GOP CONGRESSMAN SEES THE LIGHT!!!

[Atrocities]

Hard evidence that proves that 9/11 was not a government plot.

Popular mechanics

Now the far lefties will say that PM is really a government funded magazine out to promote the false evidence and hide the proof that the Government is behind the 9/11 attacks and that the buildings were brought down by controlled blasts..... *shakes head at their stupidity*

[Slaughtermeyer]

The Popular Mechanics bunk has been debunked:

Killtown's Rebuttal
Debunking PM #1
Debunking PM #2
Alex Jones Talks PM

And yes, this has been made into a movie called Loose Change. Originally it was supposed to be fiction similar to V For Vendetta but the producer found more and more real-life evidence for government complicity. Vanity Fair recently reviewed the movie here: http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Ch...showtopic=7671

You can see Loose Change and other 9/11 movies at http://www.universalseed.org

And even the Presbyterian Church is waking up to the truth about 9/11:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/131/12.0.html

[Atrocities]

Thanks for the links. I have to be honest with you, I really don't believe those people who are attempting to prove that the government is behind 9/11 and the destruction of the two towers. Simply put those people are so off base that NO ONE takes them seriously. That is NO ONE with half a brain and any sort of IQ when it comes to structual design. You cannot debunk physics and the laws of nature.

As to your image there, we all know about how easy it is to doctor photo's, and we all know that many other buildings were severely damaged and later where dilibrately brought down because they were not structurally sound. Any one with an agenda could easily make a damning looking photo or video with enough talent, money, and desire to do so. Besides we cannot see the other side of the building so we do not know how damaged it truly is. For all we know, the other side of that building could be completely gone all the way to the back facete and that is what we are watching fall. Again there is no proof that the destruction of that building was dilibrate on 9/11 or that it even collapsed on 9/11.

I should tell you that I think this conspiracy that the GW and the US Government is behind the felling of the two towers to be an absolute joke that boarders on the histerically funny and suspect that most other people do as well. However given how many poeple where forever harmed by the events of that day, I can only now look at this nonsense that the US Government is behind 9/11 as an attempt to do more harm. A second wave of terrorism so to speak, one that supports what the terrorists did by trying to deny they even exist. I hate to say this, but only a handful of people actually support these conspiracy theories and those folks are often the subjects of water cooler jokes.

Now I would believe it, somewhat, if the people who are spreading this theory about would admit that GW had nothing to do with it and that it was Clinton and Gore who were behind it. They are devious enough to do something like this and blame it on the NRA or Israel. We all know how badly Gore contested loosing the election in 2000. Then just 8.5 short months later 9/11 went down. SOund more plausable to me that if our own government was behind this, that it was Clintons government and not Bushes that are the culprits. You can't hide from the math, and given just how much some folks consider Bush to be an idiot, its is really difficult to believe that he could master mind such a thing in such a short amount of time.

[Phoenix-D]

Slaughtermeyer, those sources are hardly credible. For one they never address the 400-odd missing people from the four crashed flights.

For two, one suggests a NUKE brought down the towers. A small, bunker busting nuke..which would still produce a significant amount of radiation and would *not* lead to the towers falling in on themselves. Reach much?

For three, they reference each other and use THAT as proof. Excuse me if I fail to find a conspiracy site citing another conspiracy site as reliable.

Site #2 *****es about it being a "hit piece" and then tries to rebutt it the same way. They also deliberately misinterpret things people said- asking to pull the firefighters out becomes "blow up the building". (I have *never* heard anyone use the term "pull it" to refer to blowing something up..but that's what they claim)

They also note the towers were designed to take a hit from a plane. What most of them don't mention is that the towers were designed to take a hit from a Boing 707. The biggest 707 has a maximum takeoff weight of 333,600 pounds. The 767 on the other hand has a maximum takeoff weight of 410,000 pounds. That extra 80k pounds probably screws things up just a little.

Your last link doesn't work. Here's a Google Cache link:
http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:q...s&ct=clnk&cd=1

Its also a publishing note, not an official church stance.

[Azselendor]

Atrocities, the problem with your Evil-Clintonian and Gore theory is that it doesn't take it account the Bush Sr's relationship with Bin Laden. Mainly the part where as head of the CIA, Bush Sr screwed the taliban and bin laden's fledgling group. It also misses all the businesses and individuals that stood to gain from such an event.

I don't see bush's administration being responible for 9/11 (except in ignoring the warning signs and later exploiting it more than george lucas with a prequel) as Bush really just wanted to get Saddam and please is saudi backers and religion base.

I don't see Clinton's administration being behind it because he had nothing to gain. Think about it and there is nothing clinton or the democrats could gain from it.

The 2000 Election with Gore is something to be looked at - but not until after the current leadership and party drones are out. I'm reminded of Lyndon Johnson's congressional run and there was questions about ballot issues. In particular, one picture from that event was a group of lyndon johnson supporters standing on/against a ballot transport box grinning.


But back to the point.

Using lex parsimoniae, law of succinctness, and applying it to this. Which requires fewer assumptions to be true.

1.) The theory that Terrorist, seeking to invent 9/11/01 as a terrible tragedy by destroying the economic, military and political centers/landmarks of the united states over religious differences they have with us. (ie. Terrorist view America as Evil Incarnate)
2.) The Theory that terrorist did the same as Theory 1 as revenge against bush - not knowing the outcome of the 2000 elections when they sent the plan into motion.
3.) Bush Administration plotted and organized the attack to push forward a neo-conservative agenda and religious-right agenda in america to steer the country towards the leave-it-beaver style america of the 1940's while eroding basic freedoms - not knowing the outcome of the 2000 elections when they sent the plan into motion (unless it was rigged).
4.) Clinton's Administration plotted and oganized the attack for some unknown reason or as suggested, target the NRA or Israel (who prefers clinton over bush anyday of the week) and did so not knowing the outcome of the 2000 elections (unless it was rigged).
5.) Al Gore planned and organized the attack for some bizzare reason that not even al gore could fathom. etc. etc. etc.

[Azselendor]

On a side note, Slaughtermeyer's sites appear to be individual conspiracy theorist presenting their own "Truthology" as fact when it's really some guy playing connect the dots with the back of cereal box.

The Vanity Fair link is nothing more than a review and contains no verification of the facts.

[Atrocities]

Whereas the PM site has facts and even has many world renowned structural engineers providing their expert opinions based upon facts that can and have been verified by both on site evidence, video tape evidience, scientific evidence, witness statements, construction record, design records, structural engineering reports, computer anyalists, and so so much more. What do these conspiracy people have? Nothing. They have nothing but hersay, half baked rumors, Charlie Sheen, and a whole host of other non-informed people. No structural enginering experts, well none that actually have a reputation, experience, or are even known or respected within the structural engineering community. They have, and I hate to say this, people who appear to be little more than crack pots, conspiracy theory fanatics, mentally ill, and grossely mis-informed people along with a single professor, who I might add, also happens to believe that Bill O'Reilly is out to kill him. Need I say more?

They have no real facts. What facts they think they have evaperate into nothingness upon even the most mild scrutiny.

[Slaughtermeyer]

If "the PM site has facts and even has many world renowned structural engineers providing their expert opinions based upon facts that can and have been verified by both on site evidence, video tape evidience, scientific evidence, witness statements, construction record, design records, structural engineering reports, computer anyalists, and so so much more," why can't the NIST come up with an explanation for why WTC building 7 collapsed?

When Dr. Sunder of the NIST was asked why the fate of the building was barely mentioned in the final report, he replied "�But truthfully, I don�t really know. We�ve had trouble getting a handle on building No. 7.�
http://newyorkmetro.com/news/features/16464/index6.html

[Atrocities]

Slaughtermeyer, I cannot answer your question about Building 7 except to speculate that perhaps it was not discussed because it is simply not important. As to whether or not it collapsed on 9/11 or later is unknown to me. I do recall that several of the other WTC buildings did suffor considerable damage during the collapse of WTC 1 and 2. Given the proximity of WTC 7 to WTC 1 and 2, it is more likely than not, that its collapse, if indeed it did collapse on 9/11 on its own, was as a direct result of damage it sustained during the collapse of WTC 1 and 2.

There is absolutely no evidence what so ever that supports that WTC 7 was intentionally destroyed on 9/11 by the US Government. None.

[Slaughtermeyer]

But there is evidence that WTC 7 was intentionally destroyed on 9/11, because the owner admitted that it was destroyed. You can hear Larry Silverstein's admission that the building was "pulled" (demolition industry lingo for imploded) about 3 1/2 minutes into the following documentary:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...56054823827684