Are conspiracy theories destroying democracy?

[pastafarian]

lets try again

so here it is again for goldstone76 and thetruth

can you provide a timeline of what happened on 9/11 please from when the planes took off to the collapse of the last building.

its very clear you do not believe in the official version so what is your version.

 

[The Truth]

i didnt bother reading it......why did you reply to my question with a question?

I don't know what the question was? Anyways, you should read the report. It's about a CIA agent who helped mastermind the Mumbai massacre.

 

[The Truth]

lets try again

so here it is again for goldstone76 and thetruth

can you provide a timeline of what happened on 9/11 please from when the planes took off to the collapse of the last building.

its very clear you do not believe in the official version so what is your version.

Basically, I believe that we are being manipulated into believing media stories that we have enemies who attack us. These attacks I believe are masterminded by people behind the scene (CIA, FBI, NATO, etc). I don't think it's possible for anyone to do a timeline of events on 9/11 if they aren't going by the 'official' version. It's more about speculating the official story. After all, it has caused millions of deaths.

 

[pastafarian]

so here it is again for goldstone76 and thetruth

can you provide a timeline of what happened on 9/11 please from when the planes took off to the collapse of the last building.

its very clear you do not believe in the official version so what is your version.

 

[pastafarian]

Basically, I believe that we are being manipulated into believing media stories that we have enemies who attack us. These attacks I believe are masterminded by people behind the scene (CIA, FBI, NATO, etc). I don't think it's possible for anyone to do a timeline of events on 9/11 if they aren't going by the 'official' version. It's more about speculating the official story. After all, it has caused millions of deaths.

why dont you say i dont know......its the same thing

 

[The Truth]

so here it is again for goldstone76 and thetruth

can you provide a timeline of what happened on 9/11 please from when the planes took off to the collapse of the last building.

its very clear you do not believe in the official version so what is your version.

Like I said, I don't think it's possible for anyone to do a timeline of events on 9/11 if they aren't going by the 'official' version.
But this link you've refused to read should help you to understand our perspective on attacks like 9/11.

http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto...MP=OTH-gnws-standard-2013_11_02#commentsStart

Catch you soon Pasta x

 

[pastafarian]

so here it is again for goldstone76 now only

as the truth has decided to decline from answering

can you provide a timeline of what happened on 9/11 please from when the planes took off to the collapse of the last building.

its very clear you do not believe in the official version so what is your version.

 

[colinz]

I wouldnt call anyone a sheep IF they have an open mind. The issue is those whose mind is completely closed. Im open to the idea that 9/11 wasnt forced on the world by a government agency but to date no hole in the US government official version has been plugged. Way to many things that dont add up. And so a few people continue to state that what happened, happened in line with the official version even though hundreds of first responders, witnesses, victims, families, engineers, professors and ex FBI and CIA say the government version is wrong. I have experience because Ive been to Afghanistan, Twin Towers and actually spoken to some who were there that day. Im open .. but everyone here shouts a lot but offers nothing in return.

Are you saying that you knew people who were present in the WTC on 9/11 ? If so could you elaborate more on this.

 

[hitony]

including No 1

your profile page saying your first game was doncaster 1974....bumclamps!(never existed!)

not a massive twitup i grant you but a big enough trumpwhack to question what you invent

By way of a massive strange twist, it now says he (or she!) can't remember......

 

[Leighgull]

Like I said, I don't think it's possible for anyone to do a timeline of events on 9/11 if they aren't going by the 'official' version.
But this link you've refused to read should help you to understand our perspective on attacks like 9/11.

http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto...MP=OTH-gnws-standard-2013_11_02#commentsStart

Catch you soon Pasta x

I've read that now. What do you think that article says? To me it says that a half Pakistani half American malcontent who had been used by the CIA to use his contacts in the world of Islamic hotheads to assist (unsuccessfully) to hunt for OBL turns out to be anti America and is secretly plotting jihad himself.

Are you implying that he is proof of the CIA being behind 9/11 based on that evidence? Really? Wow.

 

[symyjym]

well done for sticking to your guns,it would have been very easy to be sucked into the dark hole these two inhabit and never returned.

as for getting on your back regarding not answering questions,apart from the obvious pot kettle black scenario how is it possible to respond to lies?

this is the same old lies they come up with


"This idea of yours that fires caused the collapse is really very naive and silly"
ignoring the obvious fact no one says this and structural damage by massive planes played a part

"May be its now time to move onto the Pentagon incident.. yes the one with the tiny hole and no airliner debris"
well thats another lie....there are is plenty of evidence photographic and otherwise of people picking up airline debris

there is usually added rhumbaba of things like the building fell in its own footprint to the ground floor and were completely turned to dust
no they didnt,debris was widespread,up to 7 stories remained from the initial fall and how can you claim the buildings completely turned to dust yet at the same time moan the steel structure debris and concrete remains were removed from the scene to protect evil perpetrators.


in conclusion symyjym get out now while you can before the life is sucked out of you

Cheers Pasta when Goldstone76 wrote " moving on because this has become a bit like Groundhog Day. Lets talk about the Pentagon." it cracked me up and was the perfect time to make an exit.

However I was looking forward to reading the discussion about the Pentagon between him and The Truth, but for some reason they are sadly unable to hold a discussion between themselves so I'm very disappointed in them both as I might have learnt something.

One thing I have learnt though, is that a face to face discussion on the 911 CT's, with diehard CT's would be a lot easier because they can be stopped mid bollox when they go into pure fantasy and copy and past mode.

 

[Seagull on the wing]

The planes and their take off times. The first of the four planes [P4] to depart was American *Airlines Flight 11, a Boeing 767-200ER. It was 159 feet and two inches long, with a sixteen-foot-six-inch-wide body that allowed for two aisles. The plane made daily flights between Boston and Los Angeles, and when it took off at 7:59 a.m. on the morning of the eleventh, it carried only 81 passengers in its 158 seats. Forty-seven minutes later, it crashed into the North Tower at 440 mph, carrying 9,717 gallons of jet fuel, 14,000 gallons under capacity.



United Flight 175, also a Boeing 767-200ER, was the second. Like American Airlines 11, it was scheduled to fly between *Logan and LAX. When United 175 took off at 8:14 a.m., it was even lighter than the American flight: Only 56 out of 168 seats were occupied. When it crashed into the South Tower at 9:03 a.m., traveling 540 mph, it had 9,118 gallons of fuel in its tanks.



American Airlines Flight 77 was the third plane to take off that day, a Boeing 757-200. AA77 left Washington, D.C., at 8:20 a.m. bound for Los Angeles. It was two-thirds empty, with 58 passengers in its 176 seats, and its tanks were 4,000 gallons under its 11,500-gallon capacity. It crashed into the Pentagon at 9:37 a.m., *flying 530 mph.



The fourth plane, United Airlines Flight 93, was also a 757-200. It was delayed for 42 minutes past its *scheduled 8 a.m. departure from Newark bound for San Francisco. When it finally took off, it carried only 37 *passengers—its capacity was 182—and it was loaded with a little over 7,000 gallons of fuel. It crashed at 560 mph into an empty field in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, at 10:03 a.m.



The two models—the 767 and the 757—were introduced within a year of one another in the early eighties, when Boeing was fighting lackluster sales, dwindling cash reserves, and a surging European rival, Airbus. The company marketed the planes to airlines as cost-savers, emphasizing their fuel efficiency and their modified cockpits, which allowed two pilots to do the work of three. Crews testing both aircraft gave them high markis for precise handling.


P4: The Fleet

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

American Airlines Flight 11 was a Boeing 767-200ER built in 1987. The “ER” stands for “extended range”; the plane could fly from New York to Beijing nonstop.

United Flight 175 was also a Boeing 767-200ER, built four years earlier, in 1983. The 767 had debuted the year before.

American Airlines Flight 77 was a Boeing 757-200 built in 1991, four feet shorter and four feet slimmer than the 767-200ER.

United Airlines Flight 93 was also a 757-200, built in 1996. The model was discontinued in 2005.

 

[Goldstone76]

Really is there any point in doing any kind of timeline.. its well documented enough. Instead the areas of unbelievability are surly more worth discussion beginning with when the foundations for a new America were laid down which was way before 9/11.. To understand the foundations is to understand the intent of why 9/11 is a lie..

A plan for American Military Domination first surfaced during the administration of George H.W. Bush, In 1992, Paul Wolfowitz, working in the Department of Defense, was asked to write the first draft of a new national security strategy, a document entitled “The Defense Planning Guidance.” The most controversial elements of what would later come to be known as the “Wolfowitz Doctrine” were that the United States should dramatically increase defense spending, that it should be willing to take preemptive military action, and that it should be willing to use military force unilaterally, with or without allies. This new reliance on Military force was necessary, according to Wolfowitz, to prevent the emergence of any future or potential rivals to American power, and to secure access to vital resources, especially Persian Gulf oil. Paul Wolfowitz's involvement in shaping the U.S. Neoconservative foreign policy implemented after the attacks of September 11, 2001, including his role in the creation of the PNAC document “Rebuilding America's Defenses” during the year 2000 which suggested "In relation to the Persian Gulf, citing particularly Iraq and Iran, Rebuilding America's Defenses states that "while the unresolved conflict in Iraq provides the immediate justification [for U.S. military presence], the need for a substantial American force presence in the [Persian] Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein" and "Over the long term, Iran may well prove as large a threat to U.S. interests in the [Persian] Gulf as Iraq has. And even should U.S.-Iranian relations improve, retaining forward-based forces in the region would still be an essential element in U.S. security strategy given the longstanding American interests in the region."

The Bush administration began planning to use U.S. troops to invade Iraq within days after the former Texas governor entered the White House, former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill told CBS News' 60 Minutes.

So the scene is set.. long before 9/11 the USA neoconservatives were planning to flex their military muscle to make sure their role as a military super power wasnt lost and the main interest was/is the control of resources which the country (and the West) needed to function. Lets also add into this the value of conflict to the arms industry.. Peace isnt a profitable option. Fear is required to sell.

Since 2001, the base USA defence budget has risen from $287 billion to $530 billion per year. Who profits from this? Can we agree that there is a huge amount of profit to be made from conflict and that the USA will not tolerate the idea that they will lose their oil supply.. therefore they need to control regions and governments?

---

 

[Guinness Boy]

Really is there any point in doing any kind of timeline.. its well documented enough. Instead the areas of unbelievability are surly more worth discussion beginning with when the foundations for a new America were laid down which was way before 9/11.. To understand the foundations is to understand the intent of why 9/11 is a lie..

A plan for American Military Domination first surfaced during the administration of George H.W. Bush, In 1992, Paul Wolfowitz, working in the Department of Defense, was asked to write the first draft of a new national security strategy, a document entitled “The Defense Planning Guidance.” The most controversial elements of what would later come to be known as the “Wolfowitz Doctrine” were that the United States should dramatically increase defense spending, that it should be willing to take preemptive military action, and that it should be willing to use military force unilaterally, with or without allies. This new reliance on Military force was necessary, according to Wolfowitz, to prevent the emergence of any future or potential rivals to American power, and to secure access to vital resources, especially Persian Gulf oil. Paul Wolfowitz's involvement in shaping the U.S. Neoconservative foreign policy implemented after the attacks of September 11, 2001, including his role in the creation of the PNAC document “Rebuilding America's Defenses” during the year 2000 which suggested "In relation to the Persian Gulf, citing particularly Iraq and Iran, Rebuilding America's Defenses states that "while the unresolved conflict in Iraq provides the immediate justification [for U.S. military presence], the need for a substantial American force presence in the [Persian] Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein" and "Over the long term, Iran may well prove as large a threat to U.S. interests in the [Persian] Gulf as Iraq has. And even should U.S.-Iranian relations improve, retaining forward-based forces in the region would still be an essential element in U.S. security strategy given the longstanding American interests in the region."

The Bush administration began planning to use U.S. troops to invade Iraq within days after the former Texas governor entered the White House, former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill told CBS News' 60 Minutes.

So the scene is set.. long before 9/11 the USA neoconservatives were planning to flex their military muscle to make sure their role as a military super power wasnt lost and the main interest was/is the control of resources which the country (and the West) needed to function. Lets also add into this the value of conflict to the arms industry.. Peace isnt a profitable option. Fear is required to sell.

Since 2001, the base USA defence budget has risen from $287 billion to $530 billion per year. Who profits from this? Can we agree that there is a huge amount of profit to be made from conflict and that the USA will not tolerate the idea that they will lose their oil supply.. therefore they need to control regions and governments?

---

None of which suggests the US was itself responsible for 9/11. Unless you can provide a timeline - and unless you and The Truth can answer the litany of unanswered questions from this thread - ALL you have is a theory. A theory full of holes.

 

[Goldstone76]

None of which suggests the US was itself responsible for 9/11. Unless you can provide a timeline - and unless you and The Truth can answer the litany of unanswered questions from this thread - ALL you have is a theory. A theory full of holes.

In order to get to the points of 911 I want to establish a set of motives. Do you agree that there is great profit and more power in conflict..?

 

[Guinness Boy]

In order to get to the points of 911 I want to establish a set of motives. Do you agree that there is great profit and more power in conflict..?

Another direct challenge answered with a different and irrelevant question. If you want me I'll be kicking myself for jumping back in to this thread.

 

[Goldstone76]

Another direct challenge answered with a different and irrelevant question. If you want me I'll be kicking myself for jumping back in to this thread.

Whats the point of answering a question when your mind is already made up? So I want to take a different approach to understand the background before 9/11. Its the motive that drives my argument..

 

[Guinness Boy]

Whats the point of answering a question when your mind is already made up? So I want to take a different approach to understand the background before 9/11. Its the motive that drives my argument..

It's like debating with a 6year old.

"Son, please can you pass Daddy your plate"

"Can I do drawing?"

"After you've passed your plate. Please."

"Can I stay up for another 10 minutes?"

"After I have your plate. Can you pass it please?"

"Can I wear the red pyjamas?"

Etc etc etc

 

[The Truth]

"Can I wear the red pyjamas?"

Blue and white stripes I'm afraid!

 

[symyjym]

None of which suggests the US was itself responsible for 9/11. Unless you can provide a timeline - and unless you and The Truth can answer the litany of unanswered questions from this thread - ALL you have is a theory. A theory full of holes.

He doesn't even write it himself, this mantra is all copy and paste and a monkey could do it. If that's being open minded and engaging in a debate there is no hope for these diehard 911 CTers.

Even if they thought they could be wrong they would never admit it anyway because of the time and effort they have invested in it, and would be admittance they are easily fooled and highly gullible.