So are you claiming there is no terrorist organization that was led by Osama bin Laden? The NAME doesn't matter nor does it change the FACT that it was this terrorist organization that planned and carried out the attack.
I-think-OBL-had-access-to-paid-mercenaries-who-were-involved-in-many-covert-operations-including-terrorism-but-I-wouldn't-put-him-and-his-associates-at-the-top-of-the-9-11-pyramid.
In the same vein that 'truthers' are unfamiliar with truth, I am unsurprised that a self proclaimed 'scholar' has problems with spelling and grammar. The irony is delicious.
Evidence-about-what?-A-pyramid? There-are-many-possible-avenues-to-higher-blocks-in-the-pyramid. There's-the-Saudi-bin-Laden-Group-and-US-AID-whom-Osama-worked-for-in-Afghanistan.-Osama-had-helped-build-the-bunkers-and-roads-in-between-the-man-made-'caves'-and-I'm-guessing-this-was-AID-money. The-Muslem-Brotherhood-may-be-another-avenue. The-terrorists-are-usually-European-with-an-engineering-background. Anne-Machon-has-said-M-I-6-hired-some-of-bin-Ladens-crew-to-try-and-assassinate-Qaddafi-in-1996. This-was-a-little-after-Cofer-Black-was-stationed-in-north-Africa-and-maybe-unrelatedly-around-the-time-the-Algerian-government-was-caught-false-flaggin-it-with-France. Also-at-the-same-time-OBLs-Advice-and-Reformation-committee-was-in-London. Zawahiri's-uncle-(Salem-Azzam)-was-working-with-NATO-as-a-diplomat-through-the-Islamic-Council-of-Europe.-Neither-of-them-was-Serb-friendly. Ali-Mohammed-probably-wasn't-as-Islamic-as-much-as-he-was-American. Much-is-circumstantial,-but-still,-I-feel-fine.
Also,-remember-the-stingers? A-pilot-who-was-going-to-work-for-bin-Laden-(until-he-crashed-the-plane)-said-he-bought-a-used-plane-from-the-Pentagon-around-1993-in-Arizona-so-he-could-move-some-stingers-out-of-Afghanistan. For-some-reason-in-the-early-nineties-the-government-claimed-we-had-a-lot-of-missing-stingers. That's-more-than-a-bit-odd-especially-because-the-muhadeen-couldn't-get-another-missile-unless-they-brought-back-the-fired-shell-casing-to-their-handler. It-was-a-no-deposit-no-return-type-of-operation.
Apparently-there-is-no-link-this-time.-It-was-just-an-independent-analysis-of-a-possible-collusion-between-Osama-and-the-stinger-program-while-remembering-vaguely-a-variety-of-resources. I-guess-it-wouldn't-be-relevant-if-Osama-went-all-'rogue-like'-with-the-CIA.
Wow. This is the first time I've heard of suicide mercenaries. I always thought mercenaries did it for the money. Hard to spend the money when you're dead.
Here are three additional traits of critics who, like Hannibal and Patriot911, are insincere and have no interest in truth, justice, or the best interests of the American people: (6) they do not use their real names; (7) they have no discernible credentials; ( they love to focus on trivia and typos. Of course, with relation to (, they have me at a severe disadvantage, since I can no longer type anything longer than a sentence with committing one typo or another. So if that matters to anyone, they have certainly "got me" there. As for serious questions, however, the story is completely different. It is common knowledge that Osama was "our boy" in Afghanistan, where a CIA official even visited him in the hospital in Dubai where he was undergoing dialysis. And when they call a distinguished scholar such as David Ray Griffin, who has published, OSAMA BIN LADEN: DEAD OR ALIVE? (2009), which substantiates his death on or about 15 December 2001 "a liar", it should be easy to tell they are not on the "up and up". Indeed, there is so little point to prolonged exchanges with individuals like these that I suggest we ought to boil focus on one specific but crucial issue, namely, "Did the Twin Towers collapse?" Because if that claim is false, then we know the government has been conning us. Here are two videos that bring out the differences between what happened to WTC-7, which was a classic controlled demolition, and what happened to the Twin Towers, which was a "demolition under control", but clearly not a classic one. Compare the following: "This is an orange" [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zv7BImVvEyk"]WTC7 -- This is an Orange - YouTube[/ame] "9/11: The Towers of Dust" [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPJUP-Ry7d0"]9/11: The Towers of Dust - YouTube[/ame] For those who would like to see a series of still photographs that make the point, see "New 9/11 Photos Released" http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/02/new-911-photos-released.html I have explained their crucial differences, the most important of which are as follows: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . WTC-1 & WTC-2 / WTC-7 . . . Sequence: . . . . . Top down . / . Bottom up . . . Floor motion: . . Stationary . / Falling together . . . Mechanism: . . Pulverization* / Controlled Demolition . . . Time/Speed: . . About 10 secs. / About 6.5 secs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (~ free fall) . . (~ free fall) . . . Remnants: . . . . No pancakes . . / . Pancakes . . . . . . . . . . . . . (below ground level) . (5-7 floors) * or dustification or whatever, because the towers are being converted into millions of cubic yards of very fine dust, while WTC-7 was not. For more, see "An Analysis of the WTC on 9/11" http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread662308/pg1 Notice, too, how the Twin Towers are blowing apart in every direction from the top down, while WTC-7 is not. That is the kind of effect we would expect from the use of explosives or other sources of massive energy, not from a collapse under the control of gravity, which works in one direction--down! So I pose the question to Hannibal and Patriot911: Did the Twin Towers collapse? We know that WTC-7 collapsed, but its destruction was entirely different than that of the Twin Towers. Do "Did the Twin Towers collapse?" Because if they did not, then our government has been lying to the American people.
Nice personal attack. You DO realize those are frowned upon here, right? Aside from you, who here does? Yet you ignore the experts and go with the unqualified. For example, you ignore Leslie Robertson's calculations for a plane impact while lying your ass off about DeMartini by pretending he made a statement of fact when he was clearly giving his opinion. Don't forget the truth. You keep running from the lies you've made. I will repost them to give you another opportunity to defend them. So since you've singled me out by name, show where I have even mentioned a typo. Another lie by you to create a strawman to try and distract from the FACT you've posted a bunch of lies. Wrong yet again. Still more lies? Unsubstantiated rumors are not facts. Osama was part of the Mujahideen which the CIA funded. There is no evidence the CIA dealt directly with Osama. I didn't JUST say he was a liar. I proved it. Did you come up with anything to refute my debunking? No. Just some more pathetic whining. Why is it you can't refute the evidence Osama was alive? If you want anyone to take you seriously, you need to be able to respond and refute the evidence. Using the same analogy, I've proven numerous claims by you as false. You couldn't even begin to defend your claims so you pretend like it never happened. Why the double standard? Shouldn't truthers be held up to the same standard truthers pretend to hold others to? One first has to buy into the complete bull(*)(*)(*)(*) that they were controlled demolitions. You haven't even begun to prove that point. You're putting the cart before the horse and the cart doesn't even have wheels! For instance, why is there no sound of explosions either prior to or during the collapse of WTC 7? You CLAIM it is a classic controlled demolition, yet I have yet to find an example of a completely silent controlled demolition. Why is it the fire department knew HOURS before the collapse that WTC 7 was probably going to collapse? Could it be because the tower was visibly leaning to the point the fire department put a transom on it? Could it be because the fire department heard sounds that were clearly identified as structural components either failing or under stress? I love it! Truthers can't even understand when they are refuting their own points! Want to know why the towers are spreading debris in every direction? It's because of the resistance of the lower section of the towers. Even a child knows that if something is in the way of a falling object that the object isn't going to fall straight down as you claim. Yes, the towers collapsed. Once the top part of the building started coming down on the lower part, there wasn't anything that would stop it. Look up the difference between a dynamic load and a static load if you honestly don't know what caused the collapse.
yea thats really important alright.at least he doesnt make it plainly obviously that he is a paid shill like many posters here do.
as you can tell jim,the shills are coming here in full force on your thread now and yeah those are good points how they are insencere and not interested in the the truth?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Here are three additional traits of critics who, like Hannibal and Patriot911, are insincere and have no interest in truth, justice, or the best interests of the American people: coming from a truther,this is high comedy!
Why is it the truthers only whine about other posters instead of addressing what has been written? One would think that if one has the truth on their side they should be able to address any lie that comes up. I know that is how it is with me. I guess truthers are tired of constantly getting their collective asses handed to them.
He certainly does. I'm trying to watch him debate Mark Roberts at this link (scroll way down the page) and I'm being constantly reminded of Mr. Fetzer's books and the books that his associates have written but I'm not getting much in the way of real information yet. But I'm just partway through segment 1 of 3. We'll see how the rest of it plays out. Fetzer's body language is hilarious to watch.
Halfway through part 2 now. Of particular note (to me anyway) is how often Mr. Fetzer expresses certainty that his position is right. Also interesting how often he implies that every aspect of other positions are wrong. He offers very little in the area of sources or references outside of other truthers and very little proof. When challenged with facts in context he simply repeats the same narrow (cherry picked) out of context factlet or changes the subject. I will give him credit on avoiding ad hominems and it does appear that he has done quite a bit of research. How he arrived at his conclusions considering how often he states on his site that he "spent his 35-year career offering courses in logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning to college students" is a bit of a mystery.
Not only that, as the designer of the building stated, it wasn't designed for an impact at 400 miles per hour by and airliner fully loaded with fuel.
