(03-31-2011, 07:54 AM)Ordinary Peephole Wrote: There are several hundred eye witness accounts of people that saw American Airlines flight 77 approach Washington at over 500 miles per hour and crash into the Pentagon.

Are all of these witnesses in on the conspiracy?

Rothschild, shitstorm et al, you are idiots, your conspiracy bullshit is a disgrace and an insult to the memory of the 189 people who died in that incident on that day. You should be fucking ashamed of yourselves.

Actually, you've shown yourself to be a duplicitous asshole because I haven't expressed an opinion re the Pentagon in this thread, and that makes you exactly the sort of person you're claiming others to be.

(03-31-2011, 04:20 PM)Midwest Spy Wrote: Shitstorm, you're angry when someone calls 'bullshit' on these theories. I actually spent time looking into all of the theories. I did it a few years back. All ⁹⁄₁₁ theories have been debunked.

I have not partaken of the koolaid. If there were people, U.S. citizens, that had orchestrated 9/11, and there was PROOF, I'd be glad to help string them up.

To me, a plausible conspiracy is that JFK was assassinated by more than one shooter. Then, witnesses to that murder, began dying off. Definitely something fishy there. Unlike 2001, the 1960's were not dominated by electronic media. Something like that could've been kept covered.

The problem, IMO, with a ⁹⁄₁₁ conspiracy, other than the fact that there WASN'T a conspiracy, is that there'd be no FUCKING way to keep it quiet with the number of people who would have to be involved.

Think about that for a moment and let it really soak in.

You're dumber than a box of rocks. Seriously.

You don't know what conspiracy is, and you think you know what happened even though there has been no forensic investigation to date.

Orwell would laugh his fucking ass off at you clowns.

(03-31-2011, 03:05 PM)Duchess Wrote:

I never realized how many people actually believe there is/was some deception going on in regards to this until I started looking around online & asking the question of a few people I know. I was astounded.

I tell you what: watch this interview and if you can show three of the claims that Dr. Sutton makes to be false I'll send you $50 via paypal. It shouldn't be hard as he makes quite a number of them and he's obviously a conspiracy nutter. Should be like taking candy from a baby.

Good luck.


http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=...9954264539#

(03-31-2011, 08:33 PM)rothschild Wrote:

Orwell would laugh his fucking ass off at you clowns.

You try very hard, but you are retarded.

Are you saying the author of popular fiction would scoff at us? Using a literary reference only works if you aren't retarded and you use works/authors you read AFTER high school.

If they gave out a degree for Internet Smarts, you would get your BC (Bachelor of Conspiracy) and be readily accepted to Internet Graduate School to study for your MR.

(03-31-2011, 04:37 AM)rothschild Wrote: . . . thus all that is observed is not empirical.

You realize that empirical law, data, research, evidence etc., has OBSERVATION as a necessary component, don't you?

Please explain your statement.

I think he means the auras you see when you are shrooming can't be considered scientific observations.

If not, he means the witnesses are crazy and the conspiracy nuts are sane.

Not sure which.

(03-31-2011, 04:24 PM)IMaDick Wrote: no matter how you view the hundreds of theories that have been put out by all different kinds of people, unless you finish the story in your head with your own imagination they fall short.

Good post.

(03-31-2011, 08:54 PM)Cracker Wrote:

You try very hard, but you are retarded.

Are you saying the author of popular fiction would scoff at us? Using a literary reference only works if you aren't retarded and you use works/authors you read AFTER high school.

If they gave out a degree for Internet Smarts, you would get your BC (Bachelor of Conspiracy) and be readily accepted to Internet Graduate School to study for your MR.

Not much of a premise there, sweetpea.

The only thing your "argument" demonstrates is that you're a twit, I'm afraid.

(03-31-2011, 08:55 PM)BlueTiki Wrote:

(03-31-2011, 04:37 AM)rothschild Wrote: . . . thus all that is observed is not empirical.

You realize that empirical law, data, research, evidence etc., has OBSERVATION as a necessary component, don't you?

Please explain your statement.

Does everything observed necessarily constitute empirical data?

(03-31-2011, 09:41 PM)username Wrote: Good post.

Remember when Condi stated that "no one thought that terrorists would use aircraft as weapons"?

She lied through her teeth.

They knew there was a hijacking in the pipeline and they knew it was a distinct possibility that it would involve a target or targets having maximum symbolic significance such as the WTC, which had already been bombed by Islamic radicals. Yet they did nothing. Absolutely nothing. And there's a lot they could have done if they'd chosen to, such as instituting no-fly zones around likely targets. But they did nothing.

So, do you really think that boils down to mental deficiency? And not just the President and his cabinet, but all the advisors who brief them on matters pertaining to national security and terrorism. Is that what you think?

(03-31-2011, 08:44 PM)rothschild Wrote: I tell you what: watch this interview and if you can show three of the claims that Dr. Sutton makes to be false I'll send you $50 via paypal.

Why are you challenging me? I might be the only one that HASN'T made a negative comment in this thread.

(04-01-2011, 01:48 AM)rothschild Wrote: Does everything observed necessarily constitute empirical data?

Is this a rhetorical question or an explanation couched in your adaptation of the Socratic Method?

Clarification by examples, please.

(04-01-2011, 02:11 AM)rothschild Wrote:

(03-31-2011, 09:41 PM)username Wrote: Good post.

Remember when Condi stated that "no one thought that terrorists would use aircraft as weapons"?

She lied through her teeth.

They knew there was a hijacking in the pipeline and they knew it was a distinct possibility that it would involve a target or targets having maximum symbolic significance such as the WTC, which had already been bombed by Islamic radicals. Yet they did nothing. Absolutely nothing. And there's a lot they could have done if they'd chosen to, such as instituting no-fly zones around likely targets. But they did nothing.

So, do you really think that boils down to mental deficiency? And not just the President and his cabinet, but all the advisors who brief them on matters pertaining to national security and terrorism. Is that what you think?

So, are you now saying ⁹⁄₁₁ WAS committed by Islamic extremists hijacking airplanes and crashing them into buildings?

So are you now saying ⁹⁄₁₁ WASN'T an "inside job"?

Make your fucking mind up dingbat.

(03-31-2011, 03:40 PM)shitstorm Wrote: Fuck you. There are first responders - FIREFIGHTERS who were THERE, you asshole - who say the bullshit that morons like you keep spewing isn't true.

If they were THERE how come they didn't spot any of this?........

The airplane was OBLITERATED, it hit the toughest most reinforced building in the world at over five hundred miles per hour.

OP, The fire fighters never made it to the floors that were hit by the jet, their assent was compromised by the destruction.

(04-01-2011, 08:38 AM)IMaDick Wrote: OP, The fire fighters never made it to the floors that were hit by the jet, their assent was compromised by the destruction.

Good point dick.

You know you are preaching to the choir with me on this issue.

Don't forget the plane had just refueled.

I've actually seen a building be demolished by controlled demolition, a block of flats maybe 25 floors high. The crew spent literally weeks in the floor, the building was gutted and it was very obvious from the outside what was going on. The amount of cabling needed is enormous, miles of the stuff to set up the demolition, it's simply impossible to demolish a building on any significant scale without people noticing.

The idea for example that WTC7 was demolished by explosives is absurd, how could an office building, packed with people, not notice walls being knocked through? Supports being rigged with explosives? The dozens if not hundreds of men walking around casually destroying the place over a period of weeks? Not to mention having witnessed a demolition it's impossible not to notice the explosions, how they erupt from the side of the building one floor at a time, and how then nothing happens for several seconds before the whole thing comes crashing down. Also it would have to be possibly the first demolition to take place in which the top of the building is the first part to collapse, contrary to all sense and logic.

Naturally people who haven't got a clue what they're talking about have put up one explanation after another, changing the story every time their nonsense is exposed, something nobody else is allowed to do.

None of the buildings that came down on ⁹⁄₁₁ was by controlled demolition.

Period.

So, how did the demolition crews set up all the explosives in the twin towers and building seven without any of the thousands of workers and visitors to the buildings noticing?

Where did they find all the people working in demolitions willing to blow up three huge buildings killing all the thousands of people inside?

How come the buildings collapsed from the top down unlike any other controlled demolition in history?

Like I said conspiracy theorists, good at asking questions, no so good at answering them.