The REAL 9/11 Conspiracy!

[Megan_Fad]

80,000 New Yorkers have signed the petition.

"if a million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing", anatol france

As with every other NYC ballot initiative, the City of New York is denying the will of its people to vote on the issues it considers most important.

2007 population of New York City: 8,363,000. The number of people that eots believes represents the "will" of the entire city: 80,000. The percentage of the city's population represented on the petition 0.96 % (give or take).

So, less than 1% represent the "will" of the people. Talk about tyranny of the minority.

 

[Bern80]

the offical story is an unproven theory..and the majority of people that question 9/11 in a responsible and scientfic manner do indeed agree.

Objectively speaking, eots. Of the two competing unproven theories, the general consensus (two planes brought down the towers) has the better evidence. Look at what you DON'T have for second that would need to be true. There are a couple of big ones. I have yet to see a shred of evidence from anywhere describing any suspicious activity that would have been required to rig the trade centers for a controlled demolition. Two, how was the government able to coordinate the planes flying into the buildings with the 'suppossed' demolition

I understand that however it does not change the fact you are not well versed in even the bush/cheney story...never mind the majority opinions of 9/11 truth

I can only speak for me, but this continues to be YOUR strawman argument and that of many other truthers. You presume that we even care what Bush/Cheney say the official story are. You ASSUME because we don't agree with you we must buy hook line and sinker into the 'offiial' 9/11 report. It is meant to discredit people without having to address an alternate theory because it's so much easier to dismiss someone by simply saying something stupid like 'you're just a bushy sheep'. Nothing could be further from the truth. i recall those events clearly and I know how my opinions formed and can tell you it has nothing to do with what the 9/11 commission said or Bush/Cheney. I'm not even sure I can tell what those 'official' stories were. I imagine I am not the exception to this.

I accept the full spectrum of possibilities, but some of them like yours, while admittedly can not yet be 100% ruled out, are so very remote given the evidence and lack of to support it. You are missing some very very large pieces of evidence for your theory to start to become even remotely possible. If you are so interested in the truth, you might want to start with that. For a group that claims to be so interested in the truth, it boggles the mind to watch a group that is so clearly unobjective, unfocused and unwilling to explore evidence that would realy help their chances of credibility.

 

[eots]

the offical story is an unproven theory..and the majority of people that question 9/11 in a responsible and scientfic manner do indeed agree.

Objectively speaking, eots. Of the two competing unproven theories, the general consensus (two planes brought down the towers) has the better evidence. Look at what you DON'T have for second that would need to be true. There are a couple of big ones. I have yet to see a shred of evidence from anywhere describing any suspicious activity that would have been required to rig the trade centers for a controlled demolition. Two, how was the government able to coordinate the planes flying into the buildings with the 'suppossed' demolition

I understand that however it does not change the fact you are not well versed in even the bush/cheney story...never mind the majority opinions of 9/11 truth

I can only speak for me, but this continues to be YOUR strawman argument and that of many other truthers. You presume that we even care what Bush/Cheney say the official story are. You ASSUME because we don't agree with you we must buy hook line and sinker into the 'offiial' 9/11 report. It is meant to discredit people without having to address an alternate theory because it's so much easier to dismiss someone by simply saying something stupid like 'you're just a bushy sheep'. Nothing could be further from the truth. i recall those events clearly and I know how my opinions formed and can tell you it has nothing to do with what the 9/11 commission said or Bush/Cheney. I'm not even sure I can tell what those 'official' stories were. I imagine I am not the exception to this.

I accept the full spectrum of possibilities, but some of them like yours, while admittedly can not yet be 100% ruled out, are so very remote given the evidence and lack of to support it. You are missing some very very large pieces of evidence for your theory to start to become even remotely possible. If you are so interested in the truth, you might want to start with that. For a group that claims to be so interested in the truth, it boggles the mind to watch a group that is so clearly unobjective, unfocused and unwilling to explore evidence that would realy help their chances of credibility.

blah blah blah..the bottom line is the majority of 9/11 commission members call the report a cover-up and several goes as far as to say treasonous...the lead fire investigator of NIST calls their findings questionable and that it has a low probability...all request an independent investigation...so all you are left with is what bush/Cheney said happened with no substantial evidence its true...an independent investigation with subpoena power and peer reviewed investigation of the collapse including hypothetical blast scenarios...this is what is being petitioned for...why are you afraid to put your bush/Cheney story to the test ?...who's the one afraid of finding the Truth..

 

[eots]

80,000 New Yorkers have signed the petition.

"if a million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing", anatol france

As with every other NYC ballot initiative, the City of New York is denying the will of its people to vote on the issues it considers most important.

2007 population of New York City: 8,363,000. The number of people that eots believes represents the "will" of the entire city: 80,000. The percentage of the city's population represented on the petition 0.96 % (give or take).

So, less than 1% represent the "will" of the people. Talk about tyranny of the minority.

that's not how petitions work...there are a required number signatures required to enter an initiative on the ballot and signatures must be verified once the necessary number of signatures ifs reached it is a pointless effort to acquire more...so basically your whole argument is stupid and pointless

 

[Megan_Fad]

80,000 New Yorkers have signed the petition.

"if a million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing", anatol france

As with every other NYC ballot initiative, the City of New York is denying the will of its people to vote on the issues it considers most important.

2007 population of New York City: 8,363,000. The number of people that eots believes represents the "will" of the entire city: 80,000. The percentage of the city's population represented on the petition 0.96 % (give or take).

So, less than 1% represent the "will" of the people. Talk about tyranny of the minority.

that's not how petitions work...there are a required number signatures required to enter an initiative on the ballot and signatures must be verified once the necessary number of signatures ifs reached it is a pointless effort to acquire more...so basically your whole argument is stupid and pointless

I know exactly how petitions work, however the way you worded your argument is that it was the "WILL OF THE PEOPLE", not the "REQUEST OF THE PETITIONERS" as is actually the case. No matter what, you still only have 80,000 signatures vs over 8 million citizens of the city. What is stupid, sir, is the idea of saying that 80,000 represent the "WILL" of over 8 million. Keep in mind, this is only a petition. It does not represent ALL people, it merely represents a REQUEST of the actual people who signed it.

Of course you being the tool you are, you will refuse to acknowledge the very real difference between the two. Mostly because it takes away your buzz words and mantra of “WILL OF THE PEOPLE”.

 

[eots]

"if a million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing", anatol france



2007 population of New York City: 8,363,000. The number of people that eots believes represents the "will" of the entire city: 80,000. The percentage of the city's population represented on the petition 0.96 % (give or take).

So, less than 1% represent the "will" of the people. Talk about tyranny of the minority.

that's not how petitions work...there are a required number signatures required to enter an initiative on the ballot and signatures must be verified once the necessary number of signatures ifs reached it is a pointless effort to acquire more...so basically your whole argument is stupid and pointless

I know exactly how petitions work, however the way you worded your argument is that it was the "WILL OF THE PEOPLE", not the "REQUEST OF THE PETITIONERS" as is actually the case. No matter what, you still only have 80,000 signatures vs over 8 million citizens of the city. What is stupid, sir, is the idea of saying that 80,000 represent the "WILL" of over 8 million. Keep in mind, this is only a petition. It does not represent ALL people, it merely represents a REQUEST of the actual people who signed it.

Of course you being the tool you are, you will refuse to acknowledge the very real difference between the two. Mostly because it takes away your buzz words and mantra of “WILL OF THE PEOPLE”.

well i don't title the articles ..but regardless once again your point is pointless...there are elections that have very low turn-outs and we still say the people have spoken etc...the fact is the required number of signatures to add an initiative to the ballot has been fulfilled...your statements could be made about any petiton or vote

 

[Megan_Fad]

that's not how petitions work...there are a required number signatures required to enter an initiative on the ballot and signatures must be verified once the necessary number of signatures ifs reached it is a pointless effort to acquire more...so basically your whole argument is stupid and pointless

I know exactly how petitions work, however the way you worded your argument is that it was the "WILL OF THE PEOPLE", not the "REQUEST OF THE PETITIONERS" as is actually the case. No matter what, you still only have 80,000 signatures vs over 8 million citizens of the city. What is stupid, sir, is the idea of saying that 80,000 represent the "WILL" of over 8 million. Keep in mind, this is only a petition. It does not represent ALL people, it merely represents a REQUEST of the actual people who signed it.

Of course you being the tool you are, you will refuse to acknowledge the very real difference between the two. Mostly because it takes away your buzz words and mantra of “WILL OF THE PEOPLE”.

well i don't title the articles ..but regardless once again your point is pointless...there are elections that have very low turn-outs and we still say the people have spoken etc...the fact is the required number of signatures to add an initiative to the ballot has been fulfilled...your statements could be made about any petiton or vote

Once again, not pointless but as I stated before, I did expect you to belittle it in some way. Now, when you say "we" in your post above, exactly who are you talking about? Because "I" don't say such things. Unlike many people, "I" do not pretend to speak for anyone but myself. And when you say that my statement can be made about any petition, you are exactly right. Even in many courts they refer to those who sign the petition as "petitioner", not "the WILL OF THE PEOPLE". That is why “I” always make that point when applicable.

 

[DiveCon]

that's not how petitions work...there are a required number signatures required to enter an initiative on the ballot and signatures must be verified once the necessary number of signatures ifs reached it is a pointless effort to acquire more...so basically your whole argument is stupid and pointless

I know exactly how petitions work, however the way you worded your argument is that it was the "WILL OF THE PEOPLE", not the "REQUEST OF THE PETITIONERS" as is actually the case. No matter what, you still only have 80,000 signatures vs over 8 million citizens of the city. What is stupid, sir, is the idea of saying that 80,000 represent the "WILL" of over 8 million. Keep in mind, this is only a petition. It does not represent ALL people, it merely represents a REQUEST of the actual people who signed it.

Of course you being the tool you are, you will refuse to acknowledge the very real difference between the two. Mostly because it takes away your buzz words and mantra of “WILL OF THE PEOPLE”.

well i don't title the articles ..but regardless once again your point is pointless...there are elections that have very low turn-outs and we still say the people have spoken etc...the fact is the required number of signatures to add an initiative to the ballot has been fulfilled...your statements could be made about any petiton or vote

when is the referendum supposed to happen?

 

[eots]

the verification process will be complete Oct 28Th

 

[DiveCon]

the verification process will be complete Oct 28Th

and what election will it be on?
the following nov election?
cause i would want to see the results of that one



btw, i know you dont like Penn & Teller, but they already showed that people will sign a petition without even knowing what they are signing
so getting 80,000 signatures on a petition does NOT mean they all agree with the conspiracy nonsense you espouse

 

[Megan_Fad]

and what election will it be on?
the following nov election?
cause i would want to see the results of that one


btw, i know you dont like Penn & Teller, but they already showed that people will sign a petition without even knowing what they are signing
so getting 80,000 signatures on a petition does NOT mean they all agree with the conspiracy nonsense you espouse

I wonder if all the 80,000 could read the petition. It would not surprise me if there was an illiterate or two in the group…and if anyone who works for ACORN had a hand in it at all, there may even be a dead person or two who "signed" it...lol

(Now watch, someone will say that I said ACORN did it without actually trying to comprehend the statement I made).

 

[eots]

the verification process will be complete Oct 28Th

and what election will it be on?
the following nov election?
cause i would want to see the results of that one


yes.Nov..

 

[DiveCon]

yes.Nov..

cool
this should be funny

 

[DiveCon]

i can see the results now

yes <1%
no > 99%

 

[Bern80]

the offical story is an unproven theory..and the majority of people that question 9/11 in a responsible and scientfic manner do indeed agree.

Objectively speaking, eots. Of the two competing unproven theories, the general consensus (two planes brought down the towers) has the better evidence. Look at what you DON'T have for second that would need to be true. There are a couple of big ones. I have yet to see a shred of evidence from anywhere describing any suspicious activity that would have been required to rig the trade centers for a controlled demolition. Two, how was the government able to coordinate the planes flying into the buildings with the 'suppossed' demolition

I understand that however it does not change the fact you are not well versed in even the bush/cheney story...never mind the majority opinions of 9/11 truth

I can only speak for me, but this continues to be YOUR strawman argument and that of many other truthers. You presume that we even care what Bush/Cheney say the official story are. You ASSUME because we don't agree with you we must buy hook line and sinker into the 'offiial' 9/11 report. It is meant to discredit people without having to address an alternate theory because it's so much easier to dismiss someone by simply saying something stupid like 'you're just a bushy sheep'. Nothing could be further from the truth. i recall those events clearly and I know how my opinions formed and can tell you it has nothing to do with what the 9/11 commission said or Bush/Cheney. I'm not even sure I can tell what those 'official' stories were. I imagine I am not the exception to this.

I accept the full spectrum of possibilities, but some of them like yours, while admittedly can not yet be 100% ruled out, are so very remote given the evidence and lack of to support it. You are missing some very very large pieces of evidence for your theory to start to become even remotely possible. If you are so interested in the truth, you might want to start with that. For a group that claims to be so interested in the truth, it boggles the mind to watch a group that is so clearly unobjective, unfocused and unwilling to explore evidence that would realy help their chances of credibility.

blah blah blah..the bottom line is the majority of 9/11 commission members call the report a cover-up and several goes as far as to say treasonous...the lead fire investigator of NIST calls their findings questionable and that it has a low probability...all request an independent investigation...so all you are left with is what bush/Cheney said happened with no substantial evidence its true...an independent investigation with subpoena power and peer reviewed investigation of the collapse including hypothetical blast scenarios...this is what is being petitioned for...why are you afraid to put your bush/Cheney story to the test ?...who's the one afraid of finding the Truth..

I very rarely get pissed with people eots, but get this through your FUCKING skull so you don't bring it up again. I give two shits about what Bush/Cheney say happened. The fact that you can't come up with a better rebuttal to anyone, especially someone who has told one more than one occasion the accusation just isn't so, speaks volumes about your credibility.

 

[DiveCon]

Objectively speaking, eots. Of the two competing unproven theories, the general consensus (two planes brought down the towers) has the better evidence. Look at what you DON'T have for second that would need to be true. There are a couple of big ones. I have yet to see a shred of evidence from anywhere describing any suspicious activity that would have been required to rig the trade centers for a controlled demolition. Two, how was the government able to coordinate the planes flying into the buildings with the 'suppossed' demolition



I can only speak for me, but this continues to be YOUR strawman argument and that of many other truthers. You presume that we even care what Bush/Cheney say the official story are. You ASSUME because we don't agree with you we must buy hook line and sinker into the 'offiial' 9/11 report. It is meant to discredit people without having to address an alternate theory because it's so much easier to dismiss someone by simply saying something stupid like 'you're just a bushy sheep'. Nothing could be further from the truth. i recall those events clearly and I know how my opinions formed and can tell you it has nothing to do with what the 9/11 commission said or Bush/Cheney. I'm not even sure I can tell what those 'official' stories were. I imagine I am not the exception to this.

I accept the full spectrum of possibilities, but some of them like yours, while admittedly can not yet be 100% ruled out, are so very remote given the evidence and lack of to support it. You are missing some very very large pieces of evidence for your theory to start to become even remotely possible. If you are so interested in the truth, you might want to start with that. For a group that claims to be so interested in the truth, it boggles the mind to watch a group that is so clearly unobjective, unfocused and unwilling to explore evidence that would realy help their chances of credibility.

blah blah blah..the bottom line is the majority of 9/11 commission members call the report a cover-up and several goes as far as to say treasonous...the lead fire investigator of NIST calls their findings questionable and that it has a low probability...all request an independent investigation...so all you are left with is what bush/Cheney said happened with no substantial evidence its true...an independent investigation with subpoena power and peer reviewed investigation of the collapse including hypothetical blast scenarios...this is what is being petitioned for...why are you afraid to put your bush/Cheney story to the test ?...who's the one afraid of finding the Truth..

I very rarely get pissed with people eots, but get this through your FUCKING skull so you don't bring it up again. I give two shits about what Bush/Cheney say happened. The fact that you can't come up with a better rebuttal to anyone, especially someone who has told one more than one occasion the accusation just isn't so, speaks volumes about your credibility.

90% of their replies are "bush dupes"

 

[eots]

=

Bern80;

. i recall those events clearly and I know how my opinions formed and can tell you it has nothing to do with what the 9/11 commission said or Bush/Cheney. I'm not even sure I can tell what those 'official' stories were. I imagine I am not the exception to this.

so if it was not the bush/chenney story you heard and it was not the 9/11 commison report ...then what was the source ?.....

 

[Bern80]

=

Bern80;

. i recall those events clearly and I know how my opinions formed and can tell you it has nothing to do with what the 9/11 commission said or Bush/Cheney. I'm not even sure I can tell what those 'official' stories were. I imagine I am not the exception to this.

so if it was not the bush/chenney story you heard and it was not the 9/11 commison report ...then what was the source ?.....

The source would be, I saw what 98% of the rest of the country saw. Two plans hit the WTC. Then lookig at countless arguments and counter arguments. And OBJECTIVELY weighing it. I simply don't find the conspiracy side compelling because in truth it is YOUR side that doesn't have enough answers to the neccessary questions to make the conspiracy theory a compelling argument. I don't find you or any of the truthers to be objective in any manner judged quite simply here by the fact that you don't weigh all of the evidence equally and amazingly all seem to have the same characteristic of a brain geared more toward the fantastical than the realistic.. I'll give an example of what someone who is looking for the truth would do.

You saw the experiment of the beam exposed to jet fueled flame. You saw that the beam failed. Someone who is interested in the truth should at the very, very least cause them to further explore that. Even if it wasn't a to scale experiment. Even if all of the variables were not the same, it doesn't change the FACT that jet fueled flame, under a set of variables was indeed able to cause steel to fail. Instead of dismissing it out of hand or taking some other truthers word for it, one who is truly interested in the truth SHOULD be compelled to explore that experiment further. We KNOW at least four of those variables were in place at the WTC; jet fuel, flame and steel supports all occurring in the same place. We KNOW that, eots. Yet there is zero evidence of any other failure causing.....thing that would ALSO have to have been on those same floors at the same time.

 

[eots]

=

Bern80;

. i recall those events clearly and I know how my opinions formed and can tell you it has nothing to do with what the 9/11 commission said or Bush/Cheney. I'm not even sure I can tell what those 'official' stories were. I imagine I am not the exception to this.

so if it was not the bush/chenney story you heard and it was not the 9/11 commison report ...then what was the source ?.....

The source would be, I saw what 98% of the rest of the country saw. Two plans hit the WTC. Then lookig at countless arguments and counter arguments. And OBJECTIVELY weighing it.

where did you see thes objective arguments take place..on fox ?..cnn


I

simply don't find the conspiracy side compelling because in truth it is YOUR side that doesn't have enough answers to the neccessary questions to make the conspiracy theory a compelling argument. I don't find you or any of the truthers to be objective in any manner

so you find ngo doing a bogus experiment as a small section of their show more compelling than 9/11 commission members calling the 9/11 commission report a fraud and the lead fire investigator of NIST saying essentially the same thing...how odd

judged quite simply here by the fact that you don't weigh all of the evidence equally and amazingly all seem to have the same characteristic of a brain geared more toward the fantastical than the realistic.. I'll give an example of what someone who is looking for the truth would do.

other than the bush/Cheney story and popular mechanics what evidence do you have that says that the towers and building 7 collapsed due to fire and bin laden was the mastermind
and this all happened without prior knowledge..I would like to see it

You saw the experiment of the beam exposed to jet fueled flame. You saw that the beam failed. Someone who is interested in the truth should at the very, very least cause them to further explore that. Even if it wasn't a to scale experiment. Even if all of the variables were not the same, it doesn't change the FACT that jet fueled flame, under a set of variables was indeed able to cause steel to fail.

no one would ever claim that enough heat on steel for a long enough duration could cause some waking...that why the experiment was a psyop-joke...test must be done on scale with the temperature actually present at wtc for durations of time approx to the wtc fires or ti is a pointless ..meaningless exercise that proves nothing except the disingenuous nature of those that produced it

Instead of dismissing it out of hand or taking some other truthers word for it, one who is truly interested in the truth SHOULD be compelled to explore that experiment further. We KNOW at least four of those variables were in place at the WTC; jet fuel, flame and steel supports all occurring in the same place. We KNOW that, eots. Yet there is zero evidence of any other failure causing.....thing that would ALSO have to have been on those same floors at the same time

it is not some truther..it is highly respected scientist with some of the highest honors the nation has to give for service and academic achievement...that is an indisputable fact you need to wrap your head around

 

[candycorn]

=

so if it was not the bush/chenney story you heard and it was not the 9/11 commison report ...then what was the source ?.....

where did you see thes objective arguments take place..on fox ?..cnn


I

so you find ngo doing a bogus experiment as a small section of their show more compelling than 9/11 commission members calling the 9/11 commission report a fraud and the lead fire investigator of NIST saying essentially the same thing...how odd






other than the bush/Cheney story and popular mechanics what evidence do you have that says that the towers and building 7 collapsed due to fire and bin laden was the mastermind
and this all happened without prior knowledge..I would like to see it



no one would ever claim that enough heat on steel for a long enough duration could cause some waking...that why the experiment was a psyop-joke...test must be done on scale with the temperature actually present at wtc for durations of time approx to the wtc fires or ti is a pointless ..meaningless exercise that proves nothing except the disingenuous nature of those that produced it

Instead of dismissing it out of hand or taking some other truthers word for it, one who is truly interested in the truth SHOULD be compelled to explore that experiment further. We KNOW at least four of those variables were in place at the WTC; jet fuel, flame and steel supports all occurring in the same place. We KNOW that, eots. Yet there is zero evidence of any other failure causing.....thing that would ALSO have to have been on those same floors at the same time

it is not some truther..it is highly respected scientist with some of the highest honors the nation has to give for service and academic achievement...that is an indisputable fact you need to wrap your head around

I saw this on a different board. I don't stand by every word but it sort of sums up your approach to things EOT

what are you talking about? every witness is fake. everything is fake. nothing exists. people in new york city dont exist. planes dont exist. ######, new york city doesnt even exists. apparently people believe that planes flying at low altitudes cause car alarms to go off.

i don't even care anymore. this is a waste of time.

obviously planes can fly at low altitudes. however we all know that can have to stay within the limits of what the plane can handle. we know people saw a plane approach the pentagon just like we know people saw a plane approach the crash site in shanksville. based on all the evidence we know these planes didn't crash but continued flying on. its almost like people want to clear united and american airlines names and involvement in 9/11 i sometimes think......

there were fucking planes donald duck. now get off your ass and go to arlington and shanksville and find some witnesses who were there who saw nothing and can validate your claims that nothing exists. ok?

but that don't matter because we're all fake its all fake and nothing exists. the whole world around you is just one big project haarp jesuit trained maitreya approved motherfucking hologram to server the motives of the zionists.......

and no that isn't directed at you. it was directed towards someone who names themself after a cartoon character and hides behind it to attack valid 911 research that proves the official story is total ###### and a new investigation INTO ALL ASPECTS is warranted but this individual is so wrapped up in their own self generated conspiracy theories that they know to be 100% accurate without ever leaving the comfort of their computer seat that they can attempt to belittle or discredit it based on their self proclaimed superiority.

cant wait to be called a shill in the 9/11 truth movement. of course lets face facts, i've been doing this for 5 years now and not one person who with a shed of credibility has ever thrown such accusations against me.