Thread: 9/11 Truth

The attack on Pearl Harbor actually had similar themes: the government had foreknowledge of a possible attack, and for some reason virtually the entire navy was just sitting in port, sitting ducks to the Japanese bombers(just a coincidence, or a sinister plot?). One may suspect that the Japanese couldn't have done so much damage as they supposedly did, and that in fact some of the vessels were rigged with explosives beforehand to make sure the damage was severe enough to justify an invasion of Japan. The government intercepted communications that indicated an attack, yet for some reason delayed its response until after the attack had already begun!

In a similar vein, some believe the levees of hurricane Katrina were bombed(there's a familiar pattern) to create a disaster to pull attention away from the government's evil plans(that seems nonsensical, doesn't it?). Isn't incompetency enough to explain 9/10's of the evidence in these conspiracy plots?

No one argues that Franklin D. Roosevelt's administration was to blame, either by negligence or active involvement in promoting the devastation, probably because the government of the 1940's acted responsibly instead of abusing the fear created by WWII. Our current suspicion of conspiracy is aroused by the havoc-wreaking policies of officials who are universally described as incompetent, even though their incompetence is more than adequate an explanation for the event.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

The attack on Pearl Harbor actually had similar themes: the government had foreknowledge of a possible attack, and for some reason virtually the entire navy was just sitting in port, sitting ducks to the Japanese bombers(just a coincidence, or a sinister plot?). One may suspect that the Japanese couldn't have done so much damage as they supposedly did, and that in fact some of the vessels were rigged with explosives beforehand to make sure the damage was severe enough to justify an invasion of Japan. The government intercepted communications that indicated an attack, yet for some reason delayed its response until after the attack had already begun!

In a similar vein, some believe the levees of hurricane Katrina were bombed(there's a familiar pattern) to create a disaster to pull attention away from the government's evil plans(that seems nonsensical, doesn't it?). Isn't incompetency enough to explain 9/10's of the evidence in these conspiracy plots?

No one argues that Franklin D. Roosevelt's administration was to blame, either by negligence or active involvement in promoting the devastation, probably because the government of the 1940's acted responsibly instead of abusing the fear created by WWII. Our current suspicion of conspiracy is aroused by the havoc-wreaking policies of officials who are universally described as incompetent, even though their incompetence is more than adequate an explanation for the event.

You are quite right that Pearl Harbor was anticipated, provoked, allowed, and then used for fear-mongering. What would have happened if this information was made public within a few years of the attack?

Similarly, Operation Northwoods would have shook the nation to the core, and still would now if everyone knew about it. It proves the govt plans terror attacks to create an excuse for war, a massively illegal and unethical practice thought only to be used by ruthless dictators.

One thing you mentioned was that no one has come forth alleging they saw people wiring th building before the attacks. But this is not true, and there are at least a few people on the record making such claims. Either way this doesnt prove anything in my opinion, but simply adds to the mountain of evidence all suggesting an inside job.

What does prove an inside job and cannot be refuted, is the evidence of thermate-like reactions coming form the South Tower. A thermate-like analog is the only possible explanation, and has been proven to a high degree of certainty by independent scientific investigation.

And as Mystic pointed out, and independent group of almost 200 Architects and Engineers have concluded that WTC7 was a controlled demolition. Any other explanation is impossible because it requires all the support columns be severed simultaneously and consecutively such that the building accelerates into itself. This has never happened, and cannot happen to a steel framed building.

The thermate-like reactions appear to be very compelling physical evidence, though it is difficult for me to tell by the video whether the sparks falling from the building are liquid iron or ignited jet fuel. How does one tell the difference between the two?

I've heard that WTC7 had a structural design that lent it to likely possibility of the structure falling symmetrically. If a truss bridge fails at a single point, for example, the entire bridge will most likely fall nearly straight down because the forces that were supported by the failed member redistribute themselves instantaneously, creating a cascade of failures across the structure. In fact, here's some evidence of that:

From Popular Mechanics
According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."

There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.

Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."

An unusual structural design and long-term exposure to fire that weakened supports that were already damaged and under unusually high stresses to begin with seems a likely explanation. It is simply untrue that progressive collapse cannot happen in a steel-framed structure(remember the Minnesota bridge collapse?).

It isn't hard to imagine that a similar kind of collapse may have occurred in the twin towers, as there was high heat, structural damage, and higher-than-normal stresses on the members. It isn't hard to imagine that the core columns would buckle under the force of the building collapsing onto them, snapping them into twisted segments, as they were found in the rubble pile.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

I think we are still waiting for the irrefutable evidence to be explicitly detailed.

This is insulting and you should apologize for not addressing it. As I clearly answered your question now it's only fair you answer to the evidence listed in this post.

Those that are skeptical are always going to want to believe something different. No matter how clear or logical the evidence is. You mentioned about WTC 7 and basically said that it's sensible that it collapsed. This is the most stupid thing you could say about 911. Even the news reporters on the day played this clip over and over and were so amazed they kept repeating how it looked so much like a controlled demolition. They way it fell so neatly down. Eye witnesses claim there was a demolition countdown. There is evidence it was a controlled demolition and this is not even something you can debate as it's concluded as fact already. Even if in your imagination Larry Silverstein didn't go on television and clearly admit it himself.

1) The evidence is the only plausible thing you can say which is what I list below. The evidence I present is entirely plausible and there is no reason to suggest otherwise as it is clear as day. Simply saying something is not plausible does not make it true.

2) The sources are entirely credible and there is no reason to suggest they are not.

3) The evidence is not in any way merely circumstantial. It is way more than circumstantial and this is evident in the links and case provided that is constantly ignored By Universal Mind and now R.D.735 is trying to debate while ignoring it. No reason has being stated or can be stated why this is not clearly beyond circumstantial.

4)The burden to debunk is on the person who has no evidence of what they are arguing and that is R.D.735 and Universal mind.

The final insulting thing to our intelligence is R.D.735 states she is open to counter arguments. When the body of evidence has being completely ignored.

Universal mind your post does not count as a response to the evidence. Just useless distracting from it. See if you can address it this time.

Originally Posted by The evidence

Originally Posted by mystic

1. The failure of the FAA and Military's standard operating procedures to intercept off-course or out of contact aircraft.
2. The multiple wargames happening on 9/11
3. The unexplained collapse of WTC building 7, and the demoltion-like collapse of the towers themselves. Larry Silverstein, the lease-holder of WTC 7, admits it was "pulled."
4. The foreign warnings received by our government/intelligence agencies prior to 9/11
5. The fact that several of the supposed hijackers have turned up alive
6. The failure of the 9/11 Commission to address certain questions, and the suspect members of this commission.
7. Insider trading on put options prior to 9/11. The SEC refused to track the trades. The story was killed in the US media.
8. The historical precedents of government deceptions and "false-flag operations," including Operation Northwoods.

Originally Posted by Mystic7

1. The Mastermind, the Hijackers and the Planes
2. The Twin Towers
3. The Pentagon
4. Flight 93
5. The President's Response
6. Osama and WTC 7
7. How the Case was Cracked
8. The Deep Mystery of Melted Steel
9. The Undead Hijackers

Originally Posted by Mystic7

911 COMMISSION
HIGH-LEVEL OFFICIALS
PRIOR WARNINGS OF PLANES CRASHING INTO BUILDINGS
WAR GAMES ON SEPTEMBER 11TH
EXPERTS TALK ABOUT CONTROLLED DEMOLITION
CREDIBLE SOURCES SUCH AS NEW YORK FIREFIGHTERS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS
HOW DID THEY KNOW?
WHAT ABOUT THE PENTAGON?
BUT COULD THIS REALLY HAPPEN IN MODERN AMERICA?
911 FACT SHEET

Originally Posted by memeticverb

What does prove an inside job and cannot be refuted, is the evidence of thermate-like reactions coming form the South Tower. A thermate-like analog is the only possible explanation, and has been proven to a high degree of certainty by independent scientific investigation.

Originally Posted by memeticverb

And as Mystic pointed out, and independent group of almost 200 Architects and Engineers have concluded that WTC7 was a controlled demolition. Any other explanation is impossible because it requires all the support columns be severed simultaneously and consecutively such that the building accelerates into itself. This has never happened, and cannot happen to a steel framed building.

While this is not even half of the evidence we cannot cover it all at once. More evidence can be found at the beginning of this thread. That too has being ignored. Lets just see if we can get a reasonable response to these irrefutable aspects of the investigation first.

Mystic, what is your understanding of the difference between circumstantial evidence and direct evidence? I am getting the impression that you don't even know what circumstantial evidence is. I am not even sure you know what evidence is.

Something hugely relevant you keep refusing to address is how the "evidence" is evidence. You won't make the connection between your "evidence" and your conclusion. Until you do that, you will not have even explained how what you are talking about even qualifies as evidence. Explain your case, not just a few ideas and a completely unconnected conclusion.

Burden of proof is on the maker of a claim, not the people who are skeptical of it.

I said a lot more than 'it is sensible that WTC7 collapsed.' The reasons for that making sense were given: unusual structural design, fires that weakened members that were damaged and unusually stressed to begin with, as was evidenced by the NIST report. To state merely that I simply take the collapse for granted is a distortion of my argument and completely ignores the evidence I presented.

I attempted to isolate the WTC7 as a part of the conspiracy. I don't believe I need to connect that building with the war in Iraq, the DHS, the president's foibles, or the lack of aircraft scrambling to intercept the airliners in order to present physical evidence about WTC7 and demonstrate how it conflicts with the conspiracy theory, do I? I'm sorry if that wasn't clear.

On the other hand, the evidence I presented(I did present evidence, contrary to your claim that I didn't. That can be proven by a simple check of my last few posts) was given short shrift. Instead of a good debate over definite physical realities that we all agree upon, this was the response:

Those that are skeptical are always going to want to believe something different. No matter how clear or logical the evidence is. You mentioned about WTC 7 and basically said that it's sensible that it collapsed. This is the most stupid thing you could say about 911. Even the news reporters on the day played this clip over and over and were so amazed they kept repeating how it looked so much like a controlled demolition. They way it fell so neatly down. Eye witnesses claim there was a demolition countdown. There is evidence it was a controlled demolition and this is not even something you can debate as it's concluded as fact already. Even if in your imagination Larry Silverstein didn't go on television and clearly admit it himself.

People said a lot of things on television that day and the next. Would I argue that Iraq was responsible for 9/11 because Donald Rumsfeld implied it on 9/12? Such evidence is called hearsay. The news reports were clarified and corrected quickly(though of course they were in on it too, weren't they?).

I'm really disappointed, to say the least. Please point out where I was wrong instead of assuming that I have no ability to accept your evidence. I can accept your evidence, but only on the condition that it seems reasonable. I won't accept evidence that can be immediately shown to be false or irrelevant by better evidence or better logic and which, as seems the case here, to have no defenders to point out its validity to us laymen.

The credibility and relevance of your evidence is threatened by my refutation of a significant part of it. I'd consider it a compliment just for you to go out on a limb and establish the superiority of your evidence over mine. If you don't feel the need to do so, that's fine too. You could try showing that the WTC7 building's design did not create the risk of progressive collapse(though that's a bit harder, it would invalidate the whole NIST report) or that there is other evidence that points to explosives. You could also point out a fireman who claimed he was told to demolish the building by its owner. Please?

Again, sorry if any of this offends. I try not to hold anyone's views against them.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

My degrees are in psychology and law

This allows you to say absurd things and make them sound sane. Now it makes sense why your so effectively and creatively evasive and distracting.

Your making a claim by suggesting the evidence does not qualify as such and is not present when it is and does qualify. You have to explain your reasons not just say so. What I have presented is not ideas. This is deceptive and dishonest twisting of my argument. You are yet to respond these facts. I have made all the necessary connections and you need to stop twisting and running away from the proof with word games and say something of substance that can explain why you still want to believe in a disproved fantasy.

And don't go back into remote control devices and missing planes, and irrelevant questions. Respond to the evidence posted.

Originally Posted by Mystic7

This allows you to say absurd things and make them sound sane. Now it makes sense why your so effectively and creatively evasive.

Your making a claim by suggesting the evidence does not qualify as such and is not present when it is and does qualify. You have to explain why not just say so. What I have presented is not ideas. This is deceptive and dishonest twisting of my argument. You are yet to respond these facts. I have made all the necessary connections and you need to stop twisting and running away from the proof with word games and say something of substance that can explain why you still want to believe in a disproved fantasy.

And don't go back into remote control devices and missing planes respond to my evidence.

That was a dodge. We both know that.

I am going to make this very simple.

Explain how what you keep posting is "evidence" that 9/11 was an inside job.

My explanation is the evidence posted. Explain why you think you have a right to question it without responding to it.

No wonder your psychology and law degree got you your disinfo job.

Originally Posted by Mystic7

My explanation is the evidence posted.

That does not qualify as an answer. I ask how it is evidence, and you say nothing except that it is evidence? What kind of response is that supposed to be? There you go again, calling it evidence. Explain how it is "evidence". What do you even want me to argue with if you are not going to make an argument? You have not argued how what you keep posting is evidence that 9/11 was an inside job. So, what in the world are you doing?

Originally Posted by Michael

I think mystic is doing a good job with the evidence in this thread. I'd like to see some opposing evidence also, instead of asking him for more evidence... wtf?

I am not asking for more "evidence". I am asking how what he is posting is "evidence" in the first place. He does not have an answer for that. Think about that. He posts some stuff, strangely calls it "evidence", but never explains how it is "evidence". That is some pretty bizarre arguing. He calls it "evidence", but he does not explain the connection between the premise and the conclusion. What are we even supposed to be arguing about?

It is like if I say, "The Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe 300 years ago. Just look at the evidence. My evidence is that there are 200 scientists in the world who say carbon dating is a myth and that there are holes in the big bang theory." So what would be the logical response to that point? It would be, "How is the fact that 200 scientists say that carbon dating is a myth and that your nonexpert analysis of the big bang theory is that there are holes in it 'evidence' that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe 300 years ago?" That would be a completely logical question to ask. Well, Mystic's style response to the question would be, "Shut up and look at the evidence!" Shouldn't he first explain how what he said is evidence? And keep in mind that this part of the conversation is way past questions in the style of, "Well then, how do you explain historical records of humans that date back thousands of years?" which is much like, "Who or what was flying those airplanes?" or, "How were hijackings faked for so many friends and relatives who talked to the victims, who said they were being hijacked?" Do you see what style of pseudo-argument Mystic is using?


Hey Mystic, how is what you keep posting "evidence" that 9/11 was an inside job?

I think mystic is doing a good job with the evidence in this thread. I'd like to see some opposing evidence also, instead of asking him for more evidence... wtf?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Respond in what way? Would you like for me to make up an argument for you and argue against it? I don't have any idea what I am supposed to be arguing against.

Start by responding to even one issue of the 911 material posted here and why any of this is not true. If you don't know how to, then maybe you should find out how you ought to respond to the evidence before claiming it doesn't count for anything.


Senior Military, Intelligence, Law Enforcement, and Government Officials Question the 9/11 Commission Report

Pilots for 9/11 Truth is an organization of aviation professionals and pilots throughout the globe who have gathered together for one purpose. [committed to seeking the truth surrounding the events of the 11th of September 2001].

Here can be found Eyewitness

PHYSICS 911 is created and maintained by a group of scientists, engineers and other professionals known collectively as the Scientific Panel Investigating Nine-eleven.

Architectural and engineering professionals and 497 other supporters including A/E students have joined us in demanding of Congress a truly independent investigation website here at Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

You didn't respond to my red giant star evidence of how pumpkins fly

Disrespect people elsewhere and get off this thread then. If you don't want to discuss 911 and what I posted move your entire swirling tunnel of nonsense to senseless banter where you belong. All you do is disrupt.

Originally Posted by Mystic7

Disrespect people elsewhere and get off this thread then. If you don't want to discuss 911 and what I posted move your entire swirling tunnel of nonsense to senseless banter where you belong. All you do is disrupt.

It is legitimate satire that illustrates the ineffectiveness of asserting something is evidence without ever explaining how it is evidence or connecting it to the conclusion. Why in the flying Bejesus would you keep dodging my question of how your "evidence" is evidence if you really think it is evidence? Why will you not say what your argument is? Do you even have an argument? If you really believed that the stuff is evidence and can be connected logically to your conclusion, you would have passionately stated such reasoning a while back.

You have no argument. All you have is information that you merely assert is evidence though you never argue that it is.

P.S.- I've had about enough fun with illustrating that you have no argument. This repetetive game has made it more than obvious, and I had fun playing it, but I think this is a good point to call it off. You don't want to admit that you are not saying anything, and you apparently are adamant that you are not going to. I guess that's enough of this stuff. Peace.

From Mystic7
Give evidence a chance and respond to it.

Don't forget about me. I'm still hoping for someone to say something regarding my last post.

Actually it was not a good point at all I found it full of hocus pocus science talk yet ridiculously bias and not relevant. Mainly because the impossibility of such a thing is way obvious. Firstly is the temperature steel melts at likely to be realistically reached in a fire to collapse the building? Ofcourse not and never in history.Even with your calcium, strontium, and other complex chemical reactions you want to try and confuse and impress everyone with. It's basically a bullshit story answer. I don't agree about the lack of presence of the thermate. What appears to have happened is the building got demolished. No-one seems to remember the engineer of the building stating of video that it could withstand multiple plane impacts because it was structures like the steel wire netting. If you puncture a hole in the netting. It really does nothing to the grid steel structure that is left. And the fire certainly could not have burnt it down.

Burning drywall, fuel from the planes, and sulfur. That isn't going to explain it. Not even close. It's impossible. They are teaching in one university I know of how the buildings could not have collapsed except for by controlled demolition by the way. So it depends what the prejudice of your college is and a number of factors. You can use science to reason about anything you want. But I'm not convinced it magically fell down yet.

And R.D.735 could you perhaps concisely respond to atleast one link or point I have made from all that research I posted. I would really like to see some answers if you don't agree with it.

The Rothschilds were the major puppeteers behind this...

Still no-one can explain this....


1. The failure of the FAA and Military's standard operating procedures to intercept off-course or out of contact aircraft.
2. The multiple wargames happening on 9/11
3. The unexplained collapse of WTC building 7, and the demoltion-like collapse of the towers themselves. Larry Silverstein, the lease-holder of WTC 7, admits it was "pulled."
4. The foreign warnings received by our government/intelligence agencies prior to 9/11
5. The fact that several of the supposed hijackers have turned up alive
6. The failure of the 9/11 Commission to address certain questions, and the suspect members of this commission.
7. Insider trading on put options prior to 9/11. The SEC refused to track the trades. The story was killed in the US media.
8. The historical precedents of government deceptions and "false-flag operations," including Operation Northwoods.

1. The Mastermind, the Hijackers and the Planes
2. The Twin Towers
3. The Pentagon
4. Flight 93
5. The President's Response
6. Osama and WTC 7
7. How the Case was Cracked
8. The Deep Mystery of Melted Steel
9. The Undead Hijackers


Senior Military, Intelligence, Law Enforcement, and Government Officials Question the 9/11 Commission Report
Pilots for 9/11 Truth is an organization of aviation professionals and pilots throughout the globe who have gathered together for one purpose. [committed to seeking the truth surrounding the events of the 11th of September 2001].
Eyewitness
PHYSICS 911 is created and maintained by a group of scientists, engineers and other professionals known collectively as the Scientific Panel Investigating Nine-eleven.

Architectural and engineering professionals and 497 other supporters including A/E students have joined us in demanding of Congress a truly independent investigation website here at Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth


911 COMMISSION
HIGH-LEVEL OFFICIALS
PRIOR WARNINGS OF PLANES CRASHING INTO BUILDINGS
WAR GAMES ON SEPTEMBER 11TH
EXPERTS TALK ABOUT CONTROLLED DEMOLITION
CREDIBLE SOURCES SUCH AS NEW YORK FIREFIGHTERS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS
HOW DID THEY KNOW?
WHAT ABOUT THE PENTAGON?
BUT COULD THIS REALLY HAPPEN IN MODERN AMERICA?
911 FACT SHEET

Steven Jones & Kevin Ryan Debunk the NIST Report

9/11 Firefighters slam Rudy Guiliani


Giuliani Gets Exposed As Fraud by Firefighters

This article explains the disinformation tactics used by dishonest contributers to forums, magazines, and newspapers. Universal Mind, Dream Sailor, and several others Ive seen in this forum use almost every single tactic.

How Could They Plant Bombs in the World Trade Center?
Government Refused to Examine Trade Center Collapses

More Proof 911 Inside Job - Witnesses To WTC Explosives

Introduction to 9/11 for Those Who Still Believe the Official Story


Video Evidence:

Video and Photographic evidence of basement explosions (necessary for a controlled demolition) with eye witness testimony.

Demolition Waves clearly visible in "collapse".

WTC7

We also know that Sibel Edmonds and at least a dozen other FBI whistleblowers have indicated that the FBI has been infiltrated by criminal elements who aided the 9/11 terrorists. Sibel Edmonds who claims to have documented evidence of this fact has been gagged by the highest authority - The Attorney General's Office, even after her claims were substantiated by a preliminary by the Justice Department. Since that time gags orders have been repeatedly placed on Edmonds, and even the U.S. Congress form hearing her testimony. What in the world are they hiding? Why is Congress allowing Executive Privilege to override congressional oversight? Ill outline the legal arguments if you cant see them.

This appeal to executive privilege has also been used in the NSA spying scandal to exempt testimony and evidence. It has also been used in the Riggs Bank case where Bush's uncle was found to have allowed money laundering to two Saudi terrorists responsible for the 9/11 hijackings. Do you think it is suspicious that the brother of the President (who is already under fire for not going after the Saudi source of funding for the 9./11 terrorists), is now found guilty of laundering money to the 9/11 terrorists?

There are hundreds of coincidences that nearly prove a conspiracy. They simply need more investigation before a full chronological picture of the events can emerge.

Demolition waves are clearly visible, exploding before the top mass can pulverize it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ri9Uz1Wa-Xc

WTC7 displays all the characteristics of controlled demolition, not to mention features which can only be explained by it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFFkbo3o0NM

Scientists and Academics have written articles claiming to prove the controlled demolition theory, and have not been refuted.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/v...Demolition.pdf

Its a simple fact that government officials have tried to cover up evidence, like the molten metal.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...03712325092501

And I havnt seen one person in any forum discussing this topic even attempt to refute any of the facts and arguments provided by over a hundred of Architects and Engineers.
http://www.ae911truth.org/

I of course am through debating, at least for a while, but I want to help you find the past comments and links you overlooked. Here, I hope this helps you find what you are asking for since it is what you are asking for.

Originally Posted by Mystic7

Still no-one can explain this....
The unexplained collapse of WTC building 7, and the demoltion-like collapse of the towers themselves. Larry Silverstein, the lease-holder of WTC 7, admits it was "pulled."

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

IWTC:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/tech...42.html?page=4

WTC 7:

http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

Originally Posted by Mystic7

4. The foreign warnings received by our government/intelligence agencies prior to 9/11

Some guys are going to attack Australia this week. Go stop them!

Originally Posted by Mystic7

The Pentagon

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I
Pentagon:

http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blflight77.htm

Pentagon picture + caption:

http://urbanlegends.about.com/gi/dyn....asp%3Fid=2445

Originally Posted by Mystic7

The Undead Hijackers

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

It is not a proven fact. The BBC jumped to the conclusion that it is about ONE of the hijackers. Other news sources jump to the conclusion about six, and I found one that jumps to seven. It seems that the more in competition and therefore check a news company is with rivals, the less leap prone it is. It is speculation at this point.

LA Times

CNN

I hope that helps. It will if you read it.

And how did you say hijackings were faked and the real airplanes were hidden? I'm just curious.

Keep trying. I'll keep exposing it.

Rabbit

Originally Posted by Mystic7

Keep trying. I'll keep exposing it.

Rabbit

Oh, okay. Never mind.

R.D.735 Lets just get this clear. We all know this is not a debate but a war. If your asking me how I want you to fight the war against me to win. Just surrender. Because I will never give in anyway. Ofcourse your not asking me anything, you just want to sound resonable....

It makes a good excuse for a holiday break, at any rate. I'll see you all later. I hope everyone has a good Christmas while I'm gone.

1 - This poll cannot be considered. People who believe 9/11 was an inside job will feel compelled to come and vote (just like homosexuals would feel compelled to vote on a sexual orientation poll - sorry for the allusion heh). But hey, the majority of people believing something doesn't make that right (in fact, that's the reason why I'm against democracy).

2 - R.D. has just clearly explained why all that "evidence" shown on videos is actually senseless. If you didn't bother to read it (which would have been disrespectful, to say the least), then you won't understand anyway.

3 - Saying that you blindly believe something and that discussing it won't change it is the worst mistake. It makes the discussion become preaching.

I will not really take part of the discussion, firstly because I'm not as experienced as R.D., and also because I don't really bother discussing with people who blindly believe things.

Stay well