PDA

View Full Version : Nine Eleven


BlueAngel
07-10-2008, 08:15 PM
September 11, 2001 attacks - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11,_2001_attacks)

Excerpt:

Hijackers
Main articles: Organizers of the September 11, 2001 attacks and 20th hijacker
Fifteen of the attackers were from Saudi Arabia, two from the United Arab Emirates, one from Egypt, and one from Lebanon.[77] In sharp contrast to the standard profile of suicide bombers, the hijackers were well-educated, mature adults, whose belief systems were fully formed.[78]

Within hours of the attacks, the FBI was able to determine the names and in many cases the personal details of the suspected pilots and hijackers.[79][80] Mohamed Atta's luggage, which did not make the connection from his Portland flight onto Flight 11, contained papers that revealed the identity of all 19 hijackers, and other important clues about their plans, motives, and backgrounds.[81] On the day of the attacks, the National Security Agency intercepted communications that pointed to Osama bin Laden, as did German intelligence agencies.[82][83]

On September 27, 2001, the FBI released photos of the 19 hijackers, along with information about the possible nationalities and aliases of many.[84] The FBI investigation into the attacks, code named operation PENTTBOM, was the largest and most complex investigation in the history of the FBI, involving over 7,000 special agents.[85] The United States government determined that al-Qaeda, headed by Osama bin Laden, bore responsibility for the attacks, with the FBI stating "evidence linking al-Qaeda and bin Laden to the attacks of September 11 is clear and irrefutable".[86] The Government of the United Kingdom reached the same conclusion regarding al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden's culpability for the September 11, 2001 attacks.[87]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Very interesting that Mohamed Atta would check luggage with such important information inside.

Why not carry it aboard the plane?

Why carry it at all unless it was intentionally left for the FBI by someone else.

Even more interesting is that he had luggage.

Did he not realize that he was going to be flying a jumbo jet at full speed into the side of a building?

BlueAngel
08-13-2008, 10:34 PM
The CIA found maps of New York City's landmarks in the purse of their most wanted female terrorist who is a Pakistani and a graduate of M.I.T.

Information on subways, Times' Square, The Statue of Liberty, etc.

Information on explosives, chemical weapons, weapons involving biological material and radiological agents being researched by Al Qaeda. They found someone very educated who was willing to do the research the CIA agents says.

He also says that they haven't captured anyone as important or as well connected as her since 2003.

A computer thumb drive was found in her purse, as well.

Gee, her purse had lots of very important information.

They named her on their most wanted list five years ago because they thought she was planning assassinations against former US Presidents.

She graduated from M.I.T. in the Spring of 2001 and returned to Pakistan and became an important Al Qaeda operative, so they say.

Documents and computer drives were found in her handbag.

They knew she was involved in a variety of nefarious activities.

They certainly know a lot about the terrorists, don't they?

Too bad, they couldn't stop them on 911.

Yahoo! (http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/indexFP.php?rn=3906861&cl=9254065&ch=4226713)

I wonder where bin laden is.

heythere
07-31-2009, 01:36 AM
You argue that the first person was lax in packing his information instead of carrying it on his person and then you argue that the second person kept too much information on her. You cannot have it both ways.

Darth Cacodaemon
07-31-2009, 10:58 AM
You argue that the first person was lax in packing his information instead of carrying it on his person and then you argue that the second person kept too much information on her. You cannot have it both ways.


I COMMAND YOU TO BE SILENT, FEMALE BIOLOGICAL ENTITY 001. THIS IS YOUR NAME HENCEFORTH! STFU!!!

BlueAngel
07-31-2009, 09:51 PM
You argue that the first person was lax in packing his information instead of carrying it on his person and then you argue that the second person kept too much information on her. You cannot have it both ways.

One is unrelated to the other and I can have it both ways if I so desire.

Mr Blee
09-23-2009, 09:36 PM
In my opinion terrorists are not the perfect soldier. I honestly believe they got sloppy in these two incidents. At the end of the Afghan war to free them from Soviet rule Ossama did attack the Soviets, this convincing the main body of the CIA that he was ok. In the clandestine world of war and in conventional war the most trusted people are the ones that prove themselves with blood. ie killing the enemy. Now think this enemy is suicidal and why wouldn't they kill a few allies to prove themselves.

Ossama did attack the Soviets but only at the end when victory was already certain. In this dooping the main body of the CIA.

The shinning light is that a handful of people saw through this and convinced enough people to play it smart and check on some things. This put the right people on a couple planes and they spent their lives to save others.

albie
09-24-2009, 05:31 AM
Very interesting that Mohamed Atta would check luggage with such important information inside.

Why not carry it aboard the plane?

Why carry it at all unless it was intentionally left for the FBI by someone else.

Even more interesting is that he had luggage.

Did he not realize that he was going to be flying a jumbo jet at full speed into the side of a building?

If it was left behind then maybe he intended for it to be found as proof of their intentions, proving it was a terrorist act.


As for this woman terrorist. If you were a terrorist and moving about and feeling paranoid you'd probably keep all your files on you wherever you go. They are like crap spies unable to memorise the important details.

Not evidence of anything but amateur terrorism.

albie
09-24-2009, 05:38 AM
You argue that the first person was lax in packing his information instead of carrying it on his person and then you argue that the second person kept too much information on her. You cannot have it both ways.

Well spotted. bad logic is always pulled apart.

BlueAngel
09-24-2009, 08:48 PM
Well spotted. bad logic is always pulled apart.

Nothing was pulled apart.

In that respect, consider that you are unable to identify good logic from bad logic.

Mr Blee
09-25-2009, 01:26 AM
"Command you to be silent female" that is a sick statement!

albie
09-25-2009, 04:54 AM
Nothing was pulled apart.

In that respect, consider that you are unable to identify good logic from bad logic.

If being careless with your info and being too careful with it are both suspicious then you cannot avoid being suspicious. Terrorists want it to be known that it was their organisation that commited the attack so don't be surprised if the authorities find out pretty quickly.

But the luggage in the 9/11 case, I admit, has further ramifications that need looking at; it would be an odd coincidence if the terrorist's luggage was the ONLY item that didn't make it on to the plane. If most of the luggage hadn't made it on then we could forgive that. If the excuse it didn't get on the plane truly is that there was no time, then that also would be odd IF it is true that the plane had plenty of time before it took off.

But how do we confirm any of this? When all we can do is google and bring up biased websites?

albie
09-25-2009, 05:33 AM
FBI Affidavit: Page 10 (http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/atta/resources/documents/fbiaffidavit10.htm)

This seems to show that the luggage was certainly proper luggage waiting to be put aboard and not just left.

BlueAngel
11-26-2010, 09:11 PM
YouTube - New 9/11 photos 'prove WTC exploded from inside'

brice_fallsteen
12-05-2010, 06:32 PM
Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength—and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.

But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.

"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."

brice_fallsteen
12-05-2010, 06:33 PM
Once each tower began to collapse, the weight of all the floors above the collapsed zone bore down with pulverizing force on the highest intact floor. Unable to absorb the massive energy, that floor would fail, transmitting the forces to the floor below, allowing the collapse to progress downward through the building in a chain reaction. Engineers call the process "pancaking," and it does not require an explosion to begin, according to David Biggs, a structural engineer at Ryan-Biggs Associates and a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) team that worked on the FEMA report.

Like all office buildings, the WTC towers contained a huge volume of air. As they pancaked, all that air—along with the concrete and other debris pulverized by the force of the collapse—was ejected with enormous energy. "When you have a significant portion of a floor collapsing, it's going to shoot air and concrete dust out the window," NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder tells PM. Those clouds of dust may create the impression of a controlled demolition, Sunder adds, "but it is the floor pancaking that leads to that perception."

Demolition expert Romero regrets that his comments to the Albuquerque Journal became fodder for conspiracy theorists. "I was misquoted in saying that I thought it was explosives that brought down the building," he tells PM. "I only said that that's what it looked like."

Romero, who agrees with the scientific conclusion that fire triggered the collapses, demanded a retraction from the Journal. It was printed Sept. 22, 2001. "I felt like my scientific reputation was on the line." But emperors-clothes.com saw something else: "The paymaster of Romero's research institute is the Pentagon. Directly or indirectly, pressure was brought to bear, forcing Romero to retract his original statement." Romero responds: "Conspiracy theorists came out saying that the government got to me. That is the farthest thing from the truth. This has been an albatross around my neck for three years."

brice_fallsteen
12-05-2010, 06:34 PM
Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom—approximately 10 stories—about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.

NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.

According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."

There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.

Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."

WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors—along with the building's unusual construction—were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse.

BlueAngel
12-16-2010, 02:45 AM
Why the hell are you on a conspiracy forum and siding with the government's account of the 911 terrorist attack?

I am here to inform you that you should remove yourself from CC and join the government at their forums.

Interesting that the 911 terrorists knew exactly where to crash the planes into the towers in order to make the buildings collapse.

Or, should we believe that they had no clue and the buildings came crumbling down due to other forces?

theconspiracist
12-16-2010, 06:52 AM
I have repeatedly stated many times over. The events of September was staged. It was all theater and orchestrated by other than your friendly American government. Whether they will deny it, or even admit partial...the truth will be buried along with the JFK and the Pearl Harbor conspiracies.

We the American People, knows what really happened on that warm and sunny Tuesday morning of September 11th, 2001. We aren't as stupid as the government makes us out to be. Right?

brice_fallsteen
12-16-2010, 09:30 AM
I have repeatedly stated many times over. The events of September was staged. It was all theater and orchestrated by other than your friendly American government. Whether they will deny it, or even admit partial...the truth will be buried along with the JFK and the Pearl Harbor conspiracies.

We the American People, knows what really happened on that warm and sunny Tuesday morning of September 11th, 2001. We aren't as stupid as the government makes us out to be. Right?

You may state it as many times as you like, that does not make it true.

brice_fallsteen
12-16-2010, 09:45 AM
Why the hell are you on a conspiracy forum and siding with the government's account of the 911 terrorist attack?

I am here to inform you that you should remove yourself from CC and join the government at their forums.

Interesting that the 911 terrorists knew exactly where to crash the planes into the towers in order to make the buidings collapse.

Or, should we believe that they had no clue and the buildings came crumbling down due to other forces?

It should be fairly obviously why I'm posting on a conspiracy forum. For those that missed it, let me break it down.

Someone posted a video with the same outlandish claims that have been debunked time and time again. I responded to that video by providing explanations and answers to the "questions" the subject of the video had.

I have no idea if they knew exactly where to crash the plans to destroy the buildings. Do you have direct knowledge that the terrorists knew exactly where to impact?

Using their history of attacks worldwide, I would say it's a logical assumption that the collapse was some what of a coincidence.

If you feel it possible for the government to produce such an elaborate hoax, and keep it relatively hidden, why is it so hard to believe that a terrorist network could use readily available information on the internet, specialized education programs, and so called "sleeper agents" to launch such an attack?

Asking questions is great. Dismissing answers because they don't line up with what you believe is not.

Phantom Monkey
12-16-2010, 10:48 AM
Can a person spew as much BS as you have right now? (meant for Brice, the expert?)
Yes they can, exeptions like Obama Bin Bush.
You should enroll as a comedian, you'd have more luck there.
Because right now im laughing at you :cool:

brice_fallsteen
12-16-2010, 12:00 PM
Can a person spew as much BS as you have right now? (meant for Brice, the expert?)
Yes they can, exeptions like Obama Bin Bush.
You should enroll as a comedian, you'd have more luck there.
Because right now im laughing at you :cool:

I never claimed to be an expert about September 11th conspiracy theories or anything else. I do, however, rely on other experts who are studied and knowledgable in their field.

I'm glad that's laughable for you. Instead of laughing, and attacking me personally, you should try to produce some substantial and verifiable evidence to contradict any of the statements I made.

And no, your statement, or the statements of any other nutjobs on youtube or wikipedia, probably does not constitute substantial or verifiable evidence.

You may believe something all you like, even when it flies in the face of logic and common sense, but that does not make it true.

Phantom Monkey
12-16-2010, 12:42 PM
It's not me, just me, lol, where the hell have you been, under a rock?
The World knows the truth. Dont underestimate people.
Never underestimate the human spirit and it's determination for truth.
Now why would I waste my personal time to counter the manure that you have dropped? I know the truth, so do most of the members here, deal with it :cool:

theconspiracist
12-16-2010, 03:27 PM
You may state it as many times as you like, that does not make it true.

Hmmm....so you seriously think, in your own mind. And, not in another person's opinion, it was just a coincidence?

If you know your American history, you have to go far as back as the Cuban Missile Crisis in the 1960's. Honestly, even though, both Russia and the United States were fighting for Supremacy for being the "Superpowers" of the world, there was also a man name Bin Laden, whom we are all now familiar with. I am sure, if 9/11 didn't ever happen, this man would not be a household name.

theconspiracist
12-16-2010, 03:31 PM
I never claimed to be an expert about September 11th conspiracy theories or anything else. I do, however, rely on other experts who are studied and knowledgable in their field.

I'm glad that's laughable for you. Instead of laughing, and attacking me personally, you should try to produce some substantial and verifiable evidence to contradict any of the statements I made.

And no, your statement, or the statements of any other nutjobs on youtube or wikipedia, probably does not constitute substantial or verifiable evidence.

You may believe something all you like, even when it flies in the face of logic and common sense, but that does not make it true.

You cannot truly rely on those sources (i.e. Youtube, Leakipedia, and other news sources). They are there simply to manipulate you to believe otherwise. You have to go straight to the source. The people that were involved. Of course, none of us have spoken directly to those who were involved. Because, they will "deny" all they want. And, trying to get the truth out of them, is like picking teeth from a gay goat.

brice_fallsteen
12-16-2010, 04:05 PM
You cannot truly rely on those sources (i.e. Youtube, Leakipedia, and other news sources). They are there simply to manipulate you to believe otherwise. You have to go straight to the source. The people that were involved. Of course, none of us have spoken directly to those who were involved. Because, they will "deny" all they want. And, trying to get the truth out of them, is like picking teeth from a gay goat.

No, I fully agree with you that youtube, wikipedia ect are not credible sources of information. I was mentioning them in jest due to the credibility that they have with so many.

I have no doubts that I do not, and never will, know exactly what happened on 9/11. It's not likely that anyone does, or ever will. I believe that due to our 24 hour news cycle, and a society of instant gratification, that many things were reported and stated to be true that probably weren't. A mistake doesn't mean that there's a conspiracy. The Government being secretive doesn't mean they were involved, or orchestrated, the September 11th attacks. Maybe there were/are loopholes in our national security (obviously) that they do not want to broadcast.

Do I think that Islamic Extremists planned and executed 9/11? Yes, completely. Do I think it was a fluke that they were as successful as they were? Yes, completely. There are many instances where their planned attacks were not successful, and never successful to the degree of destruction caused on September 11th.

I'm familiar with the history of Bin Laden, US support, and the USSR. I'm of the opinion when you have money, motive, and a fanatical dedication that anything is possible. Not to drag out the religious scape goat but when you questions people's religion and the foundation of their beliefs they are capable of anything.

theconspiracist
12-16-2010, 04:24 PM
No, I fully agree with you that youtube, wikipedia ect are not credible sources of information. I was mentioning them in jest due to the credibility that they have with so many.

I have no doubts that I do not, and never will, know exactly what happened on 9/11. It's not likely that anyone does, or ever will. I believe that due to our 24 hour news cycle, and a society of instant gratification, that many things were reported and stated to be true that probably weren't. A mistake doesn't mean that there's a conspiracy. The Government being secretive doesn't mean they were involved, or orchestrated, the September 11th attacks. Maybe there were/are loopholes in our national security (obviously) that they do not want to broadcast.

Do I think that Islamic Extremists planned and executed 9/11? Yes, completely. Do I think it was a fluke that they were as successful as they were? Yes, completely. There are many instances where their planned attacks were not successful, and never successful to the degree of destruction caused on September 11th.

I'm familiar with the history of Bin Laden, US support, and the USSR. I'm of the opinion when you have money, motive, and a fanatical dedication that anything is possible. Not to drag out the religious scape goat but when you questions people's religion and the foundation of their beliefs they are capable of anything.

As I mentioned here on one of my threads, "I truly believe that 9/11 was just a theater for those who were actually "pulling the strings". And, it may seem like a coward and Unamerican "act of terrorism". It was our own government that was "pulling those strings" all along. And, causing this "theater" to not have an "ending", as they had wanted it to. JMO

brice_fallsteen
12-16-2010, 05:31 PM
As I mentioned here on one of my threads, "I truly believe that 9/11 was just a theater for those who were actually "pulling the strings". And, it may seem like a coward and Unamerican "act of terrorism". It was our own government that was "pulling those strings" all along. And, causing this "theater" to not have an "ending", as they had wanted it to. JMO

That's your opinion, and it's great to question everything, but on this we don't agree.

I don't think that anyone knows all the details that went into planning September 11th, or the logistics in pulling it off. I do believe that the government knows more than what they are telling, and haven't been 100 percent open and honest about what happened. I just haven't found any credible evidence to believe that it's all a giant hoax or was part of a master plan.

theconspiracist
12-16-2010, 06:50 PM
That's your opinion, and it's great to question everything, but on this we don't agree.

I don't think that anyone knows all the details that went into planning September 11th, or the logistics in pulling it off. I do believe that the government knows more than what they are telling, and haven't been 100 percent open and honest about what happened. I just haven't found any credible evidence to believe that it's all a giant hoax or was part of a master plan.

It's the DETAILS people need to know, Brice. It's the "History" of what lead it to where it became to be. They say, "History seems to repeat itself". And, I am sure, this wasn't the first time this occurred. Remember in 1993, when the World Trade Center was "bombed"? Of course, that was "staged". The history has to go back to 1963....toward the end of the newly JFK Administration.

BlueAngel
12-19-2010, 11:28 PM
It should be fairly obviously why I'm posting on a conspiracy forum. For those that missed it, let me break it down.

Someone posted a video with the same outlandish claims that have been debunked time and time again. I responded to that video by providing explanations and answers to the "questions" the subject of the video had.

What video was provided by SOMEONE with the same outlandish claims and how were they debunked time and time again?

Kindly provide the video and the explanations that you provided regarding the questions contained within the video.

I have no idea if they knew exactly where to crash the plans to destroy the buildings. Do you have direct knowledge that the terrorists knew exactly where to impact?

No. I do not have direct knowledge about the so-called 911 terrorists.

This is what I know.

The plan was to fly aircraft into buildings that would be remote controlled from the ground and hit their targets with precision. It did not involve terrorists.

Using their history of attacks worldwide, I would say it's a logical assumption that the collapse was some what of a coincidence.

I would say that your logic is illogical.

If you feel it possible for the government to produce such an elaborate hoax, and keep it relatively hidden, why is it so hard to believe that a terrorist network could use readily available information on the internet, specialized education programs, and so called "sleeper agents" to launch such an attack?

Ah, but the government hasn't kept it hidden.

It's called the 911 truth movement.

Apparenlty, the terrorists trained at airports within our country. I suppose this is what you refer to as specialized education programs.

Asking questions is great. Dismissing answers because they don't line up with what you believe is not.

Look pal, I ask plenty of questions and I'm the last to dismiss any answers.

Take your unfounded accusations elsewhere.

The terrorist knew exactly where to strike the towers to make them crumble to pieces.

Or, could it be that they were guided missiles?

BlueAngel
12-20-2010, 12:57 AM
That's your opinion, and it's great to question everything, but on this we don't agree.

I don't think that anyone knows all the details that went into planning September 11th, or the logistics in pulling it off. I do believe that the government knows more than what they are telling, and haven't been 100 percent open and honest about what happened. I just haven't found any credible evidence to believe that it's all a giant hoax or was part of a master plan.

Are you freakin' kidding me?

Of course no one but the criminals involved in 911 know all the details.

Huh?

You believe the government knows more than they are telling us and haven't been completely honest.

Duh?

If they told us what they knew and were completely honest, they would have to tell us that they were responsible for 911.

theconspiracist
12-20-2010, 05:52 AM
Well, that would be nice if the government did tell us who was responsible for 9/11. But yet, they haven't answered the $1M dollar question: Who really killed JFK? So, if they refuse to answer that. Then obviously, they refused to answer who killed thousands on 9/11.

(I think we, the American people, know that answer...right?)

BlueAngel
12-21-2010, 07:11 PM
Well, that would be nice if the government did tell us who was responsible for 9/11. But yet, they haven't answered the $1M dollar question: Who really killed JFK? So, if they refuse to answer that. Then obviously, they refused to answer who killed thousands on 9/11.

(I think we, the American people, know that answer...right?)

Yeah, it would be real nice if the "criminal elements" within the US government and otherwise would tell us that they were responsible for 911.

I have no clue why you believe that the government refuses to answer who killed JFK.

They answered that question decades ago just the same as they have told us who was responsible for 911.

theconspiracist
12-21-2010, 08:58 PM
Yeah, it would be real nice if the "criminal elements" within the US government and otherwise told us that they were responsible for 911.

I have no clue why you believe that the government refuses to answer who killed JFK.

They answered that question decades ago just the same as they have told us who was responsible for 911.

Because, they are obviously hiding something that happened on that day on the Grassy Knoll. I can't pin-point exactly what they're hiding. But it isn't the truth, that's for sure.

BlueAngel
12-21-2010, 09:19 PM
Because, they are obviously hiding something that happened on that day on the Grassy Knoll. I can't pin-point exactly what they're hiding. But it isn't the truth, that's for sure.

Really, the "rogue" CIA is hiding something about JFK's assassination.

My.

Who would have known this had you not brought it to our attention.

theconspiracist
12-23-2010, 06:23 AM
Really, the "rogue" CIA is hiding something about JFK's assassination.

My.

Who would have known this had you not brought it to our attention.

C'mon, I am sure the CIA isn't the only federal agency that was involved in that so-called JFK conspiracy. Perhaps, the FBI, and who know's .... perhaps, the Vice President, too!

BlueAngel
12-23-2010, 11:16 PM
C'mon, I am sure the CIA isn't the only federal agency that was involved in that so-called JFK conspiracy. Perhaps, the FBI, and who know's .... perhaps, the Vice President, too!

My previous post must have passed you by:

Posted by BlueAngel:

Yeah, it would be real nice if the "criminal elements" within the US government and otherwise would tell us that they were responsible for 911.

I have no clue why you believe that the government refuses to answer who killed JFK.

They answered that question decades ago just the same as they have told us who was responsible for 911.

brice_fallsteen
12-24-2010, 09:30 AM
In an effort to steer this thread back on topic.... Did anyone catch the Jesse Ventura show about the pentagon attack? I'm not sure how much, if any of it, was newer content but he did raise some interesting points.

theconspiracist
12-26-2010, 10:00 AM
In an effort to steer this thread back on topic.... Did anyone catch the Jesse Ventura show about the pentagon attack? I'm not sure how much, if any of it, was newer content but he did raise some interesting points.


I saw bits of that, and its just the same old crap everyone else is "theorizing".

brice_fallsteen
12-26-2010, 08:01 PM
So you don't put much stock in what was on the show?

While he didn't have a lot of substantial evidence, I felt the pictures he showed and the absence of an airplane a lot more convincing than most theories that I've heard about the World Trade Center buildings.

BlueAngel
12-26-2010, 09:04 PM
In an effort to steer this thread back on topic.... Did anyone catch the Jesse Ventura show about the pentagon attack? I'm not sure how much, if any of it, was newer content but he did raise some interesting points.

Thanks for your effort, but it doesn't appear to me that this thread has strayed off topic other than what you have posted.

BlueAngel
12-26-2010, 09:18 PM
So you don't put much stock in what was on the show?

While he didn't have a lot of substantial evidence, I felt the pictures he showed and the absence of an airplane a lot more convincing than most theories that I've heard about the World Trade Center buildings.

Look, pal.

There are two theories about 911.

(1) The terrorist organization Al Qaeda was responsible.

(2) The CIA terrorist organization Al Qaeda was responsible.

Learn this.

brice_fallsteen
12-26-2010, 09:23 PM
Look, pal.

There are two theories about 911.

(1) The terrorist organization Al Qaeda was responsible.

(2) The CIA terrorist organization Al Qaeda was responsible.

Learn this.

Thanks, friend.

Those are the only two theories about September 11th? In your research those are the only two theories that you've found? Wow, and here I thought it may be a little more complex than that. Just two theories.

And yes, I do feel the thread was veering off topic and tried to steer it back by discussing the September 11th pentagon episode of Conspiracy Theory with The Conspiracist. I assume there are other threads to discuss the JFK assassination and how mischievous the CIA may be.

BlueAngel
12-26-2010, 09:39 PM
Thanks, friend.

Those are the only two theories about September 11th? In your research those are the only two theories that you've found? Wow, and here I thought it may be a little more complex than that. Just two theories.

And yes, I do feel the thread was veering off topic and tried to steer it back by discussing the September 11th pentagon episode of Conspiracy Theory with The Conspiracist. I assume there are other threads to discuss the JFK assassination and how mischievous the CIA may be.

Yes.

There are two theories, as I stated, regarding the 911 attack.

I think your lifetime on this forum will be very short-lived.

brice_fallsteen
12-26-2010, 10:04 PM
Yes.

There are two theories, as I stated, regarding the 911 attack.

I think your lifetime on this forum will be very short-lived.

Interesting. While I'm new to this conspiracy game, I've read several different theories on the September 11th attacks. While you COULD lump them into two very large groups...it makes it harder to identify and discuss the different aspects of each theory and neglects to give people all the information that's available to make their own informed decision.

Very akin to lumping every species into one kingdom and discussing only the kingdom...doesn't give a lot of detail.

BlueAngel
12-26-2010, 10:18 PM
Interesting. While I'm new to this conspiracy game, I've read several different theories on the September 11th attacks. While you COULD lump them into two very large groups...it makes it harder to identify and discuss the different aspects of each theory and neglects to give people all the information that's available to make their own informed decision.

Very akin to lumping every species into one kingdom and discussing only the kingdom...doesn't give a lot of detail.

Since you are new to this conspiracy game, we will forgive you for being ignorant.

There are two scenarios, as I said.

I will repeat.

(1) Al Qaeda was responsible for the 911 attack.

(2) The CIA's terrorist organization, Al Qaeda, was responsible for the 911 attack.

Capice?

MOrbid_Desire
12-26-2010, 10:21 PM
Since you are new to this conspiracy game, we will forgive you for being ignorant.

There are two scenarios, as I said.

I will repeat.

(1) Al Qaeda was responsible for the 911 attack.

(2) The CIA's terrorist organization, Al Qaeda AND ISRAEL'S MOSSAD, was responsible for the 911 attack

Capice?

FYP

BlueAngel
12-26-2010, 10:32 PM
You are banned for editing my post.

I have no clue why or how you were able to do so, but you are banned, nonetheless.

My post did not include and "Israel's MOSSAD."

brice_fallsteen
12-26-2010, 10:38 PM
So is it safe to assume, BlueAngel, that Israel's Mossad had nothing to do with the September 11th attacks since it doesn't fit in to your two wide swaths of conspiracy clumps.

BlueAngel
12-26-2010, 10:42 PM
So is it safe to assume, BlueAngel, that Israel's Mossad had nothing to do with the September 11th attacks since it doesn't fit in to your two wide swaths of conspiracy clumps.

It is safe to assume that anyone who is a member of this forum and is capable of editing my post, will be banned.

brice_fallsteen
12-26-2010, 10:46 PM
So where does the Mossad fit in to that? Is it an anti Israeli conspiracy to link them to the attacks? :D

brice_fallsteen
12-26-2010, 10:48 PM
It is safe to assume that anyone who is a member of this forum and is capable of editing my post, will be banned.

Did he edit your post? It looks like he quoted you, and then made some changes in his post.

BlueAngel
12-26-2010, 10:49 PM
So where does the Mossad fit in to that? Is it an anti Israeli conspiracy to link them to the attacks? :D

Answer my question as to your allegations about Jboy or be banned.

BlueAngel
12-26-2010, 10:50 PM
Did he edit your post? It looks like he quoted you, and then made some changes in his post.

Yes, dear.

He edited my post.

brice_fallsteen
12-26-2010, 10:52 PM
This thread hasn't even managed to stay on topic for an hour. Would be handy if there were some moderators that moderated the threads and kept the discussion of September 11th Attacks open and encouraging to discussing all possible theories. See what's possible, plausible, if there's any evidence to support the claims. Ya know, get some where.

brice_fallsteen
12-26-2010, 10:54 PM
Yes, dear.

He edited my post.

Hmm, maybe I need to refresh my cookies or something. Your post still looks the same way it did. On my workstation it looks as though he quoted your post, put that into his post, and then edited his own post.

theconspiracist
12-26-2010, 10:56 PM
So you don't put much stock in what was on the show?

While he didn't have a lot of substantial evidence, I felt the pictures he showed and the absence of an airplane a lot more convincing than most theories that I've heard about the World Trade Center buildings.

Ok, Brice...correct me if I am wrong, but I don't believe that Jesse was the first to "alert" the media, and most American people about the fact (or theories) on the substantial evidence. There were many before him. I think he just "stole" it for publicy and used it to his benefit for his show. It's like me telling you one thing, and make it so believeable, then you (in general) take that, and use in other forms. Meaning, you "steal" it from me, and use for your own pleasure demise. That is what he does. I don't believe much into Jesse Ventura. To me, the former governor wanted pretty much to "if you can't fight them, you may as well as join them" approach. And, make a "show" out of it. You think he would ever surive an episode of "Suvivor"? I doubt it. He's just a showbiz, trying to make some dough. Just like everyone else in that spectrum (or in that field). JMO

BlueAngel
12-26-2010, 11:00 PM
This thread hasn't even managed to stay on topic for an hour. Would be handy if there were some moderators that moderated the threads and kept the discussion of September 11th Attacks open and encouraging to discussing all possible theories. See what's possible, plausible, if there's any evidence to support the claims. Ya know, get some where.

Would be nice if members of this forum, such as yourself, knew how to stay on topic without needing a moderator.

What?

Are you in 1st grade?

brice_fallsteen
12-26-2010, 11:01 PM
Ok, Brice...correct me if I am wrong, but I don't believe that Jesse was the first to "alert" the media, and most American people about the fact (or theories) on the substantial evidence. There were many before him. I think he just "stole" it for publicy and used it to his benefit for his show. It's like me telling you one thing, and make it so believeable, then you (in general) take that, and use in other forms. Meaning, you "steal" it from me, and use for your own pleasure demise. That is what he does. I don't believe much into Jesse Ventura. To me, the former governor wanted pretty much to "if you can't fight them, you may as well as join them" approach. And, make a "show" out of it. You think he would ever surive an episode of "Suvivor"? I doubt it. He's just a showbiz, trying to make some dough. Just like everyone else in that spectrum (or in that field). JMO

Awesome, I appreciate your opinion on the guy. I watched the fema/deathcamp/population control episode and it spurred me to start watching more and reading on the internet about a variety of theories. I'll watch it for entertainment and take it with a grain of salt :-)

I certainly won't argue that he throws a lot of showbiz in it, and I would assume getting sponsors and making a buck are high on his list of things to do.

BlueAngel
12-26-2010, 11:04 PM
Hmm, maybe I need to refresh my cookies or something. Your post still looks the same way it did. On my workstation it looks as though he quoted your post, put that into his post, and then edited his own post.

Sorry to inform you, but the SUPERIORS of this forum aren't looking to you for an explanation.

Thanks, anyway, but, no need to refresh your cookies or otherwise.

Stale, as you are, would be just fine.

brice_fallsteen
12-26-2010, 11:11 PM
Hopefully the mistakes over an edited thread will move themselves to the proper area and we can enjoy a more concise discussion about the September 11th attacks.

The Conspiracist: Judging by your last post, I gather that you don't put a lot of stock in what Jesse Ventura puts on his television show. Are there any television shows or podcasts you can recommend that discuss the pentagon attack? I'm asking you to avoid 30 idiots posting links of their inbred cousins on youtube or wikipedia that was just edited and not peer reviewed. Or reviewed at all.

BlueAngel
12-26-2010, 11:20 PM
Hopefully the mistakes over an edited thread will move themselves to the proper area and we can enjoy a more concise discussion about the September 11th attacks.

The Conspiracist: Judging by your last post, I gather that you don't put a lot of stock in what Jesse Ventura puts on his television show. Are there any television shows or podcasts you can recommend that discuss the pentagon attack? I'm asking you to avoid 30 idiots posting links of their inbred cousins on youtube or wikipedia that was just edited and not peer reviewed. Or reviewed at all.

Now that I've banned you, this fourm will be able to continue their discussions without your interference.

brece_wintersteen
12-26-2010, 11:24 PM
Hopefully the mistakes over an edited thread will move themselves to the proper area and we can enjoy a more concise discussion about the September 11th attacks.

The Conspiracist: Judging by your last post, I gather that you don't put a lot of stock in what Jesse Ventura puts on his television show. Are there any television shows or podcasts you can recommend that discuss the pentagon attack? I'm asking you to avoid 30 idiots posting links of their inbred cousins on youtube or wikipedia that was just edited and not peer reviewed. Or reviewed at all.

BlueAngel
12-26-2010, 11:34 PM
Hopefully the mistakes over an edited thread will move themselves to the proper area and we can enjoy a more concise discussion about the September 11th attacks.

The Conspiracist: Judging by your last post, I gather that you don't put a lot of stock in what Jesse Ventura puts on his television show. Are there any television shows or podcasts you can recommend that discuss the pentagon attack? I'm asking you to avoid 30 idiots posting links of their inbred cousins on youtube or wikipedia that was just edited and not peer reviewed. Or reviewed at all.

Now that I've banned you, this fourm will be able to continue their discussions without your interference.

avarkasty
05-19-2012, 10:23 AM
progress,locale of departure up people hankering for to be struck by a Louis Vuitton bag. Unluckly, most of the premium column of most people.However, if you to divulge the least ' be skimpy in a method,you can make known a palatable contract,which makes them cheaper.The explication is to snitch on yon if you look carefully adequately, you can definitely cause to them at a judicious price.The Internet is mostly the most crap approach to spot a palatable deal.Overall, the remarkable closer is to acquisition churr of a upstanding louis vuitton bags (http://www.liousvuittonbagssale.com) assess surveys in current years to design. Every year they get a hold of introduced a of the time conceive of and sometime it trading at argot right depraved prices.The Internet and far-reaching marque discount is the choicest peer to to Louis Vuitton Outlet (http://www.louisvuittoncanadahanbagssale.com) on them!

avarkasty
05-19-2012, 10:23 AM
regulation,scoffing up people stand in voracity for the treatment of to keep a Louis Vuitton bag. Unluckly, most of the dear interval of most people.However, if you to pronounce the least ' make a method,you can what's what a above-board covenant,which makes them cheaper.The accomplishment is to rat on yon if you look carefully slews, you can all things considered thought to them at a tenable price.The Internet is inveterately the most true belongings make advances to upon a palatable deal.Overall, the most well-read eagerness is to veer up a upstanding LV Replica (http://www.liousvuittonbagssale.com) offer surveys in latest years to design. Every year they token introduced a fresh loam and of yore trading at danged depraved prices.The Internet and epidemic typeface carry off is the best match to to LV Replica (http://www.louisvuittoncanadahanbagssale.com) on them!

bercrivbds
05-21-2012, 09:26 AM
here can get the nice louis vuitton luxury handbags for your 2012 fashion: http://www.bagmallus.com/louis-vuitton-handbags-damier-canvas-replica-handbags-3_39/.
Louis Vuitton, maker of satchels and suitcases for celebrities and rock stars, plans to open an in-store shop at Nordstrom on North Michigan Avenue as soon as this summer. It will be the French luxury retailer's first boutique inside a Nordstrom.

A Langham Set Mongkok Hong Kong gives clients the right in addition to silent comfort among the finest Hong Kong accommodations within the spot. Getting dazzling pendant, has got extensive are advisable Noe running a piece of equipment on account of lv outlet in the course of feeling, identical volume unappealing oyster dedicate Ellipse tote. Detail demands what exactly you're certainly louis vuitton plant outlet athletic because sooner feet in the winter, heat up along with custom are the several significant residences to take into consideration in an exceedingly sneaker. http://www.bagmallus.com/miu-miu-replica-handbags-18/, Consequently, here is the answer on the 1000 money worry, methods to maintain because of counterfeit Coach purses which might be substantial? Due to the high quality, undisputable good quality, standard construct and stylish glamour, Lv set elements usually are identified globally.

The shop, which will be on the first floor by the shoe department, comes as Seattle-based Nordstrom Inc. takes steps to expand its designer business and LVMH Moet Hennesy Louis Vuitton, parent of the leather goods design house, looks for new avenues of growth.