The Ultimate Con

Hardly. I am referring to the eyewitnesses.

 

Then start with the "who" and follow that with the "why" and "how", but don't bore me with "theories" and moaning of government conspiracies.

For goodness sakes! Someone PROVE something that hasn't already been proved. Anything at all. :BangHead:

 

Unfortunately, I think that this situation will be like the assassination of President Kennedy - we will never know all of the answers. Therefore, questions will continue for as far as the eye can see.

 

Ok, Mr. Man of Lamancha, your logic is as dry and boring as that ridiculous novel I was forced to read in high school.

If there is one thing Poncho is not, it is dumber than a 5th grader. We don't agree on a lot of conspiracy theories, but his reasoning is well thought out. On this subject, in order to dismiss a conspiracy, one must believe that the civilian leadership at present has integrity. Nothing more needs to be said.

By the way, I have got to know, what on earth ever made you choose that name. Your novel's namesake was the only one I could not sit down and read, and that includes Shakespeare. It got so bad I purchased cliff notes to get through it, and it was good for a C.

 

How do you propose someone prove that 'who' committed anything that can't be proven to have happened? There are enough inconsistencies in the official story to warrant a little skepticism. All we want is for people to realize that the whole story is not the story we have been told and there should be a call for a new investigation. What possible reason could there be to not have a new investigation?

 

Thread warning closing: This thread will be closed no sooner than 1:15 a.m. ET by one of the moderators.

LE

 

Poncho:

Ah I see you are maintaining your weight by
the frequent exercise: Jumping to Conclusions.

It is the "duty of the U.S. military to protect
and defend the U.S. Constitution from all enemies
foreigh and DOMESTIC". It's duty has NOT
changed. It is the duty of high level Officers
(those with Stars /and Naval Equivalents/) to
provide the civilian leadership with summaries
of capabilities and to get the capabilities that
the civilian leaders request. The reason that the
Generals (and Admirals) are to
provide the civilian leadership with summaries
of capabilities is so the civilian leadership can decide
what to do AS IS THEIR DUTY.
Needless to say, the civilian leadership will
be judged on how good their duty was done.

IMHO nobody should ever know the military/intel options of
capabilities requested by the civilian leadership
or the ones not selected for implimentation by the
civilian leadership. It confuses most people who
can't tell the difference (for example)
between a plan and an implementation.
The classic conspiracy of the 1970s was
REPORT FROM IRON MOUNTAIN
on the Possibility and Desireability of Peace
(Dial Press, 1967). Hardly anybody seems
to understand that document. (Check and see if
you can find a copy around the internet
for sale. The document predates the ISBN system.)

Most people can't figure out how War provides
many human needs. (for example) the only
viable alternative in religions that don't bother
to practice birth control is DEATH CONTROL
which war provides handily and when peace breaks
out - how do you kill extra people.
Yep, people don't understand studies like that.
Back in the late '70s I even had a Baptist Preacher
mention (Wednesday night) that we aught not
to practice Birth Control cause we needed
people to fight the Communicsts (I guess a
2007 version would be to fight the
Radical/Militant/Terrorist Mussleman fringe.

I also read Herman Khan THINKING ABOUT THE
UNTHINKABLE - i.e. all out nuclear war --
also known as 'human-race'-o-cide.

Anyway, I agree: the al-Qaeda conspiracy to get the USofA's
goat is the ultimate con.

 

No.

I don't think there were any "eyewitnesses" to explosives being set off.

There were only earwitnesses, who have no idea what caused the explosions they heard.

 

Yes, there were. If you watched the ten minute video you would have known this by hearing their reports yourself.

 

All you have to do is prove it. It's been "investigated" many times over.

In the meantime, stop treating theory as fact.

 

You're wrong.

Earwitnesses only. They reported only what they "heard".

 

He is to busy soaking up everything Ronnie says. I find it interesting that those on this board who support these nutball theories also support ronnie,

 

No, you're wrong. There were eyewitnesses who reported what was seen.

Have you watched the ten minute video?

 

I have.

No one at all said they saw an explosive device.

They repeatedly said they "heard" an explosion.

They continually use words like:

"may have been"
"believe there was"
"think" and "thinks"
"sounded like"

One group of firemen describe the building as collapsing floor by floor starting from the top down.

There is no concrete evidence of anything at all in the clip to suggest an inside job to aid the collapse of the towers.

 

Then maybe you need to watch it again, carpro.

 

And maybe you should listen again as well as watch.

 

I did.

I heard a survivor say that he saw the elevator doors blow up. Another person reported seeing black smoke after an explosion. Another person was knocked to the ground by an explosion.

To deny what the police and the survivors have to say about this subject is to bury one's head in sand.

 

So what?

What caused the explosions? You automatically assume they were caused by devices planted by someone. Prove it.

 

As someone already posted - the evidence is gone.

Don't worry, carpro, the elites in this country that you are so enthralled with are safe.

 

So, because I require real proof before I go chasing rabbits and drawing erroneous and poorly supported conclusions, I am "enthralled" with "the elites", whoever they are?

Is it my turn now to try to insult you because we don't agree?

Her ya go. :tongue3: