9/11 Conspiracy Theory Question

[joebudda]

They cram themselves by believing such crackpot theories. There is no evidence there were any explosions. As you know, witness testimoney is highly subjective and not always accurate.

Correct. Which is why it is good to get many testimonies from multiple sources. And if they tend to corroborate with each other and they didn't get together to contrive the account then the accounts become more and more reliable.

Look at all of the people that claim they see Aliens and Bigfoot..should we believe them too?

Do we have a mass sighting of one event with multiple unrelated sources?

There is no physical evidence of explosions.

There is a considerable amount of eyewitness testimony.

 

[joebudda]

I need you to be more specific. What damage and explosions in the basement?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zuq0ANHxvlM

 

[Archaeopteryx]

James, I already sent you a link to a peer-reviewed academic journal called the Open Civil Engineering Journal (http://www.bentham.org/open/tociej/openaccess2.htm) The article is called Fourteen Points of Agreement with the Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction. Did you choose to ignore it?

As for your continual ridicule James. Ridicule serves as nothing more than distraction in debate. It is absent of reasoning, and lacking any substance. So every time you attack your opponent with "crackpot, tin-foil hatter. Etc" you are: A. not providing evidence. B. attempting to belittle your opponent. C. not adding anything of value to discussion. You can continue your ridicule, since ridicule seems to be your major response. But don't expect myself to take your seriously. Galileo was ridiculed too and even underwent trial on suspicion of heresy for advocating the heliocentric theory which ran counter to the popular and widely-accepted geocentric myth. Turns out that Galileo, who was ridiculed for an apparently 'irrational' theory, turned out to be right. The ridicule his opponents placed on him didn't change the truth of his assertions. Insults do not count for knowledge.

 

[jamesrwright3]

]James, I already sent you a link to a peer-reviewed academic journal called the Open Civil Engineering Journal (http://www.bentham.org/open/tociej/openaccess2.htm) The article is called Fourteen Points of Agreement with the Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction. Did you choose to ignore it?

I could not find it on there

As for your continual ridicule James. Ridicule serves as nothing more than distraction in debate. It is absent of reasoning, and lacking any substance.

Your points are devoid of reality. We have gone over these points over and over again and you have been refuted each time. You are still calling for another investigation despite there being no probable cause for it..I ask you for evidence that would justify another investigation..You can't provide any.

So every time you attack your opponent with "crackpot, tin-foil hatter. Etc" you are: A. not providing evidence.

Evidence was provided in a previous thread and you chose to ignore it and still adhere to your crackhead theories.

C. not adding anything of value to discussion. You can continue your ridicule,

I feel dumber after reading your asinine posts.

. Galileo was ridiculed too and even underwent trial on suspicion of heresy for advocating the heliocentric theory which ran counter to the popular and widely-accepted geocentric myth. Turns out that Galileo, who was ridiculed for an apparently 'irrational' theory, turned out to be right. The ridicule his opponents placed on him didn't change the truth of his assertions. Insults do not count for knowledg

LOL you are funny. There is no evidence supporting any of your theories
If show us.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I could not find it on there
Your points are devoid of reality. We have gone over these points over and over again and you have been refuted each time. You are still calling for another investigation despite there being no probable cause for it..I ask you for evidence that would justify another investigation..You can't provide any.

Evidence was provided in a previous thread and you chose to ignore it and still adhere to your crackhead theories.

I feel dumber after reading your asinine posts.

LOL you are funny. There is no evidence supporting any of your theories
If show us.

Again, insults do not count for knowledge.
I dare you to show me where I have been refuted specifically by you.
What evidence have I chosen to ignore?
I have provided evidence showing numerous problems with the official 9/11 Commission, in previous threads; something you have chosen to ignore in order to avoid cognitive dissonance. On the grounds of such problems alone, for example, the conflicts of interest, the claim that the CIA obstructed the investigation (claim made by the Commission's chair or co-chair), the notion that the Commission relied on third-hand evidence from the CIA, and the notion that it began with its conclusion, a new investigation is required. Even the chair and co-chair exclaim in their book Without Precedent that the Commission was set up to fail.

To access the article, click on the link I provided and scroll down to the one that begins with "Fourteen Points..." It's in the Year 2008 section.

 

[TheNewWorldMan]

Unless you can show that they got together somehow and discussed what they are going to say before they said it. If not then their multiple accounts of multiple explosions verify each other.

About twenty years ago, one of the grocery stores in my hometown burned down. People gathered around said they heard explosions from inside (as did I). Being the gullible, New World Order mind-controlled saps that we were, we all figured that, when a fire heats things like aerosol cans, batteries, solvents and so forth, well...they might just catch on fire and explode.

But I stand corrected. Obviously the Illuminati and the Freemasons conspired to torch our hometown grocer.

 

[joebudda]

About twenty years ago, one of the grocery stores in my hometown burned down. People gathered around said they heard explosions from inside (as did I). Being the gullible, New World Order mind-controlled saps that we were, we all figured that, when a fire heats things like aerosol cans, batteries, solvents and so forth, well...they might just catch on fire and explode.

But I stand corrected. Obviously the Illuminati and the Freemasons conspired to torch our hometown grocer.

How would you suppose fire got all the way down to the basement? And are you saying that all of that damage in the basement levels was causes from aerosol cans, batteries, and solvents heated up from fire that came all the way down 90 something floors? Doesn't fire burn up?

 

[Btodd]

How would you suppose fire got all the way down to the basement? And are you saying that all of that damage in the basement levels was causes from aerosol cans, batteries, and solvents heated up from fire that came all the way down 90 something floors? Doesn't fire burn up?

Did you happen to watch a real demolition? The explosions take place directly before collapse, in rapid sequence, followed by the largest explosion at the base. Once that sequence goes off, that's it.

You expect us to believe that some damage on the first floor, which isn't even remotely like the damage a final demolitions blast causes (they actually wrap columns to keep exploding debris from killing people who are blocks away), is indicative of something.

So they set off explosions, and people still were able to get inside the building and survey the damage, and get out before collapse?

Yeah, what a smoking gun.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ


That's a real demolition. Is this what you are saying happened on 9/11?


Btodd

 

[jamesrwright3]

gain, insults do not count for knowledge.

I dare you to show me where I have been refuted specifically by you.
What evidence have I chosen to ignore?

Tons of it in other threads.

I have provided evidence showing numerous problems with the official 9/11 Commission, in previous threads;

And we have refuted those points

something you have chosen to ignore in order to avoid cognitive dissonance

.

LOL you are the only one suffering from cognitive dissonance and selective perception.

On the grounds of such problems alone, for example, the conflicts of interest,

There was no conflict of interests. That was disproven numerous times. Regardless, show what evidence was ignored and how it would have changed the outcome. We are waiting for your points.

the claim that the CIA obstructed the investigation (claim made by the Commission's chair or co-chair),

Show me where it said the CIA obstructed the investigation.

the notion that the Commission relied on third-hand evidence from the CIA, and the notion that it began with its conclusion, a new investigation is required

Dude are you that stupid ?Where else would the Commission get its informaiton? Was Lee Hamilton going to go out into the plains of Afghanistan and interview people? No new investigation is required. It was clear AL QAEDA was the architect of the attacks BEFORE the COMMISSION came into existence. Are you such a dolt that you did not know that?

Also, show us what OTHER areas NEEDED to be covered that weren't covered. If you can't, then shut up and don't make us any dumber.

Even the chair and co-chair exclaim in their book Without Precedent that the Commission was set up to fail.

What a lie



]

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Tons of it in other threads.

And we have refuted those points

LOL you are the only one suffering from cognitive dissonance and selective perception.

If there really are so many "tons" of things that you specifically have refuted me on, I challenge you to find them.

There was no conflict of interests. That was disproven numerous times. Regardless, show what evidence was ignored and how it would have changed the outcome. We are waiting for your points.

You closing your ears and saying: "There was no conflict of interests," does not count for having it "disproven" nor does it reduce the truth of the matter. Philip Zelikow was the executive director of the Commission and was virtually a Bush intimate, having been on President Bush's transition team and co-authored a book with Condolezza Rice. The claims of the Commission being "independent" are refuted there and then by the notion that its director, who led its lines of inquiry, had some connection to the Bush administration, who, may had party in the attacks through either foreknowledge and negligence (criminal or otherwise) or complicity. You are wrong in saying that this "was disproven numerous times," as it is factual information.
As for evidence that may have been ignored or at least requires greater and deeper investigation... there is the matter of who financed the attacks. The Commission Report claims that it is of little significance. Considering the vast criminality of the terrorist attacks, it is absurd for the Commission to claim that it is of little significance to investigate who was responsible for its financing. The Commission also ignores the matter of the collapse of WTC 7. It also does not ask who informed San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown not to fly on Sept. 11, as he reported in the San Francisco Chronicle. For more unanswered questions that a full and proper inquiry should investigate, see here: http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/WarOnTerror/Persist.asp

Show me where it said the CIA obstructed the investigation.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/02/opinion/02kean.html?pagewanted=print


Edit: Here is another article discussing a contradiction in Dick Cheney's account with Russert on Meet the Press and the official Commission's explanation of Cheney's movement and activity: " According to Cheney, he arrived in the PEOC, or shelter conference room, before he learned about the attack on the Pentagon. According to the 9/11 Commission, by contrast, he entered the PEOC after he learned about this attack (and, in fact, about 20 minutes after its occurrence at 9:38 AM)." http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article20108.htm

 

[jamesrwright3]

\If there really are so many "tons" of things that you specifically have refuted me on, I challenge you to find them.

Find the previous thread. You know you are wrong.

You closing your ears and saying: "There was no conflict of interests," does not count for having it "disproven" nor does it reduce the truth of the matter.

Dude, you need reading classes. There were no conflicts of interest, and onc e again, I ask you how even if there were, it would have changed things. What lines of inquiry were not looked into?

Philip Zelikow was the executive director of the Commission and was virtually a Bush intimate, having been on President Bush's transition team and co-authored a book with Condolezza Rice.

And your point is? Tell us how it had a negative effect. Just saying someone had ties to the administration does not mean the investigation was adversely affected. Show us what they did not investigate.

The claims of the Commission being "independent" are refuted there and then by the notion that its director, who led its lines of inquiry, had some connection to the Bush administration, who, may had party in the attacks through either foreknowledge and negligence (criminal or otherwise) or complicity. You are wrong in saying that this "was disproven numerous times," as it is factual information.

Dude, you are an absolute retard and imbecile. THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE that anyone in the administration was involved and it was basically proven that Al Qaeda was responsible for the attack BEFORE THE DAMN COMMISSION CAME INTO EXISTENCE. Are you really telling me they should investigate someone or something then it was basically proven that Al Qaeda was responsible? Are you also telling me they should investigate someone without probable cause i.e the Bush administration?

If you are trying to say the Bush administration needed investigated, SHOW US WHAT EVIDENCE YOU HAVE THAT THEY WERE INVOLVED. In case you didn't know, you need evidence and probable cause..So show us the evidence. Wild goose hunts are not allowed in the American system

As for evidence that may have been ignored or at least requires greater and deeper investigation... there is the matter of who financed the attacks

.

So who financed them. Dick Cheney.Halliburton..maybe Ken Lay? I mean that is not something that needs to be investigated further unless you are saying someone from the administration benefited or financed them. And they did not take much financing other than plane tickets and some lodging expenses.

The Commission Report claims that it is of little significance. Considering the vast criminality of the terrorist attacks, it is absurd for the Commission to claim that it is of little significance to investigate who was responsible for its financing.

The Commission is right. Unless you have any evidence the person who financed them was in the USA, it doesn't make a difference in terms of preventing future attacks.

The Commission also ignores the matter of the collapse of WTC 7

It does not ignore it. That was still being investigated.

It also does not ask who informed San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown not to fly on Sept. 11, as he reported in the San Francisco Chronicle.

I guess in your blindness you didn't see the fact that Willie Brown had been warned in years prior not to fly on certain dates due to possible increased security alerts. I guess Bush and company were planning on doing 09/11 before they got into the White House?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Find the previous thread. You know you are wrong.

I'll take that as... you can find absolutely no evidence of where you specifically have refuted anything that I've stated. Thank-you for clearing that up.

Dude, you need reading classes. There were no conflicts of interest, and onc e again, I ask you how even if there were, it would have changed things. What lines of inquiry were not looked into?

And your point is? Tell us how it had a negative effect. Just saying someone had ties to the administration does not mean the investigation was adversely affected. Show us what they did not investigate.

I need reading glasses? The Commission was meant to be independent. If it's executive director was virtually a Bush intimate, how in the basis of reality does that constitute or comply to any definition of independence from the White House? And how could have it possibly affected the investigation? Well, one commissioner is said to have remarked that Zelikow is skewing the commission and running it his own way. What would Zelikow's 'way' be, taking the conflict of interest into account? Could it not certainly be to minimize any investigation or scrutiny of the Bush administration to which he is linked? Does that not comprimise an independent investigation?

THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE that anyone in the administration was involved and it was basically proven that Al Qaeda was responsible for the attack BEFORE THE DAMN COMMISSION CAME INTO EXISTENCE. Are you really telling me they should investigate someone or something then it was basically proven that Al Qaeda was responsible? Are you also telling me they should investigate someone without probable cause i.e the Bush administration?

"The warnings were going straight to President Bush each morning in his briefings by the CIA director, George Tenet, and in the presidential daily briefings. It would later be revealed by the 9/11 commission into the September 11 attacks that more than 40 presidential briefings presented to Bush from January 2001 through to September 10, 2001, included references to bin Laden.
And nearly identical intelligence landed each morning on the desks of about 300 other senior national security officials and members of Congress in the form of the senior executive intelligence brief, a newsletter on intelligence issues also prepared by the CIA.
The senior executive briefings contained much of the same information that was in the presidential briefings but were edited to remove material considered too sensitive for all but the President and his top aides to see. Often the differences between the two documents were minor, with only a sentence or two changed between them. Apart from the commission's chief director, Philip Zelikow, the commission's staff was never granted access to Bush's briefings, except for the notorious August 2001 briefing that warned of the possibility of domestic al-Qaeda strikes involving hijackings. But they could read through the next best thing: the senior executive briefings." - Continued from: http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/th...g/2008/03/07/1204780065676.html?page=fullpage


Is foreknowledge and failure to act appropriately not worthy of further investigation and scrutiny?

Dude, you are an absolute retard and imbecile.

Wow. Keep hurling the ad homs. You might just convince me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GGULDKQ2UY&e

So who financed them. Dick Cheney.Halliburton..maybe Ken Lay? I mean that is not something that needs to be investigated further unless you are saying someone from the administration benefited or financed them. And they did not take much financing other than plane tickets and some lodging expenses.

The Commission is right. Unless you have any evidence the person who financed them was in the USA, it doesn't make a difference in terms of preventing future attacks.

So I suppose that unless the person who financed the attacks if American, we shouldn't worry? That's exactly what you're saying, and as ridiculous as the 9/11 Commission's stance on the issue. Whether the party responsible for the financing of the attacks if American, Arabic, Afghani, Iraqi or Eskimoe, the financing of the attacks if a necessary piece of the puzzle if the Commission were to really provide "the fullest possible explanation" of the events of Sept. 11.

I guess in your blindness you didn't see the fact that Willie Brown had been warned in years prior not to fly on certain dates due to possible increased security alerts. I guess Bush and company were planning on doing 09/11 before they got into the White House?

On Wednesday, Sept. 12, according to the San Francisco Chronicile, Mayor Willie Brown received warning not to travel a "full eight hours" before the terrorist strikes. (http://propagandamatrix.com/willie_brown_got_low_key_early_warning.html)
How lucky for Brown to have received such a warning, when so many others did not. And where from did this information come? Could it not be important for a proper independent investigation to ask who knew what, and when? I mean wouldn't it be good to know such things if one were to compile "the fullest possible account" of the events of that fateful day?

I see also that you have not responded to the article I presented, published by the Commission's chair and co-chair themselves, where they claim that their investigation was obstructed by the CIA. Are you going to call that a lie, along with the notion that these two also stated in their book, Without Precedent, that the Commission was set up to fail. Considering an obstructed investigation by an intelligence agency, not having access to the terror suspects themselves, he major conflict of interest posed by Zelikow, and the many pieces of the puzzle (such as financing) that were not investigated, could one be so bold as to state that they did not provide "the fullest possible explanation" for the events of that tragic day in September?

 

[jamesrwright3]

[I'll take that as... you can find absolutely no evidence of where you specifically have refuted anything that I've stated. Thank-you for clearing that up.

Nope. BSTODD will confirm the existence of the thread where you were refuted multiple times..and refused to answer questions that showed how ridiculous your assertions are .

I need reading glasses?

Yes because you ignored the question that I asked. I will put it in bold so you don't miss it here. I ask you how even if there were, it would have changed things. What lines of inquiry were not looked into

The Commission was meant to be independent. If it's executive director was virtually a Bush intimate, how in the basis of reality does that constitute or comply to any definition of independence from the White House?

Can you show us how independence would have mattered? You would need to show there was evidence the White House was involved or find evidence that Al Qaeda was not involved..despite the confessions of Khaled Sheik Muhammad. OBL and others.

And how could have it possibly affected the investigation? Well, one commissioner is said to have remarked that Zelikow is skewing the commission and running it his own way

Evidence of this? And to what was he referring? Your vague statements non-citations are hardly convincing

What would Zelikow's 'way' be, taking the conflict of interest into account? Could it not certainly be to minimize any investigation or scrutiny of the Bush administration to which he is linked? Does that not comprimise an independent investigation?

Dude you are a retard. Why should he have looked into the administration when everything pointed to AL QAEDA before the COMISSSION CAME INTO EXISTENCE.

If you continue to insist the administration should be investigated, SHOW US ONE BIT OF EVIDENCE THAT LEADS YOU TO THAT CONCLUSION.If you can't show us any evidence, then there would be no basis for an investigation.

"The warnings were going straight to President Bush each morning in his briefings by the CIA director, George Tenet, and in the presidential daily briefings. It would later be revealed by the 9/11 commission into the September 11 attacks that more than 40 presidential briefings presented to Bush from January 2001 through to September 10, 2001, included references to bin Laden.

No crap sherlock. OBL was determined to attack the US. He attacked US targets abroad i.e. cole and embassays. We had no specific actionable intelligence as to when and where he was going to strike next.

And nearly identical intelligence landed each morning on the desks of about 300 other senior national security officials and members of Congress in the form of the senior executive intelligence brief, a newsletter on intelligence issues also prepared by the CIA.

And your point is?

The senior executive briefings contained much of the same information that was in the presidential briefings but were edited to remove material considered too sensitive for all but the President and his top aides to see. Often the differences between the two documents were minor, with only a sentence or two changed between them. Apart from the commission's chief director, Philip Zelikow, the commission's staff was never granted access to Bush's briefings, except for the notorious August 2001 briefing that warned of the possibility of domestic al-Qaeda strikes involving hijackings. But they could read through the next best thing: the senior executive briefings." - Continued from: http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/th...g/2008/03/07/1204780065676.html?page=fullpage

Yes our government messed things up. That much is established..The Commission FOUND our government to be asleep at the wheel and poorly trained to deal with the terrorist threat.

Is foreknowledge and failure to act appropriately not worthy of further investigation and scrutiny?

Already investigated.

So I suppose that unless the person who financed the attacks if American, we shouldn't worry? That's exactly what you're saying, and as ridiculous as the 9/11 Commission's stance on the issue. Whether the party responsible for the financing of the attacks if American, Arabic, Afghani, Iraqi or Eskimoe, the financing of the attacks if a necessary piece of the puzzle if the Commission were to really provide "the fullest possible explanation" of the events of Sept. 11.

How would we do that? We have investigated that as far as we could take it already..freezing assets, etc. In terms of who gave the hijackers the money, we already know Khlaed Sheik Muhammad and Syed funded most of the operation. We have traced as far as we could go at this point. Regardless, the sources were Al Qaeda or tied to Al Qaeda

On Wednesday, Sept. 12, according to the San Francisco Chronicile, Mayor Willie Brown received warning not to travel a "full eight hours" before the terrorist strikes. (http://propagandamatrix.com/willie_brown_got_low_key_early_warning.html)
How lucky for Brown to have received such a warning, when so many others did not. And where from did this information come? Could it not be important for a proper independent investigation to ask who knew what, and when? I mean wouldn't it be good to know such things if one were to compile "the fullest possible account" of the events of that fateful day?

You need reading classes again. I told you that he received WARNINGS before that day..in previous years. Was 09/11 planned for those days too?

I see also that you have not responded to the article I presented, published by the Commission's chair and co-chair themselves, where they claim that their investigation was obstructed by the CIA

Their investigation was not obstructed. There were legitimate national security concerns re these suspects. They were not going to be interviewing suspects in a bank robberies. These were hardened terrorists.

. Are you going to call that a lie, along with the notion that these two also stated in their book, Without Precedent, that the Commission was set up to fail. Considering an obstructed investigation by an intelligence agency,

It was not obstructed by the CIA. They didn't allow access to the suspects which is not out of bounds considering the national security issues. Regardless, you would need to prove it would have changed the final conclusion that Al Qaeda was responsible. NO ONE is saying that is not the case.

not having access to the terror suspects themselves, he major conflict of interest posed by Zelikow, and the many pieces of the puzzle (such as financing) that were not investigated, could one be so bold as to state that they did not provide "the fullest possible explanation" for the events of that tragic day in September?[

All relevant issues covered. You cannot prove your alleged conflict of interest led to an erroneous conclusion..You have no evidence against the administration. ZZZZ

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Nope. BSTODD will confirm the existence of the thread where you were refuted multiple times..and refused to answer questions that showed how ridiculous your assertions are .

I asked for evidence of where you specifically had refuted me, and you, up until this point several posts later, failed to produce such evidence. I'm almost convinced.

Can you show us how independence would have mattered? You would need to show there was evidence the White House was involved or find evidence that Al Qaeda was not involved..despite the confessions of Khaled Sheik Muhammad. OBL and others.

How would independence matter? You must be joking! I don't need evidence of White House involvement to conclude that a non-independent investigation would lead to biased conclusions. And I'm not saying to ignore the apparent confessions of Khalid Sheik Muhammad or bin Laden; I'm saying to investigate deeper into who knew what and when, at home. If independence didn't it matter it would be like putting a fox in charge of investigating who raided the chicken coop.

Dude you are a retard. Why should he have looked into the administration when everything pointed to AL QAEDA before the COMISSSION CAME INTO EXISTENCE.

Because when you investigate in an official investigation that aims to provide the "fullest possible explanation" you don't begin where others left off... you begin at the very beginning!

If you continue to insist the administration should be investigated, SHOW US ONE BIT OF EVIDENCE THAT LEADS YOU TO THAT CONCLUSION.If you can't show us any evidence, then there would be no basis for an investigation.

George Bush's suspicious behaviour when he heard of the occurring attacks. He later offered some bogus story that entailed him seeing the first plane hitting the Trade Center, as it happened. He thought that it was some terrible pilot. This can't be true, given that footage of the first plane hitting the Trade Center only came out a day or so after the fact. It is also suspicious that he remained in the classroom for such an extended period of time, during a terrorist attack, and was not moved to a secure location, given that, in such an event, he indeed may be a potential target, and he is of course, required to respond. Yet he sits there. Another contradiction, which I had posted earlier was between Cheney's statements to Russert on Meet the Press and what the Commission later documented him as doing, as well as its contradiction to Norman Mineta's testimony, whom we know was there, since Cheney's testimony affirms it. There is also the problem the military's account to the 9/11 Commission, was considered a lie by the Commission, especially given that the later played NORAD tapes would tell a different story. However, paradoxically, the military's first story, the one considered a lie by the Commission, on the basis of the tapes, actually makes the military look worse. Why would the military lie? Especially telling a lie that makes them look worse when apparently 'the truth is all on tape.'

No crap sherlock. OBL was determined to attack the US. He attacked US targets abroad i.e. cole and embassays. We had no specific actionable intelligence as to when and where he was going to strike next.

That claim is false. Go back and re-read They knew, but did nothing, from the Sydney Morning Herald, an except of which I had posted previously. And take note of: "Apart from the commission's chief director, Philip Zelikow, the commission's staff was never granted access to Bush's briefings, except for the notorious August 2001 briefing that warned of the possibility of domestic al-Qaeda strikes involving hijackings."

How would we do that? We have investigated that as far as we could take it already..freezing assets, etc. In terms of who gave the hijackers the money, we already know Khlaed Sheik Muhammad and Syed funded most of the operation. We have traced as far as we could go at this point. Regardless, the sources were Al Qaeda or tied to Al Qaeda

And from what basis have you reached such a conclusion?

You need reading classes again. I told you that he received WARNINGS before that day..in previous years. Was 09/11 planned for those days too?

He received warnings a full eight-hours before. Where did that information come from? And therefore, who knew? And what did they know? Perhaps you missed those questions.

Their investigation was not obstructed. There were legitimate national security concerns re these suspects. They were not going to be interviewing suspects in a bank robberies. These were hardened terrorists.

It was not obstructed by the CIA. They didn't allow access to the suspects which is not out of bounds considering the national security issues. Regardless, you would need to prove it would have changed the final conclusion that Al Qaeda was responsible. NO ONE is saying that is not the case.

Well, the chair and co-chair of the 9/11 Commission disagree with you, and I tend to view that more strongly than your claims which are repeatedly riddled with ad hom attacks (much to the loss of your own credibility).

All relevant issues covered. You cannot prove your alleged conflict of interest led to an erroneous conclusion..You have no evidence against the administration. ZZZZ

I can smell the cognitive dissonance rising to greet the morning sun. It seems your strategy to do two things: repeatedly ask questions which I had already answered several times over; and, pretend that I had not presented evidence so that you can make a bogus claim that I am "refuted." Your strategy fails. I encourage you to please look at the evidence, all of it, with more of an open mind.

 

[jamesrwright3]

]I asked for evidence of where you specifically had refuted me, and you, up until this point several posts later, failed to produce such evidence. I'm almost convinced.

How would independence matter? You must be joking! I don't need evidence of White House involvement to conclude that a non-independent investigation would lead to biased conclusions.

Prove it was biased. You have yet to show where it was biased after numerous times asking. Show us how they came to erroneous conclusions. You can't.

And I'm not saying to ignore the apparent confessions of Khalid Sheik Muhammad or bin Laden; I'm saying to investigate deeper into who knew what and when, at home. If independence didn't it matter it would be like putting a fox in charge of investigating who raided the chicken coop.

Sorry. We don't do witch hunts here in the US. The Commission showed the government was negligent in terms of terorrism and we were asleep at the wheel. Those were problems well before Bush came into office. 09/11 was planned during the Clinton administration.

Because when you investigate in an official investigation that aims to provide the "fullest possible explanation" you don't begin where others left off... you begin at the very beginning!

George Bush's suspicious behaviour when he heard of the occurring attacks. He later offered some bogus story that entailed him seeing the first plane hitting the Trade Center, as it happened. He thought that it was some terrible pilot. This can't be true, given that footage of the first plane hitting the Trade Center only came out a day or so after the fact. It is also suspicious that he remained in the classroom for such an extended period of time, during a terrorist attack, and was not moved to a secure location, given that, in such an event, he indeed may be a potential target, and he is of course, required to respond

Dude are you serious. Now Bush knew because he made a comment about seeing footage of the plane going into the WTC? Now you are really delusional saying Bush had foreknowledge of the attacks. The ludicrous claim that he stayed inside a classroom is ludicrous as well. He was staying in a single location to get everything together and the school was going to be about as secure as you were going to get with all of the secret service around..Heck..the terrorists could have planned to have the attacks planned to flush him out of the school and ambush him on the road.

. Yet he sits there. Another contradiction, which I had posted earlier was between Cheney's statements to Russert on Meet the Press and what the Commission later documented him as doing, as well as its contradiction to Norman Mineta's testimony, whom we know was there, since Cheney's testimony affirms it. There is also the problem the military's account to the 9/11 Commission, was considered a lie by the Commission, especially given that the later played NORAD tapes would tell a different story. However, paradoxically, the military's first story, the one considered a lie by the Commission, on the basis of the tapes, actually makes the military look worse. Why would the military lie? Especially telling a lie that makes them look worse when apparently 'the truth is all on tape.'

ZZZ paranoid schizofrenic. Wow you need medication. None of these things prove the administration have anything to do with 09/11 and those statements have been debunked.

That claim is false. Go back and re-read They knew, but did nothing, from the Sydney Morning Herald, an except of which I had posted previously. And take note of: "Apart from the commission's chief director, Philip Zelikow, the commission's staff was never granted access to Bush's briefings, except for the notorious August 2001 briefing that warned of the possibility of domestic al-Qaeda strikes involving hijackings."

That would have violated the separation of powers. It was the same reason Condolleeza did not have to testify under oath. It would have violated separation of powers..not because of sinister motives. NEVER before were internal communications of another branch subject to viewing by another branch.

He received warnings a full eight-hours before. Where did that information come from? And therefore, who knew? And what did they know? Perhaps you missed those questions.

And he received warnings on PREVIOUS dates. How do you explain that?

Well, the chair and co-chair of the 9/11 Commission disagree with you, and I tend to view that more strongly than your claims which are repeatedly riddled with ad hom attacks (much to the loss of your own credibility).

Prove it. Your claims are baseless. Show citations.

I can smell the cognitive dissonance rising to greet the morning sun. It seems your strategy to do two things: repeatedly ask questions which I had already answered several times over; and, pretend that I had not presented evidence so that you can make a bogus claim that I am "refuted." Your strategy fails. I encourage you to please look at the evidence, all of it, with more of an open mind.[/\

Nope. You have not answered any questions and your assertions have been disproven,

 

[joebudda]

Did you happen to watch a real demolition?

I have seen many. Thank you.

But all you are really doing is diverting attention from the considerable amount of eyewitness' that were actually there. I am not saying for you not to deny them, if you desire to deny them by all means deny them. I could care less, I choose to take them into account adding to my persuasion of there being multiple explosions coming from different parts of the buildings. Personally I find them to be some of the best evidence being they are recalling what they witnessed with not much laps of time from the actual event.

And I don't see any reason not to trust the video evidence of the loud explosion caught on video and the destruction of the basement levels prior to collapse.

And that is only regarding there being explosions that tends to disagree with the OP. But I also take into account all of the evidence, like the evidence that bjspurple is bringing up that is also persuasive to me. I am just staying on topic with the OP on why I am persuaded of there being explosions.

But feel free to deny it if that is what you choose. I will not stop you.

 

[Btodd]

I have seen many. Thank you.

But all you are really doing is diverting attention from the considerable amount of eyewitness' that were actually there.

No, no diversion is necessary. I asked you what those people meant with the word 'explosions', and you refused to address it. I noted that those people have not been asked to confirm if they believe there were 'demolitions' done, and they have not. So you appear to be assigning meaning to their words that clearly hasn't been confirmed BY THOSE PEOPLE. Nice try.

You completely dismiss what demolitions 'are'. I showed you a demolition video, and asked you if you think that's what happened on 9/11. As usual, you will not answer the question, because on some level, you understand that those extremely loud, sequenced explosions THAT A DEMOLITION ENTAILS were not heard by thousands of people, any audio source, any video source, or any seismic reading! You throw out all the other necessary questions, and simply rely on a handful of mis-interpreted dialogue, and call it a day. Nice work!

If you think those people were speaking of demolitions, then why hasn't anyone asked them? It seems that if you really believe that's what they meant, you would get them to confirm it and help the Truth movement's cause, right? But no, the Truth movement doesn't care about that. They would rather take video footage from directly after the event, NEVER talk to those people, and just assume their testimonies mean 'demolitions'.

Highly dishonest confirmation bias at work.

I am not saying for you not to deny them, if you desire to deny them by all means deny them.

Let's see if you'll be dishonest again. I'm NOT denying what they said, I'm denying the 'spin' you are putting on it, that they meant 'demolitions'. Please show me how you know they were referencing demolitions, instead of loud noises that have numerous explanations that you choose to ignore.

I could care less, I choose to take them into account adding to my persuasion of there being multiple explosions coming from different parts of the buildings. Personally I find them to be some of the best evidence being they are recalling what they witnessed with not much laps of time from the actual event.

You mean you 'couldn't' care less, right? Sorry, that's a pet peeve of mine.

Again, demolitions involve very loud, sequenced explosions RIGHT BEFORE COLLAPSE. That's the point of the explosions, to bring the building down. What you propose is that there were 'numerous' explosions, which you imply to be demolitions, and that these explosions occurred at various times apart from each other, and even after they occurred, people were able to enter the building, exit the building and survey the damage......THEN A LITTLE WHILE LATER, the building came down! Wow, what an interesting 'demolition'.

You clearly don't care what a demolition is, or whether it makes sense in light of the facts. You have your conclusion already in mind (the Gub'ment did it), and are ignoring anything that disagrees with that.

And I don't see any reason not to trust the video evidence of the loud explosion caught on video and the destruction of the basement levels prior to collapse.

Again, an 'explosion' or loud noise does not equal 'demolitions', and if that blast in the basement (as you imply) were a demolitions blast, the building would have come down IMMEDIATELY. There would have been no survivors to the blast, and nobody could walk in after it happened, survey the basement, and walk back out before it came down. Laughable.

But feel free to deny it if that is what you choose. I will not stop you.

This last bit is getting tiring. Of course you won't stop me, and nobody is denying what those people said. I'm denying your interpretation of what that means, even though you ignore requests to spell it out repeatedly.

How about this? Why don't you lay out how demolitions are done, and point by point, show how the events of 9/11 confirm your idea that demolitions were done? Please discuss how demolitions are wired, how long that takes, how much explosives are necessary, ad infinitum.

Too much work? Of course it is.....confirmation bias is so much easier.


Btodd

 

[joebudda]

No, no diversion is necessary. I asked you what those people meant with the word 'explosions', and you refused to address it. I noted that those people have not been asked to confirm if they believe there were 'demolitions' done, and they have not. So you appear to be assigning meaning to their words that clearly hasn't been confirmed BY THOSE PEOPLE. Nice try.

You completely dismiss what demolitions 'are'. I showed you a demolition video, and asked you if you think that's what happened on 9/11. As usual, you will not answer the question, because on some level, you understand that those extremely loud, sequenced explosions THAT A DEMOLITION ENTAILS were not heard by thousands of people, any audio source, any video source, or any seismic reading! You throw out all the other necessary questions, and simply rely on a handful of mis-interpreted dialogue, and call it a day. Nice work!

If you think those people were speaking of demolitions, then why hasn't anyone asked them? It seems that if you really believe that's what they meant, you would get them to confirm it and help the Truth movement's cause, right? But no, the Truth movement doesn't care about that. They would rather take video footage from directly after the event, NEVER talk to those people, and just assume their testimonies mean 'demolitions'.

Highly dishonest confirmation bias at work.

Let's see if you'll be dishonest again. I'm NOT denying what they said, I'm denying the 'spin' you are putting on it, that they meant 'demolitions'. Please show me how you know they were referencing demolitions, instead of loud noises that have numerous explanations that you choose to ignore.

You mean you 'couldn't' care less, right? Sorry, that's a pet peeve of mine.

Again, demolitions involve very loud, sequenced explosions RIGHT BEFORE COLLAPSE. That's the point of the explosions, to bring the building down. What you propose is that there were 'numerous' explosions, which you imply to be demolitions, and that these explosions occurred at various times apart from each other, and even after they occurred, people were able to enter the building, exit the building and survey the damage......THEN A LITTLE WHILE LATER, the building came down! Wow, what an interesting 'demolition'.

You clearly don't care what a demolition is, or whether it makes sense in light of the facts. You have your conclusion already in mind (the Gub'ment did it), and are ignoring anything that disagrees with that.

Again, an 'explosion' or loud noise does not equal 'demolitions', and if that blast in the basement (as you imply) were a demolitions blast, the building would have come down IMMEDIATELY. There would have been no survivors to the blast, and nobody could walk in after it happened, survey the basement, and walk back out before it came down. Laughable.

This last bit is getting tiring. Of course you won't stop me, and nobody is denying what those people said. I'm denying your interpretation of what that means, even though you ignore requests to spell it out repeatedly.

How about this? Why don't you lay out how demolitions are done, and point by point, show how the events of 9/11 confirm your idea that demolitions were done? Please discuss how demolitions are wired, how long that takes, how much explosives are necessary, ad infinitum.

Too much work? Of course it is.....confirmation bias is so much easier.


Btodd

I can't say for sure if it was a controlled demolition one way or another, I don't think there has been an investigation into it to confirm or deny it one way or another. Maybe further investigation needs to be done?

And you are assuming this is some typical demolition job in order to deny it even being a possibility, which is fine, deny all you want. But I understand that this is by no means typical and if it was demolitions that brought them down I would assume they would do their best to disguise it if they didn't want it to be known. Like maybe weaken the structure with explosions first. But I can't know being the hypothesis was completely ignored. I can only use the eyewitness and video evidence to determine whether there were explosions that don't fit with a "jet fuel fire" which couldn't even have been that hot being people were standing in the hole left behind, which they wouldn't be able to do if the temperatures needed to weaken the steal supporting columns were present unless they were some kind of superman/women, let alone it would burn up not down like we see it does outside of the building when the plane hit.

So you can hold up the OV as gospel all you like, I am skeptical. But that don't mean you shouldn't treat the OV as gospel, go ahead, I just don't, I am a skeptic.

 

[Steezie]

Budda do you have ANY physical evidence at all to support the idea of a controlled demolition or any unusual explosions or explosive material or their byproducts?

 

[joebudda]

Budda do you have ANY physical evidence at all to support the idea of a controlled demolition or any unusual explosions or explosive material or their byproducts?

I have already presented a considerable amount of eyewitness testimony from unrelated sources.

And video evidence of a loud explosion and destruction to the basement levels in like the 3rd post of this thread.


Maybe you can point me to a study where a demolition hypotheses was scrutinized? And maybe highlight some of the methods they used.