Warrior General Games

Originally posted by Gnosis
I did'nt just make the leap... I've dedicated myself to researching 9/11 for over 10 years now. My opinions and views have changed many times as new information comes to light. I never just "made a leap". And I also didn't selectively find and use information that only confirm my beliefs. I've studied EVERY aspect of 9/11 and heard ALL the different theories, ideas, opinions, both official and unofficial. You have a seriously warped opinion of how I've come to my conclusions.



I think you need to probably step back a bit and look outside the CT box. You have dedicated 10 years of your life to this and I am sure, as with every CT I have heard on 9/11 over the years, your story about what really happened has changed multiple times over the last years as parts of your original story were shown to not be true. Because you have dedicated so much time to finding the 'truth' of course you are going to be emotional when parts of your story are torn down.

Do I think the US government has told the entire truth about what happened up to the point of the 9/11 attacks? Of course not, you would be hard pressed to find anytime that the US government or any government tells the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Do I think that this points to the fact that Israel and the CIA hatched out a plan to use remote controlled planes and demolition to take down the WTC buildings? No.

Originally posted by Gnosis
The truth has no agenda.


the truth doesn't, you're correct.
the asshats running that site, however, do.

Originally posted by baumusc
Pretty difficult to do without anyone noticing. Once again I will ask you to use some logic in your thinking.

What scenario do you think would be more difficult?

1) The CIA uses remote controlled military planes with no windows and flies them into the WTC. Then when the buildings collapse they filter out the parts from the military aircraft and place the parts from the AA Boeing aircraft in their place.

2) The CIA builds a few remote controlled Boeing aircraft that look exactly like the American and United Airlines aircraft that they will be hijacking. Then they fly those into the WTC buildings and don't have to place any parts on the crime scene.

Of course #2 is the easier scenario so why wouldn't the US government go for the obvious easy one to pull off. See the problem is that in your drive to create a conspiracy theory you, or whoever you are copying the story from, have created one that is a logical fallacy.

Oh here we go again with the "logic" BS. You've proven time and time again that you don't apply logic in real world application, so stop pretending that you are a logical person.

Both #1 and #2 are strawman bullshit, Popular Mechanics style.

#3 Use existing 767 military aircraft sitting at a nearby base (that both planes "flew over" when their transponders were turned off), fit them with System Planning Corp control pods, load them with a few AA/UA panels and parts and fly them to their destinations.

The guys dreaming up Operation Northwoods were the ones that talked about planting airplane parts, repainting aircraft, planting bombs, etc etc. and that was 40 + years ago.

Originally posted by Gnosis


You have a seriously warped opinion of how I've come to my conclusions.





You're a seriously warped individual, so it was only natural.

Originally posted by Larry Roadgrader

No, I'm straight Mossad.



I've traced his IP address and got my best Mossad agents heading over there right now. Shabat shalom.

Originally posted by baumusc
I think you need to probably step back a bit and look outside the CT box. You have dedicated 10 years of your life to this and I am sure, as with every CT I have heard on 9/11 over the years, your story about what really happened has changed multiple times over the last years as parts of your original story were shown to not be true.

false

Completely the other way around.

I used to believe the official story just like everybody else at the time.

What was shown not to be true over 12 years... is the OFFICIAL STORY.

My concept of the who's, how's and why's changed and evolved as more and more information was pieced together.

9/11 is the largest citzen journalism and investigative reporting project in human history and I am proud to be a part of the movement to expose the truth and eventually hold those responsible accountable for their actions.

I shed my ignorance about 9/11.... maybe one day you will too. But I doubt it, your ego is far too fragile to every admit you were wrong... about... EVERYTHING.

Originally posted by baumusc
Because you have dedicated so much time to finding the 'truth' of course you are going to be emotional when parts of your story are torn down.

You are delusional if you think you've torn anything down.

Originally posted by Larry Roadgrader

You're a seriously warped individual, so it was only natural.

Says the guy who laughed and made jokes about the guy who fell to his death infront of his young son at a baseball game.

Go fuck yourself Larry. You contribute nothing to any conversation you "partake" in. You're an idiot and a troll, nothing more.

Mama must be so proud.

Originally posted by Gnosis
Says the guy who laughed and made jokes about the guy who fell to his death infront of his young son at a baseball game.




QUESTION: What did the optimist say as he was falling from the Empire State Building?

ANSWER: "So far, so good!"

Originally posted by seths99
I, personally, do not know enough about engineering, architecture, etc, to 'argue facts', as you put it.
So, as in so many areas, I have to rely on the expertise of, well, experts. So what does that entail? looking at, yes, peer-reviewed literature from respectable journals who have a reputation to maintain. here is where people like you and Gnosis will scream 'that reputation is why they would never publish anything controversial', and to that, i say Bullshit. Any respectable journal would LOVE to be the one that finally had hard evidence of what you describe. the difference, and where they have to maintain their reputation, is in the validity of their peer-review process.
I have yet to see anything published that would truly refute the official story, or back up any sort of thermite usage, etc, which has been published in a journal with a peer-review process that I trust. The only stuff that I have seen are sources like the one that Gnosis posted earlier, which claim to be peer -reviewed, but which have an extremely suspect peer review procedure (can't even find that procedure on their website, who reviews their lit? the staff? do the editors decide? what is that process? etc)

Does this mean that I don't have questions? Does this mean that I buy the whole story as given to us? No, it does not. What it does mean, is that I have never seen any hard evidence, from sources I trust, that the story is false. Quite the contrary, for every alternate story I've heard (thermite, etc), I have seen debunking of that from peer-reviewed sources I trust.

Here is a peer reviewed "truther" paper.

http://journalof911studies.com/letters/c/what-are-the-goals-of-the-911-community-by-steven-jones.pdf

You will call it biased because it says 9/11 studies, but they are truly unbiased. They research everything from every angle.

Here are some quotes from the paper

Originally posted by article


While it is admittedly exciting to come up with
fascinating new theories about 9/11, if
we wish to bring the perpetrators of the horrific 9
/11 crimes to justice, we have to exert
discretion and discipline by ferreting out those id
eas repudiated by the physical evidence.
We should consider these ideas, yes, but we do not
need to endlessly debate all such
issues. We can move on and focus on the solid fore
nsic evidence which lends a hope of
attracting the involvement of a criminal prosecutor
and of holding up in court or before
Congress.
As scientists, we look at the evidence, perform
experiments, and apply the Scientific
Method.

Originally posted by wormser1971


Here is a peer reviewed "truther" paper.

http://journalof911studies.com/letters/c/what-are-the-goals-of-the-911-community-by-steven-jones.pdf

You will call it biased because it says 9/11 studies, but they are truly unbiased. They research everything from every angle.

Here are some quotes from the paper

Originally posted by article



While it is admittedly exciting to come up with
fascinating new theories about 9/11, if
we wish to bring the perpetrators of the horrific 9
/11 crimes to justice, we have to exert
discretion and discipline by ferreting out those id
eas repudiated by the physical evidence.
We should consider these ideas, yes, but we do not
need to endlessly debate all such
issues. We can move on and focus on the solid fore
nsic evidence which lends a hope of
attracting the involvement of a criminal prosecutor
and of holding up in court or before
Congress.
As scientists, we look at the evidence, perform
experiments, and apply the Scientific
Method.


Those are the steps I use in choosing a gel pen from Office Depot. I need to get in on this CT stuff.

Originally posted by seths99
the truth doesn't, you're correct.
the asshats running that site, however, do.

Their agenda? Finding the truth.

<GASP> THE HORROR!

Originally posted by Gnosis
Oh here we go again with the "logic" BS. You've proven time and time again that you don't apply logic in real world application, so stop pretending that you are a logical person.

Both #1 and #2 are strawman bullshit, Popular Mechanics style.

#3 Use existing 767 military aircraft sitting at a nearby base (that both planes flew over when their transponders were turned off), fit them with System Planning Corp control pods, load them with a few AA/UA panels and parts and fly them to their destinations.

The guys dreaming up Operation Northwoods were the ones that talked about planting airplane parts, repainting aircraft, planting bombs, etc etc. and that was 40 + years ago.

They filled military aircraft up with 767 panels and parts that matched the ones belonging to the missing AA and UA flights? I mean every single part on a Boeing plane part is traceable to where it was manufactured and what plane it was a part of. What happened to the passengers on the real planes? What about the multiple phone calls made to loved ones when they were being hijacked? Were those faked. If they flew by an Airforce base then that would mean the Airforce would have to be involved which creates another massive amount of people that you need to keep quiet.

Don't you think it would be easier for them to just make exact replicas of the planes and remotely fly those into the buildings? I mean for such a mastermind plan as the one you are suggesting it sounds like they were flying by the seat of their pants and making quick decisions.

Originally posted by Gnosis
You are delusional if you think you've torn anything down.




Delusional in your mind because your mind is closed to logical argument.

Originally posted by baumusc
They filled military aircraft up with 767 panels and parts that matched the ones belonging to the missing AA and UA flights? I mean every single part on a Boeing plane part is traceable to where it was manufactured and what plane it was a part of. What happened to the passengers on the real planes? What about the multiple phone calls made to loved ones when they were being hijacked? Were those faked. If they flew by an Airforce base then that would mean the Airforce would have to be involved which creates another massive amount of people that you need to keep quiet.

Don't you think it would be easier for them to just make exact replicas of the planes and remotely fly those into the buildings? I mean for such a mastermind plan as the one you are suggesting it sounds like they were flying by the seat of their pants and making quick decisions.

Oh the endless circle jerk with you.