All 9/11 ideas welcomed here

Israelside said:
I guess that's as good as the world can be, I'm just looking at it from a christian stand point, where only the good people should be given authority...and only good people can elect other good people right? Otherwise just anyone has the right to vote, which is even more dangerous!
Click to expand...

Ah! A fellow elitist. The difference is, I realised a while ago that this position was untenable.
 
Zep said:
Liar. What a load of bovine excrement. No-one who wanted to attend Baylor would have been admitted if they had such poor grammar and expression skills as you have exhibited here. Even less so given the dogged avoidance of basic research skills. Not to mention (and I mean: NOT to mention) your cognitive skills, and your abilities to construct and defend arguments.

If you are at Baylor, show us a scan of your student ID.
Click to expand...

Baylor isn't that prestigious, is it? Standards for many colleges are significantly lower than what they once were.
 
israelside said:
Al Qaeda is a pasty group, used by the elite to carry out false flags events that create their beloved NWO goals!
Click to expand...

Evidence ? Or is this an argument from personal belief ? You seem very strong in the belief department, which in my book is a huge flaw.

sumarian tribe is associated with IRAQ, and it could be a very crucial motivation for the invasion of iraq by america!
Click to expand...

???

Even after no WMD's were found in iraq, and horrible failures have been admitted by our own govt and military in this war, and also known lies by our govt to pursuade naysayers into a war for oil, money, and global control!
Click to expand...

And yet no one died. ASSUMING they lied, of course.

Are you just trying to be a joker or are you being serious?
Click to expand...

He's asking you to read. Does that frighten you ?

Study who they were, and how some think aliens taught them how to live this way.
Click to expand...

See, this is not very comforting. Are you well ?
 
Last edited:
israelside said:
You've read the entire timeline, compared all the stories with their sources, investigated other sites to confirm stories and it took you a few days lol...it would take you atleast a few months if you were a really good reader!
Click to expand...

Not if he read at average speed.

Books are good because the authors spend more time to confirm their reports and are older people (given they arn't computer savy)
Click to expand...

Ridiculous.
 
I've seen 15 year olds outsmart 50 year olds israelside, and I've also seen 50 year olds who are far more computer savy than their 15 year old kids. Age has nothing to do with anything unless you are using an ad hominem style of argument.
 
Belz... said:
Ah! A fellow elitist. The difference is, I realised a while ago that this position was untenable.
Click to expand...

I shudder at the thought of what israelside's considerations for determining whether a person is good or bad might be.
 
israelside said:
...if you take one of those modle cars (paintable and such) that you put together, and ram them together at high speeds....
Click to expand...

Shame on you for treating your toys that way. Your mom and dad paid good money for those, and you just break them to pieces.

No dessert for you, mister.
 
JonnyFive;2587420 I haven't studied the Al-Qaeda group as much as some others said:
I'd like to draw that comparison out a little further.

The Provisional IRA were essentially a highly motivated, but nevertheless amateur operation. Yet for something approaching 30 years they waged a highly effective terrorist campaign against the UK. In particular they had a number of spectaculars including the Brighton Hotel Bombing (where they almost took out the PM) and the Manchester bombing.

Yet this small organisation had been targetted by UK intellegence almost from the outset. It now transpires that we had a significant number of informers at all levels of the organisation. We had thousands - yes, thousands - of soldiers on the streets of Ulster. Money and time was thrown at the problem.

Now, Israelside mon ami, if the UK can have such limited results despite a proportionately greater emphasis than the USA had on Al-Q pre-911, where does that put your "all-seeing eye" theory?

Incidentally, before you claim us Brits couldn't organise our way out a paper bag, you might want to remember that we actually beat the communist insurgents in the bits of Indo-China which we ran.......
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Architect said:
The Provisional IRA were essentially a highly motivated, but nevertheless amateur operation. Yet for something approaching 30 years they waged a highly effective terrorist campaign against the UK. In particular they had a number of spectaculars including the Brighton Hotel Bombing (where they almost took out the PM) and the Manchester bombing.

Yet this small organisation had been targetted by UK intellegence almost from the outset. It now transpires that we had a significant number of informers at all levels of the organisation. We had thousands - yes, thousands - of soldiers on the streets of Ulster. Money and time was thrown at the problem.
Click to expand...

One of the IRA's biggest strengths was their ability to fragment, splinter, dissolve, and reform without losing their central purpose (consider that they've been doing so for approximately 80 years, if you don't count the original Republican Army or the Irish Republican Brotherhood they are somewhat descended from... in which case you're talking like 150). They weren't held together by organization so much as by ideology, which made them very difficult to destroy, even when infiltrated.

Planning and operations were carried out by small cells without contact (or with only limited contact) with each other, who didn't have a central leader. Although there were various key figures in the IRA, their existence wasn't essential to the IRA's mission. So, if one major cell was destroyed, the other cells would keep working, independent of the cell that was gone.

This type of organization has been adopted by several other terrorist groups, including Al-Qaeda. Numerous operations can be carried out simultaneously with very limited contact, or no contact.

The best way to combat this kind of organization is to use a distributed network of law enforcement, intelligence personnel, and even civilians to look for evidence of operations before they are completed, basically fighting the terrorist tactics with a similarly distributed intelligence structure. The idea that the CIA can simply stop everything is silly.

Most problematic is the fact that there isn't some monolithic group that can be killed off or captured to end everything. Again, look at the IRA: even when various elements of it decided to become legitimate politcal groups or stop fighting, other splinters decided they'd rather keep fighting. Al-Qaeda and other organizations provide some structure in terms of financing and training, but they are by no means essential to the fanatics plotting in small groups to kill people.
 
israelside said:
I'm just saying, look at the articles, if huge agencies like the london guardian dont retract articles that seem suspicious don't we have a right to question the official story if it contradicts it atleast to some degree?
Click to expand...

I would say so.

What exactly is contradictory ?

No, 911 was not democratic or republican it is the global elite, do you understand how this world works? Money, greed and power...left, right...it doesn't matter. It's money, and the people with it control the media, govt, industry etc...and as a result manipulate people's viewpoints (often times away from themselves)!! Meaning, away from any wrong doing the people with money have! This topic is very deep, but we can discuss parts as time goes on...
Click to expand...

"Greed" is a vague accusation. What you are saying is not that you have actual evidence that this happened, but that similar things have happened before, and that there is a motive. That proves nothing except that government involvement is a bare possibility.
 
israelside said:
ok, well as a response to 1.
Could have any other form of explosives have been used that were quiet, and or didn't emit so much light?
Click to expand...

Quite explosives ?

Could, should, might. Speculation.

Such as thermite?
Click to expand...

Thermite is NOT an explosive, and it isn't used in controlled demolitioons for a very good reason.

And if it or something similar was used, could it have been used in certain locations to render beams weak enough to collapse the whole thing?
Click to expand...

And how exactly would they have done this in concert with the debris damage and fires ?

2. the building fell straight down, the rubble pile looks farley intact, i dont understand how you cant say it fell into its own footprint.
Click to expand...

Easy: it didn't. It damaged nearby buildings. If it fell within its own footprint, no other building would've been damaged as they cannot, by definition, share the same footprint.

Maybe we need to dedfine our words because it did fall straight down
Click to expand...

It did not fall straight down. It was leaning.

so R. Mackey is an expert in CD's? lol given the dumb picture
Click to expand...

Don't let pictures fool you. The guy's NASA. Chances are a single one of his synapses knows more than I do.

ok, i am really looking for experts here not just speculators
Click to expand...

Then you should refrain from talking.

the rubble pile (fig 5-26) does seem intact,
Click to expand...

Did you get the part where this is an oxymoron ?

The building fell straight down, with a kink, and the odds of that happening under burning conditions is completely RARE
Click to expand...

How can you say that ? Are you an expert in building collapses ? I am really looking for experts here not just speculators.

haha, just admit that you all are wrong...not enough evidence.
Click to expand...

Your claim, junior.
 
israelside said:
I am 23, i go to baylor and as for your post. A small scale could be done, why not?
Click to expand...

Because the smaller the scale, the less the way the various elements of the building will behave like in the full-scale event. That's why computer simulations are preferable; and cheaper.

Do you ever laugh? Heaven forbid I act like someone who enjoys themselves
Click to expand...

Considering we are talking about the cold-blooded murder of 3000 people, you better not be enjoying it too much.

my philosophies are not immature or ignorant like you want to portray...you should be banned from ever posting to forums again, you give nothing!!
Click to expand...

And this is why people like you don't understand how things work. Since when do we silence people who disagree with us or bring nothing new to a debate ? Is that the israelside version of democracy ?
 
I'm noticing some definite parallels between some of the arguments put forth in this thread and the behavior described in the following post
aggle-rithm said:
Yes, evidence is very important. However, it is important to START with the evidence and allow it to lead you where it will. If you START with a pre-conceived notion (such as "explosives were used in the WTC") then the evidence could lead you astray.

Here's a hypothetical example: Supposing I believe that a giant purple salamander is going out every morning and eating all the newspapers off the neighbor's driveways. I want to test this hypothesis by going out at 5:30 AM, right after they are delivered, and confirming that the newspapers are in fact lying on the driveways. An hour later, I go check them again. If my hypothesis is true, then the newspapers will be gone. Thus, the purple salamander hypothesis is proven.

See the problem here? I am so focused on my pre-conceived belief about what is happening, I fail to consider other, more mundane explanations.

That is why falsifiability is so important. If the purple salamander hypothesis were wrong, how would I know? Certainly not by watching the newspapers and finding that, in fact, the neighbors themselves are picking them up and taking them into their houses. I could simply say, "They beat the purple salamander to it", or "the purple salamander was sick today".
Click to expand...
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1663530#post1663530
 
israelside said:
I responded....kids don't do that, they don't listen to people. Wait, you never responded to my question, how do you know the CIA doesn't have technology 10 years in advanced?
Click to expand...

Because the claim is ridiculous on its face, and only a very silly person would entertain it. For one thing it's extremely vague and not even falsifiable. How can you say they have technology 10 years in advance when you don't even know what technology will be like 10 years down the road? And which kinds of technologies are speaking of, exactly? Surely you can't mean all of them. And 10 years in advance of whom? The rest of the civilized world? This is demonstrably false in many cases.

With the advances in digital information storage, for example, even the very best data storage devices the CIA had 10 years ago were not anywhere near the physically compressed size of similar devices with the same storage capacity being used by the general public today (think iPods). I'm sure there are hundreds of other examples. The CIA is really not that far ahead of the curve in terms of most technologies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom