2
   

Experts Claim Official 9-11 Story is a Hoax ! FINALLY!

 
 
Amigo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Jul, 2006 06:49 pm
farmerman wrote:
Amigo, I dont postulate a conspiracy of a conspiracy. I leave that sort of stuff to you and Mkat. Im merely saying that Jones and Fetzer "like their 15 minutes" and they are using whatever means to extend their time.

I wouldnt be adverse to a reopen and a more public scrutinizing of all data so the "shoddy engineering" that the internet armchair experts claim , can be exposed once and for all (there are thousands upon thousands of photos and items of evidence retained), also the faking of the evidence by the "Truth ..." people needs to be further explained to the lay public lest they continue to believe all the claims.

Can you supply a link that shows the analyses of the sulfur residues? Im a bit incredulous about that.
farmerman, As I've said before. I have been through this before. The scientist who recognized global warming were quacks. The people who people who said the WMD claims were a lie before the war started. they were outnumbered by 90% of the American population and considered terrorist loving traitors. It's the same process everytime;

First 1% of freethinkers propose something

They ignore you,

then they make fun of you

then they get mad at you

then they become the minority (we switch places)

then they pretend they always knew what we knew.

Some try to hold out clinging to denial.

They become 1%! only they are fighting a pathetic, reactionary, losing battle. Only they are 1% and shrinking we used to be 1% but we are passed that stage now. I have passed it many times.

1% of society leads the other 99%. That has never changed.

Tell me farmerman.

Did Lee harvey Oswald shot JFK alone?

Is global warming real?

did the president lie about WMDs?

Is the earth flat?
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Jul, 2006 05:19 am
why dont you start a thread on those items, dont try to distract the purposes that this thread continues to live.

As I asked before, have you seen or can you produce the chemical data that Jones is claiming? I didnt think so.

Quote:
then they pretend they always knew what we knew.
You give yourself too much credit. I submit that all you know is spoon fed to you by glitzy websites. You havent done aqny investigation beyond surfing. Thats not how real investigations proceed, (unless your doing something like Civil War history, and then your results would naturally be open to lots of counter theories)
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Jul, 2006 07:03 am
Lest you forget Amigo.

More than 1% think we didn't land on the moon.

More than 1% think Saddam was involved in 9/11. (oops, that directly contradicts the claims that Bush did it.)

Simply because people believe in something doesn't make it so. Provide evidence or not. But don't expect others to believe you without evidence.


Just because someone responsds to a poll saying they don't think we know the full story of 9/11 doesn't mean they think the missing parts are what you propose. There are lots of other possible theories or missing evidence they could be thinking about. A poll in which 99% of respondents stated the sky is not purple doesn't mean that those 99% all think the sky is green.
0 Replies
 
Amigo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Jul, 2006 07:42 pm
farmerman wrote:
why dont you start a thread on those items, dont try to distract the purposes that this thread continues to live.

As I asked before, have you seen or can you produce the chemical data that Jones is claiming? I didnt think so.

Quote:
then they pretend they always knew what we knew.
You give yourself too much credit. I submit that all you know is spoon fed to you by glitzy websites. You havent done aqny investigation beyond surfing. Thats not how real investigations proceed, (unless your doing something like Civil War history, and then your results would naturally be open to lots of counter theories)
Answer the questions to yourself and ask yourself what and why people believed what they did about those things then and why they beleive what they do today. My point is valid and has nothing to do with my credibility. I could be Bozo the clown, I am nothing but text on a screen. It is an example of the errors in group think of the masses and ourselves. It relevant to this topic.

If Dr. Jones cannot produce evidence of Thermite as he claims then he is nuts.

So my argument is moot because I use the web? If that is true (and to an extent it is) To what degree does it apply to discrediting what I am saying and doesn't the same apply to everybody and everything else on A2K.

I acknowledge the shortcomings of the web as a tool. In itself a true case cannot be made. Wich again is back to the ultimate purpose of the "911 Truth" movement, an investigation.

40 % of Americans now believe there is something fishy going on.

60% of New Yorkers under 30 fell the same way.

The silent majority is watching.
0 Replies
 
Amigo
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Jul, 2006 10:14 pm
parados wrote:
Lest you forget Amigo.

More than 1% think we didn't land on the moon.

More than 1% think Saddam was involved in 9/11. (oops, that directly contradicts the claims that Bush did it.)

Simply because people believe in something doesn't make it so. Provide evidence or not. But don't expect others to believe you without evidence.


Just because someone responsds to a poll saying they don't think we know the full story of 9/11 doesn't mean they think the missing parts are what you propose. There are lots of other possible theories or missing evidence they could be thinking about. A poll in which 99% of respondents stated the sky is not purple doesn't mean that those 99% all think the sky is green.
What direction are the percetages of the people who belive these thing headed, up or down and why?

Why do people think Saddam was involved in 9/11 ? Because of the governments official story. It is very ironic that you would pick this as an example as somthing that counters my point when it actually supports it. I am not saying this in a cocky way. I am releived to talk to reasonable people such as you and Farmerman regardless of what you guys think of me.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Jul, 2006 10:38 pm
Anybody who still has any questions in his/her mind on this subject should take a good look at this:



http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1666475/posts
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Jul, 2006 10:47 pm
It is persuasive Gunga. Thanks.
0 Replies
 
Amigo
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Jul, 2006 10:49 pm
Yes, and here is another one.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/911_pentagon_757_plane_evidence.html
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Jul, 2006 06:43 am
Basically, I live about four miles south of the pentagon, and there were fire companies from pretty much every jurisdiction within fifty miles of the pentagon working shifts day and night there for weeks after 9/11.

Is anybody really going to try to say that they somehow bribed every single one of those firemen into silence about some overwhelming government conspiracy to bomb the pentagon and then try to claim an airplane flew into it despite a lack of evidence??
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Jul, 2006 06:52 am
gungasnake wrote:
Basically, I live about four miles south of the pentagon, and there were fire companies from pretty much every jurisdiction within fifty miles of the pentagon working shifts day and night there for weeks after 9/11.

Is anybody really going to try to say that they somehow bribed every single one of those firemen into silence about some overwhelming government conspiracy to bomb the pentagon and then try to claim an airplane flew into it despite a lack of evidence??


Thats pretty much exactly what the 9/11 conspiracy theory wacko's are saying.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Jul, 2006 07:40 am
I guess the question remaining is, can we trust the eyewitness reports? Are they part of a conspiracy too?

The conspiracists must have all 4 plane hits be coincidental to the "real" causes that brought down the WTC and damaged the Pentagon. If any p[art of their "Theory" falls, it all falls flat.
0 Replies
 
Amigo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Jul, 2006 01:32 am
Boy you guys are good. What were we thinking?

Can you show me the accusation that the "conspiracy theorist" make claims of bribery.

Or did you guys just make some $hit up and now your blowing hot smoke up each others ass.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Jul, 2006 06:07 am
Quote:
Is anybody really going to try to say that they somehow bribed every single one of those firemen into silence about some overwhelming government conspiracy to bomb the pentagon and then try to claim an airplane flew into it despite a lack of evidence??
. Gunga posed this in the form of a question. Hes trying to understand, as am I, how you can have this massive conspiracy going on with all these people keeping mum, and others just lying.
You havent, i yur run-up to accept the conspiracy story, explained how the government is able to get all these thousands of people to just clam up or lie.
Plus all the pictures of busted up airliners in the bowels of the Pentagon and on iys lawn. How did all this happen so clandestinely?
So youre not buying any of it. Youve established a point of incredulity that does not allow you to objectively look at all the collections of evidence and arrive at a conclusion that can see that some big plane flew into the Pentagon, and, from the black box, it was being piloted by Arabs.

Conspiracies are big business, they draw in thousands as years of separation between the incident and the audience accumulate. Many people will write books and get semi-wealthy because they master what Phinnaeus Taylor Barnum had always said about potential customers."Theres a sucker born every minute"
0 Replies
 
Amigo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Jul, 2006 11:06 am
I don't really dispute the pentagon thing myself. I don't really focus on the strongest or weakest link. I take everything for what it is. Some people have even said the planes were holograms.

Does that discredit the whole thing?
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Jul, 2006 12:36 pm
Amigo wrote:
parados wrote:
Lest you forget Amigo.

More than 1% think we didn't land on the moon.

More than 1% think Saddam was involved in 9/11. (oops, that directly contradicts the claims that Bush did it.)

Simply because people believe in something doesn't make it so. Provide evidence or not. But don't expect others to believe you without evidence.


Just because someone responsds to a poll saying they don't think we know the full story of 9/11 doesn't mean they think the missing parts are what you propose. There are lots of other possible theories or missing evidence they could be thinking about. A poll in which 99% of respondents stated the sky is not purple doesn't mean that those 99% all think the sky is green.
What direction are the percetages of the people who belive these thing headed, up or down and why?

Why do people think Saddam was involved in 9/11 ? Because of the governments official story. It is very ironic that you would pick this as an example as somthing that counters my point when it actually supports it. I am not saying this in a cocky way. I am releived to talk to reasonable people such as you and Farmerman regardless of what you guys think of me.

Therein lies the difference Amigo. When asked for evidence of the ties between Saddam and 9/11, there isn't any to present.
When asked for evidence of planes crashing into buildings, we have live news coverage, metal analysis, engineering reports, etc, etc. The fact that some of that evidence doesn't answer every question in no way dismisses it. There is very little evidence to present to make a case for a conspiracy theory. As farmerman has pointed out. Some of the evidence pointing to this conspiracy is false. Shouldn't you place the same skepticism on believing in a conspiracy that you do in the events as described by the government study of it?

When you put all the evidence in 2 piles the one pile is a heck of a lot larger than the other pile. That pile points to a group of arab men hijacking planes and flying them into buildings.

Which is more believable? That 20 men can keep a secret or that the 200 or more that didn't die on those planes can keep a secret? I think it is more likely that the 20 men could because even if they made comments hinting at their plans who would have believed it before 9/11?


Does all that mean we know the real story of what happened on 9/11? No, we probably don't have all the details. But there can be little doubt that the overview of what happened is fairly accurate.
0 Replies
 
Amigo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Jul, 2006 12:44 pm
parados, I agree with what you are saying. I lean towards the theory (or plain fact) that a plane hit the pentagon. Case closed, fine.

Now, how does WTC 7 that was never hit by a plane collapse symmetrically at the speed of gravity from fire melting it?

tell me that and i'll western union you 100$

Have you seen the documentary loose change 2nd edition?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1519312457137943386


If you are going to consider 9/11 conspiracy theorist weakest points,
Have you considered their strongest points?
0 Replies
 
freedom4free
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Jul, 2006 01:11 pm
http://djsaan.homestead.com/files/Bush911DogDontBark.jpg
0 Replies
 
Magginkat
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Jul, 2006 10:03 pm
An Amazing Coincidence?

http://www.jimmarrs.com/

Article - 2006-07-09

Regardless of your position on this topic, you cannot help but admit that a major coincidence (at the very least) took place on the morning of June 23, 2006.

It all began on the evening of June 22, 2006, when "Hannity & Colmes" (on the FOX/RNC Channel) had a guest on by the name of Dr. James H. Fetzer.

Fetzer is a member of 9/11 Scholars for Truth. Due to some unexpected initial confusion on the part of the hosts regarding their chosen "attack theme" (they got their "facts FOXED," as Fetzer said), Fetzer was given a rare opportunity to answer an open-ended question --
almost without interruption. As the lawyers all say, "Never ask a witness any question to which you do not already know the answer."

Colmes asked Fetzer something to the effect, "So can you give us one piece of evidence that would tend to point toward 9/11 being an inside job by the Bush Administration?"

While Ollie North (who was guest hosting for Hannity) was apparently still lost in confusion, Fetzer had a rare opportunity to speak a few full sentences without hostile, obnoxious interruptions. He said (and I'm paraphrasing here again), "I point you to Secretary of Transportation Norman Minetta's testimony before the 9/11 Commission. Minetta said he had encountered Vice President Cheney in a bunker in Washington, DC, at 9:20 AM, on the day of the attacks [forty-three minutes earlier than Cheney said he had arrived]. Every few seconds a young man would come into the room and say, 'Sir, it's 50 miles out. Sir, it's 40 miles out. Sir, it's 30 miles out,' and so on. Finally the young man asked the Vice President, 'Sir, do the orders still stand?' Cheney replied gruffly, 'Of course, the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?'

Fetzer went on to explain that only later did Minetta learn that the young man was referring to Flight 77 approaching Washington, DC, and the orders the young man was referring to were obviously orders NOT to shoot the plane down. That's why the young man had finally asked if the orders still stood, to which Cheney replied that they did. Shortly thereafter, Flight 77 (or a "reasonable" facsimile thereof) struck the Pentagon.

Obviously, the producers of the "Hannity & Colmes Propaganda Hour" had not anticipated such a damning bit of irrefutable evidence to escape over "their" airwaves to their glassy-eyed, drool-chinned audience.

Here's the Real Kicker...

The very next morning, less than twelve hours after his 9/11 testimony had been unexpectedly "exposed" to the FOX faithful, Norman Minetta resigned as Secretary of Transportation.

What an unbelievably amazing coincidence of timing!

Just for the sake of argument, let's say Minetta's timing was truly nothing more than a coincidence. If so, then he couldn't have picked a worse time to announce it (unless it was his relatively subtle way of sending a message to the masses). Or, if he was forced to resign by Bush/Cheney (for whatever reason), they couldn't have picked a more self-incriminating time to make it happen.

There has been barely a peep about Minetta's resignation in the mainstream media. I saw the same, generic, non-informational, totally uncurious five-second clip about it several times, but there has been absolutely no speculation as to why he did it

(although his recent back surgery is implied to be the main reason).

That's incredibly unusual behavior for our babbling heads, isn't it? Other high-level resignations in the last few months from the Bush Administration were the subject of endless babble among the MSM "elite."

A Final Thought I can only imagine the sudden conflicting thoughts of at least five out of every one hundred Fox viewers who had heard Fetzer mention Minetta's damning testimony just a few hours before Minetta resigned. What must they have been thinking for a short time before their self-hypnosis kicked back in?

James H. Fetzer (FM) Distinguished McKnight University Professor of Philosophy at the University of Minnesota, Duluth, a former Marine Corps officer, author or editor of more than 20 books, and co-chair of Scholars for 9/11 Truth.



--
"If the people lead, then eventually the leaders will follow." ~ Thomas Jefferson


Freedom of speech - Use it or lose it

When they took away the 4th Amendment,
we were quiet,
because we didn't deal drugs.

When they took away the 6th Amendment,
we were quiet,
because we were innocent.

When they took away the 2nd Amendment,
we were quiet,
because we don't own guns.

Now they have taken away the 1st Amendment,
and very soon,
If we continue to be quiet,
we will have no choice,
BUT to continue to be quiet.




NOTICE: Due to Presidential Executive Orders, the National Security Agency may have read this email without warning, warrant, or notice. They may do this without any judicial or legislative oversight. You have no recourse nor protection save to call for the impeachment of the current President.

http://www.freedomtofascism.com
http://www.iahf.com
http://www.st911.org/
http://luvsite.org/
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Jul, 2006 03:13 pm
Well magginkat, thats all very ineteresting. Im sure theres a cogent point in there.











or not.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Jul, 2006 04:37 pm
farmerman wrote:
Well magginkat, thats all very ineteresting. Im sure theres a cogent point in there.











or not.


From her???
I can almost gaurantee there is no point.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/25/2021 at 04:48:59