user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
COMMENTS:
Why are you people bothered? If you believe they're wrong just laugh and move on instead of boring us with more of this shit.
Thanks for your ballot-sabotaging input.
^ Was that karma off you, fatneck? Lol, what a dopey f*ck!
Why is it sabotage anyway, it is a repetative, boring subject that you keep dragging on and on. A bit like your life really.
Voted : Yes! They are just like flat earthers! (see comment)
I think that they are the same. It is a myth that educated people thought that the earth was flat. Even the ancient Greeks observed that ships disappeared over the horizon which suggested a curved earth at the very least. The flat earthers are most similar to the creationists today. Creationists accept religious dogma as absolute truth and disregard all evidence that contradicts their views. 9/11 conspirators accept all ideas that support their own world view without question and disregard evidence that contradicts their views. For example one "expert" decides that cell phones cannot ever function at 30,000 feet altitude and this becomes the new Creed forever and ever amen. You can talk to thousands of people who have used cell phones at high altitude but they are all shills and government plants. Its the same blindness to reality based on arrogance, immense stupidity and in some case mental instability that is the hallmark of both movements.
I dont find this subject boring Karma. OK so endless epistomological arguments on the nature of knowledge are boring but I am fascinated by the different ways people delude themselves. In the movie "Men in black" members of the public are "neuralised" so that their memories are reorganised to suit the wishes of the powerful. This is real in the way most people neuralise themselves to remove inconvenient facts from their own reality.
ARE 9-11 CONSPIRACY THEORISTS THE NEW "FLAT-EARTHERS"?
Hardly a good comparison. still i bet some people who believe 9/11 didnt some how involve the Government think they were abducted by Aliens.
by isay on Wed Sep 20, 06 6:06am
[+]
... along with the Creationist crowd?
by mojo on Wed Sep 20, 06 6:43am
[+]
Actually, I would include the global warming deniers in the category of "New Flat Earthers."
^I don't think anybody denies that the planet is getting warmer.
The causes are what people debate.
No amount of "scientific, physical evidence" or conspiracy theories changes who's benefitted from 9/11
by Jyl on Wed Sep 20, 06 8:17am
[+]
^ People often overuse or misuse Seneca's old adage about benefit and guilt. 9/11 has suited the ambitions of a lot of people but it does not automatically prove that they orchestrated it. There are many figures and movements in history that have benefited from tragic events, sometimes they caused the tragics events, sometimes they didnt. This is the difference between evidence and speculation.
Voted : No! They are nothing like flat earthers! (see comment)
If anything, they are more like Leif Erikson. Anyone who is towing the party line will be in for a shock when Columbus shows up.
Voted : Yes! They are just like flat earthers! (see comment)
Of course they are!
Most Americans agree that the official conspiracy theory and their fanatical advocates is less believable than the flat earth theory.
Most of the Police and Firefighters of New York believe it too, so you are just burrowing your heads deeper in the sand here, and insulting the aforementioned heroes and victims of that terrible day that witnessed the death of American democracy as we know it.
I feel sorry for you guys, at this stage it must - has - to be just naked deep fear driving your absurd denial that NOTHING was amiss about that day.
It would be hilarious if it wasn't so tragic.
Heads back in the sand guys!
Voted : Yes! They are just like flat earthers! (see comment)
I really like this ballot.
Voted : Yes! They are just like flat earthers! (see comment)
Yes, the OFFICIAL CONSPIRACY THEORISTS are complete nutters that make the Flat Earthers appears ane by comparison. Their total ignorance of PHYSICS, and sticking their head in the sand while pretending that CELLPHONES can make successful calls from passenger jets flying six miles up at over 450mph whenever SANE PEOPLE KNOW THAT THIS IS IMPOSSIBLE without an onboard cellular basestation (technology which didn't exist before 2004) and their insulting dismissal of hundreds of witnesses to the controlled demolitions of the WTC buildings (1, 2, 7), despite those witnesses being supported by video evidence showing lines of explosions blowing out the floors before the falling debris could reach those floors, and there's seismic data showing impossibly short tremors revealing the use of explosives in those controlled demolitions demonstrates how much these OFFICIAL CONSPIRACY THEORISTS care NOTHING for the TRUTH as they defend the OFFICIAL LIES.
It's a FACT before and after Sept 11 2001 that no steel-framed hi-rise or tower-style buildings have ever collapsed straightdown at close to freefall speed into their own footprint - except with controlled demolitions, and that it is IMPOSSIBLE without a controlled demolition according to the laws of PHYSICS.
It's a fact that NOBODY has ever successfully simulated the collapses of WTC 1, 2, & 7 without considering controlled demolition, and that means NOBODY. Not NIST, not, NOVA, Dr Eagar, FEMA, MIT, Bazant & Zhou, nor Dr Frank Green, nor anyone else. NOBODY has succeeded; those who have claimed to have done so, have ALWAYS been proven to be LIARS when their mathematical formula were checked.
But the OFFICIAL CONSPIRACY THEORISTS just want to shout everyone down and want everyone else to stop listening to anything that shows that the USA government under the Bush Administration was just telling MORE LIES like when they LIED about WMDs in Iraq. When they LIED about the FAKE "Uranium from Niger" documents, and LIED about the torture of innocent people in Abu Ghraib prison (Most of whom were in fact INNOCENT, as discovered by the Red Cross), continued to LIE about their secret CIA prisons and KIDNAPPINGS of people in Europe and elsewhere (calling it "rendition", but it's still KIDNAPPING), and LIED about the innocent people they have kept imprisoned for upto 5 years already on no charges, and without a fair trial.
Are you suggesting that the earth is not flat? Balderdash! Just look out your window. What do you see? Flat earth. Case closed.
Voted : Yes! They are just like flat earthers! (see comment)
They are now the new topic of humorous conversation and laughs for school children.
they're flat-earthers pretending to be round-earthers, arguing that the world is cubic to make round-earthers look stupid and help the flat-earthers.
Let's go through this one more time...
"pretending that CELLPHONES can make successful calls from passenger jets flying six miles up at over 450mph"
A comment not supproted by ANY evidence. Check it out on an impartial website.
"and their insulting dismissal of hundreds of witnesses to the controlled demolitions of the WTC buildings (1, 2, 7)"
I think you'll find they are more insulted to have their words taken brutally from context, twisted and misused in a most reprehansible fashion. Check out the disclaimer at the start of "Loose Change, second edition, recut". The very firemen they quote do not believe that it was a controlled demoltion!
"despite those witnesses being supported by video evidence showing lines of explosions blowing out the floors before the falling debris could reach those floors"
In reality the immense pressure caused by the millions of pounds of falling material force debris out the windows. The material flows out at the same speed as the top collapses.
"and there's seismic data showing impossibly short tremors revealing the use of explosives in those controlled demolitions"
And then there's the seimologists who made the reading who state that the seismograph does not support the theory of controlled demolition.
"There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers. That representation of our work is categorically incorrect and not in context" Arthur Lerner-Lam.
"It's a FACT before and after Sept 11 2001 that no steel-framed hi-rise or tower-style buildings have ever collapsed straightdown at close to freefall speed into their own footprint"
It's also a fact that this does not mean that it couldn't happen. In reality before 9-11 planes had not hit the twin towers - does that mean it didn't happen? The argument is NOT VALID.
"It's a fact that NOBODY has ever successfully simulated the collapses of WTC 1, 2, & 7"
So what? Who says that should be easy when we take into account the myriad variables that would affect the outcome? You could just as easily argue that a model that works is NOT proof.
"But the OFFICIAL CONSPIRACY THEORISTS just want to shout everyone down and want everyone else to stop listening"
I have repeatedly urged everyone to check all the facts for themselves - if you look at the debates here on b&w it's clearly the conspiracy theorists who start posting irrelevant, voluminous texts and throwing insults around.
"when they LIED about WMDs in Iraq. When they LIED about the FAKE "Uranium from Niger" documents"
It does not necessarily follow that they are lying about this. Again - an invalid line of reasoning. We don't believe it because the goverment told us - we believe it because the scientific, physical and forensic evidence points towards the official story 100%.
To suggest otherwise is a blatant misrepresentation of the facts.
{"pretending that CELLPHONES can make successful calls from passenger jets flying six miles up at over 450mph"
A comment not supproted by ANY evidence. by wideheadofknowledge on Wed Sep 20, 06 11:33pm}
You really LOVE TO LIE don't you?
I've posted so much evidence it's utterly ridiculous that you can make such a LYING statement. You have NEVER been able to refute ANY OF IT.
{"and their insulting dismissal of hundreds of witnesses to the controlled demolitions of the WTC buildings (1, 2, 7)"
I think you'll find they are more insulted to have their words taken brutally from context,
by wideheadofknowledge on Wed Sep 20, 06 11:33pm}
More of your lies since you never seem to bother quoting any sources, quotes, or links to back that particular claim no matter how many times you say it.
Everyone’s first reaction was "Controlled Demolition"
CBS News’ Dan Rather
also commented that the collapse of building 7, which
wasn’t hit by a plane, resembled a deliberate attempt
to demolish the structure using incendiary devices.
"For the third time
today, it’s reminiscent of those pictures we’ve all seen
too much on television before when a building was deliberately
destroyed by well placed dynamite to knock it down."
NBC’s Pat Dawson reported
the working hypothesis of the FDNY in the immediate aftermath
of the towers’ collapse.
"The chief of safety
of the Fire Department of New York City told me he received
word of a possibility of a secondary device — that is
another bomb going off. He tries to get his men out as
quickly as he could, but he said that there was another
explosion which took place and according to his theory,
he thinks that there were actually devices that were planted
in the building."
MSNBC news anchor Rick
Sanchez reported that police had found suspicious devices
in and around the WTC area and that the secondary explosions,
which were reported by numerous survivors, were thought
by police to be bombs.
"Police have found
what they believe to be a suspicious device and they fear
that it may lead to another explosion."
"I spoke with some
police officials moments ago, Chris, and they told me
they have reason to believe that one of the explosions
at the World Trade Center aside the ones caused by the
planes, may have been caused by a van that was parked
on the building that may have had an explosive device
in it."
During an exchange between
ABC’s Peter Jennings and reporter Don Dahler following
the collapse of the north tower, the first assumption
is again that controlled demolition must have been used
to take down the building.
"Yes Peter its Don Dahler down here. I’m four blocks
north of the World Trade Center. The second building that
was hit by the plane has just completely collapsed."
"The entire building
has just collapsed as if a demolition team set off….when
you see the old demolition of these old buildings. It
just folded in on itself and it is not there anymore."
Peter Jennings: "If
you wish to bring, if anyone has ever watched a building
being demolished on purpose knows, that you’re going to
do this you have to get at the, at the under infrastructure
of a building and bring it down."
Police chiefs, fire department
heads, veteran news anchors, eyewitnesses on the ground
- everyone’s first reaction was "controlled demolition"
because the events suggested nothing else.
It must REALLY SUCK being caught out LYING all the time, so maybe you should stop.
and you (and everyone else on this site) are quite aware that I can post HUNDREDS of such first responses and statements by witnesses. The person playing games here is YOU.
^Most of which are similes.
{Check out the disclaimer at the start of "Loose Change, second edition, recut".
by wideheadofknowledge on Wed Sep 20, 06 11:33pm}
Who cares about what "Loose Change" says?! I have never watched it. What I have watched is witnesses saying what I quoted them as saying, many more witnesses besides this, and videos showing showing lines of explosions blowing out the floors before the falling debris could reach those floors, and there's seismic data showing impossibly short tremors revealing the use of explosives in those controlled demolitions. I've also watched news shows and documentaries about the WTC controlled demolitions, of which there are many not available in English and I can't link to, but I'd highly recommend everyone to look into for themselves, and listen to the witnesses for themselves. They back what I state... just as an increasing number of physicists and structural engineers worldwide in large numbers now recognise the WTC destructions as CONTROLLED DEMOLITIONS
- and there's not a thing that the USA government or it's shills who post on message boards can do about it. The truth is coming out, and the Official Lies are being destroyed by the overwhelming evidence of scientific FACT
{...the immense pressure caused by the millions of pounds of falling material force debris out the windows.. by wideheadofknowledge on Wed Sep 20, 06 11:33pm}
Funny that you can't cite any computer or mathematical simulations showing this. Not a single one. That's because it's BULL, and just an excuse. Afterall, YOU can't show anyone being able to simulate those collapses as gravity-driven collapses, neh? Not even once.
{"and there's seismic data showing impossibly short tremors revealing the use of explosives in those controlled demolitions"
And then there's the seimologists who made the reading who state that the seismograph does not support the theory of controlled demolition.by wideheadofknowledge on Wed Sep 20, 06 11:33pm}
And there's the FACT that those seimologists stated this BEFORE it was discovered that the seismic tremors were SHORTER than the collapse times, and you've never cited any seismologist able to explain that away. It's a physical IMPOSSIBILITY for the tremors to be SHORTER in length than the allaged cause.
Seismic Waves recorded at Palisades New York
Collapse 1, South Tower 09:59:04±1 2.1 10 seconds
Collapse 2, North Tower 10:28:31±1 2.3 8 seconds
The collapses of each tower lasted 12-13 seconds for the main mass of the building to hit the ground, a further 13-14 seconds for the massive cores which weighed equally as much but which created no tremors according to the data.
Explain it, and stop trying to wave your silly "Arabs did it" magic wand in the hope that the FACTS will go away. They WON'T.
"The collapses of each tower lasted 12-13 seconds for the main mass of the building to hit the ground, a further 13-14 seconds for the massive cores which weighed equally as much but which created no tremors according to the data."
12+12=24 seconds. Just a fraction longer than the "close to freefall" times you have bleated about in the past. Oops.
I am not going to point by point refute your points AGAIN because you insist on multiple, over-long posts filled with the same irrelevant comments that amount to NO PROOF.
I ask again: where is your undisputed physical evidence of controlled demolition and your undisputed physical evidence that something other than Flight 77 hit the pentagon?
I stress to anybody else following these debates - read all the info out there. If you limit yourself to conspiracy websites you really are not appraoching this with an open mind.
Their claims are not logical, scientific, relevant or based on any solid facts.
{"It's a FACT before and after Sept 11 2001 that no steel-framed hi-rise or tower-style buildings have ever collapsed straightdown at close to freefall speed into their own footprint"
It's also a fact that this does not mean that it couldn't happen. by wideheadofknowledge on Wed Sep 20, 06 11:33pm}
Except that it HAS NEVER HAPPENED, and it's the reason WHY is so vital that mathematical simulaition or computer simulation be able to show that the collapses were gravity-driven. Without that, you're claiming that we must accept only on FAITH, which really means that the Official Story has no scientific basis in reality.
{"It's a fact that NOBODY has ever successfully simulated the collapses of WTC 1, 2, & 7"
So what?
by wideheadofknowledge on Wed Sep 20, 06 11:33pm}
See previous comment. If you can't cite anyone able to simulate those collapses as gravity-driven, then simple fact is, those were controlled demolitions.I already explained why. We do not simply take things on FAITH ALONE in this modern scientific age. Especially from a government notorious for LYING.
{I am not going to point by point refute your points ..
by wideheadofknowledge on Thu Sep 21, 06 6:15a}
LOL, you NEVER HAVE REFUTED MY POINTS, all you do is keep bringing the same pathetic excuses and occassional outright LIES.
and everytime you do, I'll be here ready to prove you wrong once again.
{"But the OFFICIAL CONSPIRACY THEORISTS just want to shout everyone down and want everyone else to stop listening"
I have repeatedly urged everyone to check all the facts for themselves - by wideheadofknowledge on Wed Sep 20, 06 11:33pm}
Yes, usually after you told some outright lies recently. You didn't used to do that, but recenty you have begun to drop some real big whopping lies.
It's obvious that you're getting frustrated because you can't counter my cited sources, quotes, links, and arguments. You will never be able to, I suspect. The balance of power in this long running debate has been shifting because the facts increasingly favour the 9/11 sceptics, not the OFFICIAL CONSPIRACY THEORY.
Besides, we have real PHYSICS AND SCIENCE on our side.
If you limit yourself to conspiracy websites by wideheadofknowledge on Thu Sep 21, 06 6:15am}
DEFINE what you mean by conspiracy websites? I look at news sites, and news link sites, and mainstream physics sites, but I'm really curious how you PERSONALLY define what a conspiracy site is. It seems possible to me that your definition is only "Any news media or site which doesn't agree with the Government of the USA under the Bush Administration says", which would really mean any news media or site which disagrees with Bush Administration PROPAGANDA.
 Do you think of anything else?
ken, we don't want to hear your government's lies. go find someone who does.
Lovelynice, could you tell me one thing that I have posted that is a lie?
not lies. LIES. there's a difference.
Voted : I am going to copy and paste some stuff! (see irrelevant bullsh*t)
@ LovelyNiece
Sweeping statements are very dangerous and potentially wholly discrediting.
(as is that petty name-play at the top of this post, but I couldn't resist)
{"It's a fact that NOBODY has ever successfully simulated the collapses of WTC 1, 2, & 7"}
Given that most people don't have an all seeing eye (I apologise in advance if you do), it's perhaps forgiveable that you haven read/reviewed every piece of research on the matter. But you don't seem to be aware of this.
I myself have read very little on the subject. I tend to ignore all sides of a news 'argument' when the mis/disinformation starts flowing, as people often start to make sweeping statements and claim a long list of facts, quoting sources that no-one ever properly reviews. The 'first five minutes' news coverage (IMHO) tends to be the most forthright.
I have therefore chosen not to investigate any of your sources.
After a single Google search I came up with the following research from China (who clearly bow to every US whim) that took place ~4 years before your posts.
http://www.luxinzheng.net/news/enwtc.html
I don't know if anything else you said is true.
It could all be pure FACTUALLY EVIDENTUALISTIC TRUTHFULNESS.
Who knows.
Who cares.
I believe that 2 planes did fly into the towers. I concede that even this could have been faked. (Hell, I've never even been outside Euroland so there's no more evidence to me that the US is any more than an invention of the British Empire that's still lording it over johnny foreigner. So what the hell do I KNOW.)
I do think (based on my 'first five minutes' coverage hypothesis) that the most likely cover-up would be the downing of the final flight over Pensilvania:
Most of the initial reports claimed fire from one side of the plane (I have no sources, just memory - so please view that as an anecdote).
Jets were scrambled for intercept
(again no source - anecdote).
The policy (behind closed doors) of most western governments is likely and (IMHO) absolutely justifiably to be to neutralise further threat to life.
I.E. if the plane is to be deliberately crashed killing all on board, it will save lives if it can be brought down in an unpopulated area, as it was.
This could well have been done by the passengers.
If there were fighters on intercept, given the events that had already transpired on that day I believe they would have been under order that at a defined 'Point Of No Return' (PONR) they were to neutralise the threat.
This would (to my moral code) be justified.
The legality of such an act (and I'm no expert) would probably be highly questionable.
Hence the need for a cover up, and a potential mis/disinformation campaign by the US administration to throw up a smokescreen.
Thus I end my over-long and inane contribution with this final thought:
Everything I have written is speculative.
So I guess I'll fit in just fine.
:)
We've cited evidence which you just keep on either ignoring, avoiding, or can't counter.
Apart from myself, evidence has been cited against the Bush Administration's lies about 9-11 by Ken from Dublin, Lovelynice, Coldcircuit, Meteor7, have already cited aerial photos, video, and the hard evidence of the thermate traces discovered by Steven Jones.
Professor Steven Jones and his X-ray spectrometry evidence from samples taken at the WTC site show a perfect match for for the highly specialized compound "thermate" (used for cutting through steel) found in the WTC debris. (And no, thermate was NOT used during the clean up operation...this stuff was in the building, and ignited, prior to collapse.) If you're new to this information, you might want to check out "Molten Metal" and "Fire Initiated Collapse - Primary Arguments Against"
stopthelie . com / the _ evidence _is _ in . ht ml
You should also look up Steven Jones lecture on the subject which is available on video.
You have been claiming that evidence collected by thousands of people is not admissible only because it goes against the 9-11 story promoted by the Bush Administration. You've tried to dismiss for no reason at all, evidence from physicists such as Steven Jones. You've tried to dismiss for no reason at all witness testimonies which disagree with the official version, and you've also tried to dismiss for no reason at all video evidence of the explosions which are visible taking out the floors in those beautiful long perfect lines well below the collapsing debris falling from above. You've tried to dismiss for no reason at all witness testimony that the first explosions (decribed as huge booms) that triggered collapse in the twin towers began not at the impact point of the planes, but well below by 3-5 floors.
You also ignore the
135 Architects and Engineers who don't believe the Bush Administration's lies.
ae911truth . org
Another 170+ Engineers who don't believe the Bush Administration's lies.
patriotsquestion911 . com / engineers
50+ Pilots and Aviation professionals who don't believe the Bush Administration's lies.
patriotsquestion911 . com / pilots
140+ Professors who don't believe the Bush Administration's lies.
patriotsquestion911 . com / professors
On your side of the fence,
So far you have a lack of credible DNA evidence from an independent analysis, and no evidence of DNA from Arab hijackers. NONE. If a huge passenger jet really hit the Pentagon, then there would videos of it. There have been none publicly released. The bodies found at the Pentagon could easily be Pentagon staff. The DNA evidence is not convincing because it has not been independently verifiable. Btw, on ballot 101154, you were asked to support your claim that all the victims from the Pentagon crash were identified by their DNA - that would include orphans, and individuals with no living relatives. When you were asked to support this claim of yours, you never did. Instead you ran away and avoided the question. How about backing your claims with links, quotes, and sources as per what is required. Your word alone in not enough.
So far, there has been almost no wreckage which fits the alleged cricumstances nor the planes which that wreckage is claimed to come from. The plane parts are minuscule, minimal, and could easily have been from another aircraft. Many of the engine parts are from the wrong kind of engine - a similar case with the engine parts from the World Trade Center crashes.
The black box recorders were not independently analysed either, and worse, there is evidence of tampering as the times are wrong.
The passenger lists do not match up, and the different versions contradict each other.They include obviously fictional names that sound similar.
The airfone calls become less credible because the cellphone calls were impossible, making the airfone calls suspicious. It's too easy to fake a phone call. For example, the notorious "Hi Mom, it's me" scam.
Expert eyewitness testimony also says those were controlled demolitions.
Lack of independent and full investigation - there has never been a full and proper independent investigation into 9-11 despite the demands of the survivors and victims relatives to this very day. Scientific investigations have not yet simulated the collapses themselves while being based only on the empirical data, nor have any mathematical or computer simulations shown there was enough energy for the gravitational collapse.
You've shown no evidence connecting Arab hijackers to 9-11. You've shown no links between Osama bin Laden and 9-11, and the FBI deny that they have found any such links. The only videos where Osama bin Laden allegedly "claims credit" for 9-11 all appear to be fakes, and go against what he said already back in 2001
“The U.S. government has consistently blamed me for being behind every occasion its enemies attack it. I would like to assure the world that I did not plan the recent attacks, which seems to have been planned by people for personal reasons. I have been living in the Islamic emirate of Afghanistan and following its leaders’ rules. The current leader does not allow me to exercise such operations.”
—Usama bin Laden (Saudi Arabian), CNN News, "Bin Laden says he wasn't behind attacks," September 17, 2001
"I have already said that I am not involved in the September 11 attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children and other human beings as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children and other people."
—Usama Bin Laden, Ummat magazine, September 28, 2001
I'm sure you will say he lied, but I could easily turn it around and say he lied when you say he confessed. I've seen the so-called confession tape, and it does not appear to be bin Laden. To me it appears to be a an imposter in the video I've seen. There have also been studies done on the bin Laden video and audio tapes, concluding that they were faked. And as of today, it's the FBI who confessesthey don't have any "hard evidence" linking him to 9/11.
Some people have this problem that they like to deny that topdown controlled demolitions exist.
Maybe now they'll wake up.
Controlled demolitions are not restricted to one technique only.
Looks the same doesn't it?
|
|
