Author Topic: Debunking Controlled Demo  (Read 18952 times)

kh300

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4360
Re: Debunking Controlled Demo
« Reply #50 on: February 18, 2007, 01:02:21 PM »
In their book Manufacturing Consent, Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky analyze a variety of major U.S. media outlets, with an emphasis on the Times, and conclude a bias exists which is neither liberal nor conservative in nature, but rather aligned towards the interests of corporate conglomerates, such as those that now own most of these media.

Do you feel Herman and Chomsky are wrong, and if so, please support your belief.

yet another conspericy

no im not with the pd anymore

Hugo Chavez

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 31866
Re: Debunking Controlled Demo
« Reply #51 on: February 18, 2007, 01:03:30 PM »


you get your info where? 911 mysteries- your a joke. youll believe anything you see. yet you continue to tell others the same.
He's got a valid point with the information posted.  There was reported construction and dust just as he said.  But instead you attack the source because it works against your notion that there was nothing going on prior to 9/11.  Well the fact is, you would attack every source when that source rose up pointing out discrepancies... What's that say about you?

Hugo Chavez

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 31866
Re: Debunking Controlled Demo
« Reply #52 on: February 18, 2007, 01:04:09 PM »
yet another conspericy

no im not with the pd anymore
You know where I can get some good dope :P

tu_holmes

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 15922
  • Robot
Re: Debunking Controlled Demo
« Reply #53 on: February 18, 2007, 01:06:08 PM »
yet another conspericy

no im not with the pd anymore

You know... there is a difference between conspiracy theorists and conspiracy realists.

Many people think the idea of sending all black people back to Africa was a conspiracy theory, however, there is a country named "Liberia" which would interest those who think it's all a conspiracy.

There's lots of things that can be labeled "conspiracy", but that doesn't make them any less true.

The term conspiracy has taken a context of "lunacy" and it's not even remotely close to that in many instances.


240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: Debunking Controlled Demo
« Reply #54 on: February 18, 2007, 01:07:04 PM »
yet another conspericy

no im not with the pd anymore

Please explain how this is a conspiracy.

I"m beginning to think some people use the "It's a conspiracy!" to deny the validity of anyone's argument, anywhere.  Chomsky actually doesn't believe 911 was an inside job, but he does believe the mainstream media is majorly controlled by their corporate interests, which are guided by political policy.

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: Debunking Controlled Demo
« Reply #55 on: February 18, 2007, 01:08:52 PM »
People here use conspiracy wrong all the time.

Definition: an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot.

Guess what?  9/11 was a conspiracy between at least 19 people.  By the govt's own story.  So for the folks that just yell "CT" everytime you get owned by real info which you cannot debate, realize that George Bush admits 911 was a conspiracy.

All we're trying to do is find out who else was involved ;)

Cap

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6366
  • Trueprotein.com 5% discount code= CSP111
Re: Debunking Controlled Demo
« Reply #56 on: February 18, 2007, 01:26:30 PM »
He's got a valid point with the information posted.  There was reported construction and dust just as he said.  But instead you attack the source because it works against your notion that there was nothing going on prior to 9/11.  Well the fact is, you would attack every source when that source rose up pointing out discrepancies... What's that say about you?
So then if any building is under construction then it must be suspect.  3 months for the 30 story building he mentioned as opposed to two what 100 story buildings and another 43 story building all in 6 weeks?  Its grasping at straws man.  To say that building construction or maintenance is suspect is a def slippery slope.  So what if there was dust.  It is construction.
Squishy face retard

tu_holmes

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 15922
  • Robot
Re: Debunking Controlled Demo
« Reply #57 on: February 18, 2007, 01:30:17 PM »
So then if any building is under construction then it must be suspect.  3 months for the 30 story building he mentioned as opposed to two what 100 story buildings and another 43 story building all in 6 weeks?  Its grasping at straws man.  To say that building construction or maintenance is suspect is a def slippery slope.  So what if there was dust.  It is construction.

What were the contructing? Usually construction has some purpose... what was the purpose of this construction? Was it repair? Of what?

Cap

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6366
  • Trueprotein.com 5% discount code= CSP111
Re: Debunking Controlled Demo
« Reply #58 on: February 18, 2007, 01:31:34 PM »
What were the contructing? Usually construction has some purpose... what was the purpose of this construction? Was it repair? Of what?
That's my point.  They are saying because they had badges to go in the building and were working on it that it is suspect.  Remind me never to have additions to my house or call in sick if they are doing repairs.  If the elevators are shut down then I am quitting on the spot.
Squishy face retard

tu_holmes

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 15922
  • Robot
Re: Debunking Controlled Demo
« Reply #59 on: February 18, 2007, 01:34:39 PM »
That's my point.  They are saying because they had badges to go in the building and were working on it that it is suspect.  Remind me never to have additions to my house or call in sick if they are doing repairs.  If the elevators are shut down then I am quitting on the spot.

Well, I know in my building if contruction is going on, I know why... so if they tell me the purpose, I'd probably be more inclined to not worry about it... if it's just random contruction for the sake of construction, well... maybe I will worry.

Where you work has to have just as much importance as the building too... there are high risk targets and there are not... I don't know where you work of course, but if it's high risk, I would worry... I used to work next door to a Federal Reserve building, very high risk... Everything that was done in that area was noted and you could walk up and ask anyone what it was about and they could tell you.

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: Debunking Controlled Demo
« Reply #60 on: February 18, 2007, 01:49:32 PM »
If the place implodes, and the only difference in those 80 stories' structural failure was the presence of new men running cables, you'd be insane not to look at them.

Hugo Chavez

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 31866
Re: Debunking Controlled Demo
« Reply #61 on: February 18, 2007, 02:17:16 PM »
That's my point.  They are saying because they had badges to go in the building and were working on it that it is suspect.  Remind me never to have additions to my house or call in sick if they are doing repairs.  If the elevators are shut down then I am quitting on the spot.
NO!!!!!!  They're saying there were signs that could indicate work being done on controlled demo.  Nothing more, nothing less... Remember the accusation is that it wasn't possible because it takes weeks or even longer to arrange a controlled demo.  This is just saying, it's not impossible and infact there are signs that this is exactly what could have happened...  It is most certainly not saying every building that has this happen is suspect... that's silly... It is a note that goes hand in hand with considering posts like KH's  Don't blow it into more than what it was intended.

Cap

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6366
  • Trueprotein.com 5% discount code= CSP111
Re: Debunking Controlled Demo
« Reply #62 on: February 18, 2007, 02:39:43 PM »
You're extrapolating work on a building out into a gov't conspiracy of wiring 3 buildings.  Why not just wire the buildings and say terorists did it?  Be alot easier wouldn't it?
Squishy face retard

Hugo Chavez

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 31866
Re: Debunking Controlled Demo
« Reply #63 on: February 18, 2007, 02:52:06 PM »
You're extrapolating work on a building out into a gov't conspiracy of wiring 3 buildings.  Why not just wire the buildings and say terorists did it?  Be alot easier wouldn't it?
Are you serious?  Easier to say teams of terrorist worked around all security without being noticed.

"Hey charlie, there's that crew of Arabs again"

"Yea what do you spose they're up do?"

"beats me"

"Do they have clearance"

"Na, who cares, what are they going to do, bring down the buildings... ahahahaha"

"yea, ahahahahaha"

 ::)


Cap

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6366
  • Trueprotein.com 5% discount code= CSP111
Re: Debunking Controlled Demo
« Reply #64 on: February 18, 2007, 03:02:54 PM »
Are you serious?  Easier to say teams of terrorist worked around all security without being noticed.

"Hey charlie, there's that crew of Arabs again"

"Yea what do you spose they're up do?"

"beats me"

"Do they have clearance"

"Na, who cares, what are they going to do, bring down the buildings... ahahahaha"

"yea, ahahahahaha"

 ::)


Hmmmm 1993?  Obviously our security was lax before 9/11.  Hmm and didn't you mention that the dudes working in the building were Paki or Arab?  Or was that 240?  You guys are taking something not even close to loose speculation and saying that a team of (insert number here) went into all 3 buildings totaling 300+ stories in 6 weeks?  Not to mention the fact the bottom levels would def be wired to be blown.  If your posts about severed beams at the bottom are correct then people on the low low levels would have seen everything.
Squishy face retard

Hugo Chavez

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 31866
Re: Debunking Controlled Demo
« Reply #65 on: February 18, 2007, 03:17:41 PM »
Hmmmm 1993?  Obviously our security was lax before 9/11.  Hmm and didn't you mention that the dudes working in the building were Paki or Arab?  Or was that 240?  You guys are taking something not even close to loose speculation and saying that a team of (insert number here) went into all 3 buildings totaling 300+ stories in 6 weeks?  Not to mention the fact the bottom levels would def be wired to be blown.  If your posts about severed beams at the bottom are correct then people on the low low levels would have seen everything.
1993 didn't involve wiring the building to come down did it?  After 1993 security was increased wasn't it???

Cap

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6366
  • Trueprotein.com 5% discount code= CSP111
Re: Debunking Controlled Demo
« Reply #66 on: February 18, 2007, 03:20:43 PM »
1993 didn't involve wiring the building to come down did it?  After 1993 security was increased wasn't it???
It was going to sever one tower and tip it into the other if I'm not mistaken.
Squishy face retard

kh300

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4360
Re: Debunking Controlled Demo
« Reply #67 on: February 18, 2007, 03:40:49 PM »
yes the wtc's had extra security after 93,, thats why it would be impossible to spend months loading the buildings with bombs.

the whole process of conducting everything on 911 would have been too risky.
what if the planes didnt hit the buildings?
what if someone saw a bomb
what if the 'explosions' didnt go off
what if someone became a whistle blower?
what if the terrorists got caught at the airport
what if the 'bombs' didnt all go off or some of the building didnt go down
what if they discovered some of the bombs
what if people saw explosions(and no,not flashes)
what if they herd the explosions
what if they got caught getting the bombs in
what if,like in pa- the terrorists wernt successfull in flying the planes

i could go on and on,, but with so many variables that had to go right in order for a controlled demo- being caught would mean they would be executed

can someone answer me why nobody herd any explosions?

maybee its just because im trained in law. i dont believe someone is guilty until proven. questions are not answers

tu_holmes

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 15922
  • Robot
Re: Debunking Controlled Demo
« Reply #68 on: February 18, 2007, 03:44:27 PM »
yes the wtc's had extra security after 93,, thats why it would be impossible to spend months loading the buildings with bombs.

the whole process of conducting everything on 911 would have been too risky.
what if the planes didnt hit the buildings?
what if someone saw a bomb
what if the 'explosions' didnt go off
what if someone became a whistle blower?
what if the terrorists got caught at the airport
what if the 'bombs' didnt all go off or some of the building didnt go down
what if they discovered some of the bombs
what if people saw explosions(and no,not flashes)
what if they herd the explosions
what if they got caught getting the bombs in
what if,like in pa- the terrorists wernt successfull in flying the planes

i could go on and on,, but with so many variables that had to go right in order for a controlled demo- being caught would mean they would be executed

can someone answer me why nobody herd any explosions?

maybee its just because im trained in law. i dont believe someone is guilty until proven. questions are not answers

I thought you were a cop at one time... that does not make you trained in "law" in makes you trained in "upholding the law", there is a difference.

If you are a lawyer now, then you are trained in "law" and I rescind my previous statement.

I do agree that they are questions, my point is that I would like someone to answer a lot of questions that have gone unanswered in my, and others, minds... That's all... no more, no less.

I'm not pointing a finger, but I do not believe that the fingers that HAVE been pointed are at all accurate... That's all I'm saying.

kh300

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4360
Re: Debunking Controlled Demo
« Reply #69 on: February 18, 2007, 03:56:35 PM »
I thought you were a cop at one time... that does not make you trained in "law" in makes you trained in "upholding the law", there is a difference.

If you are a lawyer now, then you are trained in "law" and I rescind my previous statement.

I do agree that they are questions, my point is that I would like someone to answer a lot of questions that have gone unanswered in my, and others, minds... That's all... no more, no less.

I'm not pointing a finger, but I do not believe that the fingers that HAVE been pointed are at all accurate... That's all I'm saying.

ok sorry,, i have a criminal justice degree, so im not a lawyer  but 90% of my training/schooling was in studying law. your not gonna find to many cops that dont know almost everything about the laws they enforce,, and ive had hundreds of hours in court experiance- every one of my arrests/investigations requires court time.

you dont seem too bad, but 240 and others have already convcted the government of controlling all of 911
for every question you guys have there is a valid answer,, but you dont like the answers so you make up your own

tu_holmes

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 15922
  • Robot
Re: Debunking Controlled Demo
« Reply #70 on: February 18, 2007, 04:00:16 PM »
ok sorry,, i have a criminal justice degree, so im not a lawyer  but 90% of my training/schooling was in studying law. your not gonna find to many cops that dont know almost everything about the laws they enforce,, and ive had hundreds of hours in court experiance- every one of my arrests/investigations requires court time.

you dont seem too bad, but 240 and others have already convcted the government of controlling all of 911
for every question you guys have there is a valid answer,, but you dont like the answers so you make up your own

I'm not trying to make up anything... I simply would like rational answers explained about some of the questions I have.

Hugo Chavez

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 31866
Re: Debunking Controlled Demo
« Reply #71 on: February 18, 2007, 04:00:20 PM »
It was going to sever one tower and tip it into the other if I'm not mistaken.
and this applies how?  It was also going to release cyanide gas to kill everyone in vacinity.... and ???  Was security increased after that happened?  yes or no?

Cap

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6366
  • Trueprotein.com 5% discount code= CSP111
Re: Debunking Controlled Demo
« Reply #72 on: February 18, 2007, 04:04:52 PM »
yes the wtc's had extra security after 93,, thats why it would be impossible to spend months loading the buildings with bombs.

  Here's your answer Berserker.

It applies because you said nobody would notice Arabs around the building.  Also, 240 said that there were Paki men in jumps suits as the workers sooooooo................ ...make your own conclusions about your past statements and what you said recently
Squishy face retard

Hugo Chavez

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 31866
Re: Debunking Controlled Demo
« Reply #73 on: February 18, 2007, 04:05:46 PM »
funny thing about that security:

Marvin P. Bush, the president’s younger brother, was a principal in a company called Securacom that provided security for the World Trade Center, United Airlines, and Dulles International Airport. The company, Burns noted, was backed by KuwAm, a Kuwaiti-American investment firm on whose board Marvin Burns also served. [Utne]
According to its present CEO, Barry McDaniel, the company had an ongoing contract to handle security at the World Trade Center "up to the day the buildings fell down."


The company lists as government clients "the U.S. Army, U.S. Navy, U.S Air force, and the Department of Justice," in projects that "often require state-of-the-art security solutions for classified or high-risk government sites."

Stratesec (Securacom) differs from other security companies which separate the function of consultant from that of service provider. The company defines itself as a "single-source" provider of "end-to-end" security services, including everything from diagnosis of existing systems to hiring subcontractors to installing video and electronic equipment. It also provides armored vehicles and security guards.

The Dulles Internation contract is another matter. Dulles is regarded as "absolutely a sensitive airport," according to security consultant Wayne Black, head of a Florida-based security firm, due to its location, size, and the number of international carriers it serves.

Black has not heard of Stratesec, but responds that for one company to handle security for both airports and airlines is somewhat unusual. It is also delicate for a security firm serving international facilities to be so interlinked with a foreign-owned company: "Somebody knew somebody," he suggested, or the contract would have been more closely scrutinized.

As Black points out, "when you [a company] have a security contract, you know the inner workings of everything." And if another company is linked with the security company, then "What's on your computer is on their computer." [American Reporter]
 

kh300

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4360
Re: Debunking Controlled Demo
« Reply #74 on: February 18, 2007, 04:12:27 PM »
I'm not trying to make up anything... I simply would like rational answers explained about some of the questions I have.

every question that has been asked has been given an answer by me and several others. but when you want something to happen, you close your eyes to the real answers.

in all the 'research' guys like 240 have done, im willing to bet 90% of it has been on conspericy sites. while he dismisses any of the real research that has been done. 240 thinks that anyone in the government or who did investigations is apart of the scheme, and any of us who dont believe in his 911 theories are idiot sheep who will believe anything.

like ive said before, if i saw one bit of evidence that our government conducted 911 i would be the first one to want these people executed.