Homeland Security wraps up first mock cyberattack

TalkBack 25 of 69:

Next »

« Previous

• Thread View
• Flat View

What a surprise! You answered none of those questions!

"It was also the most reinforced structurally. If it had hit any other side, the losses would be enormous."

Gee, lucky for us and the Pentagon that the "terrorist" just happened to hit the most reinforced side. Of course he was tipped off by bin Laden about that too.
I'm not saying arabs are not smart enough to pull off 9/11, simply they do not HAVE THE CAPABILITY! When Bush was flying around in air force one, he got calls from the "terrorists", with them threatening to shoot down air force one. WHERE would they have gotten this secret phone number from???

"Do you know that there is no honor among criminals. How do you keep all of those people loyal to the conspiracy?"

Simple. The heads of agencies are in on the conspiracy. They then order everyone beneath them to do something, no matter what it is. The underlings then unwittingly become part of the conspiracy.
When do mobsters rat on each other. When they are threatened with indictment. Ever hear of them blowing whistles otherwise? No. And I don't think those guys are so honorable.
Have you heard of Sibel Edmonds? If not, do some research on her. Here is a CLASSIC example of how people who are not part of the criminal plot get folded in.

"In Ms. Edmonds' unimpeachable testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee almost three years ago, she named countries and people who had contributed to the attacks of 9/11."

http://baltimorechronicle.com/121704Hogue.shtml
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/18828res20050126.html

Guess bin Laden placed a call to US federal officials and got here gagged to eh? Ever think you may be attributing WAY TOO MANY capabilities to this front cell, Al-Qaeda?

"Nixon couldn't keep 8 plumbers mouths shut."

And you really think no conditions in government have changed since Nixon? Gimme a break. Was the "Patriot" Act around when Nixon was in office?

"Official is the standard version."

"Official", "standard", "basic"..WHATEVER! You've just swapped adjectives, and yet clarify nothing by saying it differently. Does this "standard" version provide us with all that "smoking gun hard evidence" that you rest your judgment on??? NOPE.
Can you explain to me why the feds' explanation is NOT a comspiracy theory also? C'mon dude. Stop holding out on us! Present us with all that "smoking gun hard evidence" you seem to feel the feds have provided..(sound of pin dropping)..;-)

"You conspirists cannot even agree on a few things."

Sure we can! We all pretty much agree that there were no hijackers on board, the cell phone calls were faked by people on the ground, the planes were remote controlled, the buildings were ALL stuffed with explosives, and Silverstein admitted to "pulling" WTC7 (which you yourself admitted was PURPOSELY set on fire, which "forced" Silverstein to "pull" the building to "save lives"--you still need to explain to me why you find it normal that someone deliberately set a building on fire).
I am still sitting on the fence about the Pentagon. I have seen good arguments both for and against the actual plane hitting the building vs. a missile. What I still don't understand is how a hollow aluminum tube (plane fuselage) was able to PIERCE three reinforced concrete walls. The hole in the third wall in had a perfect circle PUNCHED through it. I can't see how a plane could have punched through all those without crushing like a tin can on impact.

"All you guys are doing is giving up on logic and proving everything thru guilt by association."

So how then did you come to the comclusion that Silverstein "pulled" that building???????? Wasn't it, ahem, EVIDENCE (as in that PBS video, America Rebuilds) which persuaded you, and not some associative nonsense?
OK. Try to logicize this one: people that fell to their deaths from the towers hit the ground in anywhere from 4 to 6 seconds. The two towers fell in 8 and 10 seconds. You find this normal? Two 110 story steel framed skyscrapers barrel through HUNDREDS OF TONS OF WEIGHT in resistance thwarting their fall take NOT EVEN ***FIVE SECONDS*** longer to hit the ground over an object falling facing no resistance in a vacuum (falling peoples' bodies)???
Care to explain this? Can you logically explain this? You don't find this to be a defiance of science? If I were standing on the roof of WTC1 and dropped a basketball from the roof the moment WTC2 starting falling, WTC2 would have hit the ground not even five seconds after the basketball hit the ground!!! WTF?!?!?!?!?!

"Because you know I don't have access to the evidence room. You are the fool, not me."

Ummm yeah. You're deriding us, calling us charlatans, photoshop tricksters, fools, lunatics, and yet can provide no more evidence to back up what you're saying over what we're saying.
How are you not just as big a fool for coming across as though you are certain of what you're saying (when you admit you don't have the facts either).
I think you're guilty of burglary. How do I know? Because I do, no proof required, end of story..(this is what you're sounding like..;-))

"Even if they lay out the evidence for you on the conference table, you wouldn't believe them still pushing the conspiracy."

Putting words in my mouth. Unlike yourself, I do not have this need to feel I'm always right. If I sat down with US federal officials (this is taking place next week ;-)) and they could PROVE to me using HARD EVIDENCE what they are saying, I'd breathe a great sigh of relief, and end my quest for what I thought was the real truth. I am not some pigheaded browbeater. This is something I'd much rather be WRONG about..

"The other gunmen on the Grassy Knoll was already debunked."

YEAH! Where??? Show me. Prove it to me. Why was the THIRD shot the best shot fired then? Usually it's the first (because you get all the time in the world to set up the initial shot). And you basically are also saying that someone who was shot in the back of the head fell BACKWARD (instead of forward).
And why wouldn't Oswald just shot Kennedy on Houston Street??? He would have had multiple easy straighaway shots (instead of shooting through a tree on a diagonal).
Dude, you're scaring me if you think Oswald shot JFK. You're hopeless if that's the case..

"No smoking gun or eyewitness and you have no case. And actually you have less intelligence and a closed mind."

No sorry, because you have just as little evidence to go on (actually you have less than I do), and yet REFUSE to entertain all the possibilities. I am perfectly willing to accept the federal conspiracy theory ONCE I am provided with the evidence to back it. YOU have no evidence to debunk what I put forth, and yet claim you definitely have the truth on your side?
How is my mind more narrow and closed than yours, when I'm willing to entertain all possibilities, and you're only willing to entertain one (put forth to you by criminal Straussian fascists)???
You are just not making sense..can you explain?..

Posted by: 5th Limb in the Kisser   Posted on: 02/12/06 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

• Why Isn't Server Virtualization Saving Us More? A Few Small Changes May Dramatically Increase Your Efficiency VMware Companies have rapidly adopted server virtualization over the past few ... Download Now
• Reducing Server Total Cost of Ownership with VMware Virtualization Software VMware VMware virtualization enables customers to reduce their server TCO and ... Download Now
• Virtualization: Architectural Considerations And Other Evaluation Criteria VMware Of the many approaches to x86 systems virtualization available in the ... Download Now