How Loony are the Loons?

A W Smith said:
how is it that skyscrapers that are 60 or 70 years old which number in the thousands in Manhattan, with aging asbestos and horse hair plaster walls. 20 to 30 coats of lead paint. Vinyl asbestos tile. Steam pipes with asbestos wrap. Access and passageways, doorways and lock hardware that don't meet code. Absence of fire suppression systems. Inefficient exterior glazing. Exterior walls that sometimes shed their ornamental masonry and stone elements onto the populace below,
are allowed to exist

but the world trade center, A series of buildings that contain no fireproofing asbestos. Were in the final phases of a fire suppression retrofit. had their stairwells modified post 93 to provide wider clearances and a glow in the dark guidence system. Contain NO lead paint, Had additional fire protection applied when office space became vacant, Never had a problem with its exterior cladding or lost a single component or element.(which was applied I might add from the interior floors with staging projected from the slab as the cladding progressed) Had the most modern facilities of a building built in its era. Was the most prestigious address for businesses located within it and had its own zip code.

But supposedly was a danger and had to be demolished? you don't know WTF you are talking about. I may remind you that I am in my 31st year supervising in the construction industry dealing with commercial buildings. so don't drop your ignorant BS on me OK? You just make a fool out of yourself.

This bears repeating.

So I repeated it.

Why is it that CTists appear to be incapable of rational, critical or analytical thought? Why is it that they seem to just swallow conspiracy nonsense without ever pausing to ask themselves why it makes no rational sense? It is truly mind-boggling.
 
"JonnyFive "Were the insurance companies in on it too?"

Of course not! That type of comments are rediculous

Oh for the sake of my arse.
Give over you hopeless paranoid.

You have suggested and made clear over the course of this thread, the following:

The concrete of the two towers was vaporized in thin air
JFK was not killed by a lone gunman
The laws of physics cannot be broken but they can be assisted
There is something called Kenetic energy
Timmothy McVei (sic) didn't do the Oaklahoma bombings
Something about bank robberies, I still can't work it out
The 'concrete core' was reduced to fine powder
There were molten pools of steel
Everyone who doesn't believe you is a dangerous, ignorant fool
Explosions can ONLY EVER be caused by bombs
767s are always lighter and always slower than 707s
You can't follow planes at air shows
You have poor spelling skills
You either have no understanding of the Quote button or no consideration.
Video of the planes proves they weren't flying at 500MPH
Electrical engineers are experts on structural collapse
The WTC centre was hermetically sealed
You call people Morons a lot and then write "E-L-E-C-T-R-N-I-C-S!"
Hijackers can not fly planes
True scientists do not tweaks models until they match reality
There was no fuel in WTC1 or 2
The three largest and most complex CDs in history were setup secretly
Real men don't use the quote button
The secret explosives were radio controlled
Where there is smoke there is fire (except in WTC7)
You're on first name terms with Larry
One guy believes that the buildings could take multiple airplane hits
We can't be sure what sort of planes hit the buildings
The towers were CONDEMNED
The coincidences on 9/11 are 1,000,000,000,000 to 1 against (approx)
Silversteins plan was to get a long term lease on condemned building
Software engineers in the UK cannot be trusted on anything
The word FACT is always spelt in capitals
FEMA and NIST jumped to conclusions
Air is full of salt
Salt eats away exposed steel
The U.S.S liberty something something.
The state coroner always has jurisdiction in any crime
The FBI falsified the DNA evidence
Unmolested by explosives the towers would have stopped collapsing halfway
It was an insurance job
There is no evidence two of the planes took off (other than the pictures of them flying)
FACT is provable
When NIST does not provide information its being supressed or covered up
When NIST does provide information its assumption or fabrication
The towers fell at near freefall speeds which is impossible
The towers vaporized
People jumping from windows is not evidence of heat
The fact that the planes were all 757/767s is very odd
Siebel Edmonds is the MOST gagged person in HISTORY
The buildings were condemned and capable of being slapped by jetliners all day
Nobody would ever jeopardize their career in order to avenge the murder of 3000 people
You can maintain transmitters
You're wife is Russian (I'm gonna imagine she's called Natasha)
We do not have proof that the DNA evidence was not tampered with
Osama is not on the US most wanted list
Sometimes 1/4 full planes fly, sometimes they don't
You're sorry about multiple posts (not sorry enough)
If the buildings weren't CD then valuable evidence would have been left behind
This was planned to allow the US to attack Iraq, but Rumy only started trying to find justification after the attack happened
The two towers had toxic paint so it was necessary to rig them with explosives and fly jetliners into them
The plan was conceived to remove Saudi Arabias national debt
The plan was conceived to allow the US to attack Afganistan and Iraq
The plan was conceived as an insurance scam
The plan was conceived to destroy valuable evidence

BUT

The very idea that an insurance company was aware of whats going on was absolutely f**king impossible.

[RULE8]

You have absolutely no plausible MOTIVE for CD
You have absolutely no plausible MEANS for CD
You have absolutely no plausible OPPORTUNITY for CD
 
Last edited:
"babazaroni - Did you know that the quote function will do all this and give a link to the original quote and format for readability, with less effort?"

Actually, there are several steps with this approach! If I want to break the quote up and comment on it individually, what a pain in the arse!

Sorry, but copy and paste works just fine!

Dus je bent te lui om extra quote sigmenten van te maken?
 
That's the most perfect desciption of RemoveBush I have ever seen. So true.

Hoe dan ook, RemoveBush, het beeldbuis programma waarnaar Architect verwijst, is een jongerenprogramma. Je weet wel, RemoveBush, voor kleine kinderen zoals jij. Eigenlijk, niet voor kleine kinderen zoals jij. Kabouter Plop is meer een programma voor jou, RemoveBush. Van die kleuter zooi.

Dus je bent te lui om extra quote sigmenten van te maken?
Na grondig onderzoek komen we dus tot de onweerlegbare conclusie dat dit onze vriend VerwijderBush is:
foto lui2.jpg
 
"Indolent Wretch - I take it that means you believe the planes weren't the 767's full of passengers that everyone saw hit the buildings."

I guess if you consider a plane that is capable of carrying over 200 passengers with less than 50 as FULL, then yes.

Yes I do, in the same way that a burning bus with 15 children is full of children. These people died. They were murdered by extremist Islamist terrorists. The planes were used as dumb weapons yet they were FULL of people. FULL.

"Indolent Wretch
"Hang on hang on hang on!
Listen to yourself."

I know damn well what I am saying!

"A) 2 billion dollars may sound like a lot of money but it's absolute chicken feed if the people you are talking about are as well placed and connected as you say."

When they can kill 2 birds with one stone, yes!

"B) Even more ridiculous... The buildings weren't up to CODE!! CODE!!!! You're telling me you believe these people could arrange a massive plane and explosives attack on these buildings, create a enormous cover up, silence all the expert witnesses, and god knows what else (fighter jets, missile attacks, holographic projectors, etc, etc) BUT they couldn't get some faceless bureaucrat to turn a blind eye to a frigging BUILDING CODE!"

Like that is going to work how long??? Until people start filing the law suits for illnesses they are getting from the TOXIC material from the buildings.

Yes because obviously these powerful evil people wouldn't be able to stop that would they?

Because if the buildings only half collapsed and burnt down then the investigators would have noticed the dodgy paint and insulation wouldn't they?

Then the families of the bereaved, murdered by terrorists, would have filed lawsuits against the owners for the illnesses that their dead loved ones never had the chance to go and develop wouldn't they?

"Indolent Wretch
"Does this really seem likely to you. Hey we are the New World Order but we can't get planning permission for a house extension let alone a secret lair!"

Do YOU even listen to yourself? You seem to think that people would not do this! What world are you living on? ITS CALLED POWER!

Riddle me this then..... The EPA report was CHANGED by the Bush Admin..... If they will not HESITATE to allow over 15,000 Americans to suffer a slow and agonizing death, what makes you think that they give one rats ass about 3,000?

Changing a report is easy if you're a politician

Ruining the lives of 1000s is a trivial exercise for a man of political power who believes its his pappy given right to rule

Arranging this consipiracy of yours is not so simple, it has great dangers and great consequences, they are not the same thing.


"Indolent Wretch
"C) Lets follow this chain of thought...."

Yes lets.....

" The buildings are going to be condemned, the building inspector of doom and truth cannot be silenced, the cost is 2 billion dollars of chump change. Are you still telling me that having 2 jetliners full of fuel hit at X hundred miles an hour, causing large structural damage and fires..."

Maybe you need to do some more research?? Jets are not FILLED with fuel. They are only filled with enough to get to thier destination with some reserve.

Yes they are you are quite right.

But these planes hadn't been flying for that long had they?

They still had a lot of fuel on board didn't they?

That fuel was more than enough to set fire to offices full of combustible material wasn't it?

"Indolent Wretch
"Wouldn't be enough for someone to say, these buildings are dangerous and have to come down, call the insurance company???? Don't you see, they STILL DON'T need to be collapsed through a controlled demolition."

No! You see..... That would leave VALUABLE EVIDENCE lying around that would need to be destroyed, that could not because there was no total destruction of the buildings.

WHAT VALUABLE EVIDENCE?

If there is no CD, what evidence is there that needs HIDING? What possible evidence could there be that requires your insane series of events just to hide...

DODGY WALL INSULATION???????????????
SLIGHTLY TOXIC PAINT?????????????
A COUPLE OF SQUEEKY FLOOR TILES????????????

WHAT EVIDENCE? (yes I know I'm shouting)


"Indolent Wretch
"It's entirely unnecessary. And the secret masters of our world surely would not do completely unnecessary things if it means a chance of exposure!

THINK!"

Maybe you should take your own advice? Perhaps you have not seen the REAL WORLD to know that people are ruthless, and they will do what ever they need to in order to obtain their goals. Especially the rich! They are even more ruthless. I guess you never considered the following problems of the day?

Yes I know the world is ruthless. Yes the powerful do what they need in order to obtain their goals. Yes the rich do what they need in order to stay rich. Yes the rich and powerful are terrified of ever being removed from their wealth or power.

Thats my whole point.

THEY DO WHAT THEY NEED

There was no NEED to do a controlled demolition of the damned towers.

1) All 4 planes were only 1/4 full

Show me the types, capacities and number of people present in all the flights to back this up.

Then, show me the same figures for the equivalent scheduled flights for the same day of the week over the previous month and show me that the figures on the day of 9/11 were very different from normal.

Because if this pattern of occupation within these planes is even moderately normal then it cannot be used as any evidence that this is a conspiracy.

In fact it makes it less likely, as the conspirators wanting to create the maximum amount of horror and anger would have used the fullest planes they could get. Hell, if possible they would have taken a plane full of 8 years old on the way to the worlds cutest spelling bee contest.

2) NOT ONE plane was able to key the mike or setoff the emergency channel.

And what conclusion do you draw from this?

In previous hijacking attempts on planes in flight, how many have been where the hijackers have consisted of multiple people armed with stabbing weapons, and where there was no requirement to keep the pilots alive. Of those hijacks in how many occasions were the mikes keyed or the emergency channels set off.

What are the figures when restricted to only American internal flights?

If the figures show a low likelihood of these events occurring then it can only be taken as evidence of poor security methods in use on American internal flights, and that unhampered hijacking of these flights is very simple to a group of determined dangerous men.

3) Only HOURS after the attacks, Rummy is telling his people to find anything for them to attack Iraq! Not interrested in first finding out who really did this attack, but rather what they could find to attack Iraq.

Rummy had always wanted to attack Iraq. Known Hawk, been trying to get it to happen for years, as was Cheney, as was Rove. This is all public domain knowledge.

The fact that Rummy was as cynical and vile a human being to use this non-Iraq related tradgedy as a means of pushing a personal vendetta is a terrible testimony to the sort of people the Americans are allowing to run their country. Any of you that voted the republican ticket and elected that idiot Bush and has vile cronies should be totally and utterly ashamed of yourselves.

The fact that Rummy didn't already have a detailed dossier ready on his desk that contained the information necessary to attack Iraq, and the fact that the first thing America did was not attack Iraq but instead attack Afganistan, a much MUCH more sensible target given the Taleban regimes propensity for hosting Al-Queda terrorist training camps is surely proof that Rummy, at least, was not a 9/11 conspirator.

4) Almost ALL of the "hijackers" were from Saudi Arabia, but we attack Afganistan and Iraq?

I thought it was 'all', I probably have that wrong.

Undoubtedly extremist elements in Saudi Arabia are behind and financing a large amount of this stuff in the world. The Saudi regime is an awful, draconian dictatorship, bouyed by the presence of oil allowing them to continue vile practices with only the hint of condemnation from the worlds leaders.

It is not suprising however that little came of the Saudi involvement because of Americas need for oil and the Bush families close family ties with a number of royal and high ranking Saudi dignatories.

It's a shame but the current crop of America's leaders have sold their souls for oil. I'm sympathetic but it isn't my fault, I'm not American and I didn't vote for them.

If you want something done about it I suggest you try:

A) Not to elect the corrupt bastards in the first place, may I suggest a third party candidate or a democrat?

B) Reduce your dependency on oil a bit.. I'm fishing here but what car do you drive RemoveBush? How many MPG does it get?

C) Start demanding more research and implementation of environmental policies such as energy efficiency and renewable power sources from your elected representatives, and then don't vote for them if they do nothing about it. America is the most powerful nation on Earth maybe it should try and be a bit more independant.

5) Up till 9/11 Saudi Arabia was in debt and feering revolt from their people. Right after 9/11, they started making money hand over fist and now have billions in surplus.

It's terrible isn't it. But then the hijackers where Saudi, the hijackers were Islamic and Saudi is Islamic. Osama is Saudi.

Oil prices always go through the roof in times of turmoil. I'm sure the Saudi leaders are well aware of this and it's one of many things that makes them turn at LEAST a blind eye to terrorist activity within their borders.

It's a corrupt world but corruption and conspiracy are different things.

There are PLENTY of other reasons to consider besides your close minded, narrow view of how things are.

I'm not close minded.

I'm open minded.

I care very deeply for the fate of this planet and the human beings on it.

If pushed I would even say that there is a very small chance that elements of the US or possibly Saudi governments did have something to do with the attacks. A black op here, a nudge there, a blind eye somewhere else, a meeting that never happened, a CIA sting that went wrong. All of these are massively unlikely but one can not rule then out.

But a controlled demolition? I'm sorry but your evidence is not convincing in the slightest. You have a closed mind, you are sure beyond all means that a controlled demolition happened and you are reading that fact into every piece of evidence that you see.

Is this normal for you?

May I ask of the other famous world conspiracies which do you believe in?

U.S.S Liberty?
UFO abductions?
NASA Project Blue Beam?
Kennedy Assasinations?
Roswell?
Moon Landing Hoax?

I'm trying to meet you half way here I really am.

Help me out.
 
"8den - There was a small training excerise. Based entirely on the underground. It had nothing to do with buses at all."

OK.... Then why was the bus diverted by unmarked cars to this area?

Loads of buses where being diverted away from the area, it was being cleared because of the bomb.

http://www.jonesreport.com/articles/111206_77_witness.html
"
The witness, named "Daniel", has a blog here and a website here. He states:​
I was aboard the lower deck of the bus that was blown up on July 7th. I rang the emergency hotline to report the 2 dark cars I saw holding the bus up and diverting it towards Tavistock Square. Instead of being asked to provide a statement what followed was 7 months of police surveillance and Harassment. My experiences are contained in a book called Statement: The 4th Bomb (as yet unpublished)"



Whats that? An unsubstantiated quote from someone? Care to provide several witnesses you can support this claim. Can Mr Jones present an Oyster card or ticket from this trip? None of the three links appear to be of "daniel's" website they just quote it, one appears to be one paranoid dude, the rest just repeat its claims. Why doesn't he have surname, and why does he ignore the fact that several bus routes were diverted to tavistock square.

Incidently if you're the NWO about to commit a terrorist travesity, why would you divert a bus to be blown up but send it so it's sitting outside the British Medical Institute with dozens of doctors nurses and consultants able to leap to the ready and help those wounded?


Where in the world did "paramedics" come from?

Um, er, what?

me said:
"It was based at Kings Cross because Kings Cross is a transport hub including several significant lines. There are few stations that carry as many lines as kings cross, so the decision to place it there is explanatory. This training exercise was so low key, and minor that it wasn't even effecting transport that day."

Most training exercises don't! 9/11 did not effect normal transpertaion either, and they were running several exercises. That is not the point! The point is that USUALLY when there is a "terrorist" attack, the governments are usually training about the same thing that happens. OKC, 9/11, 7/7.

Firstly please provide evidence that "most" training exercising on the tube aren't based around tube. Vague claims about there being training exercising on the same day as other terrorist incidents isn't proof of 7/7 being an incide job.

8den said:
"So please explain the significance of a minor training exercise, involving a subsection of the transport infratstructure, that had no control over the underground, paramedics, police, firedepartment, or even the bus service, as evidence of the 7/7 bombings being an "inside job"?"

See the comment for the previous paragraph above.

As other posters have pointed out it is immensely tiresome and disrepectful of you not to grasp the quote function. I will ask again; please explain the significance of a minor training exercise, involving a subsection of the transport infrastructure, that had no control over the underground, paramedics, police, firedepartment, or even the bus service, as evidence of the 7/7 bombings being an "inside job"?​
 
Last edited:
Show me the types, capacities and number of people present in all the flights to back this up.

Then, show me the same figures for the equivalent scheduled flights for the same day of the week over the previous month and show me that the figures on the day of 9/11 were very different from normal.

Because if this pattern of occupation within these planes is even moderately normal then it cannot be used as any evidence that this is a conspiracy.
The 9/11 Commission looked at the load factor for those flights for the preceding 3 months & found Flight 11 had more passengers than average, Flight 77 was about average, Flight 175 was below average although within range (it had less passengers in two of the preceding 13 flights), and Flight 93 was exceptionally low (the lowest in the 13 Tuesdays considered). See http://www.911myths.com/html/passenger_numbers.html

Overall it is low, then, but not to the degree that the CTers pretend. I've seen a suggestion that traffic falls post-Labor Day anyway, in which case year-on-year tests might have revealed a similar pattern...? But being in the UK I have no idea if that's true or not.
 
The 9/11 Commission looked at the load factor for those flights for the preceding 3 months & found Flight 11 had more passengers than average, Flight 77 was about average, Flight 175 was below average although within range (it had less passengers in two of the preceding 13 flights), and Flight 93 was exceptionally low (the lowest in the 13 Tuesdays considered). See http://www.911myths.com/html/passenger_numbers.html

Overall it is low, then, but not to the degree that the CTers pretend. I've seen a suggestion that traffic falls post-Labor Day anyway, in which case year-on-year tests might have revealed a similar pattern...? But being in the UK I have no idea if that's true or not.

Thanks Mike thats very informative.

So 3 of the planes were ostensibly normal and 1 of them was very low. So there is nothing remotely untoward there.

Did the commission have any information as to whether these occupation would like have caused the planes to normally not fly? RemoveBush seems to be of the opinion that with such low occupancy rates it would have been highly likely for the planes to not take off at all. I myself am not au fait with American internal flights and don't know how likely this is.
 

Still can't use the quote function, huh? Too bad, my reptoid brain isn't capable of processing large chunks of text like that...

..oops, I gave away my secret and now I'll have to send a SEAL Force Delta Six team to your house. Run, RemoveBush, run for your life.
 
"RemoveBush,

As I see it, you are not using the quote function because you are:

A. Stupid
B. Discourteous

Which is it? Or do you have a third option that is even less plausible than your political ideas?"

Yes there is a 3rd option.

Don't need to! I can follow peoples comments just fine..... See this is why I am several pages behind your blabering, because I actually READ the pages rather than just the pretty colored boxes.

But then again, this does require some thinking so I am starting to understand the problem you people are having with it.

Nope. Not the reason. It's just because you can't. Of course, you could prove me wrong. Quite easily. But until you do, I'm sticking with the stupid option.

Come on, prove me wrong.

Can you? Will you?
 
Oh for the sake of my arse.
Give over you hopeless paranoid.

You have suggested and made clear over the course of this thread, the following:
You must have actually read his drivel to make that list. My condolences. I think we need a new badge for debunking above and beyond the call of duty.
 
"Kiwiwriter - In other words...you are not presenting any documented proof, as shown by my highlighting."

But NEITHER have YOU or anyone else here! You expect others to do WHAT YOU WILL NOT DO?

.......snip.........

Perhaps YOU should actually get out of your basement once in a while so you can have an opportunity to read informative information, rather than what ever Mr. Bush and company sends you.

Wow. You must have spent a lot of time typing something that no one will read. All because you refuse to use the quote button.

Oops, I meant to say

WU9VLCBSRU1PVkVCVVNILCBBUkUgQSBGVUNLSU5HIElESU9UIQ==
 
RemoveBush seems to be of the opinion that with such low occupancy rates it would have been highly likely for the planes to not take off at all. I myself am not au fait with American internal flights and don't know how likely this is.
I've seen no discussion of that, in fact it's not something I've seen suggested before. I'd be surprised if it were true, because even Flight 93 had, what, 37 passengers, and that seems a lot of people to turn away. And how would it save them money? Presumably the plane still had to get to San Francisco because its next flight would be scheduled from there, so surely you can't just "not take off"? Makes no sense to me. Although I'm not familiar with US internal flight policy either, so perhaps I'm missing something...
 

Back
Top Bottom