after reading the entire transcript of the captain i really don’t think that Paracelsus was quote mining. i think the captain was telling us that there were orange and red explosions going around and up the building she didn’t know what they were in her fear and the mass confusion going on around her. one explanation that has been put forth was that they were transformers, this really doesn’t ring true because they are interior and if they were blowing there would be no exterior yellow and orange fires blowing from the middle of the building through the office space and out the side of the building. i don’t know what the explosions were i do however know that the 911 commission did terrible research and my main question would be why? and why did our leaders wait so long after the event to even form an investigation team? that stinks of cover-up from day one imho. i just want the truth wherever it may lead.

Paracelsus:

Okay, nice attempt at quote mining.  You would figure that if she really thought she was seeing and experiencing the controlled demolition of the towers then maybe she would come forward as a witness.  After all, at the end of the interview she says she is retiring from her job as an EMS, so she didn’t have to worry about her job did she?  Well, the fact is, that if you go read the WHOLE interview, you will see the parts that the people show mined this quote don’t want you to read.  It undermines their attempt to bend this ladies words to their purpose.  Really, go read it, i will even give you the link to the entire interview.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/ 20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110192.PDF

Hint: it has a lot to do with the part where she says “I WAS UNAWARE WHAT WAS HAPPENING. I THOUGHT
IT WAS JUST A MAJOR EXPLOSION ” and then it goes on from there.

Do you people EVER check the sources?

really?

Thanks, Cyrena, Louise, Blackolive, and anybody else I may have missed. I felt for so long the lone voice in the wilderness. I am glad to see so many people waking up. It was a lonely going in 2002. I felt like a social leper back then.

#110678 by voice of truth on 10/31 at 8:33 am

“This has to be the funniest thread I have read in quite some time.”

*

Your right, this thread is funny, as is the clip. Not funny haw-haw, but funny peculiar.

Peculiar because it demonstrates no matter how learned or intelligent a person is, their fear of being labeled a “Conspiracy Theorist” overcomes their fear of the horrible consequences of accepting the lie that will justify the outrageous abuses that will surely follow the original outrage.

Another peculiarity. People become alarmed and angry at the suggestion that neo-cons and/or government agents executed, then benefited from 9/11. So angry they would rather defend the lie. [official government explanation] Even if it means indirectly supporting the abusers they continually condemn for their outrageous abuses.

Still another peculiarity. People who have no knowledge of construction, engineering, construction materials and their specific reactions to a given set of circumstances will embrace the fantasy, as outlined in the “official theory” and dismiss the testimony of those scientists and engineers and experts in the industry of both explosives and steel frame construction, who know better. And who have presented factual evidence to back up their position.

Another peculiarity. People who dismiss, or refuse to listen to the eyewitness testimony of so many who heard and saw explosions, from the basement before the plane hit, and on other levels in the building, before and during the so-called collapse. Testimony from fire-fighters and WTC employees. Testimony from people in the street. Testimony from news people. All ignored and dismissed.

Because I respect and admire the volumes of positive work Chomsky has given us, I cant say to him, “sir you are wrong.”

But I can certainly ask him, “sir what is the real reason for you rigid position?”

Explosive Evidence - WTC Was Too Hot
http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2007/10/explosive -evidence-wtc-was-too-hot.html

“Dr. Steven Jones found iron spheres in samples of dust from the World Trade Center which were collected by ground zero resident Janette MacKinlay.
Why is this important? Because iron melts at about the same temperature as steel. But the government has admitted that the fires in the World Trade Centers were not hot enough to melt steel.

Indeed, the temperature needed to melt iron is almost twice the maximum temperature that can be reached by jet fuel, diesel, office supplies and equipment, and the other flammable material which could possibly have burned in the World Trade Centers. So what, other than explosives producing enormous heat, could have produced temperatures hot enough to form the iron spheres?”

*

When Dr. Jones first began an examination of 9/11,  it was never to disprove the official story. It was to create an opportunity for his students to study an actual dynamic. Their study led them to the obvious conclusion. What we were told is not what really happened.

Perhaps if people could overcome their fear and reluctance to believe “an American, and/or a friend of America” could have deliberately had any part in this horror called 9/11, they will ask how.

And when the how is understood, the why will be asked.

And the answer to the why becomes more obvious every day.

Now it’s time to study on the who.

All moot I realize when one is dealing with a mind that has already been closed on the subject. Which is after all why conspiracies, no matter how evil, are successful.

@ #110925 by niloroth

http://www.911eyewitness.com/videos01.html

The short clips are free. Knock yourself out.

http://rinf.com/alt-news/911-truth/demolition-deton ations-confirmed-in-official-statement/1621/

Smoking gun testimony, demolition detonations reported by top brass in official statement

The rank of this witness is:
CAPTAIN KARIN DESHORE OF BATTALION 46

CAPTAIN KARIN DESHORE QUOTE :

“SOMEWHERE AROUND THE MIDDLE OF THE WORLD TRADE CENTER, THERE WAS THIS ORANGE AND RED FLASH COMING OUT.

“INITIALLY IT WAS JUST ONE FLASH. THEN THIS FLASH JUST KEPT POPPING ALL THE WAY AROUND THE BUILDING AND THAT BUILDING HAD STARTED TO EXPLODE. THE POPPING SOUND, AND WITH EACH POPPING SOUND IT WAS INITIALLY AN ORANGE AND THEN RED FLASH CAME OUT OF THE BUILDING AND THEN IT WOULD JUST GO ALL AROUND THE BUILDING ON BOTH SIDES AS FAR AS I COULD SEE.

“THESE POPPING SOUNDS AND THE EXPLOSIONS WERE GETTING BIGGER, GOING BOTH UP AND DOWN AND THEN ALL AROUND THE BUILDING. I WENT INSIDE AND TOLD EVERYBODY THAT THE OTHER BUILDING OR THERE WAS AN EXPLOSION OCCURRING UP THERE AND SAID THINK WE HAVE ANOTHER MAJOR EXPLOSION. I DONT KNOW IF WE ARE ALL GOING TO BE SAFE HERE.”

The second building was being demolished.

Paracelsus:

No, won’t buy it, but if it is available online i will watch it.  I make it a point not to support the people who take advantage of the gullible folks like you.  Ever notice that all these truthers are selling things?  A fool and his money and all that.

I like your idea of providing evidence though.  I give you quotes, links, and pictures, you give me a movie.  Way to be specific there big guy.  You astound me with you ability to dodge yet again.

#110914 by niloroth

The video is called 9-11 eyewitness. You might have to buy it.

Cyrena, Peracelcus:

“I mean, look at these pages and pages of comments from distracters like ITW and Nimrod, and whomever else they can get to engage in pointless details about fine dust versus course dust, and on and on. They just like to engage in whatever will distract from the bottom line, which is that these towers were exploded by demolition, which can only have been planned in advance. Whether the final product is 100% fine dust, or 90% course rubble, the bottom line is that these towers were brought down by explosion, and all of the NIST and other reports in the world, about pancake collapses and anything else, has been nothing more than MORE distraction from the obvious. They were blown up.”

Really, all i am asking for is some evidence that was the case and the NIST report was wrong.  If it is so obvious, it should be easy to find right?  So far all i have gotten is peracelcus continually moving the goalposts as i show him evidence that his statement was incorrect.  I even quoted another truther debunking your arguments?  Do you want me to point you to other sites that show and list debris far larger than dust?  I can, and if you want i will.  But since neither of you live in the world where evidence and facts are used to support your theories, i don’t know what good it would do. 

Please stop making baseless assertions without evidence.  Show me a video where explosives were either seen or heard going off.  Do you have any idea the amount of energy that would have been requiered to do the demolition you think happened?  I could point you toward some references that go into that, but again, that would be facts, and i know you hate those.  But non the less, the energy expended to do that much damage would be neither quiet or invisable, unless you think that the jpeople who blew it up were able to defy the laws of pysics?  Please, either put up or shut up.

cyrena on 10/31 at 11:38 pm
(1419 comments total)

But, they’ll argue about whatever they think they can pull you into, and distract, distract, distract, from the obvious.

*************

Not a shred of evidence, links to nut-house sites, and assertions of things you “know” to be true but can’t even get past the straight-faced test.

And even assertions of things that CLEARLY aren’t true—that the WTC was pulverized to dust—yet I remember multi-story steel frames that had to be cut up with torches, and monster chunks of concrete that had to be jack-hammered or sawn apart.

And Cyrena’s “expert” and mentor on it is a lunatic who claims to have over 500 professions, and claims to be an expert in literally everything from law to engineering to martial arts, psychology, and everything else.

You’re right, Cyrena: you can’t talk to me. You are irrational as is Paracelsus, Robert, and all the other tin-foil hatters.

#110830 by Paracelsus
•  From the pictorial evidence you linked to I am convinced that that building had been blasted hard by professionals.

Paracelsus,

You’re right you know. I only want to say that it’s not worth attempting a valid argument with either of these people. It’s all strawman stuff. I knew that as soon as nimrod got going on the totally pulverized to fine dust BS. The buildings were blown up, and by professionals in demolition. NOT by airplanes or jet fuel.

But, they’ll argue about whatever they think they can pull you into, and distract, distract, distract, from the obvious.

#110693 by Bill Blackolive

•  Now, Chomsky is odd. He writes great books of global social commentary, while he cannot handle the Kennedy coverup and now the 9/11 coverup.  I wish he would find his way to patriotsquestion9/11.com/media, though it is now more difficult to get to that site.

Bill Blackolive,

You’ve articulated this so well. I don’t know what the deal is with Chomsky, except to say what I’ve mentioned before, which is that this simply isn’t his field, and so he dances around it. He may honestly NOT KNOW, and so he finds it easier to just stay safe. I mean, that’s a guess.

But, I should add that many in the same ‘circle’ of academics have passed everything off as ‘conspiracies’, BUT…they did that at the beginning, when some of the loonier theories were hitting the airwaves…things that NOBODY would believe, which didn’t leave much of an alternative. (and that may have been intentional as well). Even I withheld any judgment on what COULD have happened, even though I knew that what they were telling us happened, did not.

Since then of course, there’s been far more pieces to fill in the puzzle, and it could very well be that these people in the Chomsky circle, really haven’t much bothered to keep up with any of it. In fact, it’s been my experience that they have mostly been concentrating (as does Chomsky here) on how the Bushies have used it to turn the US into a fascist oligarchy. So, there’s a possibility that they just haven’t bothered with the details, and a quick read through any number of these blogs, could pretty much tell you why.

I mean, look at these pages and pages of comments from distracters like ITW and Nimrod, and whomever else they can get to engage in pointless details about fine dust versus course dust, and on and on. They just like to engage in whatever will distract from the bottom line, which is that these towers were exploded by demolition, which can only have been planned in advance. Whether the final product is 100% fine dust, or 90% course rubble, the bottom line is that these towers were brought down by explosion, and all of the NIST and other reports in the world, about pancake collapses and anything else, has been nothing more than MORE distraction from the obvious. They were blown up.

BUT, the longer they can keep people away from that basic reality, (which isn’t the least bit complicated) the longer they can postpone the who/how/why part of it.

The thing that I continue to marvel at, is the stupidity of not building the demolition into the Official Lie. If they wanted to blame it on Islamic Extremists, (from ANYWHERE) why not just say that these bad guys had found a way to put the bombs in there BEFORE the airplanes flew into them, and that it was all part of the ‘terrorist’ plan. That they planned to bomb the buildings, and that the airplanes were just for show? Instead, they’ve spent years and jillions of dollars, and time and energy, trying to make people believe that they didn’t see what they saw…buildings collapsing as a result of controlled demolition. If they were gonna blame the terrorists for the airplanes, why not just blame them for setting up the demolitions in advance as well? By lying about the most obvious, (the fact that the buildings were done in by controlled demolition) they just force the public to question even the airplane part of the story. (especially when we know that there was no 757 that hit the Pentagon).

So, that’s the thing that has always made me curious. Why try to lie about the most obvious? (not that the airplane highjackings themselves aren’t hooky as well, but still).

So, maybe one hand didn’t know what the other was doing. Sort of like a half-double cross.

#110802 by Inherit The Wind

From the pictures you showed me I am suitably impressed by the power it took to reduce that building to the mess I saw at ground level. Again you are using an early, early statement of mine to make another straw man argument. It is idiotic to argue over trivia, Most of that building was carried away from the weather. There will be some larger bits of shards at ground zero. From the pictorial evidence you linked to I am convinced that that building had been blasted hard by professionals. Come on now. There were pools of molten metal in the pits of those towers that took weeks to cool down. A pancaked structure does produce molten metal at its base. This argument of yours is absurd. The cleaning crews had to wait for the site to cool down before going in there. I can’t see how you can keep arguing idiocies. It so obvious. Please don’t add mini-nukes or laser beams to this. It would show how craven you are about denying reality.

Better than Bill Clinton’s crotch!

Paracelsus on 10/31 at 3:06 pm
(76 comments total)

If a building can be reduced to “large” chunks of concrete that can be measured at 5 cm and less in dimension then I am fantastically impressed that a pancaking collapse could produce that. Your ability to rationalize is off the charts. And somehow you will find some nitpicking particular in my answer to argue the ridiculous. I have faith in that! You like to argue from conclusion not from fact.

***************

This is idiotic.  There were huge chunks of steel that required cranes and cutting torches to get them on the flat-beds hauling them out of Ground Zero.  There were large chunks of concrete that required the largest front-loaders to get them in the dump trucks needed to remove them.

You saw it. I saw it. EVERYBODY saw it.  This is total bullshit to claim the WTC was pulverized to dust.

Either you are a complete flake, a total moron, or you think everybody else is and you can fool us into believing you, and not what we saw.

@ #110760 by niloroth

“large chunks of concrete (irregular in shape
and size, one was approximately 5 cm X 3 cm X 3cm)”

If a building can be reduced to “large” chunks of concrete that can be measured at 5 cm and less in dimension then I am fantastically impressed that a pancaking collapse could produce that. Your ability to rationalize is off the charts. And somehow you will find some nitpicking particular in my answer to argue the ridiculous. I have faith in that! You like to argue from conclusion not from fact.

Paracelcus:

Are you then challenging Steven Jones’s statements that “As we examined the WTC-debris sample, we found large chunks of concrete (irregular in shape
and size, one was approximately 5 cm X 3 cm X 3cm) as well as medium-sized pieces of wallboard
(with the binding paper still attached). Thus, the pulverization was in fact NOT to fine dust,
and it is a false premise to start with near-complete pulverization to fine powder (as might be
expected from a mini-nuke or a “star-wars” beam destroying the Towers). Indeed, much of the
mass of the MacKinlay sample was clearly in substantial pieces of concrete and wall-board rather
than in fine-dust form. …
It seems that the 9/11 truth community likewise “has been slow to understand” that the WTC dust
particles in greatest abundance are the “supercoarse” variety rather than “fine” particles, and that
significant chunks of concrete were also found in the WTC rubble.”

Because i thought he was a truther.  The best thing about following the truth movement’s lies for a while is that eventually they even start to contradict each other.  A problem that the real versions of events doesn’t foster, because there is only one way the events unfolded.  The real way.  So tell me, which version of the truther story is the real version?  The dust or the no dust version?

You are using slight over exaggeration on my part to ignore most of the building (Dare I say over 90% of it.) being reduced to dust. There is not enough building remnant to support the pancaking theorem. You remind of the pet dealer in tha Monty Python skit trying to sell John Cleese a dead parrot. You are using easily ignorable rubble to discredit the idea that 100’s of floors worth of infrastructure were turned to dust! If I had only thought ahead to include that pitifully small amount of debris in my argument you wouldn’t be using your sophistic rhetoric to discredit me, when everybody knows that dust had hung in the air for days on in NYC. Using your logic if I had dropped one of Noam Chomsky’s repetitious tomes on the floor, and it had turned to dust except for the book cover that the whole argument that something funny happened to the book in mid air would be discredited for my not including the book cover in my analysis. It is logical error of some sort, but I am not a dedicated philosopher so I would know how to classify that error of yours. I could say you are too easily accepting a null hypothesis, and that leaves you prone to be in error to an alternative hypothesis. I could get biblical and say there are none so blind, who have eyes but cannot see, and none so deaf who have ears but cannot hear.

Paracelsus:

no, you are attempting to avoid the fact that none of the evidence from the events support your insane assertion that everything was reduced to dust.  Here is what you said “How does a pancaking motion reduce everything in its path to dust? If the buildings fell in a pancaking collapse we would still see big gobs of metal and concrete.”

I proved that EVERYTHING was not turned to dust.  And i showed you that there was still metal and concrete.  I answered your own question fully.  The ball is still in your court.  Show me the pictures where everything was reduced to dust.

“The assertion that everything was reduced to dust is false.
http://www.powers-point.com/uploaded_images/workers-72 3055.jpg

want more?

http://www.hkc.org/images/pictures/pa_tf1_wtc/World  Trade Center.JPG

Now, you show me your version where the only debris left is dust and powder.” 

You are making a strawman argument out of just the remnants at the bottom? That is absurd. You have only these little straggles of bent steel. And you are using that to say that my argument if not all the building than at least 90% is dust is not true? That’s nuts. What a desperate answer! You show me a few pieces of bent metal to just say see it wasn’t explosives? And you call people like me Moonbats! You have stupid assertion that not everything was reduced dust; there these little bent pieces at the bottom. You’re ability to twist reality and the English language is amazing! Oh, I don’t play tennis. That expression is from tennis! I have played chess, and I had never heard that uttered in victory. You don’t even know your sports.

First, let me say that I am not advancing a theory one way or the other. I am one of the people who have some questions, that’s all. I’ve listened with an open mind to the various explanations, and still do. My main goal is understanding the circumstancess within which a friend’s brother-in-law was killed (he was a pilot of one of the airliners that hit the WTC; a fact that’s not relevant to my questions, but included to illustrate that my interest is personal and not related to a political agenda).
  Anyhow, if two very tall, very heavy buildings were each hit by a large amount of mass traveling at high-velocity, and the impacts occurred up near the tops where that impact would have a greater effect on the overall balance of the building (think about hitting something tall and heavy near its top vs. lower down; it’s much easier to move something like that off-center by pushing from the top due to well-described principles of leverage), why did they both fall so clean and straight down instead of toppling over sideways from the likely-modified center of gravity caused by the impacts? And if not totally sideways, I’d at least expect the sections above the impacts to kick off to one side when they encountered the presumably-intact structrual members beneath them as they fell. I found it doubly strange that they both fell in exactly the same way even though the impacts didn’t occur at the same relative positions on the buildings.
Thoughts?

Sorry for my last post.  This thread is no where near as funny as the one with Bill Clinton telling the moonbats they are nuts!

This has to be the funniest thread I have read in quite some time.

#110616 by Paracelsus on 10/31 at 4:07 am
(71 comments total)

Addendum….

Apparently you have chosen an apt moniker:

“Paracelsus gained a reputation for being arrogant, and soon garnered the anger of other physicians in Europe. He held the chair of medicine at the University of Basel for less than a year; while there his colleagues became angered by allegations that he had publicly burned traditional medical books. He was forced from the city after having legal trouble over a physician’s fee he sued to collect.”  Wikipedia.

#110616 by Paracelsus on 10/31 at 4:07 am
(71 comments total)

#110610 by Verne Arnold
Yeah, right! A fire reduces all that concrete and steel to dust!! Come on! There is only one thing and one thing only that reduces huge beams of steel and concrete to dust, and that is explosives!!

Game, set and match!

Game, set, match????!!!!!  Surely…you aren’t serious.  Yes?  You have never played chess.

Paracelsus:

The assertion that everything was reduced to dust is false.
http://www.powers-point.com/uploaded_images/workers-72 3055.jpg

want more?

http://www.hkc.org/images/pictures/pa_tf1_wtc/World Trade Center.JPG

Now, you show me your version where the only debris left is dust and powder. 

As for the precognition of the destruction of wtc7, it was no secret to anyone in the media that the building was going to come down, since they had been told that it was going to collapse.  The BBC jumped the gun, imagine that, a news network trying to beat the others to a story.

Uh, so not so much for the game, set, match.  Well, at least not if you have any idea what really happened.

#110610 by Verne Arnold

Yeah, right! A fire reduces all that concrete and steel to dust!! Come on! There is only one thing and one thing only that reduces huge beams of steel and concrete to dust, and that is explosives!!

Game, set and match!

In additional how can the BBC predict the Building 7 collapse 23 minutes before it actually happens??? Somebody down the food chain flubbed up his script!!

Again, QED!

#110458 by Douglas Chalmers on 10/30 at 6:58 am
(1004 comments total)

110435 by Verne Arnold on 10/30 at 3:52 am: “...Did anybody here actually listen to Noam Chomsky… everything he said? I don’t think so….”

Maybe you’d like to comment on this from near the end of the clip:-

Yes, I heard it and it did surprise me…but I would like to know why he thinks it doesn’t matter. 
Anyway, this conspiracy crap gets to me, I’ve watched the Twin Towers go down many times and the heat from the burning fuel did it…period …so I’m out of here.

How does a pancaking motion reduce everything in its path to dust? If the buildings fell in a pancaking collapse we would still see big gobs of metal and concrete. I don’t care if Chomsky is good at sophistry. All he has are credentials and bad logic as well as appeals to authority and his experience. But no exposition thereof.
Suppose I build a house out of cards, and I did something to make them collapse. It would be freaking unusual if all there was left of the card house was dust!

Sheila:

I know you won’t answer, but um, did you read this right?

“Secrecy in the Manhattan Project was so complete that many people working for the organization did not know what they were working on until they heard about the bombing of Hiroshima on the radio.”

Note the use of UNTIL?  This does not work as an analogy because the people who worked on the Manhattan project did eventually know about the goal of the project.  Are you saying that 1,000’s of people, now enlightened to their roles in the events on 9/11 have all decided to stay quiet?

911truthdotorg:

No, not really.  He was not forced to retire, he retired before an academic review. That review would have been about the accuracy of his paper “Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?”  It would have included reviews by both the physics department and the College of Physical and Mathematical Sciences.  After initially stating in public that he looked forward to the reviews, he then decided to retire. 

Kinds funny that he retired before people in the same field as him started questioning him about his findings isn’t it?  Especially since his papers and further research has been shown to be very very lacking by others in the physics field that have reviewed them. 

Jones quit because he was going to be publicly shown up, his peers were going to debunk his paper, and he was going to be punished by the university for his actions.  He is the coward, not Chomsky.

Can you refute any of these statements, or are are you just going to post your mockumentaries again?

Michael Chertoff, our head of Homeland Security has a name that literally means “of the devil” in Russian. Seldom has real life been more Dickensian.

He also has a cousin who wrote the infamous “Popular Mechanics” 9/11 cover story that attempted to debunk all the 9/11 revisionist theories that run counter to the official consensus reality mythos.

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=3969

in response to:
#110506 by Frikken Kids on 10/30 at 12:19 pm

The most compelling point you make has to do with the media.  I am not as persuaded about the difficulty of keeping the actual participants quiet, as there is a precedent in the Manhattan Project.  I found this quote at
http://www.atomicarchive.com/History/mp/p4s1.shtml

“Secrecy in the Manhattan Project was so complete that many people working for the organization did not know what they were working on until they heard about the bombing of Hiroshima on the radio.”

In Wikipedia, they say that the project employed 130,000 people.  That’s a lot of people to keep a secret!

However I agree that it is hard to understand why the media, almost uniformly, thinks this story (9/11 truth) is radioactive. 

Go on YouTube and look for the clip of Steven Jones on the Tucker Carlson show, here it is:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ayYXNo0i_Cs

He asks three times for Tucker to show the clip of WTC7 collapsing, but all we ever see is the file photo of the building.  So even when they cover the issue and have someone like Dr. Jones on, they still won’t show certain things! 

Does anyone with longer tenure in the truther community have an explanation for what looks like blatant media cover-up)?  It troubles me quite a bit, I’d like to hear what others think. 

PS I see this forum like a group conversation, or party.  We talk to the people we want to talk to, and there is no obligation to spend time or energy on anyone who we don’t like.  Life is short. If people repeatedly find their comments ignored and are upset by that, perhaps they are at the wrong party.

niloroth -

OK, He was forced to retire…happy now?

Now go back to your land of make-believe
where everything bush and fox news says is true.

Google videos: 9/11 Press for Truth, Loose Change 2nd Edition, 9/11 Mysteries, Terror Storm

911truthdotorg:

I realize you just buzz into these threads, post the same tired suggestions for mockumentaries on you tube, and then buzz out again, but cold you please explain why you just lied about Steven Jones?

He was not fired, he retired.  There is a huge differences, most people can tell that.  You truthers can’t seem to be able to.

I don’t care how “smart” Chomsky is - he’s an idiot.

He is a coward and doesn’t want the same fate as Steven Jones. He got fired from BYU for being courageous!

The official story of 9/11 is a lie.

If you would simply believe your own eyes, you will
SEE the facts and the truth.

Google videos: 9/11 Press for Truth, Loose Change 2nd Edition, 9/11 Mysteries, Terror Storm

In response to Frikken Kids…

First, there are TWO separate groups… the “they knew and let it happen” and the “they helped make it happen”.  BOTH are treason.

Second, how many people would it take to know and let it happen?  A handful at most; those in charge.  I.E.: Bush, Cheney, Card, etc.  That’s it.

Third, I’ve pulled 4 Presidential Secret Service VIP Protection missions, one VIP Protection mission for Pope John II, and numerous VIP Protection missions for presidential candidates.  While I’m not an “expert”, I AM knowledgeable that when there is a credible threat, the Secret Service doesn’t play games or stand there with their thumbs up their @sses.  They act, or, they are ordered not to act.

Fourth, the threat in this instance was something that the Secret Service travel team in Florida had ZERO way to defend against.  None.  The school was an obvious target since the photo-op was publicized and (obviously) stationary.  The motorcade would have been safer as it would have been mobile and no way for the terrorists to track it, or, hit it reliably by flying a plane into it.

Cut out all the other garbage you posted.  Deal with THIS issue and this issue only.

BOTH were potential targets.  BOTH were in potential danger. 

The motorcade is always kept ready to move at a moments notice, so, it wasn’t that they had to wait to get it together.

Why would the Secret Service hustle Cheney to the secure bunker in the White House, but, NOT hustle George Bush out of the school in Florida?

Oh, and that the agents themselves made the call isn’t viable when the agents themselves wanted him out the school immediately:

According to Sarasota County Sheriff Bill Balkwill, who was in the room, a Marine responsible for carrying Bush’s phone immediately said to Balkwill, “We’re out of here. Can you get everyone ready?” [Sarasota Herald-Tribune, 9/10/02] (link no longer active)

So, there WERE people who wanted out of the school, again, they had to be ordered to stand down.  Who made that call and WHY?

In response to Michael Gass.  It’s interesting to go with a lack of action as proof of your point.  While I am no expert on the workings of the secret service, I would have to guess that the agent in charge decided that there was no obvious immediate treat to the president.  Whether or not that was a good decision is certainly debatable. 

I know this has all been said before, but let’s go on with the lack of action theme.  Think of the number of people or groups of people who would have to have been complacent in the least and possibly deliberate conspirators for the 911 attacks to have been the work of a great American government conspiracy that the 911truth movement insists.

You would have the following small to potentially massive groups of people:
-Teams of demolition specialists who secretly wired two of the largest buildings in the world to blow up.
-Air force pilots ordered not to intervene
-air traffic controllers ordered not to do anything
-Firemen (with hundreds of coworkers killed) who were in on the destruction plans
-all the intelligence operatives who may have been in on it or became suspicious afterward and found the “truth”
-all the spouses of involved persons who figured out why their spouse was acting strangely
-military personnel who apparently sent a cruise missile into the pentagon…a building housing many of their highest commanders
-contractors cleaning up the mess ordered to hide evidence that was found of controlled demolition
-thousands of journalists and TV personalities intimidated into not publishing the truth
-thousands of scientists and engineers ordered to keep quiet

This list could go on and on.  Of all these people, nobody has come forward with any evidence more credible than questionable physics applied to grainy video and elaborate conspiratorial fantasies.  None of these people got drunk and blabbed.  No secretaries leaked a memo.  Nobody ordered to take an action they regret has revolted.  No reputable journalist has jumped on what would be the biggest news story in the last fifty years.  No consensus among scientists exists except that fire brought down the towers. 

The president cannot say a word in public without his speech being leaked days before.  Details of classified meetings get leaked constantly.  Still, there is nothing credible.  No action.  No confession.  Only a deafening silence from anyone who would have to have been in on it and could possibly have anything meaningful to say.

Y’all gotta find something better to do with your time.

Why does truthdig keep posting 9/11 conspiracy theory sound bites? Honestly, it’s getting annoying. One covers it pretty good: the truthers are all crazy, whoopdideedoo. Let’s hear it from two more people now.

And all of the ‘truther jumpers’ here that can’t sit on one topic and bicker amongst each other…SIT STILL. For Christ’s sake, -no one- wants to see three pages of your bullshit where you’re hurling childish insults at each other while taking facts from anonymous websites (bonus points if it’s a site with 9/11 in the name!) to prove your point against the people that have the -patience- to talk to you.

Find an article, sit your ass down, and bicker. Seriously. There is NO sense in sitting in an article for three days to bicker, spamming it up, then moving to a new article to continue your argument while you spam it up. Seriously, it’s annoying. The only people that you ‘spread the truth’ to are each other at this point, because if -anyone- read the other articles and saw your bullshit there, then saw your bullshit here, they’d know not to listen to a damn thing you said because you can’t sit still. All have A.D.D, I swear…

Found on http://demonweed.wordpress.com/2007/10/27/what-you-sho uld-think-about-911-conspiracy-theories/

“It seems to me that the “9/11 Truth Movement” is, as with “Creation science” or global warming denial, a sort of Special Olympics for people with much more desire than ability to engage in insightful discussion of profound matters.”

Ah, funny.  Sad, True, and funny.

Cyrena:

Lets go over some of the things you have written, and we can read some of the “opinions” you have expressed.  (and failed to back up with any references or evidence at all.)

#108911:

“They DID notice Akira, you haven’t been paying attention. Somebody can find this for you on line. I don’t have time, especially since I already know the buildings were blown up. But yes, there’s eyewitness testimony to ‘strange goings on’ in the weeks prior to 9/11, and on the ‘appropriate floors’ of the towers, both above and below where they were hit. Still, with 50,000 people working in and/or accessing the Towers everyday, it wouldn’t surprise me if nobody saw or heard anything. Yet…they did!!!. Generally at night.”

“Still, one of its many intended purposes was already established, in advance, by Rumsfeld himself. He said, “We need a New Pearl Harbor.” Ergo, 9/11”

#108904:

‘Yes, MANY of us saw those airplanes hit the WTC. They did. They did NOT – however, cause those towers to fall. NO BUILDINGS have EVER fallen in their own footsteps in LESS THAN 10 SECONDS as a result of an airplane strike. It is an impossibility. It does not happen, and all the tapes and videos in the world, cannot make that so”

“Yes, the airplanes hit the buildings, which were already rigged for demolition. Period, dot, end of story. The buildings were blown up. There were no high-jackers with box cutters. (at least not Arab terrorists). No pilots navigated such an operation. Yes, there were pilots in the planes, but they did not run those airplanes into those buildings.”

“Same with UA flight 93. It did not crash in a field in Shanksville. If it had, we would have seen an emergency response to that, (same as every other airplane that has ever crashed) and we did not. Same thing with the Pentagon. No signs of an airplane. No debris anywhere. No even a broken wing light. No emergency vehicle response. There are maybe two photos available – showing a single fire truck with a single hose, and a hole in the building that no airplane could have ever fit through.”

#109868:

“Oh, by-the-way….I’ve NEVER even looked at the ‘loose change video’ and don’t have a clue to what’s in it. All I needed to do was to read the Official/Authorized 911 Commission report, to know that it was an inside job.”

NOTE: this is the same post where you linked to that completely BS article from an anonymous source, about an anonymous person, who worked at an unnamed media outlet. So I don’t have high hopes for your evidence to start with. 

But what is that you say?  “But if you’re just into attacking anything and anyone, JUST BECAUSE THEY HAVE AN OPINION THAT IS DIFFERENT FROM YOUR OWN, (with questionable motives) then you’re wasting time and taking up space.”

I am not attacking people because they have different opinions than I do.  I am attacking people for lying and posting this as fact that are not.  And have you noticed every time I ask for sources, references, or evidence, the person I am requesting it from either just goes on to another topic, or they just slink off somewhere else?  So I ask you, Show me sources, give me proof.  I can see multiple things in the quotes above that are demonstrably false.  You want to try to defend them, or do you want me to just point them out to you?

And please don’t try the whole “I am not going to do your research for you” bit.  I can, have and will post references for every statement I have made in all these threads.  It is only fair to expect you to do the same.  And remember:

#110149: “(books, magazines and movies don’t cut it, we’re talking fact and reality here, not screen plays or comic book stuff).”

And seriously, NIMROD?  Now who is being childish?

I have brought out the following numerous times on different blogs.  To date, I have yet for anyone to address it; the lack of Secret Service action at the elementary school the morning of 9/11.

First, one of the arguments used is that the airline transponders were turned off so the FAA and military intercept couldn’t locate them. Given that, how then could the Secret Service know where the airplanes were, or, where they were heading?  They couldn’t.

Second, when asked why Bush wasn’t hustled out of the elementary school, one of the reasons given (and there were a few), was that he was never in any danger. How could they know that if they didn’t know where the planes were heading?  They couldn’t.

Third, by the time Andrew Card tells Bush America is under attack, two planes had already impacted their targets. Time is now crucial because the Secret Service would have no clue if the school was targeted and when that attack could hit the school. So, why were protection protocols not put into effect immediately?

Fourth, the Secret Service in the White House hustled Cheney into the secure bunker in the basement either at the same time Bush was told (around 9:05 am) or not much later (accounts vary on the exact time). The point remains, the Secret Service at the White House got Cheney to a secure location and the Secret Service in Florida did nothing. Why?

Fifth, there is evidence that Bush might have known about the hijackings prior to even getting to the school. This is significant because the Secret Service would have been in full “OS” mode upon the second plane hitting the WTC.  A third plane could have conceivably be diving in on them at that very moment. Yet, the Secret Service did nothing. Why?

And lastly, is just how long the Secret Service actually did nothing. Bush was told between 9:05 and 9:07am by Andrew Card that America was under attack. Bush did not leave the classroom of the elementary school until between 9:13 and 9:16am. But, he didn’t leave the school until 9:35am… a full 30 minutes after being told America was under attack and two hijacked planes already impacting their targets.  So, we are not talking merely a minute or two, but, a full half hour the Secret Service in Florida stood by idle while Bush did a photo op. Why did the Secret Service do nothing for a full half hour in the face of a possibly imminent attack?

The answer here is, and can only be, that they were ordered to stand down and abandon their protection protocols. The question now becomes, who ordered that stand-down, and why?

By all protocols, Bush should have been out of the elementary school within minutes of the second tower being struck and the school ordered to evacuate students since it is now a viable target and there is a viable threat… yet, none of that occurred. And if you are buying that they didn’t evacuate Bush AND the school because they didn’t want to “scare the children” when there was a viable, possibly imminent threat of attack on the school, I have a bridge to sell you.

Ashcroft stopped flying commercial in July 2001, months prior to 9/11 so there was a known credible threat already in the air. Rice tried to say that the intelligence they learned that summer was “chatter” yet Ashcroft stopped flying under that credible threat. The CJCSI for protocol of hijacked civilian aircraft was changed in June 2001 so we can begin to see that the threat was known for a full 5 months prior to 9/11. But, ON 9/11, the President of the United States was allowed to stay vulnerable in an elementary school for a full 30 minutes during an attack that the Secret Service, the FAA, and NORAD couldn’t track, nor defend against.

Forget the thermate, the buildings.  That can be debated, obscured, and dismissed.  Explain to me how the Secret Service failed to protect the President of the United States during the worst attack on our soil ... because THIS is the smoking gun that somebody knew more than we have been told.

110435 by Verne Arnold on 10/30 at 3:52 am: “...Did anybody here actually listen to Noam Chomsky… everything he said? I don’t think so….”

Maybe you’d like to comment on this from near the end of the clip:-

Worst of all, though, “even if it were true, who cares? .....doesn’t have any significance…”, uhh!!! Again, “...like who killed John F. Kennnedy? ...who knows and who cares…?”. Obviously, then, the military-industrial complex has gotten to Chomsky in the worst way - he actually seems to believe what he is saying!?!?

( #110407 by Douglas Chalmers on 10/30 at 12:46 am )