Peer-reviewed study proves twin towers demolished

Hiptastic · May 7, 2009

Its funny how quickly truthers give up when challenged these days. They prefer audiences that ask fewer questions.

deleted · May 7, 2009

:smilielol5:..

jamesrock · May 7, 2009

Hiptastic said:

Why do you insist on playing the victim?
Click to expand...

Hip,

That is totally rats game. Just present Facts and Logic and he cowers back to his hole in the wall.

:cheers2:

Elijah · May 8, 2009

how do you attack a ship for three hours accidently?it's been proven that it was intentionally done.

Hiptastic said:

I didn't think you were xexon, i just thought you'd picked up the jew hating baton.I think it was an accident. Its not that there's nothing strange about the incident, its that the conspiracy theory makes no logical sense.No, he's a spy. Israel spies on the US, I am aware of this. Even allies spy on each other sometimes. So true you said it twice. But here's three reason that is FAIL.

1. That isn't their motto. The Mossad motto is "Where there is no guidance, a nation falls, but in an abundance of counselors there is safety", which is Proverbs 11:14.

2. Of course there is the old motto, "For by wise guidance you can wage your war, and in abundance of counselors there is victory", which is Proverbs 24:6. Conspiracy websites translate "wise guidance" as "deceit" yet this website has 12 translations of Proverbs 24:6, none of which use "deceit", which suggest the conspiracy theory version is just some made up crap repeated endlessly on the web, as is so often the case.

3. The final FAIL is that it is competely ridiculous to point this out as some kind of damning revelation about Mossad. What do you think the motto of the KGB was or the CIA is? Honesty is the best policy? What is the motto of Al Queda and Hizbollah - 2 Legit 2 Quit?I can't prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the earth is round either. But I don't need to. You're the one that needs to prove something.
Click to expand...

Elijah · May 8, 2009

here's a good question. why do you follow pressed rat around like a lost puppy from thread to thread?

Hiptastic said:

Its funny how quickly truthers give up when challenged these days. They prefer audiences that ask fewer questions.
Click to expand...

yonosoymedico · May 8, 2009

I would guess theyre both equally interested in similar topics, sorry to butt in for you hip, but honestly...

jamesrock · May 9, 2009

Hiptastic said:

Its funny how quickly truthers give up when challenged these days. They prefer audiences that ask fewer questions.
Click to expand...

:cheers2:

odon · May 9, 2009

yonosoymedico said:

I would guess theyre both equally interested in similar topics, sorry to butt in for you hip, but honestly...
Click to expand...

They are in love. That or they just like sparring with each other.

Hiptastic · May 10, 2009

Elijah said:

here's a good question. why do you follow pressed rat around like a lost puppy from thread to thread?
Click to expand...

Hmmm... well I just did a quick check into where he's been lately and I didn't "follow him" into the Rothschilds thread. Or the 'deep underground bases thread'. Or the 'FEMA' concentration camps one, or the 'swine flu and the economy' one. Or the 'everything you do is stored' one. Or... well I think I've made my point. You are just giving us another example of how conspiracy theorists struggle with facts.

drew5147 · May 10, 2009

Thread to thread does not necessarily mean every thread he posts in...

jamesrock · May 10, 2009

Hiptastic said:

Hmmm... well I just did a quick check into where he's been lately and I didn't "follow him" into the Rothschilds thread. Or the 'deep underground bases thread'. Or the 'FEMA' concentration camps one, or the 'swine flu and the economy' one. Or the 'everything you do is stored' one. Or... well I think I've made my point. You are just giving us another example of how conspiracy theorists struggle with facts.
Click to expand...

yeah he starts so many topics its hard not to be in his treads.
:cheers2:

Elijah · May 12, 2009

we know you can't help the fact you are obsessed with trying to make pressed rat look bad. you only post some response to him on every other thread he posts on. what's your deal?

Hiptastic said:

Hmmm... well I just did a quick check into where he's been lately and I didn't "follow him" into the Rothschilds thread. Or the 'deep underground bases thread'. Or the 'FEMA' concentration camps one, or the 'swine flu and the economy' one. Or the 'everything you do is stored' one. Or... well I think I've made my point. You are just giving us another example of how conspiracy theorists struggle with facts.
Click to expand...

Elijah · May 12, 2009

how do you accidently attack a boat for three hours straight? by the way mr mouthpiece, you left "By Way of Deception Thou Shalt Do War"
out of the quote. it's obvious you are full of fail too bub.

Hiptastic said:

I didn't think you were xexon, i just thought you'd picked up the jew hating baton.I think it was an accident. Its not that there's nothing strange about the incident, its that the conspiracy theory makes no logical sense.No, he's a spy. Israel spies on the US, I am aware of this. Even allies spy on each other sometimes. So true you said it twice. But here's three reason that is FAIL.

1. That isn't their motto. The Mossad motto is "Where there is no guidance, a nation falls, but in an abundance of counselors there is safety", which is Proverbs 11:14.

2. Of course there is the old motto, "For by wise guidance you can wage your war, and in abundance of counselors there is victory", which is Proverbs 24:6. Conspiracy websites translate "wise guidance" as "deceit" yet this website has 12 translations of Proverbs 24:6, none of which use "deceit", which suggest the conspiracy theory version is just some made up crap repeated endlessly on the web, as is so often the case.

3. The final FAIL is that it is competely ridiculous to point this out as some kind of damning revelation about Mossad. What do you think the motto of the KGB was or the CIA is? Honesty is the best policy? What is the motto of Al Queda and Hizbollah - 2 Legit 2 Quit?I can't prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the earth is round either. But I don't need to. You're the one that needs to prove something.
Click to expand...

Hiptastic · May 12, 2009

wtf r u on about?

Hiptastic · Jun 13, 2009

Hiptastic said:

Surprise, surprise - the editor of the journal Rat calls "well respected" (although he disappears from the debate when asked to back that claim up with something) has resigned, saying the article was published without her knowledge.
Click to expand...

Oh noes. More bad news about the "open journals".

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17288-spoof-paper-accepted-by-peerreviewed-journal.html

ThePepsiSyndrome · Jun 18, 2009

http://counterknowledge.com/2008/12/15-questions-911-truthers-now-need-to-answer/

(1) On 9th September 2001 Ahmed Shah Massoud, the most effective military commander of the anti-Taliban coalition (the Northern Alliance, or NA) was killed by two Arab suicide bombers posing as journalists. The assassination of Massoud had taken months to plan, and the latter had received the bogus request for an ‘interview’ in May 2001 (See Steve Coll, Ghost Wars, pp.574-576; Jason Burke, Al Qaeda, p.197; Daniel Byman, Deadly Connections, p.210. Two days before 9/11, Al Qaeda killed the Taliban’s main enemy, who had also played a pivotal role in keeping the NA factions together, and who would have been the obvious figure to liase with if the Americans had decided to effect regime change in Afghanistan. If Al Qaeda were not responsible for 9/11, then why was Ahmed Shah Massoud’s assassination so well co-ordinated with the attacks on New York and Washington?

(2) Conversely, prior to 9/11, the US government had minimal contacts with Massoud and other Northern Alliance figures, much to the latter’s frustration (See Coll, passim). If 9/11 was a “false flag” operation intended to justify a pre-determined plan to invade Afghanistan, then why didn’t the CIA and other US government agencies do more to facilitate ties with the NA?

(3) Just before 9/11, Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri and other key Al Qaeda personnel left their quarters in Kandahar to hide in Tora Bora (Lawrence Wright, The Looming Tower, pp.356-358). Why did bin Laden and al-Zawahiri suddenly leave their known locations and go to ground, if they were not anticipating imminent military action by the USA?

(4) In the days following 9/11, the Bush administration asked the Joint Chiefs of Staff for a plan to invade Afghanistan. The JCS had to admit that they had no contingency plan for such an invasion, and in the weeks preceding Operation Enduring Freedom the CIA and the Department of Defense were obliged to improvise a plan of attack against the Taliban and its Al Qaeda allies (Benjamin Lambeth, Air Power Against Terror; Bob Woodward, Bush At War). If 9/11 had been an inside job, and if there was a long-standing intention by Bush and his advisors to invade Afghanistan and overthrow the Taliban, then why did they have to scrabble around for a workable plan? Why was one not prepared beforehand?

(5) We are being asked by the truthers to believe that the 19 hijackers were “patsies”, or non-existent. If that was the case, and if the intention of the real plotters in the US government was to justify military interventions to overthrow hostile regimes in the Middle East, why were 15 out of the 19 ‘bogus’ Al Qaeda terrorists given Saudi nationality? The other four hijackers consisted of an Egyptian, a Lebanese and two citizens of the UAE. We are being asked to believe that the conspirators behind 9/11 decided that they would make the hijackers citizens of allies of the USA, not enemies. Why were they not given Iraqi, Iranian or Syrian identity? Why were they not given forged links with terrorist groups (such as the Abu Nidal Organisation, the PLFP-GC or Hizbollah) with closer links to Tehran, Damascus and above all Baghdad? If we are supposed to believe that the Israelis had a hand in 9/11, then why were none of the patsies Palestinians linked to Fatah or Hamas? What kind of conspirator sets up a plot to frame an innocent party without forging the evidence to implicate the latter?

(6) Following on from this point, if the identities and the nationalities of the hijackers were faked, then why did the Saudi, Egyptian, Lebanese and UAE governments accept that citizens from their own countries were involved? What incentive did Saudi Arabia have for accepting that 15 of its own people had committed mass murder on US soil? Why would the Saudis co-operate in a plot which would blacken their country’s name, benefit Israeli interests in the Middle East, provide the pretext for the overthrow of one fundamentalist Sunni regime in Afghanistan, and contribute to the destruction of a Sunni Arab dictatorship in Iraq long seen by the Saudi royal family as a bulwark against Iran?

(7) Afghanistan is a landlocked country (truthers may need to be reminded of this fact), and any invasion is logistically impossible without the support of its neighbours. Prior to 9/11, Pakistan was a staunch ally of Taliban-ruled Afghanistan (see Ahmed Rashid, Taliban, passim). The former Soviet Central Asian states of Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan backed the NA, but were also wary of antagonising their former imperial master, Russia. Pre-September 2001 these states would not have contemplated admitting any US or Western military presence on their soil. Although Russian President Vladimir Putin backed the USA’s invasion of Afghanistan in October 2001, it took the Americans considerable effort to persuade him to permit the US and NATO forces to use bases on Uzbek and Tajik territory as part of Operation Enduring Freedom. It also took time and considerable pressure to force General Pervez Musharraf to abandon the Taliban - despite resistance from the military and ISI. Given the geo-political realities of Central Asia in mid-2001, there were no guarantees of any host nation support for any attack on Afghanistan. Assuming againt that 9/11 was an inside job, how could the US government realistically presume that the Russians and Pakistanis would actually permit the USA to effect regime change against the Taliban?

(8) Assuming that claims of Mossad complicity in 9/11 (”dancing Israelis”, etc.) are correct, can the truthers suggest a feasible motive for the Israeli government conniving in an act of mass murder on US soil? Since 1967, the mainstay of Israel’s security and survival has been its alignment with the USA, and the military assistance it has received as a result. This relationship is based on a bipartisan political consensus (both the Republican and Democratic parties are predominantly pro-Israeli) and considerable public support in the USA. Why engage in a “false flag” attack against the civilian population of an ally, when you have so little to gain and so much to lose if your responsibility is ever disclosed?

(9) Following on from this, assuming that the “five dancing Israelis” story isn’t a complete fabrication, what kind of secret service recruits undercover agents who compromise themselves by acting so ostentatiously in public? And if the five arrested Israelis were part of a conspiracy organised with the US government, then why did the FBI hold them in custody for over two months, instead of releasing them on the quiet a matter of hours and days after their apprehension?

(10) If the WTC towers in New York City were destroyed by controlled demolitions rigged by US government agencies, then why were the fake terrorist attacks used to cover up these controlled demolitions so insanely convoluted? Why concoct a scenario involving the hijacking of planes which are then crashed into tower blocks (involving complicated planning involving remote controlled flights timed with explosives detonated in the towers, which allow plenty of opportunities for gliches and technical errors)? Why not use a more simple means, such as a truck bomb?

(11) Assuming that Niaz Naik’s account of his alleged meeting with retired US officials in July 2001 is true, then where were the 17,000 Russian troops who were supposedly ready to invade Afghanistan when it came to the commencement of military operations in October 2001? And if the main motive behind the invasion was to build a natural gas pipe-line which would be under US control, then why was no attempt ever made to build one once the Taliban were overthrown?

(12) We are being asked by the conspiracy theorists to assume that NORAD was stood down on the morning of 11th September 2001 so as to enable the success of the attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon. NORAD is a combined command, not a purely American one - it has a binational staff drawn from the US military and the Canadian Forces (CF). We are either supposed to believe that the CF personnel assigned to NORAD were too stupid to notice anything amiss in their headquarters - and query it - or that the Canadian government and the CF were complicit in 9/11. Which of these scenarios is true?

(13) If Al Qaeda were set-up for the 11th September attacks, then why have its leaders and spokesmen repeatedly affirmed their responsibility for - and pride in - these attacks (see here, here, here and here for examples)? Why are we supposed to believe that repeated video pronouncements by bin Laden and Zawahiri are fake, while just one written statement allegedly from bin Laden denying responsibility - which was handed by courier to al-Jazeera without any confirmation of its origins - was genuine?

(14) If the hijacking and crashing of four passenger planes was engineered by the US government, then why did UA93 crash into an empty field in Pennsylvania? Why not crash it into a target which would add to the death toll on 9/11, and further inflame US public attitudes and popular demands for revenge against the supposed perpetrators?

(15) Finally, if the US government is institutionally ruthless enough to organise the massacre of thousands of its own citizens in a series of “false flag” attacks, then why is it too squeamish to arrange for the deaths of the supposed “truth-seekers” (David Griffin, Kevin Barrett, Steven Jones, Richard Gage, the Loose Change team, Alex Jones, etc.) who have exposed their complicity in one of the most heinous crimes a government can commit against its own people? Why are these people still alive and well, and in a position to publicise their “theories” on radio, television, in print and online?
Click to expand...

ThePepsiSyndrome · Jun 18, 2009

http://counterknowledge.com/2009/01/5-more-questions-for-911-truthers/

(1) To those who believe that 9/11 was a replay of Operation Northwoods: your claim is that the Joint Chief of Staff’s contingency plan for “false flag” attacks to be blamed on Castro’s Cuba (dated March 1962) was resurrected forty or so years later, and implemented with the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington. If the US government intended to use Northwoods as the template for 9/11, then why was the plan declassified and released into the public domain five months beforehand? What kind of government perpetrates an act of mass murder on its own populace, and then reveals to the world how they planned and executed it?

(2) To those who believe that the WTC towers (1, 2 and 7) were destroyed by controlled demolitions: this programme, broadcast last July, shows how complicated and time consuming the process of a controlled demolition is (see 27:24 minutes in to 32:11). An empty building marked for destruction by specialists takes weeks if not months of preparation, during which the entire structure is gutted while the explosives are placed. How exactly were the WTC towers rigged for demolition in such a manner that no one working in the offices within these buildings noticed anything unusual?

(3) To those who believe that the airphone calls by passengers to their loved ones were “morphed”: how exactly did the conspirators know how to get voice samples for the 59 crew and passengers aboard AA77, and the 40 aboard UA93? How did they predict which passengers would be aboard - notably Jeremy Glick (scheluded to take a flight the day before he boarded UA93) and Lauren Grandcolas (who was supposed to board a later flight on 11th September, but actually found a seat on UA93)? How did they anticipate (and prepare the appropriate responses for) questions their loved ones would ask once they received the calls? And how is it that their relatives didn’t notice anything untoward about the comments and responses their loved ones made (other than the obvious fact that the latter were due to die in a grotesque terrorist attack)?

(4) As a follow-up question, if these calls were fake, what happened to the passengers? Were they complicit in the 9/11 cover-up? Are they still alive?

(5) Finally, to those who say there no hijackers: what’s your explanation for this? http://www.newsweek.com/id/177724
Click to expand...

shaggie · Jun 19, 2009

Take a look at the alibi that Bentham concocted to explain why they accepted that frivolous paper.

Excerpt:

"Mahmood Alam, Bentham's director of publications, responded to queries from New Scientist by email: "In this particular case we were aware that the article submitted was a hoax, and we tried to find out the identity of the individual by pretending the article had been accepted for publication when in fact it was not.""

.

shaggie · Jun 19, 2009

It's interesting that Bentham would claim that they were going out of their way to try to trace down a hoax submission, yet they don't bother spending any time checking to see if someone is qualified to review papers in a particular discipline, according to Davis.

Excerpt:

"As the emails stacked up, Davis was not only encouraged to submit papers, but was also invited to serve on the editorial board of some of Bentham's journals – for which he was told he would be allowed to publish one free article each year. "I received solicitations for journals for which I had no subject expertise at all," says Davis. "It really painted a picture of vanity publishing.""

.

lunarverse · Jun 19, 2009

Pressed_Rat said:

So let's see your scientific evidence.
Click to expand...

Everybody keeps saying "is this a joke" at least rat presented us with evidence for his argument no matter how bogus it may seem (i believe it). If you don't at least give evidence to support your argument rather then just sayin "oh thats crap."

Log in or Sign up

Peer-reviewed study proves twin towers demolished

Hiptastic Unhedged

deleted Visitor

jamesrock Member

Elijah Member

Elijah Member

yonosoymedico Member

jamesrock Member

odon Slightly Popular

Hiptastic Unhedged

drew5147 Dingledodie

jamesrock Member

Elijah Member

Elijah Member

Hiptastic Unhedged

Hiptastic Unhedged

ThePepsiSyndrome Member

ThePepsiSyndrome Member

shaggie Senior Member

shaggie Senior Member

lunarverse The Living End

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

Peer-reviewed study proves twin towers demolished

Hiptastic Unhedged

deleted Visitor

jamesrock Member

Elijah Member

Elijah Member

yonosoymedico Member

jamesrock Member

odon Slightly Popular

Hiptastic Unhedged

drew5147 Dingledodie

jamesrock Member

Elijah Member

Elijah Member

Hiptastic Unhedged

Hiptastic Unhedged

ThePepsiSyndrome Member

ThePepsiSyndrome Member

shaggie Senior Member

shaggie Senior Member

lunarverse The Living End

Share This Page

Useful Searches