Help! Need Some Intelligent Views From Here!

[Oliver]

Please complete the List of Questions with your expieriences so far:

1. Why did "they" make it look like a controlled demolition?
2. Why didn´t "they" blow building 7 in the dust cloud of the Towers?
3. Why does the debris fall faster than the "freefall"-Towers?
4. Why did "they" need 6.000.000.000 Eyewittnesses for the "controlled demolition"?
5. Why did they fake the Saddam WMD-evidence?
6. Why didn´t they plan to blame Saddam before starting the "inside job"?
7. Why did they use "1 frame per second"-cameras to proof the pentagon-impact?
8. Why didn´t they install cameras to capture "their coup" at the pentagon?

...

Please borrow me your intellect to complete the list and to make ´em look really stupid...

[Oliver]

Come on... Where are the "TRUTHSEEKER´s" in here... Muhawhawawawawaw... :D

[defaultdotxbe]

i compiled this list some time ago

1: Why would high ranking Pentagon officials (including Donald Rumsfeld) avoid flying? Surely they would know what planes were to be hijacked and could simply avoid those/

2: Why warn San Franciso mayor Willie Brown not to fly, did they forget no planes from San Francisco were part of the plan?

3: Why bother calling off investigations of al Qeada, if the got is the guilty party anyway what difference does it make?

4: Why bother calling off investigations of Osama bin Laden's relatives?

5: Why bother giving the White House staff Cipro when you already know they won't be sent any anthrax.

6: Why allow 7 of your reported hijacker to be alive? Why not kill them all, or use fake terrorists?

7: Why use planes at 1/4 passenger capacity? Your killing 3000 in the towers, whats another 100 or so on the planes.

8: Why bother planting a passport of Satam al-Suqami in Manhattan? Surely they could come up with suspects simply by looking at the passenger manifests, then arrange to find evidence in their homes.

9: Why use Hani Hanjour, who couldn't fly a single engine Cessna airplane, as your patsy pilot? Why not someone with more skill?

10: Why would silverstein sign a 99 year lease on two buildings that are about to be destroyed? Why not allow them to be destroyed then buy the land dirt cheap?

11: Why insure the buildings that are about to be destroyed for less than half what they are worth?

12: Why even bother pulling Muslim websites on 9/10/01?

13: Why allow the FBI say it has "No hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11?"

14: Why fire a missile (or anything other than a 757) into the Pentagon and then claim it was a 757? Why not use a missile and say it was a missile, or a 757 and say it was a 757?

15: Why have said "757" execute "impossible" maneuvers prior to hitting the pentagon?

16: Why have Flight 93 land in Cleveland and say it crashed? Why not just crash it too?

17: Why fake cell phone calls at all?

18: Why release passenger manifests not showing the hijackers? Only to release new lists years later missing some passengers?

19: If bin Laden is a CIA operative, why would he profess innocence of the attacks? Did someone forget to send him the script?

20: Why run the risk of using fake, or CGI planes at the WTC? Why not just use a real plane, or fir a missile and say it was a missile?

ETA: another tough question for truthers who claim no one coems forward due to fear of losing their job/pension/paid off/ect

would you assist in the coverup if you were paid? if so, how much?
to date no truther has provided me with an answer

[defaultdotxbe]

more: why no whistleblowers?


Many claim only a small group of individuals would have to be involved in the conspiracy in order to pull off 9/11, but these are only the people who would need to see the "Big Picture" many hundreds or thousands of others would have to know something isn't right.


CD Experts: Why do they not agree that the WTC towers came down in a manner consistant with controlled demolition?


Structural Engineers: Why don't they claim the towers should not have fallen from the damage they sustained?


FAA/NORAD/NEADS/Airline Employees: Why do none of them claim the response to the 9/11 hijackings was not normal?


Military Personel: Any not high enough up the chain of command to be in on the "Big Picture" must realize the military repsonse to 9/11 was unusual. Why don't they say there was an unusually large number of wargames planned for the day? Or that there were too few fighters on alert?


Pentagon Responders: Why do none of the first responders here mention a 16 foot hole? Or that damage was inconsistant with a 757?


Pentagon Witnesses: Why do so many people say they saw a large commercial airliner? (please don't bother with the 2 or 3 who say they saw a smaller plane, tell me why dozens if not hundreds saw a large jetliner)


Shanksville Responders: Why do none of them say the debris was inconsistant with a plane crash?


Shanksville Investigators: Why don't they tell us the Flight 93 site was unlike any other airliner crash?


Cleveland-Hopkins Employees: Why does no one support the idea that Flight 93 landed there?


WTC Insurers: Why are they not pursuing fraud charges?


FDNY: Why do no firemen come forward saying the sounds they heard inside the WTC towers were unlike any other fire they had been in before?




Why do they not come forward?



It can't be complicity: These people are not involved in the conspiracy, so they would have no motivation to protect it.


It can't be money: There's too many people to assume they have all be "bought off" or are all afraid of losing their jobs.


It can't be fear: Again, there are too many people to assume they fear physical reprisal, and FDNY particularly, they risk their lives every day for total strangers, they would certainly risk their lives to uncover the murder of over 300 of their Brothers.

[Oliver]

GREAT QUESTIONS, Defaultdotxbe! ... This is good stuff. :D I hope others will join us, too. :)

Thank you very, very much.

BTW: What´s your forename? I´m always confused to talk to Nicknames...

[defaultdotxbe]

its Kevin (although now you might confuse me with the guy who posts here as kevin, lol)

[jhunter1163]

There's a lot of good stuff in this vein in that absurdities thread Foolseeker did. I'll bump it, should be very helpful to you.

ETA: Done.

[Oliver]

its Kevin (although now you might confuse me with the guy who posts here as kevin, lol)

You mean this Kevin? : http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/11107451ffb149373a.gif

I have no problem with both of you, Kevin - especially since his animation is burned into my mind... :D

[Alareth]

its Kevin (although now you might confuse me with the guy who posts here as kevin, lol)

Are you sure you aren't Mark Roberts? Everybody else is ;)

[defaultdotxbe]

Are you sure you aren't Mark Roberts? Everybody else is ;)
mark roberts is robert de niro, im quite obviously kevin bacon

[Oliver]

Bob? Marky? Abby? Chipmunk? Gravy? Pardalis? Foolmewunz? Bell?... What are your ideas?

[T.A.M.]

1. If the NWO/BUSH/PNAC wanted to pull off a "JetLiners as Weapons" attack, then why use a missile instead of a Jetline at the Pentagon?

2. If the NWO/BUSH/PNAC wanted to pull off a "Jetliner as Weapons" attack, then why have UA93 Crash in the middle of nowhere, doing no damage at all (given that the theory is that no passengers were on board the planes).

3. If The plan was to hit the buildings with planes, and then have them collapse via controlled demolition, than why did they wait SEVEN HOURS to bring down WTC7?

4. If they faked the voices of the passenger calls, than how was one of the "fakers" able to give a relative on the ground the correct combination to her safe in one of the calls?

There are a few off top of my head. I will give more as I think of them.

TAM

[Brainache]

Even though I didn't make your list of serious thinkers, I'll give it a shot:

I think you may have a problem with always asking them why something happened instead of asking them how it happened.

Try asking;
How were the explosives planted?

How was the missile launched at the Pentagon?

How was flight 93 shot down?

etc etc.

The answers will show how these people have no facts, only paranoid speculations and physics inspired by Hollywood science fiction.

[Oliver]

Even though I didn't make your list of serious thinkers, I'll give it a shot:

I think you may have a problem with always asking them why something happened instead of asking them how it happened.

Try asking;
How were the explosives planted?

How was the missile launched at the Pentagon?

How was flight 93 shot down?

etc etc.

The answers will show how these people have no facts, only paranoid speculations and physics inspired by Hollywood science fiction.

These are good questions, Brainache - but my intention is to find questions wich make all their theories look stupid. Your questions are too complex. I need more general ones. :) But i appreciate your ideas, too - to make progress. :)

[Bell]

I think the most common have been addressed allready, I'll try.

1.) Why fly into the strongest side of the Pentagon, next to a highway, none the less, where the were countless wittnesses.

2.) If Bush knew, then why did he sit dumbfolded infront of the class for minutes.

3.) Why did FAA ground all flights, if only 4 where to be hijacked?

[Oliver]

I think the most common have been addressed allready, I'll try.

1.) Why fly into the strongest side of the Pentagon, next to a highway, none the less, where the were countless wittnesses.

2.) If Bush knew, then why did he sit dumbfolded infront of the class for minutes.

3.) Why did FAA ground all flights, if only 4 where to be hijacked?

My favorite is Number2 - this is a very good one, Bell. :D BTW: What´s your forename?

ETA: DarkMagician?, Puggy?, DrDave?, R.Mackey?, HappyCat?, Abbyas?, Senor_Pointy?, jhunter1163?, ihaunter?, GlennB?, BillC?, hurdygurdy?, twinstead?, Honir?

[Bell]

My favorite is Number2 - this is a very good one, Bell. :D BTW: What´s your forename?

It's Martijn (but Martin or Marty are also fine by me).

[Dog Town]

My favorite is Number2

Christo....pheraaaaa!!!!

[Oliver]

Christo....pheraaaaa!!!!

Hello Martijn, :) i never heard that name but i guess it means Martin in germany - so welcome to the Thread, Martijn. :)

Dog Town? Your ideas beside your great and always funny remarks? :D

Abby?

[Oliver]

Come on! :D Who else? :D

[jhunter1163]

I'm John.

[Oliver]

Chipmunk?

[Bell]

Chipmunk?

Yes, dear?

[Oliver]

Yes, dear?

Möchtest du einen Kuss von mir? :blush:

[defaultdotxbe]

Möchtest du einen Kuss von mir? :blush:
JREF needs a dont ask dont tell policy....

[Bell]

Möchtest du einen Kuss von mir? :blush:

:D

[Oliver]

Hey - i´m single ... what´s wrong with that? :D

Anyone else? 60hzxtl? Redtail? Sceptic4Sure? Sleahead? Class? Pyrrho? Totalgamefreak? jsiv? Levantine? Skibum? ryanebelha? rwguinn? G-K-4? money? gavqt? Loss Leader? eeyore1954? Soseki? Skiltch? Abbyas? Mince? Spins?

[Oliver]

Gravy? You´re the most experienced in here? Any ideas to some good questions to beat "them" http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1110745204d297d033.gif

[Stellafane]

When I thought that I might actually be debating TS (stupid of me, I admit), I thought about how I would counter what I consider the CTists' strongest (or more accurately, least ridiculous) argument, LIHOP. Not that LIHOP has any evidence to support it or makes any sense, but at least it doesn't violate reality and the laws of physics. After about 10 seconds of thought, the obvious hit me -- if Bush indeed knew of the plot in advance, why not post plainclothed armed guards on the planes, so when the terrorists got up with their boxcutters, they whip out their guns and drop them in their tracks? The Bush administration would have come across as superhero saviors of America, they'd have looked completely on top of things and in control, they would have discouraged future terrorists (after all, from their point of view 9/11 was a total success), they wouldn't have to worry that some film school dropout would figure out their plans, they wouldn't have to bother with a vast conspriracy, they wouldn't have to destroy the heart of the American economy (thus plunging the country into recession), no one would have to die (yeah I know, not that the neocons care, but it would have saved some messy cleanup), the country would have been just as motivated by the near-success of the attack, they would have far more faith the administation knew what they were doing -- etc.

So bottom line: If Bush knew, why not catch them in the act? Equal if not greater payoff, vastly less overall bother.

[Dog Town]

There is only one ?
--Why do they look over MOUNTAINS of reality, to find BAD fantasy? While pissing on the memories, to fill their coffers, of heroes to boot!

DT

[einsteen]

So bottom line: If Bush knew, why not catch them in the act? Equal if not greater payoff, vastly less overall bother.

If we use the logical fallacies from the other thread: the fact that they didn't catch them in the act does not mean they didn't knew the plot, they simply could let it happen for better results and because people then start thinking in the same way as you do know.

In this way you can make things as difficult as you want. Not my cup of tea

[Stellafane]

If we use the logical fallacies from the other thread: the fact that they didn't catch them in the act does not mean they didn't knew the plot, they simply could let it happen for better results and because people then start thinking in the same way as you do know.

In this way you can make things as difficult as you want. Not my cup of tea

But that doesn't make any sense. Imagine this scenario: "Hey, we've discovered a terrorist plot to attack American with hijacked planes. We could catch them in the act, become nationwide heros, have a movie made about us, get the country so behind us we can do anything we want, ensure our boy George gets re-elected without spending a dollar on campaigning, etc. etc. Or we could just let it happen, kill 3000 people, cost the country billions of dollars, and just maybe get a bigger impact. So whaddya say, plan A or plan B?"

This is what kills me. The CTists credit the Bush administration with the technical genius to know what terrorists are thinking, pull off vast conspiracies, use unknown technologies, etc, but at the same time have them making mindlessly stupid decisions.

[Oliver]

Okay - who else? Come on - where are the smart guys in here? :D

What are your questions?

[Gravy]

Gravy? You´re the most experienced in here? Any ideas to some good questions to beat "them" http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1110745204d297d033.gif
I'm not the most experienced here, and I don't bark on command. :D

[Bell]

I'm not the most experienced here, and I don't bark on command. :D

No, you're a dombo with strawman arguments. :p

[Oliver]

I'm not the most experienced here, and I don't bark on command. :D

I thought you are the one who fights the evil directly on Ground Zero. What kind of arguments/questions do you have concerning the Thread?

Any experiences with it? :D

[Mince]

It's a damn ( and I mean a DAMN) good thing that debris hit building 7 and started fires. Otherwise, we'd have no explanation for its collapse.

Whew!

[MRC_Hans]

It's a damn ( and I mean a DAMN) good thing that debris hit building 7 and started fires. Otherwise, we'd have no explanation for its collapse.

Whew!Which collapse?

Hans

[shuize]

It's been posted many times already:

Why would a government that is willing and able to pull off the most complicated conspiracy in history to kill thousands of its own citizens without a hitch hesitate to eliminate a couple of punk kids who threaten to expose the "truth" of its evil deeds?

In short, if what they claim is true, why are the leading LC folks still breathing?

[qarnos]

It's been posted many times already:

Why would a government that is willing and able to pull off the most complicated conspiracy in history to kill thousands of its own citizens without a hitch hesitate to eliminate a couple of punk kids who threaten to expose the "truth" of its evil deeds?

In short, if what they claim is true, why are the leading LC folks still breathing?

Their usual response is that it would be too obvious if the government killed then now.

My response would be, that is why they would have been killed long ago when the videos first started popping up on the internet.

[shuize]

Their usual response is that it would be too obvious if the government killed then now.

My response would be, that is why they would have been killed long ago when the videos first started popping up on the internet.
Right. Total competence on a scale the world has never seen in executing the 9/11 conspiracy.

Followed by total incompetence in not being able to deal with anyone -- even a couple of wacky college drop-outs -- that stumbles upon the "truth."

Got it.

[Foolmewunz]

My first question stems from New Yorker knowledge. Maybe too complicated for troofers to grasp. Everyone in NYC gets to work (it seems) between 9:00:15 and 9:15:00. Cortlandt St. and the PATH were always busiest from about 8:50 to 9:15. (I worked in those buildings for 11 years and traversed the PATH from that station for another 10.)

If you're the omnipotent NWO, and you're already planning to knock off a few thousand citizens, why hit the first tower twenty minutes before the full complement of people would be at work. There were 55,000 people working in those towers and another half-million passing through the PATH during rush hour. What we viewed for days as a miracle (don't post this to the Paranormal boards, please) is a damning fact against the supposed evil gubmint perps! If they wanted to start a war against every country in the Middle East they could've waited until 09:10:00 and knocked off a good ten thousand more people. Why settle for 2700?
(Gruesome and I'm not really comfortable even writing it, but the type of things they'd logically believe.)

My second question is in the same vein. Why bother with the thousands upon thousands of conspirators this "plot" needed? Six bad dudes with I heart Sadaam T-shirts, some REAL C4, and take down the Hoover Dam, Washington Monument, or Statue of Liberty. On a nostalgic note, arrest them as they are spotted in a movie theater and then have an outraged bar owner gun them down in the 6th Precinct the next morning. Six dead Iraqi dudes, hand-drawn maps to the target, and traces of C4 on their clothing. A whole lot simpler.

3. Why do you only have selective sound-bites from firefighters and not hundreds of them marching with you if what you claim is true.

4. Ditto NYPD?

5. Ditto AA employees whose friends either died in the crashes (our version) or were ferreted off and shot or dropped in the ocean (their version).

6. Ditto UA employees....

[defaultdotxbe]

Their usual response is that it would be too obvious if the government killed then now.

My response would be, that is why they would have been killed long ago when the videos first started popping up on the internet.
i rememebr debating this with killtown at SLC, he had fame on the brain so bad he just couldnt comprehend loose change not being famous, he claimed in dylan and co were silently done away with when they started lookign into 9/11 the newspapers would read "boys mysteriously die while working on documentary that was sure to make headlines"

[Oliver]

It's been posted many times already:

Why would a government that is willing and able to pull off the most complicated conspiracy in history to kill thousands of its own citizens without a hitch hesitate to eliminate a couple of punk kids who threaten to expose the "truth" of its evil deeds?

In short, if what they claim is true, why are the leading LC folks still breathing?

Maybe the truthers are still alive because...













..."they" know it for sure that the troofers http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/11107452129a890f55.gif have nothing against them...

Muhawawawawawa


Muhawawawawawa http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/11107452129a895983.gif

[qarnos]

[snipped list of questions for troofers]

The LCers are trying to "debunk" these claims now in this thread (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=15691&st=30)


1: Why would high ranking Pentagon officials (including Donald Rumsfeld) avoid flying? Surely they would know what planes were to be hijacked and could simply avoid those

As if all the high ranking Pentagon officials knew what was going to go down - whoever asked this question knows nothing about corporate conspiracies and compartmentalization - very few knew what was actually about to happen, most didn't. What are they going to say, 'announcement to all high ranking Pentagon officials - don't book a flight on American 11 or 77 on 9/11, or on United 175 or 93. Thank you for your cooperation.' Ha!. And one other thing, where is it reported that Rumsfeld avoided flying commercially? I have never heard that - only that Ashcroft made a habit of using chartered flights for work related (and/or fishing related) trips. Not everyone knew the plan. Again, for the 50th time, the terrorist threat is partially REAL. The US gov. has been purposely fermenting it for decades. It's not all black and white, it's all fuzzy ! There are real terrorists, Muslims really are angry, and the US gov. wants it that way, they have helped and are currently trying to create exactly those conditions.

2: Why warn San Franciso mayor Willie Brown not to fly, did they forget no planes from San Francisco were part of the plan?


Again, not everyone knew the whole plan.

3: Why bother calling off investigations of al Qeada, if the gov is the guilty party anyway what difference does it make?

You forgot, Al Quada was part of it - the patsies - the evidence trail - the pipeline, the Saudis, the Pakistan ISI ... if you are planning a giant hoax, and someone goes sniffing around the perimeter of parties that are an integral part of it, you get nervous.

4: Why bother calling off investigations of Osama bin Laden's relatives?

Cause there's a lot to hide? Cause Osama's brother and his wife's brother (who got detained for sending him a lot of money) were major investors in Bush's first oil company and sat on a board with Bush's dad, for starters?? Cause they're pals with some of the people that run things and filthy rich to boot?

5: Why bother giving the White House staff Cipro when you already know they won't be sent any anthrax.

Good question.

6: Why allow 7 of your reported hijacker to be alive? Why not kill them all, or use fake terrorists?

They have too much confidence in our stupidity. So far, they have been proven right.

7: Why use planes at 1/4 passenger capacity? Your killing 3000 in the towers, whats another 100 or so on the planes.

The towers were supposed to be evacuated before the demolition. Maybe it was planned that way to put a few perps who wanted to feel like they had a conscience at ease. Maybe to minimise the possibility of a complication. Maybe killing people at an undisclosed location is a pain in the @ss and they wanted to minimise the work. I don't know. Stupid question IMO.

8: Why bother planting a passport of Satam al-Suqami in Manhattan? Surely they could come up with suspects simply by looking at the passenger manifests, then arrange to find evidence in their homes.

What are you talking about? The hijackers weren't listed on the manefests. They take the American public to be stupid, they really believe that (see: Leo Strauss). It was a hack job planning wise, carried off superbly from a technical standpoint, and depends on the clearly correct assumption that if the cover story is good, the public will eat it up. No one wants to believe that the government would do such a thing, that is why the ruse works, no mattter how outrageous and unlikely the story. Whoever posed these questions is perfect prooof of it.

9: Why use Hani Hanjour, who couldn't fly a single engine Cessna airplane, as your patsy pilot? Why not someone with more skill?

Do you really think the perps were that hands-on??? You don't know how the real world works.

10: Why would silverstein sign a 99 year lease on two buildings that are about to be destroyed? Why not allow them to be destroyed then buy the land dirt cheap?

Maybe he bought the property specifically to allow the buildings to be wired? Maybe he was compensated above and beyond the insurance settlement? I seriously doubt you'll be seeing Larry begging on the streets of NY anytime soon.

11: Why insure the buildings that are about to be destroyed for less than half what they are worth?

Source? The buildings had serious problems. I thought he made all his money back on the settlement - besides, it wasn't like he paid cash. Again, source of this information is??

12: Why even bother pulling Muslim websites on 9/10/01?

I refer to the last half of my first reply.

13: Why allow the FBI say it has "No hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11?"

The world is messy. Not everyone is in on it. Particularly the FBI - mostly good guys (relatively).

14: Why fire a missile (or anything other than a 757) into the Pentagon and then claim it was a 757? Why not use a missile and say it was a missile, or a 757 and say it was a 757?

They wanted it to be a passenger liner, that was the idea...

"What if we crash passenger planes into buildings and blame terrorist hijackers?"
"That's great! That'll send real fear into people - any airplane, any building could be a target! Brilliant. Where were you thinking?"
"Dunnoh, WTC? Pentagon?"
"WE'RE in the Pentagon, stupid"
"No, we hit a specific spot - where you guys aren't - make you seem completely innocent, too"
"Can you do that acurately with a 757?"
"No, that's why we don't use a 757. We just tell everyone it was a 757 - we use something we can control with good acuracy - a drone"
"Sounds good to me, why don't we take out the accountants that are chasing all that lost money?"
"Excellent - go to it"

(I'm bored with this - I skipped a couple - one more)

Bored? sure...

19: If bin Laden is a CIA operative, why would he profess innocence of the attacks? Did someone forget to send him the script?

Excellent question. This is the one true mystery I can't figure out. Other than, he's using us like we're using him.

[shuize]

Number 6 made me laugh:

Q: Why allow 7 of your reported hijacker[s] to be alive? Why not kill them all, or use fake terrorists?

A: They have too much confidence in our stupidity. So far, they have been proven right.

That may be the closest they've ever come to being correct.