9/11 - "This is not the smoking gun it is the loaded gun"

mysterious

King Mob wrote: »

So what you're saying is the small group of people you asked is proof that every other person in that group feels the exact same?

You will find more getting off your ass and dicerning reality yourself, rather than sitting down with a beer listening to Obama waffling for an hour about the ME I can assure you.

Since I have experience and proof, I'm smart to take both sides into consideration on any topic and tunnel vision to pin point issue.:)

So your saying we should rely on CNN and not investigate, are you telling me that going out there and discovering what the world is saying is not prroof or good. It's funny that I think of it. You automatically undermine my stances and work that I've done, and in disrepect, say my research is small, and the groups Ive been asking were small.

I've been doing this for years. It's my nature, Ive people in South Africa telling me, that Osama was teaming with G.W.B to plot the attacks and that it was inside job from back in 2001. I was septical back then. I have always played close attention to the world, and more than most I can assure you.

Rather than get annoyed by your belittling for your argument sake, I'd rather just sit back and laugh.

P.S I aslo, watch the Media too, so I can observe their precise agenda and what exactly is the kind of stuff they are getting out there, and why they are projecting certain aspect of this and some not.

Isn't that exactly what you are claiming the media does?

NOPE.... it's a box, your only allowed see what your let see.

You see the propaganda. LIke the sucicide bomber makes headlines over th 4 American news giants. Yet you don't see Soldier causalies. You don't see the bigger picture. You don't see dead soldiers. You don't see children screaming seeing their parents getting killed. You don't see USA building its 16 pernaments bases in Iraq

So in that argument your wrong. I'd rather go and find out myself.

And for someone who's going on about creating divisions you seem to be trying to convince us the media and governments are out to get us. Does that not seem a little hypocrictical?

Nope it's just you and your selective/twisting tactics. God I'm not gonna go there.

The governments and power systems, such as America are out to keep the hegomy(can't remember spelling) of its self. Greed and lve dont share in the one line.

Governments don't care, you need to get used to that fact. As I said earlier there is a big bad world out there, if you don't know that, well I can't help you. Superpowers such as Russia ad America are in a game of competition, people like you and me dont matter. Money matters in this game. Thats why 9/11 happened, it's a money spinner. Power is basically like a chess board, the chess pieces have one goal that is to destroy it's threat. People are pawns in this game.

I don't think anyone here believe that everyone in the Middle east is out to get the west.

Good, But Obama said this in his war speech two weeks ago. The adjectives used were threathrical. Not from this planet it was that awful to listen too. How are such in grave danger. How these multiple intellegent sources tells us, terrorists are plotting to attack America, and our aliies. THe verbs and adjectives good god. This kind of bull**** is just unbearable after 8 years of the same crap with Bush. It's all this crap I'm trying to make you be aware of. Always be aware of the one who ponts the finger. Just put good vs evil. East vs West aside. Just be aware of the on who never takes self responsblity or self judgment. Look at the one who always ponts at other neighbours backyard.

Thats the typcial division I'm trying to help you understand. It seems I have hard trouble in getting there with you on this. Go to America and a large percentage view the east is out to destroy the west. Its so delusional over their with paranoia, if your muslim, your considered unethical or somehow poscessed.

Why do you believe the media is making up fundamentalist terrorism?
Have you evidence to this effect?

Propaganda
War
Oil
Money
Power
Control
Division
Cus they can

Take your pick. They have been doing it for years. Lets get this bad guy in penny petty poo. But 50 years of getting this "bad guy" they were sucking the oil dry. Are you not aware of what goes on this planet, like seriously.

I think your really and I mean really cot up on this good vs evil yak.


Evidence, look at any war.:rolleyes:

meglome

adrian280582 wrote: »

fair play agree with this..

its funny some the things i read from people who say it was not inside job is pretty hard figure how they miss so much..

People want proof from the inside job side but then we get there side and some of it is not naturally possiable in first place...

This post really tells what we are up against to get the "real" truth

I don't think it was an inside job based on the actual evidence, it doesn't make it impossible just not provable. The US government being assholes is not evidence of anything other than that. So we can assume anything we like, we can assume it based on what we feel, based on our own bias, based on the 'bigger picture', whatever. It really doesn't matter as it's just an assumption... an assumption that needs literally thousands of random ordinary Americans to be in on it. An assumption that needs not one of these people to speak out after seven years. An assumption to simply accept these people will be complicit in mass murder. An assumption that ignores just how leaky governments are, they keep getting found out but strangely not with 911. I could go on but I'm boring even myself.

Oh and Adrian there's no doubt the US government lie, none at all. But the interesting thing for me is that the people who call themselves the 'truth movement' are very selective in the 'facts' they use, right down to telling downright porkies. So it seems that all sides have agendas and tell lies but we assume the ordinary people who make up the US government are mass murders too. I mean they lied before so they're obviously mass murderers of their own people too, right? Simple logical step, right?

Does this mean we've moved away from the fine details on the Pentagon attack as they don't show what you thought at all? Strangely we find ourselves back to the 'bigger picture' eh?


Mysterious I'm happy to respond to you. But let's look at the details as the bigger picture means nothing unless the fine details support it. So choose say 5 concise points which you think you can prove your point on, within reason, and I'll happily respond in kind. I'm not even going to bother addressing pages of splatter effect, or bigger picture or whatever anyone might call it. Although who knows you might annoy me enough with the contradictory nonsense you post into replying anyway.

Mysterious you have obviously no idea what evidence is.

Looking at wars would not show that the media falsifies reports on terrorists.

Have you any verifiable evidence that you can provide in a link that shows the media do this?

Or are you just going to post more long winded, nonsensical soap boxing?

It's kinda weird that you accuse the media of make stuff up about Muslims but then make a ton of accusations about the media and the government that you can't back up?
Why is it OK for you to make stuff up about the media?

mysterious

meglome wrote: »

I don't think it was an inside job based on the actual evidence, it doesn't make it impossible just not provable. The US government being assholes is not evidence of anything other than that.

Pyscologists would dissagree.
Behaviour and consistent deceptive behaviour can be vital for evidence. Like a killer having a history in crime or mental condition etc.

It's is probably why you still refuse IMO to look at important aspects to this 9/11 case.

So we can assume anything we like, we can assume it based on what we feel, based on our own bias, based on the 'bigger picture', whatever. It really doesn't matter as it's just an assumption... an assumption that needs literally thousands of random ordinary Americans to be in on it.

Fair enough, so what's your defenition should we go by, considering the official report is flawed, NIST now have given inaccurate pictures incomparison to others.


Looking at the bigger picture in my view, is simple things like what went on the day before 9/11.
Saddam threatening to dump the dollar (2000) The USA needed a false flag operation to start wars in the ME.
Another simple bigger picture notion to this whole contrast, is the US government were so adamant on their evidence that it was Osama bin Laden, yet went to Iraq? Another one, is the constant lies that they spew of 9/11, Iraq, Iraq connected to 9/11, The fake pics of hijackers. Bush lieing where he was on the day of attacks, Bush lieing and relusing about pre 9/11 evidence. The bigger picture in my vie is deception. That is my pont. I have hundreds of more examples. But I will be here all night if I was to go through them all. BTW I'm not this "truth movement" I just speak truth and see the truth. I don't see how IMO would be selective of the facts. I'm still on the view that the official report is flawed and showing more holes as time go on. I'm not interested in the conspiracy theories of 9/11 for the simple reason it was to well planed with far to much evidence hidden or not really plausible to work from. This is why i'm asking you to pay more attention to the deception around 9/11.

An assumption that needs not one of these people to speak out after seven years. An assumption to simply accept these people will be complicit in mass murder. An assumption that ignores just how leaky governments are, they keep getting found out but strangely not with 911. I could go on but I'm boring even myself.

It is leaking out Meglome, but I'm not sure ow obvious do you want it to be. The US powers have already immune themeselves to be ever trialled. Notice how quiet Bush has been since he left office;)

There is LEAKAGES EVERYWHERE

Mysterious I'm happy to respond to you. But let's look at the details as the bigger picture means nothing unless the fine details support it. So choose say 5 concise points which you think you can prove your point on, within reason, and I'll happily respond in kind. I'm not even going to bother addressing pages of splatter effect, or bigger picture or whatever anyone might call it.

In my view of why I think it was an inside job.





Footages of planes, newcasts filming attacks, and G.W.B filmed in classroom. Great actors I have to say. I have to dedicate this one on its own.

1. Consistent lies. Bush jittering and panicking when asked about having information of pre 9/11 attack.The rapid and illegal scrapping of the WTC ruins at Ground Zero disposed of almost all of the structural steel indispensable to any investigation of the collapse mechanics. US officials consistently suppressed and destroyed evidence (like the tapes recorded by air traffic controllers who handled the New York flights). Bush pretending hes unaware of an attack happening that day, so he puts himself into a distracting situation, where he appears on T.V to be just informed like a movie set.
2. The "enemy". who in this case can be a firend. Osama Bin laden. Cheney cant find him, Clinton can't find him, CIA can't find him, Bush can't find him. The whole world can't find him, why hasn't Obama not mention him in his previous war drumming speech. Why did they go after Saddam and not the "enemy" What about the Saudi connections between Bush and Osama?
3. They need a crisis and war going, to put fear inot thier own people, to invade all the countries from then to present day.9/11 is supposed to provide carte-blanche for an open-ended, global and perpetual "War on Terror," against any enemy, foreign or domestic, that the executive branch chooses to designate, and regardless of whether evidence exists to actually connect these enemies to 9/11. New pearl Harbour.
4. WTC7. Nist Omissions,. And explosives as what was dicussed on this thread.
5. Rumsfield the day before with his speech(makes me shiver to this day)On September 10, 2001, Donald Rumsfeld announced a "war on waste" after an internal audit found that the Pentagon was "missing" 2.3 trillion dollars in unaccounted assets. On September 11th, this was as good as forgotten

I have more, but I will stick with these facts for now.

mysterious

mysterious wrote: »

I have more, but I will stick with these facts for now.

Funny cause alot of that isn't fact.

mysterious

King Mob wrote: »

Mysterious you have obviously no idea what evidence is.

Looking at wars would not show that the media falsifies reports on terrorists.

Have you any verifiable evidence that you can provide in a link that shows the media do this?

Or are you just going to post more long winded, nonsensical soap boxing?

It's kinda weird that you accuse the media of make stuff up about Muslims but then make a ton of accusations about the media and the government that you can't back up?
Why is it OK for you to make stuff up about the media?

Lmao.... Sorry but I'm laughing out loud

Of course I don't know what evidence, I get my sources loyallly to fox news sure, never question, never ask others, never investigate, never travel, just watch documentaries having some popcorn.

I really shouldn't be replyin to this:o

Oh my god, at the stuff you come out with, I seriously hope you are just kdding in the above.

mysterious

King Mob wrote: »

Funny cause alot of that isn't fact.

I know it's funny, mainly its' got to do with the fact you probably didn't read it.

I'm falling over laughing, well not really.
Prove them wrong.

mysterious

mysterious wrote: »

Lmao.... Sorry but I'm laughing out loud

Of course I don't know what evidence, I get my sources loyallly to fox news sure, never question, never ask others, never investigate, never travel, just watch documentaries having some popcorn.

I really shouldn't be replyin to this:o

Oh my god, at the stuff you come out with, I seriously hope you are just kdding in the above.

You do realise that about 60% of my posts are asking questions right?

But yea if I don't agree with you I'm obviously brainwashed by fox news.
What was that you were saying about divisions?

mysterious

mysterious wrote: »

I know it's funny, mainly its' got to do with the fact you probably didn't read it.

I'm falling over laughing, well not really.
Prove them wrong.

No you back them up.

That's called the burden of proof.
You made the claim you should be able to back it up.

mysterious

King Mob wrote: »

You do realise that about 60% of my posts are asking questions right?

But yea if I don't agree with you I'm obviously brainwashed by fox news.
What was that you were saying about divisions?

I think we all figure what you do:D

You ask alot of questions yet never try answer them yourself, when you don't like what you hear you defer to another question.

Like in your post as a classic:rolleyes: You ask about division.

Keep going King mob, I leave you with the shovel. I've had this actual conversation with you before. This is below my level. I'm not a robot and I like to communcate more naturally and less focused on always wanting to be right making the other out to be wrong. The fact remains its a theory, and 9/11 has many holes in it, At least Meglome pointed out a few realisations with that already, He doesn't agree that it was a an inside job that is his opinion, I have to respect that. I don't want to see the thread go off like the last WTC7. I've no issue talking with skeptics, Infact I enjoy Meglomes contribution and others, as he at least gives thought and facts, not just sit and demand others to do all the work all the time.

It's a Two way street.
Your focused on been right, on this argument, I'd rather try understand and delve into this topic than going elsewhere;)

mysterious

mysterious wrote: »

I think we all figure what you do:D

You ask alot of questions yet never try answer them yourself, when you don't like what you hear you defer to another question.

Like in your post as a classic:rolleyes: You ask about division.

Keep going King mob, I leave you with the shovel. I've had this actual conversation with you before. This is below my level. I'm not a robot and I like to communcate more naturally and less focused on always wanting to be right making the other out to be wrong. The fact remains its a theory, and 9/11 has many holes in it, At least Meglome pointed out a few realisations with that already, He doesn't agree that it was a an inside job that is his opinion, I have to respect that. I don't want to see the thread go off like the last WTC7. I've no issue talking with skeptics, Infact I enjoy Meglomes contribution and others, as he at least gives thought and facts, not just sit and demand others to do all the work all the time.

It's a Two way street.
Your focused on been right, on this argument, I'd rather try understand and delve into this topic than going elsewhere;)

Oh I didn't realise my opinions where below yours apologise for wasting your time.
Heaven forbid you back your points up with something other than long winded rhetoric.
I should have known you'd be able to make a judgment about my character based on my posts.

mysterious

King Mob wrote: »

No you back them up.

That's called the burden of proof.
You made the claim you should be able to back it up.

Just before we go any further, Meglome asked me for my five reasons not you. If I had proof, I'd be in New york probably on your favourite station fox news stating my case.

Second, I do not have to spend my entire time educating you and answering every single one of your questions, when you clearly show ignorance in your demands, lack of contribution and your facts. It's ironic Your not even bothered to prove me wrong, yet you state I'm wrong.

I'm going to be smarter in future.


I'm really looking forward to another full proper investigation into this. Afterall too many people are asking for it.

It's not surprising the governement have been so quiet about it since they got all their wars. Have you heard about survivors who are calling for another investigation. They are not been listened too. This is strange.

meglome

mysterious wrote: »

Pyscologists would dissagree.
Behaviour and consistent deceptive behaviour can be vital for evidence. Like a killer having a history in crime or mental condition etc.

Sure if were talking about one person but we're not we're talking about thousands of people. The US government can have an official line but they have a terrible history of hiding the truth except it appears with 911. Strange.

mysterious wrote: »

It's is probably why you still refuse IMO to look at important aspects to this 9/11 case.

I don't refuse to do anything except I refuse to believe random people on the internet who tell me things that they can't prove. People who call me names when I ask for logic and at least some evidence.

mysterious wrote: »

Fair enough, so what's your defenition should we go by, considering the official report is flawed, NIST now have given inaccurate pictures incomparison to others.

Funny the NIST report is pretty good, maybe it isn't perfect but the people who don't believe it seem to have to make stuff up to prove that. Strange.

mysterious wrote: »

Looking at the bigger picture in my view, is simple things like what went on the day before 9/11.
Saddam threatening to dump the dollar (2000) The USA needed a false flag operation to start wars in the ME.
Another simple bigger picture notion to this whole contrast, is the US government were so adamant on their evidence that it was Osama bin Laden, yet went to Iraq? Another one, is the constant lies that they spew of 9/11, Iraq, Iraq connected to 9/11, The fake pics of hijackers. Bush lieing where he was on the day of attacks, Bush lieing and relusing about pre 9/11 evidence. The bigger picture in my vie is deception. That is my pont. I have hundreds of more examples. But I will be here all night if I was to go through them all. BTW I'm not this "truth movement" I just speak truth and see the truth. I don't see how IMO would be selective of the facts. I'm still on the view that the official report is flawed and showing more holes as time go on. I'm not interested in the conspiracy theories of 9/11 for the simple reason it was to well planed with far to much evidence hidden or not really plausible to work from. This is why i'm asking you to pay more attention to the deception around 9/11.

Ah the bigger picture, how many time have I heard about that. And all of the fine details we've looked at so far haven't backed up the conspiracy. Strange.

mysterious wrote: »

It is leaking out Meglome, but I'm not sure ow obvious do you want it to be. The US powers have already immune themeselves to be ever trialled. Notice how quiet Bush has been since he left office;)

There is LEAKAGES EVERYWHERE

In my view of why I think it was an inside job.

Cool so you'll be able to show references for all these leaks, a little bit of proof perhaps, other than the word of some stranger on the internet.

Oh you seem to think a lot of things, and you then call it fact. Sometime you call it fact fact fact but don't seem to be able to prove it. Strange.

mysterious wrote: »

Footages of planes, newcasts filming attacks, and G.W.B filmed in classroom. Great actors I have to say. I have to dedicate this one on its own.

Not sure what you're on about (not for the first time) but I'm guessing we're on the bigger picture again.

1. Consistent lies. Bush jittering and panicking when asked about having information of pre 9/11 attack.The rapid and illegal scrapping of the WTC ruins at Ground Zero disposed of almost all of the structural steel indispensable to any investigation of the collapse mechanics. US officials consistently suppressed and destroyed evidence (like the tapes recorded by air traffic controllers who handled the New York flights). Bush pretending hes unaware of an attack happening that day, so he puts himself into a distracting situation, where he appears on T.V to be just informed like a movie set.

This isn't a concise point, it's a load of random finger pointing. If want to make these your 5 points with references then I'll happily reply. Oh but you do love the bigger picture.

mysterious wrote: »

1. The "enemy". who in this case can be a firend. Osama Bin laden. Cheney cant find him, Clinton can't find him, CIA can't find him, Bush can't find him. The whole world can't find him, why hasn't Obama not mention him in his previous war drumming speech. Why did they go after Saddam and not the "enemy" What about the Saudi connections between Bush and Osama?

So? Osama himself seems very happy to admit he was behind the 911 attacks. I suppose he's lying too?

mysterious wrote: »

1. They need a crisis and war going, to put fear inot thier own people, to invade all the countries from then to present day.9/11 is supposed to provide carte-blanche for an open-ended, global and perpetual "War on Terror," against any enemy, foreign or domestic, that the executive branch chooses to designate, and regardless of whether evidence exists to actually connect these enemies to 9/11. New pearl Harbour.

So? No concise point here either just a load of finger pointing and bigger picture. You seem to have trouble looking at the fine details that should make up this bigger picture.

mysterious wrote: »

1. WTC7. Nist Omissions,. And explosives as what was dicussed on this thread.

If you want to make a concise point then make it. Can you?

mysterious wrote: »

1. Rumsfield the day before with his speech(makes me shiver to this day)On September 10, 2001, Donald Rumsfeld announced a "war on waste" after an internal audit found that the Pentagon was "missing" 2.3 trillion dollars in unaccounted assets. On September 11th, this was as good as forgotten

Cool a concise point, I just knew you had it in you. Now just provide your references and we'll be good to go.

mysterious wrote: »

I have more, but I will stick with these facts for now.

Well all you have to do it make more than one concise point and give references for your proof so that the rest of us won't need to be worried that some stranger on the internet might lie to us.

mysterious

King Mob wrote: »

Oh I didn't realise my opinions where below yours apologise for wasting your time.
Heaven forbid you back your points up with something other than long winded rhetoric.
I should have known you'd be able to make a judgment about my character based on my posts.

It's no worries at all, All fine here. I want to get back into the topic. PM me your questions. Don't wanna take this off topic:)

meglome

mysterious wrote: »

Just before we go any further, Meglome asked me for my five reasons not you. If I had proof, I'd be in New york probably on your favourite station fox news stating my case.

Well you didn't make 5 points and certainly you didn't make 5 concise points. A lot of general finger pointing with no actual backup for it other than you say so.

And you seem to be admitting that this is just your feelings and your assumptions that we're listening to. Come back when you have some proof.

mysterious

mysterious wrote: »

Just before we go any further, Meglome asked me for my five reasons not you. If I had proof, I'd be in New york probably on your favourite station fox news stating my case.

I'm not asking for proof, I'm asking for the verifiable evidence that lead you to the conclusion.

mysterious wrote: »

Second, I do not have to spend my entire time educating you and answering every single one of your questions, when you clearly show ignorance in your demands, lack of contribution and your facts.

You don't have to answer all of them just the important ones.

And yea speaking of ignorance: what leads you to believe I even watch Fox?
Or was that an assumption?

mysterious wrote: »

It's ironic Your not even bothered to prove me wrong, yet you state I'm wrong.

Why is it so hard to post links backing up your points?

mysterious wrote: »

I'm going to be smarter in future.

Wow that's incredibly condescending.

So let's see you've called me ignorant, you've made a complete stab at my personality and accused me of being brainwashed by Fox News.

And what have these personal attack got to do with 9/11?

meglome

mysterious wrote: »

It's no worries at all, All fine here. I want to get back into the topic. PM me your questions. Don't wanna take this off topic:)

Cool there's another thread about the fine details on 911. So we can post in there, and that means fine details not your general finger pointing.

So what are the specific things you think about the discussion we've had on the original post?

mysterious

King Mob wrote: »

I'm not asking for proof, I'm asking for the verifiable evidence that lead you to the conclusion.

On the previous page, you asked for proof.
Shall I copy and paste.

You don't have to answer all of them just the important ones.

It seems they are alll important,

And yea speaking of ignorance: what leads you to believe I even watch Fox?
Or was that an assumption?

I wanted to take a guess and see your reaction. I have my motifs.

Wow that's incredibly condescending.

So let's see you've called me ignorant, you've made a complete stab at my personality and accused me of being brainwashed by Fox News.

And what have these personal attack got to do with 9/11?

This is why I said im going to be smarter.:)

Just want to point out. You twist words quite exstensively to turn it into a sling shot just like above .I didn't anywhere take a stab at anyone on this thread. I never said you were brainwashed. People get banned for making up accusations.

Play victim now go ahead, people are not stupid, so carry on , this is my final on this. Your goal seems to want to take this into a slinging match. I would wish it didnt go thi way.

mysterious

mysterious wrote: »

On the previous page, you asked for proof.
Shall I copy and paste.

Ok then. Edit: looking back, I didn't.

mysterious wrote: »

It seems they are alll important,

Yes a lot of them are. Why not answer them?
Are they not worth answering?

mysterious wrote: »

I wanted to take a guess and see your reaction. I have my motifs.

So you made an accusation that was based on an assumption you made because I don't agree with you?

mysterious wrote: »

This is why I said im going to be smarter.:)

Just want to point out. You twist words quite exstensively to turn it into a sling shot just like above .I didn't anywhere take a stab at anyone on this thread. I never said you were brainwashed. People get banned for making up accusations.

Play victim now go ahead, people are not stupid, so carry on , this is my final on this. Your goal seems to want to take this into a slinging match. I would wish it didnt go thi way.

So you're avoiding a slinging match by accusing me of something?

mysterious

King Mob wrote: »

Ok then. Edit: looking back, I didn't.

Yes a lot of them are. Why not answer them?
Are they not worth answering?


So you made an accusation that was based on an assumption you made because I don't agree with you?



So you're avoiding a slinging match by accusing me of something?

Your making the assumptions....

mysterious

mysterious wrote: »

Your making the assumptions....

Such as?

So you made an accusation that was based on an assumption you made because I don't agree with you?

This?

Would you explain what exactly lead you to believe I even watched Fox news?

bonkey

I'd like to point at the topic of this thread, and ask people to get back to it....

If you want to discuss something else, start your own thread or move to an appropriate existing one

6th

mysterious wrote: »

You will find more getting off your ass and dicerning reality yourself, rather than sitting down with a beer listening to Obama waffling for an hour about the ME I can assure you.

mysterious wrote: »

Lmao.... Sorry but I'm laughing out loud

Of course I don't know what evidence, I get my sources loyallly to fox news sure, never question, never ask others, never investigate, never travel, just watch documentaries having some popcorn.

I really shouldn't be replyin to this:o

Oh my god, at the stuff you come out with, I seriously hope you are just kdding in the above.

Mysterious, you are more than familiar with the idea of "attack the post not the poster" anymore comments like the above and you'll be taking another break from the forum.

King Mob wrote: »

So let's see you've called me ignorant, you've made a complete stab at my personality and accused me of being brainwashed by Fox News.

And what have these personal attack got to do with 9/11?

King Mod, you know where the report post button is. Use it rather than addressing the points in thread.

mysterious wrote: »

I wanted to take a guess and see your reaction. I have my motifs.

I'm sure you do have your motifs but it looks like baiting to me.

mysterious wrote: »

This is why I said im going to be smarter.:)

By smarter you seem to mean you are going to continue to post in the fashion which has lead to multiple infractions and bans.

Now if everyone could stay on topic please.

meglome

So to get back to the topic. Maybe someone who supports the OP could address these questions. I know King Mob had more questions too.

Bonkey wrote:

The claim, as made is correct.

No other high-rise steel-framed building has collapsed due to thermal expansion causing failure via a single-point-of-failure which was prone to this fault.

What the claim neglects to say is that no other high-rise, steel-framed building with a single-point-of-failure which is prone to thermal expansion has ever been known to catch fire in an area which threatened said single-point-of-failure.

So basically, they're taking "WTC7's design was pretty unique and there is no directly comparable fire" and rewording it to make it seem like there is something suspicious about no comparable building collapsing from fire.

Thanks for the clarification Bonkey, a bit kinda sneaky of them really.

Diogenes wrote:

• But how do you smuggle 100 tonnes of explosives into building.
• How do you place these explosives.
• Oh and thermite is a chemical reaction not a an explosive.

A few other points...

• How did the thermite not burn immediately when the plane crashed into the building?
• How would the cables controlling these 'explosives' not be cut by the plane crashing in?
• How did they get the thermite in the exact position for the plane to hit and subsequently the building to collapse from?
• Are there any experiments to show this nice thesis could work in practice?
• Why wouldn't the thermite not just burn a hole in the steel and pour through, it doesn't burn evenly after all?

mysterious

meglome wrote: »

Sure if were talking about one person but we're not we're talking about thousands of people. The US government can have an official line but they have a terrible history of hiding the truth except it appears with 911. Strange.

Oh really, you think?

So let's break down your argument.

Basically this is poo to me, Your actually saying this in another way, for the above excuse let me translate that;)

I don't think the government are able to plot a false flag operation cus I feel(im not sure on their history (as i've clearly shown in my above post) But they managed to create a flawed 9/11 report and take away as much evidence from the crime scene as possible.

Yet you still clearly show unbelievalbe biased, the "terrorists from Afghanistan pulled it off"

Give me a break

Just to really dump that argument of yours, they got pulled off the assination of JFK, lied purposely about Iraq? Create puppet government's in the ME and then decept people into this axix of evil balony. No of course not, our leaders cant pull these things off.

You clearly have shown you have no idea in the history of the US government and it's record in events over the last 50 years and what it has done behind our backs.


quote from G.W.Bsenior himself. "if you knew what we were up too when we took office, we'd all be in jail"


They run your world, yet you have this fantasy notion that the US cant plot a false flag operation, but the masked terrorists from another country could. Ha good one.

I don't refuse to do anything except I refuse to believe random people on the internet who tell me things that they can't prove. People who call me names when I ask for logic and at least some evidence.

You didn't prove anything. There is plenty of evidence, But you only want to hear selective evidence, and looking at the bigger picture as far as your concerned is prohibited.

Gee...

Funny the NIST report is pretty good, maybe it isn't perfect but the people who don't believe it seem to have to make stuff up to prove that. Strange.

It's strange cus you say so.

People make up stuff and people lie. Fact

Ah the bigger picture, how many time have I heard about that. And all of the fine details we've looked at so far haven't backed up the conspiracy. Strange.

It's very important.

Not sure what you're on about (not for the first time) but I'm guessing we're on the bigger picture again.

This is basically called I'm not listening. I understand Meglome. I'm not going to waste further time with you:)

This isn't a concise point, it's a load of random finger pointing. If want to make these your 5 points with references then I'll happily reply. Oh but you do love the bigger picture.

So it's not then, I see. Can you tell me why it isn't.

So? Osama himself seems very happy to admit he was behind the 911 attacks. I suppose he's lying too?

Do you believe everything the media tell you

So? No concise point here either just a load of finger pointing and bigger picture. You seem to have trouble looking at the fine details that should make up this bigger picture.

Of course let's just dismiss the points I make.

If you want to make a concise point then make it. Can you?

Tell me why in now three terms they still havne't gotten Osama. Can you tell me why, in a few months, they literally stopped going like this I'll show you


Osama osama osama, terrrorists, Osama, Osama, 9/11, fear, THREAT. Osama.

**** the oil
Saddam, Saddam, terrorits, Evil threat, Saddam, 9/11, fear, THREAT, Saddam.

Why can you explain to me the logic in this, that so "called Osama the threat" is not "cot"


In Obama bin ladens, speech the other day, He never said Osama bin laden once. Not once.. But it was the usual, George Bush/Gulianni war speeches except they have abanonded the deceptive generalistic term "war on terror" We all know the brainwashing caused by that, from this "global invisible force field of terror"

I've given a concise point here, I've opened the door for you and elaborated on some events in my questioning.

You do know they have google street map out now, It's amazing the amount of people you can see on it. Can't find Oama, it's so strange. I know.


.

Well all you have to do it make more than one concise point and give references for your proof so that the rest of us won't need to be worried that some stranger on the internet might lie to us.

Don't call me a liar.

6th

mysterious wrote: »

Don't call me a liar.

He didnt. If he had you could report his post ... but again ... he didnt.

mysterious

mysterious wrote: »

Oh really, you think?

So let's break down your argument.

Basically this is poo to me, Your actually saying this in another way, for the above excuse let me translate that;)

I don't think the government are able to plot a false flag operation cus I feel(im not sure on their history (as i've clearly shown in my above post) But they managed to create a flawed 9/11 report and take away as much evidence from the crime scene as possible.

I think Meglomes arguement is that the hard detailed evidence does not support an inside job, and that just looking at "the big picture" is useless if the details don't add up.

mysterious wrote: »

Yet you still clearly show unbelievalbe biased, the "terrorists from Afghanistan pulled it off"

How is that baised and your arguement of "It must be an inside job because the government lies all the time" isn't?

mysterious wrote: »

Just to really dump that argument of yours, they got pulled off the assination of JFK,

What the hell does JFK have to do with 9/11?

mysterious wrote: »

You didn't prove anything. There is plenty of evidence, But you only want to hear selective evidence, and looking at the bigger picture as far as your concerned is prohibited.

Gee...

Pot, kettle.
Why not look at the details? If the conspiracy theory is right the detail should support it.

mysterious wrote: »

It's strange cus you say so.

People make up stuff and people lie. Fact

Cool can you then point out the factual errors in the NIST report?

mysterious wrote: »

It's very important.

As are the fine details, especially when not one of them support the CT.

mysterious wrote: »

Do you believe everything the media tell you

What evidence do you have that the media is lying?
Do you believe everything CTers say?

mysterious wrote: »

Tell me why in now three terms they havne't gotten Osama.

You do know they have google street map out now, It's amazing the amount of people you can see on it.

Don't think they have the Google cars on the Afghanistan/Pakistan border. Or streets for that matter.
Might have something to do with the region being unstable.


.

mysterious wrote: »

Don't call me a liar.

He wasn't.
But if you don't back up your claims why should anyone believe you?

mysterious

Tell me why in now three terms they still havne't gotten Osama. Can you tell me why, in a few months, they literally stopped going like this I'll show you


Osama osama osama, terrrorists, Osama, Osama, 9/11, fear, THREAT. Osama.

**** the oil
Saddam, Saddam, terrorits, Evil threat, Saddam, 9/11, fear, THREAT, Saddam.

Why can you explain to me the logic in this, that so "called Osama the threat" is not "cot"


In Obama bin ladens, speech the other day, He never said Osama bin laden once. Not once.. But it was the usual, George Bush/Gulianni war speeches except they have abanonded the deceptive generalistic term "war on terror" We all know the brainwashing caused by that, from this "global invisible force field of terror"

I've given a concise point here, I've opened the door for you and elaborated on some events in my questioning.

You left this quote out King Mob, why?


You asked what did JFK had to do with it. Meglome clearly stated The government haven't a history with getting away with anything.


I said JfK, Iraq and War crimes as examples....
I was specific in mentioning them.

Jack Sheehan

Diogenes wrote: »

I'd suggest you read "the trillion dollar war" pentagon accounting mistakes are common place. To suggest 9/11 was created to distract over one is absurd.

Hah! you misunderstand me, I wouldnt give a 9 11 truther the time of day. I was merely referring to the common practice of 'burying bad news' where, after a major event occurs, the government uses that time to drop a piece of bad news they had been holding so that no one wil read it. I'm not for a minute suggesting there was anything to 9/11 but a bunch of islamic extremists crashing a plane in to the twin towers.

mysterious

mysterious wrote: »

You left this quote out King Mob, why?

You edited it in while i was replying.
Also it's not a coherent point.

Maybe you should answer the rest of my points.

mysterious wrote: »

You asked what did JFK had to do with it. Meglome clearly stated The government haven't a history with getting away with anything.


I said JfK, Iraq and War crimes as examples....
I was specific in mentioning them.

Yea bet you got as much evidence that JFK was killed by the government as you do for them being involved in 9/11.

And which war crimes are these exactly? And how did you find out about them?

6th

Yeah mysterious, backing up a CT with more CTs doesnt really work.

mysterious

King Mob wrote: »

You edited it in while i was replying.
Also it's not a coherent point.

Maybe you should answer the rest of my points.

No I didn't

I'll ask again, Why are you still avoiding this point.

Yea bet you got as much evidence that JFK was killed by the government as you do for them being involved in 9/11.

And which war crimes are these exactly? And how did you find out about them?

No but it's still a conspiracy theory and the government have all the evidence hidden.

Genocide in Iraq.

mysterious

6th wrote: »

Yeah mysterious, backing up a CT with more CTs doesnt really work.

Never once said it did.

Meglome made a point, I debunked it. Claiming the government have a bad history in hiding events. The governments have a history been involved in conspriacies, such as JFK for example. They have pulled it off, and no one can come forward.

Yet the Afghani hijakers intended to take over the planet, only to die on plane......

mysterious

mysterious wrote: »

No I didn't

Yea, you did.

mysterious wrote: »

I'll ask again, Why are you still avoiding this point.

Because it doesn't make sense.

Why are you not answering my points?

mysterious wrote: »

No but it's still a conspiracy theory and the government have all the evidence hidden.

So if there's no evidence, why do you believe the government was involved?

mysterious wrote: »

Genocide in Iraq.

First it's nowhere near a genocide.
Second where did you here about the civilian casualties?

But before you drag us more off topic please answer my points in post #78.

Woger

mysterious wrote: »

Never once said it did.

Meglome made a point, I debunked it. Claiming the government have a bad history in hiding events. The governments have a history been involved in conspriacies, such as JFK for example. They have pulled it off, and no one can come forward.

Yet the Afghani hijakers intended to take over the planet, only to die on plane......

They were actually form Saudi Arabia and Egypt. They weren't trying to take over the planet just striking at what they see as what's wrong with the world.

mysterious

mysterious wrote: »

Never once said it did.

Meglome made a point, I debunked it. Claiming the government have a bad history in hiding events. The governments have a history been involved in conspriacies, such as JFK for example. They have pulled it off, and no one can come forward.

So you didn't say it did, but now you do?

There's just one problem with this.
You have no evidence the government was involved in the JFK assassination.

mysterious wrote: »

Yet the Afghani hijakers intended to take over the planet, only to die on plane......

No one is arguing that.

Undergod

mysterious wrote: »

You asked what did JFK had to do with it. Meglome clearly stated The government haven't a history with getting away with anything.

But...

It's never been proven The government shot JFK. So if you think they did it, then they have gotten away with it, as no punitive action was taken.

And again, there has been no action taken against them for 9/11. So they've gotten away with it.

mysterious wrote:

Yet the Afghani hijakers intended to take over the planet

What are you on about?

meglome

mysterious wrote: »

Never once said it did.

Meglome made a point, I debunked it. Claiming the government have a bad history in hiding events. The governments have a history been involved in conspriacies, such as JFK for example. They have pulled it off, and no one can come forward.

Yet the Afghani hijakers intended to take over the planet, only to die on plane......

Man you have no idea what a concise point is do you.

You didn't debunk anything, you did just posted your usual load of rhetoric, general finger pointing and bigger picture stuff with no evidence whatsoever. You really seem incapable of just making a simple point.

Let's try this, pick one thing and let's talk about that and only that. No bigger picture or who shot JR or George Bush had the wrong colour tie on that day or any of that other stuff. Either you can even prove one concise point or you can't. And if you can't then I suggest you admit this is just your opinion and you have nothing to back it up whatsoever, just your belief in your own infallibility. As you're a random stranger on the internet you'll forgive me but your belief in your own infallibility doesn't mean a damn thing to me. It seems that you want us all to look deeper as long as we don't have the audacity to disagree with you.

And Mysterious trying to say I'm calling you names when you consistently and directly call people names is pretty funny.

mysterious

meglome wrote: »

Man you have no idea what a concise point is do you.

You didn't debunk anything, you did just posted your usual load of rhetoric, general finger pointing and bigger picture stuff with no evidence whatsoever. You really seem incapable of just making a simple point.

Let's try this, pick one thing and let's talk about that and only that. No bigger picture or who shot JR or George Bush had the wrong colour tie on that day or any of that other stuff. Either you can even prove one concise point or you can't. And if you can't then I suggest you admit this is just your opinion and you have nothing to back it up whatsoever, just your belief in your own infallibility. As you're a random stranger on the internet you'll forgive me but your belief in your own infallibility doesn't mean a damn thing to me. It seems that you want us all to look deeper as long as we don't have the audacity to disagree with you.

And Mysterious trying to say I'm calling you names when you consistently and directly call people names is pretty funny.

I didn't call people names and I'm not directing insults at anyone, nice try with the slyness and deciete there Meglome.
If you have seen it, report me or prove it, otherwise it's just blackmail and dilberate intention to create a stressful environment for other's, especially those innocent and drive it off topic. I will leave it to others to diccuss these topics, it's getting pointless for me, been treated and subjected to false accusations, and I have been gone all evening.

So if you can stop that, then I will be able to dicuss this topic further. I don't respect this or feel I should in my right mind dicuss topics as Adults, when some of you are not showing your ownself respect yet throwing such claims thats showing hypocrisy.

I did debunk your first argument, on your stances that the government's record wouldn't show that it's possible they could pull of a 9/11.

mysterious

King Mob wrote: »

Yea, you did.

King mob, I did not edit that topic, That is what I sad, thats what I typed. I fail to see whats your point, in claiming I didn't post it as it is.

I will quote it, I hope the mods are watching, cus this is basically saying I'm a liar.

And your blatantly saying I'm lying.

mysterious

mysterious wrote: »

I will leave it to others to diccuss these topics, it's getting pointless for me, been treated and subjected to false accusations, and I have been gone all evening.

You mean false accusations like this:

mysterious wrote: »

nice try with the slyness and deciete there Meglome.
If you have seen it, report me or prove it, otherwise it's just blackmail and dilberate intention to create a stressful environment for other's, especially those innocent and drive it off topic.

mysterious wrote: »

So if you can stop that, then I will be able to dicuss this topic further. I don't respect this or feel I should in my right mind dicuss topics as Adults, when some of you are not showing your ownself respect yet throwing such claims thats showing hypocrisy.

And by discuss it like adults you mean throw around ridiculuos claim without a scrap of evidence to back them up?
You don't seem to be doing anything else.

mysterious wrote: »

I did debunk your first argument, on your stances that the government's record wouldn't show that it's possible they could pull of a 9/11.

No you didn't.
You believe that JFK is a forgone conclusion. Maybe you can show evidence that the US government was involved?

mysterious

mysterious wrote: »

King mob, I did not edit that topic, That is what I sad, thats what I typed. I fail to see whats your point, in claiming I didn't post it as it is.

I will quote it, I hope the mods are watching, cus this is basically saying I'm a liar.

And your blatantly saying I'm lying.

Oh really?

Lets have a look at that then.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=59968472&postcount=76

Last edited by mysterious; Today at 16:21.

So did you or did you not edit it?

Well?
Just going to ignore this then?

meglome

mysterious wrote: »

I didn't call people names and I'm not directing insults at anyone, nice try with the slyness and deciete there Meglome.

Cool my mistake. I thought you'd been warned and banned for doing just that. What were you warned and banned for?

6th

Ok lads, any more off topic posting will result in a straight out ban. This is a the only warning you'll get and as you know you've no come back if you continue after this point.

Flamed Diving

King Mob wrote: »

Oh really?

Lets have a look at that then.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=59968472&postcount=76


So did you or did you not edit it?

And edited ten minutes later, no less.

bonkey

mysterious wrote: »

No I didn't
I'll ask again, Why are you still avoiding this point.

Posting as mod

You asked originally why he left out that part of your post in his response, and he (accurately) pointed out that you edited it in while he was already writing his response.

If you'd like to ask that he now address the point, then thats fine...but its unfair to suggest that he's "still avoiding it" when you added it to your post some 10 minutes after you originally posted.

I would also point out that it is every poster's right to choose what to reply to. If King Mob chooses not to address the point, then I would strongly advise against badgering him on the point.

Please note : as a mod I get to see the differences between edited version(s).

mysterious

bonkey wrote: »

Posting as mod

You asked originally why he left out that part of your post in his response, and he (accurately) pointed out that you edited it in while he was already writing his response.

If you'd like to ask that he now address the point, then thats fine...but its unfair to suggest that he's "still avoiding it" when you added it to your post some 10 minutes after you originally posted.

I would also point out that it is every poster's right to choose what to reply to. If King Mob chooses not to address the point, then I would strongly advise against badgering him on the point.

Please note : as a mod I get to see the differences between edited version(s).

Yes And the ponit I asked him on was not edited, I corrected spelling errors and what not. I'm specifically asking about the point and question I made.

He's avoiding it, by accusing me of changing it, If I was to post it again, I'd still say the same point. INfact I've said this specific point on two threads.

I don't care if he avoids it, all he had to do was admit, rather than bascially making silly assumptions "oh you edited, so I'm not replying"

It's funny no one posts on the 911 threads anymore. I can see why.

Flamed Diving

mysterious wrote: »

It's funny no one posts on the 911 threads anymore. I can see why.

Maybe because all of the CT bandwagoners have realised that they have been had, and that Mr. Avery is sunning himself next to a swimming pool thanks to the futile efforts of countless millions of strangers?

mysterious

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Maybe because all of the CT bandwagoners have realised that they have been had, and that Mr. Avery is sunning himself next to a swimming pool thanks to the futile efforts of countless millions of strangers?

No... its responses like that, shows the reason, of this word, let me guess


So not worth it:rolleyes:

I'd rather see the bigger picture, than sitting here pointing fingers, getting abuse thrown at me, redeculed and insulted.

It's embarressing.

Dicernment is the only way, not logic and not intuition, but both. The fused brain. The brain of a genius, can figure reality.

I understand why the sun worshippers created this, with fear and control for dominance. They create your world. Enough for everyone to still fight over who did it 7 years later.

This is why I couldn't be bothered to fight over these events.