George H W Bush has died

nullzero wrote: »

What i suggested people watch is a video made by qualified engineers and architects, not some out there video about aliens crashing UFOs into the towers or some such nonsense.

If we're talking about tactics, your labelling anything you don't agree with as "low on facts" etc while I'm assuming you haven't looked at the video in question is a typical tactic of those who don't want this issue discussed.

and there we have the tactics in action. You haven't watched my video so you dont know anything. Oddly enough these "facts" seemingly can only be communicated through the spoken word. Writing them down seems to be impossible.

Tower 7 was hit by debris falling 1,500 feet from two 110 storey buildings. It had a giant hole in the middle of the building facing the wtc towers which obviously wasn't visible on the backside of the building where all the video from 9/11 was shot.

The structural integrity of tower 7 was completely compromised even without any fire. The towers of the World Financial Center, across the highway from the WTC never experienced fire and were nowhere near as badly damaged by falling debris as tower 7 yet engineers on the day thought both were going to collapse.

tuxy wrote: »

There was a post earlier criticising someone for being condescending. I think you should take their advice.

It isn't condescending to state something obvious to somebody who has been openly aggressive towards you.

Basically the other boy hit me first.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

And here we go with tactic number 2. Claim victim status.

Jesus would you stop.
I'm not claiming to be a victim, I'm just giving as good as I get.
Get over yourself.
The point I made was that respect is a two way street, you showed me no respect so why should you expect it in return?

nullzero wrote: »

Jesus would you stop.
I'm not claiming to be a victim, I'm just giving as good as I get.
Get over yourself.

nullzero wrote: »

It isn't condescending to state something obvious to somebody who has been openly aggressive towards you.

Basically the other boy hit me first.

Nope, no attempt to play the victim here at all.

nullzero wrote: »

Keep repeating the lie and people will believe it.
Nice tactics.

And here we have tactic number 3.

nullzero wrote: »

Tower 7 collapsed having not being hit by a plane with minimal fire damage but I'm sure the "official turn of events" on that is peer-reviewed enough to satisfy you.

I never mentioned anything about tower 7, I was on about the twin towers.

In regards WTC Tower 7, FDNY are on record that day of a) observing multiple uncontrolled fires in that building that burned for over 7 hours b) observed a large bulge on one of the sides, a sure sign of structural weakness in the building and c) stopped all search and rescue in the area as they thought, rightly the building might collapse. This radio correspondence is all on the public record. Inconvenient facts eh?

I guess FDNY are part of this black ops event as well.

There is probable cause from the Islamic terrorists to have carried out the attacks no doubt, but they are intrinsically linked to American intelligence agencies,

Here is 9/11 truther logic

1) USA heavily involved in the Middle East with some unsavory characters
2) .....
3) 9/11 was an inside job, orchestrated by Bush/Cheney/[Insert bogeyman here]

why would they develop a conscience when it's happening on American soil?

This is where your logic falls flat. It does matter a jot even if you think all these guys are evil incarnate. Even if one was to take the position that they were morally and ethically so corrupt that they would kill 3,000 Americans on American soil for a few $$, where is the PROOF!!

Its one thing thinking they could do it, its another thing completely to think they did do it. Your moral view on Bush an Co. is NOT proof of anything but your own mind.

The failings of the official investigation have fuelled too many half-baked conspiracy theories. Some of the 9/11 "truth" groups promote speculative hypotheses, ignore innocent explanations, cite non-expert sources and jump to conclusions that are not proven by the known facts. They convert mere coincidence and circumstantial evidence into cast-iron proof.

Quite apt in this thread.

The thing that gets me about anti-Americanism is that if you thought American leaders were that bad and indeed the US is that bad then it's no surprise by all this constant criticizing of the American ppl that we now have Donald Trump. If you think the US is essentially bad then I wouldn't be surprised if you ain't seen nothing yet forcing some to redefine what 'bad' really means.

markodaly wrote: »

They can claim anything they want. What matters here is proof and there is ZERO proof that explosives were used to bring down any of the World Trade Center tower.

Again, I have to love 9/11 truther logic.

'It was explosives that brought down WTC Tower 7, even though I have no proof of such a claim, but it was definitely not the raging inferno that burned uncontrolled for 7 hours.." LOLZ



You mean he missed the smoke and fires emanating from the building, never mind the chaos of two 110 storey buildings that collapsed around it? Was he told a fire was burning in the building for 7 hours. Was he told that hours previously FDNY was on record of seeing structural damage to the building?
Clutch those straws ever harder mate.





The failings of the intelligence agencies was laid bare, hence the creation of 'The Dept. of Homeland Security' to encourage more collaboration. The US military machine at the time was still in a Cold War mentality, thus an attack from the inside was not something they were really ready for. Remember, they took domestic flights which had very very lax security. Again, it is up to you to prove that there was some puppet master inside the US government directing this stuff, but you can't as there is none.



Let me guess, a deliberate black ops ploy to try and kill all the eyewitnesses? :rolleyes:



Again, you want to hold onto a conspiracy theory which has no basis in fact yet also do not want to be challenged on it and the barefaced lies put forward in an effort to prove the conspiracy theory.

You can hold whatever opinion you want, but that does not mean you will not be challenged on it and your opinion being called stupid.

All the structural steel from all the collapsed towers was removed and sent to China before it was properly examined which was not the process which should have been followed.

No other buildings of that type ever collapsed due to fire, the fires were sporadic in WTC 7, whilst entire towers have been engulfed in flames for over twice as long and the structural steel didn't fail. The fires themselves were low intensity fires (orange flames visible in the footage from the day) which does not suggest the fires were hot enough to cause the steel to fail(the hottest fires are almost invisible to the naked eye, and in the presence of the lower temperature fires visible we can rule out these higher intensity fires by elimination).

There is also video footage of the towers collapse where blasts are audible although I'm sure that isn't up to scrutiny for you.

It is also unusual that the tower would collapse symmetrically into its own footprint when the supposed fire damage was on one side of the structure, surely logic would dictate that an asymmetrical collapse would have been the outcome rather than the free fall speed collapse into its own footprint that occurred.

The BBC reported that WTC7 had collapsed some time before the collapse happened, the footage is available online with the reporter detailing its collapse whilst it is still visible in the background. The BBC claims to have lost the archive tapes and has never properly explained what happened in that incident.

As for your explanation of the failings in American national security, on the surface somebody could take what you're saying at face value, but below the surface the spectre of fact lingers and is ready to trip you up and reverse all the claims of faulty logic and lack of factual evidence.
To say that the USA was "not really ready" for attacks of this nature is laughable as I thought you would have known (as anyone with a passing interest in this subject would have known for a long time) that drills were being run on the morning of 9-11 simulating the exact scenario involved in the attacks namely the hijacking of a commercial plane which would be flown by terrorists into landmarks or tall buildings, something which further confused the people in NORAD who questioned the report of the real hijacked aircraft as to whether it was simulation or real world in nature.
Previously to 9-11 any plane which veered slightly off course would have been been subject to immediate intervention by radio from NORAD and after that fighter jets would have been scrambled within minutes of any deviation off course.
They were prepared for this largely due to the number of planes which were hijacked in the 60's 70's and 80's (the old standard joke of "fly me to Havana" came from this).
The above blows your notions of unpreparedness out of the water and shows up your lack of basic knowledge and or understanding of the subject at hand.

As for a proof of a plan to coordinate such attacks, you need only look at PNAC which outlines the need for a catalysing event like a new pearl harbour for perpetuate the American military industrial complex into the 21st century.
The result of 9-11 hasn't been fantasy land stuff about lizard people or other nonsense, it has been the systematic invasion of the countries listed in PNAC played out since 9-11,starting with Afghanistan and then Iraq(predicated on the lies about WMD's told by the very people who were in power and allowed 9-11 to occur under their watch), Lybia and Syria etc...
The motivation for arranging 9-11 is simple; money.
The war machine wouldn't have rumbled into the middle East without 9-11the continued development and supply of new weapons from arms manufacturers on bloated contracts wouldn't have happened, the deaths of millions of innocent people would have been avoided.

Eisenhower warned of the coming changes to America due to the encroaching military industrial complex when he left office.
Kennedy tried to dismantle the structures of the CIA and its related business interests of which George H W Bush(remember him) was an integral part as a business man and later as the man in charge of the CIA.
THE CIA had probable cause to want Kennedy dead and were that the case H W Bush would have played a part in how the assassination was planned. This lead to the Vietnam war which was started on the heels of a proven false flag event and led to a prolonged war which was ultimately lost by America but kept weapons manufacturers business booming.
Big business doesn't care about people and the notions you have that such things couldn't be planned from the inside is naive at best.

As for the response you gave to the EPA saying the air was safe to breath after the attacks in New York what you're missing is the fact that asbestos was by far the most dangerous element released into the air.
The illnesses caused by asbestos can take decades to show any symptoms.
Take something like mesothelioma for example, it can take decades to show symptoms but will typically kill the person within weeks or months of diagnosis if not sooner as there is no cure. The type of death it causes is incredibly unpleasant and to think that people could have been prevented from having diseases like that is harrowing in the extreme and it sits aside from the general 9-11 conspiracy theories, your flippant remark about it being used to take out witnesses again shows a complete lack of knowledge or understanding on your part.

If you want a conspiracy theory actually relevant to the thread - the links to George HW Bush to the JFK assassination will either intrigue you (if new to you), or give you a good laugh, depending on your point-of-view!

I've a soft spot for George W. In retirement, seems like a mischievous messer. His eulogy was quite good and heartfelt. Never thought I'd say that about him!

Cant forget though what a disaster his presidency was though, Iraq & the economy, patriot act, Dick Cheney -a man without a heart (literally sometimes), Donald Rumsfeld the man who give a speech about nothing. Wonder if he was led by Cheney.(film with Christian Bale looks good)