[DJNeill]

Hi all,
Here's an interesting movie about the towers that throws more testimony at one of the arguments.

http://bestdocumentaries.blogspot.com/2008...n-into-911.html

Thanks,
Dan

[Al_U_Card]

Shhhhh, Dan. For god's sake, you'll wake everyone up. We can't have that!

[Winstonm]

Notice that the questioners are non-Americans. The rest of the world is not so affected by the U.S. propaganda machine

[TimG]

I watched some of this, but admit to not giving it my full attention. It seems that their conclusion is that Flight 77 (maybe have the wrong flight number) did not hit the Pentagon, but rather it was a military aircraft that hit the Pentagon. Did they ever speculate about where Flight 77 went?

[PassedOut]

TimG, on May 23 2008, 10:54 PM, said:

I watched some of this, but admit to not giving it my full attention. It seems that their conclusion is that Flight 77 (maybe have the wrong flight number) did not hit the Pentagon, but rather it was a military aircraft that hit the Pentagon. Did they ever speculate about where Flight 77 went?

I asked a guy who thinks the passenger plane did not hit the pentagon what happened to it. His answer: "You tell me!"

[blackshoe]

Aliens teleported it into the Sun.

[luke warm]

TimG, on May 23 2008, 10:54 PM, said:

I watched some of this, but admit to not giving it my full attention.  It seems that their conclusion is that Flight 77 (maybe  have the wrong flight number) did not hit the Pentagon, but rather it was a military aircraft that hit the Pentagon.  Did they ever speculate about where Flight 77 went?

it ended up in area 51 in the bunker next to the dead aliens, up the street from the video showing the 2nd shooter behind the grassy knoll, and across the lot from the sound stage where they shot the moon landing

[Al_U_Card]

A good detective story. Lots of answers being hidden not only by refusal to divulge but also by misdirection and misinformation. Several things are, however, clear.

Some primo real estate in NYC got a nice quick and easy clean-up for peanuts (since the value of human life seems to be a secondary concern for this administration...)

The neocon dream of a "Pearl Harbor" appeared out of thin air (if you consider a lot of planning and working in that direction other than thin morals)

The impetus and reason for restricting individual rights and freedoms came to pass with little resistance from those so restricted.

The war machine was engaged with the "noble" justification of national security and removing a menacing scourge from the face of the earth.

A new and volatile "enemy" was created that will ensure a long period of conviction and activity for the military industrial complex and its sycophants.


The more you look at the end result, the more the precursors and events make sense in the larger context. The only question that remains is,

"What are you going to do about it?"

[luke warm]

Al_U_Card, on May 24 2008, 07:14 AM, said:

A good detective story. Lots of answers being hidden not only by refusal to divulge but also by misdirection and misinformation. Several things are, however, clear.

Some primo real estate in NYC got a nice quick and easy clean-up for peanuts (since the value of human life seems to be a secondary concern for this administration...)

The neocon dream of a "Pearl Harbor" appeared out of thin air (if you consider a lot of planning and working in that direction other than thin morals)

The impetus and reason for restricting individual rights and freedoms came to pass with little resistance from those so restricted.

The war machine was engaged with the "noble" justification of national security and removing a menacing scourge from the face of the earth.

A new and volatile "enemy" was created that will ensure a long period of conviction and activity for the military industrial complex and its sycophants.


The more you look at the end result, the more the precursors and events make sense in the larger context. The only question that remains is,

"What are you going to do about it?"

ahhh now i see... i was wondering why the evil us gov't would conspire with the terrorists to ram jets into buildings, it never occurred to me that the explosives were already planted and awaiting the "word"

[Winstonm]

O.K., Jimmy,

In another thread to make your argument for your beliefs, you claimed that the atheist could not explain transendental entities unless he used your worldview.

Well, here is your own argument presented another way.

Controlled demoltion explains all the observable data as well the circumstantial evidence.

The "official" explanation does not.

If you want to explain all the data, you have to do so from controlled demolition worldview.

[Winstonm]

By the way, Jimmy, this little tidbit was from Friday, May 23, 2008:

Quote

The CIA is protecting an Al-Qaeda linked terror group formerly headed by the alleged mastermind of 9/11 from being extradited to Iran according to an ABC News report, which also reveals that U.S. intelligence has been meeting and advising the group that has been blamed for bombings in Iran

But you can still keep believing in the war on terror, Osama bin Laden, the 19 hijackers of whom 6 have been found alive since 9-11, God, apple pie, mother, George Bush, Fox News, and the Republican Party - but don't pretend to be superior - simply because your fantasies are mainstream - to someone who legitimately questions the government account of 9-11.

[blackshoe]

what, exactly, do you mean by "legitimately" here, Winston?

[luke warm]

Winstonm, on May 24 2008, 02:27 PM, said:

Controlled demoltion explains all the observable data as well the circumstantial evidence.

all the observable data? how does it explain 2 jets crashing into the WTC, one into farmland (after heroic efforts by the passengers), and one into the pentagon?

[Winstonm]

blackshoe, on May 24 2008, 02:53 PM, said:

what, exactly, do you mean by "legitimately" here, Winston?

I use legitimately in this context: the dust of the WTC collapse was examined and found to hold evidence of thermate use - that evidence has not been addressed or explained as something other than thermate by the NIST.

To question if thermate were actually used when evidence for it has been found and this evidence is not even addressed by the NIST would be a legitimate concern.

[Winstonm]

luke warm, on May 24 2008, 03:27 PM, said:

Winstonm, on May 24 2008, 02:27 PM, said:

Controlled demoltion explains all the observable data as well the circumstantial evidence.

all the observable data? how does it explain 2 jets crashing into the WTC, one into farmland (after heroic efforts by the passengers), and one into the pentagon?

Jeez, Jimmy, I know you are not that stupid and not that ignorant. You do seem to be rather pigheaded, though.

Here are but a few of the unexplained phenomena your worldview does not explain:

39 witnesses heard explosions in the basement before the planes hit.
Although the fires did not reach temperatures high enough to melt steel, molten metal was found in the debris weeks after the collapse.
The WTC dust held droplets of molten metal that had the metallurgic makeup consistent with military-grade thermate - how did the jets create this residue?

[Al_U_Card]

Based on the testimonies of eye-witnesses as to the "explosions".....to explain them away by conducting a few (not necessarily extensive) tests for explosives etc. but no, not one test because...?

The whole thing stinks and the farter denying his culpability doesnt make the smell any better.

[luke warm]

Winstonm, on May 24 2008, 04:40 PM, said:

luke warm, on May 24 2008, 03:27 PM, said:

Winstonm, on May 24 2008, 02:27 PM, said:

Controlled demoltion explains all the observable data as well the circumstantial evidence.

all the observable data? how does it explain 2 jets crashing into the WTC, one into farmland (after heroic efforts by the passengers), and one into the pentagon?

Jeez, Jimmy, I know you are not that stupid and not that ignorant. You do seem to be rather pigheaded, though.

Here are but a few of the unexplained phenomena your worldview does not explain:

39 witnesses heard explosions in the basement before the planes hit.
Although the fires did not reach temperatures high enough to melt steel, molten metal was found in the debris weeks after the collapse.
The WTC dust held droplets of molten metal that had the metallurgic makeup consistent with military-grade thermate - how did the jets create this residue?

i didn't say they did, winston... i know you're not that stupid and not that ignorant, but you do seem to be rather pigheaded ... you said, "Controlled demolition explains all the observable data as well the circumstantial evidence." and i merely asked how controlled demolition explains the jets (an observable data eh?)... i just want to know what your answer is, that's all

and i don't have a worldview re: this tragedy... it seems strange to refer to me not believing there was a conspiracy as "my worldview"... i don't *know* there wasn't a conspiracy, i just don't believe it to be so... that's hardly a worldview... you don't *know* there was a conspiracy, you just believe it to be so

[Al_U_Card]

And Pearl Harbor was a sneak-attack too, I suppose?

[blackshoe]

Winstonm, on May 24 2008, 04:17 PM, said:

blackshoe, on May 24 2008, 02:53 PM, said:

what, exactly, do you mean by "legitimately" here, Winston?

I use legitimately in this context: the dust of the WTC collapse was examined and found to hold evidence of thermate use - that evidence has not been addressed or explained as something other than thermate by the NIST.

To question if thermate were actually used when evidence for it has been found and this evidence is not even addressed by the NIST would be a legitimate concern.

If by "thermate" you mean "thermite" I submit that your "context" is flawed - it implies that thermite was "used" in some way. The evidence supports only that it was (possibly) there. Not the same thing at all.

[blackshoe]

Al_U_Card, on May 24 2008, 04:40 PM, said:

Based on the testimonies of eye-witnesses as to the "explosions".....to explain them away by conducting a few (not necessarily extensive) tests for explosives etc. but no, not one test because...?

The whole thing stinks and the farter denying his culpability doesnt make the smell any better.

One: there were no "eye witnesses" to these alleged explosions. At best there were "ear witnesses".
Two: Eye witness (or ear witness) testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Three: whose culpability?