911 - Points to discuss

The_Kew_Tour

meglome wrote: »

Nice try but this is smaller plane with shorter wings. It's also a fighter so the wings would need to withstand greater forces per sq mm.

Of course i'd be happy to rethink that if we had some way to explain away all the other evidence.

Yes, this type of video can I think back up both claims really. Can see your point.

King Mob

There a a few questions I've asked that seem to be ignored.

Can anyone show any evidence for a missile that doesn't rely on claimed gaps in the evidence for a plane?

Can anyone provide evidence that the wreckage indicating a plane was in fact placed there?

Can anyone explain why there is no witnesses that claim that they saw the evidence being planted despite some of the evidence was in full view of the public?

Can anyone show there was other cameras that where capable of seeing the plane?

Yes or no answers please.

meglome

Bubba HoTep wrote: »

please off all the poeple on this thread, i dont want to get into tit for tat crap with you of all, as i do infact like your posts for being genuine and level

You're right sorry about that, I don't want it to be tit for tat.

Bubba HoTep wrote: »

but can i ask you to just read or reread my posts regarding the missile, i want to make this clear. i am not attached to the missile theory at all, i have said it more than once. none of the "evidence" for a plane sways me in any way, there is however a huge hole and videos of a blast, the hole was created by something, and im inclined to think it was a missile, i am not however stuck on this, as im open to other plauseable causes. i have never said it has to be, or could only be a missle, but a missile fits the bill for me so far according to the evidence, also, check the thread, i wasnt the one repeatedly bringing up the missile

Okay we have lots of evidence for a plane. We don't, and it looks like we never will, have footage of the crash itself. So all we have is the evidence for a plane and pretty much nothing else. So I'll tell you what, how do you explain away all the evidence for a plane? To get to another theory we have to either ignore the evidence of a plane or explain it? So which are you going to do?

I mean it could have been a supersonic pigeon soaked in petrol that crashed into the Pentagon but given the evidence and the balance of probabilities that's very very unlikely.

Bubba HoTep wrote: »

what i am stuck on is, for me, there is no plane, for you there is, so its stalemate, hence why i asked would ye like to move onto other areas, alas when i do im repeatedly asked about a damn missile.....

so what do ye want to do?

1. Literally hundreds of people saw a plane (it was broad daylight in the middle of a big city) http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/witnesses/bart.html
2. Thousands cleaned up the site, they either reporting seeing bits of bodies and plane or had no reported issue.
3. The lampposts are knocked down exactly in the position that eye-witnesses saw the plane. (and to the exact size of a 757).
4. They found people and stuff belonging to people from the plane at the crash site. See here and here.
5. There are plenty of bits of wreckage and bodies too, see here and here.
6. The plane hit next to main highway, on which there was a traffic jam (you'd imagine this would be the worst possible place and time to fake an attack). Also this is the easiest place for say an average pilot to approach the building.
7. We can show that an aircraft crashing into a concrete fronted building wouldn't leave much debris and more than that the plane could be literally shredded, here (and other examples).
8. The damage to the pentagon is consistent with a big jet hitting it, see here and here.
9. Why a plane could go though all three pentagon rings and out the other side, here.
10. There is no evidence of pieces of plane being planted, the building was right next to a busy highway for all to see.

[Edit:] One of the main proponents of the no plane theory who now says it was a plane, here and here.

Now all you need to do is explain away all of this and then I haven't the slightest problem believing it wasn't a plane that hit the Pentagon.

bonkey

Bubba HoTep wrote: »

@ bonkey *post 152*

"At least we agree that is an assumption, which means that the entire argument of there being cameras which would capture this event is based on an assumption, rather than on evidence."

here you are picking on the word assumption itself. the same way a creationist when speaking about evolution would say " ah but its just a theory of evolution" as if the word theory made it any less real.

A creationist tries to downplay the meaning of the word theory - trying to conflate the scientific meaning of the term with the colloquial usage

I am not trying to downplay the strength of anything. I'm am trying to make clear that it is a position which is not supported by evidence, which is what an assumption is.

I'm trying to get agreement on simple, non-complex points, so that we can leave them aside and move on.

I, meglome and others have asked for the evidence of these cameras existence. None has been forthcoming, but instead of evidence we've had a lot of arguments about why its reasonable to conclude they exist.

All I'm doing is asking we all accept that no-one here can offer the evidence asked for...that we do not have evidence of the camera's existence. Once we get that, we can absolutely move on to discussing how reasonable the argument is which leads to the belief that they exist.

or how the media would have the word conspiracy associated with crazy, when that is not at all what the word means.

Or how you have now twice tried to link my position with creationism...

my assumption is based on observable evidence,

If there is observable evidence, then its not an assumption.

If there is observable evidence of CCTV cameras at the Pentagon which should have shown the approach of the plane, then please...by all means....direct us at this evidence. That's all I've been asking for...the evidence supporting this claim.

again, while there is a teeny tiny possiblity that for some really really odd really really strange reason they dont have cctv, it is still the least likely, and least believable.

my assumption has weight

We can argue about the likelihood and believability of the position once we reach an agreement on whether or not there is evidence of these camera's existence.

Do you agree that you do not have such evidence?

jonbravo

whats are the points to discuss about the hijacker's, how did they hijack and is their a conspiracy about who attacked on september 9th 01!?

meglome

jonbravo wrote: »

whats are the points to discuss about the hijacker's, how did they hijack and is their a conspiracy about who attacked on september 9th 01!?

I think 911 was was carried out by the 19 named hijackers, who crashed planes into the twin towers, the pentagon and a field in Pennsylvania.

I'd still very much like all the points I complied about the Pentagon to be addressed on the previous page. If it wasn't a plane it should be easy to do that, right?

Kernel

It's amazing how well the disinfo works at keeping people bickering, instead of talking about the elephant in the room.

That 911 was an inside job. :cool:

meglome

Kernel wrote: »

It's amazing how well the disinfo works at keeping people bickering, instead of talking about the elephant in the room.

That 911 was an inside job. :cool:

And you may not believe this but I'd be happy for you to show me this. But every time we try it the discussion peters out once the details are put in front of you and you can't address them. Or else we go back to the bigger picture again since the fine details don't match up.

Do you think a plane hit the pentagon?

And really why would you need a disinfo agents, the 'truth' movement is well capable of embarrassing and confusing itself on a regular basis without the slightest bit of help.

The_Kew_Tour

No dig at anybody here but can somebody show me plane hit the Pentagon?

Once seen we will the "truth" movement will rest in peace...

until then let us find the truth

The_Kew_Tour

86 cameras showed what happened that day one surely has one that shows the plane

King Mob

adrian280582 wrote: »

No dig at anybody here but can somebody show me plane hit the Pentagon?

Once seen we will the "truth" movement will rest in peace...

until then let us find the truth

Can you show a missile hitting the pentagon?

Can you show the wreckage of the plane being planted at the site?

Can you show the damage being faked?

Can you show where the plane supposedly disappeared or where the passengers are for that matter?

Can you show that other cameras in the pentagon should have shown the plane and that footage was subsequently covered up?

Can you show any evidence for a missile strike that is not dependent on supposed gaps in the evidence for a plane?

Please just give clear straight answers for each of these in the interest of truth.

Because we can show evidence that it was a plane that hit the pentagon.
In fact it was shown repeatedly in this thread or did you miss it?

meglome

adrian280582 wrote: »

No dig at anybody here but can somebody show me plane hit the Pentagon?

Once seen we will the "truth" movement will rest in peace...

until then let us find the truth

I would love if there was footage of a plane hitting the building or not. But from my experience in here I'd guess there are many people who would think this footage was faked anyway. Especially as it would be low quality.

adrian280582 wrote: »

86 cameras showed what happened that day one surely has one that shows the plane

I'll try this again. Security cameras rarely if ever look to the air they look at the ground. So it could be 186 cameras and I'd suggest it wouldn't make a damn bit of difference. And in 2001 they still would mostly be low frame rate vhs recorded stuff that the quality would be fairly low on. I had a walk about around town there and I saw plenty of security cameras but they were all pointing at the ground. Even if you could explain to me why the security cameras would be looking into the air then that would help your story.


Can you explain away all the evidence I listed on the previous page? If can then honestly I'll accept it might not have been a plane. But in the meantime with so much backup for it being a plane I'll continue to believe it's a plane. Either we can prove it or not within reason and I believe we have proved it within reason. Some of main guys behind the no plane theory now say it was a plane and they were mistaken.

And answer King Mobs questions please because even if you could explain how it could be something other than a plane then that would be something. But so far you seem to be saying I don't believe it was a plane, just cause I don't. And I believe it was a missile, just cause I do. I'm saying look at all this evidence and from that I think it's a plane.

bonkey

adrian280582 wrote: »

86 cameras showed what happened that day one surely has one that shows the plane

86? Really?

I'm aware of 4 - two from the Pentagon, one from the gas station, one from the hotel.

What are the other 82?

The_Kew_Tour

meglome wrote: »

I would love if there was footage of a plane hitting the building or not. But from my experience in here I'd guess there are many people who would think this footage was faked anyway. Especially as it would be low quality.



I'll try this again. Security cameras rarely if ever look to the air they look at the ground. So it could be 186 cameras and I'd suggest it wouldn't make a damn bit of difference. And in 2001 they still would mostly be low frame rate vhs recorded stuff that the quality would be fairly low on. I had a walk about around town there and I saw plenty of security cameras but they were all pointing at the ground. Even if you could explain to me why the security cameras would be looking into the air then that would help your story.


Can you explain away all the evidence I listed on the previous page? If can then honestly I'll accept it might not have been a plane. But in the meantime with so much backup for it being a plane I'll continue to believe it's a plane. Either we can prove it or not within reason and I believe we have proved it within reason. Some of main guys behind the no plane theory now say it was a plane and they were mistaken.

And answer King Mobs questions please because even if you could explain how it could be something other than a plane then that would be something. But so far you seem to be saying I don't believe it was a plane, just cause I don't. And I believe it was a missile, just cause I do. I'm saying look at all this evidence and from that I think it's a plane.

From my previous posts I agree I suppose I do look more like a wanting believer with a stubborn stance then person who looking maybe to seek the truth.

As I have stated before I would be more then willing to accept it was a plane if there was the proof that there was from my eyes and Im not just talking about the footage of actually seeing the plane but other questions about the angles this plane took in approching washington the fact that Honjour was simply out of his depth in flying a plane and fact that eye witness reports have shown many different descriptions of what happened. Also the fact of the amount of lies that have come out since about the speed of plane etc which at end of day makes for a conspircay to take a open discussion all round

I am not looking for a conspiracy, but from what I have studied about the impact and damage that the Pentagon took that day from people I have spoken to and researched from then I have to raise my eyebrows about some the official reports from what happened that day

Most your points and links from your previous post I cannot argue with and you have showed your evidence for your side but the difference is for me its the LACK of evidence which bothers me much more then the simple evidence which we have been shown.

The_Kew_Tour

bonkey wrote: »

86? Really?

I'm aware of 4 - two from the Pentagon, one from the gas station, one from the hotel.

What are the other 82?

Yes from the official reports stated in previous new york times, washington post and los angels times as well as coverage on this in Fox news before

Penn

The thing I'd like to know is, if they used planes to hit the Twin Towers and with the one that crashed in the field, why would they use a missile to hit the Pentagon? Why was that one different? Surely they'd either use planes for the four of them or missiles for the four of them?

meglome

adrian280582 wrote: »

From my previous posts I agree I suppose I do look more like a wanting believer with a stubborn stance then person who looking maybe to seek the truth.

As I have stated before I would be more then willing to accept it was a plane if there was the proof that there was from my eyes and Im not just talking about the footage of actually seeing the plane but other questions about the angles this plane took in approching washington the fact that Honjour was simply out of his depth in flying a plane and fact that eye witness reports have shown many different descriptions of what happened. Also the fact of the amount of lies that have come out since about the speed of plane etc which at end of day makes for a conspircay to take a open discussion all round

I am not looking for a conspiracy, but from what I have studied about the impact and damage that the Pentagon took that day from people I have spoken to and researched from then I have to raise my eyebrows about some the official reports from what happened that day

Most your points and links from your previous post I cannot argue with and you have showed your evidence for your side but the difference is for me its the LACK of evidence which bothers me much more then the simple evidence which we have been shown.

Lack of evidence is proof of nothing. What's lacking exactly? There's evidence to show the plane impacted as officially believed. And I've shown you how a plane can be shredded if crashed into concrete. As far as I understand it these are two of the three main points that are used to say it wasn't a plane. So we're left with saying Honjour couldn't make the turn but the autopilot could make the turn for him so it's irrelevant. And as has been pointed out no sane pilot would make the turn but he was going to kill himself so no problem there.

You say you're not looking for a conspiracy but there is a wash of evidence for it being a plane so I don't get the issue. Eye witnesses are indeed unreliable but it's one thing if you're not sure what colour trousers a robber was wearing and quite another whether you saw a huge jet roar past you at low level.

The_Kew_Tour

meglome wrote: »

Lack of evidence is proof of nothing. What's lacking exactly? There's evidence to show the plane impacted as officially believed. And I've shown you how a plane can be shredded if crashed into concrete. As far as I understand it these are two of the three main points that are used to say it wasn't a plane. So we're left with saying Honjour couldn't make the turn but the autopilot could make the turn for him so it's irrelevant. And has been pointed out no sane pilot would make the turn but he was going to kill himself so no problem there.

You say you're not looking for a conspiracy but there is a wash of evidence for it being a plane so I don't get the issue. Eye witnesses are indeed unreliable but it's one thing if you're not sure what colour trousers a robber was wearing and quite another whether you saw a huge jet roar past you at low level.

The video you showed is proof no doubt but people said the wings folded in your video the wings went straight through so that begs the question. If the wings did fold then the wings should have been shown in the impact site and if the wings did not fold like the video you showed then the impact should have been much wider then what it hit. So who or what should we believe

Well lack of evidence is proof of nothing very true indeed hence why we beg to differ.

meglome

Oh one other important point a Tomahawk Cruise missile is roughly 5.5m long and 0.5m in diameter. A 757-200 is 47.3m long, 38m wide and 13.6m tall(including wheels). Given how quickly it all happened you could miss many details but honestly even someone partially sighted could tell the difference.

meglome

adrian280582 wrote: »

The video you showed is proof no doubt but people said the wings folded in your video the wings went straight through so that begs the question. If the wings did fold then the wings should have been shown in the impact site and if the wings did not fold like the video you showed then the impact should have been much wider then what it hit. So who or what should we believe

Well lack of evidence is proof of nothing very true indeed hence why we beg to differ.

Obviously the two planes are not the same and the size of the concrete was much smaller. The wings on the the fighter will be more rigid and much shorter.

The point of the video is it shows how the plane was literally shredded which in turn proves that the wreckage from the Pentagon is consistent with the crash. I'll tell you what you show me all the similar crashes that are not consistent with the wreckage from the Pentagon, as all the ones I've seen are. I've even provided links with those pictures too.

I've provided proof, I'm waiting for yours.

The_Kew_Tour

african plane crash.jpg

meglome

adrian280582 wrote: »

african plane crash.jpg

Come on not the same thing at all. Like for like please.

King Mob

So ignoring my points then?

Yay for the truth!

bonkey

adrian280582 wrote: »

Yes from the official reports stated in previous new york times, washington post and los angels times as well as coverage on this in Fox news before

I'm not sure what you mean by an "official report stated in " newspapers. Official reports are official reports and are published as such, not in newspapers.

Could you link to one of these?

The_Kew_Tour

meglome wrote: »

Come on not the same thing at all. Like for like please.

Hang on second how many plane crashes have there been where a plane travels at a large speed and flies directly into building im talking major airliner here. Most either crash into water, woods even housing estates etc, not directly staright into building at top speed so its like trying to find needle in hay stack really

The_Kew_Tour

bonkey wrote: »

I'm not sure what you mean by an "official report stated in " newspapers. Official reports are official reports and are published as such, not in newspapers.

Could you link to one of these?

Have it back home but it is also mentioned on one the vidoes posted on this thread already cant remember which one ill look it up later and come back to you no time now.

meglome

adrian280582 wrote: »

Hang on second how many plane crashes have there been where a plane travels at a large speed and flies directly into building im talking major airliner here. Most either crash into water, woods even housing estates etc, not directly staright into building at top speed so its like trying to find needle in hay stack really

It doesn't need to be a building, just that it travelled at hight speed and hit something pretty solid very hard.

Such as...




And...


Actually anyone who believes it wasn't a plane should read through all of this. (Click next in the top right to forward through).

The_Kew_Tour

meglome wrote: »

It doesn't need to be a building, just that it travelled at hight speed and hit something pretty solid very hard.

Such as...




And...


Actually anyone who believes it wasn't a plane should read through all of this. (Click next in the top right to forward through).

Yes but if we want to do comparision it needs to be of similar consequences.

as for that research site it was there very yay or nay answers not really providing anything other then what we or dont already think.

Also dint the wings folded as some eye witnesses suggested and now we are saying its 140 width of impact...Somebody is talking rubbish then

King Mob

So no one going to take a crack at my questions?
Too hard?

meglome

adrian280582 wrote: »

Yes but if we want to do comparision it needs to be of similar consequences.

A plane that crashes into anything very hard at speed covers that.

adrian280582 wrote: »

as for that research site it was there very yay or nay answers not really providing anything other then what we or dont already think.

It goes through every aspect of the crash and looks at it in detail. Many of the people behind this started off with the belief there was no plane but with the overwhelming evidence that it was plane they changed tack. Read it all and tell me how if wasn't a plane other than you just feel it wasn't, because there is no evidence it was anything other than a plane, none whatsoever, not even the teeniest little bit.

adrian280582 wrote: »

Also dint the wings folded as some eye witnesses suggested and now we are saying its 140 width of impact...Somebody is talking rubbish then

The wings impacted the front of the building which there is damage for contrary to what people say and then snapped back and went into the hole.




So I think it's only fair at this stage that you list all the evidence for your no-plane theory. List it all down and we'll we able to measure the two lists and see if we can move things along.

The_Kew_Tour

meglome wrote: »

A plane that crashes into anything very hard at speed covers that.



It goes through every aspect of the crash and looks at it in detail. Many of the people behind this started off with the belief there was no plane but with the overwhelming evidence that it was plane they changed tack. Read it all and tell me how if wasn't a plane other than you just feel it wasn't, because there is no evidence it was anything other than a plane, none whatsoever, not even the teeniest little bit.



The wings impacted the front of the building which there is damage for contrary to what people say and then snapped back and went into the hole.




So I think it's only fair at this stage that you list all the evidence for your no-plane theory. List it all down and we'll we able to measure the two lists and see if we can move things along.

where did you get that picture of measurements because there not correct with others (not saying its incorrect though)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UX01twhfUK4&feature=related even commission believe its missile:D:D:D



where is there any sign of plane impacting in this photo

Anyway
(1) Radiation was found up to 12 miles away from the crash ,believed to be deplated uranium warhead which was totally ignored by bush administration
(2)my german friends have shown me evidence that there officials were told by fbi agents that it was cruise missle. this of course was shattered but there still many people who ask for the answers to come from the states on this and they have refused

these are two reasons in which i have clear word and researced i will explain others when i have have evidence to suggest it may not have been plane.


[SIZE=+1][/SIZE]

rameire

i believe it was a high speed battered sausage,

i have no proof, and will never have any proof,
nor will i agree to any proof you show because you will not be able to show me there is no proof that it wasnt a high speed sausage.

i will then spread this theory around the world and people who wernt even there will then have the same theory and they will believe they saw the sausage.

Diogenes

adrian280582 wrote: »

where did you get that picture of measurements because there not correct with others (not saying its incorrect though)

The scale measurements look accurate compare to height of a fireman (anything from say 5-5 to 6-2) and the dimensions look to scale

where is there any sign of plane impacting in this photo

Anyway
(1) Radiation was found up to 12 miles away from the crash

Source please.

,believed to be deplated uranium warhead which was totally ignored by bush administration
(2)my german friends have shown me evidence that there officials were told by fbi agents that it was cruise missle.

A depleted uranium cruise missile?

You do realise that thats not a weapon in the US arsenal?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depleted_uranium#Ammunition

depleted uranium is in kinetic energy penetrators anti-armor rounds, such as the 120 mm sabot rounds fired from the M1A1 and M1A2 Abrams.[25] Kinetic energy penetrator rounds consist of a long, relatively thin penetrator surrounded by discarding sabot. Two materials lend themselves to penetrator construction: tungsten and depleted uranium, the latter in designated alloys known as staballoys. Staballoys are metal alloys of depleted uranium with a very small proportion of other metals, usually titanium or molybdenum. One formulation has a composition of 99.25 percent by mass of depleted uranium and 0.75 percent by mass of titanium. Staballoys are about twice as dense as lead and are designed for use in kinetic energy penetrator armor-piercing ammunition. The US Army uses DU in an alloy with around 3.5 percent titanium.

Depleted uranium is used in kinetic ammo like shells not in cruise missiles.

this of course was shattered but there still many people who ask for the answers to come from the states on this and they have refused

these are two reasons in which i have clear word and researced i will explain others when i have have evidence to suggest it may not have been plane.


[SIZE=+1][/SIZE]

So basically your mates told you this so believe it?

The_Kew_Tour

Diogenes wrote: »

The scale measurements look accurate compare to height of a fireman (anything from say 5-5 to 6-2) and the dimensions look to scale



Source please.



A depleted uranium cruise missile?

You do realise that thats not a weapon in the US arsenal?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depleted_uranium#Ammunition



Depleted uranium is used in kinetic ammo like shells not in cruise missiles.




So basically your mates told you this so believe it?

In fact I did not notice that good spot by what I see I could easily put 2 fireman in the 18 feet scale with bit to spare so these boys must be huge.

as for your source this covers something along the lines of it you get the jist first one i came across and not bothered to read it
http://www.rense.com/general67/radfdf.htm

whats your point about the uranium? so what if its not on the US arsenal and in all fainress I would not read too much there not going to give away every flaming dam thing they have to you and me now are they?

My mates, well one them happens to be senior top official undercover now working in middle east. He showed me the documents and the signed signatures of the officials at time. ( he is a whacko though im sure, ye dismiss it)

Diogenes

adrian280582 wrote: »

My mates, well one them happens to be senior top official undercover now working in middle east. He showed me the documents and the signed signatures of the officials at time. ( he is a whacko though im sure, ye dismiss it)

Yeahhhhhhh okay.

King Mob

Uranium Cruise missiles? That's just plain stupid.

So still not gonna try answering my questions?
Why aren't you?

meglome

adrian280582 wrote: »

where did you get that picture of measurements because there not correct with others (not saying its incorrect though)

If you read the link I posted it explains that the pictures used to measure the sizes on the CT sites are heavily smoke covered which this one isn't.

adrian280582 wrote: »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UX01twhfUK4&feature=related even commission believe its missile:D:D:D

He says missile plane which is exactly what is was, or a plane being used like a missile.

adrian280582 wrote: »

where is there any sign of plane impacting in this photo

The whole centre section have collapsed so it's hard to say and if it was just a missile making a small hole why would the front collapse?

Okay let's look at this video for a moment. It's very much a propaganda peice but look at the damage to the bunker (let's not get into the fact lot's of people were killed as it irrelevant to what we're talking about). The bomb fired here went through ten feet of reinforced concrete and look at the neat (and fairly small) hole. About 29seconds in. At the pentagon the support columns were cut by something big impacting into them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QwE85OSJr4

Hmm these columns seem all bent in one direction like something impacted into them.

adrian280582 wrote: »

Anyway
(1) Radiation was found up to 12 miles away from the crash ,believed to be deplated uranium warhead which was totally ignored by bush administration

Depleted uranium is used in armour piercing shells not missiles. Although I'd like to see the source for this 'story'. Plus the front of the Pentagon isn't 10 feet of concrete so you wouldn't need anything specifically bunker busting, just ram a big plane into it for example.

adrian280582 wrote: »

(2)my german friends have shown me evidence that there officials were told by fbi agents that it was cruise missle. this of course was shattered but there still many people who ask for the answers to come from the states on this and they have refused.

So we're back to the bigger picture? Of course someone might believe this if they ignore all the other evidence.

adrian280582 wrote: »

these are two reasons in which i have clear word and researced i will explain others when i have have evidence to suggest it may not have been plane.

Looking forward to it.


Adrian I'm really want to believe you're not taking the weewee here because it seems so black and white to me with all the evidence. Even this stuff you've come up with completely ignores the evidence. I kinda had it in my mind you'd counter the evidence supplied. I can't help but feel you just don't want it to be a plane no matter what.

meglome

Okay Mysterious et al feel free to post your fine details as to why it's you believe 911 is a conspiracy. And fine details only please. Read though the stuff posted here already and explain where we went wrong, some kind of proof is necessary. We're told it's obviously a conspiracy so there should be loads of proof of it, right?

Woger

meglome wrote: »

Okay Mysterious et al feel free to post your fine details as to why it's you believe 911 is a conspiracy. And fine details only please. Read though the stuff posted here already and explain where we went wrong, some kind of proof is necessary. We're told it's obviously a conspiracy so there should be loads of proof of it, right?

Of course it was a conspiracy, 15 Saudi Arabians and 3 Egyptians conspired.

mysterious

meglome wrote: »

Okay Mysterious et al feel free to post your fine details as to why it's you believe 911 is a conspiracy. And fine details only please. Read though the stuff posted here already and explain where we went wrong, some kind of proof is necessary. We're told it's obviously a conspiracy so there should be loads of proof of it, right?

Why did they forget about Osama?

Go...

6th

Who says they have forgotten about him? Just because he doesnt get talked about in some speaches doesnt mean they've stopped looking. Could you back up why you believe they are no longer looking for him and support it with some evidence?

MacTee

Yikers forgot how crazy 9/11 heads could be. If it was all a conspiracy and the building was brought down by expolsives then why the very public spectacle with the planes? Why not just drive a lorry load of semtex into the basement and blow it?

6th

MacTee wrote: »

Yikers forgot how crazy 9/11 heads could be. If it was all a conspiracy and the building was brought down by expolsives then why the very public spectacle with the planes? Why not just drive a lorry load of semtex into the basement and blow it?

Read the Charter at the top of the forum just to familiarize yourself with the rules of the forum. Branding people on here crazy could cause offense.

mysterious

6th wrote: »

Who says they have forgotten about him? Just because he doesnt get talked about in some speaches doesnt mean they've stopped looking. Could you back up why you believe they are no longer looking for him and support it with some evidence?

Before I give evidence.

I just want to simply say and really out loud

They went for Saddam and not Osama. Saddam got. Yet in 3 terms, they are still looking for Osama.

It's hilarious.

King Mob

mysterious wrote: »

Before I give evidence.

I just want to simply say and really out loud

They went for Saddam and not Osama. Saddam got. Yet in 3 terms, they are still looking for Osama.

It's hilarious.

Might have something to do with Saddam not being in hiding.

Why not just give the evidence if you have it?

mysterious

King Mob wrote: »

Might have something to do with Saddam not being in hiding.

Why not just give the evidence if you have it?

This should be turned into the comedy forum, it's hilarious.

I'll post evidence later, I have to go to work.

But I'm sure, Saddam jumped out of his bunker, and waved a flag,
I'M HERE I'M HERE, I'M HERE TAKE ME........

Some reality we are all decepted by, Thank god I'm not.

King Mob

mysterious wrote: »

This should be turned into the comedy forum, it's hilarious.

I'll post evidence later, I have to go to work.

But I'm sure, Saddam jumped out of his bunker, and waved a flag,
I'M HERE I'M HERE, I'M HERE TAKE ME........

Some reality we are all decepted by, Thank god I'm not.

Yes mysterious that's exactly what I'm saying.

I must be brainwashed. Why else would I disagree with you?

meglome

mysterious wrote: »

Why did they forget about Osama?

Go...

I'd safely say a man who openly admits being behind the deaths of thousands of Americans isn't forgotten. But that doesn't change the fact they can't find him. And forgive me put maybe you can explain how that shows a conspiracy? (Focus, you can do it)

mysterious wrote: »

This should be turned into the comedy forum, it's hilarious.

I'll post evidence later, I have to go to work.

But I'm sure, Saddam jumped out of his bunker, and waved a flag,
I'M HERE I'M HERE, I'M HERE TAKE ME........

Some reality we are all decepted by, Thank god I'm not.

I have to be honest Mysterious if you can post a concise point, back it up with some relevant proof and then stick to that point I'll eat my own arse.

Diogenes

mysterious wrote: »

Before I give evidence.

I just want to simply say and really out loud

They went for Saddam and not Osama. Saddam got. Yet in 3 terms, they are still looking for Osama.

It's hilarious.

Yeah Saddam was caught in the vaguely flat terrain of Iraq, with a vast majority of the population actively looking for him.

Osama has one of the inhospitaly mountainous terrains in the world, thousands of kilometers, were vehicles cannot travel across them, a vast network of caves and underground complexes a tribal support that spreads across the border between Afghanistan and Pakistian, in regions where both governments have limited control.


Your juvenile snickering displays your ignorance of the complexities of the situation.

6th

Diogenes wrote: »

Your juvenile snickering displays your ignorance of the complexities of the situation.

Attack the post not the poster.