Fascinating stats btw- but just cuz 99.9% of Americans believe 2 + 2 = 5, does that mean you should change your reality and operate according to the assumption that it = 4?
Why not? You’ve touted the “42%“ banner as reason to doubt the official story after all. Alternatively it could be that a mere 0.1% of Americans have broken free of the government’s Matrix-like control and discovered the true value of 2 + 2…
6!
Your 42% is as meaningless as 45% of Americans believing a laser works by sound, it doesn’t change the fact that it doesn’t. That 42% of Americans doubt the official report might just mean that 42% or Americans are wrong. Hell, 90% of Americans might be wrong, there just might not be a God after all you know! There’re even several $1million prizes for proving He exists that have never been claimed, proof positive surely?!
If we adopt a slightly mocking tone on this board (me particularly), it’s because we genuinely feel that people who use lots of different emphases and bold assertions then resort to claiming everyone’s ignoring their evidence, etc. are genuinely funny. Sort of like a Laurel and Hardy attempt at a Socratic dialogue.
come on over, you’ll fit in just fine
Yeah, in an orange jumpsuit maybe!
This is America; if we invented a machine that could do this and you heard the tapes certified by the CIA and saw the transcripts signed by GW and DC- hell, if they even took you to Area 51 and you met the ghosts yourself- would you believe it?
Well no, as Area 51 is in America, which as I’ve already pointed out is just a big film set hidden in Eastern Europe somewhere. They do it with mirrors you know!
I see that you’ve become convinced that 9/11 is an inside job! I know so cuz I say so, and so do 110% of snaciremA, according to the latest polls. But just try to get any cashier to give you change according to your 6 calculation- it’s a conspiracy, I tell you!
The said America voted to elect Bush and he’s the “President”, but do you think the 2004 election was stolen? What does it take to get justice? The future will be history eventually.
Are people here ignoring my “evidence” and links? Anyway, whether or not if I found out that what I post got anyone to ask reasonable questions about 9/11, this thread is now part of the historical record. You respondents are very amusing, and a lot more civil than the babies at Daily Kos, calling names and banning people.
logic fan—your excuses for the WTC 7 collapse suggest that you are no logic fan—the building did not sustain much damage at all, in fact only on one corner—if this damage caused the collapse, the building would’ve fallen toward the damage—not straight down—and of course you know that there was another building between WTC 7 and the towers—that building did not fall
I take it you are not curious about why 42% of Americans suspect a coverup-
You’re right, I don’t care why about 500 of the people who were polled (not 42% of Americans) think that there may have been a cover-up. What those 500 people think doesn’t have any influence on reality. If they think that the Moon is really made out of cheese, does that mean that we should all believe them?
it seems you enjoy trying to discount the reasons for skepticism of the official account, and the need for real answers.
I just want real reasons for skepticism of the official account. I have yet to see any. You have yet to bring up one single bit of supportable evidence showing any sign of a vast government conspiracy.
You are trying too hard to find ways to continue accepting the official story.
No, I’m very easily noting all the flaws in the nonofficial stories, such as the baseless assumptions, the irrelevant details, the circumstantial evidence, and the outright errors and distortions and omissions.
False-flag terror is nothing new to the CIA, FBI, DoD and the elite class that controls the media and both parties.
If “they” control the media, then where is all your information coming from?
Of course they conspire to create wealth and power for themselves, just like any bank robber.
Or like any other person. That doesn’t mean that they (whomever “they” are) were responsible for the terrorist attacks.
Do you believe they lied us into war?
Sure, there were probably some lies. And there was plenty that wasn’t lies.
They lied about the air being safe to breathe after 9/11;
No, they didn’t lie. They had to give reports based on the information that they had, but the information that they had wasn’t complete. So they told what they knew. You can look at the report those claims were based on here (it’s the August 2003 reports). All the claims by conspiracy theorists that the government callously lied to New Yorkers about the safety of the air are supposedly based on that report, yet that report never says any such thing. There is a great difference between possibly being mistaken, and intentionally and maliciously plotting.
Kerry is a Skull and Bones member, frequent Bilderberg attendee- how come every president since Ford has had some connection to this group?
Eh?
How come 9/11 happened, when if they did nothing, the patsies wouldn’t have been able to get VISAs, and the jets would’ve been intercepted?
First, who are “they” and what are you saying about visas? And secondly, how would the jets have been intercepted?
David Schippers, one of the attorneys prosecuting Bilderberg Clinton’s impeachment, said FBI agents came to him months before 9/11 and told him the date, place, method of the attacks,
David Schippers says a lot of things. But how believeable is he?
He says that, at an unspecified time, unnamed FBI agents told him that there would “be an attack on lower Manhattan” (what about the Pentagon, though, or wherever the other plane was heading for?). If there was a big conspiracy, why would the FBI go to this guy and tell him all about it? And if they weren’t a part of the conspiracy, why didn’t they do anything themselves? Then a bit later in the interview where he said that, he says that a lot of the information didn’t actually come from the agents, and then goes off onto tangents instead of explaining where he supposedly got the information.
And why should we believe Schipper in particular? Nobody else backs up his claim, none of these FBI agents has said anything about this, after all. If all these agents all over the country were sending out memos and affadavits and letters clearly stating the specifics of the 9/11 attacks beforehand, there should be records of it. The agents themselves should have copies of them. But there’s no sign of this.
And his other claims don’t really hold up: his only actual specific claim that he makes is that there was a warning about 9/11 back in 1995 that said that airliners would be flown into the Capitol Building and the White House. First, that attack never happened. Secondly, if this was a warning that was sent out but ignored, where is the evidence of this warning? You’d think that a warning about a specific act of terrorism that everybody read and knew about would leave some trace. He also says that the Iraqi Republican Guard invaded Oklahoma City in 2001. He says that in 2001, terrorists were about to make a big attack in Oklahoma City and the West Coast (funny how nobody seems to have noticed the attack). He also says that the people behind the big government conspiracy had full knowledge of the attacks before they happened, but then says that those same people were caught by surprise by the attacks and were unprepared. He claims that he’s representing (in his lawyer capacity) the FBI agents who knew about the attack beforehand, but there’s no mention of that any other time. He makes lots of claims about people giving evidence, people making discoveries, people sending out documents. . .but never actually says who any of these people are.
And if you’re going believe his claims about government foreknowledge, then I suppose you believe his other claims that Iraq was directly linked with the terrorists and had thousands of operatives here in the US and had all sorts of biological and nuclear weapons, and so the US had full justification for invading Iraq?
Here are the links again documenting the other things you asked about:
Firemen- explosives and lack of fire
About the fires: They say that, an hour after the crashes, there were still fires (which goes against the claim that all the fires burned out within a few moments, so they couldn’t have weakened the building). They also mention structural damage, as well as the elevators being jammed. Here’s a plausible scenario: if the original fires weakened the rivets and bolts of the support beams, they wouldn’t have necessarily given way at once. They could very well have been weakened only a bit, and the weight and forces acting on them gradually stressed them even more until the buildings gave way (which might explain why the elevators jammed, now that I think on it).
As for explosives, nobody in those links mentioned them. They mentioned what they said looked or sounded like explosions, which is a good enough description of what happens when a building falls down. Nor are the accounts all consistent with each other.
Molten steel- scan this article- pictures, video, analysis
There is still no visual evidence of molten steel. Hot glowing solid steel, yes, but not molten liquefied steel. The fact that the author of that paper can’t tell the difference between hot glowing steel and molten steel does not bolster my faith in him, especially since the difference between the melting point of steel and the temperature at which it will glow like that is considerable (over a 1200°C difference).
There are a couple of verbal accounts referring to “molten steel”, but they are just verbal accounts. We don’t really know what they’re describing. And the one by Sarah Atlas wasn’t even a first-hand account by her, but rather her quoting somebody else (and how could that unknown somebody else see what was going on under all the rubble, anyway?).
There are a few pictures of molten metal, but it could very well be any sort of metal.
So there’s still no actual evidence for steel having been melted.
Okay, let’s look at this in relation to those “40 Questions” you were mentioning before:
“4) Wargames
a. US military and other authorities planned or actually rehearsed defensive response to all elements of the 9/11 scenario during the year prior to the attack - including multiple hijackings, suicide crashbombings, and a strike on the Pentagon.“
That’s the idea behind war games: to simulate potential problems. There are also probably war games simulating nuclear attack by Russia, war games involving naval battles with China, war games involving Canada invading. . .they have war games for everything. It doesn’t mean that they think such an event is going to happen, though. Nor have I actually seen any evidence of the war games listed above (hijackings, suicide crashes, and strikes on the Pentagon). But even if they did have such exercises, what did they consist of? Hijacking exercises can consist of a simulated attack on a terrorist-held airplane on a runway, and “a strike on the Pentagon” is about as vague as you can get. Who says that any exercises matched what happened on the 11th of September?
“b. The multiple military wargames planned long in advance and held on the morning of September 11th included scenarios of a domestic air crisis, a plane crashing into a government building, and a large-scale emergency in New York.“
The only claims I’ve seen about a simulated “domestic air crisis” are all based on a report that General Myers of the JCS said that there were in-the-air exercises of such a nature. Unfortunately, he never actually said any such thing. There were also several reports where people from NORAD or related agencies wondered at first whether the hijackings were part of an exercise, but those all show that they weren’t expecting such an exercise to be taking place.
The National Reconnaissance Office ran a simulated drill (meaning that there wasn’t actually anything really involved in it, such as real aircraft) about a small jet having mechanical failures upon takeoff from Dulles International Airport and crashing into the NRO’s building. It didn’t involve any other agencies. It was basically a fire drill.
The only reference I can find to an exercise of an “large-scale emergency” in New York is of a planned bio-warfare exercise planned to take place on a pier on the 12th. So not only is that the wrong day, but it’s not anything similar to what did happen on the 11th.
“If this was only an incredible series of coincidences, why did the official investigations avoid the issue?“
Because there is no “issue”.
“There is evidence that the wargames created confusion as to whether the unfolding events were “real world or exercise.“”
Not really. There’s evidence that a few people, while carrying out their assigned tasks, wondered if this was all part of a test. It didn’t create any confusion, it didn’t stop them from doing what they were doing. They all got on with their jobs.
“Did wargames serve as the cover for air defense sabotage, and/or the execution of an “inside job”?“
Flight intercepts were actually very, very rare over the US, and a very large percentage of attempted intercepts don’t succeed. Also, there were a grand total of four F-16s with which to make the intercepts, and they had to cover the entire north-eastern US. The US didn’t have (and really still doesn’t have) an effective plan for sudden intercepts over the US. That’s because there isn’t really a possible effective plan for such a thing.
Yes, warnings from 11 different countries about impending attacks and some mentioned planes as missiles, the FAA received 52, Pentagon planned/drilled for planes as missiles. Suspicious now? Follow the links down the rabbit hole, if you want the truth.
Indeed, there were warnings. Whenever a specific has been mentioned, I’ve looked it up to see what it says. And guess what? None of them predicted the 9/11 attacks. Most of them were as vague as a warning can be (“Attacks against American interests anywhere in the world may be possible at some time in the future”), as are the literally thousands of such warnings that are issued by the government every year for about as long as there has been government. The warnings that were more specific tended to be things like “attacks against American aircraft are possible “ (note that it’s not saying hijacking airliners and smashing them into buildings; this just means something done to some aircraft somewhere, perhaps on the ground even), or “attacks against public buildings are possible” (again, note that there’s no specifics about the attacks, or what buildings), or some other attacks. Again, these sorts of warnings are and always have been commonplace, are too vague to take any definite action against, and don’t actually describe the 9/11 attacks. Nor did most of them actually precede any attacks.
Again, everything I’m telling you can be easily verified by any interested person w/ the keywords and a search engine, or at the Complete 9/11 Timeline
If it’s so easily verified, then why hasn’t it been verified?
I’m not serious- my point is the official story really is absurd- they have not told who did the inside trades on AA, UAL, Morgan-Stanley and others, and the Commission pretended it was innocuous- but some were done thru Deutsche Bank, of which Buzzy Krongard was director before he got a director position at the CIA.
Again, you’re making an assumption: that there was insider trading. AA stock had been falling for a while, as they’d been having a bad time. So was UAL; there was an investor who sold off most of those UAL stocks (about 95% of them). . .and then bought up a bunch of AA stocks on the day before the attacks. And the thing about Deutsche Bank is so incredibly flimsy and meaningless.
Jets normally intercept within 10-20” of a jet being off course-
No they don’t.
why did the Commission, the White House and the DoD lie and change the timeline 3 times? They won’t answer this question, they and the media just pretend it’s not being asked.
A number of possible reasons for this:
1. They didn’t change the timeline, in which case there’s no reason for them to explain changing it.
2. They did revise the timeline, as they received more information.
They won’t answer questions about the war games, either- did you check out those links?
I already covered that.
And these are just a couple of hundreds of other serious problems with the official 9/11 story.
Alternatively it could be that a mere 0.1% of Americans have broken free of the government’s Matrix-like control and discovered the true value of 2 + 2…
6!
Darn! I thought it was 22. I must be under mind control by THEM.
