Learn to stop insulting posters who disagree with you or correct you. Aren't you tired of having most of your posts deleted for rule violations? 1. As you already well know, this thread is not about "objective truth seekers". 2. What was posted was a link to a page full of material directly appropriate to the topic of this discussion. You started this thread but it's obvious you're not interested in any posts that you disagree with regardless that they are directly on topic. If you don't want to discuss your own topic in an honest manner, don't start any thread. 3. It was posted as EVIDENCE just like 571 pages of the 9/11 Commission Report is EVIDENCE of fraud. Whether the poster believes it's proof or not is strictly the poster's opinion, but upon reading, nowhere is it stated that it's proof. 4. An "objective truth seeker" (since you insist on making it part of the discussion) is not a hypocrite and researches all available evidence thoroughly and doesn't ignore, reject or trivialize all evidence that contradicts the official 9/11 story. 5. An "objective truth seeker" questions everything that is not supported by fact and evidence (and even then often questions what fact/evidence might be missing or unavailable if a potential conclusion may not make reasonable sense). Edit: BTW, a "truth seeker" is objective by definition.
This is off topic but if you consider Iran a terrorist group (Iran has at times been accused of a connection to 9/11): http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...ing-september-11-terror-attacks-10206942.html
Al-Qaeda told Ahmedinejad to stop saying the US Govt did 9/11- http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...-Mahmoud-Ahmadinejad-to-stop-denying-911.html
It depends on what one wants to believe but there is also allegedly a video I saw years ago where Bin Laden himself claims he didn't do 9/11. It's difficult to differentiate between credible and false sources. Many of the Bin Laden videos seem faked, whether he claims to do it or denies it. The FBI claims they didn't have enough evidence.
The bottom line is there was no need for Bush to fake 9/11 as an excuse to invade the mideast, because he already had a good excuse, namely the truck-bombing of one of the towers some years previously, and satellite images of terror training camps etc.
I don't see the correlation but unfortunately whether Bush had a need to fake 9/11 or not is irrelevant. 9/11 happened on his watch and the overwhelming evidence shows that not only did he know it was going to happen but the highest positions in the US government (including Bush) did nothing to prevent it or stop it from being a resounding success. He and his administration are also complicit in the coverup following 9/11. http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-all-its-glory.495859/page-13#post-1067467117 And there is a ton of circumstantial evidence that points to much deeper complicity.
Well, that too in addition to the strikes in New York. Why there needed to be a Pentagon strike was just silly. I’m sure there will some talk about the supposedly “missing” 2 Trillion dollars that wasn’t missing at all.
Barbara Honegger provides a theory (beginning at about 4:15): Well if it wasn't missing then this guy lied. Given that it's well established the Pentagon was reported to be missing $8.5 trillion in late 2013, odds are Rumsfeld wasn't lying despite being a pathological liar. The hit on the Pentagon looks like it killed 2 nasty birds with one stone. Yet another of the hundreds of favorable convenient coincidences that all happened on the same day. I expect an insult filled response from the usual suspect and nothing of any substance.
Look, I’m not going to decipher a whole page of text and try to find the evidence you have hidden. Either post something constructive or get lost.
And it should be stated that all the supposed conspirators would have had to do to eliminate setting the generator on fire, damaging a helipad, planting 4 light poles, hiring a wrecker driver, damaging a cab, and then paying the cabbie to lie for the rest of his life along with all of the planters/damagers… is increase the approach vector of the aircraft by about 5 degrees Supposedly the aircraft were being remote controlled by the time so this would be easy to do… The trouble with conspiracy theories is that by the time the cockamamie stories are put together; it would be easier to just play it straight.
That may be unless the entity putting together that cockamamie story has a specific agenda. http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report.pdf
Guess he got lost...giggle. When you don't play the truthers games, they don't seem to want to get into specifics. Cannot say I blame them.
Ask me a specific question and well get into specifics. Here's the info I posted on another thread on the Pentagon that I can't get usda_select to look at. http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/the-pentagon-on-9-11.482175/ (all of my posts on page #1) Start watching this video at the 1.55.25 time mark. September 11 -- The New Pearl Harbor (FULL)
A couple of very interesting points (besides the suits appearing from out of nowhere and immediately corrupting the crime scene). 1. There is a serial number on that piece of debris that could have easily identified the actual aircraft it came from if the NTSB followed their own standard crash investigation protocol. 2. The absence of a serial number on an FDR should raise red flags everywhere, especially for the NTSB. Or since the FBI took over and allegedly used the NTSB as advisors, the NTSB should have alerted the FBI that this is a huge issue that absolutely requires forensic investigation/analysis.
Why did nobody see anyone plant a shred of physical evidence when you claim that all of the poles, the taxi, the wreckage, the generator, the damaged helipad, the plane parts were all planted?
IF evidence was planted: 1. How do you know no one saw? If someone saw, do you believe given a crime of this nature they wouldn't take measures to make sure eyewitnesses would never spill the beans? 2. Do you believe that given a crime of this nature, the criminals who may have planted evidence would not take all steps to make sure there were no eyewitnesses? 3. Does it make any sense that a passport would survive a fireball and land on the streets of Manhattan in relatively good condition AND that it would be found (I believe the next day)? Same is true with the alleged finding of an intact ID card of one of the alleged passengers at the Pentagon site 2 days later. Hundreds of miraculous and very convenient (for the OCT) coincidences all happening on the same day. (the usual rhetorical questions, not expecting any rabid OCT defenders to answer honestly)
You've gone on record and pretty much said that nobody is ever going to convince you you're wrong about this. But in the interest of just pointing out the absurdity of your position, I issue the following.... Oh so now we have not only people needlessly planting lighpoles, wreckage, taxi cabs, generators (setting them on fire too by the way), and destroying a helipad in a matter of a very few minutes, we have people "taking measures" against the eye witnesses. And in time-honored truther fashion; you won't say what "taking measures" means. For the comedic value, I'll ask you, "What do you mean by "taking measures" to "make sure eyewitnesses would never spill the beans?" Oh, okay well lets look at percentages. And I admit I haven't seen all of the personal effects of what was found in the wreckage of the four planes. But if they found 3 of the 19 hijackers's ID documents, that is what 15% of them (I guess that is what you're talking about above). There were 265 souls on the planes, They found the ID cards and paper work (that I'm aware of) for very few of the passengers. I think I saw eight of the crew's all together. The percentage is probably better for those who were near the front of the plane since the fireball would be behind them. Does it make sense that they would find fewer than 20% of the credentials or whatever the actual percentage is? Sure.
About what? I can't respond to the above if you're not going to be specific. I can easily admit I'm wrong about anything in particular if I'm proven wrong. See above, what are you claiming is absurd about what position? Who said any of that? If you're claiming I said any of the above 1. You're wrong about the former, I never made any such claim and 2. You misunderstood the latter because you failed to see the qualifier I specifically highlighted (IF). Use your imagination, the post was hypothetical. You do understand what IF means, right? You're also good at using your imagination, you imagine the 9/11 Commission Report is accurate despite that you agree with the overwhelming and irrefutable evidence indicating it's a massive fraud. Whatever steps criminals who want to cover up their crimes take to ensure a coverup. In this case on a grand scale such as 9/11. Is the concept too difficult for you? If all you can come up with is percentages and can't figure out that it would be nearly impossible that flimsy paper and plastic evidence could survive a fireball that allegedly leveled several buildings nearly intact you're obviously FOS, no one is that dense.
It figures you would spent time counting words in my post rather than respond to it in any intelligent manner. You can't even clarify your own confused post by answering my questions. You failed to understand what I initially posted in the first place so best to duck and run. But that's all anyone can usually expect from you. My claim stands, you're obviously FOS. (don't forget to count the words above)
One thing is clear; you're in no danger of interrupting your streak of being 100% incorrect. You should "take measures" to state what you think happened on that day. I know we're in no danger of that happening; ever. You should "take measures" to cite inaccuracies in the 9/11 Report (in the event you find any--you're batting 1000 there too at being unable to). You should "take measures" to discuss the light poles and why they would even be involved when the same perpetrators allegedly are planting plane parts on the lawn and even INSIDE the Pentagon. If you don't know what that means; use your imagination.
Here we go again, incorrect about what? You haven't stated .000001% of anything you believe I'm incorrect about. Why? What difference does it make what I or anyone theorizes what really happened on 9/11. No theory changes the fact that all the 9/11 official reports are fraudulent. Why? Don't you understand the reverse burden of proof fallacy yet? It's been explained to you so even a grade school child can understand it. There's nothing reliable about the 9/11 Commission Report as you already know and agree. Regardless, you don't need to pretend that an entire thread doesn't exist that describes the fraud in fine detail. It just makes you sound silly. Why? No one needs to discuss other people's theories, certainly not I. See above, no theory changes the facts about the government's 9/11 fraud. I am not you, I understand English quite well. I don't "imagine" conflicting things like an "accurate" report based on fraud.
