating and executing the 9/11 attacks? Is that just too obvious to warrant arguing?

 

[Wurm]

Actually, it's not even very clever, and I agree, it proves as much as most of your posts, namely nothing.

The problem here, as is usual for Repig-supporters, is that you have no reasonable defense for your heroes' heinous and despicable crimes, which amounts to a tacit admission of their guilt...so you resort to attacking the messenger, and/or distracting the discussion.

Neither ploy will work here with me Ike, or haven't you learned that yet?

...why no retort to my suggestion that planting and then "discovering" WMDs in the Iraqi desert would have been far easier to pull off than secretly coordinating and executing the 9/11 attacks? Is that just too obvious to warrant arguing?

What is obvious with this ridiculous canard is that there were weapons inspectors in Iraq which pretty much trumped any attempt by Bu$hCo to plant WMD's there before the invasion; planting WMD's in lieu of committing the murders of 9-11 would have been quite difficult to do with Saddam in power as well. Et al.

After the invasion, of course Bu$hCo had what it wanted - occupation of the country - so whether they found WMD's or not would have been moot at that point. As we all know, since none have been found in any case, that fact has not caused a withdrawal of troops nor a cessation of the US violence on the Iraqi people.

 

[Ike90]

The problem here, as is usual for Repig-supporters, is that you have no reasonable defense for your heroes' heinous and despicable crimes

Once again, you totally miss the mark, but hey, don't let reason stand in your way.

I am in no way a Bush supporter; quite the opposite, it's just that what you quantify as "heinous crime" is nothing but pure fantasy.

You really should put your efforts into something productive, rather than clinging to overwrought BS insinuation.

If you don't think the failure of the Bush administration's "they have WMDs" garbage isn't going to hurt the G.O.P, and badly, you're pathetically mistaken. Look at yourself, you're hanging your frickin' hat on Jeb! That makes you more of a Gomer than he is.

 

[davidmc]

just "chiming in"

 

[Eldron]

[/i]Now that I've responded to your presumptions - tell us, what WAS your stand on apartheid? (THIS oughta be good... )

My stance on apartheid is much like your "we killed indians years ago and I had nothing to do with it" stance. Apartheid was instituted decades before I was born and ended when I was still a teenager...

Do I agree with it? No.

I was barely 18 when a referendum was held in SA asking if we (the whites) wanted democratic elections. I voted yes for what is was worth. The result of the referendum was an overwhelming yes which pretty much proves that whites in this country wanted apartheid to end.

I still find it ironic that most of the world poo poos apartheid when they (the US, AUS etc) wiped out the indigenous population to make themselves the majority. People in glass houses and such....

Anyway - I'm in too much of a good mood to get bogged down by politics (again!). So carry on - have a blast - swallow the conspiracy theory rubbish - I'll swallow my common sense rubbish.

86kg eh - you fat *******! Now we know who et all the pies...

 

[Wurm]

I was barely 18 when a referendum was held in SA asking if we (the whites) wanted democratic elections. I voted yes for what is was worth. The result of the referendum was an overwhelming yes which pretty much proves that whites in this country wanted apartheid to end.

Well, at least you got off yerass and posted a reply. Whether it's true or not is another thing...

I still find it ironic that most of the world poo poos apartheid when they (the US, AUS etc) wiped out the indigenous population to make themselves the majority. People in glass houses and such....

So do I. But why are you harping this at me? I had nothing to do with it, nor have I ever supported the mindset.

86kg eh - you fat *******! Now we know who et all the pies...

I like pies. I like green eggs n' ham too. But I can still beat yerass on any ride you'd like to try with me.

 

[Wurm]

Once again, you totally miss the mark, but hey, don't let reason stand in your way.

...it's just that what you quantify as "heinous crime" is nothing but pure fantasy.

Really? That's not what the judge just said about Bu$hCo's illegal domestic spying.

I wouldn't talk about "reason" if I were you, since you've shown here that you have no ability to use it. Proof gets presented...you deny it without countervailing evidence, but only with invective. You continue to skirt the issues just like any "in no way a Bush supporter" does.

Get a grip Ike, and if/when you can come back and have a sensible, logical debate - I'll talk with ya.

 

[Ike90]

Proof gets presented

Speaking of invective....

Your so-called "proof" consists of things like "puffs of smoke" providing "evidence" of demolition charges?

You know, if you're "theory" weren't so ghastly and sinister, it would almost be preferable to the reality of 9/11.

At least in your world, it was a malevolent American scheme that duped us all; we didn't simply get caught with our proverbial pants around our ankles by a handful of fanatics who had nothing more than a few flying lessons and some box cutters.

Who doesn't have a grip?

 

[Wurm]

Anything to deny the visible evidence, eh Ike??

Let me ask you for the record: exactly what type of evidence/proof would you need to be satisfied that the gov'ts version of events is not true - short of a high-ranking member of Bu$hCo standing up and revealing that he/she had a part in the planning & execution of 9-11??

As far as I can tell, there is extant nearly every kind of evidence that would be accepted in a court of law in the US: eyewitness tesimony/accounts, scientific/expert, video, audio, various circumstantial, and proof of deleted, hidden, or confiscated evidence that has not been allowed to come forth.

Please explain why you cannot accept the mountain of data that shows 9-11 was an inside job.

 

[Ike90]

The omission of the fact that fire has never, before or after 9/11, caused steel-frame buildings to collapse.

6. The omission of the fact that the fires in the Twin Towers were not very big, very hot, or very long-lasting compared with fires in several steel-frame buildings that did not collapse.

The claim that the core of each of the Twin Towers was "a hollow steel shaft" — a claim that denied the existence of the 47 massive steel columns that in reality constituted the core of each tower and that, given the "pancake theory" of the collapses, should have still been sticking up many hundreds of feet in the air.

Okay, here are a few of your "facts" which by their very wording clearly aren't fact at all (other than supposedly documenting an omission), and they attempt to draw a comparison between buildings of an entirely different design.

Once again, the towers were not a steel frame "box-on-box" design, and there are literally no other structures quite like them from which to draw any comparisons.

The "hollow steel shafts" were in fact each comprised of the 47 vertical beams, but again, the physics of the collapse can only be speculated, just like the temperatures of the fires. We simply don't know, and saying "it shouldn't have happened like that" isn't factual. We do know that simply measuring the effect of burning jet fuel on steel isn't enough. There was an inconceivable amount of cumbustible material in those towers, and physical forces were at work which we can only partially comprehend. That doesn't add up to demolition charges.

If you've looked at the video, it's fairly obvious that the south tower was struck by an aircraft moving considerably faster than the one that struck the north tower. The plane that struck the south tower was also more steeply banked, and therefore its impact affected more floors. Those two factors alone could have resulted in the south tower collapsing first.

In truth, there's a lot we don't know, but unanswered questions don't validate conspiracy theories.

One last thing: How is it that you can credit UN weapons inspectors with "trumping" Bush? Are they somehow immune from your conspiracy theories? And if George had "found" WMDs, do you think his approval rating would be in the tank as it is now? I guarantee ou that it wouldn't.

You brush off all of the terribly negative beatings the GOP is presently taking, at almost every political level, as though those losses won't matter at all, (and believe me, they will matter at the polls) while simultaneously accusing them of a heinous plot that, if true, has completely failed anyway.

It's senseless; I'm done with ya.

 

[Wurm]

The "hollow steel shafts" were in fact each comprised of the 47 vertical beams, but again, the physics of the collapse can only be speculated, just like the temperatures of the fires.

"Speculated"? How much speculation is required to know the actual temperature of burning jet fuel?

"There was an inconceivable amount of cumbustible material in those towers, and physical forces were at work which we can only partially comprehend."

That is speculation. While there may have been an "inconceivable amount of cumbustible material in those towers", the fact is very little of it actually combusted. Certainly not enough (and not hot enough) to "melt" the steel structures to the point of nearly perfect pancake collapse.

"That doesn't add up to demolition charges."

Maybe you should investigate for yourself the many eyewitness accounts of people who were in the buildings before they fell, including police and fire officials. You may be surprised at what they heard and saw.

"If you've looked at the video, it's fairly obvious that the south tower was struck by an aircraft moving considerably faster than the one that struck the north tower. The plane that struck the south tower was also more steeply banked, and therefore its impact affected more floors. Those two factors alone could have resulted in the south tower collapsing first."

In truth, that is a ridiculous assertion, but is indicative of how desperate you are to explain your belief in the gov'ts version of events.

"One last thing: How is it that you can credit UN weapons inspectors with "trumping" Bush?"

I thought that was pretty self-explanatory. In other words:

1. There had never been any WMD's found, nor delivery systems to use them prior to Bu$hCo's invasion.
2. Iraq was bottled up by the N. & S. No-Fly Zones.
3. Iraq's military was very weak.
4. Economic sanctions had been applied for years, which created a poor infrastructure.

Thus, Iraq was not a threat and Bu$hCo had no legitimate reason to invade. Period.

"You brush off all of the terribly negative beatings the GOP is presently taking, at almost every political level, as though those losses won't matter at all, (and believe me, they will matter at the polls)..."

That's assuming fair elections and accurate vote counts will take place. The past 3 elections, ('04, '02. and '00) were anything but.

"...while simultaneously accusing them of a heinous plot that, if true, has completely failed anyway."

As for getting the invasion of the sovereign nations of A'stan and Iraq that the Neo Cons have wanted for years, their plots have succeeded well for them. Not to mention the Constitution-crushing "Patriot" Act, enormous & unprecedented tax breaks for the wealthy, corporate welfare, and $8 Billion/month going to the military/industrial complex.