Thread: 9/11 Truth

Originally Posted by Mystic7

Universal mind you broken record lol. Face the evidence posted.

He cant, knowingly or unknowingly hes disinfo.

Great thread by the way, you brought up many things the debunker wannabes hate, like the many contradictions between officials, the flip-flopping of their own stories, and the tremendous failure of the military to defend against a highly anticipated threat...


__________________________________________________ _

Yet another witness on video describing explosions throughout the WTC

Broken record? You started a whole new thread with your broken record.

First of all...

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

http://www.jod911.com/

http://michaelgriffith1.tripod.com/refute.htm

http://www.popularmechanics.com/tech...w/1227842.html

http://www.debunking911.com/

I think you missed a few other things.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Can you give evidence of your government action claims? I am talking about credible sources. Thanks.

Let's see that. This conversation is really absurd if you can't even back up your assertions with credible sources. I am not talking a left wing lunatic site mentioning two firemen out of hundreds, for example. If you can't show credible sources, then there isn't really anything to talk about in the first place.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Even if I can't explain everything the government has done since I don't work for the government (so I am having you believe ), the burden of proof is on you in regard to your claim that 9/11 was a government inside job. Since you believe such a story happened, please explain how it could have possibly happened even in theory. I don't think it could have. Do you? How?

When do you guys think you can get that answer for me?

So far, you have only asserted that there are peculiar things about the big bang theory. You have yet to explain why you leap to the conclusion that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is real, and you have not even told me how it could be real in light of the issues I have raised. Again, the burden of proof is on you. Thanks.

Although there are interesting anomalies in the structural failures of the WTC buildings, it doesn't point to demolition at all, in my opinion. I've read a lot on both sides of the

We are told a lot about how the buildings fell so mysteriously, but why isn't there a trove of evidence about what was happening before the planes hit? There are reports from firemen about 'explosions' on 9/11, but nothing from anyone who worked in the building beforehand that demolition teams were wiring it or any other building to explode. The more secretive the wiring could have been, the longer it would have taken to complete it, straining the idea that the president(or whomever was allegedly the mastermind) was able to corrupt the government to such an extreme quickly enough to complete such a project.

Regarding the 'pulling' comment, I've heard that it described pulling away from the building(because it might collapse), not pulling it down. Does anyone seriously believe the government has charges set up in every major building in the U.S.? If so, it should be a simple matter of inspecting some buildings to prove such a theory. Unless all of the building inspectors are in on it, which is a stretch of anyone's imagination.

There is the accusation of government competence, as well. Incredibly, it is somehow unbelievable that the government could be so catastrophically incompetent as to not prevent the plot. This is the same government that produced the Katrina debacle and installed horrendously incompetent and arrogant cronies wherever possible. Don't forget Pearl Harbor either. Turns out the government botched that one too.

Sorry if this offends anyone, by the way. I don't hold it against anyone who believes otherwise. I'm open to convincing (counter-)arguments on either side, and this is only my current opinion.

How about if the "conspiracy" didn't go as deep as the government planting bombs in the building, but purposefully provoking the attack, and allowing it to happen? And hard evidence or arguments for/against that?

(I know that's a little off the scope of many of the proposed theories, but I just thought I'd throw that out there.)

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

How about if the "conspiracy" didn't go as deep as the government planting bombs in the building, but purposefully provoking the attack, and allowing it to happen? And hard evidence or arguments for/against that?

(I know that's a little off the scope of many of the proposed theories, but I just thought I'd throw that out there.)

That is a much more plausible idea. It does not defy the laws of reality like the idea that the government rounded up hundreds of trustworthy Dr. Evils and pulled off a wild megasuperstunt with mystery pilots, fake hijackings, and demolition reports so flawed yet so convincing that their flaws are blaringly obvious to regular Joes on the internet but not the masses of actual experts. Your idea takes away the elements of the greatest stunt in history and the social bizarrities that would be too strange for a Twilight Zone episode and leaves something I think is not out of the question. I have not seen proof that it is true, but it could be for all we know. What I do know is that Al Qaeda continues to say they want us all dead and that terrorist plots keep getting foiled. I have no reason to believe that the 9/11 attacks were not just another part of the scenario we are dealing with in the world now.

Lets address the poll. Out of the 14 people voted so far.

6 say it's an inside job. 2 say it's government sponsored terrorism false flag military operation. 4 say it is not an inside job. 2 say it was because of bin laden and that they entirely trust the government. That's 8 people on the side of truth. And 6 people still in the process of waking up. That's only out of a small sample 8 out of 14.

So we are winning the fight.

Originally Posted by Mystic7

911 Truth

Originally Posted by Mystic7

Lets address the poll. Out of the 14 people voted so far.

6 say it's an inside job. 2 say it's government sponsored terrorism false flag military operation. 4 say it is not an inside job. 2 say it was because of bin laden and that they entirely trust the government. That's 8 people on the side of truth. And 6 people still in the process of waking up. That's only out of a small sample of 14 people who voted so far.

So we are winning the fight.

Your poll is scientific?

You would be using better science if you did not conduct your poll on a web site that is a cess pool for liberals. Try Golf.com and see if you get the same results. Those scientific research considerations are a real bitch to work with.

It's A DV poll. And not something that can be made biased like the disinformation sites you cherry pick. (that ignore the evidence) People are fairly balanced and more evolved at Dreamviews than other forums since it is a lucid dreaming forum. Labeling everyone here liberals is definitely a desperate measure for you.


Evidence Content.

The World Trade Center destruction
The Pentagon attack
The crash of Flight 93
Immediate military response
Attack foreknowledge

Originally Posted by SF911 Truth

The attack of 9/11/01 was a vast crime that left vast bodies of evidence. A great deal of that evidence was destroyed in the government's response to the crime. The quantity and quality of evidence available to the public varies greatly between different aspects of the crime. For example, whereas a large public body of visual records documents the destruction of the World Trade Center, there exist only a handful of photographs showing the immediate aftermath of the Pentagon attack, and none showing the attack itself.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

So far, you have only asserted that there are peculiar things about the big bang theory. You have yet to explain why you leap to the conclusion that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is real, and you have not even told me how it could be real in light of the issues I have raised. Again, the burden of proof is on you. Thanks.

These threads all kind of blend together, don't they?

Originally Posted by Mark75

These threads all kind of blend together, don't they?

Religion and politics often call for the same arguments.

So much for seperation of church and state.