3292 replies to this topic

[Insaniac]

skyeagle409, on 10 December 2012 - 04:26 PM, said:

He didn't say a thing about the government placing explosives in the WTC buildings, he said, "OPERATIVES," referring to the terrorist. Review the video again and listen very closely to what he has said about "OPERATIVES."

How would Bush know, that the "terrorists" were operative inside of the WTC? And planting explosives at that? I thought they supposedly flew a 757 into the WTC, without the use of explosives.

You mentioned earlier the "explosions" people kept hearing were sounds from falling elevators, so why did Bush mention explosives were used? And to keep workers in the WTC from escaping?

Quote

What president is going to go on national camera and admit to placing explosives in the WTC buildings? That is another clear example of how 911 conspiracist have clouded up events surrounding the 911 attacks.

Bush, obviously.

And no, this is another clear example of you (the pot) calling truth-seekers (the kettle) black.

[RaptorBites]

Back from a break, so I will be catching up.

Insaniac, on 09 December 2012 - 08:47 PM, said:

Theres little to nothing theoretical about this case. The US Government attacked their Trade Center and Pentagon, and have since tried to cover it up and obviously failed to do so.

Yes, there was failure to cover up 9/11.  Which is why the thousands that HAD to be involved in a cover up of this magnitude are currently in court for their evil deeds.

Insaniac, on 09 December 2012 - 08:47 PM, said:

I think this has caused nothing but the unnecessary deaths of innocents and broadened their control in regards to 'Divide and Conquer.' Now they have... 'Deciever's' (can't really coin them anything else) arguing against 'Truther's.'

There is nothing deceptive about the official story.  Is it 100% accurate?  No.  It is truthers that want to claim that the evil gubmint says the official story is 100% accurate which has never been the case.  They are going by what the evidence shows, and the surmounting evidence is in favor of the official story.

Insaniac, on 09 December 2012 - 08:47 PM, said:

People covering up the truth, and people trying to expose the truth. Those are the two sides.

There are no "people trying to cover up the truth" now you are using the "poisoning the well" illogical fallacy to seal your theory.  

Insaniac, on 09 December 2012 - 08:47 PM, said:

This is the only reason 'Truthers' exist, because some people actually want to enjoy justice, liberty, and freedom, rather than live in a "Demoncracy" ruled by terrorists.

Its fine for people to want to seek the truth.  However, when they start combining illogical facts, confirmation bias, poisoning the well arguments, selective hearing, and all other sorts of mis-interpretations of facts, well....they are only searching for evidence to support their own conclusions.

[RaptorBites]

Insaniac, on 09 December 2012 - 08:57 PM, said:

Exactly.

Yet theres still tons of people trying to reveal that it was an inside job, therefore it must be true.

There are also tons of people (common and field experts) that support the official story.  So using YOUR own logic, the official story must also be true.

[RaptorBites]

Insaniac, on 09 December 2012 - 09:09 PM, said:

So they've made mistakes. We all do from time to time. It's called being "Human." Do you remember that?

Yes, which is why the official story isn't 100% accurate.  Go by the evidence collected and make your own determination on what happened.

Insaniac, on 09 December 2012 - 08:47 PM, said:

Atleast 'Truthers' aren't resorting to lies and deceit like Bush.

If you don't believe the government, thats fine.  What does the evidence say?

Insaniac, on 09 December 2012 - 08:47 PM, said:

Why is it so important to you, that you defend your corrupt Government?

Again, resorting to "poisoning the well" arguments.

[RaptorBites]

Insaniac, on 09 December 2012 - 09:32 PM, said:

It destroys your research, though. Why else would they send it into the pentagon?

Regardless, have you seen the flight path of flight 77?  If the plan was to attack the Pentagon directly, why wasn't there a direct approach?  Instead of the descending turn into the Pentagon (which by the way, shows human intervention at the controls) why not fly it right into the Pentagon to begin with.  The flight path actually shows that the Pentagon was made a target and was not the primary target to begin with.

Insaniac, on 09 December 2012 - 08:47 PM, said:

I struggle to believe some poor Middle-Easterner's with box cutters had a 757. Probably because of it's unlikelyhood.

Just because you do not believe it could happen doesn't mean it didn't happen.  Again, just like a previous post that talked about the hypothetical of this same situation, do you know if the terrorists mentioned explosives as well to the passengers in order to get them compliant?  

Insaniac, on 09 December 2012 - 08:47 PM, said:

Bush on the other hand had access to many types of aircraft. Makes more sense for him to pull it off.

This statement is just stupid in of itself.  Bush does not have access to many types of aircraft by himself.  This statement just shows you have no idea how the military and government works.

[RaptorBites]

Insaniac, on 09 December 2012 - 08:47 PM, said:

Afraid you've put faith in lies of George Bush.

I like to put my faith in science.  When applied to the evidence of 9/11, goes in favor of the official story.

Insaniac, on 09 December 2012 - 08:47 PM, said:

Do you seriously believe the stereotypical "hijackers, hijack plane" scenario? Has that ever happened, like, ever? Not in recent times.

Yes, airline hijackings have happened before.  After 9/11 when air marshalls were activated and airport security has been heightened, it makes it a lot harder to hi-jack a plane.

Insaniac, on 09 December 2012 - 08:47 PM, said:

What it boils down to is this:

The purpose of 9/11 was to get people like you to support a takeover of the Middle-East and scare you into giving up your civil rights. So far, it's worked because the American people are uneducated in the truth, naive, dumbed-down, and poisoned via chemicals in the water supplies.

HAHAHAHAHAHA.  NO

Just because you cannot apply ANY sort of fundamental science to your arguments,. does not make you any more right than fear mongerers like Alex Jones.

At this point, responding to any of your posts would be considered meaningless fun.

[skyeagle409]

Insaniac, on 10 December 2012 - 06:04 PM, said:

[/i][/u]

How would Bush know, that the "terrorists" were operative inside of the WTC?..And planting explosives at that? I thought they supposedly flew a 757 into the WTC, without the use of explosives.

First of all, there were no secondary explosions evident when the aircraft struck the WTC towers, which was a clear indication there were no planted explosives. Secondary explosions would have been detected on seismic monitors in the local area and evident on video and on audio, but as we all have seen, there were no explosions on video nor on audio and  seismic monitors in the area did not detect bomb explosions. In addition, demolition experts combing the area did not find evidence of planted explosives in the rubble of the WTC buildings, which brings up this question:

Why did 911 conspiracist claim that explosives were used when there is not a shred of evidence to support their claim?

Quote

You mentioned earlier the "explosions" people kept hearing were sounds from falling elevators, so why did Bush mention explosives were used?

Review what he has said very carefully because you have taken his comment completely out of context. Let's take a look at the person who supplied the United States with the information that  Bush is speaking of.

Quote

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was a member of Osama bin Laden's terrorist group al-Qaeda organization, although he lived in Afghanistan, heading al-Qaeda's propaganda operations from sometime around 1999. The 9/11 Commission Report alleges that he was "the principal architect of the 9/11 attacks." He is also alleged to have confessed to a role in many of the most significant terrorist plots over the last twenty years, including the World Trade Center 1993 bombings, the Bojinka plot, an aborted 2002 attack on the U.S. Bank Tower in Los Angeles, the Bali nightclub bombings, the failed bombing of American Airlines Flight 63, the Millennium Plot, and the murder of Daniel Pearl.

He was captured on March 1, 2003, in hiding in Rawalpindi, Pakistan, by the Inter-Services Intelligence agency of Pakistan, and transferred to U.S. custody. In March 2007, he confessed to masterminding the September 11 attacks, the Richard Reid shoe bombing attempt to blow up an airliner over the Atlantic Ocean, the Bali nightclub bombing in Indonesia, the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and various foiled attacks. He was charged in February 2008 with war crimes and murder by a U.S. military commission and faces the death penalty if convicted.

Now, for the rest of the story concerning the remarks of President Bush in the video.

Quote

"For an example, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed described the design of planned attacks of buildings inside the U.S. and how operatives were directed to carry them out. That is valuable information for those of us who have the responsibility to protect the American people.

He (Khalid Sheikh Mohammed)told us the operatives had been instructed to ensure that the explosives went off at a high -- a point that was high enough to prevent people trapped above from escaping."

President Bush is referring to what Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was saying as far as plans were concerned, which is why I have said you took his remarks out of context.

Edited by skyeagle409, 10 December 2012 - 07:03 PM.

[RaptorBites]

Liquid Gardens, on 10 December 2012 - 05:58 PM, said:

But you just said, "Nothing is a "fact" that comes from wicked Government. It's truth mixed with lies."  So I guess this is evidence that it wasn't an inside job, Bush is a liar, right?  Except when he says something that agrees with you, then of course he's truthful?

Good point LG.

Reading back on his earlier posts, he called Bush a deceitful liar.  Then later stated that Bush himself admitted to explosives which HAD to be the truth.

Based on his admittance to Bush being a liar, I figured Bush was lying about the explosives too.

Now I am just as confused as to his position.

[Insaniac]

skyeagle409, on 10 December 2012 - 06:36 PM, said:

First of all, there were no secondary explosions evident when the aircraft struck the WTC towers, which was a clear indication there were no planted explosives.

Why did George Bush mention explosives? I mean, explosives were there, the president mentioned it himself.

Quote

Secondary explosions would have been detected on seismic monitors in the local area and evident on video and on audio, but as we all have seen, there were no explosions on video nor on audio and  seismic monitors in the area did not detect bomb explosions.

Convenient for just such an inside job. Somebody had a hand in disabling, fooling or glitching the seismic monitors. Maybe the CIA could pull that off? I wouldn't put it past them.

Quote

In addition, demolition experts combing the area did not find evidence of planted explosives in the rubble of the WTC buildings, which brings up this question.

Demolition Experts on both sides claiming opposites. Some explain how a plane couldn't have done the damage it did, but explosives instead were needed, alongside other 9/11 witnesses who claim they heard multiple explosions, whilst other demolition experts say they haven't heard such a thing. It's called turning a blind eye to the truth.

Quote

Why did 911 conspiracist claim that explosives were used when there is not a shred of evidence to support their claim?

Why did George Bush, himself, claim that explosives were used to bring down the upper floors of the WTC, "keeping people from getting out?"


Now you're just contradicting what your own ex-president believes. Does that mean you know something he doesn't?

Quote

Review what he has said very carefully because you have taken his comment completely out of context.

I don't put my faith in liar's like Bush, mate. Take your own advice. I'm not the one taking things out of context.

For anyone else: I debate one person a time. That way posts don't get muddled and the present discussion is easier to understand.

[RaptorBites]

Babe Ruth, on 10 December 2012 - 03:57 PM, said:

Sky is rather like a person with impaired color vision--he is unable to perceive the mountains of evidence contradicting the official story just as a color impaired person is literally unable to perceive a particular color.

Care to show us the mountains of evidence that a anti-ship cruise missile hit the Pentagon?  Or better yet, where flight 93 landed including evidence of the exsistence of the passengers after 9/11?

Oh wait....forgot who I was responding to....carry on BR, carry on.

[skyeagle409]

Insaniac, on 10 December 2012 - 07:03 PM, said:

Why did George Bush mention explosives? I mean, explosives were there, the president mentioned it himself.

One more time because it seems you missed the boat the first time around. President Bush was referring what was told by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed

Quote

"For an example, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed described the design of planned attacks of buildings inside the U.S. and how operatives were directed to carry them out. That is valuable information for those of us who have the responsibility to protect the American people.

He (Khalid Sheikh Mohammed) told us the operatives had been instructed to ensure that the explosives went off at a high -- a point that was high enough to prevent people trapped above from escaping."

So once again, you missed the boat.

Quote

Convenient for just such an inside job. Somebody had a hand in disabling, fooling or glitching the seismic monitors.

Please explain how seismic monitors were fooled during the 9/11 attack.

Quote

Maybe the CIA could pull that off? I wouldn't put it past them.

Forget the "maybe" part because this in not a guessing game. The overwhelming evidence speaks for itself.

Quote

Demolition Experts on both sides claiming opposites.

I have posted many videos proving beyond any doubt the collapse of the WTC buildings were not the result of controlled demolitions.

Quote

Some explain how a plane couldn't have done the damage it did, but explosives instead were needed, alongside other 9/11 witnesses who claim they heard multiple explosions,...

First of all, they did not hear bomb explosions nor felt the bomb waves of bomb explosions and once again, seismic monitors did not detect bomb explosions.

Quote

.... whilst other demolition experts say they haven't heard such a thing.

I would take the testimony of demolition experts over those who have never heard nor felt blast waves from  real bomb explosions, and I have heard many bomb explosions as well, which is another reason why I have said that I did not see nor hear evidence of bomb explosions in any of the 911 videos..

Quote

Why did George Bush, himself, claim that explosives were used to bring down the upper floors of the WTC, "keeping people from getting out?"

Review the video again because he is referring to what Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was saying about terrorist plans and nothing to do with what occurred during the 911 attacks.

Edited by skyeagle409, 10 December 2012 - 07:23 PM.

[Insaniac]

skyeagle409, on 10 December 2012 - 07:21 PM, said:

One more time because it seems you missed the boat the first time around. President Bush was referring what was told by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed So once again, you missed the boat.

But you, yourself said those sounds coming from the detonations were "falling elevators." So what is it, Sky?

You first denied detonations/explosives were used, and that the sounds were mere falling elevators, but now you're suggesting explosives were used and Bush only knew about it because he was told by Khalid.

Somebodies losing ground, here.

"Explosives planted high enough to prevent people trapped above from escaping." ~ Bush

If Middle-Eastern terrorists are in the process of detonating their planted explosives, they're going to stand well out of harms way. Common sense 101, so who does that leave "trapt above?"

The innocent civillians & workers of the World Trade Center, of course, and we all know many innocents lost their lives that day. Were there any dead terrorists?

Quote

Please explain how seismic monitors were fooled during the 9/11 attack.

The Government doesn't disclose it's true strategies and secrets with civillians, afraid. Particularly not when it can expose a coverup. Thats a large part of why nobody trusts them.

Quote

Forget the "maybe" part because this in not a guessing game. The overwhelming evidence speaks for itself.

When the US Gov insists on blocking ivestigations, covering up the evidence, and tellings truths mixed with lies, it becomes a guessing game. Basic logic should tell you that.

A "guessing game" is precisely what it is at this point.

Quote

First of all, they did not hear bomb explosions

Who didn't hear bomb explosions?

Quote

nor felt the bomb waves of bomb explosions

Yet, George Bush admits explosives were used to keep people from escaping.

Quote

once again, seismic monitors did not detect bomb explosions.

Perhaps some shadow-player working for Bush turned them off, that they may not pick up the detonation shockwaves? It's a possibility.

Quote

I would take the testimony of demolition experts over those who have never heard nor felt blast waves from  real bomb explosions, and I have heard many bomb explosions as well, which is another reason why I have said that I did not see nor hear evidence of bomb explosions in any of the 911 videos.

Like I said, bomb experts exist on both sides of the fence. Some tell that they didn't hear explosions, while others explain they did hear explosions. Many 9/11 witnesses claim to have heard explosions and considering Bush admitted explosives were used, this goes against the "dropping elevators" theory.

Quote

Review the video again because he is referring to what Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was saying about terrorist plans and nothing to do with what occurred during the 911 attacks.

That video boils down to this:

A: Bush/US Government had explosives planted, for the sake of staging a false flag attack on the WTC, in order to convince the American public they have to go to war against the Middle-East, and in the process, use this "War on Terror" as an excuse to strip the American people of their rights, one by one.


or


B: Bush knew terrorists, or operatives as Bush likes to call them, had knowledge on how to blow the World Trade Center and Bush did nothing but sit on his ass as they did it. Conveniently, any fighter jets that could have protected the WTC were diverted the other way.

[The New Richard Nixon]

Bush this, Bush that, why don't you actually find some evidence and come back

[Liquid Gardens]

Insaniac, on 10 December 2012 - 08:12 PM, said:

The Government doesn't disclose it's true strategies and secrets with civillians, afraid. Particularly not when it can expose a coverup. Thats a large part of why nobody trusts them.

Slight correction, nobody trusts them except for you apparently.  As soon as you find something Bush said that you can (mis-) construe as supporting your belief, it's amazing how trustworthy he becomes all of a sudden.  For reference, see, well, you:  "Yet, George Bush admits explosives were used to keep people from escaping."

[Left-Field]

The New Richard Nixon, on 10 December 2012 - 08:34 PM, said:

Bush this, Bush that, why don't you actually find some evidence and come back

Why don't the people behind the "official" 9/11 conspiracy theory do that themselves?

Why do people believe the "official" conspiracy theory any more than other theories spoken of which make just as much if not more sense; and come with just as much if not more evidence supporting those theories?

Edited by Left-Field, 10 December 2012 - 09:19 PM.