Thread: 9/11 Conspiracy

Originally Posted by Sybot

To demolish WTC 1, 2 and 7 would have taken much more effort. Why were these preparations not noticed by anyone?

That video just proves my point seeing as they mention debris hitting it and fires raging for hours.

The preparations were noticed by many people.

And "raging fires" do not bring 47 story, very wide, super redundant structures down to the ground in second in perfect symmetry, and displaying all the characteristics seen in a controlled demolition. Why cant they make a computer model using all the proper physical laws to show how this is possible?

Originally Posted by Neruo

The only reason why people like Universal Mind are still telling themselves the American Government is completely innocent when it comes to 9/11, is because all people tend to be stubborn. Like no matter how much proof you would launch at an creationists, he just isn't going to accept it.

Neruo, I have said that I don't completely rule out the possibility, and I have said exactly why I think it's far fetched. Did you read what I wrote about how 9/11 conspiracy theorists are like fundamentalist Christians? You act just like redneck Baptist preachers do about Christianity claims when it comes to this stuff. Do you know how fundamentalist Christians are so gung-ho about being preachy until they start getting hard questions thrown at them. Then all they do is dodge the questions and change the subject to how witnesses saw Jesus float away and how they understand evolution better than the masses of evolutionists. Similarly, I don't get answers to my questions about the 9/11 conspiracy notion, but I do get lots of negative comments on a personal level about how I don't buy into the 9/11 conspiracy and then more stuff about how the masses of demolition and construction experts have missed the obvious and how news reports talked about what was obviously going to happen before it quite happened. That doesn't clear anything up. Until somebody can logically explain it to me, I am not going to believe that remote control devices disguised themselves as pilots and fooled the co-workers of the pilots and snuck into the airplane cockpits.

Everybody else so far has backed down to my questions. Le'ts see if you have the belief and the courage to attempt answering them. Just like I keep asking Christians to explain to me how an infinitely powerful God who is toally good allows suffering to exist even though he could achieve any result without being bound by any rules, I am asking 9/11 conspiracy theorists a bunch of questions about the areas that are behind my major doubt. But nobody will answer them, just like my major questions in the Religion forum never get specifically answered. People who truly believe what they are saying jump for an opportunity to clear up somebody's doubt. You people are not doing that. Until you can answer my questions, you are in no position to call me stubborn. You are only in a position to do your best to clear up the specific areas of my doubt. If you won't do that, it means you have your own major doubts. Answer my questions, if you think you can.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

If my government pulled that superhorrendous act, which really wigged me out personally and shook up almost all of the people I know and care about for a long time, making us worry our asses off about our country having to go to war, possibly a world war, and face future terrorist acts where tens or hundreds of thousands of Americans or more could be killed in single attacks, then HELL YEAH I want to know. That would be very huge. I'm not shutting out the possibility of it. I am asking questions to try to understand the concept better, and I get almost nothing but evasiveness and insults. Do you know what the conversation in the last few pages of this thread reminds me of? It reminds me of the Religion forum. I am talking to people who passionately spew out their extreme views, and when I ask the most relevant questions that can be asked, I get flipped off and avoided. I am not merely trying to cross examine people and back them into corners. I really want to understand the areas where I think the logic fails, just like I do with Christianity. This is just like arguing with Keeper and Jeremysr. Since the very interesting and extremely serious notion has been thrown at me like I am a bastard of the universe for not believing it, I want to know how airplane and airport staff were fooled into thinking there were pilots on those airplanes. I want to know why construction and demolition experts all over the world are not engaged in large scale chatter, or even small scale chatter, just trace chatter. The only evidence I see has to do with tiny minorities of experts and large masses of nowhere near experts saying stuff about how boards and beams should have fallen and how a few firemen heard a loud noise when what used to be the two tallest buidings in the world were in the process of collapsing, and how some of the information about our most serious national security issue of all time is classified. That doesn't cut it for me, so I have to ask questions. I want to know why my government would take such an INSANE risk in order to bring about an incredibly controversial war. I want to know why government officials have not leaked that they were involved in the biggest horror stunt of all time. Not one wife or best friend! I want to know who is leading the major terrorist organization our soldiers are fighting in Iraq if it's not Bin Laden and Al-Zawihiri. I want to know who Al-Zarqawi really was. I want to know who Khallid Sheik Muhammed really was. I want to know who all of those people in Guantanamo Bay and the Iraq POW camps are. This is the most insane conspiracy theory I have ever seen masses of people take seriously, outside of religion. I want to understand the idea in such a way that all of my doubts about it have been cleared up. But I don't get much more than evasions and insults about how closed-minded I supposedly am, when really I am begging for my mind to be filled with answers. I am not getting them. I am dealing with a religion.

Originally Posted by memeticverb

The preparations were noticed by many people.

I don't think you quite comprehend how much it would take to bring down those towers. It would have been the single biggest controlled demolition in history. It would have taken a massive team of men to completely rig them with explosives in the short time these 'evacuations' happened. For example the 36-hour powerdown referred to would not be enough to anything with less than a 100+ man team.

We keep seeing 'coincidences' as the man at the start of the video keeps referring to, but we never see anything conclusive. We never see people reporting explosives or detonator wiring or anyone from the enormous demolition crews coming foward.

And "raging fires" do not bring 47 story, very wide, super redundant structures down to the ground in second in perfect symmetry, and displaying all the characteristics seen in a controlled demolition. Why cant they make a computer model using all the proper physical laws to show how this is possible?

I'm no expert on building structure so I had to do some research. Let's look at the evidence for WTC7 overall.

Originally Posted by http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

What we do have for sure.

1) Fireman saying there was "a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors." "I would say it was probably about a third of it".

2) A laymen officer the fireman was standing next to said, "that building doesn’t look straight." He then says "It didn’t look right".

3) They put a transit on it and afterward were "pretty sure she was going to collapse."

4) They "saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13".

5) Photographic evidence of a fire directly under the penthouse which collapsed first.

6) The penthouse fell first, followed by the rest of the building shortly after.

7) The collapse happened from the bottom.

8) Photographic evidence of large smoke plumes against the back of B7. Plumes of smoke so large you can't see the entire rear of the 47 story office building.

9) Silverstein is not a demolition expert and was talking to a fire fighter and not a demolition expert. Why would he use the word "Pull" to describe the demolition to a fire fighter?

10) Silverstein denies "Pull" means "Controlled demolition". He said it means "Pull" the teams out of the building.

11) Silverstein did not make the decision to "Pull". (Whatever that means) "they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse"

12) Another fire fighter used "Pull" to describe the decision made to get him out of the building.

What we don't have...

1) Clear view of the large hole

2) Number of columns and location of columns taken out by the tower impact

3) Clear view of all the fires seen on the south side

4) Any sign of an actual explosive.

More details at the indicated site. All in all it is far from conclusive proof of a demolition of WTC7. I'll believe it when more actual structural engineers come foward and prove that it is impossible for fire to do that.

Sybot some more obvious evidence for you to struggle with. Make sure your fairy tales are convincing. That website is failed. And if I had time I would prove it. For now I'll just add more fuel to the fire

* Building fell at free-fall speed. Impossible if it simply "fell" down by itself. Because there would be a least some resistance from each floor collapsing. So the building, according to the laws of nature. "fell down" too fast than is possible.

*Thermite traces were proved to be in the building. Which is a chemical reaction to cut through steal. Piles of Molten metal were discovered. And the metal could not even have melted as the heat was not strong enough. All the fuel from the planes mostly burnt up on impact anyway. The building was designed to withstand more than a plane impact. No building has ever collapsed from top down from fire, in the history all mankind. But on 911 it's supposedly somehow happened 3 times in one day.

*Everything went into fine powder dust. If a building collapses. Chucks of concrete should be piled up. Atleast something should be seen burnt. Computer monitors and such, all went to nothing but dust. All you have is just fine dust everywhere, typical effects of demolition, along with great clouds of smoke traveling for miles, another sign of demolition. As concrete when it simply falls down never goes completely into finely powdered dust. In the video the building can be seen exploding outwards. Pockets of the charges going off along each level of the building can be seen in the video.

*there was proven to be an explosion at the basement of the building before the planes even hit it. People came out with their skin hanging off them from the explosion in the basement. That happens when you weaken a building from the bottom before taking it down which is common demolition procedure, if you were going to take the building down.

This is just some more little tiny specs, and tips of the iceberg on the surface. I have piles and piles more evidence, and in more detail. remember I haven't even mentioned anything about the pentagon. That is ANOTHER entire subject. When you put it all together. It's obvious.

By the way Sybot. The collapse of building 7 does not make sense. Everyone who has a brain understands what the building contained that day and why it was pulled down. That's why it was not included in the official report, they didn't even try to explain it, they were not that foolish to attempt that. Or it would have been even more obvious. That's how pathetically obvious the error is that they don't even mention it. As an explanation did not even make the fraudulent official report. There is no evidence explaining what happened with building 7. Just like there is no evidence a plane even hit the pentagon. The hole looks like a missile. And there was not even any wreckage of the plane afterwards. Why no photos of the plane hitting the building. Is there no cameras working that day....This is another subject.

I don't think you quite comprehend how much it would take to bring down those towers.

If the building takes a lot of effort to demolish in a controlled fashion. Then some suicide guy wouldn't be able to do it by himself in a hijacked aircraft full of people. Especially since the structure easily withstands that kind of impact. Why did the buildings fall in the wrong order. The plane that hit first. That building should have fallen first. And yet it fell second. How could all of Americas security be avoided. And why was their terrorism drills planned that day that was depicting the same event that happened. Maybe this explains why the moon is made of cheese. As it makes no sense. How you can have terror drills that are exactly the same training exercise planned the same time, to the real event that happens on the day. Is that some kind of joke that they had to go from the practice event of it, to the real event. That's more impossible than the lotto. Also why did the same thing happen with the london bombings. Same terror drill practice event happened the same time as the real event.

I'll believe it when more actual structural engineers come foward and prove that it is impossible for fire to do that.

Well it has never happened in history. So you'd be pretty foolish to assume it's possible without any evidence in the first place. Just because it fell down is not evidence that fire did it. And silverstein was obviously talking about demolition of the building. It is a term that means demolition. It looked exactly like a demolition. Experts (that are not paid off) have already agreed it's obviously a perfect collapse of a demolition. And it's stupid to suggest he is talking about ordering peolpe out of the building. No-one uses the term "pull" unless your talking about demolishing a building. Or doing something to someones dick. I can accept "we decided to pull people out of the building" that might be closer to reality. But I cannot accept "We decided to pull the building". When pull is a term for demolition. That's a little to obvious. And besides. By the look of how it collapsed. You would be at pains to explain how it could have been anything else. It certainly didn't fall by accident by itself. not to mention the media reporting it's collapse before it happened.

Originally Posted by Mystic7

Building fell at free-fall speed. Impossible

In every video and photo, columns are visible falling faster than the rest of the building, which shows it wasn't falling at freefall.

*Thermite traces were proved to be in the building

I don't know about this, but this can just as easily be turned back on you. Why weren't any traces of actual explosive found at ground zero? Unless you think that thermite alone can somehow bring down a building.

*Everything went into fine powder dust.

Strange, I can quite clearly see concrete here . Keep in mind that large chunks of concrete would have been the first things removed from the wreckage. Also, this is a ridiculous argument as enough explosives to pulverise all the concrete in the building would have been plainly obvious.

In the video the building can be seen exploding outwards. Pockets of the charges going off along each level of the building can be seen in the video.

What, you mean the bursts of air caused by the floors pancaking as it collapsed. Those were not squibs, as they behaved differently. Explosives sprays start powerful and peter off. These increased as time went on, just as they would with a rush of air. Also, only a few 'squibs' were seen at seemingly random floors. This is inconsistent with real demolitions where many squibs are used.

*there was proven to be an explosion at the basement of the building before the planes even hit it.

That is not proven. Show me evidence of explosives or indeed anything conclusive in that regard. Given that the towers collapsed from the impact site down, explosives in the basement would have accomplished nothing.

Just like there is no evidence a plane even hit the pentagon. The hole looks like a missile. And there was not even any wreckage of the plane afterwards. Why no photos of the plane hitting the building. Is there no cameras working that day....This is another subject.

No wreckage?

As for the hole, there were two hole, one caused by the plane going through and having its wings sheared off in the process. The other one was due to landing gear. A plane hit the pentagon these people agree. Unless they were bought off too?

Originally Posted by Mystic7

If the building takes a lot of effort to demolish in a controlled fashion. Then some suicide guy wouldn't be able to do it by himself in a hijacked aircraft full of people. Especially since the structure easily withstands that kind of impact.

You're misinterpreting me. I said a controlled demolition took a lot of effort. Obviously a building could be brought down by enough damage and structrual weakening, but that would be uncontrolled. The demolition of the towers was uncontrolled, as evidenced to the damage done to the surrounding buildings.

Why did the buildings fall in the wrong order. The plane that hit first. That building should have fallen first.

Maybe because the effects of the plane crash were slightly worse in the second impact. Also, I could ask the sae thing of you. If it was a demolition why did they demolish the second tower first when that would implicate a conspiracy.

And yet it fell second. How could all of Americas security be avoided. And why was their terrorism drills planned that day that was depicting the same event that happened.

You mean where "a small corporate jet crashed into one of the four towers at the agency's headquarters building after experiencing a mechanical failure." (Associated Press, 22 August 2002.). That is hardly the same situation as 9/11.

Also why did the same thing happen with the london bombings. Same terror drill practice event happened the same time as the real event.

I guess the conspiracy grows. Now you are implicating the British government, the contracters who did the exercise and many more. This makes it even less believeable.

Originally Posted by Mystic7

No-one uses the term "pull" unless your talking about demolishing a building. Or doing something to someones dick. I can accept "we decided to pull people out of the building" that might be closer to reality. But I cannot accept "We decided to pull the building"

Don't lie. He said "pull it" not "pull the building". And as I said, in demolition terms to 'pull' means to literally pull with cables, which did not happen here.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Neruo, I have said that I don't completely rule out the possibility, and I have said exactly why I think it's far fetched. Did you read what I wrote about how 9/11 conspiracy theorists are like fundamentalist Christians? You act just like redneck Baptist preachers do about Christianity claims when it comes to this stuff. Do you know how fundamentalist Christians are so gung-ho about being preachy until they start getting hard questions thrown at them. Then all they do is dodge the questions and change the subject to how witnesses saw Jesus float away and how they understand evolution better than the masses of evolutionists. Similarly, I don't get answers to my questions about the 9/11 conspiracy notion, but I do get lots of negative comments on a personal level about how I don't buy into the 9/11 conspiracy and then more stuff about how the masses of demolition and construction experts have missed the obvious and how news reports talked about what was obviously going to happen before it quite happened. That doesn't clear anything up. Until somebody can logically explain it to me, I am not going to believe that remote control devices disguised themselves as pilots and fooled the co-workers of the pilots and snuck into the airplane cockpits.

Everybody else so far has backed down to my questions. Le'ts see if you have the belief and the courage to attempt answering them. Just like I keep asking Christians to explain to me how an infinitely powerful God who is toally good allows suffering to exist even though he could achieve any result without being bound by any rules, I am asking 9/11 conspiracy theorists a bunch of questions about the areas that are behind my major doubt. But nobody will answer them, just like my major questions in the Religion forum never get specifically answered. People who truly believe what they are saying jump for an opportunity to clear up somebody's doubt. You people are not doing that. Until you can answer my questions, you are in no position to call me stubborn. You are only in a position to do your best to clear up the specific areas of my doubt. If you won't do that, it means you have your own major doubts. Answer my questions, if you think you can.

A) Ask a question.

B) Answer questions yourself. Why wouldn't Bush and Cheney speak under oath, or even with (written) recording when they talked about 9/11? Why is the Laden family so tied up with the CIA for years?

The tricky questions not being answered, are more from Your side, then from 'ours'. 'Our' side being a huge generalization. I don't think there is a big chance the plane that hit the pentagon was actually a missile. I do think it is strange a horrible pilot could hit that building at like 400 mph. I don't think they actually placed bombs in the WTC, like some people, but it is strange that building 7 collapsed, with hardly any fire in it. Also, it collapsed exactly like expected with controlled demolition. It is also strange that that tower 7 wasn't even mentioned in the 9/11 report, if I recall correctly. Also it is strange, that a few of the highjackers are said to be alive. Also there are ties, including confirmed, between CIA and a great deal of staged 'terrorist attacks'.

I never heard Anyone answer Those questions, to be honest.

it wasn't falling at freefall.

Why don't you time it, and tell me the exact speed. Do you know the exact time it took to fall down once it started falling?

Also considering my statements were very basic and broad, and general. I did not provide detail. So you tread over them very easily in an ignorant manner hoping others do not check out the detail of it's accuracy. Well don't worry I'll be presenting it all in more detail later. So you'll need a new approach to debunk.

I don't know about this, but this can just as easily be turned back on you. Why weren't any traces of actual explosive found at ground zero? Unless you think that thermite alone can somehow bring down a building.

Did I say thermite was the only contributing factor? No. But it is a known chemical reaction that cuts through steal like butter. No traces of explosives were openly admitted, which is a lot different to, discovered. Besides they illegally took as much evidence as they could away from the scene. Loaded perfectly cut chucks on metal onto the demolition companies truck and shipped it right out of the country.

Strange, I can quite clearly see concrete here . Keep in mind that large chunks of concrete would have been the first things removed from the wreckage.

yeah, the bottom of it. I don't think you understand how much powder there was, and things that would usually not be reduced to powder. Such as all the contents of the floors on each building. Including computers, furniture and other things that can't completely burn just from a little bit of jet fuel.

explosives to pulverise all the concrete in the building would have been plainly obvious.

It is plainly obvious. That's why it's a demolition of the towers.

What, you mean the bursts of air caused by the floors pancaking as it collapsed. Those were not squibs, as they behaved differently. Explosives sprays start powerful and peter off. These increased as time went on, just as they would with a rush of air. Also, only a few 'squibs' were seen at seemingly random floors. This is inconsistent with real demolitions where many squibs are used.

As you a demolition expert? Because I have talked to one and he has already explain all this to me from the video, and what they were. You are distorting things, they are not rushes of air what I am referring too. It is not inconsistent with demolition you are making fantasies.

That is not proven. Show me evidence of explosives or indeed anything conclusive in that regard. Given that the towers collapsed from the impact site down, explosives in the basement would have accomplished nothing.

ah, The explosion in the basement happened. That is enough cause for concern. Also power downs in the building leading up to the event are suspicious. The dust and thermite reaction. The way the building collapsed. As metal only weakens at certain temperature. The way it was designed in general does not allow for accidental collapse. All this is cause to believe in evidence of a controlled demolition. As nothing else is even possible. You have no option. Nothing else is physically possible.

No wreckage?

Funnily enough, there was some little pieces of wreckage. Just no mark on the ground from an airplane crash. The problem with the wreckage is it was not identified as the same plane. So it doesn't count. Not only do you have little evidence of wreckage. The wreckage you do have. Is not the same aircraft. Someone placed a different wreckage there. So that's even worse. There is a photo of them taking something out from the pentagon. but it's wrapped in a big blue tarp material. So why the mystery?

As for the hole, there were two hole, one caused by the plane going through and having its wings sheared off in the process. The other one was due to landing gear. A plane hit the pentagon these people agree. Unless they were bought off too?

Yes most people you reference will be lairs. Where is this second hole? What are you talking about. I only have a photo of one hole. That's all there was. One missile like clean circular hole, and that's all. No photo of the plane. Since there is no picture of the plane flying into it. That's pretty funny that you think you can argue if you have no evidence of the plane's presence. I think with the security of the pentagon. One picture would be available. That's if you believe they were unable to react and shoot the plane down. But it doesn't exist so there was only a picture of the missile going into it.

You're misinterpreting me. I said a controlled demolition took a lot of effort. Obviously a building could be brought down by enough damage and structrual weakening, but that would be uncontrolled. The demolition of the towers was uncontrolled, as evidenced to the damage done to the surrounding buildings.

No only building 7 was somehow magically damaged to the point of collapse. It was not uncontrolled because structural weakening is not possible just from 1 plane.

Maybe because the effects of the plane crash were slightly worse in the second impact. Also, I could ask the sae thing of you. If it was a demolition why did they demolish the second tower first when that would implicate a conspiracy.

Very unlikely since both impacts were similar in nature. Your right about something. I think they made the mistakes so obvious, that they want us to know they are hiding something. Which in itself is disturbing enough.

You mean where "a small corporate jet crashed into one of the four towers at the agency's headquarters building after experiencing a mechanical failure." (Associated Press, 22 August 2002.). That is hardly the same situation as 9/11.

NO. That is not the military terrorism drill I am talking about. That has nothing to do with it.

I guess the conspiracy grows. Now you are implicating the British government, the contracters who did the exercise and many more. This makes it even less believeable.

No actually one of the contractors went on television and told us what happened. That is how I knew about the exercise. And it only demonstrates that false flag operations are common.

Don't lie. He said "pull it" not "pull the building". And as I said, in demolition terms to 'pull' means to literally pull with cables, which did not happen here.

when he said decided to "pull it" it's obvious he was referring to the building. If you doubt this in any case don't worry you still have plenty more things you can't explain. If you look it up "pull" has nothing to do with any cables. It's a demolition term to bring down a building.

Originally Posted by Neruo

A) Ask a question.

B) Answer questions yourself. Why wouldn't Bush and Cheney speak under oath, or even with (written) recording when they talked about 9/11? Why is the Laden family so tied up with the CIA for years?

The tricky questions not being answered, are more from Your side, then from 'ours'. 'Our' side being a huge generalization. I don't think there is a big chance the plane that hit the pentagon was actually a missile. I do think it is strange a horrible pilot could hit that building at like 400 mph. I don't think they actually placed bombs in the WTC, like some people, but it is strange that building 7 collapsed, with hardly any fire in it. Also, it collapsed exactly like expected with controlled demolition. It is also strange that that tower 7 wasn't even mentioned in the 9/11 report, if I recall correctly. Also it is strange, that a few of the highjackers are said to be alive. Also there are ties, including confirmed, between CIA and a great deal of staged 'terrorist attacks'.

I never heard Anyone answer Those questions, to be honest.

A.) I have asked my questions REPEATEDLY, and I gave you a summary of them in my last post, except they were in the form of "I want to know why..." You know what the questions are, so stop copping out. I have answered questions the past ten rounds or so without getting a single answer to my questions. I have even answered the questions you just posed. I want MY questions answered. You are the one proposing the off the wall idea. If you are actually serious about it, answer my questions. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim that something exists. Don't you make that point in the Religion forum all the time?

B.) I'm not saying you think the airplanes were missiles. I kept asking in this thread who would be willing to die for Bush's supposed conspiracy, and finally somebody said they were remote control devices, not people. So if I am to accept this bizarre idea, I have to first know of even some wild at least hypothetical explanation of how remote control devices diguised themselves as pilots and fooled airport and airplane staff, from stewardesses to the guys waving flags on the runway to air traffic control, into thinking they were human pilots. That's just one of my questions. See my last post for the rest of them.

The quesions your side keeps posing almost always involve the classified nature of government information, which has been going on since the country was founded and goes on with every government, or stuff that is not backed up by anything credible. Why won't Bush and Cheney speak under oath? They haven't been charged with anything, and speaking under oath would open up the possibility that Cheney might say something was red when it was really blue and then we have total chaos to deal with while he is supposed to be a vice president during a war. Nothing to gain, everything to lose. The "horrible pilots" went to flight schools in the U.S., as confirmed by the instructors and students. As I have said many times in this thread, I am not a construction or demolition expert, so I can't get too far into the specifics of how the buildings should have fallen, and I don't think you can either. But I can talk about the lack of chatter among the masses of those who actually are experts. The hijackers "said to be alive" are like Elvis Presley "said to be alive". I haven't seen any better evidence for living 9/11 hijackers than I have for the continued living of Elvis Presley. The Bin Laden family was tied up with the CIA for years because they were our allies against the Soviets when the Soviets were trying to take over Afghanistan. The thing about CIA and "staged terrorist attacks" is in the category with Elvis and hijackers being alive. I haven't seen any good evidence for it.

There are your answers. Now it's your turn to answer my questions.

P.S.-- Since Half/Dreaming has gone off to fight the mere holographic images my government calls "Al Qaeda", I want to pose the issue he couldn't get anybody to even attempt to clear up. Why did the family members and friends of the people on those airplanes want to make up the lie that their family members and friends said they were being hijacked? Why do those people claim they heard the struggles and yelling? If those friends and family members of the victims are not lying, who was hijacking those airplanes? Even in theory/hypothesis, who could it have possibly been?

Universal, the reason no-one wants to answer you is because your questions are stupid and irrelevant. And no-one wants to discuss what is irrelevant.

Mystic, you actually attempted a little bit and then chickened out. What happened? I thought I was about to come across some courage you might have in you. You edited your post while I was responding to you. You didn't really answer anything, but at least you addressed some specifics. But you edited your post to say only this...

Originally Posted by Mystic7

Universal, the reason no-one wants to answer you is because your questions are stupid and irrelevant. And no-one wants to discuss what is irrelevant. Discuss the bigger more important questions and not sideline speculations.

My questions are completely relevant, and you can't answer them because they have stumped you. YOU claim that there was a 9/11 conspiracy. I see holes in that idea, but I am willing to discuss them. I point out your holes, and you run away from my points. That is exactly how religious fanatics act. They make wild claims, and when questioned on them, they dodge the questions while spewing hostility. What a bizarre way to act. Any way, I will post what I said in response to the part of your post that had a little more balls than what you ended up with.

Originally Posted by Mystic7

Universal, I don't think anyone is claiming something wild that does not exist. If anything you are the one doing this. The burden is with you because of your claims that something can go against the laws of nature. You are trying to explain away the laws of nature. So that's much worse than just a reasonable and only explanation of what could have happened.

You misunderstood me again. I didn't say anything about claiming something wild that does not exist. I talked about claiming that something wild exists. That is what you are doing. You claim that the history of a 9/11 conspiracy exists. That is why the burden of proof is on you. I have not tried to explain away any laws of nature. I have said many times that I am not a construction/demolition expert. I doubt you are either. That is why I don't get way into conversations about how boards and beams should have fallen. However, I do have a background in psychology and social phenomena, so I keep asking why the masses of people who actually are construction/demolition experts have not engaged in astronomically loud chatter. That is the law of nature your conspiracy hypothesis violates. Can you explain it?

Originally Posted by Mystic7

Then why bring it up? You didn't say there was a purple monster flying a UFO in my back yard. Yet there is no need for me to say, that you didn't say it.
Not all the planes were missiles. No. All planes existed. And a missile hit the pentagon. It might be complicated for you to keep track of what is relevant.

Why bring it up? Because Neruo did. I was addressing his point. So you claim all of the planes existed? Now get to my big question in this area. Who was flying those planes? If you say they were remote control devices, then please (for the zillionth time) explain how they disguised themselves as pilots and fooled so many airport and airplane staff members into thinking they were pilots. Now that you say a missile hit the Pentagon, please tell me how that happened without thousands of Pentagon workers looking at it and going, "Hey, that's a missile!!!" Can you give me a list of Pentagon workers who have said that? Try focussing less on insulting me personally like you are some juvenile delinquent who isn't capable of disagreeing without acting like an emotionally unstable little shit. I would hate to think that's what you are. Try actually answering my questions instead, if education for both sides and shared ideas really are your interest in this.

Originally Posted by Mystic7

your right, this question explains everything.

But your comment doesn't explain anything.

You said that airplanes hit the two towers and the field, right? So tell me... Who in the Hell was flying them? Can you come up with even a reasonable hypothesis on that? My question is completely relevant. Let's see what kind of answer you can give. I don't think Bush would have had too easy of a time finding people willing to hijack airplanes to die for his conspiracy you claim existed. What do you think?

(END)

That is how far I got. Like I said, you weren't really answering anything, just acting like an ass who has been stumped, but at least you got the ball rolling by responding at all. If you want to successfully illustrate the truth of your claim, if it by some bizarre leap of nature is real, you are going to have to answer the questions the skeptics have. If you can't do that, you are just going to look like a delusional religious fanatic who has a belief system that seriously lacks substance. If you claim that The Great Pumpkin caused the Titanic to sink, I am going to ask you why nobody on the boat reported a giant pumpkin attacking the boat. If you refuse to answer the question, you will be making a mockery of yourself. That is what you are doing. Let's face it. You have been checkmated.

Originally Posted by Mystic7

:yumdumdoodledum: :yumdumdoodledum:
:yumdumdoodledum: :yumdumdoodledum:
:yumdumdoodledum: :yumdumdoodledum:
:yumdumdoodledum: :yumdumdoodledum:
:yumdumdoodledum: :yumdumdoodledum:
:yumdumdoodledum: :yumdumdoodledum:
:yumdumdoodledum: :yumdumdoodledum:
:yumdumdoodledum: :yumdumdoodledum:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNbRjOE6sGc

I don't think the conspiracy theory has anything to do with bombs in the buildings or missles etc...



The Spanish-American war had "The mysterious sinking of the battleship USS Maine"

WWII had "Pearl Harbour"

Vietnam had "The Gulf of Tonkin Incident"

and the War on Terror has "9/11."

follow the money, don't read the history textbooks, unless you're feeling nostalgic for the year 1984. And get acquainted historical revisionism.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=8FAqKt3Atcs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FjmBh5QkrSc

Originally Posted by Mystic7

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FjmBh5QkrSc

Oh my freaking God!!!!! A radio show caller!!! That annihilates all of the points I have made. Thank you for countering everything I have said with the recording of one random dipshit.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Oh my freaking God!!!!! A radio show caller!!! That annihilates all of the points I have made. Thank you for countering everything I have said with the recording of one random dipshit.

His name is Richard Gage, a highly credentialed architect. Just because he is doing a radio show interview does not mean he is a "random dip*&&*".

I received a dollar bill once that had written on it in ink "9/11 was an inside job". Kind of makes you think...a teacher of mine said there's a rumour that the plane headed for the white house was shot down by our government deliberately so it wouldn't hit the white house...how true that is, I don't know.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut_Jeff777

I received a dollar bill once that had written on it in ink "9/11 was an inside job". Kind of makes you think...

I wrote that on there. Sorry to alarm you.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut_Jeff777

a teacher of mine said there's a rumour that the plane headed for the white house was shot down by our government deliberately so it wouldn't hit the white house...how true that is, I don't know.

I heard the rumor that a military jet was flying beside it and came close to shooting it down so it wouldn't hit a target like the other hijackers had but the military pilot decided not to because the plane went down on its own.

By the way, you are the first person I know of from Mississippi I have run into on this site in all of the time I have been here. What town are you in?

lol thanks, shit, I see you're from jackson...wow man...i'm from Clinton Mississippi Anthriel is on this site too and he lives in jackson, MS. What school do you go to?