Since 911 keeps popping up in other threads...

Frankly I'm tired of responding to your specific fiction and your obvious ignorance and I'm rather bored with you as a human being, child.

 

Who cares. I am tired of you posting 8 consecutive posts of propaganda and then smugly declaring; what no answer, no debate.

 

it is difficult to accept any specific explanation considering there is such a great absence of data points. What we need is a real deal investigation, short of that both sides are just blowing steam.

 

Danr....perhaps you could pic something I posted and tell me what you dis-agree with or don't understand. I'd love to take the opportunity to try and clear the "steam" that you say I'm blowing if you would please be specific. Noone has really done that "specifically". Saying "that's bull" is all well and good, but, it'd be nice if someone could articulate/expand on whatever it is "specifically" that they have a problem with. At your leisure Sir.

 

I'll pick something with you. True muslim koran abiding terrorists flew planes into the WTC, the Pentagon, and their failed attack that resulted in passengers overtaking United 93 in Pennsylvania on 9/11/01.

I have the motive, means and opportunity.

I know it is hard for people like you to understand that a religion as hateful and destructive as Islam could possibly be the inspiration for terrorist attacks before, on, and after 9/11/01, but it is time for you whack jobs to face the music.

 

My point is that though you make many good points it would make a more solid case if there were more data points to back them up. For instance the presence of thermite in the dust is an indication that explosives were used, but other data points such as eyewitnesses and documents would bolster that case. With the current level of evidence many will remain unconvinced and that is why we need a real investigation (to uncover more data points).

 

Ok. I gotcha. Yes I agree, but it's not likely we'd ever get a new investigation. Kinda like JFK, we know but we don't REALLY wanna know.
I'd love a new HONEST investigation. You're right there. I'd submit though that scientific evidence is already present but is ignored for all the obvious reasons. Nano Thermite was found. It's just ignored or ridiculed (much like the reaction in here). The difference is the folks who have the power to do something about it go along with the ridicule for fear of reprisals. That is slowly changing though, and I'm hopeful the masses are waking up. The only problem I see is that folks want a 5 second blurb or video clip to "instantly"
show them the truth and not have to think too hard or spend too much time doing so. That's our society. Instant. I want it NOW mentality. Unfortunately for the truth to prevail, it takes a little bit of thought and a little time to do that., something many aren't willing to do.

 

Hey, maybe you can get TMZ or VH1 to investigate...aren't those the type of news sources you hold so dear?

 

Any one watch the History channels prog "9/11 Conspiracies, Fact or Fiction"?

 

History channel makes up history

The History Channel takes on 9/11…and fails


On Saturday, August 26th at 5PM, Pacific Time, the History Channel aired “Conspiracy Theories about 9/11, Fact or Fiction?” Many facts were ignored:
As to the attacks in Manhattan:

1. Residue of thermate, a compound used to cut steel in controlled demolitions, was found in the rubble.

2. There are eyewitness statements describing molten metal in the rubble just after the attacks, as well as orange to light-yellow hot pieces of metal, weeks afterward.

3. There were witnesses to explosions before the planes hit the buildings.

4. There is seismic evidence supporting explosions before the impacts of the planes.

5. There is physical evidence of destruction in the basement and lobby of the North Tower at the time of the initial impact of the airplane at the 92nd floor.

6. There is photographic evidence of steel heated beyond the capabilities of jet fuel.

7. There is photographic evidence of jaggedly cut, corroded steel from Ground Zero consistent with the use of explosives.

8. There is video evidence of a thermic reaction in the twin towers as predicted and described by Professor Steven Jones, now retired from Brigham Young University.

9. There is audio evidence of an explosion before the impact of Flight 11 into the North Tower.

10.There is audio evidence of explosions as the towers are actually collapsing.

As to the attack on the Pentagon:

11. There are multiple eyewitnesses to a flight path contradictory to that established by the 9/11 Commission for American Airlines Flight 77, which is alleged to have hit the Pentagon.

12. There is black box evidence of a similarly contradictory flight path. The ramifications of this set of facts are as follows: The official story is rendered impossible, by virtue of the black box-described heading and altitude of the suspect aircraft. The aircraft is flying on a course which is inconsistent with the damage done to the building, and at an altitude which allows it to miss the building entirely. The NTSB and eyewitness corroborated flight path, then, requires an explanation for five fallen light poles, none of which was in the way of the suspect aircraft, and all of the damage done to the building along the 45 degree angle described by the 9/11 Commission’s erroneous flight path.

13. No mention is made of the presence of an E-4B, “Flying Pentagon” over Washington, D.C. at the time of the attack on the Pentagon.

14. The money trail from General Mahmoud Ahmad, head of the Pakistani ISI to Mohammed Atta, in the weeks leading up to the attacks, and Ahmad’s presence in the halls of power on September 11 are ignored.

15. While agreeing that Flight 77 made the unusual turn and dive before hitting the Pentagon, several other important points went unexplored:
a. The turn and dive took 2 1/2 minutes at a time when the entire world knew there was danger in the skies. Why would a suicide bomber risk getting intercepted, staying airborne for those additional minutes, when the largest target, the entire top of the building presented itself dead ahead, requiring simply a nose down maneuver.
b. If the presumed aim of the terrorists is to do the most damage, why not aim for the roof of the building where up to 20,000 people are in your sights?
c. One of those people was the Secretary of Defense, though whether even the most well-informed terrorist would have been aware of that fact may be in doubt.
d. The area of the building that was hit actually provided the pilot the smallest possible target, in addition to requiring the most adroit maneuver.
e. The area hit was mostly unoccupied since it was in the process of being refurbished to better withstand attack. As a result, only 125 people were killed, the bulk of whom were civilian construction workers, and only one flag officer.
f. The devastated area included the ranks of the military money managers who would be tasked with determining what happened to the 2.3 trillion dollars of Pentagon funds that Secretary Rumsfeld disclosed was unaccounted for the day before.

The program omitted all of the above, but also engaged in sleight of hand on at least one significant issue.

The program discussed the “conspiratorial’ view that the fires in the Towers did not get hot enough to bring down the buildings, and addressed it with “expert” opinion that the steel did not have to get hot enough to melt, only hot enough to lose a lot of its strength. While appearing to deal with a significant part of the heat issue, the program ignored the far more important question of what created the temperatures responsible for the molten metal in the rubble, and what is seen flowing from the 80th+ floor on videotape.

The presence of molten metal, now known not to be aluminum, which melts at a lower temperature than steel, demands temperatures well in excess of what the government concedes. It must therefore be explained, just as a bullet in the body of a dead person must be explained.

The program ignores this problem entirely, but instead employs cheap tricks to demean instead of explore. These include:

1. Footage of overly zealous truth enthusiasts arguing on the street is repeated several times without reason.

2. Family of the victims have their grief exploited while arguing that any questioning of the official story is an affront to the memories of their loved ones. Truth seekers and exposers are therefore immoral, mean people. The failure of logic should be obvious.

3. In attempting to set out the arguments, a “Conspiracy”-”Expert” dichotomy is established, which ignores or marginalizes the fact that the scholars relied upon by truth exponents are every bit as expert as the supporters of the official story.

4. A great bulk of the program engages in name calling. The term “conspiracy theorist” is employed throughout along with derisive explanations about what such people “need” in order for their lives to have meaning, or be bearable. The psychological peace achieved through the swallowing of palpable falsehoods concerning this nation’s inherent decency is not addressed.

5. The program’s graphics promote an understanding of the attack on the Pentagon which is contradicted by all of the available accounts, 9/11 Commission, NTSB, and the video footage from the Pentagon security camera.

The final most striking failure in the program is the absence of mention given to the many omissions, distortions, and outright lies contained in the 9/11 Commission Report, as well as the inclusion of one of the program’s own creation. In a footnote on page 541 of the “Report,” reference is made to the fact that the core of the twin towers were “hollow shafts.” This statement is as blatant a lie as can be told, as any picture of the towers’ construction shows clearly the 47 steel columns that allowed the buildings the stability to achieve their height. A similar striking falsehood now finds space in reference to WTC 7, which on the program loses its 16 steel columns and becomes as hollow as the 9/11 Commission would have the twin towers.

The question has been asked in other places, but seems apt with regard to the History Channel’s most recent effort: can this sort of reporting be done honestly?

 

Remember my statement about you making things up and calling them facts. Above is exhibit A.

 

More on history channel hit piece

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2007/210807_hit_piece.htm


Next please.....

 

Back to my original question did any one actualy watch it?

 

Yes...I watched it.

 

This issue really brings out a passionate response.

 

Would you like a breakdown of the inaccuracies and outright lies? I still have it on my DVR for a good laugh.

 

Fight lies with lies, the corona motto.

 

40 things for the blind to ignore

http://911truth.org/article.php?story=20041221155307646

Consider this a parting gift and enjoy your ignorance. It would seem that this forum accurately reflects the brainlessness exhibited by the few arrogant sheep that have repeatedly posted comments (rather insults), and the many that either ignore or plain just don't give a s***. Either way, I'm done. Congratulations. Your ignorance will reign on "virtually" undisturbed. May God someday give you all the rewards you have so richly earned. I'll pray for a lot of you.

 

More bad news for the sheep

http://truthalliance.net/Archive/tabid/67/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/3957/Default.aspx

The jig is almost up.

 

Further confirmation of Cheney lies

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20091115024929372

Truth abounds....