Any Conspiracy-Busters here?

[Year Zero]

Hello, one of my hobbies is busting conspiracy theories, particularly those surrounding events. The 9-11 event has spawned a massive avalanche of crackpots and their logically-challenged theories involving remote-control planes, planes shooting missiles, and of course, those demolitions installed before the fateful day. Of course one must ask...of all the "experts" these conspiracy theorists cite from, why wouldn't they go to the ONE source that would unravel the whole thing- a building DEMOLITIONS expert. Sounds pretty simple- show what it would take to rig that building and how they could cover that up somehow.


Other than the Popular Mechanics article, does anybody here have some good arguments against the 9-11 conspiracy or links to people that do. I am always searching for up-to-date refutations.

[jimtron]

Hello, one of my hobbies is busting conspiracy theories, particularly those surrounding events. The 9-11 event has spawned a massive avalanche of crackpots and their logically-challenged theories involving remote-control planes, planes shooting missiles, and of course, those demolitions installed before the fateful day. Of course one must ask...of all the "experts" these conspiracy theorists cite from, why wouldn't they go to the ONE source that would unravel the whole thing- a building DEMOLITIONS expert. Sounds pretty simple- show what it would take to rig that building and how they could cover that up somehow.


Other than the Popular Mechanics article, does anybody here have some good arguments against the 9-11 conspiracy or links to people that do. I am always searching for up-to-date refutations.

It might be easier if you start by describing one or more of them; I'm sure members of this forum will gladly point out any fallacies.

[BillC]

Be aware that some claims to conspiracy theories are impossible to debunk, as in the mind of some, any evidence to the contrary (such as official documentation, you yourself arguing about the conspiracy, and so on) gets simply taken as further evidence of how widespread and pervasive the conspiracy really is.

[MRC_Hans]

I have not read the demolition "theory" in detail, so let me get this straight:

We all saw, at least on TV, the planes hit the buildings and set them on fire, and we all saw, at least on TV, how the collapse started in the part of each building where the plane hit.

Are these people claiming that somebody installed hidden remote-controlled demolition charges in the buildings at some point before 9/11, then somehow arranged for the planes to hit the buildings in just the right spot on 9/11, so they could detonate their demolition charges a few hours later, making it look like the hits from the planes caused the collapse?

Is that what they are claiming?

Hans

[David Swidler]

AKAIK they ar eclaiming that the planes' impact alone wasn't sufficient to trigger the buildings' collapse. Which in tiself is true, but doesn't take into account the effect of burning jet fuel on the building's support framework.

[MRC_Hans]

Yes, but how did the demolition charges happen to be in the right places to finish the job? The collapse started in just the place where the planes hit.

Hans

[Jyera]

I wonder why do these people create doubious conspiracies?

[MRC_Hans]

Because they can't create convincing ones?

Hans

[richardm]

Yes, but how did the demolition charges happen to be in the right places to finish the job? The collapse started in just the place where the planes hit.

[conspiracy hat]

They didn't need to be in exactly the right place. There was enough smoke to disguise the actual point where the collapse began.

[/conspiracy hat]

[lwsichsldt]

AKAIK they ar eclaiming that the planes' impact alone wasn't sufficient to trigger the buildings' collapse. Which in tiself is true, but doesn't take into account the effect of burning jet fuel on the building's support framework.
As far as I know the framework was protectet by some kind of fireresistant foam, but the explosion of the planes ripped most of the foam from the framework and left it unprotected.
So the WTC could withstand a fire long enough to be evacuated, but the explosion made a complet evacuation impossible.

Edit for spelling

[MRC_Hans]

Within a few floors, yes. So how was it foreseen, within a few floors, where the planes would hit (or, for that matter, that they would hit at all)?

The combination of planes and demolition charges simply don't add up. It is not made any better by the fact that a few years before, a whole truckload of explosives were detonated in the basement under one of the towers, without seriously endangering the building, so we know that any effective demolition attempt would involve hundreds of pounds of carefully placed explosives. Not something you can easily get away with doing secretly in a busy office building.

Hans

[malbui]

We all saw, at least on TV, the planes hit the buildings and set them on fire, and we all saw, at least on TV, how the collapse started in the part of each building where the plane hit.Keep up, Hans. The images we all saw on TV were faked by a crack team made up of members of the NSA, CIA, FBI, MI6, KGB, Mossad, DSG and Freemasons. We've all bought into the Big Lie.

[logical muse]

Year Zero, I have to type this quickly before the agents discover my identity.

The JREF Forum is not what it seems. It has been put into place to pacify the sceptics, by pretending to be somewhere they can air their views to supposed like-minded people. In addition, by professing to a sceptical viewpoint your details will be duly noted. If you want evidence, check out the recent 'troubles' we had here recently when some people refused to give their real names and birthdates in their profiles. These people no longer exist.

Don't trust fowlsound.

Interesting Ian is the only person who understands what is really hap

[kookbreaker]

A good resource:

www.911myths.com

Listen to the 9/11 CT's start spitting when you bring up this one.

[kookbreaker]

Of course one must ask...of all the "experts" these conspiracy theorists cite from, why wouldn't they go to the ONE source that would unravel the whole thing- a building DEMOLITIONS expert. Sounds pretty simple- show what it would take to rig that building and how they could cover that up somehow.


I'd be even satisfied if they got some Structural or Civil Engineers on their side. Instead they end up with a cranky cold fusion college physics professor who thinks that it is the 2nd law of thermodynamics that makes objects fall.

[Year Zero]

I'd be even satisfied if they got some Structural or Civil Engineers on their side. Instead they end up with a cranky cold fusion college physics professor who thinks that it is the 2nd law of thermodynamics that makes objects fall.


I'm glad you brought that up because I am not too familiar with physics, and some nut was trying to tell me that it was not necessary to explain how the demolitions could take place because it "violated the laws of physics" as seen on the video. Of course there are also laws of physics involving rigging a massive building for controlled demolition and then screwing up your calculations by crashing a plane into the building, but you know conspiracy nuts...

I have heard that the BYU professor was said to have failed peer reviewed analysis on this point. Do you know any sources where I can read more about that.

[kookbreaker]

I'm glad you brought that up because I am not too familiar with physics, and some nut was trying to tell me that it was not necessary to explain how the demolitions could take place because it "violated the laws of physics" as seen on the video. Of course there are also laws of physics involving rigging a massive building for controlled demolition and then screwing up your calculations by crashing a plane into the building, but you know conspiracy nuts...

I have heard that the BYU professor was said to have failed peer reviewed analysis on this point. Do you know any sources where I can read more about that.

The people credited in his paper are not exactly building engineers and the like. The list inlcudes relgious philosophers. Jones has claimed some engineers have reviewed it, but I don't think any names have been dropped.

This link on the BAUT Forum covers it well. There are other threads on 9/11 over there that are informative.

http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=34793

[Year Zero]

The people credited in his paper are not exactly building engineers and the like. The list inlcudes relgious philosophers. Jones has claimed some engineers have reviewed it, but I don't think any names have been dropped.

This link on the BAUT Forum covers it well. There are other threads on 9/11 over there that are informative.

http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=34793


Yeah you should have seen the reaction I got once when I explained to someone what knowledge of physics isn't like some kind of superpower where you automatically understand the mechanics behind everything simply by watching them. People have calculated the physics behind the techniques of Judo; that does not mean that a physicist would stand a chance in a Judo competition without the proper training in Judo.

[JLam]

The folks who think that explosives brought down the twin towers are also convinced that it wasn't a plane that hit the Pentagon.

Yes. I'm serious.

But lucky for you, snopes.com has gone through this one pretty well.

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm

[Year Zero]

The folks who think that explosives brought down the twin towers are also convinced that it wasn't a plane that hit the Pentagon.

Yes. I'm serious.

But lucky for you, snopes.com has gone through this one pretty well.

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm


The Pentagon story was crushed pretty quickly, that's why they cling to the WTC and when all hope is lost, WTC 7. But their reaction about the Pentagon story is most interesting. When it was debunked I read some conspiracy theories that this story was deliberately concocted as "disinformation". What a luxury they have: If your theory is busted, just claim that theory was put out as part of the overall conspiracy! These guys are almost as slick as the ID proponents. What I find interesting is that the John Birch Society, world-renowned for their conspiracy theories, have remained totally skeptical of the 9-11 conspiracies, which they also believe are part of a disinformation campaign.

[thesyntaxera]

hey fellow skeptics...it my first time...be gentle

When I saw this thread I just had to reply...conspiracies theory is a pet hobby of mine as well.

I am electing to play devils advocate, due in part to the fact that no one has done any real debunking in this thread...so I thought I would supply some info to be debunked...sound fun? ok...

Is it logical to believe the following:

two planes flying at 600 miles per hour being piloted by two certified cesna trainee's hit the trade center and pentagon.

the plane that hit the pentagon managed to do so by doing an almost 180 degree turn on descent at over 600 mph and managed at the last second to stay two feet off the ground without damaging anything, cruising up the lawn, and then disappearing into the building leaving in its wake three 16 foot wide holes(9feet of concrete). The plane was compeltely destroyed...even the titanium engine casings. The biggest remaining section of plane was removed under a blue tarp by men carrying it on their shoulders.

Of the WTC planes, both managed to cause fires that would ultimately bring the buildings down. The second tower to get hit was the first to go. Even though an incredibly hot fire from burning jet fuel is what brought the building down some how people were photopgraphed standing in the holes where the the very planes struck.

Jet fuel burns at roughly 1500 degrees...it takes a prolonged heat of over 2200 degree's to weaken it enough to fall.

Buidling 7 was also destroyed by fire although initial reports indicated that it was small and containable. When it collapsed it fell in all at once, resembling a demolition even though it wasn't one.

If you dropped a rock from the roof of tower 2 at the moment it starts to fall the tower would hit the ground at the same time as the rock. If the towers were not demolished,

The planes in these attacks were highjacked by 19 arab men, even though 7 of them are still alive.

We discovered it was Al Qeada by locating a passport that fell from Atta's pocket, and flew out of the plane, through the insanely burning fire, out the other side of the building and into the street several blocks away.

None of the highjackers were on any flight manifest. No videos show them boarding a plane.

All Federal protocols for dealing with highjackings were not followed until after the attacks took place, no one noticed anything was wrong despite the tight regulation of air traffic by civilians and NORAD. Washington airsapce was not being protected at the time even though Andrews air base is right next door.

No chemical test of the building steel was conducted before the metal was exported to a smelter. This decision is made after fires and explosions are reported and witnessed in the lobby of the building.

Molten steel was uncovered in the core of the site two months after the collapse. Siesmic records indicate demolition charges at the precise time of the impacts.

The flight that crashed in pennsylvania left no wreckage at all, and a 20 foot wide crater. No bodies...no engines...nothing...this was after it flew to ohio and turned around without being noticed.


want more?

I have my flame retardant suit on....

[Year Zero]

I can't even begin to point out the numerous simple factual errors in this statement, but I don't blame you because I know how conspiracy theories spread. Statements are delivered with such confidence that the reader, unless he has taken special time out to verify the simple details, usually assumes to be true. Let's face it, if someone asked anyone on this forum, in person, to give a relatively detailed chronology of the events on 9-11 we would probably fail miserably. So when someone puts out a claim like, "The whole in the Pentagon was 16 feet wide" one would not be able to refute it so easily without prior research.

I have recently read over this site, and have found refutations to all of these claims, with sources cited(often the debunking can be done with the source cited by the conspiracy theorists.

www.911myths.com

Please excuse me for not personally tackling these claims, but I have literally spent months debating all of these claims WITHOUT the aid of that site, I am a bit weary of this topic. I have actually been called an agent of Larry Silverstein by proponents of the WTC 7 conspiracy claim.

[MRC_Hans]

hey fellow skeptics...it my first time...be gentleNo.

When I saw this thread I just had to reply...conspiracies theory is a pet hobby of mine as well.I bet they are.

I am electing to play devils advocate, due in part to the fact that no one has done any real debunking in this thread...so I thought I would supply some info to be debunked...sound fun? ok...Ignores fundamental debunking delivered, and claims it is non-existent. Claims t osupply info and supplies idiot propaganda? Devil's advocate, my foot. My kook alarm is on bright crimson.

Is it logical to believe the following:

two planes flying at 600 miles per hour being piloted by two certified cesna trainee's hit the trade center and pentagon.Three planes. Yes, flying is largely scalable, and these guys neither needed to take off or land. And they had had simulator training on the proper plane type.

the plane that hit the pentagon managed to do so by doing an almost 180 degree turn on descent at over 600 mph and managed at the last second to stay two feet off the ground without damaging anything, cruising up the lawn, and then disappearing into the building leaving in its wake three 16 foot wide holes(9feet of concrete).Which 180 degree turn? That was miles before impact, and the plane did hit the ground before hitting the building. That is the reason for the three holes; the plane was partly disintegrated when it hit the building.

The plane was compeltely destroyed...even the titanium engine casings. The biggest remaining section of plane was removed under a blue tarp by men carrying it on their shoulders.That's simply nonsense.

Of the WTC planes, both managed to cause fires that would ultimately bring the buildings down. The second tower to get hit was the first to go.Could that be because more than twice as much building had to be supported, above the impact site :rolleyes: ?

Even though an incredibly hot fire from burning jet fuel is what brought the building down some how people were photopgraphed standing in the holes where the the very planes struck.I dare you to prodice such photos, but it is indeed possible. After the initial blast, the holes made by the planes will act like access holes for fresh, cool air, while the hot fire goes upwards. Notice that those holes appeared dark, after the initial fireball. Ever been at a fire site? Even deep into the buring area, there are fresh-air corridors. I have seen packages wrapped in paper being quite undamaged right next to molten glass, on a fire site.

Jet fuel burns at roughly 1500 degrees...it takes a prolonged heat of over 2200 degree's to weaken it enough to fall.The temperature of a fire depends on the availability of air and fuel. You cannot state a specific temperature for a given fuel. Charcoall will normally burn at arounf 900 degrees (e.g. in your barbecue), but blow sufficient air on it and it can melt steel.

Buidling 7 was also destroyed by fire although initial reports indicated that it was small and containable. When it collapsed it fell in all at once, resembling a demolition even though it wasn't one.Building 7 was weakend by fire and the towers crashing down right beside it. Initial reports? Excuse me, are you saying that initial reports MUST be right, but the whole situation was a sham?? Do make up your mind. A building collapses from the point where it fails. If that point is near the ground (where the load on any buildng's structure is greatest), it will collapse like that.

If you dropped a rock from the roof of tower 2 at the moment it starts to fall the tower would hit the ground at the same time as the rock.Newsflash: All objects fall at the same speed (barring air resistance), buildings, stones, etc.

If the towers were not demolished,What?

The planes in these attacks were highjacked by 19 arab men, even though 7 of them are still alive.Source? Again, part of the report must be accepted, although it was really all a sham? Get your referencs straight.

We discovered it was Al Qeada by locating a passport that fell from Atta's pocket, and flew out of the plane, through the insanely burning fire, out the other side of the building and into the street several blocks away.Nonsense.

None of the highjackers were on any flight manifest. No videos show them boarding a plane.False.

All Federal protocols for dealing with highjackings were not followed until after the attacks took place, no one noticed anything was wrong despite the tight regulation of air traffic by civilians and NORAD. Washington airsapce was not being protected at the time even though Andrews air base is right next door.And (if correct) that is evidence of what? That such attacks were not expected? Duh!

No chemical test of the building steel was conducted before the metal was exported to a smelter. This decision is made after fires and explosions are reported and witnessed in the lobby of the building.False. Extensive analysis of the wreckage was performed.

Molten steel was uncovered in the core of the site two months after the collapse.And (if correct) this is evidence of what? That the building did not collapse due to the steel melting?:rolleyes:

Siesmic records indicate demolition charges at the precise time of the impacts.Ehr, but the buildings did not collapse at the time of the impacts, remember? How do you distinguish between the impact of a plane and a demolition charge, in a seismic record? How did they know where the impacts were going to be so they could place the charges there?

The flight that crashed in pennsylvania left no wreckage at all, and a 20 foot wide crater. No bodies...no engines...nothing...this was after it flew to ohio and turned around without being noticed.False. This is plain silly. We have all seen videos of the wreckage field. And yes, it was noticed. Remember, fighters were scrabled, and another conspiracy theory even claims that it was shot down by those fighters.


want more?

I have my flame retardant suit on....No thanks, unless you can do considerably better.

And that suit seems to be logic retardant, too. Perhaps you should simply take it off :rolleyes:.

Hans :nope:

[Year Zero]

Within a few floors, yes. So how was it foreseen, within a few floors, where the planes would hit (or, for that matter, that they would hit at all)?

The combination of planes and demolition charges simply don't add up. It is not made any better by the fact that a few years before, a whole truckload of explosives were detonated in the basement under one of the towers, without seriously endangering the building, so we know that any effective demolition attempt would involve hundreds of pounds of carefully placed explosives. Not something you can easily get away with doing secretly in a busy office building.

Hans



Exactly. If you read about real demolitions experts, they will tell you that there is no exact science to demolitions, only experience and educated guesses. Because of this it can take literally months to rig even a much smaller building for demolitions; and that's a building that has been prepped for destruction. This means tearing out walls, drilling holes, etc.

And the Conspiracy folks hang themselves by saying it looks like a controlled demolitions because even if you could rig that thing with absolutely nobody noticing; once you crash a plane into the building you've thrown the element of control out the window. Which begs the question, "why use planes at all"? It would have been far easier and less risky to simply fake a truck bomb and perhaps leave the towers, and not attack the Pentagon. Hell, it would have been 10 times safer than that to simply fake the thwarting of an impending attack...

But no, in conspiracy world they would have us believe that the super-geniuses that control the world are also so stupid that their schemes are unravelled sometimes even days(London Bombings) after the events by internet junkies who didn't even need to leave their house.

Thanks for your support in this issue. After being accused of being a paid-agent of Larry Silverstein, head 9-11 conspirator, I am glad to sit back and watch someone else take a few shots at CTs.

[thesyntaxera]

I haven't finished reading your blind reactionism...so prejudge based on induction(the lowest form of logic) if you so wish. that, and play nice.

[Year Zero]

I haven't finished reading your blind reactionism...so prejudge based on induction(the lowest form of logic) if you so wish. that, and play nice.


Speaking as someone who has literally spent months debating these conspiracies, your presentation is woefully out of date. Some of the major CTs are currently claiming that the no-plane Pentagon theory was actually circulated by the conspirators as disinformation. That's the luxury CTs have when their theory gets debunked so quickly.

Other than that the other claims lack detail and sources, yet I am familiar with various incarnations of all of them. More importantly, I am familiar with the refutations and various logical flaws many of them put forth. Once again, visit 911myths.com and you will find sources and discussions far more detailed than I could ever provide in one sitting.

[thesyntaxera]

I would also like to point out that I listed those claims because no one else had bothered to...as if you had meticulously researched it all yourself and determined them to be false...

your response is like that of a inductive skeptic. not deductive. the logic you have used is simple and mindless..."all conspiracies are bunk so this one is as well..." there have been plenty of legitimate conspiracies over the years.

I was wondering what specific facts there were to debunk these claims because it could just be that I am trying to explain it to someone else to keep them from getting lost down the rabbit hole.

The way you have answered all of the claims put out by the 911 conspiracy community is with one to two sentences of drivel that contain no relevant facts or data to lead me to any alternate conclusions..which is what I was asking for...it also reveals an apparent lack of knowledge on your part regarding that which you claim is so easily debunkable....don't you think being familiar with the claims would make you better equipt to answer the questions?


that, and your Ad Hominems are annoying....

[thesyntaxera]

Speaking as someone who has literally spent months debating these conspiracies, your presentation is woefully out of date. Some of the major CTs are currently claiming that the no-plane Pentagon theory was actually circulated by the conspirators as disinformation. That's the luxury CTs have when their theory gets debunked so quickly.

Other than that the other claims lack detail and sources, yet I am familiar with various incarnations of all of them. More importantly, I am familiar with the refutations and various logical flaws many of them put forth. Once again, visit 911myths.com and you will find sources and discussions far more detailed than I could ever provide in one sitting.

Speaking as someone who is skeptical, and has been researching(not just debating/debasing) these claims for the last 4 years I would say unless you are lurking around on the letsroll forums or other similar places you haven't the faintest as to how far out it is. The point is simple though..

the official story seems less than logical, not to say that rampant conspiranoia isn't as well.

I will be sure to check 911 myths


go to google and look up informationclearinghouse.info . Peruse the video archive on the left. watch loose change. it's short. answer the claims and argue the sources...but don't come at me like it's your mission to stomp me out just because I brought up 911.

I would post a link to the video directly, but I can't yet obviously.

[Year Zero]

I would also like to point out that I listed those claims because no one else had bothered to...as if you had meticulously researched it all yourself and determined them to be false...

Actually yes I have researched these claims and I have had them rapidly thrown at me by multiple people on a discussion forum on several occasions, sometimes single threads lasted over a week. The poor bastards never seemed to notice that many of their theories or "proofs" actually contradicted each other.


your response is like that of a inductive skeptic. not deductive. the logic you have used is simple and mindless..."all conspiracies are bunk so this one is as well..." there have been plenty of legitimate conspiracies over the years.

No I never said all conspiracies are bunk. A skeptic believes what there is evidence for. I have not seen any convincing evidence of any of these conspiracies. What I have seen is blatant errors, massive leaps of faith, and seemingly deliberate attempts to mislead people on simple facts surrounding the event.


I was wondering what specific facts there were to debunk these claims because it could just be that I am trying to explain it to someone else to keep them from getting lost down the rabbit hole.

Go to the 911myths.com site then. All the claims are catagorized by topic.


The way you have answered all of the claims put out by the 911 conspiracy community is with one to two sentences of drivel that contain no relevant facts or data to lead me to any alternate conclusions..which is what I was asking for...it also reveals an apparent lack of knowledge on your part regarding that which you claim is so easily debunkable....don't you think being familiar with the claims would make you better equipt to answer the questions?

I'll tell you what is revealing. The fact that you claim these theories haven't been debunked while repeatedly refusing to visit a site that claims to do just that. More importantly, many of these claims were also addressed in a now famous study published by Popular Mechanics, that boasts more credentials than the conspiracy theorists could dream about. You have also been responded to in some detail by another poster here- and yet you dismiss all this as "one or two sentences of drivel". And you claim to be a skeptic?



that, and your Ad Hominems are annoying....

What is also annoying is someone pretending to be objective, and then refusing to look at the sources someone cites. Not only have your claims been debunked, but some of those claims ARE NOT EVEN BELIEVED by some of the more popular conspiracy theorists- namely the Pentagon no-plane theory.

Just for fun, I am going to provide a few sample answers to the easiest of your questions:


"1. We discovered it was Al Qeada by locating a passport that fell from Atta's pocket, and flew out of the plane, through the insanely burning fire, out the other side of the building and into the street several blocks away."

This was not the method that was used to determine the complicity of Al Qaeda, which was known at the time to be a decentralized organization. Also, while I cannot say for sure, I don't believe that the passport belonged to Atta, but possibly another hijacker. Lastly, and most importantly...NASA actually recovered a patch, among several other items from the COLOMBIA SPACE SHUTTLE DISASTER. It is in rather good shape despite the fact that it exploded out of a space shuttle 40 miles above the Earth. See 911myths.com for other items that miraciously survived 9-11.

2. "The planes in these attacks were highjacked by 19 arab men, even though 7 of them are still alive."

No, "they" are not alive. Many Arabs have similar names, and in several cases confusion led to people who were still alive being listed as terrorists who were already dead.

3. " the plane that hit the pentagon managed to do so by doing an almost 180 degree turn on descent at over 600 mph and managed at the last second to stay two feet off the ground without damaging anything, cruising up the lawn, and then disappearing into the building leaving in its wake three 16 foot wide holes(9feet of concrete). The plane was compeltely destroyed...even the titanium engine casings. The biggest remaining section of plane was removed under a blue tarp by men carrying it on their shoulders."

This is simply flat-out wrong. The plane actually bounced off the ground once, and several lightpoles were knocked down by the plane, which is visible in several photographs. The holes were larger than 16 feet. Plane debris was found all over the area and the flight recorders were recovered.

4. None of the highjackers were on any flight manifest. No videos show them boarding a plane.

This is just flat out wrong. I think you are confusing flight manifest with the final victims report. There is good reason for this: That report was compiled using only victims who had enough remains to be identified, identity was verified by personal effects and other samples sent in by family members. Guess who were on those planes that DIDN'T have families sending in samples....TIME'S UP!!! THE HIJACKERS! Also, the hijackers actually aren't the only people that didn't appear on the victim recovery lists either- it was compiled only of those remains that could be identified.


If you want to examine these further simply go to 911Myths.com But don't continue to say "they haven't been debunked" if you are not going to admit your obvious factual errors and not examine evidence to the contrary.

[Year Zero]

Speaking as someone who is skeptical, and has been researching(not just debating/debasing) these claims for the last 4 years I would say unless you are lurking around on the letsroll forums or other similar places you haven't the faintest as to how far out it is. The point is simple though..

You have been researching this for 4 years yet you made clear simple factual errors in these claims? How could you research objectively for 4 years and never find out that the claims about the Pentagon, for example, were quickly debunked? You really need to visit that site.


the official story seems less than logical, not to say that rampant conspiranoia isn't as well.
.

The "official story" whatever that is, seems a lot more logical when the claims are accurately represented and the basic facts of that day are not distorted. Conspiracy theorists, often with absolutely no qualifications whatsoever, like to refer to expert investigators as "so-called", and then proceed to point out the "holes" they see in the "official story"(which they often misstate). What I have also seen from these people, is that they do not like the same scrutiny applied to their theory. The "official story" people are expected to explain every last detail, while people that believe in the demolition are never forced to explain how the rigging of charges in the WTC was even possible without massive eyewitnesses, and why they would be so stupid as to crash planes into the building, thus invalidating all their calculations.

[Panelman]

As for the wing under the blue plastic if you see anything else besides a tube and plastic building we are not looking at the same picture.:rolleyes: All they are doing is moving a lightweight, temp. plastic building, just like the one i just put up in my backyard. Check out the ribs on the roof line.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

your response is like that of a inductive skeptic. not deductive. the logic you have used is simple and mindless..."all conspiracies are bunk so this one is as well..." there have been plenty of legitimate conspiracies over the years.

Off the top of my head, I can't think of one. Please enlighten me.

[kookbreaker]

Speaking as someone who is skeptical, and has been researching(not just debating/debasing) these claims for the last 4 years I would say unless you are lurking around on the letsroll forums or other similar places you haven't the faintest as to how far out it is. The point is simple though..


I find it amusing how someone can claim to have 'researched' a topic for four years, yet still make the unsupported claim that there was molten steel in the basement.

You realise there is very little evidence for this claim, right? Its fairly indicitive of your errors.

Another example of poor thinking: Why do you think it is hard to pilot a plane that is already in the air? A single question to a commerical pilot, or even an experienced amatuer would have shown this claim to be complete and utter nonsense. But I guess doing that would mean you lose a bullet point, eh?

"Research" does not mean just going to CT sites and drooling over what they call "research".

[kookbreaker]

I haven't finished reading your blind reactionism...so prejudge based on induction(the lowest form of logic) if you so wish. that, and play nice.

You claim you want to 'play nice' and then use terms like 'blind reactionism'.



Wonderful.

[Morrison's Lament]

I don't believe that anyone that has truly looked into this matter could have written such a woefully factually inaccurate post, thesyntaxera. You make several outlandish claims that have no basis in reality along with several badly outdated claims that can be taken apart in seconds with the aide of google or snopes.com.

If you're really into this conspiracy stuff, you have a lot to look forward to because it looks like you've just begun to scratch the surface of the mainstream e-mail circulated paranoia that was circulating circa 2003.

--- G.

[kookbreaker]

"1. We discovered it was Al Qeada by locating a passport that fell from Atta's pocket, and flew out of the plane, through the insanely burning fire, out the other side of the building and into the street several blocks away."

This was not the method that was used to determine the complicity of Al Qaeda, which was known at the time to be a decentralized organization. Also, while I cannot say for sure, I don't believe that the passport belonged to Atta, but possibly another hijacker. Lastly, and most importantly...NASA actually recovered a patch, among several other items from the COLOMBIA SPACE SHUTTLE DISASTER. It is in rather good shape despite the fact that it exploded out of a space shuttle 40 miles above the Earth. See 911myths.com for other items that miraciously survived 9-11.


An example I like to point out: FOUND magazine, (a magazine devoted to people sending in the odd loves notes, poems, ramblings, scribblings, and whatnot found on subways and other odd places) managed to collect pieces of paper with letterhead (with a 9/11/01 date) from a law firm that was completely and utterly destroyed by the attack. Their rooms were destroyed, and every.single person who worked for that firm was killed in the crash and fire. Yet these bare pieces of paper managed to survive the disaster.

By comparison, a Passport is thick paper, and strongly laminated. It was on a person who had momentum going into the tower, thus would be more likely to be thrown free from the tower. Certainly more likely than some legal note on a lawyer's desk.

Yet CT's act constantly 'stunned' as to how such a thing could survive.

[thesyntaxera]

first off, and let this be plain...I never said I wouldn't look at your sources...in fact I said I would look at them...read closer.

second, I am aware of the proper role of a skeptical mind. I know the typical conspiracy hierarchy, and have not come to spew diatribe about circumstantial evidence, so please...in all kindness, direct your accusatory tone, and lectures elsewhere.

third, your responding to this as if I am trying to convince you, which I am not.

now let me be the first to break your logic bubble.

After reviewing the information on your one source, 911myths.com, I have to say that it is just as poor of an excuse of information as every conspiracy hacks. They use your favorite method of reading posts to come to conclusions but of a different sort....you know, ones contrary to the conspiracy claims.

Each point they make, which barely covers all of the points brought up by the 9/11isahoax community, is only backed up by more inductivist rhetoric. All they are doing is demonstrating that you can interpret the information in different ways.

There are some that contradict themselves...for instance the claim that there was molten steel...they assert that we couldn't know either way, then show a picture of molten metal that "could" be steel...but then say since it isn't verified...how can we know? The contradiction enters in, when they stand by the finding that the very cause of the collapse was do to the damage and melting of the 40 odd steel beams that were holding it up.

Asif Usamani points out-
"So the results of the analyses and the fact that the structure had sustained significant damage lead to a very strong case that the impact damage coupled with the subsequent fires were the only causes of collapse that rational minded people should need consider. The vertically downward collapse (which looks like a controlled demolition) is simply because once a large enough mass starts moving (accelerating because of gravity), it does not change direction unless met by a very large resisting force. The forces generated by a large moving mass are orders of magnitude larger than its weight (called dynamic amplification in engineering). Professor Bazant of Northwestern University (Illionois) explained this well in his paper soon after 9/11."

So I guess he forgot to take into consideration the fact that there were 80 undamaged floors of the building with an ever widening support structure as it approached the base? Wouldn't that be a sizable enough mass to change the direction of the moving mass of the upper floors? Why would the base of the building be weaker than the upper floors?

He further writes-
"Behaviour of structures in general and structures in fire in particular is a complex and very specialist engineering mechanics field that requires years study and research to understand well. It is unlikely that any of the conspiracy theories emanate from people who understand these issues."

Thats very nice of him to point out..."believe me, you couldn't possibly grasp this unless you are trained..." if you were to analyze the video evidence compared to other demolitions you would see many striking similarities, and since this guy isn't the only expert to think on this topic I would like to point out that there are other people who might argue with him on this, although 911myths.com didn't bother to seek them out.

I am no expert, but I have seen a few house fires, and they don't even collapse all at once when the whole place is engulfed...in fact no fire has ever made a office building collapse that fast ever, and there have been many office building fires in many buildings that were built at the same time as the WTC. Another thing they could have mentioned is that this wasn't the first time a plane struck an office building. I will have to look for the source later, but I believe there was an account of a wwII bomber flying low on a foggy day in manhattan when it struck the Empire State Building. No long lasting inferno...just a giant hole in the side of the building...911'ers don't even mention this either...


I could go on, this is just a small sample of the logical errors I noticed when reading the one site that convinced you of the official story.

As far as your answers to my posted point, you dodge all of them with semantics...like comparing the burning of charcoal in a grill to the heat of buring jet fuel...nonsense...

you might also want to check your facts before you use answers like NO. A lot of the things I mentioned were components of the official story, like the whole passport thing. You actually believe that a paper passport that is claimed to be launched from a plane that landed inside a building that burned so much as to fall down into a million pieces is logical because some website compared it to the columbia explosion...something that is much smaller...
I'm sure you can find all kinds of burned things there...just not a passport that sailed through a building that exploded on impact...typically you would think it would be incinerated wouldn't you? This is induction at it's finest.

I am not trying to dance you in circles here, honestly, I am trying to get you to be as critical as your 6,000+ posts would lead me to believe.

Here is my problem, your whole argument is based around the assumption that I don't know what I am talking about, that whatever they settled on must be the most logical explanation, and that since some website can inductively solve all of the problems with reconciling the video evidence with the official report, it must be true...even though there are many ways of looking at this as well as the evidence that you ignore because you have predetermined that this case is for the most part closed.

I realize that this event fits the conspiracy hierarchy all too well, I just feel after reviewing the evidence that is available...(ie multiple video angles as well as the complete dispatch tape, hundreds of still images, and loads of eyewitness testimony, not to mention the final commision report) unconvinced of the legitimacy of the final report.

Why can't you admit in this situation the most logical answer might be that there might be cause for further investigation by an independant third party if for no other purpose than to settle this sore spot. 50% of surveyed NY'ers don't buy the official report...

neither do many of the firemen who were in the building.

how many bells and whistles need to go off?




I will now take the time to answer the few posts that snuck in while I was typing...

THS-
can't think of any off the top of your head?

iran/contra, blood diamonds, the plot to kill caesar, mccarthyism...read "the people history of the united states by howard zinn, there is over 1000 pages of researched conspiracy in some form or another in there as well...

It should also be pointed out that if one were to buy the whole story of 911 as it is told, then you would be buying into a different conspiracy...the one where a couple of guys in the mountains of afghanistan conspired to bomb the WTC and pentagon with the help of 19 other people...something that would take years to do, and yet, in Osama's confession he clearly states the highjackers didn't know what they would be doing until the day of the attack.

kookbreaker-
was it something other than blind reactionism? do tell. I am sure there were papers flying all about as they were on the live video, the reason the claim is questionable is because were talking about a thick piece of paper at the exact location of the explosion leaping out of the plane, out of the building, and then landing several blocks away...this is no cause for concern from you?

"Another example of poor thinking: Why do you think it is hard to pilot a plane that is already in the air? A single question to a commerical pilot, or even an experienced amatuer would have shown this claim to be complete and utter nonsense. But I guess doing that would mean you lose a bullet point, eh?"

Have you asked them? What did they say? I guess an amatuer pilot could bring a 757 to feet off the ground without blowing over everything in it's path?
Is that what you are saying? Or are you making the guess that they would say such things?


See I thought I would come here and find some people who actually had something to debunk the conspiracy theory with besides someone else inductive approach to reasoning. What I am beginning to notice is that of the people who have so far replied, none of you is capable of offering a more logical explanation. If you could you would have. Instead, you hide behind semantics, ad hominem, poor reasoning, and a single website that suffers from the same thing.

As far as being out of touch with current trends in CT...doubtfull...but I'll let you keep your assumption and ego intact since there is no way to prove you wrong.

[thesyntaxera]

in regards to the photo of people standing in the hole of tower two after the impact...it does exist, and I will post it. It will take sometime to locate online if I don't already have it saved on a disk some where...

[thesyntaxera]

I guess it wasn't that hard...all it took was a google image search

it will not allow me to upload it because of it's size...


911review.com/errors/wtc/imgs/woman_wtc.jpg

just paste into your browser since I can't post an actual link yet.. and behold a raging inferno, and a woman standing in the hole.

[Morrison's Lament]

That picture proves nothing, for reasons already explained above. I don't think you are grasping the complexity of the events in question, the numbers of variables and the fact that it takes even structural engineers quite a bit of calculations to come to any kind of explanation.

Looking at a picture and saying: "It doesn't make sense!" doesn't make it so. Just because a movie audience would reject it as implausible doesn't mean it wouldn't be exactly what would happen in the real world. I mean there are often reports of explosions where people are found relatively unharmed in a nearby tree while their apartment is completely shredded by a gas leak.

--- G.

[richardm]

That picture proves nothing, for reasons already explained above.
Quite apart from the fact that it doesn't even look like a person, except in the sketchiest manner.

Certainly nothing as convincing as this photo - and the fire brigade video taken from a slightly different angle at the same time clearly shows the face to be the end of a burning beam.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v507/richardm/ghostl13.gif

[The Central Scrutinizer]

iran/contra, blood diamonds, the plot to kill caesar, mccarthyism...read "the people history of the united states by howard zinn, there is over 1000 pages of researched conspiracy in some form or another in there as well...

It should also be pointed out that if one were to buy the whole story of 911 as it is told, then you would be buying into a different conspiracy...the one where a couple of guys in the mountains of afghanistan conspired to bomb the WTC and pentagon with the help of 19 other people...something that would take years to do, and yet, in Osama's confession he clearly states the highjackers didn't know what they would be doing until the day of the attack.


Ummm....no. Iran/Contra was not a conspiracy. It was people breaking the law and they got caught. Don't know what "blood diamonds" are. McCarthyism? LOL!

Is that the best you got?

[thesyntaxera]

video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2023320890224991194&q=loose+change

past that in and view it. debunk it, trash it, do whatever, just please watch it all before you respond, and please cite specifics in regards to the flaws of the video.

thank you in advance for you consideration, and please lets keep this on low heat, there is no reason for you all to fly to pieces just because we are talking about the possibility that there might be something to the claims regardless of how many websites debunk them.

[thesyntaxera]

Ummm....no. Iran/Contra was not a conspiracy. It was people breaking the law and they got caught. Don't know what "blood diamonds" are. McCarthyism? LOL!

Is that the best you got?

the best I got??? isn't people talking secretly to commit illegal arms exchanges to fund death squads a conspiracy?

you have the internet...look up the words "blood diamonds" in google.

McCarthyism lol? Not really funny when you consider how many lives were ruined at the behest of the Red Scare, on top of the outrageous claims made by McCarthy against fellow americans.

[thesyntaxera]

If the woman in the photo is too small...enlarge it.

[Morrison's Lament]

Alex Jones? Dear jumping Jebus...

I just can't bring myself to listen to one more thing he has to say, he's clearly ill and needs help. It's too bad Sacred Cow keeps promoting his rantings, it's quite embarrassing.

--- G.

[thesyntaxera]

Alex Jones? Dear jumping Jebus...

I just can't bring myself to listen to one more thing he has to say, he's clearly ill and needs help. It's too bad Sacred Cow keeps promoting his rantings, it's quite embarrassing.

--- G.

typical response I suppose, you can label me as raving or ill if you like, I'm just asking you to take a second look and engage in some exploratory conversation.

or you can just quit reading.

I am not asking you to take a side..I just happen to think that if you used deduction instead of induction you might think the same way...or something slightly similar.

[thesyntaxera]

and who is Sacred Cow? I actually haven't read any other threads due to my slow dial up speed and the fact that I have been occupied responding to unfounded claims.

[Morrison's Lament]

You are Alex Jones? If not, then I haven't labeled you as anything at all.

I'm just saying that a cursory glance at his life's work indicates he's off his medication and probably not a good source to be citing if you want to be taken seriously.

Sacred Cow is Bill Hicks' old publishing company, they publish some of my favorite stand-up comedians of all time. And... Alex Jones :(

--- G.

[Morrison's Lament]

Oh, and if Alex Jones' theories about the event and it's causes are going to be part of this debate we have to start talking about the Illuminati, and that will just make things extremely silly.

--- G.

[Morrison's Lament]

Check out Alex arguing that cancer is caused by vaccination:

Cancer was a very rare illness in the 1890's. This evidence about immune system injury from vaccinating affords a plausible explanation for Dr. Clarke's finding that only vaccinated individuals got cancer. Some radical adverse change in health occurred in the early 1900s to permit cancer to explode and vaccinating appears to be the reason.

Vaccines are an unnatural phenomena. My guess is that if enough persons said no to immunizations there would be a striking improvement in general health with nature back in the immunizing business instead of man. Having a child vaccinated should be a choice not a requirement. Medical and religious exemptions are permitted by most states.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/october2004/201004shouldavoid.htm

The man is unstable and dangerous.

--- G.

[kookbreaker]

kookbreaker-
was it something other than blind reactionism? do tell.


Yes, and you need to get over yourself.


I am sure there were papers flying all about as they were on the live video, the reason the claim is questionable is because were talking about a thick piece of paper at the exact location of the explosion leaping out of the plane, out of the building, and then landing several blocks away...this is no cause for concern from you?


Why is so hard for you to understandthat a pretected piece of paper might have survived? Explain to me how this is a problem when you can accept that unlaminated paper from an office that was engulfed and destroyed is able to survive?


"Another example of poor thinking: Why do you think it is hard to pilot a plane that is already in the air? A single question to a commerical pilot, or even an experienced amatuer would have shown this claim to be complete and utter nonsense. But I guess doing that would mean you lose a bullet point, eh?"

Have you asked them?


Yes.


What did they say?


Pretty much what any person would expect: Its not that hard to fly a plane once it is off the ground, especially if you don't care about: Turbulance, time, FAA regulations, the comfort of the passengers, and so forth.


I guess an amatuer pilot could bring a 757 to feet off the ground without blowing over everything in it's path?


What are you babbling about? Is this the plane hitting the Pentagon? If so you could not be more wrong.


Is that what you are saying? Or are you making the guess that they would say such things?


I have asked pilots. Get over yourself.


See I thought I would come here and find some people who actually had something to debunk the conspiracy theory with besides someone else inductive approach to reasoning. What I am beginning to notice is that of the people who have so far replied, none of you is capable of offering a more logical explanation. If you could you would have. Instead, you hide behind semantics, ad hominem, poor reasoning, and a single website that suffers from the same thing.


No, we are offering, you are just not listening. You are substituting whining and complaining for counterarguements.

[Morrison's Lament]

It's become clear that the devil's advocate is more than a little into his role ;)

--- G.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

the best I got??? isn't people talking secretly to commit illegal arms exchanges to fund death squads a conspiracy?

you have the internet...look up the words "blood diamonds" in google.

McCarthyism lol? Not really funny when you consider how many lives were ruined at the behest of the Red Scare, on top of the outrageous claims made by McCarthy against fellow americans.

Could you answer a few questions?

/Start woo-woo bleever check

1) Who killed JFK?
2) On July 20, 1969, did a US astronaut set foot on the moon?
3) Did George W Bush conspire with Diebold to rig the 2004 election?
4) Does the Illuminati, working closely with Jewish bankers and the Trilateral Commision, secretly rule the world?

/end check

[thesyntaxera]

Why don't you all step back and quit reading too far into what I am saying, your paranoia about me is starting to look very comparable to the very things you are trying to discredit.

There is no agenda other than a personal one. What you might have gathered is that I am trying to find legitimate sources to debunk these allegations. I am not in support of any view one way or the other. You are all reacting, and looking for things that aren't there when it comes to things like me being comparable to Alex Jones or others of his like...your gathering an awful lot from a few posts.

My point initially was to try and sort out the problem with this particular conspiracy theory.

What it seems you haven't realized is that even though there isn't enough evidence to say conspiracy, there isn't enough public evidence to convince one otherwise. As I pointed out earlier, this 911myths.com is no better than any letsroll, or infoclearinghouse. The sum of the skepticism amounts to faithfully accepting what the given story is because why would it be anything else. Every explanation offered only leaves more open for conspiracy nuts to pick away at...ie they draw conclusions based on testimony, not evidence, they rationalize a bias in favor of the offcial story regardless of all the circumstantial evidence laying all over place...there shouldn't be any ammo for a conspiracist to latch onto in the first place.

In the end, what I was getting at is that there are a million leads that could have been followed, why follow these particular ones to reach the official conclusion?

and still more questions..like why only 5 frames of the pentagon, why not make them all public, or at least ones that don't compromise national security...whats that? they all do? all but those 5? ok...ummm there isn't one single angle that shows a plane? Why? Not one single frame?

Whats on the 28 pages of the Comission report?


Why not make sure your case was air tight?

Why not clear up any rumors by pursuing these leads and dispelling them with public fact?

[Year Zero]

Why don't you all step back and quit reading too far into what I am saying, your paranoia about me is starting to look very comparable to the very things you are trying to discredit.

Paranoia? Who do you think you're fooling? I've been debating with advocates of these conspiracy theories for about six months now on another forum. They are FAR more convincing than you, though they use what are basically better refined versions of the arguments you are produceing.


There is no agenda other than a personal one. What you might have gathered is that I am trying to find legitimate sources to debunk these allegations. I am not in support of any view one way or the other. You are all reacting, and looking for things that aren't there when it comes to things like me being comparable to Alex Jones or others of his like...your gathering an awful lot from a few posts.

You do realize that several of your claims have already been fully debunked as they are full of mistakes regarding the simple details.


What it seems you haven't realized is that even though there isn't enough evidence to say conspiracy, there isn't enough public evidence to convince one otherwise. As I pointed out earlier, this 911myths.com is no better than any letsroll, or infoclearinghouse.

911Myths is no better than the conspiracy sites? Explain why. Also explain why you continue to ignore refutations of your claims on here, even simply refutations of critical details, by myself and other posters.



In the end, what I was getting at is that there are a million leads that could have been followed, why follow these particular ones to reach the official conclusion?

Actually many of those "leads" are dead ends because they were concocted by people who have absolutely no knowledge of the fields involved e.g. engineering and demolitions.


and still more questions..like why only 5 frames of the pentagon, why not make them all public, or at least ones that don't compromise national security...whats that? they all do? all but those 5? ok...ummm there isn't one single angle that shows a plane? Why? Not one single frame?

Once again, here's another claim that has been debunked literally years ago. There are more than five frames of the Pentagon. There are pictures of plane debris at the Pentagon:

http://snopes.com/rumors/images/debris.jpg

[IMG]http://snopes.com/rumors/images/pent2.jpg[IMG]

Sixteen feet wide?


You DO realize that the black boxes were recovered inside the debris right?


Whats on the 28 pages of the Comission report?

Probably not proof of demolition charges and remote control planes.


Why not make sure your case was air tight?

It's not a matter of being "air tight". It's a matter of the conspiracy theories not having an actual case to begin with.


Why not clear up any rumors by pursuing these leads and dispelling them with public fact?

Gee, it seems every time they get dispelled by FEMA, NIST, the Port Authority, etc, someone just calls it "disinformation".

[kookbreaker]

What it seems you haven't realized is that even though there isn't enough evidence to say conspiracy, there isn't enough public evidence to convince one otherwise.


Except for the all the evidence pointing to the fact that there was one.


As I pointed out earlier, this 911myths.com is no better than any letsroll, or infoclearinghouse.


Your personal opinion, and not a well supported one. You sem to base it on the idea that since he does not utterly destroy everything in his site it is somehow a failure. That is a very binary thinking process.


The sum of the skepticism amounts to faithfully accepting what the given story is because why would it be anything else.


No. The sum of skepticism is to look at the conpsiracy picture as a whole and realise that it does not make a lick of sense.


Every explanation offered only leaves more open for conspiracy nuts to pick away at...ie they draw conclusions based on testimony, not evidence, they rationalize a bias in favor of the offcial story regardless of all the circumstantial evidence laying all over place...there shouldn't be any ammo for a conspiracist to latch onto in the first place.


Guess what: THAT WILL NEVER HAPPEN! If you understood how the conspiracy mind works, you will realise that even if every aspect is covered, then the conpiracists will simply invent stuff. If you give me any conspiracy theory, I can find things that were outright inventions of the CTs to support their theory.


In the end, what I was getting at is that there are a million leads that could have been followed, why follow these particular ones to reach the official conclusion?


Dead end leads can often be seen to be junk from a long way away.


and still more questions..like why only 5 frames of the pentagon, why not make them all public, or at least ones that don't compromise national security...whats that? they all do? all but those 5? ok...ummm there isn't one single angle that shows a plane? Why? Not one single frame?


You assume these things exist, or were not destroyed. And yes, the Pentagon is a heavily secured structure, sometimes you don't want to let folks know where the security camera are.

And to what end? A few frames to convince paranoid morons who make claims like 'no plane wreckage' and other nonsense? These bozos would ignore or reject any such shots in any case.


Whats on the 28 pages of the Comission report?

Why not make sure your case was air tight?


See above.


Why not clear up any rumors by pursuing these leads and dispelling them with public fact?

Becuase most of the 'leads' are complete and utter crap, and anyone who takes more than a cursory glance at the evidence, or looks deeper than the 'Hunt the Boeing' pages without a CT agenda can see they are crap.

"Dispelling" does not work, in fact it merely fuels the CTs.

[thesyntaxera]

kookbreaker-year 0

Are this the bits of wisdom that are supposed to just blast me out of the water?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induction_%28philosophy%29

"Induction or inductive reasoning, sometimes called inductive logic, is the process of reasoning in which the premises (assumption or hypothesis) of an argument support the conclusion, but do not ensure it. It is to ascribe properties or relations to types based on limited observations of particular tokens; or to formulate laws based on limited observations of recurring phenomenal patterns."

"Formal logic as most people learn it is deductive rather than inductive. Some philosophers claim to have created systems of inductive logic, but it is controversial whether a logic of induction is even possible. In contrast to deductive reasoning, conclusions arrived at by inductive reasoning do not necessarily have the same degree of certainty as the initial assumptions. For example, a conclusion that all swans are white is obviously wrong, but may have been thought correct in Europe until the settlement of Australia. Inductive arguments are never binding but they may be cogent. Inductive reasoning is deductively invalid. (An argument in formal logic is valid if and only if it is not possible for the premises of the argument to be true whilst the conclusion is false.)"

the entire case either for or against conspiracy in this case is based in the world of induction. I have stated this many times...

You should know this is flawed reasoning, and you should know this is why conspiracy hacks continue to thrive.

If a simple and straight forward deductive investigation was performed there would be no questions. Thus there would be no place for a legitimate conspiracy to form. Sure your not going to stop everyone, and you don't need to. This is a country that allows freedom of speech. Why silence them and give them more reason to be paranoid?

Again these are not my claims, these a common claims that survive on the internet long after being made, I am not a proponent of any of them. Except that the official story doesn't add up, and that more information needs to be released to satisfy the public.

Whats your problem with that? Is it because I can guarantee you that any claim you can make in favor of the offcial tale can be refuted? Is it because I shot down your shoddy right brain analogies?

Or is it that you simply would rather engage in intellectual swordplay than have an intelligent discussion with me on this subject?

Your on a internet forum, the only thing your proving is how close-minded skepticism has made you...you fail to realize that your religious adherence to the skeptical ideology that you favor is just as bad as the so called conspiracy guru's adherence to the fantastic. You are not doing any better of a job in other words, so quite whining about them.

in the words given to me from one of you...get over yourselves, and your self-righteous indignation.

Now, can we talk about this logically for a second, or do you want to keep riding on the semantic express train that only goes in circles?

[kookbreaker]

kookbreaker-year 0

Are this the bits of wisdom that are supposed to just blast me out of the water?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induction_%28philosophy%29

"Induction or inductive reasoning, sometimes called inductive logic, is the process of reasoning in which the premises (assumption or hypothesis) of an argument support the conclusion, but do not ensure it. It is to ascribe properties or relations to types based on limited observations of particular tokens; or to formulate laws based on limited observations of recurring phenomenal patterns."

"Formal logic as most people learn it is deductive rather than inductive. Some philosophers claim to have created systems of inductive logic, but it is controversial whether a logic of induction is even possible. In contrast to deductive reasoning, conclusions arrived at by inductive reasoning do not necessarily have the same degree of certainty as the initial assumptions. For example, a conclusion that all swans are white is obviously wrong, but may have been thought correct in Europe until the settlement of Australia. Inductive arguments are never binding but they may be cogent. Inductive reasoning is deductively invalid. (An argument in formal logic is valid if and only if it is not possible for the premises of the argument to be true whilst the conclusion is false.)"

the entire case either for or against conspiracy in this case is based in the world of induction. I have stated this many times...


Pwah! Conspriacy theories are not based on anything but a handful of carefully selected facts that manage to ignore the realities of the world. There's nothing inductive or logical about them whatsoever!


You should know this is flawed reasoning, and you should know this is why conspiracy hacks continue to thrive.


Conspriacy theoreis thrive because people want to be 'special' in knowing things they think the rest of the world does not know. They then spread the arguement using ignorance of reality as their tool.


If a simple and straight forward deductive investigation was performed there would be no questions. Thus there would be no place for a legitimate conspiracy to form.


Nonsense. In every field where there are conspiracy theories, where there has been a complete investigation, the conspriacy theorists just ignore it and make up their own details


Sure your not going to stop everyone, and you don't need to. This is a country that allows freedom of speech. Why silence them and give them more reason to be paranoid?


Whose silencing them? Not me.


Again these are not my claims, these a common claims that survive on the internet long after being made, I am not a proponent of any of them. Except that the official story doesn't add up, and that more information needs to be released to satisfy the public.

Whats your problem with that? Is it because I can guarantee you that any claim you can make in favor of the offcial tale can be refuted? Is it because I shot down your shoddy right brain analogies?


Don't flatter yourself, you haven't shot down anything. Your 'common claims' are nonsense and you refused to support them with any arguements whatsoever.


Or is it that you simply would rather engage in intellectual swordplay than have an intelligent discussion with me on this subject?


I'm waiting for you to stop bobbing and weaving about imaginary investigatiosn that will somehow magically stop all the CTs and get down to brass tacks!


Your on a internet forum, the only thing your proving is how close-minded skepticism has made you...


**YAWN**


you fail to realize that your religious adherence to the skeptical ideology that you favor is just as bad as the so called conspiracy guru's adherence to the fantastic. You are not doing any better of a job in other words, so quite whining about them.


In this thread I haven't done much of a job because the only CT proponent is inept. Quit argueing the standard-issue-woowoo line of "You are closed minded" and get on with it!


in the words given to me from one of you...get over yourselves, and your self-righteous indignation.


You really are not very good at this, are you?


Now, can we talk about this logically for a second, or do you want to keep riding on the semantic express train that only goes in circles?

I've been waiting on you. So far, the only thing you have done to support your argumeent is link to a complete crank's video and claim that 911myths doesn't do what you want them to do.

[Ed]

The way you have answered all of the claims put out by the 911 conspiracy community is with one to two sentences of drivel that contain no relevant facts or data to lead me to any alternate conclusions..which is what I was asking for...it also reveals an apparent lack of knowledge on your part regarding that which you claim is so easily debunkable....don't you think being familiar with the claims would make you better equipt to answer the questions?

I think that it is generally pointless to refute CTs point by point, the feast is too movable, so to speak. I prefer to take more of a meta view.

I am going to present one fact against which all CT's must be judged for reasonableness.

The President of The United States of America could not keep a blow job performed in the Oval Office secret.

The reality of this fact calls into serious question CTs that require the involvement of more than 2 people. For the sake of not looking absolutely stupid it seems to me that CT proponents need to explain, in detail, how the one was displayed for all the world to see and how the other, with many more moving parts, was not. I don't care about jet fuel or holes in the Pentagon or unidentified arabs. I want to know how the president, with his power and authority, cannot get a private hummer when the knocking down of major buildings can be performed with the awareness of only a few who have crystaline insight. Then we can proceed.

[CurtC]

thesyntaxera, I'm not a philosopher, but let me see if I understand your point. Take the example of the reports of molten metal after the TT collapse. Someone has come forward with this assertion, and skeptics have pointed out that we don't really know that it's true, and it's not very plausible. I think what you're saying is that since we can't definitively prove that there was no molten metal, we're using "inductive" logic. Is that right? I can see that our case would be stronger if we could prove there was no molten metal, but is that reasonable to expect? It seems to me that someone who asserts a conspiracy has the burden of proof on him. And skeptics have pointed out that the "evidence" they have falls far short.

For example, the video you linked to called Loose Change starts off with the flashes when the airliners hit the WTC buildings, asserting how they're mysterious. He goes into great detail about the one best view we have, and says that the flash happened before the nose hits the building. But it's obvious to even me that the nose is hitting the building at the time of the flash, we just can't make it out in the video because the very front is in the shade of the building and it blends in. The part he says is the nose is really just the part of the fuselage that's still in sunlight - you can easily tell by looking at the distance in front of the wings compared to other video frames. This is just in the first ten minutes of the hour-long video. If he starts off with blatant lies, why do I want to watch the rest?

[thesyntaxera]

thesyntaxera, I'm not a philosopher, but let me see if I understand your point. Take the example of the reports of molten metal after the TT collapse. Someone has come forward with this assertion, and skeptics have pointed out that we don't really know that it's true, and it's not very plausible. I think what you're saying is that since we can't definitively prove that there was no molten metal, we're using "inductive" logic. Is that right? I can see that our case would be stronger if we could prove there was no molten metal, but is that reasonable to expect? It seems to me that someone who asserts a conspiracy has the burden of proof on him. And skeptics have pointed out that the "evidence" they have falls far short.

For example, the video you linked to called Loose Change starts off with the flashes when the airliners hit the WTC buildings, asserting how they're mysterious. He goes into great detail about the one best view we have, and says that the flash happened before the nose hits the building. But it's obvious to even me that the nose is hitting the building at the time of the flash, we just can't make it out in the video because the very front is in the shade of the building and it blends in. The part he says is the nose is really just the part of the fuselage that's still in sunlight - you can easily tell by looking at the distance in front of the wings compared to other video frames. This is just in the first ten minutes of the hour-long video. If he starts off with blatant lies, why do I want to watch the rest?

Good points. You highlighted a couple interesting things, yes you are correct in the literal sense of the word regarding induction. My point so far has been that every item a skeptic has used to debunk the conspiracy suffers from the same conflict of logic that one will find in the conspiracy circles. A skeptic disagrees with the notion of conspiracy based on the inference they make from the same evidence that is available with a bias leaning toward debasement of the conspiracy circles findings. Since the entire process is one of thought, as well as research, you are limited in the amount of investigation you can do, which ultimately leads one to utilize induction, which is unacceptable when investigating a mass homicide.

What I have gathered from the other posts on this thread is that it is more logical to believe the official story. What I am trying to get across is that without public access to all official evidence and a thorough investigation no one will ever know the complete truth.

It is in the interests of all to know. Considering the implications, as well as the players involved in the case of 911 I think there is more than enough cause for concern in the minds of most people of average education regarding things like world politics, history of foreign policy, and so on.

I heard a quote once:
"I just want the american people to understand that it's entirely understandable, that the american people could not possibly understand."

It makes sense in the context of what the average citizen knows and thinks about the government and our place on the globe. All of this is interrelated obvisouly because this event is literally the single biggest thing that will probably happen in my lifetime besides the far remote possibility of a greater war.

To be realistic we do live in a society where the power resides in the few, and the few are connected to the other few who are in power, and these few that are collectively in power are members of other international regulating organizations which is sort of an over arching regulatory body for the world.

isn't that like...every conspiracy that has ever been told?

Yes, and no. No in that all of the phoney terms that have been created to explain all this ridiculous nonsense are not true. And yes in that we live in a world that is like that.

It's just government as usual..so what if they go to Bohemian Grove, or are Skull and Bones members, or masons...none of that matters because those are just mysterious traditional things the few in power have done for ages.

but I digress.


Does someone who asserts a conspiracy have the burden of proof? I don't think it's a matter of having it or not, it's about not having all the information in the first place.

Why watch the rest of the video...because, in this particular case, they lay out a no frills "what does it all mean" montage of video and testimonial evidence that in detail explains how the entire thing could have been pulled off. It gives specific and traceable sources of information, that at least could be investigated and debunked one at a time.

Some asked why try and debunk the evidence of a CT adherent, if you'll never convince them...and the answer is simple...because you have to!!!!

IT'S CALLED DEDUCTION!!!!

I think I have layed out a fairly reasonable set of reasons why this is an important matter worth debunking....because whatever happened is being obscured by all the ravenous skeptics and CT followers who are too eager to figure it all out themselves.

In truth all Loose Change does is say basically that...there is a lot of loose change in this case.

So I ask again:

Why not one frame of the pentagon plane? I'm sure one single frame will not compromise national security, as far as "protecting camera locations" you can clearly see all the cameras that dangle from the outside in many publicized photo's. There is even the unreleased video from the gas station. One frame from that maybe? All we need is one picture of a plane.

Why not release some of the 6,000+ classified photo's that were sealed during the investigation?

Why not perform heat tests on the exact same metal, using the exact same amount? I'm sure modern science can recreate the situation pretty accurately with all the data we can collect about the day itself, weather, wind speed/direction included.

Why didn't they test for explosives? As far as I know, no such test was ever done, but I am not certain, if there is documentation and testimony of negative results on explosives then where is it?

Why hasn't bin Laden been arrested or found dead?

If these questions were answered there would be no need for quarrel.

[Ed]

Why hasn't bin Laden been arrested or found dead?

If these questions were answered there would be no need for quarrel.

Where is Judge Crater? Where is D. B. Cooper?

What about the presidential blow job?

[richardm]

All we need is one picture of a plane.
...
Why didn't they test for explosives?

So are you suggesting that there was no plane that hit the Pentagon?

Have a look at this page, (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ppfinal.html) which includes pictures of the aircraft wreckage outside the Pentagon.

What do you think now?

If there was no plane, what happened to the people on the flight?

[Year Zero]

Good points. You highlighted a couple interesting things, yes you are correct in the literal sense of the word regarding induction. My point so far has been that every item a skeptic has used to debunk the conspiracy suffers from the same conflict of logic that one will find in the conspiracy circles.

Absolutely wrong. The skeptics here don't believe the conspiracy theory because the conspiracy theorists haven't provided enough evidence, or even a coherent HYPOTHESIS of their claims of demolitions, remote control planes, etc. Sorry, but the logical fallacy is on the side of conspiracy advocates. If they understood logic they would know that the burden of proof is on them and they can't advance their theory of demolition by making unqualified claims about "holes" they personnally see in the footage and coverage they have personally taken in.



A skeptic disagrees with the notion of conspiracy based on the inference they make from the same evidence that is available with a bias leaning toward debasement of the conspiracy circles findings.

Absolutely nonsense. If anyone attaches bias to something its the conspiracy theorists. I've debated with these people constantly. They quote some expert or eyewitness; then you find that same witness or expert saying something that totally contradicts the theory- and they want you to ignore the part that doesn't help their theory! You give them government reports filed by NIST engineers that ACTUALLY INVESTIGATED the site and they just pass them off as being "laughable", "idiotic", written by "so-called experts", etc. They have absolutely no qualifications in engineering but they know more about the buildings and how they collapse than engineers that actually physically investigated these things.

Now who is biased again?



Since the entire process is one of thought, as well as research, you are limited in the amount of investigation you can do, which ultimately leads one to utilize induction, which is unacceptable when investigating a mass homicide.

You are describing the method of the CTs, not skeptics here. Followers of CTs are people that take things at face value because they believe that all the information they personally received is the same amount of information that everyone else has. So if they have never heard that many small personal affects were found in the Flight 93 plane crash or that small objects can survive aerial explosions under extreme conditions- they might look at the passport being found as something suspicious. If they had the full story, they would not.


What I have gathered from the other posts on this thread is that it is more logical to believe the official story. What I am trying to get across is that without public access to all official evidence and a thorough investigation no one will ever know the complete truth.

A great deal of evidence has been presented that this was a terrorist attack. No evidence has been presented that it was an "inside job" involving remote-control planes and demolitions.


It is in the interests of all to know. Considering the implications, as well as the players involved in the case of 911 I think there is more than enough cause for concern in the minds of most people of average education regarding things like world politics, history of foreign policy, and so on.

Yes, as long as these people do REAL research, seek out qualified opinions, and above all, make sure they have an accurate account of what actually happened on 9-11 and what investigations came after.



It makes sense in the context of what the average citizen knows and thinks about the government and our place on the globe. All of this is interrelated obvisouly because this event is literally the single biggest thing that will probably happen in my lifetime besides the far remote possibility of a greater war.

So was the Pearl Harbor event, carried out by Japanese, not Americans in fake Zeros.


To be realistic we do live in a society where the power resides in the few, and the few are connected to the other few who are in power, and these few that are collectively in power are members of other international regulating organizations which is sort of an over arching regulatory body for the world.

isn't that like...every conspiracy that has ever been told?

No, it's not like other conspiracies becasue in conspiracy theories, no matter how massive the claims, the government never gets caught, the NWO just keeps marching on, they always have everything under control just when it looks like they are having problems(Iraq insurgency).


It's just government as usual..so what if they go to Bohemian Grove, or are Skull and Bones members, or masons...none of that matters because those are just mysterious traditional things the few in power have done for ages.

but I digress.

Unless... What if all these claims about the membership of these secret societies is...NOT ACTUALLY TRUE?



Does someone who asserts a conspiracy have the burden of proof? I don't think it's a matter of having it or not, it's about not having all the information in the first place.

Yes, they have the burden of proof. I also notice that they don't carry it well because when I pointed out a massive historical error to a Skull and Bones theorist he actually thought I was supporting his theory.


Why watch the rest of the video...because, in this particular case, they lay out a no frills "what does it all mean" montage of video and testimonial evidence that in detail explains how the entire thing could have been pulled off. It gives specific and traceable sources of information, that at least could be investigated and debunked one at a time.

We've SEEN this stuff before. They will never bring about more credible evidence because they have a limited amount of material to work with. They can't present evidence of their missiles, remote control planes, demo charges, so they need to rely on pointing out "holes" in the official theory and the innuendo of alleged "unreleased" photographs.



I think I have layed out a fairly reasonable set of reasons why this is an important matter worth debunking....because whatever happened is being obscured by all the ravenous skeptics and CT followers who are too eager to figure it all out themselves.


Why not one frame of the pentagon plane? I'm sure one single frame will not compromise national security, as far as "protecting camera locations" you can clearly see all the cameras that dangle from the outside in many publicized photo's. There is even the unreleased video from the gas station. One frame from that maybe? All we need is one picture of a plane.

We have eyewitnesses that saw the plane, we have a shot of the plane actually hitting the building, and we have the fact that there are lightpoles knocked down from the plane coming in. Then we have the fact that the PASSENGER DNA was found in the wreckage, plane material was found, and the flight recorders were recovered.


Why not perform heat tests on the exact same metal, using the exact same amount? I'm sure modern science can recreate the situation pretty accurately with all the data we can collect about the day itself, weather, wind speed/direction included.

What the hell would this prove?


Why didn't they test for explosives? As far as I know, no such test was ever done, but I am not certain, if there is documentation and testimony of negative results on explosives then where is it?

They didn't test for explosives because of all the eyewitnesses telling them they saw a PLANE HIT THE BUILDING.


Why hasn't bin Laden been arrested or found dead?

Because he is most likely hiding in one of two places that the US has not and most likely will not go into due to a risk of massive casulties and serious implications for Pakistan.



I notice that you put out some charges in the beginning, and asked us to debunk them. As we did that, rather than admit when they are debunked, admit that they are full of simple factual errors, etc. , you prefer to go off on a philosophical tangent about this.

[kookbreaker]

Why not perform heat tests on the exact same metal, using the exact same amount? I'm sure modern science can recreate the situation pretty accurately with all the data we can collect about the day itself, weather, wind speed/direction included.


NIST has pretty much been doing just that for a couple of years now, at least.


Why didn't they test for explosives?


The same reason they did not test for Leprachauns. There was no evidence of such being used. The CT crowd came up with that story months later, after the clean up. When they were repairing and cleaning up the Pentagon, the concerns of a feew cranks was probably not foremost on their minds.


Why hasn't bin Laden been arrested or found dead?


Because he is very good at hiding, and is in an area sympathetic to him, and with horrible terrain to search. Keep in mind how long it took to find the Olympic bomber, and that was on US soil


If these questions were answered there would be no need for quarrel.

Very naive. CT'ers have a long history of ignoring answers if they down fit their puzzle. Not to mention just outright making stuff up.

[love]

Can anyone explain why the WTC towers collapsed in free-fall? (This can be determined by measuring the speed of collapse.)

Also can you explain why there was so little rubble? In particular why there was such a lack of pieces of concrete.

These two things seem to be anomolous to me in a building that collapsed due to fire.

Thanks.

[Year Zero]

Can anyone explain why the WTC towers collapsed in free-fall? (This can be determined by measuring the speed of collapse.)

The towers were not in "free-fall". Debris can clearly be seen falling faster than the towers. Also, the determination of the rate of collapse varies by as much as 8 seconds; it's based on the start of the collapse, the estimated height of the rubble pile, and the fact that a massive cloud obscured the towers at a certain point.

Guess which group of people likes to use the SHORTER amount of time for the collapse?


Also can you explain why there was so little rubble? In particular why there was such a lack of pieces of concrete.

These two things seem to be anomolous to me in a building that collapsed due to fire.

Thanks.

1. Who said there was "little rubble"? Little rubble compared to what?

2. The building did not collapse due to fire. It collapsed due to its construction coupled with a plane impact coupled with fire.

[delphi_ote]

Also can you explain why there was so little rubble? In particular why there was such a lack of pieces of concrete.

http://archive.aiesec.ws/www.aieseconline.net/blogs/images/911/nyDevastation.gif
http://www.gocolumbiamo.com/EM/Images/wtc10.jpg
http://homepage.mac.com/cfj/.Pictures/9-11/rubble2.jpg
http://hangoverguide.com/factbook/pics/ny_rubble.jpg
http://www.janeek.com/images/temp/twcflag.jpg
http://www.archive-news.net/Photos/911/06Destruction/rubble1e.jpg

What are you talking about? Were you asleep that day?

[Spidey13]

Can anyone explain why the WTC towers collapsed in free-fall? (This can be determined by measuring the speed of collapse.)

Not sure what you mean by this. There was nothing pushing the buildings down, so why would they not fall this way?

Also can you explain why there was so little rubble? In particular why there was such a lack of pieces of concrete.

I don't get this assertion, either. I distinctly remember watching firefighters sifting though MOUNDS of rubble looking for survivors.

Edited because I'm an idiot.

[love]

Thanks for your replies. I am not sure this clears this up for me.

1. Who said there was "little rubble"? Little rubble compared to what?
Little rubble compared to the amount of building. How does a 110 story building leave such a small pile of debris after it has fallen over?

2. The building did not collapse due to fire. It collapsed due to its construction coupled with a plane impact coupled with fire.
Thanks for that clarification. I'm not sure it explains the anomalies.

delphi_ote,
Thanks for the pictures, they demonstrate what I am talking about. Lots of metal and dust, very little in the way of pieces of concrete.

Not sure what you mean by this. There was nothing pushing the buildings down, so why would they not fall this way?

The strange thing is why did the supporting metal and concrete structure go from giving enough resistance to support the weight of the building to giving so very little resistance? I still find this anomolous if you add on eight seconds to the collapse time.

I don't get this assertion, either. I distinctly remember watching firefighters sifting though MOUNDS of rubble looking for survivors.

Look at the pictures, I see girders covered in concrete. Where are the concrete pieces. Why did the concrete all turn to dust?

Thanks

[Garrette]

So you're suggesting that a mysterious concrete-eating substance was introduced into the building, in all areas where concrete might be, as opposed to planes hitting the building?

When you say the fall is anomalous, please be specific and reference how fast you think it should have fallen and on what maths you base your conjecture.

P.S. There was a hell of a lot of debris. There was a large underground area beneath the WTC; the collaps filled it in and compressed it. And remember that a skyscraper is not solid through-and-through; lots of space in it for things like, oh, say, people and ventilation systems.

[Ed]

The strange thing is why did the supporting metal and concrete structure go from giving enough resistance to support the weight of the building to giving so very little resistance? I still find this anomolous if you add on eight seconds to the collapse time.



Take a metal coat hanger.

Bend it back and forth.

At some point, the structure begins breaking down and it becomes very easy to bend. See the connection?

You really have to think about these things a bit. Just because it was the WTC does not mean that materials suddenly take on a magical quality.

The girders could support the weight then they were compromised and then they couldn't.

[Starthinker]

Please remember much of the concrete was pulverized. Remember that big cloud that engulfed NY when the towers went down? Pulverized concrete dust.

Also, the building collapsed due to it's structural integrity being compromised. This has been explained many times and in better ways than I can but here goes. The building doesn't just stand on girders going up and down, those girders are in turn supported by the floors and other horizontal structures. Girders tend to twist and bend when the horizontal supports are taken away. As several floors burned away the vertical supports didn't have anything preventing them from twisting and bending and so they gave way. Picture a weight on top of 4 tall pipes. One pipe can bow in the middle and the whole structure gives way. Now put cross pieces connecting the pipes at regular intervals and the pipes are prevented from bowing in the middle.

Or just look at the nearest TV tower. Notice all the little triangular pieces that tie the three up-and-down poles together? Remove them from a section and the tower will collapse. Kinda sorta the same thing.

There's a very good special on the Discovery Channel that they air every once in a while that shows this very precisely with computer graphics. Once you see it, it's hard to NOT understand what happened.

[love]

Take a metal coat hanger.

Bend it back and forth.

At some point, the structure begins breaking down and it becomes very easy to bend. See the connection?

You really have to think about these things a bit. Just because it was the WTC does not mean that materials suddenly take on a magical quality.

The girders could support the weight then they were compromised and then they couldn't.

Are you for real?

We didn't do "compromise" when I was in science class. Is this the magical quality you are referring to?

How did all the material in the building suddenly gain this "compromised" quality all at the same time?

You really have to think about these things a bit.

[Ed]

Little rubble compared to the amount of building. How does a 110 story building leave such a small pile of debris after it has fallen over?

It wasn't "small". It was enormous. It took months to clear it away. Why do you use the word "small"? You do realize that the scale of the pictures covers acres, right?


Thanks for the pictures, they demonstrate what I am talking about. Lots of metal and dust, very little in the way of pieces of concrete.

The outside of the WTC was largely aluminium. Why do you think that there should be more concrete? What do you mean by "very little"?

Look at the pictures, I see girders covered in concrete. Where are the concrete pieces. Why did the concrete all turn to dust?

Girders are not covered in concrete. What gives you that idea? Rebar is covered in concrete.

[Ed]

Are you for real?

We didn't do "compromise" when I was in science class. Is this the magical quality you are referring to?

How did all the material in the building suddenly gain this "compromised" quality all at the same time?

You really have to think about these things a bit.

Not sudden. What exactly were you doing on 9/11? This is not really a hard concept.

[kookbreaker]

Are you for real?

We didn't do "compromise" when I was in science class. Is this the magical quality you are referring to?

How did all the material in the building suddenly gain this "compromised" quality all at the same time?

You really have to think about these things a bit.

Compromised = When steel is heated, it loses strength long before it reaches its melting point. When it reaches the point where its compromised strength is weaker than the load it carries, it fails.

After that, it is potential energy converting into kintetic energy.

[Garrette]

And if Ed's explanation was too general for you, then please comment on Starthinker's and kookbreakers'.

Then provide the maths I asked you about.

Thanks so very much.

[Ed]

Compromised = When steel is heated, it loses strength long before it reaches its melting point. When it reaches the point where its compromised strength is weaker than the load it carries, it fails.

After that, it is potential energy converting into kintetic energy.

And the supports were heated differentially thus shifting the load more and more to the point where there was a catastrophic failure.

Think about falling thru ice. The integrity of the ice fails bit by bit until the load is too much for the remaing ice to bear. Simple.

[Glite]

"I am no expert, but I have seen a few house fires, and they don't even collapse all at once when the whole place is engulfed...in fact no fire has ever made a office building collapse that fast ever, and there have been many office building fires in many buildings that were built at the same time as the WTC. Another thing they could have mentioned is that this wasn't the first time a plane struck an office building. I will have to look for the source later, but I believe there was an account of a wwII bomber flying low on a foggy day in manhattan when it struck the Empire State Building. No long lasting inferno...just a giant hole in the side of the building...911'ers don't even mention this either..."

as far as i know, the world trade center buildings are unique in design, where the floors are supported mainly by a structure in the center of the building. this design is going to collapse in a particular manner under such circumstances. i would also say that a WWII bomber would have less fuel and less volitile fuel than a modern day passenger jet.

[Year Zero]

"I am no expert, but I have seen a few house fires, and they don't even collapse all at once when the whole place is engulfed...in fact no fire has ever made a office building collapse that fast ever, and there have been many office building fires in many buildings that were built at the same time as the WTC. Another thing they could have mentioned is that this wasn't the first time a plane struck an office building. I will have to look for the source later, but I believe there was an account of a wwII bomber flying low on a foggy day in manhattan when it struck the Empire State Building. No long lasting inferno...just a giant hole in the side of the building...911'ers don't even mention this either..."

as far as i know, the world trade center buildings are unique in design, where the floors are supported mainly by a structure in the center of the building. this design is going to collapse in a particular manner under such circumstances. i would also say that a WWII bomber would have less fuel and less volitile fuel than a modern day passenger jet.


Right, it was radically different and from what I here it was actually a bad design; a lot of wallboard was used instead of concrete. According to one engineer who designed the building(I believe his name is Robertson), concrete was not a structural element in the building save for the floor decks. I know this because a fellow debunker actually e-mailed the guy to confirm this several weeks ago.

[Garrette]

I do hope Love hasn't taken off on us.

He/She has already started another thread after posting here, but she hasn't responded to comments there, either.

[love]

Compromised = When steel is heated, it loses strength long before it reaches its melting point. When it reaches the point where its compromised strength is weaker than the load it carries, it fails.

After that, it is potential energy converting into kintetic energy.

It loses all its strength? Really, wow.

OK, so how did this happen throughout the whole building at the same time?

[Year Zero]

It loses all its strength? Really, wow.

OK, so how did this happen throughout the whole building at the same time?


It doesn't have to happen throughout the whole building.

[kookbreaker]

It loses all its strength? Really, wow.


Did I say all strength? NO! But it does not have to.


OK, so how did this happen throughout the whole building at the same time?

It doesn't need to. Why would you think that it does?

[Ashles]

It loses all its strength? Really, wow.

OK, so how did this happen throughout the whole building at the same time?
What did you not understand about the TV Tower analogy? When structural integrity fails then an entire building can fall in one go.

And what do you think happened to all the concrete?
It's obvious to us what happened to it all (hint, it was lying in huge piles and became huge dust clouds that covered everything in the surrounding area), but you obviously disagree -so I'd be interested to hear your opinion.

BTW this is all assuming you aren't just joking.

[Psiload]

It loses all its strength? Really, wow.

OK, so how did this happen throughout the whole building at the same time?

Uhh... it didn't.

Only the steel that was subjected to the intense heat of the jet fuel fire lost it's strength. The inevitable and predictable failure of this steel led to a collapse of the the floor trusses directly involved(see pretty moving picture below), which pancaked down and subjected the floors below to stresses they could not bear, and they collapsed onto the floor below, and they in turn collapsed on the floors below, etc... a chain reaction which brought the entire building(s) down.

This process, from beginning to end, can clearly be seen taking place in the video records of the event, unless of course, you're too preoccupied trying to spot the black helicopters, or your tinfoil hat has slipped down over your eyes.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/images/coll_truss.gif

[Ed]

It loses all its strength? Really, wow.

OK, so how did this happen throughout the whole building at the same time?

Maybe you ought to read the last few posts.

[Ed]

"I am no expert, but I have seen a few house fires, and they don't even collapse all at once when the whole place is engulfed...in fact no fire has ever made a office building collapse that fast ever, and there have been many office building fires in many buildings that were built at the same time as the WTC. Another thing they could have mentioned is that this wasn't the first time a plane struck an office building. I will have to look for the source later, but I believe there was an account of a wwII bomber flying low on a foggy day in manhattan when it struck the Empire State Building. No long lasting inferno...just a giant hole in the side of the building...911'ers don't even mention this either..."

as far as i know, the world trade center buildings are unique in design, where the floors are supported mainly by a structure in the center of the building. this design is going to collapse in a particular manner under such circumstances. i would also say that a WWII bomber would have less fuel and less volitile fuel than a modern day passenger jet.

It was a B-25 which is a baby. Different construction. Irrelevant.

[Psiload]

"I am no expert, but I have seen a few house fires, and they don't even collapse all at once when the whole place is engulfed...in fact no fire has ever made a office building collapse that fast ever, and there have been many office building fires in many buildings that were built at the same time as the WTC. Another thing they could have mentioned is that this wasn't the first time a plane struck an office building. I will have to look for the source later, but I believe there was an account of a wwII bomber flying low on a foggy day in manhattan when it struck the Empire State Building. No long lasting inferno...just a giant hole in the side of the building...911'ers don't even mention this either..."

as far as i know, the world trade center buildings are unique in design, where the floors are supported mainly by a structure in the center of the building. this design is going to collapse in a particular manner under such circumstances. i would also say that a WWII bomber would have less fuel and less volitile fuel than a modern day passenger jet.

It was a B-25 Mitchell bomber which struck The Empire State Building. The max fuel load of the B-25 was 1241 gallons, and the crash DID produce a massive fire.

The planes which struck the World Trade Towers were Boeing 727s. The max fuel load of the 727 is 6707 gallons.

Not a fair comparison anyway. The WTC tower's modern construction made them much more vulnerable to structural failure resulting from fire damage.

[Garrette]

Without knowing for certain, I would imagine two other relevant things:

1. The fuel tanks were much smaller and probably not nearly full.

2. The fuel itself was not the super-hot burning jet fuel of today.

[Psiload]

Without knowing for certain, I would imagine two other relevant things:

1. The fuel tanks were much smaller and probably not nearly full.

2. The fuel itself was not the super-hot burning jet fuel of today.

Throw into the equation the faster speed, and much larger mass of the 727, and we've got one gigantic sledgehammer with which to squash this mosquito of a comparison.

B-25 Mitchell gross weight- 27,000lbs (approx)
727 gross weight- 191,000lbs (approx)

These are called facts, love. You should look them up sometime. They're fun, and generally free!

[love]

OK, let's inject some facts into this discussion.

There were 425,000 cubic yards of concrete used in construction.

Each tower was about 64 meters square, giving us 40 meters, or 11 stories of concrete alone for each tower. That is without the steel and without any air spaces and without the other building materials and contents.

I didn't see that much debris in total!

In the photos posted on this thread it doesn't look to be more than 10 meters of rubble. Now there were some

The concrete appears to be missing.


As to the other point about the "failure" of the steel, I refer back to my original question as to how the buildings fell in free fall. If any of the building had provided any significant resistance when it collapsed, then it could not have done so in free fall. Yet it did.

The pancaking theory would suggest that each floor collapsed one at a time. This would mean each floor would have slowed down the fall of the building above due to its own inertia. Yet the buildings fell in free-fall.

[kookbreaker]

OK, let's inject some facts into this discussion.

There were 425,000 cubic yards of concrete used in construction.

Each tower was about 64 meters square, giving us 40 meters, or 11 stories of concrete alone for each tower. That is without the steel and without any air spaces and without the other building materials and contents.

I didn't see that much debris in total!

In the photos posted on this thread it doesn't look to be more than 10 meters of rubble. Now there were some

The concrete appears to be missing.


Perhaps you did not notice the smoke clouds, the huge piles of debris, etc? Unless you went and counted the amount of concrete at ground zero, you are dealing with a non-starter.

There was a hell of a lot more than 10 meters of rubble, and it was spread over a large area.


As to the other point about the "failure" of the steel, I refer back to my original question as to how the buildings fell in free fall. If any of the building had provided any significant resistance when it collapsed, then it could not have done so in free fall. Yet it did.


As was already pointed out to you, it was not in free fall. Debris can be seen in the videos clearly falling faster (it is in free fall)


The pancaking theory would suggest that each floor collapsed one at a time. This would mean each floor would have slowed down the fall of the building above due to its own inertia. Yet the buildings fell in free-fall.

So your complant is not so much that it is in free-fall, but falls too fast for your preferences? Very well then:

Each floor that fails actually adds to the kinetic energy of the falling structure. The 'intact' floors below suddenly have to deal with a massive dynamic load that is well beyond what they were designed to with as a static load. Their load bearing capacity is simply overwhelmed and becomes basiclly irrelevant in face of the falling structure.

Understand?

[Year Zero]

OK, let's inject some facts into this discussion.

There were 425,000 cubic yards of concrete used in construction.

Each tower was about 64 meters square, giving us 40 meters, or 11 stories of concrete alone for each tower. That is without the steel and without any air spaces and without the other building materials and contents.

I didn't see that much debris in total!

That's from looking at pictures on the internet.


In the photos posted on this thread it doesn't look to be more than 10 meters of rubble. Now there were some

Exactly, the PHOTOS on THIS THREAD. People that were actually there to investigate didn't seem to have a problem.


As to the other point about the "failure" of the steel, I refer back to my original question as to how the buildings fell in free fall. If any of the building had provided any significant resistance when it collapsed, then it could not have done so in free fall. Yet it did.

They weren't falling in free-fall. You can clearly see debris that fell free of the tower falling at a considerably higher rate than the tower. The determination of the "free-fall" speed was made on shaky calculations that vary greatly.


The pancaking theory would suggest that each floor collapsed one at a time. This would mean each floor would have slowed down the fall of the building above due to its own inertia. Yet the buildings fell in free-fall.

Again, they are not in free fall, although the people(qualified engineers) that investigated this and came up with the pancake theory said that this effect would cause the towers to collapse at speeds close to that of free fall.

Here's a report shattering the "free fall" claim. I hope you like math.

http://www.911myths.com/html/freefall.html

Specific report: http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf

Stuff about the dust cloud:

http://www.911myths.com/Energy_Transfer_Addendum.pdf

[Blackwell]

OK, let's inject some facts into this discussion.

There were 425,000 cubic yards of concrete used in construction.

Each tower was about 64 meters square, giving us 40 meters, or 11 stories of concrete alone for each tower. That is without the steel and without any air spaces and without the other building materials and contents.

Really? Without any air spaces? We'll have to take all that air into consideration during any future calculations.

I didn't see that much debris in total!

In the photos posted on this thread it doesn't look to be more than 10 meters of rubble. Now there were some

The concrete appears to be missing.

You didn't see that much debris in total? How did you measure the amount of debris? Were you there? Surely you're not basing your "10 meters of rubble" nonsense simply on the images posted here? Do you think those images comprise the entire disaster site?
Now what about the basement areas of the towers? How many cubic yards of material do you think they hold? Please be sure to back up any of your "calculations" with facts. Thanks.

[Ashles]

OK, let's inject some facts into this discussion.

There were 425,000 cubic yards of concrete used in construction.

Each tower was about 64 meters square, giving us 40 meters, or 11 stories of concrete alone for each tower. That is without the steel and without any air spaces and without the other building materials and contents.

I didn't see that much debris in total!
This is the stupidest thing I have ever read.

We all saw the World Trade Centres collapse into huge piles of rubble with colossal dust clouds.

Now people are trying to say "Hmmm... but where is all the debris?"

It is... in huge great piles and, as mentioned previously more than once, in the enormous dust clouds.

Now I ask again - assuming that you chose to ignore the obvious physical evidence, what exactly are you suggesting happened to the "missing" concrete?

[love]

So your complant is not so much that it is in free-fall, but falls too fast for your preferences? Very well then:

Each floor that fails actually adds to the kinetic energy of the falling structure. The 'intact' floors below suddenly have to deal with a massive dynamic load that is well beyond what they were designed to with as a static load. Their load bearing capacity is simply overwhelmed and becomes basiclly irrelevant in face of the falling structure.

Understand?

Oh, I understand, I'm just a little skeptical.

[kookbreaker]

How much of that concrete was used in the base of the structure? I seriously doubt there was a whole lot of concrete higher up in the structure.

[Blackwell]

Oh, I understand, I'm just a little skeptical.

Skeptical of science? Math?

Wow.

[love]

My original question was why were there no pieces of concrete.

Actually, I can readily see that it mostly, if not completely turned to "dust". I am wondering what the explanation for that is? What properties of concrete cause it to do that?

[love]

Skeptical of science? Math?

Wow.

No, just ad hoc theories.

[kookbreaker]

Oh, I understand, I'm just a little skeptical.

So you are skeptical of failure analyistsm, civil engineers, structural engineers, and similar experts around the world who come to the same conclusion about the building's fall?

I used to do a little demo when I was working at the museum. I'd have a kid stand on a peice of plexiglass supported by 9 papers cups. It held the kid up pretty well. He could even march in place.

Then I would remove five of the paper cups. Still, the kid would be supported.

But then the kid would try marching in place again.

The paper cup failure was blindingly fast, and comlpete over all remaining four cups, despite the placement of his or her feet.

[hellaeon]

Yes, but how did the demolition charges happen to be in the right places to finish the job? The collapse started in just the place where the planes hit.

Hans

Because the remote controlled planes were guided to the right spot! Come on....

[kookbreaker]

No, just ad hoc theories.

Kinetic energy is not an ad hoc theory.

[love]

Kinetic energy is not an ad hoc theory.

That's right. The theory I was referring to was the pancake theory.

[kookbreaker]

My original question was why were there no pieces of concrete.

Actually, I can readily see that it mostly, if not completely turned to "dust". I am wondering what the explanation for that is? What properties of concrete cause it to do that?

Again, where was the concrete used in the construction? If it was mostly used for the base of the structure, you aren't going to see much of it at all.

[kookbreaker]

That's right. The theory I was referring to was the pancake theory.

Referring to the work as 'ad hoc' shows your closed mindedness. Again: Structural engineers in countries not necessarily friendly to the US have agreed with the assesment of NIST.

Are they in on the conspiracy too?

[Rockstar]

No, just ad hoc theories.

What is your better theory then?

[love]

So you are skeptical of failure analyistsm, civil engineers, structural engineers, and similar experts around the world who come to the same conclusion about the building's fall?

Yes. Simply because someone proclaims themselves to be an expert doesn't mean I can ignore my own calculations and the evidence before me. I prefer to use science as a basis for understanding, not authority.

I used to do a little demo when I was working at the museum. I'd have a kid stand on a peice of plexiglass supported by 9 papers cups. It held the kid up pretty well. He could even march in place.

Then I would remove five of the paper cups. Still, the kid would be supported.

But then the kid would try marching in place again.

The paper cup failure was blindingly fast, and comlpete over all remaining four cups, despite the placement of his or her feet.

Are you taking the p***?

[hellaeon]

the 9/11 theories to me are perticularly disturbing. Some people want to think that someone out there is against them. The system, the government, secret organisation, corporations (well....).

I would ask this. Like the moon landing, just how many people would be needed to fake or cover up such a huge event like this? all the different department people 'hiding' all the different evidence, communicating with each other, and trusting that one of the hundreds if not thousands involved dont say a word.

A lot of evidence I found for 9/11 theories were based on initial media reports and eye witness accounts (when the facts are ALWAYS muddled). Then after they get the real story based on proper scientific analysis, because it dont sound so james bond, they wont believe it. Well, I guess the cool thing for me there is science is true, whether you believe it or not.

It dont matter what factual data you put in front of someone, most people think I cant work it out therefore it cant be true!
Thankfully, I put my trust in mathematicians, scientists, computer engineers and the like to do there chosen skill properly without having to feel scared that they just might know more of what they are doing then me in those areas.

[Ed]

OK, let's inject some facts into this discussion.

There were 425,000 cubic yards of concrete used in construction.

Each tower was about 64 meters square, giving us 40 meters, or 11 stories of concrete alone for each tower. That is without the steel and without any air spaces and without the other building materials and contents.

I didn't see that much debris in total!

In the photos posted on this thread it doesn't look to be more than 10 meters of rubble. Now there were some

The concrete appears to be missing.


As to the other point about the "failure" of the steel, I refer back to my original question as to how the buildings fell in free fall. If any of the building had provided any significant resistance when it collapsed, then it could not have done so in free fall. Yet it did.

The pancaking theory would suggest that each floor collapsed one at a time. This would mean each floor would have slowed down the fall of the building above due to its own inertia. Yet the buildings fell in free-fall.


Are you a new yorker? No. Didn't think so.

The WTC was built on landfill. Why don't you figure out how much of that concrete went down rather than up.

[Psiload]

OK, let's inject some facts into this discussion.

There were 425,000 cubic yards of concrete used in construction.

Each tower was about 64 meters square, giving us 40 meters, or 11 stories of concrete alone for each tower. That is without the steel and without any air spaces and without the other building materials and contents.

I didn't see that much debris in total!

In the photos posted on this thread it doesn't look to be more than 10 meters of rubble. Now there were some

The concrete appears to be missing.


As to the other point about the "failure" of the steel, I refer back to my original question as to how the buildings fell in free fall. If any of the building had provided any significant resistance when it collapsed, then it could not have done so in free fall. Yet it did.

The pancaking theory would suggest that each floor collapsed one at a time. This would mean each floor would have slowed down the fall of the building above due to its own inertia. Yet the buildings fell in free-fall.

First off... I fail to see what conclusions your "missing concrete" and "free fall" theories are trying to draw. Were the towers made from paper mache back in the 70's and the crooked illuminati cabal who built them orchestrated the 9/11 attacks to cover-up their shoddy construction scam?

Anyhoo... an exercise in futility though it may be, I'll bite.

-The "missing concrete"...

You suggest that there is only "10 meters of rubble". Measured from where? From street level up? Well, guess what? The towers weren't built from street level. They were built over a... what? Here's a hint, and a suggestion for you regarding your continuing attempt to support silly conspiracy theories:

:dig:

"When in a hole, stop digging."

So... how far below street level did the basement of the WTC complex extend? Follow the link to see the pretty picture:

http://michaelminn.net/newyork/wtc/2004-07-17_18-11-50.jpg

Get the picture?

-The "free falling building"...

No, the pancaking theory does not suggest that the building collapsed one floor at a time... as in the collapse did not start on the top floor and continue in sequence to the bottom.

The collapse started at around the three quarters point up the building. Which means that there was a MASSIVE weight above the initially collapsing floors section. A weight so massive that the subsequent floors below the collapsing section offered scant resistence to such an irresistably massive force. It wasn't like a steady procession of floors flopping down one at a time like dominos. It was more like a bowling ball being dropped on house of cards. The house of cards doesn't stand a chance.

Again... this process is clearly seen in the recorded video footage of the events.

[Ed]

the 9/11 theories to me are perticularly disturbing. Some people want to think that someone out there is against them. The system, the government, secret organisation, corporations (well....).

I would ask this. Like the moon landing, just how many people would be needed to fake or cover up such a huge event like this? all the different department people 'hiding' all the different evidence, communicating with each other, and trusting that one of the hundreds if not thousands involved dont say a word.

A lot of evidence I found for 9/11 theories were based on initial media reports and eye witness accounts (when the facts are ALWAYS muddled). Then after they get the real story based on proper scientific analysis, because it dont sound so james bond, they wont believe it. Well, I guess the cool thing for me there is science is true, whether you believe it or not.

It dont matter what factual data you put in front of someone, most people think I cant work it out therefore it cant be true!
Thankfully, I put my trust in mathmaticians, scientists, computer engineers and the like to do there chosen skill properly without having to feel scared that they just might know more of what they are doing then me in those areas.

The presidential blow job question was, naturally, unanswered. I am afraid to ask why "they" would do this in the first place.

[love]

What is your better theory then?

I think the concrete was mixed with explosives when the towers were built.

[hellaeon]

Yes. Simply because someone proclaims themselves to be an expert doesn't mean I can ignore my own calculations and the evidence before me. I prefer to use science as a basis for understanding, not authority.



It dont matter what factual data you put in front of someone, most people think I cant work it out therefore it cant be true!
Thankfully, I put my trust in mathematicians, scientists, computer engineers and the like to do there chosen skill properly without having to feel scared that they just might know more of what they are doing then me in those areas.

:D

[hellaeon]

I think the concrete was mixed with explosives when the towers were built.

So this was planned 30 years ago!

[Year Zero]

I think the concrete was mixed with explosives when the towers were built.


Right, like a massive self-destruct sequence. When the towers were built, during the Cold War, when most of America's time was spent watching the Soviet Union and China, they decided to rig a building for self-destruct so that they could fake a terrorist attack by an organization that didn't even exist until 1986.

[Year Zero]

Yes. Simply because someone proclaims themselves to be an expert doesn't mean I can ignore my own calculations and the evidence before me. I prefer to use science as a basis for understanding, not authority.



These engineers are not "self-proclaimed" experts. The universities that issued their degrees say these men are experts in their field. I also notice that you, like nearly every other conspiracy proponent, claims to have done your own "calculations". If anyone is a self-proclaimed expert....

Also, how can you trust in science when you don't trust people that have what are essentially scientific degrees?

[kookbreaker]

Yes. Simply because someone proclaims themselves to be an expert doesn't mean I can ignore my own calculations and the evidence before me. I prefer to use science as a basis for understanding, not authority.


So far, you have demonstrated that your own calculations are useless, with such misapplied terms as 'free-fall'. Care to show your work?

BTW, these 'experts' are not self-proclaimed. They are engineers. If you are skeptical of them then you are skeptical of structures. Kinda hard to do that.


Are you taking the p***?

No, merely demonstrating that structures work and fail according to established principles, not they way you want them to.

[love]

First off... I fail to see what conclusions your "missing concrete" and "free fall" theories are trying to draw. Were the towers made from paper mache back in the 70's and the crooked illuminati cabal who built them orchestrated the 9/11 attacks to cover-up their shoddy construction scam?

Anyhoo... an exercise in futility though it may be, I'll bite.

-The "missing concrete"...

You suggest that there is only "10 meters of rubble". Measured from where? From street level up? Well, guess what? The towers weren't built from street level. They were built over a... what? Here's a hint, and a suggestion for you regarding your continuing attempt to support silly conspiracy theories:

:dig:

"When in a hole, stop digging."

So... how far below street level did the basement of the WTC complex extend? Follow the link to see the pretty picture:

http://michaelminn.net/newyork/wtc/2004-07-17_18-11-50.jpg


Yeah, I only see 3 stories of hole there. My calculations were for 11 stories of solid concrete alone. That should stick out of the hole by a lot more than 8 stories when you include air gaps and other material.

-The "free falling building"...

No, the pancaking theory does not suggest that the building collapsed one floor at a time... as in the collapse did not start on the top floor and continue in sequence to the bottom.

The collapse started at around the three quarters point up the building. Which means that there was a MASSIVE weight above the initially collapsing section. A weight so massive that the subsequent floors below the collapsing section offered scant resistence to such an irresistably massive force.

That MASSIVE weight was held up by an equally MASSIVE force. What happened to that force? Most of the inertia of the building was in the bottom half of the building.

I am still skeptical.

Again... this process is clearly seen in the recorded video footage of the events.

When I saw the towers fall, it looked to me like all the floors fell together.

[Glite]

I didn't see that much debris in total!

In the photos posted on this thread it doesn't look to be more than 10 meters of rubble. Now there were some

The concrete appears to be missing.




i would say if you watch footage from the towers falling, you can see that alot of the concrete used in the towers was being dis-integrated as the towers fell, the floors collapsed on one another causing the outer walls to crumble out and be thrown away from the building causing a lotus flower look to it like this.
611

if you examine pictures like this you'll see that the "kicked out debris" is very much destroyed, this debris is not in a pile because it was the cloud of dust that spread over southern Manhattan. and thats where your missing concrete ended up, spread out, covering everything in an area around the wtc

[kookbreaker]

I think the concrete was mixed with explosives when the towers were built.

Wow. Just wow.

Stupidest.Theory.EVER!

OK, so what explosive was used? Why did it manage to last 30 years? Why wasn't it ignited accidentally during contruction? Why did they bother to do this in the first place? Why do you think the construction workers didn;t notice that something was 'funny' with the concrete (Concrete does not take impurities without showing some effects).

And finally: Why is it that you are so stupid as to think this was even remotely plausable?

[Year Zero]

Wow. Just wow.

Stupidest.Theory.EVER!

OK, so what explosive was used? Why did it manage to last 30 years? Why wasn't it ignited accidentally during contruction? Why did they bother to do this in the first place? Why do you think the construction workers didn;t notice that something was 'funny' with the concrete (Concrete does not take impurities without showing some effects).

And finally: Why is it that you are so stupid as to think this was even remotely plausable?


This brings us to the central problem with the CTs in this issue. Why, oh WHY, do they REFUSE to find a competent, certified, experienced demolitions expert, and construct a working theory on how their scenario would work? They say that the pancake theory can't account for the concrete? Fine, show us how that demolition WOULD account for that. They claim(erroneously) that the towers fell in free fall and that the pancake theory(which they seldom show understanding of) can't account for this. Then demonstrate, via a demolitions expert, how a demolition would put the tower into free fall.

And last but not least, explain how a controlled demolition could be designed when you plan to crash a large plane into the building that is to be demolished. Anyone with even a remote knowledge of this kind of demolitions understands that there is no exact science to bringing a building down. It takes a long time and you have to rely on ESTIMATES. That being the case, your estimates are literally blown to hell when you suddenly fly a plane into the building.

[love]

So far, you have demonstrated that your own calculations are useless, with such misapplied terms as 'free-fall'. Care to show your work?

Sigh.

Height of the building, s=412 m

Acceleration due to gravity g=9.81 m/s/s.

Time for top of building to fall under gravity alone (without resistance), t.

s= 1/2*g*g*t

t=2*s/g/g=2*412/9.81/9.81=8.6 seconds

Careful analysis of the video footage clearly shows this.


BTW, these 'experts' are not self-proclaimed. They are engineers.
True. I still trust my own math and the video footage.

If you are skeptical of them then you are skeptical of structures. Kinda hard to do that.
Your logic escapes me.

No, merely demonstrating that structures work and fail according to established principles, not they way you want them to.

There is some irony here, because even in the explanations of how the towers fell, many experts admitted the collapse broke established engineering principles.

[Glite]

also, could the ct please answer a question for me, WHY?!

and if you have the why, that should answer the question of who?

because, I'm sure theres gotta be one of "them" who would talk if we got too close to their nefarious plan. which seems pretty damn complicated.

[Year Zero]

You're lying to us love. Had you read that report I offered you it has been shown that there are varying calculations of the time it took to collapse, calculated by the same footage, by people who have proven qualifications in their field. That report addresses your questions.

You seem to want to question all the "official" facts, yet not answer any of our questions about your hypothesis.

[Psiload]

Yeah, I only see 3 stories of hole there. My calculations were for 11 stories of solid concrete alone. That should stick out of the hole by a lot more than 8 stories when you include air gaps and other material.
Three stories? Let's count them, shall we?

http://michaelminn.net/newyork/wtc/2004-07-17_18-11-50.jpg

I'm clearly counting six stories, which makes you wrong by a factor of 100%. That doesn't bode well for the rest of your "calculations".

That MASSIVE weight was held up by an equally MASSIVE force. What happened to that force? Most of the inertia of the building was in the bottom half of the building.

I am still skeptical.

When I saw the towers fall, it looked to me like all the floors fell together. When you throw around terms like "inertia", it's like watching a toddler waving a loaded pistol. Put that down, you're going to hurt somebody.

[kookbreaker]

Sigh.

Height of the building, s=412 m

Acceleration due to gravity g=9.81 m/s/s.

Time for top of building to fall under gravity alone (without resistance), t.

s= 1/2*g*g*t

t=2*s/g/g=2*412/9.81/9.81=8.6 seconds

Careful analysis of the video footage clearly shows this.


No, it does not.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/freefall.html


It is widely accepted that both towers completely fell (nearly everything but the dust reached the ground) in around ten seconds. This estimate appears to be based mainly on seismic data. However, video evidence of the North Tower collapse suggests that it took close to 15 seconds for the destruction to reach the ground. Establishing a precise time of duration for each fall may not be possible, but there are measurements that can be made. Video records show that each tower's top began its fall precipitously, and show the falling tops for a few seconds before they disappeared into the exploding dust clouds.

Keep in mind many folks take measurements formt he video based on when they stop seeing the building...not when it actually hits the ground


True. I still trust my own math and the video footage.


Garbage in, garbage out.


Your logic escapes me.


You claimed to be skeptical of what you called 'self-styled experts', those were structural engineers. Guess what they make.


There is some irony here, because even in the explanations of how the towers fell, many experts admitted the collapse broke established engineering principles.

I'd like to hear these quotes in proper context. There were no established engineering principles for a building of this type to collapse, because it never happened before.

[Year Zero]

An excerpt from that report I linked:

"Direct observation tells us that the WTC collapsed in a time 2 – 3 seconds greater than the 9.1 second free fall time of an object dropped from a height of 416 meters onto a base about 10 meters high. We now present a simple momentum transfer theory that may be used to calculate values of tc for each of the WTC towers."

Excellent point Kookbreaker, if one cannot trust the expertise of a structural engineer any more than some guy on the internet, I would NEVER walk into any large building EVER.

[delphi_ote]

No, just ad hoc theories.

Umm... a building collapsed. Where do YOU think all of the concrete went?

[love]

Wow. Just wow.

Stupidest.Theory.EVER!

Why thank you.

OK, so what explosive was used?

I don't know.

Why did it manage to last 30 years?

Because it was stable?

Why wasn't it ignited accidentally during contruction?

Because it is stable?

Why did they bother to do this in the first place?

Long-term planning.

Why do you think the construction workers didn;t notice that something was 'funny' with the concrete (Concrete does not take impurities without showing some effects).
Really? Perhaps they did notice.

And finally: Why is it that you are so stupid as to think this was even remotely plausable?

Because of the WTC cough. It seems to me that the symptoms of WTC cough match the symptoms of calcium hydroxide poisoning. The WTC cough symptoms seemed to include caustic burning, chemical irritation. This cannot be explained by mechanically made dust alone.

This can be produced by heating the concrete to 900C. I'm not sure how you would do this except with high explosives. If the explosive was mixed with the concrete it would explain how all the concrete turned to dust.

I really don't want to have to calculate how much jet fuel it would take to heat 500,000 tons of concrete to 900C, but I assure you, there wasn't enough in the planes.

I am yet to see any plausible explanation of all the dust that doesn't involve high explosives.

[hellaeon]

SEE!!!! THE NUMBERS DONT LIE.


---------------------------------------------

The Jewish holidays of Rosh Hashana (The Jewish New Year - 5762) and Yom Kippur = September 27, 2001 (September 18-27 - 18=9 & 27=9)

Reality is created and guided by numeric patterns that overlap and awaken human consciousness - like a giany matrix or hologram. They are created by Sacred Geometry - numbers - the language of the universe - codes of awakening - such as 11:11 which represents twins strands of DNA abd return to balance - 11=balance.

9 11 = awakening of DNA to the 9 = ending.

Twin Towers, standing side by side, look like the number 11

The tragedy was on September 11, or 9/11. Adding this: 9+1+1=11

September 11 is day number 254 of the calendar year: 2+5+4=11

After September 11, there were 111 days more to the end of the year.

911 = emergency phone call

119 is the area code to Iraq

New York City has 11 letters.

New York was the 11 state to join the union

Ramsin Yuseb (The terrorist who threatened the Twin Towers in 1993) has 11 letters.

'George W. Bush' has 11 letters

Osama Bin Laden's name add up to 11.

The Pentagon consists of 11 letters

The first plane crushing against the Twin Towers was flight #11

Flight # 11 was carrying 92 passengers Adding this number gives us: 9+2=11

Flight # 77 who also hit the towers, was carrying 65 passengers Adding this: 6+5=11

The total number of victims inside the planes were 254: 2+5+4=11

The tragedy of 3/11/2004 in Madrid also adds up to: 3+1+1+2+4=11. It occurred 911 days after 911

-------------------------

today is the 23rd of the 12th! 23-12=11...and we are talking about it!

[Year Zero]

Long-term planning.

Long term planning? The World Trade Center was finished in 1972, construction began in 1966, during the VIETNAM WAR. We were in the Vietnam war because of a belief that the Chinese would dominate the region. We were involved in dozens of insurgency and counter-insurgency conflicts up until the collapse of the Soviet Union. You believe that somehow, in all of this, somebody predicted almost exactly that the Soviet Union would collapse, Marxist insurgencies would almost totally decline, Islamic terrorism would adopt a transnational strategy about six years after that, and then, for some reason, we would blow up our own people for....

For.....for what exactly? And don't get me started on the INCREDIBLE chain-of-command problems this conspiracy has. This actually suggests that you would have to arrange some way to pass the conspiracy on to another generation of conspirators.



Really? Perhaps they did notice.

I have worked in the concrete/materials testing industry for several years- they would notice.


Because of the WTC cough. It seems to me that the symptoms of WTC cough match the symptoms of calcium hydroxide poisoning. The WTC cough symptoms seemed to include caustic burning, chemical irritation. This cannot be explained by mechanically made dust alone.

According to who?


This can be produced by heating the concrete to 900C. I'm not sure how you would do this except with high explosives. If the explosive was mixed with the concrete it would explain how all the concrete turned to dust.

All the concrete WASN'T turned into dust. You assumed it was because you couldn't see enough concrete in the photographs you personally saw, remember?




I am yet to see any plausible explanation of all the dust that doesn't involve high explosives.

Because you didn't read the reports I linked to, as well as the fact that you apparently have little knowledge of demolitions. I already pointed out what problems there are when you rig a building for demolition and then cause a massive explosion via a plane. Now you've added ANOTHER problem by claiming that there have been explosives "waiting" for about 30 years. Think about it, if they screw up, if some of those explosives don't detonate or the demolition goes awry, all the conspirators are BUSTED. They would be executed for the greatest crime in American history.

[hellaeon]

Because of the WTC cough. It seems to me that the symptoms of WTC cough match the symptoms of calcium hydroxide poisoning. The WTC cough symptoms seemed to include caustic burning, chemical irritation. This cannot be explained by mechanically made dust alone.

This can be produced by heating the concrete to 900C. I'm not sure how you would do this except with high explosives. If the explosive was mixed with the concrete it would explain how all the concrete turned to dust.

I really don't want to have to calculate how much jet fuel it would take to heat 500,000 tons of concrete to 900C, but I assure you, there wasn't enough in the planes.

I am yet to see any plausible explanation of all the dust that doesn't involve high explosives.


hahahahaha man.....you rule dude....cheers for the laugh

[patchbunny]

I'm clearly counting six stories, which makes you wrong by a factor of 100%. That doesn't bode well for the rest of your "calculations".

What also needs to be remembered is that the buildings did not fall entirely within their own footprints. WTC 3-7 were destroyed or heavily damaged by falling debris, as were the surrounding buildings, as can be seen here:

http://911digitalarchive.org/crr/images/CRRDB/data/documents/5419.htm

I must admit I'm a little confused by the claim that there's not enough rubble. Are the buildings now shorter than previously claimed? What does this have to do with anything?

--Patch

[Blackwell]

I really don't want to have to calculate how much jet fuel it would take to heat 500,000 tons of concrete to 900C, but I assure you, there wasn't enough in the planes.

I am yet to see any plausible explanation of all the dust that doesn't involve high explosives.

So ALL 500,000 tons of concrete would have to be heated to this temperature in order to create the chemical responsible for the "cough"?

You really need to think things through before you post them.

[Ashles]

I think the concrete was mixed with explosives when the towers were built.
I honestly cannot believe anyone is taking this poster seriously after that post.

A new poster? Straight in with just about the stupidest conspiracy theory ever?

Need more evidence of troll status?
I really don't want to have to calculate how much jet fuel it would take to heat 500,000 tons of concrete to 900C, but I assure you, there wasn't enough in the planes.
I'm busy counting the different ways in which that statement confirms troll intent.

[hellaeon]

hahahahaha love, ever thought when you work in an office due to air conditioning most people get sick if one gets sick?

.......hahahahahaha built with explosives in the concrete hahahahahahaha.....Gold....

[patchbunny]

Because of the WTC cough. It seems to me that the symptoms of WTC cough match the symptoms of calcium hydroxide poisoning. The WTC cough symptoms seemed to include caustic burning, chemical irritation. This cannot be explained by mechanically made dust alone.
Wow! Structural Engineer and a doctor! Your tuition must have been a bitch.

Having taken Structural Dynamics in college, I must say that the opinions of the Engineers who examined this issue are more highly valued than yours.

--Patch

[kookbreaker]

Why thank you.

That's not something to be proud of.


I don't know.


Are you aware of they call an explosive that has been spread thin over a large area? Fuel. Mix an explosive into a material and you'll either have a mostly-flammable material that would be able to support balsawood, or else you'll have a material with explosive spread so thin that it either can't be ignited, or if it was able to be ignited, would do little more than make some smoke.


Because it was stable?

Because it is stable?


Wow! What is this miracle explosive that stays reliably stable for 30 years?
I'm sure the Pentagon would like to know about it.


Long-term planning.


For what?

"Dear World Trade Center Builders: Please mix explosives into your concrete. We might need to conspire to blow these buildings up and cripple the National economy some day."


Really? Perhaps they did notice.


And yet no Union or member made a fuss about it, or brought to the worlds attention after 9/11? You obviously do not know New Yorkers.


Because of the WTC cough. It seems to me that the symptoms of WTC cough match the symptoms of calcium hydroxide poisoning. The WTC cough symptoms seemed to include caustic burning, chemical irritation. This cannot be explained by mechanically made dust alone.


Let us assume this is true for the sake of arguement.


This can be produced by heating the concrete to 900C. I'm not sure how you would do this except with high explosives. If the explosive was mixed with the concrete it would explain how all the concrete turned to dust.


And yet, there is no explosive known that can remain reliably stable for decades, and can be mixed with concrete such that it keeps its structural strength.

If there was, its inventor would be a very rich man.


I really don't want to have to calculate how much jet fuel it would take to heat 500,000 tons of concrete to 900C, but I assure you, there wasn't enough in the planes.


Again, you are basing this all on a health effect. Not on materials found by any scientific means. Are you a medical export or toxologist?


I am yet to see any plausible explanation of all the dust that doesn't involve high explosives.

Plausable to you is the key factor here.

[love]

OK, now I understand. I got my maths wrong.

Height of the building, s=412 m
Acceleration due to gravity g=9.81 m/s/s.
Time for top of building to fall under gravity alone (without resistance), t.

s= 1/2*g*t*t
t=sqrt(2*s/g)=sqrt(2*412/9.81)=sqrt(84)=9.2m/s/s

I admit it. I was wrong. That explains everything.

Funny how a simple miscalculation can cause you to believe all sorts of kooky theories.

[Ashles]

Funny how a simple miscalculation can cause you to believe all sorts of kooky theories.
Hmmm. Sure. That must have been it. Miscalculation.

But to be fair this happens to the best of us. The other day I forgot to carry a 7 and I ended up being a holocaust denier for a whole afternoon before I noticed my error.

These things happen.

[kookbreaker]

OK, now I understand. I got my maths wrong.

Height of the building, s=412 m
Acceleration due to gravity g=9.81 m/s/s.
Time for top of building to fall under gravity alone (without resistance), t.

s= 1/2*g*t*t
t=sqrt(2*s/g)=sqrt(2*412/9.81)=sqrt(84)=9.2m/s/s

I admit it. I was wrong. That explains everything.

Funny how a simple miscalculation can cause you to believe all sorts of kooky theories.

Interesting measure of time you got there.

Not that it matters much. Your basing it on your own garbage viewing of the time it takes to collapse.

[kookbreaker]

But to be fair this happens to the best of us. The other day I forgot to carry a 7 and I ended up being a holocaust denier for a whole afternoon before I noticed my error.


Last time I balanced my checkbook, I ended up thinking the Moon Landing was a hoax!

[thesyntaxera]

Hi love, and everyone who has since joined the debate. Isn't it interesting how cognitive dissonance can cause peoples sphincters to tighten?

You debunkers are being silly...you would rather sit back and not know exactly what happened because you claim to already know based on a official story that wasn't even investigated using a deductive process...

As it has already been pointed out, even the experts are at odds over all of the evidence...this should be one cause for concern that apparently eludes you..

why waste your time answering reams of quoted text backed up by your shallow inductive investigation techniques?

None of you have personally seen any of the actual physical evidence in this matter and therefore none of you is capable of debunking it.

You can cite all the jobs you have had if you want....it doesn't make you an expert.

I have solidly debunked your ability as internet skeptics to debunk any of this...

You fail to explain why it's okay for you to use inductive reasoning, when that is the very thing you complain about CT's doing.

You fail to explain the logic in not conducting a deductive investigation on part of the federal government.

This was quite possibly one of the worst investigations ever in terms of evidence handling...and claims made.

For example on 911 it was determined that Osama bin Laden was responsible for the attack....

based on what? all of the intelligence that was ignored up to that point?



Now I ask again:

Why can't I see one picture of a plane hitting the pentagon?

Why can't I see the 6,000+ photo's that were sealed?

Why can't I see the results of any chemical tests performed in regards to explosives...? If there wasn't one, why not? Someone said, because there was no cause...3000 people died, there were reports of multiple explosions from inside the building from trained firefighters, there was reported explosive damage in the lobby and lower levels of the buildings from the same trained firefighters...

how much more cause do you need? The fact that in deduction you need to rule out other possibilities plays a role here, but as all you wannabe skeptics have so so readily revealed THATS NOT SOMETHING YOUR INTERESTED IN.

Your explanations are pretzel logic at it's finest. Quit trying to reinforce your skeptical worldview with induction... seriously...your being super hypocritical for even engaging in it in the first place.

Here's a thought, instead of debunking everything, why not investigate it using deductive techniques, letting your findings inform your facts.

That all I am suggesting...

[Ed]

OK, now I understand. I got my maths wrong.

Height of the building, s=412 m
Acceleration due to gravity g=9.81 m/s/s.
Time for top of building to fall under gravity alone (without resistance), t.

s= 1/2*g*t*t
t=sqrt(2*s/g)=sqrt(2*412/9.81)=sqrt(84)=9.2m/s/s

I admit it. I was wrong. That explains everything.

Funny how a simple miscalculation can cause you to believe all sorts of kooky theories.

I was under the impression that this was the realm of calculus.

Anyhoo. Anybody want to guess how much energy is necessary to raise 500,000 tons of concrete 450 degrees in a second or so? And what do you think the result would look like?

How many people are involved now? Not just the construction guys but all of the building inspectors from the 60s to 9/11 plus the undersriters plus the guys that scoured the place after the first bombing.

And nothing came out.

Want to discuss presidential blowjobs and the attendent secrecy now?

and ..... why?

[Year Zero]

You debunkers are being silly...you would rather sit back and not know exactly what happened because you claim to already know based on a official story that wasn't even investigated using a deductive process...

A guy has told us that the WTC on which construction began in 1966, was actually rigged with explosives MIXED IN WITH THE CONCRETE, to fake a terrorist attack by a group that didn't exist until 1986, in 2001.

Yeah WE'RE being silly!


As it has already been pointed out, even the experts are at odds over all of the evidence...this should be one cause for concern that apparently eludes you..

No, none of the experts familiar with the WTC or which have been part of the investigations support the theory of demolitions.


why waste your time answering reams of quoted text backed up by your shallow inductive investigation techniques?

Why do you waste your time asking us questions and NOT answering ours?


None of you have personally seen any of the actual physical evidence in this matter and therefore none of you is capable of debunking it.

You're still asking us to prove a negative. People who were PAID to investigate that event, people who are experts in that field- DID see physical evidence. What they did NOT see evidence of- was a demolition.


You can cite all the jobs you have had if you want....it doesn't make you an expert.

It does qualify you to confirm that mixing explosives into concrete is an idiotic idea. Also, having a certain job, for enough years, DOES make you an expert. Where do you think experts come from?


I have solidly debunked your ability as internet skeptics to debunk any of this...

Could you show us where? You REFUSE to answer any questions about YOUR theory, while demanding we explain every detail you can think of in order to hide the fact that you have no evidence of your theory.


This was quite possibly one of the worst investigations ever in terms of evidence handling...and claims made.

Really? According to who?


For example on 911 it was determined that Osama bin Laden was responsible for the attack....

based on what? all of the intelligence that was ignored up to that point?

If this was an inside job, don't you think they wouldn't have found any "ignored evidence"?



Now I ask again:

Why can't I see one picture of a plane hitting the pentagon?

Because you haven't looked hard enough?


Why can't I see the 6,000+ photo's that were sealed?

According to who?


Why can't I see the results of any chemical tests performed in regards to explosives...? If there wasn't one, why not? Someone said, because there was no cause...3000 people died, there were reports of multiple explosions from inside the building from trained firefighters, there was reported explosive damage in the lobby and lower levels of the buildings from the same trained firefighters...

Again, there are eyewitnesses that state they heard things LIKE explosions. Given the situation, that is not at all odd. Also, your last claim here is wrong, there were no explosions in the bottom floors. This was created by editing the account of a certain eyewitness.


how much more cause do you need? The fact that in deduction you need to rule out other possibilities plays a role here, but as all you wannabe skeptics have so so readily revealed THATS NOT SOMETHING YOUR INTERESTED IN.

Why won't you answer any of our questions about your theory?



Here's a thought, instead of debunking everything, why not investigate it using deductive techniques, letting your findings inform your facts.

How about this, instead of you asking all the questions, and instead of you not owning up to it when the errors in your claims are pointed out, why don't you actually try the scientific method- construct a hypothesis, and alter it as you find the evidence.


That all I am suggesting...

I am suggesting you give us evidence that the buildings were demolished via explosives.

[Psiload]

I think the concrete was mixed with explosives when the towers were built.

Hold the phone. Let me get this straight...

The WTC towers-built over three decades ago- were intentionally construced with a mixture of an explosive laced concrete mix- in preparation for a staged pseudo terrorist attack involving two civilian jet airliners- when the explosives would be detonated subsequent to the airliner strikes- for the purpose of masking the true cause of the collapse- explosive laced concrete?

:jaw:

Bravo, good sir. Bravo.

In all my years as a purveyor of fine conspiracy theory bullcrap, that is some of the most pungent scat that I've ever sampled. That is the single malt scotch, the beluga caviar, the cuban cigar, of conspiratorial lunacy.

My tinfoil hat is off to you.:th:

[kookbreaker]

Hi love, and everyone who has since joined the debate. Isn't it interesting how cognitive dissonance can cause peoples sphincters to tighten?

You debunkers are being silly...you would rather sit back and not know exactly what happened because you claim to already know based on a official story that wasn't even investigated using a deductive process...


We pretty much know what happened. Not because of any 'deductive process', or whatever word you are misusing of late. We know because that is what the evidence points to. You can whine about it, but the evidence still stands.


As it has already been pointed out, even the experts are at odds over all of the evidence...this should be one cause for concern that apparently eludes you..


Which evidence is that? Where is the one that experts fight over that makes the Pentagon not get hit by a plane?


why waste your time answering reams of quoted text backed up by your shallow inductive investigation techniques?


Because what we are doing conforms to the evidence. Meanwhile, you can't even explain what happened to the plane and passengers that hit the Pentagon in your fantasy world.


None of you have personally seen any of the actual physical evidence in this matter and therefore none of you is capable of debunking it.


???


You can cite all the jobs you have had if you want....it doesn't make you an expert.


And you are?


I have solidly debunked your ability as internet skeptics to debunk any of this...


Usually this kind of chest-beating claim has some basis in reality, in your case you are demonstrating a rich fantasy life.


You fail to explain why it's okay for you to use inductive reasoning, when that is the very thing you complain about CT's doing.


That's because CT's are making up fantasies that fail to account for the evidence we have.


You fail to explain the logic in not conducting a deductive investigation on part of the federal government.


You have failed to explain why this word you have become obsessed with is so important to our needs.


This was quite possibly one of the worst investigations ever in terms of evidence handling...and claims made.


I doubt that, seriously.


For example on 911 it was determined that Osama bin Laden was responsible for the attack....

based on what? all of the intelligence that was ignored up to that point?


You had another culprit in mind? Perhaps you might recall the '93 bombing? There's been plenty of evidence that Osama was behind it shown since 9/11.


Now I ask again:

Why can't I see one picture of a plane hitting the pentagon?

Why can't I see the 6,000+ photo's that were sealed?


I don't know why. But that does not change the fact that a plane hit the Pentagon.


Why can't I see the results of any chemical tests performed in regards to explosives...? If there wasn't one, why not?


Why should there be tests when we know a plane hit the Pentagon?


Someone said, because there was no cause...3000 people died, there were reports of multiple explosions from inside the building from trained firefighters, there was reported explosive damage in the lobby and lower levels of the buildings from the same trained firefighters...


"Multiple explosions" could be anything in a raging fire. Mnay such comments have been lifted and abused.

http://www.911myths.com/html/quote_abuse.html


how much more cause do you need?


A lot more than you've given. Tell us what happened to the plane and passenger. Tell us how explosives could be wired into the building without anyone noticing


The fact that in deduction you need to rule out other possibilities plays a role here, but as all you wannabe skeptics have so so readily revealed THATS NOT SOMETHING YOUR INTERESTED IN.

Your explanations are pretzel logic at it's finest. Quit trying to reinforce your skeptical worldview with induction... seriously...your being super hypocritical for even engaging in it in the first place.

Here's a thought, instead of debunking everything, why not investigate it using deductive techniques, letting your findings inform your facts.

That all I am suggesting...

Boo-freaking-Hoo. Your getting your butt handed to you on a plate, and you can only whine about it and repeat useless assertions. 'Deductive' in your lexicon, seems to mean "Ignore all the other evidence pointing to a conclusion that thesyntaxera doesn't like and harp on minor points that do not make a whit of difference!"

[Ashles]

Hi love, and everyone who has since joined the debate. Isn't it interesting how cognitive dissonance can cause peoples sphincters to tighten?
Hmm, cognitive dissonance, a failure to recognise the contradictions in your own attitudes and behaviours...
Just to remind ourselves, you describe yourself as a "fellow skeptic", yes?
Interesting.

You debunkers are being silly...you would rather sit back and not know exactly what happened because you claim to already know based on a official story that wasn't even investigated using a deductive process...
You seem to be a little overexcited about your use of 'deductive' versus 'inductive' reasoning.
Are you totally sure you understand what both mean?
Inductive is sometimes described as moving from the specific to the general, while deductive can be described as moving from the general to the specific.
The situation here is moving from the specific to the specific (although several arguments have already been produced that indicate why generallly held principles might strongly be considered applicable to 9-11).
We don't have all the information (and never will) so a certain degree of assumption will be required for anyone attempting to reach a conclusion.
Nobody will ever be able to reach conclusions about 9-11 based on pure logic.

As it has already been pointed out, even the experts are at odds over all of the evidence...this should be one cause for concern that apparently eludes you..
Which experts?

why waste your time answering reams of quoted text backed up by your shallow inductive investigation techniques?
The techniques that have satisfied everyone excpet a handful of CTs?
Well if anyone had any compelling counter evidence...
No? Never mind.

None of you have personally seen any of the actual physical evidence in this matter and therefore none of you is capable of debunking it.
An old chestnut.
As you weren't personally sitting in the Pentagon and hit by an aircraft can we equally dismiss your opinion?

You can cite all the jobs you have had if you want....it doesn't make you an expert.
So what, exactly, defines 'expert' to you? Someone who agrees with your preconceived notion?

I have solidly debunked your ability as internet skeptics to debunk any of this...
Any chance of us reading where you have done this?

You fail to explain why it's okay for you to use inductive reasoning, when that is the very thing you complain about CT's doing.
We are using observation and expert testimony. It's hard to know what further information we can use to form an opinion.
If you have access to reliable secret information, please let us know.

You fail to explain the logic in not conducting a deductive investigation on part of the federal government.
That's true. When you see 2 planes fly into 2 buildings it would make sense to doubt it.

This was quite possibly one of the worst investigations ever in terms of evidence handling...and claims made.
I believe you accidentally left out the words "In my opinion..."

For example on 911 it was determined that Osama bin Laden was responsible for the attack....

based on what? all of the intelligence that was ignored up to that point?
So you don't think it was Muslim extremists?
Why?
What 'deductive reasoning' has led you to that conclusion?

Now I ask again:

Why can't I see one picture of a plane hitting the pentagon?
I don't know. Several reasons have already been provided, none of which you appear to liike.
But it seems just frankly bizarre to think that a plane didn't hit the Pentagon.

Why can't I see the 6,000+ photo's that were sealed?
What 6000+ photos?

Why can't I see the results of any chemical tests performed in regards to explosives...? If there wasn't one, why not? Someone said, because there was no cause...3000 people died, there were reports of multiple explosions from inside the building from trained firefighters, there was reported explosive damage in the lobby and lower levels of the buildings from the same trained firefighters...
A building on fire has explosions inside...
And this would be unexpected... why exactly?

how much more cause do you need? The fact that in deduction you need to rule out other possibilities plays a role here, but as all you wannabe skeptics have so so readily revealed THATS NOT SOMETHING YOUR INTERESTED IN.
In the same way you are not interested in the possibility that a group of muslim extremists hijacked planes and flew them into skyscrapers?

Your explanations are pretzel logic at it's finest. Quit trying to reinforce your skeptical worldview with induction... seriously...your being super hypocritical for even engaging in it in the first place.
You seem very angry about this.
We see this a lot. No-one likes their preconceptions or cherished views questioned.
It's only unfortunate that you seem to think that holding an opinion that disagrees with observed facts makes you more truly 'skeptical'.

Here's a thought, instead of debunking everything, why not investigate it using deductive techniques, letting your findings inform your facts.

That all I am suggesting...
What a good idea.
Which fringe websites that disagree with experts, eyewitnesses, common sense, scientific and video evidence should we visit?

[gtc]

Amazing how thesyntaxera was getting in trouble on their very first thread until love showed up. Now love has scarped after admitting their error and thesyntaxera is back again.

What a fabulous coincidance.

[Kevin_Lowe]

In all my years as a purveyor of fine conspiracy theory bullcrap, that is some of the most pungent scat that I've ever sampled. That is the single malt scotch, the beluga caviar, the cuban cigar, of conspiratorial lunacy.

My tinfoil hat is off to you.

Don't be fooled. Obviously this "love" poster is in on the conspiracy and is propagating disinformation to discredit the legitimate questions about 9/11. It was all a plot to make you tip your tinfoil hat so they could microwave your brain!

Quick, get you tinfoil hat back on!

[hellaeon]

just a few things selected before breakup day lunch!


why waste your time answering reams of quoted text backed up by your shallow inductive investigation techniques?


Most people dont just induce facts, they prove them in a criminal case. And real experts will admit to mistakes, not stand by a disproven initial thought.


None of you have personally seen any of the actual physical evidence in this matter and therefore none of you is capable of debunking it.


I bet you believe in dinosaurs.
Hell I never been to america or even tasmania. I bet they dont exist. who is playing this trick on me...


I have solidly debunked your ability as internet skeptics to debunk any of this...


Your a keyboard warrior debating conspiracy theories! Ride on King Arthour...


You fail to explain why it's okay for you to use inductive reasoning, when that is the very thing you complain about CT's doing.


no no...read it again...its science people use to establish FACTS. induction/deduction will lead you towards a theory, that you either prove or disprove. What you are left with is the truth. Now you seem to summise something in the induction/deduction phase and not follow through to the lab. But hey, you know the big secret...

hahahaha man. You really need this to be true. Your an 'unsinkable duck'
Dude stop reading David Icke and that various tripe. Remember guys like him get his facts from a medium spirit! ooooo

[patchbunny]

Ya know, if you've got that many construction workers in on your operation, why waist all that time and trouble of making voids in the concrete floor forms, running conduit for control wiring, connecting that wiring to a main hub that runs between each floor, hooking it into a power source (Energizers ain't gonna cut it for 30 years), bribing the inspectors to look the other way, when you can just blow the floor level columns at one location instead?

For Frith's sake, this is one of the dumbest things I've read since I followed Riley G. on sci.skeptic.

[love]

Amazing how thesyntaxera was getting in trouble on their very first thread until love showed up. Now love has scarped after admitting their error and thesyntaxera is back again.

What a fabulous coincidance.

Are you suggesting we are the same person? Isn't that a little too paranoid?

[love]

Bravo, good sir. Bravo.

In all my years as a purveyor of fine conspiracy theory bullcrap, that is some of the most pungent scat that I've ever sampled. That is the single malt scotch, the beluga caviar, the cuban cigar, of conspiratorial lunacy.

My tinfoil hat is off to you.:th:

Why, thank you. But I am sure I can find more extreme examples.

How about:
Britney Spears is a mind-controlled sex-slave.

Makes sense if you think about it.

[money]

OK, now I understand. I got my maths wrong.

Height of the building, s=412 m
Acceleration due to gravity g=9.81 m/s/s.
Time for top of building to fall under gravity alone (without resistance), t.

s= 1/2*g*t*t
t=sqrt(2*s/g)=sqrt(2*412/9.81)=sqrt(84)=9.2m/s/s

I admit it. I was wrong. That explains everything.

Funny how a simple miscalculation can cause you to believe all sorts of kooky theories.

Love,

Have you revised your thinking on the issues not involving the towers in "freefall"?

Do you see more concrete debris when you look at the pictures now?

Do you see at least six underground levels of the building in the picture that Psiload provided, rather than the three you saw earlier?

Have you revised your opinion on the explosives in the concrete, and if so, do you still think that the WTC cough "cannot be explained by mechanically made dust alone?"

And btw, the idea that you and thesyntaxera are sock puppets is certainly not a paranoid one, especially since you both recently joined the forum this month, within five days of one another. Hang around for a bit and you'll see that kooks use this technique rather liberally...

Love,

money

[love]

Love,

Have you revised your thinking on the issues not involving the towers in "freefall"?
No, not really.

Do you see more concrete debris when you look at the pictures now?
No, not really.

Do you see at least six underground levels of the building in the picture that Psiload provided, rather than the three you saw earlier?
Yes.

Have you revised your opinion on the explosives in the concrete, and if so, do you still think that the WTC cough "cannot be explained by mechanically made dust alone?"
No, not really.

And btw, the idea that you and thesyntaxera are sock puppets is certainly not a paranoid one, especially since you both recently joined the forum this month, within five days of one another. Hang around for a bit and you'll see that kooks use this technique rather liberally...
I am fascinated by this. I have been on other forums and suspected others of doing this. Needless to say, I am completely innocent. However, I cannot speak for thesyntaxera. ;)

Love,

money

And much love to you too.

[Flange Desire]

Hi love, and everyone who has since joined the debate. Isn't it interesting how cognitive dissonance can cause peoples sphincters to tighten?
...LOTS OF STUFF SNIPPED...


Tight as a fish's.

Just show your evidence, and many posters here will be more than happy to show you where you are mistaken.
It is a free educational service (provided thanks to the JREF - praise their rsouls).
Don't worry too much about the high emotions - that is just the normal frustration that any educator will feel occasionally when confronted with outstanding stupidity.
Try staying focussed on your claims - it may even help you if you just present one claim at a time - that way each claim can be shot to pieces individually.

[PixyMisa]

I think the concrete was mixed with explosives when the towers were built.

And I think you need to adjust the dosage.

In 1993, a truck bomb in the WTC garage blew a hole through four stories of that same concrete. You'd think if it was mixed with explosives, SOMEONE MIGHT HAVE NOTICED.

[Peter S.]

Wow, 4 pages and no one has mentioned the paranormal object that flew through the hole in the building!

[gtc]

Wow, 4 pages and no one has mentioned the paranormal object that flew through the hole in the building!

What have angels got to do with this thread?

[CurtC]

It was a paranormal hat. I saw the video myself.

[CurtC]

It was a B-25 Mitchell bomber which struck The Empire State Building. The max fuel load of the B-25 was 1241 gallons, and the crash DID produce a massive fire.

The planes which struck the World Trade Towers were Boeing 727s. The max fuel load of the 727 is 6707 gallons.Not 727s - they were 767s, which can carry 24000 gallons of fuel, and when full weigh close to 400,000 pounds.

[love]

Wow, 4 pages and no one has mentioned the paranormal object that flew through the hole in the building!

Oh you are talking about one of the hijackers passports that was found totally intact, lying in the street. :rolleyes:

[Year Zero]

Oh you are talking about one of the hijackers passports that was found totally intact, lying in the street. :rolleyes:


Oh wow, another claim that we have already delt with several times on this SAME THREAD!! Yes, one of the hijacker's passports was found somewhere in the rubble. Also found from the flights were photographs and other personal affects belonging to other passengers. Go to 911Myths.com and read about that very claim.

Far more fragile things have actually survived the Colombia disaster as well, including a patch from a uniform, and the LIVE WORMS that were part of an experiment on board.

So yes, it is possible for a passport to survive that crash. Since they found one, we KNOW it is possible now.


I notice the CTs like rehashing old arguments, and as they are shot down they move to another one without admitting their lack of evidence.

[love]

So yes, it is possible for a passport to survive that crash. Since they found one, we KNOW it is possible now.

It's funny how some people need double blind controlled trials to convince them of something they did not previously know; and others merely have to see it on the news.

Hint: the government does not always tell the truth.

Evidence: the government has admitted lying in the past.

[Year Zero]

It's funny how some people need double blind controlled trials to convince them of something they did not previously know; and others merely have to see it on the news.

Hint: the government does not always tell the truth.

Evidence: the government has admitted lying in the past.


You are avoiding the point again, probably ready to bring up another issue that was addressed earlier right?

You brought up the passport because you believe this couldn't survive the crash. Anecdotal evidence shows that not only have small objects survived even WORSE crashes(WORMS survived the COLOMBIA disaster), but other objects, more fragile than a passport, also survived.

Now here's a question for YOU: Why would they need a passport to prove that they were on the plane? They have passenger manifests and ticket records that confirm them being on the plane. There are several people who don't appear on the final victim list because not enough of their remains were found; yet they appear on the original manifests.

[Year Zero]

It's funny how some people need double blind controlled trials to convince them of something they did not previously know; and others merely have to see it on the news.

Hint: the government does not always tell the truth.

Evidence: the government has admitted lying in the past.


Past government lying does not equal evidence that the government used remote-control planes to blow up its own building that it actually rigged with demolitions almost 30 years ago- demolitions that don't explode when a truck bomb is set off in the same building or that don't go off when a plane hits them.

MAGIC explosives!!!

[love]

Past government lying does not equal evidence that the government used remote-control planes to blow up its own building that it actually rigged with demolitions almost 30 years ago- demolitions that don't explode when a truck bomb is set off in the same building or that don't go off when a plane hits them.

MAGIC explosives!!!
So why post the non-sequitur?

[Year Zero]

So why post the non-sequitur?


Where's the non-sequitur? Nothing in that message is anywhere outside of topics that you have brought up and claims that you have made. If you don't like that, then stick to one claim at a time. But I notice most CTs prefer to bombard people with a myriad of claims without answering any questions about them.

I notice you didn't answer my other question as of this writing.

[love]

You are avoiding the point again, probably ready to bring up another issue that was addressed earlier right?

You brought up the passport because you believe this couldn't survive the crash. Anecdotal evidence shows that not only have small objects survived even WORSE crashes(WORMS survived the COLOMBIA disaster), but other objects, more fragile than a passport, also survived.

You are right there. I don't believe, the passport flew out of the plane and landed on the street during the explosion. I guess that I am simply a skeptic at heart.

Now here's a question for YOU: Why would they need a passport to prove that they were on the plane? They have passenger manifests and ticket records that confirm them being on the plane. There are several people who don't appear on the final victim list because not enough of their remains were found; yet they appear on the original manifests.

And coincidentally there were several news reports of alleged hijackers being found alive. There I go again. It's my natural skepticism. I can't help it.

[Year Zero]

You are right there. I don't believe, the passport flew out of the plane and landed on the street during the explosion. I guess that I am simply a skeptic at heart.

Who said it landed on the street? How can you be skeptical- they FOUND a passport. This is not sketpicism, it is denial. They found a passport, ergo they found a passport.




And coincidentally there were several news reports of alleged hijackers being found alive. There I go again. It's my natural skepticism. I can't help it.


There you go again, running to another claim. And of course, it's another claim that's wrong: http://www.911myths.com/html/still_alive.html

[love]

Who said it landed on the street? How can you be skeptical- they FOUND a passport. This is not sketpicism, it is denial. They found a passport, ergo they found a passport.

No, that means they claim they found the passport in the street. Why should I believe that? Because they are not "woo"?

There you go again, running to another claim. And of course, it's another claim that's wrong: http://www.911myths.com/html/still_alive.html

Oh right, so you just believe anything this website tells you? So you believe there were no newspaper stories about hijackers being alive? Or do you simply not agree with my skeptical position.

A website link proves nothing. It's like me pointing you at a Edgar Cayce site and claiming that is proof of the paranormal.

You people are so arbitrary as to what you count as proof.

Why can't we attempt to establish objectively agreed facts, and see where the differences in our assumptions and deductions lie, rather than simply resorting to claim and counter-claim?

"I know XYZ is untrue because this site www.pqr.com debunks it."

If that's reason then I am unreasonable.

[Year Zero]

No, that means they claim they found the passport in the street. Why should I believe that? Because they are not "woo"?

Why should I believe that the WTC center was built with some kind of explosives for a distant hoax several decades later, a full decade after a massive shift in the geopolitical climate?

Once again, you keep questioning, but don't even present evidence of your hypothesis. That's why it's "woo".




Oh right, so you just believe anything this website tells you? So you believe there were no newspaper stories about hijackers being alive? Or do you simply not agree with my skeptical position.


First of all, stop calling yourself a skeptic. A skeptic is someone who doubts something until sufficient evidence is provided. You clearly believe in a hypothesis involving 30 year old concrete-mixed explosives without any evidence. How can I say "without any evidence"? Because you haven't presented any. Your doubt that a passport was found does not tell us anything about what brought the towers down.

Now to address your claim. Had you read the site, you would have found your questions answered. No, there were no newspaper reports that declared the hijackers had been found alive. There WERE reports that there were several cases of mistaken identity, due to the extremely common nature of Arab names. If you had gone to the site, you would have seen the newspaper reports cited, and the details in each case.

But you wouldn't want to do that would you? Quick, throw out another claim, I think we're almost at the end of the list.

[kookbreaker]

You are right there. I don't believe, the passport flew out of the plane and landed on the street during the explosion. I guess that I am simply a skeptic at heart.


Why do you have a hard time beleiving it?

Read post #29 and #36 in this thread and tell us why a single passport surviving is so hard to beleive?

What you are doing is not 'skepticism'.

[kookbreaker]

And coincidentally there were several news reports of alleged hijackers being found alive. There I go again. It's my natural skepticism. I can't help it.

There were also initial reports of bombs going off at the State Department Building on 9/11.

They too turned out to be false.

But I guess such reports were of little use to conspiracists and their wacky explosive concrete.

You calling yourself skeptical is laughable.

[Ed]

No, that means they claim they found the passport in the street. Why should I believe that? Because they are not "woo"?



Oh right, so you just believe anything this website tells you? So you believe there were no newspaper stories about hijackers being alive? Or do you simply not agree with my skeptical position.

A website link proves nothing. It's like me pointing you at a Edgar Cayce site and claiming that is proof of the paranormal.

You people are so arbitrary as to what you count as proof.

Why can't we attempt to establish objectively agreed facts, and see where the differences in our assumptions and deductions lie, rather than simply resorting to claim and counter-claim?

"I know XYZ is untrue because this site www.pqr.com debunks it."

If that's reason then I am unreasonable.

Why? It is a question that you seem to avoid at all costs.

[Ed]

further, who paid for all of this? And the bribes?

Without some framework you would have us believe that it was done as a lark and that holds no water. Abscent some rationale the only way to interpret your alleged inconsistancies is as that: inconsistancies with no dubious overtones.

[thesyntaxera]

firstly, love and I aren't the same, a simple deductive investigation of our IP address's will reveal this to be true.

second...

I can debunk all of this skepticism on the simple premise that no deductive investigation has been done ever, regarding 911.

If no such investigation was conducted you have no solid ground to stand on to form a argument.

It's as simple as logic, or the lack there of on your part.

This is why it is so easy to meet each one of your points with more of my own skepticism.

You can't explain why no investigation was done, so why even listen to what you have to say? Your just throwing out conjecture in the other direction.


Find a copy of:

Confronting the Evidence: the case to reopen 911

in it wou will find a panel of actual experts, and a litany of anamolies that need investigation for this to be truly deductive.

[Ed]

firstly, love and I aren't the same, a simple deductive investigation of our IP address's will reveal this to be true.

second...

I can debunk all of this skepticism on the simple premise that no deductive investigation has been done ever, regarding 911.

If no such investigation was conducted you have no solid ground to stand on to form a argument.

It's as simple as logic, or the lack there of on your part.

This is why it is so easy to meet each one of your points with more of my own skepticism.

You can't explain why no investigation was done, so why even listen to what you have to say? Your just throwing out conjecture in the other direction.


Find a copy of:

Confronting the Evidence: the case to reopen 911

in it wou will find a panel of actual experts, and a litany of anamolies that need investigation for this to be truly deductive.

Answer my questions

[thesyntaxera]

you all seem to think that the only thing a person can be implying is that there is some worldwide global conspiracy...

I am not saying that.

I am saying : be as logical as you claim to be.

[Ed]

you all seem to think that the only thing a person can be implying is that there is some worldwide global conspiracy...

I am not saying that.

I am saying : be as logical as you claim to be.

Why? Who paid? How was it kept secret?

You are falling into the God of the Gaps fallacy. You can't explain something so you leap to an alternative, unwarrented explination.

If you cannot come up with some rationale, why bother spending time looking for a conspiracy?

[thesyntaxera]

ed..

I'll give you one...

inconsistencies with no dubious overtones is exactly what I am getting at.

Thats usually the real world. There generally aren't conspiracies of any size. But there are things of great size who to the untrained eye can take on the attributes of a conspiracy.

In this case if I were to make any claims, it would be that the administration was just watching it's back in light of the event and don't want any links between them and any one middle easterner made.

Remember John O'neil? He was the only person who could have tied them together...he died in the WTC on sept 11...

at the least they didn't respond accordingly, just as the last katrina disaster showed, and realize that their entire platform could be called into question, which might lead one to question their motives etc....

600,000 dollars were spent on the 911 investigation
40,000,000 dollars were spent proving that clinton was having sexual relations.

the chances that so many catastrophic errors in the system could have taken place simultaneously by mere coincidence are 54,000,000:1

More time and effort was spent reconstructing twa 800 than on 911.

If you are using logic, something should make sense to you by now.

[Garrette]

ed..

I'll give you one...

inconsistencies with no dubious overtones is exactly what I am getting at.

Thats usually the real world. There generally aren't conspiracies of any size. But there are things of great size who to the untrained eye can take on the attributes of a conspiracy.

In this case if I were to make any claims, it would be that the administration was just watching it's back in light of the event and don't want any links between them and any one middle easterner made.

Remember John O'neil? He was the only person who could have tied them together...he died in the WTC on sept 11...

at the least they didn't respond accordingly, just as the last katrina disaster showed, and realize that their entire platform could be called into question, which might lead one to question their motives etc....

600,000 dollars were spent on the 911 investigation
40,000,000 dollars were spent proving that clinton was having sexual relations.

the chances that so many catastrophic errors in the system could have taken place simultaneously by mere coincidence are 54,000,000:1

More time and effort was spent reconstructing twa 800 than on 911.

If you are using logic, something should make sense to you by now.

Translation: I can't answer any of your questions, Ed, so I will pretend they don't exist.

[kookbreaker]

e600,000 dollars were spent on the 911 investigation
40,000,000 dollars were spent proving that clinton was having sexual relations.


Bullhockey: The NIST testing alone has run some $20+ million.


the chances that so many catastrophic errors in the system could have taken place simultaneously by mere coincidence are 54,000,000:1


Who calculated these odds? What was their basis? I would bet there are a lot of false asumptions in there, there usually are.


More time and effort was spent reconstructing twa 800 than on 911.


Bullmerde again.


If you are using logic, something should make sense to you by now.

I see that to you Logic = Selective Trimming of Evidence.

[thesyntaxera]

Translation: I can't answer any of your questions, Ed, so I will pretend they don't exist.

yeah thats, right, or it could be that there is no need to.

Every question you ask is solidy covered in all of the many hours of material that have been created to capitalize on the fact that there hasn't been a deductive investigation.

It's kind of amusing and kind sad to watch you skeptics come from one direction, and when that doesn't work, retreat and come from another, and then retreat and come from another....

All you have to do is explain why no deductive investigation was done...

The reason no rationalized excuse is an acceptable answer is because it's a rationalization not fact.

apparently someone did elect to ride on the semantic train that runs on a closed track.

[richardm]

600,000 dollars were spent on the 911 investigation
40,000,000 dollars were spent proving that clinton was having sexual relations.


Source?


the chances that so many catastrophic errors in the system could have taken place simultaneously by mere coincidence are 54,000,000:1


How did you calculate that? Also beware of statistics (http://www.equityfeminism.com/index)


More time and effort was spent reconstructing twa 800 than on 911.


Assuming that's true, so what?

If you are using logic, something should make sense to you by
now.

What has logic to do with the way governments spend money?

[thesyntaxera]

Bullhockey: The NIST testing alone has run some $20+ million.



Who calculated these odds? What was their basis? I would bet there are a lot of false asumptions in there, there usually are.



Bullmerde again.



I see that to you Logic = Selective Trimming of Evidence.

I'm sure it cost 20 million, thats why there are no results to reveal....if you have something, post a link...if not...drop it.

Who calculated these odds? Does it take a math genius or common sense?


Selective trimming? Isn't that what you skeptics are doing....



see here you go again, i'll try this angle....whoops....didn't work...anymore you would care to share?

[thesyntaxera]

"I bet there are a lot of false assumptions there, there usually are..."

isn't that what you are using to come to a conclusion?

[richardm]

see here you go again, i'll try this angle....whoops....didn't work...anymore you would care to share?

Well, if you keep bringing up new angles as your old ones don't work, why are you surprised that people respond to them?

Still, if you want to stick to just one thing at a time, Ed's list of questions is still waiting. Pick one of those.

[thesyntaxera]

Well, if you keep bringing up new angles as your old ones don't work, why are you surprised that people respond to them?

Still, if you want to stick to just one thing at a time, Ed's list of questions is still waiting. Pick one of those.


what list of questions? I haven't changed my stance at all..but you all seem to be running mad as if your poor rationalizations are some how as good as evidence.

they aren't.

If a skeptic is someone who looks to the evidence, then what do you have to go on? All you have done is rationalize why there is none.

[kookbreaker]

I'm sure it cost 20 million, thats why there are no results to reveal....if you have something, post a link...if not...drop it.


Oh for Ed's sake: http://wtc.nist.gov/ or http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/

Are you freaking blind?

For the budget itself:

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/nist_investigation_911.htm

From which I quote:

"NIST redirected $3.4 million in fiscal year 2002 to begin a three-part plan in response to the WTC disaster. The agency received $16 million for the investigation in September from the FY 2002 supplemental appropriation. The FY 2003 appropriation includes an increase of $3 million.

The President's FY 2004 budget request of $4 million focuses on using the results of the World Trade Center investigation to develop cost-effective solutions to strengthen existing and future buildings against attacks and natural disasters."


Who calculated these odds? Does it take a math genius or common sense?


It takes stuff that is not garbage going in. What are the basis for the calculations?


Selective trimming? Isn't that what you skeptics are doing....

see here you go again, i'll try this angle....whoops....didn't work...anymore you would care to share?

You're not very good at this, are you?

[Garrette]

I'm sorry, Ed. I left out an alternative translation:

It is in fact correct that I [thesyntaxera] am either a sock puppet or troll. Or possibly both. What is not in dispute is that I [thesyntaxera] have yet to add anything of substance and will not add anything of substance in the future..

And now Garrette chooses to follow his own usually-but-not-always-followed rule of not feeding trolls and sock puppets.

buh bye now luv ya

[thesyntaxera]

I say again...

Find a copy of
Confronting the Evidence: The case/call to reopen 911

watch it.

a panel of actual real living experts gives testimony, with logic evidential reasons to back up their conclusions.

There is no need for me to meander about getting lost in your quote jargon, they already covering everything from your angle in the lecture.

Not a single thing you have mentioned so far hasn't been covered in fact.

all these more realistic alternatives aren't really that realistic if you think about it.

[kookbreaker]

"I bet there are a lot of false assumptions there, there usually are..."

isn't that what you are using to come to a conclusion?

This is called the voice of experience

Why don't you tell us how the odds were calculated.

[richardm]

If a skeptic is someone who looks to the evidence, then what do you have to go on? All you have done is rationalize why there is none.

There is plenty of evidence. It's just that you appear to find it more amusing to simply make stuff up.

[kookbreaker]

I say again...

Find a copy of
Confronting the Evidence: The case/call to reopen 911

watch it.

a panel of actual real living experts gives testimony, with logic evidential reasons to back up their conclusions.

There is no need for me to meander about getting lost in your quote jargon, they already covering everything from your angle in the lecture.

Not a single thing you have mentioned so far hasn't been covered in fact.

all these more realistic alternatives aren't really that realistic if you think about it.

Here's an idea. Why don't you do your own homework.

Bring what you've got instead of claiming something magic invalidates all our arguements.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

thesyntaxera = love = rouser2

This has got to be the dumbest thread ever.

[thesyntaxera]

Oh for Ed's sake: http://wtc.nist.gov/ or http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/

Are you freaking blind?

For the budget itself:

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/nist_investigation_911.htm

From which I quote:

"NIST redirected $3.4 million in fiscal year 2002 to begin a three-part plan in response to the WTC disaster. The agency received $16 million for the investigation in September from the FY 2002 supplemental appropriation. The FY 2003 appropriation includes an increase of $3 million.

The President's FY 2004 budget request of $4 million focuses on using the results of the World Trade Center investigation to develop cost-effective solutions to strengthen existing and future buildings against attacks and natural disasters."



It takes stuff that is not garbage going in. What are the basis for the calculations?



You're not very good at this, are you?

So where does it say how much of all that budget money they actually spent?

You could have posted the results if you have bothered to read them.

You know 87 billion was alotted for iraq, and a year after like 10% or less had actually been spent.

[thesyntaxera]

thesyntaxera = love = rouser2

This has got to be the dumbest thread ever.


Have a mod investigate the ip if you think we are the same.

[thesyntaxera]

Here's an idea. Why don't you do your own homework.

Bring what you've got instead of claiming something magic invalidates all our arguements.


My own homework is having a working knowledge of formal logic, in regards to the available evidence, I have been pretty well aware of the claims from both sides for awhile just as you claim to be.

Using guess work, and induction, does not make fact, if it's magic to point that out to you right brainers then maybe I should try doing something different for a living.

[kookbreaker]

So where does it say how much of all that budget money they actually spent?


That is probably the weakest arguement yet.


You could have posted the results if you have bothered to read them.


Did you even look at the links with test results? You sure as heck didn't read them since it has only been like ten minutes since I posted them.


You know 87 billion was alotted for iraq, and a year after like 10% or less had actually been spent.

Excuse me? But you better back this statement up!

The only thing worse than a conspiracy crank is a lazy conspiracy crank. That's you, in case you are too dense to figure it out.

[kookbreaker]

My own homework is having a working knowledge of formal logic, in regards to the available evidence, I have been pretty well aware of the claims from both sides for awhile just as you claim to be.

Using guess work, and induction, does not make fact, if it's magic to point that out to you right brainers then maybe I should try doing something different for a living.

When you get to actually doing all these things you claim to be doing, let us know, OK?

[kookbreaker]

thesyntaxera = love = rouser2

This has got to be the dumbest thread ever.

It started OK, its not Year Zero's fault that Rouser2's drooling idiot cousins dropped by.

[thesyntaxera]

That is probably the weakest arguement yet.



Did you even look at the links with test results? You sure as heck didn't read them since it has only been like ten minutes since I posted them.



Excuse me? But you better back this statement up!

The only thing worse than a conspiracy crank is a lazy conspiracy crank. That's you, in case you are too dense to figure it out.

really, your whole argument is weak, so whats that say?

I am looking at them now, you still could have posted them.

Back up this statement? this is a public fact that was all over the news, do your own research...or get off the debunk sites for awhile and read some actual news.

[kookbreaker]

really, your whole aregument is weak, so whats that say?

I am looking at them now, you still could have posted them.


Google is your friend. You can't blame me for your earlier lies.


Back up this statement? this is a public fact that was all over the news, do your own research...or get off the debunk sites for awhile and read some actual news.

Evasion noted.

[thesyntaxera]

As far as I could see on the NIST site there is no results listed, this is just a description of the planned investigation that is predicted to take 24 months...

so when did it begin?

Who are the people doing it...do not just say the NIST organization...who are the actual people?

any results you could link to?

[kookbreaker]

As far as I could see on the NIST site there is no results listed, this is just a description of the planned investigation that is predicted to take 24 months...

so when did it begin?

Who are the people doing it...do not just say the NIST organization...who are the actual people?

any results you could link to?

You really are going out of your way to avoid seeing anything that might upset your worldview, aren't you.

The first link on this page: http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/

Goes to this page: http://wtc.nist.gov/reports_october05.htm

Which holds the final report, as well as eight companion reports.

[Garrette]

And I know I said buh bye but I can't pass up two things:

1. Regarding who the investigators actually were (not just NIST): The lead investigator was Shyam Sunder who obtained a Masters of Science in Civil Engineering and a Doctorate of Science in Structural Engineering from MIT. In his spare time he is the Deputy Director of the Building and Fire Research Laboratory.

2. The $87 Billion allotted for Iraq is simply wrong, I suspect intentionally so, though possibly only negligently so. The real amount of $87.5 Billion was split with about $51 Billion going to Iraq and $10 Billion to Afghanistan and the remainder on sundries. The majority of the $51 Billion was spent as it was meant for salaries for Reservists and National Guardsmen along with new equipment.

[CurtC]

thesyntaxera, you've used the words "deductive" and "inductive" so much that when I read your posts they've lost all meaning. "Why wasn't a blah blah investigation done instead of a yada yada one?" You haven't properly defined what you mean by them, and I'm not at all convinced that they mean to other people what you think they mean.

So instead of asserting that a proper whatever kind of investigation wasn't done, why don't you tell us what would be a self-consistent explanation of the events of 9/11, and a few ways that the facts back it up? I'm not going to read some book that you refer to for the purposes of having this discussion. Tell us what it says, and strong points that it makes.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Have a mod investigate the ip if you think we are the same.

I would, but I have to sort my sock drawer.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

It started OK, its not Year Zero's fault that Rouser2's drooling idiot cousins dropped by.

Agreed. It's funny that a thread about debunking conspiracy theories would bring out conspiracy loonies!

[thesyntaxera]

You really are going out of your way to avoid seeing anything that might upset your worldview, aren't you.

The first link on this page: http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/

Goes to this page: http://wtc.nist.gov/reports_october05.htm

Which holds the final report, as well as eight companion reports.


"The analysis focused on the WTC 1 and WTC 2. Although no steel was recovered from WTC 7, a 47-story building that also collapsed on September 11, properties for steel used in its construction were estimated based on literature and contemporaneous documents."

thats interesting. only 200 peices of steel were saved from wtc1/2. this doesn't dispell anything.

[kookbreaker]

"The analysis focused on the WTC 1 and WTC 2. Although no steel was recovered from WTC 7, a 47-story building that also collapsed on September 11, properties for steel used in its construction were estimated based on literature and contemporaneous documents."

thats interesting. only 200 peices of steel were saved from wtc1/2. this doesn't dispell anything.

What were you expecting?

NIST has said for some time that they could not recover much of the steel that had a known location and was exposed to fire.

Your arguement was that steel tests were not done. Are you now sashaying into another arguement hoping we won't notice?

[richardm]

thats interesting. only 200 peices of steel were saved from wtc1/2. this doesn't dispell anything.
You are correct, unless a detailed chemical analysis is done on every piece of steel that was used in the WTC it is worthless. I for one refuse to accept any more government cant until full DNA matching is done on the Pentagon, too.

Edited to add: Concrete does have DNA, right guys? I appreciate that I could look this up on Google but that might take a moment out of my busy and important life, so if you wouldn't mind looking it up for me that would be great.

[Hutch]

ed..
600,000 dollars were spent on the 911 investigation...

The was a claim made as a testable fact.

Kookbreaker then posted:

For the budget itself:

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/f...gation_911.htm

From which I quote:

"NIST redirected $3.4 million in fiscal year 2002 to begin a three-part plan in response to the WTC disaster. The agency received $16 million for the investigation in September from the FY 2002 supplemental appropriation. The FY 2003 appropriation includes an increase of $3 million.

The President's FY 2004 budget request of $4 million focuses on using the results of the World Trade Center investigation to develop cost-effective solutions to strengthen existing and future buildings against attacks and natural disasters."



Which provided factual information and links for rebutting your 'fact'


Your response, thesyntaxera, was:

So where does it say how much of all that budget money they actually spent?

Now, I am curious, syntexera. Is that an example of deductive or inductive reasoning? Just for clairification, mind you.

Press on.

[Steve]

A simple question for thesyntaxera/love:

The investigations conducted by the experts that have been referenced in this thread have come up with reasonable answers to the following questions surrounding the events of 911:
- Who was involved?
- What happened?
- Why did things happen?
- When did the events take place?
- Where were the locations of the significant events?
- How were the various activities leading up to these events acted on?

Please summarize your "theories" by answering each of the questions above.
All you have done so far is point to unsubstantiated reasons as to why you think the recognized experts are "wrong". Please tell us in your own words what you think actually happened. Start with when the idea was concocted 35 years ago to put explosives in the concrete.

[thesyntaxera]

What were you expecting?

NIST has said for some time that they could not recover much of the steel that had a known location and was exposed to fire.

Your arguement was that steel tests were not done. Are you now sashaying into another arguement hoping we won't notice?


no, my arguments was that a deductive investigation wasn't conducted, as you have just admitted.


[/QUOTE]1. Regarding who the investigators actually were (not just NIST): The lead investigator was Shyam Sunder who obtained a Masters of Science in Civil Engineering and a Doctorate of Science in Structural Engineering from MIT. In his spare time he is the Deputy Director of the Building and Fire Research Laboratory.?[/QUOTE]

In confronting the evidence, another MIT alum speaks to the audience about all of the flaws in the research...too bad I can't recall his name....you should really watch it before you try and debunk any of it, their case is pretty solid.


[/QUOTE]thesyntaxera, you've used the words "deductive" and "inductive" so much that when I read your posts they've lost all meaning. "Why wasn't a blah blah investigation done instead of a yada yada one?" You haven't properly defined what you mean by them, and I'm not at all convinced that they mean to other people what you think they mean.

So instead of asserting that a proper whatever kind of investigation wasn't done, why don't you tell us what would be a self-consistent explanation of the events of 9/11, and a few ways that the facts back it up? I'm not going to read some book that you refer to for the purposes of having this discussion. Tell us what it says, and strong points that it makes.[/QUOTE]

If you don't understand what induction and deduction are then you have no clue about the method of scientific inquiry. It's also a good clue as to why you don't seem to comprehend the flaws in skepticism in this case.

Are you asking me to make up my own conspiracy theory for you to debunk? That wouldn't be very scientific would it!

[kookbreaker]

no, my arguments was that a deductive investigation wasn't conducted, as you have just admitted.


No, your claim was in post #186


600,000 dollars were spent on the 911 investigation
40,000,000 dollars were spent proving that clinton was having sexual relations.


When I pointed out that was wrong, you waffled, then complained that there were no conclusions. Now you are back to your 'deductive' smokescreen, which is a poor covering for your intellectual dishonesty. I note that you have not backed off the 'only 600,000' claim.

What steel would you have NIST test, if you were running the tests?

[kookbreaker]

In confronting the evidence, another MIT alum speaks to the audience about all of the flaws in the research...too bad I can't recall his name....you should really watch it before you try and debunk any of it, their case is pretty solid.


If your are talking about Jeff King, I am not impressed.

[thesyntaxera]

"In this case if I were to make any claims, it would be that the administration was just watching it's back in light of the event and don't want any links between them and any one middle easterner made."

Thats hardly a claim...it's merely a logical guess. I was asked to make a guess...so I did...I am not claiming anything.


"When I pointed out that was wrong, you waffled, then complained that there were no conclusions. Now you are back to your 'deductive' smokescreen, which is a poor covering for your intellectual dishonesty. I note that you have not backed off the 'only 600,000' claim.

What steel would you have NIST test, if you were running the tests?"

You didn't point out that I was wrong, you disagreed, because you saw the budget for an investigation that was several years afterward.

the investigation budget for the 911 comission was approximately 600,000 dollars.

deduction isn't a smoke screen, and I feel this is just a way for you to avoid having to explain how it is okay for you to make inductive guesses and it's not okay for anyone else to.

If I were going to run tests on steel, it would be on building 7 as well as a more thorough look at wtc fragments. Too bad building 7 is gone without ever being tested.

Also, what about the environmental cover up following the attack...there was 500,000 tons of environmentally hazardous debris that was never cleaned up, some of it is still there, and many people are feeling the effects, more and more is being written about this as more people get sick from all the particulates.

Quit using your Red Herring tactics of taking the spot light off of the fact that the whole investigation sucked, as well as your pathetic responses. You haven't answered any of my questions in any serious way either.

[Hutch]

You didn't point out that I was wrong, you disagreed, because you saw the budget for an investigation that was several years afterward.

the investigation budget for the 911 comission was approximately 600,000 dollars.

Kookbreaker presented his evidence clearly and with references regarding the amount. Request that you provide the same.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

No, your claim was in post #186



When I pointed out that was wrong, you waffled, then complained that there were no conclusions. Now you are back to your 'deductive' smokescreen, which is a poor covering for your intellectual dishonesty. I note that you have not backed off the 'only 600,000' claim.

What steel would you have NIST test, if you were running the tests?

If your Internet connection goes down, just bang your head against a brick wall. You'll get the same result. :p

[Starthinker]

I skipped over a page or two so forgive me if this has been answered. But whether it was a bomb or a plane how could the speed at which the buildings fell be different? If you blow up the 30th floor or a plane hits the 30th floor how does one or the other make the building fall faster? How does a faster falling building support the theory that bombs were built in back in the 70s?

Also, don't confuse living terrorists that helped the 9/11 hijackers with the hijackers themselves. Yes, people helped them that are still alive, but I garauntee that none of the hijackers survived.

People, such as this Love person, just don't get get how BIG the twin towers were. When I first saw the first plane hit, then the second, I turned towards my wife and said it's only a matter of minutes before they collapse. They didn't just collapse into their footprint, they collapsed all over Manhattan. The debri field was massive, not just a block or two but miles when you count the dust and debri that were blown by winds. Love and others just don't get that when you build a huge building it's made to support it's weight under normal conditions, not when three or more floors have been blown out. And when tons of building start moving there is nothing that will stop it, the upper floors were more than enough to crush what was under them once the structure was comprimised.

No, they just won't get it. You can argue with them but they are basing their assumptions on a few pictures which don't even begin to tell the story. So you've seen houses burn that didn't collapse? Did those houses have thirty more floors above them? Picture that, picture the burned out house not just supporting the roof, but tons of houses above it. It will certainly collapse crushing the whole stack.

Love, go out and buy some rice cakes. Stack about thirty of them. Put some weight on them. Nothing happens? Stand on the stack. Still supporting you? Then while still standing on the stack hit the middle cake with a hammer. Did the stack collapse? The whole stack? Imagine that. It once held your weight and when the structure was comprimised it collapsed. Same thing happened to the towers.

[Ed]

ed..

the chances that so many catastrophic errors in the system could have taken place simultaneously by mere coincidence are 54,000,000:1



Post hoc probabilities are problematic.

The probability of the order of cards in a shuffled deck is 52!:1 yet the deck exists.

BTW, 52!>54,000,000

[CurtC]

If you don't understand what induction and deduction are then you have no clue about the method of scientific inquiry. It's also a good clue as to why you don't seem to comprehend the flaws in skepticism in this case.I understand what inductive and deductive reasoning are. What I don't understand is what you mean when you use the terms, and I'm not sure you think they mean what they mean to everyone else. So instead of complaining that the investigation was inductive, not deductive, why don't you spell out exactly what you're talking about?

And what you have not done is give us a top-down explanation that would fit the facts we know. What really happened in your opinion? Let's go from the general to the specific - first start off with the big-picture explanation, then we can get into how the known facts fit in.

[patchbunny]

What steel would you have NIST test, if you were running the tests?
Why, the steel located next to the explosive charges, of course.

[delphi_ote]

Have a mod investigate the ip if you think we are the same.

Why would you insist on that if you weren't a sock? How could you be so sure your IP addresses are different?

You're going to have to do better than that to fool people here, love.

[Year Zero]

Incredibly Inconvenient Question for 9-11 Conspiracy theorists #12:

"If the government planned 9-11 as a pretense to justify a war in Iraq, why couldn't they arrange some IRAQIS to be on the plane or construct a believable Iraq connection?"

Don't you think Bush wishes every night that there had been an Iraqi on at least one of those planes?

[kookbreaker]

"In this case if I were to make any claims, it would be that the administration was just watching it's back in light of the event and don't want any links between them and any one middle easterner made."

Thats hardly a claim...it's merely a logical guess. I was asked to make a guess...so I did...I am not claiming anything.


Care for another stack of waffles?


"When I pointed out that was wrong, you waffled, then complained that there were no conclusions. Now you are back to your 'deductive' smokescreen, which is a poor covering for your intellectual dishonesty. I note that you have not backed off the 'only 600,000' claim.

What steel would you have NIST test, if you were running the tests?"

You didn't point out that I was wrong, you disagreed, because you saw the budget for an investigation that was several years afterward.


The figure you gave was wrong.


the investigation budget for the 911 comission was approximately 600,000 dollars.


Which obviosuly was wrong. Or is deliberately avoiding the use of budgets from other services. Either way, deception to make a point is the goal.


deduction isn't a smoke screen, and I feel this is just a way for you to avoid having to explain how it is okay for you to make inductive guesses and it's not okay for anyone else to.


You still misuse words to avoid your blatant errors and decptions.


If I were going to run tests on steel, it would be on building 7 as well as a more thorough look at wtc fragments. Too bad building 7 is gone without ever being tested.


What would expect to find?


Also, what about the environmental cover up following the attack...there was 500,000 tons of environmentally hazardous debris that was never cleaned up, some of it is still there, and many people are feeling the effects, more and more is being written about this as more people get sick from all the particulates.


Seperate issue, bozo. Poor cleanup does not equate to a conspiracy. It can mean local, state or federal government agency sloppiness (if true!), but it does not denote a federal plot to destroy the buildings.


Quit using your Red Herring tactics of taking the spot light off of the fact that the whole investigation sucked, as well as your pathetic responses. You haven't answered any of my questions in any serious way either.

Your questions have been answered, you just decided that you don't like the answers. That does not mean the investigation sucks. The fact that you had to lie about it says volumes.

[kookbreaker]

If your Internet connection goes down, just bang your head against a brick wall. You'll get the same result. :p

And prettier colors too!

[Year Zero]

Well the thread asked if there are any conspiracy busters here and it looks like we have come out in force. Thank you comrades, for your excellent research.

[Ed]

What about the Presidential Blow Job?

[Year Zero]

What about the Presidential Blow Job?


That's all the evidence you need right there. The conspiracy-theorists preaches a world with an omnipotent government that can get away with virtually anything- right in front of our eyes. But they don't have logical answers to questions about all the REAL conspiracies that were busted, Watergate, Lewinsky, etc. We're supposed to believe the government was able to pull of the WTC attack as a pretense to invade Iraq- so WHY not plant an Iraqi on there? CTs can tell us every conspiracy that is going right but can't explain those going wrong. Why not plant some chemical missiles in Iraq? Oh no wait, maybe the US government WANTED to destroy its credibility for some nefarious plan to be revealed in the future.

[Ed]

The PBJ is a godsend to rational people everywhere.

Thank you Bill and Monica.

[Morrison's Lament]

PBJ???

http://www.freeonlinegames.com/images/2291.jpg

It's Presidential Blowjob Time, it's Presidential Blowjob Time, it's Presidential Blowjob Time, it's Presidential Blowjob Time, it's Presidential Blowjob Time, it's Presidential Blowjob Time, it's Presidential Blowjob Time!!

I'll get my coat...

--- G.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

What about the Presidential Blow Job?

I'd like to order one. Is it better than the Ambassador?

[patchbunny]

PBJ???

http://www.freeonlinegames.com/images/2291.jpg

It's Presidential Blowjob Time, it's Presidential Blowjob Time, it's Presidential Blowjob Time, it's Presidential Blowjob Time, it's Presidential Blowjob Time, it's Presidential Blowjob Time, it's Presidential Blowjob Time!!

I'll get my coat...

--- G.
Shouldn't that be a dancing...

never mind.

[Orphia Nay]

I found this thread several days ago and wanted to reply, but as I'm busy debunking the same thing at another forum, I've hardly had time to read this, let alone post. I really want to say I've enjoyed reading Year Zero and kookbreaker's posts, amongst others, and to say thankyou for the links provided. I have been using my own skepticality and logic to do my debunking, but 911myths might come in handy soon.

Regards the PBJ, I hadn't thought of that and posted a similar question (thanks v.much), and one of my CTs replied:

"Monica to her best friend (before leaving CA for DC) "Going to Washington to get my Presidential kneepads"
She was sent there to entrap Slick 'cause they knew what bait to dangle IMHO, he stepped in the trap set by Linda Tripp"
:rolleyes:

Who's calling who "slick"? These CTs have a conspiracy for everything. They never learn anything, and never admit to being wrong, they just slip in another theory and expect to get away with it.

Thanks again for the great reading.

[kookbreaker]

Nothing ever "Just Happens" in a CT'ers world. Everything is planned by the SIA (Sinister Intelligence Agency).

[Ed]

I found this thread several days ago and wanted to reply, but as I'm busy debunking the same thing at another forum, I've hardly had time to read this, let alone post. I really want to say I've enjoyed reading Year Zero and kookbreaker's posts, amongst others, and to say thankyou for the links provided. I have been using my own skepticality and logic to do my debunking, but 911myths might come in handy soon.

Regards the PBJ, I hadn't thought of that and posted a similar question (thanks v.much), and one of my CTs replied:

"Monica to her best friend (before leaving CA for DC) "Going to Washington to get my Presidential kneepads"
She was sent there to entrap Slick 'cause they knew what bait to dangle IMHO, he stepped in the trap set by Linda Tripp"
:rolleyes:

Who's calling who "slick"? These CTs have a conspiracy for everything. They never learn anything, and never admit to being wrong, they just slip in another theory and expect to get away with it.

Thanks again for the great reading.

OK. So the president of the US is a mere pawn and is really devoid of power.

This begs the question of who and why?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Nothing ever "Just Happens" in a CT'ers world. Everything is planned by the SIA (Sinister Intelligence Agency).

Which is run by the Jews.

[Garrette]

Illuminati Jews?

Didn't they write the Protocols?

[Ed]

The funny thing is that all of these conspiracy theories seem to allude, vaguely, to the jews. Think of the adjectives -large, sinister, hidden, sources of money and power --- all things that referred to the jews from time immemorial.

[Garrette]

Well, Ed, they do have the perfect cover story.

Their original planning meeting must have been something:

Boss, this whole run-things-from-behind-the-scenes thing sounds great, but we have to throw off suspicion.

Agreed. Any ideas?

Yeah, one, but you might not like it.

Try me.

Ummm...we let all the peoples throughout history degrade us, enslave us, oppress us, and at least once, murder nearly all of us.

You're right, I don't like it.

[thesyntaxera]

A simple question for thesyntaxera/love:

The investigations conducted by the experts that have been referenced in this thread have come up with reasonable answers to the following questions surrounding the events of 911:
- Who was involved?
- What happened?
- Why did things happen?
- When did the events take place?
- Where were the locations of the significant events?
- How were the various activities leading up to these events acted on?

Please summarize your "theories" by answering each of the questions above.
All you have done so far is point to unsubstantiated reasons as to why you think the recognized experts are "wrong". Please tell us in your own words what you think actually happened. Start with when the idea was concocted 35 years ago to put explosives in the concrete.

Those are some good questions, and they are just what I would like to know as well.
As I have stated over and over, and over, and over again....I don't have any theories...you can ask me to make guesses, and I will, but they won't be fact.

I am curious about facts, and why a deductive, fact gathering investigation wasn't done. I am curious as to why there was an apparent gloss over of the environmental disaster that was the aftermath of 9/11. I am curious to know why you fanatical skepterroists don't question an official story with so many holes in it. The only way a skeptic can not do this is by making absurd rationalizations to back up what they have chosen to believe. You have no real facts either, and the few little facts you have, are just as questionable as a CT's claims.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20030707/corn

the above article sums up what I think quite nicely.

[Garrette]

Translation:

I still have no answer to the valid points raised nor comments on the inconsistencies and inaccuracies within my own posts. However, I retain the capacity and willingness to string words together in such a fashion as to provide the uninformed with the illusion I am arguing coherently when in fact I have said nothing of substance.