Bin Laden: Shoot To Kill

[Pred]

loose change

Okay, let's debunk them one at a time. Point us to your source of this fact.

heres a good place to start for anyone that has done no research in modern history for years (not saying you)
but it's a good place to start purely on 9/11
watch with an open mind, then let your own research take you wherever it takes you
to prove points, to try to debunk is all healthy

enjoy

you know what youtube is like you will be stuck on there hours
some trash, some gold

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7E3oIbO0AWE

so much is happening all the time though
new info, etc.

 

[BREWSTERS]

Okay, let's debunk them one at a time. Point us to your source of this fact.

The 'source' is common sense. A plane full of fuel hits an object which itself is largely benign from an instantly flammable point of view. A huge fireball is immediately released. Now, what would you say was the source of that fireball?


Why is it that people need to be told everything - why does there have to be an outside source? You guys are all intelligent but why switch off your brains and look for an outside source to give you your opinion? All it takes is some lateral thinking.

 

[grantw]

Now, what would you say was the source of that fireball?

Probaby the fuel, but it's not a fact is it??? Unless you're some sort of aviation crash expert and witnessed it first hand I don't see how you can claim to 'know' that this is correct.

Were you there?

Grant

 

[cm1975]

The 'source' is common sense. A plane full of fuel hits an object which itself is largely benign from an instantly flammable point of view. A huge fireball is immediately released. Now, what would you say was the source of that fireball?

I'm going to take an educated guess at this. Some of the fuel will have burned immediately, but due to the enclosed nature of the WTC, not all the fuel would have been able to burn due to a lack of oxygen and exposure to the flames.

I'm sure we've all seen images of a petrol bomb exploding in the news or in films. The petrol within the bottle does not immediately all burn and a pool of petrol can burn for a few minutes afterwards. I imagine the same principles apply, except the pool of fuel/flames would have descended within the building.

 

[mat]

So in other words Brewsters your facts are also coming from the media, whether its the TV, Internet, YouTube, Documentaries, Books...

Where did you hear about these witnesses? History channel ?? Or do you have real life accounts from these people?

I'm not going to argue anymore, it's a waste of my time. It is laughable though that the places you get your "facts" from is the exact same place we are supposedly being fed lies through.

If you were heavily involved in the investigation or were part of the team that constructed the world trace centres I would listen to you, but you’re not.

As it happens I keep a very open mind on everything. I’m sure the Americans used the attacks as a great reason to finally sort out the Middle East and get their oil secured. I just think your baloney takes things too far.

 

[Pred]

I asked for facts, not theory. Here's a fact

"Brian Reeves, a 34-year-old security guard, was nearly killed while making the rounds in the lobby of 1 World Trade Center on September 11. He started to run after hearing an explosion that he said sounded like a missile, but he was knocked down by a fireball that roared down the elevator shaft.

Reeves suffered third-degree burns to 40 percent of his body before he was able to pat out the flames. He was one of 20 critically-injured patients rushed to New York Presbyterian’s burn unit that day.

He has recovered from the physical injuries, but the nightmares and flashbacks still haunt him. Vowing to be a survivor and not a victim, Reeves recently returned to the World Trade Center site for the first time since September 11 to face down his fears."

dont want to be insulting Sean but you got a few years of research lol if you're coming out with quotes like this
you're at the very start
what you been doing for 10 years lol?

check out william rodriguez
the head janitor of wtc
who had the master keys and rescued some of the burns victims you're talking about
last man out, worked there 20 years
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIC0Kl4TKoU&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIZtqKiidlo&feature=related


theres whole organisations beeen formed of structural and civil engineers who are categorically saying the towers were brought down
getting almost zero exposure from mainstream
the actual firefighters who were there. THE heroes of the day, the ones that survived are saying what we're saying. the chief fire officer who was there slates guiliani , calls him a coward who ran away

look for the actual videos of these people
the people who know the most and have the most to be angry about are perhaps the firefighters

this is a big step
for people that have been walking around wioth their head in the clouds being fed horse manure from mainstream media, you have a lot of growing up to fo
basically if you do your research about whats really going on in the world and has done in the past few decades you will probably start doubting all the misconceived crap you have believed for years without questioning

anyway. i havent got all day
watch the videos
research sites, hundreds of them. look at all sides
and just on the 911 angle. i say just. there is only one main conclusion to reach

and it's horrifying

 

[mat]

Not just YouTube links, but Fox News aswell, the most credible station on this planet

 

[Pred]

Not just YouTube links, but Fox News aswell, the most credible station on this planet

you missed the irony
fox news, like you say are a diabolical excuse of an organisation
the fact he was telling the truth which they didn't want to hear on fox is the irony

do your research
speak to you in a few months

 

[BREWSTERS]

I asked for facts, not theory. Here's a fact

"Brian Reeves, a 34-year-old security guard, was nearly killed while making the rounds in the lobby of 1 World Trade Center on September 11. He started to run after hearing an explosion that he said sounded like a missile, but he was knocked down by a fireball that roared down the elevator shaft.

Is it a fact that what burned Brian Reeves was burning fuel from the aircraft? Or could it have been a fireball caused by one of the numerous secondary explisions witnessed by many people?

Words like 'roared down the elevator shaft' are included to misinform. How could anyone including Brian Reeves possibly know that? By his own admission he first heard an explosion.

What you've stated here is assumption based on a fact (the fact being Brian Reeves getting burned), the assumption being the possible cause. Assumption isn't fact.

I stand by what I said.

You asked for facts - thats what I gave you. In return you've given a story using an assumption and tried calling that factual. The only thing factual about it is that Brian Reeves was burned (I've seen him interviewed in the past). The cause given is assumption.

There was a huge fireball seen on impact that can only have been caused by the aviation fuel igniting. Fact.

 

[BREWSTERS]

Probaby the fuel, but it's not a fact is it??? Unless you're some sort of aviation crash expert and witnessed it first hand I don't see how you can claim to 'know' that this is correct.

Were you there?

Grant

What else could cause that fireball? Something did...it could only be the fuel.

The official story doesn't offer any other explanation, instead ignoring that the vast majority of the fuel burned off on impact and claiming that it seeped down through the building instead.

 

[mat]

you missed the irony
fox news, like you say are a diabolical excuse of an organisation
the fact he was telling the truth which they didn't want to hear on fox is the irony

do your research
speak to you in a few months

Your unbelievable, you act like they are cutting him off and not allowing him to speak, yet they give out an address at the end where you can go and watch him speak more about his views. You are also taking what he says really out of context. Tally ho!

 

[BREWSTERS]

Grant, the fireball was fuel, the thing is that Brewster argues that the whole 10,000 gallons went up at the point of impact and that there was no fire in the elevators or core of the building!

It beats me that people will happily debunk a newspaper report but will point to a YouTube video!!

Nowhere have I said there were no fires in other parts of the building. There were explosions going off throughout the building as per witness reports.

Given the scale of the WTC, and the fact that most of the fuel burned off on impact, the official explanation doesn't hold water.

And neither have I pointed to Youtube.

 

[GreyWing]

Brewster..

Just start from the beginning for me as people say there were no hijackers, explosives brought down the buildings, the buildings weren't built right, the hijackers were CIA guys.

So just so we get things right, what do you say actually happened?

 

[BREWSTERS]

So in other words Brewsters your facts are also coming from the media, whether its the TV, Internet, YouTube, Documentaries, Books...

Where did you hear about these witnesses? History channel ?? Or do you have real life accounts from these people?

In the instance of those witnesses, they are unchallenged and their evidence is a matter of record as are their bizarre deaths. Because these things are recorded by the media doesn't make them less factual. You must seperate such things from assumptions and propoganda.

I'm not going to argue anymore, it's a waste of my time. It is laughable though that the places you get your "facts" from is the exact same place we are supposedly being fed lies through.

If you were heavily involved in the investigation or were part of the team that constructed the world trace centres I would listen to you, but you’re not.

As it happens I keep a very open mind on everything. I’m sure the Americans used the attacks as a great reason to finally sort out the Middle East and get their oil secured. I just think your baloney takes things too far.

First thing an investigator looks for is motive.

You've just answered that part yourself.

What motive was there for Al Qaeda to attack the WTC? Especially given that AQ itself was made up by the CIA back in the early 90's.

And you think my 'balony' takes things too far? Think about Tony Blair and the WMD baloney. The WMD lie was the catalist to invade Iraq - the WTC was the catalist to invade Afghanistan.

If you want to continue with your head in the sand, that's fine. Life must be nicer that way.

 

[BREWSTERS]

Have a read of these eye witness accounts, assuming you don't think that they were all in on the conspiracy

https://sites.google.com/site/911stories/insidethenorthtower:witnessaccounts,lobb

FACT - many people experienced burns.

ASSUMPTION - they were all burned by fires caused from unburnt aviation fuel.

 

[Edwin]

FACT - nobody on this thread can POSSIBLY know the exact sequence of events that day.

ASSUMPTION - this is just going to degenerate into a back and forth, extremely pointless slanging match.

 

[BREWSTERS]

At the end of the day neither of us was there so this comes downs to whether you believe that a small group of politicians and elitists was capable of secretly orchestrating the biggest single atrocity in living memory. I choose to believe that they weren't, you prefer to believe they were.

I don't prefer to believe it, unfortunately I have to. I wish I didn't.

If you find it hard to believe that a group of politicians and elitists were behind 911 - then think!! Those are exactly the type of people behind every single war / ethnic cleansing / terrorism that the world has ever seen.

Personally I it insulting when they expect us to believe that a bunch of goat herders were responsible.

I'm just glad the World I choose to live in isn't the same as yours.

Enjoy it while you can - one day something will happen that makes you realise whats what.

 

[GreyWing]

Brewster..... We know what you don't think happened. But what do you think happened?

 

[BREWSTERS]

Brewster..

Just start from the beginning for me as people say there were no hijackers, explosives brought down the buildings, the buildings weren't built right, the hijackers were CIA guys.

So just so we get things right, what do you say actually happened?

To go through everything would take too long and I've already spent too much time on this already so I'll stick to the main points.

*The planes could not have brought down the towers in the timeframe...if at all. One of the bonuses of steel framed buildings is their ability to withstand great trauma and prelonged fires.
*Numerous explosions were experienced by many people at the scene.
*The buildings were recently taken over on a long lease and required so much money spending on them to bring them upto spec that they would've never been profitable.
*Insurance have paid out providing a near $4b profit for the lease holder.
*News agencies appeared to be working from scripts - in a couple of instances reporting events before they occured.
*Steel from the towers was sent to the other side of the world instead of being analysed for explosives etc. In other words evidence from the US's biggest crime scene was destroyed intentionally.
*Eye witness accounts state there were multiple explosions within the buildings along with a strong smell of exposives (as a military man you will agree they often have a highly destinctive smell)
*Strange activity was recorded within the buildings in the weeks leading upto 911 which has never been explained.

I could go on for ages.

Nothing factual this bit, but if you were in charge of the 911 attacks, wouldn't you have sent one of the planes into the Statue of Liberty?
If you genuinely wanted to attack the US (and their liberty), the answer would surely be yes.

 

[BREWSTERS]

You need to think what you're writing, we've already concluded that you have no evidence, only conjecture so are you saying you hear voices?

Who's 'we'?

Throughout history, the worst autrocities have been orchestrated by the authorities of one country or another. Yet you struggle to believe that in this case. Instead you reckon it's a bunch of cave dwellers. That make sense to you?

Good luck.

[/QUOTE]