Tom, Last time I checked, ignoring things is not an adequate response. You claim that the temperature of the fire is the same temperature that jet fuel burns at in an open air fire. I tell you that the temperature of structure fires is well above the annealing point of steel on average, give you a website that shows proof, and you respond with: NOTHING then claim to have responded. What "war games"? Provide credible proof that this went on and we will talk. I will give credit though. This sounds like the beginning of an alternative theory. The government was conducting war games that day and they are the ones that actually flew the planes into the buildings. Is that right? BTW, why do you post the melting point of steel when you argue your case? You know that it is irrelevant. Is it to scam people that don't know any better? Bad luck for you that you ran into a guy with a degree in metallurgy, huh!
Tom, Your first sentence assumes facts not in evidence. I never claimed that they lied for our own good or had our best interests at heart. Re-election was probably the root cause of any lie. And yes, I have heard of both. The manhattan project was the name of the operation to develop the atomic bomb and the Gulf of Tonkin incident led to the US involvement in the Vietnam War. Be careful, the Gulf of Tonkin is one of my trump cards as well.
Tom, Wait, Do you just say that you suggested a possibility that is an obvious lie. What the hell does that mean. You saying the official story is a fairy tale does not make it true, you have to prove it Tom. The only thing I can even give you credit for is that the collapse of WTC7 is suspicious and needs further explanation. But you just list things that have not been proven as if they are facts. I have not done that once because I am not on a propaganda campaign. BTW, they didn't outsmart the military, they took them by surprise. I wasn't aware that a building can have an automatic defense system for a plane crashing into it. Now back on topic. Where in your response did you address anything related to what you quoted? The quote is about the security at the WTC and the elevator contractors which you are contending were actually a group of military demolitions soldiers planting nano thermite charges on 220+ floors of high rise office buildings in 4 days while escaping detection. Tell me Tom, how did they do that? Tom, the last sentence is a question? The typical thing to do when asked a question is to answer the question. Don't answer a question you want to answer. Answer the question that was asked. How did they do that Tom?
Oh great, I win. You don't apply logic ever! Is the truther goal to use socratic method to get the so called "blind" public to piece together and alternative theory on their own instead of just offering a theory in hopes that it will lend credibility to the theory? You keep complaining that no one wants to listen to the truthers as an excuse for not providing an alternative theory. The approach is clever but I am afraid that I can only provide you with ridiculous theories, not ones based on facts or logic. Sorry buddy. BTW, you didn't think my conversation between George Bush and Osama Bin Laden was funny.
In criminal law, means, motive, and opportunity is a popular cultural summation of the three aspects of a crime needed to convince a jury of guilt in a criminal proceeding. Respectively, they refer to: the ability of the defendant to commit the crime (means), the reason the defendant had to commit the crime (motive), and whether or not the defendant had the opportunity to commit the crime (opportunity). Ironically, motive is not an element of many crimes, but proving motive can often make it easier to convince a jury of the elements that must be proved for a conviction. Means: 19 islamic hijackers with no fear of dying. Dying for allah in jihad is a direct pass to islamic paradise with endless riches and 72 virgins for rape and sex. Smuggle some box cutters and fake explosive on to these 4 planes and passengers think it is a hijacking...not an islamic suicide mission to kill more of the innocent. Also, these hijackers took flying lessons on how to take off and fly...these muslim animals didn't want to learn how to land. Gee...you think?? Motive: The life and misdeeds of the terrorist mohammad and all of the passages in the koran and hadith that direct "true" muslims to kill and fight infidels. Islamic madness has been the motive of all muslim terrorist attacks for hundreds of years. 9/11 is just one (though HUGE) of many successful islamic terrorist attacks Opportunity: Let's see...these muslim animals planned their attack on a Tuesday, the least air traveled day of the week. These islamic terrorists knew plane loads would be light, so they had a better chance of taking over the aricraft. Since airport security is no way near what it is now, these muslims believed they had a very good chance of smuggling box cutters and fake explosives on board. Yes...they had every opportunity. Conclusion: Muslim terrorists carried out 9/11...just like 95% of ALL islamic terrorist attacks in the name of their religion.
Watch how muslims CELEBRATED the 9/11 attacks : Goes to motive how whacked these islamic people and this religion is...
Actually, I can use this. Hey Tom, Midas has so graciously shown how the Islamic terrorists had the means, motive, and opportunity to commit the atrocities on 9/11. Can you do this for the US government? All three Tom! Means, Motive, Opportunity.
Hey guys, I have actually remained out of this discussion and will basically continue to do so. At this point I won't really agree with any of you except on one point and it's the obvious. I'm pretty sure Muslims were involved. Sorry Lehigh but I've seen this stupid point brought up enough and finally decided to comment. Muslims were involved but I don't see that as the real question.
What are you talking about? I am defending the official story which blames the Islamic terrorists for 9/11. Tom is the truther, not me. What is the real question? Have you been drinking?
You didn't answer my question! My question was: When did the technology change and what was the altitude limit on a cellphone in 2001? Let me explain where I am going with this. How the hell would she know what altitude she was at? Was she in the cockpit? Did the terrorist come over the loud speaker and say "thank you ladies and gentlemen for flying terrorist airlines, we are cruising comfortably at 25,000 feet but we should be crashing into the White House in about an hour"?- ------------------- Nor do you answer mine Sir. The fact that Flight 77 couldn't have had anyone produced cell calls is well established. The fact that there were no seat phones is also well established. I do not need to, nor am I going to jump through whatever hoops that you deem are required in order for me to prove my conclusions. I will post what I deem appropriate. The calls for 77 DIDN'T happen and Ted Olsen lied. That's very easy to verify. I believe the reason the Barbara Olsen story was pushed so hard and heavy initially, is that her calls would have been the only way to establish that 77 was indeed the Pentagon plane. It's obvious to me that some person or body of persons, of an "official" capacity, concocted the story.
Nat Geo Tom, Yes, you need to shred it apart. Dismissing this program as unimportant is tantamount to you calling a 60 foot put in golf a "gimmie" and picking your ball up. ----------------- I'm going to come back to that because I am limited in time right now, but, rest assured, I will come back to it.
Quite a few flights I have traveld on over the years have a small screen in the back of the seat in front of you and it not only shows films but has a visual display of distance to destination, air speed, outside temp and Altitude. Do not American internal flights have this?
Tom, The reason you won't provide an alternate theory is because you can't devise one that makes any sense. You haven't even begun to make the official story fall apart dude. Wait, that isn't fair. You did convince one person (look in the mirror). ---------------------- Did you take an opinion poll of the general public to determine who believes what, or are you just getting talking points from the Fox network? I think I've provided a number of points for anybody that's willing to look. I realize that does not include you.
Tom, The original theory is that a fire caused that building to collapse in what you call a controlled demolition fashion. *** In what MANY folks have call a controlled demolition.*** I assume you have experience in explosives and the demolition of buildings BTW. ***No Sir, I do not. I HAVE read and even own much material documented by folks who DO though.*** I agree that we are missing information that would help explain the collapse of that building. ***I'm glad to know that there may still be hope for you*** However, to jump to nano thermite without any opportunity or motive is ridiculous. ***In your limited view perhaps..not mine*** But I do understand your reluctance to provide and alternative theory since you just admitted they are ridiculous. ***Very good Shaun*** ----------------------------------
Originally Posted by tomcorona View Post Now for the most important question which has never been answered by any truther ever. What was the motive of the government to kill thousands of Americans, destroy billions of dollars in US property, and cause a worldwide recession? ------------------------------------------------ ***Is that what caused the worldwide recession?? Good theory you present there*** Maybe if we could establish the real story and the general public's comprehension level were a bit higher, instead of the smokescreen we were told from day 1, we could easier understand the motive. Your citing this question as being the "most important" probably establishes the part about public comprehension though. You didn't answer my question! -------------------------- No I did not your Honor.
Tom, Last time I checked, ignoring things is not an adequate response. ***Seems to work for you*** You claim that the temperature of the fire is the same temperature that jet fuel burns at in an open air fire. I tell you that the temperature of structure fires is well above the annealing point of steel on average, give you a website that shows proof, and you respond with: NOTHING then claim to have responded. ***A website???WOW. Who'd of thunk it??*** What "war games"? Provide credible proof that this went on and we will talk. ***It was given in Congressional testimony by the "then-acting" Head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Air Force General Richard B. Myers*** I will give credit though. This sounds like the beginning of an alternative theory. The government was conducting war games that day and they are the ones that actually flew the planes into the buildings. Is that right? ***"Complicit" is a word that comes to mind at the moment*** BTW, why do you post the melting point of steel when you argue your case? You know that it is irrelevant. Is it to scam people that don't know any better? Bad luck for you that you ran into a guy with a degree in metallurgy, huh! ***Yes I'm out to scam everybody I can Sir...my favorite past time....congratulations on your degree***
Be careful, the Gulf of Tonkin is one of my trump cards as well. -------------------------------------------------- Thank you for the warning.
I have not done that once because I am not on a propaganda campaign. ***You must mean that you don't work for the government ****** BTW, they didn't outsmart the military, they took them by surprise. I wasn't aware that a building can have an automatic defense system for a plane crashing into it. ***My mistake..they "snuck up on us with boxcutters*** Noyw back on topic. Where in your response did you address anything related to what you quoted? The quote is about the security at the WTC and the elevator contractors which you are contending were actually a group of military demolitions soldiers planting nano thermite charges on 220+ floors of high rise office buildings in 4 days while escaping detection. Tell me Tom, how did they do that? **Nano Thermite can be "painted" on,looking like maybe some maintenance was being performed. Black OPS is nothing new*** Tom, the last sentence is a question? The typical thing to do when asked a question is to answer the question. Don't answer a question you want to answer. Answer the question that was asked. ***answer mine and maybe we'll get some:where with this "debate" How did they do that Tom? ****You know...I don't guess that talking to people who won't hear isn't very good idea...
