Are Americans dumb?

Bijou said:
Unfortunately, many people who find the notion impossible have refused to read anything put before them that challenges their conclusion, nor do the seek out anything further since their mind's made up.

Do you know who was in charge of WTC security?

How much have you read about the 'power down' situation that occurred days before 9/11?

Don't take my word for it - I'm simply providing you with some buzzwords whereby you can seek out via google further info. Or not.
Click to expand...

I would estimate that a job like that would take many months to implement especially if you are operating under clandestine conditions.
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
I would estimate that a job like that would take many months to implement especially if you are operating under clandestine conditions.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's what you would estimate. And that estimate is based on laymens' knowledge, obviously.

Google Scott Forbes power down and do a spot of reading, see if your estimate's realistic.
 
Bijou said:
Yes, that's what you would estimate. And that estimate is based on laymens' knowledge, obviously.

Google Scott Forbes power down and do a spot of reading, see if your estimate's realistic.
Click to expand...

Hmm, I googled as you said and found this, if this story was even slightly true that was only in the south tower, how does it explain the north tower. It is just unmitigated cobblers do you believe the Moon landings were faked as well?

http://911review.com/errors/wtc/forbes.html
 
blackascoal said:
YES, your PM article has been debunked up, down, and sideways. You just refuse to know that truth.
Click to expand...

Again, your computer programer did not debunk anything.

Your PM article claimed the planes were invisible to the ATC and they had to go through all manner of loops to find the missing planes .. CLEARLY false and debunked by the ATC themselves. They never lost track of the planes as claimed by PM. That's called DEBUNKING.

I never questioned NORAD. I posted exactly what I said .. a suspicious change of orders in the chain-of-command that placed lethal authority only in the hands of the Secreatry of Defense, not the commanders in the field.

At what point are you going to attempt to answer the question that you've been RUNNING FROM since you entered this conversation?
Click to expand...

http://www.scribd.com/doc/13484922/911-Air-Traffic-Control-Transcript (look at the bottom of page 10 and then page 11)

Try reading the transcript. While they didn't lose complete tracking of him, you can see that they were having a bit of a problem figuring out what was going on.

The PM article has not been debunked. The ATC comment does debunk a small portion of one of the claims. It does not debunk anything else. Your computer programer does not debunk anything with any sort of evidence to back up his claims.
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
I would estimate that a job like that would take many months to implement especially if you are operating under clandestine conditions.
Click to expand...

What is the likelihood that all three buildings would go down in the exact same manner from different catalysts?

About NONE.

What you saw is exactly what it looked like.

Why didn't the government examine the debris for EXPLOSIONS given that everyone knew it looked like an implosion? Instead, they shipped the debris off with the quickness to China and India? Why would they do that?

What about the explosions from far below the impacts?

 
Aoxomoxoa said:
Hmm, I googled as you said and found this, if this story was even slightly true that was only in the south tower, how does it explain the north tower. It is just unmitigated cobblers do you believe the Moon landings were faked as well?

http://911review.com/errors/wtc/forbes.html
Click to expand...

Funny that you only cite a link that doubts the power down, but that's okay, it demonstrates my point regarding those whose minds are closed to anything other than what they've already decided.

Perhaps you ought to start another thread regarding the moon landings if you're skeptical about it? Without seeing data supporting a reason for your skepticism, I cannot comment.
 
Bijou said:
Funny that you only cite a link that doubts the power down, but that's okay, it demonstrates my point regarding those whose minds are closed to anything other than what they've already decided.

Perhaps you ought to start another thread regarding the moon landings if you're skeptical about it? Without seeing data supporting a reason for your skepticism, I cannot comment.
Click to expand...

I am not in least sceptical about the Moon landings, it just that in my experience people who doubt the landings also seem to believe half baked theories about controlled detonations. Even if I was to accept this theory, how does that explain the North Tower?
 
Superfreak said:
Again, your computer programer did not debunk anything.



http://www.scribd.com/doc/13484922/911-Air-Traffic-Control-Transcript (look at the bottom of page 10 and then page 11)

Try reading the transcript. While they didn't lose complete tracking of him, you can see that they were having a bit of a problem figuring out what was going on.

The PM article has not been debunked. The ATC comment does debunk a small portion of one of the claims. It does not debunk anything else. Your computer programer does not debunk anything with any sort of evidence to back up his claims.
Click to expand...

I already posted the comments of the ATC long ago .. even before you posted the PM article .. which claims that "
ATC couldn't find the hijacked flights because there were too many radar blips." That is clearly a lie and CLEARLY disputed by the ATC who tracked the planes every step of the way.

"It was like a doughnut. There was no coverage in the middle."

Remember that bullshit .. or did you even read that garbage? Again, clearly a lie. I could debumk all of it .. but what would be the point? It's all you have to hang onto.

Why are you even in this conversation when you refuse to answer the simplest of questions about it?
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
I am not in least sceptical about the Moon landings, it just that in my experience people who doubt the landings also seem to believe half baked theories about controlled detonations.
Click to expand...

In your experience, it's easier to generalize disparagingly about people who have ideas different than yours. Yes, I've met lots of people like you. There's little depth in discussions had with people like you - In my experience.
 
Rana said:
Seriously, they didn't track commerial airlines? That is just stupid, what about hijackings! I just can't believe NORAD didn't track commercial airlines before 9/11. There was still the risk of hijacking. Sounds ridiculous to me.
Click to expand...

Yes, there was risk of hijacking. But up until 9/11, the hijackings never resulted in ramming the planes into buildings. Add in the fact that we hadn't had a domestic hijacking in about 30 years? The threat was always deemed to come from outside in. 9/11 changed that.
 
blackascoal said:
What is the likelihood that all three buildings would go down in the exact same manner from different catalysts?

About NONE.

What you saw is exactly what it looked like.

Why didn't the government examine the debris for EXPLOSIONS given that everyone knew it looked like an implosion? Instead, they shipped the debris off with the quickness to China and India? Why would they do that?

What about the explosions from far below the impacts?

Click to expand...

First explain to me when all this work was done, apparently it would all have to performed in the months between Bush's inauguration and 9/11 for it to be blamed on Cheney and Co.
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
First explain to me when all this work was done, apparently it would all have to performed in the months between Bush's inauguration and 9/11 for it to be blamed on Cheney and Co.
Click to expand...

What you want *explained* is done so in 'Crossing the Rubicon' by Michael Ruppert. And yes, it takes a several-hundred-pages-long BOOK to explain how the perpetual-war agenda was planned and launched in order to capitalize on and control the consequences of the peak oil situation.
 
blackascoal said:
I already posted the comments of the ATC long ago .. even before you posted the PM article .. which claims that "
ATC couldn't find the hijacked flights because there were too many radar blips." That is clearly a lie and CLEARLY disputed by the ATC who tracked the planes every step of the way.
Click to expand...

Again, read the transcripts of the ATC. Not the comments they made to the media afterward... but the actual conversations they had. They had a good idea where the planes were, but they couldn't verify.

"It was like a doughnut. There was no coverage in the middle."

Remember that bullshit .. or did you even read that garbage? Again, clearly a lie. I could debumk all of it .. but what would be the point? It's all you have to hang onto.
Click to expand...

Again, they are referring to NORAD, not the ATC. NORAD did not track commercial planes originating in the US prior to 9/11.

Why are you even in this conversation when you refuse to answer the simplest of questions about it?
Click to expand...

What question is it that you think I am not addressing?
 
Bijou said:
In your experience, it's easier to generalize disparagingly about people who have ideas different than yours. Yes, I've met lots of people like you. There's little depth in discussions had with people like you - In my experience.
Click to expand...

Why do you avoid answering the questions I posed about the Moon landings and the North Tower? I am sorry but people like me operate from a logical point of view, most of the time anyway, and if you find that strange then I suggest that the fault lies with you.
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
First explain to me when all this work was done, apparently it would all have to performed in the months between Bush's inauguration and 9/11 for it to be blamed on Cheney and Co.
Click to expand...

I suggest that you follow the bouncing ball my friend. The clues to how they did it abound.

And, as Bijou has asked, what makes you think this would take months?

Explain the explosions?
 
Bijou said:
What you want *explained* is done so in 'Crossing the Rubicon' by Michael Ruppert. And yes, it takes a several-hundred-pages-long BOOK to explain how the perpetual-war agenda was planned and launched in order to capitalize on and control the consequences of the peak oil situation.
Click to expand...

I am sure that you can give me a few quotes to back up your premise? I have already said that I believe that there are legitimate questions to be answered and Robert Bowman is a very credible person. Now as far as I can see, he is saying that a series of exercises were deliberately planned for the period around 9/11. He doesn't say anything about controlled explosions because he is not a fool.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top