37 FACTS that contradict the "official" BS story

Discussion in '9/11' started by RtWngaFraud, Sep 13, 2013.

You are viewing posts in the Conspiracy Theory forum. PF does not allow misinformation. However, please note that posts could occasionally contain content in violation of our policies prior to our staff intervening.

  1. RtWngaFraud

    RtWngaFraud Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Messages:
    20,420
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I assumed you did because you seem to have an answer to ever other oddity throughout the whole 'official' fable. My apologies.
     
  2. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I can tell you WHAT they were doing,not if they found anything.

    Duh.
     
  3. Quantumhead

    Quantumhead New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2013
    Messages:
    688
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Reaction to 9/11 is quite a stark indication of what is wrong with America: itself. It simply cannot address its own crimes. Not even the media are permitted to do it. At least not the big ones (i.e. 9/11, Vietnam, Cambodia, Iraq, DRC, Guatemala, El Salvador etc...).
     
  4. Quantumhead

    Quantumhead New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2013
    Messages:
    688
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Precisely. The clincher here is that NIST did not test explosives as the most probable hypothesis. In fact they didn't test it as a hypothesis at all. They conducted no tests for any type of foul play.
     
  5. RtWngaFraud

    RtWngaFraud Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Messages:
    20,420
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I was just curious what they might be looking for specifically. They seemed very urgent about it. Almost like they were looking for incriminating traces of....something.
     
  6. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    That's because they had NO reason or evidence to suggest foul play...

    - - - Updated - - -

    Again with your perception....
     
  7. RtWngaFraud

    RtWngaFraud Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Messages:
    20,420
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I could never find an 'official' response to that point so, I thought you might know. Again, with your sarcasm.
     
  8. Quantumhead

    Quantumhead New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2013
    Messages:
    688
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    This ludicrously reverses cause and effect. You find evidence by looking for it. By not looking for it you are clearly not going to find it.

    When the police find a dead body, they don't assume it's a heart attack and refuse to test for foul play. That's because the police investigate things properly.
     
  9. Quantumhead

    Quantumhead New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2013
    Messages:
    688
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If even 25 percent of people did that, the effect would be devastating. Striking is a pretty good idea, but solidarity these days is difficult to maintain because of the conflict of interests produced by capitalism.
     
  10. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Cause and effect...you have to SUSPECT something,before you start looking for it......They knew what happened

    And your analogy is spurious.
     
  11. Quantumhead

    Quantumhead New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2013
    Messages:
    688
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    There were approximately 200 eye-witnesses who claimed they saw a controlled demolition. I can print you a long list of quotes if you like.

    You're outright claiming we should decide what happened first and then look for the evidence to back it up later. There's not an awful lot I can say in response, other than you're obviously being completely absurd, and have abandoned the rules of logic entirely.
     
  12. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    They can CLAIM anything they want..there was NO evidence of any kind of explosives in the debris,so all you have is a long list of people who are WRONG
    And I'm doing nothing of the sort,YOUR chain of logic seems to be kinked,I said you first SUSPECT something,THEN you start looking for it
     
  13. Quantumhead

    Quantumhead New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2013
    Messages:
    688
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    This is circular reasoning. You cannot say there was no evidence in the debris because NIST didn't look for any. And because Professor Harrit found some.

    In your baseless and unqualified opinion they are wrong.
     
  14. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Harrit found paint chips...nothing more..and there were more experts than the NIST working the debris....You claiming the FDNYC didn't notice evidence of explosives when they were looking for their dead?


    And it's not just MY opinion.
     
  15. Quantumhead

    Quantumhead New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2013
    Messages:
    688
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I have already shown you elsewhere on this thread that Harrit conjured up this hypothesis himself and discredited it. Had it been paint, there would have been significant quantities of magnesium and zinc found in the samples. Had it been paint, the material would not have been highly energetic.

    You are now flagrantly reverting back to earlier fallacies to divert the conversation away from the fallacies I have just pointed out.

    I have no time for people unprepared to remain within the parameters of logic and truth while debating. Sorry.
     
  16. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    HE doesn't get to 'dicredit' anything,they weren't 'highly energetic' because they were PAINT

    Nor do YOU get to blithely dismiss ANYTHING as 'fallacies'
     
  17. RtWngaFraud

    RtWngaFraud Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Messages:
    20,420
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Just do it. Hey, if you're sick, you're sick! Cost the big boys some of that cash that they won't share.
     
  18. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    5,259
    Likes Received:
    843
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'd better post this from time to time so that it doesn't get buried.

    Once people have seen all of the proof of an inside job, there's really nothing the pro-official version posters can do to sway the objective ones. It takes a while to look at all of it but it's all pretty clear.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1GCeuSr3Mk
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7mDXHn_byA#t=2720
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DegLpgJmFL8

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-V1CiuGMJo
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZEvA8BCoBw

    One of the most crushing pieces of proof is the fact that the craft that hit the Pentagon was too short to be a 757.
    Flight 77 3d sim test
    (5th picture from top)


    This video series explains the motives.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pa1AYlP47cI&list=PL88ADBF347A541776


    If people watch the above and experience cognitive dissonance and go into denial, you can have them watch this video.
    Why Can't They See The Truth? Psychologists Help 9 11 Truth Deniers - YouTube

    If this link goes dead, do a YouTube search on, "Why Can't They See The Truth? Psychologists Help 9 11 Truth Deniers".
     
  19. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    5,259
    Likes Received:
    843
    Trophy Points:
    113
  20. protectionist

    protectionist Banned

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Messages:
    13,898
    Likes Received:
    126
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Even IF all these 37 point were determined to be correct, that isn't a reputiation of >>

    to justify the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, which have resulted in the deaths of over a million people;

    to authorize torture, military tribunals, and extraordinary rendition; and

    to suspend freedoms guaranteed by the American Constitution such as habeas corpus in the USA, and similar freedoms in Canada, the UK, and other countries
    .

    The war in Afghanistan (lets talk in present mode - November 2013) is for the purpose of:

    1) denying al Qaeda use of the Afghanistan, non-nation, no man's land, to have bomb-making schools

    2) To have US troops in the close proximity, to be able to quickly secure Pakistan's nuclear warheads, in the event that the fragile Pakistani govt were to be toppled, and the nukes would then fall into the hands of Muslim jihadist loonies.

    This condition exists, 9/11 or no 9/11. The items you mentioned (I put in red italics), are just as related to a long list of things (USS Cole, Major Nidal Hasan, al Awlaki, US embassy bombings, Boston bombing, and numerous other terrorist incidents related to jihad ideology). And exactly what is "extraordinary rendition" ? :confusion:
     
  21. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    More youtube boolshoot....come on scott/cosmored/fatfreddy88/david c,you keep posting the same old crap...
     
  22. Quantumhead

    Quantumhead New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2013
    Messages:
    688
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Are you aware that the Mujahideen, which went on to provide most of the fighters to al Qaeda, were trained and given weapons by the American CIA? It wasn't a problem for you when these people were making bombs and using them on the Russians, because you were training them to do that. Now it's only a problem because it gives you an ostensible reason to be in Afghanistan.

    The American army is in Afghanistan because it wants logistical control of the Persian Gulf fuel supply, and because it wants close strategic locations from which to launch attacks on Syria and/or Iran. It has nothing to do with anybody making bombs.

    This "jihad ideology" as you put it is American ideology. It was a directive of the CIA in Afghanistan in 1979 to radicalise the local feudal Afghan tribes for use against the Russians. These people were non-violent before America became involved, so, as always where America is involved, your hypocritical claims about being worried about bombs or the Pakistani government, are simply red herrings to hide the singular American objective: hegemony.

    It is no coincidence that as soon as the Cold War ended America was in the Middle East. It's a simple power grab of the vacuum left behind by the Soviets.
     
  23. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0

    Pure bull(*)(*)(*)(*)...these people have been at it for centuries..
     
  24. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Mohammad Daud Khan, Taraki, Hafizullah Amin, Barbak Kamal, Najibullah.... THOSE non-violent people? :roflol:
     
  25. Quantumhead

    Quantumhead New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2013
    Messages:
    688
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    "As early as June 1979, and perhaps earlier, the United States had already commenced a series of covert operations in Afghanistan designed to exploit the potential for social conflict.

    Agence France Press reported that the United States launched a covert operation to bolster anti-communist guerrillas in Afghanistan at least six months prior to the 1979 Soviet invasion of the country.

    Central to the US-sponsored operation was the attempt to manufacture an extremist religious ideology by amalgamating local Afghan feudal traditions with Islamic rhetoric."


    Available: AHMED, NAFEEZ MOSADDEQ, 2005, The War On Truth: 9/11, Disinformation And The Anatomy Of Terrorism. pp 7-8. Moreton-In-Marsh, Gloucestershire, England: Arris Publishing Ltd.

    Dr. Nafeez Ahmed is a bestselling author, investigative journalist and international security scholar. He is executive director of the Institute for Policy Research & Development, and author of A User's Guide to the Crisis of Civilization among other books.

    http://www.theguardian.com/profile/nafeez-ahmed
     

Share This Page