Where does Bin Laden / Al Qaeda fit into Truther Theories?

[JoeBentley]

Believe it or not this is a serious, no snark question that I want to advance to the Truthers. Something occurred to me in another thread and I thought it would actually make a, no B.S, honest question.

Where does Bin Laden and other senior members of Al Qaeda that have admitted being responsible or at least involved in the events of 9/11 fit into your... well le me be gracious here and just call them "Alternative theories."

Was OBL/AQ involved in 9/11 at all? Where they plants, patsies, fall guys? Are they delusional nutcases that took credit for something they didn't do? Doctored footage?

Seriously, no snark... what do you think the deal is?

[cjnewson88]

From what I can gather after arguing with truthers is OBL/AQ is a fabrication by the CIA. Plants, fall guys, there to 'fake' global terror threats so that nwo can fear munger the world into control.

[WTC Dust]

Most 9/11 Truthers include whole-hog the story of Bin Laden and the hijackers. What they do is add things to the Bin Laden story to "make it work", because
airplane crashes do not cause steel framed buildings to explode into dust.

Often 9/11 Truthers add "bombs in the building" or "mini-nukes" to make it work,
but in reality, they don't deny a single bit of the hijacker story.

Funny, when I ask Truthers (thermite theorists, mostly) which part of the
story on 9/11 they think is false, they start with the 9/11 Commission Report,
even though that isn't actually the story on 9/11.

The story on 9/11, the day of 9/11, is about hijackings and planes crashing
in various U.S. locations. The vast majority of 9/11 Truthers do not question
these basic aspects of the story, and so do not deny the involvement of
Bin Laden in any way. They just think the U.S. government was allied with
Bin Laden (and there's plenty of truth in that).

Most 9/11 Truthers think Bin Laden was a part of the 9/11 story, and
implicate the U.S. government along with him. I do not. I see no reason to
talk about Bin Laden because I see no good reason to legitimize the hijackings
themselves.

All other hijackings end in a plane being recovered somewhere, even if it
crashes to the ground. No planes have been recovered from any of the
9/11 sites where planes were supposed to have crashed.

[twinstead]

All other hijackings end in a plane being recovered somewhere, even if it
crashes to the ground. No planes have been recovered from any of the
9/11 sites where planes were supposed to have crashed.

And THIS is your reason for doubting the hijackings?? You do realize that plane parts were recovered from EVERY site where planes crashed, right?

[WTC Dust]

Oh, you might have misunderstood me. What I meant to say was that
a plane was not recovered at any of the 9/11 sites. I'm not talking about
parts of a plane. I'm talking about the whole plane, in parts.

The topic was what most 9/11 Truthers think of the involvement of
Bin Laden. The answer is that most of them (not me) think that he
was very much involved.

And THIS is your reason for doubting the hijackings?? You do realize that plane parts were recovered from EVERY site where planes crashed, right?

[twinstead]

Oh, you might have misunderstood me. What I meant to say was that
a plane was not recovered at any of the 9/11 sites. I'm not talking about
parts of a plane. I'm talking about the whole plane, in parts.

The topic was what most 9/11 Truthers think of the involvement of
Bin Laden. The answer is that most of them (not me) think that he
was very much involved.

He was very much involved, but not in the way you obviously think.

But, your thinking processes are a little suspect to me, especially since you apparently believe that in all of those crashes at such high speed and mass that there should actually be an attempt at reconstruction a plane from the resulting relatively few tiny parts that would be found, and that they would even attempt such an expensive and time-consuming process when the reason the planes crashed was never in doubt. That's something you'd do to find out the reason a plane crashed.

We know how they crashed

[WTC Dust]

I can't claim expertise in airplane crashes. I'm making the simple
point that other airplane crashes involve reconstruction of the
plane, and this wasn't seen for any of these supposed plane
crashes on 9/11.

You aren't claiming that these reconstructions actually happened,
and that I just haven't seen the evidence. You're agreeing with me
that they did not happen, and offering an explanation as to why.

But it doesn't jibe with me. All other hijackings end up with an
airplane at the end of the hijackings. This is a fact. You can't name
any other hijacking where the plane landed in a known place that
they didn't recover a plane.



He was very much involved, but not in the way you obviously think.

But, your thinking processes are a little suspect to me, especially since you apparently believe that in all of those crashes at such high speed and mass that there should actually be an attempt at reconstruction a plane from the resulting relatively few tiny parts that would be found, and that they would even attempt such an expensive and time-consuming process when the reason the planes crashed was never in doubt. That's something you'd do to find out the reason a plane crashed.

We know how they crashed

[WTC Dust]

My point is that most 9/11 Truthers do not deny one tiny bit of the Bin Laden story.

What they do instead is add stuff to the story to try and make it work.
They say that Bin Laden was in cahoots with the U.S., and this appears
to be true. They claim this as evidence that the U.S. attacked itself
on 9/11, a claim I find instinctively repellent but also unsupported by
the lack of real evidence of any hijackings or airplane crashes.

Yes, it is orthogonal thinking. It's fleshing out the bits of correct stuff
that comes from different directions, and identifying stuff that isn't right.

It makes me laugh, really, to ask most Truthers which part of the official
story of 9/11 that they think is false, because they can't name one.
They believe the entire official story front to back and just add extra
things onto it: conspiracy theories.

[Mr.Herbert]

But it doesn't jibe with me. All other hijackings end up with an
airplane at the end of the hijackings. This is a fact. You can't name
any other hijacking where the plane landed in a known place that
they didn't recover a plane.

Wait... what? Is she serious?

[WTC Dust]

Yes, I am quite serious. Can you name a single airplane hijacking
where the location of the landing was known where a whole
airplane wasn't recovered in bits and pieces or in its entirety?

I'm betting you can't, but I'd consider changing my theory
if you could.

Wait... what? Is she serious?

[beachnut]

I can't claim expertise in airplane crashes. I'm making the simple
point that other airplane crashes involve reconstruction of the
plane, and this wasn't seen for any of these supposed plane
crashes on 9/11.

You aren't claiming that these reconstructions actually happened,
and that I just haven't seen the evidence. You're agreeing with me
that they did not happen, and offering an explanation as to why.

But it doesn't jibe with me. All other hijackings end up with an
airplane at the end of the hijackings. This is a fact. You can't name
any other hijacking where the plane landed in a known place that
they didn't recover a plane.

On 911 the airplane crashes were on purpose, flown into building on purpose. I am a trained aircraft accident investigator, and we reconstruct the aircraft to figure out what happen to the aircraft. On 911 we were told by crew the planes were taken by terrorists - they flew good aircraft, functioning aircraft into buildings. We reconstruct to find out what caused the crash, we know what caused the crash on 911.

They did recover plane parts at all sites! You should try doing research before spreading insane lies. RADAR shows exactly where each plane impacted; aircraft investigators pull the RADAR data and use the RADAR data as evidence. RADAR shows on 911 each planes path from takeoff to impact.

You can't stop making up silly doubts. Your argument does not make sense.

[Jackanory]

I can't claim expertise in airplane crashes. I'm making the simple
point that other airplane crashes involve reconstruction of the
plane, and this wasn't seen for any of these supposed plane
crashes on 9/11.

You aren't claiming that these reconstructions actually happened,
and that I just haven't seen the evidence. You're agreeing with me
that they did not happen, and offering an explanation as to why.

But it doesn't jibe with me. All other hijackings end up with an
airplane at the end of the hijackings. This is a fact. You can't name
any other hijacking where the plane landed in a known place that
they didn't recover a plane.


Your admitted lack of expertise is no excuse.

Landed? LANDED? Are you for real? Stundie.

We ended up with aircraft at the end of each hyjacking on 911!

If it doesnt jibe with you then you must surely have something to show that can help change at least one persons perspective of what happened. Give it a go. A like for like incident perhaps. Maybe you have some photos or videos of some aircraft recovered after slamming into buildings that collapsed engulfing the remains of aircraft or how about some video/photos of the aircraft that nosedived into a swamp.

Instinct tells me that you will compare apples & oranges and photos of the remains from something like the Lockerbie aircraft.

Try again.

[Jackanory]

Yes, I am quite serious. Can you name a single airplane hijacking
where the location of the landing was known where a whole
airplane wasn't recovered in bits and pieces or in its entirety?

I'm betting you can't, but I'd consider changing my theory
if you could.

Purple rinse has gone to your head.

[CompusMentus]

Yes, I am quite serious. Can you name a single airplane hijacking
where the location of the landing was known where a whole
airplane wasn't recovered in bits and pieces or in its entirety?
I'm betting you can't, but I'd consider changing my theory
if you could.


EgyptAir Flight 990 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EgyptAir_Flight_990)


Depending on your definition of "whole plane" and "hijacking" oc.


Compus

[000063]

Most 9/11 Truthers include whole-hog the story of Bin Laden and the hijackers. What they do is add things to the Bin Laden story to "make it work", because
airplane crashes do not cause steel framed buildings to explode into dust....Time to first lie, two sentences.

[dafydd]

Most 9/11 Truthers include whole-hog the story of Bin Laden and the hijackers. What they do is add things to the Bin Laden story to "make it work", because
airplane crashes do not cause steel framed buildings to explode into dust.

Often 9/11 Truthers add "bombs in the building" or "mini-nukes" to make it work,
but in reality, they don't deny a single bit of the hijacker story.

Funny, when I ask Truthers (thermite theorists, mostly) which part of the
story on 9/11 they think is false, they start with the 9/11 Commission Report,
even though that isn't actually the story on 9/11.

The story on 9/11, the day of 9/11, is about hijackings and planes crashing
in various U.S. locations. The vast majority of 9/11 Truthers do not question
these basic aspects of the story, and so do not deny the involvement of
Bin Laden in any way. They just think the U.S. government was allied with
Bin Laden (and there's plenty of truth in that).

Most 9/11 Truthers think Bin Laden was a part of the 9/11 story, and
implicate the U.S. government along with him. I do not. I see no reason to
talk about Bin Laden because I see no good reason to legitimize the hijackings
themselves.

All other hijackings end in a plane being recovered somewhere, even if it
crashes to the ground. No planes have been recovered from any of the
9/11 sites where planes were supposed to have crashed.

That is a lie. Why are you lying about it?

[dafydd]

Yes, I am quite serious. Can you name a single airplane hijacking
where the location of the landing was known where a whole
airplane wasn't recovered in bits and pieces or in its entirety?

I'm betting you can't, but I'd consider changing my theory
if you could.

Change your ''theory''.

[NoahFence]

I'm not talking about
parts of a plane. I'm talking about the whole plane, in parts.

Uh...

what?

[dafydd]

Your admitted lack of expertise is no excuse.

Landed? LANDED? Are you for real? Stundie.

We ended up with aircraft at the end of each hyjacking on 911!

If it doesnt jibe with you then you must surely have something to show that can help change at least one persons perspective of what happened. Give it a go. A like for like incident perhaps. Maybe you have some photos or videos of some aircraft recovered after slamming into buildings that collapsed engulfing the remains of aircraft or how about some video/photos of the aircraft that nosedived into a swamp.

Instinct tells me that you will compare apples & oranges and photos of the remains from something like the Lockerbie aircraft.

Try again.

She did once tell us a story about a plane that crashed into the Empire State Building and then all the ''passengers''( she was unaware that it was an Air Force plane) caught the lift to the ground floor. The crew all died in the crash in the real world. This is what passes for research in her world.

[dafydd]

Uh...

what?

Uh indeed. The dangers of medical marijuana have been underestimated.

[NoahFence]

You aren't claiming that these reconstructions actually happened,
and that I just haven't seen the evidence. You're agreeing with me
that they did not happen, and offering an explanation as to why.

Accident reconstruction is done to figure out what happened. No need to do it on 9/11. We know what happened to the planes. Not only that, but at least in the case of NYC, most of the plane probably melted in the fires.

But it doesn't jibe with me. All other hijackings end up with an
airplane at the end of the hijackings. This is a fact. You can't name
any other hijacking where the plane landed in a known place that
they didn't recover a plane.

Why do you think this worked so well for the hijackers?

[Moss]

Sounds a wee bit like a distinction without difference to me.

[NoahFence]

I think SHC may have found his twoo love

[notheist]

I can't claim expertise in airplane crashes. I'm making the simple
point that other airplane crashes involve reconstruction of the
plane, and this wasn't seen for any of these supposed plane
crashes on 9/11.
.

Wrong, reconstruction only happens when there is a question on why the plane crashed. Mechanical issue. If it is pilot error no need, on 9/11 it was pilot deliberate action.

[cjnewson88]

On 911 the airplane crashes were on purpose, flown into building on purpose. I am a trained aircraft accident investigator, and we reconstruct the aircraft to figure out what happen to the aircraft. On 911 we were told by crew the planes were taken by terrorists - they flew good aircraft, functioning aircraft into buildings. We reconstruct to find out what caused the crash, we know what caused the crash on 911.


This ^^. Although I don't have any hands on experience, I done three levels of Air *Safety Investigation for my Bachelor of Aviation and am familiar with their practices and procedures, especially the NTSB (because most of the practices of TAIC come from the states). I have been telling truthers for years this very point, yet they still don't seem to let go of the idea that should have rebuilt the aircraft in its entirety and shown the world. I've also heard them claim they should have recorded parts numbers from the engines etc and matched them to see if they belonged to the aircraft.. what a stupid ******* idea.

*Safety = Crash, but for political correctness sake, my university called it Safety.

[notheist]

But it doesn't jibe with me. All other hijackings end up with an
airplane at the end of the hijackings. This is a fact. You can't name
any other hijacking where the plane landed in a known place that
they didn't recover a plane.

Well, DUH, yeah, BEFORE 9/11 hijacking ended with the plane being flown to a location and demand being made, but on 9/11 they were flown into buildings at high speed, 450 mph.

In the 70s a air Israel jet was hijacked and then blown up after the captives were let off.

Fact is the aircraft were found as we're ALL the passengers by their DNA.

It jibes with everyone who is not prone to conspiracy theorists thinking.

[notheist]

http://forum.globaltimes.cn/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=30273&d=12738018

Saw this myself back in 88, here around Detroit. they knew what brought this plane down, pilot forgot to lower flaps on takeoff.

[notheist]

Mind you this plane was going well 100 mph when it crashed, not 450 mph like on 9/11.

[notheist]

It makes me laugh, really, to ask most Truthers which part of the official
story of 9/11 that they think is false, because they can't name one.
They believe the entire official story front to back and just add extra
things onto it: conspiracy theories.

Funny, but the few truthers I have been able to find in the wild find people who think the towers were turned to dust funny. They see how silly that idea is.

[dafydd]

Wait... what? Is she serious?

Experience has shown that she is, unfortunately.

[dafydd]

But it doesn't jibe with me. All other hijackings end up with an
airplane at the end of the hijackings. This is a fact. You can't name
any other hijacking where the plane landed in a known place that
they didn't recover a plane.

So you have never heard of the Dawson's Fields hijacking?

[cjnewson88]

http://forum.globaltimes.cn/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=30273&d=12738018

Saw this myself back in 88, here around Detroit. they knew what brought this plane down, pilot forgot to lower flaps on takeoff.

IIRC it wasn't that he forgot to lower the flaps, but that he forgot to push back in the circuit breaker which would have lowered the flaps.

The aircraft had a fault whereby an audible warning would sound while the aircraft was on the ground. Pilots soon figured if they pulled the circuit breaker controlling the flaps, the alarm wouldn't be triggered. The pilot not only forgot the put this back in, but because it was out, the stall alarm sounded different to what it would normally sound, and so when it went off, the pilot did not recognise it was the stall warning.

I'm pretty sure that's the flight anyway :)

[Sabretooth]

http://forum.globaltimes.cn/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=30273&d=12738018

Saw this myself back in 88, here around Detroit. they knew what brought this plane down, pilot forgot to lower flaps on takeoff.

ORLY? I don't see a plane there. It would be just sticking up out of the ground cuz aluminum can't penetrate the ground! Ima give Dylan a call....

[George152]

I can't claim expertise in airplane crashes. I'm making the simple
point that other airplane crashes involve reconstruction of the
plane, and this wasn't seen for any of these supposed plane
crashes on 9/11.



The simple reason as to why they didn't assemble the 911 aircraft parts is that 911 wasn't an accident.
The Accident Inspectors know exactly what, where, when and how the aircraft crashed.
Any such remains would probably be held as evidence by Law Enforcement for any murder trials

[dafydd]

Where is wtcdust? Her heart's not in it any more, methinks.

[MarkLindeman]

Where is wtcdust? Her heart's not in it any more, methinks.

Well, you know, there's just no reasoning with debunkers!

(Often I wonder exactly what is going through the minds of people who slip away from this sort of discussion. I'm guessing that often, it isn't much more than what I just said.)

[Miragememories]

This a great example of a thread that where the responders are totally off topic and no one, not even the thread's owner cares.

The 'atta boy' club strikes again.

MM

[Horace Wheeljack]

WTC DUST,

Do you think they recovered all the plane parts here?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4q35xHzjxB0

[dafydd]

This a great example of a thread that where the responders are totally off topic and no one, not even the thread's owner cares.

The 'atta boy' club strikes again.

MM

Only a handful of people in the world care about truther ''theories''.

[MarkLindeman]

This a great example of a thread that where the responders are totally off topic and no one, not even the thread's owner cares.

The 'atta boy' club strikes again.

MM

Better to light a candle than to curse the darkness?

I don't know. Maybe not.

I agree that the thread has been off topic pretty much since people started responding to the last paragraph of WTC Dust's first post. I wonder how (and whether) the thread would have developed if that hadn't happened.

[000063]

This a great example of a thread that where the responders are totally off topic and no one, not even the thread's owner cares.

The 'atta boy' club strikes again.

MM

Said the person who likes to come into threads, make personal attacks, and leave.

There are plenty of Truther-started threads which drifted, yet you don't call them out. In fact, in WTC Dust's recent thread, Ergo said effectively "atta boy" to her while making no actual claims and providing no evidence, and you still called us out.

EDIT: Come to think, it was Dusty who started the side track, but you're blaming all involved.

[alienentity]

Yes, I am quite serious. Can you name a single airplane hijacking where the location of the landing was known where a whole airplane wasn't recovered in bits and pieces or in its entirety?

I'm betting you can't, but I'd consider changing my theory
if you could.

Your question is rather odd, since most plane crashes do not involve hijackings, so the data is going to be thin. You're automatically excluding almost all known plane crashes - which is not a reasonable condition, because what is relevant is the ability to actually recover the wreckage.
Also, plane crashes are by definition not 'landings', so your use of the word is inappropriate.

But to the subject of ability to recover airplanes, statistics are not available for every crash. What we do have shows that it varies according to the conditions, just as we would expect. 9/11 is no different in this respect as I explain below..

There was just a Fifth Estate special on Swissair 111 which crashed not far from Halifax, NS. The recovery effort was difficult even though the water depth was only about 55m. The crash occurred Sept 02, 1998, and by October 21 only 27% of the aircraft had been recovered.
No mention is made whether 100% of the body parts were recovered, but 81 had to be identified thru DNA tests. I'm assuming they were fragmented by the impact, so it's very unlikely all the body parts were recoverable b4 nature destroyed them.

It wasn't until major dredging operations that something like 98% of the aircraft was recovered. While technically this was not the entire aircraft and passengers, it's perfectly reasonable that full recovery wouldn't be possible due to the conditions.

However, because the cause of the crash was unknown, it was necessary to spend the time and money to recover as much of the aircraft as possible in order to reconstruct it.

Obviously such a recovery operation was not possible even if it were desirable in the 9/11 WTC crashes - not possible because, unlike any other aircraft crash I'm aware of, the plane wreckage was partly buried under the remains of several hundred thousand tons of collapsed skyscrapers.

You are making a grave error in judgement by failing to acknowledge this special condition when you express surprise that the entire planes were not recovered! Again I think the WTC crashes were unique for the reasons stated above, and critically so.

At the WTC sites, important tasks were to:

1) Recover and identify human remains
2) Investigate the building collapses
3) Recover the aircraft blackboxes

As others have correctly pointed out, the cause of the air crashes were already known - they were piloted deliberately by hijackers into the towers.
The wreckage was removed along with the huge mass of building debris, it wasn't left at Ground Zero.
However, years later body fragments were still being recovered from rooftops in the vicinity of the crashes. Again this is understandable considering the task at hand and and scale of the disaster.

btw, about 95% of UA 93 was recovered, which compares well with Swissair 111 at 98%. Neither was fully recovered.

Air France Flight 447 crashed in 2009 and most of the wreckage has not been recovered as it lies in water up to 3800m deep. 74 bodies have not been recovered out of the total 349.

[alienentity]

The discussion of the aircraft hijackings on 9/11 is relevant to the OP as it is alleged Al Qaeda was responsible for them.

One of the tactics used by deniers of this scenario is to deny that planes existed at all, or even that it is somehow suspicious that much of flights 175 and 11 were not recovered, and therefore somehow (inexplicably) this calls into question the Al Qaeda/hijacking connection to 9/11.

The tactic is a distortion of the 'reasonable doubt' argument used in law. In this case, a quibble unrelated to the cause of the crashes is being leveraged somewhere else.
I could imagine this tactic being used by a wily defense attorney against a witness:
Witness 'I saw gangster A shoot the victim point blank'
Attorney 'What was gangster A wearing?'
Witness 'A blue pinstripe suit'
Attorney 'Single or double-breasted?'
Witness 'I didn't notice, but I think it was single'
Attorney 'Aha! gangster A only dresses in double-breasted pinstripe suits, therefore the witness has confused him with another killer! You must acquit!'

Judge: 'Irrelevant. The witness has already identified gangster A by his face. We do not expect the witness to have 100% recall of every detail of his attire.[insert JREF-style terminology] That is a call to perfection fallacy'

Regardless whether all the plane parts were recovered or not at the WTC sites, all the relevant evidence points to a conspiracy by Al Qaeda to hijack and crash the planes.
The need to recover 100% of the planes (which is impossible, basically) or, as some truthers have insisted, to provide serial numbers for each aircraft part recovered, is nothing more than a call to perfection fallacy.

[MarkLindeman]

The discussion of the aircraft hijackings on 9/11 is relevant to the OP as it is alleged Al Qaeda was responsible for them.

One of the tactics used by deniers of this scenario is to deny that planes existed at all, or even that it is somehow suspicious that much of flights 175 and 11 were not recovered, and therefore somehow (inexplicably) this calls into question the Al Qaeda/hijacking connection to 9/11....

Yes, clearly there is some connection at the point of departure. It's hard to imagine someone who denies that planes were hijacked on 9/11 believing that al Qaeda was responsible for the events of the day. Presumably most such people believe that al Qaeda was framed, most likely by the U.S. government or some elements thereof. Debating people's rationales for denying that the hijackings occurred is ancillary -- all the more so because someone could believe that al Qaeda was framed without denying the hijackings.

I don't think it's unreasonable to expect, or hope, that a thread titled "Where does Bin Laden / Al Qaeda fit into Truther Theories?" should be largely about bin Laden and al Qaeda, not about the physical evidence for planes. That isn't to accuse anyone of threadjacking, or to dismiss your points, but I continue to agree with MM that the thread -- including MM's own post, and mine -- is off topic.

Although this next point may be completely irrelevant: I'm not sure that it is a "tactic." I think Holocaust denial can be construed as a tactic of Nazi sympathizers, when that shoe fits. But the no-planers I've wrangled with aren't exactly al Qaeda sympathizers (although some are extreme in their hostility toward the U.S. government). That particular move, as far as I can tell, isn't especially political; it's something else again.

[alienentity]

Thanks Mark,

I continue to maintain that the hijackings and crashes are central to 9/11 Truther attacks and to the question of Al Qaeda and Bin Laden's responsibility for the crimes.

So I think it's fair to say that denying the evidence for the crashes and hijackings also ties in with denials of the involvement of Al Qaeda and Bin Laden in the attacks.

That's my position on it in a nutshell.

I gather that many a truther fails to think clearly about the events, and rather prefers to issue blanket denials for everything that seems 'official'. This is a reflexive approach, and heavily biased against acceptance of evidence for AQ's role in the attacks.
More intelligent and organized denials of AQ's involvement seem to question any detail about the hijackings and crashes as if it could be proof of some kind of government conspiracy to frame AQ and Bin Laden, or to entirely fabricate (the no planers of varying stripes) the evidence from start to finish.

It doesn't take any imagination to see that Pentagon no-planers/missile attack believers want to take AQ and OBL completely out of the picture. They're just the more extreme examples of denialism and 9/11 Truth.

I've experienced this constantly on my youtube channel - one truther insisted that there were no signs of struggle in the hijackings (false, of course) so the hijacking story is bogus.. or another who insisted that the lack of hijack codes shows that no hijackings occurred.
The list is almost endless, and in every case it is a direct attempt to deny that AQ and OBL were involved in the 9/11 attacks.

I think most of this is very obvious, but I thought it worth the emphasis because of the questions as to the relevance with the OP.

cheers

[MarkLindeman]

Thanks Mark,

I continue to maintain that the hijackings and crashes are central to 9/11 Truther attacks and to the question of Al Qaeda and Bin Laden's responsibility for the crimes....

I basically agree with everything you've said here, except that I suspect you're putting the emphasis on the wrong syllable. Usually the point isn't so much to deny bin Laden's/AQ's responsibility, per se, as to assert the U.S. government's responsibility, or even just to say that The Official Story Is Wrong.

Come to think of it, however, I've used much the same analogy you used in your preceding post, except that I reframed it. It seems that if any piece of evidence doesn't "fit," then it is construed as the wedge that eventually brings the entire story down: "If it doesn't fit, you must convict!" Bad rhyme, worse logic -- even worse than Johnnie Cochran's.

Pretty much six and two threes.

[dafydd]

I basically agree with everything you've said here, except that I suspect you're putting the emphasis on the wrong syllable. Usually the point isn't so much to deny bin Laden's/AQ's responsibility, per se, as to assert the U.S. government's responsibility, or even just to say that The Official Story Is Wrong.

Come to think of it, however, I've used much the same analogy you used in your preceding post, except that I reframed it. It seems that if any piece of evidence doesn't "fit," then it is construed as the wedge that eventually brings the entire story down: "If it doesn't fit, you must convict!" Bad rhyme, worse logic -- even worse than Johnnie Cochran's.

Pretty much six and two threes.

I don't like the phrase ''official story''. It implies that there is another story.

[ozeco41]

I don't like the phrase ''official story''. It implies that there is another story.
It also implies that there is one single and homogeneous "Official Story".

...usually linked to a claim that the official story is wrong.

And that cannot be either a single truth or a single falsity.

The "official story" includes the claim that the WTC Twin Towers came down on 9/11 and that happens to be true. So that bit of the official story cannot be false despite the dishonestly framed truther claims that the "official story" is false.

The "official story" includes that the fall of the Twin Towers was not assisted by CD. That also is true. So CD of the Twin Towers could not have been an inside job.

The "official story" includes identification of some elements of shortcomings in political decision making and inter-agency liaison. So do the truther claims that the "official story" was false mean that there were no such shortcomings??

So we don't even have to discuss the issues to see that truther claims are logically wrong. ;)

[MarkLindeman]

I don't like the phrase ''official story''. It implies that there is another story.

Yes, my tongue was firmly in cheek there. At best, saying "The Official Story Is Wrong" is sort of like saying "Evolutionary Theory Is Flawed": presumably true for some definition of the subject, but inherently a pointless proposition to debate.

[JoeBentley]

This a great example of a thread that where the responders are totally off topic and no one, not even the thread's owner cares.

I do care, but I am realistic.

I gave the Truthers one chances to answer a simple question. I posed it openly and fairly and believe it or not I was honestly interested in possible honest answers. I would never attempt to engage Truthers in honest debate, anymore so then I would attempt to do so with someone that thinks 2+2= A potato, but I did try to at least extend them the courtesy of asking them a fair and honest, not trap or gotcha, question free of ulterior motives.

But when presented with a simple question they chose to turn into their crazy skid and have yet to see a conversation come back from that so I have no desire to try to herd Truthers into giving me even an attempt at a rational response. Giving them a chance not to go crazy at the first mention of their inane conspiracy theory was a courtesy. Now that they squandered that chance I leave them to their insanity.

I gave them a fair chance to explain a small part of their overall world view and they used it to yet again launch into a rant about their delusion. I tried. I gave them a chance they probably didn't deserve. They wasted it. I can still sleep at night.

[WTC Dust]

They did NOT discover an entire plane-worth of parts at any of
the four places planes were supposed to have crashed.



On 911 the airplane crashes were on purpose, flown into building on purpose. I am a trained aircraft accident investigator, and we reconstruct the aircraft to figure out what happen to the aircraft. On 911 we were told by crew the planes were taken by terrorists - they flew good aircraft, functioning aircraft into buildings. We reconstruct to find out what caused the crash, we know what caused the crash on 911.

They did recover plane parts at all sites! You should try doing research before spreading insane lies. RADAR shows exactly where each plane impacted; aircraft investigators pull the RADAR data and use the RADAR data as evidence. RADAR shows on 911 each planes path from takeoff to impact.

You can't stop making up silly doubts. Your argument does not make sense.

[WTC Dust]

If you could show me the reconstructed aircraft of 9/11,
I'd be very grateful. It would relieve me of the burden
of saying there were no planes hijacked on that day.

My research on 9/11 began on Thursday, when I made
it back to my home near Ground Zero, two days after the
attacks. It wasn't until 2004 that I ever HEARD of the no
planes theory, and 2005 before I became convinced that
it was true. So several years passed during which time
I presumed that all these hijackings and plane crashes
actually took place, but my work did not stop.

The central part of my work has never been about planes.
I study the WTC buildings.

I study what destroyed the World Trade Center, and it wasn't
planes, so I don't study planes.

If you show me the images of reconstructed airplanes after
9/11, I would get to throw away no planes theory.



Your admitted lack of expertise is no excuse.

Landed? LANDED? Are you for real? Stundie.

We ended up with aircraft at the end of each hyjacking on 911!

If it doesnt jibe with you then you must surely have something to show that can help change at least one persons perspective of what happened. Give it a go. A like for like incident perhaps. Maybe you have some photos or videos of some aircraft recovered after slamming into buildings that collapsed engulfing the remains of aircraft or how about some video/photos of the aircraft that nosedived into a swamp.

Instinct tells me that you will compare apples & oranges and photos of the remains from something like the Lockerbie aircraft.

Try again.

[WTC Dust]

You don't think it's suspicious that they didn't reconstruct these
planes?

I was disappointed to find out they were not bringing KSM to trial
in NYC, because I wanted to see what evidence they had against
him. As far as I know, his torture-produced confession is their
main evidence against him, but I could be wrong on this.

I wanted to see what evidence they actually had on KSM, connecting
him to the attacks of 9/11. But I guess I won't get to attend the
trial.

Since I study what destroyed the World Trade Center, and it wasn't
planes, obviously the hijacker story is also not interesting to me.
KSM might be guilty of a lot of crimes, but he is innocent of 9/11
until he is proved guilty (and I want to see the proof).

Wrong, reconstruction only happens when there is a question on why the plane crashed. Mechanical issue. If it is pilot error no need, on 9/11 it was pilot deliberate action.

[WTC Dust]

They are wrong and I am right.

Funny, but the few truthers I have been able to find in the wild find people who think the towers were turned to dust funny. They see how silly that idea is.

[WTC Dust]

At least you agree with me that they did NOT reconstruct
any of the aircraft. Point noted.

The simple reason as to why they didn't assemble the 911 aircraft parts is that 911 wasn't an accident.
The Accident Inspectors know exactly what, where, when and how the aircraft crashed.
Any such remains would probably be held as evidence by Law Enforcement for any murder trials

[WTC Dust]

It's not a tactic used by me. I'd love it if the hijackings were proved,
etc., because it's quite a burden to have to account for these
flights when I'm not even interested in them.

I'm not interested in the flights because aircraft crashing into steel
doesn't cause a building to explode into dust an hour later.

Even if hijackings were proved, it makes no difference to my work.
But I'd be glad to not have to discuss the planes any more.
Talk about a side-track! Often, I'll introduce myself and say that
I study the WTC attacks, and almost invariably, people will start
talking about planes and hijackings. It's annoying.

The discussion of the aircraft hijackings on 9/11 is relevant to the OP as it is alleged Al Qaeda was responsible for them.

One of the tactics used by deniers of this scenario is to deny that planes existed at all, or even that it is somehow suspicious that much of flights 175 and 11 were not recovered, and therefore somehow (inexplicably) this calls into question the Al Qaeda/hijacking connection to 9/11.

The tactic is a distortion of the 'reasonable doubt' argument used in law. In this case, a quibble unrelated to the cause of the crashes is being leveraged somewhere else.
I could imagine this tactic being used by a wily defense attorney against a witness:
Witness 'I saw gangster A shoot the victim point blank'
Attorney 'What was gangster A wearing?'
Witness 'A blue pinstripe suit'
Attorney 'Single or double-breasted?'
Witness 'I didn't notice, but I think it was single'
Attorney 'Aha! gangster A only dresses in double-breasted pinstripe suits, therefore the witness has confused him with another killer! You must acquit!'

Judge: 'Irrelevant. The witness has already identified gangster A by his face. We do not expect the witness to have 100% recall of every detail of his attire.[insert JREF-style terminology] That is a call to perfection fallacy'

Regardless whether all the plane parts were recovered or not at the WTC sites, all the relevant evidence points to a conspiracy by Al Qaeda to hijack and crash the planes.
The need to recover 100% of the planes (which is impossible, basically) or, as some truthers have insisted, to provide serial numbers for each aircraft part recovered, is nothing more than a call to perfection fallacy.

[MarkLindeman]

You don't think it's suspicious that they didn't reconstruct these planes?

You appear to have conceded the argument that there was no reason to reconstruct the planes. So, what's to be suspicious of?

[WTC Dust]

I answered the question in my original response.

Most 9/11 truthers believe nearly 100% what most
JREFers believe about Bin Laden and the hijackers.

Strange, huh? They passionately call themselves truthers,
but then refuse to deny any part of the official story.

Yes, clearly there is some connection at the point of departure. It's hard to imagine someone who denies that planes were hijacked on 9/11 believing that al Qaeda was responsible for the events of the day. Presumably most such people believe that al Qaeda was framed, most likely by the U.S. government or some elements thereof. Debating people's rationales for denying that the hijackings occurred is ancillary -- all the more so because someone could believe that al Qaeda was framed without denying the hijackings.

I don't think it's unreasonable to expect, or hope, that a thread titled "Where does Bin Laden / Al Qaeda fit into Truther Theories?" should be largely about bin Laden and al Qaeda, not about the physical evidence for planes. That isn't to accuse anyone of threadjacking, or to dismiss your points, but I continue to agree with MM that the thread -- including MM's own post, and mine -- is off topic.

Although this next point may be completely irrelevant: I'm not sure that it is a "tactic." I think Holocaust denial can be construed as a tactic of Nazi sympathizers, when that shoe fits. But the no-planers I've wrangled with aren't exactly al Qaeda sympathizers (although some are extreme in their hostility toward the U.S. government). That particular move, as far as I can tell, isn't especially political; it's something else again.

[WTC Dust]

Nope. If there had been planes, they really should have reconstructed
them. That they didn't reconstruct any of the planes is still suspicious
to me, not in terms of the US being involved with 9/11, but rather
that a thorough and comprehensive investigation was not done.

The lack of reconstructed planes is weird.

You appear to have conceded the argument that there was no reason to reconstruct the planes. So, what's to be suspicious of?

[MarkLindeman]

Nope. If there had been planes, they really should have reconstructed
them. That they didn't reconstruct any of the planes is still suspicious
to me, not in terms of the US being involved with 9/11, but rather
that a thorough and comprehensive investigation was not done.

The lack of reconstructed planes is weird.

OK, I accept that you don't concede the point.

Why should they have reconstructed them? In what useful sense would that make the investigation more "thorough and comprehensive"?

[abaddon]

You don't think it's suspicious that they didn't reconstruct these
planes?

What possible use would that be? What purpose would it serve?

[grandmastershek]

You don't think it's suspicious that they didn't reconstruct these planes?

Why do you think it is? They reconstruct planes to understand accidents. 9/11 wasn't an accident. Its pretty obvious why these planes broke into pieces.

The sheer size and completeness of this accident reconstruction is unique in the history of aircraft accident investigation. The 93-foot forward portion of TWA flight 800 aircraft’s fuselage is used as major instruction tool along with many other pieces of accident wreckage... Its primary purpose is to teach investigators about reconstruction techniques and how to use reconstructions to solve accidents and prevent future accidents. (http://www.ntsb.gov/trainingcenter/faq.htm#twa800)


I was disappointed to find out they were not bringing KSM to trial
in NYC, because I wanted to see what evidence they had against
him. As far as I know, his torture-produced confession is their
main evidence against him, but I could be wrong on this.

Well let's not pretend it was the only time he admitted to it. He admitted it to an Al Jazeera reporter before.


I wanted to see what evidence they actually had on KSM, connecting
him to the attacks of 9/11. But I guess I won't get to attend the
trial.

Last I knew they are supposed to be at least partially public (http://articles.cnn.com/2009-11-13/justice/khalid.sheikh.mohammed_1_al-nashiri-uss-cole-military-commissions?_s=PM:CRIME) based on the material.


Since I study what destroyed the World Trade Center, and it wasn't
planes, obviously the hijacker story is also not interesting to me.
KSM might be guilty of a lot of crimes, but he is innocent of 9/11
until he is proved guilty (and I want to see the proof).

Yeah why believe it was planes when you can just hand wave away all the witnesses and physical evidence?

[WTC Dust]

Many things were said about these flights that could have been
proved had these "planes" been reconstructed.

OK, I accept that you don't concede the point.

Why should they have reconstructed them? In what useful sense would that make the investigation more "thorough and comprehensive"?

[WTC Dust]

The official story begins with hijacked airplanes and ends
with the WTC buildings going bye-bye.

So does the 9/11 truther story, only most of them add
explosives to "make it work".

If you are the type of person who never questioned the
authenticity of the official story, then I question your attitude.
If you are the type of person who actually did question the
authenticity of the official story and ended up on thermite, then
I question your scientific ability.

I'm almost alone here, having interacted extensively with both
groups. 9/11 truthers say I'm wrong because Judy Wood is a kook,
which isn't true or relevant because I'm not Judy Wood. JREFers
say I'm wrong because they are stuck in a very, very deep hole.



It also implies that there is one single and homogeneous "Official Story".

...usually linked to a claim that the official story is wrong.

And that cannot be either a single truth or a single falsity.

The "official story" includes the claim that the WTC Twin Towers came down on 9/11 and that happens to be true. So that bit of the official story cannot be false despite the dishonestly framed truther claims that the "official story" is false.

The "official story" includes that the fall of the Twin Towers was not assisted by CD. That also is true. So CD of the Twin Towers could not have been an inside job.

The "official story" includes identification of some elements of shortcomings in political decision making and inter-agency liaison. So do the truther claims that the "official story" was false mean that there were no such shortcomings??

So we don't even have to discuss the issues to see that truther claims are logically wrong. ;)

[WTC Dust]

I just want to see the evidence that the US government
has connecting KSM to the attacks of 9/11.

A confession isn't good enough. Even bragging to Al Jazeera
isn't good enough, if that happened.

If they had solid evidence, they'd have brought him to trial
a long time ago, I suspect.

Why do you think it is? They reconstruct planes to understand accidents. 9/11 wasn't an accident. Its pretty obvious why these planes broke into pieces.

The sheer size and completeness of this accident reconstruction is unique in the history of aircraft accident investigation. The 93-foot forward portion of TWA flight 800 aircraft’s fuselage is used as major instruction tool along with many other pieces of accident wreckage... Its primary purpose is to teach investigators about reconstruction techniques and how to use reconstructions to solve accidents and prevent future accidents. (http://www.ntsb.gov/trainingcenter/faq.htm#twa800)



Well let's not pretend it was the only time he admitted to it. He admitted it to an Al Jazeera reporter before.



Last I knew they are supposed to be at least partially public (http://articles.cnn.com/2009-11-13/justice/khalid.sheikh.mohammed_1_al-nashiri-uss-cole-military-commissions?_s=PM:CRIME) based on the material.



Yeah why believe it was planes when you can just hand wave away all the witnesses and physical evidence?

[Horace Wheeljack]

WTC DUST,

I'm curious. How much of this plane could they have reconstructed after the crash?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4q35xHzjxB0

[CompusMentus]

The official story begins with hijacked airplanes and ends with the WTC buildings going bye-bye.

So does the 9/11 truther story, only most of them add
explosives to "make it work"


Correct. Ridiculous isn't it? The addition of explosives I mean.

Not quite as ridiculous as Space Laserbeams using the Hutchison Effect powered by Hurricane Erin though huh? HUH?

Something else that went bye-bye a long time ago was Dr Judys power of intellect. It's quite obvious she left most of her brains on the pavement when she fell off that bike. The light went out and never came back on.

Compus

[000063]

You don't think it's suspicious that they didn't reconstruct these
planes?...
No.

The question has already been answered. You can suspect all you like.

The buildings did not "explode into dust". They failed and fell down. Your "dustified buildings" stance is unusual even among Truthers.

Nope. If there had been planes, they really should have reconstructed
them. That they didn't reconstruct any of the planes is still suspicious
to me, not in terms of the US being involved with 9/11, but rather
that a thorough and comprehensive investigation was not done.

The lack of reconstructed planes is weird.You are wrong. Reconstructing the plane is unusual, not standard practice in most plane crash investigations. It would be weird if they felt they needed to reconstruct them. In the case of the WTC, the two planes' bits were largely buried somewhere under tonnes of debris.

You have not specified what would be proved if the planes had been reconstructed. Just hand-waved nonsense about "questions". What questions would these be?

[alienentity]

They did NOT discover an entire plane-worth of parts at any of
the four places planes were supposed to have crashed.

First observation: You seem confused - you claim that you are not an air crash expert, yet you seem very comfortable issuing firm judgements about air crashes. This is not logical based on your own admission.

Let me address your last comment now - 'They did NOT discover an entire plane-worth of parts at any of the four places planes '

I see you've essentially ignored my last response, where I discussed the problems of recovering 'all' the parts from the WTC crash site, but that 95% of UA 93 WAS recovered.

Referring back to Swissair 111, which crashed into water, only 98% of the plane and even less of the passengers were recovered. However, I looked further into the 'reconstruction' of flight 111, and while all the material was inspected and sorted, only selected pieces from critical areas were 'reconstructed'. The rest were 'stored with similar items in large boxes.'

So it appears you are labouring under a misconception that all crashed airplanes are fully reconstructed. There is clear evidence that the truth is not as simple as you suppose.

But you are not really correct in your main claim that none of the 9/11 hijacked jets were fully recovered - swissair was at 98%, UA 93 was at 95%.
It seems you are quibbling about small percentages, but ignoring that almost all UA 93 was in fact recovered.

Maybe you're thinking of victims, but I don't think there's any evidence to suggest that 100% of victims are recovered from severe air crashes. Perhaps you can do some research and find more statistics on this.

[alienentity]

I'm almost alone here, having interacted extensively with both
groups. 9/11 truthers say I'm wrong because Judy Wood is a kook,
which isn't true or relevant because I'm not Judy Wood. JREFers
say I'm wrong because they are stuck in a very, very deep hole.

I think in this case both the majority of 9/11 Truthers and JREFers are correct. Your views are barely distinguishable from those of Judy Wood - in particular your insistence that the towers turned to dust - so I think it's fair and appropriate to make the comparison.
Judging just by your inability to think critically about the air crashes, I would also state that it's fair to conclude that youre in a very, very deep hole. I have yet to see you show any recognition whatsoever of the difficulty of recovering an disintegrated airplane from 500,000 tons of crushing, grinding rubble.
I don't think you are even aware of the scale of such an effort, the context of the salvage and recovery operations after 9/11, or other such vital aspects of the story which would help you form an accurate perspective.
I would say your thought process is abnormal, and not in a helpful way - it prevents you from forming an accurate understanding of the events.

[dafydd]

WTC DUST,

I'm curious. How much of this plane could they have reconstructed after the crash?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4q35xHzjxB0

Her faux-pas about the bomber that crashed into the Empire State building showed that she believes that when planes crash into the ground or a building they behave like like a dart going into a dartboard.

[beachnut]

Nope. If there had been planes, they really should have reconstructed
them. That they didn't reconstruct any of the planes is still suspicious
to me, not in terms of the US being involved with 9/11, but rather
that a thorough and comprehensive investigation was not done.

The lack of reconstructed planes is weird. NO!

Most the plane was melted in fire... just a note.


NO, you do not reconstruct planes which you know why they crashed. The only reason to reconstruct an aircraft is to figure out why it crashed. We all know why the planes crashed, and if you don't, you are not trying very hard.

This is the simple stuff. Why do you reconstruct a plane which you know was used as a weapon? Why?

...
.... JREFers say I'm wrong because they are stuck in a very, very deep hole.
You are JREF too. You deny the hijackings, which turned out to be attacks. The terrorists you give a free pass. You give a free pass to murderers.

You don't understand Flights 11 and 175 initiated the collapse the WTC. You ignore all the evidence to make up a fuzzy fantasy. You think there is an official story but you can't reference it. You have no idea why the planes were not reconstructed. If you deny the terrorists did it on purpose, crash the planes, then you can't use logic to make rational claims.

You are digging the very deep hole, and JREF is not in it; JREF walked around your pit of ignorance, based on nonsense.

[grandmastershek]

I just want to see the evidence that the US government
has connecting KSM to the attacks of 9/11.

A confession isn't good enough. Even bragging to Al Jazeera
isn't good enough, if that happened.

If they had solid evidence, they'd have brought him to trial
a long time ago, I suspect.

As we have seen Dust, what you believe and what is reality are very different things.

[grandmastershek]

I'm not interested in the flights because aircraft crashing into steel
doesn't cause a building to explode into dust an hour later.


Like I said already Dust, your beliefs and reality are quite different.

http://the-real-breaking-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/11septembre_wtc_debris.jpg

^^^Pretty big "dust". I find it ironic in an earlier post you were questioning scientific reasoning of others. I wonder what denying reality says about yours.

[beachnut]

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/steelstuffWTC.jpg
Defined as dust. A fantasy based on nonsense.

[alienentity]

Like I said already Dust, your beliefs and reality are quite different.

http://the-real-breaking-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/11septembre_wtc_debris.jpg

^^^Pretty big "dust". I find it ironic in an earlier post you were questioning scientific reasoning of others. I wonder what denying reality says about yours.

Some 200,000 tons of it (185,101 tons according to N.Y. Daily News, 4/16/02 ), and it took weeks. The 'turned to dust' argument fails instantly in the fact of reality.

From Protec:
'Once the steel was extracted and/or cut away from other debris, it was piled in staging areas just outside the work zone. These piles were then loaded onto trucks that transported them a few blocks north to a secondary staging area on the Hudson River. Cranes transferred the steel from the trucks onto barges, which were shipped to Fresh Kills Landfill in Staten Island. At this point it transferred into the control of Yannuzzi Demolition, whose team was responsible for off-loading the barges and storing the steel in an area separate from general debris arriving on other barges. It was then examined and cataloged by a series of forensic investigators, city officials and site managers. Some time later (the timing varied due to logistical factors), the steel was shipped off site to China.

Our research team can personally verify the Lower Manhattan chain of possession, as we witnessed and documented this chain. We then reviewed activities that occurred at Fresh Kills by speaking with John Yannuzzi, President of Yannuzzi Demolition. Our team also reviewed commentary made by Dennis Dannenfelser, Yannuzzi's Fresh Kills Site Supervisor, who oversaw the entire operation from start to finish and spoke candidly and extensively at the National Demolition Association's annual Convention in March 2003. According to all parties, the steel went through the same series of steps as it would have on any other demolition project, albeit on a larger scale and with an increased presence of examiners. No one we spoke with perceived an attempt to "rush" or hide the process, and to the opposite, dozens if not hundreds of unrelated individuals - working for various entities and possessing various types of expertise - came in close contact with the steel over a period of months before it was eventually shipped overseas.
In consideration of these first-hand experiences and interviews, and absent any dissenting commentary, we can find nothing to support this assertion.'

[beachnut]

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/wtclookingforThermitenotfound.jpg
Big chunks of WTC "dust".

[tsig]

Nope. If there had been planes, they really should have reconstructed
them. That they didn't reconstruct any of the planes is still suspicious
to me, not in terms of the US being involved with 9/11, but rather
that a thorough and comprehensive investigation was not done.

The lack of reconstructed planes is weird.

If they had reconstructed them you'd be saying that was weird because they only reconstruct to find out the cause of the crash.

[NoahFence]

Look at this guy gingerly walking upon the dust:


https://publicintelligence.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/FF_Debris7.jpg

[alienentity]

Dusty will wait it out, then return making exactly the same claims as if nothing had happened.

That's her M.O. selective amnesia.

[CompusMentus]

Dusty will wait it out, then return making exactly the same claims as if nothing had happened.


That's her M.O. selective amnesia.


That's exactly why I think she's here more for effect rather than reason. But of course it's a tune a lot of truthers play. It also reminds me of those poor deluded tone-deaf auditionees on the TV talent shows who think they are destined for stardom.

I wonder who's been telling Dusty she has the voice of an angel?

Compus

[dafydd]

That's exactly why I think she's here more for effect rather than reason. But of course it's a tune a lot of truthers play. It also reminds me of those poor deluded tone-deaf auditionees on the TV talent shows who think they are destined for stardom.

I wonder who's been telling Dusty she has the voice of an angel?

Compus

If her singing is as good as her reasoning about 911 then I bet the angel was glad to get rid of it.

[WTC Dust]

You can see aerosolized building in the image you posted. Yeah, clearly there was some steel left after the attacks.

Like I said already Dust, your beliefs and reality are quite different.

http://the-real-breaking-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/11septembre_wtc_debris.jpg

^^^Pretty big "dust". I find it ironic in an earlier post you were questioning scientific reasoning of others. I wonder what denying reality says about yours.

[WTC Dust]

That looks like rebar and some plastic, to me. Maybe a bit of rubber.

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/steelstuffWTC.jpg
Defined as dust. A fantasy based on nonsense.

[WTC Dust]

This is yet another excuse for the lack of an abundance of evidence of plane crashes on 9/11.

Look into the hole at Shanksville. No clear evidence of a plane crash. Look into the tiny hole at the Pentagon (before the roof collapsed). No room for a big plane to fit in the hole, and perfectly smooth lawn which would have been dug up had a plane crashed into the ground floor of the Pentagon.

There is some video and eyewitness of airplanes in lower Manhattan, but video images of 9:03AM do not depict a plane crash, and some videos appear to show the nose of this "plane" poking out on the other side.

Then you get to the other conspiracy theories that bore the hell out of me, all about the planes. The only reason I ever discuss planes is because it seems to be what other people want to talk about. Until hijackings and plane crashes have been proved by evidence that isn't already in the public sphere, they are dead to me. The existence of planes is not relevant to my work, because I'm trying to discover what destroyed the WTC, and plane crashes don't have that kind of power.

Bin Laden might have hired some dudes to hijack airplanes, but I personally doubt it. The truthers and the JREFers are both on exactly the same page when it comes to Bin Laden, and it's a boring page, completely unrelated to the mechanism of destruction of the WTC.



If they had reconstructed them you'd be saying that was weird because they only reconstruct to find out the cause of the crash.

[NoahFence]

smoke another.

[dafydd]

smoke another.

Perhaps that is not a good idea.

[dafydd]

This is yet another excuse for the lack of an abundance of evidence of plane crashes on 9/11.

Look into the hole at Shanksville. No clear evidence of a plane crash. Look into the tiny hole at the Pentagon (before the roof collapsed). No room for a big plane to fit in the hole, and perfectly smooth lawn which would have been dug up had a plane crashed into the ground floor of the Pentagon.

There is some video and eyewitness of airplanes in lower Manhattan, but video images of 9:03AM do not depict a plane crash, and some videos appear to show the nose of this "plane" poking out on the other side.

Then you get to the other conspiracy theories that bore the hell out of me, all about the planes. The only reason I ever discuss planes is because it seems to be what other people want to talk about. Until hijackings and plane crashes have been proved by evidence that isn't already in the public sphere, they are dead to me. The existence of planes is not relevant to my work, because I'm trying to discover what destroyed the WTC, and plane crashes don't have that kind of power.

Bin Laden might have hired some dudes to hijack airplanes, but I personally doubt it. The truthers and the JREFers are both on exactly the same page when it comes to Bin Laden, and it's a boring page, completely unrelated to the mechanism of destruction of the WTC.

They have. Perhaps you were stoned and you missed it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HM1MftCtIlg

[Allen773]

They probably think bin Laden was really a Mossad agent.

[twinstead]

I'm seriously sick and tired of truthers claiming there's no compelling evidence of the commonly-held narrative. It is both compelling and substantial. Call it faked, call it fabricated if you want truthers, but don't call it not there. That's just ridiculous

[DGM]

I'm seriously sick and tired of truthers claiming there's no compelling evidence of the commonly-held narrative........


Short to long term memory loss........................:D

[WTC Dust]

I believed it for years, and waited for confirming evidence that never arrived. Now, I didn't believe a plane crash, or even ten plane crashes, could turn a steel building into dust for even one moment. That's true. But, I didn't doubt the authenticity of the plane story until there was plenty of time for evidence to be produced. And it wasn't.

Something was in the sky that day. Something was on the videos. But that something did not impact the south face of WTC 2, and that something did not drag a huge column of air behind it. Therefore, that something was not an airplane. It might not have been a material object.

THIS is how I know bin Laden had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks, but most 9/11 truthers do not deny anything about the hijackings, so they blame bin Laden for being a non-relevant player in the attacks of 9/11. Wrongly.

I'm seriously sick and tired of truthers claiming there's no compelling evidence of the commonly-held narrative. It is both compelling and substantial. Call it faked, call it fabricated if you want truthers, but don't call it not there. That's just ridiculous

[twinstead]

I believed it for years, and waited for confirming evidence that never arrived. Now, I didn't believe a plane crash, or even ten plane crashes, could turn a steel building into dust for even one moment. That's true. But, I didn't doubt the authenticity of the plane story until there was plenty of time for evidence to be produced. And it wasn't.

Something was in the sky that day. Something was on the videos. But that something did not impact the south face of WTC 2, and that something did not drag a huge column of air behind it. Therefore, that something was not an airplane. It might not have been a material object.

THIS is how I know bin Laden had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks, but most 9/11 truthers do not deny anything about the hijackings, so they blame bin Laden for being a non-relevant player in the attacks of 9/11. Wrongly.

I mean no disrespect, but the MAJOR problem I have with your theory is that the buildings did not, I repeat DID NOT 'turn to dust' and the steel did not, I repeat DID NOT 'turn to foam'. THIS is how I know nothing that follows is valid. Couple that with the HUGE amount of legitimate evidence that exists to support it, my opinion can only be that nothing that happened to those buildings as described in the commonly-held narrative and corroborated physical evidence and eye-witnesses accounts is impossible.

It's really that simple.

ETA, by the way, how do you know that Al Queda doesn't possess your mysterious energy weapon and used it that day?

[tsig]

This is yet another excuse for the lack of an abundance of evidence of plane crashes on 9/11.

Look into the hole at Shanksville. No clear evidence of a plane crash. Look into the tiny hole at the Pentagon (before the roof collapsed). No room for a big plane to fit in the hole, and perfectly smooth lawn which would have been dug up had a plane crashed into the ground floor of the Pentagon.

There is some video and eyewitness of airplanes in lower Manhattan, but video images of 9:03AM do not depict a plane crash, and some videos appear to show the nose of this "plane" poking out on the other side.

Then you get to the other conspiracy theories that bore the hell out of me, all about the planes. The only reason I ever discuss planes is because it seems to be what other people want to talk about. Until hijackings and plane crashes have been proved by evidence that isn't already in the public sphere, they are dead to me. The existence of planes is not relevant to my work, because I'm trying to discover what destroyed the WTC, and plane crashes don't have that kind of power.

Bin Laden might have hired some dudes to hijack airplanes, but I personally doubt it. The truthers and the JREFers are both on exactly the same page when it comes to Bin Laden, and it's a boring page, completely unrelated to the mechanism of destruction of the WTC.

Until I read my post at the end of this I had no idea you were answering my post, oh wait, you weren't, you were just using my post as a peg to hang your ignorance on.

[WTC Dust]

Until I read my post at the end of this I had no idea you were answering my post, oh wait, you weren't, you were just using my post as a peg to hang your ignorance on.

Bin Laden is tied up with the hijack conspiracy, and the lack of plane evidence is directly related to this.

Most 9/11 truthers agree with you about Bin Laden and the hijackers. Both groups are wrong.

[WTC Dust]

I mean no disrespect, but the MAJOR problem I have with your theory is that the buildings did not, I repeat DID NOT 'turn to dust' and the steel did not, I repeat DID NOT 'turn to foam'. THIS is how I know nothing that follows is valid. Couple that with the HUGE amount of legitimate evidence that exists to support it, my opinion can only be that nothing that happened to those buildings as described in the commonly-held narrative and corroborated physical evidence and eye-witnesses accounts is impossible.

It's really that simple.

ETA, by the way, how do you know that Al Queda doesn't possess your mysterious energy weapon and used it that day?

Al Queda was largely an invention of the US authorities, not a real group.