Charlie Sheen's Video Message to President Obama

King Mob

weiss wrote: »

Wouldn't give you the time of day, King Mob.. so sorry

Good to know that your open to rational debate.

weiss wrote: »

Unicef reported ~500,000 deaths of children due to sanctions between 1991 and 1998

And what has this to do with the war in Iraq exactly?
Your claim is "millions died in the war".

weiss wrote: »

ORB in london estimated 1.2 million deaths since 2003 invasion.

And this was a pretty flawed survey if you actually look at it.
And even if it wasn't it's not "millions" like you claim.

weiss wrote: »

Apart from trying to rationalise the number of dead people..like they were livestock.

So rather than actually find out the real number of causalities it's better to make one up to make it seem more dramatic?
Cause that seem to be what you're doing.
Millions does sound more dramatic than thousands.

weiss wrote: »

Can there can be acceptable loss of lifefor you?

And no one here is trying to justify the war in Iraq.

What's interesting would be how much twisting of the facts do you think is acceptable.
For someone who wants the truth about 9/11 you seem to be quite liberal about inflating the number of casualties of the Iraq war.

bleg

american jim corr

weiss

King Mob wrote:

Good to know that your open to rational debate.

I am, but you and Diogenes are not.

King Mob

weiss wrote: »

I am, but you and Diogenes are not.

Yea I can see how asking for evidence and pointing out errors can be irrational all right.

weiss

Perhaps the word "millions" is not statistically accurate, but most of the statistics available are low estimates and we really have no idea how many are dead.

I think if those dead people were Irish or American, with friends and families, we would not be debating the importance of statistics.

The people dead are fathers, brothers, sisters, just trying to live their lives, like you and I, with nothing to gain from this sick "game" being played by the oligarchs.

So is it wrong to claim "millions" have died because of US interference in Iraq?
I don't believe it is and IMHO history will inevitably show this.

One could argue that claims of 11 - 17 million Jews killed by the Nazis sounds more "dramatic" or grossly over-estimated, but we're not allowed to even attempt challenging this for fear of being labelled "anti-semitic" or racist..

The question could be asked: are there any accurate statistics to prove this claim? (i'd rather you didn't answer this here because it goes off topic, but my guess is since it's "official" you accept it.)

My point is, you and Diogenes, instead of discussing the motives for invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan would rather focus on my selection of words in posts or deliberately misquote and misinterpret what I post.

If this is your idea of being "open to rational debate" then I'd prefer not to take part.

I prefer not to engage with you because it's an endless debate of you pointing out flaws in my grammar rather than discussing the main issues.

Why did US invade Iraq and Afghanistan?

In my own opinion, it is to pursue financial interests in the middle east and central asia by taking control of the natural resources in these regions.

It is neither about fighting terrorism or conflict of ideology, these are merely used as distraction for the "stupid" people like you and I to argue over endlessly.

Terrorism is being born from this unhealthy pursuit of wealth, at the cost of innocent peoples lives lost in the past, today and the future.

EDIT:

If you feel my opinion is over-simplistic, what is your answer?
I feel that too many people complicate the situation with elaborate theories.

As I said before, theatricality and deception are powerful weapons which throughout history have been used to wage wars.

Why would history not repeat itself?

King Mob

weiss wrote: »

Perhaps the word "millions" is not statistically accurate, but most of the statistics available are low estimates and we really have no idea how many are dead.

Not statistically accurate?
I prefer the term "wrong", but whatever you feel comfortable with.

weiss wrote: »

I think if those dead people were Irish or American, with friends and families, we would not be debating the importance of statistics.

The people dead are fathers, brothers, sisters, just trying to live their lives, like you and I, with nothing to gain from this sick "game" being played by the oligarchs.

But you see no problem with inflating the actual number to suit your point at all?
How exactly is this different to claiming lower numbers?

weiss wrote: »

So is it wrong to claim "millions" have died because of US interference in Iraq?
I don't believe it is and IMHO history will inevitably show this.

And what evidence do you have to support that belief?

weiss wrote: »

One could argue that claims of 11 - 17 million Jews killed by the Nazis sounds more "dramatic" or grossly over-estimated, but we're not allowed to even attempt challenging this for fear of being labelled "anti-semitic" or racist..

Except that there is evidence to support that figure.

weiss wrote: »

The question could be asked: are there any accurate statistics to prove this claim? (i'd rather you didn't answer this here because it goes off topic, but my guess is since it's "official" you accept it.)

Well seeing as you made the claim of "millions" I gave you the benefit of the doubt and assumed you based that figure on hard facts and asked you to back it up.
Seems I was wrong.

weiss wrote: »

My point is, you and Diogenes, instead of discussing the motives for invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan would rather focus on my selection of words in posts or deliberately misquote and misinterpret what I post.

And what part of:

weiss wrote: »

If i said millions of jews didn't die during world war 2, i'd be ridiculed, labelled "anti-semitic" perhaps even 6th would ban me.

But it's perfectly acceptable for you to come on here and dismiss what most of us know to be reality, millions of Iraqis are dead, and it's because of American propaganda.

did I misinterpret exactly?

weiss wrote: »

If this is your idea of being "open to rational debate" then I'd prefer not to take part.

I prefer not to engage with you because it's an endless debate of you pointing out flaws in my grammar rather than discussing the main issues.

You made the claim that millions of Iraqis died in the war.
I asked you to back this up.
Why is it such a problem?

weiss wrote: »

Why did US invade Iraq and Afghanistan?

In my own opinion, it is to pursue financial interests in the middle east and central asia by taking control of the natural resources in these regions.

It is neither about fighting terrorism or conflict of ideology, these are merely used as distraction for the "stupid" people like you and I to argue over endlessly.

Terrorism is being born from this unhealthy pursuit of wealth, at the cost of innocent peoples lives lost in the past, today and the future.

EDIT:

If you feel my opinion is over-simplistic, what is your answer?
I feel that too many people complicate the situation with elaborate theories.

As I said before, theatricality and deception are powerful weapons which throughout history have been used to wage wars.

Why would history not repeat itself?

Frankly yes you are being over simplistic.

And even then how does any of this prove that 9/11 was an inside job.
All of your points can be equally true if 9/11 was committed by Islamic terrorists.

My main question is: if the US is able and willing to pull off 9/11, how come they couldn't fake some WMD's?
Or fake connections between Al-queda and Saddam that weren't laughably transparent?

weiss

King Mob wrote:

My main question is: if the US is able and willing to pull off 9/11, how come they couldn't fake some WMD's?

I don't know, but that doesn't prove anything.

With exception to that question, the rest of your post was rather predictable.
Once again focused on the quality of grammar in my previous post and as such I can clearly see you're a total waste of time discussing anything with.

Diogenes posts are not much better..

Do you expect me to take you seriously, King Mob?

King Mob

weiss wrote: »

I don't know, but that doesn't prove anything.

Except that there's a giant hole in your logic.

weiss wrote: »

With exception to that question, the rest of your post was rather predictable.
Once again focused on the quality of grammar in my previous post and as such I can clearly see you're a total waste of time discussing anything with.

Diogenes posts are not much better..

Do you expect me to take you seriously, King Mob?

How does asking you to back up your claim count as arguing your grammar?

As for wasting time answer me one question honestly.
Is there any evidence that anyone can provide that 9/11 wasn't an inside job?
If so what would convince you?

theboss80

The fact that the were reported explosions in the lobby before the wtc collapsed and that building 7 imploded in its own footprint without being hit by a plane provide pretty strong evidence that there weas more at play than just 2 planes flying into the wtc.
Also the lack of evidence that the flight 93 plane 'crashed' and the very small hole in the pentagon considering a 'plane' crashed into it.

Black Uhlan

This trivialising of death is disgusting. Post after post of a single error, when King Mob you said yourself it was "thousands" of deaths. Seems to me you think that its okay to plant false intelligence in the media, declare a war against the best interests of your state, lie bare faced to your electorate, destroy a country, kill its leader, kill hundreds of thousands, if not over a million of innocent people, psychologically damage millions of others, pillage the country for all its worth, sexually abuse people in your custody etc etc.

King Mob may I ask you this. Do you think 9/11 led to the invasion of Iraq?

King Mob

Black Uhlan wrote: »

Seems to me you think that its okay to plant false intelligence in the media, declare a war against the best interests of your state, lie bare faced to your electorate, destroy a country, kill its leader, kill hundreds of thousands, if not over a million of innocent people, psychologically damage millions of others, pillage the country for all its worth, sexually abuse people in your custody etc etc.

Really?
What leads you to believe this?

I never said anything of the kind.
I never said anything that could lead anyone to honestly believe this.

And I certainly don't think any of that is ok.

The only thing I've asked is the figure of "millions" to be backed up by actual evidence.

But hey if you want to call in question my character rather than provide evidence to back up your position, go nuts.

The_Kew_Tour

Diogenes wrote: »

And yet weirdly nearly a decade on they need a sitcom actor to voice their complaints. Funny that.

What are ya on about like? seriously? Do you know anything about whats going on really? Have you ever been to World Trade centre? have you ever seen people and familes voice there disgust?

I could be harsh but thats not on.

The_Kew_Tour

theboss80 wrote: »

The fact that the were reported explosions in the lobby before the wtc collapsed and that building 7 imploded in its own footprint without being hit by a plane provide pretty strong evidence that there weas more at play than just 2 planes flying into the wtc.
Also the lack of evidence that the flight 93 plane 'crashed' and the very small hole in the pentagon considering a 'plane' crashed into it.

I agree 100%

but sure the offical report said otherwise, so we have believe that.

kumate_champ07

I was in NYC last summer and one evening it got real quiet, then 30mins later there was a huge explosion. Thunder and lightning.

Do people expect a massive burning building to burn quietly? those people are using the first word that comes to mind to describe the sound

I think there is alot to answer but with so much bull**** it makes it stink for everyone.

Im against the current Lisbon Treaty but the posters around the city saying that minimum wage will be cut to below 2 euro is just bull**** and pisses me off.
If you want to win an argument always stick to the truth and dont use white lies to make your argument stronger, because it only goes against you

weiss

King Mob wrote:

Except that there's a giant hole in your logic.

Here is your question:

King Mob wrote:

My main question is: if the US is able and willing to pull off 9/11, how come they couldn't fake some WMD's?

I gave you an answer:

weiss wrote:

I don't know, but that doesn't prove anything

You say there is a giant hole in my logic because they didn't deliberately plant WMD to prove they were justified invading? is that it?

"How do you know they didn't think of it before you?" <-- Your next silly question.

Great logic, King Mob...:rolleyes:

As for wasting time answer me one question honestly.
Is there any evidence that anyone can provide that 9/11 wasn't an inside job?
If so what would convince you?

There are too many inconsistencies with the "official" report to conclude that it wasn't an inside job.

We can see that CIA funded Al Qaeda with $3 billion to fight the soviets during the 70's/80's and that they were close with Bin Laden.

We know that big oil companies were trying negotiate pipeline deals in Afghanistan with the Taliban.Even bringing Taliban to America for discussions.

We know that these negotiations broke down and america had planned an invasion before 9/11 had even occurred.

We know that PNAC recommended regime change in Iraq and that some of PNAC were part of the bush administration..cheney, rumsfeld, perle, bolton not to mention others.

We know alot of detail, but people like you KM are quite happy to dismiss it all and believe it's all about ideology and protecting american citizens from terrorist attacks or something more complicated because you find the truth hard to swallow.

As I've said many times, these invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan are financially motivated.To acquire access to the rich oil/gas fields in central asia and middle east.

They do not benefit anyone except those who are profiting from the carnage.

But of course, there's great big hole in my logic, probably due to all the medications us crazy people take..:rolleyes:

samson09

HAIL TO THE THIEF

King Mob

weiss wrote: »

Here is your question:
I gave you an answer:
You say there is a giant hole in my logic because they didn't deliberately plant WMD to prove they were justified invading? is that it?

"How do you know they didn't think of it before you?" <-- Your next silly question.

Great logic, King Mob...:rolleyes:

No that's not my argument.
You obviously believe the US government is willing and able to perpetrate a global scale hoax to gain support.

The fact they weren't able to pull off a much easier one like planting weapons of mass destruction in a desert that they controlled and could keep journalists and investigators out of without raising suspicion kinda casts a lot of doubt on your premise.

weiss wrote: »

There are too many inconsistencies with the "official" report to conclude that it wasn't an inside job.

So then there is no amount of logic or evidence that could ever convince you that you are wrong?

And people call me closed minded.

weiss wrote: »

But of course, there's great big hole in my logic, probably due to all the medications us crazy people take..:rolleyes:

Yea grouping people into a negative stereotype to suit your point is a bad thing especially when none of it's ture or what the other person believes.
Exactly like you did:

weiss wrote: »

We know alot of detail, but people like you KM are quite happy to dismiss it all and believe it's all about ideology and protecting american citizens from terrorist attacks or something more complicated because you find it hard to swallow.

weiss

King Mob wrote:

The fact they weren't able to pull off a much easier one like planting weapons of mass destruction in a desert..

How do you know it would be "easier" ?
And why would they need to find WMD after invading?

The whole purpose of the WMD story was to sell a war against Iraq to the american public.

They could easily justify invasion of Afghanistan because that's where Bin Laden was, the man apparently responsible for 9/11.

Once approval for invasion of Iraq was granted, the WMD story was i'm sure a distant memory.

So then there is no amount of logic or evidence that could ever convince you that you are wrong?

And people call me closed minded.

For me, the "official" report is inconclusive.
Most people don't believe the report..

The truth may come out some day.

King Mob

weiss wrote: »

How do you know it would be "easier" ?

Because 9/11 was in the most populated cities on the planet, more or less in the lap of some of the biggest news agencies.
The WMD's found in the middle of a dessert would have nowhere near that level of scrutiny.

weiss wrote: »

And why would they need to find WMD after invading?

To preserve the support you think they generated with 9/11?
To maintain credability on the international stage?

weiss wrote: »

The whole purpose of the WMD story was to sell a war against Iraq to the american public.

Was this the same American public who's support plummeted when it was revealed there was no WMDs?

weiss wrote: »

They could easily justify invasion of Afghanistan because that's where Bin Laden was, the man apparently responsible for 9/11.

But they couldn't link Saddam to Al-Qa'ida in anyway?
For the guys who pulled off the biggest scam in history they kinda suck at it.

weiss wrote: »

Once approval for invasion of Iraq was granted, the WMD story was i'm sure a distant memory.

Really?
I remember it.
The internet remembers it.

I also seem to remember a whole stink about how intelligence agencies failed at their job.

They could keep thier involvement in 9/11 quiet but some how not be able to cover up their own failures?

weiss wrote: »

For me, the "official" report is inconclusive.
Most people don't believe the report..

The truth may come out some day.

And if you actually look into these "inconsistencies" you'll see they just don't stand up to any scrutiny.
And I mean actually honestly look into them, not just read conspiracy sites while ignoring sites critical of the CTs.

Take the pieces of evidence that Lt. Topper Harley provides.
They've all been long debunked.

theboss80

King Mob wrote: »

B
And if you actually look into these "inconsistencies" you'll see they just don't stand up to any scrutiny.
quote]

What "inconsistencies" do you mean ,exactly ,that dont stand up?

Black Uhlan

King Mob wrote: »

Really?
What leads you to believe this?

I apologise if I was wrong. But how about putting your cards on the table? Weiss is speaking passionately about what he believes whereas your talking like a politician. The only reasons the US fought this war was profit or for Israel. It was the same Israel firsters http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A60497-2004Sep3.html Wolfowitz, Perle, Cheney Wurmas, Feith, Libby etc who were foaming at the mouth to topple Saddam in the Gulf War, who worked tirelessly in promoting attacking Iraq and to act as new type of Roman Empire based on military strength through various lobbies and committees, like PNAC and MEMRI during the Clinton years who all found influential positions in the Bush Administration. Got their wishes and now they are reaping the rewards. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121729971113092303.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

I wanted to ask you also what difference it makes whether the actual figure is half a mil, 1 million or 2? Its like comparing a man who kills his wife to son of sam - both are still murderers.

Do you think that the invasion of Iraq would have happened without 9/11?

King Mob

theboss80 wrote: »

What "inconsistencies" do you mean ,exactly ,that dont stand up?

Well pretty much all of them.
Not one piece of evidence for a conspiracy on this forum has ever stood up to scrutiny.

More specifically the ones raised by Charlie Harper there on his video.

Black Uhlan wrote: »

I apologise if I was wrong. But how about putting your cards on the table? Weiss is speaking passionately about what he believes whereas your talking like a politician.

Well I don't believe the reasons that America went to war are as simple as "Oil" or "Israel".
And personally I don't see how any of the reasons they did go to war prove that 9/11 was an inside job.

All of those reasons you gave true or not are possible even if 9/11 wasn't a inside job.

Black Uhlan wrote: »

I wanted to ask you also what difference it makes whether the actual figure is half a mil, 1 million or 2? Its like comparing a man who kills his wife to son of sam - both are still murderers.

So it's ok to accuse the other man of killing dozens more people than he actually did?

I don't know about you but when I want the truth to come out I tend to only use the truth to back up my arguments.

And the truth in this matter is that the claim that "millions of Iraqis died" is simply not supported by facts.

Black Uhlan wrote: »

Do you think that the invasion of Iraq would have happened without 9/11?

Honestly I don't know.
I'd say possibly but I'm open to correction.

theboss80

King Mob are you saying that actual eye witness accounts are inconsistencies is it?

or is it no visible ruins of a plane after the "crash"

or the wtc building 7 freefalling in its own footprint?

or that NORAD were not summoned when the first plane veered off course and headed for the city?

You are entitled to your own opinion of course but in all fairness i dont think u can rationalise these specific points. There is huge support in America for an indepentant commission to investigate the events but obviously the government will not grant this. Espically strange considering that a majority of the families are unhappy with the Offical Report.

This is just my own opinion. Yours is also valid as you are entitled to it,

King Mob

theboss80 wrote: »

King Mob are you saying that actual eye witness accounts are inconsistencies is it?

Well yea, eye witness testimony can be flawed or misquoted or misinterpreted.

theboss80 wrote: »

or the wtc building 7 freefalling in its own footprint?

Well WTC7 neither fell at free fall speed nor onto it's own footprint.
http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm
http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm

theboss80 wrote: »

or is it no visible ruins of a plane after the "crash"

At what crash site?
Cause there was plane wreckage at all of them.

But do you know what there isn't any of?
Pictures or video of wreckage being planted.

http://www.911myths.com/html/flight_93_photos.html
http://www.911myths.com/html/757_wreckage.html

theboss80 wrote: »

or that NORAD were not summoned when the first plane veered off course and headed for the city?

Because that's not what NORAD does.
http://www.911myths.com/html/stand_down.html

theboss80 wrote: »

You are entitled to your own opinion of course but in all fairness i dont think u can rationalise these specific points.

Then you've obviously never looked at any sites that are critical of the conspiracies.

theboss80 wrote: »

There is huge support in America for an indepentant commission to investigate the events but obviously the government will not grant this. Espically strange considering that a majority of the families are unhappy with the Offical Report.

And there's a vocal proportion of people in America who believe that the theory that a magic man in the sky created the universe is a valid scientific theory.

The families of the victims are subject to the same faulty logic and misinformation that everyone else is.

theboss80 wrote: »

This is just my own opinion. Yours is also valid as you are entitled to it,

Facts aren't opinion.
Simple as.

theboss80

Eye witness testimony from police officers and firemen who were there and said that they clearly heard secondary explosions from the lobby. eventhough practically 80 floors were undamaged up to where the plane impacted, these accounts(many of them reported live on news broadcasters)were ALL flawed and mis interpreted???
How do you make that out??

What about BBC news reporting wtc 7 tower had collapsed 20mins before it even happened?

theboss80

So all the families cant think for themselves is it? the have all been misled is it?

King Mob

theboss80 wrote: »

Eye witness testimony from police officers and firemen who were there and said that they clearly heard secondary explosions from the lobby. eventhough practically 80 floors were undamaged up to where the plane impacted, these accounts(many of them reported live on news broadcasters)were ALL flawed and mis interpreted???
How do you make that out??

Well given that many of those eye witness reports are along the lines of "sounded like an explosion" or "was like an explosion", then yea I'll say that they are misinterpreted.

There is a plethora of things in an office block that can explode: electrical transformers, photocopiers etc.
And depending on when exactly these explosions the witnesses say they are (something CT sites usually leave out) collapsing floors can sound a lot like explosions.

theboss80 wrote: »

What about BBC news reporting wtc 7 tower had collapsed 20mins before it even happened?

Because reports were coming in fast and were generally confusing.
However most firefighters knew that WTC7 was on the verge of collapse for quite a while before it did.
It's not possible the BBC jumped the gun?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/02/part_of_the_conspiracy.html

And if the BBC were in on the conspiracy like you think they are, wouldn't they have been extra careful not to report the collapse too early so as not to raise suspicion?

theboss80 wrote: »

So all the families cant think for themselves is it?

I didn't say that.
Do you think I can't think for myself cause I'm questioning the conspiracy theory?

theboss80 wrote: »

the have all been misled is it?

And what about the families who accept the official story?
Surely you're not accusing them of being misled?

weiss

For King Mob, everything must be empirically verified.
So, eye witness accounts and testimonies are opinion and therefore not valid, unless of course it supports his own viewpoint.

100's of architectural and engineering professionals in america don't believe the "official" report (which KM gladly accepts as the word of god.) and have signed a petition along with thousands of other people to demand a truly independent investigation...but of course, it probably won't happen, because it would expose the true nature of 911 and the events which followed.

http://www.ae911truth.org/

Take a look at the links on this page KM

http://www.ae911truth.org/links.php

These are professional academics, are they crazy?

And what about the families who accept the official story?
Surely you're not accusing them of being misled?

Given that most of the families want an independent investigation, I think those who do accept the "official" story are in a minority.

King Mob

weiss wrote: »

For King Mob, everything must be empirically verified.

Yes that would be nice.
Wouldn't be too hard if what you're claiming is true.

weiss wrote: »

So, eye witness accounts and testimonies are opinion and therefore not valid, unless of course it supports his own viewpoint.

No that's not what I said. (Are you honestly going to argue grammar now?)

I said that eye witnesses are fallible and that their testimony is subject to misinterpretation and misquotation.

weiss wrote: »

100's of architectural and engineering professionals in america don't believe the "official" report (which KM gladly accepts as the word of god.) and have signed a petition along with thousands of other people to demand a truly independent investigation...but of course, it probably won't happen, because it would expose the true nature of 911 and the events which followed.

http://www.ae911truth.org/

Take a look at the links on this page KM

http://www.ae911truth.org/links.php

These are professional academics, are they crazy?

So you're accepting the words of these architects as the "word of God"?

Maybe since they're since experts they can produce some verifiable solid evidence that the towers where demolished.

weiss wrote: »

Given that most of the families want an independent investigation, I think those who do accept the "official" story are in a minority.

I'm going to hazard a guess and say that you're not going to back that figure up.
And since you obviously don't have a problem with unsupported figures I'm also going to claim 99% of families argee with the offical story.

theboss80

how would you describle an explosion??? would you not say it sounded like an explosion?

floors falling CAN sound like explosions and the BBC MIGHT have jumped the gun.....

careful km you might be seen to be mis-interpreting your "facts"

King Mob

theboss80 wrote: »

how would you describle an explosion??? would you not say it sounded like an explosion?

floors falling CAN sound like explosions and the BBC MIGHT have jumped the gun.....

careful km you might be seen to be mis-interpreting your "facts"

Ok good, now we agree that witnesses saying they heard explosions doesn't necessarily mean that there were explosives present.

Do you have any other evidence to support the idea that there were explosives?

Or was the witness reports all you have?

weiss

King Mob wrote:

Yes that would be nice.
Wouldn't be too hard if what you're claiming is true.

There are plenty of scientific studies that discuss 911, but you've spent more time in the "debunker" sites than anywhere else...

So you're accepting the words of these architects as the "word of God"?

Maybe since they're since experts they can produce some verifiable solid evidence that the towers where demolished.

First of all, I'm not retarded enough to believe in God or any religion for that matter.

Secondly, I would have to say architectural and engineering professionals have more credibility than you or the individuals running "debunking" websites.

To add to the list of architects and engineers, there are also many people on this list:

http://www.wanttoknow.info/officialsquestion911commissionreport

And they don't believe the "official" story either..

When the chairman of the 911 commission publicly admits that the source of money used in the attack was of "little significance" and therefore didn't merit any investigating.. i'd expect most people with a brain to wonder why would he say this?

Have you any answers from your debunking sites, King Mob?

King Mob

weiss wrote: »

There are plenty of scientific studies that discuss 911, but you've spent more time in the "debunker" sites than anywhere else...

Cool then you can provide links to them.

weiss wrote: »

First of all, I'm not retarded enough to believe in God or any religion for that matter.

Secondly, I would have to say architectural and engineering professionals have more credibility than you or the individuals running "debunking" websites.

To add to the list of architectures and engineers, there are also many people on this list:

http://www.wanttoknow.info/officialsquestion911commissionreport

And they don't believe the "official" story either..

So they have produced how much verifiable solid evidence?
Or are we to just accept their opinion unquestioningly?

weiss wrote: »

When the chairmen of the 911 commission publicly admits that the source of money used in the attack was of "little significance" and therefore didn't merit any investigating.. why would they say this?

I don't know?
Why didn't they just fake a money trail leading to, let's say, Saddam Huessien?

weiss wrote: »

Have you any answers from your debunking sites, King Mob?

And where are you getting your information exactly?

theboss80

is that all i have?
that not good enough for you?


grow up peter pan.

King Mob

theboss80 wrote: »

is that all i have?
that not good enough for you?


grow up peter pan.

No it's not.
The eyewitness testimony is simply not enough evidence to conclude that there where explosive present. Especially when there are more likely explanations present.
And this is before you consider how unlikely it would be to wire up the entire building to explode with no one noticing and leave no evidence.

weiss

King Mob wrote:

Cool then you can provide links to them.

I did in my last posts...you want exact links? that's a bit lazy of you to be honest.

So they have produced how much verifiable solid evidence?
Or are we to just accept their opinion unquestioningly?

Well, that's the point of an independent investigation which many people across the board want to see.

This is exactly what "Harper" as you like to refer to is trying to do himself, bringing it to peoples attention.

I don't know?
Why didn't they just fake a money trail leading to, let's say, Saddam Huessien?

What about the alleged transfer of $100,000 from Pakistans ISI agent Saeed Sheikh to Mohammed Atta? who was considered the ring leader of the hijackers...

Pervez Musharraf in his book claims that Saeed was a double agent working for MI6
Is Musharraf telling lies?

King Mob

weiss wrote: »

I did in my last posts...you want exact links? that's a bit lazy of you to be honest.

Well I'm not seeing them on those links.
So maybe you can save us all some time.
Are any of these in actual peer reviewed journals?

And have you read my links out of interest?

weiss wrote: »

Well, that's the point of an independent investigation which many people across the board want to see.

And why do they have to wait?
Wouldn't it be a shot in thier arm if they produced a little solid evidence before the investigation?

weiss wrote: »

This is exactly what "Harper" as you like to refer to is trying to do himself, bringing it to peoples attention.

So then why exactly is he using the same tired old debunked arguments exactly?
Why not fund the independent investigation?

weiss wrote: »

What about the alleged transfer of $100,000 from Pakistans ISI agent Saeed Sheikh to Mohammed Atta? who was considered the ring leader of the hijackers...

Pervez Musharraf in his book claims that Saeed was a double agent working for MI6
Is Musharraf telling lies?

What about it exactly?

You see this is the problem with the 9/11 conspiracies.
No matter what you prove wrong you always get "but what about this.....?"
You never see any verifiable evidence.

theboss80

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N21-QJkI_Xo&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3uFvOiTNz4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcRs1fv8i3I&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQY-ksiuwKU

theboss80

what evidence are u providing?
debunk sites is that it?

how do you explain building 7?

an indepentant comission will not be granted by the government thats why it hasnt happened.it needs permission by the government

King Mob

theboss80 wrote: »

what evidence are u providing?
debunk sites is that it?

And what claims have I made that I haven't backed up enough?

And why ask for evidence when it doesn't matter to your position?

theboss80 wrote: »

how do you explain building 7?

What about it?
Why it fell?

theboss80 wrote: »

an indepentant comission will not be granted by the government thats why it hasnt happened.it needs permission by the government

And what's stopping them exactly?
What's stopping them from just providing solid scientific evidence?

weiss

look harder King Mob

i'll continue open and rational debate with you tomorrow.
i need my beauty sleep.

theboss80

King Mob wrote: »

And what claims have I made that I haven't backed up enough?

And why ask for evidence when it doesn't matter to your position?

this is what you keep asking of us

What about it?
Why it fell?

okay why did it fall?

And what's stopping them exactly?

What's stopping them from just providing solid scientific evidence?

so lets say somebody passed away in an accident and you werent happy with the investigation and post mortam results, do you think you could simply set you own investigation with full access to all the evidence, in opposition to the law? naw dont think so

King Mob

theboss80 wrote: »

this is what you keep asking of us

Because I believe if something is fact you can back it up.

You have provided no such back up for your claims.
I can only assume that this doesn't bother you.

So why would you ask my to back up my points (which I have done anyway) while you can't back up yours?

theboss80 wrote: »

okay why did it fall?

Well since your obviously familiar with the official explanation, I won't waste your time.

Maybe you can explain why the official explanation is flawed?

theboss80 wrote: »

so lets say somebody passed away in an accident and you werent happy with the investigation and post mortam results, do you think you could simply set you own investigation with full access to all the evidence, in opposition to the law? naw dont think so

Yea but I also be able to except the possibility that I might be wrong due to my lack of expertise.
And then there's still way I can further investigate, say get in an expert, like the experts on http://www.ae911truth.org/

theboss80

great answers.

the comission report in gereral is flawed thats why the MAJORITY of the familys want a new report done independantly.

http://www.911independentcommission.org/questions.html

that link is the familys questions in relation to why.

Also i provided you with youtube videos of eye witnesses on the day it happened.

And lastly if i had all the answers and evidence id let you know,

P.S. nobody knows bar the ones involved in it so why u keep on asking me 4 the definate evidence outside of whats available to us all is beyond me.

Ill not try anymore with you as you have obviously made up your mind. By the way, like everybody else i believed it was nothing other than a terrorist attack by a few hijackers until i looked up the subject for myself and thats why i have formed the opinion of the situation i have now.

talk again sometime im sure. bye

King Mob

theboss80 wrote: »

the comission report in gereral is flawed thats why the MAJORITY of the familys want a new report done independantly.

http://www.911independentcommission.org/questions.html

that link is the familys questions in relation to why.

So you can't just point out the flaws in regards to WTC7 because....?

theboss80 wrote: »

Also i provided you with youtube videos of eye witnesses on the day it happened.

And as I said, witness testimony is fallible and open to misinterpretation.

theboss80 wrote: »

And lastly if i had all the answers and evidence id let you know,

P.S. nobody knows bar the ones involved in it so why u keep on asking me 4 the definate evidence outside of whats available to us all is beyond me.

So if you don't have any evidence to back up your claims how do you know they are right?

theboss80 wrote: »

Ill not try anymore with you as you have obviously made up your mind. By the way, like everybody else i believed it was nothing other than a terrorist attack by a few hijackers until i looked up the subject for myself and thats why i have formed the opinion of the situation i have now.

talk again sometime im sure. bye

Actually I'm quite open minded, that's why I'm asking for evidence to back up your claims.

But tell, is there any evidence of reasoning that could convince you that it wasn't an inside job?
And if so what would that evidence or reasoning be?

theboss80

King Mob wrote: »

So you can't just point out the flaws in regards to WTC7 because....?

And as I said, witness testimony is fallible and open to misinterpretation.

its not testimony as they werent allowed to testify

So if you don't have any evidence to back up your claims how do you know they are right?

i dont have all the evidence as ive said already.its what i believe.why do you believe what you believe?

Actually I'm quite open minded, that's why I'm asking for evidence to back up your claims.

You're not really as u keep dismissing all that has been said. i assume u took offence to somebody disagreeing with you and is a matter of pride for u at this stage

But tell, is there any evidence of reasoning that could convince you that it wasn't an inside job?
And if so what would that evidence or reasoning be?

yes the granting of an independant commission and its eventual results. if the government has nothing to hide then why cant it grant this request

theboss80

apologies on previous post not being broken up as proper quotes

King Mob

theboss80 wrote: »

its not testimony as they werent allowed to testify

Then witness reports or whatever you'd like to call them..
My point still stands.
Your points remain unsupported.

theboss80 wrote: »

i dont have all the evidence as ive said already.its what i believe.

So then you could be wrong?

theboss80 wrote: »

why do you believe what you believe?

Because that's what the actual evidence points to.

theboss80 wrote: »

You're not really as u keep dismissing all that has been said.

Well if I've made a claim I haven't backed up please point it out.
And I'm not dismissing anything I'm addressing your points.

theboss80 wrote: »

i assume u took offence to somebody disagreeing with you and is a matter of pride for u at this stage

Then you assume wrong.

theboss80 wrote: »

yes the granting of an independant commission and its eventual results. if the government has nothing to hide then why cant it grant this request

I meant something specific.

Why don't the government do an independent commission to find out if they faked the moon landings? What do they have to hide?

theboss80

then you could also be wrong if thats your reasoning yes?

btw you have just supplied links to sites as i have done so we are the same bar the point is i have shown why it could be a bit more than it seems whereas you havent actually made any points as to why it definatly wasnt.

King Mob

theboss80 wrote: »

then you could also be wrong if thats your reasoning yes?

Yes that's why I'm asking you to back up your points.

theboss80 wrote: »

btw you have just supplied links to sites as i have done so we are the same bar

And did you actually read those links?

theboss80 wrote: »

the point is i have shown why it could be a bit more than it seems whereas you havent actually made any points as to why it definatly wasnt.

Except where I showed how your points are wrong.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=62079250&postcount=75
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=62079518&postcount=78