• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Split Thread Criticisms of 9/11 Commission Report

To be honest no, I have seen so much BS over the years I have no reason to think it wasn't a terrorist attack.

When people believe in silent explosives I tend not to believe them.

1. It would still be a terrorist attack but could also be a failed sting operation, correct? Have you ever entertained that idea? It would still be a terrorist attack even if the terrorists were allowed to proceed with their operation. It would still be a terrorist attack even if the government was operationally involved. No matter what formula you use, 9/11 was and always will be a terrorist attack.

2. You too thought I was serious? :D Nope, I was just employing sarcasm. Many took the bait just chomping at the bit. Surprise, I can play games too. ;)
Google does have interesting results for 'silent explosives' though.
 
1. It would still be a terrorist attack but could also be a failed sting operation, correct? Have you ever entertained that idea? It would still be a terrorist attack even if the terrorists were allowed to proceed with their operation. It would still be a terrorist attack even if the government was operationally involved. No matter what formula you use, 9/11 was and always will be a terrorist attack.

2. You too thought I was serious? :D Nope, I was just employing sarcasm. Many took the bait just chomping at the bit. Surprise, I can play games too. ;)
Google does have interesting results for 'silent explosives' though.

So really you are saying it could have been you that was responsible for the attack.
 
Doubling-down on the non-answer. Interesting. Though I am surprised you didn't refer me to the 9/11 Commission or NIST reports. Isn't that standard operating procedure.

Why would I need to do that ? If you are on the ball you will have researched yourself, it's just a matter of whether you know the difference between a crackpot website of not.

Childlike E thinks a YouTube clip is good enough for you and I tend to agree
 
Last edited:
Why shouldn't we be?

Because it's nonsense. Why would you want to champion nonsense ? It's like saying that the face on Mars is an actual face even though we have recent pictures of the thing showing that it looks less like a face than a smiley (incidently, also on Mars).
 
1. It would still be a terrorist attack but could also be a failed sting operation, correct? Have you ever entertained that idea? It would still be a terrorist attack even if the terrorists were allowed to proceed with their operation. It would still be a terrorist attack even if the government was operationally involved. No matter what formula you use, 9/11 was and always will be a terrorist attack.

OK, I'll bite. So me your evidence to support this hypothesis.
 
Yeah, and even in more detail it doesn't take five minutes to understand.... ;)


The best 911 truth has, BS mixed with fantasy and paranoia. 13 years of BS based on ignorance.

Great video of how dumbed down followers in 911 truth have to be, to be faith based followers, mindless drones for Jones.

Nothing could be more appropriate, starting the preview with a lie of missing trillions. Pre-Debunked without watching, but it seems to be making fun of 911 truth followers, and their unlimited ignorance.
 
Last edited:
I remember when that video was first making the rounds. Just debunking the first paragraph usually took up most of the available editing space on the various forums.

It starts off with 9 blatant lies and only goes downhill from there.
 
Doubling-down on the non-answer. Interesting. Though I am surprised you didn't refer me to the 9/11 Commission or NIST reports. Isn't that standard operating procedure.

2. You too thought I was serious? :D Nope, I was just employing sarcasm. Many took the bait just chomping at the bit. Surprise, I can play games too. ;)
Google does have interesting results for 'silent explosives' though.

Jango: when someone answers you, you say "Ha! You fell for it! I was just being sarcastic! You lose! Ner ner!"
When someone doesn't respond directly, you say "Ha! You didn't answer 'cos you can't! You lose! Ner ner!"
Do you seriously think this is a productive way to discuss something? In your mind, how do you envisage people's reactions to this kind of childish point-scoring? I would have thought that, when posting on a forum, the idea was that you would post with an aim of putting forward a particular argument or viewpoint for people to read and respond to. If both response and non-response are unacceptable to you, why are you posting?
 
Define omnipotent in a humanist manner because the Biblical version renders discussion to null. Are we capable of extraordinary things, yeah, obviously. But what is the extent of that? Where is the glass ceiling? Do you personally know what it is? What capabilities are you in doubt of?

And evil things are in fact done by the government. You're not suggesting otherwise, are you? Or are you suggesting that I think that they are entirely evil with no good or in-between at all? Either way, you're wrong.

We can discuss all the good things the government has done and does simply by its existence, you know, if I am making you uncomfortable in your red, white and blue underwear because that's what your genuine complaint has been thus far, which is echoed by many: Rah Rah U.S.A. A partisan like mindset influenced by blind patriotism which has been demonstrated time-and-time-again by the government -- It's legal if the President says it is.

And that's just another arena of politics in which you fail. A false idol has been created -- a myth of altruism. 'We don't start wars, we finish wars.' 'We're the good guys.' 'The American Dream.' You've carried those myths from your childhood well into your adult life in the same manner that religion hooks people -- get 'em while they're young. I'm sorry, my friend, but those cherished childhood attained beliefs were debunked long before you ever learned them to begin with. There has been a steady undercurrent of opposition to overreaches by the government long before either of us were born. Why you continue to romanticize these notions in clear opposition to the historical record is interesting, to say the least. Perhaps it is just a coincidence?

Wanna play the Evil or Not Evil game to determine how much of a monster you are? First question: Is torture evil or not evil?

Jango you just lost whatever semantic/political/pwning argument you were attempting to make with this post.

If you don't see this no one here can explain it further to you.
 
Jango: when someone answers you, you say "Ha! You fell for it! I was just being sarcastic! You lose! Ner ner!"
When someone doesn't respond directly, you say "Ha! You didn't answer 'cos you can't! You lose! Ner ner!"
Do you seriously think this is a productive way to discuss something? In your mind, how do you envisage people's reactions to this kind of childish point-scoring? I would have thought that, when posting on a forum, the idea was that you would post with an aim of putting forward a particular argument or viewpoint for people to read and respond to. If both response and non-response are unacceptable to you, why are you posting?

Kind of like the idealistic drones who have posted thousands-and-thousands of times in the conspiracy theory section without believing in a single conspiracy theory. Very productive indeed when the very though won't ever be contemplated. People here act like they'll die or something. But you're right, I'm to blame here, of course :rolleyes:
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom