Loose Change

[sesmo_k]

So is the reason you believe the "Big Lie" about 9/11 because you have heard it over and over again on internet conspiracy sites?

[delphi_ote]

If indeed these are false flag attacks carried out by intelligence agencies, then they are the work of highly sophisticated and resourceful individuals who would employ a minimum of assets in order to execute them.
You seem to be using Occam's Razor here. Maybe you should apply it to the rest of your argument.

[delphi_ote]

“All this was inspired by the principle - which is quite true in itself - that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation.”

-Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf
Do you know anything about "The Big Lie?" You're using an evil man's paranoid anti-Semetic ravings about a Jewish conspiracy to keep the Germans down to back up your position about this U.S. government conspiracy theory. Your use of this quote is sympathetic to Hitler's position on the Jews.

Maybe you guys have more in common with the Holocaust Deniers than I thought.

[Orphia Nay]

Alek, forgive me if this sounds too personal, but I'm trying to understand your point of view.

You are confused as to what constitutes evidence because you are thinking with your heart. You are obviously a sensitive person, for you want what's best for your country, and above all, are against war. This guides almost all your decision-making, but it's getting you in a muddle. You seem to 'want to believe' the Loose Change-type stories, yet you say you would like to be convinced by the official version of events. May I suggest looking within, and trying to re-read the replies in this thread with an open heart, and let your head make up its own mind.

You will still be a good person if you come to the conclusion that the official investigation was not a cover-up, but don't take my word for it, re-read the thread. If you come across something that seems like a personal insult, it will mean nothing to you if you admit you have made an honest mistake in believing others like yourself who have let their opposition to war misguide their reasoning.

[Orphia Nay]

Once you recognise the logic and facts provided here, you still won't condone the deaths of innocents, but might see the justification in fighting the horrendous evils of the Taliban and the Saddam Hussein regime with appropriate strength. You probably still won't be a neo-conservative, but you might be grateful for the actual precautions being taken to prevent another 9/11.


(I wanted to add that paragraph just after I'd posted, but couldn't connect to the forum so now I'm past the editing time limit.)

[Alek]

Alek, forgive me if this sounds too personal, but I'm trying to understand your point of view.

You are confused as to what constitutes evidence because you are thinking with your heart. You are obviously a sensitive person, for you want what's best for your country, and above all, are against war. This guides almost all your decision-making, but it's getting you in a muddle. You seem to 'want to believe' the Loose Change-type stories, yet you say you would like to be convinced by the official version of events. May I suggest looking within, and trying to re-read the replies in this thread with an open heart, and let your head make up its own mind.



Thanks for the compliments. I am one of the most rational and sane people I know, and my friends and family would vouch for that. I tend to think with my head as opposed to my heart. I do consider myself a patriot, and I am not simply anti-war. I'm pro-constitution, and pro-freedom. I am against unjust wars made on false pretenses. Unfortunately, I don't "want to believe" the government lied, I know it, both logically and intuitively. This country is in deep, deep trouble, and the only hope is that people first face the truth. There can be no solutions without facing up to the horrible truth. I want to believe I'm wrong, but I don't. With the exception of a few, no one here has displayed an open mind or an open heart. Your advice is just as good for them as it is for me.



You will still be a good person if you come to the conclusion that the official investigation was not a cover-up, but don't take my word for it, re-read the thread. If you come across something that seems like a personal insult, it will mean nothing to you if you admit you have made an honest mistake in believing others like yourself who have let their opposition to war misguide their reasoning.

I am and always have been a "good" person. Honestly, I don't think anyone here is able to convince me that the official 9/11 conspiracy theory is anything other than a pack of lies. Re-reading the thread isn't going to change my mind. I've resolved to drop the insults, I'm simply going to ignore those who I deem not credible and not earnest. I'm willing to debate anyone here on these most important issues, because I certainly don't have a monopoly on the truth of what happend that day. But make no mistake about it; I am here to serve a warning.

[Alek]

Once you recognise the logic and facts provided here, you still won't condone the deaths of innocents, but might see the justification in fighting the horrendous evils of the Taliban and the Saddam Hussein regime with appropriate strength. You probably still won't be a neo-conservative, but you might be grateful for the actual precautions being taken to prevent another 9/11.



The US government funded the Mujahedeen in the '80s as they repelled the Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan. Elements of the Mujahedeen became the Taliban.

Saddam Hussein (http://www.ericblumrich.com/thanks.html) has been a CIA asset for some 40 years.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/rumsfeld_saddam.gif

The globalists who control the US government have created these monsters, and have embroiled us into unjust wars on the basis of lies and deceit. I am not afraid of "terrorists" because I know who the real terrorists are. The same ones who are leaving our borders wide open, yet who force me to remove my shoes before I board an airplane. The same ones who have passed the Patriot act, and the Real ID act, and who have tried to pass legislation repealing the 22nd amendment. The same ones who run torture camps at Guantanemo bay and elsewhere, and who have authorized and apologized for torture at Abu Ghraib. The same ones who needed a new Pearl Harbor. I'm not grateful to these criminal scum, I'm outraged. I'm outraged by my ignorant countrymen who sell our freedoms down the river for the illusion of security. I am encouraged, however. People are waking up. Perhaps not on this forum, but they are waking up. There is hope yet.

[hurdygurdy]

Once you recognise the logic and facts provided here, you still won't condone the deaths of innocents, but might see the justification in fighting the horrendous evils of the Taliban and the Saddam Hussein regime with appropriate strength. You probably still won't be a neo-conservative, but you might be grateful for the actual precautions being taken to prevent another 9/11.


Is there any evidence of any connection between Sadam Hussein and Al-Qaeda?

(edit to corret bad grammar)

[WildCat]

Thanks for the compliments. I am one of the most rational and sane people I know, and my friends and family would vouch for that.
:jaw-dropp

Must be one hell of a group you run in.

BTW, the Hitler quote was most revealing. Are the Jews also behind 9/11? Were all the Jews mysteriously absent from work in the WTC that day?

Oh, and you still haven't replied to the fact that all of your paranoid manifesto of "evidence" has been shot full of holes.

[chipmunk stew]

Once you recognise the logic and facts provided here, you still won't condone the deaths of innocents, but might see the justification in fighting the horrendous evils of the Taliban and the Saddam Hussein regime with appropriate strength. You probably still won't be a neo-conservative, but you might be grateful for the actual precautions being taken to prevent another 9/11.Is there any evidence of any connection between Sadam Hussein and Al-Qaeda?No. And the question of whether or not the war in Iraq was justified (it clearly wasn't, based on the reasons given by the Bush administration before the invasion) is a completely separate issue from whether or not there was US government involvement in the 9/11 attacks. Let's not muddle the two.

[delphi_ote]

The globalists who control the US government have created these monsters, and have embroiled us into unjust wars on the basis of lies and deceit.
You guys are the only ones that use this term this way. Can you explain what it means? Name names? Tell us how you know they are globalists?

A Google search for that word brings up:
http://www.redmoonrising.com/Ikhwan/Clash.htm
http://www.rense.com/general67/sani.htm
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/livingstone.htm

ETA Globalists?
http://southernappeal.blogspot.com/try_and_stop_us.jpg

[CurtC]

Once you recognise the logic and facts provided here, you ... might see the justification in fighting the horrendous evils of the Taliban and the Saddam Hussein regime with appropriate strength.That doesn't follow. Almost everyone in America believes the standard story for how 9/11 happened, but many (most?) of us don't support what we've done in Iraq.

[delphi_ote]

That doesn't follow. Almost everyone in America believes the standard story for how 9/11 happened, but many (most?) of us don't support what we've done in Iraq.
Most (http://www.voanews.com/english/2006-03-17-voa28.cfm).

[Alek]

And does this look like a 16 foot hole to anyone? That's what Loose Changes says is all that was created in the Pentagon by the attack.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/overview.jpg

I'm re-reading the thread as suggested by another poster. I believe Luke T. has misunderstood something here. The hole they're referring to in Loose Change was documented in photographs shortly after the impact of whatever hit the Pentagon. Here is a picture of the hole:

http://69.57.144.30/ats/pentagon757/Pentagon3.jpg

Luke's picture above depicts the pentagon after the roof collapsed, so there is no inconsistency in the movie there.

I pointed this out in the thread before, but I couldn't link to images.

[WildCat]

I'm re-reading the thread as suggested by another poster. I believe Luke T. has misunderstood something here. The hole they're referring to in Loose Change was documented in photographs shortly after the impact of whatever hit the Pentagon. Here is a picture of the hole:
And yet (http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=6&c=y)...
Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped coordinate the emergency response. "It was absolutely a plane, and I'll tell you why," says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC, Washington, D.C. "I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box." Kilsheimer's eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds: "I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?"
Is Kilsheimer in on the conspiracy too, Alek? And just how big is this conspiracy, please give a rough estimate. It would have to include all of these people too, and this is just a small portion of eyewitnesses (http://www.oilempire.us/eyewitnesses.html) to the Pentagon crash:

"'(The plane) was flying fast and low and the Pentagon was the obvious target,' said Fred Gaskins, who was driving to his job as a national editor at USA Today near the Pentagon when the plane passed about 150 feet overhead. 'It was flying very smoothly and calmly, without any hint that anything was wrong.'"
- "Bush Vows Retaliation for 'Evil Acts'." USA Today, 11 Sep 2001

"Aydan Kizildrgli, an English language student who is a native of Turkey, saw the jetliner bank slightly then strike a western wall of the huge five-sided building that is the headquarters of the nation's military. 'There was a big boom,' he said. 'Everybody was in shock. I turned around to the car behind me and yelled "Did you see that?" Nobody could believe it.'"
- "Bush Vows Retaliation for 'Evil Acts'." USA Today, 11 Sep 2001

"'I saw the tail of a large airliner. ... It plowed right into the Pentagon," said an Associated Press Radio reporter who witnessed the crash. 'There is billowing black smoke.'"
- "America's Morning of Terror." ChannelOne.com, 2001

"Omar Campo, a Salvadorean, was cutting the grass on the other side of the road when the plane flew over his head. 'It was a passenger plane. I think an American Airways plane,' Mr Campo said. 'I was cutting the grass and it came in screaming over my head. I felt the impact. The whole ground shook and the whole area was full of fire. I could never imagine I would see anything like that here.'"
- "Pentagon Eyewitness Accounts." The Guardian, 12 Sep 2001

"Afework Hagos, a computer programmer, was on his way to work but stuck in a traffic jam near the Pentagon when the plane flew over. 'There was a huge screaming noise and I got out of the car as the plane came over. Everybody was running away in different directions. It was tilting its wings up and down like it was trying to balance. It hit some lampposts on the way in.'"
- "Pentagon Eyewitness Accounts." The Guardian, 12 Sep 2001

"A pilot who saw the impact, Tim Timmerman, said it had been an American Airways 757. "'It added power on its way in,' he said. 'The nose hit, and the wings came forward and it went up in a fireball.'"
- "Pentagon Eyewitness Accounts." The Guardian, 12 Sep 2001

"Steve Eiden, a truck driver, had picked up his cargo that Tuesday morning in Williamsburg, Va., and was en route to New York City and witnessed the aftermath. ... He took the Highway 95 loop in the area of the Pentagon and thought it odd to see a plane in restricted airspace, thinking to himself it was odd that it was flying so low. 'You could almost see the people in the windows,' he said as he watched the plane disappear behind a line of trees, followed by a tall plume of black smoke. Then he saw the Pentagon on fire, and an announcement came over the radio that the Pentagon had been hit."
- "Sept. 11, the Day America Changed." The Baxter Bulletin, 2001

"Traffic is normally slow right around the Pentagon as the road winds and we line up to cross the 14th Street bridge heading into the District of Columbia. I donât know what made me look up, but I did and I saw a very low-flying American Airlines plane that seemed to be accelerating. My first thought was just 'No, no, no, no,' because it was obvious the plane was not heading to nearby Reagan National Airport. It was going to crash."
- "September 11 Remembered." University Week, 4 Oct 2001

"Father Stephen McGraw was driving to a graveside service at Arlington National Cemetery the morning of Sept. 11, when he mistakenly took the Pentagon exit onto Washington Boulevard, putting him in a position to witness American Airlines Flight 77 crash into the Pentagon. 'I was in the left hand lane with my windows closed. I did not hear anything at all until the plane was just right above our cars.' McGraw estimates that the plane passed about 20 feet over his car, as he waited in the left hand lane of the road, on the side closest to the Pentagon. 'The plane clipped the top of a light pole just before it got to us, injuring a taxi driver, whose taxi was just a few feet away from my car. I saw it crash into the building,' he said. 'My only memories really were that it looked like a plane coming in for a landing. I mean in the sense that it was controlled and sort of straight. That was my impression,' he said. 'There was an explosion and a loud noise and I felt the impact. I remember seeing a fireball come out of two windows (of the Pentagon). I saw an explosion of fire billowing through those two windows.'"
- "Pentagon Crash Eyewitness Comforted Victims." MDW News Service, 28 Sep 2001

"'I glanced up just at the point where the plane was going into the building,' said Carla Thompson, who works in an Arlington, Va., office building about 1,000 yards from the crash. 'I saw an indentation in the building and then it was just blown-up upred, everything red,' she said. 'Everybody was just starting to go crazy. I was petrified.'"
- "Terrorists Attack New York, Pentagon." Los Angeles Times, 12 Sep 2001

"I witnessed the jet hit the Pentagon on September 11. From my office on the 19th floor of the USA TODAY building in Arlington, Va., I have a view of Arlington Cemetery, Crystal City, the Pentagon, National Airport and the Potomac River. ... Shortly after watching the second tragedy, I heard jet engines pass our building, which, being so close to the airport is very common. But I thought the airport was closed. I figured it was a plane coming in for landing. A few moments later, as I was looking down at my desk, the plane caught my eye. It didn't register at first. I thought to myself that I couldn't believe the pilot was flying so low. Then it dawned on me what was about to happen. I watched in horror as the plane flew at treetop level, banked slightly to the left, drug it's wing along the ground and slammed into the west wall of the Pentagon exploding into a giant orange fireball. Then black smoke. Then white smoke."
- Steve Anderson, Director of Communications, USA Today

"Henry Ticknor, intern minister at the Unitarian Universalist Church of Arlington, Virginia, was driving to church that Tuesday morning when American Airlines Flight 77 came in fast and low over his car and struck the Pentagon. 'There was a puff of white smoke and then a huge billowing black cloud,' he said."
- "Hell on Earth." UU World, Jan/Feb 2002

"Northern Virginia resident John O'Keefe was one of the commuters who witnessed the attack on the Pentagon. 'I was going up 395, up Washington Blvd., listening to the the news, to WTOP, and from my left side-I don't know whether I saw or heard it first- I saw a silver plane I immediately recognized it as an American Airlines jet,' said the 25-year-old O'Keefe, managing editor of Influence, an American Lawyer Media publication about lobbying. 'It came swooping in over the highway, over my left shoulder, straight across where my car was heading. I'd just heard them saying on the radio that National Airport was closing, and I thought, "That's not going to make it to National Airport." And then I realized where I was, and that it was going to hit the Pentagon. There was a burst of orange flame that shot out that I could see through the highway overpass. Then it was just black. Just black, thick smoke.'"
- "Terrorist 'Situation'." American Lawyer Media, 11 Sep 2001

Flight 77 Crash at the Pentagon, Sept. 11, 2001 "On a Metro train to National Airport, Allen Cleveland looked out the window to see a jet heading down toward the Pentagon. 'I thought, "There's no landing strip on that side of the subway tracks,"' he said. Before he could process that thought, he saw 'a huge mushroom cloud. The lady next to me was in absolute hysterics.'"
- "Our Plane Is Being Hijacked." Washington Post, 12 Sep 2001

"I was supposed to have been going to the Pentagon Tuesday morning at about 11:00am (EDT) and was getting ready, and thank goodness I wasn't going to be going until later. It was so shocking, I was listening to the news on what had happened in New York, and just happened to look out the window because I heard a low flying plane and then I saw it hit the Pentagon. It happened so fast... it was in the air one moment and in the building the next..."
- "U.S. Under Attack: Your Eyewitness Accounts." BBC News, 14 Sep 2001

"As I approached the Pentagon, which was still not quite in view, listening on the radio to the first reports about the World Trade Center disaster in New York, a jetliner, apparently at full throttle and not more than a couple of hundred yards above the ground, screamed overhead. ... Seconds before the Pentagon came into view a huge black cloud of smoke rose above the road ahead. I came around the bend and there was the Pentagon billowing smoke, flames and debris, blackened on one side and with a gaping hole where the airplane had hit it."
- "Eyewitness at the Pentagon." Human Events, 17 Sep 2001

"Frank Probst, an information management specialist for the Pentagon Renovation Program, left his office trailer near the Pentagon's south parking lot at 9:36 a.m. Sept. 11. Walking north beside Route 27, he suddenly saw a commercial airliner crest the hilltop Navy Annex. American Airlines Flight 77 reached him so fast and flew so low that Probst dropped to the ground, fearing he'd lose his head to its right engine."
- "A Defiant Recovery." The Retired Officer Magazine, January 2002

"USAToday.com Editor Joel Sucherman saw it all: an American Airlines jetliner fly left to right across his field of vision as he commuted to work Tuesday morning. It was highly unusual. The large plane was 20 feet off the ground and a mere 50 to 75 yards from his windshield. Two seconds later and before he could see if the landing gear was down or any of the horror-struck faces inside, the plane slammed into the west wall of the Pentagon 100 yards away. 'My first thought was he's not going to make it across the river to [Reagan] National Airport. But whoever was flying the plane made no attempt to change direction,' Sucherman said. 'It was coming in at a high rate of speed, but not at a steep angleâalmost like a heat-seeking missile was locked onto its target and staying dead on course.'"
- "Journalist Witnesses Pentagon Crash." eWeek.com, 13 Sep 2001

[WildCat]

Also, BTW Alek - Hal Bidlack, a former admin. on this forum was working in the Pentagon on that day. Is he in on the conspiracy too?

[hellaeon]

But wildcat...thats the disinformation the media is spreading....

Bush is a shapeshifter!

[WildCat]

But wildcat...thats the disinformation the media is spreading....

Bush is a shapeshifter!
OMG, Bush is a Bigfoot!!! :eye-poppi

[Alek]

Popular Mechanics ran an article in March 2005 debunking the 9/11 myths, which is available online:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html

Here is a debunking of the Popular Mechanics article.

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pm/

[Alek]

Personally, I'm trying to remain skeptical on the whole issue. I don't trust any Bush as far as I could throw them, and I certainly think that any fundie Christian with money and power ought to be shot anyway; but to suggest that Bush could have orchestrated something to THIS scale is ludicrous.



So you're the advocating murder of people who you don't tolerate, while simultaneously showing your ignorance of the fact that Bush isn't even a "Christian" (http://yourchristianpresident.com/). That's more than a little disturbing.

[Alek]

There is an answer to this horrible, terrifying stand-off, but I'm afraid that we in the West would never countenance it.

So the carnage will continue indefinitely.

M.

What exactly wouldn't we countenance, the use of nuclear weapons on millions of innocent people? Is this another example of the reason and tolerance of "skeptics" in this forum?

[Orphia Nay]

No. And the question of whether or not the war in Iraq was justified (it clearly wasn't, based on the reasons given by the Bush administration before the invasion) is a completely separate issue from whether or not there was US government involvement in the 9/11 attacks. Let's not muddle the two.

I hated to bring it up, but it seems to me it is muddled in Alek's mind.

I also hate discussing politics, especially when the term I feel compelled to refer to is 'axis of evil'.

[Orphia Nay]

That doesn't follow. Almost everyone in America believes the standard story for how 9/11 happened, but many (most?) of us don't support what we've done in Iraq.

Look carefully at what I said:

Once you recognise the logic and facts provided here, you ... might see the justification in fighting the horrendous evils of the Taliban and the Saddam Hussein regime with appropriate strength.

(emphasis added)
I also mentioned the Taliban, so I was erring well on the side of caution.

[Aoidoi]

Here is a debunking of the Popular Mechanics article.

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pm/Not a bad article. According to it the following are not evidence for a conspiracy:
1) Where's The Pod
4) Flight 175's Windows
5) Widespread Damage
7) "Melted Steel"
8) Seismic Spikes
10) Big Plane, Small Holes
11) Intact Windows
12) Flight 77 Debris
13) The White Jet (I think. He just restates what the PM article says)
15) Indian Lake (restated)
16) F-16 Pilot (restated)

So the author agrees that many of the arguments for a conspiracy debunked in the PM article are specious. Glad to see a guy who doesn't buy every wild eyed claim that supports his theory. His argument that debunking these same points he doesn't agree with makes the article flawed is somewhat less than compelling. That the article has not sought out and debunked every possible theory is hardly a suprise. That they had not sought out his personal favorite evidence is not evidence of it's ineffectiveness, it's evidence of the vast amount of plainly wrong information out there.

One must enjoy the irony of him complaining about ad hominem attacks in the PM article given his opening paragraph The Hearst-owned Popular Mechanics magazine takes aim at the 9/11 Truth Movement (without ever acknowledging it by that name) with a cover story in its March 2005 edition. Sandwiched between ads and features for monster trucks, NASCAR paraphernalia, and off-road racing are twelve dense and brilliantly designed pages purporting to debunk the myths of 9/11.

At the end he claims this is an ad hominem: I summarily dismiss [allegations that Gibney shot down Flight 93] because Lt. Col. Gibney was with me at the time. It disgusts me to see this because the public is being misled. More than anything else it disgusts me because it brings up fears. It brings up hopes -- it brings up all sorts of feelings, not only to the victims' families but to all individuals throughout the country, and the world for that matter. I get angry at the misinformation out there.

[WildCat]

Here is a debunking of the Popular Mechanics article.

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pm/
Laughable! All that article does is move the goalposts, it doesn't debunk anything and offers not a shred of evidence. Crap like that isn't gonna fly here, Alek. You must do better.

[Aoidoi]

So you're the advocating murder of people who you don't tolerate, while simultaneously showing your ignorance of the fact that Bush isn't even a "Christian" (http://yourchristianpresident.com/). That's more than a little disturbing.He's No True Scotsman (http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#scots), either

[WildCat]

So you're the advocating murder of people who you don't tolerate, while simultaneously showing your ignorance of the fact that Bush isn't even a "Christian" (http://yourchristianpresident.com/). That's more than a little disturbing.
And now you post an Illuminati Conspiracy site? Just when I thought you couldn't outdo yourself, you proved me wrong. Well done! :boggled:

[hellaeon]

Alek, how about the witnesses to the pentagon flight?
You tend to believe other 'anecdotal' evidence, so how about these testimonies? dont brush past them....

Be careful, the governments onto you...remember Hal is watching.

Edit: that fundy site is madness. Irational. And isn't it a good thing if the leader of a powerful country such as USA was not a christian?

[Ducky]

Be careful, the governments onto you...remember Hal is watching.



...and laughing.

[hellaeon]

is there at least just ONE CT of 911 that agrees with another...JUST ONE PLEASE....gawd....

[Flange Desire]

snip
Unfortunately, I don't "want to believe" the government lied, I know it, both logically and intuitively. This country is in deep, deep trouble, and the only hope is that people first face the truth. There can be no solutions without facing up to the horrible truth.

Yes, we must face up to the horrible truth that such CTs are belived by many, regardless of the weight of evidence.

[WildCat]

Alek, how about the witnesses to the pentagon flight?
You tend to believe other 'anecdotal' evidence, so how about these testimonies? dont brush past them....

Anyone want to bet that he'll say it was a missile disquised as a 757 via holography?

[Alek]

Alek, how about the witnesses to the pentagon flight?
You tend to believe other 'anecdotal' evidence, so how about these testimonies? dont brush past them....



There are conflicting eyewitness testimonies as to what actually struck the pentagon on 9/11. I don't know what the ratio is.

What I do know is that the FBI confiscated all of the surveillance footage that captured the event, within minutes of it happening, and put a gag order on the owners of the tapes. Why would they do this? If the private surveillance footage corroborates the official story, then why not show me? Corroborating video footage from multiple cameras would certainly convince me.

Some might claim they did this for "national security". I find this unreasonable, since at the moment I find the threat of my own government lying to me to be greater than the threat posed by the supposed "terrorists", and in any event I don't see how releasing that footage would compromise security at the Pentagon.

If the Pentagon officials and the FBI were truly concerned about "national security", they might want to talk to NORAD. Here's an excerpt from the 9/11 timeline:

8:40am - FAA notifies NORAD that AA Flight 11 is hijacked
8:43am - FAA notifies NORAD that UA Flight 175 is hijacked
8:46am - NORAD scrambles two F15s from Otis Air National Guard in Falmouth, MA
8:46am - Flight 11 impacts the North Tower (WTC 1)
8:47am - NORAD informed of Flight 11 impacting WTC 1
8:56am - Flight 77 transponder signal stops
9:02am - Flight 175 impacts the South Tower (WTC 2)
9:16am - FAA notifies NORAD that UA Flight 93 is hijacked
9:24am - FAA notifies NORAD that AA Flight 77 is hijacked
9:37am - Flight 77 impacts the Pentagon

At 8:43am, NORAD knew that at least two planes had been hijacked. At 8:47am they knew that one of the hijacked planes was used as a weapon to impact the North Tower of the World Trade Center. At 9:24am NORAD knew that flight 77 was hijacked.

Does gross negligence account for the fact that fifty minutes passed between NORAD learning that airplanes were being hijacked and flown into buildings and American Airlines flight 77's impact into the most secure facility in the entire world, in the most secure airspace in the entire world? I don't find this feasible at all.

I don't know what really happend at the Pentagon, but I find the official story to be a lie.



Be careful, the governments onto you...remember Hal is watching.

Edit: that fundy site is madness. Irational. And isn't it a good thing if the leader of a powerful country such as USA was not a christian?

I haven't read the entire site. Are you claiming Bohemian Grove doesn't exist, or that Bush doesn't attend it?

[WildCat]

There are conflicting eyewitness testimonies as to what actually struck the pentagon on 9/11. I don't know what the ratio is.
Since you haven't found anyone who saw anything but a plane, so far the ratio is infinite.

What I do know is that the FBI confiscated all of the surveillance footage that captured the event, within minutes of it happening, and put a gag order on the owners of the tapes. Why would they do this? If the private surveillance footage corroborates the official story, then why not show me? Corroborating video footage from multiple cameras would certainly convince me.
And yet, footage from one Pentagon camera has been shown all over the internet.

Some might claim they did this for "national security". I find this unreasonable, since at the moment I find the threat of my own government lying to me to be greater than the threat posed by the supposed "terrorists", and in any event I don't see how releasing that footage would compromise security at the Pentagon.
Alek, run. run far, run fast, they're on to you...

If the Pentagon officials and the FBI were truly concerned about "national security", they might want to talk to NORAD. Here's an excerpt from the 9/11 timeline:

8:40am - FAA notifies NORAD that AA Flight 11 is hijacked
8:43am - FAA notifies NORAD that UA Flight 175 is hijacked
8:46am - NORAD scrambles two F15s from Otis Air National Guard in Falmouth, MA
8:46am - Flight 11 impacts the North Tower (WTC 1)
8:47am - NORAD informed of Flight 11 impacting WTC 1
8:56am - Flight 77 transponder signal stops
9:02am - Flight 175 impacts the South Tower (WTC 2)
9:16am - FAA notifies NORAD that UA Flight 93 is hijacked
9:24am - FAA notifies NORAD that AA Flight 77 is hijacked
9:37am - Flight 77 impacts the Pentagon

At 8:43am, NORAD knew that at least two planes had been hijacked. At 8:47am they knew that one of the hijacked planes was used as a weapon to impact the North Tower of the World Trade Center. At 9:24am NORAD knew that flight 77 was hijacked.

Does gross negligence account for the fact that fifty minutes passed between NORAD learning that airplanes were being hijacked and flown into buildings and American Airlines flight 77's impact into the most secure facility in the entire world, in the most secure airspace in the entire world? I don't find this feasible at all.
Most secured airspace in the entire world? You must be joking. There's a major airport literally a minutes flight from any building in DC.

I don't know what really happend at the Pentagon, but I find the official story to be a lie.
Based on what evidence? Evidence is, after all, the determination rational people use to discern the facts and decide what likely happened. So far, you believe in a conclusion w/o any facts.

I haven't read the entire site. Are you claiming Bohemian Grove doesn't exist, or that Bush doesn't attend it?
View the lunacy here. (http://yourchristianpresident.com/GrandpaPrescott.htm)

[WildCat]

BTW, I wasn't kidding about the hologram thing. The theory is out there! (http://www.gallerize.com/Gallerize.News.htm)

[CurtC]

Does gross negligence account for the fact that fifty minutes passed between NORAD learning that airplanes were being hijacked and flown into buildings and American Airlines flight 77's impact into the most secure facility in the entire world, in the most secure airspace in the entire world?So now you accept the fact that AA77 was what hit the Pentagon?

Yes, the Pentagon confiscated the tapes from the impact, and that makes it harder for you CTers to accept the official story. But they don't care - you are a tiny minority. They might just be concerned that the video compromises their security, by showing how the building reacted to the impact. There are plausible reasons.

[Orphia Nay]

8:40am - FAA notifies NORAD that AA Flight 11 is hijacked
8:43am - FAA notifies NORAD that UA Flight 175 is hijacked
8:46am - NORAD scrambles two F15s from Otis Air National Guard in Falmouth, MA
8:46am - Flight 11 impacts the North Tower (WTC 1)
8:47am - NORAD informed of Flight 11 impacting WTC 1
8:56am - Flight 77 transponder signal stops
9:02am - Flight 175 impacts the South Tower (WTC 2)
9:16am - FAA notifies NORAD that UA Flight 93 is hijacked
9:24am - FAA notifies NORAD that AA Flight 77 is hijacked
9:37am - Flight 77 impacts the Pentagon

At 8:43am, NORAD knew that at least two planes had been hijacked. At 8:47am they knew that one of the hijacked planes was used as a weapon to impact the North Tower of the World Trade Center. At 9:24am NORAD knew that flight 77 was hijacked.

Does gross negligence account for the fact that fifty minutes passed between NORAD learning that airplanes were being hijacked and flown into buildings and American Airlines flight 77's impact into the most secure facility in the entire world, in the most secure airspace in the entire world? I don't find this feasible at all.


You expect them to be psychic.
How were they supposed to know flight 77 was going to be hijacked?
How were they supposed to know which building in Washington the terrorists were aiming for?
What could anyone have done to prevent it even 13 minutes before (unknown) impact? Shoot a jet airliner down over the suburbs and kill even more people than were eventually killed?

I hope your pride is not preventing you from thinking things through after reading people's responses. Stick with it, and muster up a thick skin, and your re-reading of the forum will enlighten you. I hope for your sake you prove our generalisations of CTers wrong.

[delphi_ote]

Here is a picture of the hole:

http://69.57.144.30/ats/pentagon757/Pentagon3.jpg
Not the fire truck in the image. Note how far away that firetruck is from the building. Note how far up the building the destruction goes. The first and second stories are totally destroyed. That's somewhere between 30 and 40 feet off the ground.

A Boeing 757 hit the building. The diameter of the fuselage on this aircraft is only 12.34 feet.

But wait, there's more. Here is another image of the same area:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f6/Pent911.jpg
Notice that three stories of the building are destroyed here? Notice that it's about a hundred feet to the right of where your friend put the box in his photograph?

If you're interested in what exactly took place, there's a simulation (http://www.cs.purdue.edu/cgvlab/projects/pentagon.htm)available. I think it really says everything:
http://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/cmh/simulation/phase1/image1/10sep02slow.gif

I was admitted to Purdue and talked to this very professor about his simulations (more from a bioinformatics perspective.) Odd to run across his work again.

[Skeptic]

This is more on the scope of the Lunar Landing Hoax conspiracy theories. Vast army of government agents all working together to pull off a hoax and keeping quiet about it forever.

And of course, this is the same government that is behind the $400 hammers, $2100 toilet seats, the Susan B. Anthony Dollar, Watergate, etc., etc., etc.

[senorpogo]

Long time lurker, first time poster,

My question is (and pardon me if this has been covered and I missed it) -
Even if we accept the idea that the US Government/corporations/globalists planned and somehow gained from the terrorist attacks on 9/11, why was it necessary for them to crash planes into the towers AND rig them with explosives? Wouldn't one or the other have achieved their goal? Wouldn't the visuals of 747s ramming into iconic American buildings been enough to evoke the emotional response needed by the US Government/corporations/globalists to ultimately achieve their end, whatever that may have been?

Wouldn't planting explosives and firing missles be unecessary liabilities? Wouldn't the logistics inolved (getting the proper people and materials into and out of the buildings undetected) be a risk not worth taking considering that hundred-ton, jet powered make-shift missles were already on the way to crash into the towers?

In short, why did this conspiracy require the towers to fall rather than, lets say, just get hit by the airliners and remain burnt husks, constantly reminding Americans of the horror of that day?

[CurtC]

delphi, something I don't like about that simulation animation is that it seems to neglect the effect of the reinforced outer wall. It looks to me like it's simulating hitting only the supporting columns in the lower level. For one thing, the plane's wings apparently didn't go through that outer wall - they are fairly lightweight, and just disintegrated upon impact. The fuselage is what went in, plus the engines.

[CurtC]

why was it necessary for them to crash planes into the towers AND rig them with explosives?Let me be the first to say welcome!

I think a conspiracy advocate would explain that the planes were just a cover story, and we weren't supposed to figure out the explosives, or something like that. Bringing the buildings down was their goal, the planes were what we are supposed to think did it, but they "knew" that planes weren't sufficient, so they also planted explosives. If they just did explosives, we would all know that it was an inside job.

Or something like that. In the words of another pro-conspiracy insane person, "We're through the looking glass here, folks!"

[chipmunk stew]

Not the fire truck in the image. Note how far away that firetruck is from the building. Note how far up the building the destruction goes. The first and second stories are totally destroyed. That's somewhere between 30 and 40 feet off the ground.

A Boeing 757 hit the building. The diameter of the fuselage on this aircraft is only 12.34 feet.

But wait, there's more. Here is another image of the same area:

Notice that three stories of the building are destroyed here? Notice that it's about a hundred feet to the right of where your friend put the box in his photograph?

If you're interested in what exactly took place, there's a simulation (http://www.cs.purdue.edu/cgvlab/projects/pentagon.htm)available. I think it really says everything:
But why wasn't the hole more plane-shaped? I mean, look at what happens when a coyote runs into a wall:

http://blogs.warwick.ac.uk/images/ccarter/2004/11/19/coyote.jpg

[kookbreaker]

But why wasn't the hole more plane-shaped? I mean, look at what happens when a coyote runs into a wall:

http://blogs.warwick.ac.uk/images/ccarter/2004/11/19/coyote.jpg

PROOF!!!!

[senorpogo]

Let me be the first to say welcome!

I think a conspiracy advocate would explain that the planes were just a cover story, and we weren't supposed to figure out the explosives, or something like that. Bringing the buildings down was their goal, the planes were what we are supposed to think did it, but they "knew" that planes weren't sufficient, so they also planted explosives. If they just did explosives, we would all know that it was an inside job.

Or something like that. In the words of another pro-conspiracy insane person, "We're through the looking glass here, folks!"

Thanks for the welcome. Very glad to be here.

I kind of assumed the answer would be something like that, but Alek's explanation for the US Government/corporations/globalists plotting 9/11 was - "To create the pretext for a panopticon police state domestically and to create the premise for wars of aggression in the middle east, thus satisfying PNAC's conditions for a "new Pearl Harbor" to accelerate the neo-conservative agenda"

I'm asking him, wouldn't the planes hitting the towers have been enough to achieve that? Why did the plot require the complication of demolition? Wouldn't the plotters be familiar with Ockham's Razor?

[delphi_ote]

delphi, something I don't like about that simulation animation is that it seems to neglect the effect of the reinforced outer wall. It looks to me like it's simulating hitting only the supporting columns in the lower level. For one thing, the plane's wings apparently didn't go through that outer wall - they are fairly lightweight, and just disintegrated upon impact. The fuselage is what went in, plus the engines.
The wings do all but disintigrate on impact. The brown/orange floating about is a simulation of the liquid fuel. Look at the total time on the simulation. It's about a quarter of a second. I recommend the video (http://www.cs.purdue.edu/cgvlab/papers/popescu/popescuPentagonVIS2003.mpg)if you're still having trouble seeing it.

[senorpogo]

Now I know this conspiracy has legs. Topper Harley believes it.

I'd post the link to the story, but I don't have enough posts to do so. Check out prisonplanet.com to check it out. The story should be on the main page. I don't think they mention "Loose Change" by name, but the arguments seem to be the same.

[money]

I haven't read the entire site. Are you claiming Bohemian Grove doesn't exist, or that Bush doesn't attend it?

Weren't you calling Delphi Ote a liar and an all around bassbowl for commenting on a movie he had only partially watched? It takes all of a minute to realize that the site you mentioned is quite nutter.

You're showing off you're credulity, here. The farther we stray from your 9/11 theory, the goofier you sound.

I am one of the most rational and sane people I know, and my friends and family would vouch for that.

I think, just by linking to that site in support of your arguments, you should revisit this quote.

[Alek]

Long time lurker, first time poster,

My question is (and pardon me if this has been covered and I missed it) -
Even if we accept the idea that the US Government/corporations/globalists planned and somehow gained from the terrorist attacks on 9/11, why was it necessary for them to crash planes into the towers AND rig them with explosives? Wouldn't one or the other have achieved their goal? Wouldn't the visuals of 747s ramming into iconic American buildings been enough to evoke the emotional response needed by the US Government/corporations/globalists to ultimately achieve their end, whatever that may have been?



I'm speculating, but I think the simple reason is that the towers simply had to come down to generate the desired effect. Which is why I also believe that the 19 hijackers used stolen identities, and were probably patsies running a training op. I suspect they used global hawk technology to pilot the planes into their targets. Flight 93 was an exception.



Wouldn't planting explosives and firing missles be unecessary liabilities? Wouldn't the logistics inolved (getting the proper people and materials into and out of the buildings undetected) be a risk not worth taking considering that hundred-ton, jet powered make-shift missles were already on the way to crash into the towers?

In short, why did this conspiracy require the towers to fall rather than, lets say, just get hit by the airliners and remain burnt husks, constantly reminding Americans of the horror of that day?

Audacity. I think 9/11 was a psy-op, and it was a revolutionary one not only in the logistics employed, but in the spectacular impudence of its execution. The symmetrical free-fall implosion of World Trade Center 7 was akin to a magic trick on a massive stage. Unlike most tricks, in which the magician tries to convince you that what you're seeing is impossible, in the case of building 7 the trick is to convince you that what you're seeing is in fact, possible (and even likely), given the explanation. The monolithic voice of media carving out perception, coupled with people's natural inclination to believe the most colossal of lies are crucial factors making this "trick" a success.

I also believe that it is planned for the truth of 9/11 to be revealed, at least in part. The US is already a pariah on the world stage. If the world learned that the US Government was behind 9/11, it would reduce US credibility even more. They can't conquer America without first bringing it to its knees.

[Alek]

Weren't you calling Delphi Ote a liar and an all around bassbowl for commenting on a movie he had only partially watched? It takes all of a minute to realize that the site you mentioned is quite nutter.

You're showing off you're credulity, here. The farther we stray from your 9/11 theory, the goofier you sound.

I think, just by linking to that site in support of your arguments, you should revisit this quote.

He's a liar because he tried to give the impression he watched the film in full, and he started a forum thread about it ostensibly to discuss and debunk what he had just seen.

Not only have I read most of that site, I agree with its content. I didn't post the site in order to disparage it, but to make a mockery of the idea that Bush is representative of Christianity, just because he says he is. What in particular about the site to you find to be nutty? Be specific.

Surely you're aware of the Order of Skull and Bones, and the Bohemian Grove, right?

I already said this before, I'm not concerned with how "goofy" I sound. There is a lot more at stake here than vanity.

[chipmunk stew]

I also believe that it is planned for the truth of 9/11 to be revealed, at least in part. The US is already a pariah on the world stage. If the world learned that the US Government was behind 9/11, it would reduce US credibility even more. They can't conquer America without first bringing it to its knees.Doesn't that make you an unwitting co-conspirator? So basically, whether you argue for this theory, argue against it, or remain apathetic, you're doing the bidding of the conspirators. :boggled:

Alek, it's simply not possible that every little twist and nuance of your ever more convoluted theory is being orchestrated by the Bilderbergers or Illuminati or Skull & Bones or whoever it is you're insinuating is behind it.

[emperorchaos]

Great links, Luke! Thanks a lot. The more I learn about this, the more I'll be able to nip this BS in the bud next time I encounter it. I'm sure I'm likely to encounter it again in my line of work...

By the way, if you want a detailed analysis of the Pentagon hit, check the Snopes (http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm)article on it.



Doesn't get any clearer than that.

Thanks for posting that Snopes article. I was looking through the JREF forums for some information regarding a video I saw about the Pentagon attack. I was pretty sure it was a bunch of crap to begin with but I wanted to ask someone here. Now I don't have to!

[emperorchaos]

And yes I realize that I was responding to a post that was made almost 2 weeks ago. I was beginning to read this thread but I don't know if I will considering the content is something of which no matter how much evidence you prevent against it you will always have idiots believing it.

And delphi_ote, seeing your siggy so much today... I think I'm going to listen to "The Process of Belief" now.

[CurtC]

I suspect they used global hawk technology to pilot the planes into their targets.In case anyone is adding these things up, how many hundreds of engineers/technicians/maintenance staff would you estimate that it would take, to rig up a commercial jetliner with a fly-by-wire Global Hawk setup?

Keep in mind that it took a few hundred people to rig up the bunker-buster bombs with laser-guided seekers back in the first Gulf War, and that's a fairly minor adaptation. They had to do all kinds of wind tunnel tests to get the control parameters right so that it would guide a big howitzer barrell full of explosives, as opposed to the 2000 pound bombs that the seekers normally are attached to. Your project of fitting a Global Hawk control on a 767 is much larger in scope.

And the passengers didn't notice that they didn't have a pilot? The flight attendants? Or did the planes not have passengers? And if that's the case, where are all those people now who were on the manifests? How big of a staff would it take to "dispose" of dozens and dozens of passengers?

Alek, the more you post, the crazier you're sounding.

[WildCat]

Alek, you seem to be ignoring me, but in case you aren't have you found a single witness who saw a missile hit the Pentagon yet, to offset at least partially the dozens who reported seeing a airplane hit it?

[WildCat]

I'm speculating, but I think the simple reason is that the towers simply had to come down to generate the desired effect. Which is why I also believe that the 19 hijackers used stolen identities, and were probably patsies running a training op. I suspect they used global hawk technology to pilot the planes into their targets. Flight 93 was an exception.
The plot thickens. Why would patsies be needed if they was under remote control? What do you think happened to Flight 93?

[chipmunk stew]

The plot thickens. Why would patsies be needed if they was under remote control?Same reason you need the planes in the first place, even though you have the WTC towers rigged with explosives: you can blame the terrorists. How'm I doing, Alek?

[WildCat]

Same reason you need the planes in the first place, even though you have the WTC towers rigged with explosives: you can blame the terrorists. How'm I doing, Alek?
I think (there's so many conspiracy theories out there I may be getting them confused now) the Loose Change video claims that the hijackers are all alive and well, and the plane for Flight 93 and maybe Flight 77 are still in service. I guess it all depends on which flavor of the 9/11 conspiracy Alek is going to subscribe to, but I suspect he'll keep moving the goal posts as we tear his current theory to shreds.

[Alek]

Same reason you need the planes in the first place, even though you have the WTC towers rigged with explosives: you can blame the terrorists. How'm I doing, Alek?

I don't accept the idea that I have to subscribe to any one alternate theory. I find the official conspiracy theory to be highly suspect, but that doesn't mean I claim to know the truth. I tend to consider all the theories and weigh them by my estimate of the probability that they actually happend, which incidentally includes the minute possibility (in my mind) that the government's OCT is true.

Most people here seem convinced that 9/11 went down just like the government said it did, with few questions. As for one grand theory of precisely what happend on 9/11 and why, I don't own any.

[senorpogo]

If the world learned that the US Government was behind 9/11, it would reduce US credibility even more. They can't conquer America without first bringing it to its knees.

Who is the "they" in this scenario? It appears that you're saying that the United States government perpetrated 9/11 to reduce their own credibility just so that they, the United States government, could ultimately conquer the United States of America.

[WildCat]

Now that you're back here Alek, have you found any witnesses yet who saw a missile hit the Pentagon?

[hellaeon]

Long time lurker, first time poster,

My question is (and pardon me if this has been covered and I missed it) -
Even if we accept the idea that the US Government/corporations/globalists planned and somehow gained from the terrorist attacks on 9/11, why was it necessary for them to crash planes into the towers AND rig them with explosives? Wouldn't one or the other have achieved their goal? Wouldn't the visuals of 747s ramming into iconic American buildings been enough to evoke the emotional response needed by the US Government/corporations/globalists to ultimately achieve their end, whatever that may have been?

Wouldn't planting explosives and firing missles be unecessary liabilities? Wouldn't the logistics inolved (getting the proper people and materials into and out of the buildings undetected) be a risk not worth taking considering that hundred-ton, jet powered make-shift missles were already on the way to crash into the towers?

In short, why did this conspiracy require the towers to fall rather than, lets say, just get hit by the airliners and remain burnt husks, constantly reminding Americans of the horror of that day?

The cost of missles and planes and dynamite and the clean up and keeping people quiet...dont state the obvious mate....

[hellaeon]

Who is the "they" in this scenario? It appears that you're saying that the United States government perpetrated 9/11 to reduce their own credibility just so that they, the United States government, could ultimately conquer the United States of America.

haha senor thats what I was going to take up with him but I must say


I don't accept the idea that I have to subscribe to any one alternate theory. I find the official conspiracy theory to be highly suspect, but that doesn't mean I claim to know the truth. I tend to consider all the theories and weigh them by my estimate of the probability that they actually happend, which incidentally includes the minute possibility (in my mind) that the government's OCT is true.

So im reading this as its highly probable the government conspired with thousands of people to launch missles and planes at buildings only to bring them down with tonnes of explosives, meanwhile the alleged hijackers that were on the plane are now computers guiding it remotely with fly by wire technology, all the while the thousands of people that saw it are just patsies, the media is in on it too (many thousands more people) and lets not forget the fact the fbi took videos taken of the pentagon also the witnesses at the pentagon are just liers because we all know bombs went off and.... *breathe*...this was done by the US government because they secretly want to control america, they being not the US government but some higher lords or beings that run all the oil companies as well and lets not forget they are all bloodline related back to shapeshifting lizards and that blair, the queen, all the Bush family and all the previous governments are in on it because bush senior is the only government who still uses his cia priviledges to see dossiers and other covert stuff, and he has massive monetary gains in all this, even sylvia brown and all the psychics are in on it as they 'conveniently' missed it in their predictions and the only one who spoke out was nostradamus but he had to communicate it back then in some vague prophecy because we all know the lizards controlled the world way back then through occult rituals sacrificing babies and other people.....

Or it could just be some people who are suicidal martyr's for their cause that completely hate america really hijacked planes and flew them into some of USA's great landmarks?

Well hey, im confused by the probability of the second being remotely true....

[sesmo_k]

I ran out of breath reading the last post.... but the woo's believe it's true!

Suppose we mustn't forget that the same group were also responsible for blowing up embassies, naval vessels and trains. Amazing how all the people involved were on government payrolls... not!

[delphi_ote]

As for one grand theory of precisely what happend on 9/11 and why, I don't own any.
It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself for a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat.
You guys will go down in history with the rest of the intellectually lazy.

[kookbreaker]

Most people here seem convinced that 9/11 went down just like the government said it did, with few questions.


If it were just the government, this might be an issue. But the statement you make above betrays a grand level of ignorance on your part as well as deliberate avoidance of science, engineering, and proper investigation.


As for one grand theory of precisely what happend on 9/11 and why, I don't own any.

Ah, pseudo-intellectual conspiracy agnostism: If you don't subscribe to any one theory, you can't get shot down with those inconvenient facts. If you let yourself jump from theory to theory as you need, then you can be like a fly on dogs[rule8]: nobody wants to swat you, and you can just fly to another turd when they try.

[WildCat]

Ah, pseudo-intellectual conspiracy agnostism: If you don't subscribe to any one theory, you can't get shot down with those inconvenient facts. If you let yourself jump from theory to theory as you need, then you can be like a fly on dogs[rule8]: nobody wants to swat you, and you can just fly to another turd when they try.
This isn't just moving the goal posts, it's not even having goal posts in the first place!

I wonder if he'll find any witnesses who saw a missile hit the Pentagon?

[Alek]

Who is the "they" in this scenario? It appears that you're saying that the United States government perpetrated 9/11 to reduce their own credibility just so that they, the United States government, could ultimately conquer the United States of America.

By "they" I'm referring to the globalists who want to institute a one-world government at the UN, and who control the US and US foreign policy, and who are constantly trying to undermine US sovereignty. I don't blame "government" for 9/11, I blame elements within and without the government.

[delphi_ote]

By "they" I'm referring to the globalists who want to institute a one-world government at the UN, and who control the US and US foreign policy, and who are constantly trying to undermine US sovereignty. I don't blame "government" for 9/11, I blame elements within and without the government.
Names? And what the hell do you mean by "globalist?"

[Ducky]

Names? And what the hell do you mean by "globalist?"



Maybe after you get your new job, you can tell us who's running the world, Delphi.

[WildCat]

By "they" I'm referring to the globalists who want to institute a one-world government at the UN, and who control the US and US foreign policy, and who are constantly trying to undermine US sovereignty. I don't blame "government" for 9/11, I blame elements within and without the government.
I, for one, welcome our new globalist overlords.

:boxedin:

[delphi_ote]

Maybe after you get your new job, you can tell us who's running the world, Delphi.
It's the Globalists! Who are Globalists?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/b/b5/Harlem_Globetrotters.jpg/416px-Harlem_Globetrotters.jpg
Fans of these guys!

[chipmunk stew]

By "they" I'm referring to the globalists who want to institute a one-world government at the UN, and who control the US and US foreign policy, and who are constantly trying to undermine US sovereignty. I don't blame "government" for 9/11, I blame elements within and without the government.But current US foreign policy runs counter in many ways to the idea of a strong UN, much less a world government. Neo-cons hate the UN. The response to 9/11 showed the UN to be ineffectual at counterbalancing the US, its most powerful member. The Bushies had to do an end-run and form a "coalition of the willing" because the UN wouldn't back them up. This is a total non sequitur.

[chipmunk stew]

Names? And what the hell do you mean by "globalist?"Alek, why not drop the pretense and say what you mean? It's the Jews, isn't it?

[WildCat]

But current US foreign policy runs counter in many ways to the idea of a strong UN, much less a world government. Neo-cons hate the UN. The response to 9/11 showed the UN to be ineffectual at counterbalancing the US, its most powerful member. The Bushies had to do an end-run and form a "coalition of the willing" because the UN wouldn't back them up. This is a total non sequitur.
That's just what "they" want you to think...

[CurtC]

I don't accept the idea that I have to subscribe to any one alternate theory.You don't even have to subscribe to any one alternate theory. But it is a requirement, to have your argument be even considered rational, that you be able to state at least one self-consistent theory that you think is plausible. So far, when your own beliefs corner you into taking a stand, you've come up with ridiculous stuff - missiles hitting the Pentagon, disappearing airliners, fly-by-wire commercial aircraft. Surely you can agree that if there are no alternative theories that are not self-immolating by their own logical inconsistencies, then the standard theory has to be at least tentatively accepted?

[WildCat]

It's the Globalists! Who are Globalists?
Whe I did a Google image search, this is the first thing listed:

http://www.ivsa.hr/IVSA_kongres/kongres_jpg/51_grupnjak_zenski.jpg

Not that bad, all things considered... ;)

[delphi_ote]

Whe I did a Google image search, this is the first thing listed:

http://www.ivsa.hr/IVSA_kongres/kongres_jpg/51_grupnjak_zenski.jpg

Not that bad, all things considered... ;)

You said it best earlier:
I, for one, welcome our new globalist overlords.

[delphi_ote]

Alek, why not drop the pretense and say what you mean? It's the Jews, isn't it?
After "The Big Lie" quote, I wouldn't be suprised at all if that was his culprit.

[LostAngeles]

Now I know this conspiracy has legs. Topper Harley believes it.

I'd post the link to the story, but I don't have enough posts to do so. Check out prisonplanet.com to check it out. The story should be on the main page. I don't think they mention "Loose Change" by name, but the arguments seem to be the same.

And dude, Topper Harley has defended this nation numerous times! Check out his military (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0102059/) record! (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0107144/)

A true patriot who doesn't need fraudlently earned purple hearts to prove he bleeds red, white and blue!

[Manny]

Alek, why not drop the pretense and say what you mean? It's the Jews, isn't it?Jews who really, really, really hate Larry Silverstein, apparently.

[Alek]

But current US foreign policy runs counter in many ways to the idea of a strong UN, much less a world government. Neo-cons hate the UN. The response to 9/11 showed the UN to be ineffectual at counterbalancing the US, its most powerful member. The Bushies had to do an end-run and form a "coalition of the willing" because the UN wouldn't back them up. This is a total non sequitur.

To the uninitiated, it may appear that neo-cons hate the UN (http://www.lewrockwell.com/gregory/gregory33.html), and that US foreign policy is counter UN. The truth is that any anti-UN sentiment expressed by neo-cons is just rhetoric to appease a minority in the Republican party who are in fact, anti-UN. In reality it's more of the same dialectical "good cop/bad cop", whereby Bush is assuming the role of "bad cop". His pre-emptive wars, his apparent thumbing his nose at the United Nations, and his refusal to sign the Kyoto treaty, among other things, has caused the US to be viewed as a pariah on the world stage. This backlash has actually resulted in an empowered UN which is now openly talking about global taxation (http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2006/tst030606.htm").

His father, George H.W. Bush was an ambassador to the United Nations, and routinely sung its praises. I have numerous videos featuring this. Just read the transcript of his September 11th, 1990 speech (http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/war/bushsr.htm).

I've studied politics and international finance for 11 years. The Republican party is pro-UN, and pro-big government, just like the democrats. Any differences are superficial. Such is the nature of the liberal/conservative false-paradigm.

[Alek]

Alek, why not drop the pretense and say what you mean? It's the Jews, isn't it?

Why don't you drop the pretense? If you want to use slurs, go right ahead.

If I thought "the jews" were a problem, I would use those words, but I haven't, and I won't. But congratulations on a nice misdirection and for poisoning the well. Isn't it enough that I'm already "crazy"? Now I have to be anti-jewish too?

[delphi_ote]

To the uninitiated, it may appear that neo-cons hate the UN (http://www.lewrockwell.com/gregory/gregory33.html), and that US foreign policy is counter UN. The truth is that any anti-UN sentiment expressed by neo-cons is just rhetoric to appease a minority in the Republican party who are in fact, anti-UN. In reality it's more of the same dialectical "good cop/bad cop", whereby Bush is assuming the role of "bad cop". His pre-emptive wars, his apparent thumbing his nose at the United Nations, and his refusal to sign the Kyoto treaty, among other things, has caused the US to be viewed as a pariah on the world stage. This backlash has actually resulted in an empowered UN which is now openly talking about global taxation (http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2006/tst030606.htm").

His father, George H.W. Bush was an ambassador to the United Nations, and routinely sung its praises. I have numerous videos featuring this. Just read the transcript of his September 11th, 1990 speech (http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/war/bushsr.htm).

I've studied politics and international finance for 11 years. The Republican party is pro-UN, and pro-big government, just like the democrats. Any differences are superficial. Such is the nature of the liberal/conservative false-paradigm.
http://www.jbs.org/_images/website/webbanner6.jpg?

[delphi_ote]

Why don't you drop the pretense? If you want to use slurs, go right ahead.

If I thought "the jews" were a problem, I would use those words, but I haven't, and I won't. But congratulations on a nice misdirection and for poisoning the well. Isn't it enough that I'm already "crazy"? Now I have to be anti-jewish too?
If you hadn't ignorantly quoted Hitler or if you had retracted your quote and admitted it was misused, maybe people wouldn't be so confused as to where you stand on this issue.

[hellaeon]

ahhh those in glass houses I guess...

enjoy the forthcoming new world order! Hail newspeak!

I dont get it, why do you americans get all the conspiracies and NWO, secret government rubbish.

Alek, tell me some stuff about howard - he was over in the us at the time of the event....how come he aint mentioned as having some form of knowledge...

OMG I just opened up pandoras black box!

[WildCat]

Any eyewitnesses to the missile hitting the Pentagon yet, Alek?

[Alek]

Apparently the Hearst-owned, Homeland Security-inspired Popular Mechanics hit-piece "debunking" 9/11 "conspiracy theories" hasn't convinced everyone:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/blog/science/1249302.html

In addition, I'm sure you thoughtful people will be happy to know that the author of that hit piece, Benjamin Chertoff, a "senior researcher" at Popular Mechanics (http://www.popularmechanics.com/specials/features/1869027.html?page=2&c=y) and the cousin of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff (http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/display?content=4353) have teamed up with that paragon of reason Art Bell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_Bell) for the express purpose of debunking these silly 9/11 conspiracy theories (http://www.rense.com/general63/bellchert.htm) that just won't go away.

So now you are aligned in defending the official government conspiracy theory with the former prime purveyor of the fantastic bigfoot sightings, ghost stories, and ufo encounters you apparently debunk here - Art Bell himself! Fate it seems, is not without a sense of irony, or a sense of humor.

I guess broken clocks like Bell really are right twice a day.

[chipmunk stew]

Apparently the Hearst-owned, Homeland Security-inspired Popular Mechanics hit-piece "debunking" 9/11 "conspiracy theories" hasn't convinced everyone:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/blog/science/1249302.html

In addition, I'm sure you thoughtful people will be happy to know that the author of that hit piece, Benjamin Chertoff, a "senior researcher" at Popular Mechanics (http://www.popularmechanics.com/specials/features/1869027.html?page=2&c=y) and the cousin of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff (http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/display?content=4353) have teamed up with that paragon of reason Art Bell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_Bell) for the express purpose of debunking these silly 9/11 conspiracy theories (http://www.rense.com/general63/bellchert.htm) that just won't go away.

So now you are aligned in defending the official government conspiracy theory with the former prime purveyor of the fantastic bigfoot sightings, ghost stories, and ufo encounters you apparently debunk here - Art Bell himself! Fate it seems, is not without a sense of irony, or a sense of humor.

I guess broken clocks like Bell really are right twice a day.Art Bell interviews Chertoff, and suddenly they're "teaming up"?

edit: the show in question--http://www.coasttocoastam.com/shows/2005/03/05.html

[chipmunk stew]

Why don't you drop the pretense? If you want to use slurs, go right ahead.

If I thought "the jews" were a problem, I would use those words, but I haven't, and I won't. But congratulations on a nice misdirection and for poisoning the well. Isn't it enough that I'm already "crazy"? Now I have to be anti-jewish too?You're right, that was unfair. But seriously, who are these globalists?

[chipmunk stew]

To the uninitiated, it may appear that neo-cons hate the UN (http://www.lewrockwell.com/gregory/gregory33.html), and that US foreign policy is counter UN. The truth is that any anti-UN sentiment expressed by neo-cons is just rhetoric to appease a minority in the Republican party who are in fact, anti-UN. In reality it's more of the same dialectical "good cop/bad cop", whereby Bush is assuming the role of "bad cop". His pre-emptive wars, his apparent thumbing his nose at the United Nations, and his refusal to sign the Kyoto treaty, among other things, has caused the US to be viewed as a pariah on the world stage. This backlash has actually resulted in an empowered UN which is now openly talking about <A href="http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2006/tst030606.htm"" target=_blank>global taxation.

His father, George H.W. Bush was an ambassador to the United Nations, and routinely sung its praises. I have numerous videos featuring this. Just read the transcript of his <A href="http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/war/bushsr.htm" target=_blank>September 11th, 1990 speech.

I've studied politics and international finance for 11 years. The Republican party is pro-UN, and pro-big government, just like the democrats. Any differences are superficial. Such is the nature of the liberal/conservative false-paradigm.Just one question: what's involved in the initiation? I'm guessing LSD plays a role.

[hellaeon]

I've studied politics and international finance for 11 years.


Alek, I am to assume study means 'listen to the news and mass media' and 'view websites on conspiracy theories'. Though im sure you'll be quick to correct me.

Sorry mate, but you believe that crap, I/we dont. Your evidence is based on loose anecdotes and coincidental links. You call this hard evidence
The hard evidence on this side of the fence is from structural engineers, demolition experts and the like. And just because one drops a trip and thinks the way you do, does not mean they all do. The status quo of EXPERTS (as in, people well versed in understanding this more then what me and you could mate) show how the events unfolded.

To think you honestly believe the government would conspire with thousands of people to cover up this event and then expect NO ONE to talk is just the first of so many paranoid assumptions you make.

Sorry but the script is reality, not hollywood.

Edit - to save money why dont the USA government do a biological war on its people? surely thats cheaper then spending billions and billions on missles and planes, buildings and dynamite?? They could still blame the same enemy...i guess this would be um...smarter???

[Z]

Hmmm... this thread is still going on?

I'll have to send a memo to my fellow Illuminati chapter members about Alek here...

Actually, as anyone with half a brain knows, we're monitoring all websites and forums anyway. Not that Alek need fear anything - we allow his kind to remain active to keep attention away from our TRUE plots and plans. Those who actually do come up with something close to the truth - we eliminate.

After all, a conspiracy willing to kill thousands in NYC and make a whole plane full of passengers quietly disappear is certainly willing and able to make a few annoying squeaky wheels vanish, too...

[WildCat]

C'mon Alek, I'm beginnig to sound like a broken record here. Way back in post 283 you said:
There are conflicting eyewitness testimonies as to what actually struck the pentagon on 9/11. I don't know what the ratio is.

Could you please document one of these "conflicting eyewitness testimonies", or just admit there are none?

[chillzero]

C'mon Alek, I'm beginnig to sound like a broken record here. Way back in post 283 you said:

Originally Posted by Alek :
There are conflicting eyewitness testimonies as to what actually struck the pentagon on 9/11. I don't know what the ratio is.

Could you please document one of these "conflicting eyewitness testimonies", or just admit there are none?

Perhaps you are on ignore. Allow me to try.

Alek,
Can you point us to any of these conflicting eye witness reports? Can you show us any that said said they saw missiles hit the Pentagon?

[delphi_ote]

Apparently the Hearst-owned, Homeland Security-inspired Popular Mechanics hit-piece "debunking" 9/11 "conspiracy theories" hasn't convinced everyone:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/blog/science/1249302.html
Er... so if other people believe the conspiracy, it must be true? And you claim your friends think you're the most logical one that hangs out with them?
So now you are aligned in defending the official government conspiracy theory with the former prime purveyor of the fantastic bigfoot sightings, ghost stories, and ufo encounters you apparently debunk here - Art Bell himself!
Even Art Bell won't listen to your lunatic stories, and that fact has you all weeping at the very real possibility that you might be more insane than the other people he has on his show.

Why don't you answer WildCat's question?

[hurdygurdy]

In addition, I'm sure you thoughtful people will be happy to know that the author of that hit piece, Benjamin Chertoff, a "senior researcher" at Popular Mechanics (http://www.popularmechanics.com/specials/features/1869027.html?page=2&c=y) and the cousin of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff (http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/display?content=4353) have teamed up with that paragon of reason Art Bell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_Bell) for the express purpose of debunking these silly 9/11 conspiracy theories (http://www.rense.com/general63/bellchert.htm) that just won't go away.


Sure. Ergo we must assume that Alex Jones is teamed up with all the guys that have interviewed him. And with their cousins too.

[Belz...]

So now you are aligned in defending the official government conspiracy theory...


[documentary british accent]

Notice, gentle readers, how this specimen uses the term "conspiracy theory" to make the official government position on 9/11 seem as foolish as any other CT. Fascinating.

[/DBA]

[Belz...]

I, for one, welcome our new globalist overlords.

:boxedin:

Ah.... globalism! Can't wait.

[senorpogo]

By "they" I'm referring to the globalists who want to institute a one-world government at the UN, and who control the US and US foreign policy, and who are constantly trying to undermine US sovereignty. I don't blame "government" for 9/11, I blame elements within and without the government.

Well, it's a well known fact that there's a secret society of the five wealthiest people in the world, known as The Pentaveret, who run everything in the world, including the newspapers, and meet tri-annually at a secret country mansion in Colorado, known as The Meadows.

So who's in this Pentaveret?

The Queen, The Vatican, The Gettys, The Rothschilds, *and* Colonel Sanders before he went tits up. Oh, I hated the Colonel with is wee beady eye! And that smug look on his face, "Oh, you're gonna buy my chicken!"

[kookbreaker]

Even Art Bell won't listen to your lunatic stories, and that fact has you all weeping at the very real possibility that you might be more insane than the other people he has on his show.


Art Bell also vehemently rejected the idea of a Pearl Harbor conspiracy as well, a theory Alek seems to want to be true.

Some meat is so rotten even a dog won't eat it.

[kookbreaker]

"It was at that moment that the grand conspirator for world domination decided that the World Trade Center would be destroyed as part of his grand plan. It was a fortuitous and timely decision, as religious fanatics who had tried destroying the towers previously had just slammed planes into them.

'Unleash the demolition Ninjas on World Trade Center Building 7' He spoke into the intercom.

'Sir?' Came the reply.

'We need another building. The second and third tallest skyscrapers being destroyed won't be enough. We need to bring down an average size office building as well.'. He laughed heartily.

'Yes Sir' came the reply.

The Grand Conspirator then returned to his Kit-Kat bar."

[senorpogo]

To the uninitiated, it may appear that neo-cons hate the UN, and that US foreign policy is counter UN. The truth is that any anti-UN sentiment expressed by neo-cons is just rhetoric to appease a minority in the Republican party who are in fact, anti-UN. In reality it's more of the same dialectical "good cop/bad cop", whereby Bush is assuming the role of "bad cop". His pre-emptive wars, his apparent thumbing his nose at the United Nations, and his refusal to sign the Kyoto treaty, among other things, has caused the US to be viewed as a pariah on the world stage. This backlash has actually resulted in an empowered UN which is now openly talking about .

To review Alek (just because I want to get this all straight in my head), you are claiming...

Individuals within the United States government plotted with big business globalists and members of the United Nations to crash radio controlled planes and plant explosive charges in the Twin Towers and 7 WTC building with the aim of completely destroying - not just damaging - all of them in hopes to psychologically attack the American public and create an environment where neo-conservative forces - whose agenda is secretly the same as the globalists and the United Nations - could enact policies that limit our civil rights and allow an invasion in the Middle East which all, ultimately, somehow makes America ripe for an invasion by an unseen, unnamed globalist army. To assist the agenda, forces inside the world media have intentionally suppressed the truth and provided disinformation all in an attempt to further the plot along. Despite the sheer magnitude of the conspiracy, all these forces have been able to keep everyone involved, on all levels, completely silent.

This is what I've gathered from your posts.

Read that all out loud to yourself.
Doesn't it sound a little silly?

[delphi_ote]

The Queen, The Vatican, The Gettys, The Rothschilds, *and* Colonel Sanders before he went tits up. Oh, I hated the Colonel with is wee beady eye! And that smug look on his face, "Oh, you're gonna buy my chicken!"
It's just another part of his plot to keep down the black (http://www.snopes.com/business/alliance/sanders.asp) man (http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2004/09/white_might_bla.php).

[delphi_ote]

If the U.N. is involved and this was supposed to cause the war in Iraq, why didn't the U.N. members all go to war in Iraq? Did they miss a memo?

[Alek]

To review Alek (just because I want to get this all straight in my head), you are claiming...

Individuals within the United States government plotted with big business globalists and members of the United Nations to crash radio controlled planes and plant explosive charges in the Twin Towers and 7 WTC building with the aim of completely destroying - not just damaging - all of them in hopes to psychologically attack the American public and create an environment where neo-conservative forces - whose agenda is secretly the same as the globalists and the United Nations - could enact policies that limit our civil rights and allow an invasion in the Middle East which all, ultimately, somehow makes America ripe for an invasion by an unseen, unnamed globalist army. To assist the agenda, forces inside the world media have intentionally suppressed the truth and provided disinformation all in an attempt to further the plot along. Despite the sheer magnitude of the conspiracy, all these forces have been able to keep everyone involved, on all levels, completely silent.

This is what I've gathered from your posts.

Read that all out loud to yourself.
Doesn't it sound a little silly?

What's silly is you putting words in my mouth and completely misrepresenting, misconstruing, and misunderstanding what I've said, and then summarizing your confusion and attributing it to me.

That's par for the course, I guess.

[aggle-rithm]

Art Bell also vehemently rejected the idea of a Pearl Harbor conspiracy as well, a theory Alek seems to want to be true.

Some meat is so rotten even a dog won't eat it.

Forget Pearl Harbor. What about the Phillipines?

MacArthur knew the Japanese were coming. He knew WHEN they were coming. He knew WHERE they were coming from. And they STILL caught him by surprise! Where are the conspiracy theories about that?

It seems that only high-profile events have conspiracies behind them, much like people who recall their past lives are never peasants or cobblers, but famous historical figures.

[aggle-rithm]

What's silly is you putting words in my mouth and completely misrepresenting, misconstruing, and misunderstanding what I've said, and then summarizing your confusion and attributing it to me.

That's par for the course, I guess.

Which of these do you deny saying?

(paraphrasing senorpogo's post)
1) Individuals within the United States government plotted with big business globalists and members of the United Nations

2) They planned to crash radio controlled planes and plant explosive charges in the Twin Towers and 7 WTC building

3) Their aim was to completely destroy - not just damage - all of them in hopes to psychologically attack the American public

4) This would create an environment where neo-conservative forces - whose agenda is secretly the same as the globalists and the United Nations - could enact policies that limit our civil rights and allow an invasion in the Middle East

5) This makes America ripe for an invasion by an unseen, unnamed globalist army.

6) To assist the agenda, forces inside the world media have intentionally suppressed the truth and provided disinformation all in an attempt to further the plot along.

7) Despite the sheer magnitude of the conspiracy, all these forces have been able to keep everyone involved, on all levels, completely silent.

I don't know. It kinda SOUNDS like your stuff.

[delphi_ote]

What's silly is you putting words in my mouth and completely misrepresenting, misconstruing, and misunderstanding what I've said, and then summarizing your confusion and attributing it to me.
Alek never will never state a coherent hypothesis, because that would reveal just how absurd his real ideas are. Any attempt to assemble what he's said actually constitutes a misrepresentation of his opinion.

[emperorchaos]

To review Alek (just because I want to get this all straight in my head), you are claiming...

Individuals within the United States government plotted with big business globalists and members of the United Nations to crash radio controlled planes and plant explosive charges in the Twin Towers and 7 WTC building with the aim of completely destroying - not just damaging - all of them in hopes to psychologically attack the American public and create an environment where neo-conservative forces - whose agenda is secretly the same as the globalists and the United Nations - could enact policies that limit our civil rights and allow an invasion in the Middle East which all, ultimately, somehow makes America ripe for an invasion by an unseen, unnamed globalist army. To assist the agenda, forces inside the world media have intentionally suppressed the truth and provided disinformation all in an attempt to further the plot along. Despite the sheer magnitude of the conspiracy, all these forces have been able to keep everyone involved, on all levels, completely silent.

This is what I've gathered from your posts.

Read that all out loud to yourself.
Doesn't it sound a little silly?

No actually, when you put it in a nice block paragraph there that I can memorize and repeat to my friends and colleagues ad nauseum, it makes perfect sense. I can't wait to start drinking around my buddies so that I might stand up, hiccough, and ramble off that pernicious piece of profound paranoia.

Thank you Alek, for all your statements.

And thank you senorpogo, for wrapping them up into a nice bundle so that I may spread the Gospel to others!

hahaha, and this thread is *still* going on?

[senorpogo]

What's silly is you putting words in my mouth and completely misrepresenting, misconstruing, and misunderstanding what I've said, and then summarizing your confusion and attributing it to me.

That's par for the course, I guess.

Alek, I'm not trying to put words into your mouth. I'm just sincerely trying to understand exactly what you're asserting. I thought I had done a decent job of pulling together your points from various other posts you had made.

If you feel that I misrepresented your points, please clarify exactly what I said that was incorrect.

[WildCat]

What's silly is you putting words in my mouth and completely misrepresenting, misconstruing, and misunderstanding what I've said, and then summarizing your confusion and attributing it to me.

That's par for the course, I guess.
Are you now claiming that someone hacked your account and said all those things w/o your knoweledge?

Because someone called "Alek" posted all that in this thread.

And, one more time, do you have any witnesses who saw anything but an airplane hit the Pentagon?

[claimee]

senorpogoTo review Alek (just because I want to get this all straight in my head), you are claiming...

Individuals within the United States government plotted with big business globalists and members of the United Nations to crash radio controlled planes and plant explosive charges in the Twin Towers and 7 WTC building with the aim of completely destroying - not just damaging - all of them in hopes to psychologically attack the American public and create an environment where neo-conservative forces - whose agenda is secretly the same as the globalists and the United Nations - could enact policies that limit our civil rights and allow an invasion in the Middle East which all, ultimately, somehow makes America ripe for an invasion by an unseen, unnamed globalist army. To assist the agenda, forces inside the world media have intentionally suppressed the truth and provided disinformation all in an attempt to further the plot along. Despite the sheer magnitude of the conspiracy, all these forces have been able to keep everyone involved, on all levels, completely silent. http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1520701&postcount=353
AlekWhat's silly is you putting words in my mouth and completely misrepresenting, misconstruing, and misunderstanding what I've said, and then summarizing your confusion and attributing it to me.

That's par for the course, I guess. http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1520862&postcount=356


Individuals within the United States government
It's apparent that the emotional cost of the realization that elements in your government were responsible for the deaths of nearly 3,000 people is too high for you. http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1507532&postcount=106
Yet clearly, that is what you're doing with the official government conspiracy. http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1507644&postcount=126

plotted with big business globalists
The globalists who control the US government have created these monsters, and have embroiled us into unjust wars on the basis of lies and deceit. http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1515360&postcount=257

and members of the United Nations
a one-world government at the UN http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1519334&postcount=318

to crash radio controlled planes
I suspect they used global hawk technology to pilot the planes into their targets. http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1518575&postcount=299

and plant explosive charges in the Twin Towers and 7 WTC building with the aim of completely destroying - not just damaging - all of them
The physical and other evidence indicate a controlled demolition. http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1507377&postcount=94

in hopes to psychologically attack the American public
9/11 was a false flag psychological operation carried out by powerful elements inside the US government http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1513446&postcount=241

and create an environment where neo-conservative forces -
conditions for a "new Pearl Harbor" to accelerate the neo-conservative agenda. http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1513446&postcount=241

whose agenda is secretly the same as the globalists
The globalists who control the US government have created these monsters, and have embroiled us into unjust wars on the basis of lies and deceit. http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1515360&postcount=257

and the United Nations -
a one-world government at the UN http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1519334&postcount=318

could enact policies that limit our civil rights and allow an invasion in the Middle East which all,
Everyone with a conscience was and is angry over what transpired on 9/11. It represented a major paradigm shift in this country, and the world. It has created the pretext for an Orwellian police state here in the US, and an unprecedented US policy of pre-emptive war.http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1507250&postcount=82
The objectives were twofold: To create the pretext for a panopticon police state domestically and to create the premise for wars of aggression in the middle east... http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1513446&postcount=241

ultimately, somehow makes America ripe for an invasion by an unseen, unnamed globalist army.
They can't conquer America without first bringing it to its knees. http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1518575&postcount=299
By "they" I'm referring to the globalists who want to institute a one-world government at the UN, and who control the US and US foreign policy, and who are constantly trying to undermine US sovereignty http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1519334&postcount=318

To assist the agenda, forces inside the world media have intentionally suppressed the truth and provided disinformation all in an attempt to further the plot along.
First of all, I personally recall watching this news being reported on CNBC, and then waiting for a follow-up which never occurred. It's as if the story just completely vanished. http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1507359&postcount=93
It must be pretty fantastic for them to have the government, the mainstream media, and millions of little parrots like you doing the whitewashing for you. http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1507855&postcount=163


This is what I've gathered from your posts.

Read that all out loud to yourself.
Doesn't it sound a little silly?

[WildCat]

senorpogo
Alek
Well done, claimee! :bowl: :yahoo

[senorpogo]

Very nice.
Thanks.

[Manny]

Geez, can you nominate for a language award a post that had as original content only:

senorpogo
AlekThere ought to be a citation award! Nicely done.

[Orphia Nay]

Admit it, Alek, you don't really believe 'your' theory. You just aren't ready to face up to the waste of time spent giving it credence. But what's a bit of time wasted when there's a valuable lesson to be learned?

[WildCat]

Admit it, Alek, you don't really believe 'your' theory. You just aren't ready to face up to the waste of time spent giving it credence. But what's a bit of time wasted when there's a valuable lesson to be learned?
He was lurking an hour or so ago. I hope he has taken a good hard look at this and realized how absolutely insane his CT is, but I doubt it. He'll probably go to the Loose Change forum (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php) where he can have his paranoia reinforced by the nutters there.

[Z]

[documentary british accent]

Notice, gentle readers, how this specimen uses the term "conspiracy theory" to make the official government position on 9/11 seem as foolish as any other CT. Fascinating.

[/DBA]


:dl:

Actually, it's Zaayr, and the proper capitalization was not observed - i.e. 'Gentle Reader', not 'gentle readers'. :D

[delphi_ote]

senorpogo
Alek
:bananalama:
You are my hero.

[LostAngeles]

Geez, can you nominate for a language award a post that had as original content only:

There ought to be a citation award! Nicely done.

Stop reading my mind and stealing my ideas, manny. :D

Rock on, claimee!

[Orphia Nay]

Yes, I'll second (or fifth or sixth) that admiration.

I'm relatively new here - wouldn't excellent reading comprehension, citation skills and long thread memory qualify as Language award nomination material?

[Regnad Kcin]

I'm early on in wading through this thread, but I thought I'd throw this into the mix:

According to the videotaped discussion with one of his followers (whose name escapes me), bin Laden, knowledgeable in structural engineering, did not expect the Twin Towers to fall when planning the attack. He was, if I recall correctly, hoping for a symbolic strike rather than a truly destructive one. With that, one could suggest (so I will) that the actual outcome was more accidental than by design.

So imagine for a second that they didn't fall. There would've been considerable internal damage to the buildings, but from even a modest distance, it would look like a couple dozen windows and some supporting concrete columns had blown out. A large hole yes, but relative to the visual size of each tower, not a big deal.

My point is that, to all purposes, the NYC attack looks cataclysmic because it ended up being that way. And since it ended up being that way, there's going to be no shortage of people who will reverse-engineer what they would imagine is a significantly dramatic narrative to fit that end result.

A few 2-bit thugs flying airplanes into the ground because they're upset about the U.S.'s presence in Saudi Arabia as well as its support of Israel? Hardly seems to balance, now does it? But an orchestrated plot of intelligent, well-funded American insiders, hoping to put in motion a world-wide offensive to enrich themselves monetarily and politically for decades to come...well, that's more like it!

[Regnad Kcin]

It is interesting to see how wrong your intuition can be about something like this. Looking at the Pentagon pictures Luke posted, I must admit I do find it hard to believe there is an aircraft in there.An airplane is, physically, mostly empty space. For all its apparent size, an "air" plane, if you will.

I find myself thinking- well if that's an engine in the red box, where is the wing it should be attached to? Surely there ought to be at least part of the wing visible outside the building?Not if it was pulverized.

Not too many years ago I witnessed a crash of a modest-sized military helicopter. I watched it go almost vertical into the tarmac less than two city blocks from where I was standing. Made quite a sound, not to mention an impressive, black smoke cloud. All that was left on the ground were a few charred bits, the total of which would probably have fit in a carry-on suitcase.

I also would expect, given the density of tourists in Washington DC and the ubiquity of cameras, to see at least one video of the impact actually happening...Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

[chipmunk stew]

He was lurking an hour or so ago. I hope he has taken a good hard look at this and realized how absolutely insane his CT is, but I doubt it. He'll probably go to the Loose Change forum (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php) where he can have his paranoia reinforced by the nutters there.I've been trying to entice (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=1130) some members of the Loose Change forum to come back up Alek. So far, no takers.

I'm considering watching the video again, pen in hand, and bringing my questions & challenges to their forum. Would anyone be interested in a JREF foray into the Loose Change home field? Registering an account is ridiculously simple.

[Hellbound]

Not too many years ago I witnessed a crash of a modest-sized military helicopter. I watched it go almost vertical into the tarmac less than two city blocks from where I was standing. Made quite a sound, not to mention an impressive, black smoke cloud. All that was left on the ground were a few charred bits, the total of which would probably have fit in a carry-on suitcase.

Good point. While in Iraq, I was involved in the cleanup of one of our Apaches that crashed. I have a photo of the wreckage. I'm not sure if I can post it here (military has some wierd rules about what's allowed for the public). IN any case, the wreckage was gathered by us and placed in our bay (that's where my pic was taken).

It looks like a 10' diameter, 2' to 3' high pile of scrap. Nothing identifiable. I didn't believe it used to be a helicopter at first, until closer examination revelaed part of the nose gun that could be recognized.

There's just not much to aircraft. Also remember, this was an Apache. I'd venture a guess that these are built a bit sturdier than civillian aircraft, and it pretty much disintegrated on impact. Also, they're a bit slower than commercial jetliners, as well.

Just food for thought. I'll see if I can get some guidance on posting a pic of the wreckage for you all.

[chipmunk stew]

I've been trying to entice (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=1130) some members of the Loose Change forum to come back up Alek. So far, no takers.

I'm considering watching the video again, pen in hand, and bringing my questions & challenges to their forum. Would anyone be interested in a JREF foray into the Loose Change home field? Registering an account is ridiculously simple.They're being particularly harsh on you, delphi. Not sure why--I'm the one who picked the fight. Maybe because you started the thread.

[delphi_ote]

They're being particularly harsh on you, delphi. Not sure why--I'm the one who picked the fight. Maybe because you started the thread.
And I have my mug up there. They're probably jealous of my dashing good looks. :p

[emperorchaos]

And I have my mug up there. They're probably jealous of my dashing good looks. :p

Yes, well we longhairs are naturally better-looking than others. Some say my avatar looks arrogant. What do they know?

And I'm ready for those of the Loose Change forum who signed up for the JREF forums to get in here. Perhaps we can start the debate anew, because I'm too lazy to read through this entire thread. I read like the first three pages and the last four or so.

I have an interest in this kind of thing as two of my best friends are pretty certain that 9/11 was a government conspiracy. Of course, only two years ago they also believed the moon land was a hoax until I showed them. Oh I showed them!

[Belz...]

:dl:

Actually, it's Zaayr, and the proper capitalization was not observed - i.e. 'Gentle Reader', not 'gentle readers'. :D

Hey, be clement. That was my first time. Sorry about the name, though.

[aggle-rithm]

(military has some wierd rules about what's allowed for the public).

Could THIS be why there aren't more pictures of the Pentagon crash?

Nah. Gotta be a conspiracy.

[senorpogo]

I have two other general lines of questioning to attack the WTC demolition theory. Hopefully someone here has some knowledge of the process of blowing up buildings to provide the answers or point me in direction of some source.

1.) What kind of resources would it take to blow up all three buildings? How many tons of explosives? How many trained people to plant these explosives? How much time would it all take to plant all the charges? Could these charges be hidden to go unnoticed by people working within the building?

2.) If both of the towers were wired to blow, wouldn't the planes crashing into the towers detonate the explosives on those levels? Wouldn't that cause an instantenous crash of those levels above? Or do demolition charges require some other type of reaction to go off?

[JPK]

Good afternoon.

I was having a hard time believing the CT but if Charlie Sheen believes in it, it must be so.
Sheen: What 9/11 Hijackers? (http://prisonplanet.com/articles/march2006/230306Sheen_Post.htm)
JPK

[azazal]

I have two other general lines of questioning to attack the WTC demolition theory. Hopefully someone here has some knowledge of the process of blowing up buildings to provide the answers or point me in direction of some source.

1.) What kind of resources would it take to blow up all three buildings? How many tons of explosives? How many trained people to plant these explosives? How much time would it all take to plant all the charges? Could these charges be hidden to go unnoticed by people working within the building?


Excat amount for the WTC I don't have, but the Discovery Channel has a show on called "The Blasters" that cronicals several demo teams across the globe and what they run into on a job. Once of the number that jumps to mind, but I am fuzzy here, been a few weeks since I saw it.A team put in some 1300 charges to drop a convention center. The center was 3 storries tall, mostly open space with support columns, and I belive it was roughly 1000 feet by 1000 feet.

[Euromutt]

Sorry about the slow response, I've had a busy week. I'm going to have to address these points out of order.Again I must confess to being mostly ignorant of the details of WW2 history, perhaps you can enlighten me on some of them. I just read a Pearl Harbor FAQ (http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq66-1.htm) which had some interesting tidbits, for instance:

"Nagumo's fleet assembled in the remote anchorage of Tankan Bay in the Kurile Islands and departed in strictest secrecy for Hawaii on 26 November 1941. The ships' route crossed the North Pacific and avoided normal shipping lanes. At dawn 7 December 1941, the Japanese task force had approached undetected to a point slightly more than 200 miles north of Oahu. At this time the U.S. carriers were not at Pearl Harbor."

and:

"The Japanese success was overwhelming, but it was not complete. They failed to damage any American aircraft carriers, which by a stroke of luck, had been absent from the harbor. "

Here is a link which documents the location of the US carriers (http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq66-9.htm).Well, that link lists precisely where the Pacific Fleet's carriers were at the time of the attack. As it says, Lexington and Enterprise were off delivering aircraft to Midway and Wake, while Saratoga was at San Diego on the way back from undergoing an overhaul in drydock at Bremerton, WA. What the page doesn't mention, in addition, is that Enterprise had been due back at Pearl on the 6th; the only reason she wasn't present for the attack was because she'd been delayed by bad weather. It's hard to credit that the absence of Enterprise was anything but coincidence, and likewise with Saratoga, since the overhaul had probably been scheduled long before the Japanese strike force ever sailed. And it simply doesn't make sense to attribute Lexington's absence to nefarious intent when the other two were just coincidences. There's still the possibility that the whole thing was orchestrated, but for that to be the case, the conspiracy would have to have gone well outside FDR's inner circle, and included a large number of high-ranking officers within the Pacific Fleet, and arguably Yamamoto and Nagumo as well, for the whole confluence of events to be that well timed.
I've read accounts which describe the opposite, that it was known that the monolithic battleship was quickly becoming obsolete.Said accounts put the cart before the horse. American naval tactics in the Pacific, especially during 1942, were adapted to become heavily reliant on carriers precisely because the battle line was at the bottom of Pearl Harbor. As the Dutch say, "you have to the row with the oars that you have," and that is precisely what the Pacific Fleet learned to do.
I would say Stinnett is probably guilty of some self-aggrandizement here, by implying that his book is uncovering the "secret". It's probably pedantic to discredit him by suggesting that he should have said 59 years instead of 60. If the information was still mostly a secret after 1985 then he should probably be forgiven.That's my point: neither of those facts were any longer secret by 1985. And as I noted previously, Spector states that authors like Beard, Tansill, etc. "claim that since the U.S. was reading the Japanese code, Washington must have known in advance about the attack"; those authors made these claims between 1948 and 1954, indicating that some knowledge of American cryptanalysis was already public at that time. The existence of contingency plan Rainbow 5 had been leaked and widely publicized in 1941, before the US even entered the war.
Isn't it a fallacy to suggest Stinnett's credibility depends on Irving? Stinnett doesn't have any control over who supports his work and who doesn't. If Adolf Hitler supports Josef Wagner's work, does this discredit Wagner?You're right, it doesn't reflect on Stinett. It does reflect on the Greek television program in question, and anyone else who might cite Irving in an effort to lend credibility to Stinett. Irving's agreement doesn't (necessarily) detract from Stinett's credibility, but it certainly doesn't add to it.
Of course, Stinett and Irving likely have different agendas. Stinett probably believes the US should have stayed out of the war, and would have were it not for FDR's actions, whereas Irving, as a Holocaust denier, is seeking to downplay Nazi atrocities by inflating the supposed wrongdoings of the Allies.
I don't understand how this could be academic in context. The essence of Pearl Harbor was that it was a surprise attack, which was responsible for slaughtering 2400 people. If indeed there was foreknowledge, the element of surprise would have been lost, the casualties would have been far less and the US Navy could have parried the attack.

I imagine Stinnett's point is that absent such a brutal surprise attack with so many casualties, absent the horrific stories of trapped men burning and drowning inside the doomed battleships, and assuming a successful parry of Nagumo's attack, the American public would have remained disinterested in the war.

Your point is well taken though, Nagumo's actions would have resulted in a declaration of war by the US in any case. However, the relative lack of US casualties from a failed japanese incursion as opposed to a successful surprise attack would have undoubtedly resulted in more polarization and less unity and jingoism.I disagree, for a number of reasons.
First, even if the attack had not actually managed to achieve tactical surprise, it would still have been an act of war. The difference would have been akin to that between a succesful mugging and an unsuccesful one; either way, it's still a mugging, and the intended victim is going to be outraged.
Second, the late announcement of the breaking off of negotiations (intended to take place half an hour before the attack started, but actually delivered later due to complications decrypting the message at the Japanese embassy in DC) was also regarded at the time as perfidious.
As it was, Congress voted almost unanimously (one dissenting vote) in favor of declaring war; perhaps if the attack had been discovered and parried, the majority would have been smaller, but I suspect it would still have been a sizeable majority.
It means the dialectic explains a pattern recurrent throughout history of governments using false flag attacks or similar deceptions to embroil their unwilling populaces into war. I don't try to select or fit evidence. For me it represents an element of a cynical worldview which is a starting point for historical review.If you use a "a cynical worldview" as "a starting point for historical review," you're assuming a priori that every action is undertaken out of base motives, which means you're working towards a predetermined conclusion. That being the case, I don't see how you can avoid manipulating the evidence to fit said outcome. Moreover, I don't see what dialectic has to do with this. Dialectic consists of thesis and antithesis resulting in synthesis; this is all very well for philosophical discussions, but its application is limited, because in real life (and in the scientific method), the evidence may come down on only side.
The US government funded the Mujahedeen in the '80s as they repelled the Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan. Elements of the Mujahedeen became the Taliban.The constant factor there is the Pakistani Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI). Because the US intelligence community had few assets in Afghanistan even prior to the Soviet invasion, it had little knowledge of the country's internal politics, and routed much of its support through the ISI. Problem was, the ISI used the funds provided by the US to support the factions of its own choosing, which were not necessarily the factions the US would have chosen to back had it had all the requisite information. And yes, the ISI was also the primary backer of the Taliban.
Saddam Hussein (http://www.ericblumrich.com/thanks.html) has been a CIA asset for some 40 years.Uh, no. After the 1968 coup, the Ba'athist regime fostered relations with the Soviet Union, culminating in the Iraqi-Soviet Friendship Treaty of April 1972. Subsequently, the Soviet Union and other Warsaw Pact member states sold the Iraqis all the weapons they wanted, from small arms through AFVs to fighter-bombers. In addition, the Ba'athists purchased training in surveillance and interrogation techniques for their security/intelligence services--the Estikhbarat (military intelligence), the Amn (state intelligence) and Mukhabarat (Ba'ath party intelligence)--from the Sovs and the East Germans in the 1970s. Many of those sales were on credit, too; by the time the Ba'athist government was toppled in 2003, it still owed billions of dollars to Russia.

Now, if PBS, UPI or some pajamahadin can "uncover" that Saddam was "a CIA asset" during that time, it's a reasonable assumption that the KGB could have done so as well. Does it seem plausible that the Sovs would provide billions in weaponry, on credit, and details of their own counter-intelligence methods, to a government whose vice-president, later president, was a CIA asset? The notion is laughable. Or it would be, if so many credulous idiots didn't buy into the idea.

[Hellbound]

On the demo charges, I could give some figures on how big a charge you'd need to, say, cut a particular column, if I knew the column diameter and material (concreate, steel, reinforced concrete, etc). But I don't know how many columns would be needed to topple a floor or whatever. And the amount of charge depends on how it's placed, as well...whether it's a block on one side, blocks on both sides, wrap around, triangle, sheet charge, roll, shaped cutting charge, etc.

On the plane igniting the explosives, it would depend on what was used. Military grade C-4, for example, is amazingly stable. You can jump on it, chew it, throw it, drop it, shoot it, etc and it won't go off (shooting has a slight possibility of setting it off, but is unlikely...tracer rounds make it more likely). You can even burn C-4 without setting it off (makes a respectable incindiary, although more expensive than traditional ones).

Basically, the plane could have caused a few charges to go off, but most would have remained undetonated (although they would have burned).

Now, the problem comes in with the way the C-4 is wired. If an electrical ignition was used, the thin wires would have rather quickly broken apart and seperated in the fires, so a controlled demolition would have been impossible (wires running through the high fire areas would have been degraded/cut by the heat, at least have insulation melted away, shorting out and disrupting the circuit). So, you'd get a sparse and sporatic detonation...far from what's needed for a controlled demolition.

If you used non-electric, you're in for even more trouble. You can use blast cord or MDI. Blast cord is a primary explosive, not a secondary, and would have been set off by the fires. This, of course, would have set off all the charges along that cord, and ruined the controlled blast setup. MDI is a "shock wave" tube, and it would have melted (failing to provide the shock wave to detonate blasting caps), and impact could well have caused some of the charges to blow prematurely.

On rethinking this, though, the heat would have caused blasting caps to go, which in turn would have caused charges to detonate. So yeah, the impacts and subsequent fires should have set off some charges (as even electric systems, to my knowledge, still need volatile primary explosives in blasting caps to set off the secondary explosives such as C4).

[Ace_of_Sevens]

A lot of our civil rights haven't been taken. Why haven't "they" staged more attacks so they can take them?

[bob_kark]

I'm currently watching the Loose Change 2nd Edition and noticed something kind of funny. At around 43 minutes into it, he mentions that there were two explosions reported after the first tower was hit. He even plays an audio tape that records the two explosions. The second one hits around 9.05 seconds after the first. What's funny about this is that at around 35 minutes into it, he states that for the top of the tower to reach the ground at free fall, it takes 9.2 seconds. If you take that into consideration, wouldn't it be more likely that the second "explosion" is actually debris falling from the tower rather than a second explosion?

This makes even more sense when you take into consideration that the first explosion on the tape is not as loud as the second. The tape was recorded on the 36th floor of One Liberty Plaza. He states that this is across the street. However, while it is across the street from the site, its actually a block and a half from Tower Two. The tower was hit between the 93rd and 99th floors. The recording was made closer to the ground than where the plane hit. In addition, due to the direction the plane hit Tower Two, some debris would have been projected towards One Liberty Plaza. It makes a little more sense to me that this second explosion is actually debris hitting One Liberty Plaza or the ground nearby. Maybe I'm over-thinking it though...

[Regnad Kcin]

Well, I'm up through page 5 on the thread (but will continue on). Most notable has been the contributions of Alek. A clearly intelligent chap, no irony intended.

Looking at the modern era, considering the JFK assassination, the moon landing(s), and now 9/11, there does seem to be a predilection among our species for complexity over simplicity when it comes to certain event analysis and deconstruction. I wonder if this isn't a byproduct of our higher abilities to think/conceive in the first place. Put another way, as the saying goes, if what you have is a hammer, everything starts looking like a nail.

[Regnad Kcin]

So now you are aligned in defending the official government conspiracy theory...
[documentary british accent]

Notice, gentle readers, how this specimen uses the term "conspiracy theory" to make the official government position on 9/11 seem as foolish as any other CT. Fascinating.

[/DBA]
Yes, I've noticed that numerous times as well.

[Orphia Nay]

"Yes, fascinating. The specimen thinks parody constitutes evidence."
[/zaayr]

[kookbreaker]

Alek seems to have gotten very quiet in the face of the humiliation given to him by claimee. Hard to show up when you are proven liar I guess.

[Mongrel]

Excat amount for the WTC I don't have, but the Discovery Channel has a show on called "The Blasters" that cronicals several demo teams across the globe and what they run into on a job. Once of the number that jumps to mind, but I am fuzzy here, been a few weeks since I saw it.A team put in some 1300 charges to drop a convention center. The center was 3 storries tall, mostly open space with support columns, and I belive it was roughly 1000 feet by 1000 feet.


Don't think that one's been on in the UK but I do remember a program that followed a a family demo team taking down an old sports stadium. The sheer amount of physical preparation involved, weakening columns, drilling holes, wiring, checking, rechecking and triple checking involved does make me think that the CTs get all their technical information from Arnie films.

[aggle-rithm]

A lot of our civil rights haven't been taken. Why haven't "they" staged more attacks so they can take them?

I think they're having problems with their server. As soon as they get it up and running, the attacks will commence!

[kookbreaker]

Looks like Alek has fled his humilation and gone to the Loose Change forum for warm milk and cookies. Awwwwww.

[emperorchaos]

Looks like Alek has fled his humilation and gone to the Loose Change forum for warm milk and cookies. Awwwwww.

'Tis a shame too. He brought many a tear to my eye.

-=-=-=-

In other news, I emailed the guy that made the video. Well, sent him a MySpace message actually. He seems like a rational fellow. (http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendID=16569875)

He has yet to respond, but I can understand if he's busy. I just thought that I'd have a shot at talking to him about this considering we are around the same age and have many of the same interests, according to his MySpace profile anyway.

[WildCat]

'Tis a shame too. He brought many a tear to my eye.

-=-=-=-

In other news, I emailed the guy that made the video. Well, sent him a MySpace message actually. He seems like a rational fellow. (http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendID=16569875)

He has yet to respond, but I can understand if he's busy. I just thought that I'd have a shot at talking to him about this considering we are around the same age and have many of the same interests, according to his MySpace profile anyway.
Funny, they won't post where they can't ban...

Loose Change, where are you? Upchurch, expedite their posting priveleges here!

[DevilsAdvocate]

Are these 9/11 conspiracy theories still around? I thought they had all been debunked.

First, the conspiracy theories leave huge questions unanswered or would require conspiracies on such an unimagineably huge scale as to be impossible. The orignal conspiracy theory is generally attributed to Thierry Meyssan, a super-leftist government-hater, who I believe has said that he doesn't know how the conspiracies could have been pulled off and leaves the "big" questions (how the conspiracy was done, by whom, and for what purpose) unanswered.

Second, the conspiracy theories are based on "problems" with minor details rasied by unqualified theorists: I think the WTC should have not have fallen. There should be more debris. The hole in the Pentagon isn't as big as holes in other buildings hit by aircraft. The exact shade of blue on this piece of wreckage doesn't match the exact shade of blue on this other picture of an American Airlines plane. A witness said the plane "sounded like a missle." And so on.

Third, even these minor details have all been debunked by professionals in the appropriate fields. Even if we simply woke up the day after the attack and had to figure out what had happened, the overwhelming evidence would lead to the conclusion of planes hitting buildings. Any other conclusion could only be supported by evidence of some super-huge impossibly massive cover up.

A good short artical with some interesting links is at http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blflight77.htm

[diggingdeeper]

You know, I just spent a couple of hours reading through the entire thread.

First of all, while I do appreciate some of the conversations on the site, I was pretty disappointed with the majority of the debate between fellow skeptics.

I must say, I find the tone of many to be condescending. If not at first, it sure gets there pretty quickly. I understand that that is part of human nature but very few of the many who participate as such will admit it (I am not leaving myself out of that equation either).

Without going into agreement with Alex’s' views or not, I am going to observe that he apologized when he felt he was wrong, he admitted that he had been mistaken when he felt so and managed for the most part to not be drawn into what I considered to be baiting from some as well as some attempts to intellectually bully him.

I came across the thread while doing some researching of the film after viewing it in its entirety. Yes, I do think it was a bit disingenuous for the author of the thread not to admit up front that he had not seen the entire film. Yes, I do think it was not entirely appropriate for Alex to call him a liar.
Yes, it did degrade into a rather childish debate about if it was a lie or not. Kind of reminded me of the Clinton deposition where he says "..it depends on what the definition of is is.."

I understood his use of the Hitler quote to be saying the "big lie" philosophy is not only a philosophy but had in fact been turned into a way of life by Hitler and that one should be conscious of past evils, remember them, not deny that it is not possible for something similar to happen again. For those who wanted to paint him with the brush of an anti-Semite just for quoting Hitler I would suggest a bit more patience and understanding would go a long way for a more productive debate.

I get what Alex was feeling for the most part though I do not necessarily agree with all of it but why should it be unthinkable that our, or any other government should lie to us when we know for a fact it has happened in the past?

What has happened that would dissuade them from that practice? His idea that it might be a Psy-op is not totally out of hand especially since it is a military principle that wars should be fought using these types of methods more and more in the future.

If 911 is truly an extraordinary event in world history, does it not deserve exploring honestly the extraordinary context and possible beginnings it might have had? if not, why not?

Do any of you think that my impression that the discussion became polarized between the 'kooks" and the rationalists is flawed?? If so why?

For myself I would have liked the discussion to have focused on the effect of a film like this, the cottage industry that surrounds events such as 911 and how all of that keeps us distracted from the main issues which I believe Alex was attempting to discuss like the dissolution of our freedoms, the possible explanations for that, and the current and continuing move towards globalization and a discussion of its pitfalls and positive possibilities.

A few words for Alex if you are listening. While I hear what you are saying and understand your concerns, you might want to consider that films like "loose Change" may be playing to your emotions which can sometimes be detrimental to ones reasoning. It is not that some things in the film might not have validity; just that the film may have its own separate agenda and it may not be what you think. It seems like films which do this are currently popular '"what the bleep do we know" would be a good example.

Facts do not indicate reasons in all cases. I will give you my personal experience that is relevant in this case.

Originally, I was going to be on flight 11, the first one to hit the towers. I changed my reservation to a later flight so I wouldn't have to get my mom up so early. When I finally was able to get back out, I took the same flight back to LA.

I was removed from the airplane after boarding by state police and some of the suit guys with ear pieces (I have a dark complection and was particularly suntanned as well as unshaven). I was held for some minutes outside of the aircraft and finally moved back to the gate. When I questioned why I had been removed, I was told that I had had an altercation at the check-in counter as well as at the security check point. I explained that I found that strange since I had originated from Long Island and was connecting through Boston and did not go through the check in , nor, security at Logan airport.

This was the excuse the airline had used to call the police to get me off the plane. When I confronted the airline personnel and demanded to know the reason I was removed I was told that some of the passengers, flight attendants were "..Intimidated by me." The trooper said the pilot told him that I was suspicious because I looked him right in the eye when I boarded.

I also personally knew someone on flight 11. I know they are not around anymore.

I mention all of this to give an example of what fear can do. How authority in their fear can overstep their boundaries and affect the liberties of another. How as a nation we are not all we are cracked up to be.

When I was not allowed to continue my flight (I was put in a hotel and allowed to fly the following day). I explained that while I found my situation completely understandable, I did not find it excusable. I filed a discrimination complaint with the DOT and several years later, the airlines was fined and had to take some sort of corrective action.

Another thing is, if one were to just look at the facts: I changed my reservation, then when I traveled again I was removed from the plane, I guess you can see the possibility of someone turning that into me being some sort of player in a nefarious plot when in fact, I had just been concerned about getting my mom up too early (thank goodness for moms!).

I appreciated your input and hope in the future that persons who are willing to come to this site and are serious in thier discussions will be treated with a bit more dignity.

[pipelineaudio]

Yes, I do think it was a bit disingenuous for the author of the thread not to admit up front that he had not seen the entire film. .

I brought this up at LC as well, just how much of the bible or a cartoon do you have to read or watch to know its utter make believe?

He may well have found it BS in 30 seconds.

I didnt, but I dont know much

[delphi_ote]

Without going into agreement with Alex’s' views or not, I am going to observe that he apologized when he felt he was wrong, he admitted that he had been mistaken when he felt so and managed for the most part to not be drawn into what I considered to be baiting from some as well as some attempts to intellectually bully him.
Yes. Alex was the pinnacle of manners and good conduct.
You're obviously retarded, and virtually unable to comprehend english.
:rolleyes:

Yes, I do think it was a bit disingenuous for the author of the thread not to admit up front that he had not seen the entire film.
Disingenuous? Honestly? You're ascribing a deliberate attempt on my part to hide information? Why would I care if anyone knows this? I stopped watching an awful movie. I offered the information unprompted. If I was trying to lie about it or trick anyone, why would I have openly admitted it for no reason at all?

I understood his use of the Hitler quote to be saying the "big lie" philosophy is not only a philosophy but had in fact been turned into a way of life by Hitler and that one should be conscious of past evils, remember them, not deny that it is not possible for something similar to happen again.
Not if you read what he wrote immediately before it:
I suspect this is the paramount reason for why people tend to believe big lies. It is less a function of keeping secrets from being revealed, and more a function of keeping revealed secrets from being believed.
Odds are Alek was just being ignorant here, believing Hitler was advocating The Big Lie strategy. In fact, Hitler was a paranoid maniac raving about a massive Jewish conspiracy whose core strategy was The Big Lie. Hitler saw imaginary enemies and conspiracies all around him until the day he died. Let's not use him as an example.

If The 9/11 Holocaust is truly an extraordinary event in world history, does it not deserve exploring honestly the extraordinary context and possible beginnings it might have had? if not, why not?
Do we take the Holocaust deniers serious consideration, too? Roswell? The moon landings being faked? We're not dealing with an honest exploration here at all. We're combating the delusions of the paranoid. Please don't pretend like there's a hidden adult discussion in these films. If we're going to talk like grown ups, we have to face the basic facts about the world first. Otherwise, we're just like a mob rushing to burn someone at the stake for an imaginary crime.

[delphi_ote]

He may well have found it BS in 30 seconds.
I watched 30 minutes of the film.

[Alek]

I came across the thread while doing some researching of the film after viewing it in its entirety. Yes, I do think it was a bit disingenuous for the author of the thread not to admit up front that he had not seen the entire film. Yes, I do think it was not entirely appropriate for Alex to call him a liar.
Yes, it did degrade into a rather childish debate about if it was a lie or not. Kind of reminded me of the Clinton deposition where he says "..it depends on what the definition of is is.."

Considering I wasted a substantial amount of my time and keystrokes on an individual who gave me the impression he had watched a film when really he hadn't, I think I'm entitled to call a spade a spade. It wasn't until well into the thread when I exposed him for not watching the film, after he made some reference about watching the towers fall. Remember, he started the thread. If it weren't for him, and google, I wouldn't be here. Bill Clinton was a liar too, regardless of the definition of "is".



I understood his use of the Hitler quote to be saying the "big lie" philosophy is not only a philosophy but had in fact been turned into a way of life by Hitler and that one should be conscious of past evils, remember them, not deny that it is not possible for something similar to happen again. For those who wanted to paint him with the brush of an anti-Semite just for quoting Hitler I would suggest a bit more patience and understanding would go a long way for a more productive debate.


I used the quote to illustrate the idea that some secrets can be open, dependent not on secrecy itself, but on the notion that the secret is inconceivable or unacceptable by most. Only the most narrow-minded would find my use of that quote to be sympathetic to, or an endorsement of Hitler. Naturally, dephi_ote used it as an opportunity to paint me as anti-jewish.



If 911 is truly an extraordinary event in world history, does it not deserve exploring honestly the extraordinary context and possible beginnings it might have had? if not, why not?



Certainly it does. Which is why I have greedily consumed as much information about it as possible, so as to attempt to understand the truth. The idea that someone would only watch the first thirty minutes of a 9/11 documentary strikes me as apathetic, and almost negligent. Even if one doesn't like the agenda of the filmmaker, it seems to me that the possibility of seeing new footage of that incredible event would make it more than worthwhile. I've watched virtually every 9/11 documentary available. I knew what to expect from Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11, but I watched it anyway, in its entirety.



Do any of you think that my impression that the discussion became polarized between the 'kooks" and the rationalists is flawed?? If so why?



The discussion became polarized because it was designed to be polarized. Not one forum member here put off the slightest pretense of objectivity. I suspect this thread was treated just like every other thread on this forum, as a vehicle to provide the members with entertainment by ridicule while slapping the other members on the back. In this case, a questioning of the official 9/11 conspiracy theory replaced ghost stories, bigfoot sightings, and alien encounters. In hindsight, I would have to question the motives of people in a forum devoted to debunking the paranormal. There are more important things in life than making fun of psychics.



For myself I would have liked the discussion to have focused on the effect of a film like this, the cottage industry that surrounds events such as 911 and how all of that keeps us distracted from the main issues which I believe Alex was attempting to discuss like the dissolution of our freedoms, the possible explanations for that, and the current and continuing move towards globalization and a discussion of its pitfalls and positive possibilities.



I would rather have focused on the facts concerning 9/11 as documented by the film in question. Instead I was goaded into speculating on motive, and revealing my unorthodox worldview, no doubt with the intent on providing more fodder for ridicule.



A few words for Alex if you are listening. While I hear what you are saying and understand your concerns, you might want to consider that films like "loose Change" may be playing to your emotions which can sometimes be detrimental to ones reasoning. It is not that some things in the film might not have validity; just that the film may have its own separate agenda and it may not be what you think. It seems like films which do this are currently popular '"what the bleep do we know" would be a good example.

Everyone, including the filmmaker has an agenda. I don't remember giving any indication what-so-ever that I agree with every theory in the movie, I merely agree with the simple conclusion. I'm well aware of how to think critically. I make it my job to first understand the speaker, before I listen to what he has to say.

I saw "Bleep". It was a terrible film, basically a two-hour infomercial for the Ramtha School of Enlightenment cult. I'm a trooper though, I managed to actually view the film in its entirety before I wrote my review of it.



Originally, I was going to be on flight 11, the first one to hit the towers. I changed my reservation to a later flight so I wouldn't have to get my mom up so early. When I finally was able to get back out, I took the same flight back to LA.

I was removed from the airplane after boarding by state police and some of the suit guys with ear pieces (I have a dark complection and was particularly suntanned as well as unshaven). I was held for some minutes outside of the aircraft and finally moved back to the gate. When I questioned why I had been removed, I was told that I had had an altercation at the check-in counter as well as at the security check point. I explained that I found that strange since I had originated from Long Island and was connecting through Boston and did not go through the check in , nor, security at Logan airport.



Maybe your prior cancellation generated some sort of exception, but you still managed to get on the flight out of New York somehow. Congratulations on your winning the 9/11 lottery though, that must have been quite a feeling.

CAPPS II (http://www.eff.org/Privacy/cappsii/) is the future of airline travel. The program was supposedly scrapped (like Total Information Awareness), but I'm sure it will find its way back in some other form.



I appreciated your input and hope in the future that persons who are willing to come to this site and are serious in thier discussions will be treated with a bit more dignity.



Thanks for the support. Do you have an opinion on the official 9/11 conspiracy theory?

[emperorchaos]

I think 30 minutes of the film was adequate enough to show that the filmmaker wasn't going to provide any solid evidence. That's about as much as I watched of it.

Now, if there was some solid evidence, I'd be glad to hear of it.

[kookbreaker]

Without going into agreement with Alex’s' views or not, I am going to observe that he apologized when he felt he was wrong, he admitted that he had been mistaken when he felt so and managed for the most part to not be drawn into what I considered to be baiting from some as well as some attempts to intellectually bully him.


This is from Alek's second post on this entire forum:


Just parrot someone else who has actually watched the film and decided to debunk it. What difference would it make, given that you've absolutely no pretense of objectivity? But then, "skeptics" don't need objectivity, they just need copious amounts of doubt, right?

I find it rather unlikely that you or several others in this thread are anything but selective skeptics. Perhaps if you applied the same degree of skepticism towards the 9/11 Commission's official conspiracy theory as you do to bigfoot sightings, spooky ghost stories, and psychics, then you may discover that their story doesn't quite add up.


Can you say 'hostile'? As delphi pointed out, he made very nasty attacks that quite frankly made me think he wanted to be banned. He also tried to play the slippery eel by claiming people were putting words in his mouth, and when that was shown to be an outright utter LIE, he feld and went crying to sympathetic board.


I came across the thread while doing some researching of the film after viewing it in its entirety. Yes, I do think it was a bit disingenuous for the author of the thread not to admit up front that he had not seen the entire film. Yes, I do think it was not entirely appropriate for Alex to call him a liar.
Yes, it did degrade into a rather childish debate about if it was a lie or not. Kind of reminded me of the Clinton deposition where he says "..it depends on what the definition of is is.."


It has been the cornerstone of Alek's position on Delphi, and it is unbelievably weak. Considering Alek's level of intellectual dishonesty (see Claimee's post) I have a hard time being sympathetic.

[WildCat]

I would rather have focused on the facts concerning 9/11 as documented by the film in question. Instead I was goaded into speculating on motive, and revealing my unorthodox worldview, no doubt with the intent on providing more fodder for ridicule.

So, do you have any eyewitnesses to a missile hitting the Pentagon yet Alek? This was a cornerstone to your theory, yet you seem to be having trouble finding a single one.

[Hellbound]

To add a second to WildCat, do you also have a theory on how any planted explosives would have survived impact and fire, yet still have been intact enough to perform a controlled demolition?

[CurtC]

I think 30 minutes of the film was adequate enough to show that the filmmaker wasn't going to provide any solid evidence. That's about as much as I watched of it.FWIW, I watched only ten minutes of the first Loose Change video, which were so full of lies and distortions that I didn't need to watch the rest. I don't fault Delphi for stating he had seen it when he saw just the first 30 minutes - that's not a big deal, especially with rotting putrid excrement like that video.

[diggingdeeper]

Thanks for the support. Do you have an opinion on the official 9/11 conspiracy theory?"

Thanks for the link Alex.
I certainly do not have a cohesive theory about 911. I do view it as a historically paradigm shifting event.

I do have some questions about some of the material brought up in the film as well as some not mentioned (or, I didn't press pause when I got some coffee and missed it).

The most glaring for me was the finding of the passport. I am a New Yorker; I have not bought the bridge lately.

I am also astounded at the number of casualties given the scope of the incident. By this I mean no disrespect to the families of the victims.

The cell phone thing.
To the best of my knowledge, all descriptions of the hijackers said they had "box cutters". Being familiar with tools I found this highly unlikely.
This is a tool with several other names like utility knife, razor knife. I thought it unusual that everyone would describe it in the same terms. While not being scientific, every once and a while, I have pulled one out and asked people to write down the name and have never found all or close to all in agreement.

The Saudi family being put on a plane.

I had not heard of the Cleveland landing before and would have liked to have heard more of the hows and whys about it.

The stock trades, as a former trader I have read the explanations for those trades but I think it would be more then relevant to release the names at this point.

The information of exactly what cases were affected and how by the WTC#7 collapse due to missing evidence. I have not heard a peep about this.

The missing footage from the Pentagon crash. I find it hard to believe that the Pentagon does not have cameras up the Wahoo that can count the hairs on ones Wahoo!

I do believe however that the confiscation of the other tapes around is more their mode of operation rather then a "grab them before people find out what we did kind of thing. My guess is they figure regardless of what is on the tapes they want to have them so they can control the spin. Ever think about the possibility that they might not be releasing them just as a distraction???

The guy using his last name to his mother, which was certainly weird. Yet I wonder why the film-makers did not bother to interview his mother to find out if she thought it was weird. I always look at more what is not said then what is.

This is one of the reasons I likened the film to "What the bleep" There was quite a bit of information in the film that was linked together by the film-makers to lead one towards their conclusion.

The use of the UL guy as their best spokesman on metallurgy is not a good indicator of the quality of their research.

The idea that the pilot who flew the plane into the Pentagon had played a part in military exercises before had my interest, but it went nowhere.

The fact that they left the gold deal until the end to me was like in "What the bleep" leaving the credentials of the speakers to the credits in the end of the film.

For me, it is like seeing something in reverse. If they had said up front the movie was about a gold heist, then shown how and why and by whom it was done it would have more credibility with me.

I do entertain these possibilities though. That the government had advance knowlage of the attack, be it the actual attack or were just aware that something big was going to happen. That they have contingency plans that immediately go into place and that part of those contingency plans include how are they going to cover up their inability to deal with it.

If there is a cover up I find it more likely to be one of that sort, rather then the secret cabal of bankers ruling the world.

It does not surprise me that people with the amount of money and power that the "Globalists" have meet in secret. If I had that kind of dough I would too! When one has power they want to hold on to it and protect it.

When they do so at my expense is when I get tough.

Another one of the many possibilities is that they were completely taken by surprise because of the bureaucracy that didn't follow earlier leads as has been suggested in the OWTCR. However, I would not put it past them to use this incident to consolidate money, power, and global opportunities.

I do have a concern about what this is going to mean for our future liberties and freedoms, however, my first freedom is my mind and while I like to keep an open mind, I keep my hand on the doorknob and the key in my pocket!

[aggle-rithm]

It does not surprise me that people with the amount of money and power that the "Globalists" have meet in secret. If I had that kind of dough I would too! When one has power they want to hold on to it and protect it.

When they do so at my expense is when I get tough.



Ooh, ooh! Let's have them all wear dark glasses and carry briefcases handcuffed to their wrists. That would be totally cool!

[senorpogo]

I get what Alex was feeling for the most part though I do not necessarily agree with all of it but why should it be unthinkable that our, or any other government should lie to us when we know for a fact it has happened in the past?

The issue isn't whether governments have lied in the past. The issue is "did the United States government plot and execute the plan for the September 11th attacks"? If you believe they did, prove it. Give us something beyond grainy video and eyewitness quotes taken out of context. Detail the staggering logistics required to demolish the buildings and keep everyone involved quiet. Explain away the illogic within the plot itself such as crashing planes into a building AND lacing them with explosives. Then provide evidence of exactly who in our government planned this and why they did it.

What the people on this board have repeatedly asked for is factual proof to support the claims made by Loose Change. Every bit of proof offered up has been quickly and efficiently disproven or discredited yet proponents of the theory on this board refuse to admit it. Instead, they continue to offer their wild theories without offering up concrete or solid proof. All this does is further upset the skeptics on this board.

And you should not be surprised when skeptics react with vehemence against an extraordinary claim supported by very little evidence.

[CurtC]

I certainly do not have a cohesive theory about 911.Thanks for the answers. I suggest that if you try to fit your questions of the official story, into a cohesive theory, you'll find that it's pretty much impossible. The only theory that even remotely explains all the data is the standard model.

The most glaring for me was the finding of the passport.What's the problem with that? There was a lot of stuff found.

I am also astounded at the number of casualties given the scope of the incident.In what way? Were they higher than you would have expected, or lower, or what?

The cell phone thing.I didn't watch the whole Loose Change, and I watched none of the second one, so what's the problem here? Some people were able to make cell phone calls from a plane? You know that some calls were made from the airphones on board the plane, right?

To the best of my knowledge, all descriptions of the hijackers said they had "box cutters".And this indicates a conspiracy how exactly??? Seems to me that someone used that term talking to the press, and it stuck.

The stock trades, as a former trader I have read the explanations for those trades but I think it would be more then relevant to release the names at this point.You might not think so if you were that person. That would scare me to death.

It does not surprise me that people with the amount of money and power that the "Globalists" have meet in secret.Who are these Globalists, with a capital G. How do I know if I'm one?

[senorpogo]

That's another thing I don't get about the whole conspiracy thing (and I'm sure it's been mentioned before, but deserves repeating)-

These people, these "globalists", appear to have god-like effieciency at times.

They have a reach that gives them control over members of our government, big business, and the media. They also have seemingly infinite resources. Plus they can come and go like the wind when they need too. Heck, they prepared three buildings in busy New York City for demo without even being seen!

Yet despite all this unlimited power, their execution of the 9/11 plot was so sloppy that we're all sitting here talking about it. They have the power to keep hundreds of minions silent about their involvement and they have control of the media, yet they can't doctor up compelling evidence to ensure that people will buy the cover story?

What a poor double-super-secret organization.

[diggingdeeper]

What's the problem with that? There was a lot of stuff found.

In what way? Were they higher than you would have expected, or lower, or what?


And this indicates a conspiracy how exactly??? Seems to me that someone used that term talking to the press, and it stuck.


You might not think so if you were that person. That would scare me to death.

[diggingdeeper]

Thanks for the answers. I suggest that if you try to fit your questions of the official story, into a cohesive theory, you'll find that it's pretty much impossible. The only theory that even remotely explains all the data is the standard model.

Fortunately, I have neither the time, ability, or desire to form a cohesive theory about it. If I found myself doing so, I would find myself suspect! I do believe that the standard model is currently the most acceptable theory at the time. This does not stop me from wondering about certain aspect though and certainly does not close my mind to alternative explaination.

What's the problem with that? There was a lot of stuff found.

I guess you are right, there is no problem....by the way, there is this nice bridge for sale downtown.......



In what way? Were they higher than you would have expected, or lower, or what?

They were much lower then I would have expected.


And this indicates a conspiracy how exactly??? Seems to me that someone used that term talking to the press, and it stuck.

I am not in anyway advocating a conspiracy theory. It was just my impressions. You may be right. I have never read the transcripts. Have you? Do you know where I could read them? I would imagine the press got it from somewhere.

You might not think so if you were that person. That would scare me to death.

I understand your point, however in this case I think an exception could be considered. What were your thoughts about the evidence that was destroyed in # 7. Are you aware of that being disclosed anywhere?

Who are these Globalists, with a capital G. How do I know if I'm one?

LOL you wouldn't be here , that's for sure!!!

On a serious note, I would consider a Globalist to be a person, entity, whose reach economically, politically, culturally is global in nature. This includes a lot, and in no way makes them a big, bad boogie man/woman

[Hellbound]

On the passport being found, I find nothing odd about this. The idea that this is unusual comes from a Hollywood idea of explosives, and how they operate. Police and crime scene techs routinely find parts from the "ground zero" of explosive devices, as an example. Very rarely does an explosion destroy everything around it. Even wires, casings, timers, and triggers from the actual bombs themselves are sometimes found intact (uncommon, but not unusual).

With a plane crash, one has to remember that a plane is made, mostly, of thin metals and plastics. I doubt that there was much left of the parts of the planes inside the buildings. It's not much of a strech to assume that sudden decelleration from 400mph to zero would destroy the front half, and sling any persons and/or objects in the plane out the front, into the buildings or even out through broken windows.

Besides, as others have stated, it's not as if the passport was a key piece of evidence, in any case. It supports other evidence, but isn't really a requirement for the official conclusion. If they were going to plant something, it seems that DNA from the highjacker would be a more convincing plant (a claimed finger or hand recovered, for example).

[delphi_ote]

FWIW, I watched only ten minutes of the first Loose Change video, which were so full of lies and distortions that I didn't need to watch the rest. I don't fault Delphi for stating he had seen it when he saw just the first 30 minutes - that's not a big deal, especially with rotting putrid excrement like that video.
And I didn't just dismiss it! I started looking up the claims that they had made. My BS detector was reading in the red for the whole movie, but it wasn't until I verified that what they were saying was false that I decided not to watch the rest of the film! Did I miss the trick ending where the directors jumped in front of a camera and said "April Fools?" If my conclusions from the beginning didn't match what was said in the rest of the movie, someone could've pointed that out to me very easily.

And I'd say I made the most effort in this tread to independently verify facts and come to my own conclusions. I'm not trying to toot my own horn here, but I worked for hours working out equations and finding the right data. I looked at countless images of those buildings (not an easy thing for me to do.) I tried working the physics out myself (and there were some brazen mistakes back there! It took a lot for me to work toward a solution. Honestly, that paper Wildcat linked is just great.) I put a lot of time testing each of the claims I investigated. Rather than responding to these questions an inquiring and skeptical mind might have, the film moves on to the next subject. Alek did the same, even when directly confronted with the evidence and questions. He started to ask questions about the physics of the building collapsing. I thought we might be on the right track, nailing down the truth of one of these claims. Immediately after that, he ran off on a tangent about WTC7.

That's the problem with this garbage. Someone who generally wants to find the truth has to spend hours researching the facts. The conpsiracy nuts just slap a few pictures together and say "No way could that happen!" They expect us to sit around patiently and debunk every single claim they make. If it's an hour movie, we have to watch every minute of it and debunk every claim it makes or it's true. Their response to this is never to clarify, investigate the issue further, or admit they were wrong. We're dealing with the paranoid here. They ignore it and jump to the next subject.

It's the same problem with anti-evolution creationists, Kennedy assasination conspiracy theorists, moon landing hoaxters, (yes) Holocaust deniers, people believing in alien abductions... this list could go on forever. These people want to believe whatever thing they believe in because it fills some need they have. As soon as their delusions run into contradictory facts, you can watch them trying to resolve the congintive dissonance in front of you. Sadly, their strategy is usually to rationalize the facts away rather than confront them and reject their faulty hypothesis. That's exactly what's happening when they jump to the next subject.

[CurtC]

I guess you are right, there is no problem....by the way, there is this nice bridge for sale downtown.......If I'm going to buy a bridge from you or anyone, I'd definitely want title insurance to guarantee that you actually have ownership to sell in the first place. Now back to the passport thing - what's your issue with Atta's passport having been found? There was lots of stuff found.

They [casualties] were much lower then I would have expected.What did you base your expectations on? It was at a time when most people weren't yet at work, and most people in the buildings below where the planes hit, got out. On 9/11, my guess was around 3000, and that turned out to be pretty close. But back to the "theory" question - if the number was unreasonably low, what does that imply about the planners/perpetrators, and is that plausible?

What were your thoughts about the evidence that was destroyed in # 7.Sorry, I don't know what you're talking about.

[delphi_ote]

Another one of the many possibilities is that they were completely taken by surprise because of the bureaucracy that didn't follow earlier leads as has been suggested in the OWTCR. However, I would not put it past them to use this incident to consolidate money, power, and global opportunities.
Would they have to murder everyone in the buildings themselves for this to be the case? Of course not. And it seems pretty clear you don't think that either.

But that's what I meant in my earlier post about agreeing on basic facts before we discuss grown-up issues. Talking about geopolitics when you believe that the entire world is directly ruled by 10 people smoking cigars in a dark room is pointless. Who cares about voting or complex social issues when all we need to do is slap the bogeymen?

[aggle-rithm]

They were much lower then I would have expected.



I would expect them to be higher, too, but for some reason when a plane ran into their building and it caught fire, many occupants of the building left. Isn't it a little CONVENIENT that they all decided to leave at the SAME TIME?!? Perhaps they were tipped off by the globalists...?




What were your thoughts about the evidence that was destroyed in # 7. Are you aware of that being disclosed anywhere?



I've noticed that evidence is often destroyed when a building catches fire and falls down. I find it highly suspicious that this unknown evidence, having been destroyed, is not immediately made available to the public.

[ItsRDC]

"I was supposed to pilot a plane into the White House," Moussaoui responded when defense lawyers asked him if he knew he was supposed to be a pilot in the Sept. 11 attacks when he was arrested on Aug. 16 of that year. "I only knew about the two planes of the World Trade Center in addition to my own," he added.


Note: I can't post links yet, but you can find the article on the front page of foxnews

Another piece of evidence in the column of the standard 9-11 theory. Although I doubt it will stop the conspiracy theorists for a single moment.

[ItsRDC]

"I was supposed to pilot a plane into the White House," Moussaoui responded when defense lawyers asked him if he knew he was supposed to be a pilot in the Sept. 11 attacks when he was arrested on Aug. 16 of that year. "I only knew about the two planes of the World Trade Center in addition to my own," he added.


Note: I can't post links yet, but you can find the article on the front page of foxnews

Another piece of evidence in the column of the standard 9-11 theory. Although I doubt it will stop the conspiracy theorists for a single moment.

[WildCat]

Note: I can't post links yet, but you can find the article on the front page of foxnews

Another piece of evidence in the column of the standard 9-11 theory. Although I doubt it will stop the conspiracy theorists for a single moment.
Moussaoui is obviously working for the Globalists. ;)

[diggingdeeper]

QUOTE]On the passport being found, I find nothing odd about this. The idea that this is unusual comes from a Hollywood idea of explosives, and how they operate. Police and crime scene techs routinely find parts from the "ground zero" of explosive devices, as an example. Very rarely does an explosion destroy everything around it. Even wires, casings, timers, and triggers from the actual bombs themselves are sometimes found intact (uncommon, but not unusual).[/QUOTE]

You are right; in an explosion it pushes everything away from it. While it may create a lot of tiny pieces it is not necessarily totally destructive. It can take weeks or months; however, identifying parts of the bomb is entirely possible. The plane was more of an incendiary device.

With a plane crash, one has to remember that a plane is made, mostly, of thin metals and plastics. I doubt that there was much left of the parts of the planes inside the buildings. It's not much of a stretch to assume that sudden decelleration from 400mph to zero would destroy the front half, and sling any persons and/or objects in the plane out the front, into the buildings or even out through broken windows.

Besides, as others have stated, it's not as if the passport was a key piece of evidence, in any case. It supports other evidence, but isn't really a requirement for the official conclusion. If they were going to plant something, it seems that DNA from the highjacker would be a more convincing plant (a claimed finger or hand recovered, for example).[/QUOTE]

If I'm going to buy a bridge from you or anyone, I'd definitely want title insurance to guarantee that you actually have ownership to sell in the first place. Now back to the passport thing - what's your issue with Atta's passport having been found? There was lots of stuff found.

Like I said, I do not have the time, or desire, to spend on a debate about this, it could take me the rest of my life (and I do have one). However, I will try to answer your question the best I can.

I do not have an issue; to say I have an issue is to infer that I would like to resolve the matter. I do not. I am satisfied with not knowing. I would imagine that you are not. You seem to prefer to need to know, therefore accept that the passport was found in the wreckage as fact until proven otherwise. That is fine if it makes you feel comfortable.

What I meant was that while certainly it is possible that the passport was found intact in the span of time which it was but that it is not probable. I may be mistaken, but in order to ascertain that I would need to know how many other passports were found? How many other passengers had passports, etc. as well as a host of other questions.
He was piloting the plane was he not??? That would put him in the front most part of the plane and deepest into the interior of the building.

Things I do not know: certainly not a complete list.
Who found it? Was it a civilian, fireman, FBI, CIA, secret service, policeman? Is there a chain of evidence?
Where was it found?
Are you aware of the answers to any of these questions? Would they make any difference to you? Or would you feel they were not relevant in this case?

DNA? You are right, where’s the beef??? DNA would not have put a face on the crime to the general public the way the passport and photo did. I am not aware of any DNA evidence found linking the terrorists to the flight.

In the sense that it put a face to the crime, gave people a villain to see, and satisfied their need to know, it was an extremely important piece of evidence in that respect.

Don't get me wrong, I am not subscribing to the idea that it was planted or "Found" in order to cover up a plot by the United States government to blow up the trade towers. I do believe 911 was an act by fanatics and true believers who will not allow the anything to upset their perfect little worldview of the ends justifying the means.

Perhaps you might change my mind about the passport if you could lay out exactly the reasons why you believe it was found as stated. I would be more then willing to consider your or anyone else’s comments on it. But I

[diggingdeeper]

would prefer facts instead of conjecture.

[chipmunk stew]

DNA? You are right, where’s the beef??? DNA would not have put a face on the crime to the general public the way the passport and photo did. I am not aware of any DNA evidence found linking the terrorists to the flight.Minor point: DNA is only useful for identification if you have a sample to compare it to. Not surprisingly, the investigators were not able to acquire samples from any of the terrorists (as far as I know).

[WildCat]

He was piloting the plane was he not???

...Things I do not know: certainly not a complete list.
Who found it? Was it a civilian, fireman, FBI, CIA, secret service, policeman? Is there a chain of evidence?
Where was it found?
Are you aware of the answers to any of these questions? Would they make any difference to you? Or would you feel they were not relevant in this case?
The passport found was of Satam al Suqami, who was not the pilot of the plane.

According to the 9/11 Commission (http://www.9-11commission.gov/staff_statements/911_TerrTrav_Ch2.pdf): (page 21)
Suqami’s passport survived the attack: a passerby picked it up from the World Trade Center and handed to a New York Police Department detective shortly before the towers collapsed.

The passport was recovered by NYPD Detective Yuk H. Chin from a male passerby in a business suit, about 30 years old. The passerby left before being identified, while debris was falling from WTC 2. The tower collapsed shortly thereafter. The detective then gave the passport to the FBI on 9/11. See FBI report, interview of Detective Chin, Sept. 12, 2001.
So it wasn't recovered from the debris of the WTC, but before the tower collapsed.

And as you can see from this pic, debris from the planes did fall several blocks away from the WTC. The caption of this photo (http://www.pbase.com/peteburke73/image/1459719/medium) reads: "On Albany Street, two blocks south of WTC 2, Two men examine a seat cushion from AA Flight 11. 8:52 a.m."

http://i.pbase.com/u8/peteburke73/medium/1459719.AlbanySeatCushion8X12.jpg

eta: This pic (http://www.pbase.com/peteburke73/image/1459828) also documents that debris from the plane as well as body parts rained down to the street from the crash.

[hellaeon]

And I didn't just dismiss it! I started looking up the claims that they had made. My BS detector was reading in the red for the whole movie, but it wasn't until I verified that what they were saying was false that I decided not to watch the rest of the film! Did I miss the trick ending where the directors jumped in front of a camera and said "April Fools?" If my conclusions from the beginning didn't match what was said in the rest of the movie, someone could've pointed that out to me very easily.

And I'd say I made the most effort in this tread to independently verify facts and come to my own conclusions. I'm not trying to toot my own horn here, but I worked for hours working out equations and finding the right data. I looked at countless images of those buildings (not an easy thing for me to do.) I tried working the physics out myself (and there were some brazen mistakes back there! It took a lot for me to work toward a solution. Honestly, that paper Wildcat linked is just great.) I put a lot of time testing each of the claims I investigated. Rather than responding to these questions an inquiring and skeptical mind might have, the film moves on to the next subject. Alek did the same, even when directly confronted with the evidence and questions. He started to ask questions about the physics of the building collapsing. I thought we might be on the right track, nailing down the truth of one of these claims. Immediately after that, he ran off on a tangent about WTC7.

That's the problem with this garbage. Someone who generally wants to find the truth has to spend hours researching the facts. The conpsiracy nuts just slap a few pictures together and say "No way could that happen!" They expect us to sit around patiently and debunk every single claim they make. If it's an hour movie, we have to watch every minute of it and debunk every claim it makes or it's true. Their response to this is never to clarify, investigate the issue further, or admit they were wrong. We're dealing with the paranoid here. They ignore it and jump to the next subject.

It's the same problem with anti-evolution creationists, Kennedy assasination conspiracy theorists, moon landing hoaxters, (yes) Holocaust deniers, people believing in alien abductions... this list could go on forever. These people want to believe whatever thing they believe in because it fills some need they have. As soon as their delusions run into contradictory facts, you can watch them trying to resolve the congintive dissonance in front of you. Sadly, their strategy is usually to rationalize the facts away rather than confront them and reject their faulty hypothesis. That's exactly what's happening when they jump to the next subject.

well said mate. I found this when I was open to conspiracy theories and the like and spent some time reading about them. In fact, it was the 911 one which had me stop lending time to the conspiracy movement as the people I knew right into it where saying all sorts of ridiculous stuff such as shape shifting lizard theories and the like. Then I was told when I doubted them that I had a wrong worldview???????? I mean what the hell....I actually felt like it was a cult of sorts.

EDIT: ItsRDC - I wanted to mention that about Moussaoui. Good point, its anecdotal evidence, but as I have read on the 911 sites - surely he is an 'expert witness' ? - good to also see digging deeper talk a bit more civilized then degenerating his posts to slanging matches.


My two cents

[WildCat]

Minor point: DNA is only useful for identification if you have a sample to compare it to. Not surprisingly, the investigators were not able to acquire samples from any of the terrorists (as far as I know).
Just to clarify, DNA from the 9 hijackers from Flight 93 and Flight 77 was recovered. The families of those hijackers did not provide a sample for comparison and thus a positive DNA ID.

[pipelineaudio]

Alright, really Im starting to get caught up in this

How do we explain the WTC7 collapse?

Really watch a video on it, any video. It falls so nicely, like in a demo

[WildCat]

Alright, really Im starting to get caught up in this

How do we explain the WTC7 collapse?

Really watch a video on it, any video. It falls so nicely, like in a demo
Post 127.

[diggingdeeper]

Hey Wcat,
thanks for the info. That brings me a good part of the way there, however (and don't mind me, its just part of my personality, I am not grasping at straws) since I was speaking of odds and probabilities, what would you figure the odds were of finding the passport in less then an hour after the crash??
Not to mention the unidentified character... do you know if he has ever come forward? I know if it were me, I would not have kept it a secret that I had been the one to find the passport.

Also, Jarrahs parially burnt visa (his photo was not burnt)was found in the wreckage of flight 93

[diggingdeeper]

wcat,


I am trying to find the FBI interview with chin and had no luck. any suggestions?

[WildCat]

Hey Wcat,
thanks for the info. That brings me a good part of the way there, however (and don't mind me, its just part of my personality, I am not grasping at straws) since I was speaking of odds and probabilities, what would you figure the odds were of finding the passport in less then an hour after the crash??
What were the odds of you being born? Of George Mason getting to the Final 4? ;)
Not really relevant, but it happened.

Not to mention the unidentified character... do you know if he has ever come forward? I know if it were me, I would not have kept it a secret that I had been the one to find the passport.
Perhaps that person doesn't even know the significance of what he found. There was a lot happening at the time...

[delphi_ote]

Post 127.
Here's a linky link (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1507647#post1507647).

[chipmunk stew]

I need to post an image here because the LC forum doesn't allow attachments.

edit: oops. I'll put it up in a sec.

[WildCat]

wcat,


I am trying to find the FBI interview with chin and had no luck. any suggestions?
I can't find it, probably not public info or it isn't on the web. Maybe you could try a FOIA request if you really need it.

[hellaeon]

yeah regarding odds, who would have thought the fricken south african cricket team would post a world record one day score against the aussies the same game that we first posted a record score. No team had passed 400 ever in a one day match. But we did, then I watched in horror as they did as well and won. Totally Surreal. Thats a hollywood script. Trust me for cricket, that was totally amazing.

One thing im constantly amazed by is the ability of people to walk away from immense car crash virutally unscathed, whereas a passenger in the same vehicle is killed instantly with horrific injuries.

who would have thought we would have probes on mars remotely controlled from earth - we cant actually see them. We rely only on what nasa tells us. A cover up of that would be much easier then 911.

[diggingdeeper]

Re the odds:
does that mean you guys buy lotto tickets too????

Anyway,
Seems there was much confusion and bad reporting and statements form various people during the ealy days about the passports and who they belonged to
There were 4 including the one found in Atta's bag in portland., that one was omani's probably where much of the confusion stems from.

re the evidence in #7, I was not trying to support some theory, I was simply curious about which cases were pending , and what happened because of the evidence held in the building being destroyed

[GrnMtSkeptic]

The idea that the pilot who flew the plane into the Pentagon had played a part in military exercises before had my interest, but it went nowhere.

Alas, that was bogus anyway. Charles Burlingame left the Navy to take a job with the airlines in 1979. He remained in the Naval Reserve until he retired in 1996. Yet this site claims he participates in an exercise in 2000, then retires to take a job at American Airlines.

I was going to ask, do they really think people won't check these things? But, it seems that people don't...


Charles F. Burlingame III

Charles F. (Chic) Burlingame III was born September 12, 1949 in St. Paul, Minnesota. He and his wife Sheri have resided in Oak Hill, Virginia, for the past five years.

A senior pilot at American Airlines, he began his airline career in 1979 after graduating from the Naval Academy in 1971. Chic served as a naval aviator flying F4 Phantoms and stayed in the reserves and rose to the rank of Captain. He earned the “Defense Superior Service Medal” and retired in 1996 after twenty-five years of distinguished service.

Memorial service Captain Charles Burlingame III
Thursday, September 20, 2001
1400 Hours
The Navy Academy Chapel
Annapolis, Maryland
Uniforms encouraged

Due to security, all guests names must be included on a list for the guard at the entry gate. The Naval Academy Security office must have this list no later than Tuesday, September 18th. To place your name on the list, please call 703-779-9769 speak clearly and spell your name, or mail mandjmarks@aol.com. You will be required to present a Photo ID at the gate or you will not be allowed to enter.

http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/cfburling3.htm

[pipelineaudio]

Here's a linky link (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1507647#post1507647).

Somehow I doubt this would convince them :(

[delphi_ote]

Re the odds:
does that mean you guys buy lotto tickets too????
Probability is a measure of uncertainty. Once we know an event has happened, we aren't uncertain about it anymore.

If you let me play the lottery from yesterday, then yes. I will buy a lotto ticket (one would be enough.) Even if the odds were a trillion to one against whatever number came up, I think it would be a good investment.

[WildCat]

Somehow I doubt this would convince them :(
Nothing will ever convince those guys. I was just lurking over there, they're still posting threads about how there were no Arabs on any of the planes. Idiots.

One thing you may point out to them is that in the WTC7 video they think proves a controlled demo, is that the "squibs" go off after the building starts to collapse. Proving that the "squibs" are just material being ejected from the floors collapsing within the building.

[diggingdeeper]

Probability is a measure of uncertainty.

To my knowlage, the odds are the measurment of a state of probability being true or not, or, happening or not.

However, I get the gist of your statement

[diggingdeeper]

Alas, that was bogus anyway. Charles Burlingame left the Navy to take a job with the airlines in 1979. He remained in the Naval Reserve until he retired in 1996. Yet this site claims he participates in an exercise in 2000, then retires to take a job at American Airlines.

I was going to ask, do they really think people won't check these things? But, it seems that people don't...

The usual reason why it didn't go anywhere, because it just ain't so!
Thanks for looking it up and bringing it to my attention!

[Manny]

"I was supposed to pilot a plane into the White House," Moussaoui responded when defense lawyers asked him if he knew he was supposed to be a pilot in the Sept. 11 attacks when he was arrested on Aug. 16 of that year. "I only knew about the two planes of the World Trade Center in addition to my own," he added.

Note: I can't post links yet, but you can find the article on the front page of foxnews

Another piece of evidence in the column of the standard 9-11 theory. Although I doubt it will stop the conspiracy theorists for a single moment.

Note: I can't post links yet, but you can find the article on the front page of foxnews

Another piece of evidence in the column of the standard 9-11 theory. Although I doubt it will stop the conspiracy theorists for a single moment.I'm going to come down on the other side of this one. Moussaoui is a liar and in all probability is just having a little fun with the spectacle of his sentencing hearing. If he said his job was to install the explosives in the Bankers Trust building and that's why it didn't fall I certainly wouldn't believe him absent other evidence. Why should anyone believe this statement either, without corroborating evidence?

[chipmunk stew]

I'm going to come down on the other side of this one. Moussaoui is a liar and in all probability is just having a little fun with the spectacle of his sentencing hearing. If he said his job was to install the explosives in the Bankers Trust building and that's why it didn't fall I certainly wouldn't believe him absent other evidence. Why should anyone believe this statement either, without corroborating evidence?I'm having the same reaction. What makes his testimony most suspicious to me is his claim that he was supposed to partner up with convicted "shoe bomber" Whatsizname.

I think he'd just rather have his 40 virgins sooner than later, and a relatively humane execution rather than a shank in the gut.

[delphi_ote]

To my knowlage, the odds are the measurment of a state of probability being true or not, or, happening or not.
"Odds" and "probability" mean roughly the same thing. We report them differently, and there are subtle technical differences, but they're basically the same concept.

When you say "being true or not," that's what I mean when I use the word "uncertain." If we are certain, then we don't need a measure of whether a thing is true or not. It either is or it isn't.

[CurtC]

I think it's fair to say that when people ask what are the odds of something happening, they're talking about the hypothetical scenario where something similar happens a bunch of times, and asking out of those trials, what proportion will have this certain thing happen.

The trouble you quickly get into is that you have to specify what exactly you're asking:

* What is the prob that this particular guy's passport would be found intact, at that exact location, by some guy who hands it to a police officer? Pretty low.

* What is the prob that any photo ID of any of the hijackers would be found before the buildings collapsed? Pretty low that, too, but certainly greater than the first scenario.

* What is the prob that any hijacker belonging is found? We're starting to get a little higher.

As you get less and less specific, the probability gets higher and higher, and you realize that out of the very large set of astounding coincidences that could possibly happen, it's not too remarkable that one of them did in fact happen.

[kookbreaker]

I'm still wondering why this passport is such a big deal. The CT'ers are making such a huge deal about it as if it were the only thing the FBi says they have to link the events to the terrorists. In fact, it is just something that survived and they would have figured out the names in any case. The only reason the passport gets any freaking attention at all is because the CT'ers mention it constantly.

[CurtC]

The first time I ever heard that a hijacker's passport was found, it was from a CTer years after the fact.

[Alek]

"Odds" and "probability" mean roughly the same thing. We report them differently, and there are subtle technical differences, but they're basically the same concept.

When you say "being true or not," that's what I mean when I use the word "uncertain." If we are certain, then we don't need a measure of whether a thing is true or not. It either is or it isn't.

No they don't mean roughly the same thing. A probability is a chance or likelihood. For instance, rolling a 2 on a balanced 6-sided die has a 1/6 probability. Odds are ratios of chances, usually expressed as the ratio of the probability of failure to the probability of success. If the probability of rolling a 2 is 1/6, the odds are 5:1 against it.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

In common usage of the terms probability is "the ratio of the number of outcomes in an exhaustive set of equally likely outcomes that produce a given event to the total number of possible outcomes" and odds are "the ratio of the probability of one event to that of an alternative event".

Now, what I am seeing is that you are playing around with the numbers to make the differences look more dramatic than they are. Your dice example can just as easily be shown as:
Probability that you will roll a 2 on a six-sided dice: 1 in 6 for, or 5 in 6 against
Odds that you will will roll a 2 on a six-sided dice: 1:5 for it, or 5:1 against it iirc

[LordoftheLeftHand]

No they don't mean roughly the same thing. A probability is a chance or likelihood. For instance, rolling a 2 on a balanced 6-sided die has a 1/6 probability. Odds are ratios of chances, usually expressed as the ratio of the probability of failure to the probability of success. If the probability of rolling a 2 is 1/6, the odds are 5:1 against it.

Actually they are the same thing. In your example you wrote the probability of rolling a 2 as "1/6". Using your example the odds of rolling a 2 are "1:6".

Just change your ":" into a "/" and you are talking about the same thing.

LLH

[Alek]

Actually they are the same thing. In your example you wrote the probability of rolling a 2 as "1/6". Using your example the odds of rolling a 2 are "1:6".

Just change your ":" into a "/" and you are talking about the same thing.

LLH

Uh, no. The odds of rolling a 2 on a balanced 6-sided die are 1:5. Re-read my post until you understand it.

[Alek]

In common usage of the terms probability is "the ratio of the number of outcomes in an exhaustive set of equally likely outcomes that produce a given event to the total number of possible outcomes" and odds are "the ratio of the probability of one event to that of an alternative event".

Now, what I am seeing is that you are playing around with the numbers to make the differences look more dramatic than they are. Your dice example can just as easily be shown as:
Probability that you will roll a 2 on a six-sided dice: 1 in 6 for, or 5 in 6 against
Odds that you will will roll a 2 on a six-sided dice: 1:5 for it, or 5:1 against it iirc

You recall correctly. However, I contend that 1/6 is not "roughly the same" as 1:5. If NASA engineers used this type of logic, then we would have space shuttles exploding in the sky.

[WildCat]

You recall correctly. However, I contend that 1/6 is not "roughly the same" as 1:5. If NASA engineers used this type of logic, then we would have space shuttles exploding in the sky.
Oh, glad you're back Alek. Can you please supply the list of eyewitnesses who saw something other than an AA 757 hit the Pentagon?

[GrnMtSkeptic]

oops

[LordoftheLeftHand]

Uh, no. The odds of rolling a 2 on a balanced 6-sided die are 1:5. Re-read my post until you understand it.

Sorry you’re right. I forget sometimes that I live in Vegas where "odds" means something totally different :)

Regardless: rolling a dice you have 1 chance in 6 of getting any certain side. No matter which way you use to annotate it. You are playing semantics.

LLH

[ferd burfle]

I have two other general lines of questioning to attack the WTC demolition theory. Hopefully someone here has some knowledge of the process of blowing up buildings to provide the answers or point me in direction of some source.

1.) What kind of resources would it take to blow up all three buildings? How many tons of explosives? How many trained people to plant these explosives? How much time would it all take to plant all the charges? Could these charges be hidden to go unnoticed by people working within the building?

2.) If both of the towers were wired to blow, wouldn't the planes crashing into the towers detonate the explosives on those levels? Wouldn't that cause an instantenous crash of those levels above? Or do demolition charges require some other type of reaction to go off?

I would happily defer to Huntsman as I'm not a demolitions expert. But I do have experience in engineering failure analysis and can make a couple of categorical statements on that aspect. A controlled demolition would leave an unmistakeable signature on the steel. Explosives, and it would have to have been tons, would leave residue all over the debris. And if they used shaped-charge column cutters on the steel columns, which I think is the most likely method if I bought into this part of the CT, the debris and especially the steel would have no end of copper residue on it since the cutters work by using a jet of hypersonic copper to cut the steel. I'm no structural engineer either but demolition would result in steel that exhibited cut ends; many, many cut ends from all the demolition charges. As opposed to lots of bent, torn or stretch-like-taffy-till-it-broke ends.

And I suppose this is the point where our CT brethren gently point out to me that I'm forgetting about the army of Illuminati-bred hamsters that, wearing these really, really, really cute camo Nomex firesuits, fanned out into the still-smoldering debris and used these really, really, really tiny little wire brushes to scrape away all trace of HE and copper before the forensics lads showed up. And oh yeah, gnawed with their titanium tooth implants on the cut ends of the steel until it didn't look cut.

Sigh....

Ferd

[kookbreaker]

And I suppose this is the point where our CT brethren gently point out to me that I'm forgetting about the army of Illuminati-bred hamsters that, wearing these really, really, really cute camo Nomex firesuits, fanned out into the still-smoldering debris and used these really, really, really tiny little wire brushes to scrape away all trace of HE and copper before the forensics lads showed up. And oh yeah, gnawed with their titanium tooth implants on the cut ends of the steel until it didn't look cut.


Oh, sure, blame the hamsters.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

You recall correctly. However, I contend that 1/6 is not "roughly the same" as 1:5. If NASA engineers used this type of logic, then we would have space shuttles exploding in the sky.

They only diverge when you are calculating for more than one dice roll. For a single roll the odds and probability for throwing a 2 (on a six-sided dice) are for all intents, and purposes equal. Only if you being to deal with things like rolling two consecutive 2's, do you need to look at them as being significantly different.

That aside, you are playing a semantics game.

[ferd burfle]

Oh, glad you're back Alek. Can you please supply the list of eyewitnesses who saw something other than an AA 757 hit the Pentagon?

Alek, may I suggest you go to Google Advanced Search and search on "crickets" combined with the exact phrase "Sylvia Brown"?

Ferd

[ferd burfle]

Oh, sure, blame the hamsters.

Matey, I'm tellin' ye, they's evil little bastiges!! And it takes way too many of em after ye sautee's em to make a decent samwidge!

[Alek]

Oh, glad you're back Alek. Can you please supply the list of eyewitnesses who saw something other than an AA 757 hit the Pentagon?

As I recall, you admitted watching Loose Change. The information is in the movie. So you're either lying about watching the movie, you have a short attention span, or you have a poor memory.

I'm not going to get trolled by you. Try someone else.

[Euromutt]

No they don't mean roughly the same thing.Uh, yes they do. Roughly, and within the context of this discussion. Probability is the chance that a particular event will occur. Odds are "the ratio of the probability of one event to that of an alternative event." When you're discussing the likelihood of a given event occurring, as opposed to it not occurring, probability and odds are for all practical purposes the same thing. The two terms diverge when you start to consider more than two possible outcomes.

For example, the probability of rolling any given number present on a six-sided die is 1/6 (or 16.667%). The odds of rolling that given side (say 2), as opposed to not rolling it (not 2), is [1/6 : 5/6], which is more conveniently expressed as 1:5.

By contrast, the odds of rolling 2 as opposed to rolling, say, 1 is [1/6 : 1/6] i.e. 1:1. The odds are different, even though the probabilities aren't. But that's not what we're talking about, since diggingdeeper and delphi_ote were explicitly talking about the probability of a given event occurring as opposed to it not occurring.

[Ducky]

As I recall, you admitted watching Loose Change. The information is in the movie. So you're either lying about watching the movie, you have a short attention span, or you have a poor memory.

I'm not going to get trolled by you. Try someone else.


:jshark


When the troll says they won't be trolled because they refuse to answer a question repeatedly asked of them, the thread has officially jumped the shark.

[Alek]

Sorry you’re right. I forget sometimes that I live in Vegas where "odds" means something totally different :)

Regardless: rolling a dice you have 1 chance in 6 of getting any certain side. No matter which way you use to annotate it. You are playing semantics.

LLH

I live in California. I play poker and blackjack in Vegas quite often. "Odds" mean the same thing in Vegas as they do here in San Diego, or anywhere else. I understand that most people don't bother to make the distinction, but I do.

[Ducky]

I live in California. I play poker and blackjack in Vegas quite often. "Odds" mean the same thing in Vegas as they do here in San Diego, or anywhere else. I understand that most people don't bother to make the distinction, but I do.



Not very good with sarcasm, are you?

[WildCat]

As I recall, you admitted watching Loose Change. The information is in the movie. So you're either lying about watching the movie, you have a short attention span, or you have a poor memory.

I'm not going to get trolled by you. Try someone else.
IIRC, the movie uses quotes out of context to make it appear there were witnesses who said that. I'm calling BS on that.

Prove me wrong, Alek.

And I'm not going to sit here debating you by you saying "look at 1:06:24 of the movie". I'd really much prefer a link so I can find the actual quote and the context it was in, and leave the director playing the propaganda game out of the loop. You dig?

Now, see if you can do that.

[LordoftheLeftHand]

I play poker and blackjack in Vegas quite often.

That just means your not very smart.

LLH

[Alek]

I would happily defer to Huntsman as I'm not a demolitions expert. But I do have experience in engineering failure analysis and can make a couple of categorical statements on that aspect. A controlled demolition would leave an unmistakeable signature on the steel.



You mean like this?

http://www.explosive911analysis.com/D5.jpg

Note the smoking beams in the lower left. Must be kerosene.



Explosives, and it would have to have been tons, would leave residue all over the debris. And if they used shaped-charge column cutters on the steel columns, which I think is the most likely method if I bought into this part of the CT, the debris and especially the steel would have no end of copper residue on it since the cutters work by using a jet of hypersonic copper to cut the steel. I'm no structural engineer either but demolition would result in steel that exhibited cut ends; many, many cut ends from all the demolition charges. As opposed to lots of bent, torn or stretch-like-taffy-till-it-broke ends.



I agree, except that if we are to assume that resourceful people were responsible for this demolition, and I think that's a reasonable assumption to make, they would only use just enough explosives to allow gravity to take over and do the work:

“If I were to bring the towers down, I would put explosives in the basement to get the weight of the building to help collapse the structure.”

- http://www.americanfreepress.net/09_03_02/NEW_SEISMIC_/new_seismic_.html

Of course, that doesn't explain the massive pyroclastic-like dust clouds and the horizontal ejection of debris near the top of the towers as they collapsed. But then again, neither does the official conspiracy theory.



And I suppose this is the point where our CT brethren gently point out to me that I'm forgetting about the army of Illuminati-bred hamsters that, wearing these really, really, really cute camo Nomex firesuits, fanned out into the still-smoldering debris and used these really, really, really tiny little wire brushes to scrape away all trace of HE and copper before the forensics lads showed up. And oh yeah, gnawed with their titanium tooth implants on the cut ends of the steel until it didn't look cut.



What forensic investigation? Controlled Demolition was the only entity allowed on the scene following the disaster, and the evidence was shipped off to China for recycling. After all, we didn't really need an investigation. Terrorists led by Osama Bin Laden did it! I know this because he admitted it on tape. Lets Roll!

Interesting how Controlled Demolition was the same company that cleaned up the Alfred P. Murrah building - under armed guard - in the government sponsored Oklahoma City bombing.

You don't have to commit the perfect crime. You just have to control the investigation that follows.

[Alek]

IIRC, the movie uses quotes out of context to make it appear there were witnesses who said that. I'm calling BS on that.



You recall incorrectly. Watch the movie again. Pay attention to the eyewitness video interviews. But don't get back to me, please.



Prove me wrong, Alek.



Not interested.



And I'm not going to sit here debating you by you saying "look at 1:06:24 of the



Is that a promise?



movie". I'd really much prefer a link so I can find the actual quote and the context it was in, and leave the director playing the propaganda game out of the loop. You dig?

Now, see if you can do that.

[Alek]

That just means your not very smart.

LLH

...

[DavidJames]

..in the government sponsored Oklahoma City bombing...well that clinched it for me, you are three complete suits short of a full deck.

[Alek]

well that clinched it for me, you are three complete suits short of a full deck.

Yes, the World Trade Center building 7 imploded symmetrically in 6.6 seconds due to fire, the magic bullet theory is valid, and Timothy McVeigh acted alone. Join me in a rousing chorus of "Proud to be an American". At least I know I'm free.

I'm sorry I lost you, David. If anyone would like to talk about Oklahoma City, we can start another thread. I would, however, suggest you first watch the film 9/11 The Road to Tyranny.

[WildCat]

Note the smoking beams in the lower left. Must be kerosene.
Steel doesn't smoke when its heated Alek! You're looking at dust.

I agree, except that if we are to assume that resourceful people were responsible for this demolition, and I think that's a reasonable assumption to make, they would only use just enough explosives to allow gravity to take over and do the work:
No need to assume, because there's not a single structural engineer in the US who thinks that the impact of the planes and resulting fires was insufficient to bring down the WTC.

“If I were to bring the towers down, I would put explosives in the basement to get the weight of the building to help collapse the structure.”

- http://www.americanfreepress.net/09_03_02/NEW_SEISMIC_/new_seismic_.html
What a joke that link is. Nice the way they take Lerner-Lamm's comments out of context to make it appear he agrees w/ the nonsense. It's already been pointed out in this thread that that's not so. And just how does "steel" stay molten after all that time Alek? Perhaps, if the contractor did indeed see a pool of something, it was not steel?

Of course, that doesn't explain the massive pyroclastic-like dust clouds and the horizontal ejection of debris near the top of the towers as they collapsed. But then again, neither does the official conspiracy theory.
Pyroclastic-like dust, did the gov't plant a volcano in the WTC as well as explosives? :eek:

A building of that size will not collapse w/o ejecting material horizontally, it's pretty much impossible.

What forensic investigation? Controlled Demolition was the only entity allowed on the scene following the disaster, and the evidence was shipped off to China for recycling. After all, we didn't really need an investigation. Terrorists led by Osama Bin Laden did it! I know this because he admitted it on tape. Lets Roll!

Interesting how Controlled Demolition was the same company that cleaned up the Alfred P. Murrah building - under armed guard - in the government sponsored Oklahoma City bombing.

You don't have to commit the perfect crime. You just have to control the investigation that follows.
Cue Twighlight Zone music...

[WildCat]

You recall incorrectly. Watch the movie again. Pay attention to the eyewitness video interviews. But don't get back to me, please.
So, there are no eyewitnesses to a non-757 hitting the Pentagon. Now that that's settled, I won't ask again.

[gtc]

What forensic investigation? Controlled Demolition was the only entity allowed on the scene following the disaster, and the evidence was shipped off to China for recycling. After all, we didn't really need an investigation. Terrorists led by Osama Bin Laden did it! I know this because he admitted it on tape. Lets Roll!

Your use of the phase 'Lets Roll' in this contexts shows that you either do not believe that the person who said that phrase ever existed or you are making fun of the victims of 911.

It doesn't say much for you as a person either way.

[delphi_ote]

It's worth re-quoting what I said earlier:
"Odds" and "probability" mean roughly the same thing. We report them differently, and there are subtle technical differences, but they're basically the same concept.
I've added some emphasis to my original post. While I'm as prone as anyone else to make a mistake, I'm also pretty damn cautious about respecting the depth and complexity of the field of probability and statistics. I chose my language very carefully.

It's also worth quoting Mathworld:
Betting odds are written in the form r:s ("r to s") and correspond to the probability of winning P==s/(r+s). Therefore, given a probability P, the odds of winning are (1/P)-1:1.
I've added some emphasis to this quote as well. The odds of an event are derived from its probability. From one you can calculate the other. In essence, we're talking about the same thing. It's just a different way of representing it (like polar vs. Cartesian coordinates.)

If you're interested in the subtle technicalities I was refering to:
There are several competing interpretations of the actual "meaning" of probabilities. Frequentists view probability simply as a measure of the frequency of outcomes (the more conventional interpretation), while Bayesians treat probability more subjectively as a statistical procedure that endeavors to estimate parameters of an underlying distribution based on the observed distribution.
Usually, someone talking about odds is a frequentist. It's just more a part of their vocabulary than it is for the Bayesians. The equations both schools derive for probability come out the same, but they approach the concepts in a different way. If you wanted a layman's synopsis, the frequentists are basically more conservative and Bayesians are a little more loose with what they'll call "probability."

P.S. Arguing with me about the theory of probability and statistics is suicide. Please don't do it. Think of your loved ones.

[diggingdeeper]

Uh, yes they do. Roughly, and within the context of this discussion. Probability is the chance that a particular event will occur. Odds are "the ratio of the probability of one event to that of an alternative event." When you're discussing the likelihood of a given event occurring, as opposed to it not occurring, probability and odds are for all practical purposes the same thing. The two terms diverge when you start to consider more than two possible outcomes.

For example, the probability of rolling any given number present on a six-sided die is 1/6 (or 16.667%). The odds of rolling that given side (say 2), as opposed to not rolling it (not 2), is [1/6 : 5/6], which is more conveniently expressed as 1:5.

By contrast, the odds of rolling 2 as opposed to rolling, say, 1 is [1/6 : 1/6] i.e. 1:1. The odds are different, even though the probabilities aren't. But that's not what we're talking about, since diggingdeeper and delphi_ote were explicitly talking about the probability of a given event occurring as opposed to it not occurring.

Gee, sorry to have started that one off!

I understood the point that D was trying to make, I only meant to say that probabilities is not a measurement as he had stated but a state where the odds are a measurement.
I am not a mathmatician, but i am sure there are plenty and I would like to be corrected if I am wrong with the following analogy:

Numbers are not a measurement
a ratio is.

probabilities are not a measurement
odds are.

[diggingdeeper]

comma after state....

[DavidJames]

I'm sorry I lost you, David.Don't worry, you didn't lose me. On the contrary, now I've got you dialed in perfectly. You are a genuine, bona fide, professional conspiracy theorist. Hot dang. Please continue and please do start threads on those other conspiracies.

[Regnad Kcin]

You know, I just spent a couple of hours reading through the entire thread.Congrats. It's certainly a long one.

First of all, while I do appreciate some of the conversations on the site, I was pretty disappointed with the majority of the debate between fellow skeptics.

I must say, I find the tone of many to be condescending. If not at first, it sure gets there pretty quickly. I understand that that is part of human nature but very few of the many who participate as such will admit it (I am not leaving myself out of that equation either).

Without going into agreement with Alex’s' views or not, I am going to observe that he apologized when he felt he was wrong, he admitted that he had been mistaken when he felt so and managed for the most part to not be drawn into what I considered to be baiting from some as well as some attempts to intellectually bully him.I'm not making excuses, but in my few years here, I've engaged in and lurked over numerous discussions of these types. It all pretty much comes down to a simple request: please show evidence. Not evidence against something, but evidence for it. Of course, debunking the "whatabouts" (as in "Well, whatabout this? Whatabout that?) that predominate in, say, the moon landing hoax debates can be jolly fun, but it ultimately gets frustrating in that it seems sometimes so many are ready to believe the most fanciful things rather than the simple. So I can see where long-time contributers here might be a bit testy when yet another Dread Pirate Conspiracy comes along like clockwork and, once again, it lacks proof.

If you propose that the destruction of 9/11/2001 was due to something other than what is commonly accepted, you must prove it, not just play at poking holes in other theories.

...I get what Alex was feeling for the most part though I do not necessarily agree with all of it but why should it be unthinkable that our, or any other government should lie to us when we know for a fact it has happened in the past?Who says anything is "unthinkable?" I don't. But that's hardly enough to hang one's hat on, much less a series of events such as what occurred on 9/11.

What has happened that would dissuade them from that practice? His idea that it might be a Psy-op is not totally out of hand especially since it is a military principle that wars should be fought using these types of methods more and more in the future."Might be?" As Ronald Reagan said, "There you go again." Please present your proof.

If 911 is truly an extraordinary event in world history, does it not deserve exploring honestly the extraordinary context and possible beginnings it might have had? if not, why not?Calling something an "extraordinary" event colors it with dramatic overtones that may impede rational discussion.

As I suggested earlier in the thread, it ended up being catastrophic, but not so much as perhaps intended. Fanatics, no matter their origins, will strike out in unconventional ways in order to promote their cause. If 9/11 hadn't happened, something like it would've (as it did prior) eventually, and likely will again. (It could be argued that such events are ongoing, though some manage to be more headline-worthy than others, making 9/11 less "extraordinary" when viewed within the overall narrative.) In that way, the WTC destruction wasn't "extraordinary," except that it was visually spectacular and witnessed by so many, therefore making a significant impression.

[Regnad Kcin]

Yes, the World Trade Center building 7 imploded symmetrically in 6.6 seconds due to fire, the magic bullet theory is valid, and Timothy McVeigh acted alone. Join me in a rousing chorus of "Proud to be an American". At least I know I'm free...You believe in a JFK conspiracy? Okay...

[delphi_ote]

probabilities are not a measurement
odds are.
Don't worry about starting this discussion. So far, I think it's been constructive.

In a sense, you're close to the right idea in your post. While it's exactly right, but you seem to have a good intuitive understanding of something that confuses mathematicians. The problem is that probability is a hard term to define, even for experts. The confusing part about it comes in with the two schools of thought I mentioned in my previous post. In the more traditional school that tends to use the term "odds," the terms "probability" and "odds" both refer to an actual measurement of frequency.

In the Bayesian school of thinking, probability means something a little more abstract. Probability isn't necessarily a measurement in this school of thought. It's something you estimate based on what you measure. This school tends to view probability more in the way I did in my first post (i.e. it's a measure of our uncertainty about an event.)

Mind you, I'm not saying probability is an ambiguous concept nobody can define. There are two very precise mathematical definitions, and both result in the same formulas. No matter how you choose to think about it, you end up with the same equations. Both schools would agree that the probability that particular passport fell out of that particular plane and landed on that particular sidewalk is equal to one, because we observed that it happened and it is now a certainty. You just have to be careful that you don't confuse the two definitions when you're around pedantic mathematicians.

I hope that clarifies things a bit.

[diggingdeeper]

"Might be?" As Ronald Reagan said, "There you go again." Please present your proof.

Thanks for your comments, there is a disclaimer in the following documented link, but still the study was designed to comply with a directive from the chief of staff of the Air Force... (or so it claims...)

I should have said in my original post ..evolving military principles.
There is quite alot more on this subject, after you finish this if you would like some more let me know.
Thanks again.

http://www.au.af.mil/au/2025/volume3/chap03/v3c3-1htm

[diggingdeeper]

I hope that clarifies things a bit

Oh sure, whoever Bayesian is...LOL I don't know though, it would seem to me that a probability would nor become anything without measuring it first, so it itself would not be considered a measurement.

I totally understood what you menat in the first place, mine was only a semantical point.

[diggingdeeper]

Reginad,
I just tried to go to that link that I posted to you. and what do you know....you can no longer go there. The good news is, I have the hard copy and would be more the happy to send it to you a copy if you like

[delphi_ote]

Oh sure, whoever Bayesian is...LOL
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/3a/Thomasbayes.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Bayes
Now you know! :D
I don't know though, it would seem to me that a probability would nor become anything without measuring it first, so it itself would not be considered a measurement.
Are you trying to say that you think the process of measurement is estimating some underlying true principle? If so, you're agreeing with the Bayesian camp. If not, I'll apologize in advance for misunderstanding and ask if you can clarify.
I totally understood what you menat in the first place, mine was only a semantical point.
I understood what you meant earlier, too, and I'm also making a semantic point. It's a semantic point that happens to be very important, though.

[Alek]

Your use of the phase 'Lets Roll' in this contexts shows that you either do not believe that the person who said that phrase ever existed or you are making fun of the victims of 911.

It doesn't say much for you as a person either way.

I don't know if the phrase was uttered by Todd Beamer or not. I do know that it is the battle cry of an unjust war on false pretenses that is killing thousands of US soldiers and tens of thousands of innocent civilians. I was mocking it on that basis. In any event, you're right, it was inappropriate. I apologize. I'm not here to disparage the memory of 9/11 victims, in fact, I'm trying to inform others of the truth of their demise.

Thankfully, my personhood isn't dependent upon your opinion of me. I'm pretty confident that I care a whole hell of a lot more than most people around me about what is going on in the world today.

[Alek]

P.S. Arguing with me about the theory of probability and statistics is suicide. Please don't do it. Think of your loved ones.

Yes, you're obviously way too intelligent for me. I'll spare you so that you may conserve your energy debunking bigfoot photos, genius.

[Alek]

Don't worry, you didn't lose me. On the contrary, now I've got you dialed in perfectly. You are a genuine, bona fide, professional conspiracy theorist. Hot dang. Please continue and please do start threads on those other conspiracies.

Oh yes! I'm officially a conspiracy theorist, and everybody knows that conspiracy theorists are nutty and unstable. Unless of course the conspiracy theories are official, and the theorists are you. Hey, I think I've got you figured out. You're one of those conspiracy theory debunkers, aren't you? The sort of statist who likes to teabag the government as it lies to you.

[diggingdeeper]

Are you trying to say that you think the process of measurement is estimating some underlying true principle? If so, you're agreeing with the Bayesian camp. If not, I'll apologize in advance for misunderstanding and ask if you can clarify.

Yep, exactly. But does that mean that I have to start wearing that funny garb??? And I guess that means that I am talking with different language...OH, I think I may have just joined a ..........

Seriously though are the 2 schools of thought so different that there is no translating one to the other??

[delphi_ote]

Yes, you're obviously way too intelligent for me. I'll spare you so that you may conserve your energy debunking bigfoot photos, genius.
You seem to be lacking both a substantive response to my post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1535151#post1535151) and a sense of humor. That's too bad.

[gtc]

Oh yes! I'm officially a conspiracy theorist, and everybody knows that conspiracy theorists are nutty and unstable. Unless of course the conspiracy theories are official, and the theorists are you. Hey, I think I've got you figured out. You're one of those conspiracy theory debunkers, aren't you? The sort of statist who likes to teabag the government as it lies to you.

Will you also stop using the word teabag as a verb.

[Curnir]

Oh yes! I'm officially a conspiracy theorist, and everybody knows that conspiracy theorists are nutty and unstable.
Not necessarily. Some are merely missguided and/or missinformed.
Unless of course the conspiracy theories are official, and the theorists are you. Interesting. Which conspiracy theory are you talking about? Hey, I think I've got you figured out. You're one of those conspiracy theory debunkers, aren't you? The sort of statist who likes to teabag the government as it lies to you.
As far as I know my goverment hasn't lied to me about the terrorist attacks on 9/11. You know... when the (mostly) Saudi Nationals crashed passanger jets into WTC and the Pentagon.

Incidently, when I saw the second plane crash into the building, I said out loud:
Someone is going to try to blame this on the US goverment.

no no don't worry I won't apply for the million dollars :D

[delphi_ote]

Yep, exactly. But does that mean that I have to start wearing that funny garb???
Funny garb? C'mon! I hear the 1750's are the new '60's!:p
Seriously though are the 2 schools of thought so different that there is no translating one to the other??
It's mostly just a difference of philosophy, and these days everyone but statisticians pretty much agrees that they're just two different ways to view essentially the same thing. Why should we worry about it, because all the maths work out the same either way you look at it?

Ironic fact: Bayes himself was probably a frequentist!

The main problem is just that you tend to run into confusion of the sort we had earlier in this thread when people start talking about the definition of probability.

Another problem is that frequentists tend to reject some of the things Bayesians do as unscientific. Unfortunately for the frequentists, a lot of those things that annoy them turn out to be useful and intuitive.

For example, imagine someone asked the question "Given a choice of two things (let's call them A and B) which you know absolutely nothing about, what is the probability that A will be chosen?" A Bayesian would say something like, "Since I don't have any other information, I'll do my best and guess 50%." A frequentist, on the other hand, would say, "This isn't a proper experiment. It's gibberish! I can't assign a probability at all. It would mean nothing in this context."

[Alek]

If you propose that the destruction of 9/11/2001 was due to something other than what is commonly accepted, you must prove it, not just play at poking holes in other theories.



That seems perfectly reasonable but unfortunately it isn't. The US Government's theories are no more valid than the theories of others because they are offered from a position of authority. You're also assuming that what is "commonly accepted" is reasonable, which isn't true either. In this case, I'm going to have to turn your little argument on its ear and insist that you provide me evidence for the 9/11 Commission's account of how WTC 7, a 47-story steel skyscraper, collapsed in a spectacular 6.6 second near-free-fall symmetrical fashion. Granted this might be difficult, as an explanation for why this building fell was not offered in the 9/11 Commission report, which I like to refer to as the government's "official conspiracy theory (http://www.9-11commission.gov/)". I'm sure you'll give it the college try though. I've already seen the firefighter's testimony, the photographic evidence, the video of fires and the collapse, and I've read the NIST report ("the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurence").

I accept the possibility of being convinced. I'm not convinced. In all probability you nor anyone here are capable of convincing me.

[diggingdeeper]

For example, imagine someone asked the question "Given a choice of two things (let's call them A and B) which you know absolutely nothing about, what is the probability that A will be chosen?" A Bayesian would say something like, "Since I don't have any other information, I'll do my best and guess 50%." A frequentist, on the other hand, would say, "This isn't a proper experiment. It's gibberish! I can't assign a probability at all. It would mean nothing in this context."

Just a bit before I go sleepy.

So, if the above is what a frequentist would say (I am assuming you are one of them) Then, what would be the minimum acceptable for them to have considered that an experiment?? Would it have had to be 2 choices between A&B???
And,


Why should we worry about it, because all the maths work out the same either way you look at it?

Wouldn't the difference in philosophy prohibit them from coming to the same answer because the frequentist would not consider the same problem in the case you gave ??
Thanks for your patience