Open mike 13/11/09

73 comments on “Open mike 13/11/09 ”

• Comments are now closed

1. T 1

   13 November 2009 at 6:08 am

   I quite like the BBC’s Democracy Live website. A search for “New Zealand” gives you mentions of the term spoken by various Lords, MPs, MEPs and links you to videos time-indexed to that instance of the term. Quite cool I think…
2. travellerev 2

   13 November 2009 at 6:59 am

   A couple of weeks ago I announced that Richard Gage AIA founder of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth was booked to present his evidence for the case that Nano-thermite was used to bring down the Twin towers and Building 7 on 9/11/2001.

   This presentation will take place in the Soundings theatre (te Papa), Wellington on November 21 from 2-6 p.m.

   I’m happy to announce that a 150 of the 328 seats are already pre-booked with a promising presence of many Architects, Engineers and Scientists.

   The presentation will be facilitated by John Bursill, the most high profile 9/11 activist in Australia and the principal organiser of the Hard Evidence conference held in Sydney this weekend. John Bursill is a Qantas Engineer and a prominent member of the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth group

   I once again urge those among you who either want to learn more about Richards and his 9/11 research or who want to debunk Richards presentation to come to the presentation. It’s free and you get the chance to meet with one of the most high profile 9/11 activists in the world.

   Added to that we are in the process of organising added events with Richard in Auckland and Hamilton.

   If you are interested let me know and I’ll put you through to the people in both cities involved in the organisation.

   My sincerest thanks to the open mike post here for allowing me to announce these events.
   • Gosman 2.1

     13 November 2009 at 7:08 am

     I’ll try and round up a bunch of hard nosed skeptics in Wellington to give Mr Gage a good grilling over the huge number of inconsistencies and inaccuracies in his beliefs.
     • travellerev 2.1.1

       13 November 2009 at 7:39 am

       I hope to meet you and your mates there, Gosman. I really do.
     • Gosman 2.1.2

       13 November 2009 at 7:42 am

       Anybody in Wellington who finds this whole 9/11 conspiracy nonsense abhorent is welcome to join me in going along. I don’t care what your politics are as this thing goes beyond whether you are left wing or right wing.
       • travellerev 2.1.2.1

         13 November 2009 at 8:14 am

         Gosman,

         I could not agree more. This goes way beyond left or right.

         Curious choice of words. What is abhorrent in wanting a new and independent investigation into what happened on that day?

         I find it abhorrent that it was used to start two wars and take away a lot of the freedoms of Americans and New Zealanders in the wake of the attacks.

         I find it equally abhorrent that the peoples of both Afghanistan and Iraq have been poisoned with Depleted Uranium for the next 45 billion years even though they had nothing to do with what happened on 9/11.

         I find that it is easier to hate half the worlds population because they are Muslim rather than ask serious questions about 9/11 tres abhorrent.

         And last but not least I find the fact that 70.000 people, the heroes of 9/11 the ones who worked on the “Pile” for months on end are sick and dying because the breathed in those buildings and who get next to no support from their government most abhorrent too.

         What is more so do more than half of all the family members of those who died on that day.

         So I say, bring it on Gosman. People like you I eat for breakfast.

         See you next week in Wellington if you have the balls to show your face and actually listen to the presentation before you start pointing out your “inconsistencies”.

         You’ll have to take it up with a lot of smart and educated people which I guess you are not.
         • prism 2.1.2.1.1

           13 November 2009 at 9:51 am

           travellerev – I find it equally abhorrent that the peoples of both Afghanistan and Iraq have been poisoned with Depleted Uranium for the next 45 billion years even though they had nothing to do with what happened on 9/11.

           It’s unbelievable. These inconvenient facts should not be aired!

           I find that it is easier to hate half the worlds population because they are Muslim rather than ask serious questions about 9/11 tres abhorrent.
           Watch your sentence construction. There is always some malicioso (new word) waiting to misquote or take out of context phrases as in the start of your quote.
           • Gosman 2.1.2.1.1.1

             13 November 2009 at 10:10 am

             There’s no point in quoting travellerev out of context when what she says in context is so wacky and way out there.
           • travellerev 2.1.2.1.1.2

             13 November 2009 at 3:12 pm

             Thanks for the advice
   • Gosman 2.2

     13 November 2009 at 7:10 am

     Just wondering what the position is of the regular Standard contributors to people promoting this kind of conspiracy theory nonsense on the blog open area?

     Would you guy’s allow someone to post an open invitation to a ‘Birther’ get together or would that be beyond the pale?
     • The Voice of Reason 2.2.1

       13 November 2009 at 7:33 am

       I don’t think there’s a problem with it being promoted here, Gosman.

       Most of us here seem to have a sense of humour and it promises to be a night chockfull of comedic delights. Funnily enough, I’d equate the stremgth of the theory that building 7 might have been blown up with the strength of the theory that Hone Harawira is not a racist. Both piss weak and promoted by naive, dissembling poseurs.
       • Gosman 2.2.1.1

         13 November 2009 at 7:40 am

         Ah remember VR it wasn’t just building 7 that was destroyed ina controlled demolition but the two big ones as well. The plane’s were just a diversion to cover the, (obviously badly thought out), plan.
       • travellerev 2.2.1.2

         13 November 2009 at 8:19 am

         See you too next week VR.

         I can’t wait to meet you and see your face go pale when you here Richard’s presentation.

         But my guess is that like Gossie you don’t have the balls to actually come and listen. No sirrie.

         Captcha: convinces. LOL
         • The Voice of Reason 2.2.1.2.1

           13 November 2009 at 2:18 pm

           I wasted an hour watching a doco on this bollocks on Discovery a month or so ago, Travellerev. I have two responses; one, it’s a bullshit theory, as obviously flawed as the fake moon landings hooha, and two: who cares? Not 80,000 firefighters etc.

           The simple truth is that an enemy of the western world, and the USA in particular, devised a particularly breathtaking strategy to attack its foe, carried out that strategy in a devastingly efficient way and changed the world as we know it.

           I’m no fan of the US military or secret service and my understanding is that there is no evidence that they could organise the proverbial brewery pissup, let alone a conspiracy this intricate. In this case, the correct answer is Bin Laden conceived, organised and executed the plan. There was a conspiracy, without doubt. But it had nothing to do with the yanks. It was all el Queda.

           I doubt if I’m going to waste a summers afternoon attending this loonfest, but if I do, you should be able to find me easily enough. I’ll be the one wearing the tinfoil hat.

           Tot seins.
     • travellerev 2.2.2

       13 November 2009 at 7:56 am

       Were do I propose a theory Gosman?

       All I do is offer the opportunity to listen to an Architect specialised in the design of steel framed buildings who has problems with the official Conspiracy theory and who with almost a thousand other Architects and Engineer would like a proper Criminal investigation into what transpired on that day.

       I do so politely and without the need for the bloggers of the Standard to agree with me on anything and I do so in an open post which is specifically meant to be used in this manner.

       This presentation offers a possibility to inform yourself of what is happening outside of New Zealand and as such it might be of interest to readers of this very New Zealand blog.

       As to what the bloggers of this site think of 9//11 I might enlighten you with the fact that most of them think I’m nuts but they also seem to have no problem with keeping an open mind.

       Just to make something clear to people reading about 9/11 here for the first time; We have no theories, we have no perpetrators. All we want is a new and independent investigation into what happened that day.

       We do so together with 80.000 New Yorkers fire fighters, politicians and scientists to name but a few.
       • Gosman 2.2.2.1

         13 November 2009 at 8:03 am

         Keep deluding yourself travellerev that you’re not a Conspiracy theory nut and are actually ‘open minded’. It won’t take away the fact that your views on September the 11th are abhorent to many many more than the 80,000 plus people that you have plucked out of your ar .I mean air.
         • travellerev 2.2.2.1.1

           13 November 2009 at 8:16 am

           See you next week in Wellington. Gos baby. See you next week. LOL.
3. Gosman 3

   13 November 2009 at 8:02 am

   Keep deluding yourself travellerev that you’re not a Conspiracy theory nut and are actually ‘open minded’. It won’t take away the fact that your views on September the 11th are abhorent to many many more than the 80,000 plus people that you have plucked out of your ar….I mean air.
4. Scott 4

   13 November 2009 at 8:32 am

   I’m with Gosman on this one. The Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth group has argued that the WTC buildings were brought down by controlled explosions.

   To believe that you also need to believe there is a massive conspiracy at multiple levels of government to hide this. You can’t believe the one without the other. Which is where things start to go wrong with this conspiracy theory.

   I might also add that the fact hundreds of architects and enghineers belong to this group isn’t a big deal. Out of how many tens of thousands?

   I wish I could be in Wellington to attend, but unfortunately I’ve got a meeting that day with other shadowy members of the New World Order Reptilian Elite.
   • travellerev 4.1

     13 November 2009 at 8:43 am

     Huh?

     Reptilian elite?

     Now that is wacky.

     Once again. We don’t claim anything. We don’t know what happened.

     We do know that nano thermite was found in the dust and that a third building of 47 stories high collapsed on that day in a pyroclastic flow into its own footprint in no more than 6.8 seconds (freefall speed with no resistance at all, see previous link).

     The building was twice reinforced to withstand a nuclear blast and contained Giuliani’s crisis headquarters, yet the official story claims that all this happened because office fires burned for 7 hours.

     All we want is a new and independent investigation and let the chips fall were they may.
     • Scott 4.1.1

       13 November 2009 at 8:58 am

       “Once again. We don’t claim anything. We don’t know what happened.”

       Then why does the group continue to claim there is evidence the towers were brought down by controlled explosions?

       Two planes hit the Twin Towers. If those planes didn’t cause the WTC buildings to fall, then the only thing you have left is a massive conspiracy by some shadowy organisation, involving people at various levels of government, huge amounts of explosives and a code of silence that remains unbroken. Which is where the whole thing becomes far-fetched.
       • travellerev 4.1.1.1

         13 November 2009 at 9:54 am

         No, we don’t claim there is Nano thermite in the Dust. That would unsubstantiated.

         This is the conclusion of a group of scientists who had the chance to have some of the dust analysed in a series of independent laboratories worldwide.

         Nanothermite can only be manufactured in one US army laboratory and funny enough the people who know most about the stuff work for…. NIST. The same NIST which refused to analyse the dust for explosives. Funny that.
         • Gosman 4.1.1.1.1

           13 November 2009 at 10:14 am

           I love the way travellerev posts links to You tube or Google video’s as if this is somehow ‘Scientific’ evidence backing up her claim.

           Science actually has something which is acceptable as evidence by other scientists. It is called the peer reviewed study. It is what is used in debates such as those involving AGW.

           Proper Scientists don’t rely on You tube or Google video’s to make their case.
   • RedLogix 4.2

     13 November 2009 at 9:30 am

     To believe that you also need to believe there is a massive conspiracy at multiple levels of government to hide this. You can’t believe the one without the other. Which is where things start to go wrong with this conspiracy theory.

     Actually with the use of available technology the inner working part of such a plot could have been accomplished with only a handful of people having complete and/or incriminating knowledge. Not saying it’s so, but it’s not as unlikely as you have been led to believe.

     What does amuse me is that the same people who completely dismiss the possibility of a conspiracy at the heart of 9/11 are often the same people who insist that tens of thousands of climate scientists from hundreds of research institutions around the world are engaged in a secret conspiracy to hoax the world about AGW.

     I guess folks will just believe what they want to believe.
     • travellerev 4.2.1

       13 November 2009 at 10:00 am

       What makes it so sad is that these people are totally willing to believe that because the official Conspiracy theory (no proof was ever offered) tells them that 19 Saudi Muslims lead by another Saudi Muslim living in a cave in BoraBora (with kidney dialysis machine no less) allegedly were able to run rings around the entire US air force for hours and managed to fly four planes with only the basest of knowledge which the hijacked with a few box cutters it is OK to kill more than a million Iraqis and hundreds of thousands of Afghanistanis and destroy and pollute their cultures and countries.
       • Roger Anderson 4.2.1.1

         13 November 2009 at 11:13 am

         No proof was ever offered? How about the fact that planes crashed into the buildings. What about the fact that the Muslim in the Bora Bora caves actually claimed responsibility for the act. What about the fact that he had tried in 1993. The hijackers were identified by the connection that they were on the planes and it was proven that they had simulator training. The planes crashed in a planned manner, who did this if it wasn’t the hijackers. Your theories assume that the planes were definitely NOT the cause for the building collapse, this doesn’t wash. The planes were not in the air for hours, they took off from airports that were relatively near to the crash site.I agree that the death of as many Afghan and Iraqi citizens in response to 9/11 is repugnant but this occurred because George Bush framed the event as an act of war. This legitimized his response. He had a monopoly on the language used and the analysis presented to shape our memory of this event, but this does not mean that he did it himself. If we wanted to create an excuse to put the US into a state of war, he could have done so with just the use of propaganda without the conspiracy to destroy the towers.
         • travellerev 4.2.1.1.1

           13 November 2009 at 3:11 pm

           Hi Roger,

           Planes did indeed crash into the Twin towers we are not denying that but there were only two planes and three buildings collapsed.
           No Arab names were on the passenger lists of the four planes.

           Mohamed Atta and his marry band of Hijackers were definitely living in the US and they were taking flying lessons in simulators.

           They were living close to US army bases and in houses rented by CIA operators.

           There is some evidence that they were involved in US anti terrorist training games.

           This is what fire fighters have to say about the evidence with regards to the hijackers.

           Osama bin Laden denied any involvement with the events of 9/11 in the days following the attacks and is in fact not on the most wanted list of the FBI. According to the FBI this is because they have not enough evidence to link Osama bin Laden with the events of 9/11.
           Osama bin Laden was not involved in the ’93 attack, has never claimed to be and was not wanted for the attack by the FBI.
           The only “admission” of involvement is a disputed video made years later showing a man who looks somewhat like Osama.

           The flying skills of the alleged hijackers (Hani Hanjour in this case) was such that they could not have performed the complex flying manoeuvre around the Pentagon.

           The planes impacts were definitely pre planned and not accidental no one is denying that but we would like an investigation as to whom would have been able and had the motive to plan it.

           We don’t have theories as to what caused the towers to collapse but if two aluminium lanes can collapse three steel framed buildings hours after they impacted with most of the Kerosene burned of in seconds after impact we have a whole lot of unsafe buildings around the planet. And that alone should warrant a new and independent investigation into the events and the collapses.

           All the planes were in the air for at least an hour. The previous year the US airforce had scrambled over 165 times to get to a plane which deviated from it’s flight plan. their response time was between 6 and 10 minutes.

           Four planes in the air for more than an hour means four plane hours at least and not a jot from the US air force. We are talking about the best defended airspace in the world here. Washington and New York.

           In July the protocol which had served America well was changed. Were US fighters authorised to take to the air if air flight controllers noticed any deviation in flight plans they now had to ask permission from Rumsfeld. After 911 the previous protocol was reinstated.

           There was a huge opposition to wage war in the US this changed after the events of 9/11.
           The attack on Afghanistan was planned and authorised before 911. The patriot act was written <a href='’>before 911.
           • Daveosaurus 4.2.1.1.1.1

             13 November 2009 at 7:54 pm

             “there were only two planes and three buildings collapsed.”

             The third one collapsed because a bunch of arseholes flew planes into two of its neighbours, bringing them crashing down on the third one. How hard is that to understand?

             There are plenty of legitimate questions to be asked (most notably about Bush’s constant lying about Iraq being involved) without resorting to this sort of Wishartesque conspiracy bullshit.
     • Gosman 4.2.2

       13 November 2009 at 10:07 am

       “Actually with the use of available technology the inner working part of such a plot could have been accomplished with only a handful of people having complete and/or incriminating knowledge”

       Quite untrue.

       One of the core arguments of the 9/11 Conspiracy theorists is that the collapse of the WTC7 building was advised ahead of time i.e. before it actually fell, and was evacuated. Indeed I have read articles by Mr Gage himself stating this fact and implying that this was done because they KNEW that a controlled explosion was taking place.

       This would implicate the actual people who advised the media, the media themselves, as well as the rescue workers who evacuated the building.

       While the inner workings of a plot might very well be in the hands of a few people the actual ins and outs require the actual connivance of many hundreds and thousands more.
       • RedLogix 4.2.2.1

         13 November 2009 at 10:22 am

         All I’ve ever advocated around 9/11 is to remain at least open-minded to the possibility that we have not been told the whole truth. Wouldn’t be the first time would it?

         The thing that us ordinary civilians overlook is the enormous size, depth and reach of the US clandestine organisations. There are people who are literally born, live and die within the embrace of these organisations, completely off the radar of normal life. There are layers and compartments, off the book budgets and installations us ordinary people will never know the details of.

         I have an industry contact whom I contracted to for a while some years ago; he held a highly responsible, exceedingly technical role in the US military, (I’m going to be deliberately extra vague here for good reasons) who in his career saw a thing or two that gave him the willies. I ask you to trust me that the small amount of information he shared with me gave me the willies too.

         From that time on I realised that there are things that which seem impossible to us ordinary folk, are readily accomplished with the right people, equipment and protocols.
         • travellerev 4.2.2.1.1

           13 November 2009 at 10:37 am

           Hia RL,

           This is another interesting clip. The day before 9/11 Rumsfeld is confronted about some missing loose change at the Pentagon.
           • Roger Anderson 4.2.2.1.1.1

             13 November 2009 at 2:59 pm

             Very interesting, but the defence department in the US has had systemic problems with budget records and waste for a very long time. The fact that the 10th Sept 2001 was one of the many times this was brought up is mere coincidence. BTW, I’m not a conspiricy denier, but evidence needs to be better than what is presented here.
           • travellerev 4.2.2.1.1.2

             13 November 2009 at 3:16 pm

             Did you know that hani Hanjour could have pointed the plane straight down into Rumsfeld’s office but that he instead choose to circle around the Pentagon and fly into the book keeping department?
           • travellerev 4.2.2.1.1.3

             13 November 2009 at 3:20 pm

             Roger,

             We’re talking a $ 2.3 trillion glitch here.
           • Gosman 4.2.2.1.1.4

             13 November 2009 at 3:30 pm

             Wait a minute travellerev…. it wan’t a plane that flew into the Pentagon but a guided missile.

             Don’t you keep up with the latest in 9/11 Consiracy theory nutology?
           • travellerev 4.2.2.1.1.5

             13 November 2009 at 3:35 pm

             Oh Jep Gossie, you spend a lot of time on this.

             The plane/ guided missile controversy is another little thing that keeps people divided.

             Again, there are hundreds of camera’s around the Pentagon but we have only seen six frames of very unclear material.

             We don’t know what happened at the Pentagon but in a new and independent investigation we would like to see all the video’ that were confiscated by the “FBI” never to be seen again.
       • travellerev 4.2.2.2

         13 November 2009 at 10:31 am

         Actually it was the BBC itself which announced the collapse 20 minutes before it actually happened. Here is the clip (and yes it is on Youtube).

         In fact WTC7 is visible still standing behind the lady doing the announcing.

         No need to claim anything. It happened. Both the BBC (20 minutes) and CNN (over an hour) announced it before it actually happened.

         Were they in cahoots or just reading their TelePrompTers? I don’t know but I presume the latter. The are just talking heads after all.

         Keep em coming Gossie, I love this shit.
         By the way you’ve spend an aweful lot of time finding all the debunking arguments, what’s your angle?
         • Gosman 4.2.2.2.1

           13 November 2009 at 10:55 am

           Ummm…. do you have a bit of trouble understanding things travellerev …..no wait don’t answer that, I keep forgetting you’re a 9/11 conspiracy theory nut.

           Whether or not the BBC did report on the collapse of WTC7 before it happened, or if the building was ordered to be evacuated because it was due to collapse is in no way evidence one way or the other for a controlled demolition. Yet this is the implication people like you and Mr Gage would try and have us believe.

           You are truly truly sad and deluded Travellerev.
           • travellerev 4.2.2.2.1.1

             13 November 2009 at 1:24 pm

             For people who want to see another video of the exact moment WTC 7 starts to collapse this is a documentary from an Italian TV sender.

             Be sure to watch it until the end.
           • travellerev 4.2.2.2.1.2

             13 November 2009 at 2:22 pm

             Gossie,

             I did not fail to deal with the yellow cake issue at all. Apart from the fact that they probably didn’t give a flying f*&k as to what we thought about the yellow cake issue it is not my job to explain anything.

             All we are saying is that if the official story does not add up than we should have a new and independent investigation.

             We don’t know what happened other than that the official story is impossible.
           • Gosman 4.2.2.2.1.3

             13 November 2009 at 2:41 pm

             We don’t know that the official story is ‘impossible’. It might have flaws in it but then again so do many officially accepted views and scientific theories.

             The Theory of Evolution has flaws in it. It doesn’t make the alternative of Creationism more likely.

             You argue like a Creationist does ‘Oh look I have found some weird unexplained flaw in the official picture. That must mean darker forces are a foot!’
             • lprent …

               13 November 2009 at 2:54 pm

               Or the standard discussion techniques of the CCD’s like Wishart
         • Scott 4.2.2.2.2

           13 November 2009 at 11:06 am

           The whole BBC thing is a red herring. In the chaos and uncertainty of 911 someone announced that a tower had fallen when it hadn’t.

           If you recall, there were also reports of missing planes all over the place, and other false alarms during the day. I was in London at the time, and there were false reports of planes flying towards the city.

           People make mistakes in the heat of the moment. Why attribute to a conspiracy what simple incompetence will adequately explain?

           To suggest the BBC and CNN are part of a vast conspiracy is laughable. Who’s next? The Pope? The Freemasons?

           For your conspiracy to fly (pardon the pun) you need to establish a large number of people (including now the BBC and CNN, apparently) have lied to us and deceived us all these years. It’s implausible.

           You would also be crediting the intelligence services with more ability than they appear to have. It is far more plausible that incompetence, not some secret government plan, allowed 911 to occur.
           • Gosman 4.2.2.2.2.1

             13 November 2009 at 11:17 am

             What I find laughable is that the intelligence services are supposedly good enough to sneak in and rig up all the massive amounts of explosives necessary for a controlled demolition yet couold scrape together enough Yellow cake to plant in a bunker someplace in Iraq to justify the invasion.

             The 9/11 conspiracy nuts completely avoid delaing with that question.
           • travellerev 4.2.2.2.2.2

             13 November 2009 at 1:18 pm

             In the whole wide world only three buildings collapsed as the result of a fire. Not before and never after did buildings collapse that way. Not only that, those buildings fell in freefall speed. 6.8, 10 and 11 seconds.
             This means there was no resistance from the floors underneath.

             Up until then it would take a demolition company to achieve that kind of destruction in that particular way.

             There was no reason for CNN and the BBC to be confused about a building collapsing simply because it wasn’t possible until that day as it is impossible today. If CNN reported it more then one hour before it happened and the BBC 20 minutes before it happened than someone somewhere made a booboo with the script.
           • Gosman 4.2.2.2.2.3

             13 November 2009 at 1:57 pm

             What a surprise a Conspiracy Theory Nut fails to deal with the fact that the supposedly first class intelligence services behind blowing up the WTC buildings couldn’t arrange for some WMD to be smuggled into Iraq to justify the invasion.

             🙂
       • Draco T Bastard 4.2.2.3

         13 November 2009 at 2:07 pm

         Compartmentalisation. One cell doesn’t know any other cell are doing in such a way that when something like this happens they can’t join the dots.
         • Gosman 4.2.2.3.1

           13 November 2009 at 2:13 pm

           Wow! You put a big word out there like ‘Compartmentalisation’ and expect that to explain away the huge holes in the theory.

           How about you explain to us why these ‘Secret and shady’ intelligence operatives could get away with destroying a number of large buildings in one of the most heavily populated places on the Planet yet couldn’t manage to smuggle in some North African Uranium yellow cake to deposit in some convenient, (and deserted), location in the Iraqi desert to justify the invasion?
           • Draco T Bastard 4.2.2.3.1.1

             14 November 2009 at 12:58 am

             I was putting forward a theory on how such a thing could be done and have it not be known about by those who did it or by anyone else. I do note that you didn’t address that though as you seem to have got stuck on the first word.
     • Scott 4.2.3

       13 November 2009 at 11:09 am

       I can’t speak for others, but I am generally happy to debunk any conspiracy theory that flies in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence. I’m sure the majority of people who think the 911 “truth” movement is a joke also feel the same way about client change denial.
       • travellerev 4.2.3.1

         13 November 2009 at 1:19 pm

         Overwhelming scientific evidence? Such as what? Be specific.
         • Scott 4.2.3.1.1

           13 November 2009 at 5:03 pm

           You want evidence? Read this. It refers to some peer reviewed journals on the matter.

           Can I also suggest you read this.

           Took me about two minutes to find. So the theories don’t stand up to scrutiny.
           • travellerev 4.2.3.1.1.1

             13 November 2009 at 6:03 pm

             LOL. You Google for five minutes and come up with that piece of shit.
             I’ll get back to you on this one tomorrow as I’m of to enjoy life in the real world.

             LOL
           • travellerev 4.2.3.1.1.2

             13 November 2009 at 6:16 pm

             I’ll cream you on this one tomorrow. LOL.

             Contemplate this, you spend five minutes. You don’t read the shit on that site critically and you tell me I’m silly?

             LOL
         • Scott 4.2.3.1.2

           13 November 2009 at 7:09 pm

           “LOL. You Google for five minutes and come up with that piece of shit.”

           I wasn’t prepared to spend more than five minutes on this. But five minutes was more than enough.

           “I’ll cream you on this one tomorrow. LOL.”

           Feel free. Can’t promise I’ll read what you wrote. I’ve already wasted far too much time on this thread. I have accepted I’m not going to convince you.
           • travellerev 4.2.3.1.2.1

             13 November 2009 at 7:44 pm

             Admit it you can’t leave it alone.LOL.

             Captcha: Choose. LOL.
5. marty mars 5

   13 November 2009 at 8:46 am

   I’m reminded of our similarities by these stories

   how fragile we are http://mars2earth.blogspot.com/2009/11/our-world.html

   how funny we are http://mars2earth.blogspot.com/2009/11/doc-heavy-duty-tramping-nappies.html
6. Armchair Critic 6

   13 November 2009 at 11:47 am

   So much for the CCD’s theory that no one would notice the govt’s commitments to emission reduction were piss poor.
   http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2009/nov/12/new-zealand-greenwash
   Who wants to be first to say “It’s only The Guardian, no one reads it anyway”?
   • BLiP 6.1

     13 November 2009 at 1:31 pm

     Prescient comment Armchair – there’s one born every minute it seems 🙂
7. AJ 7

   13 November 2009 at 2:43 pm

   I have often wondered why both towers fell straight down when the lower parts of the buildings hadn’t been compromised, certainly not to the extent of collapse. I have read many books and articles which raise this question – how could a plane hitting the top quarter of a building force the building to fall straight down? I have also read the claim that the only skyscrapers ever to have collapsed as a result of fire were the three in NY on 9/11. One of the towers had bombs go off in its basement in 1993 and it didn’t collapse then. There is something fishy there and I would like to know! Interestingly, none of the comments on here have enlightened me. Apparently I’m not even allowed to wonder because it makes me a big bad conspiracy theorist, even a “nut”. What’s the point in commenting if you are only going to attack people and not challenge what it is they’re actually saying?
   • Gosman 7.1

     13 November 2009 at 2:55 pm

     Popular Mehanics (the US magazine) did a whole edition on many of the main September the 11th conspiracies and looked at a lot of them from an engineering background. They ‘debunked’ the idea that the buildings could not have collapsed just from the damage caused by two planes hitting them and the resulting fires.
     • travellerev 7.1.1

       13 November 2009 at 3:29 pm

       LOL, Fucking hell Gossie,

       The only debunking piece you can come up with is that thoroughly discredited piece of yellow trash.

       The senior researcher on the piece Benjamin Chertoff was the cousin of Michael Chertoff, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.

       This means that Benjamin Chertoff was hired to write an article that would receive nationwide attention, about the veracity of the government’s explanation of an event that led directly to the creation of Homeland Security, a body that his own cousin now heads.

       Here is some more background on your “debunking” crap.

       LOL.
       • Gosman 7.1.1.1

         13 November 2009 at 3:35 pm

         And the way you attempt to discredit the article is to try and imply that one of it’s author’s is now part of the giant conspiracy because he is someone in Government’s COUSIN!!!

         Do you not realise how ridiculous your B.S. accusations actually look Travellerev???

         I don’t know about you but if I was involved in some sort of top secret conspiracy to fool hundreds of millions of people in the US, (not to mention the rest of the world as well), I wouldn’t go about it by employing family members to cover my tracks.
         • travellerev 7.1.1.1.1

           13 November 2009 at 3:40 pm

           I advise everyone who is interested in the matter to read the link I provided and to make up their own mind.

           Added to that David Ray Griffin has written a thoroughly researched point by point rebuttal of the Article.
           • Gosman 7.1.1.1.1.1

             13 November 2009 at 3:54 pm

             And I advise anyone of a sane disposition to think about the completely irrational implications of what people like Mr Gage, Griffin, and of course our very own travellerev are implying happened instead of the official 9/11 story.
           • Chess Player 7.1.1.1.1.2

             13 November 2009 at 3:56 pm

             I see Frank Lowy and his Westfield mates have won the bid to build the new shopping mall at Ground Zero.

             Frank owned the building that mysteriously also collapsed, near the twin towers, even tho nothing had hit it.

             It all ties together in the end….
       • Scott 7.1.1.2

         13 November 2009 at 5:16 pm

         Standard conspiracy theorist tactic. Anyone who criticises the conspiracy theory becomes part of the conspiracy.

         Sigh…
8. Layla 8

   14 November 2009 at 2:15 am

   I must not only be blind, but dumb to read this tabloid site, would that be the advice I receive from the ex (government) or from our government now?

   ‘captcha’ -ran.

   Good advice.
9. Albert 9

   14 November 2009 at 6:06 am

   if you are in to conspiracy theories , there is a new book out about the JFK assassination. It has just been released by Eloquent Books, New York, New York. The title of the book is, “A Kiss for the President”, by A. John Laine. It has an absobing plotline involving the mafia, the CIA, the Bay of Pigs, the murder of Marlyn Monroe, and the JFK assassination. Buy it today at the folling website:http://www.strategicpublishinggroup.com/title/AKissforthePresident.html
   • travellerev 9.1

     14 November 2009 at 7:24 am

     Hi Albert,

     Thank you for the tip, I’m always game for a good book.

     I would like to point out though that I’m not into conspiracy theories.

     We, that is millions of people around the world, just have a problem with the official conspiracy story and the scientific impossibilities that theory brings with it.

     We have no theories but questions we would like answered in a new and independent investigation in which we (represented by the people we feel are competent and independent) enough have access to all the documents and witnesses pertaining to the crimes committed that day.

     We want to know why no crime scene investigation has been done, what video’s there are of the attack on the Pentagon etc.

     All we are saying is that we are not satisfied with the answers we have been given and we just don’t know what really happened that day.

     If a new and independent investigation proves that 19 young Saudi Hijackers with only a couple of hours in a Simulator send by and old Saudi Muslim fanatic were able to stand down the most powerful army in the world to fly into three buildings in the two most air defended cities in the world and were somehow able to get passed all the laws of physics we have come to know as unbreakable than so be it.
10. Daniel Edd Bland III 10

    16 November 2009 at 2:07 pm

    I was raised on Dr. Dobson, and have just sent him a letter requesting his assistance to help me stop loosing faith in the Christian Church. My Mom respects Dr. Dobson as much or more than any other Christian leader, and she is interested to see his response. I only started learning the truth about the 9/11 attacks last fall. It took me an entire year to convince my own parents to listen to me, and begin reviewing the evidence for themselves. Now that they have thoroughly and objectively taken a fresh look into all the available evidence, they too are now aware of how badly we have been deceived. They now fully support my mission to find out what really happened to 2,993 of our fellow countrymen that fateful September morning. My mom is very interested to see if/how Dr. Dobson will respond. Please read my open letter to Dr. Dobson and share your thoughts at………

    http://blandyland.com/?p=459

    Does Christ’s Church really stand for TRUTH & JUSTICE? That is the question!

    Daniel Edd Bland III
    http://www.BlandyLand.com

Links to post

1. DriveTimeHappyHour: posted on 12 November 2009 at 7:30 pm
2. Surrealists For 911 Truth « Surrealists For 911 Truth: posted on 15 November 2009 at 8:51 pm

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS