My mistake. I meant all tall buildings. And you posted and posted and posted so much and at such length. Oh wait. I asked if the government had rigged other tall buildings and you didnt deny it.
Perhaps if you or anyone responded intelligently on a chosen point or two..I might not post and post and post and post. I know...you made a Fox typo. I keep trying to see if anyone in the world has any capacity for reason and to think. Mostly I'm coming up dry, but I'll keep trying. I consider it an experiment entitled "The Stupidity of The General Public" and also as a service to anyone who does indeed have brains. No I didn't deny that point, rather didn't respond. So if you noone responds, then that makes valid? I guess that gives me lotsa valid points.
Jesse tells it like it is http://www.prisonplanet.com/ventura-delivers-some-911-truth-on-larry-king-live.html
Don't forget our veterans! http://www.v911t.org/ I hope the right wingers hypocrisy doesn't run too deep so they can "support the troops"...like they are so fond reminding us all that they always do.
Hey Lehigh...speaking of habits. I was wondering, after re-reading this and other posts, why you didn't take issue with Steven Jones, MIT scientist who says the buildings were brought down through use of nano-thermite? You're always hopping about credentials...qualifications. Just wondering. Would he suit any of your "requirements"?... or is he just the empty headed liar you seem to like to portray any other folks who disagree with the government's fairy tale story? I'm just trying to figure out what your angle is. Humor me if you would please. Thank you so much, in advance, and have a wonderful day.
I was simply too lazy to research his credentials. However, you refer to him as an MIT scientist. Would you care to tell the members of this forum if he ever earned any degree from MIT or ever served as a professor at MIT?
Thank you for proving what I believed to be true beautifully. Actually, Professor Steven Jones earned his bachelor's degree in physics, magna cum laude, from Brigham Young University in 1973, and his Ph.D. in physics from Vanderbilt University in 1978. He conducted his Ph.D. research at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (from 1974 to 1977), and post-doctoral research at Cornell University and the Los Alamos Meson Physics Facility. Too lazy to research his credentials? RRRight. I think I have demonstrated how selectively you choose which facts to post. Had Mr. Jones actually been an MIT scientist, you would have not responded at all. This is how you, and many others, show your true colors, and debating with you and folks like you is therefore pointless, since you wouldn't admit facts if they stared you in the face, because of whatever agenda you support. Whatever it is...it is something other than the TRUTH. Thank you and have yourself very happy holidays.
You made comments earlier in this thread about him and I did not at that time question his credentials. However, you also did not refer to him as a scholar like you did Griffin. Jones was a very minor part of the thread and my BS radar did not go off when he was brought up earlier. Hence there was no reason to research his credentials at that time. Your most recent post tripped my BS meter and told me to check his credentials. If Steven Jones had been an MIT scientist, I would have still told you that I was too lazy to research his credentials without adding the second sentence. At no point did I lie or attempt to spin anything. The simple fact is that despite his failure to attend MIT, his credentials are solid. BYU, Vanderbilt, and Cornell are all outstanding Universities and not nearly the third rate institutions attended by Griffin. I can disagree with Mr. Jones and even point out that he has no background in metallurgy, but I can't dismiss his opinions based on false credentials. What is amazing is your hypocrisy. You accuse me of being untruthful but you are the one who outright lied by posting that he was an MIT scientist. My guess is that you just recently checked his credentials and found out that he did not attend MIT like the tabloid truther reporters have stated on other sites on the internet. You then decided to play your little trump card with your primitive attempt to set me up. BTW. You are the one with the agenda here. Happy Holidays. Here is wishing you get all the white face paint you need for the next year.
Thank you. That is the only knowingly false statement that I posted. I hope you all can take my word on it but certainly that is your individual choice. Yes it was false. There ya go. But it supports my original conclusion and I needed a way to demonstrate it. It also proved another thing. You're perfectly capable of researching things to find the truth, which means you're perfectly capable of verifying most or all of the things I have posted to be correct, or at the very least, very strong arguments that the government's story is ridiculously false. What exactly your agenda is I am not completely sure. Despite my disdain for the impression I perceive of you personally, it's also obvious that you are clearly intelligent. I guess that's what bugs me most about you. The freefall speed of those buildings is not a very difficult concept to grasp, especially for you. Simple math really, and one doesn't need to be a physics major to understand it..yet you refuse to acknowledge some of the smallest and most obvious and easily researched features of this whole mess. For what? That's where I say you have an agenda. You have to. Whether it's born out of some cockeyed version of patriotism, or something much more direct, like maybe you work for some faction of government. I don't know, but there has to be one. Out of the hundreds of posts, not only do you dismiss or ignore the majority of them, but you seem to ridicule the most, the ones that get close to certain areas. You also do your best to distort what I say, or "steer" the posts into a particular direction that you apparently want it to go, rather than discussing what I bring up (with one or two exceptions). Final point. Yes I do have an agenda. I want the truth displayed to as many people as I can. That's it. If you think there's more, well, than you'd be wrong just one more time. Happy Holidays.
Tom, I don't believe your version of the truth. What you have convinced yourself is so clear seems wildly impossible to me. Furthermore, if others start to believe your version of the truth, it will draw away from the real enemy, Islamic terrorists, and all but guarantee a repeat of 9/11. I have admitted that we need to investigate WTC7 but still don't believe that it was nano-thermite planted by government mercenaries. The other two buildings were hit by commercial air liners hijacked by terrorists. You saw it with your own eyes. I don't even know how you can dispute it. With regards to your frustration about my intelligence, the feeling is completely mutual. I have come to the conclusion that your irrational fear and hatred of the Republican right is seriously clouding your judgment in many areas of your life making it impossible for you to see the real truth. My real x-mas wish for you is a new perspective that releases your mind from it's prison.
Lehigh..man oh man...I think I could say that your judgment is clouded with possibly some sincere belief that questioning or probing the government's alliances and motives, and most of all, facts, somehow will trigger another 911 scenario. That's perhaps a plausible line of thought..but I'm of the opinion that questioning, probing and objecting to the crap the government expects us to swallow is a much better way of trying to insure another 911 DOESN'T happen. If we question nothing, we will learn nothing and we gain nothing, except the guarantee that future "created or assisted" catastrophes will keep right on coming. Shining a light on them and insisting on explanations for very flaky and questionable occurrences MIGHT make them think twice about pulling that sort of crap again, but so long as the folks go along with whatever ridiculous explanations for whatever reason, there stands a much better possibility of preventing them. Ignoring...not verifying...whatever you want to call it, is just stupid IMHO. We may or may not be able to do much as a people to prevent whatever happens (which really hasn't been tested in modern times), but trying to validate what we're told is a start, but we can't even do that, so by default, we invite more nonsense. I'm glad you agree somewhat on WTC7...then again...building 7's demise is very tough to ignore or defend, so I think that's mostly where your limited agreement there is spawned. The Nano-thermite "theory" has merit. Why? Because it was found all over the place in the dust of the WTC's and verified through, for example, Steven Jones. Building 7 is only the most obvious example of something fishy. There are lots more as I keep trying to point out. "What we saw" regarding planes, was one plane hit each of the twin towers. No brainer IMHO. What we didn't see, and also what we cannot verify, is for one, that they were indeed commercial planes. There's nothing to verify. What we DIDN'T see at the Pentagon was a plane actually hit the Pentagon, and the likely hundreds of cameras recordings were confiscated beginning within 15 minutes of the stunt. Under the guise of National security would be the likeliest reason given if forced forced to provide one..I'm sure....but that doesn't even happen... My "hatred" (a bit strong but accurate enough) of the republican party stems from my lifetime of experiences and watching the same old tactics they use over and over. They always defend big business. They want free reign to do whatever "the free market" deems it needs to. They scream about tax cuts for the wealthy (though they obviously don't reference the wealthy part but it is extremely evident) or the threat of increasing their taxes. Pro life (their least offensive stance), pro guns...pro war with anyone...pro "capitalistic" ways of screwing the majority of "less than wealthy" folks in favor of "business", via mergers, downsizing, benefit cuts, outsourcing, or some other monopolistic practice ALWAYS at the cost of the less wealthy worker. You want those thing?? Then the republicans are the party for you. The Dems ain't much better on a host of issues...but every once in a while they do something for the common man. I can't recall the right ever going that route. I think my judgment there is pretty clear. Happy Holidays.
Tom, Exactly how many conspiracy theories are you selling these days? I think at last count you were celebrating 3, right? How is it that with soooo many plots going on around the world, with sooo many people in involved you & I were left out? I feel slighted, what about you?
Not really. I don't have the right bloodlines, nor the right corporate or political connections for that sort of stuff. Conspiracy is everywhere. It's definition is very simple.. not the state of hysteria you are that I believe you're trying to infer. However it is commonplace in today's "business"and political environment, more so now than ever...especially since 911. Put your head back in the sand...everything's fine.
Another whoopsie! http://pilotsfor911truth.org/american_77_hijack_impossible.html Maybe I should start assigning numbers to the "coincidences" and make a list. I'm guessing but #586 might be close here.
That's right...those 19 muslims who boarded those 4 flights that day had NOTHING to do with 9/11/01...right? At least as I speak to bread, will you rise to the top?
Geez...ya know I don't recall ever saying that muslims weren't or couldn't have had something to do with 911...do you? Who ever said our covert operations had to be non muslim? We'll use ANYBODY...and we do. Rise? I'm pretty much a calcified fossil of what used to be a rising loaf some time ago before I discovered how nasty corporate/government criminals operate. I still like the american eagle better than the ostrich as well.
