How the towers were demolished

Discussion in '9/11' started by RtWngaFraud, Apr 18, 2012.

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. Jango

    Jango New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2012
    Messages:
    2,683
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So it is like several other previous big governmental studies then? Big, but reserved.


    I wonder why they wouldn't want to paint a complete picture? What were they trying to protect, thus, hide?
     
  2. RtWngaFraud

    RtWngaFraud Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Messages:
    20,420
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    0

    ....and so you see, that is the most basic question that should be asked. Folks accept that government lies, and it (for some reason) doesn't need to be truthful. People just accept that at face value. The great thing about truth, is that the truth is the same the first time or the 500th time it's presented....because truth doesn't need a good memory. Advocates for the "official" bull have more excuses why the "inconsistencies" exist than a little bit, yet they demand perfection when questioning the "official" BS. The public is supposed to swallow every excuse as to every inconsistency in the OCT, but use a different standard when judging anti OCT theories. Stupid? I think so.
    Bottom line...the "official" story/version/explanation is full of very questionable holes. People should demand truthful explanations, but they largely don't, and so they get the government they deserve. Corrupt, inept, and unaccountable....just like they deserve. The government offers unreasonable and changing explanations to 9/11, and they're praised by some folks, yet the same folks demand perfection in alternative explanations. Go figure.
     
  3. leftysergeant

    leftysergeant New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2012
    Messages:
    8,827
    Likes Received:
    60
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The video starts from stupid and sits there playing in the stupid goo. The woman doing the voice-over at the opening was supposedly a CIA asset, but the agency decided she was nuts. That she thinks it odd that the trucks provisioning a building with a vast underground shopping mall and a lot of restraunts would show up after the janitors left but before building staff arrived does suggest that she doesn't have all her headbolts torqued quite right.

    The assertion that the first explosion in the basement occurred before the first plane hit is totally laughable. Nobody who witnessed that explosion was aware of the plane having hit. John Schroeder (although he has since obviously gone down hill mentally) describes seeing the plane hit, then seeing the door blow out of the express elevator as his crew entered the lobby. This is consistant with explosions in both the freight elevator (running from the basement to the top) and the express elevator (running fromm the lobby to the top) due to hot fuel blown down the shafts on impact, re-igniting when they met air.

    The segment of a group of fire fighters being told to clear out because there was a bomb in the building was actually shot at Stuyvesant High School, several blocks away. The bomb had been reported at the school. Turned out to be a hoax.

    Then there is the voice-over by an idiot named Graham McQueen, a Budhist theologian, who claims that he has proven by analysis of the fire fighters' oral histories that there were bombs planted in the area. He quotes an EMT, Patricia Ondrovic as saying that it seemed like someone was pushing buttons to set off bombs out on the street. From her oral history, I learned that her turnout coat caught fire and that she ran in a panic. Think about this a moment. A person with experience in fire fighting and proper responses takes off running with her clothes on fire rather than doing the standard stop-drop-and-roll that any fire fighter is taught. Now, how could her coat have caught fire. It is really heavy canvas. Radiant heat that would set that on fire would have also caused her severe burns. She suffered none. Being splashed with burning gasoline would do it.

    Captain Karen Deshore was in pretty much the same location and reports cars on fire and cooking off. This explains how Ondrovic caught fire.

    Ondrovic lost it. She suffered obvious PTSD. Deshore is the more reliable witness.

    The person who put that video together has the investigative skills of a five year old.
     
  4. Patriot911

    Patriot911 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    9,312
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Only when dishonest and intellectually challenged people ignore evidence for no valid reason. Sound familiar?

    So you're saying the government is the truther's fault? The one group explicitly staying as far away from the truth as possible is the truthers. When confronted with the monumental dishonesty of the truther movement, truthers either run away or ignore the issue. A prime example is your hero DRG proclaiming the hijackers are still alive. Could you refute it? No. You couldn't even twist his words so he said something that MIGHT be true. Did you stick around after DEMANDING one of his lies be shown as a lie? Nope. You ran. FAST! Are you STILL promoting DRG's works as true? Yes. What does that make you?>

    And here we have a prime example of truther inability to accept the truth. Has the government story changed? Absolutely! As new information comes out, the theory changed to match the evidence. This is what honest and reasonable people do. They don't come up with a theory and stick to it regardless of what anyone says or how stupid it appears once other information is released. Yet truthers stick by their retarded theories no matter how much evidence there is that the theories are nothing but festering crap.

    As for perfection in "alternate explanations"..... BWAAAA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!! You can't even answer the MAJOR GLARING HOLES in your theories. You know the ones. Like why would the government shoot down a plane, lie about it, cover it up, and go through all this extra effort and risk of exposure when it would have made perfect sense to just claim they shot down the plane. It would have been GOOD for the government to have shot down the plane. At that point there wasn't a sane person in America that would have argued the point INCLUDING the families of the victims because there was no doubt what was in store for them barring some miracle. There are literally dozens upon dozens of other problems with your one theory alone. Do you address them? No. You run away and pretend nobody else is debating the issue despite point for point rebuttals. Why? Because you KNOW you're wrong and you KNOW you can't defend them. Instead you come up with complete crap like your last post that does nothing to help your cause but does highlight some of the serious shortcomings you refuse to address. :lol:
     
  5. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    10,848
    Likes Received:
    3,823
    Trophy Points:
    113

    Yeah this is always fun. If you focus on one subject or issue, you're accused of ignoring all the points that truthers make. If you address all the points a truther tries to fire at you you are accused of muddying debate with too many tangents.

    It's funny how that works, isn't it?
     
  6. happy fun dude

    happy fun dude New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2010
    Messages:
    10,501
    Likes Received:
    68
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Did you have loved one(s) on flight 93?
     
  7. Patriot911

    Patriot911 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    9,312
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    0
    What does that have to do with anything? An irrational plea to emotion to make a childish point isn't going to cut it.

    Which would you prefer? Having your loved one used as part of a weapon to kill others or having your loved one killed BEFORE they could kill others?
     
  8. Jango

    Jango New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2012
    Messages:
    2,683
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    RTW addressed my post. Patriot and Fangbeer addressed RTW's. No thoughts on mine?
     
  9. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    10,848
    Likes Received:
    3,823
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The implication here is that if the government does something poorly it must have been on purpose? I don't think that logic holds much water. The government does most things poorly.
     
  10. Patriot911

    Patriot911 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    9,312
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    0
    In order for one to answer your question, one must first buy into your notions that the picture was not complete, it was not complete on purpose, and it was incomplete to protect something or someone. I believe the 9/11 commission did as good a job as they could with the facts they had. I said they might have gotten something wrong, but that is not the same thing as saying they got something wrong on purpose.
     
  11. Patriot911

    Patriot911 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    9,312
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Another massive understatement from Fangbeer!
     
  12. Jango

    Jango New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2012
    Messages:
    2,683
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Is it not logical to note the relationship of omitted laden reports with the tendency of said reports to protect certain individuals within certain influential positions therein government and/or business? Has there not been a tendency in the governments of the world to have said incidents? That is what I am saying. If the US government omitted information from the 9/11 Commission Report, they did it for a reason. The question is, why would they have to omit information in the first place? What was classified? Considered out of bounds, civilian eyes not allowed to see, and not to be made public at that junction. I mean, millions of people witnessed the terrorist attacks live via television - what exactly needed to be omitted?

    I'm asking these questions because that kind of behavior is 'odd' to me. I do not buy into all of the tag lines the media and the government like to sell us all of the time. I question things. And when information is being omitted from reports about 9/11 by the government, shouldn't we all be asking questions? Curiosity anyone?
     
  13. BullsLawDan

    BullsLawDan New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2010
    Messages:
    5,723
    Likes Received:
    98
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Are you kidding? Anything that was omitted was omitted to save the asses of the people whose heads would roll if they put it in.

    Never ascribe to malice that which can be explained through incompetence.
     
  14. RtWngaFraud

    RtWngaFraud Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Messages:
    20,420
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    0


    Are YOU kidding? The report was to be the full and complete accounting of the incident. It wasn't. Why would anyone's head need to roll...UNLESS...they needed to roll? Fact is...NOBODY was accountable for any major aspect of 9/11....in fact, most involved were PROMOTED. Why is it that the worst terrorist disaster on US soil (supposedly terrorist at least) warranted nobody be accountable? The massive blunders/mistakes/incompetence (that supposedly accounted for the events occurring to the extreme that they did) or whatever else one chooses to call them, and NOBODY is held to account? WHY??? Well, I'd submit that the sacrificial lamb (which is how it usually works...someone to "take it for the team") would run his or her mouth and implicate other guilty parties. So what happens? EVERYBODY is excused. It was all a big misunderstanding, one big pile of coincidences, tons of questions and few answers. The folks that point out the many fallacies are ridiculed, insulted, and smeared. Take David Ray Griffin for example. Some folks here portray him as some lying, crazy, stupid whacko that has no credibility whatsoever. That's particularly strange too, because if anybody ever met the man, or spent any time evaluating his character, DRG would be the exact opposite of what the shills try and paint him to be. The man has integrity, and is intelligent, articulate, and he is HONEST, and he answers to God. Point is he's pretty much the opposite of everything the shills here say he is.

    I say the asses that should have been in a sling need to be in one, instead of excusing and covering up the details. I submit that the primary reason nobody is called to account is because it would incriminate higher ups and expose crimes who knows how far.

    The people need to stand up and demand the truth. That's the only way they'll ever get it. Until then, the goobers shills will continue to do their dirty work, and murdering, treasonous insiders will get away with all kinds of corruption, and never be accountable to anybody. People need to demand all facts be laid out and the appropriate parties be held accountable.
     
  15. Jango

    Jango New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2012
    Messages:
    2,683
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Are you suggesting that the US government was involved with 9/11?
     
  16. Patriot911

    Patriot911 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    9,312
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    0
    One first has to buy into the notion that the report was "omitted lade

    Pointing to previous examples and claiming this is proof that it is happening now is not evidence that it is actually happening now. It means one should be on one's guard for this happening. If evidence presents itself that the 9/11 commission report purposefully suppressed evidence, then we can ask why they omitted the evidence. Assuming they omitted evidence and trying to place blame on them for doing so is not right.

    Key word IF

    There was stuff in the 9/11 commission report that was classified. From what I've read, it doesn't have to do with the attack itself but more along the lines of what our methodologies were for tracking terrorists and what assets we had in the Middle East and elsewhere trying to infiltrate the terrorists.

    Again it appears like you are putting the cart before the horse. You are asking why stuff was omitted before knowing what stuff was omitted or even that stuff was omitted. Mind you, classified does not mean omitted as those responsible for acting on the 9/11 commission report were able to read the entire report. It also means that at some point the report will be released to the public in its entirety.

    Do you have evidence stuff was omitted and what stuff that is?
     
  17. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Jim Bakker, Oral Roberts, Morris Cerullo, Jimmy Swaggart (and so on) were all "intelligent and articulate". They were all described by their blind followers as "honest".
    Every one of them (and dozens more just like them) "answered to 'God'"

    And every one of them was a lying, scheming huckster, out to rob the ignorant sheep of their money ... just like David Ray.

    Go on - show me the difference between Jimmy Swaggart and David Ray Griffin. You've put your faith in a man whose 'integrity' you respect because he talks to an invisible man in the sky.
     
  18. BullsLawDan

    BullsLawDan New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2010
    Messages:
    5,723
    Likes Received:
    98
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Not at all. I'm suggesting they were (obviously, since it happened) completely incompetent to protect us from such an attack, and the report glosses over that fact in an attempt to save face.

    The basic premise of the report is correct: 19 hijackers, mostly Saudis, commandeered 4 commercial planes and flew them into WTC 1 and 2, the Pentagon, and the ground in PA (when a passenger uprising forced them to ditch early).

    There is absolutely nothing that has come out in the last decade which raises a valid question with respect to any of those basic facts, period. That is what occured.

    Now... Were there massive screw-ups in the government that occurred? Yes. And many of the people involved in those screw-ups should be fired. Was the response to the attacks mishandled? Yes, gravely. Instead of fixing the problem, we have compounded the problem by adding massive new layers of bureaucracy (DHS), striking out in new wars of foreign aggression which only create the next generation of terrorists (Iraq), and capitulating to fear at home by taking unconstitutional and anti-freedom measures on U.S. citizens (Patriot Act/TSA).
     
  19. happy fun dude

    happy fun dude New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2010
    Messages:
    10,501
    Likes Received:
    68
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Plea to emotion?!!?!?! ALL I did was ask you a SIMPLE yes or no question.. Which incidentally, you didn't even answer.

    I have no idea what it would be like to have loved ones on a flight on the morning of 9/11.. I can't imagine what it's like to go through that, and how I'd be feeling if I did. Therefore, I wouldn't pretend to know.
     
  20. Patriot911

    Patriot911 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    9,312
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    0
    OK. Play games if you want. Don't you think someone with a loved one on Flight 93 who posts in this section would have mentioned that by now?

    I asked you a SIMPLE question. Which would you prefer? It doesn't take imagination. It doesn't take a whole lot of thought. You PRETENDING that you have to be in their shoes to make a simple A or B decision is ludicrous. BUT..... answering the question also proves my point, which is why you refuse. My question to you is the same question anyone with a family member or a loved one on Flight 93 would have had to pick in order to determine whether they would be OK with the US Government shooting down Flight 93. We BOTH know the only choice is to have the flight shot down and not kill others. Some of us are just more honest about the answer than others.
     
  21. RtWngaFraud

    RtWngaFraud Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Messages:
    20,420
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    0


    He's a "lying scheming huckster" because you say he is, and because he IS articulate and honest, AND speaks much closer to truth than you like. Rather than debate his specific points, you have to demonize him because you have no other defense against him. Anybody that spends any amount of time checking out DRG, his viewpoints, and the man himself, realizes via common sense that his agenda is finding out the truth. I commend him and people like him who seek the truth, question the obviously flawed BS, and make the effort (like he has over the last decade) to expose the truth. The man knows what he's talking about because he's checked it out and spent the time researching the fiasco. He's also a man of God, and yes, that means a great deal as well. Your attempt to group him with people like JS only shows your hatred for the man (probably because he conflicts with your agenda). Try addressing his points of view rather than him personally, and keep your evil to yourself, and perhaps you may one day gain some credibility yourself. Your attempts to shield the truth are blatantly obvious to anyone that looks at the BS for themselves. Job well done as usual though. Good day sir.
     
  22. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    He's a lying, scheming huckster because he is.

    His lies have been exposed and pointed out numerous times. His disciples are blind to this, following his every lie and buying his latest book with orgasmic devotion. Just like a good little fundamentalist, his worshippers call everyone who points out his lies names like "evil", "shill" and much worse.

    I don't hate the man. I feel pity for those he continues to dupe, though.
     
  23. Patriot911

    Patriot911 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    9,312
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So why is it you can't refute DRG's lies? You do realize it hurts your own credibility promoting a blatant liar as honest when you can't even defend his lies.
     
  24. RtWngaFraud

    RtWngaFraud Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Messages:
    20,420
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Round and round...DRG stands on his own merits for anyone that wants to look. Congratulations on your spin. Enough for me for now. Thanks comrade.
     
  25. RtWngaFraud

    RtWngaFraud Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Messages:
    20,420
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    0



    He represents one of the biggest threats to the house of cards so you feel you have to attack him....I completely understand. I feel similar pity for your team as well.
     

Share This Page