A few debunking links

I almost feel sorry for the spam king......


It's two words,not one

 

[video=youtube;STICJ9gfB2s]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STICJ9gfB2s&feature=plcp[/video]

Now run those excuses by me one more time.

There should be a space after the comma, as in: "It's two words, not one."

 

[video=youtube;WC9KZ2Yy5g4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WC9KZ2Yy5g4[/video]

"The Lone Gunman"; Hollywood Chutzbah at it's ignominious finest.

 

Holston, I've debunked the put options on 3 separate occasions, you need to find something else. The put options are not a valid argument and you know it. You just keep ignoring the facts and reposting the same garbage. You need to find something different.

Thermite - Debunked
Put options - Debunked
Explosions mean explosives - Debunked
J00z did it - Debunked

Now, let's watch you link back to those anti-semite sites, shall we?

 

Also, Holston, I hate to say it but people weren't saying there were minimal fires in WTC 7. I'm not sure you are thinking of the correct buildings. Firefighters described it as a raging inferno. Several other firefighters said they knew it was coming down hours in advanced. The fires were massive, and there was no way to fight it. Who actually buys into the "How did building 7 collapse, no airplane hit it" meme? You know what did hit it? Hundreds of thousands of pounds of steel and flaming debris. There were gigantic chunks torn out of the side of the building. I can source any of this, just let me know what you'd like me to prove.

You're wrong, again Holston. Your claims are incorrect, unsourced, unfounded, and untrue. At this point, if there were a crowd of people reading, the only conclusion to come to would be that you have no idea what you are talking about. Your posting style proves that you have no factual basis to support your claims.

 

When you say massive do you mean like the one in Madrid, where the fire burned all night long but the building didn't fall down?




http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/spain_fire_2005.html


Or do you mean like the one in China, where the skyscraper didn't fall down?




Or do you mean the one in Dubai?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=tzA3RzJ6wyM&NR=1

[video=youtube;65Qg_-89Zr8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65Qg_-89Zr8[/video]

Now I can see how ALL THOSE FIREMEN knew that 7 was coming down.

It's too bad these insightful firemen failed to warn their buddies who went rushing into towers one and two. Especially the ones who thought they could knock out the fires there with "a line or two". They must have been new on the job.

Yep you really debunked that one.


You could show us the big gigantic chunks that were knocked out of 7 just to satisfy all the skeptics out there that might not have been convinced by the "raging infernos" that were in 7. I mean, when you compare them with the others they really don't look so "raging". So you can sort of see why they might be puzzled by the appearance of things.

But once you show us the big chunks that were knocked out, I'm sure that it will ALL MAKE SENSE. All we need to do is just focus on those gigantic chunks and the REST of all that BS about PNAC, Put Options, Able Danger, and the Defenseless boobs at Norad will just disappear like the 2.6 TRILLION dollars did from the Pentagon and the billions in bullion from beneath the Trade Center.

 

First off, the Madrid Building was reincforced concrete. The steel portion of that building failed within 2 hours of the building starting on fire, and that was without a plane crashing into it. Thank you for proving even more that the buildings withstood more than they were designed too. Once again when referring to the Mandarin fire:

You are comparing two completely different buildings. Do you even know what type of building structure the WTC's were? Do you have any idea at all? I'll give you a hint, they aren't reinforced concrete. They had some reinforced concrete in the parking garages, we've covered this already.

The Dubai skyscraper, well, here's a pic. Guess what that building is? You guessed it! Reinforced concrete.

There you go! Lying about it again.

 

Uhm, you wanted fireman to warn the others that were going into WTC 1 and 2 that building 7 was going to collapse 8 hours later, before even the 2 WTC towers collapsed? Yeah, that makes sense!

First off, all of your pictures are taken at night. Obviously, fire glows more during the night time than it does during the days, it's also easier to spot. Pretty common sense explanation there. One 2 Notice all that smoke? It's from the fires that are burning throughout the building.

http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17723But once you show us the big chunks that were knocked out, I'm sure that it will ALL MAKE SENSE. All we need to do is just focus on those gigantic chunks and the REST of all that BS about PNAC, Put Options, Able Danger, and the Defenseless boobs at Norad will just disappear like the 2.6 TRILLION dollars did from the Pentagon and the billions in bullion from beneath the Trade Center. [/QUOTE]

Put options have been debunked, I did it myself. You continuously ignore me, and don't even look at the material I present, and refute it. I at least take the time to post sources, and reputable information about your posts. The Put Options are a non issue.

The 2.6 trillion is absolute crap, the pentagon stated what happened, and it had nothing to do with the WTC. It was cleared up in a matter of days. NORAD responded the quickest it could given the circumstances. One of the individuals that works at the Boston Airport has commented on it. I believe him way before I'd believe you. You have no idea what's going on.

 

[video=youtube;zQXwVs7fV1c]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQXwVs7fV1c&feature=plcp[/video]
[video=youtube;8En6Ag8y77M]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8En6Ag8y77M[/video]

 

http://www.wtc7.net/buildingfires.html

Just think about it a little longer. It'll come to you.
( hint: Experienced firemen weren't expecting the WTCs to fall down. But somehow word got out that building 7 collapsed BEFORE it did! You've seen the newsreel. So evidently someone knew 7 was going to fall. After the experience of watching 1 and 2 collapse, and with all the explosions going off and everything, it's easy enough to see why by that time hardly anyone would be surprised by anything. Under normal circumstances it isn't likely that anyone would think that the building would fall down. I still don't think it would have if the props had not been knocked out from under it. And the fires were not sufficient to do that. They weren't sufficient to toast the steel like they did either with all the intergranular melting and sulfidation that was observed either.)

The picture above was taken in the daytime. (It's not a picture of any of the Trade Center buildings. It was another building which did NOT fall down.)

There's a lot of smoke alright. Not much fire though.

[video=youtube;hZje_4h-f1g]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZje_4h-f1g&feature=player_embedded[/video]



http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17723But once you show us the big chunks that were knocked out, I'm sure that it will ALL MAKE SENSE. All we need to do is just focus on those gigantic chunks and the REST of all that BS about PNAC, Put Options, Able Danger, and the Defenseless boobs at Norad will just disappear like the 2.6 TRILLION dollars did from the Pentagon and the billions in bullion from beneath the Trade Center. [/QUOTE]

The photo doesn't show much. There were photos of other surrounding buildings however which showed extensive damage to them. Yet none of those fell in the manner of a controlled demolition.

We also have Barry Jennings testimony in which he said an explosion knocked out the stairwell beneath him BEFORE the second plane stuck. That would be BEFORE either of the towers fell. So THAT bit of damage could not have came from them.

It's too bad that Jennings died isn't it? It's too bad that Madam Palfrey hung herself and a half dozed other important witnesses met untimely fates as well. Just more coincidence to you I'm sure. No matter how many of these coincidences occurred, none of them merit any serious consideration. Why should they when a half a$$3d excuse will suffice? Since when do mobsters really need excuses anyway, so long as they're not on trail?

Take a box. Remove one side. Leave the other three standing. Does it fall down?

I've seen all the excuses. Here are some:
http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Put_Options

Not many people would take the time to wade through this mess. Shysters use this sort of technique to bury fine print.

It's almost funny if it wasn't such a serious matter. They expect people to scroll down this mess and accept all the mish mash they put out there to befuddle everyone to believe them based on their undecipherability and sheer volume.

They call this technique something like "They'll Never Read All That". It's like the US tax codes. Only the Jewish lawyers know where all the loop holes are buried because their people are the ones who write them in. Or you might compare it to a well hidden back door in thousands of pages of computer code. Congress uses it to pass their pork and get resolutions passed like the Noahide law thingy.

These people must have a million tricks up their sleeve.


After you examine it closely, the upshot is, according to "some government sources", that they found no reason to be suspicious. That's like NIST deciding that there was nothing suspicious about two planes felling three skyscrapers in the manner of controlled demolitions, 3 times in a row, all on the same day.

I guess it partly depends on who a person wants to believe or who can be trusted.

Right now I wouldn't trust a word from the Jew media or their paid government spokesmen. I thought I made that clear to you. I also wouldn't trust De Bunkos at JREF. You evidently are a subscriber so what makes your word more credible than theirs?

You may be able to fool others, but it's obvious to me that you are simply a liar.

Well, some sources say 2.3 Trillion. What's 0.3 TRILLION to quibble about considering the strangle hold that the Fed and the Wall Street Banksters have over everything else anyway.

It should be apparent that anyone who could preform massive rip-offs like these or take a nation to war under false pretenses created by mass murder would be capable of concocting a cover up.

Unfortunately for them, all is not as simple as it should be considering the media machine and all the moolah that they have to work with. You still have all these loose ends dangling everywhere, otherwise no one would suspect a thing.

It's too bad for white gentile men as well as for the unfortunate Palestinians that there are so many folks in the US that are too ignorant, too stupid, or too complacent to care. Even if they did what could they do about it?

All those freedoms that W Bush said the Arabs hated us for are gone now.

That's why you taunt "Whatcha goin' ta do about it?"

Nothing but what I am doing about it right now, I guess; That, and pray that the whole stinking scheme finds it's way back to the people who devised it, and all those who supported their lies and murders.

People who believe in Karma might think so. Not me. I don't believe in Karma 'cause I'm not religious that way, sort of like you, but not exactly. Whereas you profess no belief at all, except maybe in the concerted power of Secular Humanism or something in that vein, I DO believe in this:

 

Define evidence for me.

 

A piece of hard evidence that backs up your position. Emails showing they knew. Credible witnesses who were in a position to know but without having to resort to cherry picking parts of the quote and ignoring the whole. Low level people who found the evidence of the attack and passed it on to their superiors. NOTHING happens without leaving evidence behind. The bigger the event, the more evidence is left behind. The truth was big enough. The various truther versions of what happened are exponentially larger. You should have no problem at all coming up with evidence.

What DOESN'T constitute evidence is opinion. Some retard somewhere saying it just HAD to be a government operation yet has no evidence, no real theory, and no real position to be in on the conspiracy is NOT evidence. Some guys translation of the PNAC document pretending they are specifically talking about the 9/11 attack is NOT evidence.

My positions can be backed up by hard evidence, witnesses, and confessions. Can you say the same? Be prepared to back it up.

 

A suggestion.
If you don't want your posts deleted, try to post within the rules, quit flaming, stay on topic, no matter how passionate you are about it. Please

If that's not possible, you are welcome to leave the thread.

Shangrila
Site Moderator

 

I asked for you to define evidence. A simple definition will suffice.

 

I just did. Even gave you examples. What part do you not understand?

 

What does 'evidence' mean?

 

In regards to the law, I believe Cornell sums it up best.

 

Evidence is that which proves or disproves a claim. Opinion is not evidence as it does nothing to prove or disprove a claim.

Maybe you need it broken down into simpler terms. From Nolos Plain English Law Dictionary's definition of evidence:

So, for instance, you claim the government knew about 9/11 prior to 9/11 and let it happen. Do you have any evidence that backs up that claim? Do you have a stand down order you can point to? A memo showing the government knew when, where, and how the attacks would occur? ANYTHING?

On the flip side, I can point to the fact not one person involved in any such conspiracy which would involve hundreds to thousands to tens of thousands of people, depending on the theory believed, has ever stepped forward to expose the conspiracy. Historically, cover ups fail due to someone somewhere along the chain exposing the cover up. Take the illegal warrantless wire taps being done by the Bush administration. Not one but THREE NSA employees came forward to expose the program because they believed it was unconsititutional and was breaking the law. If people are willing to step up and expose the President for breaking the law, how much more willing would they be to expose a President who had murdered 3,000 people in the largest terrorist attack on US soil?

I can also point to the fact that the FBI and 9/11 commission investigations were exhaustive and did not turn up one shred of evidence anywhere in the chain of command that ANYONE within the government had advance notice, much less took steps to insure the attacks succeeded. Can you challenge the information presented by the FBI and the 9/11 commission report?

Are you claiming the FBI and the 9/11 commission were in on the conspiracy as well?

So what evidence do you have, Jango? Evidence has been defined for you. Examples have been given. I've given you evidence that your theories are false. Now present us with your evidence your theories are true and that my evidence is flawed.

 

Basically, something that logically gets a person from A to Z, claim to conclusion. Right?

 

No. That is not evidence. Evidence is what backs up your claim from A to Z, claim to conclusion. You are mixing up the theory with the evidence. We know the theory. Since people's lives are at stake, we need more than your "good word" to prove your conclusions.

 

That's what I meant by "something". A tangible piece of something that lends credibility to a claim which leads to a conclusion.

 

So produce it.

 

I've introduced many things already about "A Clean Break". They all paint a relatively clear picture. Although you have hand-waved it away and said it wasn't evidence you still haven't been able to refute what I've posted with evidence of your own. See, I am actually backing up my claims with credible sources, something you want me to do, and it still isn't good enough even though what I'm posting is legitimate, yet you say it is "coincidental".

 

Furthermore, I have barely tapped the reservoir on information in regards to "A Clean Break" here. Or, for that matter, neoconservative thought before and after 9/11.

 

The sources I've seen you post don't come to the same conclusion you do. You're the one making the "logical" connections and pretending that a logical connection is evidence. It isn't. There is no evidence to back up your claims, which, in and of itself, is evidence it is wrong. Practically the only way to prove something DIDN'T happen the way someone claims is through the complete lack of evidence backing up the other person's claim. I've pointed out that your sources don't make the same claim as you do, yet you still haven't come up with a single shred of evidence that backs up your claims. Silly theories built upon credible documents are still silly theories.

So let's get specific.

What evidence do you have that the government knew about 9/11 and let it happen.

To what degree did they let it happen? Does it involve stand down orders to allow the attack to happen? If so, present said orders. If not, were they just hoping the attack would succeed?

What ties the government and all the different levels that would have to be involved for discovery of the attack and then the cover up of that discovery with the PNAC? The PNAC is not the government, nor is everyone in the government part of the PNAC.

If this was all a PNAC and Bush conspiracy, why did the PNAC specifically send Bush a memo stating that 9/11 should be used to unseat Saddam Hussein? It does not make sense that the PNAC would need to "remind" Bush about the plan, does it?

What, specifically, leads you to believe the PNAC was involved in 9/11.