People that formerly ridiculed conspiracy theories check in!

The anthrax attacks were not the work of AQ, and no g'ment employees where given cipro just before the attacks. One could make a better argument that it was the GOP mailing the letters to get terrorized congressmen to vote on the PATRIOT Act )Not that I am, but it would make more sense)

Of course government "officials" were on Cipro before the anthrax attacks.

On September 11, the president and White House staff began taking a regimen of Cipro, a powerful antibiotic. The public interest group Judicial Watch filed lawsuits in June 2002 against federal agencies to obtain information about how, what and when the White House knew on 9/11 about the danger of anthrax weeks before the first known victim of the anthrax attacks

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_anthrax_attacks

That's documented in thousands of sources.

Of course the anthrax attacks were not the work of A-Q, of course they were used to stampede passage of post 9/11 "police state" measures.

And it is an established fact that the source was the USAMRIID facility at Ft. Detrick MD.
 
There is different categories of conspiracy theory. I never doubted for a second that our government would and does kill innocent people from another country and try to cover it up by making another country confess to the murders. That does not surprise me, i would expect that of them and it takes no talent and intelligence to pull off.

False flag conspiracies such as 9/11 etc. require an immense amount of intelligence, synchronization, talent, and organization to pull them off. Which makes it hard for me to believe they were behind the entire thing since we see every day how the government is stupid, unorganized, and talentless.

Quite agreed. The g'ment couldn't keep domestic spying secret for even a year, even within the small confines of the Nation's most top secret organization, yet we are expected to believe that they could conduct an "attack" on the WTC and pull it off without mountains of evidence to prove that they did.
 
Quite agreed. The g'ment couldn't keep domestic spying secret for even a year, even within the small confines of the Nation's most top secret organization, yet we are expected to believe that they could conduct an "attack" on the WTC and pull it off without mountains of evidence to prove that they did.

There are mountains of evidence.

Some just refuse to look at it.
 
Of course government "officials" were on Cipro before the anthrax attacks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_anthrax_attacks

That's documented in thousands of sources.

Of course the anthrax attacks were not the work of A-Q, of course they were used to stampede passage of post 9/11 "police state" measures.

And it is an established fact that the source was the USAMRIID facility at Ft. Detrick MD.

So the g'ment taking precautions against chemical/biological attacks when the Nation is, herself, under attack somehow proves they knew beforehand that there would be anthrax attacks.

Sorry, but that theory doesn't hold water.
 
Quite agreed. The g'ment couldn't keep domestic spying secret for even a year, even within the small confines of the Nation's most top secret organization, yet we are expected to believe that they could conduct an "attack" on the WTC and pull it off without mountains of evidence to prove that they did.

Do you think that our government or the Israeli government had prior knowledge of the 9-11 attack?
 
No, there isn't mountains of evidence.

Doctored photos, outrageous claims, and outright lies are not evidence in the least.

Nor are CLAIMS that there are only doctored photos, outrageous claims, and outright lies evidence in the least. Your approach to dealing with the other side's evidence is to characterize all of it as fraudulent, without evidence. That is not a rebuttal, that is evasion and denial.
 
So the g'ment taking precautions against chemical/biological attacks when the Nation is, herself, under attack somehow proves they knew beforehand that there would be anthrax attacks.

Sorry, but that theory doesn't hold water.

No, what you said does not hold water:

no g'ment employees where given cipro just before the attacks

Now, you can argue about the reasons for them taking Cipro before the attacks all you want, but what you cannot justify is that they were not taking Cipro.

They were, weeks ahead of an anthrax attack carried out with germ cells that came from a US government/military lab.

These are the facts.
 
454dbe4b-6a87-4e0d-8c0d-5ff7b6ca9569


please?
 
1. Yes, jet fuel can indeed impact the structural strength of steel. Steel melts at 1315F to 15,00f degrees (depending on the alloy mix), but looses structural stability at half that temperature, well within the range of jet fuel fires.

You obviously didn't actually watch the first video I posted. Either that or you didn't understand the point. Some of the steel beams found in the rubble looked like swiss cheese. Jet fuel can't do that. No way, no how.

2. The steel beams where cut by rescue workers with torches, see photographs in the link I provided earlier.

You obviously didn't watch and/or didn't understand the point of the second video I posted. Or you're just being intellectually dishonest. (I'm thinking the latter). Of course rescue workers had to cut the beams to get them small enough to take off. If a tree is cut down you still have to cut it up. If the buildings were imploded you'd still have to cut them up. No one is suggesting that no steel beams were cut after the building might have imploded. That's a complete non sequitur. Of course this shows how must "debunking" isn't actually honest debunking. It's just grasping at straws to find something to be able to say.
 
How do you come up with the BBC claiming the building collapsed 20 minutes before it did?

The BBC itself admitted that it reported that WTC 7 fell before it actually fell. In February 2007 they said that this was just a "cock up" and that nobody told gave them a "script".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/02/part_of_the_conspiracy.html

Then in 2010 they admitted that they got the information that WTC 7 had fallen from Reuters.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/mike_rudin/

So Reuters had a prepared story about how WTC 7 had fallen before it fell and it mistakenly sent it out to other news agencies again before WTC 7 fell. And why would it do this?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=operation+mockingbird
 
http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/Military-Germs-US-Cities.htm

SAN FRANCISCO -- Fifty-one years ago, Edward J. Nevin checked into a San Francisco hospital, complaining of chills, fever and general malaise. Three weeks later, the 75-year-old retired pipe fitter was dead, the victim of what doctors said was an infection of the bacterium Serratia marcescens.

Decades later, Mr. Nevin's family learned what they believe was the cause of the infection, linked at the time to the hospitalizations of 10 other patients. In Senate subcommittee hearings in 1977, the U.S. Army revealed that weeks before Mr. Nevin sickened and died, the Army had staged a mock biological attack on San Francisco, secretly spraying the city with Serratia and other agents thought to be harmless.

The goal: to see what might happen in a real germ-warfare attack. The experiment, which involved blasting a bacterial fog over the entire 49-square-mile city from a Navy vessel offshore, was recorded with clinical nonchalance: "It was noted that a successful BW [biological warfare] attack on this area can be launched from the sea, and that effective dosages can be produced over relatively large areas," the Army wrote in its 1951 classified report on the experiment.


http://www.kpfa.org/archive/id/65894

Guns and Butter - "Targeted Individuals"

With Dr. Terry Robertson and Dr. John Hall. Dr. Robertson discusses the demographics of "who is targeted" with directed energy weapons. Dr. Hall talks about his personal experiences in San Antonio, Texas; the targeting of his close friend; criminal enterprises that are involved in targeting individuals; long-term experiments on non-consenting populations.
 
Nor are CLAIMS that there are only doctored photos, outrageous claims, and outright lies evidence in the least. Your approach to dealing with the other side's evidence is to characterize all of it as fraudulent, without evidence. That is not a rebuttal, that is evasion and denial.

What has been offered to date as evidence? Off the top of my head...

A photo of a commercial jet wheel inside the Pentagon, claiming it was a rocket engine.
A photo showing men gathered around what appears to be a pool of molten steel, which in reality are rescue workers gathered around a high-power lamp doctored to make it look like molten steel.
Photos of torch cut beams which people claim is evidence of thermite charges and controlled demolition, ignoring the clean appearance of said cuts, I.E. not covered in dust and debris and despite photographs of workers cutting the SAME beam. This is the evidence offered of "thermite found in the wreckage".
Puffs of dust seen preceding the collapsing floor. This is air forced out violently as each floor collapsed onto the one below.

Got more, bring 'em to the table.
 
The BBC itself admitted that it reported that WTC 7 fell before it actually fell. In February 2007 they said that this was just a "cock up" and that nobody told gave them a "script".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/02/part_of_the_conspiracy.html

Then in 2010 they admitted that they got the information that WTC 7 had fallen from Reuters.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/mike_rudin/

So Reuters had a prepared story about how WTC 7 had fallen before it fell and it mistakenly sent it out to other news agencies again before WTC 7 fell. And why would it do this?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=operation+mockingbird

As usual invented links between unrelated events. Thanks.
 
No, what you said does not hold water:



Now, you can argue about the reasons for them taking Cipro before the attacks all you want, but what you cannot justify is that they were not taking Cipro.

They were, weeks ahead of an anthrax attack carried out with germ cells that came from a US government/military lab.

These are the facts.

Facts themselves cannot be manipulated. How they are applied, however, can be as you illustrate.
 
You obviously didn't actually watch the first video I posted. Either that or you didn't understand the point. Some of the steel beams found in the rubble looked like swiss cheese. Jet fuel can't do that. No way, no how.

There is no evidence of where this steel came from, there is no proof that this is a structural steel member and not a piece of waste steel that's been sitting on the roof for decades. Considering the colume of steel in WTC7, the fact that only one small piece was found tells volumes.

You obviously didn't watch and/or didn't understand the point of the second video I posted. Or you're just being intellectually dishonest. (I'm thinking the latter). Of course rescue workers had to cut the beams to get them small enough to take off. If a tree is cut down you still have to cut it up. If the buildings were imploded you'd still have to cut them up. No one is suggesting that no steel beams were cut after the building might have imploded. That's a complete non sequitur. Of course this shows how must "debunking" isn't actually honest debunking. It's just grasping at straws to find something to be able to say.

9/11 conspiracies are nothing BUT straws.
 
Back
Top