Will Al Qaeda attack the US in 2009

[_Angus McAwesome]

Yet you have no goddamned clue about how long it takes and how bleedingly obvious it is setting up one. So what you're sating is that dozens of men breaking out insulation around support beams, cutting into those beams with torches, and rigging those beams with several thousand pounds of explosives without anyone noticing...

That one is simple.
All large buildings in NYC are designed to fall in their footprint, so a lot of what you're stating wouldn't be necesary.

Wait a second... First you said that the building inploding when they collasped could only have been caused by a staged demolition and now you're saying that the building were designed to collaspe like that to begin with.

Which one is it then? Were they dropped by demolition charges that mysteriously got planted without anyone noticing a large group of men and several thousand pounds of explosive being planted, or were the buildings designed to implode in place in the event of structural failure?

In either case, nice back peddle, dumbass.

Then name him.

I actually have video of the guy testifying.

I'm from Missouri, kid. Don't tell me you've got video, show me. Then show me documentation that places this witness at the scene.

I had originally said I'd go to the bother looking for you, but at this time I couldn't care less because you don't seem to be able to hold up an actual intelligent conversation in the first place. This is clearly evident by your continuous use of derogatory language and personal attacks toward me. What this actually shows is that you're offended by me (psychologically speaking, anyway - if someone "questions" the truth of someones "sacred story" then the believers get angry, denounce the person as a blasphemer -- otherwise known as "damage control") and so unless you can say that you're able to discuss in a calm, collected and sociable manner then I'd rather not bother.

Plain English Translation: WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA! My butt hurts and I'm all emo about it!

Here's a hint, boy, if you make extraordinary claims that reak of half-baked conspiracy lunicy then be prepared to provide extraordinary evidence for those claims. If you can't, then be prepared to be mocked and ridiculed by me. That's what I do when I find morons on the internet.

Call me Conan the Debater. I kill the inane arguments, drive the idiotic assertions before me, and listen to the lamentations of the dumbass that made them. Now be a good little tool and run back to whatever conspiracy website you crawled out from under, and leave debate to the adults.

[_Brenton]

Wait a second... First you said that the building inploding when they collasped could only have been caused by a staged demolition and now you're saying that the building were designed to collaspe like that to begin with.

Which one is it then? Were they dropped by demolition charges that mysteriously got planted without anyone noticing a large group of men and several thousand pounds of explosive being planted, or were the buildings designed to implode in place in the event of structural failure?

In either case, nice back peddle, dumbass.

Not really. Once again you're seeing what you're choosing to see.
A building designed to fall into it's footprint still has to be demolished -- it just makes it a lot easier. It doesn't seem like this fall into footprint thing was so much in effect when WTC 1, 2, etc., were built because they sort of exploded outward as once can see if you watch them collapse.

Call me Conan the Debater. I kill the inane arguments, drive the idiotic assertions before me, and listen to the lamentations of the dumbass that made them. Now be a good little tool and run back to whatever conspiracy website you crawled out from under, and leave debate to the adults.

You do nothing but make mundane attempts to hurt the character of the person you're discussing with because you're 100% inept to have a decent conversation and ONLY discuss the topic at hand -- you consistently resort to personal attacks.

Let us, for example look at building 7. The owner (name escapes me, I had it last night) of the WTC complex TESTIFIED on PBS that WTC 7 "was pulled" .... HELLO?!
You keep making attacks about "providing evidence," now obviously I should do that on a when claim is made basis, but because I'm so busy it's hard to get it all together as I go.

I'm not "butthurt" by your comments, nor am I hurt by your apparent "refutations" of what I say. There are just some people that aren't meant to have open minds, and I'm not talking about just accepting what I say, what I am talking about is trusting your government like a poodle in warm jumper. You'd much rather be nice and cosy.

Last point I'm going to cover in this topic altogether, unless you can commit to a non-derogatory TOPICAL ONLY discussion is this ... what do you say about the beginning of the 9/11 truth movement? It was started by the wives of men who died in the buildings becuase they KNEW that it was all a fraud from the calls people recieved being told to stay away from lower manhattan on 11th sept., and what about the officials and conferences that were cancelled because of an "imminent security issue"? What about all those wives who protested at the 9/11 comission public press conference? I don't need to give you evidence for this, you just have to think back to the media coverage on this, or google search it. The "urban legend" about people being told to stay away from lower manhattan turned out to be true.

But, just to satisfy your derogatory attacks if I don't provide "something" here we are:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m ... i_92589583
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=25008

I could obviously go on, but I'm stopping because you seem unable to discuss in a truly ethical and decent way.

[_Jersey Girl]

Brenton

But it was formed to protect the skies, which includes shooting down hijacked airplanes. The airlines knew they were hijacked before the actual disaster came to total fruition.

Please show me proof that prior to Sept 11, NORAD was authorized to shoot down hijacked commercial airliners. I'd also like to see evidence of the chain of command under which you think such authorization would occur.

Hey, I asked a question here.

[_Brenton]

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Sometime between 1991 and 2001, a regional sector of the North American Aerospace Defense Command simulated a foreign hijacked airliner crashing into a building in the United States as part of training exercise scenario, a NORAD spokesman said Monday.

[...]According to a statement from NORAD, "Before September 11th, 01, NORAD regularly conducted a variety of exercises that included hijack scenarios. These exercises tested track detection and identification; scramble and interception; hijack procedures; internal and external agency coordination and operational security and communications security procedures."[...]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/04/19/norad. ... index.html

Now, you say that in-fact NORAD was not responsible for the 9/11 attacks -- but simply, the fact they eventually did respond says otherwise.

"Our tolerance for a 'track on interest' is extremely low," says Martin. In other words, NORAD has no interest in taking chances. If something is detected, heard or intercepted which may indicate a threat, officials will not hesitate to take protective measures and "scramble" fighter jets, if necessary.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/09/09/hln.te ... index.html

Now, I recognise that the second CNN article just above is from after 9/11, but I've been browsing norad.mil (official website) and anything else I can find and not one thing yet suggests that this ability to scramble fighter jets was only a post-9/11 change.

The reason why NORAD didn't react is because they were so deliberately confused, they were doing the same-type exercise, and it happened. They couldn't seperate the exercise from the real world.

Lt. Col. Dawne Deskins figured it would be a long day.
Sept. 11 was Day II of "Vigilant Guardian," an exercise that would pose an imaginary crisis to North American Air Defense outposts nationwide. The simulation would run all week, and Deskins, starting her 12-hour shift in the Operations Center as the NORAD unit's airborne control and warning officer, might find herself on the spot.
Day I of the simulation had moved slowly. She hoped the exercise gathered steam. It made a long day go faster.
8:40 A.M.: REAL WORLD
In the Ops Center, three rows of radar scopes face a high wall of wide-screen monitors. Supervisors pace behind technicians who peer at the instruments. Here it is always quiet, always dark, except for the green radar glow.
At 8:40, Deskins noticed senior technician Jeremy Powell waving his hand. Boston Center was on the line, he said. It had a hijacked airplane.
"It must be part of the exercise," Deskins thought.
At first, everybody did. Then Deskins saw the glowing direct phone line to the Federal Aviation Administration.
- "Amid Crisis Simulation, 'We Were Suddenly No-Kidding Under Attack'"
by Hart Seely, Newhouse News Service, January 25, 2002

This is just some information, for your consideration.

[_Angus McAwesome]

Not really. Once again you're seeing what you're choosing to see.
A building designed to fall into it's footprint still has to be demolished -- it just makes it a lot easier. It doesn't seem like this fall into footprint thing was so much in effect when WTC 1, 2, etc., were built because they sort of exploded outward as once can see if you watch them collapse.

Now you're inventing design elements in order to make the "evidence" fit your retarded theory.

1. Show evidence that the design of of WTC 1, 2, and 7 involved them imploding on structural failure.

2. Hell, while you're at it, show the NYC Building code that dictates that "All large buildings in NYC are designed to fall in their footprint".

3. You're ignoring that if your assertion that "All large buildings in NYC are designed to fall in their footprint" is true then it's equally possible that WTC 1 and 2 were brought down due to structural failure from the combined effects of damage caused by well over 100,000kg of aircraft slamming into them at several hundred kilometers per hour and the resulting fires.

In other words, instead of creating a theory that fits the observable evidence you're inventing "evidence" to fit your established theory.

You do nothing but make mundane attempts to hurt the character of the person you're discussing with because you're 100% inept to have a decent conversation and ONLY discuss the topic at hand -- you consistently resort to personal attacks.

No, that would be an ad hominem attack, i.e. attacking you personally in order to undermine your credibility in this debate. What I am doing is insulting you, you slack witted idiot.

1. Learn how to debate.

2. Learn what debate and logic fallacies are.

3. Take out a loan and buy an education already.

Let us, for example look at building 7. The owner (name escapes me, I had it last night) of the WTC complex TESTIFIED on PBS that WTC 7 "was pulled" .... HELLO?!

Oh he, another wild claim! Let's see the evidence, jackass.

You keep making attacks about "providing evidence," now obviously I should do that on a when claim is made basis, but because I'm so busy it's hard to get it all together as I go.

I keep asking for evidence because you keep making wild ass claims and failing to provide anything at all to substantiate them but more wild ass claims, dumbass.

I'm not "butthurt" by your comments, nor am I hurt by your apparent "refutations" of what I say. There are just some people that aren't meant to have open minds, and I'm not talking about just accepting what I say, what I am talking about is trusting your government like a poodle in warm jumper. You'd much rather be nice and cosy.

Wow, so here we've got two debate fallacies in one...

1. Good old fashioned wall-of-ignorance. Instead of using critical thinking and examining my argument you stick you go "nu-uh!" like some sort of idiotic child being told Santa isn't real.

2. An actual ad hominem. Because I don't take your idiocy at face value I must blindly support anything the government says as truth, therefore my arguments are invalid.

At this point I honestly believe I couldn't be as stupid as you are if I repeatedly bludgeoned myself in the head with a hammer. Seriously, how much alcohol did your mother dink while pregnant with you? The only explanation I can think of for how another human being could be as pig ignorant as you is massive birth defect brought on by fetal alcohol syndrome.

Last point I'm going to cover in this topic altogether, unless you can commit to a non-derogatory TOPICAL ONLY discussion is this ...

Yeah, heard that one before... Seriously, this is the second time you said you'd shut the hell up already, and goddamnit, you're still posting.

what do you say about the beginning of the 9/11 truth movement?

I say every last one of them is about as worthy of acknowledgment as the dogshit I scrapped off my work boot today. I hold them in the same regard as I do with Young Earth Creationists, Free Energy Yahoos, and Faked Moon Landing morons. They are beneath contempt.

It was started by the wives of men who died in the buildings becuase they KNEW that it was all a fraud from the calls people recieved being told to stay away from lower manhattan on 11th sept., and what about the officials and conferences that were cancelled because of an "imminent security issue"?

More BS. Lets see the evidence.

What about all those wives who protested at the 9/11 comission public press conference?

What about them? I could honestly not give a rats ass and your sill ass appeal to emotion is duly noted, shit-for-brains.

I don't need to give you evidence for this, you just have to think back to the media coverage on this, or google search it.

*to the tune of Big Ben chiming out 3pm* Wrong wrong wrong wrong... Wrong wrong wrong wrong... You're Wrong! You're Wrong! You're WRONG!

Yes, as a matter of fact, you do have to show evidence. Not that I expect you to, but you make the claim it still falls to you to PROVE IT.

The "urban legend" about people being told to stay away from lower manhattan turned out to be true.

Sure thing, let's see the Snopes article confirming it then.

But, just to satisfy your derogatory attacks if I don't provide "something" here we are:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m ... i_92589583
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=25008

Boy, read this and for once in your miserable, worthless, palm-fucking troll existence comprehend what you are reading...

Show some actual evidence from official sources, not more conspiracy site BS.

I could obviously go on, but I'm stopping because you seem unable to discuss in a truly ethical and decent way.

So says the hatfucker that can't seem to grasp basic physics concepts, can't actually show evidence for his retarded claims, and resorts to inventing more retarded claims in order to try and lend plausibility to his previous retarded claims.

What's hilarious is that as I was typing this you posted you "evidence" or NORAD conducting exercises against a 9/11 scenario...

To bad for you that you apperently didn't bother to read the damned CNN article you posted, otherwise you might have noticed this bit...

We have planned and executed numerous scenarios over the years to include aircraft originating from foreign airports penetrating our sovereign airspace. Regrettably the tragic events of 9/11 were never anticipated or exercised," said Gen. Ralph Eberhart, commander of NORAD.

Relevant bid bolded. Notice how they said that the events of 9/11 were "never anticipated or exercised", meaning they never planned for running an intercept against a civilian passenger aircraft? You also might have noticed this next bit, which you even quoted...

]According to a statement from NORAD, "Before September 11th, 01, NORAD regularly conducted a variety of exercises that included hijack scenarios. These exercises tested track detection and identification; scramble and interception; hijack procedures; internal and external agency coordination and operational security and communications security procedures."

Notice that no where in that statement does it say that in the event of a hijack and the subsequent intercept that they would even be able to do anything more then observe the aircraft? They would still need authorization from NCA on orders from the President of the United States in order to actually engage the aircraft.

Next, let's look at your timeline... Notice how it conforms to exactly what I said about the FAA making the initial observation, then NORAD gets called, and then fighters are launched to make contact with the aircraft? Yeah, way to go, moron, you provided evidence for my argument. Good job!

[_Brenton]

What a damned liberty.

We have planned and executed numerous scenarios over the years to include aircraft originating from foreign airports penetrating our sovereign airspace. Regrettably the tragic events of 9/11 were never anticipated or exercised," said Gen. Ralph Eberhart, commander of NORAD.

Obviously I read it, or I wouldn't have posted it.
This shows your fraudulent nature because you're willing to scratch the dirtiest crap out of yourself and just smear the filth all over the screen for everyone to see.

A government quote, haha, haha, hahah!!!
Ofcourse, the government would be honest because they've really got the interests of the citizens of this world at heart don't they?
Oh, most surely they do.

As if a government institution, which has the sole purpose of self preservation is gonna say "yep, we saw those planes on the radar and just let em' go. we thought it was just some unregistered joy ride".

HAHA!
HAHAHA!

Oh I hate text as a medium because it's hard for you to understand how funny you are.

There will be one last post from me in this thread when I show the PBS footage, and that will be all. I couldn't care less about your dim-witted responses. You should also probably note that not one word of my last post was directed at you.

And, it is you who clearly needs the more education because you aren't debating. You're just using the "prove it!!" arguement.
It's the same as someone who doesn't believe in God and says so. The burden of proof is on the person who believes in the sacred story.

[_Angus McAwesome]

A government quote, haha, haha, hahah!!!
Ofcourse, the government would be honest because they've really got the interests of the citizens of this world at heart don't they?
Oh, most surely they do.

Yes, because the anything the government says is a lie because your conspiracy says the government lies. Ever heard of circular logic, shitbird? The truly hilarious part of this is you just tried to use "Government Statements" to prove your point and now you say that the "government is lying", which would, you know, undermine your assertion that NORAD or the US Government was up to shenanigans in the first place.

Goddamn it, at this point you're rapidly approaching the density of damned uranium.

As if a government institution, which has the sole purpose of self preservation is gonna say "yep, we saw those planes on the radar and just let em' go. we thought it was just some unregistered joy ride".

Actually they stated that they initially thought it was part of the exercise, you dishonest sack of crap.

I here will be one last post from me in this thread when I show the PBS footage, and that will be all.

Heard that twice before, so there's no reason to believe you'll actually shut the “F” up this time either.

And, it is you who clearly needs the more education because you aren't debating. You're just using the "prove it!!" arguement.

Jesus... You do understand that saying "prove it" when someone makes a claim during a debate is debating, right? I take it back, you're mother wasn't drinking while pregnant with you... She was obviously mainlining half the annual heroin output of Afghanistan while huffing industrial solvents.

It's the same as someone who doesn't believe in God and says so. The burden of proof is on the person who believes in the sacred story.

Yeah, no crap, Sherlock. The person claiming that invisible people who live in the sky exist are making an extraordinary claim and therefore the burden of proof falls on them for making the claim.

Do they even have school in whatever sad and pathetic land you come from?

[_Brenton]

Yeah, in this pathetic land where our education system ranks much higher.
Australia.

The overall point is, you're not open to new information.
You're putting your fingers in your ears, blindfolding yourself and screaming "LALALALA! SHUT THE “F” UP!!!!".

There's no point bothering to discuss with you.

[_Angus McAwesome]

Dude, what the “F”? You just said, for the third time I might add, that you weren't going to post again. Seriously, if you're a product of the Australian school system, then it's no wonder everyone thinks of morons poking poisonous reptiles with sticks. Stop friggin' posting already you bogan putz.

[_Brenton]

You wouldn't know what bogan was if it slapped you in the face, my friend.
I realise that I said I wasn't going to post -- but it's too irresistible. ;p

Here's the "pull it" video: http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=7WYdAJQV100 however I'd be surprised if you haven't already seen it.

Have you noticed that I've pretty much maintained my calm with you? Use of continual insults, especially derogatory insults is trademark bogan my friend and also blatant evidence for small vocabulary.

it's no wonder everyone thinks of morons poking poisonous reptiles with sticks.

Wow, aren't we -smart-? ;p