Was 911 an INSIDE JOB?

foxhoundone

diogenes, your obviously on the debunkers side, now do me a favor an picture your self this . youve been conscripted and put in uniform and sent to patrol the helmond province in the pit , right,.. your wearing clapped out gear, poor communicatins your sweating your knackers of an you have seen quite a few off your mates go down with dehydration stomach upsets and mental issuies cause of combat fatiuge, would you be such an agent provature in sticking up for the suits and the arms industry.. me thinks not i,dd appreciate an hounest answer an try not to come across as being so pedantic.
i,m not trying to get at you but you seem to relie on your supior computing skills an greater education,.. rather than taking time to research your answers,,. a great deal of what DEERY says makes sence in the big picture of things.

Kernel

meglome wrote: »

Ah jesus your posts hurt my brain. It just the usual CT crap, spam a load of mostly irrelevant (and often misquoted/untrue) info to avoid actually answering any specific questions.

Ah another classic pseudo-skeptic response. Spam spam spam... since when is information spam? Meglome, if you don't want to read 'conspiracy crap' why come to the conspiracy theories forum? I don't have a particular interest in reading about dental issues, ergo, I don't go reading and posting in the relevent boards forum.

meglome

foxhoundone wrote: »

diogenes, your obviously on the debunkers side, now do me a favor an picture your self this . youve been conscripted and put in uniform and sent to patrol the helmond province in the pit , right,.. your wearing clapped out gear, poor communicatins your sweating your knackers of an you have seen quite a few off your mates go down with dehydration stomach upsets and mental issuies cause of combat fatiuge, would you be such an agent provature in sticking up for the suits and the arms industry.. me thinks not i,dd appreciate an hounest answer an try not to come across as being so pedantic.
i,m not trying to get at you but you seem to relie on your supior computing skills an greater education,.. rather than taking time to research your answers,,. a great deal of what DEERY says makes sence in the big picture of things.

What Derry says makes sense?!?!?! Wtf? It's been a good while since I've seen text that made less sense. And where did Diogenes ever support the arms industry?!?!?! And what does your point have to do with the actual thread or what Diogenes actually said?!?!? You and Derry seem to live in paranoid fantasy land where you come up with the conclusion before you can support any of it.

Kernel

foxhoundone wrote: »

diogenes, your obviously on the debunkers side,

Conclusion: spending time responding to the usual 15 paragraph debate is a complete waste of time if that person is so firmly entrenched and inflexible in their position.... Unless you enjoy a good old argument/debate like Dio. Although maybe someday he will express a non-mainstream theory!

Kernel

Diogenes wrote: »

I.E. ""Scientists don't know for sure what natural forces caused the first single-cell life, so it must be intelligent design.""

Scientists don't know for sure? lol. Science can explain the processes behind such things, but not why such things came into being or why such forces should exist in the universe (or the universe, universal laws of physics, matter etc. etc.). The more I understand of science, physics and the universe the more I'm convinced that there is intelligent design. I guess I'm more of a 'glass half full person'.

meglome

Kernel wrote: »

Ah another classic pseudo-skeptic response. Spam spam spam... since when is information spam? Meglome, if you don't want to read 'conspiracy crap' why come to the conspiracy theories forum? I don't have a particular interest in reading about dental issues, ergo, I don't go reading and posting in the relevent boards forum.

What Derry has done is to spam large quantities of text on numerous different topics most of which has little or no bearing on the actual thread. When his posts have little or no relevancy to the thread that's spam and in most other forums it wouldn't be allowed and rightly so. I have no idea what "classic pseudo-skeptic response" is but if it's having some relevancy and making some sense then yes that what I did (and sure for the craic lets have some actual evidence).

Mahatma coat

Diogenes wrote:

Derry, can you get anything right?



Sorry this is is going for a fecking stundie. There is so much ****e wrong with this I don't know where to start.

reported, again.

me wrote:

Stundies again, someone elses posts this time, still unacceptable behaviour to repost someone elsewhere without context or right of reply

Derry makes some good points.

Diogenes

Mahatma coat wrote: »

reported, again.

Ah so it's okay for you to compare me to a fundamental religious zealot, it's not okay for me to laugh at someone's absurdities.

Mahatma, were it not for double standards you'd have no standards.

Derry makes some good points.

Really? When?

Diogenes

derry wrote: »

In 1990 when Iraq invaded Kuwait thy were very rich and not broke

If the gulf war 1 has since made them broke picking up the tab
well life is a bitch

Cant see what mistake there is

The Mistake is this Kuwait isn't broke It's still a fantastically rich country, one of the 10 wealthiest nations in the world.

based on that same logic you apply liberly I can say there is no mistakes
made

Oh yeah fairies dont exist
public toilets no longer exist so therefore any fairy can no longer exist

derry

Public toilets still do exist. Jesus.

Diogenes

foxhoundone wrote: »

diogenes, your obviously on the debunkers side, now do me a favor an picture your self this . youve been conscripted and put in uniform and sent to patrol the helmond province in the pit , right,.. your wearing clapped out gear, poor communicatins your sweating your knackers of an you have seen quite a few off your mates go down with dehydration stomach upsets and mental issuies cause of combat fatiuge, would you be such an agent provature in sticking up for the suits and the arms industry.. me thinks not i,dd appreciate an hounest answer an try not to come across as being so pedantic.

You're not coming across as pedantic you're coming across as irrational and incoherent. Where exactly have I defended the Iraq war? Where exactly have I defended the Bush or Blair administration.

I don't think the Bush administration planned and carried out 911, that doesn't make me a justifier for ever one of their actions. In fact if you search my post history on this forum you'll see time and time again I point out that infantile conspiracy theories about Bush carrying out 911, are a distraction from the actual crimes that this administration have carried out.

Furthermore the jist of your argument is this "if you had to go war and fight you'd see my point of view" However the simple fact is there aren't tens of thousands of US and UK veterans protesting the war or suggesting the US administration were behind 911, so your point is once again irrelevant.

i,m not trying to get at you but you seem to relie on your supior computing skills an greater education,.. rather than taking time to research your answers,,. a great deal of what DEERY says makes sence in the big picture of things.

I think you'll find education requires research and Derry's incoherent ramblings cannot be considered "research".

Diogenes

Kernel wrote: »

Scientists don't know for sure? lol. Science can explain the processes behind such things, but not why such things came into being or why such forces should exist in the universe (or the universe, universal laws of physics, matter etc. etc.). The more I understand of science, physics and the universe the more I'm convinced that there is intelligent design. I guess I'm more of a 'glass half full person'.

I'll think you'll find that anyone who really does the former, moves further away from the latter.

meglome

Mahatma coat wrote: »

reported, again.

Why? Pointing out someone is rambling miles off the actual topic is not okay?

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Derry makes some good points.

Really? But most of his points have no direct connection to the thread and frankly some of it seems a bit... let say intense, and if I were to be honest, appears rambling and incoherent.

crohnic

humanji,
no...I don't take automatically what I see...hear or read to be true....all most of us can do is ask probing questions....which might lead to sensible/logical/reasonable discussion!
I think...since there were never WMDs....it's reasonable to be suspicious of people that pushed and dragged people to war over lies ...don't you?

meglome

crohnic wrote: »

humanji,
no...I don't take automatically what I see...hear or read to be true....all most of us can do is ask probing questions....which might lead to sensible/logical/reasonable discussion!
I think...since there were never WMDs....it's reasonable to be suspicious of people that pushed and dragged people to war over lies ...don't you?

There's plenty of reasons to be suspicious of the American government, plenty of reasons not to like what they've done. And there's little doubt they used 9/11 to further their agendas, although this has backfired on them in a number of different ways. Yet seven years later there's not one actual smoking gun that proves the American government had anything to do with 9/11. All the people who would have to be involved and not one has spilled the beans after 7 years. Maybe, just maybe they didn't actually arrange 9/11. Very few people here would trust the American government, very few would support what they've done since 9/11 but I'm still waiting to see the evidence and not some paranoid fantasy's that just 'must' be true.

humanji

crohnic wrote:

humanji,
no...I don't take automatically what I see...hear or read to be true....all most of us can do is ask probing questions....which might lead to sensible/logical/reasonable discussion!
I think...since there were never WMDs....it's reasonable to be suspicious of people that pushed and dragged people to war over lies ...don't you?

I actually just used your post to point out the stupidity of Derry's since he claimed that no evidence was necessary and so something that was seen on tv should be taken as gospel. I didn't mean it as an attack of your post.

Also, Iraq did have WMD's at one point, they were just smart enough to get rid of them before the US invaded. Sure they used chemical weapons when they were at war with Iran, so it isn't even that much of a stretch of the imagination for them to have them years later.

Kernel

Diogenes wrote: »

I'll think you'll find that anyone who really does the former, moves further away from the latter.

Really? Can you point me to something to back up this claim? Are you suggesting that I am not developing my understanding of physics and the universe? I mean, anyone who *really* develops an understanding turns away from an intelligent design hypothesis according to yourself...

Science explains the processes, but it doesn't explain why it should be so.

Kernel

humanji wrote: »

t one point, they were just smart enough to get rid of them before the US invaded. Sure they used chemical weapons when they were at war with Iran, so it isn't even that much of a stretch of the imagination for them to have them years later.

Where did they get rid of these weapons of mass destruction? You understand that the Iraq Iran conflict was in the 80's, a long time before the US bombed Iraq back to the stone age don't you?

oscarBravo

Kernel wrote: »

Science explains the processes, but it doesn't explain why it should be so.

Science is about "how", not "why". Philosophy and religion are about "why".

bonkey

Kernel wrote: »

I mean, anyone who *really* develops an understanding turns away from an intelligent design hypothesis according to yourself...

I'd certainly disagree with Diogenes. Anyone who really develops an understanding of science will know that the concept of an intelligent designer is fundamentally non-scientific and is not specifically at odds with science. So its not a question of embracing one or the other. You can embrace both.

Now, if you go and attribute specific actions to that ID, then you're at risk of looking foolish later should science explain them...but thats slightly different. ID is just another "God of the Gaps" argument. There's always a "but where did X come from" step to ask.

Then again, ID doesn't solve that question, as one must still ask where the Designer and its Intelligence came from.

So with science, we get all teh way back to something we can't explain the origins of. With ID, we attribute that inexplicability to a Designer...which we can't explain the origins of.

Science explains the processes, but it doesn't explain why it should be so.

Why is there an Intelligent Designer? Why did this Designer make the choices you believe were made?

See? You can't explain the why either. You can answer the existing why's with ID, but you're still left with why's behind that again which can still not be answered.

ID offers nothing, other than the comfort factor of hiding the inexplicable behind one layer of non-falsifiable misdirection. Well, that and a pseudo-scientific avenue of attack for Creationists to get into the science class in the US.

humanji

Kernel wrote: »

Where did they get rid of these weapons of mass destruction? You understand that the Iraq Iran conflict was in the 80's, a long time before the US bombed Iraq back to the stone age don't you?

Hence the reasoning that it's not too hard to imagine that they could still have them. That's why I said "did have" not that they "still had". I'd say that that's why the US used WMD's as an excuse to invade. They thought it'd be a dead cert. They could of picked any number of reasons to do it. Sure couldn't they jsut fly some planes into some buildings and blame Saddam?

As for where they went, it's not like Iraq is full of deserts were things could be buried or anything. And there's many people willing to buy weapons of any sort. It actually would make sense for someone like Hussain to sell off chemical or bilogical weapons as to use them would be suicide (especially with a trigger happy US watching them). By selling them, he could make his enemies very uncomfortable and paranoid, while making a tidy profit.

Diogenes

Kernel wrote: »

Where did they get rid of these weapons of mass destruction?

Under UN supervision after the first gulf war, as well as spoilage.

You understand that the Iraq Iran conflict was in the 80's, a long time before the US bombed Iraq back to the stone age don't you?

And you understand that Iraq didn't stop producing and engineering chemical weapons at the end of the Iraq/Iran conflict, right? Part of the problem facing both Saddam's regime, and the UN weapons inspectors, is that Iraq's chemical weapons program was developed in secret, in a country of 437072 square kilometers. So for Saddam to prove that Iraq was completely free of WMDs was pretty much impossible, even if he wanted to prove this.

However Saddam was walking a tightrope. On one hand he had to compile with weapons inspectors and demonstrate that he no longer had weapons of mass destruction or face the wraith of the UN and in the end the US. On the other hand he had enemies, who he had to keep at bay with the threat of these self same weapons and was capable and willing to use them. If Iran, or the Kurds thought Saddam had chemical and biological weapons it help keep them from invading or uprising. Saddam was sabre rattling with an empty scabbard.

It was a perfect justification for Bush, if Saddam didn't throw open ever corner of his oppressive regime for the UN and the worlds media, and demonstrate he didn't have weapons of mass destruction Bush could invade. If he did do this, he'd expose himself to his enemies as bluffing, his threats of devastating WMDs would be empty gestures. Furthermore as a man who had ruled for years as a brutal tyrant unyielding and unbreakable, he'd look weak kowtowing to international pressure, his position would be ripe for a coup from a eager power hungry underling.

Kernel wrote:

Really? Can you point me to something to back up this claim? Are you suggesting that I am not developing my understanding of physics and the universe? I mean, anyone who *really* develops an understanding turns away from an intelligent design hypothesis according to yourself...

I'd point you to that the fact that creationists and intelligent designers are a insignificant minority among the wider scientific community for a start. Wander into the physics department of any Irish university, wander in the biology and the chemistry department and you'll find scant few people who agree with you about the idea of an overall creator.

I'm not suggesting you're not developing your understanding of anything, merely that I suspect that this understanding, is ahem, warped, by your own unique worldview.

foxhoundone

well explain this,.. a big hole in the ground an not much edivance to point to the fact a plane nose dived from 10,000ft, into the ground, leaving next to no debrie.

Ciaran500

What should a crash site like that look like?

meglome

foxhoundone wrote: »

well explain this,.. a big hole in the ground an not much edivance to point to the fact a plane nose dived from 10,000ft, into the ground, leaving next to no debrie.

How does it look in comparison to other similar plane crashes? Well my suggestion would be it looks very similar. If a plane ploughs intact into soft ground at hundreds of miles and hours, most of the little pieces that are left are going to be in the ground. Although yet again I'm not sure what your point is or how its relevant to the thread.

Kernel

oscarBravo wrote: »

Science is about "how", not "why". Philosophy and religion are about "why".

Precisely my point!

bonkey wrote:

Then again, ID doesn't solve that question, as one must still ask where the Designer and its Intelligence came from.

I believe that we understand little of the nature of reality or time, we cannot even explain strange properties of quantum physics at the moment. When we do understand more, I believe the question of the designer and its intelligence will be easier to comprehend. But yes, it's a leap of faith in a way. I look at the order of the universe, and simply refuse to believe that it is down to chance or coincidence. You may say that chance is at least a scientific principle, but then what of chaos theory - you yourself are a mathematician are you not Bonkey?

humanji wrote:

As for where they went, it's not like Iraq is full of deserts were things could be buried or anything. And there's many people willing to buy weapons of any sort. It actually would make sense for someone like Hussain to sell off chemical or bilogical weapons as to use them would be suicide (especially with a trigger happy US watching them). By selling them, he could make his enemies very uncomfortable and paranoid, while making a tidy profit.

I don't buy it, and never bought the WMD story. Iraq didn't have an airforce after Desert Storm. Half the country was a no fly zone and the army itself was crippled. Scud sites as well as even SAM sites were wiped out, and the people were being economically crippled by severe sanctions. Iraq never had inter continental range, in fact it's range could barely extend to Israel and Saudi Arabia. Attacking Iraq was like a team of WWF wrestlers jumping a crippled man in a wheelchair.

Diogenes

foxhoundone wrote: »

well explain this,.. a big hole in the ground an not much edivance to point to the fact a plane nose dived from 10,000ft, into the ground, leaving next to no debrie.

Yeah er no. Three thousand people from volunteers to fire fighters to federal flight examiners, a debris field over 9 mile was recorded.

35 volunteer, federal and state organisations attended the flight 93 crash site, the american red cross, state and county emergency service and volunteers from three counties all turned up and volunteered.

I guess it's part of your conspiracy theory all these people are in on it.

drunkmonkey

I read in the paper today that the CIA believe the next terror threat will come from Europe, America or Russian and the guilty partys will be white...

can anyone guess the conspiracy before it happens....:D

the_syco

Hit something hard from the side, it'll keel over. WTC went straight down. In a densly crowded area, very few buildings got damaged.

WTC collapse: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8OQWz7xlINA

Controlled Explosion: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYH-Ixvqbdw

meglome

the_syco wrote: »

Hit something hard from the side, it'll keel over. WTC went straight down. In a densly crowded area, very few buildings got damaged.

WTC collapse: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8OQWz7xlINA

Controlled Explosion: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYH-Ixvqbdw

This has been gone through repeated in here so I'm not going to to rehash it. But suffice to say your statement is not correct at all, several building were destroyed or badly damaged. But what I will say is in ALL the controlled demolitions I've seen you can clearly (clear as day) hear the explosives going off. When new methods of demolition have to be invented to suit the conclusion, methods which have never been shown to have actually been used ever (or even to be fit for purpose), then I have a problem with that. Some big planes hit some big buildings, they burned, they fell down.

Diogenes

the_syco wrote: »

Hit something hard from the side, it'll keel over. WTC went straight down. In a densly crowded area, very few buildings got damaged.

No wrong. Other buildings destroyed include St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church, Marriott World Trade Center (Marriott Hotel 3 WTC), South Plaza (4 WTC), and U.S. Customs (6 WTC). The World Financial Center buildings, 90 West Street, and 130 Cedar Street suffered fires. The Deutsche Bank Building, Verizon, and World Financial Center 3 suffered impact damage from the towers' collapse, as did 90 West Street. One Liberty Plaza survived structurally intact but sustained surface damage including shattered windows. 30 West Broadway was damaged by the collapse of 7 WTC. The Deutsche Bank Building, which was covered in a large black "shroud" after September 11 to cover the building's damage, is currently being deconstructed because of water, mold, and other severe damage caused by the neighboring towers' collapse

Furthermore the building was damaged by the planes, but the main cause of collapse was the fire that engulfed the building. It wasn't Plane hits, Wallop, building falls over. That is the kind of physics a roadrunner cartoon would be embarrassed to commit.

WTC collapse: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8OQWz7xlINA

Controlled Explosion: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYH-Ixvqbdw

You'll notice that the wtc collapse starts at the impact zone, while the Adu Dhab building starts at the base. Furthermore the controlled demolition is preceded by sound of a series of explosions, as well as debris coming out of several floors, and there is no such sounds or debris in the case of the WTC.

But aside from those three glaring inconsistencies oh yeah, they're totally alike. :rolleyes: