TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Do you believe there is a U.S. government cover-up surrounding 9/11?
Pages (162): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 [36] 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 »

why are people asking the same, tired old questions that have been answered dozens of times before?

"i need to believe". its pitiful.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN why are people asking the same, tired old questions that have been answered dozens of times before? "i need to believe". its pitiful.

Because all the answers are unsatisfactory nonsense that people who "need to believe" (in govermenet propaganda) have readily accepted. PKC, why are you obsessing over this topic? All that says to me is that you obviously don't think alternative hypothesis and explanations are so utterly ridiculous as you keep bumping this thread over and over again. Weather you're poking fun at it, being serious, or whatever the case might be, the kind of attention you're giving to it reflects a nagging discomfort on your part. Why does it bother you if everything's fine, which relatively speaking it is according to the official conspiracy theory?

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN why are people asking the same, tired old questions that have been answered dozens of times before? "i need to believe". its pitiful.

The many thousands of questions have not been answered. Proper investigations never began and the ones that did happened much too late and where limited.

Your obviously not reading the posts in this thread, replying with an opinion containing no facts to back your nonsense.

quote:

Originally posted by culorut Why Has the Greatest Crime in U.S. History Never Been Criminally Investigated? and other Unanswered Questions about September 11, 2001 For five years the 911truth movement has been quietly building support. While many ideas and theories have been put forth about what happened in that fateful day, the main thrust of the movement is to push for a new investigation of 9/11 to answer the many still unanswered questions such as: The Warnings: Why did the administration ignore warnings, some specific as to date and place, from at least 11 foreign intelligence services delivered to Washington prior to 9/11? Why were several prominent Americans, including top military brass, warned not to fly on 9/11? Missing Air Defense: Why was established procedure not followed to intercept any of the hijacked planes on 9/11? Why did the defense missiles on top of the Pentagon not fire at the attacking plane as it flew toward the Pentagon? (Had they been disabled?) If the defense failures were due to incompetence, why was no one reprimanded or fired? Was air defense lacking because of the military exercises underway on the morning of 9/11? Pilots of the Hijacked Planes: How could an inexperienced pilot have successfully flown a heavy commercial airliner on his first try? Why were some of the alleged terrorists trained at U.S. military bases and CIA flight schools? The Alleged Hijackers: Why is it that at least six of the hijackers who were supposed to have died on 9/11 are alive and well, giving interviews and living in the Middle East? If no Arab names were on the passenger manifests released by the airlines following 9/11, how could names and photographs of the alleged hijackers have been broadcast around the world within hours of the attacks? Why were no airline tickets or receipts ever presented as evidence? The Money: If “follow the money” is the time-honored criminal investigative technique for uncovering criminal collusion, why did the 9/11 Commission elect to drop the pursuit of mainstream-documented leads such as the $100,000 wire transfer from the head of Pakistan’s intelligence service to alleged lead hijacker Mohammad Atta several days before the attacks. Why was the extreme level of options trading activity in American and United Airlines stock in the days before 9/11, a clear indication of foreknowledge of the attacks, never pursued? The Plane Crashes: How could one of the hijacker’s passports emerge from the wreckage of the Twin Towers and be found intact on the streets of New York? Why was debris from the Pennsylvania plane scattered over an area of several miles, and not confined to the 10 by 30 ft foot hole where the official story says the plane crashed? Why were no large plane parts found at the crash site? Why are the 9/11 plane crashes the only ones in modern U.S. history not to have been investigated by the National Transportation Safety Board? Why were none of the thousands of serial numbered parts ever presented as proof of the identity of the aircraft? Collapse of the Twin Towers: What caused the massive explosions in the basements of the Towers before the planes even hit (which registered as small earthquakes at Colombia University) and the hundreds of explosions reported by witnesses before and during the buildings collapses? How is it possible for the Towers to completely collapse in the same amount of time it would take for a brick to fall through air from the same height? How were the concrete floors, walls, computers, furniture and other materials atomized into dust? How could brief jet fuel fires have caused the buildings’ collapse when no steel building has ever collapsed due to fire in the entire history of architecture? World Trade Center 7 Collapse: Why did this 47-story steel office building, which was not hit by any plane, collapse completely in 6.7 seconds at 5:20 p.m. on 9/11? What did its owner Larry Silverstein mean when he said the decision had been made to “pull” the building? Was WTC 7 wired with explosives prior to 9/11? If so, were explosives also planted in the Twin Towers prior to the attacks? The 9/11 Commission and It's Report: Why, if it had nothing to hide about the attacks, did the Bush Administration resist 9/11 families’ call for an investigative commission for an unprecedented 441 days. Why was administration insider Philip Zelikow, who had co-authored a book with Condi Rice, and whose CV states that his expertise is in the creation and maintenance of public myth, appointed to direct the Commission? Why did Bush and Cheney refuse to testify in public, under oath, to the Commission? Why did the Commission members accept the official conspiracy theory as their operating premise and say early-on that they would not investigate what happened on 9/11 and who was responsible. Why was the destruction of World Trade Center Building 7 not mentioned in the report? False Flag Operation: Was 9/11 a “false flag” operation, used throughout history to generate public support for political objectives by deliberately creating a terror incident and blaming the attack on a designated enemy, thus serving as a justification for war?

quote:

Because all the answers are unsatisfactory nonsense that people who "need to believe" (in govermenet propaganda) have readily accepted. PKC, why are you obsessing over this topic? All that says to me is that you obviously don't think alternative hypothesis and explanations are so utterly ridiculous as you keep bumping this thread over and over again. Weather you're poking fun at it, being serious, or whatever the case might be, the kind of attention you're giving to it reflects a nagging discomfort on your part. Why does it bother you if everything's fine, which relatively speaking it is according to the official conspiracy theory?

Denial.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z Because all the answers are unsatisfactory nonsense that people who "need to believe" (in govermenet propaganda) have readily accepted. PKC, why are you obsessing over this topic? All that says to me is that you obviously don't think alternative hypothesis and explanations are so utterly ridiculous as you keep bumping this thread over and over again. Weather you're poking fun at it, being serious, or whatever the case might be, the kind of attention you're giving to it reflects a nagging discomfort on your part. Why does it bother you if everything's fine, which relatively speaking it is according to the official conspiracy theory?

its because people are so convinced by things that i dont consider evidence. people like culorut will post rubbish re WTC7, which has been put to bed by real evidence time and time again, yet still refuse to give ANY credence to said evidence.

the most chaotic day in recent american memory has holes or inconsistencies? well what would people expect? itd be MORE suspicious if there was a perfect bunch of evidence. pointing at supposed issues with the "official" story has been about as credible as the ID people poking holes in evolution theory.

ive said before, i am more than open to alternative hypotheses, but as yet i still havent seen any evidence that supports such wild accusations. the more incredible the claim the more incredible the evidence has to be for me to believe it.

what bothers me about it is the readiness some people are showing to believe some pretty wild stuff. its the same as holding steven jones up as some kind of messiah, whilst ignoring all the real experts (the entire world's structural engineers). that isnt intellectual honesty imo.

its become my pet peeve in here. ill refrain (or at least try ) to not troll your posts or other regular users that i have respect for, but these noobs posting stuff from sites when they havent spent a *second* researching alternatives. ie, there is SO much fucking evidence re WTC7, that any honest researcher simply cannot just dismiss it by cut n pasting some CT rubbish. if you really do think the evidence re something like WTC7 is "unsatisfactory nonsense" then i must ask how much commitment you have to really finding the truth.

You do realize you just said "I think it's ridiculous" again but just using more words .

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z You do realize you just said "I think it's ridiculous" again but just using more words .

hahaha. no, i said "i am open to being shown otherwise, but i feel it is pretty far-fetched, and the evidence to hand does not measure up to the level of far-fetchedness"

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN hahaha. no, i said "i am open to being shown otherwise, but i feel it is pretty far-fetched, and the evidence to hand does not measure up to the level of far-fetchedness"

I am pretty sure that if one day you'll be confronted with a video evidence leaked from some government agency(not just frames) of a missile hitting the Pentagon, you'll dismiss it as fabrication

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium I am pretty sure that if one day you'll be confronted with a video evidence leaked from some government agency(not just frames) of a missile hitting the Pentagon, you'll dismiss it as fabrication

no, the CTers are the ones that dismiss such obvious evidence. you know- like the debris from the plane in and around the pentagon, the dead bodies and personal effects from passengers and crew, the hundreds of witnesses that saw the plane hit the building, the fact that the plane hasnt turned up anywhere else. but i forget, it was a GOVERNMENT investigation that looked at the crash site, OMG conspiracy!

dickhead.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN no, the CTers are the ones that dismiss such obvious evidence. you know- like the debris from the plane in and around the pentagon, the dead bodies and personal effects from passengers and crew, the hundreds of witnesses that saw the plane hit the building, the fact that the plane hasnt turned up anywhere else. but i forget, it was a GOVERNMENT investigation that looked at the crash site, OMG conspiracy! dickhead.

There is no video evidence to suggest plane hit the Pentagon. Only the frames, which do not show the plane hitting the building. Whats preventing them from releasing the full video? Why is the video dated september 12, 2001?

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium There is no video evidence to suggest plane hit the Pentagon. Only the frames, which do not show the plane hitting the building. Whats preventing them from releasing the full video? Why is the video dated september 12, 2001?

prove to me theres more video you clown. i love it how you guys make these assumptions, based on NOTHING as if its evidence nobody has said theres any more video other than you crazy ******s.

where did the plan wreckage come from?
what did the hundreds of witnesses really see?
where did the dead bodies come from?
the personal effects?
what knocked down the street lights on the approach vector?
where are the passengers from the flight?
where is the plane?

you ignore all these sensible questions in favour of some half-baked idea that the video shown isnt good enough.

shaolin, THIS is why the 911 movement gets me so riled up. what a load of bullshit.

You guys are at it again .

pkc must always fight. Why is that?

Grammatical/Spelling errors get the best of him .

culorut + shaolin_Z:

+1

Short form:

He gives credence to this thread by responding.

What he should do is call Langley for his paycheck. Unless he likes working for free.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN prove to me theres more video you clown. i love it how you guys make these assumptions, based on NOTHING as if its evidence nobody has said theres any more video other than you crazy ******s. where did the plan wreckage come from? what did the hundreds of witnesses really see? where did the dead bodies come from? the personal effects? what knocked down the street lights on the approach vector? where are the passengers from the flight? where is the plane? you ignore all these sensible questions in favour of some half-baked idea that the video shown isnt good enough. shaolin, THIS is why the 911 movement gets me so riled up. what a load of bullshit.

I am not going down that road again. My whole point is, when I have an argument against the government, and the government is the one in control of the information and facts I am looking for. There were many camera pointing at the Pentagon to take a good video of the attack, yet none of them were released - actually, the video tapes were seized and we havent seen them. And the impact whole is too small to fit the plane. I guess Houdini hid the plane ;-) And planes dont have chemtrails at low attitudes of 5 metres.

EDIT: The photos links cannot be hotlinked. Oh well, fuck 'em.

These are enough evidence to show there was no plane hitting the Pentagon:

http://911research.wtc7.net/pentago.../uncropped.html


^^^ Planes dont do chemtrails at low altitudes. But missiles do ;-)

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium [COLOR=FF7F50] I am not going down that road again.

meaning you dont have ANY answers to questions that you should have readily at hand, before you go off ranting with paranoid delusions. if you cant muster a logical, compelling & reasonable case to answer my questions above, then this again shows shaolin why i get so annoyed with the 9/11 movement. you cherry pick your so-called "facts" whilst ignoring all the illogical by-products such "facts" raise.

quote:

There were many camera pointing at the Pentagon to take a good video of the attack, yet none of them were released

ill just take your word for this shall i?

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN meaning you dont have ANY answers to questions that you should have readily at hand, before you go off ranting with paranoid delusions. if you cant muster a logical, compelling & reasonable case to answer my questions above, then this again shows shaolin why i get so annoyed with the 9/11 movement. you cherry pick your so-called "facts" whilst ignoring all the illogical by-products such "facts" raise. ill just take your word for this shall i?

With regards to the alleged video released by Pentagon - this is not a video footage. Its five frames of a video. Amazingly enough, they fail to show the actual plane, and the chemtrails following the alleged plane actually implicate the government even more. Its easy to have witnesses claiming to have been the place. These people, government agents, could have easily been there before the attack to make sure that they could claim plane hit the building. Dont forget, this was planned out, and the fact that terrorists attacked while terrorist drills were going on is quite interesting as well. I dont need any demolition experts on this, because Pentagon government evidence, or lack of it that is, is overwhelming. Chemtrails dont form on passenger planes at altitudes of 5-10 metres!!!

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium With regards to the alleged video released by Pentagon - this is not a video footage. Its five frames of a video. Amazingly enough, they fail to show the actual plane, and the chemtrails following the alleged plane actually implicate the government even more. Its easy to have witnesses claiming to have been the place. These people, government agents, could have easily been there before the attack to make sure that they could claim plane hit the building. Dont forget, this was planned out, and the fact that terrorists attacked while terrorist drills were going on is quite interesting as well. I dont need any demolition experts on this, because Pentagon government evidence, or lack of it that is, is overwhelming. Chemtrails dont form on passenger planes at altitudes of 5-10 metres!!!

not answering any of my questions. nor have you provided any evidence that there are any more videos. nor have you answered why the hundreds of MOTORISTS are wrong when they saw the plane hitting the building your answer to everything is more "government agents". its your panacea for all the massive holes in your delusions.

answer my point by point questions or shut the hell up.

argue with these witnesses crazy boy

http://911research.wtc7.net/pentago...bart.html#press

oooh, planted government evidence (that nobody noticed them plant of course! :haha

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN argue with these witnesses crazy boy http://911research.wtc7.net/pentago...bart.html#press oooh, planted government evidence (that nobody noticed them plant of course! :haha

Those were press reports. Like press did any fair coverage at all. They didnt say almost anything about the commission report either on its ommissions and stuff. Media is bull.

I read how some motorists heard some plane-like noise and some witnesses said they saw something that looked like a SMALL PLANE. Trust me, a passenger plane flying at 10 metres above the ground would have nearly deafened the drivers. I had a picture somewhere of the poles still standing after initial attack, but later they were down. Too bad there were no parts of the plane's wings beside the bent poles ;-)

It doesnt matter, there's no point arguing you, I already stated my point, and so did you. You're too obsessed with this topic. Try occupying your time with something more useful.

As for the Pentagon agents scooping up small debris and pieces of evidence, that hardly appear like any Boeing 747 parts, especially that 5mm thin alleged metal cover part of the plane that the agent easily held up using one hand. It was all small pieces. Boeing 747 on the other hand is covered by a thick heavy components to withstand the load at high altitudes.

BBC Propaganda WTC7 Clip Being "Pulled"

It has been yanked from google and youtube already, watch or save the video now before it gets deleted permanently.

BBC reporting WTC7 collapsed 23 minutes before it actually happened,

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=49f_1172526096&p=1

Seems like they simply let the scripted info out a little to early on live TV, I wonder where they received their intel from?

quote:

Go stick it in with the rest of them-

Go ahead and do so if you want, this topic easily deserves it's own thread though.

quote:

Originally posted by culorut Go ahead and do so if you want, this topic easily deserves it's own thread though.

it really doesn't

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.