Conspiracies: Are they real?

[Walsingham]

Or it could be that I find the suggestion that my friends and colleagues would be detonating bombs every day that killed civilians in their thousands, grossly offensive.

 

Be offended at them, not me. Please read:

 

Were British Special Forces Soldiers Planting Bombs in Basra?

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...p;articleId=994

 

As I said, two British SAS guys were caught trying to stage an Al Qaeda bombing. That's not a conspiracy theory, that's a fact. They were caught doing it. They got thrown in jail and British forces busted them out. This was in the news, but they brushed it off as if it was nothing.

 

Also, when you say "your friends and colleagues", if you mean the military, it's not your everyday soldier that's behind this. Al Qaeda is a US/UK/Israeli/Pakistani intelligence operation. Think spooks. There are, as you saw with those SAS guys, 'special units' in the military that are engaged in such activities.

 

It's offensive to their sacrifices, it's offensive to their honourable conduct,

 

How is shooting cops in Basra and trying to stage a false flag bombing "honorable conduct"?

 

Or how do you explain the regular shootouts with terrorists and the infantry?

 

When you invade a country and a ton of people there hate you, shootouts between infantry and the people there are to be expected. You can't pin it all on an organized "Al Qaeda". Most of the shootouts are real, but the bombings? Nope. Many of the bombings are false flag operations designed to keep the Al CIAda scares alive. Want evidence? Here's some evidence:

 

I'll try to keep this really simple.

 

1. You accusing my friends of dishonourable conduct MIGHT be justified if you knew them or had any first hand experience of Iraq and Afghanistan. You don't. All you have is a bunch of self-congratulatory fantasies, totally unsubstantiated by anyone other than known enemies of the US and UK. It's like me telling you that your dad is a serial killer because I heard it from a guy on the internet.

2. Al Qaeda isn't a fantasy. It is a convenient label for a worldwide array of islamofascist organisations from the Phillipines to Algeria to New Jersey. It's existence is evident not just in the bombings and shootings, but in every website, every crappy hate filled pamphlet, every angry schoolkid. Not only does mean you'd have to have a shadow agency BIGGER than every other government dept combined. But it is spheroids, because the entire ****ing architecture of the threat is modular and decentralised. Even a moron couldn't believe that Al Qaeda could be controlled centrally by your shadow government, because there are no control mechanisms beyond public ideology.

3. If you think there has been no honourable conduct by UK forces in Iraq then you clearly think that going on patrol, pursuing murderers, building infrastructure, delivering medical aid, while consistently abiding by the rules of war, suffering and dying isn't honourable, and you're bloody fool. And if you think the same men would abide by a conspiracy to hurt the people they are suffering to protect then you're an even bigger fool.

[Gorgon]

Foucault's Pendulum has the best analysis on conspiracies and how they work.

How does that go, I remember the name from a philosophy class.

[taks]

1. You accusing my friends of dishonourable conduct MIGHT be justified if you knew them or had any first hand experience of Iraq and Afghanistan. You don't. All you have is a bunch of self-congratulatory fantasies, totally unsubstantiated by anyone other than known enemies of the US and UK. It's like me telling you that your dad is a serial killer because I heard it from a guy on the internet.

conspiracy theorists spend more time focusing on inconsistencies in the official record than they do proving their own point. they simply assume we're all bought or intimidated and lying, incompetent, or just plain wrong and certainly dishonorable. they never bother to assume the burden of proof on themselves, i.e., prove that someone placed bombs in the towers, prove that the crash site in pennsylvania isn't from a plane, etc. paranoia does that.

 

taks

[DownWithTheIlluminati]

1) yup, it was all faked. all the witnesses are lying

 

2) and every one of the thousands of experts that took part in the official records don't know what they're talking about.

 

3) folks like me with too much education (less than 0.1% have a hard science phd) and the obvious ability to critically examine evidence are either bought, which implies we're also lying, or incompetent.

 

4) yah, the government that can't seem to get anything right has either fixed it all or silenced those that found out.

 

prove i'm lying, btw.

 

taks

 

1) The vast majority of the eyewitness accounts in NY are inconsistent with the story of a commercial jetliner. There were some 911liars in New York and at the Pentagon (Sean Murtagh and Mike Walter), but many saw what really happened and reported it. They just had TV replays shoved in their face, though.

 

2) First off, there weren't thousands of experts involved in writing the NIST report. Second, there are plenty of other experts who disagree with the NIST report. Third, evidence shows that the NIST investigation was built-to-fail, which explains why they released such a sloppy, debunkable report. Strange for 'top scientists'. Just saying "Oh, so they're all lying?" instead of addressing all the experts who disagree with them and all the problems in their report is a cop out.

 

3) When did I say you were lying? I just think you haven't looked into staged terrorism and haven't gone into conspiracy research with an entirely open mind.

 

4) First of all, it's not "the government", as in the stoogeaucrats that are behind this. It's highly competent and highly ruthless forces in CIA/MI6/Mossad and covert, 'black-ops' elements of the military.

 

1. You accusing my friends of dishonourable conduct MIGHT be justified if you knew them or had any first hand experience of Iraq and Afghanistan. You don't. All you have is a bunch of self-congratulatory fantasies, totally unsubstantiated by anyone other than known enemies of the US and UK. It's like me telling you that your dad is a serial killer because I heard it from a guy on the internet.

 

First, I never said "your friends" conduct was dishonorable. Do you know the SAS guys who were caught shooting cops in Basra dressed as Arabs? Surely you aren't going to suggest that their conduct was honorable.

 

Second, don't say my claims are "totally unsubstantiated" when I gave you a link to an article that laid it out perfectly and gave sources/references. I didn't "hear it from a guy on the Internet". I checked the sources and the evidence was undeniable. Did you even read the article? If you did, you wouldn't deny that covert, 'black-ops' sections of the US/UK forces stage terror in Iraq.

 

2. Al Qaeda isn't a fantasy. It is a convenient label for a worldwide array of islamofascist organisations from the Phillipines to Algeria to New Jersey. It's existence is evident not just in the bombings and shootings, but in every website, every crappy hate filled pamphlet, every angry schoolkid. Not only does mean you'd have to have a shadow agency BIGGER than every other government dept combined. But it is spheroids, because the entire ****ing architecture of the threat is modular and decentralised. Even a moron couldn't believe that Al Qaeda could be controlled centrally by your shadow government, because there are no control mechanisms beyond public ideology.

 

Sure, when CIA/MI6/Mossad stage terrorism and create/foster Islamic terror groups and use them as patsies so their names are all over the news, there are going to be "Me too!" terrorist wannabes in the Islamic community. The organizations that caused this worldwide 'inspiration' for young, wannabe terrorists and middle-aged, misguided extremists were created and/or fostered by the intelligence community, which is the biggest terrorist organization in the world, IMO.

 

3. If you think there has been no honourable conduct by UK forces in Iraq then you clearly think that going on patrol, pursuing murderers, building infrastructure, delivering medical aid, while consistently abiding by the rules of war, suffering and dying isn't honourable, and you're bloody fool. And if you think the same men would abide by a conspiracy to hurt the people they are suffering to protect then you're an even bigger fool.

 

When did I say that there has been no honorable conduct by military? There are a lot of sickos in the forces (Mostly in the US forces, but UK forces aren't above it), but they stand beside good folks who are serving for the right reasons.

 

I also never said that all of the troops were involved in the conspiracy. Covert, 'black-ops' sections of the troops, however, are. You can't deny that. It's documented. SAS guys were caught trying to stage a terrorist attack in Basra. They were out dressed as Arabs and shooting police officers. They had explosives in their vehicle. When they were caught and jailed, did the UK government or military command denounce their actions? No, they attacked the prison, killed guards, and let hundreds of prisoners go to free them. Those were real live, black-ops/false-flag murderers that the Basra police had nabbed.. and they weren't allowed to keep them.

 

conspiracy theorists spend more time focusing on inconsistencies in the official record than they do proving their own point.

 

To make your case, you must do both. Prove the official record wrong or unreliable and then establish your version (with evidence) as more reliable or at least as a possible alternative.

 

they simply assume we're all bought or intimidated and lying, incompetent, or just plain wrong and certainly dishonorable.

 

Never said that about you or anyone else. It is unreasonable to lump "conspiracy theorists" into one group. That's what the media programming teaches us to do.

 

they never bother to assume the burden of proof on themselves, i.e., prove that someone placed bombs in the towers, prove that the crash site in pennsylvania isn't from a plane, etc. paranoia does that.

 

Actually, many people do that. Go check out some of Killtown's material. He's done a great job on showing that Flight 93 could not have crashed in Shanksville, Pennsylvania.

 

Proving that someone placed bombs in the Towers is easy.

 

1) Squibs (They could not have been caused by 'air compression' because many of them occur floors below the collapse wave)

2) On-video explosions (High-velocity detonation sounds on video, Explosion caught on tape 9.5 seconds before Building 7 fell and two explosions caught during the collapse)

3) Reports of explosions (Hundreds of eyewitnesses in New York heard explosions from the Twin Towers and Building 7)

4) Video evidence (Videos show an explosion before the collapse of the South Tower. After the explosion, white smoke begins to rise from the ground. We see this smoke rising from the base in many other videos)

5) Collapse videos (Collapse videos show explosions/flashes going off all over the Towers during the collapse)

6) Force (Videos/Photos show steel beams being thrown hundreds of feet outward.. structural failure doesn't do this.. this requires explosive force)

7) Speed (The Twin Towers and Building 7 collapsed very rapidly)

Dust (The Twin Towers and Building 7 produced massive amounts of pulverized, fine concrete dust when they fell)

9) WTC7 (WTC7 exhibited all the characteristics of a controlled demolition when it fell)

 

But, also look at the evidence of the use of more exotic, hi-tech weaponry. Most of that information can be found on this website.

Edited December 24, 2008 by DownWithTheIlluminati

[taks]

rant

not one bit of which is proof of someone placing bombs, it is simply proof of your incomplete scientific knowledge as well as those putting forth the whacked out theories.

 

and, sorry, but thousands have looked at the evidence outside of just the NIST folks. as i asked, are we all lying and incompetent, too? if you want to appeal to authority the first thing you're going to have to accept is that "our side" has a bigger one than "your side," and in light of the fundamental scientific mistakes in every one of your 9 points (at the end of your post), your authority isn't looking very authoritative.

 

taks

[Gorgon]

It seems plausible, purely viewing the matter from a point of view of motive, that a plane was shot down and then later on became the 'hero plane', but we are back to scale again. In world as media saturated as ours there are simply too many variables, the risk of getting caught staging a plane crash, staging the attendant circumstances that is, outweighs any positive gains. No, what happened here is that the public, the media, the executive, needed the hero plane equally much and created the myth between them. I mean it's all a matter of degrees, and we don't know what went on in those final moments anyway, so why not call them heroes.

Edited December 24, 2008 by Gorgon

[DownWithTheIlluminati]

Operation: London Bombings

Date: 7-7-05

Motive: Galvanize support for the Iraq war and unite people behind government anti-terror measures

Patsies: Hasib Hussain, Mohammad Sidique Khan, Germaine Lindsay and Shehzad Tanweer

Agencies involved: MI6, CIA, Mossad, MI5, Scotland Yard

 

EVIDENCE:

 

-The explosive used in the London attack were military-grade. Christophe Chaboud, France's new anti-terrorism coordinator, 'leaked' this fact, when he said "How did they get them? Either by trafficking, for example, in the Balkans, or they had someone on the inside who enabled them to get them out of a military base.". If this was inside knowledge and Chaboud leaked it, then why was the story later that "homemade explosives" were used?

http://wagnews.blogspot.com/2005/07/french...-bomb-plot.html

 

-Scotland Yard had warnings of a bombing that day, as one report stated. Why, then, did they, for over an hour and a half, claim that the blasts were caused by a 'power surge'?

http://www.prisonplanet.com/Pictures/Jul05...eliNN_large.jpg

 

-The police rerouted the No.30 bus that was bombed to Tavistock Square (It's original destination was Marble Arch). Out of all of the buses that day, it was the only bus that the police specially re-routed to a different location.

http://www.tribune.ie/article/2005/jul/10/...spirit-of-the-/

 

-Witnesses reported that one of the bombers, after hearing about the other blasts, became panicked and looked through his rucksack in a 'confused and frightened manner'. Does this sound like a devout Islamofascist who was ready to die for Allah? Why were there no cries of Allah Akbar, but instead a bomber hearing about the other explosions and panicking, looking through his bag? Did he even know that there was a real bomb in his bag? The police admitted that all of the bombers didn't match the MO of suicide bombers. They bought two-way tickets, they had happy families who were in disbelief after the bombing, they had good jobs and played cricket the night before. Surveillance cameras caught one of the alleged bombers arguing with the ticket clerk about the price of his ticket. All of this led investigators to conclude that the bombers were unaware that they had explosives in their backpacks.

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=MoxPY3H5EqA

 

-Haroon Aswat, the alleged mastermind of the bombing, was revealed to be working for MI6. John Loftus, a former Justice Department prosecutor, revealed on FOX News that Aswat was being chased by the British police, but one wing of British intel had been protecting him and hiding him. Aswat and a friend tried to set up a terrorist training school in Oregon. Seattle prosecutors wanted to stop them, but they were told by the headquarters of the Department of Justice not to touch Aswat. He's protected by and works for MI6.

 

-An eyewitness (Bruce Lait) reported that there was no man with a bag on the train carriage he was on. He says there wasn't even a bag. He says, instead, that metal was pushed upwards, as if there had been a bomb planted underneath the train.

http://web.archive.org/web/20051107004957/...779a86926f9.lpf

 

-The mysterious death of Jean Charles De Menezes, that took place shortly after the London Bombings, appears to have been a carefully planned assassination conducted by black operatives. Sue Thomason, a freelance journalist, was an earwitness to the shooting, heard 11 shots, which is more than the officials wanted to admit. This detail of her testimony was omitted from the IPCC. Police said that they suspected he was a bomber. When questioned, they first said that he was wearing a heavy coat on a hot morning, but CCTV images now show that they were lying, because he was wearing a light jacket. Before these CCTV images were released, the police lied and said that it had been established that there were 'technical problems' with the CCTV images that day. He was shot execution-style. The group of police that killed him were led by a "special Army unit" (See, this is an example of a black-ops agent). Government/police whistleblowers were disciplined and an ITN reporter was arrested for obtaining what would normally be a public police report on the incident. It's now known that the police that weren't part of the special Army unit didn't know why they killed De Menezes. They didn't know why they were following him. No, they were being led by a 'special Army unit' who knew exactly why De Menezes was to be shot, and it wasn't because he was a terrorist. The police squatted on De Menezes. Witnesses say that his expression indicated that he knew who they were. It's clear that the men following him knew he had no bomb. They were trained police officers and military personnel. They know that if someone has a bomb, you don't shoot at them and you definitely don't squat on them. No, De Menezes had information about the London Bombings. He knew too much and was eliminated like the witnesses connected to the JFK assassination were.

http://infowars.net/Pages/Aug05/260805DeMenezes_cover_up.htm

 

-Israeli media reported that Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli minister of finance, was warned not to leave his hotel to attend a meeting that was less than 100 yards away from the bombings. This warning came before the bombings took place. Who warned him? The head of Mossad. Why didn't Mossad say anything when Scotland Yard was reporting for over an hour and a half that the explosions were caused by a 'power surge'?

http://www.prisonplanet.com/Pages/Jul05/07..._netanyahu.html

 

-The office of Ariel Sharon, who was then Prime Minister of Israel, ordered Israeli officials not to give interviews relating to the London Bombings.

http://www.infowars.com/articles/world/uk_..._talk_media.htm

 

-Conveniently, there is no footage from inside the No.30 bus because the security camera 'malfunctioned'. A London Stagecoach said emailed Prison Planet to say that he did not believe this 'malfunctioning camera' story because surveillance cameras are checked 2-3 times a week. He also revealed that a contractor that nobody who worked there recognized had come to inspect the security cameras in the buses days before the attacks. This strange contractor spent a whopping 20 hours doing this. The stagecoach was very suspicious of this.

http://www.infowars.com/articles/London_at..._suspicious.htm

 

-Amazingly conveniently and impossibly, all four of the alleged bombers' IDs were conveniently undamaged, lying at the scene. This is similar to 9-11, where the hijackers' IDs were found at all four of the 'airplane crash' sites. There was one problem. One of the London bombers' identification was found in two of different bomb sites.

 

-The way the conspirators involve hundreds of people who don't know what they're doing and what they're participating in is compartmentalization. The way they achieve this compartmentalization is through 'training exercises'. When 9-11 occurred, the air force was running live-fly hijacking exercises and plane crash simulations. The ATF appeared to have been running 'training drills' with their bomb squad during the Oklahoma City Bombing. It is important to understand that these exercises provide cover for the real conspirators and allow the involvement of hundreds of others who believe they are simply participating in a drill. If the patsies are caught and the operation is blown, it can be claimed that this was simply a training exercise. Echelon eavesdroppers will be fooled into thinking that terror plans they're overhearing from CIA/MI6/Mossad are simply part of a drill. And get this. During the London Bombings, Visor Consultants, a crisis management company with connections to MI5, Giuliani, and Scotland Yard was running an exercise about numerous bombs going off in the London Underground in the exact same stations involved in the actual attack.

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=E1HPNpxbfX8

 

-One month before the London Bombings, MI5 downgraded security on the London Underground, despite the fact that the G8 Summit was to happen.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article541654.ece

 

CONCLUSION:

 

It is obvious that the London attacks were carried out by covert elements within the British government and intelligence community.

 

THEORY:

 

The bombers were actually good, ordinary, law-abiding citizens of Britain. They were told that they could get some extra money if they took part in a training exercise that was being run by Visor Consultants. This drill would have them go into stations with fake bombs to test security on the London underground. In reality, they were given real bombs. After two of the blasts, one of them began to suspect that he had been set up, and panicked, shortly before his bomb went off. The "Power Surge" story acted as a cover for the general public while evidence was planted and the stage was set for the official version. Jean Charles De Menezes, a contract electrician, who had seen too much and knew too much about the true purpose of the "Power Surge" in the London Underground, was ambushed and shot dead by a hit team consisting of a group of police officers and a special Army unit.

[DownWithTheIlluminati]

not one bit of which is proof of someone placing bombs, it is simply proof of your incomplete scientific knowledge as well as those putting forth the whacked out theories.

 

You didn't even refute anything I said or respond to it in a civil manner! Geeeeez!

 

and, sorry, but thousands have looked at the evidence outside of just the NIST folks.

 

Sorry, that's the kind of thing you need to provide evidence for. And since over 600 experts disagree with the official version, why should we give all our credibility to military/government-linked agencies like NIST?

 

if you want to appeal to authority the first thing you're going to have to accept is that "our side" has a bigger one than "your side," and in light of the fundamental scientific mistakes in every one of your 9 points (at the end of your post), your authority isn't looking very authoritative.

 

You can't say I made 9 scientific mistakes without proving it. A long time ago, there were a smaller percentage of people saying that the earth was round. If you don't like that example, just think of all the times when mainstream science have proved to be wrong. The fact is, there are over 600 experts who doubt the official version. That's a lot.

 

the risk of getting caught staging a plane crash, staging the attendant circumstances that is, outweighs any positive gains. No, what happened here is that the public, the media, the executive, needed the hero plane equally much and created the myth between them. I mean it's all a matter of degrees, and we don't know what went on in those final moments anyway, so why not call them heroes.

taks

 

Actually, it was quite easy for them. Shanksville was an area with close ties to the military and anti-terrorism authorities. After the event, the site was blocked off and it appears that evidence was planted.

[taks]

It seems plausible, purely viewing the matter from a point of view of motive, that a plane was shot down and then later on became the 'hero plane', but we are back to scale again. In world as media saturated as ours there are simply too many variables, the risk of getting caught staging a plane crash, staging the attendant circumstances that is, outweighs any positive gains. No, what happened here is that the public, the media, the executive, needed the hero plane equally much and created the myth between them. I mean it's all a matter of degrees, and we don't know what went on in those final moments anyway, so why not call them heroes.

yeah, it's one thing to control people that are in your employ, particularly those that sign agreements that pretty much hand their lives over to the government in exchange for the ability to work on the projects they work on. it is, however, an entirely different matter to control hundreds if not thousands of people from the general public as well as the media itself. just ain't happening.

 

and yes, i can say that every one of your 9 points is incorrect because the onus of proof is on you. basic science and physics say you are wrong on every count or you simply fail to rule out alternative possibilities.

 

however, i'm bored so i'll humor you:

 

1) squibs: millions of pounds of steel, concrete and other materials are pushing down from the top and you don't expect windows to be blown out except on the floor immediately below the current one collapsing? the onus is on you to prove they cannot occur several floors down. and quite frankly, it simply makes sense that the shockwave propagated rather rapidly and many floors were compressing at a time.

2) several blocks were essentially on fire and you call videos of things blowing up evidence of something? prove that these things could not have occurred simply as a result of all the damage. rule out all possibilities. the list is long as it includes any pocket of fuel, compressed or otherwise, pipelines, etc.

3) reports of explosions: no, actually, all those earwitnesses heard what sounded like explosions, not explosives. two of the tallest buildings in the world were hit by planes and dropped to the ground and you don't expect to hear loud noises?

4) Videos show an explosion before the collapse of the South Tower: really, where? have you ruled out every possible explanation, such as the elevators crashing down from 70 floors up? apparently people were thrown out and witnesses said it was a mess.

5) flashes: no kidding. a building is falling compressing who knows what and you're surprised at seeing flashes? how much of the building still had power? what other combustibles were present? gotta rule 'em all out.

6) structural failure doesn't do this.. this requires explosive force: bull****. you completely fail to understand the stresses going on inside these massive structure collapsing.

7) speed: i watched the videos, they pancaked one after the other so they collapsed exactly as fast as i would have expected them to. you're basing the speed thing also on a shockwave that only extends one floor below the currently collapsing floor, and limiting it to gravitational acceleration. sorry, but this is basic physics. perhaps you should entertain getting an education in this field to understand better?

dust: wow, no kidding. you mean two of the largest buildings on earth dropped and you're surprised that much of the concrete got pulverized? this one is amazingly stupid.

9) WTC7: in my opinion, you've already demonstrated a serious lack of understanding of a "controlled demolition" so simply saying "it exhbited all the characteristics of a controlled demolition" fails the sniff test. sorry, but this is just one more bit of conjecture on your part.

 

taks

Edited December 24, 2008 by taks

[Walsingham]

Made me laugh. You're saying that amongst the handful of troops we've ever had in Iraq they managed to hide and conspire to carry out demolitions on a massive scale. Yeah. Clearly that was down to British Army officers and not the trained insurgents of the Mehdi army and their IRGC backers.

 

Once again, your speculations fall over because you have zero first hand knowledge of anything except the internet. The British Army is like family. It's tiny. There's absolutely no ****ing way you could reliably use anyone who'd been through any of the training establishments without them bumping into folks who knew them. Hence my contention that the entire structure would have to be rotten. It clearly isn't rotten, so your theory fails. And I speak as someone who knows and has employed/worked with Army intelligence and SAS types.

 

As for your scientific errors, actually you DO have the burden of proof, as taks has said repeatedly. We both have engineering training, I have mentioned my friend who is a specialist in damaged buildings, and it all looks kosher. You have 600 experts who disagree? We have the rest of the entire ****ing world.

 

Not only is the burden of proof on you as the divergent source, but taks and I have a record on the fora to fall back on. We don't lie, and if we get something wrong I think we generally admit it. So ante up.

[Guest The Architect]

You guys say what you will about everything else but do any of you yet have any explanation for Silverstein's bull****? He lied about having the "pull it" conversation with fire commander Daniel Nigro. Why the **** would he make something up like that if he had nothing to hide?

[Gorgon]

So he was in on it, what about the firemen who died, did they fake that too, or were they merely expendable. Also were is Mossad in all of this. You can't have a giant conspiracy without Mossad, those are the rules.

[Guest The Architect]

Did you even see those YouTube clips, or read what I said? You think there is nothing wrong with Silverstein's statements and his reaction to the question he was being asked? And what firemen? Lots of firemen died on 9/11, how the hell does that disprove a conspiracy?

[Gorgon]

I'll be honest, I am a tourist in this thread, life is too short by far.

[Calax]

so DownWiththeilluminati is the architect?

[Gorgon]

No there are just more crackpots out there than you could possibly fathom.

[Walsingham]

No there are just more crackpots out there than you could possibly fathom.

 

Is that a starwars quote?

[Guest The Architect]

No I'm not DownWithTheIlluminati and all you can do is call me a crackpot, when you don't even know my ****ing beliefs so stop pretending that you do. And none of you have yet still tried to explain Silverstein's comments, if you're going to give me crap at least avoid dodging the issue while you do it.

[DownWithTheIlluminati]

and yes, i can say that every one of your 9 points is incorrect because the onus of proof is on you. basic science and physics say you are wrong on every count or you simply fail to rule out alternative possibilities.

 

No, the onus of proof is not on me. The burden of proof starts off on me, but once I provide my argument, it's up to my opponent (you) to destroy it by showing me how 'basic science/physics' refutes the points (the points, not the conclusion) and it's up to you to provide plausible alternative explanations.

 

1) Several floors down? That's quite easy. If there was tons of debris falling below the collapse wave, then more would be visible than just a few squibs. If it was just a bit of debris, then there would not be concrete spraying out. It's quite simple, really. Air compression isn't going to happen if there is nothing compressing the air.

 

2) First of all, the fires were local and the impact area's fires were not even that hot. Even so, it wouldn't matter if the whole friggin building was on fire. Why are detonation sounds going off that match high-velocity explosive detonation sounds when put to the comparison test?

 

3) Witnesses who reported explosions during the collapse are important because they themselves interpreted elements of the collapse as explosions. What about the witnesses to explosions prior to the collapse? What about the witnesses to low level explosions prior to the collapse.

 

4) Watch "911 Eyewitness". The movie features the footage of Rick Siegel, who caught explosions on tape prior to the collapses. Do you think that an elevator falling would be enough to rapidly cause large amounts of white smoke to be produced from the base?

 

5) Stephen Gregory, the FDNY Assistant Commissioner, was standing with Lieutenant Evangelista when he saw a series of flashes on the lower levels just before the building came down. How could these be caused by the collapse?

 

6) It doesn't matter. Floors collapsing isn't going to throw steel beams hundreds of feet outward. Come on.

 

7) First off, the Pancake Theory has been debunked. Second, for the buildings to collapse as fast as they did, hundreds of steel supports would have had to have been being destroyed rapidly. These buildings were redundant. Third, what about Building 7? It fell 100 meters in 4.5 seconds? You expected a steel skyscraper to collapse faster than the speed of gravity because of "structural failure"? The total collapse took under 7 seconds in total!

 

As David Ray Griffin says, try dropping a block of concrete from a thousand feet height. You're not going to see it pulverize itself into very fine dust.

 

9) Do you want me to go into detail and prove it again? It fell straight-down. It fell rapidly (100 meters in 4.5 seconds, total collapse in 7.5 seconds). It fell nearly symmetrically. There was 'kink' in the center. The exterior walls were pulled towards it's central axis. It produced massive amounts of pulverized, fine concrete dust at it's base. It fell almost entirely into it's own footprint (Accidents don't do that.. demolition teams have to work weeks to get a building to fall like that). It's collapse was preceded by an explosion that one witness described as a 'clap of thunder'-like sound. Numerous 'booms' occurred during it's collapse, according to former NYPD officer Craig Bartmer.

 

Made me laugh. You're saying that amongst the handful of troops we've ever had in Iraq they managed to hide and conspire to carry out demolitions on a massive scale. Yeah. Clearly that was down to British Army officers and not the trained insurgents of the Mehdi army and their IRGC backers.

 

Clearly you missed what I said about:

 

1) The spooks (CIA, MI6, Mossad) being at the top of organizing staged terrorism.

2) Only small, covert, 'black-ops' sections of the military being involved in staging terroris

 

Yeah, some of the terrorism was staged by elements of the British Army and intelligence community.

 

Once again, your speculations fall over because you have zero first hand knowledge of anything except the internet. The British Army is like family. It's tiny. There's absolutely no ****ing way you could reliably use anyone who'd been through any of the training establishments without them bumping into folks who knew them. Hence my contention that the entire structure would have to be rotten. It clearly isn't rotten, so your theory fails. And I speak as someone who knows and has employed/worked with Army intelligence and SAS types.

 

You can keep giving me emotional responses, saying 'my theory fails, etc., but you're wrong. That's a fact. I provided you with a documented incident in which two SAS guys were caught trying to stage a terrorist attack. They were arrested and then the British Army committed a crime by breaking them out. You obviously haven't read the Keefer article I linked you to, which proves that elements of the US/UK forces are staging terror.

 

It's also funny that you baselessly deny what I'm saying, despite the fact that history backs it up.

 

As for your scientific errors, actually you DO have the burden of proof, as taks has said repeatedly. We both have engineering training, I have mentioned my friend who is a specialist in damaged buildings, and it all looks kosher. You have 600 experts who disagree? We have the rest of the entire ****ing world.

 

1) 'My' scientific errors? Point'em out, please. The burden of proof is on YOU when you make accusations against someone.

 

2) I have the burden of proof, yes, I never denied that, but once I make my case, the ball is thrown to you guys.

 

3) Your friend who oversimplifies the situation because he obviously hasn't looked into it beyond his face-value, knee-jerk response to it?

 

4) Over 600 experts matter, obviously.

 

5) History shows us that many times mainstream science is wrong and the experts that disputed it are right. Once again, 600+ experts matters. There are 600+ who have done their research into this subject. You have one guy who obviously hasn't done any research, based on the total, knee-jerk response you told me about when you asked them about 911. Was it a typo on your part, or did they actually say that 'two planes hit one building'?

 

So he was in on it, what about the firemen who died, did they fake that too, or were they merely expendable. Also were is Mossad in all of this. You can't have a giant conspiracy without Mossad, those are the rules.

 

1) Larry Silverstein was involved, in my opinion. He leased the buildings 7 weeks prior to the attack, bought a massive insurance policy, and, he wasn't in his office in the Towers when the attack happened because of a 'coincidental' appointment with the Dentist. Lucky guy, eh? His luck doesn't end there. It just so happens that his children weren't in their offices either, as they were 'running late'. Obviously, though, you can't have a perp without connections. Hard to picture some landlord guy agreeing to this. Turns out he wasn't without ties, after all. He was a friend of three former Israeli Prime Ministers and Ariel Sharon, who was, of course, the Prime Minister of Israel at the time of the attacks. Guess what? He spoke to former Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu every Sunday over the phone. Larry was tight with the political elite in Israel.

 

2) The firefighters died because they went into a building that was being blown up by these criminals. They didn't care about the people in the Pentagon/WTC, so why would they care about the firefighters?

 

3) Yes, Mossad was involved. This "War On Terror" is being staged by CIA, MI6, Mossad, and some of their buddies (ISI, IB, CSIS). In fact, there is evidence of direct Mossad connections to the September 11 attacks. Five men were arrested in New York that day. They had a white van and were seen 'dressed as Palestinians', according to the caller who alerted the police to fact of their existence. The police found out that they weren't Arabs after all, but they were Israelis! Some of them were found to be connected to Mossad! When they were apprehended, one of them said "We are Israelis. We are not your problem. Your problems are our problems. The Palestinians are your problem.". A massive Israeli Spy Ring existed in the US prior to 9-11 that was suspiciously close to the alleged hijackers on many occassions.

 

so DownWiththeilluminati is the architect?

 

Nope.

 

No there are just more crackpots out there than you could possibly fathom.

 

See, I can take people disagreeing. I just carry on a civil discussion.. But it's weak, immature jabs like this.. That, that I can't stands. That's why I'm going to stop being nice to you and tell it like it is:

 

You are a victim of the media's programming. Everyone is programmed by the media (Cartoons, News, Comedy skits, etc.) to believe that the idea of "Conspiracy Theory" should automatically be associated with tinfoil hats, moonbats, and loons. You, "Gorgon", are a victim of that programming. I am not angry at you. I am angry at the media for doing this to you and so many others. I only ask you to start thinking outside of this programming like I started doing at a young age.

[Trenitay]

Why does it seem that everyone who believes in one conspiracy, believes in them all?

[DownWithTheIlluminati]

Why does it seem that everyone who believes in one conspiracy, believes in them all?

 

Because once you accept that the September 11 attacks are a conspiracy, you start opening your mind to the possibility of 'Conspiracy', and start questioning other events.

 

..Then you find the incredible amount of evidence that the London Bombings, the WTC93 bombing, the Kennedy assassinations, and many other crimes were also conspiracies. Once you accept that we live in a conspiratorial world, you have to start questioning everything.

 

Terrorism is the New World Order's favorite tactic. The recent Mumbai attacks? They were a covert, black operation carried out by operatives in Indian/British/American/Israeli intelligence. The motive was to use India as a proxy to further destabilize Pakistan.

 

People need to start questioning EVERYTHING.

[Aram]

Plus fluoridation is corrupting our precious bodily fluids!

[DownWithTheIlluminati]

Plus fluoridation is corrupting our precious bodily fluids!

 

Fluoridation of the water exists. Watch and learn:

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=RXWwd0AdG40

 

New Research: Fluoride Damages Children's Liver and Kidneys (NYSCOF)

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/Augus...806Fluoride.htm

[Aram]

It's depriving the women of our essences!

[Gorgon]

I think he actually got the joke, but is intent on revealing the real conspiracy behind it.