GOP CONGRESSMAN SEES THE LIGHT!!! - Page 4

Azselendor · #31 August 12th, 2006, 01:55 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories

That page pretty much sums it all up in the first box.

You are yet to provide one iota of fact to support your position Slaughtermeyer. You still haven't answered my challenge of Using lex parsimoniae, law of succinctness, and applying it to this. Which requires fewer assumptions to be true.

Instead you supply a veritable endless supply of "truthology" conspiracy nuts.

To me, this means you lack actual facts to support your arguements.

Atrocities · #32 August 12th, 2006, 03:19 AM

At least Slaughtermeyer was kind enough to post the information for us in a manor that gave us all a chance to read up on and understand this conspiracy theory. He has also seriously impressed me with his cool headness and willingness to debate the topic without resorting to name calling or other insulting behavior. It is very refreshing and I cannot help but respect him for how he has conducted himself in this discussion.

Slaughtermeyer · #33 August 12th, 2006, 11:56 AM

Quote:

Atrocities said:
Has any one that was in the 9/11 commission said anything officially that supports the 9/11 truth movements theories about what happened on 9/11?

The 9/11 commission basically concluded that the FAA and the Pentagon lied to them. The Sept. 11 commission was so frustrated with repeated misstatements by the Pentagon and FAA about their response to the 2001 terror attacks that it considered an investigation into possible deception.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060804/...t11_commission
http://www.infowars.com/print/Sept11...n_911truth.htm

The 9/11 Commission was prevented from conducting a complete impartial and thorough investigation because its executive director was Philip Zelikow. He was a member of the Bush I administration. He got to know Condoleezza Rice very well there � they both served on the National Security Council. When they were between administrations during the Clinton years, they wrote a book together.

When the Bush II administration was coming into power she brought him on to help with the transition and then he was appointed to the foreign advisory board, so he is essentially a member of the Bush White House. And yet, as executive director, he ran the Commission. He had a staff of 70-some; he decided which topics were worth looking into, and which ones were not. When people would come and say, I want to testify to the Commission, I have something important to say, he would decide who would take that testimony. And so on. So essentially the 9/11 Commission was the White House investigating itself.
http://globaloutlook.ca/10P45.htm
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...01821567284154

Quote:

If Bush and his administration can't keep top secret NSA programs a secret, then why are we to believe that they can keep something as horrific as masterminding the 9/11 attacks a secret?

The Operation Northwoods conspiracy, a 1962 plan approved by all of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to stage a 9/11-style operation by US agents posing as pro-Castro Cubans in order to generate public support for an invasion of Cuba, was not exposed until 35 years later. Fortunately President Kennedy refused to give the go-ahead for this conspiracy.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92662

Quote:

As to Clinton needing a motive to do this, I don't agree, Clinton would find a way to profit from such a plan, and Gore had a lot to gain if he had been elected.

I believe 9/11 would have happened even if Gore had been elected. Because Lieberman was just as willing as Bush to use the US military for the benefit of Israel, I'm sure that a way would have been arranged by the neocons for Gore to contract a fatal illness or 'accident' while in office. For details about the neocons that pushed America into the Iraq war, read this article written by a former Israeli MK in 2003:
http://gush-shalom.org/archives/article242.html

A document published one year before 9/11 by the neocons entitled "Rebuilding America's Defenses" stated that a "catastrophic and catalyzing event � like a new Pearl Harbor" was needed to put their plans into operation.
http://www.reopen911.org/docs/Rebuil...asDefenses.pdf

Slaughtermeyer · #34 September 1st, 2006, 09:30 PM

Quote:

Atrocities said:
Hard evidence that proves that 9/11 was not a government plot.

Popular mechanics

I think I know now why Popular Mechanics refuses to send anyone to the National 9/11 Debate. Here's an interview with a Popular Mechanics "researcher" on the Charles Goyette show:

http://www.911podcasts.com/files/aud...0823-am-c3.MP3

For those who'd rather read an abbreviated transcript:

Quote:

CG: Is there information that has not been given to the public?
PM: Very little�there is very little that has been held back as far as the basic facts of what happened that morning in terms of the material we looked into.
CG: I was under the impression that there were a lot of facts that were withheld. I mean, the surveillance videos, for example, around the Pentagon we were told about: a hotel video, a convenience store video, we haven�t seen those. Apparently they were swooped up very quickly or so the report goes.
PM: That is the case, those have been taken for larger criminal investigations those are now being disclosed to the public, you know with the Judicial Watch material�
CG: I�ve talked with the guys at Judicial Watch, and they�re not very happy about it, they released like four frames that don�t really show much of anything.
PM: They don�t show very much considering that the frame rate was one frame per second and the plane Flight 77 was moving about 780 feet per second, from that distance it�s not surprising that there was not a whole lot caught on that video.
CG: Are you telling me that�s the only video?
PM: No, I suspect there are other videos, I suspect they�re still being used for various investigations.
CG: What the hell is there to investigate? They told us who the guys were, they held onto some of that stuff for the Moussaoui trial for the love of God, like it was really relevant to his trial (sarcastic), it�s five years later, when are the American people entitled to the evidence?
PM: I think there�s plenty of evidence out there�
CG: It�s not the evidence we�ve seen that we�re concerned about, it�s the evidence we haven�t seen. Does that make any sense?
PM: Oh sure it makes sense�. The evidence is abundant�
CG: It�s the dog that didn�t bark... We know the evidence we�ve seen, that doesn�t cause any suspicion so much as the evidence that we don�t see. It�s not helpful in this country with a very secretive government when a big, powerful magazine like you guys, who owns Popular Mechanics?
PM: �Hearst.�
CG: Ok, with Hearst Corporation, with all of your might, instead of joining the people in their natural curiosity to see all the evidence, you try to say, �Oh shut up, you peons don�t know what you�re talking about, everything�s fine, keep on moving, there�s nothing to see here.� Hearst should be using their influence to get all the evidence released and that will end all the conspiracy talk! Wouldn�t it?
PM: (does answer this question)
CG: �I want to come back to the unseen evidence � the dog that didn�t bark. Hearst has a lot of muscle � where are you in lobbying for the release of all the evidence to put an end to all this madness, speculation and distrust?..
PM: It�s not up to us�
CG: I said use your influence.. Look, is there something we don�t know about this that they have to hide from us? No, or so I presume. We�re told who did it, we�ve invaded two countries in response to it, we�ve spent billions of dollars, I mean, what could be possibly secretive right now?
PM: How can I answer the question?
CG: Because you don�t know, we just want to see the evidence. If the plane flew into the building, show us the damn pictures. What could that possibly hurt?
PM: (Cannot answer question)
CG: �Building 7 is the first piece of evidence that I turn to. Popular Mechanics�say that a third of the face, approximately 25% of the depth of the building that was scooped out beforehand.
PM: When the North Tower collapsed� there was damage to Building 7�. What we found out was�about 25% of the building�s south face had been carved away from it� Each column that you remove that was destroyed by the wreckage from the North Tower�
CG: That would be very persuasive to me if it were true. And it may or may not be true� I go, oh that�s interesting�if that�s true that would go a long way towards explaining what happened to Building 7. So I turn to the pictures in your book about Building 7 you�ve got a picture of Building 7, but it doesn�t show that. So I�m going, OK, instead of just somebody asserting that a third of the building was scooped away, show me the picture. But you don�t show me the picture.
PM: �We have seen pictures that are property of the NY Police Department and various other governmental agencies that we were not given permission to disseminate�.
CG: Popular Mechanics got to see them, but the average American citizen can�t see them.
PM: Correct.
CG: Well, that�s a fine kettle of fish, isn�t it? �.What did you see there that I can�t see?
PM: Just what was described.
CG: Well it must be something that�s dangerous for me as an American citizen or a voter to see. You�re publishers, if anybody is concerned about evidence in a criminal case or something, they�ve done the worst possible thing, they�ve shown it to a damn magazine publisher!
PM: That was done for the purposes of our background research.
CG: What about my background research? Do you see the source of my frustration here? I didn�t know we had different classes of citizens. You can�t tell me it�s because it�s a criminal case because they�ve shown it to a damn magazine publisher.
PM: �.I can�t answer that question.
CG: I know you can�t.
PM: (is speechless)�.
�Caller (Mike): What about the 7 to 9 hijackers that were reported in the British press who came forward and said, �We�re alive, what are we doing on the FBI list of so-called hijackers? We�re alive and well.� How do you explain that one?
PM: It was one BBC report � I am saying that is false.
Caller: How did you verify that the British story was false?
PM: The remains of the hijackers who have been widely understood to have been on those planes�
Caller: What remains?
PM: There was DNA evidence collected all over the place.
Caller: The building was incinerated; the concrete was turned into powder, there were molten pools of steel in the bottom of the building that were still hot weeks after, and they were able do autopsies on bodies? Are you insane? Where are the autopsy reports you were referring to, on the hijackers, where are those reports? I haven�t heard anything about autopsy reports.
CG: I want to know, even if we presume you�re correct that they recovered the DNA of the 19 hijackers from the rubble, where did they get their original DNA with which to match it? Where did they get the original DNA of a bunch of middle-eastern Islamic madmen? Where did they get the DNA? Had they submitted DNA before they, uh�I mean, where the hell did they get it? You�re not even talking sensibly with me.
PM: Off the top of my head, I don�t know the answer to that.
CG: Of course you don�t.
PM: I�ll get back to you with it.
CG: Is that a promise?
PM: I will do my best.
CG: People all across the state of Arizona now are hearing Davin Coburn say on the show that he�s gonna find out how they got that DNA checked against those Islamic terrorists who had�hijacked those planes. Good, I�d like to hear it. Now do you understand why people scratch their head when these kinds of representations are made?
PM: No, actually I don�t�
CG: You don�t understand why when you tell us that they found the hijackers� DNA remains amongst the molten steel, and I ask you where did they get the original DNA from the hijackers to match it against � Do you think that�s bizarre to ask a question like that, do you think it�s conspiratorial just to want to know?...You told me that they have DNA evidence that matches the hijackers�
PM: I think the entire question is baseless. I think that it is not even a question that�s worth answering�.
CG: �You�ve told me that they checked their DNA, where did they get their original DNA to check it against? You�re the one with the answers, I�m not. I just ask questions.
PM: �A seven year old can ask why, over and over and over�.
CG: No, this is the worst attack on America in the history of this country, we�ve invaded two countries, maybe a third because of it, we�re gonna spend trillions of dollars. It�s not a seven year old asking why, I want to know where they got the evidence that they matched it against. What�s so hard about that?
PM: The way that you�re framing it is intentionally�
CG: Of course it is, �cause it�s five years later and we haven�t heard the answer. And you haven�t given it to us in Popular Mechanics. I swear to God, that�s it. You see, it�s the way I�m framing it makes it an illegitimate question? Well tell me how to reframe it, tell me how to ask it differently.
PM: I would start entirely over with the question that that gentleman asked.
CG: I want the question I asked. All right, that�s it. Hey Daven, thanks�the Charles Goyette Show.

Atrocities · #35 September 7th, 2006, 05:02 PM

Quote:

CAIRO, Egypt � Al-Jazeera aired on Thursday what it called previously unshown footage of Al Qaeda terrorist chief Usama bin Laden meeting with some of the Sept. 11 hijackers.

So much for the theory that Israel is beind the attacks of 9/11.

Noah_Vaile · #36 September 12th, 2006, 10:52 AM

I pity the fool. I mean really, how stupid is this stuff? Very very very. I am constantly amazed that anyone can repeat it without just falling down and laughing at themselves. Or having to be prepared to give resuscitation to others who are choking with laughter at them. I suppose anyone who expounds this tripe should, just as a civic minded thing to do, learn and be prepared to give CPR.

Slaughtermeyer · #37 September 12th, 2006, 05:09 PM

Quote:

Atrocities said:

Quote:

CAIRO, Egypt � Al-Jazeera aired on Thursday what it called previously unshown footage of Al Qaeda terrorist chief Usama bin Laden meeting with some of the Sept. 11 hijackers.

So much for the theory that Israel is beind the attacks of 9/11.

The FBI wasn't fooled by that questionable footage, it still believes there is no hard evidence connecting Osama to 9/11 because 9/11 is still not mentioned as one of the crimes for which he is wanted:
http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm

And I never said that Israel was responsible for the entire operation. All indications are that Cheney outsourced the recruitment of the hijackers to the head of Pakistani intelligence because he was the one who was caught ordering the wiring of $100,000 to lead hijacker Mohammed Atta. The Mossad was the most likely culprit for placing the explosives in the three tallest World Trade Center buildings because Mossad agents were caught celebrating and filming "Mission Accomplished" on 9/11.
http://www.sundayherald.com/37707

Atrocities · #38 September 16th, 2006, 03:35 AM

Quote:

Noah_Vaile said:
I pity the fool. I mean really, how stupid is this stuff? Very very very. I am constantly amazed that anyone can repeat it without just falling down and laughing at themselves. Or having to be prepared to give resuscitation to others who are choking with laughter at them. I suppose anyone who expounds this tripe should, just as a civic minded thing to do, learn and be prepared to give CPR.

ROTFLMAO - I have to say it, if they gave out and award for putting things into context, you my friend would have won it hands down with this statement. Job well done.

geoschmo · #39 September 21st, 2006, 11:26 AM

Quote:

KlvinoHRGA said:
It's common knowledge that these buildings are designed, incase of catastrophic failure, to collapse down on top of itself as to avoid collatoral damage to the surrounding buildings.

It's actually not exactly. It sounds trite but buildings fall more or less straight down because that's the direction gravity is pulling them. Skyscrapers are designed to withstand stress loads primarily in a downward direction. They don't actually fall over like trees because the structural supports fail and they collapse downard way before the center of gravity can get out to the point where the building would topple over sideways.

You could build a building that could be tipped over far enough that it would fall over instead of collapsing down, but it would take so much extra reinforcing material that it wouldn't have much usable interior space for offices and stuff. Kind of like a tree.

geoschmo · #40 September 21st, 2006, 11:40 AM

WTC7 fell for the same reason the twin towers fell, uncontrolled fire burned long enough to weaken the structrural support members to the point of collapse. A fire in any structure that is left to burn will eventually weaken and destroy enough supports to cause it to collapse. This is true for steel frame buildings as well as wood ones. It just take a little longer for steel and concrete structures. You don't see buildings collapse during fire much these days because the fire departments do a pretty good job of putting them out before they get to the point of structural collapse. But on 9/11 the fires were at such a height and and burned so hot because of the jet fuel that the fire department couldn't get to it in time.
The collapse of the north and south towers, on top of killing hundreds of fireman, choked off the are with debris so that noone that was left could get into a position where they could fight the fires burning in the surrounding buidlings.