Chomsky: No evidence 'al-Qaeda' carried out 9/11 attacks
skafather84 wrote:
Oh...another fun thing was always Condaleeza Rice saying that there was no way to predict that such an attack was going to happen. The various intelligence reports pretty much predicted it and there was even a TV show earlier that year where one episode was based around the idea of crashing planes into the World Trade Center in New York (the pilot episode of The Lone Gunmen).
Condie Rice. What a disappointment she turned out to be. I once cherished a fanatasy of Condie running against Hillary for President.
ruveyn
Calling things facts does not turn them into facts. Specially things like identification cards suddenly popping up in crash accidents in which absolutely nothing was left...
LibertarianAS wrote:
Chomsky is a left-wing wacko extremist.........a libertarian socialist (hint:oxymoron) who tongue kiss the like of Chavez and ahmadinejad
what a joke
Yeah well, I hope we can get some actual evidence to counter his claims rather than that mix of guilt by association and ad hominem you are throwing.
what a joke
_________________
.
Vexcalibur wrote:
Calling things facts does not turn them into facts. Specially things like identification cards suddenly popping up in crash accidents in which absolutely nothing was left...
LibertarianAS wrote:
Chomsky is a left-wing wacko extremist.........a libertarian socialist (hint:oxymoron) who tongue kiss the like of Chavez and ahmadinejad
what a joke
Yeah well, I hope we can get some actual evidence to counter his claims rather than that mix of guilt by association and ad hominem you are throwing.what a joke
Hope is where it will stay. We're still waiting on the Reichstag fire's evidence, and that was last century.
Vexcalibur wrote:
Calling things facts does not turn them into facts. Specially things like identification cards suddenly popping up in crash accidents in which absolutely nothing was left...
The identity card of Satam al-Suqami was found before the towers collapsed and was passed on to the NYPD. Two more were found at the crash site of United 93.
The identity of the hijackers was also established through two other means. The first being the calls made from the flights passengers and crew and the other was the fact that Mohammad Atta's luggage never made it to his flight.
Here is some more info for you.
http://www.boston.com/news/packages/und ... uction.htm
http://web.archive.org/web/200209210455 ... 20718.html
The problem is that I feel that I am arguing against a conspiracy theory. Where once evidence is produced, then it is dismissed as being fabricated. Invoking infinite regress any further would simply prove my point.
_________________
Life is real ! Life is earnest!
And the grave is not its goal ;
Dust thou art, to dust returnest,
Was not spoken of the soul.
skafather84 wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
First you claim Bush was so stupid he couldn't even spell his own name
I've made that claim? I think you have me confused with someone else. Quit making generic "I WATCH FOX NEWS" "conservative" replies.
![Rolling Eyes :roll:](./images/smilies/icon_rolleyes.gif)
Face the facts 9/11 was not an inside job. In order for a conspiracy like that to happen it would have to people pretty high up in the government. Also there inconveinent pieces of evidence (like aircraft landing gear) that prove the Pentagon was hit by an aircraft not a missile.
Furthermore, the biggest evidence that it wasn't an inside job is the internal investigation where they are kicking themselves for not being able to put the pieces together. Also a conspiracy of this nature isn't likely because someone would have been a whistleblower. It would be the media story of the century...
Inuyasha wrote:
Face the facts 9/11 was not an inside job. In order for a conspiracy like that to happen it would have to people pretty high up in the government. Also there inconveinent pieces of evidence (like aircraft landing gear) that prove the Pentagon was hit by an aircraft not a missile.
There are even more inconvenient pieces of evidence, Like how could a huge aluminum aircraft smash into a stone and steel building without snapping off the wings and the tail?
And how WTC 7 could collapse into a pile of dust at freefall speed when it wasn't even hit by an aircraft.
And how a panel of international scientists assert that they found thermite in the dust from the buildings.
And how several thousand engineers and architects have signed a paper asserting that it is IMPOSSIBLE for steel framed buildings to be reduced to dust at freefall speed unless the buildings were imploded with detonation charges.
Jacoby
Veteran
Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash
Wombat wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Face the facts 9/11 was not an inside job. In order for a conspiracy like that to happen it would have to people pretty high up in the government. Also there inconveinent pieces of evidence (like aircraft landing gear) that prove the Pentagon was hit by an aircraft not a missile.
There are even more inconvenient pieces of evidence, Like how could a huge aluminum aircraft smash into a stone and steel building without snapping off the wings and the tail?
And how WTC 7 could collapse into a pile of dust at freefall speed when it wasn't even hit by an aircraft.
And how a panel of international scientists assert that they found thermite in the dust from the buildings.
And how several thousand engineers and architects have signed a paper asserting that it is IMPOSSIBLE for steel framed buildings to be reduced to dust at freefall speed unless the buildings were imploded with detonation charges.
No. Just no. All of this has been thoroughly debunked and it's not even worth debating. Only a complete idiot would believe in the control demolition theory. Do you believe in lizard people too
![Rolling Eyes :roll:](./images/smilies/icon_rolleyes.gif)
Jacoby wrote:
Wombat wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Face the facts 9/11 was not an inside job. In order for a conspiracy like that to happen it would have to people pretty high up in the government. Also there inconveinent pieces of evidence (like aircraft landing gear) that prove the Pentagon was hit by an aircraft not a missile.
There are even more inconvenient pieces of evidence, Like how could a huge aluminum aircraft smash into a stone and steel building without snapping off the wings and the tail?
And how WTC 7 could collapse into a pile of dust at freefall speed when it wasn't even hit by an aircraft.
And how a panel of international scientists assert that they found thermite in the dust from the buildings.
And how several thousand engineers and architects have signed a paper asserting that it is IMPOSSIBLE for steel framed buildings to be reduced to dust at freefall speed unless the buildings were imploded with detonation charges.
No. Just no. All of this has been thoroughly debunked and it's not even worth debating. Only a complete idiot would believe in the control demolition theory. Do you believe in lizard people too
![Rolling Eyes :roll:](./images/smilies/icon_rolleyes.gif)
Isn't this theory by the same people that believe Bush was so stupid he couldn't spell his own name. You can't have it both ways people.
Jono wrote:
Wombat wrote:
And how WTC 7 could collapse into a pile of dust at freefall speed when it wasn't even hit by an aircraft.
Maybe because the falling debris from the Twin Towers caused damage to the other buildings?
Actually the better explanation involved the collape of twin towers, and the debris had to go somewhere, severely damaged WTC 7's lower levels and caused structural failure in WTC 7.
Seriously, there would have been too many witnesses if they tried to rig a building like that to explode demolition style.
Similar Topics | |
---|---|
First film evidence of recovered alleged alien craft |
18 Jan 2025, 10:01 pm |
Warning signs of Panic attacks
in Bipolar, Tourettes, Schizophrenia, and other Psychological Conditions |
Yesterday, 11:31 pm |