Mainstream news questions Osama Bin Laden's death

by eddie Thu Jun 18, 2015 10:43 am

First topic message reminder :

http://yournewswire.com/mainstream-media-question-osama-bin-ladens-death-bbc-documentary/

The documentary, The Bin Laden Conspiracy, examines the popular conspiracy theory that Osama had died years before the U.S. allegedly ‘caught’ him and ‘killed’ him.

As reported extensively by alternative News websites such as ours, Osama is believed to have died in 2007, as admitted by Benazir Bhutto, former Prime Minister for Pakistan, in a television interview with the BBC.

In May 2011, when a team of US Navy SEALs stormed a compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan and killed the world’s most wanted terror target, it became a definitive moment in Barack Obama’s presidency. Over the past four years, though, doubts about the official account of Osama bin Laden’s death have been raised – to the point where veteran investigative journalist Seymour Hersh has alleged that the whole story was fabricated.

The Pulitzer Prize-winner last month published a 10,000-word report, attempting to discredit the White House’s version. Far from the US acting alone and the raid being an act of American derring-do, Hersh suggests that Pakistan knew about it at the highest level, had been holding Bin Laden prisoner and struck a deal.

Now reporter Jane Corbin – who was on the ground in Abbottabad that night – examines the evidence. Corbin heads to Washington to meet Mike Morrell, CIA deputy director at the time, and uses a stash of newly released documents to reconstruct Bin Laden’s extraordinary life in the custom-built compound, where he lived for six years with his three wives and nine of his children. How did he remain under the radar and maintain security? Did he wear a cowboy hat to shield his face from satellite surveillance? Was an extensive collection of pornography seized, as the Americans have hinted? And was he still running al-Qaeda from his secret bunker?

The Bin Laden Conspiracy? is tonight on BBC Two at 10.00pm

( not sure if this was last nights TV? But you can watch it on catch up)

by Guest Mon Jun 22, 2015 3:17 pm

Structure Magazine explains one probable cause of the WTC 7 collapse. "Single Point of Failure: How the Loss of One Column May Have Led to the Collapse of WTC 7"

http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/2007-11/SF-WTC7-Gilsanz-Nov07.pdf

Conspiracy theorists say World Trade Center 7 is the best proof for controlled demolition because it wasn't hit by airliners and only had a few fires. They also claim that there was a confession from the building owner who said he "pulled" it. But this is deceptive because while building 7 wasn't hit by an airliner, it was hit by the large perimeter columns of the Tower collapse. It was 400 ft away but the towers were more than 1300 ft tall. As the tower peeled open, it easily tilted over to reach building 7. Below is evidence showing that conspiracy theorists are wrong.

As you can see from the graphic below, all the buildings just as far away from both towers as WTC7 were hit. The others were either very short buildings which didn't have to support a massive load above or had no fire. Only Building 7 had unfought fires and the massive load of 40 stories above them.

http://debunking911.com/pull.htm

by Guest Mon Jun 22, 2015 3:20 pm

Update:

Much has been made of Jones' new paper. Some have suggested that I correct the statement that not one paper has been published by conspiracy theoriests to date proving the collapse was a controlled demolition. To be clear, let me restate the test which makes a real scientific paper. It has to be published in a respected scientific journal. As an example, The Journal of Engineering Mechanics is a well respected scientific journal. The peer review proccess is tough and precise. The reviewers are well respected in their fields of expertise. The Journal of the American Chemical Society is another which Jones can submit his papers. There are many well respected journals which have an impact in the scientific community. Bentham, where Jones has submited his latest paper, is the Wiki of Journals. They have been critizied in the past for passing "gibberish".

http://www.libraryjournal.com/index.asp?layout=talkBackCommentsFull&articleid=CA6664637&talk_back_header_id=6605401

One editor resigned after learning Jones paper passed their review. It seems the reviewers are told of the paper AFTER they are passed! Amazing!

Though Jones may have found the perfect home for his latest attempt at peer-review, it is far from a respected scientific journal. Will Jones ever publish in a "respected scientific journal"? Do they want legitimacy or a talking points?

Update on "Iron Spheres" on the bottom of the page.

Steven E. Jones is a professor at Brigham Young University. He has created the paper which has created the ground swell around the 911 conspiracy theories. His paper was peer reviewed but not by a civil engineering journal. One would think a serious professor would get his paper peer reviewed by a scientific journal which specializes in the field they are writing the paper on.

But is Professor Jones qualified to create a paper which says the towers must have fallen due to explosives? He is a physics professor but what experience does Jones have in building collapse forensics? He has none. His other peer reviewed papers consist of cold fusion technology. He conducts research in nuclear fusion and solar energy. Nothing in his background would suggest he is qualified to write a civil engineering paper on the infinitely complex building collapse of the towers.

Brigham Young University doesn't want anything to do with the paper.

A few department chairmen at Jones' university have issued critical statements, though none of these has yet addressed any of the points which Jones made in his paper and at his presentation at BYU. Chairman of the BYU department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Dr. Miller, is on record stating in an e-mail, "I think without exception, the structural engineering professors in our department are not in agreement with the claims made by Jones in his paper, and they don't think there is accuracy and validity to these claims".

The BYU physics department has also issued a statement: "The university is aware that Professor Steven Jones' hypotheses and interpretations of evidence regarding the collapse of World Trade Center buildings are being questioned by a number of scholars and practitioners, including many of BYU's own faculty members. Professor Jones' department and college administrators are not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review." The College of Engineering and Technology department has also added, "The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_E._Jones

Jones says his paper will pass peer review again. But will it pass peer review in a respected civil engineering journal? Nothing less would be taken seriously.

One of Jones BYU colleagues had this to say after reading his paper...

http://www.debunking911.com/jones.htm

by Tommy Monk Mon Jun 22, 2015 3:31 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:Wasn't one or two of the alleged hijackers found to have not been involved or died as they popped up alive and well elsewhere?

Still waiting for an answer to previous post dodge...

by Guest Mon Jun 22, 2015 3:37 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:Wasn't one or two of the alleged hijackers found to have not been involved or died as they popped up alive and well elsewhere?

Still waiting for an answer to previous post dodge...

yeah I am still waiting for you to answer all mine.

Off you trot and let me know when you have

lol!

by Fuzzy Zack Mon Jun 22, 2015 3:45 pm

Cuchulain wrote:
Fuzzy Zack wrote:Finding the truth is not an insult to the victims. Anyone telling you otherwise is an irrational idiot and can be ignored.

Architects, engineers and scientists claim that the official version has many holes and covered in lies.

http://www.ae911truth.org

http://www.scientistsfor911truth.org

Scientific theory on Wtc7 collapse:

http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2011/02/14/a-scientific-theory-of-the-wtc-7-collapse/

OMG nearly fell over laughing.
Again nothing is actually refuting this was a terrorist attack and some of the biggest deniers of 9/11 are Muslims themselves funnilly enough.
Yes it is insulting the victims to again go off stupidty as you are doing.

You're an idiot with your head buried up your anus.

You have zero scientific qualifications.

And you clearly haven't read the article on Wtc7. That's how ignorant you are.

by Guest Mon Jun 22, 2015 3:49 pm

Fuzzy Zack wrote:
Cuchulain wrote:

OMG nearly fell over laughing.
Again nothing is actually refuting this was a terrorist attack and some of the biggest deniers of 9/11 are Muslims themselves funnilly enough.
Yes it is insulting the victims to again go off stupidty as you are doing.

You're an idiot with your head buried up your anus.

You have zero scientific qualifications.

And you clearly haven't read the article on Wtc7. That's how ignorant you are.

Your scientists have been roundly spanked and its not even been peer reviewed you terrorist apologist.

That is how you are ignorant because as seen I have posted a link for you about your so called experts who have been soundly debunked by experts.

It proves why you are a gullible idiot.

by Tommy Monk Mon Jun 22, 2015 3:53 pm

Have a look at a few pictures of actual real passenger planes... then tell us how the edge of a wing can be low enough to clip lamp posts without the bottom of the engines chewing large grooves out of the grass too!!!???

How can a plane come in at such a low to the ground angle without carving huge grooves out of the grass with the engines dodge!!!???

by Guest Mon Jun 22, 2015 3:56 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:

Have a look at a few pictures of actual real passenger planes... then tell us how the edge of a wing can be low enough to clip lamp posts without the bottom of the engines chewing large grooves out of the grass too!!!???

How can a plane come in at such a low to the ground angle without carving huge grooves out of the grass with the engines dodge!!!???

So you are avoiding the facts again which I posted for you.
What evidence do you have that the plane that low would make groves in the grass?
You have just invented bullshit

Now go back and ecplain all the points in both videos

by Tommy Monk Mon Jun 22, 2015 4:01 pm

The evidence is available if you look at real pictures of real passenger planes and see how low the engines hang below the wings dodge... they are lower than the rest of the body of the plane.

How tall were the lamp posts?

by Guest Mon Jun 22, 2015 4:02 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:The evidence is available if you look at real pictures of real passenger planes and see how low the engines hang below the wings dodge... they are lower than the rest of the body of the plane.

How tall were the lamp posts?

You are talking utter bullshit

This proves you are talking shite, where is the groves in the grass?

by Guest Mon Jun 22, 2015 4:03 pm

Now, I have easily shown your idiotic view is nonsense now go back and explain the evidence in the 2 video's presented to you.

by Tommy Monk Mon Jun 22, 2015 4:22 pm

Where are the grooves in the grass is The question I'm asking...

by Guest Mon Jun 22, 2015 4:24 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:Where are the grooves in the grass is The question I'm asking...

You need to scientifically prove there would be any.
Which you have failed to do.

Now stop stalling and respond to all the evidencer you are ignoring presented in the videos on the plane attack on the Pentagon

by Tommy Monk Mon Jun 22, 2015 4:34 pm

How high are the lamp posts?

How high was the plane wing that supposedly hit them?

How can the engines then NOT be scraping the ground...!!!???

Answer the questions and you have your evidence!!!!

by Guest Mon Jun 22, 2015 4:39 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:How high are the lamp posts?

How high was the plane wing that supposedly hit them?

How can the engines then NOT be scraping the ground...!!!???

Answer the questions and you have your evidence!!!!

I suggest you watch the video again.
Why would they be scrapping the ground?
You are providing no scientific evidence for your claims which is clear are bullshit.

So as seen you cannot counter the countless evidence posted in the videos.
So that means you have no case.
How easy for me again

by Tommy Monk Mon Jun 22, 2015 4:50 pm

Look at some pictures of passenger planes from the side... the engines hang from under the wings and are lower than the rest of the plane body...

If the plane came in low enough for wings to clip relatively short lamp posts then the engines would be hanginp much lower than ground level... therefore carving large grooves out of the grass!!!

by Fuzzy Zack Mon Jun 22, 2015 5:31 pm

Cuchulain wrote:
Fuzzy Zack wrote:

You're an idiot with your head buried up your anus.

You have zero scientific qualifications.

And you clearly haven't read the article on Wtc7. That's how ignorant you are.

Your scientists have been roundly spanked and its not even been peer reviewed you terrorist apologist.

That is how you are ignorant because as seen I have posted a link for you about your so called experts who have been soundly debunked by experts.

It proves why you are a gullible idiot.

What scientific, engineering or architectural background do you have?

I rest my case.

Stick to history buddy. You're a bit stupid when it comes to science.

by Guest Mon Jun 22, 2015 5:47 pm

Fuzzy Zack wrote:
Cuchulain wrote:

Your scientists have been roundly spanked and its not even been peer reviewed you terrorist apologist.

That is how you are ignorant because as seen I have posted a link for you about your so called experts who have been soundly debunked by experts.

It proves why you are a gullible idiot.

What scientific, engineering or architectural background do you have?

I rest my case.

Stick to history buddy. You're a bit stupid when it comes to science.

What an idiotic reply.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

I certainly have an understanding of them.
That is all I need and to understand the evidence you presented was soundly mocked and debunked by experts.
So stick to be gullible, its what you do best.

by Guest Mon Jun 22, 2015 5:59 pm

by Guest Mon Jun 22, 2015 6:04 pm

by captain Mon Jun 22, 2015 7:11 pm

Cuchulain wrote:Structure Magazine explains one probable cause of the WTC 7 collapse. "Single Point of Failure: How the Loss of One Column May Have Led to the Collapse of WTC 7"

http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/2007-11/SF-WTC7-Gilsanz-Nov07.pdf

Conspiracy theorists say World Trade Center 7 is the best proof for controlled demolition because it wasn't hit by airliners and only had a few fires. They also claim that there was a confession from the building owner who said he "pulled" it. But this is deceptive because while building 7 wasn't hit by an airliner, it was hit by the large perimeter columns of the Tower collapse. It was 400 ft away but the towers were more than 1300 ft tall. As the tower peeled open, it easily tilted over to reach building 7. Below is evidence showing that conspiracy theorists are wrong.

As you can see from the graphic below, all the buildings just as far away from both towers as WTC7 were hit. The others were either very short buildings which didn't have to support a massive load above or had no fire. Only Building 7 had unfought fires and the massive load of 40 stories above them.

http://debunking911.com/pull.htm

ERROR 404 - PAGE NOT FOUND

by Guest Mon Jun 22, 2015 7:16 pm

captainJane wrote:
Cuchulain wrote:Structure Magazine explains one probable cause of the WTC 7 collapse. "Single Point of Failure: How the Loss of One Column May Have Led to the Collapse of WTC 7"

http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/2007-11/SF-WTC7-Gilsanz-Nov07.pdf

Conspiracy theorists say World Trade Center 7 is the best proof for controlled demolition because it wasn't hit by airliners and only had a few fires. They also claim that there was a confession from the building owner who said he "pulled" it. But this is deceptive because while building 7 wasn't hit by an airliner, it was hit by the large perimeter columns of the Tower collapse. It was 400 ft away but the towers were more than 1300 ft tall. As the tower peeled open, it easily tilted over to reach building 7. Below is evidence showing that conspiracy theorists are wrong.

As you can see from the graphic below, all the buildings just as far away from both towers as WTC7 were hit. The others were either very short buildings which didn't have to support a massive load above or had no fire. Only Building 7 had unfought fires and the massive load of 40 stories above them.

http://debunking911.com/pull.htm
ERROR 404 - PAGE NOT FOUND

No problem, watch video 4 posted above and learn

by Guest Mon Jun 22, 2015 7:30 pm

by Tommy Monk Mon Jun 22, 2015 8:02 pm

You still not answered how a plane could be so low as to clip the lamp posts with wings but not carve grooves out of grass with engines or fuselage...!?

by Fuzzy Zack Mon Jun 22, 2015 8:53 pm

Cuchulain wrote:
Fuzzy Zack wrote:

What scientific, engineering or architectural background do you have?

I rest my case.

Stick to history buddy. You're a bit stupid when it comes to science.

What an idiotic reply.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

I certainly have an understanding of them.
That is all I need and to understand the evidence you presented was soundly mocked and debunked by experts.
So stick to be gullible, its what you do best.

"I certainly have an understanding of them".

HA HA!

You're a layman. Just an arrogant one.

by Guest Mon Jun 22, 2015 8:58 pm

Fuzzy Zack wrote:
Cuchulain wrote:

What an idiotic reply.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

I certainly have an understanding of them.
That is all I need and to understand the evidence you presented was soundly mocked and debunked by experts.
So stick to be gullible, its what you do best.

"I certainly have an understanding of them".

HA HA!

You're a layman. Just an arrogant one.

Is that it?

Mainstream news questions Osama Bin Laden's death - Page 3 3489511464

Well my layman understanding you call it understands the science here better than you or are you going to still back your so called experts who got spanked in the video's I just posted?
Are you going to refute this guy who does know science.

Stop wasting my time you little brat.

by eddie Mon Jun 22, 2015 9:22 pm

Cuchulain wrote:
eddie wrote:Dodge there are enough "facts" on both sides - so I'll say it again, it depends on whom you believe.

Isn't it possible that the "facts" you read are "facts" made up by the American powers that be?

Why do you assume that everything you're told by government, media and "powers that be" is true?

Ps why did you change your name again! Bloody trying to confuse me!! Lol

Dodge?
What the fuck?
No you are a fucking idiot easily gullible to other idiots swayin you with bullshit.
What facts?
I do not assume anything I look at the evidence which again only a idiot like yourself has not done and only an idiot would just go off conspiracy idiots and insult the victims by not explain how the people who carried out this atrocity did this because they hated America. Sorry Eddie I like you but you are one dumb idiot easily taken in by bullshit. Like I said if you have really looked at the evidence which is plain you have not, you would not be coming out with the bullshit you are .
I will change my username as I wish and has fuck all to do with you or the debate, so stop trying to deflect and grow the fuck up with your stupidity buying into conspiracies.
Use the brain you were given, because its not stupid

The I is next to the O on the qwerty keypad so that was a slip,of the finger?!!!!!
I did not mean to call you "dodge"!!!!

Fucking hell! The last part of my post was a joke about you changing your username!!!

As for the rest of your post - it was rude and uncalled for

So fuck off you prick. There was no need to talk to me like that!!!!!

Don't bother replying, you're ignorant and rude and I won't be reading your posts.

by Guest Mon Jun 22, 2015 9:26 pm

eddie wrote:
Cuchulain wrote:

Dodge?
What the fuck?
No you are a fucking idiot easily gullible to other idiots swayin you with bullshit.
What facts?
I do not assume anything I look at the evidence which again only a idiot like yourself has not done and only an idiot would just go off conspiracy idiots and insult the victims by not explain how the people who carried out this atrocity did this because they hated America. Sorry Eddie I like you but you are one dumb idiot easily taken in by bullshit. Like I said if you have really looked at the evidence which is plain you have not, you would not be coming out with the bullshit you are .
I will change my username as I wish and has fuck all to do with you or the debate, so stop trying to deflect and grow the fuck up with your stupidity buying into conspiracies.
Use the brain you were given, because its not stupid

The I is next to the O on the qwerty keypad so that was a slip,of the finger?!!!!!
I did not mean to call you "dodge"!!!!

Fucking hell! The last part of my post was a joke about you changing your username!!!

As for the rest of your post - it was rude and uncalled for

So fuck off you prick. There was no need to talk to me like that!!!!!

Don't bother replying, you're ignorant and rude and I won't be reading your posts.

Yes there is you unhinged loon

You are a two face shit stirring pot bellied porker.

I do not buy your excuse in any shape of form, now go and run off to your girlies for a good little bitch fest on flap you sap.

by Fuzzy Zack Mon Jun 22, 2015 11:13 pm

Shaanti Didge!

You're no longer debating. Just barking like a mad dog.

Go get some sleep.

by Guest Mon Jun 22, 2015 11:40 pm

I have watched half that video. It's very interesting and she is backing up/sourcing what she says. There was an exit hole where the plane went out the other side.!?
WTF?

by eddie Mon Jun 22, 2015 11:41 pm

Fuzzy Zack wrote:Shaanti Didge!

You're no longer debating. Just barking like a mad dog.

Go get some sleep.

You think?!! lol!

by Guest Tue Jun 23, 2015 5:05 am

Fuzzy Zack wrote:Shaanti Didge!

You're no longer debating. Just barking like a mad dog.

Go get some sleep.

As-salamu alaykum.
Sorry buddy you did that the moment you made a poor play on knowledge.
You of all people I would have thought would least be bought in by conspiracies and even more so on all the scientific evidence easily refuting the poor claims being made, which I am sure you know do not add up. It just happens to be a convenient alternative to deflect from the reality that Muslims extremists carried out these attacks. I mean you only have to look at the countless conspiracies put forward on this easily debunked to see the desperation of the conspiracy theorists. They easily forget the last absurd idea they were bought in with easily debunked and go onto a new absurd one. hey constantly ignore the evidence and fixate on poor claims, again ignoring the evidence.

by Guest Tue Jun 23, 2015 10:04 pm

Until someone can explain to me how 95% of the damage to the pentagon was to the ground floor but there wasn't a mark on the grass where the impact was supposed to be. Then I won't believe a plane hit the pentagon.

by Tommy Monk Tue Jun 23, 2015 10:49 pm

And how the lower hanging engines never managed to scrape large grooves out of the grass either...!?

by Irn Bru Wed Jun 24, 2015 7:23 am

Tommy Monk wrote:And how the lower hanging engines never managed to scrape large grooves out of the grass either...!?

Tommy, tell me what you think happened to Flight 77 and all the crew and passengers and if you can come up with a reasonable explanation we can then look at what you say about the lacl of evidence in groove marks on the lawn etc.

Also, what size was the hole in the Pentagon wall and have you got a clear picture of it?

by Guest Wed Jun 24, 2015 7:41 am

Tommy Monk wrote:And how the lower hanging engines never managed to scrape large grooves out of the grass either...!?

Exactly 95% of damage was to the ground floor - the ground floor was 12 feet high (and recently reinforced to prevent attacks such as this)- the plane was more than 12 feet high yet it managed to fly so low as to hit that low down but didnt touch the grass?! And this was flown by someone who had had flying lessons! Yeah right

by Guest Wed Jun 24, 2015 9:40 am

Nems wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:And how the lower hanging engines never managed to scrape large grooves out of the grass either...!?

Exactly 95% of damage was to the ground floor - the ground floor was 12 feet high (and recently reinforced to prevent attacks such as this)- the plane was more than 12 feet high yet it managed to fly so low as to hit that low down but didnt touch the grass?! And this was flown by someone who had had flying lessons! Yeah right

Gobbldygook
The Pentagon is 24 meters high.

http://www.britannica.com/topic/Pentagon

The height of a Boeing 757 from the top of the tail is 13.56m

http://www.airliners.net/aircraft-data/stats.main?id=101

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_757

Looking alone at this height of the body of the plane is far less than the tail, which would explain why it only hit the lower floors and not all of them. It also puts paid to rest Tommy Bloopers poor claim on the engines, which he has still yet to offer up any scientific claim to show they would put groves in the grass. As seen most of the height is taken up by the tail. Remeber the body of the plane has to be no more than a few feet off the ground and the body of the plane is no where near 13 meters high including the engines. The height of the lamp posts are nearly as high as the pentagon, see below. So on all counts the conspiracies around this are utter nonsense:

by Guest Wed Jun 24, 2015 10:48 am

by Guest Wed Jun 24, 2015 10:50 am

risingsun wrote:

I refer you to video 5 on this page.

by Guest Wed Jun 24, 2015 10:51 am

by Guest Wed Jun 24, 2015 10:52 am

by Guest Wed Jun 24, 2015 10:52 am

by Guest Wed Jun 24, 2015 10:58 am

by Fuzzy Zack Wed Jun 24, 2015 12:56 pm

Cuchulain wrote:
Fuzzy Zack wrote:Shaanti Didge!

You're no longer debating. Just barking like a mad dog.

Go get some sleep.

As-salamu alaykum.
Sorry buddy you did that the moment you made a poor play on knowledge.
You of all people I would have thought would least be bought in by conspiracies and even more so on all the scientific evidence easily refuting the poor claims being made, which I am sure you know do not add up. It just happens to be a convenient alternative to deflect from the reality that Muslims extremists carried out these attacks. I mean you only have to look at the countless conspiracies put forward on this easily debunked to see the desperation of the conspiracy theorists. They easily forget the last absurd idea they were bought in with easily debunked and go onto a new absurd one. hey constantly ignore the evidence and fixate on poor claims, again ignoring the evidence.

Wrong. Again, I'm not playing some sort of tactic or play.

But I do know about the scientific process and the fact remains there are many unanswered questions and the official report has many holes.

I'm not saying anyone is lying but there is a severe lack of experimental evidence which leaves many questions to answer. So nothing has been debunked, not to the level any scientist to accept.

You claim to know conclusions. If you knew about the scientific process you'd realise why I think that's utter bullshit.

As for your greeting: you might think you're being nice but wish someone peace, mercy and blessings of God from someone who does not believe in God is disingenuous and hypocritical. I thought you knew better than that. I don't trust hypocrites.

by Guest Wed Jun 24, 2015 1:38 pm

Fuzzy Zack wrote:
Cuchulain wrote:

As-salamu alaykum.
Sorry buddy you did that the moment you made a poor play on knowledge.
You of all people I would have thought would least be bought in by conspiracies and even more so on all the scientific evidence easily refuting the poor claims being made, which I am sure you know do not add up. It just happens to be a convenient alternative to deflect from the reality that Muslims extremists carried out these attacks. I mean you only have to look at the countless conspiracies put forward on this easily debunked to see the desperation of the conspiracy theorists. They easily forget the last absurd idea they were bought in with easily debunked and go onto a new absurd one. hey constantly ignore the evidence and fixate on poor claims, again ignoring the evidence.

Wrong. Again, I'm not playing some sort of tactic or play.

But I do know about the scientific process and the fact remains there are many unanswered questions and the official report has many holes.

I'm not saying anyone is lying but there is a severe lack of experimental evidence which leaves many questions to answer. So nothing has been debunked, not to the level any scientist to accept.

You claim to know conclusions. If you knew about the scientific process you'd realise why I think that's utter bullshit.

As for your greeting: you might think you're being nice but wish someone peace, mercy and blessings of God from someone who does not believe in God is disingenuous and hypocritical. I thought you knew better than that. I don't trust hypocrites.

Oh for goddness sake get over yourself.
I was being polite and you make a stupid song and dance about it.
That is being immature. I do not have to believe in your god to say such a thing, you are being a complete prick.
As to your beliefs on this, clearly you have been swayed by people who are deniers and have not allowed your self to look at this objectively.
To me you clearly want to believe it is a conspiracy, when the facts point to terrorism by Al Qaeda.
So some things do not add up to you, that still in no way cannot refute the contless evidence showing Al Qaeda carried this out.
Not only that when you stop and look at how far fetched a scenario would be to this being an inside job, it does not add up in any shape or form.

by Guest Wed Jun 24, 2015 1:42 pm

Eilzel wrote:That's a good point actually didge, people who don't believe 9/11 or even 7/7 were acts of Islamist terrorism should therefore think we are wasting time trying to stop Islamist terror attacks in the west- since by default there has never been a major one yet...

Funny how the opposite is usually the case.

Exactly and I find it insulting that they are trying to excuse Al-Qaeda from committing this attack, which the evidence clearly points to them carrying out this attrocity.

They may also want to explain the following:

Philippine Airlines Flight 434 1994 al-Queda test run for Operation Bojinka, in which a passenger was killed and 747 controls seriously damaged by a liquid explosive packed into contact lens solution bottles containing nitroglycerin. Bomb was assembled from parts in hand luggage by Ramzi Yousef, who also built and detonated the WTC 1993 bomb.
Bojinka plot al-Queda plot to destroy several airliners over the Pacific Ocean in 1995 using liquid explosives. Elements of Oplan Bojinka inspired both the September 11 attack and the August 2006 plot to bomb transatlantic flights.

The Bojinka plot was a planned large-scale three-phase attack by Islamists Ramzi Yousef and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to occur in January 1995. The attack was to include the assassination of Pope John Paul II, the bombing of 11 airliners in flight from Asia to the United States (which would kill approximately 4,000 passengers and shut down air travel around the world), and the crashing of a plane into the headquarters of the CIA in Fairfax County, Virginia. Despite careful planning, the Bojinka plot was disrupted after a chemical fire drew the Philippine National Police's (PNP) attention on January 6–7, 1995. Yousef and Mohammed were unable to stage any of the three attacks but did kill one person and injure scores detonating several test bombs on Philippine Airlines Flight 434 (which nearly caused enough damage to result in the destruction of the aircraft), in a Filipino shopping mall and theater.

As I say the facts easily dispell the islamic terrorist apologists on here.

Also why has nobody been able to comment on the above?

by Guest Wed Jun 24, 2015 1:50 pm

So it can mean the following:

It translates to "the peace be upon you (plural)",

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/As-salamu_alaykum

So as seen you being immature Zack.

That just shows you want to continue to act silly between us and it shows you lack maturity. So no hypocrisy what so ever and to be honest I am bored with your little tantrums now when something polite is said to you.

by Fuzzy Zack Wed Jun 24, 2015 2:01 pm

Cuchulain wrote:
Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Wrong. Again, I'm not playing some sort of tactic or play.

But I do know about the scientific process and the fact remains there are many unanswered questions and the official report has many holes.

I'm not saying anyone is lying but there is a severe lack of experimental evidence which leaves many questions to answer. So nothing has been debunked, not to the level any scientist to accept.

You claim to know conclusions. If you knew about the scientific process you'd realise why I think that's utter bullshit.

As for your greeting: you might think you're being nice but wish someone peace, mercy and blessings of God from someone who does not believe in God is disingenuous and hypocritical. I thought you knew better than that. I don't trust hypocrites.

Oh for goddness sake get over yourself.
I was being polite and you make a stupid song and dance about it.
That is being immature. I do not have to believe in your god to say such a thing, you are being a complete prick.
As to your beliefs on this, clearly you have been swayed by people who are deniers and have not allowed your self to look at this objectively.
To me you clearly want to believe it is a conspiracy, when the facts point to terrorism by Al Qaeda.
So some things do not add up to you, that still in no way cannot refute the contless evidence showing Al Qaeda carried this out.
Not only that when you stop and look at how far fetched a scenario would be to this being an inside job, it does not add up in any shape or form.

Don't get upset, again.

The fact remains that you wished me something you do not believe in. That makes you a hypocrite.

Going back to the point: where did I say Al Qeeda were not involved? I'm talking from a point of of view of physics and without substantial experimental evidence (not conjecture and speculation, which is what you and others are doing), questions remain unanswered.

by Guest Wed Jun 24, 2015 2:04 pm

Fuzzy Zack wrote:
Cuchulain wrote:

Oh for goddness sake get over yourself.
I was being polite and you make a stupid song and dance about it.
That is being immature. I do not have to believe in your god to say such a thing, you are being a complete prick.
As to your beliefs on this, clearly you have been swayed by people who are deniers and have not allowed your self to look at this objectively.
To me you clearly want to believe it is a conspiracy, when the facts point to terrorism by Al Qaeda.
So some things do not add up to you, that still in no way cannot refute the contless evidence showing Al Qaeda carried this out.
Not only that when you stop and look at how far fetched a scenario would be to this being an inside job, it does not add up in any shape or form.

Don't get upset, again.

The fact remains that you wished me something you do not believe in. That makes you a hypocrite.

Going back to the point: where did I say Al Qeeda were not involved? I'm talking from a point of of view of physics and without substantial experimental evidence (not conjecture and speculation, which is what you and others are doing), questions remain unanswered.

Wishing peace on you is not being hypocritical.
It proves you look to pick an argument over the most mundane things.
As to gettiung upset, I would have no idea being as I am not a Muslim.
I think many experts have given their position on the findings.
What is it that you think does not add up?
So what questions remain unanswered that matter to you? Why do they matter?
So you want experiments to satisfy your paranoia then?

by Fuzzy Zack Wed Jun 24, 2015 2:07 pm

Cuchulain wrote:So it can mean the following:

It translates to "the peace be upon you (plural)",

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/As-salamu_alaykum

So as seen you being immature Zack.

That just shows you want to continue to act silly between us and it shows you lack maturity. So no hypocrisy what so ever and to be honest I am bored with your little tantrums now when something polite is said to you.

The peace is plural. Not God. D'UH!

Not being immature. Just factual. How am I suppose to trust a hypocrite (says something he doesn't believe). It shows a lack of genuine intent.

by Sponsored content