100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: 9/11 Facts That Need To Be Addressed | |
|---|---|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Sat 03/09/13 02:36 PM
|
|
Truthers would have even less of a Case without it! Connecting Soundbytes to make a totally different meaning! Truthers never made their Case involving the Physics! Actually they made a Grand Botch of it! So now they are making a Soundbyte-Quilt which is even less convincing! What are you talking about? I am only talking about the statement Bush made ON RECORD twice. It was even published on a government website word for word. What is all this nonsense about soundbytes? He said what he said. Period. Are you trying to claim otherwise? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
i think your forgetting that he was the president... what makes you think he wouldn't know about it as soon as it happened? i think, and you do agree with me on this, that bush wasn't the sharpest knife in the drawer, so it could have been him just saying the wrong thing... i still think the CT'ers are making something out of nothing here... and you never did answer my question, JB...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
i think your forgetting that he was the president... what makes you think he wouldn't know about it as soon as it happened? i think, and you do agree with me on this, that bush wasn't the sharpest knife in the drawer, so it could have been him just saying the wrong thing... i still think the CT'ers are making something out of nothing here... and you never did answer my question, JB... What was the question? |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Conrad_73
on
Sat 03/09/13 02:47 PM
|
|
Truthers would have even less of a Case without it! Connecting Soundbytes to make a totally different meaning! Truthers never made their Case involving the Physics! Actually they made a Grand Botch of it! So now they are making a Soundbyte-Quilt which is even less convincing! What are you talking about? I am only talking about the statement Bush made ON RECORD twice. It was even published on a government website word for word. What is all this nonsense about soundbytes? He said what he said. Period. Are you trying to claim otherwise? Have you never mis-spoken,or been mistaken?  Funny,really! Everyone calls him stupid,and when he acts the part they get pissed!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Conrad, the youtube video is real. It was not faked. It is public record what Bush said about seeing the first plane hit the tower before he entered the classroom. It was even on a government website for a long time. Youtube is not "the medium. It is the vehicle. Do you think a television is a reliable medium? Do you believe everything you see on television news? Get serious and stop being so condescending. what do you believe? if everything you see is a lie, what is the truth to you? this one, JB |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tough question. I believe nothing with certainty, except that I exist. I would have to say that my beliefs are very flexible. I loosely hold a world view that changes as I process new information. If a person wanted to know what I believe they would have to narrow that question down. What do you believe (currently) about (name the specific topic). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tough question. I believe nothing with certainty, except that I exist. I would have to say that my beliefs are very flexible. I loosely hold a world view that changes as I process new information. If a person wanted to know what I believe they would have to narrow that question down. What do you believe (currently) about (name the specific topic). 19 pissed off muslims killed 3000 people... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Sat 03/09/13 03:00 PM
|
|
Tough question. I believe nothing with certainty, except that I exist. I would have to say that my beliefs are very flexible. I loosely hold a world view that changes as I process new information. If a person wanted to know what I believe they would have to narrow that question down. What do you believe (currently) about (name the specific topic). 19 pissed off muslims killed 3000 people... I don't believe that. Is that what you believe? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tough question. I believe nothing with certainty, except that I exist. I would have to say that my beliefs are very flexible. I loosely hold a world view that changes as I process new information. If a person wanted to know what I believe they would have to narrow that question down. What do you believe (currently) about (name the specific topic). 19 pissed off muslims killed 3000 people... I don't believe that. Is that what you believe? ... yes, i think thats what happened... everything else is government positioning and money grabbing... i think thats where CT'ers get confused, and the government likes that and helps the CT'ers make others confused.... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, but I am not certain that there is sufficient proof that 19 pissed off muslims even boarded the planes as reported. There is something else going on here, and the CIA is involved.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, but I am not certain that there is sufficient proof that 19 pissed off muslims even boarded the planes as reported. There is something else going on here, and the CIA is involved. "sufficient proof" is a broad term, what's sufficient to you may not be to me, or vice versa... the phone calls, the flight manifests, even the passport found all points to them being correct for me... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Sat 03/09/13 05:35 PM
|
|
Yes, but I am not certain that there is sufficient proof that 19 pissed off muslims even boarded the planes as reported. There is something else going on here, and the CIA is involved. "sufficient proof" is a broad term, what's sufficient to you may not be to me, or vice versa... the phone calls, the flight manifests, even the passport found all points to them being correct for me... The passport was (probably) a plant. (It can't be proven otherwise) The flight manifests were not the originals and the substitute flight manifests (fakes) had mistakes and names were changed, the phone calls (from the planes?) were not proof either. --There was no telling where those came from or if they were even real. Sorry, there was no proof at all. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Q: Who actually found the passport?
A: Unknown Problem with this evidence: The Chain of evidence is not sufficient. "The passport was recovered by NYPD Detective Yuk H. Chin from a male passerby in a business suit, about 30 years old. The passerby left before being identified, while debris was falling from WTC 2. The tower collapsed shortly afterwards. The detective then gave the passport to the FBI on 9/11." An unknown male passerby in a business suit, about 30 years old allegedly found this passport. I'm a skeptic, but I think this man would have been found or come forward by now if they really wanted to find him and it would have been crucial to actually "prove" anything. Its called chain of evidence. This is the perfect story for planted evidence. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Note: I am not ruling out the possibility that 19 hijackers did do the deed, maybe they did. But I still suspect they had help and that the CIA was involved with the entire plot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, but I am not certain that there is sufficient proof that 19 pissed off muslims even boarded the planes as reported. There is something else going on here, and the CIA is involved. "sufficient proof" is a broad term, what's sufficient to you may not be to me, or vice versa... the phone calls, the flight manifests, even the passport found all points to them being correct for me... The passport was (probably) a plant. (It can't be proven otherwise) The flight manifests were not the originals and the substitute flight manifests (fakes) had mistakes and names were changed, the phone calls (from the planes?) were not proof either. --There was no telling where those came from or if they were even real. Sorry, there was no proof at all. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Mon 03/11/13 08:21 PM
|
|
Yes, but I am not certain that there is sufficient proof that 19 pissed off muslims even boarded the planes as reported. There is something else going on here, and the CIA is involved. "sufficient proof" is a broad term, what's sufficient to you may not be to me, or vice versa... the phone calls, the flight manifests, even the passport found all points to them being correct for me... The passport was (probably) a plant. (It can't be proven otherwise) The flight manifests were not the originals and the substitute flight manifests (fakes) had mistakes and names were changed, the phone calls (from the planes?) were not proof either. --There was no telling where those came from or if they were even real. Sorry, there was no proof at all. The difference between your example and mine is that you are talking about proving a negative assertion. The "19 angry hijackers story" has been stated by officialdom to be the fact of what happened on 9-11. That is the claim that has not been sufficiently proven. There is no indisputable chain of evidence or papers that prove any of that. I can't prove 19 Muslim terrorists didn't high-jack those planes, but the 9-11 investigators and government PR puppets can't prove they did!! It is all guess work, speculation and theory. The story could very possibly be 90% propaganda. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, but I am not certain that there is sufficient proof that 19 pissed off muslims even boarded the planes as reported. There is something else going on here, and the CIA is involved. "sufficient proof" is a broad term, what's sufficient to you may not be to me, or vice versa... the phone calls, the flight manifests, even the passport found all points to them being correct for me... The passport was (probably) a plant. (It can't be proven otherwise) The flight manifests were not the originals and the substitute flight manifests (fakes) had mistakes and names were changed, the phone calls (from the planes?) were not proof either. --There was no telling where those came from or if they were even real. Sorry, there was no proof at all. The difference between your example and mine is that you are talking about proving a negative assertion. The "19 angry hijackers story" has been stated by officialdom to be the fact of what happened on 9-11. That is the claim that has not been sufficiently proven. There is no indisputable chain of evidence or papers that prove any of that. I can't prove 19 Muslim terrorists didn't high-jack those planes, but the 9-11 investigators and government PR puppets can't prove they did!! It is all guess work, speculation and theory. The story could very possibly be 90% propaganda. well, i can see how someone unfamiliar with construction and physics could see it as a hoax, but if they decided to study more, they could probably see where their thinking was wrong.... but as for me, the explanation they gave as to why the buildings fell makes almost perfect sense... metal loses tinsel strength when heated, thats a law of physics.. the hotter the fire, the more the steel will lose it's strength... add that to the weight of the buildings, the obvious metal beams bulging before they fell and the pancaking effect all falls into what should have happened... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, but I am not certain that there is sufficient proof that 19 pissed off muslims even boarded the planes as reported. There is something else going on here, and the CIA is involved. "sufficient proof" is a broad term, what's sufficient to you may not be to me, or vice versa... the phone calls, the flight manifests, even the passport found all points to them being correct for me... The passport was (probably) a plant. (It can't be proven otherwise) The flight manifests were not the originals and the substitute flight manifests (fakes) had mistakes and names were changed, the phone calls (from the planes?) were not proof either. --There was no telling where those came from or if they were even real. Sorry, there was no proof at all. The difference between your example and mine is that you are talking about proving a negative assertion. The "19 angry hijackers story" has been stated by officialdom to be the fact of what happened on 9-11. That is the claim that has not been sufficiently proven. There is no indisputable chain of evidence or papers that prove any of that. I can't prove 19 Muslim terrorists didn't high-jack those planes, but the 9-11 investigators and government PR puppets can't prove they did!! It is all guess work, speculation and theory. The story could very possibly be 90% propaganda. well, i can see how someone unfamiliar with construction and physics could see it as a hoax, but if they decided to study more, they could probably see where their thinking was wrong.... but as for me, the explanation they gave as to why the buildings fell makes almost perfect sense... metal loses tinsel strength when heated, thats a law of physics.. the hotter the fire, the more the steel will lose it's strength... add that to the weight of the buildings, the obvious metal beams bulging before they fell and the pancaking effect all falls into what should have happened... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, but I am not certain that there is sufficient proof that 19 pissed off muslims even boarded the planes as reported. There is something else going on here, and the CIA is involved. "sufficient proof" is a broad term, what's sufficient to you may not be to me, or vice versa... the phone calls, the flight manifests, even the passport found all points to them being correct for me... The passport was (probably) a plant. (It can't be proven otherwise) The flight manifests were not the originals and the substitute flight manifests (fakes) had mistakes and names were changed, the phone calls (from the planes?) were not proof either. --There was no telling where those came from or if they were even real. Sorry, there was no proof at all. The difference between your example and mine is that you are talking about proving a negative assertion. The "19 angry hijackers story" has been stated by officialdom to be the fact of what happened on 9-11. That is the claim that has not been sufficiently proven. There is no indisputable chain of evidence or papers that prove any of that. I can't prove 19 Muslim terrorists didn't high-jack those planes, but the 9-11 investigators and government PR puppets can't prove they did!! It is all guess work, speculation and theory. The story could very possibly be 90% propaganda. well, i can see how someone unfamiliar with construction and physics could see it as a hoax, but if they decided to study more, they could probably see where their thinking was wrong.... but as for me, the explanation they gave as to why the buildings fell makes almost perfect sense... metal loses tinsel strength when heated, thats a law of physics.. the hotter the fire, the more the steel will lose it's strength... add that to the weight of the buildings, the obvious metal beams bulging before they fell and the pancaking effect all falls into what should have happened... yes, and that never really seems to be discussed very much either... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, but I am not certain that there is sufficient proof that 19 pissed off muslims even boarded the planes as reported. There is something else going on here, and the CIA is involved. "sufficient proof" is a broad term, what's sufficient to you may not be to me, or vice versa... the phone calls, the flight manifests, even the passport found all points to them being correct for me... The passport was (probably) a plant. (It can't be proven otherwise) The flight manifests were not the originals and the substitute flight manifests (fakes) had mistakes and names were changed, the phone calls (from the planes?) were not proof either. --There was no telling where those came from or if they were even real. Sorry, there was no proof at all. The difference between your example and mine is that you are talking about proving a negative assertion. The "19 angry hijackers story" has been stated by officialdom to be the fact of what happened on 9-11. That is the claim that has not been sufficiently proven. There is no indisputable chain of evidence or papers that prove any of that. I can't prove 19 Muslim terrorists didn't high-jack those planes, but the 9-11 investigators and government PR puppets can't prove they did!! It is all guess work, speculation and theory. The story could very possibly be 90% propaganda. well, i can see how someone unfamiliar with construction and physics could see it as a hoax, but if they decided to study more, they could probably see where their thinking was wrong.... but as for me, the explanation they gave as to why the buildings fell makes almost perfect sense... metal loses tinsel strength when heated, thats a law of physics.. the hotter the fire, the more the steel will lose it's strength... add that to the weight of the buildings, the obvious metal beams bulging before they fell and the pancaking effect all falls into what should have happened... yes, and that never really seems to be discussed very much either... 
|
|
|
|
|
