Where was NORAD on 9-11? Why were there no jets in the air to defend the US against the "19 Arab high-jackers"? Who is responsible for that failure?

Hey Momus, you don't really expect a response do you?
Memes, pap&pablum, ozcs perhaps, but a solid answer from J.P. ?
You are a funny guy:D

Seriously tho, I'm sure you know quite well by now, to expect all of this tired nonsensical rhetoric when J.P. crawls out from under his toadstool to reply.

Let me be the first to predict his lucid and coherent response to your query...

"Hey fucktard...Research!!!...Do some!!!....fucktard!!!"

But then I predict no real response to any of our combined posts...do you?

88

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

Wiki has most of the info, while not drawing the conclusions that we’d like. I believe that the shear mass of info that is available there is a purposeful jew obfuscation.

My father-in-law, R. J. Rushdoony, warned me over 40 years ago about conspiracy theorists – not actual conspiracy theories, some of which he accepted, but theorists. "They see the affairs of mankind as one long story of one successful conspiracy. They attribute to the conspiracy what the Bible attributes to God: omniscience and omnipotence

Just as an aside...what the flying blue fuck does this have to do with anything???

So let me get this straight...Your father in law handed you some bullshit story about (almost) everything just being random and coincidence and anyone who questions the official story is a kook, and you bought that hook line and sinker???

ummm I see...

No further comment will be required here...

It has been my experience that most (but not all) conspiracy theories have been so labeled by people who encounter an explanation for some event or situation for which the evidence is unknown to them,the logic of the argument is too complex or for which they already possess an explanation which they are too emotionally invested in to abandon it regardless of the evidence or the logic.

It has been my experience that most (but not all) conspiracy theories have been so labeled by people who encounter an explanation for some event or situation for which the evidence is unknown to them,the logic of the argument is too complex or for which they already possess an explanation which they are too emotionally invested in to abandon it regardless of the evidence or the logic.

That's true, and I also believe Alex's midline fish theory of the human desire to conform plays a huge factor. In their world a [color="Green"]"Conspiracy" is anything which would place them out of the norm and this is why they have such an emotional close-minded reaction to new ideas.

Remember, we're nothing more than a number and a tax drone to the elite Gentiles and Jews who run this system we call the government. They'll do whatever they want and us sheeple can shut up or maybe start a website discussing the absurdity of their fanciful lies about, for example, 9-11.

Ah-men, brother.

Remember the oil "shortage" of the 70s when the smear "conspiracy theory" was being coined. What was on the agenda during that time?

It was reported with glee that 88% of Americans, by 1979, thought that oil was only going up because the politicians and oil companies had done a deal. Everyone who ever checked (Charley Reese for one) reported the same thing: Oil shipping had stayed the same or increased. Politicians and oil companies had done a deal.

So the MSM slandered 88% of the American population in '79, most of whom were white, for believing in a "conspiracy theory" we know now was correct.

The part that induces paralysis is that 88% of the American population who suspected the truth were brushed aside by regime shills and corporate screws. Centralized media allows good citizens to be smeared as conspiracy-mongers by regime suck-ups. As we see here.

Where was NORAD on 9-11? Why were there no jets in the air to defend the US against the "19 Arab high-jackers"? Who is responsible for that failure?

Guess what genius! Prior to 9-11, the job of NORAD was to defend US skies from conventional attacks from OUTSIDE THE US! The same amount of jets on standby to defend the nation were available on 9-11 as they always had been since post-cold war cut backs. 14. That's right, 14.

Don't give me this bullshit about "real researchers" either. Not ONE, repeat: Not ONE structural engineer, demolitions expert, or architect agrees with your theories. Not ONE in the entire world. Are they all in on it? Are the North Korean structural engineers part of Bush's shadowy conspiracy as well?

Just as an aside...what the flying blue fuck does this have to do with anything???

So let me get this straight...Your father in law handed you some bullshit story about (almost) everything just being random and coincidence and anyone who questions the official story is a kook, and you bought that hook line and sinker???

ummm I see...

No further comment will be required here...

Momus, here you show us how you are a liar. You claim that you merely "question the official story". Just like the Loose Change people and a lot of 9-11 Troofers. The problem is that this is a lie. You make SPECIFIC accusations and insist that they are not only true, but that we must discount any evidence to the contrary and believe these theories. Otherwise you go on the attack.

No you are not "questioning" you are asserting- and your assertions not only lack evidence of their own but are also refuted by the existing evidence.

Those who make accusations and then claim they are "just asking questions" are simply intellectual cowards, to use Mark Roberts' term.

Gary North is a ZIONIST and a two-bit con-man. He was the source of all the Y2K paranoia, which made practically everybody to the right of Hillary's left testicle look like a blithering idiot in the eyes of the world. The Spotlight called him on this years ago.

Now he has the unmitigated GALL to try to smear anybody on the Right who has a clue what's going on as a "conspiracy theorist". What a sick, pathetic joke.

As for Fissile, I don't know enough about him to try to speculate as to his motives in posting this blather, but I can only assume that he is either too ignorant of the purpose of this forum to know any better, or, otherwise, he is merely another Zionist infiltraitor, who has such a low opinion of us that he thinks we aren't intelligent enough to call him on it.

In light of his username and avatar, I've got this picture of him in my mind. It's a picture of a child-molesting faggot in horn-rimmed glasses and a white lab coat. Probably works in one of these nuclear plants down the road......

Don't give me this bullshit about "real researchers" either. Not ONE, repeat: Not ONE structural engineer, demolitions expert, or architect agrees with your theories. Not ONE in the entire world. Are they all in on it? Are the North Korean structural engineers part of Bush's shadowy conspiracy as well?

Oh bullshit J.P. You're not even a good liar anymore.
Do you really believe your own sweeping generalized bullshit statements??? Strike that,as itz quite apparent that you do.

Proffessor Stephen Jones is a thirty year + physics professor from M.I.T and he has signed affidavits from many structural engineers, demolitions experts, retired C.I.A. department heads etc...which he cites often, when dubunking the ozcs. All of these EXPERTS agree on at least one thing: The ozcs is a crock of shit. From the magical 19 in the cave, right down to the magically collapsing steel framed sky scrapers which quite literally fell into their own foot prints, due to, get this, burning jet fuel.... This includes bldg 7, which was never even touched by a plane, and coincidentally, was never touched by you, either

Stephen Jones is but one on a long list of REAL EXPERTS, who doubt yours, the greatest conspiricy theory of all...the ozcs

I guess we can just discount this one of many examples of REAL experts questioning the official story, cuz it makes you look pretty stupid tho, eh J.P.?

You need to give this whole thing up and find a new hobby dude. How about story time at the public library? You'd make a wonderful childrens' story teller

Your bullshit just isn't sticking to anyone anymore. Or are you too stupid to see even that?

Quote:
Originally Posted by RabbitNoMore
Just as an aside...what the flying blue fuck does this have to do with anything???

So let me get this straight...Your father in law handed you some bullshit story about (almost) everything just being random and coincidence and anyone who questions the official story is a kook, and you bought that hook line and sinker???

ummm I see...

No further comment will be required here...

Momus, here you show us how you are a liar. You claim that you merely "question the official story". Just like the Loose Change people and a lot of 9-11 Troofers. The problem is that this is a lie. You make SPECIFIC accusations and insist that they are not only true, but that we must discount any evidence to the contrary and believe these theories. Otherwise you go on the attack.

No you are not "questioning" you are asserting- and your assertions not only lack evidence of their own but are also refuted by the existing evidence.

Those who make accusations and then claim they are "just asking questions" are simply intellectual cowards, to use Mark Roberts' term.

Btw J.P. let's give credit where credit is due, when we attack someone or their beliefs, let's make sure we are attacking the right someone...
88

Momus, here you show us how you are a liar. You claim that you merely "question the official story". Just like the Loose Change people and a lot of 9-11 Troofers. The problem is that this is a lie. You make SPECIFIC accusations and insist that they are not only true, but that we must discount any evidence to the contrary and believe these theories. Otherwise you go on the attack.

No you are not "questioning" you are asserting- and your assertions not only lack evidence of their own but are also refuted by the existing evidence.

Those who make accusations and then claim they are "just asking questions" are simply intellectual cowards, to use Mark Roberts' term.

Sure JP. You've alway been good at calling others a liar and good at demanding sources and citations.
So you won't mind being quick to show the forum those SPECIFIC assertions you credit me with.

Edit: BTW, JP, you need to calm down. You were addressing me in a response to rabbit. Has the zionist call-up of cyber-warriors got you in a tizzy, Izzy?

Quote:
Originally Posted by RabbitNoMore
Just as an aside...what the flying blue fuck does this have to do with anything???

So let me get this straight...Your father in law handed you some bullshit story about (almost) everything just being random and coincidence and anyone who questions the official story is a kook, and you bought that hook line and sinker???

ummm I see...

No further comment will be required here...

Momus, here you show us how you are a liar. You claim that you merely "question the official story". Just like the Loose Change people and a lot of 9-11 Troofers. The problem is that this is a lie. You make SPECIFIC accusations and insist that they are not only true, but that we must discount any evidence to the contrary and believe these theories. Otherwise you go on the attack.

No you are not "questioning" you are asserting- and your assertions not only lack evidence of their own but are also refuted by the existing evidence.

Those who make accusations and then claim they are "just asking questions" are simply intellectual cowards, to use Mark Roberts' term.

Guess what genius! Prior to 9-11, the job of NORAD was to defend US skies from conventional attacks from OUTSIDE THE US! The same amount of jets on standby to defend the nation were available on 9-11 as they always had been since post-cold war cut backs. 14. That's right, 14.

Don't give me this bullshit about "real researchers" either. Not ONE, repeat: Not ONE structural engineer, demolitions expert, or architect agrees with your theories. Not ONE in the entire world. Are they all in on it? Are the North Korean structural engineers part of Bush's shadowy conspiracy as well?

Funny response, argument-boy. You've convinced everyone that NORAD had NO (zero) instruction on dealing with high-jacked aircraft in US airspace other than to sit on their hands. In a pig's ass you have.

Momus, here you show us how you are a liar. You claim that you merely "question the official story". Just like the Loose Change people and a lot of 9-11 Troofers. The problem is that this is a lie. You make SPECIFIC accusations and insist that they are not only true, but that we must discount any evidence to the contrary and believe these theories. Otherwise you go on the attack.

Funny J.P., but I'm not quite sure if you're referring to MOMUS or yourself there...

Here's a tired but specific argument for you then, explain what happened to bldg 7...

Let me guess...it either (once again) won't be touched, or you'll simply toss out some kike-like non-sequitir, as per usual...Here's my abridged answer to what happened to bldg 7 (and the twins as well): Bushco, Larry Siverstein, a whole shitload of Thermate, on the cheap and a fat juicy insurance policy concerning "acts of terrorism"...

Prove me wrong about you, by merely providing a more likely (hell let's go crazy and suggest an even possible) answer that one simple question...I know better than to ask you for a truthful response (like the answer I provided), so put on your best storytime face, and have at it.

Hey guys, could you please take this endless 911 debate to the WTC sticky thread which was, I believe, created just for that purpose? These squabbles tend to go on forever and often turn into little more than flame wars.

The government and jew-media have a conspiracy theory about 911 and non-believers have their conspiracy theories and I use the term in its descriptive and not pejorative sense here.

This thread is about conspiracy theories in general and is a useful topic to discuss on those terms alone.

The phrase "conspiracy theory" has come to be used almost entirely in the pejorative sense of a false, crack-pot explanation for some situation or event. In that sense the phrase is used to silence alternative explanations and shut off debate often by those who hope to gain from the conspiracy.

"Conspiracy theory" in its descriptive sense simply means laying out the evidence and logic supporting a conspiratorial (either overt or covert) explanation for some event or situation.

There are conspiracies. They do occur. Some conspiracy theories accurately describe those conspiracies. Some do not. And some describe phantom conspiracies that have not occured. Many conspiracies simply cannot be exposed because of the nature of conspiracies.

To conspire means to breathe together or by metaphorical extension, to co-operate in achieving some some common end. In that sense, the world is filled with conspiracies. A family is a conspiracy of people trying to achieve success in both its own time and evolutionarily. A nation is a similar conspiracy of people closely related genetically and culturally for the same purposes. A business is a conspiracy formed to make a product and realize a profit. And so on.

The pejorative use of the phrase should be dismissed by all rational people. The descriptive sense should lead to a rational debate about the merits of the evidence and logic for any explanation.

Those who use the phrase pejoratively are either too emotionally attached to their belief to give it up regardless of the evidence or logic, or they are complicit in or hope to gain from the conspiracy which they are attempting to hide by labeling other explanations as mere "conspiracy theories".

Gather as much evidence as you can and verify it; check and re-check the logic of your argument for validity as best you can.

Don't let people shut you up simpy by labeling you as a 'nut-case conspiracy theorist'. Ask them these questions: "Are there no conspiracies ever? Do groups of individuals never conspire together to achieve some end beneficial to them? Are all conspiracy theories wrong? Isn't it at least possible that my conspiracy theory accurately describes a real conspiracy?" If they answer the last question, "no, it is not possible", then you have exposed them as irrational fools unwilling to even entertain the 'possiblity' that you may correct. All non-analytic (synthetic) propositions are possibly either true or false.

Don't waste too much time arguing with people who label you a conspiracy theorist. Whether for their emotional welfare or from their complicity in the conspiracy, they are unlikely to engage in rational, honest debate.

My apologies, but being constantly called a kook, crank (or my personal favorite: a "fucktard") because I quite logically disbelieve the constantly proven lying zog and their ozcs, requires a response.

When a challlenge is offered, a repy will be made, regardless of which thread it happens to collide with.
Again I offer my humble apology in that I may have unknowingly diverted this thread.
Be sure that any more attacks on my character, or beliefs, will be defended, however.

88