ChiefsPlanet Mobile
Page 102 of 417
« First < 252929899100101102 103104105106112152202 > Last »
Patteeu Memorial Political Forum>911 was an inside job.
Taco John 12:06 AM 02-09-2006
After watching this, I am once and for all convinced that it was an inside job...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...81991288263801


The evidence is way too strong.
[Reply]
irishjayhawk 11:19 AM 10-03-2007
Originally Posted by patteeu:
How do you know?
How do I know what?
[Reply]
Donger 11:22 AM 10-03-2007
Originally Posted by irishjayhawk:
Probably true for all but the first one. That one is a fact.

Having said that, the same is true for anything that the official story claims, is it not?
This one?: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1559151.stm

What does that prove?
[Reply]
irishjayhawk 11:22 AM 10-03-2007
Originally Posted by irishjayhawk:
How do I know what?

If you meant the hijacker's part, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1559151.stm
[Reply]
irishjayhawk 11:24 AM 10-03-2007
Originally Posted by Donger:
This one?: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1559151.stm

What does that prove?
Well, we all know that less that 24 hours after the attacks, the media was reporting the intelligence agencies attributed it to OBL and had pictures of all 19 hijackers. (Almost as if it was ready to go. :-))

And yet some of them were alive and well? Doesn't that cast doubt on their story somewhat? Even if they got them wrong, doesn't that lead one to believe they might have the wrong man (OBL) responsible?

I mean OBL had acknowledged all previous attacks on the US yet denies this one.
[Reply]
Donger 11:27 AM 10-03-2007
Originally Posted by irishjayhawk:
Well, we all know that less that 24 hours after the attacks, the media was reporting the intelligence agencies attributed it to OBL and had pictures of all 19 hijackers. (Almost as if it was ready to go. :-))

And yet some of them were alive and well? Doesn't that cast doubt on their story somewhat? Even if they got them wrong, doesn't that lead one to believe they might have the wrong man (OBL) responsible?
It think it is more likely that the FBI simply mis-identified the hijackers.

Originally Posted by irishjayhawk:
I mean OBL had acknowledged all previous attacks on the US yet denies this one.
Incorrect.

Originally Posted by OBL:
"We decided to destroy towers in America," he said. "God knows that it had not occurred to our mind to attack the towers, but after our patience ran out and we saw the injustice and inflexibility of the American-Israeli alliance toward our people in Palestine and Lebanon, this came to my mind."

[Reply]
Amnorix 11:34 AM 10-03-2007
What Donger said.

Further, does it matter if there were 12 hijackers involved rather than 19, or whatever the exact numbers are?
[Reply]
patteeu 11:40 AM 10-03-2007
Originally Posted by irishjayhawk:
How do I know what?
That the first one is a fact.
[Reply]
patteeu 11:43 AM 10-03-2007
Originally Posted by irishjayhawk:
Well, we all know that less that 24 hours after the attacks, the media was reporting the intelligence agencies attributed it to OBL and had pictures of all 19 hijackers. (Almost as if it was ready to go. :-))

And yet some of them were alive and well? Doesn't that cast doubt on their story somewhat? Even if they got them wrong, doesn't that lead one to believe they might have the wrong man (OBL) responsible?

I mean OBL had acknowledged all previous attacks on the US yet denies this one.
Simultaneously, the 9/11 inside job conspirators were brilliant enough to pull this off without letting the secret slip and without any affirmative evidence of their dastardly deed and at the same time they were stupid enough to blame a guy who was alive and well in Morocco who could easily be discovered by the BBC and deny his participation. That's some pretty flexible analysis right there.
[Reply]
Amnorix 11:45 AM 10-03-2007
Originally Posted by irishjayhawk:
The fact that numerous "hijackers" were found alive and well after the attacks in their home countries by the BBC.
Discussed elsewhere.

Originally Posted by :
The fact the buildings came down at free fall speed. Which goes along with the "squibs" clearly visible, the reports of explosions all over the places before the collapse by firefighters.
I don't pretend to know anything about structural engineering, but I have glanced at both a report prepared by some engineering experts and seen a short documentary fo some type that explained this. Not being an expert, I'm willing to accept their explanation of the matter.
Unless, of course, you think independent engineers are also mixed up in some kind of mass-murder conspiracy?

Originally Posted by :
There's just so many inconsistencies, illogicalities, and coincidences that the official story doesn't account for. That, and regardless of how you feel, one must admit that the "official version" is nothing more than a (conspiracy) theory as well. No one REALLY knows.
I'll let Dongers answers stand as for the rest, but here is the issue -- if the "official version" is so flawed and pathetic, and yet we know that on 9/10 the buildings stood, and on 9/11 the buildings fell, and the people who boarded those planes that were targetted at WTC and the Pentagon disappeared forever, then something must have happened to those buildings and those people. Then, of course, you have the plane that went down in Western PA where people were making calls, etc.

So, you dislike the official version. That's fine, but it requires you come up with your onw version that must be more factually compelling based on the available evidence.

Inevitably, of course, ANY version of any event can be picked apart by people who want to point to a few random facts that tend to point in a different direction. This is proven by the oft-repeated experiement of having a "thief" run into a classroom, steal the professor's purse (or whatever) and dash back out again. Before anyone reports anything, the PRofessor tells everyone that what he/she just saw was nothign but part of a lesson. NOW, without talking, everyone wrote down what they saw.

Height, weight, clothing color and design -- nearly all things will be different from different people's accounts. Eye witness testimony, which is usually the HOLY GRAIL in trials, is pathetically flawed and really very weak, as evidence goes. But it's COMPELLING as hell on the witness stand.

Anyway -- a bunch fo middle east terrrorists did NOT cause the events of 9/11, if I read you correctly. Fine. The next question is -- what did happen?
[Reply]
Amnorix 11:57 AM 10-03-2007
Besides, you know you're probably pretty far off the reservation if you're arguing with something that Patteeu and I agree on.

:-)
[Reply]
Adept Havelock 11:59 AM 10-03-2007
Originally Posted by patteeu:
Simultaneously, the 9/11 inside job conspirators were brilliant enough to pull this off without letting the secret slip and without any affirmative evidence of their dastardly deed and at the same time they were stupid enough to blame a guy who was alive and well in Morocco who could easily be discovered by the BBC and deny his participation. That's some pretty flexible analysis right there.
:-) Excellent.
[Reply]
Mr. Kotter 12:02 PM 10-03-2007
Originally Posted by Amnorix:
Besides, you know you're probably pretty far off the reservation if you're arguing with something that Patteeu and I agree on.

:-)

Grasshopper appears more impressed and intrigued by....process....as opposed to substance--in most of his "debates."
[Reply]
StcChief 12:35 PM 10-03-2007
the bull dog urine weakened the tower steel structure.
we know who the insiders really were.
[Reply]
irishjayhawk 01:44 PM 10-03-2007
Originally Posted by patteeu:
Simultaneously, the 9/11 inside job conspirators were brilliant enough to pull this off without letting the secret slip and without any affirmative evidence of their dastardly deed and at the same time they were stupid enough to blame a guy who was alive and well in Morocco who could easily be discovered by the BBC and deny his participation. That's some pretty flexible analysis right there.
How many times must I say that I haven't a clue what actually went down and haven't said anything in regards to it being the government. TJ insinuated that. I have not.
[Reply]
irishjayhawk 01:45 PM 10-03-2007
Originally Posted by Amnorix:
Besides, you know you're probably pretty far off the reservation if you're arguing with something that Patteeu and I agree on.

:-)
So true. :-)

That said, I am merely suggesting that the official story is:

A) incomplete
B) A (conspiracy) theory in and of itself

Nothing more, nothing less. I have no idea who is responsible if it wasn't just 19 hijackers.
[Reply]
Page 102 of 417
« First < 252929899100101102 103104105106112152202 > Last »
Up