I think he's watched it. I don't think he really believes that planes or fire made those mountains of steel and concrete disintegrate. Even if he did, he'd get stuck on building #7.

There's a lot of people out there who simply don't want to know. "I don't like where this will lead".

Then there's a few who share our suspicions but are happy with how things are going.

Both types are going to play dumb in an argument.

I think MOMUS is right and that we should ignore them as much as they ignore the evidence. There are still plenty who want to know more. We all need to try and find out more, while propagating the basic facts that caught our interest to begin with.

Well said.

On another thread, I asked JP what alternatives he could offer as to why the building 7 came down - I didn't see where he gave any (just a post about comments by some near the scene fearing an immenent collapse). Now, Fissle had the balls to at least proclaim what he believes caused the buildings to collapsed, that being the crash of the airplanes into the two towers. BUT, now Fissle is not answering WHY he beleives that. I see that JP was supposed to be going away, but, I think I saw a recent post by him, so, I am wondering - why won't Fissle, JP, Snuffy, and any of the so-called debunkers, please tell us what they believe caused the buildings to collapse - and WHY? Come on back, Fissle, tell us why you think the ariplanes crashing into the two towers caused the buildings to collapse. Please. If you don't have a reason you care to share with us, that is OK - lots of times we believe something without having a reason we care to share with others - but, if you do have a good logical reason, please share it with us. Contumacyman

I think MOMUS is right and that we should ignore them as much as they ignore the evidence. There are still plenty who want to know more. We all need to try and find out more, while propagating the basic facts that caught our interest to begin with.

Absolutely! Ignore the shills because they're trying to pollute the discussion. Don't get sucked in by trolls! They make reading the genuine comments more difficult by bulk posts.

BTW I just watched the video, how any functioning human being can still believe that Two puny (by comparison) Aircraft could bring down and PULVERISE six skyscrapers is inconceivable. That jewish interests aquired and INSURED the building just weeks before seals it for me.

Does anyone have any thoughts as to how this video could be made widely available?

Try another approach fissile.

Think it like a dick, list of suspects, then you use the evidence to eliminate each one by one. Each suspect would have a scenario of how they could of done it attached as they go through the process of comparing fact and story in the interrogation room.

You don’t sit and say who is ‘they’, cause you don’t know who the they is; only through investigation does this come into light. Where does the trail lead?

The way I see it, I and the rest of the American public was ‘told’ who attacked us and there hasn’t been a real investigation yet. Yeah, it looked like some terrorists took some of our planes and flew them into a couple of buildings but does the evidence show this? Can’t see now, they destroyed the evidence. This is not the normal way we do things. If those planes took those towers down, there should be a total investigation as to how those planes took em down. They usually recreate the scene, look at all the pieces. That is how we deal with ANY KIND of airplane crash. Don't matter that we know the answer, we always put the pieces together and make sure it is the correct answer. Have ya not watched any shows about plane crashes? They reenact what happened. Always. And I have yet to see a plane burn up totally in the crash like they say. I want to know why it they did.

One other thing to think about. The family of the victims got a good pay off. Now it is normally the family of the victim that keeps an investigation moving along. They want answers, want to know the truth, all the details, but well, they’s got a big chunk of change in their pockets making it less likely for them to complain or apply pressure to obtain the real facts. Of course the gov does feed them a few crumbs here and there, all private and away from the public eyes. I find this all very strange.

Try another approach fissile.

Think it like a dick, list of suspects, then you use the evidence to eliminate each one by one. Each suspect would have a scenario of how they could of done it attached as they go through the process of comparing fact and story in the interrogation room.

You don’t sit and say who is ‘they’, cause you don’t know who the they is]

Excellent post, janewhite88,

But for those who didn't grow up watching those great black and white detective movies of the 1940s, in this context, "dick = detective."

Enkidu

Hunter S. Thompson, "Big dark, coming soon"

 

There's a lot of people out there who simply don't want to know. "I don't like where this will lead".

Exactly, and that includes people with PhDs or anyone else who could pass the "credibility test" in a society obsessed with academic credentials. Earning an advanced college degree does not exempt one from fear of unpleasant truths. It would be more comforting for such people to accept the "official" explanation, and then to look for reasons which would support that explanation.

What I want to know is:

1) How come the evil zoglings went to the trouble of wiring the WTC with tons of explosives and trusted all these conspirators with this horrible secret, when all they needed were the planes crashing into them? In other words wasn't the enormity of the crime of two 767's crashing into the WTC enough?

2) If it's so unlikely that WTC 7 could be damaged, let alone collapse, since it was so far away, why then did the conspirators pick that building? Why, if it's such an unusual candidate?

Reasonable questions. One can only speculate about that sort of thing without access to inside information.

Although one could ask the same question, of why do murderers sometimes torch the homes of people who they have killed?

You can evade the issue as you like, spin the subject any way you want to, you merely puff the thread and draw attention to it and to yourself. Readers will be able to interpret your motives.
Did you watch this video?

Kindly tell the forum your opinion of the video.

[Fissile replied:]Not until you watch all of Leone's Westerns -- the Italian versions.

So you still havent watched either? I dont think we can have a decent conversation about this until you watch that one and "loose change" documentary either.

Sorry, I don't make "Fissile" for a Jew but obstinately refusing to view the subject material does indicate that he is not really participating in this conversation in earnest. This is like discussing a book with somebody who hasnt read it.

By the way my friend with the PHD in EE and materials science watched them and sent a short but positive reply. I asked him for critique and if he comes back with it, I'll summarize it here.

His reply dealt with the heavy volume of put options that were placed shortly before the incident. I wonder if Muhammed Atta placed those options. I wonder what the results of the SEC investigation into that was? Oh yes-- there was no investigation/ results were classified/ aka "none."

Excellent post, janewhite88,

But for those who didn't grow up watching those great black and white detective movies of the 1940s, in this context, "dick = detective."

Enkidu

hee,hee, it does read kinda funny don't it.

The official story presents the twin towers as two long, slender, thin-skinned houses of cards that were just waiting to be toppled.

Wild how the one incredible quality of the buildings is used to perpetrate the lie. Solid but looked slim and light.

Since we haven't heard from Fissle nor JP on this subject (after being asked to render or explain thier own beilefs), dare I conclude that they have "banned" themselves?

When someone approaches a lively discussion with the intent, or temperment, to be the an unannounced devil's advoacate (a spoiler, if you will), then they will instinctively avoid taking any stand on anything - not risking becoming the target themselves of a counter-devil's advocate. If you never show any of your own cards,
taking care to always be cryptic or referential, then you can remain beyond close interrogation.

Fissle's comment about believing the planes crashing caused the collapse might have been a slip-up on his part. He must realize he can no more "prove" that belief than others here can "prove" our "belief" in contolled demolitions.

For the future, whenever a "spoiler" enters the debate, usualy with an innocent sounding question, they can be exposed by simply requesting what their own beleif is, and why. They will avoid giving a straight answer so as to not risk the vulnerability that the rest of us share by even discussing something we bascially "know" very little about.

Banning wasn't needed - exposing is more civil and effective.

Now I have two moe basic questions:

1) Does anyone have any reason to believe any airpalne was hijacked on 911? Other than hearing the pundits talk about it, was any evidence (eg. flight controller tapes) forthcoming to support the notion that any plane was hijacked (forcefully by persons on board the planes)?

2) Does anyone have any reason to believe there was anyone aboard any of the missing airplanes of arabian ethnicity? I haven't seen any evidence of any kind that supports such a beleif? Has anyone?

Without a positive response to these two questions, what can we say about all the talk about hijackings and arabs?

Mass hysteria? Mass gullibility? Stupidity? All three?

Contumacyman

Without a positive response to these two questions, what can we say about all the talk about hijackings and arabs?

Mass hysteria? Mass gullibility? Stupidity? All three?

Contumacyman

Well, it was a good fame up. I mean if ya want to get away with a crime it is good to have someone famed up to take the fall. Then all energy is focused on that. Kinda of a tunnel vision like cops can have when working a case. They focus only on that suspect and fit the pieces according instead of the other way around. All the pieces dished out to the public were just that, pieces. Made to fit the picture of the only suspect they are also showing us.

Now if ya really pull back and think that one important question, 'how did this happen?" The only way I think it could of happened is if our government was in on it somehow. They are the only ones with the power to pull back defenses to allow this to happen. One plane, maybe I could believe, two, three, four, um, we are the most powerful nation there is. Now how could this of happened? Why have we not been informed as to where 'the ball was dropped' in our air security?

But again, the mass public, well, it was very emotional news reporting. A lot of focus on the victims. News used to not be reported that way. More focus on the facts, not interviews of folks crying and trying to find their loved ones. The TV was used as a tool to get in touch with victims families in a way since the phones and communications were down or overloaded. Just a few thoughts….

The best patsy is a guilty one. I think McVeigh is an example. I have no trouble believing that there are muslims who would like to do things like this, and I wouldn't be surprised if some or all of these guys that the government pointed the finger at were actually intending to hijack a plane. Just grabbing some jerk off the street and blaming him would be pretty risky.

We hear alot about government agencies or jewish groups knowing things beforehand. Having the actor under "surveillance". That goes for 9-11 and Oklahoma City, at least.

If you're trying to get this idea across to a non-white or staunch anti-racist white, I find it useful to introduce them to "Marinus Van Der Lubbe". Some long versions of his story have him as a low-iq(aren't they all?) communist who was bragging in bars about starting some minor fires in government offices. Some plain-clothes brownshirts befriended him and talked him up on attacking the reichstag. They got him to start some little fire while they ran around with gas cans doing it up right. The Reichstag fire was a major turning point and pretty much eliminated communists from participating in the government. Van Der Lubbe was a willing participant but had no clue about the bigger picture.

Did that actually happen? Don't know, wasn't there. I don't find it that hard to believe. It's the kind of thing that wise men would do to affect a major change. Take your enemy's energy, focus it, even enhance it, and ultimately use it against him. Like in martial arts. I think it's judo(?) where half of what you do is using the other guy's motion against him. You go with it and make it worse. For him.

Anyway, your average joe has no trouble believing that "Nazis" would pull something like that. They're trained to automatically believe any negative thing they hear about "Nazis". The Van Der Lubbe theory helps them understand what may have happened on 9-11.

Again, you don't just pull any jerk off the street to be your fall-guy. You want someone who is on some level a willing participant. Then you have motive and some evidence when you present your conspiracy theory to the masses.

Sounds cynical, I know, but I honestly suspect this is the kind of thing that happened on 9-11. We'll probably never know exactly what those muslims were or weren't trying to do. The accusations against them are impossible, and that's the most important thing for now.

1) Does anyone have any reason to believe any airpalne was hijacked on 911? Other than hearing the pundits talk about it, was any evidence (eg. flight controller tapes) forthcoming to support the notion that any plane was hijacked (forcefully by persons on board the planes)?

C'mon...you can debate about demolitions etc., but that question you just posed is just plain dumb.

The only evidence ever offered the public was the alleged cell phone calls from passengers on one flight. Even the website offered by our premier "debunker" admits that some of them were fake. Who would want to fake such a thing? Who knows, and the gov. doesn't say.
It's doubtful that cell phone calls from airplanes were even possible then.
There was an announcement from a tech company 3 years later that cell phone calls from airplanes were finally made possible.

1) Does anyone have any reason to believe any airpalne was hijacked on 911? Other than hearing the pundits talk about it, was any evidence (eg. flight controller tapes) forthcoming to support the notion that any plane was hijacked (forcefully by persons on board the planes)?

2) Does anyone have any reason to believe there was anyone aboard any of the missing airplanes of arabian ethnicity? I haven't seen any evidence of any kind that supports such a beleif? Has anyone?

Without a positive response to these two questions, what can we say about all the talk about hijackings and arabs?

Mass hysteria? Mass gullibility? Stupidity? All three?

Contumacyman