Bin Laden: Shoot To Kill

[jasman]

You should look a bit deeper into the kind of people who are running these sites you get your "Facts" from. Most of them are millionaires now thanks to you lot feeding them. Alex Jones for example, what a guy!!

The owners of the mainstream media are equally questionable and are also profiting from disseminating "information". That's why you have to think for yourself, check things for yourself and determine what is fact and what is isn't. There is a lot of misinformation in both the independent media and the mainstream media, yet the latter also suffers from rife censorship. A good researcher will use mainstream and independent sources but treat all claims as unproven until they can be corroborated against the existing evidence.

 

[mat]

By the way, for those who dont know David Icke, one of his main views is that there is a reptilian bloodline that rules the world. Included in the reptilian bloodline is the Royal Family and George Bush ofcourse.

He also promotes the Blue beam project with Alex Jones which states that NASA is attempting to implement a New Age religion with the Antichrist as its leader.

These guys run and work with Infowars.com

Is that enough reason for why I dont want to read any information about 9/11 from the same site?

 

[BREWSTERS]

You should look a bit deeper into the kind of people who are running these sites you get your "Facts" from. Most of them are millionaires now thanks to you lot feeding them. Alex Jones for example, what a guy!!

There are many serious sites with information from people who have greater or equal right to be regarded as experts in their fields as those compiling the official reports.

But this is just fluff and nonsense - why not instead of attacking some of the websites, use your time and typing energy trying to challenge the issues regarding the lies around the steel and temperatures etc. Surely that is central to the debate, not some nut job who wants to align himself with a website.

 

[GreyWing]

You are agreeing here that they (the authorities) were complicit in a conspiracy. The way it reads, you suggest that whoever they were complicit with, blew the towers - just not the authorities. If you'd written 'it doesn't mean that someone blew down the towers...' etc it would have been more specific.
But this is splitting hairs - how about telling us what it is that convinces you that the US wasn't behind the attacks? That would be something meaningful.

No it isn't splitting hairs, your reading something into my statement that I can't see any probably nobody else can see. It shows to everyone how your thought train is speeding through major cities and not stopping to pick up passengers.

 

[BREWSTERS]

No it isn't splitting hairs, your reading something into my statement that I can't see any probably nobody else can see. It shows to everyone how your thought train is speeding through major cities and not stopping to pick up passengers.

Your opinion of me or the workings of my mind are irrelevent to the issue. In fact, my opinion is irrelevent and do not alter the facts one bit.

Both your-good-self and Mat seem intent on taking attention away from the debate - ignoring the important facts and attempting a character assasination of those who have put their weight behind the 'non-believing' argument.

 

[anthony]

...why not instead of attacking some of the websites, use your time and typing energy trying to challenge the issues regarding the lies around the steel and temperatures etc. Surely that is central to the debate, not some nut job who wants to align himself with a website.

The exact same can be directed to you, why not divert you time into finding all the perpetrators and showing a single scrap of evidence of them doing it, there's a 10 year old malt in it for you or anyone in the world who can do that!

 

[BREWSTERS]

The exact same can be directed to you, why not divert you time into finding all the perpetrators and showing a single scrap of evidence of them doing it, there's a 10 year old malt in it for you or anyone in the world who can do that!

That would be a highly dangerous past time...to be honest, I don't think I'd want to get too close to knowing the identity of those behind it. By the time you knew their name, they'd definitely know yours.

And Anthony, you're not scoring any points by harping on about 'finding the perps' - I've admited I don't know who they are - and I don't want to.

My not knowing does not alter anything; it doesn't disprove any of the facts; it doesn't change anything.

 

[anthony]

...And Anthony, you're not scoring any points by harping on about 'finding the perps' - I've admited I don't know who they are - and I don't want to.

My not knowing does not alter anything; it doesn't disprove any of the facts; it doesn't change anything.

But that is the camp I am in, It's the only type of evidence that would convince me and most other people.

BTW, that 'Pelican Brief' approach isn't going to happen, there's no chance these ghosts will hunt you down for 'hitting the nail on the head', they're just a figment of your imagination. Anyway, there's little credibility in thousands of conspiracy theorists being brave enough to post their thoughts on the net, but then having no balls to go all the way.

 

[mat]

Alien Greys did it.

 

[BREWSTERS]

But that is the camp I am in, It's the only type of evidence that would convince me and most other people.

How blinkered is that? You'll only accept one form of evidence...good job judges and juries throughout the world don't operate to your standards.

Do you not see how ridiculous your position sounds? You're basically saying, "until you can name the criminal, I won't admit there's been a crime"...forget judge and jury - it's a damn good job the police don't work your way either!

BTW, that 'Pelican Brief' approach isn't going to happen, there's no chance these ghosts will hunt you down for 'hitting the nail on the head', they're just a figment of your imagination. Anyway, there's little credibility in thousands of conspiracy theorists being brave enough to post their thoughts on the net, but then having no balls to go all the way.

There is already a list of people who have 'died' because they were too close. Did you ignore those posts or is it the old 'selective memory' kicking in?

 

[Systreg]

There is already a list of people who have 'died' because they were too close.

I had a look at that video link showing the people who it claimed had died because they knew too much or were to close to knowing something blah blah blah.

There was nothing remarkable in how they died, the only thing they had in common was they had had some connection to the events of the WTC terrorist attack, if it wasn't for that, all the theorist nuts wouldn't have batted an eyelid about any of the deaths.

Turn it around, how many people have died in the same/similar circumstances in the US, both at the time of WTC and since then, who weren't in any way connected with what happened at WTC, many will have, but they don't get mentioned because they have no connection to what happened at the WTC, it's not out of the ordinary for people to die in whatever way, unless you're a conspiracy theorist.

Conspiracy theorists just assume all the time, grasping at any straw possible for a connection, now matter how distant that connection is, theorists think it means something, but it means nothing, planes crashed in to buildings, buildings fell down, people died, end of story, get over it.

 

[BREWSTERS]

I had a look at that video link showing the people who it claimed had died because they knew too much or were to close to knowing something blah blah blah.

There was nothing remarkable in how they died, the only thing they had in common was they had had some connection to the events of the WTC terrorist attack, if it wasn't for that, all the theorist nuts wouldn't have batted an eyelid about any of the deaths.

Turn it around, how many people have died in the same/similar circumstances in the US, both at the time of WTC and since then, who weren't in any way connected with what happened at WTC, many will have, but they don't get mentioned because they have no connection to what happened at the WTC, it's not out of the ordinary for people to die in whatever way, unless you're a conspiracy theorist.

I haven't actually watched that myself for a while, but the one that stands out in my memory, was the woman who was due to give evidence in court which named someone and their connection to what happened on 911. A radio DJ had joked with her about comiting suicide before she made it to court, which she laughed off. She was found hanged at her home, I think it was the next day.
To try and pass off all the cases in that video as being coincidental, really is stretching things. And to say that we wouldn't mention them unless they had a connection to 911...no shit Sherlock! How did you figure that out Inspector??

Conspiracy theorists just assume all the time, grasping at any straw possible for a connection, now matter how distant that connection is, theorists think it means something, but it means nothing, planes crashed in to buildings, buildings fell down, people died, end of story, get over it.

There is no assumtion when it comes to either using the correct figures, or blatently wrong figures in their calculations. Whereas your belief are based on nothing but assumption - or can you prove me wrong by posting that elusive fact...have a go...be the one that proves me wrong.

Why haven't any of you 'believers' even had the balls to challenge any of the evidence put before you? The facts and figures. Not once. Instead it's like 'The Emporers New Clothes'...you all think you're safe not having to use your brains because you reckon your beliefs put you in the majority. And you probably are, because the great majority of people end up as non-thinkers...cannon fodder...worker ants.

You can all shout 'conspiracy nut' until you're blue in the face - but it changes nothing...it proves even less. Unless you offer up a fact that backs up your view...you might as well be responding in Clingon. It's just noise to try and block out what you don't want to hear.

 

[diy-day]

The video's not playing for me. I'm getting the following message: "The service is not currently available in your area."

 

[cm1975]

Why did the woman commit suicide? Imagine how stressed she would have been. Imagine the doubts that must have been circulating in her mind. Should she, or shouldn't she give evidence? It must have been a hell of a lot of pressure, especially if she was not 100% sure of what she was going to say. If this is not the case, then why would the DJ even joke about it?

If you look at enough videos on the internet, you can prove all kinds of theories regarding what happened, even to the point that there were no planes at all. With so many images of the event, you can pick an amateur video from a certain angle and it certainly looks to be the case. This is fodder for many a conspiracy theorist.

However, there is one thing in common with all the videos, the towers collapse from the point of impact down. Not from the bottom or anywhere else.

WTC 7 collapses from the bottom up, as any forces from collapsing buildings around would be exerted at the bottom of the building.

The coincidences regarding people connected to the twin towers. There were something like 3000 people killed in this, who would each have had friends and families. So lets say there are about 20,000 people closely connected to those who persished. If the average life expectancy is say 70, then over a 10 year period, 1 in 7 of those people will die. That's around 3000 people connected with 911 victims have died and some will not have been in the nicest circumstance, so a video showing 5-10 of those people is not exactly evidence of a conspiracy.

Don't get me wrong, I've doubted what has happened, but I've gone off and proved things to myself. I'm not here to try to convince anyone, but merely saying that with enough digging, you can come up with enough evidence of a conspiracy.

I think there many people who cannot believe that a small group managed to plot to bring down the towers. I don't believe they did. I think the plan was to slam planes into the buildings and for the buildings to stand there burning, as a large symbol to their campaign.

 

[anthony]

...However, there is one thing in common with all the videos, the towers collapse from the point of impact down. Not from the bottom or anywhere else.

Exactly. The likelyhood of planted explosives being on the same levels as the two different points of impact are so miniscule it beggers believe that any rational thinker would stick to that theory.

 

[BREWSTERS]

Why did the woman commit suicide? Imagine how stressed she would have been. Imagine the doubts that must have been circulating in her mind. Should she, or shouldn't she give evidence? It must have been a hell of a lot of pressure, especially if she was not 100% sure of what she was going to say. If this is not the case, then why would the DJ even joke about it?

The DJ was insinuating that she could be killed because of what she was going to say - a la Dr David Kelly - rather that she might actually commit suicide.

If you look at enough videos on the internet, you can prove all kinds of theories regarding what happened, even to the point that there were no planes at all. With so many images of the event, you can pick an amateur video from a certain angle and it certainly looks to be the case. This is fodder for many a conspiracy theorist.

The way-out theories originate from people who either wanted there to be an official conspiracy, or from the official conspirators as a diversion tactic; the more daft they can make one theory sound the better to help brush away the genuine story. http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/psyops.html

However, there is one thing in common with all the videos, the towers collapse from the point of impact down. Not from the bottom or anywhere else.

WTC 7 collapses from the bottom up, as any forces from collapsing buildings around would be exerted at the bottom of the building.

You can plant explosives to go off in any order you wish.

The coincidences regarding people connected to the twin towers. There were something like 3000 people killed in this, who would each have had friends and families. So lets say there are about 20,000 people closely connected to those who persished. If the average life expectancy is say 70, then over a 10 year period, 1 in 7 of those people will die. That's around 3000 people connected with 911 victims have died and some will not have been in the nicest circumstance, so a video showing 5-10 of those people is not exactly evidence of a conspiracy.

There only needs to have been one murdered to keep them quiet for it to be evidence of an official cover up - doesn't need to have been all of them. When I can watch the video again I'll post more on this.

Don't get me wrong, I've doubted what has happened, but I've gone off and proved things to myself. I'm not here to try to convince anyone, but merely saying that with enough digging, you can come up with enough evidence of a conspiracy.

I think there many people who cannot believe that a small group managed to plot to bring down the towers. I don't believe they did. I think the plan was to slam planes into the buildings and for the buildings to stand there burning, as a large symbol to their campaign.

 

[BREWSTERS]

Exactly. The likelyhood of planted explosives being on the same levels as the two different points of impact are so miniscule it beggers believe that any rational thinker would stick to that theory.

For a start, there were explosives at many places in the buildings - there are videos clearly showing expolsions proceeding the collapse (of the towers) downward. Explosives are the only possible reason for the pulverisation of concrete where the towers started and continued to fall.

Secondly, was it an accident exactly where the planes struck the towers? Were there homing devices bringing the planes in?
This site is not evidence as such but offers a credible reason for why the planes hit and the collapse started where it did. http://www.rense.com/general80/comprooms.htm
Elsewhere there are videos where office workers speak of strange activity on those floors over the weeks prior to 911.
The Pentagon strike could also have been brought in by a homing device as the plane made an almost impossible manouvre in order to strike exactly where it did - the least populated section of the building that had itself recently been 'upgraded'.

Could these pilots - one of whom was rejected by a flying school as he showed such a lack of ability - have executed the manouvres necessary? One hit the target building full on at 440mph - another at 550mph reputedly. And yet another completed a manouvre that many pilots of commercial jets say they woudn't even attempt. Every commercial airport in the world use homing devices on their runways to guide planes in to land.

I realise that this is only conjecture - which puts it in the same class as everything you guys regard as evidence to support the official story, but isn't actually evidence. However, it does explain what you seem to regard as the unexplainable in perfectly simple terms.

 

[Retired_member41]

Surely the reason you see manoeuvres that no pilot says they would make, would be it's because they always have to land safe. And are not trying to kill themselves like these terrorists were.

Your comparing pilots with these people???

The documentaries i have watched have clearly shown that the fires melting the metal led to just one corner giving way and then the whole tower collapsed as you would expect with all the weight above it.

Nothing untoward at all.

Yes war makes money and people pile in given half a chance. And the government was warned of a possible imminent attack on the towers by planes, which could explain your funny activity theory. But I find it really sad that you dedicate so much time to things even a child can quantify.

The Chinese intelligence services who have eyes everywhere would have revealed any dodgy dealings by now.

 

[BREWSTERS]

Surely the reason you see manoeuvres that no pilot says they would make, would be it's because they always have to land safe. And are not trying to kill themselves like these terrorists were.

Your comparing pilots with these people???

No, the pilots say that the manouvre, particularly at the Pentagon, is near impossible to complete if they were trying to do it. What they say is that even if they were terrorists wanting to fly that plane into that building, they wouldn't attempt such a difficult manouvre.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/pentagon.html

The documentaries i have watched have clearly shown that the fires melting the metal led to just one corner giving way and then the whole tower collapsed as you would expect with all the weight above it.

Nothing untoward at all.

Nothing untoward? The fires weren't hot enough to melt the steel. That's why your fireplace and your oven don't melt. There is however molten steel seen spewing out from where the planes struck. So, other than a blast furnace, what can be used to melt such thick steel in such a short space of time? Explosives such as thermite.

And why would the whole tower "collapse with all the weight above it"? There was no more weight above it than at any other time.

Yes war makes money and people pile in given half a chance. And the government was warned of a possible imminent attack on the towers by planes, which could explain your funny activity theory. But I find it really sad that you dedicate so much time to things even a child can quantify.

You haven't quantified anything Caz - you totaly misunderstood the pilots; and you mentioned the falling molten steel without realising that that in itself raises a question and doesn't answer one.

The Chinese intelligence services who have eyes everywhere would have revealed any dodgy dealings by now.

What precedent do you have for stating this? Pure assumption based on...nothing.

America and China are each others largest trading partners.

Countries don't go grassing on other countries - they all have large cans of worms they don't want opening.

 

[mat]

A year ago you and Jasman were stating how the Pentagon was struck by a missile, not a plane. Now you are arguing that a plane was brought in using a homing device. Make your mind up.