Loose Change

[Belz...]

Yeah but who were blamed at first for setting the fire at the reichstag? Why did the nazis do it? How long was it until the people have discovered that the nazis were the culprit of the reichstag fire?

The Nazis took over the government and initiated a world-wide war of conquest and extermination. How does that in ANY way compare to the Bush administration ?

Remember how black the smoke that were billowing out of wtc buildings before it collapsed were? That indicated the fire was oxygen starved meaning the temperature couldn't have had gone anywhere near the temprature of steel's melting point.

Ridiculous. You know nothing about fires, as well.

 

[Belz...]

Then you must already know that hitler spied on opposition party and the dissents in whom he labelled as terroists. The "terrorists" tried to warn the citizens of germany that reichstag fire were possibly started by the nazis yet they were ridiculed.

Ah! A parallel. Obviously, since it was the case with the Nazis...

 

[aggle-rithm]

This thread is so long that I must humbly request a summary! Gravy, is there a link to a comprehensive rebuttal of the conspiracy theory?

I can't say "I was there" at the Pentagon but I was in Maryland inside the Beltway at the time and heard about the first plane, rushed to my computer, watched CNN and BBC both cable and online as tower 1 falling, tower 2, plane down in PA, there were rumors of car bombs at the Treasury and such and general fear.

It would take a great deal of evidence for me to consider that the killing was done by anybody other than the individuals that took over the planes. They did it on purpose, probably somebody told them to do it, etc. Is one expected to believe that a US government plot conceived and executed this horror? The successor of Lincoln, Truman, Kennedy, would actually have such a thought? Even if one hates GWBush's guts, that's a pretty big leap. Dumb fratboys aren't supposed to be that evil.

(edited to use the third person more pleasantly)

The Loosers argue that there are many inconsistencies in the official version of 9/11, such as:

--The buildings didn't get hot enough melt the steel columns, and yet there was molten steel found in the basement.

--WTC 1,2, and 7 fell in a controlled-demolition manner, yet they were made to look like an uncontrolled collapse so no one would suspect anything.

--WTC 7 was secretly imploded, yet all the other severely damaged buildings were publicly imploded.

--There is a link between Osama bin Laden and the Bushes, and yet Osama was not involved in the attacks.

Oh, wait... that's the geggy's version of 9/11! My bad.

Edited to change "looser's" to "geggy's"

 

[Belz...]

That bombs were planted in the basement of both wtcs to weaken the steel when it sets off and creates pool of molten steel after the collasping, thus the government covered it up.

1. But you said a few posts ago that the WTC fell from the TOP down.
2. Explosions don't melt steel, remember ?
3. There was no molten steel at the site, remember ?
4. The bit after "Thus" is supposed to follow what preceded. It doesn't.

How can you be wrong so often about a single statement ?

"If you are not with us, then you are with them {terrorists}" -george bush, 9/12/01

Oh, well. THAT proves it!

You missed the point. Hitler labelled the opposition party and dissents as terrorists just as george bush have been labelling the opposition party and the dissents as terrorists (or saddamists in his own words).

Oh, well. THAT proves it!

Let me get this straight, geggy; one minute you say that the steel was so hot it melted and the next you say there was no way it could've melted, all the time ignoring that steel didn't need to melt in order for the towers to fall.l The more you distort the arguments and change your tune, the less credible you appear (not that you've presented a single thing that would lend you any credibility in the first place...)

What HE said.

 

[Pardalis]

Paragshenis...

Nano-nookular containing thermite...

http://www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?ch=nanotech&sc=&id=14105&pg=1

Thank you for the link geggy.

It shows us even more what a stupid ass you are.

From the article, wich is dated january 21 2005:

"The mini-nuke weapons are still in the research phase and may be surreptitiously funded since any form of nuclear proliferation is "politically contentious" because of the possibility that they could fall into the hands of terrorists, Oppenheimer says."

emphasis mine

 

[geggy]

A while ago i said i was going to point out all the weird anomalies surrounding bin Laden in the aftermath of the attacks. We all saw that he was named the culprit in the same day of the attacks without a shred of evidence to support that accusation.

The first public response from Osama bin Laden was read on September 16, 2001. He stated, "I stress that I have not carried out this act, which appears to have been carried out by individuals with their own motivation," which was broadcast by Qatar's Al-Jazeera satellite channel. This denial was broadcast on U.S. news networks and worldwide. The second public response was read on September 28 by Daily Ummat, a Pakistani newspaper. In it, bin Laden stated "I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children and other humans as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children and other people. Such a practice is forbidden even in the course of a battle."

Dec 7th, he denies for the third time...

Top officials began to doubt Osama had any involvement and asks Pentagon for evidence.

Dec 13th, pentagon releases evidence of video in which Osama discusses his successful mission...but the person in the video did not appear to look like osama at all. If you look at the distance between the tip of the nose and the eyes, you'll see that the real osama had longer nose...

Then fox news, along with several other news outlets, reported that Osama had died of kidney failure...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,41576,00.html (cached)

fbi.gov updates osama's file on Nov 01. Sept 11, the mecca of all Osama's terror activities, was not mentioned...
http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/fugitives/laden.htm

 

[Belz...]

A while ago i said i was going to point out all the weird anomalies surrounding bin Laden in the aftermath of the attacks. We all saw that he was named the culprit in the same day of the attacks without a shred of evidence to support that accusation.

Well, it seemed reasonable to assume so...

Dec 7th, he denies for the third time...

Oh, well, if this international terrorist denies it, he MUST be telling the truth!

but the person in the video did not appear to look like osama at all. If you look at the distance between the tip of the nose and the eyes, you'll see that the real osama had longer nose...

I assumed you used the same "forensic" techniques as those who believe that Paul McCartney died in 1967 and was replaced by a look-alike ?

 

[Pardalis]

The first public response from Osama bin Laden was read on September 16, 2001. He stated, "I stress that I have not carried out this act, which appears to have been carried out by individuals with their own motivation," which was broadcast by Qatar's Al-Jazeera satellite channel. This denial was broadcast on U.S. news networks and worldwide. The second public response was read on September 28 by Daily Ummat, a Pakistani newspaper. In it, bin Laden stated "I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children and other humans as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children and other people. Such a practice is forbidden even in the course of a battle."

So basically a known terrorist's word is enough for you? Are you that sympathetic to their "cause"?

 

[Pardalis]

I assumed you used the same "forensic" techniques as those who believe that Paul McCartney died in 1967 and was replaced by a look-alike ?

"She" Came In Through the Bathroom Window"

MY GOD GEGGY! Lock your doors AND windows!

The Amerikans are coming, the Amerikans are coming!

 

[geggy]

1. But you said a few posts ago that the WTC fell from the TOP down.
2. Explosions don't melt steel, remember ?
3. There was no molten steel at the site, remember ?
4. The bit after "Thus" is supposed to follow what preceded. It doesn't.

How can you be wrong so often about a single statement ?

The wtc buildings were intacted when the basement bomb exploded (like in 93). In event of building implosion, demo crew strips and cuts cores to weaken the structure. Basement bomb blast the bottom portion of the building's core first, then everything comes down. The bottom core of WTC was blasted to weaken the bottom portion of the core. Then the top portion was possibly blasted when it first came down. Explosive charges began to set off in timely pattern to cut and weaken the structure.

 

[Gravy]

Dec 13th, pentagon releases evidence of video in which Osama discusses his successful mission...but the person in the video did not appear to look like osama at all. If you look at the distance between the tip of the nose and the eyes, you'll see that the real osama had longer nose...
[qimg]http://www.geocities.com/iseepee57/obl13.jpg[/qimg]

This seems like one of those “before and after” cosmetic surgery ads in which the “before” photo is deliberately unflattering, with harsh directional lighting. True, the quality of the “confession” video is very poor, but did the “truth-seekers” really use a representative video still? For example, below is another video still of Bin Laden. It’s also from a poor-quality video with bad lighting, but I think we can agree that he looks like the “long nose” Bin Laden in the photo on the above right, yes? But if I had chosen the worst still from that video, bin Laden might look more like me or like Fidel Castro or like the guy in the the photo at the above left.

Well guess what? This still is also from the confession video. It’s the same man as the “short nose” Bin Laden, geggy. My, how deceiving people can be when they cherry-pick information! geggy, you obviously didn't watch that video, in which Bin Laden appears for about 30 minutes. Instead you pick the SINGLE worst still of him and claim the video is a fake on that basis.

What do you have to say for yourself? How interested are you in finding the truth? Tired of those CT sites leading you astray? Tired of getting taken behind the JREF woodshed for not doing your homework EVERY DAY?

 

[geggy]

Yo I aint sympathyzing osama. Of course he's guilty of many terror activities in the past. Maybe that's what led you to easily believe he had involvement in sept 11 attacks.

 

[Pardalis]

And PLEASE geggy, don't give me that crap about his ring. If he can disrespect the Quran by killing thousands of people, I don't think disrespecting the Quran by puting on a ring should bother him.

 

[Gravy]

Yo I aint sympathyzing osama. Of course he's guilty of many terror activities in the past. Maybe that's what led you to easily believe he had involvement in sept 11 attacks.

...or is it the fact that he celebrates the event and says it went better than expected, in the video you just pointed out.

 

[Pardalis]

Yo I aint sympathyzing osama. Of course he's guilty of many terror activities in the past. Maybe that's what led you to easily believe he had involvement in sept 11 attacks.

SO WHY THE **** ARE YOU TAKING HIS WORD FOR IT?

 

[Gravy]

And PLEASE geggy, don't give me that crap about his ring. If he can disrespect the Quran by killing thousands of people, I don't think disrespecting the Quran by puting on a ring should bother him.

He wears a ring in several photos taken at different times. In the confession video, he and the guy next to him are wearing gold rings, while they chat with the shaykh.

 

[Dr Adequate]

The wtc buildings were intacted when the basement bomb exploded (like in 93). In event of building implosion, demo crew strips and cuts cores to weaken the structure. Basement bomb blast the bottom portion of the building's core first, then everything comes down. The bottom core of WTC was blasted to weaken the bottom portion of the core. Then the top portion was possibly blasted when it first came down. Explosive charges began to set off in timely pattern to cut and weaken the structure.

How would this process melt steel?

 

[Gravy]

The wtc buildings were intacted when the basement bomb exploded (like in 93). In event of building implosion, demo crew strips and cuts cores to weaken the structure. Basement bomb blast the bottom portion of the building's core first, then everything comes down. The bottom core of WTC was blasted to weaken the bottom portion of the core. Then the top portion was possibly blasted when it first came down. Explosive charges began to set off in timely pattern to cut and weaken the structure.

geggy go ga-ga-goo-goo

 

[Pardalis]

Yo I aint sympathyzing osama. Of course he's guilty of many terror activities in the past. Maybe that's what led you to easily believe he had involvement in sept 11 attacks.

Can't you see how illogical this sounds?

You've been lessening Al Qaeda's importance in this 9/11 equation from day one! I think that's a cause for concern. It's complete stupidity.

 

[cloudshipsrule]

The bottom core of WTC was blasted to weaken the bottom portion of the core. Then the top portion was possibly blasted when it first came down. Explosive charges began to set off in timely pattern to cut and weaken the structure.

Utter nonsense! JUST LOOK AT THE WAY THE BUILDINGS COLLAPSED. Really; Take 15 seconds and look at the way the buildings collapsed. Damn it, man! Had the bottom portion of the core been weakened by explosions designed to take down the building, tens of thousands of tons of top floors collapsing on themselves would have caused the ENTIRE building to collapse simultaneously, or you would have at least seen the bottom of the building shift under the weight of the collapsing floors.

Or are you saying that some demolition crew was SO GOOD that they calculated the exact number of support members to cut, the exact number to remove and the exact amount of explosive force necessary to simply weaken the bottom of the building just enough so that ONLY when REST OF THE ENTIRE FRIGGIN' BUILDING finally landed on the bottom floors, the bottom floors actually collapsed? Is that what you're saying? If so, what in hell would that have accomplished? Gravity is a whole lot cheaper.