The mossad and CIA did 9/11.overwhelming facts prove it.

[SFC Ollie]

What is it you think you are seeing and who doctored the video?

 

[Penelope]

What is it you think you are seeing and who doctored the video?

Have you investigated it at all?

 

[Skylar]

And another point that Chomsky makes about 911 that makes so much sense when you think about it:

There are some obvious questions. Like suppose that the Bush administration did it; Why would they blame Saudis? Are they insane? They wanted to invade Iraq, right? Everyone agrees with that. So why didn't they blame Iraqis?

If they had blamed Iraqis, its an open and shut case. The whole country is for you, you get a UN resolution, NATO supports you, you just go ahead and invade Iraq. Since they blamed Saudis, therefore harming themselves, that's their closest ally, they had to go jump through hoops to try to invent stories of Weapons of mass destruction and connections to al Quada and all this other thing and they finally invaded Iraq.

Noam Chomsky

Kinda 'no duh' when you think about it.

did dybya blame the saudis et al?

Did Chomsky say that Bush blamed 'the Saudis'? Or did he say that Bush blamed Saudis?

And once you've reread Chomsky's statements, this time for comprehension, riddle me this; Were Osama Bin Ladin and the majority of the hijackers from Saudi Arabia?

I'll give you a hint: the answer has three letters and rhymes with 'guess'.

and everything that chumsky said is purely political speculation and worthless in light of the evidence.

More accurately, what Chomsky offered was a hole in the truther version of events so large you could drive a truck through it. If it was a false flag, why not blame Iraqis? It would have been a blank check for whatever invasion of Iraq Bush wanted to conduct. Why blame Saudis, among our closest allies in the region?

It simply makes no sense. Like most of the truther narrative.

And of course, you still haven't told us why you choose to ignore both the FDNY and the NIST, both of which are quite useful as evidence. Yet you ignore both. Or can I just add this to the litany of common sense questions that truthers just can't answer?

 

[Skylar]

Me, I've applied Occam's razor to both the official story and the myriad of conspiracy stories. The 'bomb' theory. The 'thermite' theory. The 'thermate' theory. The 'nano-thermite' theory. The 'orbiting projected energy weapons platform' theory. The 'holographic plane' theory. All the classics.

The official story works better than any of them, more closely matches the facts, and doesn't involve the absolutely ludicrous degree of complexity and elaboration that the various conspiracy versions do. Where all the conspiracy theories I've looked at are just awful, awful explanations condemned by a litany of theory killing holes to virtual impossibility.

Pick your favorite conspiracy. And if I've reviewed it, I'll show where it breaks....obviously and irreconcilably.

you don't really want to open that Pandora's box .
the facts don't register with koko and co.
the projected planes theory is my personal favorite.

Oh by all means, if he wants to try and apply ocrams please do, Ill sharpen my teeth.

explain how it applies

The official story is a far, far simpler explanation involving far fewer people than any of the conspiracy narratives. The official story more closely matches the evidence.

Any of the variants of the truther narrative I've mentioned are wildly complicated in comparison, involving much larger groups of people, an implausible degree of secrecy, an absurdly large conspiracy and ludicrous levels of complexity that simply doesn't match the evidence anywhere near as closely as the official story.

Occam's razor is based in the principle of succinct economy, dismissing needless elaboration and implausible complexity when a much simpler, more plausible explanation works just as well. Or in the case of 911, better. And the official story is far simpler, far more plausible account that fits the evidence better than any of the variants of the truther conspiracy I've mentioned ever have.

 

[Toro]

BTW. I don't believe the official "A bunch of camel-fuckers in Pashtun planned and carried out 9/11 entirely on their own" for a second.

I also no longer believe that bin Laden was a real person, certainly not some "Terrorist mastermind"

We were headed to peace and prosperity unknown in the USA since the 1920's, instead we've now had 14 years of war that was strategically worse for the USA than the end of WWII. That doesn't happen by accident

Bush and conservative Republicans did it!

 

[Skylar]

so what have debunkers questioned about the official story other than nothing?

Me, I've applied Occam's razor to both the official story and the myriad of conspiracy stories. The 'bomb' theory. The 'thermite' theory. The 'thermate' theory. The 'nano-thermite' theory. The 'orbiting projected energy weapons platform' theory. The 'holographic plane' theory. All the classics.

The official story works better than any of them, more closely matches the facts, and doesn't involve the absolutely ludicrous degree of complexity and elaboration that the various conspiracy versions do. Where all the conspiracy theories I've looked at are just awful, awful explanations condemned by a litany of theory killing holes to virtual impossibility.

Pick your favorite conspiracy. And if I've reviewed it, I'll show where it breaks....obviously and irreconcilably.

yep theres your first mistake, by all means do tell how it applies.

well thrn lets start with the kool demolition sequence we can see through the windows when forensic analysis is applied to wtc7.

What 'forensic analysis'? You just posted an animated gif. With your 'analysis', you've already upped the complexity level as we need to ask who conducted the analysis, if they're remotely qualified, and what modifications they made to the video. None of which you've provided. You don't even have a source for your video....as I'm reasonably certain photobucket didn't conduct the 'forensic analysis'.

Next, your assumptions: that it shows a 'kool demolition sequence'. Your animated gif is clearly insuffecient to carry that claim. Worse, your claim of a 'demolition sequence' has some enormous holes.

1) First, there were no sound of explosions immediately preceding the collapse of the building. Not before the penthouse collapsed into the WTC 7. Not preceding the collapse of the facade later. There's no such thing as explosives that make no sound when they detonate. This point made doubly true when you're claiming that these explosions were suffecient to bring down a skyscraper.

Imaginary 'silent explosives' are exactly the kind of needlessly complicated and laughably implausible holes in the truther narrative that render it an awful explanation in comparison to the official story.

2) Next, the floors you say the explosions occured were ON FIRE. And had been for quite a while. There's no system of explosives that handle being on fire. At best, explosives would have either detonated when the fire reached them or been reduced to bubbling pools of goo. Det cord would have gone up, any wires attached to the charges would have melted, any timers or receives would have been reduced to plastic slag.

Yet your explosives went off in a neat, precise sequence? Nope. Your story is not only implausible, its virtually impossible. Explosive demolition doesn't happen in a burning building because the fire would destroy any explosive apparatus.

3) Next, there were no beams cut in a manner consistent with explosive demolition. How then could explosive sequences brought the building down without cutting the girders? There should have been thousands and thousands of such cuts per your reasoning. Yet there were zero.

Another theory killing hole you simply can't explain. Another pointless, absurd layer of needless complexity that renders your theory a laughably implausible alternative to the official story of structural failure due to fire.

4) Next, the Port authority bomb squad had gone through the entire WTC plaza only the week before and found no bombs. That's bomb detection experts and their bomb sniffing dogs. Meaning that your bombs would have had to have been invisible to both experts looking explicitly for them......and undetectable by bomb sniffing dogs.

'Ridiculously unlikely' doesn't begin to cover it. And once again, another layer of needless elaboration and complication is added to an already absurdly poor conspiracy. And yet it still gets worse.

5) These buildings weren't museums. They were regularly inspected, occupied, cleaned and maintained. The odds that such a building wide, elaborate system of explosives would have been set within the building and nobody noticed is essentially zero. Especially considering that the Port Authority Bombsquad was *looking* for just such explosives.

Yet your theory requires this. And astonishingly, it still gets worse.

6) Detailed analysis of the dust samples at the WTC site show no residue of explosives. This in an analysis so precise that they were able to detect medication from the WTC pharmacy.....but not the thousands and thousand of explosives your theory relies upon?

Again, that's ridiculously implausible. Your theory is simply an awful, awful explanation.

7) And finally, you've still ignored the FDNY...who watched the building bulge, buckle and burn for hours before the collapse, and correctly predicted its collapse hours before it occured. And you ignore them for no particular reason. That's expert eye-witness testimony collected over hours from direct and unobstructed observation of WTC 7. And they cite massive fire and structural damage. Explicitly contradicting you. And you ignore them entirely.

8) And of course, you also ignore the NIST.....again for no particular reason. They cite reasons quite similar to the FDNY: the massive fires. So you have to expert sources with unequalled access to the scene both giving you a plausible, verifiable cause: massive fires.

And you ignore them both in favor of bombs which you can't establish even exist. And of course, are magically silent, invisible, apparently installed by ninja janitors, undetectable to bomb sniffing dogs, leave no trace behind, and are conveniently fire proof.

Um, somehow. You can't say.

Any one of these theory killing inconsistencies would render your theory virtually impossible. Together they make your theory just silly. And you can't explain any of them.

Occam's Razor again whittles away the unnecessary bits and leaves a pile of useless flotsam of your bomb theory. No 'nipple twisting' required.

What else have you got?

 

[daws101]

it's the one live brain cell thing that causes koko the ass clown to sputter nonsense.

one live brain cell with a higher iq than 10,000 Quattordecillion of yours totalled up!

see what I mean... would be sad if it weren't so funny.

 

[SFC Ollie]

What is it you think you are seeing and who doctored the video?

Have you investigated it at all?

When someone posts a video, I'm not about to investigate it when i don't even know where it came from or what it's supposed to show...DUH

 

[daws101]

so what have debunkers questioned about the official story other than nothing?

Me, I've applied Occam's razor to both the official story and the myriad of conspiracy stories. The 'bomb' theory. The 'thermite' theory. The 'thermate' theory. The 'nano-thermite' theory. The 'orbiting projected energy weapons platform' theory. The 'holographic plane' theory. All the classics.

The official story works better than any of them, more closely matches the facts, and doesn't involve the absolutely ludicrous degree of complexity and elaboration that the various conspiracy versions do. Where all the conspiracy theories I've looked at are just awful, awful explanations condemned by a litany of theory killing holes to virtual impossibility.

Pick your favorite conspiracy. And if I've reviewed it, I'll show where it breaks....obviously and irreconcilably.

yep theres your first mistake, by all means do tell how it applies.

well thrn lets start with the kool demolition sequence we can see through the windows when forensic analysis is applied to wtc7.



now aint dat just a nipple twister. do tell us about ocram.

you are absolutely corrrect with the caveat that ya dont know shit from shinola.

if that's not wtc7 it's meaningless but then again everything you post is.
it looks to be a flir cam tape ...so what...

 

[Skylar]

What is it you think you are seeing and who doctored the video?

Have you investigated it at all?

When someone posts a video I'm not about to investigate it when i don't even know where it came from or what it's supposed to show...DUH

What video? Its an animated gif.

A 'forensic analysis' conducted by....who? From where? Modifying the video in what fashion? Supposedly showing a 'kool sequence of explosions' that I just don't see. Anyone else? And here's the funny part: its poster didn't ask any of these questions. It never even occurred to the poster to ask.

This is exactly what I'm talking about when I say most truthers aren't thinkers and they aren't questioners. They're script readers, regurgitating what they've been told to think and never fact checking or inquiring about what they've been told to believe.

Which is why when presented with theory killing holes in their conspiracy and overwhelming contrary evidence of it plausibility, they ignore the holes and the evidence...

.....and stick to their script without thought or question.

 

[Penelope]

Me, I've applied Occam's razor to both the official story and the myriad of conspiracy stories. The 'bomb' theory. The 'thermite' theory. The 'thermate' theory. The 'nano-thermite' theory. The 'orbiting projected energy weapons platform' theory. The 'holographic plane' theory. All the classics.

The official story works better than any of them, more closely matches the facts, and doesn't involve the absolutely ludicrous degree of complexity and elaboration that the various conspiracy versions do. Where all the conspiracy theories I've looked at are just awful, awful explanations condemned by a litany of theory killing holes to virtual impossibility.

Pick your favorite conspiracy. And if I've reviewed it, I'll show where it breaks....obviously and irreconcilably.

yep theres your first mistake, by all means do tell how it applies.

well thrn lets start with the kool demolition sequence we can see through the windows when forensic analysis is applied to wtc7.

What 'forensic analysis'? You just posted an animated gif. With your 'analysis', you've already upped the complexity level as we need to ask who conducted the analysis, if they're remotely qualified, and what modifications they made to the video. None of which you've provided. You don't even have a source for your video....as I'm reasonably certain photobucket didn't conduct the 'forensic analysis'.

Next, your assumptions: that it shows a 'kool demolition sequence'. Your animated gif is clearly insuffecient to carry that claim. Worse, your claim of a 'demolition sequence' has some enormous holes.

1) First, there were no sound of explosions immediately preceding the collapse of the building. Not before the penthouse collapsed into the WTC 7. Not preceding the collapse of the facade later. There's no such thing as explosives that make no sound when they detonate. This point made doubly true when you're claiming that these explosions were suffecient to bring down a skyscraper.

Imaginary 'silent explosives' are exactly the kind of needlessly complicated and laughably implausible holes in the truther narrative that render it an awful explanation in comparison to the official story.

2) Next, the floors you say the explosions occured were ON FIRE. And had been for quite a while. There's no system of explosives that handle being on fire. At best, explosives would have either detonated when the fire reached them or been reduced to bubbling pools of goo. Det cord would have gone up, any wires attached to the charges would have melted, any timers or receives would have been reduced to plastic slag.

Yet your explosives went off in a neat, precise sequence? Nope. Your story is not only implausible, its virtually impossible. Explosive demolition doesn't happen in a burning building because the fire would destroy any explosive apparatus.

3) Next, there were no beams cut in a manner consistent with explosive demolition. How then could explosive sequences brought the building down without cutting the girders? There should have been thousands and thousands of such cuts per your reasoning. Yet there were zero.

Another theory killing hole you simply can't explain. Another pointless, absurd layer of needless complexity that renders your theory a laughably implausible alternative to the official story of structural failure due to fire.

4) Next, the Port authority bomb squad had gone through the entire WTC plaza only the week before and found no bombs. That's bomb detection experts and their bomb sniffing dogs. Meaning that your bombs would have had to have been invisible to both experts looking explicitly for them......and undetectable by bomb sniffing dogs.

'Ridiculously unlikely' doesn't begin to cover it. And once again, another layer of needless elaboration and complication is added to an already absurdly poor conspiracy. And yet it still gets worse.

5) These buildings weren't museums. They were regularly inspected, occupied, cleaned and maintained. The odds that such a building wide, elaborate system of explosives would have been set within the building and nobody noticed is essentially zero. Especially considering that the Port Authority Bombsquad was *looking* for just such explosives.

Yet your theory requires this. And astonishingly, it still gets worse.

6) Detailed analysis of the dust samples at the WTC site show no residue of explosives. This in an analysis so precise that they were able to detect medication from the WTC pharmacy.....but not the thousands and thousand of explosives your theory relies upon?

Again, that's ridiculously implausible. Your theory is simply an awful, awful explanation.

7) And finally, you've still ignored the FDNY...who watched the building bulge, buckle and burn for hours before the collapse, and correctly predicted its collapse hours before it occured. And you ignore them for no particular reason. That's expert eye-witness testimony collected over hours from direct and unobstructed observation of WTC 7. And they cite massive fire and structural damage. Explicitly contradicting you. And you ignore them entirely.

8) And of course, you also ignore the NIST.....again for no particular reason. They cite reasons quite similar to the FDNY: the massive fires. So you have to expert sources with unequalled access to the scene both giving you a plausible, verifiable cause: massive fires.

And you ignore them both in favor of bombs which you can't establish even exist. And of course, are magically silent, invisible, apparently installed by ninja janitors, undetectable to bomb sniffing dogs, leave no trace behind, and are conveniently fire proof.

Um, somehow. You can't say.

Any one of these theory killing inconsistencies would render your theory virtually impossible. Together they make your theory just silly. And you can't explain any of them.

Occam's Razor again whittles away the unnecessary bits and leaves a pile of useless flotsam of your bomb theory. No 'nipple twisting' required.

What else have you got?

Lewis M. Eisenberg (born 1942) is an American business financier and investor, with entrepreneurial roots known for co-founding and heading a private equity firm, Granite Capital International Group L.P. Lewis Eisenberg has a multi-decade history in American political fundraising circles and is most notable for the various national, state, and bi-state appointments he held throughout his career, specifically as the Chairman of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey [1] at the time of the September 11, 2001 attack of the World Trade Center.

.Lewis M. Eisenberg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Skylar]

Lewis M. Eisenberg (born 1942) is an American business financier and investor, with entrepreneurial roots known for co-founding and heading a private equity firm, Granite Capital International Group L.P. Lewis Eisenberg has a multi-decade history in American political fundraising circles and is most notable for the various national, state, and bi-state appointments he held throughout his career, specifically as the Chairman of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey [1] at the time of the September 11, 2001 attack of the World Trade Center.

.Lewis M. Eisenberg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And?

Did the Truther conspiracy just get a little more wildly complicated, the perfect secrecy just a little bit larger, the story just a little bit less plausible?

 

[KokomoJojo]

Me, I've applied Occam's razor to both the official story and the myriad of conspiracy stories. The 'bomb' theory. The 'thermite' theory. The 'thermate' theory. The 'nano-thermite' theory. The 'orbiting projected energy weapons platform' theory. The 'holographic plane' theory. All the classics.

The official story works better than any of them, more closely matches the facts, and doesn't involve the absolutely ludicrous degree of complexity and elaboration that the various conspiracy versions do. Where all the conspiracy theories I've looked at are just awful, awful explanations condemned by a litany of theory killing holes to virtual impossibility.

Pick your favorite conspiracy. And if I've reviewed it, I'll show where it breaks....obviously and irreconcilably.

yep theres your first mistake, by all means do tell how it applies.

well thrn lets start with the kool demolition sequence we can see through the windows when forensic analysis is applied to wtc7.



now aint dat just a nipple twister. do tell us about ocram.

you are absolutely corrrect with the caveat that ya dont know shit from shinola.

if that's not wtc7 it's meaningless but then again everything you post is.
it looks to be a flir cam tape ...so what...

yeh you are the one who doesnt know the difference between the bankers trust and wtc 7, you are posting in the wrong section.

 

[KokomoJojo]

What is it you think you are seeing and who doctored the video?

Have you investigated it at all?

When someone posts a video, I'm not about to investigate it when i don't even know where it came from or what it's supposed to show...DUH

nice plea and admission to ignorance.

 

[KokomoJojo]

Have you investigated it at all?

When someone posts a video I'm not about to investigate it when i don't even know where it came from or what it's supposed to show...DUH

What video? Its an animated gif.

A 'forensic analysis' conducted by....who? From where? Modifying the video in what fashion? Supposedly showing a 'kool sequence of explosions' that I just don't see. Anyone else? And here's the funny part: its poster didn't ask any of these questions. It never even occurred to the poster to ask.

This is exactly what I'm talking about when I say most truthers aren't thinkers and they aren't questioners. They're script readers, regurgitating what they've been told to think and never fact checking or inquiring about what they've been told to believe.

Which is why when presented with theory killing holes in their conspiracy and overwhelming contrary evidence of it plausibility, they ignore the holes and the evidence...

.....and stick to their script without thought or question.

hate to burst your bubble but all movies are animated stills, the type of still is irrelevant. But dont let facts keep you from proving your ignorance.

 

[SAYIT]

Have you investigated it at all?

When someone posts a video I'm not about to investigate it when i don't even know where it came from or what it's supposed to show...DUH

What video? Its an animated gif.

A 'forensic analysis' conducted by....who? From where? Modifying the video in what fashion? Supposedly showing a 'kool sequence of explosions' that I just don't see. Anyone else? And here's the funny part: its poster didn't ask any of these questions. It never even occurred to the poster to ask.

This is exactly what I'm talking about when I say most truthers aren't thinkers and they aren't questioners. They're script readers, regurgitating what they've been told to think and never fact checking or inquiring about what they've been told to believe.

Which is why when presented with theory killing holes in their conspiracy and overwhelming contrary evidence of it plausibility, they ignore the holes and the evidence...

.....and stick to their script without thought or question.

Penelope isn't a truther. It's a dime-a-dozen Nazi scumbag who knows absolutely nothing but is damn proud of it.

 

[KokomoJojo]

It's a dime-a-dozen Nazi scumbag who knows absolutely nothing but is damn proud of it.

yeh damn dablunder tards are all alike

 

[Penelope]

Lewis M. Eisenberg (born 1942) is an American business financier and investor, with entrepreneurial roots known for co-founding and heading a private equity firm, Granite Capital International Group L.P. Lewis Eisenberg has a multi-decade history in American political fundraising circles and is most notable for the various national, state, and bi-state appointments he held throughout his career, specifically as the Chairman of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey [1] at the time of the September 11, 2001 attack of the World Trade Center.

.Lewis M. Eisenberg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And?

Did the Truther conspiracy just get a little more wildly complicated, the perfect secrecy just a little bit larger, the story just a little bit less plausible?

4) Next, the Port authority bomb squad had gone through the entire WTC plaza only the week before and found no bombs. That's bomb detection experts and their bomb sniffing dogs. Meaning that your bombs would have had to have been invisible to both experts looking explicitly for them......and undetectable by bomb sniffing dogs.

Who was in charge of the NY PA and NJ. What is the job of the port authority , who is that guy? Who did he make sure got the lease to the WTC's to and who is he.

 

[Penelope]

What is it you think you are seeing and who doctored the video?

Have you investigated it at all?

When someone posts a video, I'm not about to investigate it when i don't even know where it came from or what it's supposed to show...DUH

Ever read PNAC Project for the New American Century - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

it has a PDF online, 90 pages, but you can get the main drift in the above art. Check out all the men mentioned.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Have you investigated it at all?

When someone posts a video, I'm not about to investigate it when i don't even know where it came from or what it's supposed to show...DUH

nice plea and admission to ignorance.

So you don't know what you posted either? Figures........