Smut for Smut

[tavarish]

How did America's defense system "fail"?

Right now in how little time can America scramble fighter jets, launch an anti missile system or defend the pentagon with what the fuck ever they have defending the pentagon. Is the answer less than an hour? The failure is the inability to stop the attacks.

Yes - because they were completely prepared for the event in which 4 airplanes are hijacked and turned into 500mph missiles with their transponders turned off. You do know they don't just shoot planes down if they're off course, right?

Yeah, compare Afghanistan and Lockheed. Who has profited from the subsequent open ended wars, and whose country is occupied? Look back to when Eisenhower warned us about the military industrial complex, and try to fathom the worst case scenario of a government that serves corporate interests above human interests.

Lockheed's not doing so well from an "open ended war"

http://www.insideindianabusiness.com/new...p?ID=38269

http://nosint.blogspot.com/2007/09/lockh...-with.html

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=2...refer=home

http://www.pressconnects.com/article/200...eed-Martin

Again, what about this points to the government lying about 9/11?

First off, when I posited the bacterial flaggelum as an example of something too complex to come from evolution, I qualified it with how it is an old, and not the best, example. I did this because I want to give 'evidence' for my beliefs on par with the evidence you guys are giving me. It's only fair. So no, the silly video that Tav took 2 seconds to post did not change my mind. Because the flaggelum is not the lynch pin of my argument to believe.

Yes, the silly video in which Ken Miller, a PhD in biology explains in detail how a bacterial flagellum is not irreducibly complex with video presentation. How absolutely absurd of me.

Ummm... Is the driftwood an ecosystem, or the beach it washed up upon?

The driftwood that washed up on shore and creates shelter for living organisms is an ecosystem, yes. I'm not talking about the beach. I'm talking about the wood.

As far as I know there are only one kind of sentient life on this planet, dolphins are a close second. And as far as I know, neither driftwood or a beach are a suitable ecosystem for humans. I passed over it because as an analogy it was terrible.

I understand now. You have a broken understanding of the concept, so then you dismiss it as somehow being without merit.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sentient

sen·tient (snshnt, -sh-nt)
adj.
1. Having sense perception; conscious: "The living knew themselves just sentient puppets on God's stage" (T.E. Lawrence).
2. Experiencing sensation or feeling.

I'm not talking about humans living on driftwood. I'm talking about animals that find shelter there and make a home in the driftwood that washes on shore. The analogy was that this is a necessarily complex structure, both in its composition and its function. Who designed this?

I mean is the driftwood also a "wall"? Or is the beach the 'wall'? As a 'wall' neither of them are very functional...

I'm not talking about the beach, I'm saying exactly what I meant. The driftwood acts as a wall between animals/organisms and the elements. I never said it was efficient, but it works fairly well for its functions.

I see you're having a really hard time understanding this.

Ah ah ah! I did not say there was a conspiracy (that is a given for both of out theories). I said that the statement that we are being lied to is my only claim. And that the fact that we are being lied to is undeniable.

You implied that the government ran false flag operations and had foreknowledge of the attacks and allowed them to happen. This is a conspiracy theory.

The fact that we are being lied to - can you provide evidence? Not coincidence or assumption this time, please. Something that can hold up in court.

If at some point in the entire Commission and NIST and news and official government reports there is known untruth, misleading false information, that I am right in my assertion.

So a single bit of false information is somehow proof that the whole thing was a lie?

So pick one. Any fact. They took over airplanes with box cutters. Unlikely.

Which proves what? A meteor hitting the Earth is unlikely, but guess what, it's happened. People winning the lottery twice in a row is unlikely, but it's happened.

Our existence is unlikely, but we exist.

Just because something is unlikely doesn't mean it didn't happen.

A plane hit the pentagon. Shoe me more than 3 frames that do not show an airplane. They confiscated over 80 separate pieces of footage from gas stations, hotels and stores along the lfight path to the pentagon. 80 videos, all we are allowed to see are 3 frames that distinctly do not show an aircraft. That borders on a lie.

Explain to me how that borders on a lie. Because they don't give you information?

If you want to argue there was no plane, what about the hundreds of eyewitnesses in Alexandria who saw a plane hit? The giant pieces of fuselage and engine taken out of the pentagon? The black boxes found? How about the family members who had to identify the remains of their loved ones? I bet it would be interesting to explain to them how a plane didn't actually hit that building. Some people were still in their seats, for fuck's sake.

No foreknowledge, lie. The failure is not evidence for conspiracy, it is evidence of lies and deceit.

Let's posit a scenario.

You and me are walking down the street, we see a guy in a tow truck go up to my car and steal it. You accuse me of having foreknowledge of this because it's my neighborhood and you don't trust me very much. You think i'm pulling an insurance job. I tell you I didn't have anything to do with it, and I explain to you that I locked the doors and rolled the windows up, but I didn't account that a guy in a tow truck was going to take it. It was an unknown to me.

You then say that my failure to guard my car is evidence of my lying.

I can't win.

You're asserting something without evidence, as always.

So these planes wait all day, every day for an attack. These planes have been on alert since before I was born. But the one day we needed them, not a fucking peep. Either gross negligence, or something worse. But hey, as per you , they never happened to train for this one thing. So for over an hour they stood there scratching their heads.

There actually were a lot of peeps. A whole fucking bunch of them. They simply couldn't act because there was no precedent for it. They can't just go off the cuff when hundreds of lives may or may not be at risk. That day was a giant clusterfuck. It's not like they were taking everything on in a nice, structured schedule. The planes are also on alert for something akin to enemy bombers, not a goddamn commercial airliner being used as a missile.

Yup. Did you get the new revised edition that mentions how building 7 (with a lot of very interesting things in it) burned for a while, and then every support failed at once and the building collapsed (form fire) in seconds. At least it garners a mention, they skipped it in the first edition hoping no one noticed a third collapsing building.

Did you read the part where there was a huge chunk missing from its north side? How about when firefighters reported raging fires on multiple floors and decided to leave the building for FEAR OF COLLAPSE?

Well, that is a fact. The CT world is 80% disinformation. But that isn't a slight on the CT world. The truths that these people are rubbing up against are so important that resources need to be spent confusing and obfuscating it.

Are you insane? This isn't a rhetorical question. This sounds absolutely nuts.

Like the guy (I am running out of time to look up his name) who got charged for death threats again former congresswoman Cynthia McKinna. You know, that guy who had a minted Amero (that turned out to be not true). He said in court that he has been in the employ of the FBI for years, they pay him and tell him what to say. The judge laughed and said that is not a defense for threatening the life of a congresswoman, and his FBI handlers slowly shook their heads in rage. Does the gummint wasting money creating disinformation not tell you how much they don't want you to know what they are hiding?

Can you provide evidence to ANY CLAIMS that you've made about the government spreading false information about 9/11? Again, no hearsay or loose association. Things that would stand up in a court of law or a respected peer reviewed scientific journal.

Well let's look back. The Iraq war had never ended, GwB had fraudulently stolen 2 elections, but the Americans were too distracted to notice.

That's funny - the Iraq War and Bush's second term were years after the attacks. The original question was, how did you know what the truth was, the DAY OF, with no information?

PNAC had asked for a new pearl harbour (I read the before 9/11).

Evidence for this claim?

And, oh yeah, there is an influence in America that is evil.

Spare me with your righteous bullshit.

So day one, as everyone in school was yelling and I was worried about my family in Manhattan and if I was gonna be drafted, I knew.

Thanks,
-Pip

Yes, you knew that the government did this, because it wasn't possible that a band of determined terrorists planned and executed an attack on America using 4 commercial jet liners as missiles. It's obviously a lie.

...

I hope you never have to defend yourself in a court that honors your standards of evidence and guilt.