Scientific Analysis Proves Towers Brought Down By Incendiaries

[Binzhoubum]

I would also like to point out that it is just as delusional and "crackpot-y" for you hardcore Rightwingers to sit there and spew rhetoric about "WMD's in Iraq" or "Fighting for Iraqi Freedom" as it is for people to spew crackpot theories about 9/11.

They all share one thing in common:

All based on LIES and CONJECTURE!!!!!

Peace! :smokin:

[beachguy in thongs]

LOL...what's up? A.J. low on tape sales?

Lol, funny Bud. Psycho4. Who's Psycho1, 2, and 3Bud?

[beachguy in thongs]

My theory is that the planes coincidided with the day that we were trying to capture Godzilla. The cameras weren't rolling yet, but, they came up with a brilliant scheme to capture him, by tying a string between the World Trade Towers. They coaxed him through it, and it worked! The only problem was that it swayed the towers and the planes couldn't avoid them.

[pisshead]

yes, i'm one of those small government small budget, pro constitution and bill of rights, pro 2nd amendment, anti abortion, pro freedom anti tyranny, pro family, anti UN "liberals" who has never ever voted for a democrat, always independent, real republicans (small government, pro constitution bill of rights, not big government commie republicans like george w. bush or hillary clinton) and libertarians.

when in reality liberal and conservative don't mean a damn thing. if i have to use the mindless newspeak terms, george w. bush is the biggest "liberal" i've ever seen. he makes clinton look conservative.

george w. bush is a big government socialist who signed on to the agreement last year to dissolve the border and bring us into a UN declaration of human rights dictatorship. but i'm supposed to ignore that, otherwise, i'm a liberal.

very conservative. george w. bush is a liberal.

[Binzhoubum]

yes, i'm one of those small government small budget, pro constitution and bill of rights, pro 2nd amendment, anti abortion, pro freedom anti tyranny, pro family, anti UN "liberals" who has never ever voted for a democrat, always independent, real republicans (small government, pro constitution bill of rights, not big government commie republicans like george w. bush or hillary clinton) and libertarians.

when in reality liberal and conservative don't mean a damn thing. if i have to use the mindless newspeak terms, george w. bush is the biggest "liberal" i've ever seen. he makes clinton look conservative.

george w. bush is a big government socialist who signed on to the agreement last year to dissolve the border and bring us into a UN declaration of human rights dictatorship. but i'm supposed to ignore that, otherwise, i'm a liberal.

very conservative. george w. bush is a liberal.

Just curious...and I mean absolutely no disrespect...but who do you consider a conservative?

Thanks!

Peace :smokin:

[pisshead]

Debunking the 9/11 Conspiracy theories

Exploding the myths:

http://us.geocities.com/debunking911/index.htm


LOADS of good information - just click on it.

My advice to the theorists, and their gullible disciples: Come to NYC, to the site of Ground Zero, and neighboring communities, and ask local people if they think that the U.S. government was behind 9/11. I'll lay you ten to one odds that you won't find nary a soul believes the nonsense that is coming from people far away from the scene - with heavy agendas, especially Steven Jones, a crackpot from Utah.

william rodriguez WAS THERE AT THE WTC ON 9/11 as well, he was in the shit, his story is on the record, he's told it many times, you probably don't care about it though:
http://www.911forthetruth.com/

he doesn't count, though, right?

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=855

Half of New Yorkers Believe US Leaders Had Foreknowledge of Impending 9-11 Attacks and â??Consciously Failedâ?� To Act; 66% Call For New Probe of Unanswered Questions by Congress or New Yorkâ??s Attorney General, New Zogby International Poll Reveals
i hear callers from new york into radio stations all the time, on half a dozen radio shows that don't believe the 19 freedom hating hijacker story...

they don't count either...


TOM FRANKLIN, a photographer, was there on 9/11 too, he got word they were going to intentionally pull building 7 and was in place to photograph it...he doesn't believe the 19 freedom hating muslim conspiracy hypothesis either. his story is on the record.

i call it a hypothesis because it's not even good enough to call a theory, it explains nothing of the entire spectrum of 9/11 issues...the means motive and opportunity aspects...that's easy to ignore though, i don't blame you.

they're all crackpots unless they believe a 19 freedom hating muslim story...forgetting and ignoring everything else...

[Breukelen advocaat]

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=855

Half of New Yorkers Believe US Leaders Had Foreknowledge of Impending 9-11 Attacks and â??Consciously Failedâ?� To Act; 66% Call For New Probe of Unanswered Questions by Congress or New Yorkâ??s Attorney General, New Zogby International Poll Reveals
i hear callers from new york into radio stations all the time, on half a dozen radio shows that don't believe the 19 freedom hating hijacker story...

they don't count either...
.

Here's some information about (among other things) the Zogby International telephone poll - which is very slanted. There is NO WAY that "Half" of New Yorkers believe that the government knew about the impending 9/11 attack. In any case, even if they did believe so, that does not mean that they think the government actually carried out the attacks and planted bombs in the buildings.

http://newsbusters.org/node/5681?fro...ts_per_page=90
NYT Gives "Bush-Caused-9/11" Conspiracists a Respectful Hearing
Posted by Clay Waters on June 5, 2006 - 09:36.

A wacky group of conspiracy theorists who think 9/11 was an inside job on the part of the Bush administration met in Chicago over the weekend, and got a respectful hearing from Times Metro reporter Alan Feuer.

â??500 Conspiracy Buffs Meet To Seek the Truth of 9/11â?� made Page 1 of the Metro section, and that very headline gives the conspiracy-mongers the undeserved accolade of truth-seekers when theyâ??re actually just crawling for scraps of evidence â??provingâ?� that Bush, not radical Islamic terrorism, was responsible for 9/11.

Feuer explains: â??Such was the coming-out for the movement known as "9/11 Truth," a society of skeptics and scientists who believe the government was complicit in the terrorist attacks. In colleges and chat rooms on the Internet, this band of disbelievers has been trying for years to prove that 9/11 was an inside job.â?�

The text box puts this latest batch of conspiracists in the same box as other historical sceptics, to make them appear less wacky: â??Some participants see an American tradition of questioning concentrated power.â?�

Feuer writes: â??At the lectern Friday night, beside a digital projection reading â??History of Government Sponsored Terrorism,â?? Mr. Jones set forth the central tenets of 9/11 Truth: that the military command that monitors aircraft â??stood downâ?? on the day of the attacks; that President Bush addressed children in a Florida classroom instead of being whisked off to the White House; that the hijackers, despite what the authorities say, were trained at American military bases; and that the towers did not collapse because of burning fuel and weakened steel but because of a â??controlled demolitionâ?? caused by pre-set bombs.

â??According to the group's Web site, the motive for faking a terrorist attack was to allow the administration â??to instantly implement policies its members have long supported, but which were otherwise infeasible.â??

â??The controlled-demolition theory is the sine qua non of the 9/11 movement -- its basic claim and, in some sense, the one upon which all others rest. It is, of course, directly contradicted by the 10,000-page investigation by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, which held that jet-fuel fires distressed the towers' structure, which eventually collapsed.â?�

â??The movement's answer to that report was written by Steven E. Jones, a professor of physics at Brigham Young University and the movement's expert in the matter of collapse. Dr. Jones, unlike Alex Jones, is a soft-spoken man who lets his writing do the talking. He composed an account of the destruction of the towers that holds that â??pre-positioned cutter-chargesâ?? brought the buildings down.â?�

Feuer paints this rag-tag group in non-threatening, almost affectionate terms: â??[Group press director Michael] Berger, 40, is typical of 9/11 Truthers -- a group that, in its rank and file, includes professors, chain-saw operators, mothers, engineers, activists, used-book sellers, pizza deliverymen, college students, a former fringe candidate for United States Senate and a long-haired fellow named hummux (pronounced who-mook) who, on and off, lived in a cave for 15 years.â?�

Feuer brings up more palatable conspiracy theories, as if to shield the 9/11-mongers: â??Like a prior generation of skeptics -- those who doubted, say, the Warren Commission or the government's account of the Gulf of Tonkin attack -- the 9/11 Truthers are dogged, at home and in the office, by friends and family who suspect that they may, in fact, be completely nuts.â?�
Feuer even promotes evidence that â??Bush was responsible for 9/11â?� is a relatively mainstream view: â??It would even seem the Truthers are not alone in believing the whole truth has not come out. A poll released last month by Zogby International found that 42 percent of all Americans believe the 9/11 Commission â??concealed or refused to investigate critical evidenceâ?? in the attacks.â?�

But the pollâ??s co-author was David Kubiak itself, who spoke at the conference. And hereâ??s the question that led to that â??42%â?� answer.
â??Some people believe that the US government and its 9/11 Commission concealed or refused to investigate critical evidence that contradicts their official explanation of the September 11th attacks, saying there has been a cover-up. Others say that the 9/11 Commission was a bi-partisan group of honest and well-respected people and that there is no reason they would want to cover-up anything. Who are you more likely to agree with?â?�
(Go here to see how slanted the poll truly is.) http://www.911truth.org/images/911Tr...inalReport.htm

The 42% figure is far too high and speaks badly of the gullibility of many phone poll-takers, but the question itself is loaded to deliver the first, skeptical answer. The second choice, with the sarcastic tone about â??honest and well-respected people,â?� perks up knee-jerk U.S. cynicism of government -- the subtext is that only a chump would think the government is full of â??honest and well-respected people.â?� People donâ??t want to be seen as naïve or unsophisticated, so they feign doubt where previously none existed.

The Times has not been nearly as respectful when it comes to right-wing conspiracy theorists alleging perfidy in Democratic administrations. See Timesâ?? contributing writer (Times Select $ required) Philip Weissâ??s â??The Clinton Hatersâ?� for the February 23, 1997 edition of the Sunday magazine, on those who questioned the verdict of suicide in the Vince Foster case.
The Foster-suicide skeptics arenâ??t seen as lovable losers the way Feuer portrayed the 9/11 skeptics. Weissâ??s 9,000-word article refers to Clinton â??hatersâ?� six times, â??Clinton craziesâ?� 11 times and four â??far rightsâ?� for good measure. While Feuerâ??s tone is sometimes skeptical, he doesnâ??t see a single hater or crazy among a sea of people holding up signs declaiming the â??Bush junta,â?� or alleging that Bush instigated the destruction of the Twin Towers.

UPDATE: The folks at 911truth.org appreciated Feuer's story, linking to it yesterday and noting with approval that it was drawing attacks from the "rightist blogworld" (that would be, um, me).

"In the meantime allow us to share another bit of history, the New York Times' first recognition of our existence, which has been the most popular story on AOL News all day. Yes, there are the expected hits and snickers, but Feuer had to get it through his editors and to his credit he inserts enough meat and salient points to make our case quite clear, clear enough in fact to already draw attacks from the rightist blogworld. - Ed."