What didn't happen

[TheRedWorm]

I started this thread, instead of derailing the liability thread. It is open to anyone with conspiratorial leanings, as well as anyone in general, but I really wanted an answer from Zensmack.

You said that the holes in the "official story" were enough to convince you that it was wrong, even if you don't know what exactly did happen. Since this is the case, what exactly didn't happen on 9/11? Was flight 77 not hijacked, were the towers not brought down by CD, you know, didn't happen in that sense. I will not be asking for evidence, so don't feel obligated to present it (unless of course someone else asks for it and you choose to respond). Just as a warning, "I don't know" is not really an acceptable answer in this context.

Thank you in advance.

[CHF]

I will not be asking for evidence, so don't feel obligated to present it

They never do.

[TheRedWorm]

They never do.


I just wanted to make it clear that I was after an opinion. As usual, I fail at life. :D

[ZENSMACK89]

I started this thread, instead of derailing the liability thread. It is open to anyone with conspiratorial leanings, as well as anyone in general, but I really wanted an answer from Zensmack.

You said that the holes in the "official story" were enough to convince you that it was wrong, even if you don't know what exactly did happen. Since this is the case, what exactly didn't happen on 9/11? Was flight 77 not hijacked, were the towers not brought down by CD, you know, didn't happen in that sense. I will not be asking for evidence, so don't feel obligated to present it (unless of course someone else asks for it and you choose to respond). Just as a warning, "I don't know" is not really an acceptable answer in this context.

Thank you in advance.
What didn't happen was a real investigation.

[rwguinn]

What didn't happen was a real investigation.
:dl: :dl:

[HyJinX]

What, exactly, did they not investigate that you feel was missed?

[TheRedWorm]

With all due respect, that didn't really answer my question. But since you said it, what should have been investigated that wasn't?

ETA: I'm slow at typing

[The Silver Shadow]

...real investigation.
define please.

[WildCat]

define please.
You know, one that concludes with the hanging of Bush and Cheney.

[HyJinX]

When is Zen EVER going to provide anything worth a real discussion?

Nevermind, I know the answer to that question. :rolleyes:

He/she is quite entertaining though. Thanks for the laughs, Zen.

[ZENSMACK89]

define please.
A fully funded investigation. An uncensored investigation where whistleblowers can be heard. An investigation where everyone is required to tell the truth the first time they are asked. Where Dick Cheney and Dubya testify under oath separately. Where the actual commission isn't put together and ground rules set by the very people who should be a focus of the investigation. An unbiased investigation where there is no one on the commission who has a past and present link to the people who should be a focus of the investigation. An investigation where the need to cover-up accountability and liability doesn't trump the need for truth.

[Brainache]

A fully funded investigation. An uncensored investigation where whistleblowers can be heard. An investigation where everyone is required to tell the truth the first time they are asked. Where Dick Cheney and Dubya testify under oath separately. Where the actual commission isn't put together and ground rules set by the very people who should be a focus of the investigation. An unbiased investigation where there is no one on the commission who has a past and present link to the people who should be a focus of the investigation. An investigation where the need to cover-up accountability and liability doesn't trump the need for truth.

You seem to have confused the 911 commission with the investigation which was carried out by the FBI and various other agencies.

[TheRedWorm]

O.k. thank you for your response to the issue of what a real investigation should be. Now, if you don't mind answering, what should they investigate in a new investigation, a real investigation, that they didn't investigate previously?

[rwguinn]

A fully funded investigation. An uncensored investigation where whistleblowers can be heard. An investigation where everyone is required to tell the truth the first time they are asked. Where Dick Cheney and Dubya testify under oath separately. Where the actual commission isn't put together and ground rules set by the very people who should be a focus of the investigation. An unbiased investigation where there is no one on the commission who has a past and present link to the people who should be a focus of the investigation. An investigation where the need to cover-up accountability and liability doesn't trump the need for truth.
Do you guys ever listen to yourselves?
"An Unbuiased investigation...people who should be a focus of the investigation"

So, an unbiased kangaroo court. Where the accused will be tried by an impartial jury, found guilty, then taken out and shot.

[ZENSMACK89]

O.k. thank you for your response to the issue of what a real investigation should be. Now, if you don't mind answering, what should they investigate in a new investigation, a real investigation, that they didn't investigate previously?
So you don't believe the 9/11 commission report either? Did the FBI or CIA take the testimony of these people and make it public record?

http://www.nswbc.org/Reports%20-%20Documents/Veteran%20National%20Security%20Experts.pdf

[RedIbis]

O.k. thank you for your response to the issue of what a real investigation should be. Now, if you don't mind answering, what should they investigate in a new investigation, a real investigation, that they didn't investigate previously?

For starters I'd like to know what General Mahmoud Ahmed was doing in Washington DC the week of 9/11.

[TheRedWorm]

Zen, I asked for your opinion on what was not investigated. Please answer, if you so choose.

[defaultdotxbe]

A fully funded investigation. An uncensored investigation where whistleblowers can be heard. An investigation where everyone is required to tell the truth the first time they are asked. Where Dick Cheney and Dubya testify under oath separately. Where the actual commission isn't put together and ground rules set by the very people who should be a focus of the investigation. An unbiased investigation where there is no one on the commission who has a past and present link to the people who should be a focus of the investigation. An investigation where the need to cover-up accountability and liability doesn't trump the need for truth.
so if there was no proper investigation what led you to the conclusion that the bush administration should be investigated, as opposed to, say, the guy who said he was in charge of the guys who did it? (http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Dec2001/d20011213ubl.pdf)

[ZENSMACK89]

Zen, I asked for your opinion on what was not investigated. Please answer, if you so choose.
I think by initial answer covers that as well as my link to people who would like to be heard on the record concerning 9/11. If you want something more specific I would start with pre-9/11 intelligence.

[HyJinX]

For starters I'd like to know what General Mahmoud Ahmed was doing in Washington DC the week of 9/11.

Do you find his visit suspicious?

[HyJinX]

I think by initial answer covers that as well as my link to people who would like to be heard on the record concerning 9/11. If you want something more specific I would start with pre-9/11 intelligence.

What raises concern for you?

[tacodaemon]

For starters I'd like to know what General Mahmoud Ahmed was doing in Washington DC the week of 9/11.


Meeting with American lawmakers and government officials about things he knew about Bin Laden and other Central Asian security topics in his capacity as head of the Pakistani ISI, as he'd done quite a few times before then IIRC. He'd been there since the week before, and after the attacks happened the Americans were able to quickly consult him for ongoing intelligence info.

p.s. The alleged monetary link between him and Atta was one report from Indian intelligence, not some hard-and-fast confirmed fact, and also his surname is "Ahmad" not "Ahmed".

[Narveson]

zemsmack, by "real investigation" do you mean one that agrees with your preconceived notions of what should be found?

[rwguinn]

zemsmack, by "real investigation" do you mean one that agrees with your preconceived notions of what should be found?
that's what he said here:

A fully funded investigation. An uncensored investigation where whistleblowers can be heard. An investigation where everyone is required to tell the truth the first time they are asked. Where Dick Cheney and Dubya testify under oath separately. Where the actual commission isn't put together and ground rules set by the very people who should be a focus of the investigation. An unbiased investigation where there is no one on the commission who has a past and present link to the people who should be a focus of the investigation. An investigation where the need to cover-up accountability and liability doesn't trump the need for truth.

[ZENSMACK89]

so if there was no proper investigation what led you to the conclusion that the bush administration should be investigated, as opposed to, say, the guy who said he was in charge of the guys who did it? (http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Dec2001/d20011213ubl.pdf)
That's not evidence. If it was the he would have been indicted.

[HyJinX]

Speaking of evidence, Zen....do you have any?

[WildCat]

That's not evidence. If it was the he would have been indicted.
Is the FBI in the conspiracy or not Zenmeister?

[defaultdotxbe]

That's not evidence. If it was the he would have been indicted.
if you dont think thats not good enough for him to be the focus of an investigation thats fine, but surely it means you have even more damning evidence that says the bush admin should be the focus, correct?

[WildCat]

Speaking of evidence, Zen....do you have any?
The next truther who has any evidence will be the first one.

[TheRedWorm]

I think by initial answer covers that as well as my link to people who would like to be heard on the record concerning 9/11. If you want something more specific I would start with pre-9/11 intelligence.


What raises concern for you?

If you wouldn't mind answering, please.

[ZENSMACK89]

Meeting with American lawmakers and government officials about things he knew about Bin Laden and other Central Asian security topics in his capacity as head of the Pakistani ISI, as he'd done quite a few times before then IIRC. He'd been there since the week before, and after the attacks happened the Americans were able to quickly consult him for ongoing intelligence info.

p.s. The alleged monetary link between him and Atta was one report from Indian intelligence, not some hard-and-fast confirmed fact, and also his surname is "Ahmad" not "Ahmed".
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/FD08Aa01.html

Mahmoud's involvement in September 11 might be dismissed as only Indian propaganda. But Indian intelligence swears by it, and the US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has confirmed the whole story: Indian intelligence even supplied Saeed's cellular-phone numbers. Nobody has bothered to check what really happened. The 9-11 Commission should pose very specific questions about it to FBI director Robert Mueller when he testifies this month.

In December 2002, Graham said he was "surprised at the evidence that there were foreign governments involved in facilitating the activities of at least some of the [September 11] terrorists in the United States ... It will become public at some point when it's turned over to the archives, but that's 20 or 30 years from now." He could not but be referring to Pakistan and Mahmoud. If Mahmoud was really involved in September 11, this means the Pakistani ISI -"the state within the state" - knew all about it. And if the intelligence elite in Pakistan knew it, an intelligence elite in Saudi Arabia knew it, as well as an intelligence elite in the US.

Oh well. Hope I'm still alive by then.

[ZENSMACK89]

If you wouldn't mind answering, please.
For one I would like to hear what these people have to say...

http://www.nswbc.org/Press%20Releases/NSWBC-911Comm.htm

[TheRedWorm]

You mentioned that already, what else? You did say I'd start with... So, what else should be investigated that wasn't, if you don't mind answering.

[WildCat]

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/FD08Aa01.html

Mahmoud's involvement in September 11 might be dismissed as only Indian propaganda. But Indian intelligence swears by it, and the US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has confirmed the whole story
Is that the same FBI that planted all the evidence at the Pentagon? Whose agents faked the DNA from the passengers and hijackers? Who faked finding the FDR's from AA77?

Are they in it or not Zen?

[ZENSMACK89]

You mentioned that already, what else? You did say I'd start with... So, what else should be investigated that wasn't, if you don't mind answering.
I did answer. What do you mean what else? How many "what else's" do you need?

[WildCat]

For one I would like to hear what these people have to say...

http://www.nswbc.org/Press%20Releases/NSWBC-911Comm.htm
That Sibel Edmonds sure does talk a lot for someone under a gag order!

[tacodaemon]

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/FD08Aa01.html

Mahmoud's involvement in September 11 might be dismissed as only Indian propaganda. But Indian intelligence swears by it, and the US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has confirmed the whole story: Indian intelligence even supplied Saeed's cellular-phone numbers. Nobody has bothered to check what really happened. The 9-11 Commission should pose very specific questions about it to FBI director Robert Mueller when he testifies this month.


I'm not seeing any citation for the FBI "confirm[ing] the whole story," and from a look at the front page of ATimes.com (http://atimes.com/) I'm not getting the impression that it's a sober just-the-facts kind of operation either.

[Arus808]

That's not evidence. If it was the he would have been indicted.

which shows that you dont know how a criminal investigation works.

[Jonnyclueless]

So by real investigation He means one that comes up with a conspiracy theory.

[TheRedWorm]

I did answer. Why do you mean what else? How many "what else's" do you need?


You said that if I wanted specifics, you'd start with that. Start with implies that there is something else that was not investigated fully. I was simply asking what those other things, aside from what you'd start with, were. Now, if you don't want to go into any other details, that is fine. As it is, I am going off to sleep, so until another time.

[HyJinX]

For one I would like to hear what these people have to say...

http://www.nswbc.org/Press%20Relea
ses/NSWBC-911Comm.htm

Why do think that people who can't speak will support you? You need to come up with something substantial. Have you? If so, what is it? The words of people who are under a gag-order neither support you or anybody else...WHAT DO YOU HAVE???

Can you supply facts, evidence, anything concrete??? Anything?

Seriously Zen...I'm getting tired of your games and dodges. You're making youself look stupid. Really. Make a point and substantiate your beliefs...or be left looking ridiculous.

[ZENSMACK89]

That Sibel Edmonds sure does talk a lot for someone under a gag order!
Yeah makes you wonder why they used retroactive classification. I mean if she has nothing of any value to add.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C04EFDD103FF933A15756C0A9629C8B 63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all


'I have never heard of a retroactive classification two years back,'' said an aide who spoke on condition of anonymity because the subject is classified.

'It would be silly if it didn't have such serious implications,'' the aide said. ''People are puzzled and, frankly, worried, because the effect here is to quash Congressional oversight. We don't even know what we can't talk about.''

Senator Grassley said, ''This is about as close to a gag order as you can get.''

[HyJinX]

Ok, it's obvious...you have nothing. Sad.

[ZENSMACK89]

You said that if I wanted specifics, you'd start with that. Start with implies that there is something else that was not investigated fully. I was simply asking what those other things, aside from what you'd start with, were. Now, if you don't want to go into any other details, that is fine. As it is, I am going off to sleep, so until another time.
It wasn't fully investigated if those people I listed weren't heard.

Good night.

[defaultdotxbe]

if you dont think thats not good enough for him to be the focus of an investigation thats fine, but surely it means you have even more damning evidence that says the bush admin should be the focus, correct?
zen, you still havent told me what better evidence you have to indicate the bush admin should have been the focus of the investigation rather than bin laden

[ZENSMACK89]

Why do think that people who can't speak will support you? You need to come up with something substantial. Have you? If so, what is it? The words of people who are under a gag-order neither support you or anybody else...WHAT DO YOU HAVE???

Can you supply facts, evidence, anything concrete??? Anything?

Seriously Zen...I'm getting tired of your games and dodges. You're making youself look stupid. Really. Make a point and substantiate your beliefs...or be left looking ridiculous.
The OP is "What didn't happen"

Those people weren't heard for one.

Now what have you got?

[WildCat]

Yeah makes you wonder why they used retroactive classification. I mean if she has nothing of any value to add.
So Edmonds has evidence that Bush and Cheney did 9/11 and is letting a gag order stop her? How pathetic.

[Arus808]

The OP is "What didn't happen"

Those people weren't heard for one.

Now what have you got?


give a reason why their testimony would add any weight to disprove that Bin Laden wasn't behind it.

Remember, you have a far leap in logic if you think any of those individuals have anything that would turn the investigation a complete 180 to blame Bush and co.

[ZENSMACK89]

zen, you still havent told me what better evidence you have to indicate the bush admin should have been the focus of the investigation rather than bin laden
I said "a" focus not necessarily thee focus. They should have come under the umbrella of the investigation instead being the holder the umbrella and holding it closed. Now as much of a focus of the investigation that was on UBL you would think they could secure an indictment instead of having to come out with this...

“The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.” - Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI June 6, 2006

[ZENSMACK89]

So Edmonds has evidence that Bush and Cheney did 9/11 and is letting a gag order stop her? How pathetic.
I don't know did she tell you something?

[HyJinX]

The OP is "What didn't happen"

Those people weren't heard for one.

Now what have you got?

From you?...nothing. You have yet to show that what they would say would help prove anything. What do you think anything they would say would prove an inside job? You can't use the unheard testimony of these people to prove anything...do you understand this very basic point?

[ZENSMACK89]

give a reason why their testimony would add any weight to disprove that Bin Laden wasn't behind it.

Remember, you have a far leap in logic if you think any of those individuals have anything that would turn the investigation a complete 180 to blame Bush and co.
We would have to hear it first skippy. But that's not happening is it?

[ZENSMACK89]

From you?...nothing. You have yet to show that what they would say would help prove anything. What do you think anything they would say would prove an inside job? You can't use the unheard testimony of these people to prove anything...do you understand this very basic point?
The OP is "What didn't happen".

Get it?

[HyJinX]

Until you hear it...there's no basis for you to think their testimony helps you in any way.

[WildCat]

“The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.” - Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI June 6, 2006
So the FBI is not in on it, and all the evidence collected at the pentagon is legitimate?

[HyJinX]

The OP is "What didn't happen".

Get it?

Oh...I get it. What I don't get is why you think that any testimony that DIDN'T happen would support your thoughts on the subject. Can you explain or do I need to get an interpreter here to help you understand what it is I'm asking of you?

[Arus808]

I said "a" focus not necessarily thee focus. They should have come under the umbrella of the investigation instead being the holder the umbrella and holding it closed. Now as much of a focus of the investigation that was on UBL you would think they could secure an indictment instead of having to come out with this...

which shows again that you do not understand how one gets indicted for a crime. Please research .

“The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.” - Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI June 6, 2006

yet you ignore that the FBI also stated that he is already wanted in connection with Embassy bombings, that would give him the death penalty anyway, and the events of 911 is just gravy to the long list of crimes he's already been indicted for.

[WildCat]

I don't know did she tell you something?
You don't know, yet you hold her up as some sort of whistleblower?

[ZENSMACK89]

So the FBI is not in on it, and all the evidence collected at the pentagon is legitimate?
What evidence collected at the Pentagon can secure an indictment against UBL?

[Arus808]

I don't know did she tell you something?

if you dont know what she has to say, how do you know that her testimony would bear any weight (for or against) on the numerous other witnesses who were brought to testify and the evidence?

[HyJinX]

What evidence collected at the Pentagon can secure an indictment against UBL?

Not on topic. Start a new thread, Mr. Derail.

[Arus808]

We would have to hear it first skippy.
My name isn't skippy. do not use nicknames when its not asked for.

and why do you want to hear it? please provide us a reason why her testimony would bear any weight (for or against) over the other numerous witnesses that have testified and the evidence.

But that's not happening is it?

since the investigation is done, yes it isn't happening.

[ZENSMACK89]

which shows again that you do not understand how one gets indicted for a crime. Please research .

Yeah ok.

yet you ignore that the FBI also stated that he is already wanted in connection with Embassy bombings, that would give him the death penalty anyway, and the events of 911 is just gravy to the long list of crimes he's already been indicted for.

So 9/11 and 3,000 dead americans is just gravy and second fiddle to what? 200 dead in Kenya?

Is that the best you got?

[Arus808]

Until you hear it...there's no basis for you to think their testimony helps you in any way.

And remember, their testimony, if taken would need to be weighed against the numerous other witnesses that were brought into testify and the evidence.

[ZENSMACK89]

My name isn't skippy. do not use nicknames when its not asked for.

and why do you want to hear it? please provide us a reason why her testimony would bear any weight (for or against) over the other numerous witnesses that have testified and the evidence.



since the investigation is done, yes it isn't happening.
I want hear it to see if it sheds any light on what was known and ignored before 9/11.

[WildCat]

Funny about Zensmack - one minute the FBI is in on it, the next they're saying that OBL has nothing to do with 9/11.

[HyJinX]

Yeah ok.



So 9/11 and 3,000 dead americans is just gravy and second fiddle to what? 200 dead in Kenya?

Is that the best you got?

Not a sufficient answer, Zen. Can you actually answer a question without it being entombed in political emotion?

[ZENSMACK89]

Funny about Zensmack - one minute the FBI is in on it, the next they're saying that OBL has nothing to do with 9/11.
In on what?

[HyJinX]

I want hear it to see if it sheds any light on what was known and ignored before 9/11.

Until then...the point is mute. She's not a factor and cannot be used as a pawn in political agenda.

Next.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

“The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.” - Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI June 6, 2006

ZEN, tell me who, according to the LAPD, is the chief suspect in the 1994 murders of Nicole Brown-Simpson and Ronald Goldman.

Did the LAPD and LA prosecutors office have sufficient hard evidence to convict this suspect?

[ZENSMACK89]

Not on topic. Start a new thread, Mr. Derail.
Evidence against UBL is something that "didn't happen"

[ZENSMACK89]

ZEN, tell me who, according to the LAPD, is the chief suspect in the 1994 murders of Nicole Brown-Simpson and Ronald Goldman.

Did the LAPD and LA prosecutors office have sufficient hard evidence to convict this suspect?
Apparently not.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Apparently not.

Do you understand now, the difference between someone in law enforcement say "we have insufficient evidence" and the same person saying "he didn't do it"?

[Arus808]

Yeah ok.

so you agree that you dont know how criminal indictments work. Good, now can you go and research till you understand how they are issued?



So 9/11 and 3,000 dead americans is just gravy and second fiddle to what? 200 dead in Kenya?

oh please, is this your weak attempt at trying to pull the emotional card. Sorry, but it doesn't work.

Again, this proves that you dont know how criminal indictments are brought about, and that you need to research in order to understand it better. and dont pull the emotional card again. Your logical fallacies will not work in this thread.

Since you fail to understand; a criminal indictment against Bin Laden would just be an additional crime to his ALREADY LONG list of crimes that would ALREADY get him the death penalty in the USA, and have been indicted for.

Sorry, but in the REAL world (the one you do not have an understanding about), not every criminal will get charged with every crime they commit. Like a serial killer will not get indicted with every murder they committed, simply because the police do not have evidence to support it. The police know that the killer is responsible, but iwthout direct evidence, there is nothing they can do. HOwever, the killer is already indicted for many of the crimes that would put him away for the rest of his life or put him to death. The other crimes are pretty much enough to bring justice to the people at large; but those who lost loved ones, may not get the peace they deserve simply because there is no direct evidence of the killer's involvement.


Look at Ted Bundy, the police will never know the full total of the women he murdered, and he only confessed to 30 murders, but he wasn't convicted or indicted for all of them.

[WildCat]

In on what?
The great Zionist/ISI/CIA/NWO/Freemason/Larry Silverstein/FDNY/Bush/Cheney/Skull-and-Bones/NIST/ASCE/NSA/Mossad/Secret Service/9-11 Commission/American Airlines/United Airlines/Air Force/NORAD/ATC/Army/Mainstream Media plot to blow up the WTC in order to steal Iraqi oil... did I forget anyone Zen?

[Arus808]

I want hear it to see if it sheds any light on what was known and ignored before 9/11.

and what makes you an authority on how to weigh the testimony if given? care to list us your expertise in legal trials and how to take testimony?

[ZENSMACK89]

You don't know, yet you hold her up as some sort of whistleblower?
So why did they feel the need to keep her quiet if she has nothing?

[ZENSMACK89]

so you agree that you dont know how criminal indictments work. Good, now can you go and research till you understand how they are issued?





oh please, is this your weak attempt at trying to pull the emotional card. Sorry, but it doesn't work.

Again, this proves that you dont know how criminal indictments are brought about, and that you need to research in order to understand it better. and dont pull the emotional card again. Your logical fallacies will not work in this thread.

Since you fail to understand; a criminal indictment against Bin Laden would just be an additional crime to his ALREADY LONG list of crimes that would ALREADY get him the death penalty in the USA, and have been indicted for.

Sorry, but in the REAL world (the one you do not have an understanding about), not every criminal will get charged with every crime they commit. Like a serial killer will not get indicted with every murder they committed, simply because the police do not have evidence to support it. The police know that the killer is responsible, but iwthout direct evidence, there is nothing they can do. HOwever, the killer is already indicted for many of the crimes that would put him away for the rest of his life or put him to death. The other crimes are pretty much enough to bring justice to the people at large; but those who lost loved ones, may not get the peace they deserve simply because there is no direct evidence of the killer's involvement.


Look at Ted Bundy, the police will never know the full total of the women he murdered, and he only confessed to 30 murders, but he wasn't convicted or indicted for all of them.
UBL isn't indicted for any part in 9/11. none, nada, zip

[ZENSMACK89]

and what makes you an authority on how to weigh the testimony if given? care to list us your expertise in legal trials and how to take testimony?
Am I the only one? That's not my website I pointed to.

[defaultdotxbe]

UBL isn't indicted for any part in 9/11. none, nada, zip
GWB isn't indicted for any part in 9/11. none, nada, zip

[Arus808]

So why did they feel the need to keep her quiet if she has nothing?


dont know dont care. maybe she holds the combination lock numbers to Bush's sooper-seekret waffle making machine. a gag order doesn't necessarily mean that what she has to say is incriminating to Bush and co. - a gag order could be in place for several reasons, all not nefarious.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

UBL isn't indicted for any part in 9/11. none, nada, zip

Ok, you obviously don't get it. Time to whip out the KISS (Keep It Simple Stick).

SHOW US WHERE THE FBI SAID OSAMA DIDN'T DO IT.

[ZENSMACK89]

The great Zionist/ISI/CIA/NWO/Freemason/Larry Silverstein/FDNY/Bush/Cheney/Skull-and-Bones/NIST/ASCE/NSA/Mossad/Secret Service/9-11 Commission/American Airlines/United Airlines/Air Force/NORAD/ATC/Army/Mainstream Media plot to blow up the WTC in order to steal Iraqi oil... did I forget anyone Zen?
Go for it. Maybe you should start a new thread though.

[WildCat]

So why did they feel the need to keep her quiet if she has nothing?
If she has something, why isn't she talking? Would a gag order shut you up about the real perpetrators of a crime that killed nearly 3,000 people? I'd be screaming it from the rooftops... but apparently Edmonds is more worried about a gag order?

[Arus808]

UBL isn't indicted for any part in 9/11. none, nada, zip

And by this, I can tell you didn't even attempt to read the reply. Really sad, that you dont bother yourself with doing some little research to understand how criminal indictments actually work.

There are reasons why OBL isn't indicted, and if you bothered to research, you would know them. However, he is already indicted for many other crimes, that would get him the death penalty.

[WildCat]

Go for it.
Haven't you implicated all of those groups and entities Zen?

[ZENSMACK89]

Ok, you obviously don't get it. Time to whip out the KISS (Keep It Simple Stick).

SHOW US WHERE THE FBI SAID OSAMA DIDN'T DO IT.
I already showed you what they said. Now stop yelling. You'll wake TheRedWorm.

[HyJinX]

So why did they feel the need to keep her quiet if she has nothing?

And what makes you feel that she has something because they kept her quiet?

[ZENSMACK89]

Haven't you implicated all of those groups and entities Zen?
implicated in what?

[ZENSMACK89]

And what makes you feel that she has something because they kept her quiet?
So they retroactively classified material that they didn't need to?

[HyJinX]

Do you think that whatever Sibel has to say would support an inside job?

[WildCat]

implicated in what?
I see you're smoking the diggety-dank tonight...

[ZENSMACK89]

If she has something, why isn't she talking? Would a gag order shut you up about the real perpetrators of a crime that killed nearly 3,000 people? I'd be screaming it from the rooftops... but apparently Edmonds is more worried about a gag order?
I don't think she has claimed to know the whole story just something she feels is important useful that they obviously don't want her talking about.

[WildCat]

I don't think she has claimed to know the whole story just something she feels is important useful that they obviously don't want her talking about.
What story?

[ZENSMACK89]

Do you think that whatever Sibel has to say would support an inside job?
You would have to hear it first. Just like you would have to have a real investigation first before you go around pretending to know the truth.

[HyJinX]

I don't think she has claimed to know the whole story just something she feels is important useful that they obviously don't want her talking about.

...that being nothing that supports the claim of an inside job...correct?

[ZENSMACK89]

What story?
The story of 9/11

[CHF]

I already showed you what they said.

So the FBI doesn't say "we think bin Laden didn't do it" and you have no proof that Sibel thinks 9/11 was an inside job.

That about sum it up, Zen?

I can't imagine why this "evidence" hasn't translated into a new investigation.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I already showed you what they said. Now stop yelling. You'll wake TheRedWorm.

So you concede then that the FBI, nor any other agency, ever said that anyone but Osama Bin Laden was behind the attacks of September 11th, 2001?

[ZENSMACK89]

...that being nothing that supports the claim of an inside job...correct?
How can you know?

[Redtail]

If she has something, why isn't she talking? Would a gag order shut you up about the real perpetrators of a crime that killed nearly 3,000 people? I'd be screaming it from the rooftops... but apparently Edmonds is more worried about a gag order?

Gag orders are like testifying under oath. When testifying under oath it is impossible to lie. When You have a gag order on you it's impossible to speak about the subject.

[HyJinX]

You would have to hear it first. Just like you would have to have a real investigation first before you go around pretending to know the truth.

I am extremely cofident in the investigation that has been done thus far. Do you have any scientific reason to prove that what has been presented is in doubt?

Please specify.

[HyJinX]

How can you know?


How can you? Until we both know...you can't use her as an advocate for the "twoof movement". Correct?

[WildCat]

When testifying under oath it is impossible to lie. When You have a gag order on you it's impossible to speak about the subject.
Oh yeah, I forgot! Cheney and Bush will plan and execute 9/11, but couldn't lie under oath!

Truthers are funny.

[ZENSMACK89]

So you concede then that the FBI, nor any other agency, ever said that anyone but Osama Bin Laden was behind the attacks of September 11th, 2001?
No. In fact I believe it's claimed that 19 ghosts had something to do with it also. Also some guy who holds the world’s record for being water boarded confessed to being involved in it along with confessing to just about every other crime in the world including but not limited to the Lincoln assassination.

[HyJinX]

No. In fact I believe it's claimed that 19 ghosts had something to do with it also. Also some guy who holds the world’s record for being water boarded confessed to being involved in it along with confessing to just about every other crime in the world including but not limited to the Lincoln assassination.

This is what you have? You're starting to look stupid. Again.

[WildCat]

No. In fact I believe it's claimed that 19 ghosts had something to do with it also.
So then the airlines didn't do anything negligent on 9/11?
Also some guy who holds the world’s record for being water boarded confessed to being involved in it along with confessing to just about every other crime in the world including but not limited to the Lincoln assassination.
Was he waterboarded by the press when he bragged about his deeds to that Saudi reporter? I know you have mad researchin' skillz and don't even need a cite for this...

[ZENSMACK89]

Oh yeah, I forgot! Cheney and Bush will plan and execute 9/11, but couldn't lie under oath!

Truthers are funny.
Apparently not separately.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

No. In fact I believe it's claimed that 19 ghosts had something to do with it also. Also some guy who holds the world’s record for being water boarded confessed to being involved in it along with confessing to just about every other crime in the world including but not limited to the Lincoln assassination.


All of whom were a part of whose organization?



I'm starting to realize why this guy thinks hitting an off switch is something only an "expert" can do.

[HyJinX]

Apparently not separately.

Why do find this suspicious?

[R.Mackey]

In the future, if a thread is intended for ZENSMACK89, could you guys put that in the title or the tags or something? Some of these threads need a "Surgeon General's Warning," if you know what I mean.

Thanks!

[ZENSMACK89]

So then the airlines didn't do anything negligent on 9/11?

Well if that's the case maybe someone should fill them in before they settle another lawsuit with the remaining holdouts.

Was he waterboarded by the press when he bragged about his deeds to that Saudi reporter? I know you have mad researchin' skillz and don't even need a cite for this...

Actually it was the CIA.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200512160006

Kondracke wrote, "According to ABC News, CIA officers said that the highest-ranking al Qaeda operative yet captured, Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, held out for two and a half minutes before begging to talk. The CIA claims it got valuable information from him."

[ZENSMACK89]

In the future, if a thread is intended for ZENSMACK89, could you guys put that in the title or the tags or something? Some of these threads need a "Surgeon General's Warning," if you know what I mean.

Thanks!

cluck cluck

[ZENSMACK89]

Why do find this suspicious?
Why did they insist that was the only way they would testify? Did Dubya need someone to hold his hand?

[ZENSMACK89]

All of whom were a part of whose organization?



I'm starting to realize why this guy thinks hitting an off switch is something only an "expert" can do.


The Base?

[ZENSMACK89]

Wow. Look at how I get everyone so riled up.

Ya gotta love it.

lol

[HyJinX]

Why did they insist that was the only way they would testify? Did Dubya need someone to hold his hand?

Again...why do think this is anything suspicious.

I, personally, don't find this odd. Why do you? How can this particular incident prove useful to your cause?

[HyJinX]

double post

[HyJinX]

Wow. Look at how I get everyone so riled up.

Ya gotta love it.

lol

I wouldn't laugh too loud. We're getting "riled up" at your idiocy.

[Redtail]

Wow. Look at how I get everyone so riled up.

Ya gotta love it.

lol

Yet you (or any other truther for that matter) can get 500 people to stand infront of the White House and demand a new investigation...

LOL!

[tsig]

implicated in what?

Just Crank Janking

[tsig]

How can you know?


Oh let me count the ways.

[beachnut]

A fully funded investigation. An uncensored investigation where whistleblowers can be heard. An investigation where everyone is required to tell the truth the first time they are asked. Where Dick Cheney and Dubya testify under oath separately. Where the actual commission isn't put together and ground rules set by the very people who should be a focus of the investigation. An unbiased investigation where there is no one on the commission who has a past and present link to the people who should be a focus of the investigation. An investigation where the need to cover-up accountability and liability doesn't trump the need for truth.
What whistleblowers?
Cheney and Bush? They did not fly or order the planes.
Did you miss the hundreds of independent investigations of 9/11? Poor research?

I want to know why all the 9/11 truth people who saw this coming did not stand up and do something to save us! I want to know why all of 9/11 truth is unable to understand 9/11? I guess being old help to understand things kids have problems even getting a good start understanding.
Good luck Zen, you need it.

[tsig]

Wow. Look at how I get everyone so riled up.

Ya gotta love it.

lol

reported

[beachnut]

For one I would like to hear what these people have to say...

http://www.nswbc.org/Press%20Releases/NSWBC-911Comm.htm
When was Sibel Edmonds hired? And how does a person hired when she was hired qualify as a w. blower? Or is this question above your pay grade? Good luck. Do dah do dah doo do do, do da do da doo do do.

Will there be an answer or will our wine cellar inventory drink fest be for naught?

[Dog Town]

A fully funded investigation.

Are you aware of the scope, this investigation cost?

[Dog Town]

For starters I'd like to know what General Mahmoud Ahmed was doing in Washington DC the week of 9/11.


The "fact" that you have even heard of this, Says do a "little" research! You might learn. Maybee not!

* laughs louder*

[WildCat]

Well if that's the case maybe someone should fill them in before they settle another lawsuit with the remaining holdouts.
Are you schizophrenic? You are claiming, simultaneously, that the 19 hijackers were ghosts and that the airlines were negligent for letting them aboard w/allowed iterms...

Actually it was the CIA.
Al Jazeera reporter Yosri Fouda (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/03/04/1046540191739.html) was a CIA agent in 2002, and tortured KSM into confessing years before he was captured? :rolleyes:

[TheRedWorm]

I see this thread has grown since I last checked it, yet still, no answer on what didn't happen on 9/11. Please Zen, what didn't happen on 9/11? Was flight 77 not hijacked? Could damage and fire not brought down WTC 1 and 2? Please tell me what didn't happen on 9/11, if you don't mind.

[peteweaver]

A fully funded investigation. An uncensored investigation where whistleblowers can be heard.

There have been real investigations by some of the finest engineers on the planet, there have been real independant investigations including one by the BBC for their Horizon documentary which aired in 2002, one by the University of Sydney.

As for whistleblowers ? what whistleblowers ? whistleblowers have a habit of going to prison, as David 'woo woo' Shayler did.

Kindly point out what these investigations got wrong when they proved structural damage exacerbated by fire brought the twin towers down.

[Bell]

2974 people surviving - didn't happen.

[RedIbis]

George Bush didn't see the first plane strike the N. Tower while he was in Booker.

Or he did, and he just happened to have a closed circuit feed trained on the N. Tower before anyone knew we were under attack.

Liar or preknowledge?

"I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower -- the TV was obviously on. And I used to fly, myself, and I said, well, there's one terrible pilot. I said, it must have been a horrible accident," Bush. -White House (12/04/01)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Anyway, I was sitting there, and my Chief of Staff -- well, first of all, when we walked into the classroom, I had seen this plane fly into the first building. There was a TV set on. And you know, I thought it was pilot error and I was amazed that anybody could make such a terrible mistake. And something was wrong with the plane, or -- anyway," Bush. -White House (01/05/02)

[Bell]

Liar or preknowledge?

You forgot misspoken.

[RedIbis]

You forgot misspoken.

More than once, when he is including details of where he was when he saw it?

[Firestone]

...
Liar or preknowledge?
...
Quick, before Arkan sees this: false dichotomy!

[Bell]

More than once, when he is including details of where he was when he saw it?

Stop the press! Bush misspoke!

[Firestone]

Damn Bush!

We the NWO-footpeople set up camera's in NYC and a closed circuit feed in that Florida school so that he can enjoy the first strike live and direct, and that [rule?] goes and tells everyone about it. :(

[ZENSMACK89]

I see this thread has grown since I last checked it, yet still, no answer on what didn't happen on 9/11. Please Zen, what didn't happen on 9/11? Was flight 77 not hijacked? Could damage and fire not brought down WTC 1 and 2? Please tell me what didn't happen on 9/11, if you don't mind.

You must of had a good sleep. You forgot that I did answer you. We didn't get a real investigation.

Now what else on didn't happen 9/11? We weren't protected. It wasn't prevented and no one was held accountable for not doing their job to protect the US.

[Dave Rogers]

More than once, when he is including details of where he was when he saw it?

Up until a year or two ago I was certain I'd seen flight 175 hit the South Tower on live TV. On reflection I don't think I can have, because I don't think that feed was broadcast live on British TV, but I still have a clear memory of seeing something I'm otherwise fairly sure I didn't see. Memory is a very faulty thing.

Of course, I may have damaged my memory through heavy drinking in my student days, so clearly GWB wouldn't experience the same phenomenon.

Dave

[SDC]

You must of had a good sleep. You forgot that I did answer you. We didn't get a real investigation.

Now what else on didn't happen 9/11? We weren't protected. It wasn't prevented and no one was held accountable for not doing their job to protect the US.

I'm sorry, but I thought you believed that it was an Inside Job, perhaps by the Fabulous Dancing Israelis in cahoots with the Flying Wallendas.

I'm clearly wrong. In any case, please note that by saying "no one was held accountable for not doing their job to protect the US," you are clearly stating that, in your opinion, it was not an Inside Job, because protection is the job of the government and the military.

Thanks. I'm glad we cleared that up. GO INDIANS!!

[DavidJames]

I understand the premise of the thread. It was an attempt to pin down CT trolls like smack. An attempt to get them to do more then post random quotes or make vacuous comments. An attempt to make them come out of their self imposed fog of JAQing and take a stand.

The thread premise could have produced the desired results if the target audience were genuinely interested in debate or simply finding the truth. You see the responses, they are interested in neither.

[TheRedWorm]

So you think that only an investigation is what did not happen, correct? If this is so, how do you explain this comment:
Who said flight 77 hit the Pentagon? lol

Linky: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3060969&postcount=87

Please explain this contradiction. If you cannot, I will have to accept David James' assessment and declare you either a troll or coward. Please don't force me to call you either.

[ZENSMACK89]

So you think that only an investigation is what did not happen, correct? If this is so, how do you explain this comment:


Linky: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3060969&postcount=87

Please explain this contradiction. If you cannot, I will have to accept David James' assessment and declare you either a troll or coward. Please don't force me to call you either.
No I said a whitewash of an investigation occurred and what we need is a real investigation.

[GT/CS]

I don't think she has claimed to know the whole story just something she feels is important useful that they obviously don't want her talking about.

So the people who you believe killed thousands on that day put a gag order on her because she knows something. Why wouldn't they just kill her like they killed everyone else?

Zen you will go down in Troll history. 1800 posts and still ticking.

[ZENSMACK89]

I'm sorry, but I thought you believed that it was an Inside Job, perhaps by the Fabulous Dancing Israelis in cahoots with the Flying Wallendas.

No what I asked about the dancing Israelis is why were they laughing at 9/11? BTW have you answered that?

I'm clearly wrong. In any case, please note that by saying "no one was held accountable for not doing their job to protect the US," you are clearly stating that, in your opinion, it was not an Inside Job, because protection is the job of the government and the military.

No what I'm claiming is the official version has problems even if it were true.

Thanks. I'm glad we cleared that up. GO INDIANS!!

You're welcome. Those Indians might get caught in a blizzard if they even get that far.

[TheRedWorm]

So, Zen, I am forced to conclude that you are a cowardly troll. A combination seems necessary for someone who is so intellectually dishonest. I do apologize for the labeling, but you seem unwilling to answer direct questions. If you ever decide that the game you play is not fun any more, and wish to have an honest discussion with anyone here, please let someone know. Until that time, I guess this is auf wiedersehen.

Even having said all that, I still wish to thank you for all your responses.

[ZENSMACK89]

I think some people believe everyone is as stupid as they are.

[DavidJames]

GO INDIANS!!Boston and Cleveland are simply trying to decide which team will go in the box score of the record books as the losing team in final 4 victories of the Rockies record setting 25 of 26 wins leading up to and including the 2007 World Series. ;)

[Dave Rogers]

Zensmack89 responded positively to this challenge. He set aside his usual policy of throwing out randomly chosen quotes that vaguely hinted at some underlying message while in fact frequently contradicted each other, while occasionally asking loaded questions to divert casual observers from noticing that he actually had no central theme to his posts and no argument to develop, let alone the material with which to develop it. Instead, he carefully constructed a clear line of argument, supported with evidence that could not be refuted or ignored, which clearly indicated that there are serious flaws in the conventionally accepted narrative of 9-11 and surrounding events, and demonstrated beyond a shadow of doubt that a further investigation into these events not only would be in the public interest, but indeed would be vital to the continued trust that all citizens of Western civilisation have in their governments and institutions.

That, in a nutshell, is what didn't happen.

Dave

[SDC]

No what I'm claiming is the official version has problems even if it were true.


Cut by me to this one outstanding sentence. Please read this and tell me what you think it means. I think it means ... I'm sorry, I can't make an informed guess.

"[T]he official version has problems..." OK, you are saying that it is not necessarily accurate, the investigation was incomplete, etc. That's clear.

"[E]ven if it were true..." Sorry, you have lost me. I cannot comprehend the relationship between the two phrases which make up this sentence.

"...if it were true..." Do you mean to say that, regardless of the question of the truth of the official version, it (the official version) was poorly done? So perhaps if you had written/ composed it, it would have been better done? That is about the only thing I can guess.

Well, then, OK, write your own official version, and improve on what came before.

Wait till the Rockies get to Cleveland. The midges will eat them alive.

[Corsair 115]

More than once, when he is including details of where he was when he saw it?Have you not been watching Bush speak publicly the last seven years? He's a terrible public speaker, especially when judging by the standards of a politician, a profession where good public speaking skills are a valuable asset. (In fairness I'll give President Bush a break and say he's okay when reading from a script. But impromptu public speaking? *shudder*)

Misstatement is by far the most reasonable explanation.

You know what else on didn't happen 9/11? We weren't protected.You were protected plenty — but from the wrong kind of threat. Had it been the Soviets showing up for a fight, there'd have been plenty of protection.

But being attacked from within by a terrorist cell, that was not the kind of fight that was anticpated nor prepared for.

[ZENSMACK89]

Cut by me to this one outstanding sentence. Please read this and tell me what you think it means. I think it means ... I'm sorry, I can't make an informed guess.

"[T]he official version has problems..." OK, you are saying that it is not necessarily accurate, the investigation was incomplete, etc. That's clear.

"[E]ven if it were true..." Sorry, you have lost me. I cannot comprehend the relationship between the two phrases which make up this sentence.

"...if it were true..." Do you mean to say that, regardless of the question of the truth of the official version, it (the official version) was poorly done? So perhaps if you had written/ composed it, it would have been better done? That is about the only thing I can guess.

Well, then, OK, write your own official version, and improve on what came before.

Wait till the Rockies get to Cleveland. The midges will eat them alive.
Yes I should have finished that sentence. I should had said...

"No what I'm claiming is the official version has problems even if it were true that there was no inside job."

See what happens when parts are omitted? People start to jump to conclusions.

lol

[ZENSMACK89]

But being attacked from within by a terrorist cell, that was not the kind of fight that was anticpated nor prepared for.

It's debatable as to what we knew and what we should have been watching for.

[Disbelief]

It's debatable as to what we knew and what we should have been watching for.

Hindsight is also 20/20.

[Corsair 115]

It's debatable as to what we knew and what we should have been watching for. Simple question:

Did the U.S. military's rules and procedures in place at time indicate it was more concerned that a terrrorist strike from within was the primary national security threat, or that a conventinal military strike committed by another nation was the primary national security threat?

[SDC]

Yes I should have finished that sentence. I should had said...

"No what I'm claiming is the official version has problems even if it were true that there was no inside job."

See what happens when parts are omitted? People start to jump to conclusions.

lol

I'm sorry, this doesn't clarify anything. The last 6 words could pretty much be assumed, from the context of the ongoing discussion. The two halves of the sentence, breaking between the words "problems / even", are essentially incompatible.

I'm going back to the Fabulous Dancing Israelis and the their cohabitation with the Flying Wallendas. Not only is that a more entertaining notion, but it makes a whole lot more sense than what you are saying.

[ZENSMACK89]

You were protected plenty — but from the wrong kind of threat. Had it been the Soviets showing up for a fight, there'd have been plenty of protection.

A Soviet threat in 2001?

[WildCat]

Zen, was al Jazeera reporter Yosri Fouda a CIA agent, and did he torture KSM into confessing when he interviewed him in 2002?

[Bell]

Up until a year or two ago I was certain I'd seen flight 175 hit the South Tower on live TV. On reflection I don't think I can have, because I don't think that feed was broadcast live on British TV, but I still have a clear memory of seeing something I'm otherwise fairly sure I didn't see. Memory is a very faulty thing.

Of course, I may have damaged my memory through heavy drinking in my student days, so clearly GWB wouldn't experience the same phenomenon.

Dave

Dave, I don't know if you watched BBC World on 9/11, but it had 175 crashing into the South Tower live on tv. Allthough the reporters completely missed it :boggled:

I just looked this up at http://www.archive.org/details/bbc200109110834-0916

[ZENSMACK89]

Zen, was al Jazeera reporter Yosri Fouda a CIA agent, and did he torture KSM into confessing when he interviewed him in 2002?

Not that I know of.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article1529879.ece

Journalist Yosri Fouda, who interviewed KSM in 2002 (see April, June, or August 2002), comments, “he seems to be taking responsibility for some outrages he might not have perpetrated, while keeping quiet about ones that suggest his hand.” Specifically, he thinks KSM may have been involved in an attack in Tunisia that killed about 20 people (see April 11, 2002).

[dudalb]

The great Zionist/ISI/CIA/NWO/Freemason/Larry Silverstein/FDNY/Bush/Cheney/Skull-and-Bones/NIST/ASCE/NSA/Mossad/Secret Service/9-11 Commission/American Airlines/United Airlines/Air Force/NORAD/ATC/Army/Mainstream Media plot to blow up the WTC in order to steal Iraqi oil... did I forget anyone Zen?

You left out the Jesuits,guy.

[WildCat]

Not that I know of.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article1529879.ece

Journalist Yosri Fouda, who interviewed KSM in 2002 (see April, June, or August 2002), comments, “he seems to be taking responsibility for some outrages he might not have perpetrated, while keeping quiet about ones that suggest his hand.” Specifically, he thinks KSM may have been involved in an attack in Tunisia that killed about 20 people (see April 11, 2002).
The article you cite makes it clear Fouda is certain KSM made 9/11 happen.
I think the real father of the 9/11 plot was Muhammed Atef, Osama Bin Laden’s security chief, who was killed in 2001. But it was KSM who made it happen by joining the well resourced Al-Qaeda to carry it out.

He was talking about other plots that did not happen in your very carefull selected out-of-context quotes.

I hope everyone reading this reads the article (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article1529879.ece) and see just how far our boy Zenny had to go in his deliberate misrepresentation of what Fouda believes. I can only come to the conclusion that he is a troll and doesn't himself believe the nonsense he writes.

[WildCat]

You left out the Jesuits,guy.
And the BBC, the dozens of witnesses to the Pentagon hit, etc etc.

[ZENSMACK89]

The article you cite makes it clear Fouda is certain KSM made 9/11 happen.


He was talking about other plots that did not happen in your very carefull selected out-of-context quotes.

I hope everyone reading this reads the article (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article1529879.ece) and see just how far our boy Zenny had to go in his deliberate misrepresentation of what Fouda believes. I can only come to the conclusion that he is a troll and doesn't himself believe the nonsense he writes.
If I wanted to misrepresent what it said why would I give you the link? I was just pointing to how no one knows what KSM is responsible for and what he is not. They're just guessing and cherry picking since he claims to have been involved in just about everything.

[WildCat]

If I wanted to misrepresent what it said why would I give you the link? I was just pointing to how no one knows what KSM is responsible for and what he is not. They're just guessing and cherry picking since he claims to have been involved in just about everything.
You attempted to make it appear that Fouda didn't think KSM was involved in 9/11, when nothing could be further from the truth. In other words, who ya crappin Zensmack?

[GregoryUrich]

If I wanted to misrepresent what it said why would I give you the link? I was just pointing to how no one knows what KSM is responsible for and what he is not. They're just guessing and cherry picking since he claims to have been involved in just about everything.

Zen, after page one I couldn't read any further. How long can you argue with these closed minded official story fundamentalists?

I'm curious whether, after 5 pages, anyone has dealt with your link to the persons and testimonies that the Commission ignored. I for one think the Commission was a farce, managed by and staffed with people having clear conflicts of interest and with less funding than it takes to investigate whether or not the previous president got his flute blown. Doesn't Hamilton himself say they were set up to fail?

[Brainster]

Zen, after page one I couldn't read any further. How long can you argue with these closed minded official story fundamentalists?

I'm curious whether, after 5 pages, anyone has dealt with your link to the persons and testimonies that the Commission ignored. I for one think the Commission was a farce, managed by and staffed with people having clear conflicts of interest and with less funding than it takes to investigate whether or not the previous president got his flute blown. Doesn't Hamilton himself say they were set up to fail?

And concludes that they did not fail (http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2007/05/yet-another-claim-debunked.html):

"What we could not have anticipated were the remarkable people and circumstances that would coalesce within and around the 9/11 Commission over the coming twenty months to enable our success."

But hey, you just read the chapter title, right?

[Bell]

And concludes that they did not fail (http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2007/05/yet-another-claim-debunked.html):

But hey, you just read the chapter title, right?

Oops GregoryUrich, you got pwnd...

[ZENSMACK89]

Zen, after page one I couldn't read any further. How long can you argue with these closed minded official story fundamentalists?

I'm curious whether, after 5 pages, anyone has dealt with your link to the persons and testimonies that the Commission ignored. I for one think the Commission was a farce, managed by and staffed with people having clear conflicts of interest and with less funding than it takes to investigate whether or not the previous president got his flute blown. Doesn't Hamilton himself say they were set up to fail?
It's all good. When you look back at most interactions I have with these so-called duh bunka's all you will find is pages and pages of nonsense, insults, and absolutely nothing to back-up the official version except a need for the truther to have a specific CT they can try and discredit as if that somehow makes their fairytale credible. That's all they ever ask me. "What do you believe?" What's the difference what I believe if the official version can stand on its own? It can’t.

I don't know how many times I have to tell them they can claim to debunk every alternative theory out there but even if were true it still doesn't make their version anymore credible.

And how do they support their version? With excuses, apologies, insults, a massive capacity for suspension of disbelief, and blind faith.

Anyone with half a brain can see the 9/11 commission wasn't set-up to find the truth it was set-up to facilitate the removal of any kind of accountability for the biggest security failure in the history of this country.

[TriskettheKid]

Zen, do you believe the official version of the sinking of the Titanic?

Or would you agree that what actually happened was that the Titanic was rammed by a US Navy submarine and then covered up with the cover story of it actually striking an iceberg?

[GregoryUrich]

And concludes that they did not fail (http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2007/05/yet-another-claim-debunked.html):



But hey, you just read the chapter title, right?

Read the whole book. So you believe a politician saying his work was great success. That's hard evidence. No need to look any further.

The Kean Commission failed miserably. "We still don't know why they (NORAD) told us what they did."

Zen provided two whole pages of persons with inside knowledge who were ignored by the Commission. Has anyone responded to that?

[Bell]

Zen, do you believe the official version of the sinking of the Titanic?

Or would you agree that what actually happened was that the Titanic was rammed by a US Navy submarine and then covered up with the cover story of it actually striking an iceberg?

Was that the same submarine that sank the Lusitania?

[GregoryUrich]

Zen, do you believe the official version of the sinking of the Titanic?

Or would you agree that what actually happened was that the Titanic was rammed by a US Navy submarine and then covered up with the cover story of it actually striking an iceberg?

Do you believe the fire proofing on the south side of WTC1 was knocked off by impacting debris?

If so, I would like you to describe the trajectory necessary and the path taken from the north side.

[TriskettheKid]

Was that the same submarine that sank the Lusitania?

No, that was a German one, U-20, captained by Walther Schwieger.

[Bell]

Doesn't Hamilton himself say they were set up to fail?

So you believe a politician saying his work was great success. That's hard evidence. No need to look any further.


:dl:

[GregoryUrich]

Oops GregoryUrich, you got pwnd...

Oops, your adolescence is showing.

[TriskettheKid]

Do you believe the fire proofing on the south side of WTC1 was knocked off by impacting debris?

If so, I would like you to describe the trajectory necessary and the path taken from the north side.

Why quote my question if you're not going to answer it?

[GregoryUrich]

Why quote my question if you're not going to answer it?

Because your question is off topic. Mine is on topic...and didn't happen. Care to respond?

[TriskettheKid]

Because your question is off topic. Mine is on topic...and didn't happen. Care to respond?

If you'll respond to mine.

And do you believe that the spray-on fireproofing that was used made the steel impervious to fire?

[dudalb]

I think someone is on the verge of outing himself as a Truther,folks,after a long time denying it.

[DGM]

Read the whole book. So you believe a politician saying his work was great success. That's hard evidence. No need to look any further.

The Kean Commission failed miserably. "We still don't know why they (NORAD) told us what they did."

Zen provided two whole pages of persons with inside knowledge who were ignored by the Commission. Has anyone responded to that?
Zen post 2 pages from Sibil Edmond's National Security Whistle Blowers Coalition and we're supposed to be impressed? Let's try a little harder shall we.

[GregoryUrich]

I think someone is on the verge of outing himself as a Truther,folks,after a long time denying it.

What do you mean by "Truther"?

[DavidJames]

I think someone is on the verge of outing himself as a Truther,folks,after a long time denying it.
Oh I don't know, I had him pegged (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2621170&postcount=666) early on.

[GregoryUrich]

Oh I don't know, I had him pegged (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2621170&postcount=666) early on.

I'd be very interested to know what you think I believe.

[Brainster]

Read the whole book. So you believe a politician saying his work was great success. That's hard evidence. No need to look any further.

And you believed (or tried to claim you believed) that a politician actually said his work was a failure. Which is more naive?

The Kean Commission failed miserably. "We still don't know why they (NORAD) told us what they did."

It's called lying to cover their butt. It's not all that uncommon.

Zen provided two whole pages of persons with inside knowledge who were ignored by the Commission. Has anyone responded to that?

Actually several of them were interviewed; the information provided by them did not make it into the final report. Note as well, the vagueness of the descriptions of their "evidence":

"... had knowledge of certain activities that directly related to the terror attacks..."

"...certain warnings they had tried to pursue prior to the 9/11 attack..."

"had first-hand information of prior specific warning (sic) obtained from a reliable informant in April 2001...."

"...there were links between certain domestic and international counterterrorism related to the September 11 attacks...."

"...reported that FBI HQ personnel in Washington DC had mishandled and neglected to take action..."

"...had tried for several years prior to the 9-11 attacks to improve aviation security in the face of the ever-increasing terrorist threat."

"...had reported numerous inadequacies and dysfunctions in emergency preparedness...."

"...dozens of pages of relevant information..."

Isn't that typical? Try to read these brief descriptions and ask yourself, do any of these folks sound even vaguely MIHOP? Heck, most of them seem to be arguing incompetence at worst.

[WildCat]

Do you believe the fire proofing on the south side of WTC1 was knocked off by impacting debris?

If so, I would like you to describe the trajectory necessary and the path taken from the north side.

I'd be very interested to know what you think I believe.
You obviously don't think that a 767 traveling over 400 mph and exploding in a fireball has sufficient energy to knock off spray-on fire-proofing material. Must be some strong stuff!

[dudalb]

What do you mean by "Truther"?

Come off it,you know what Truther means.
You are already an admitted LIHOP who seems to be moving in the direction of a MIHOP.

[GregoryUrich]

And you believed (or tried to claim you believed) that a politician actually said his work was a failure. Which is more naive?

It's called lying to cover their butt. It's not all that uncommon.

Actually several of them were interviewed; the information provided by them did not make it into the final report. Note as well, the vagueness of the descriptions of their "evidence":

Isn't that typical? Try to read these brief descriptions and ask yourself, do any of these folks sound even vaguely MIHOP? Heck, most of them seem to be arguing incompetence at worst.

Thanks, at least someone is willing to respond to Zen's question.

You are putting words in my mouth. I just quoted the guy.

If it's not uncommon then it's acceptable, right? Like incest.

I think that if they would have had a budget for more than 3/4 of a bleew job, they could have covered all the bases.

[GregoryUrich]

You obviously don't think that a 767 traveling over 400 mph and exploding in a fireball has sufficient energy to knock off spray-on fire-proofing material. Must be some strong stuff!

You obviously can't answer my question.

[GregoryUrich]

Come off it,you know what Truther means.
You are already an admitted LIHOP who seems to be moving in the direction of a MIHOP.

Are you saying I believe LIHOP or that I think it might be a possibility?

[RedIbis]

Acting Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman, General Richard Myers (essentially the top military advisor on 9/11) did not interrupt his meeting with Democratic Senator Max Cleland while both towers are struck and the hijackings are taking place.

That's something that didn't happen. For this heroism he was not held accountable, he was given the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

Bolded for reference to the OP.

[WildCat]

You obviously can't answer my question.
What question was that?

[GregoryUrich]

What question was that?

The one you quoted.

[beachnut]

Do you believe the fire proofing on the south side of WTC1 was knocked off by impacting debris?

If so, I would like you to describe the trajectory necessary and the path taken from the north side.
Wow, you must be right, this is not an impact capable of knocking off wallboard and other insulation from anything. You must be an engineer of great knowledge.
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879046a66b7c96bf7.jpg
Not a chance in million this impact could dislodge any insulation. Right! (an engineer? right...)

[TriskettheKid]

I'm still waiting for a response to my Titanic query.

So much is made of the "official story" that I want to gauge how the twoofers feel about another "official story."

[WildCat]

The one you quoted.
Look at the pic beachnut posted. Do you think it is genuine?

[GregoryUrich]

Wow, you must be right, this is not an impact capable of knocking off wallboard and other insulation from anything. You must be an engineer of great knowledge.
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879046a66b7c96bf7.jpg
Not a chance in million this impact could dislodge any insulation. Right! (an engineer? right...)

I'm asking for a physical explanation (i.e. the trajectory). Do you respond based on your engineering knowledge or some evidence? No you show a photo and say that proves it...just like the "truthers" you so despise.

[beachnut]

I'd be very interested to know what you think I believe.

You signed this; I know what you think, and I know you are fact less.
a) think that there is ample evidence and probable cause to believe that many grave and still unresolved crimes were committed by US officials prior to, during and after the events of 9/11;

b) observe that most of these apparent crimes, including but not limited to abetment of mass murder, criminal negligence, insider trading, and obstruction of justice, fall well within the jurisdiction of New York's top law enforcement officials, who thus become the People's last recourse when federal intervention yields no credible answers, relief or accountability;
Show me the evidence. Oh, you can't!
Such a sad group on a mythical witch hunt. Failing to produce results for over 6 years. A perfect record on zero facts.

[GregoryUrich]

I'm still waiting for a response to my Titanic query.

So much is made of the "official story" that I want to gauge how the twoofers feel about another "official story."

Don't hold your breath.

[TriskettheKid]

Don't hold your breath.

How can you help cover up what happened with the Titanic? It was a false flag operation by the US Navy so that we could go to war.

[WildCat]

I'm asking for a physical explanation (i.e. the trajectory).
Here's a hint: It takes considerably less energy to dislodge spray-on fireproofing than it does to dislodge steel beams and send them flying out onto the street. I don't think the exact trajectory makes a bit of difference.

[beachnut]

I'm asking for a physical explanation (i.e. the trajectory). Do you respond based on your engineering knowledge or some evidence? No you show a photo and say that proves it...just like the "truthers" you so despise.
You are an engineer, and you joined a group that cherry picks and ask questions and fails to use facts. You ask for physical evidence, and I showed you the results of an actual event that released over 2000 pounds of TNT energy just in the impact, and delivered 315 tons of TNT energy. You ignore facts, and failed to show in your own paper anything to help the failed 9/11 truth movement.

I do not despise truthers, I despise so called experts who make up lies to smear others. You have signed petitions claiming you have enough evidence to warrant something about 9/11 but you don't.

Instead you and the 9/11 truth movement ideas are good examples of...
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/12447460d8430f0ca9.jpg

[GregoryUrich]

How can you help cover up what happened with the Titanic? It was a false flag operation by the US Navy so that we could go to war.

Do you have evidence to that effect?

[Drudgewire]

How can you help cover up what happened with the Titanic? It was a false flag operation by the US Navy so that we could go to war.
And thank God. If they hadn't Europe might be under the thumb of the evil Iceberg Empire to this very day. http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/patriot.gif

[WildCat]

How can you help cover up what happened with the Titanic? It was a false flag operation by the US Navy so that we could go to war.
You're not thinking like a truther!

The Titanic was actually sunk by a German sub and covered up by the US, whereas the Lusitania was sunk by the US Navy and blamed on the Germans.
/truther

[GregoryUrich]

You are an engineer, and you joined a group that cherry picks and ask questions and fails to use facts. You ask for physical evidence, and I showed you the results of an actual event what released over 2000 pounds of TNT energy just in the impact, and delivered 315 tons of TNT energy. You ignore facts, and failed to show in your own paper anythign to help the failed 9/11 truth movement.

I do not dispise truthers, I dispise so called experts who make up lies to smear others. You have signed petitions claiming you have enough evidence to warrent something about 9/11 but you don't.

Instead you and the 9/11 truth movement are the personifcation of this idea.
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/12447460d8430f0ca9.jpg

In other words you can't answer the question.

[GregoryUrich]

You're not thinking like a truther!

The Titanic was actually sunk by a German sub and covered up by the US, whereas the Lusitania was sunk by the US Navy and blamed on the Germans.
/truther

Really, they didn't have space beams back then?

[TriskettheKid]

Do you have evidence to that effect?

Nothing solid, because it's all been covered up.

All you have to do is ask questions.

No steel-hulled passenger ship that huge has ever sunk because of an iceberg. Thus, it HAD to have been sunk by something else. Just open your eyes!

[GregoryUrich]

Here's a hint: It takes considerably less energy to dislodge spray-on fireproofing than it does to dislodge steel beams and send them flying out onto the street. I don't think the exact trajectory makes a bit of difference.

Except the energy needs to be applied to the fire proofing by something actually hitting it.

[GT/CS]

Nothing solid, because it's all been covered up.

All you have to do is ask questions.

No steel-hulled passenger ship that huge has ever sunk because of an iceberg. Thus, it HAD to have been sunk by something else. Just open your eyes!

Great analogy!

[WildCat]

Except the energy needs to be applied to the fire proofing by something actually hitting it.
Perhaps you noticed the airplane?

[GT/CS]

Except the energy needs to be applied to the fire proofing by something actually hitting it.

He's starting to sound like Zen.:jaw-dropp

[Arus808]

Except the energy needs to be applied to the fire proofing by something actually hitting it.


then i guess that the planes that hit the buildings were just puffs of smoke? ethereal entities? or that the impact didn't send OTHER things flying to hit the insulated cover steel portions (desks, people, chairs, computers, file cabinets so on so forth)

[Drudgewire]

Except the energy needs to be applied to the fire proofing by something actually hitting it.
You make a very valid argument. After all, what could possibly have hit it that morning? :rolleyes:

[WildCat]

Is GregoryUrich a no-planer?

[DavidJames]

Is GregoryUrich a no-planer?
I've always felt he was maybe the only CTists who was able to perform genuine technical analysis of the WTC collapse. As a result, I put him several rungs above the garden variety CTists including Russel P. He also was able to maintain a professional approach when discussing his concerns and seemed to accept and adapt to criticisms.

I wonder what happened?

[apathoid]

Now, now guys.....it's possible he just forgot about the planes. :boggled:

[beachnut]

In other words you can't answer the question.
Funny man. You have to prove the insulation was not dislodged by the impact on 9/11. You. Not me. I know impact, fire, and failure lead to the gravity driven collapse of the WTC; you are the one trying to disprove this. You are in the group that is the supreme anti-intellectual group that makes up lies and spreads disinformation on 9/11. You need to use your scientific skills and all of those experts you guys have to prove the insulation was not dislodged. But you can't. You have failed.

You have 230 plus engineers and Architects to help you prove the insulation was not dislodged. Are you guys too lazy to figure out this? Come on and do something besides ask questions. (230 experts http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/engineers.html only amount to a few fringe guys who can't solve 9/11)

[Dave Rogers]

Except the energy needs to be applied to the fire proofing by something actually hitting it.

Or by something providing a sufficiently strong source of vibration to shake the fireproofing loose. And the thing actually hitting the fireproofing doesn't have to have followed a straight trajectory through an office building cluttered with walls and furniture before hitting the fireproofing, doesn't need to be a fragment of the airplane (because we know fireproofing can be dislodged by impacts from furniture or, in another case, theatre stage flats) and could have been directed against the fireproofing by any number of glancing impacts. Your implication that all the debris from the airliner impact simply travelled in the original direction of motion is a staggeringly oversimplified and misleading characterisation of a complex and chaotic simplification, and it's clear to anyone who isn't actively trying to convince themselves otherwise that there would have been debris flying in all directions with ample opportunities to strike the floor trusses.

And then, of course, there are the opinions of the likes of Quintiere and Ove Arup, who believe that fireproofing removal wasn't necessary anyway.

Given the total absence of evidence of alternative causes of collapse (i.e. explosives, thermite or DEW), arguing that the collapse could not have been fire-related because the fireproofing could not possibly have been dislodged is no more than an argument from incredulity.

Dave

[ZENSMACK89]

Or by something providing a sufficiently strong source of vibration to Given the total absence of evidence of alternative causes of collapse (i.e. explosives, thermite or DEW), arguing that the collapse could not have been fire-related because the fireproofing could not possibly have been dislodged is no more than an argument from incredulity.
Dave

That's not true. The whole NIST theory hinges on the removal of fireproofing. It's a valid argument to ask that this be supported more then just NIST speculation.

[ZENSMACK89]

Funny man. You have to prove the insulation was not dislodged by the impact on 9/11. You. Not me. I know impact, fire, and failure lead to the gravity driven collapse of the WTC; you are the one trying to disprove this. You are in the group that is the supreme anti-intellectual group that makes up lies and spreads disinformation on 9/11. You need to use your scientific skills and all of those experts you guys have to prove the insulation was not dislodged. But you can't. You have failed.

You have 230 plus engineers and Architects to help you prove the insulation was not dislodged. Are you guys too lazy to figure out this? Come on and do something besides ask questions. (230 experts http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/engineers.html only amount to a few fringe guys who can't solve 9/11)
No they need to prove that it did in light of the fact that no steel structured skyscraper has ever suffered global symmetrical collapse from asymmetrical damage and pockets of fire. It's the burden of the claimer to prove how this happen all the way through the collapse to the end at the speed witnessed. This has not been done.

[Dave Rogers]

No they need to prove that it did in light of the fact that no steel structured skyscraper has ever suffered global symmetrical collapse from asymmetrical damage and pockets of fire.

None of the collapses were symmetrical. Symmetry is like pregnancy, it's an either/or situation; a collapse can't be a bit symmetrical. Every photo and video of the WTC2 collapse clearly shows the falling part rotating as it fell, views of WTC1 from the right angle show the same, and videos of WTC7, when actually observed carefully, show a clearly discernible tilt to the south. Therefore, your statement is incorrect.

As for the burden of proof on the speed of collapse, since you like quoting Frank Greening, try reading his papers. You won't like his findings on the speed of collapse as much as you like his opinion of the posters here.

Dave

[Dave Rogers]

That's not true. The whole NIST theory hinges on the removal of fireproofing. It's a valid argument to ask that this be supported more then just NIST speculation.

Yes, like, say, modelling and experiment. Which NIST did.

Dave

[ZENSMACK89]

None of the collapses were symmetrical. Symmetry is like pregnancy, it's an either/or situation; a collapse can't be a bit symmetrical. Every photo and video of the WTC2 collapse clearly shows the falling part rotating as it fell, views of WTC1 from the right angle show the same, and videos of WTC7, when actually observed carefully, show a clearly discernible tilt to the south. Therefore, your statement is incorrect.

As for the burden of proof on the speed of collapse, since you like quoting Frank Greening, try reading his papers. You won't like his findings on the speed of collapse as much as you like his opinion of the posters here.

Dave


The entire building fell down not just a portion from damage and fire to a few floors near the top according to NIST. There is nothing to compare it to that supports this claim. If there was there wouldn't be the lame attempts from some idiots every now and then to try and compare the WTC collapse to overpasses and third world factory fires.

[ZENSMACK89]

Yes, like, say, modelling and experiment. Which NIST did.

Dave
They don't support the numbers input into the model and they don't even bother with the collapse itself just the initiation because that's the best they could come up with.

[beachnut]

No they need to prove that it did in light of the fact that no steel structured skyscraper has ever suffered global symmetrical collapse from asymmetrical damage and pockets of fire. It's the burden of the claimer to prove how this happen all the way through the collapse to the end at the speed witnessed. This has not been done.
Zen, please tell me which buildings in the world suffered impact damage equal to 1300 and 2067 pounds of TNT, and had 10,000 gallons of fuel to start fires on multiple floors, knocking out the fire fighting systems. Did you forget these FACTS zen?

Because, ZEN, there are thousands of steel structures that failed all the way to the ground around the world because steel fails in fire, this is why they require fire protection insulation for steel, because it fails before wood sometimes. Zen, your have failed to make a point. WTC tower failure was gravity driven event due to impact damage and fire. Please get your experts and present evidence now. Do you fail to understand fire and steel zen?

Please stop with the talk and present the numbers, facts and evidence to support something other than impact, fire, collapse from gravity due to steel failure in fire which is a fact. Your talk is not evidence, just talk, my impact, fire, and gravity collapse is factual. Sad you just talk and you think it is so. So sad.

For the unchallened minds, bet there would be no quesions about fire destroying the WTC complex is this happened at night. I have never seen a fire as big as those in the WTC complex. ?

Zen, please go to some physics teachers and learn how the real world works.

[Dave Rogers]

The entire building fell down not just a portion from damage and fire to a few floors near the top according to NIST. There is nothing to compare it to that supports this claim. If there was there wouldn't be the lame attempts from some idiots every now and then to try and compare the WTC collapse to overpasses and third world factory fires.

Evasion noted.

Dave

[Dave Rogers]

They don't support the numbers input into the model and they don't even bother with the collapse itself just the initiation because that's the best they could come up with.

Change of subject noted.

Dave

[funk de fino]

No they need to prove that it did in light of the fact that no steel structured skyscraper has ever suffered global symmetrical collapse from asymmetrical damage and pockets of fire. It's the burden of the claimer to prove how this happen all the way through the collapse to the end at the speed witnessed. This has not been done.

this is wrong in so many ways it is unbelievable that you do not understand it, therefore you are just trolling looking for a spoil again IMO

have you apologized yet for calling me a liar?

[beachnut]

Except the energy needs to be applied to the fire proofing by something actually hitting it.
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879046a66b7c96bf7.jpg
Which part of the building are you interested in? I think you are sad your movement is only a fringe group of research challenged fools who make up lies about 9/11 and you seem to be the only one trying to use facts, albeit unsuccessful.

You and your hoard of engineers in the truth movement need to prove this with facts. What is the problem you have over 230 expert in building and engineering fields. Get it on. You have to prove it with evidence and facts. You.

[ZENSMACK89]

this is wrong in so many ways it is unbelievable that you do not understand it, therefore you are just trolling looking for a spoil again IMO

have you apologized yet for calling me a liar?
Yes I said "sorry did I misrepresent you?" Maybe you should stop cutting into conversation with the same exact lame tactics as who I'm debating with and I won't confuse you with someone else.

Now as far as my comment here something more then your bare assertions would be nice.

[funk de fino]

Yes I said "sorry did I misrepresent you?" Maybe you should stop cutting into conversation with the same exact lame tactics as who I'm debating with and I won't confuse you with someone else.

Now as far as my comment here something more then your bare assertions would be nice.

That is a question it is not an apology and you have cherrypicked your own quote like the dishonest person you are. What you posted was I'm sorry did I misrepresent your position?
You just cannot help yourself can you? I asked you to adress something and you misquoted me it was a simple mistake and all it would have taken was a simple acknowledgement of the mistake and apology yet you drag it on and are snide and then again resort to snide comments here?

1. Not a symmetrical collapse as can be seen from videos/images
2. Not just pockets of fires as can be seen from videos/images
3. NIST do not have to prove anything, neither does anyone here who agrees with their scenario. The investigation and theory is there for all to see, if you disagree with their findings then it is up to you to say why and show why they have a flawed theory
4. There have been many claimers who have done papers explaining the collapses and the speeds seen, go and refute them

[Minadin]

That's not true. The whole NIST theory hinges on the removal of fireproofing. It's a valid argument to ask that this be supported more then just NIST speculation.

No, it doesn't. They found it to be a contributing factor. Other professional bodies maintain that the buildings would have still fallen, even if the fire resistant insulation had remained intact. So, in that sense, I suppose that you could say that they 'dispute' the NIST's findings. However, their findings are, in fact, a step even further away from conspiracy theorist contentions that fire can't cause steel office buildings to collapse.

You might want to think about that, and then re-think your position.

Links:
http://fire-research.group.shef.ac.uk/Downloads/SC_Baltimore.pdf
http://www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk/dspace/bitstream/1842/1216/1/WTCpaper.pdf

(bolding in the above quote was mine, by the way)

[ZENSMACK89]

That is a question it is not an apology and you have cherrypicked your own quote like the dishonest person you are. What you posted was

Yes and I didn't get an answer. First you interrupt and then you don't answer. How rude. Now you should be well aware of the risks of being such a conformist. You're liable to get confused with all the other conformist every now and then.

You just cannot help yourself can you? I asked you to adress something and you misquoted me it was a simple mistake and all it would have taken was a simple acknowledgement of the mistake and apology yet you drag it on and are snide and then again resort to snide comments here?

]1. Not a symmetrical collapse as can be seen from videos/images

Compared to the damage to one side it was a symmetrical collapse.

2. Not just pockets of fires as can be seen from videos/images

What percentage of the building was damaged and on fire? What percentage of the building fell down?

3. NIST do not have to prove anything,

To some people they do and they haven't.

neither does anyone here who agrees with their scenario.

Some people don't agree with NIST as much as they apologize for NIST.

The investigation and theory is there for all to see,

Yes so are the Emperors new clothes

if you disagree with their findings then it is up to you to say why and show why they have a flawed theory

I guess I'm just not special like you.

4. There have been many claimers who have done papers explaining the collapses and the speeds seen, go and refute them

I'm refuting it right now.

[Dave Rogers]

Compared to the damage to one side it was a symmetrical collapse.

Nonsense. It was either symmetric or it wasn't. It's not a matter of degree.

I'm refuting it right now.

No you're not.

From dictionary.com (my bolding):


Refute
1.to prove to be false or erroneous, as an opinion or charge. 2.to prove (a person) to be in error.


Note the word in bold. It doesn't mean the same as "refuse to believe".

Dave

[beachnut]

Yes and I didn't get an answer. First you interrupt and then you don't answer. How rude. Now you should be well aware of the risks of being such a conformist. You're liable to get confused with all the other conformist every now and then.

Compared to the damage to one side it was a symmetrical collapse.

What percentage of the building was damaged and on fire? What percentage of the building fell down?

To some people they do and they haven't.

Some people don't agree with NIST as much as they apologize for NIST.

Yes so are the Emperors new clothes

I guess I'm just not special like you.

I'm refuting it right now.
You actually had zero facts to support zero credible claims. Still going perfect with this record of no facts.

Bring the facts on, and try to answer the OP if you can. Doubt it, so far not a think you have posted make sense. Why?

[Minadin]

I'm refuting it right now.

I think you're using different definitions of the word refute. (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/refute)

The traditional meaning is to show something to be incorrect, using evidence and logical arguments.

The other means to simply deny out of hand, i.e. by saying, "Nuh-Uh!" on a playground at recess.

[GT/CS]

Yes and I didn't get an answer. First you interrupt and then you don't answer. How rude. Now you should be well aware of the risks of being such a conformist. You're liable to get confused with all the other conformist every now and then.



Compared to the damage to one side it was a symmetrical collapse.



What percentage of the building was damaged and on fire? What percentage of the building fell down?



To some people they do and they haven't.



Some people don't agree with NIST as much as they apologize for NIST.



Yes so are the Emperors new clothes



I guess I'm just not special like you.



I'm refuting it right now.

If anyone questions Zen's trollness just look at these answers.

[CHF]

As I understand it, Zen and Greg contend that there's no reason to believe that fireproofing was dislogned by the jet impacts.

There's fireproofing foam covering the steel beams in the basement of the office building I work in. I can make it crumble off with my bare hands, so I can't begin to imagine whether a FRIGGIN' AIRLINER would knock any off.

[ZENSMACK89]

I think you're using different definitions of the word refute. (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/refute)

The traditional meaning is to show something to be incorrect, using evidence and logical arguments.

The other means to simply deny out of hand, i.e. by saying, "Nuh-Uh!" on a playground at recess.
What I'm refuting isn't a proven fact. What I'm refuting is a theory based on speculation.

[funk de fino]

Yes and I didn't get an answer. First you interrupt and then you don't answer. How rude. Now you should be well aware of the risks of being such a conformist. You're liable to get confused with all the other conformist every now and then.

Yes, I answered that post, you are either lying or you do not bother to read your own threads in which you chastise others for the same thing. Now an apology for calling me rude is now required?

Compared to the damage to one side it was a symmetrical collapse

You really have no idea how stupid that statement is, do you? I'll give you a clue by bolding the pertinent word

What percentage of the building was damaged and on fire? What percentage of the building fell down?

Pockets of fire, again, you are being dishonest, the fires were huge and the evidence is in the videos and images

To some people they do and they haven't.

You wouldnt understand it anyway

Some people don't agree with NIST as much as they apologize for NIST.

see above

Yes so are the Emperors new clothes

see above

I guess I'm just not special like you.

oh, you are special alright, everyone can see it, luckily lots of them are lurkers and can see all you and your pathetic movement have got


I'm refuting it right now.

see the "you wouldnt understand" it reply

[Minadin]

1. You're not refuting anything. You're being contrary without presenting any sort of argument to back up your position.

2. Depending on your definitions of the words proven and fact, and your world view, I suppose it would be possible to argue that nothing is a proven fact.

3. Scientific theories aren't based on speculation. NIST's conclusions are based on rigorous investigation, observation, tests, and mathematical calculations, done by experts in their fields. Your disagreement with their position is apparently based upon ignorance.

Others who take issue with their findings, and want to have their positions taken seriously, do extensive studies that result in published papers. You can't even tell us what you think actually happened - worse - you can't tell us what you think didn't happen. Do you not see the difference between what you're doing, and, say, what Dr. Greening, or the above studies I linked, are doing?

[beachnut]

What I'm refuting isn't a proven fact. What I'm refuting is a theory based on speculation.
And you have failed. What is next? You have to prove all is wrong with impact, fire, collapse. You have to prove steel does not get weak in fire. OOPS it does. You have to prove the impacts were not 1300 to 2066 pounds of TNT in energy. OOPs they were. You have to prove gravity does not make things fall. OOPs, sorry, gravity is still here. Darn, what can you do?

You could go get more education so you can understand reality and stop listening to the 9/11 truth movement which is misleading you.

[HyJinX]

Day in, day out...will it ever end?

[rwguinn]

Yes and I didn't get an answer. First you interrupt and then you don't answer. How rude. Now you should be well aware of the risks of being such a conformist. You're liable to get confused with all the other conformist every now and then.



Compared to the damage to one side it was a symmetrical collapse.

say what? Is that supposed to mean something?



What percentage of the building was damaged and on fire? What percentage of the building fell down?
100% of THE BUILDING CROSS SECTION was damaged and/or on fire during the event.
100% of the building collapsed



To some people they do and they haven't.



I guess I'm just not special like you.



I'm refuting it right now.
a twoofer refutation: "No it didn't!"

[Minadin]

It seems Zen has decided to abandon this thread? Or, perhaps he hasn't gotten around to clicking on any of the links that anyone has provided him.

[TheRedWorm]

Ask questions, run from answers, speed up when someone asks you questions.

[Corsair 115]

A Soviet threat in 2001?Russia was still a superpower. It still had significant quantities of nuclear weapons. It was the only nation which could have done great damage to the United States.

Just because the Cold War had thawed did not erase forty years of mutual rivalry, suspicion, and distrust. The collapse of the former Soviet Union eased tensions, it did not eliminate them nor the potential for them.

[GregoryUrich]

Or by something providing a sufficiently strong source of vibration to shake the fireproofing loose. And the thing actually hitting the fireproofing doesn't have to have followed a straight trajectory through an office building cluttered with walls and furniture before hitting the fireproofing, doesn't need to be a fragment of the airplane (because we know fireproofing can be dislodged by impacts from furniture or, in another case, theatre stage flats) and could have been directed against the fireproofing by any number of glancing impacts. Your implication that all the debris from the airliner impact simply travelled in the original direction of motion is a staggeringly oversimplified and misleading characterisation of a complex and chaotic simplification, and it's clear to anyone who isn't actively trying to convince themselves otherwise that there would have been debris flying in all directions with ample opportunities to strike the floor trusses.

And then, of course, there are the opinions of the likes of Quintiere and Ove Arup, who believe that fireproofing removal wasn't necessary anyway.

Given the total absence of evidence of alternative causes of collapse (i.e. explosives, thermite or DEW), arguing that the collapse could not have been fire-related because the fireproofing could not possibly have been dislodged is no more than an argument from incredulity.

Dave

In the context of NIST, this is the "magic bullet". Just try to describe one possible trajectory or path for any object striking the fireproofing on the floor trusses on the south side of the building. Take one piece of the airplane and describe how it travels through the buildling. Remember that an impact more than 60 degrees from perpendicular was shown by NIST not to remove fireproofing at the assumed energy levels.

Someday, it may very well be shown that the building collapsed due to impact and fire, but NIST has not credibly demonstrated this.

[GregoryUrich]

Funny man. You have to prove the insulation was not dislodged by the impact on 9/11. You. Not me. I know impact, fire, and failure lead to the gravity driven collapse of the WTC; you are the one trying to disprove this. You are in the group that is the supreme anti-intellectual group that makes up lies and spreads disinformation on 9/11. You need to use your scientific skills and all of those experts you guys have to prove the insulation was not dislodged. But you can't. You have failed.

You have 230 plus engineers and Architects to help you prove the insulation was not dislodged. Are you guys too lazy to figure out this? Come on and do something besides ask questions. (230 experts http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/engineers.html only amount to a few fringe guys who can't solve 9/11)

Nonsense. You are arguing that NIST was correct, but NIST doesn't prove it, so it's up to you.