Loose Change

[Yahweh]

Here's the response from the FSTDT webmaster:
Awesome, right? I couldn't have asked for a better response.

Does anyone have any input for the look/feel of the site before I write back?

(edited to fix links)
Conspiracy Theorists Say the Darndest Things! is ready to start accepting submissions now. The site is available at:

http://www.fstdt.com/conspiracy/

[chipmunk stew]

Currently the Quest (a mod) is calling me a monster so I guess my new found good will is wearing thin. I'm kind of tired of the roller coaster ride. I've got to bow out. There is no point there. In the end the dissenters are wrong and conventional wisdom of the site is right. I think it is possible to get through to fence sitters but it requires patience that I simply don't have.As a last hurrah, why don't you start a thread and link to the Death Star conspiracy (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=55261)?

[chipmunk stew]

Conspiracy Theorists Say the Darndest Things! is ready to start accepting submissions now. The site is available at:

http://www.fstdt.com/conspiracy/
Oh, I thought "Yahweh" sounded familiar! I didn't realize it was our very own Yahweh.

Awesome!

[aggle-rithm]

I really think these people need professional help. I'm dead serious.

I agree. Something appears to have sucked all the seratonin right out of their brains.

[Gravy]

Views from the new WTC 7 building (http://www.newyorkology.com/archives/2006/04/the_views_from_1.html)

On the same page, word that the expected opening for the WTC "Freedom Tower" is now 2011, only 3 years behind the original schedule. Oy.

[hurdygurdy]

Oh, I thought "Yahweh" sounded familiar! I didn't realize it was our very own Yahweh.

Awesome!

Wow! Thanks for making my dream come true!

[TjW]

Sorry for hitting this particular section of the party late, but just caught up.

Just as Intelligent Designers has a list of arguments they need to abandon, The LC'ers need to drop this one. Aside from being an Argument from Incredulity, Aren't most airport runways less wide then the side of the pentagon? With four stories of building as wiggle room, since you don't care wich one you hit, It seems like if you were trained to land, even if you weren't good at it, you should be able to set up an approach to hit the pentagon.

Trif
It's worse than that.
Landing is hard because you have to come over the end of the runway at both a particular speed and altitude. Too fast or high, and you'll run off the end of the runway. Too low or slow, and you won't make the runway.
Running into something under full power, on the other hand, is pretty easy:
Pick a spot.
Line it up with another spot on the windshield.
If it moves left of the spot, turn left.
If it moves right of the spot, turn right.
If it moves up, pull up.
If it moves down, push over some more.

As long as you keep the relative bearing change to zero, you _will_ hit the spot. Even moths can do it. They normally navigate straight lines by keeping a constant bearing to a light. When that's the moon or the sun, or anything very far away, it's close enough. When it's your porch light, and they're close -- they spiral on in.

[Beleth]

I have suspended the Loose Change message board from me for seven days. Further unjustified actions on their part will result in a banning.

[Dr Adequate]

It's worse than that.
Landing is hard because you have to come over the end of the runway at both a particular speed and altitude. Too fast or high, and you'll run off the end of the runway. Too low or slow, and you won't make the runway.
Running into something under full power, on the other hand, is pretty easy:
Pick a spot.
Line it up with another spot on the windshield.
If it moves left of the spot, turn left.
If it moves right of the spot, turn right.
If it moves up, pull up.
If it moves down, push over some more.

As long as you keep the relative bearing change to zero, you _will_ hit the spot. The behaviorist BF Skinner trained pigeons to use this method to pilot pigeon-guided missiles into German warships during WWII.

Some info here (http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread107704/pg1)

Not to mention kamikaze pilots.

[WildCat]

Conspiracy Theorists Say the Darndest Things! is ready to start accepting submissions now. The site is available at:

http://www.fstdt.com/conspiracy/
Oh man, this is too much fun!!!! :D

[delphi_ote]

As a last hurrah, why don't you start a thread and link to the Death Star conspiracy (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=55261)?
If you do this, please send a link over. That would be too funny.

[Gravy]

Oh man, this is too much fun!!!! :D

I put up about 20 today. The good times are killing me! Who's gonna direct the Loosers to this? Whoever does will be banned, so you'd better have your bags packed.

[delphi_ote]

I put up about 20 today. The good times are killing me! Who's gonna direct the Loosers to this? Whoever does will be banned, so you'd better have your bags packed.
Someone needs to do a double whammy: Death Star and CTSTDT. RandFan? You seem to want to escape the madness. ;)

[RandFan]

I just finished my second CT video. It was excruciating. 2 hours long.

THE TRUTH & LIES OF 9/11 (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8797525979024486145)

:s2:

I'm closing it down folks. I just can't take it.

Some of my responses while I watched the video to the person who asked me to watch it (FM258)

I'm 16 minutes into the video. I'm struggling to keep an open mind. There as yet has been no substance and a lot of claims and sounds and images that look to manipulate without substance. So far I see no objectivity or impariality.

I hope it gets better. Does it? You aren't going to make me watch this entire thing if this is all there is.

Ok, I'll be patient... Back to the video.

(25 minutes into the video) I've got to ask you something. When you watch shows like this do bells and whistles ever go off in your head? Does any of the information not sit right with you? Did you find anything problematic with this video? Anything whatsoever? I asked because there were so many red flags. I could have respected the guy if he had said "yeah, but overall I agreed with the message". He didn't say that. Nope, he said:

FM258 (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showuser=864)

What strikes me the most is the honesty of the man presenting the seminar.

Not a very common sight, and yes it struck me as a bit odd. :rolleyes:

[RandFan]

Someone needs to do a double whammy: Death Star and CTSTDT. RandFan? You seem to want to escape the madness. ;)Thanks. It's tempting but I went there with a commitment to be sincere. It would not be in keeping with my intent.

[pipelineaudio]

Someone needs to do a double whammy: Death Star and CTSTDT. RandFan? You seem to want to escape the madness. ;)


http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=2207

[WildCat]

Someone needs to do a double whammy: Death Star and CTSTDT. RandFan? You seem to want to escape the madness. ;)
How easy is it to ban someone who has a dynamic IP? I just so happen to have a dynamic IP...

[RandFan]

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=2207 It's suicide pipe. :D

[CurtC]

How easy is it to ban someone who has a dynamic IP? I just so happen to have a dynamic IP...Banning, or allowing you in, is not based on your IP. You have to log in to post, and they can simply disable your login account.

[WildCat]

Banning, or allowing you in, is not based on your IP. You have to log in to post, and they can simply disable your login account.
I know, but I could just make a sock puppet and re-register, no?

[Gravy]

Thanks. It's tempting but I went there with a commitment to be sincere.

So did I, but since they weren't sincere, I'm going to do whatever I can to expose their paranoid delusions. 9/11 isn't something to play games with, and it offends me that they're sitting there masturbaring to Ground Zero porn while real people do real work in the real world in order to get real answers.

[delphi_ote]

I know, but I could just make a sock puppet and re-register, no?
You never know until you try! :D

[RandFan]

So did I, but since they weren't sincere, I'm going to do whatever I can to expose their paranoid delusions. 9/11 isn't something to play games with, and it offends me that they're sitting there masturbaring to Ground Zero porn while real people do real work in the real world in order to get real answers.No argument.

[delphi_ote]

No argument.
Yes it is. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1548541#post1548541)

[RandFan]

Yes it is. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1548541#post1548541) No no no...

[Gravy]

I came across this priceless post (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=542) on LC by Dylan Avery, one of the creators of the documentaries.

Guys I need some callers now, being ambushed here...
I'm getting ambushed on this radio show. This guy's asking me to prove where Flight 77 is and track it down myself to prove my movie is true.

http://www.710kcmo.com/contact.asp
913-514-3000


And here (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=537&view=findpost&p=1371887), Mr. Avery believes that Jon Stewart would be a great CT advocate.

Talk about delusional!

[Euromutt]

And here (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=537&view=findpost&p=1371887), Mr. Avery believes that Jon Stewart would be a great CT advocate.Jon Stewart? Isn't he... Jewish? So he must be a Globalist stooge, and would only undermine the effort to present CTs in a persuasive manner. Clearly, Dylan Avery himself is a Globalist tool, or he wouldn't have suggested Jon Stewart, or made anything as patently unconvincing as Loose Change.

[conspiracybeliever]

I came across this priceless post (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=542) on LC by Dylan Avery, one of the creators of the documentaries.




And here (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=537&view=findpost&p=1371887), Mr. Avery believes that Jon Stewart would be a great CT advocate.

Talk about delusional!
Nothing delusional about it.

[Belz...]

Nothing delusional about it.

Believing that thousands of people could be involved in a murderous cover-up IS delusional. It's also dangerous and quite disrespectful of the REAL experts who sought to uncover the truth about that tragedy, and the victims.

[kookbreaker]

Nothing delusional about it.

John Stewart and the DS crew have outright made a career of finding cranks and nutcases like you to make fun of. So yeah, you guys are very, very delusional.

[chipmunk stew]

Nothing delusional about it.Why don't you guys write him and ask. Send him the DVD, too.

Jon Stewart
c/o The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
733 11th Avenue
New York, NY 10019-5051

I think I'll write him, too. Suggest that he do a feature on Loose Change and the 9/11 Truth Movement. Maybe he could have Charlie Sheen or Alex Jones on as a guest.

[Nyarlathotep]

And here (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=537&view=findpost&p=1371887), Mr. Avery believes that Jon Stewart would be a great CT advocate.

Talk about delusional!

It would be VERY interesting to see how they would approach you and your film on the Daily Show.... VERY interesting. Supposedly, his people have been in contact with Mr. Jones but they've never followed up on it. The fact that they've never done a hit piece on this subject says alot, I think.

I do like his logic. The Daily Show has never done a 'hit piece' on it, thus they must lean towards accepting it. Totally oblivious to the fact that there are roughly a kajillion PCTs out there that the Daily Show has never done a hit piece on either.

[Gravy]

Believing that thousands of people could be involved in a murderous cover-up IS delusional. It's also dangerous and quite disrespectful of the REAL experts who sought to uncover the truth about that tragedy, and the victims.

Belz, you are so far off. I agree with the Loose Change mod (either TheQuest or FM258 – the quote should appear on the "darndest things" site soon) that the whole operation could have been carried out by conspirators numbering in the single digits. That's perfectly reasonable.

[Manny]

Now the loosers are getting closer to blaming the Jooooooooos (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=2048) for 9/11, even linking to this anti-semitic site (http://www.apfn.org/apfn/WTC_STF.htm) as evidence.

blaming the joooooos is an old trick on that forum unfortunately :(It's the joooooos! (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=2216)

[ItsRDC]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,191520,00.html

Here's the transcript from the cockpit of Flight 93. But, as usual, I doubt the conspiracy theorists are going to let a little thing like evidence slow them down.

[chipmunk stew]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,191520,00.html

Here's the transcript from the cockpit of Flight 93. But, as usual, I doubt the conspiracy theorists are going to let a little thing like evidence slow them down.

Nope. (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=2198)

[Gravy]

It's the joooooos! (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=2216)

Thanks for the link, Manny. More material for the "darndest things" site.
"Rumsfeld says 2.3 trillion missing or lost from DOD and cannot be accounted for?? Guess who was Controller of teh DOD, Coincidence?? This would have been biggest STORY ever but then 9/11 came any connection??

Rumsfeld speaking on Lou Dobbs' Moneyline, 9/10/01:
Dobbs: Successful. You pointed out today in your speech, as you have previously, that if you achieve savings of only five percent, the Pentagon budget is so vast that that would save some 18 billion dollars. How quickly could you save that five percent? Because you have about two million employees. No company in the world has anything approaching that.

Rumsfeld: Well, it takes some time. And, indeed, as you know, sometimes you need to invest some money upfront to make savings. For example, we're going to have to revamp our financial system so that we can actually understand what's taking place. At the present time, the financial systems aren't capable of tracking some 2.6 trillion dollars worth of transactions.

edited to add Rumsfeld quote

[Belz...]

Belz, you are so far off. I agree with the Loose Change mod (either TheQuest or FM258 – the quote should appear on the "darndest things" site soon) that the whole operation could have been carried out by conspirators numbering in the single digits. That's perfectly reasonable.

Yes. It'd just take them about 30 years to put the explosives into place. Hey! Maybe the explosives were put there when the WTC was built!!!

[Gravy]

Hey! Maybe the explosives were put there when the WTC was built!!!
Oh, I've been through that with them. They brought it up several times. I'm serious. A substantial number of Loosers thinks that all the WTC buildings were pre-wired with tons of explosives when they were built.

[chipmunk stew]

Yes. It'd just take them about 30 years to put the explosives into place. Hey! Maybe the explosives were put there when the WTC was built!!!Or it would take good planning, patience, and a simple, low-tech solution--a coordinated attack based on storming plane cockpits with knives and using the planes as missiles, for instance.

[kookbreaker]

Oh, I've been through that with them. They brought it up several times. I'm serious. A substantial number of Loosers thinks that all the WTC buildings were pre-wired with tons of explosives when they were built.

Of course, they had to use the super secret explosives that can survive 30 years with degradation, failure, or 'other incident'.

That one could be a whole category of CTSTDT.

[Belz...]

Oh, I've been through that with them. They brought it up several times. I'm serious. A substantial number of Loosers thinks that all the WTC buildings were pre-wired with tons of explosives when they were built.

Wow! I mean, the gubmint sure plans ahead... :rolleyes:

[Belz...]

Or it would take good planning, patience, and a simple, low-tech solution--a coordinated attack based on storming plane cockpits with knives and using the planes as missiles, for instance.

Dammit, Stew. Why do you always snap us back to reality ? We were perfectly comfortable in our private fantasy universe.

[delphi_ote]

Dammit, Stew. Why do you always snap us back to reality ? We were perfectly comfortable in our private fantasy universe.
BAN HIM!!!

[chipmunk stew]

BAN HIM!!!:p

[chipmunk stew]

Why don't you guys write him and ask. Send him the DVD, too.

Jon Stewart
c/o The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
733 11th Avenue
New York, NY 10019-5051

I think I'll write him, too. Suggest that he do a feature on Loose Change and the 9/11 Truth Movement. Maybe he could have Charlie Sheen or Alex Jones on as a guest.Here's my letter to Mr. Stewart:

13 April 2006


Re: Loose Change and the “9/11 Truth Movement”



Dear Mr. Stewart:

I’m sure you’re already well aware of the “9/11 Truth Movement” and the claims circulating around that 9/11 was an “inside job.” Recently, these groups and their claims have been spreading like wildfire all over the internet, and the appearance of Charlie Sheen on Alex Jones’ radio show and its rebroadcast on CNN have only raised their profile.

Something you may not be aware of is that the producers of one of the more popular Inside Job documentaries, Loose Change, seem to be under the impression that you would make a good spokesman for their cause
(source: http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=537&st=0)
In fact, they seem rather eager to appear on your show.

It seems like everywhere I turn on the internet, at work, or at school, there’s someone repeating these theories and claims. The most irritating thing is, these claims fall apart under even the mildest scrutiny, and with minimal research it’s clear that quotes are taken out of context, conclusions are drawn based on false premises, and many of the arguments are based on logical fallacies, yet most of these people remain convinced that 9/11 was an act of treason.

9/11 is a touchy subject, not easy to lampoon without coming off as callous, but this “movement” is just begging to be challenged…and made fun of. I’m a regular contributor at the internet forum of the James Randi Educational Foundation (http://www.randi.org) and we’ve been working hard at both, but we have no illusions that our profile is anything but low in the grand scheme of things.

I hope you consider this plug for a special or a series about the 9/11 Truth Movement. There are plenty of guests you might host: Charlie Sheen, Alex Jones, Dylan Avery (the Loose Change guy), Steven Jones (BYU physics professor), David Ray Griffin (The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions), to name a few.

Thank you for your time.

Best regards,



**************

edit: Apparently, Jon Stewart doesn't accept email (at least not publicly), but I encourage those of you who are not allergic to snail-mail to write as well.

[CptColumbo]

Whatever happened to that

Protocols of Zion

movie? That debunked most of the anti-semitic theories of the WTC conspiracy theories.

[pipelineaudio]

Wasnt there a video , black and white of the plane flying at the pentagon? Anyone got a link?

[Belz...]

BAN HIM!!!

DARAT!.... Darat ?

Where IS that mod ?


http://melsbasketcase.tripod.com/cats9.jpg

[Belz...]

DARAT!.... Darat ?

Where IS that mod ?


http://melsbasketcase.tripod.com/cats9.jpg

Dammit!!

DAMN tripod. That was a sleeping cat. A SLEEPING CAT. Like Darat's avatar. Get it ?

DAMN I hate that hosting site.

[aggle-rithm]

Wasnt there a video , black and white of the plane flying at the pentagon? Anyone got a link?

Wouldn't help. The loosers would just say, "A real plane wouldn't produce that much exhaust! And it would be in color, not black and white! WHAT ARE THEY HIDING!?!"

[delphi_ote]

Wouldn't help. The loosers would just say, "A real plane wouldn't produce that much exhaust! And it would be in color, not black and white! WHAT ARE THEY HIDING!?!"
As painful as it would be to watch, I would like to see this video all the same.

I'll never forget the first time I caught the profile of the plane in the first frame of the security camera footage. An ominous shape just suddenly leapt out at me. I got this tinge of absolute terror seeing a plane swooping in fast that low like a raptor diving on its prey. My stomach churned when I realized I was seeing one of the only images of the last fraction of a second of so many lives. For an irrational instant, I tried to think of a way to stop it, to save them.

But we can't save them. We can only remember them. Watching that video would help me remember.

[Sultanist]

Here's a message board put up by the folks promoting United 93 (the movie) to discuss the "theories".
You'll recognize some of the Loose Change crowd participating. :D

http://www.universalpictures.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=9

[Anders W. Bonde]

What I don't get, is why the Loosers haven't yet claimed that, yes there is a konspirasee, but it's not de eevil gumbmint wo dunnit, but some soooper seekrit organization that has made de eevil gubmint appear the fall guy for THE REAL COVER UP so that the population will turn against its eevil gubmint as cannon fodder in a revolt masterminded by this soooper seekrit organization.

OTOH, if there really were such an organization with such powers, I don't think it would be stooopid enough to enlist the help of the cerebally challenged CT Loosers - t'would manage quite well without them, thank you very much.

I simply cannot fathom the depths of inanity these CT'ers have slipped into. To an extent, I can understand how, say, JFK assasination CTs came to prominence (though I never could, and still can't, figure out how anyone could interpret the Zapruder film as evidence of a shot from the front), but with 9/11 there is simply so much live footage, so many corroborating eyewitness accounts, in general so much evidence (even Bin Laden claiming responsibility and a motive), that it seems to me there is absolutely nothing to base a 'no planes + controlled demolition' theory on. The folly of mankind takes on a new dimension with the 9/11 CT'ers.

[pipelineaudio]

What I don't get, is why the Loosers haven't yet claimed that, yes there is a konspirasee, but it's not de eevil gumbmint wo dunnit, but some soooper seekrit organization that has made de eevil gubmint appear the fall guy for THE REAL COVER UP so that the population will turn against its eevil gubmint as cannon fodder in a revolt masterminded by this soooper seekrit organization.
.

Apparently you havent been reading that forum

[Sultanist]

http://911conspiracysmasher.blogspot.com/

[WildCat]

http://911conspiracysmasher.blogspot.com/
Gotta love the Bundys! :D

[Gravy]

http://911conspiracysmasher.blogspot.com/
Fantastic! A Field Guide to Moonbaticus Persisticus!

[Gravy]

Here's a message board put up by the folks promoting United 93 (the movie) to discuss the "theories".
You'll recognize some of the Loose Change crowd participating. :D

http://www.universalpictures.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=9
Yes, saw that yesterday. Nothing gives them more of a smile than telling victims' famillies how stupid they are.

[WildCat]

Here's a message board put up by the folks promoting United 93 (the movie) to discuss the "theories".
You'll recognize some of the Loose Change crowd participating. :D

http://www.universalpictures.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=9
Thanks, I've been posting there, and I'm not holding back my feelings for the despicable scum promoting the CT.

[bob_kark]

I still don't understand why they feel the need to make the conspiracy so convoluted. Why not just fly a plane into the WTC and Pentagon and be done with it? Why not just use explosives to destroy either of them? What purpose is there to rig a building for the worst controlled demo on record, why even make it a controlled demo when you can just take out the support structure, fly a plane into it, wait for firefighters and police to arrive, then detonate the buildings. Then they have to wait several hours to destroy a seperate building, that wasn't hit by a plane, and raise unnesessary suspicion.

They also decide to hire witnesses to view a plane flying over the interstate in DC. They bring in wreckage from an airliner and bomb the Pentagon. Finally, they take flight 93, decide to save the lives of all the innocent civillians, which they had no concern for before, by dropping them off in Cleveland. Then recreate a crash site in Pennsylvania. Why? What exactly does this accomplish? Oh, no, wait, 93 was shot down. But why would they shoot 93 down if it was part of the conspiracy? Wouldn't it just be easier to fake a uranium purchase by Saddam if they wanted to go to war so bad?

[brodski]

I still don't understand why they feel the need to make the conspiracy so convoluted. Why not just fly a plane into the WTC and Pentagon and be done with it? Why not just use explosives to destroy either of them? What purpose is there to rig a building for the worst controlled demo on record, why even make it a controlled demo when you can just take out the support structure, fly a plane into it, wait for firefighters and police to arrive, then detonate the buildings. Then they have to wait several hours to destroy a seperate building, that wasn't hit by a plane, and raise unnesessary suspicion.

They also decide to hire witnesses to view a plane flying over the interstate in DC. Bring in wreckage from an airliner and bomb the Pentagon. Finally, they take flight 93, decide to save the lives of all the innocent civillians, which they had no concern for before, by dropping them off in Cleveland. Then recreate a crash site in Pennsylvania. Why? What exactly does this accomplish? Oh, no, wait, 93 was shot down. But why would they shoot 93 down if it was part of the conspiracy? Wouldn't it just be easier to fake a uranium purchase by Saddam if they wanted to go to war so bad?
Their conspiracy has to be so complicated because, in a twisted way, they follow the evidence. Unfortunately they have already decided that 9/11 wasn't everything it seamed, so they jump on the discrepancies between what they saw and what they "expected" to see. These people have zero understanding of structural engineering and the anatomy of a building collapse, and so they see "squibs" and they therefore know that it was a controlled demolition. They cannot question the "squibs" evidence, because it is actually one of the strongest buts of "evidence" for a conspiracy (even thought it is easily debunked), because if the "squibs theory" is wrong, what else have they got wrong?

[kookbreaker]

Thanks, I've been posting there, and I'm not holding back my feelings for the despicable scum promoting the CT.

Scum floats, I accuse you of flattery.

[bob_kark]

Their conspiracy has to be so complicated because, in a twisted way, they follow the evidence. Unfortunately they have already decided that 9/11 wasn't everything it seamed, so they jump on the discrepancies between what they saw and what they "expected" to see. These people have zero understanding of structural engineering and the anatomy of a building collapse, and so they see "squibs" and they therefore know that it was a controlled demolition. They cannot question the "squibs" evidence, because it is actually one of the strongest buts of "evidence" for a conspiracy (even thought it is easily debunked), because if the "squibs theory" is wrong, what else have they got wrong?

Sure, I could see that for your average CT. But why would a physicist, who should know better, approach it from such a bizzare angle? I know he's a bit nutty in his own right, it just seems so odd to me.

[senorpogo]

Has anyone posted this (http://www.jewsdidwtc.com/)?

[brodski]

Sure, I could see that for your average CT. But why would a physicist, who should know better, approach it from such a bizzare angle? I know he's a bit nutty in his own right, it just seems so odd to me. Because being a physicist gives you no great insight into the way buildings collapse.
And also, if you want to be a loan maverick, dispensing truth which the establishment and hidebound orthodoxy won't let the public hear, being a real individual instead of a "sheeple" it's much easier to do that as part of a large group of people who have already reached the same basic conclusion as you, than by actually going out on your own.
Remember, physicists are human too. ;)

[brodski]

Has anyone posted this (http://www.jewsdidwtc.com/)?

From the link
About This Site

This site was created for the sole purpose of educating the population of America of the vile act that was commited solely by Jews, and is maintained by two homosexual black equalists.

Well, I guess "homosexual black equalists" couldn't possibly be anti-semtic whackjobs!
And who teh hell refer to tehmslevs as a "homosexual black equalist" anyway? What is an "equalist"?

[bob_kark]

Because being a physicist gives you no great insight into the way buildings collapse.
And also, if you want to be a loan maverick, dispensing truth which the establishment and hidebound orthodoxy won't let the public hear, being a real individual instead of a "sheeple" it's much easier to do that as part of a large group of people who have already reached the same basic conclusion as you, than by actually going out on your own.
Remember, physicists are human too. ;)

I agree, but physicists should be instilled with a higher degree of critical thinking than your average joe. I would hope his BS meter would have exploded long ago. Perhaps he does want to play the lone maverick, it just seems a bit disgusting to me. Not surprising, but disgusting none the less.

[brodski]

I agree, but physicists should be instilled with a higher degree of critical thinking than your average joe.
If you need an example of how a physicist can be a brilliant scientist in one field, but bat-guano crazy in another you only need to look at some of the secret societies Newton joined

Perhaps he does want to play the lone maverick, it just seems a bit disgusting to me. Not surprising, but disgusting none the less.
I agree that it is disgusting, and I'm not trying to defend this jerk at all, but I can see a possible path which he has taken to lala land.

[bob_kark]

If you need an example of how a physicist can be a brilliant scientist in one field, but bat-guano crazy in another you only need to look at some of the secret societies Newton joined.

Well, I suppose the search for Christ in South America should be evidence that he's a bit off his rocker. Perhaps I expected too much.

I can't fault Newton too much for becoming a Freemason. It was a different time.

[brodski]

I can't fault Newton too much for becoming a Freemason. It was a different time. I'm not talking about Freemasonry, I'm talking about the society he joined which believed that they communicated with angles, and could turn themselves invisible.

[delphi_ote]

I can't fault Newton too much for becoming a Freemason. It was a different time.
What about being an alchemist?

[Sultanist]

From the link

Well, I guess "homosexual black equalists" couldn't possibly be anti-semtic whackjobs!
And who teh hell refer to tehmslevs as a "homosexual black equalist" anyway? What is an "equalist"?
You didn't read the bottom line on that page, did you? Don't feel bad. I didn't either until someone pointed it out to me. :D

[brodski]

You didn't read the bottom line on that page, did you? Don't feel bad. I didn't either until someone pointed it out to me. :D
:blush:

In my defense though, there is still no clear indication that it must be a parody, although they do link to TimeCube as evidence for their theory. :jaw-dropp
That site is no more bat_guano than many other 9/11 "truth" websites.

[senorpogo]

:blush:

In my defense though, there is still no clear indication that it must be a parody, although they do link to TimeCube as evidence for their theory. :jaw-dropp
That site is no more bat_guano than many other 9/11 "truth" websites.

I wasn't quite sure either - parody or reality. Like you said, it's no more crazy than some "legitimate" sites.

My favorite part is...

* 4000 Israelis/Jews didn't show up for work at the WTC, based on hints from Shabak, according to Arab diplomatic sources. The US knows this.
* Sharon was prevented by Shabak from travelling to New York for an un-named "festival" by un-named "Zionist organizations".
* The FBI arrested 5 Israelis four hours after the WTC attack

The line of reasoning sounds eerily familar of most CT sites.

[bob_kark]

I'm not talking about Freemasonry, I'm talking about the society he joined which believed that they communicated with angles, and could turn themselves invisible.

Ok, I forced myself to not make a joke about communicating with angles...

Anyway, most scientific research in Newton's era was fiction rather than fact. Alchemy was considered a valid science. There was no scientific method. Its easy to state today that no one can turn invisible. In his time, it could be considered a possibility. Properties of light weren't as well understood as they are now. Anyway, I find it hard to judge people living in the past for having illogical ideas, we're standing on their shoulders.

ETC: I can judge their ideas, but not the people for having them simply because they lived in a time when they were considered credible.

[brodski]

Ok, I forced myself to not make a joke about communicating with angles...

Anyway, most scientific research in Newton's era was fiction rather than fact. Alchemy was considered a valid science. There was no scientific method. Its easy to state today that no one can turn invisible. In his time, it could be considered a possibility. Properties of light weren't as well understood as they are now. Anyway, I find it hard to judge people living in the past for having illogical ideas, we're standing on their shoulders.

ETC: I can judge their ideas, but not the people for having them simply because they lived in a time when they were considered credible.
I'm not criticizing Newton for believing the stuff he did, but he is the perfect example of how someone can use hard, unerring, reason in one endeavor, and then throw critical thinking out of the window when it comes to other issues, there are more modern examples, but as we where talking about a physicist, I though newton would be a good example to use. And yes I take your point that different ages have different levels of bizarre beliefs, but the point still stands- Newton was much more evidence driven when looking at the properties of light than he was when he was awaiting a "man of silver" who would teach him to "build a temple of one stone".

[bob_kark]

I'm not criticizing Newton for believing the stuff he did, but he is the perfect example of how someone can use hard, unerring, reason in one endeavor, and then throw critical thinking out of the window when it comes to other issues, there are more modern examples, but as we where talking about a physicist, I though newton would be a good example to use. And yes I take your point that different ages have different levels of bizarre beliefs, but the point still stands- Newton was much more evidence driven when looking at the properties of light than he was when he was awaiting a "man of silver" who would teach him to "build a temple of one stone".

Sorry, I may have been a bit foggy with my reply. What I meant is that I'm not certain that it was an example of ignoring critical thinking. It seems he may have been more ignorant than foolish. But, I don't really know all of the strange beliefs he held, so I may be a bit unqualified to hold an opinion on the matter. Either way, your point is well taken. However, it does bother me that someone whose life is surrounded by reason, can take a holiday on logic so easily.

[brodski]

However, it does bother me that someone whose life is surrounded by reason, can take a holiday on logic so easily. It bothers me as well, it just doesn't surprise me. But what makes it worse is that Steven E Jones (not to be confused with the brilliant Steve Jones) is using the fact that he is a professor of physics as if this gives him an insight into structural engineering. He is doing is profession a serious disservice, as well as crapping on the memories of those that died on 9/11.

[bob_kark]

It bothers me as well, it just doesn't surprise me. But what makes it worse is that Steven E Jones (not to be confused with the brilliant Steve Jones) is using the fact that he is a professor of physics as if this gives him an insight into structural engineering. He is doing is profession a serious disservice, as well as crapping on the memories of those that died on 9/11.

It seriously makes me question why BYU keeps him on the staff. Well, I suppose to BYU still owes a debt to him for attempting to show that Christ came to America.

[brodski]

It seriously makes me question why BYU keeps him on the staff. Well, I suppose to BYU still owes a debt to him for attempting to show that Christ came to America.
tenure?

[bob_kark]

tenure?

They're Mormons, they believe Christ appeared in America.

Brigham Young (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brigham_Young)

Aims of a BYU Education (http://unicomm.byu.edu/about/aims/)

He attempted to show Christ visited South America, it confirms their beliefs, etc...

[Belz...]

I still don't understand why they feel the need to make the conspiracy so convoluted. Why not just fly a plane into the WTC and Pentagon and be done with it? Why not just use explosives to destroy either of them? What purpose is there to rig a building for the worst controlled demo on record, why even make it a controlled demo when you can just take out the support structure, fly a plane into it, wait for firefighters and police to arrive, then detonate the buildings. Then they have to wait several hours to destroy a seperate building, that wasn't hit by a plane, and raise unnesessary suspicion.

They also decide to hire witnesses to view a plane flying over the interstate in DC. They bring in wreckage from an airliner and bomb the Pentagon. Finally, they take flight 93, decide to save the lives of all the innocent civillians, which they had no concern for before, by dropping them off in Cleveland. Then recreate a crash site in Pennsylvania. Why? What exactly does this accomplish? Oh, no, wait, 93 was shot down. But why would they shoot 93 down if it was part of the conspiracy? Wouldn't it just be easier to fake a uranium purchase by Saddam if they wanted to go to war so bad?

You should post THAT on loose change. Oh, wait. You'd get banned.

Well, you COULD take one for the team ;)

Number 1 out.

[bob_kark]

You should post THAT on loose change. Oh, wait. You'd get banned.

Well, you COULD take one for the team ;)

Number 1 out.

But how could they fear us if they don't know we exist?

[Belz...]

But how could they fear us if they don't know we exist?

Ooohh... they know. In fact, they know TOO much!

[bob_kark]

Ooohh... they know. In fact, they know TOO much!
They only think they do, if they only knew that I recently removed the matress tags on all of Wilson Ingle's (Santa Fe, NM) matresses and replaced them with matress tags for different beds, it would blow their mind! Not to mention that we single handedly replaced every duck in Athens Ohio with a goose. Guffaw I say! Guffaw!!

[Z]

Believe me, the people in Athens, OH, would never notice. Much.

By the way... the reeducation of #26 is coming along quite nicely.

[Sultanist]

Ladies and gentlemen, it's my honor to now present to you the diabolical minds known as the Luminutty.
But do not fear. As you can see, their chief adversary is hot on their trail.


http://bestoftheblogs.com/rogues.jpg

http://stratos.alpha.free.fr/Batbomb.gif

[Belz...]

http://bestoftheblogs.com/rogues.jpg

You, sir, are my hero.

[Belz...]

They only think they do, if they only knew that I recently removed the matress tags on all of Wilson Ingle's (Santa Fe, NM) matresses and replaced them with matress tags for different beds, it would blow their mind! Not to mention that we single handedly replaced every duck in Athens Ohio with a goose. Guffaw I say! Guffaw!!

Shucks. Why do YOU get all the cool missions ?

[delphi_ote]

They only think they do, if they only knew that I recently removed the matress tags on all of Wilson Ingle's (Santa Fe, NM) matresses and replaced them with matress tags for different beds, it would blow their mind! Not to mention that we single handedly replaced every duck in Athens Ohio with a goose. Guffaw I say! Guffaw!!
Well done, 43. You are an example to us all. For your hard work, you will recieve 7 promotions and 6 demotions. We'll send your official notice once we finish our sinister plan to clone the DNA of the last homing pigeon and teach it to operate submarines by remote control.

1/666, did you finish altering the scripts for the next Matrix movies like I asked?

[brodski]

1/666, did you finish altering the scripts for the next Matrix movies like I asked?
Are you telling me that your conspiracy is responsible for both 24 and the matrix? My god, I knew yo had "reach", but I'm starting to get scared now.
Are you also behind the secret plot to vary the trans fat content of chicken McNugtes between different cities in the US, and WORLD WIDE!


Also, can I join your conspiracy? I could run your bureaucracy for you, I have some great ideas on intrinsically evil, but needlessly complicated and just downright stupid filing systems. I think it would fit with your operational style.

[RandFan]

Ladies and gentlemen, it's my honor to now present to you the diabolical minds known as the Luminutty.
But do not fear. As you can see, their chief adversary is hot on their trail.


http://bestoftheblogs.com/rogues.jpg

http://stratos.alpha.free.fr/Batbomb.gif:D

[Hellbound]

Since this seems to be the place for it, I'd just like to give my status report.

It seems our sock acquisitions are up by 24% this month, and so far we've managed this increase without obtaining a single matching pair.

I believe the ninjas are working out very well, sir.

[delphi_ote]

Are you also behind the secret plot to vary the trans fat content of chicken McNugtes between different cities in the US, and WORLD WIDE!
No. We were behind the disinformation campaign that made people THINK the trans fat content varied between different cities. It was vital to an ongoing operation in Portland that the residents believe they were unjustly targeted by McDonalds.

This made them all eat at Wendys, where we slightly increased the salt content of the french fries. In the grand scheme of things, this keeps people driving cars, which props up the auto industry, which props up the oil industry, which props up stock in Toys R Us. I'll let you work out the rest, as it should be obvious at this point.

Also, can I join your conspiracy? I could run your bureaucracy for you, I have some great ideas on intrinsically evil, but needlessly complicated and just downright stupid filing systems. I think it would fit with your operational style.
How does your filing system do on accidentally leaking subtle hints about its contents to obscure press agencies? It's important that the more devastatingly important the file, the more likely it will be lost.

If it performs well in these regards, welcome to the team! Your uniform will be delivered once we calculate the trajectory necessary to shoot it into orbit in such a way that it re-enters and lands on your neighbor's cat (he knows too much!)

[delphi_ote]

Since this seems to be the place for it, I'd just like to give my status report.

It seems our sock acquisitions are up by 24% this month, and so far we've managed this increase without obtaining a single matching pair.

I believe the ninjas are working out very well, sir.
If it weren't for the pesky Loosers, we'd be up to 37.5% by now! We're never going to reach our annual annoyance quota at this rate... we're going to have to up the timetable on Operation Lost Keys.

[Euromutt]

My favorite part is...

* 4000 Israelis/Jews didn't show up for work at the WTC, based on hints from Shabak, according to Arab diplomatic sources. The US knows this.I'll reiterate the response I gave back in 2001, when a friend of mine forwarded that claim which he'd received from an Egyptian friend of his.
Shin Beit is the Israeli internal security organization; it does not operate outside Israel and the Territories, because that's Mossad's bailiwick. In practice, this means that Shin Beit is primarily involved in keeping tabs on Palestinians. Thus, for Shin Beit to have caught wind to have caught wind of this, and to have been the organization to alert Israeli nationals in NYC (rather than Mossad), 9/11 must have been carried out by Palestinians.

Not quite the insinuation we were hoping to get across, eh?

Besides, the 4,000 number is bogus. There were, what, 22,000 people working in the WTC complex? And a fifth of those were supposedly Israeli nationals? Not a chance. The 4,000 number isn't quite pulled out of nowhere, though: it's the number of Israeli nationals working in NYC as a whole. Not just the WTC, not just Manhattan, but all of NYC. Now why would someone with a job in upper Manhattan, let alone Brooklyn, Queens or any of the outer boroughs, avoid showing up for work on that day?

That story was sh*te when it first came out shortly after 9/11, and it's no less sh*te several years later. You had to be a complete moron to buy it then, and even more so now.

[brodski]

How does your filing system do on accidentally leaking subtle hints about its contents to obscure press agencies? It's important that the more devastatingly important the file, the more likely it will be lost.
a vital part of the system involves storing approximately 1.6% of all our documents classified 11 levels above TOP SECRET on websites which the public can access, we will also give 4% of our documentation to the CT nuts for safe keeping, thereby decreasing our storage requirements by 4%, allowing more room for socks. the filing system also rely on only have two files, stupid implausible stuff we have done, and stupid implausible stuff we are doing, each file jacket will be approximately 25 miles thick, I would need permission to use a couple of persons of Hench in the organization to develop the worlds largest, and most pointless paper clip, but I think you'll find it worthwhile.


If it performs well in these regards, welcome to the team! Your uniform will be delivered once we calculate the trajectory necessary to shoot it into orbit in such a way that it re-enters and lands on your neighbor's cat (he knows too much!)
excellent, it will be a pleasure groveling to your every command.

[Z]

<snip> I would need permission to use a couple of persons of Hench in the organization<snip>

I miss the good ol' days, when we could still refer to them as henchmen...

[delphi_ote]

we will also give 4% of our documentation to the CT nuts for safe keeping, thereby decreasing our storage requirements by 4%
Though the rest of your plan is great, this part sounds dangerously efficient to me. How about we keep a blank sheet of paper around for each page we offload on the CTers? That way, we can keep track of how much we've given them. Also, if someone breaks into our files to verify the CTer's story, they'll just find blank page after blank page!

We will, of course, have to fill out and file the 15 necessary classification forms for each blank page we put on file (and the 15 classification forms for each of the 15 classification forms we put on file.)

[The_Fire]

Not to mention black out the parts of the blank paper the CT'ers doesn't have classification to view.....

[brodski]

Though the rest of your plan is great, this part sounds dangerously efficient to me. How about we keep a blank sheet of paper around for each page we offload on the CTers? That way, we can keep track of how much we've given them. Also, if someone breaks into our files to verify the CTer's story, they'll just find blank page after blank page!

We will, of course, have to fill out and file the 15 necessary classification forms for each blank page we put on file (and the 15 classification forms for each of the 15 classification forms we put on file.)
I like it, and would be happy to incorporate in int my filing system, as soon as you have filled out form Ac29-b, all Ac-prefix forms are to be completed on a Tuesday, and then shredded on a Thursday after processing. We will then file the shreddings.

[Belz...]

1/666, did you finish altering the scripts for the next Matrix movies like I asked?

As ordered. Keanu won't know what hit him. I doubt he'll be able to summon up more than his usual set of un-emotions during filming.

Number 1 out.

[Belz...]

No. We were behind the disinformation campaign that made people THINK the trans fat content varied between different cities. It was vital to an ongoing operation in Portland that the residents believe they were unjustly targeted by McDonalds.

This made them all eat at Wendys, where we slightly increased the salt content of the french fries. In the grand scheme of things, this keeps people driving cars, which props up the auto industry, which props up the oil industry, which props up stock in Toys R Us. I'll let you work out the rest, as it should be obvious at this point.

Of course: we're targetting the kids.

[Gravy]

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_8476.shtml

[Curnir]

Not to mention black out the parts of the blank paper the CT'ers doesn't have classification to view.....

Oh oh oh..

That's just so deliciously evil.

Me like.

[delphi_ote]

Of course: we're targetting the kids.
No no no. We want people to think we're thinking about targeting the kids. Then they'll let down their guard, because every time they think they've figured out what we're doing, we always do the opposite. When we really go for the kids, because we're telling everyone to suspect it, they won't suspect a thing!

[brodski]

I miss the good ol' days, when we could still refer to them as henchmen...
But didn't you know TEH GLOBALISTS are being the new "religion" of political correctness, which incorporates mutually exclusive elements of both far left, and far right ideologies, but which really, really just focuses on bat guano crazy stuff.

[Shaun from Scotland]

You know, on reading this thread I think we have missed the big picture. In the face of lies, deceit and willful obfuscation the JREF forum stands for truth, honesty and the principles of critical thinking.

JREF forum members take a bow.

[chipmunk stew]

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_8476.shtmlPoor kitty! :( I wish he'd have left the articles in the archive, perhaps amending them with this excuse and disclaimer. I'd like to have read them.

[chipmunk stew]

You know, on reading this thread I think we have missed the big picture. In the face of lies, deceit and willful obfuscation the JREF forum stands for truth, honesty and the principles of critical thinking.

JREF forum members take a bow.:yahoo

[Ramooone]

i really enjoy how all the CT'ers talk about how corrupt the government is and how evil the government is for planning and executing 9/11. yet, all the CT'ers still trust the gov. to inspect our meats and crops(usda) they still pay their taxes im sure, they still obey the laws. i mean, if everything is so corrupt how can you trust the government to be doing anything for you? i mean, if they planned 9/11 how do you know they arent slowly poisoning our water supply, or letting contaminated crops and meats ruin our farming industry which is already in shambles? How do you can you believe anything the government says or does?

These people think they got it bad from our government, they should go hang around darfur for a week or china or any of the other places on this earth where people are horribly oppressed/murdered for rights we take for granted.
I'm not saying some things arent screwed up over here, but in perspective to other countries we got it pretty good, and although i dont agree at all with the current administration i know im not going to get the death penalty for expressing my freedom of speech.

[brodski]

:yahoo
Well deserved praise for you there CS.
Oh and happy birthday.

[aggle-rithm]

i really enjoy how all the CT'ers talk about how corrupt the government is and how evil the government is for planning and executing 9/11. yet, all the CT'ers still trust the gov. to inspect our meats and crops(usda) they still pay their taxes im sure, they still obey the laws. i mean, if everything is so corrupt how can you trust the government to be doing anything for you? i mean, if they planned 9/11 how do you know they arent slowly poisoning our water supply, or letting contaminated crops and meats ruin our farming industry which is already in shambles? How do you can you believe anything the government says or does?

These people think they got it bad from our government, they should go hang around darfur for a week or china or any of the other places on this earth where people are horribly oppressed/murdered for rights we take for granted.
I'm not saying some things arent screwed up over here, but in perspective to other countries we got it pretty good, and although i dont agree at all with the current administration i know im not going to get the death penalty for expressing my freedom of speech.

They should try going to a foreign country and getting arrested. As they wait thirty years or so for their case to come to trial, they would have plenty of time to ponder how fortunate they have been.

[delphi_ote]

i really enjoy how all the CT'ers talk about how corrupt the government is and how evil the government is for planning and executing 9/11. yet, all the CT'ers still trust the gov. to inspect our meats and crops(usda) they still pay their taxes im sure, they still obey the laws. i mean, if everything is so corrupt how can you trust the government to be doing anything for you? i mean, if they planned 9/11 how do you know they arent slowly poisoning our water supply, or letting contaminated crops and meats ruin our farming industry which is already in shambles? How do you can you believe anything the government says or does?

These people think they got it bad from our government, they should go hang around darfur for a week or china or any of the other places on this earth where people are horribly oppressed/murdered for rights we take for granted.
I'm not saying some things arent screwed up over here, but in perspective to other countries we got it pretty good, and although i dont agree at all with the current administration i know im not going to get the death penalty for expressing my freedom of speech.
You're right, Ramooone. Their behavior is totally inconsistent with their beliefs. I pointed this out to them a few times, but I never got a response.

After my encounter with them, the only hypothesis I have so far that makes sense is that deep down, they don't actually believe what they're saying. It's just a fun game. It's fantasy or roleplaying. G.I. Joe for adults.

[shuize]

You're right, Ramooone. Their behavior is totally inconsistent with their beliefs. I pointed this out to them a few times, but I never got a response.

After my encounter with them, the only hypothesis I have so far that makes sense is that deep down, they don't actually believe what they're saying. It's just a fun game. It's fantasy or roleplaying. G.I. Joe for adults.

I've had similar conversations with CT folks and I've come to the same conclusion. If I honestly believed a tenth of what they say about the government were true, I'd take up arms. I sure as hell wouldn't be paying taxes or logging onto the internet to leave a record of who I was for that evil government to track me down when I exposed its nefarious deeds.

Ironically, however, I once had a conversation with a die hard CTer about social security that went
like this:

Him: The "government" is conspiring to take social security away from us. We can't let that happen, man!

Me: Wait. You believe the government murdered 3,000 Americans but still trust it to run your retirement?

Him: That's different. It's not the same people.

Me: WTF?!

[CptColumbo]

You're right, Ramooone. Their behavior is totally inconsistent with their beliefs. I pointed this out to them a few times, but I never got a response.

After my encounter with them, the only hypothesis I have so far that makes sense is that deep down, they don't actually believe what they're saying. It's just a fun game. It's fantasy or roleplaying. G.I. Joe for adults.
You've reminded me to ask if their theory is even a theory? Could it still be only a hypothesis?

[delphi_ote]

You've reminded me to ask if their theory is even a theory? Could it still be only a hypothesis?
It's technically a hypothesis in the technical sense... and maybe not even that (being that it doesn't account for most data available and the "researchers" don't seem to have any eye toward actually testing the thing. If I could choose a new noun phrase for everyone to use to describe this phenomina, it would be "conspiracy claim." That's much more precise.)

But since they're so far removed from science, I don't see any reason to be too careful about using "theory" in the casual sense of the word.

[CptColumbo]

It's technically a hypothesis in the technical sense... and maybe not even that (being that it doesn't account for most data available and the "researchers" don't seem to have any eye toward actually testing the thing. If I could choose a new noun phrase for everyone to use to describe this phenomina, it would be "conspiracy claim." That's much more precise.)

But since they're so far removed from science, I don't see any reason to be too careful about using "theory" in the casual sense of the word.
I would never accuse a CT of using the wrong term, :) I just like to keep information like that handy. ;)

[brodski]

I've just found out that one of my neighbors is hooked on the 9/11 ct's.
I've just been arguing with him for the past hour and a half about this, thank god I was using my laptop to use this thread (and others) to rebut his specific points.
I didn't convince him of anything however, he claimed that what was important was his gut feeling, and as "no-one can ever know anything for certain" evidence was secondary. :rolleyes:
but thanks for a great resource. :D

[senorpogo]

I've had similar conversations with CT folks and I've come to the same conclusion. If I honestly believed a tenth of what they say about the government were true, I'd take up arms. I sure as hell wouldn't be paying taxes or logging onto the internet to leave a record of who I was for that evil government to track me down when I exposed its nefarious deeds.

Ironically, however, I once had a conversation with a die hard CTer about social security that went
like this:

Him: The "government" is conspiring to take social security away from us. We can't let that happen, man!

Me: Wait. You believe the government murdered 3,000 Americans but still trust it to run your retirement?

Him: That's different. It's not the same people.

Me: WTF?!


I know some people who regularly complain about the amount of control the US government currently has yet they're all for completely socializing medicine here in the states.

"Government has too much power over us. So let's give them another way to control our lives." :eye-poppi

[senorpogo]

I've just found out that one of my neighbors is hooked on the 9/11 ct's.
I've just been arguing with him for the past hour and a half about this, thank god I was using my laptop to use this thread (and others) to rebut his specific points.
I didn't convince him of anything however, he claimed that what was important was his gut feeling, and as "no-one can ever know anything for certain" evidence was secondary. :rolleyes:
but thanks for a great resource. :D

I am dying to run into some 9/11 theorist just so I can whoop up on him or her with my JREF-fu.

"Your logic-defying, free-fall Tiger technique is no match for my structural engineer stance."

[WildCat]

I've just found out that one of my neighbors is hooked on the 9/11 ct's.
I've just been arguing with him for the past hour and a half about this, thank god I was using my laptop to use this thread (and others) to rebut his specific points.
I didn't convince him of anything however, he claimed that what was important was his gut feeling, and as "no-one can ever know anything for certain" evidence was secondary. :rolleyes:
but thanks for a great resource. :D
Unfortunately, he'll be on a jury some day. :(

[delphi_ote]

Unfortunately, he'll be on a jury some day. :(
Democracy is not without its flaws... :(

[brodski]

Unfortunately, he'll be on a jury some day. :(
don't get me started on some of the cretins I met when I was doing jury duty, :(
actually you couldn't, because it is illegal for me to talk about it.

[Manny]

Unfortunately, he'll be on a jury some day. :(I'll play the optimist here and say that I hope it's mine! :D

[brodski]

I am dying to run into some 9/11 theorist just so I can whoop up on him or her with my JREF-fu.

"Your logic-defying, free-fall Tiger technique is no match for my structural engineer stance."
the trouble is, they just learn the mantra "there's too many unanswered questions".
OF COURSE THERE ARE UNANSWERED QUESTIONS, THERE ALWAYS IS IN REAL LIFE, WE CAN NEVER KNOW EVERY LITTLE DETAIL, BUT WE KNOW ENOUGH TO KNOW PRETTY MUCH WHAT HAPPENED.

sorry for shouting.

[brodski]

I'll play the optimist here and say that I hope it's mine! :D
unless you are planning a crime spree in north London, I doubt he will be.

Are you planning a crime spree in north London? :p

Mind you I'm sure you could find twelve idiots where you live, I mean they're hardly a scarce resource world wide, are they? :(

[Hellbound]

Mind you I'm sure you could find twelve idiots where you live, I mean they're hardly a scarce resource world wide, are they? :(

Quite right. Can't throw a stone without hitting one.

Mind you, sometimes that not an entirely bad thing...

:D

[Manny]

Are you planning a crime spree in north London? :p
Anyplace that they know what a Wookie is!

[WildCat]

don't get me started on some of the cretins I met when I was doing jury duty, :(
actually you couldn't, because it is illegal for me to talk about it.
I didn't know that about British juries. In the US jurors can make the round of talk shows after the case is over.

[geggy]

I admit I haven't read the entire thread but I do have questions of my own...

How was it possible that Osama Bin Laden was named the culprit within 7 hours of the attacks when the Bush Administration claimed they had no foreknowledge of the operation being planned? Do you think the FBI were given enough time to gather evidence to support that accusation let alone Osama denied he had any involvement of the plot?

How was it possible for the amateur pilots to fly planes off course, turn off transponders and were be able to find their intended targets, let alone defeating the most technology advanced defense system in the world? The incompetence theory is laughable.

The pentagon was struck by a boeing ONE HOUR after the first attack in New York City without any scramblings of Air Force fighter jets to protect the skies in Washington, DC. Where were they?

Why was the collapsing of the WTC7, which fell in a free fall, controlled demolition style, not mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report?

[brodski]

I didn't know that about British juries. In the US jurors can make the round of talk shows after the case is over.
well you have that whole "freedom of speech thing" don't you.

[gmanontario]

I admit I haven't read the entire thread but I do have questions of my own...

How was it possible that Osama Bin Laden was named the culprit within 7 hours of the attacks when the Bush Administration claimed they had no foreknowledge of the operation being planned? Do you think the FBI were given enough time to gather evidence to support that accusation let alone Osama denied he had any involvement of the plot?

How was it possible for the amateur pilots to fly planes off course, turn off transponders and were be able to find their intended targets, let alone defeating the most technology advanced defense system in the world? The incompetence theory is laughable.

The pentagon was struck by a boeing ONE HOUR after the first attack in New York City without any scramblings of Air Force fighter jets to protect the skies in Washington, DC. Where were they?

Why was the collapsing of the WTC7, which fell in a free fall, controlled demolition style, not mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report?

And the merry-go-round continues....:boggled:

Why don't you tell us why and it can be discussed from there?

[Gravy]

Anyplace that they know what a Wookie is!

I used to pay a guy to breed pets that looked like Star Wars creatures, but I stopped using him when he wouldn't give me a refund after Jabba the Cat only lived for three weeks.
http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/879044469de28c707.jpg

[brodski]

I admit I haven't read the entire thread but I do have questions of my own...

How was it possible that Osama Bin Laden was named the culprit within 7 hours of the attacks when the Bush Administration claimed they had no foreknowledge of the operation being planned? Do you think the FBI were given enough time to gather evidence to support that accusation let alone Osama denied he had any involvement of the plot?
maybe they jumped to a conclusion, when first investigating a crime, it's not unusual for the police to look at who had "previous" relevant to the crime, OBL had attacked the WTC before, and in this case, the hunch played out, it happens.


How was it possible for the amateur pilots to fly planes off course, turn off transponders and were be able to find their intended targets, let alone defeating the most technology advanced defense system in the world? The incompetence theory is laughable.
The hard parts of flying a plane tend to be take off and landing, the 9/11 hijackers did neither.
transponders help Air Traffic Control track planes, they do not help the plane navigate, prior to 9/11 information on the controls of commercial aircraft was not difficult to come by.
The air defence system was not intended to be used against civilian aircraft, everyone expect the first planes (and passengers) to be held for ransom, not used as weapons.


The pentagon was struck by a boeing ONE HOUR after the first attack in New York City without any scramblings of Air Force fighter jets to protect the skies in Washington, DC. Where were they? and how exactly would shooting down a plane over a highly populated area be a better outcome? And how long would it take for the fighter jets to intercept the planes, especially as the are barred from traveling supersonic whilst on intercept missions.


Why was the collapsing of the WTC7, which fell in a free fall, controlled demolition style, not mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report?
The buildings fell nothing like a controlled demolition, if they fell "in free fall", how come we can clearly see the ejected debris falling faster than the buildings in the video footage?

[brodski]

I used to pay a guy to breed pets that looked like Star Wars creatures, but I stopped using him when he wouldn't give me a refund after Jabba the Cat only lived for three weeks.
:D

[Gravy]

I admit I haven't read the entire thread but I do have questions of my own...

Geggy, I posted some helpful links (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1584357&postcount=167)in answer to 9/11 questions this morning. If you still have questions after checking these sources, come on back!

p.s. You are aware that the NIST WTC 7 report hasn't been released yet, right? It took a while because they were running an investigation.

[WildCat]

I admit I haven't read the entire thread but I do have questions of my own...

How was it possible that Osama Bin Laden was named the culprit within 7 hours of the attacks when the Bush Administration claimed they had no foreknowledge of the operation being planned?
I assumed that the second I heard of the attack. It is his MO, after all.

Do you think the FBI were given enough time to gather evidence to support that accusation let alone Osama denied he had any involvement of the plot?
Did FDR give the FBI time to conclude it really was the Japanese that bombed Pearl Harbor?

How was it possible for the amateur pilots to fly planes off course, turn off transponders and were be able to find their intended targets,
That's why they took pilot training.

let alone defeating the most technology advanced defense system in the world? The incompetence theory is laughable.
Maybe you didn't notice, but it never was US policy to shoot down civilian aircraft flying over US territory. There was no "defense system" in place for this sort of thing.

The pentagon was struck by a boeing ONE HOUR after the first attack in New York City without any scramblings of Air Force fighter jets to protect the skies in Washington, DC. Where were they?
The FAA informed NORAD that Flight 77 had been hijacked at 9:24 AM. F-16's from Langley AFB were airborne at 9:30, Flight 77 hit the Pentagon at 9:37, the F-16's were 105 miles away at this time.

Why was the collapsing of the WTC7, which fell in a free fall, controlled demolition style, not mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report?
It did not fall in "controlled demolition style", it was heavily damaged by the collapse of the WTC and burning out of control for many hours. Firemen did not fight the fire in WTC 7 because of the damage and it was obviously unstable and in imminent danger of collapsing, which it subsequently did. There is a NIST report coming out soon on exactly how it collapsed.

Now that all your questions have been answered, I have no doubt that you will ignore all the answers and post the same questions repeatedly.

I have a question for you - why is there not a single structural engineer in the entire country, and probably the world, who finds anything suspcious about the collapse of WTC 1,2 and 7?

[delphi_ote]

How was it possible that Osama Bin Laden was named the culprit within 7 hours of the attacks when the Bush Administration claimed they had no foreknowledge of the operation being planned? Do you think the FBI were given enough time to gather evidence to support that accusation let alone Osama denied he had any involvement of the plot?
The press were the ones that moved right to the accusation. The governemnt suspected, but did not actually state as fact, that OBL was behind the attacks. Al Queda also claimed responsibility for the attacks.
How was it possible for the amateur pilots to fly planes off course, turn off transponders and were be able to find their intended targets, let alone defeating the most technology advanced defense system in the world? The incompetence theory is laughable.
They attended pilot school, genius.
The pentagon was struck by a boeing ONE HOUR after the first attack in New York City without any scramblings of Air Force fighter jets to protect the skies in Washington, DC. Where were they?
Have you ever been to either of the two airports near DC? Have you even been in DC and just looked up?
Why was the collapsing of the WTC7, which fell in a free fall, controlled demolition style, not mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report?
Why weren't the Oklahoma City bombings and the pizza I had last night included?

[azazal]

How was it possible for the amateur pilots to fly planes off course, turn off transponders and were be able to find their intended targets


ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh hhhhhhhhhhhhhhh


Okay, quick story time. Long ago in a far away land, ok twenty years ago, my father used to own his own plane - a Piper Tripacer if anyone cares. Guess what, when we would go out for a flight, he would take care of the take off and landing. As for in flight, me a mere 12 year old, would do the flying many a time. He would give me a compass heading and I would follow that. Pretty simple really, and this in the days long before GPS. It was pretty easy to get to the destination airport and the turn the controls back over to dad. Guess what, 9/11 terrorists had plenty of training on how to fly a plane; very easy to do once you are off the ground. And with GPS, very easy to go to where you want to be.

As for transponders, all they really do in broadcast a plane’s ID info. Watch CNN in the mornings, when the travel guy comes on, they always show a national map with all the planes currently in the air. Those plane locations are gathered from the transponders. Guess what, the map is solid blue plane silhouettes. I dare you to find a plane that is out of line on such a map, go ahead, try.

[senorpogo]

I admit I haven't read the entire thread but I do have questions of my own...

How was it possible that Osama Bin Laden was named the culprit within 7 hours of the attacks when the Bush Administration claimed they had no foreknowledge of the operation being planned? Do you think the FBI were given enough time to gather evidence to support that accusation let alone Osama denied he had any involvement of the plot?

US intelligence had ample information showing Bin Laden's intent to attack in the United States. Remember Condie quoting that memo? Since it's been thrown in the administration's face countless times since then, I'm sure you're familiar with it. Something along the lines of "Bin Laden determined to attack within the United States."

Also, if you read the 9/11 commission report, you'll see all the intel the US had on the operations of Al-Qaeda in America prior to the attacks. Read this quote about the Phoenix Memo.

"In July 2001, an FBI agent in the Phoenix field office sent a memo to FBI headquarters and to two agents on international terrorism squads in the New York Field Office, advising of the "possibility of a coordinated effort by Usama Bin Ladin" to send students to the United States to attend civil aviation schools."

Is it odd that the FBI could, in seven hours, figure out that the attacks were connected to known terror cells inside the United States that were planning on using planes in a terrorist attack?

I find it odd that you mention that the 9/11 Commission Report does not mention anything about WTC 7, yet you seem oblivious to the fact that the report DOES clearly lay out how much we knew about Osama's intentions to attack America using planes. This suggests to me that you have not read the 9/11 Report, but rather are just parrotting CT talking points that you've found somewhere out there on the net.

[DavidJames]

I admit I haven't read the entire thread but I do have questions of my own...

How was it possible that Osama Bin Laden was named the culprit within 7 hours of the attacks when the Bush Administration claimed they had no foreknowledge of the operation being planned? Do you think the FBI were given enough time to gather evidence to support that accusation let alone Osama denied he had any involvement of the plot?

How was it possible for the amateur pilots to fly planes off course, turn off transponders and were be able to find their intended targets, let alone defeating the most technology advanced defense system in the world? The incompetence theory is laughable.

The pentagon was struck by a boeing ONE HOUR after the first attack in New York City without any scramblings of Air Force fighter jets to protect the skies in Washington, DC. Where were they?

Why was the collapsing of the WTC7, which fell in a free fall, controlled demolition style, not mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report?You've done research into the CT view of the 9/11 event. Have you done any research into the official, unfiltered by the CT perspective, version? If so, maybe you could show your analysis, and supporting evidencde, of where in the offical version you have problems.

[Gravy]

I find it odd that you mention that the 9/11 Commission Report does not mention anything about WTC 7, yet you seem oblivious to the fact that the report DOES clearly lay out how much we knew about Osama's intentions to attack America using planes. This suggests to me that you have not read the 9/11 Report, but rather are just parrotting CT talking points that you've found somewhere out there on the net.

It can be hard to wade through all the CT stuff on the net to get to the facts. if you plopped a being from planet x in front of a a computer and had them google "9/11," that being would probably come to the conclusion that there's just about a consensus out there about what happened, and that consensus was in line with CT claims. Of course nothing could be farther from the truth. The CTers are simply vocal about their beliefs.

Geggy, since you're on the "Loose Change" thread, have you seen the video, and if so, what major conclusions do you agree with? It's always interesting to me to know where people are getting their information.

[rwguinn]

I admit I haven't read the entire thread but I do have questions of my own...

How was it possible that Osama Bin Laden was named the culprit within 7 hours of the attacks when the Bush Administration claimed they had no foreknowledge of the operation being planned? Do you think the FBI were given enough time to gather evidence to support that accusation let alone Osama denied he had any involvement of the plot?

How was it possible for the amateur pilots to fly planes off course, turn off transponders and were be able to find their intended targets, let alone defeating the most technology advanced defense system in the world? The incompetence theory is laughable.

The pentagon was struck by a boeing ONE HOUR after the first attack in New York City without any scramblings of Air Force fighter jets to protect the skies in Washington, DC. Where were they?

Why was the collapsing of the WTC7, which fell in a free fall, controlled demolition style, not mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report?
What is this--a conspiracy to keep the thread going by asking the same stupid questions over and over?

Well, if you had read the thread, rather than being stupidly lazy, you would find the answers to every D*^n one of your "questions", in at least 2 places.


"Never argue with idiots! They drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience...." or beat you down....

[chipmunk stew]

I admit I haven't read the entire thread but I do have questions of my own...

How was it possible that Osama Bin Laden was named the culprit within 7 hours of the attacks when the Bush Administration claimed they had no foreknowledge of the operation being planned? Do you think the FBI were given enough time to gather evidence to support that accusation let alone Osama denied he had any involvement of the plot?
The list of top suspects wasn't very long. Bin Laden's determination to attack the US on its own soil was well-known, and the FBI had information suggesting that there were al-Qaeda operatives attending flight schools. They didn't know where, when, or how an attack might take place, but they were fairly certain almost immediately once the attack took place. Once they obtained at the flight manifests and confirmed that some of the passengers on every plane were known to have ties to al-Qaeda, the suspicion was confirmed.

How was it possible for the amateur pilots to fly planes off course, turn off transponders and were be able to find their intended targets, let alone defeating the most technology advanced defense system in the world? The incompetence theory is laughable.NORAD didn't start monitoring flights inside US borders until after 9/11:
Like every government organization, NORAD was caught off guard on Sept. 11. The monitoring of threats went on as usual that day but NORAD operators were looking outward from US borders, seeking incoming danger. NORAD did not anticipate attacks in which civil airliners would be hijacked from domestic airports and turned into weapons against US targets. (SOURCE (http://www.afa.org/magazine/feb2002/0202norad.asp))

The pentagon was struck by a boeing ONE HOUR after the first attack in New York City without any scramblings of Air Force fighter jets to protect the skies in Washington, DC. Where were they?Jets were in flight within minutes of learning that flight 77 was hijacked. They didn't make it in time.

Why was the collapsing of the WTC7, which fell in a free fall, controlled demolition style, not mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report?The same reason the Marriott Hotel, which was completely obliterated by WTC 1 & 2, was not mentioned--it was collateral destruction, not a target of the attack. It was irrelevant to the scope of the report.

[Belz...]

No no no. We want people to think we're thinking about targeting the kids. Then they'll let down their guard, because every time they think they've figured out what we're doing, we always do the opposite. When we really go for the kids, because we're telling everyone to suspect it, they won't suspect a thing!

Once more, you're one step ahead of everyone, master.

"Master globalist" should suit you better, don't you think.

[Belz...]

After my encounter with them, the only hypothesis I have so far that makes sense is that deep down, they don't actually believe what they're saying. It's just a fun game. It's fantasy or roleplaying. G.I. Joe for adults.

More like a cult, actually. They BELONG, and that makes them special. I don't know if they realise that they don't really believe in that crap, but that's social animals for ya.

[Belz...]

I didn't convince him of anything however, he claimed that what was important was his gut feeling,

Have you reminded him that some people have gut feelings that they see little elves running around ?

[CurtC]

That's why they took pilot training.Hell, *I* took pilot training. I stopped short of getting my private license, but I could probably hit something the size of a WTC tower in a commercial jet. These terrorists not only got their private licenses, but also got their instrument ratings, and their commercial pilots licenses, plus had lots of simulator time in commercial jets. The only way someone could have asked this question is willful ignorance.

[Belz...]

"Never argue with idiots! They drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience...." or beat you down....

So arguing with idiots is like trying to save a drowning man ?

"Your logic-defying, free-fall Tiger technique is no match for my structural engineer stance."

:D

I admit I haven't read the entire thread but I do have questions of my own...

None of those questions are your own. You're just regurgitating CT stuff.

[rwguinn]

So arguing with idiots is like trying to save a drowning man ?



:D .
Naw- A drowning person can be rendered unconcious whilst you forcibly rescue them--they wake up, the deed is done.
Getting a coherent thought through the CT skull and into the CT mind will take Dynamite. This has rather drastic ramifications.
Look what a couple sticks of the stuff did to the WTC!:jaw-dropp


None of those questions are your own. You're just regurgitating CT stuff.

10-4
It's another conspiracy!

[Manny]

10-4Ever notice that 10-4 is CB slang for A-OK and October 4, 1957 is when Sputnik was launched? Damn commie illuminati.

[aggle-rithm]

and how exactly would shooting down a plane over a highly populated area be a better outcome? And how long would it take for the fighter jets to intercept the planes, especially as the are barred from traveling supersonic whilst on intercept missions.


Now that we know what damage can be done with commercial airliners used as weapons, it seems perfectly reasonable that we would shoot down an airliner that posed a threat. Not so twenty-odd years ago, when the Soviets shot down a Korean airliner that had strayed into their airspace near a highly sensitive military outpost. This was in the middle of the Cold War, when paranoia was rampant. The Soviets were condemned around the world; no one could understand how they could do such a thing.

Post-911, it seems easier to understand.

[Mr. Skinny]

Ever notice that 10-4 is CB slang for A-OK and October 4, 1957 is when Sputnik was launched? Damn commie illuminati.
10-4 is really a law enforcement radio signal rather than CB slang, and as we all know Broderick Crawford was famous for the use of that term in the TV show "Highway Patrol". 10-4 also refers to October 4th, which we all know is "Broderick Crawford Day" in the US.

My conclusion is that manny and his illuminati henchmen will make something really bad happen on October 4th of some year in the future. It will become known as the BCD incident.

Or something like that.

[bob_kark]

The only way someone could have asked this question is willful ignorance.

Whoa, whoa, whoa! Hold it there! A 9/11 CTer who is willfully ignorant? I've never heard of such a thing! I am so shocked, I must utilize a shocked smiley emote.

:shocked:

Much better.

[brodski]

Now that we know what damage can be done with commercial airliners used as weapons, it seems perfectly reasonable that we would shoot down an airliner that posed a threat. Not so twenty-odd years ago, when the Soviets shot down a Korean airliner that had strayed into their airspace near a highly sensitive military outpost. This was in the middle of the Cold War, when paranoia was rampant. The Soviets were condemned around the world; no one could understand how they could do such a thing.

Post-911, it seems easier to understand.

Ok, yes, post 9-11 the decision would be taken to shoot down the plane, but on 9-11? The military just doesn't make new policy that fast.

[delphi_ote]

Ever notice that 10-4 is CB slang for A-OK and October 4, 1957 is when Sputnik was launched? Damn commie illuminati.
It is also by birthday. Sinister, no?

[CptColumbo]

Geggy

If we've been short or harsh with you it's because we've covered this issue ad naseum with others, who then ignored our answers and kept posting the same questions. Apparently thinking that repetition would throw us off. It didn't.

[geggy]

Facts, not conspiracy theories, were thrown at your face repeatedly, yet you're still clinging onto the official story of 9/11 like flies on poop.

I appreciate you guys challenging me on the questions, even though it feels as if we're on a merry go round reaching 36th page of the thread. I have not seen loose change as it is not subtitled cuz you see, I'm deaf myself and I would need the subtitles to be able to understand what's being said in the video.

However I've started reading articles, both independent and mainstream reports, relating to sept 11 as early as 2002. I'd recommend you to start with this... informationclearinghouse.info/article4582.htm An excellent article, actually, written in 2003. If some of you are new to the sept 11 "conspiracy theories", I probably can understand what you're thinking. At first I dismissed it as an impossiblity that the government could perform such atrocity as massive as sept 11 toward their own people.

But then I kept an open mind and took a closer look, despite being indifferent to the ufo/jfk/bigfoot conspiracy theories, the anomalies surrounding sept 11 raises a lot of valid questions. After the FBI were forced to put halt to the sept 11 investigation on Oct 10, 2001, after 3 years of Bush's attempt at obstructing the independant investigation, the 9/11 cOmmission Report were finally released to the public and yet, it has a lot of holes in it and does not answer a lot of important questions.

I'm convinced that Osama, who was an asset to the CIA, and the 19hijackers, whom 7 of them came forward proving their innocence after the
attacks, had nothing to do with sept 11. I believe those who were training to become pilots in the US were members of al-Qaeda yet they were set up as scapegoats and patsies, provided by Pakistan's Intelligence Agency, the ISI. The forewarnings received by the Bush administration were put forth themselves to cover their own tracks. For all we know, the august 6th memo was most likely doctored, just as the nigeria document confirming Saddam's yellow cakes thta acted as a justification for Bush administration to invade Iraq.

Even if they had forewarnings of the sept 11 attack that was going to take place, then why were plans for war game exercises went ahead as scheduled on the morning of sept 11? Perhaps this article will help you understand why none of the fighter jets in the Air Force base 10 miles from DC were deployed:
infowars.com/articles/us/former_head_of_star_wars_say_cheney_main_911_suspe ct.htm

The Project for New American Century, created in 1997 whose members are
Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Cheney, etc, created a document called "Rebuilding
of the Defense System" in 1998, which was criticized harshly by those in the capitol. They then rewrote the document in 2000 cliaming that they would need a "catalyzing event--like a new pearl harbor" in order to generate public support to meet with the PNAC's agenda to invade the MiddleEast. Don't believe me? Look it up at newamericancentury.org

As for WTC7, four years and a half since the attacks and the NIST has not come to conclusion as to why it collapsed? An obvious sign of a cover up. You're probably thinking, why would they even intentionally implode WTC7? The government agencies housed at the building were the US secret service, the department of defense, FEMA, the SEC, the CIA and the IRS. Could it be just a coincidence? Is it a coincidence that Larry Silverstein had signed $3.2 billion, 99 year lease several weeks prior to sept 11, only later to claim more than $5 billion from insurance after the attacks? Or the fact that Marvin Bush, George Bush's younger brother, was the head of security in WTC during the time of the attacks?

Speaking of WTC, here are interesting facts about buildings 5 and 6...
-both had thinner steel columns than buildings 1, 2 and 7
-both stood closer to buidlings 1 and 2 than building 7 did
-both suffered far more damages than building 7 did
-both did not collapse, yet building 7 did

Some of you have proven to me that you lack any knowledge of how
building implosion works...

Go here: question911.livejournal.com/2804.html

Because of several witness statements, I strongly believe AA77 struck the pentagon. But I admit the fact they refuse to release videos of the pentagon attack is very suspicious.

I don't know what happened to flight 93. Many had claimed that it made an emergency landing in Cleveland because it was said to be carrying a bomb. Many said it was shot down. Anything that I come to conclusion as to what had happened to flight 93 would be conspiracy theory because I don't have any real, solid proof backed up, which is why I don't spend much time on it.

It's interesting that, as you may have already read the highly unconvincing Popular Mechannic's article debunking the sept 11 CT, was written by Chertoff's son.

I think you guys need to remind yourselves that this is not fantasy, and that it is very, very probable that the Bush administartion may had orchestrated the entire event themselves. You just need to do research yourselves on the internet to allow for it to sink in. But beware of government sponsered disinformationalists spreading misleading information across the internet in attempt discredit the 9/11 truth seekers and divert the attention away from those responsible....

[chipmunk stew]

Speaking of WTC, here are interesting facts about buildings 5 and 6...
-both had thinner steel columns than buildings 1, 2 and 7
-both stood closer to buidlings 1 and 2 than building 7 did
-both suffered far more damages than building 7 did
-both did not collapse, yet building 7 didQuick response before work. I'll address other points later (unless I'm beaten to it):

add to your list:
-both were 1/4 the height of 7 and had larger footprints
-neither was burning uncontrollably
-7 had a 20-story gash on the south side
-you're comparing apples to oranges

[Shaun from Scotland]

But beware of government sponsered disinformationalists spreading misleading information across the internet in attempt discredit the 9/11 truth seekers and divert the attention away from those responsible....


Ha ha very good satire of a typical CTER...

Er...

It is satire right? Right?

[geggy]

Ok, yes, post 9-11 the decision would be taken to shoot down the plane, but on 9-11? The military just doesn't make new policy that fast.

June 2001 The decades-old procedure for a quick response by the nation’s air defense was changed. NORAD’s military commanders could no longer issue the command to launch fighter jets because approval had to be sought from the civilian Defense Secretary and PNAC-member, Donald Rumsfeld.

9-11commission.gov/hearings/hearing7/for_the_record_ashley.pdf

[Tirdun]

Facts, not conspiracy theories
[...]
I'm convinced that Osama, who was an asset to the CIA, and the 19hijackers, whom 7 of them came forward proving their innocence after the
attacks, had nothing to do with sept 11. I believe those who were training to become pilots in the US were members of al-Qaeda yet they were set up as scapegoats and patsies, provided by Pakistan's Intelligence Agency, the ISI. The forewarnings received by the Bush administration were put forth themselves to cover their own tracks. For all we know, the august 6th memo was most likely doctored, just as the nigeria document confirming Saddam's yellow cakes thta acted as a justification for Bush administration to invade Iraq.

Osama was an "asset" to the CIA, not an agent. Going with the theory "The enemy of my enemy is my friend", Osama was fighting Russia, so we sent him cash and gear. It came back to bite us horribly.

Oh and the list of living hijackers (http://www.911myths.com/html/still_alive.html) is old and tired. Or perhaps you have a different list?

[aggle-rithm]

Facts, not conspiracy theories, were thrown at your face repeatedly, yet you're still clinging onto the official story of 9/11 like flies on poop.

Until there's a rational reason to believe that something happened other than what appeared to happen, we will continue to do so, along with all other rational people.


I appreciate you guys challenging me on the questions, even though it feels as if we're on a merry go round reaching 36th page of the thread. I have not seen loose change as it is not subtitled cuz you see, I'm deaf myself and I would need the subtitles to be able to understand what's being said in the video.

However I've started reading articles, both independent and mainstream reports, relating to sept 11 as early as 2002. I'd recommend you to start with this... informationclearinghouse.info/article4582.htm An excellent article, actually, written in 2003. If some of you are new to the sept 11 "conspiracy theories", I probably can understand what you're thinking. At first I dismissed it as an impossiblity that the government could perform such atrocity as massive as sept 11 toward their own people.


You had the right idea the first time around. All the points brought up in the article you linked to have been refuted many, many times.


But then I kept an open mind and took a closer look, despite being indifferent to the ufo/jfk/bigfoot conspiracy theories, the anomalies surrounding sept 11 raises a lot of valid questions. After the FBI were forced to put halt to the sept 11 investigation on Oct 10, 2001, after 3 years of Bush's attempt at obstructing the independant investigation, the 9/11 cOmmission Report were finally released to the public and yet, it has a lot of holes in it and does not answer a lot of important questions.


I'm sure you don't mean October, 2001. That would mean that Bush began obstructing the investigation while still governor of Texas.


I'm convinced that Osama, who was an asset to the CIA, and the 19hijackers,


WAS an asset, during the cold war. BECAME a liability afterwards.

But don't let me stop you. Please continue.


whom 7 of them came forward proving their innocence after the
attacks, had nothing to do with sept 11. I believe those who were training to become pilots in the US were members of al-Qaeda yet they were set up as scapegoats and patsies, provided by Pakistan's Intelligence Agency, the ISI.


Evidence? Sorry, we're all about evidence around here.


The forewarnings received by the Bush administration were put forth themselves to cover their own tracks. For all we know, the august 6th memo was most likely doctored, just as the nigeria document confirming Saddam's yellow cakes thta acted as a justification for Bush administration to invade Iraq.


"For all we know"? Are you serious?


Even if they had forewarnings of the sept 11 attack that was going to take place, then why were plans for war game exercises went ahead as scheduled on the morning of sept 11? Perhaps this article will help you understand why none of the fighter jets in the Air Force base 10 miles from DC were deployed:
infowars.com/articles/us/former_head_of_star_wars_say_cheney_main_911_suspe ct.htm


I was skeptical as soon as I saw the site name "infowars", but I looked at it anyway. However, as soon as I saw the claim that President Carter was in office during the Star Wars program, I gave up. Maybe I can go back and look at this fairy tale a little closer when I have time.


The Project for New American Century, created in 1997 whose members are
Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Cheney, etc, created a document called "Rebuilding
of the Defense System" in 1998, which was criticized harshly by those in the capitol. They then rewrote the document in 2000 cliaming that they would need a "catalyzing event--like a new pearl harbor" in order to generate public support to meet with the PNAC's agenda to invade the MiddleEast. Don't believe me? Look it up at newamericancentury.org


If there is a conspiracy, don't you think they would have kept quiet about the "catalyzing event"?



As for WTC7, four years and a half since the attacks and the NIST has not come to conclusion as to why it collapsed? An obvious sign of a cover up.



Or an obvious sign that it was not a high priority. Where is the conclusion about all the other buildings that were destroyed? Is that a cover up too?


You're probably thinking,


Yes, I am. You should try it some time.


why would they even intentionally implode WTC7?


Because it was heavily damaged? That's why WTC 3-6 were brought down.


The government agencies housed at the building were the US secret service, the department of defense, FEMA, the SEC, the CIA and the IRS. Could it be just a coincidence? Is it a coincidence that Larry Silverstein had signed $3.2 billion, 99 year lease several weeks prior to sept 11, only later to claim more than $5 billion from insurance after the attacks?


He was required by the lease agreement to rebuild. How much do you think it should cost to rebuild seven very large office buildings?


Or the fact that Marvin Bush, George Bush's younger brother, was the head of security in WTC during the time of the attacks?

Speaking of WTC, here are interesting facts about buildings 5 and 6...
-both had thinner steel columns than buildings 1, 2 and 7
-both stood closer to buidlings 1 and 2 than building 7 did
-both suffered far more damages than building 7 did
-both did not collapse, yet building 7 did


So they are still standing today?


Some of you have proven to me that you lack any knowledge of how
building implosion works...

Go here: question911.livejournal.com/2804.html



Where are these mainstream news sources you spoke of earlier?



Because of several witness statements, I strongly believe AA77 struck the pentagon.



Hallelujah!

But I admit the fact they refuse to release videos of the pentagon attack is very suspicious.


Awww, you were doing so well!


I don't know what happened to flight 93. Many had claimed that it made an emergency landing in Cleveland because it was said to be carrying a bomb. Many said it was shot down. Anything that I come to conclusion as to what had happened to flight 93 would be conspiracy theory because I don't have any real, solid proof backed up, which is why I don't spend much time on it.


...and none of your other conclusions are conspiracy theories..?

Nonetheless, I appreciate your willingness to not jump to conclusions.


It's interesting that, as you may have already read the highly unconvincing Popular Mechannic's article debunking the sept 11 CT, was written by Chertoff's son.

I think you guys need to remind yourselves that this is not fantasy, and that it is very, very probable that the Bush administartion may had orchestrated the entire event themselves. You just need to do research yourselves on the internet to allow for it to sink in. But beware of government sponsered disinformationalists spreading misleading information across the internet in attempt discredit the 9/11 truth seekers and divert the attention away from those responsible....

How are you able to discern what is true and what is misinformation? The "official version" of events is logical and follows a clear chain of cause-and-effect relationships. The conspiracy theories are theories in name only. They are just a hodge-podge of uninformed claims that require huge leaps of faith and cognitive distortions before they can be accepted. As I said before, we're all about evidence here. Real evidence, not questions, "inconsistencies", and unfounded claims.

[WildCat]

Speaking of WTC, here are interesting facts about buildings 5 and 6...
-both had thinner steel columns than buildings 1, 2 and 7
-both stood closer to buidlings 1 and 2 than building 7 did
-both suffered far more damages than building 7 did
-both did not collapse, yet building 7 did
Here's another interesting fact: There is not a single structural engineer in the entire world who has come out against the official explanation of any of the tower's collapse. You know, the guys who are actually experts in how buildings stay up and what brings them down? How do you account for this fact?

I anxiously await your response, because every other controlled demo theorist who has come here has dodged this question, along w/ many others we have put to them. I'll let you answer this one first.

[valis]

Wouldn't help. The loosers would just say, "A real plane wouldn't produce that much exhaust! And it would be in color, not black and white! WHAT ARE THEY HIDING!?!"

What are they hiding indeed?

I took my wife to the airport in Orlando last week and the planes there were in color. Something is fishy here.

[kookbreaker]

As for WTC7, four years and a half since the attacks and the NIST has not come to conclusion as to why it collapsed? An obvious sign of a cover up.


Not really, merely a sign that it is not as easy, the budget is getting low, and only cranks really care.


You're probably thinking, why would they even intentionally implode WTC7? The government agencies housed at the building were the US secret service, the department of defense, FEMA, the SEC, the CIA and the IRS. Could it be just a coincidence?


Yes. Why destroy their own offices? If they have something they wanted to hide, why risk it surviving an implosion to be recovered by clean-up crews? Why not just remove the offending material?


Is it a coincidence that Larry Silverstein had signed $3.2 billion, 99 year lease several weeks prior to sept 11, only later to claim more than $5 billion from insurance after the attacks?


When will you losers stop accusing Silverstein?
http://911myths.com/html/windfall.html


Or the fact that Marvin Bush, George Bush's younger brother, was the head of security in WTC during the time of the attacks?


Wrong again. He was on the BoD for the company, and had left by 2000. A far cry from 'in charge of security'.

http://911myths.com/html/stratesec.html


Speaking of WTC, here are interesting facts about buildings 5 and 6...
-both had thinner steel columns than buildings 1, 2 and 7
-both stood closer to buidlings 1 and 2 than building 7 did
-both suffered far more damages than building 7 did
-both did not collapse, yet building 7 did


Different structures, different sizes, different results.


Some of you have proven to me that you lack any knowledge of how
building implosion works...


Experts in the field have proven to me that you don't know how buildings stay up, how they can fail, and why demolition claims are absurd.


Go here: question911.livejournal.com/2804.html

Because of several witness statements, I strongly believe AA77 struck the pentagon. But I admit the fact they refuse to release videos of the pentagon attack is very suspicious.


They've released one video that they own. The other videos were sezied as evidence and since they were someone elses property they will not likely be released, as they do not have the rigth to do so and will not likely seek it. This happens all the time in investigations and just because 911 was a big event does not mean any investgating agencies are going to change the procedure.


It's interesting that, as you may have already read the highly unconvincing Popular Mechannic's article debunking the sept 11 CT, was written by Chertoff's son.


Poison the Well much? The only reason CTs have given for disregarding the PM article is that it doesn't cover their particular bugaboo.


I think you guys need to remind yourselves that this is not fantasy,


You're right, fantasy often has boundries that lie in the realm of reality. if a fantasy author tried to pass off a chunk of concrete as a pile of steel, he'd be laughed out of the genre. But the 911 kook's biggest hero does exactly that.


and that it is very, very probable that the Bush administartion may had orchestrated the entire event themselves.


No, it is not.


You just need to do research yourselves on the internet to allow for it to sink in.


We've been doing research. Research involves more than going to conspiracy sites and drooling over the nonsense they spew.


But beware of government sponsered disinformationalists spreading misleading information across the internet in attempt discredit the 9/11 truth seekers and divert the attention away from those responsible....

You mean like the nutcases who try and shy people away from the fact that some fanatical religious terrorists did this horriffic deed?

[Manny]

Yes. Why destroy their own offices? If they have something they wanted to hide, why risk it surviving an implosion to be recovered by clean-up crews? Why not just remove the offending material?I think this is becoming my favorite one. "You see, they didn't have paper shredders back in 2001..."

[WildCat]

I think this is becoming my favorite one. "You see, they didn't have paper shredders back in 2001..."
Nor sledge hammers to smash a hard drive, or pockets to carry away cd's and other recordable media.

[delphi_ote]

June 2001 The decades-old procedure for a quick response by the nation’s air defense was changed. NORAD’s military commanders could no longer issue the command to launch fighter jets because approval had to be sought from the civilian Defense Secretary and PNAC-member, Donald Rumsfeld.

9-11commission.gov/hearings/hearing7/for_the_record_ashley.pdf
Definitely G.I. Joe for adults. Allowe me to translate:
Hey, everybody! Look at me! I'm Jack Ryan!
:rolleyes:

[brodski]

Osama was an "asset" to the CIA, not an agent. Going with the theory "The enemy of my enemy is my friend", Osama was fighting Russia, so we sent him cash and gear. It came back to bite us horribly. one small point, the therms "asset" and "agent" are largely synonymous, what Osama was not was an "operative".
A agent is basically a "freelance contractor" for a covert agency, an operative is an employee.
But you are correct in your main points.
the problem is, so much spy fiction uses the terms "agent" when it would use "operative".

[geggy]

You mean like the nutcases who try and shy people away from the fact that some fanatical religious terrorists did this horriffic deed?

Noooo...

Just...look...

gallerize.com/What_Is_The_Hologram_Theory.htm

I will come back to debate as soon as the s***storm at work dies down...

[kookbreaker]

Noooo...

Just...look...

gallerize.com/What_Is_The_Hologram_Theory.htm


Laughable. Completely and utterly laughable. Not even good bad science in that. Enough holes to make a seive envious. Just...pathetic.


I will come back to debate as soon as the sh**storm at work dies down...

Language, please. Read the rules of this forum

[WildCat]

Noooo...

Just...look...

gallerize.com/What_Is_The_Hologram_Theory.htm

I will come back to debate as soon as the s***storm at work dies down...
Oh man, that's funny! A B2 flew over the WTC projecting a holographic image?! I've seen a B2 in flight before, they're absolutely gigantic and would have been seen by everyone and there would be video and pics galore of it. They're invisible to radar, not the naked eye! Good grief... :jaw-dropp

[Moochie]

Oh dear, this is getting sooooo tedious.

Would that there were a genuine conspiracy!

Unfortunately, the evidence suggests that a bunch of sad and sorry brainwashed individuals, hoping to to realize a myth, hijacked and flew planes into the WTC towers, and the Pentagon. They would have gotten the White House or the Capitol, too, if it hadn't been for some brave people who'd had plenty of time and information to figure what was going on in their plane.

I'm no supporter of an America that supports the death penalty nor the gung-ho adventure in the Middle East that threatens to become another Vietnam, but I am firmly convinced that these CTers contribute absolutely nothing to a world that is in deep turmoil.

M.

[delphi_ote]

Oh man, that's funny! A B2 flew over the WTC projecting a holographic image?! I've seen a B2 in flight before, they're absolutely gigantic and would have been seen by everyone and there would be video and pics galore of it. They're invisible to radar, not the naked eye! Good grief... :jaw-dropp
A B2? Don't be silly. It was the Spruce Goose!

[kookbreaker]

I just love how people get their understanding of light and optics from watching old cartoons.

[brodski]

I just love how people get their understanding of light and optics from watching old cartoons.
hey, I get alll my knowledge of physics from cartoons. I'm working on a theory that WTC7 was brought down by a giant falling anvil, and a big round shrapnel cannon ball with the word "bomb" written on it in white lettering, just to make sure. ;)

[Nyarlathotep]

Noooo...

Just...look...

gallerize.com/What_Is_The_Hologram_Theory.htm

I will come back to debate as soon as the s***storm at work dies down...

Ye gads.

I like further down on the page where they propose a theory that UFOS did it (shades of Carlos/Latin and his "hat shaped paranormal object" spring to mind). Someone apparently finds it perfectly logical that hostile aliens would come all the way to Earth, blow up a couple of buildings then leave as mysteriously as they came.

Nothing wrong with THAT logic.:rolleyes:

[Regnad Kcin]

Interesting how this thread attracts the, er, dissenters, but only one at a time. Each posts a few, disappears, then the next one approaches the gates to do battle.

Not that I'm suggesting a conspiracy...

[chipmunk stew]

Noooo...

Just...look...

http://gallerize.com/What_Is_The_Hologram_Theory.htm

I will come back to debate as soon as the s***storm at work dies down...I think geggy is suggesting that this website is gov't disinfo, not that he/she supports what it says.

At least I hope that was the point of posting it.

geggy, I'm very interested in reading your reply to the serious responses you have gotten.

[CptColumbo]

Some of you have proven to me that you lack any knowledge of how
building implosion works...

It's interesting that, as you may have already read the highly unconvincing Popular Mechannic's article debunking the sept 11 CT, was written by Chertoff's son.

You've just proven that you have not done you're research. They are not father-son, they are cousins. Personally I don't talk to my cousins very often, except at the holidays, they have no say in how I perform my job, and I certainly wouldn't cover-up the cause of the death of 3000 people for them (I wouldn't even do that for my immediate family). Also, he only edited the article, others did the research, he compiled all their data into a easily digested piece. If the data had been altered or exagerated before it was published, the structural engineers, metalurgists, physicists, and other researchers who worked on the article would have said something. It's an interesting fact, but with all the independent verifiable data, it proves nothing.

Futher, how is it that the Gov't was able to pull off such a vast and complicated manuever, but were unable to plant WMD's in Iraq to back up their claims? How could they have bungled the Katrina recovery? How could they not be able to find Osama? How could they not cover-up the Cheney shooting (how many people would they need for that)? How could Larry the Cable Guy: Health Inspector be allowed to be released? How could they not silence all the CTs on the internet?

IMO the majority of the evidence points to the the official story being the best explanation and the most plausible. But go to the library and research the issue in books. I'm not asking you to get an engineering degree, but do some independent research on *your own*. If you are really that adamant about your beliefs and feel the truth is being kept from the American public, you'll get off your butt, stop posting in forums, and get the data you need to prove your case on your own.

Keep in mind that this is a sensitive subject. Avoid being advesarial when requesting the data you need.

[Gravy]

geggy,

I looked at that infoclearinghouse article you pointed us to. I started reading the first of Davis's 22 points, and immediately red flags went up. There weere no references or footnotes for the claims he was making.

But at the bottom of the page is a bibliography (incomplete at that.)

So I'm supposed to go to the library and pull out 8 books and read them all just to check a few of his sources?

This guy's got a PhD, for cryin' out loud. Are you telling me he doesn't know how to cite references?

Of course he does. So why doesn't he? Your opinion?

[Ramooone]

ok,if the government planned 9/11 and used that as an excuse to go to war, why would they pick the hardest most ridiculous plan to pull off?

i can just imagine the brainstorming in that room...

"Ok, lets blow up the WTC i got this buddy in CD who isnt doing anything and he'd be glad to do it"
"OOOH, how about we have planes hit the WTC first then we blow up the bombs!"
"Don't worry, larry said he'd take care of WTC 7"
"We can have a plane fly to cleveland, drop off the passengers and then shoot it down over pennsylvania!"
"the way i figure it, theres only going to be like 10 people involved so covering it will be easy, we wont have to shutup the hundreds of thousands of people that would normally be involved with something this big!"

Those are actual quotes from people in the administration, i read it on bigfoots website so it must be true!

CT'ers make me laugh.
They grow up so fast, i remember when they were Conspiracy hypothesists, now they're theorists and tomorrow they may be full blown idiots. i think i'm gonna cry...

[strathmeyer]

A B2? Don't be silly. It was the Spruce Goose!

The Spruce Goose? Don't be silly! Everyone knows it can't really fly! It must've been held up by a B2!

[brodski]

I think geggy is suggesting that this website is gov't disinfo, not that he/she supports what it says.

At least I hope that was the point of posting it.

geggy, I'm very interested in reading your reply to the serious responses you have gotten.

is geggy suggesting that the US (and the world) has such a shortage of complete nutbars that the govt needs to invent them?

[aggle-rithm]

The Spruce Goose? Don't be silly! Everyone knows it can't really fly! It must've been held up by a B2!

There you go! Keep introducing those unnecessary entities! You'll make a conspiracy theorist yet. ;)

(And the B2, being overburdened, was held up by a blimp! Witnesses were all silenced.)

[aggle-rithm]

I think geggy is suggesting that this website is gov't disinfo, not that he/she supports what it says.

At least I hope that was the point of posting it.

geggy, I'm very interested in reading your reply to the serious responses you have gotten.

At least his credulity seems to have limits. His unwillingness to dismiss all the Pentagon attack witnesses would surely get him promptly banned from the Loose Change forum.

[brodski]

CT'ers make me laugh.
They grow up so fast, i remember when they were Conspiracy hypothesists, now they're theorists and tomorrow they may be full blown idiots. i think i'm gonna cry... :dl:

[pgwenthold]

hey, I get alll my knowledge of physics from cartoons. I'm working on a theory that WTC7 was brought down by a giant falling anvil, and a big round shrapnel cannon ball with the word "bomb" written on it in white lettering, just to make sure. ;)

It's also why, when the towers fell, the bottoms fell out first, and the tops just hung in space with a surprised look on their face. Then, after giving a little wave, they fell, passing the falling anvil on the way.

Finally, when they smashed at the bottom, they crinkled up like an accordian, and sounded like one, too.

[aggle-rithm]

I will come back to debate as soon as the s***storm at work dies down...

We'll hold you to that, geggy.

ACTUAL debate, without simply referencing whacko websites full of empty claims.

A good start would be a synopsis of how it all fits together. A timeline would be nice. When did the government decide to orchestrate the attack, as you assert they did? If the 19 hijackers weren't really involved, what role did they play in the conspiracy? How was WTC 7 demolished, if it was sturdy enough to survive major damage and fire? What difference does it make whether it was demolished or fell on its own?

You won't convince anyone by mere VOLUME of information, whether real or imaginary. Remember, we need an unbroken chain of reasoning, from beginning to end, that explains all of your claims. We will even allow you to include unnecessary entities (in violation of Occam's razor) just as long as there is evidence that they actually exist, or are at least plausible. If you can't do that, then there's no reason to take the claims seriously.

[aggle-rithm]

It's also why, when the towers fell, the bottoms fell out first, and the tops just hung in space with a surprised look on their face. Then, after giving a little wave, they fell, passing the falling anvil on the way.

Finally, when they smashed at the bottom, they crinkled up like an accordian, and sounded like one, too.

I remember a long time ago seeing some artwork in a sci-fi magazine that depicted post-apocalyptic New York. Of course, the artist saw to it that there were recognizable landmarks in the picture, such as the partially skeletonized Statue of Liberty. In the foreground of the picture were the two WTC towers, laying on their sides and crumpled after apparently having toppled over. It seemed like a reasonable approximation of what the ruins would look like.

I thought of this picture when I first saw the videos of the towers collapsing. Common sense tells us (well, it told me anyway) that these towers would topple over if they fell. In this case, as in many others, common sense is wrong. Thinking back on it, the artwork from the magazine was ludicrous because of the humongous forces at work when a large building comes apart. There's no way they would be recognizable when they hit the ground, even if they could have somehow stayed intact as they toppled.

It reminds me of my favorite line from "Titanic", when someone claimed that the ship couldn't sink. The designer said, "She's made of iron. I assure you, she can."

The towers were made of concrete and steel. Nothing mysterious about them falling straight down when they started to come apart.

[senorpogo]

Noooo...

Just...look...

gallerize.com/What_Is_The_Hologram_Theory.htm

I will come back to debate as soon as the s***storm at work dies down...

From the forementioned site...

"People who are not dumb brainwashed American hoodlums and idiots, i.e. people who can use their senses and their brains..."

Best description ever... I knew I was an American hoodlum, but dumb and brainwashed - that's news to me.

[Gravy]

You know, I started to do an in-depth reply, spent 15 minutes on it and was only half way through, but then I came across this and I had to stop.
I don't know what happened to flight 93.
geggy, why don't you know what happened to flight 93?
What in the world is the mystery?
And if there is a mystery, where in the world are you getting your information?
Please explain.

[senorpogo]

For all we know, the august 6th memo was most likely doctored

Disclaimer: 9/11 Conspiracy reserves the right to conviently dismiss any evidence that may hurt, debunk, or disprove any single point, large part, or the whole of the 9/11 Conspiracy. Any rebroadcast, reproduction, or other use of the pictures and accounts of this conspiracy theory without the express written consent of the 9/11 Conspiracy is stricly prohibited.

[Gravy]

If the 19 hijackers weren't really involved, what role did they play in the conspiracy?

And why'd we hire 15 Saudis and no Iraqis if we wanted a reason to invade Iraq? I haven't seen that one addressed yet.

[pgwenthold]

I remember a long time ago seeing some artwork in a sci-fi magazine that depicted post-apocalyptic New York. Of course, the artist saw to it that there were recognizable landmarks in the picture, such as the partially skeletonized Statue of Liberty. In the foreground of the picture were the two WTC towers, laying on their sides and crumpled after apparently having toppled over. It seemed like a reasonable approximation of what the ruins would look like.


Has anyone figured out how much force would be required to tip one of the towers over?

Remember, in order to create the torque to make it tip, there has to be force perpendicular to gravity. The buildings withstood the impact of a loaded 767. When it did fall, there was nothing pushing on the side to make it topple. Why should it fall anyway but down?

[kookbreaker]

Has anyone figured out how much force would be required to tip one of the towers over?

Remember, in order to create the torque to make it tip, there has to be force perpendicular to gravity. The buildings withstood the impact of a loaded 767. When it did fall, there was nothing pushing on the side to make it topple. Why should it fall anyway but down?

I think the problem is that the amount of force required to overcome the interia holding it to place would be enough to defeat the joints and other attachment points. In other words, it would be stripped of parts rather than falling over like a wood block.

[CurtC]

Interesting how this thread attracts the, er, dissenters, but only one at a time. Each posts a few, disappears, then the next one approaches the gates to do battle.I'm feeling like Chuck Norris here!

[Pardalis]

Disclaimer: 9/11 Conspiracy reserves the right to conviently dismiss any evidence that may hurt, debunk, or disprove any single point, large part, or the whole of the 9/11 Conspiracy. Any rebroadcast, reproduction, or other use of the pictures and accounts of this conspiracy theory without the express written consent of the 9/11 Conspiracy is stricly prohibited.


LOL

[delphi_ote]

There you go! Keep introducing those unnecessary entities! You'll make a conspiracy theorist yet. ;)

(And the B2, being overburdened, was held up by a blimp! Witnesses were all silenced.)
The blimp was remote controlled by laser guided bomb-missile drones.

[geggy]

Wow you guys have given me so much attention. I wouldn't know where to start in order to debunk every one of your replies. Sorry to tell some of you using 911myths link but that site has been disproved by many 9/11 truth seekers. Go to 911blogger.com and many will tell you the same in the comment section.

Before I start debunking your replies, I want to post several things regarding 9/11 truth seekers being dismissed as conspiracy theorists, as if the same way sherlock holmes would also be dismissed as being one.

"We must speak the truth about terror. Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September 11, malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists themselves, away from the guilty."
-- George W. Bush, 11/10/01

informationclearinghouse.info/article12195.htm

As we struggle to put the events of and following 9-11-2001 into the most complete perspective, we’re hampered by having to find a way through the minefields of "conspiracy theory" accusations. There are so many parts to consider, it’s almost impossible to argue from any one event. If we argue that the Bush administration was complicit in the attacks of 9-11 - that they intentionally murdered 3,000 Americans in order to further their imperialistic agenda abroad and their transformation of America into a command-and-control plutocracy here at home - a hundred others will pick holes in individual pieces of the 9-11 conspiracy theory, and derail the argument rather than clarifying or advancing it. It’s like trying to pick up Jell-O without the bowl.

Nor can this ever be a merely intellectual game. Suggesting that our own leaders orchestrated the murders of 9-11 - while proposing Arab Muslims as perhaps no more than the fictional enemy toward which they hope to direct American scorn and fury - this idea evokes deep and powerful resentment and resistance, whether it is true or not.

Author David Ray Griffin, whose research I’ll be using for some parts of this essay, quotes from a stunning letter to the Los Angeles Times Magazine from September 18, 2005 from William Yarchin of Huntington Beach, California:

"The number of contradictions in the official version of ... 9/11 is so overwhelming that ... it simply cannot be believed. Yet ... the official version cannot be abandoned because the implication of rejecting it is far too disturbing: that we are subject to a government conspiracy of "X-Files" proportions and insidiousness."

In this essay, I will try picking up the bowl rather than just the Jell-O - the deep story that frames much of our history - to see if I can grasp the overall story that includes 9-11, our imperialism, our invasions of Iraq and Iran, the theft of trillions of dollars from the tax base to transfer to the top tenth of a percent or so of our population, the rise in repressive laws, loss of civil liberties, increase in the state power of Christian fundamentalism, and its accompanying marginalization of women that always accompanies fascisms and fundamentalisms.

There is such a "bowl," such a meta-story. It is not hidden, not obscure, and not hard to grasp. It is even quite easy to defend. In fact, I want to begin by defending that frame story, to get a feel for its raw and deep power and appeal.

[sophia8]

In this essay, I will try picking up the bowl rather than just the Jell-O - the deep story that frames much of our history - to see if I can grasp the overall story that includes 9-11, our imperialism, our invasions of Iraq and Iran, the theft of trillions of dollars from the tax base to transfer to the top tenth of a percent or so of our population, the rise in repressive laws, loss of civil liberties, increase in the state power of Christian fundamentalism, and its accompanying marginalization of women that always accompanies fascisms and fundamentalisms.

There is such a "bowl," such a meta-story. It is not hidden, not obscure, and not hard to grasp. It is even quite easy to defend. In fact, I want to begin by defending that frame story, to get a feel for its raw and deep power and appeal.
Please cut the syntatical frills and get on with it, Gegg. You're writing a refutation, not a thesis. Just give us the facts. Straight.
we can take it.

[DavidJames]

Hey geggy, instead of dumping a ton of rhetorical political posturing, why not concentrate on facts and evidence to support your claims.

Here is a clue to help guide you on what is and what isn't a relevant fact or evidence.

While the family relationship between the Chertoff's is a fact, it's relevance must be supported by evidence, without evidence, that "fact" is irrelevant? Okay?

[kookbreaker]

Cut to the freaking chase, geggy. So far you and Griffin are all talk and no results.

[chipmunk stew]

Wow you guys have given me so much attention. I wouldn't know where to start in order to debunk every one of your replies.
Start with one.

Sorry to tell some of you using 911myths link but that site has been disproved by many 9/11 truth seekers. Go to 911blogger.com and many will tell you the same in the comment section.
Telling me isn't enough. Show me.

[CurtC]

Are you saying that what you just posted in post #1453 was your "essay," or is that yet to come? 1453 was a tad light on facts, data, evidence.

I think you're saying that you will weave the "big picture" for us, which is great, because that's what we've been asking of the others all along. Frame a big picture explanation that's consistent with the evidence we have. The other conspiracy theorists who have posted here have been anything but theorists - they are simply trying to find ways that the standard model must be false, without proposing their own model of what happened. If you could explain the big picture and show how the facts support it, that would be great.

[bob_kark]

Geggy, I feel compelled to ask you if you have any actual evidence. It appears that you are only able to offer speculations based on further speculation.

[NoZed Avenger]

Geggy, I feel compelled to ask you if you have any actual evidence. It appears that you are only able to offer speculations based on further speculation.


That's unfair. We've also seen conjecture based on clueless guesswork and assumptions based on wildly inaccurate gut feelings.

[delphi_ote]

"The number of contradictions in the official version of ... 9/11 is so overwhelming that ... it simply cannot be believed. Yet ... the official version cannot be abandoned because the implication of rejecting it is far too disturbing: that we are subject to a government conspiracy of "X-Files" proportions and insidiousness."
G.I. Joe for adults.

Greggy, if you really believe all this, why are you posting on this website? Evil Uncle Sam should be sending stormtroopers to your home as we speak.

[Hellbound]

Greggy, if you really believe all this, why are you posting on this website? Evil Uncle Sam should be sending stormtroopers to your home as we speak.

G_d D__mit!!

*Huntsman turns and yells over his shoulder*

"Pack it up, guys, mission is a scrub. SOMEBODY gave advance warning...we'll try again later."

[bob_kark]

G_d D__mit!!

*Huntsman turns and yells over his shoulder*

"Pack it up, guys, mission is a scrub. SOMEBODY gave advance warning...we'll try again later."

Shhh... He's trying to make him leave his house so we can grab him! Oops, I think I just got demoted to 44...:(

[Dackefejden]

Hello people,

I'm new here, this is my first post thought I'd post what I had to say here instead of creating another 9/11 - Loose Change related thread. I discovered this forum after viewing Loose Change when searching for rebuttals and to verify/disprove the claims made on the documentary. I have to agree that it's rather poorly made, has a lot of holes and that there are those out there who only see/hear what they want to believe, that goes for both sides of the coin.

However there are a few points that do deserve further scrutiny and you can't dismiss these because of the shortcomings of some amateur film makers. I don't see myself as a CT'ist and wouldn't refer to myself usually as skeptic but I certainly don't wish to be aligned with the former. I do believe that 2 planes were flown into the WTC Towers and many people died that day and it was a truly tragic event. I cannot say what hit the Pentagon as there has been no footage screened of a commercial airliner hitting said Pentagon. Hearsay isn't admissible in a court of law so I'm not going to buy into the conflicting reports of those who say they definitely saw a commercial airliner or those who say they saw a missile or any form of military aircraft. I do think the damage at the Pentagon is suspicious, as I do with the 3 WTC building collapses, but as I'm not a structural engineer, a physicist and the fact I never witnessed the events in person I won't say yay or nay on the matter. I have experience with light engineering I've never questioned the moon landing, put too much thought into the JFK assasination. I'm just your regular Atheist Aussie 30 year old male, so I'm not going to make any definite claims as what I think is the undeniable truth as I'm not in any position to do so. Yet I'm not going to blindly believe the official story, nor am I going to believe a documentary on google video with an annoying soundtrack or what I read on message boards.

I do find it strange that either the impact or fire on the upper stories of a highrise building from a plane constructed from mostly lightweight materials that fall apart/disintegrate on impact despite it's velocity is going to substantially damage the structural integrity of the lower levels to make the building collapse in on itself similar to that of a controlled demolition which fell at close to free fall speeds (note "similar" and "close to"). Also strange that another plane constructed of lightweight material was able to punch as many holes through the layers of the Pentagon as it did. In my opinion if it was an airliner there would obviously be significant damage to the external wall of the Pentagon and there would've been wreckage, incinerated luggage and body parts strewn everywhere at the point of impact. To punch such a hole through so many reinforced concrete walls the chassis/fuselage of the airliner would pretty much have to be a solid mass of steel as I see it.

As I stated I find it strange, I'm not saying it's impossible nor am I blaming the Bush Administration, CIA, Aliens, the Jews or the Smurfs.

I have a few point's/question's I'd like to raise:

If the 9 or however many it is of the supposed suicide bombers are apparently still alive that does pose some serious questions. As does the apparent claim of no Arab names on the flight lists. Your stereotypical Arab terrorist isn't going to get away with a passport with the name Tommy Wong or John Smith. If they were stolen/fake identities surely intelligence agencies would have or should have been aware of this and the ensuing media reports would've stated that terrorists using stolen identities flew planes into the WTC & Pentagon rather than pin it on innocent people who weren't even in the country at the time.

If 19 Islamic terrorists under direction from a man in a cave with kidney problems are easily able to infiltrate the US which happens to be the biggest military superpower and probably the most secure if not most technologically advanced country on the planet as far as homeland security goes. Now if they were capable of firstly infiltrating the country and avoiding authorities whom should have been on their tail, yet they were even able to undertake flying lessons and book flight simulator time why hasn't this same terrorist organization been hijacking planes from say other Middle Eastern countries, Africa or Eastern European countries with airport security far less stringent than the US and been flying airliners into Israel or foreign US military bases/embassies on a regular basis? Or why haven't the sponsors of terrorism been supplying terrorist organizations with airliners laden with fuel and explosives to fly into Israel etc etc?

We are all aware that these Islamic fundamentalist's want to primarily destroy and delight in terrorizing Israel and apparently have an abundance of willing suicide bombers, does it not seem logical to assume if they were capable of terrorizing Israel as they did the US wouldn't it be common place to see news reports of airliners crashing into Tel Aviv rather than teenager's detonating explosive vests in cafe's & promenades, children throwing stones at tanks & armoured vehicles or launching crude home-made rockets?

[Manny]

As I stated I find it strange, I'm not saying it's impossible nor am I blaming the Bush Administration, CIA, Aliens, the Jews or the Smurfs.

I have a few point's/question's I'd like to raise:Fair questions. But just so you know, we haven't exonorated the Smurfs. ;)

If they were stolen/fake identities surely intelligence agencies would have or should have been aware of this and the ensuing media reports would've stated that terrorists using stolen identities flew planes into the WTC & Pentagon rather than pin it on innocent people who weren't even in the country at the time.Correct. That's exactly what happened. (http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/21/inv.id.theft/) This isn't so much an unanswered question as it is a lie by the CTers. They know full well the resolution of that "mystery," they just chose not to tell you.

If 19 Islamic terrorists under direction from a man in a cave with kidney problems are easily able to infiltrate the US which happens to be the biggest military superpower and probably the most secure if not most technologically advanced country on the planet as far as homeland security goes. Now if they were capable of firstly infiltrating the country and avoiding authorities whom should have been on their tail, yet they were even able to undertake flying lessons and book flight simulator time why hasn't this same terrorist organization been hijacking planes from say other Middle Eastern countries, Africa or Eastern European countries with airport security far less stringent than the US and been flying airliners into Israel or foreign US military bases/embassies on a regular basis? Or why haven't the sponsors of terrorism been supplying terrorist organizations with airliners laden with fuel and explosives to fly into Israel etc etc?Because the sad truth is that for all our military might we were actually one of the least secure countries on the planet as far as homeland security. Once a person is in the US, they can do almost anything they want. To take flight lessons in, say, Saudi Arabia, one would have to get permission from the Saudi government. Here, you look in the yellow pages and pick a flight school. Anyone over the age of 16 can get a private pilot's license. Hotels, apartments, etc. don't require you to hand over a copy of your passport and they don't go to jail if you stay with them past your visa expiration. Our very freedom of movement made (and makes) us more vulnerable. As for Israel, they control their airspace pretty tightly -- they'd shoot down an incoming airliner well before it reached its target.

We are all aware that these Islamic fundamentalist's want to primarily destroy and delight in terrorizing Israel and apparently have an abundance of willing suicide bombers, does it not seem logical to assume if they were capable of terrorizing Israel as they did the US wouldn't it be common place to see news reports of airliners crashing into Tel Aviv rather than teenager's detonating explosive vests in cafe's & promenades, children throwing stones at tanks & armoured vehicles or launching crude home-made rockets?The al Qaeda organization doesn't care about the Palestinians. In fact, no Arabs do, but that's another topic. Al Qaeda was primarily concerned with Saudi Arabia, the home of Mecca and Medina. It is Osama's contention that the Saudi regime is corrupt and too aligned with western interests (that's us) and that the presence of US troops on Saudi soil was a desecration of Islam. The organization has undertaken many terrorist operations in Saudi Arabia.

[chipmunk stew]

I do find it strange that either the impact or fire on the upper stories of a highrise building from a plane constructed from mostly lightweight materials that fall apart/disintegrate on impact despite it's velocity is going to substantially damage the structural integrity of the lower levels to make the building collapse in on itself similar to that of a controlled demolition which fell at close to free fall speeds (note "similar" and "close to").
Don't underestimate velocity. You don't get much lighter-weight than air, but when air gets moving fast enough it can cause obliterating destruction.

The damage from the impact and the fire didn't have to affect the lower floors to cause the collapses that we saw--once the initial failure occurred on the upper floors, gravity and kinetic energy did the rest.

Regarding "close to free fall": this fuzzy, subjective term is used often by CTs, but it's meaningless. The buildings' collapse time was at least a few seconds longer than it would be at free fall.

The buildings were about 415m tall.
Freefall acceleration is 9.8m/s/s.
Collapse time at freefall would be about 9.2s.
Average velocity would be about 45 m/s.

The buildings collapsed in about 12s.
That would make the acceleration about 5.8m/s/s--about 40% less than freefall!
Average velocity was about 35 m/s.


Also strange that another plane constructed of lightweight material was able to punch as many holes through the layers of the Pentagon as it did. In my opinion if it was an airliner there would obviously be significant damage to the external wall of the Pentagon and there would've been wreckage, incinerated luggage and body parts strewn everywhere at the point of impact. To punch such a hole through so many reinforced concrete walls the chassis/fuselage of the airliner would pretty much have to be a solid mass of steel as I see it.
The lower floor, where the plane hit, only had two walls, and only the outer one had the extra reinforcement. There was a lot of wreckage. There's an abundance of photographic evidence showing it. Almost all of the wreckage & carnage followed the momentum of the plane deep inside the building. At the velocity the plane was travelling, there was no chance of much being blown back out onto the lawn.

[Dackefejden]

Fair questions. But just so you know, we haven't exonorated the Smurfs. ;)

Yep put a burqa on Papa Smurf give him an AK and you've got a definite suspect. :D

Correct. That's exactly what happened. *url removed because I can't quote and post my reply with it* This isn't so much an unanswered question as it is a lie by the CTers. They know full well the resolution of that "mystery," they just chose not to tell you.

Thanks for the link, I'd never read that. Yet that articles headline is "Hijackers likely skilled with fake IDs" keyword being likely, that's not definitive proof. Just because it's on cnn doesn't make it so.

Because the sad truth is that for all our military might we were actually one of the least secure countries on the planet as far as homeland security. Once a person is in the US, they can do almost anything they want. To take flight lessons in, say, Saudi Arabia, one would have to get permission from the Saudi government. Here, you look in the yellow pages and pick a flight school. Anyone over the age of 16 can get a private pilot's license. Hotels, apartments, etc. don't require you to hand over a copy of your passport and they don't go to jail if you stay with them past your visa expiration. Our very freedom of movement made (and makes) us more vulnerable. As for Israel, they control their airspace pretty tightly -- they'd shoot down an incoming airliner well before it reached its target.

That's fair enough I understand that migrants have a fair amount of freedom in the US, but still with Islamic terrorists on the most wanted list, intelligence reports of a possible terrorist attack involving airliners flying into building's - landmarks, and these terrorists were able to achieve what they did. Still think it's fishy.

Yet still no attempted suicide bombing with an airliner on Israel? It's a very small country surrounded by hostile countries I doubt they'd have much chance to scramble say F-16's as an airliner invades their airspace at 300-500 odd mph and I also doubt there are many AA installations in the Tel Aviv business district. If they were able to pull it off in the US why hasn't there been atleast one attempt on Israel?

The al Qaeda organization doesn't care about the Palestinians. In fact, no Arabs do, but that's another topic. Al Qaeda was primarily concerned with Saudi Arabia, the home of Mecca and Medina. It is Osama's contention that the Saudi regime is corrupt and too aligned with western interests (that's us) and that the presence of US troops on Saudi soil was a desecration of Islam. The organization has undertaken many terrorist operations in Saudi Arabia

I realise Palestine is an excuse the terrorists use for their actions but still the point I was making is Israel is enemy #1 in their eyes yet they chose to go the hard route and attack the US. Still no attacks on western interests or the Saudi regime in Saudi Arabia with airliners, no attacks using airliners on US military bases. It's such a devastating and proven means of attack I don't fathom why they don't use it more often. It's been 5 years since 9/11 not one iota of an instance of another terrorist attack using an airliner.

[pgwenthold]

I cannot say what hit the Pentagon as there has been no footage screened of a commercial airliner hitting said Pentagon. Hearsay isn't admissible in a court of law so I'm not going to buy into the conflicting reports of those who say they definitely saw a commercial airliner or those who say they saw a missile or any form of military aircraft.

Why listen to hearsay when there are pictures all over showing bits and pieces of a commercial airliner in the pentagon wreckage?

When hearsay is corraborated by photographic evidence, it's more than hearsay.

[geggy]

Hey now...have a little patience. I'm only describing why it's redundant to dismiss anyone as CT, especially when the person holds multiple evidence as proof. True, my gut intuition tells me sept 11 was an inside job, but it also comes along with common sense and the ability to gather coincidences as there are far too many of them and putting thing together like pieces of puzzle, then you can clearly see the big picture. I can't really spoon feed you the information, there are just far too many of it. If you can't read the information put forward in text and video then maybe I'm just wasting your time after all, but I can't stop trying to spread the information that I see as worth my time.

FEMA's report of the collapsing of WTC1 and 2 plausible yes but..
1. neither plane hit the center of the towers, damages made to south side of WTC7 as one of you pointed out yet all towers fell almost straight down. I would have a lot of doubt about the demolition theories if they tipped over.
2. Then there's the rate of fall being nearly at the speed of freefall, just doesnt make sense unless there was timed demolition.
3. The pulverzitation of concrete that exploded into dust and small bits
4. Explosive charges shooting out of buildings at high speed and long distance
5. Molten metal in the rubble that burned for weeks and couldn't be put out, that lends to the demolition theory and this might be one of the most critical pieces of evidence.

None of these oddities were addressed by the commission report yet the oddities of these listed above were characteristics of controlled demolition.The most plausible explanation of why these buildings were brought down was that explosives were preplanted at stragetic points...

I'm waiting on pins and needles for some new evidence from scientists and whistleblowers to come out. I've heard that there is some steel from the structures being analyzed that should make headlines if conclusive. Dr. Steven Jones is a physicist and he says that after his analysis, there's no way that the towers fell from the planes hitting them, I read the paper, I'm convinced, but I fail to explain it to others that convincingly..

We need more physicists, engineers, demolition experts and pilots that are beyond reproach to tip the balance.

Regarding keeping 9-11 as an inside job hush hush, It's a matter of cognitave dissonance. There is a built in resistance to questioning our government that results in a faithful blindness keeping the questions down. The idea that if you question the Bush Administration you are not patriotic keeps many folks away from these issues and is very, very strong. As many called sept 11 an PSYOP, it is an attack on an ideology or emotion that is mentally hard to untangle or challenge.

Unfortunately time is precious for me as I have to stop here...

[kookbreaker]

FEMA's report of the collapsing of WTC1 and 2 plausible yes but..
1. neither plane hit the center of the towers, damages made to south side of WTC7 as one of you pointed out yet all towers fell almost straight down. I would have a lot of doubt about the demolition theories if they tipped over.


Buildings as large as the WTC do not simply 'tip over'. The amount of energy required to move that much material would break the structural joints well before the towers began to move Stop think of the WTC buildings as a wooden block and think of it as a structure made up of many parts.



2. Then there's the rate of fall being nearly at the speed of freefall, just doesnt make sense unless there was timed demolition.


The 'freefall speeds' arguement is nonsense. Debris can be seen to be falling much faster (i.e. at true freefall speeds) in comparison to the rest of the building.



3. The pulverzitation of concrete that exploded into dust and small bits


What about it?


4. Explosive charges shooting out of buildings at high speed and long distance


They aren't explosive charges. Look again and you will see that the ejected material is taking place after the building begins to collapse.


5. Molten metal in the rubble that burned for weeks and couldn't be put out, that lends to the demolition theory and this might be one of the most critical pieces of evidence.


So too bad for you that the whole 'molten metal' bit is a complete myth invented by 911 conspiracy cranks, eh? There's no reliable evidence for molten metal


None of these oddities were addressed by the commission report


Because they are mostly inventions of paranoid conpiracists.



I'm waiting on pins and needles for some new evidence from scientists and whistleblowers to come out.


You will be waiting a looooooong time.


I've heard that there is some steel from the structures being analyzed that should make headlines if conclusive.


That's a lot of faith to base off of mere rumors.


Dr. Steven Jones is a physicist


and thus has no business telling structural engineers how buildings should fall.


and he says that after his analysis, there's no way that the towers fell from the planes hitting them, I read the paper, I'm convinced, but I fail to explain it to others that convincingly..


Jones' paper has no engineering and is bad physics. End of story.


We need more physicists, engineers, demolition experts and pilots that are beyond reproach to tip the balance.


Just having one structural engineer on your side would be a start. How many do you have? Oh, right, NONE!

[Hellbound]

1. The only way they would tip over is if signifigant outside force was applied. Buildings fall down. They rarely fall over (except in movies).
2. No, it wasn't. It was a rate equal to about half the acceleration in freefall (12s vs. 9s). You have a right to your own opinions, but not your own facts.
3. When several tons of concrete slam together, this happens. I can pulverize concrete with a sledgehammer and not much work. Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it's wrong.
4. Wha? There weren't any.
5. Um, no. Once again, look beyond action movies as source material from which to draw conclusions. Real explosions typically leave very little fire and don't produce motlen steel. Real explosions do thier damage from a blast wave, not a heat pulse. There's little heat, but a h3ll of a lot of force. Burning jet fuel and building fires, ont he other hand, can easily reach the melting point of aluminum (of which the facade contained a large amount).

As to your next paragraph, these are not characteristic of controlled demolitions. Fire and motlen metal are not characteristic of controlled demolition. Long-distance explosive charges are not characteristic of controlled demolitions. Pulverized concrete happens to some extent in all building collapses, and is not characteristic of controlled demolition. Freefall speeds are not characteristic of controlled demolition (even if we assume that every clock in the world sped up that day, and the buildings actually fell at free fall). Almost all buildings fall straight down (more or less), very few topple, so this is also not characteristic of controlled demolition.

IN fact, here's a challenge for you. Find me one building that fell sideways during a collapse. One that toppled.

You are characteristic of an idiot. You speak from a profound ignorance of the topics you call into question, you've done minimal research of anything from respected, recognized sources (such as, say, the entire world community of structural engineers?), and you insult pretty much everyone who has knowledge in these subjects by claiming that you know better.

You do not.

[Ramooone]

Hey now...have a little patience. I'm only describing why it's redundant to dismiss anyone as CT, especially when the person holds multiple evidence as proof. True, my gut intuition tells me sept 11 was an inside job, but it also comes along with common sense and the ability to gather coincidences as there are far too many of them and putting thing together like pieces of puzzle, then you can clearly see the big picture. I can't really spoon feed you the information, there are just far too many of it. If you can't read the information put forward in text and video then maybe I'm just wasting your time after all, but I can't stop trying to spread the information that I see as worth my time.

FEMA's report of the collapsing of WTC1 and 2 plausible yes but..
1. neither plane hit the center of the towers, damages made to south side of WTC7 as one of you pointed out yet all towers fell almost straight down. I would have a lot of doubt about the demolition theories if they tipped over.
2. Then there's the rate of fall being nearly at the speed of freefall, just doesnt make sense unless there was timed demolition.
3. The pulverzitation of concrete that exploded into dust and small bits
4. Explosive charges shooting out of buildings at high speed and long distance
5. Molten metal in the rubble that burned for weeks and couldn't be put out, that lends to the demolition theory and this might be one of the most critical pieces of evidence.

None of these oddities were addressed by the commission report yet the oddities of these listed above were characteristics of controlled demolition.The most plausible explanation of why these buildings were brought down was that explosives were preplanted at stragetic points...

I'm waiting on pins and needles for some new evidence from scientists and whistleblowers to come out. I've heard that there is some steel from the structures being analyzed that should make headlines if conclusive. Dr. Steven Jones is a physicist and he says that after his analysis, there's no way that the towers fell from the planes hitting them, I read the paper, I'm convinced, but I fail to explain it to others that convincingly..

We need more physicists, engineers, demolition experts and pilots that are beyond reproach to tip the balance.

Regarding keeping 9-11 as an inside job hush hush, It's a matter of cognitave dissonance. There is a built in resistance to questioning our government that results in a faithful blindness keeping the questions down. The idea that if you question the Bush Administration you are not patriotic keeps many folks away from these issues and is very, very strong. As many called sept 11 an PSYOP, it is an attack on an ideology or emotion that is mentally hard to untangle or challenge.

Unfortunately time is precious for me as I have to stop here...


dude, you don't have evidence, you have speculation. Evidence would be oh lets say a blasting cap, wiring, the plunger that wiley coyote pressed to make the tower fall down.

you see, if the building fell over on its side THEN i'd be suspicious, being that the building was hit on the top why would it topple? You talk about how the concrete was turned to dust, the "Squibs", all this is from the pressure of the building falling into itself. The top part of each building collapsed onto the lower part of the building. Essentially, this was like dropping a 20-story building on top of another building. Before the crash, this upper structure exerted a constant downward force -- its weight -- on the superstructure below. Obviously, the lower superstructure was strong enough to support this weight. But when the columns collapsed, the upper part of the building started moving -- the downward force of gravity accelerated it. The momentum of an object -- the quantity of its motion -- is equal to its mass multiplied by its velocity. So when you increase the velocity of an object with a set mass, you increase its momentum. This increases the total force that the object can exert on another object.

To understand how this works, think of a hammer. Resting in your hand, it doesn't hurt you at all. But if you drop it on your foot, it can do some damage. Similarly, if you swing the hammer forward, you can apply enough force to drive nails into a wall.

When the upper structure of each tower fell down, its velocity -- and therefore its momentum -- increased sharply. This greater momentum resulted in an impact force that exceeded the structural integrity of the columns immediately underneath the destroyed area. Those support columns gave way, and the whole mass fell on the floors even farther down. In this way, the force of the falling building structure broke apart the superstructure underneath, crushing the building from the top, one floor at a time.

To put it another way, the potential energy of the building mass, the energy of position it had due to its height and the pull of gravity, was converted into kinetic energy, or energy of motion (the total potential energy for WTC 1 is 4*10^11 joules). This is the same basic principle that professional demolition blasters use to bring down unoccupied buildings. Hmm, the SAME PRINCIPLE OF CD, MAYBE THATS WHY IT FELL STRAIGHT DOWN!

And there was no molten metal in the basements of the WTC. there was some very hot metal, but not molten. molten would imply that its in a liquid state.

[Manny]

Thanks for the link, I'd never read that. Yet that articles headline is "Hijackers likely skilled with fake IDs" keyword being likely, that's not definitive proof. Just because it's on cnn doesn't make it so.That was to give a sense of just how quickly it was apparent that fake ID's had been used. It was very quickly well known to the FBI and to the MSM that some of the hijackers had stolen identities.

That's fair enough I understand that migrants have a fair amount of freedom in the US, but still with Islamic terrorists on the most wanted list, intelligence reports of a possible terrorist attack involving airliners flying into building's - landmarks, and these terrorists were able to achieve what they did. Still think it's fishy.Not fishy, just unfortunate. The US had (and still has, but slightly less so) extremely strict prohibitions on intelligence sharing between domestic and international agencies.

Yet still no attempted suicide bombing with an airliner on Israel? It's a very small country surrounded by hostile countries I doubt they'd have much chance to scramble say F-16's as an airliner invades their airspace at 300-500 odd mph and I also doubt there are many AA installations in the Tel Aviv business district. If they were able to pull it off in the US why hasn't there been atleast one attempt on Israel?Israel is ringed from tip to tip with anti-aircraft. Also, see below.

I realise Palestine is an excuse the terrorists use for their actions but still the point I was making is Israel is enemy #1 in their eyes yet they chose to go the hard route and attack the US. Still no attacks on western interests or the Saudi regime in Saudi Arabia with airliners, no attacks using airliners on US military bases. It's such a devastating and proven means of attack I don't fathom why they don't use it more often. It's been 5 years since 9/11 not one iota of an instance of another terrorist attack using an airliner.I believe that after 9-11, and in particular after the actions of the people on Flight 93, that there will never again be a successful hijacking of a commercial airliner. The government and the airlines used to instruct people to cooperate, and the terrorists most often let the passengers go unharmed. Now no one cares what the government and the airlines say -- they'll fight hijackers to the death, because they correctly perceive that the result of not fighting is certain death.

Oh, and on "hearsay." You misunderstand the term. Hearsay is simply someone saying what someone else said. The reason that it's not usually allowed in court cases is because the court will want to hear it from the person who actually said it. There are several exceptions which do allow hearsay testimony, the most relevant one here being if the person who said it was speaking against his/her penal interests -- a confession, for example.

If we only convicted people whose crimes were videotaped we'd have a pretty small justice system and a pretty big list of criminals on the street. At the Pentagon they found a plane, DNA of people on the plane, eyewitness testimony of a plane descending to the Pentagon. American Airlines found themselves missing a plane and a bunch of passengers. People called from the plane and said exactly what was happening. None of this is hearsay. It's direct and circumstantial evidence which leads to a conclusion as inescapable as can possibly be.

[DavidJames]

Dr. Steven Jones is a physicist and he says that after his analysis, there's no way that the towers fell from the planes hitting them, I read the paper, I'm convinced, but I fail to explain it to others that convincingly.. Would you allow Jones to perform heart surgery on you? He is as qualified to perform heart surgery as he is to analyze the collapse of the towers.

[Pardalis]

Wow you guys have given me so much attention. I wouldn't know where to start in order to debunk every one of your replies.

For someone who is supposedly objective, I think you have already chosen the conspiracy theory as your «side».

I want to post several things regarding 9/11 truth seekers being dismissed as conspiracy theorists, as if the same way sherlock holmes would also be dismissed as being one.

Sherlock Holmes was a fictional character by the way.


As we struggle to put the events of and following 9-11-2001 into the most complete perspective, we’re hampered by having to find a way through the minefields of "conspiracy theory" accusations. There are so many parts to consider, it’s almost impossible to argue from any one event. If we argue that the Bush administration was complicit in the attacks of 9-11 - that they intentionally murdered 3,000 Americans in order to further their imperialistic agenda abroad and their transformation of America into a command-and-control plutocracy here at home - a hundred others will pick holes in individual pieces of the 9-11 conspiracy theory, and derail the argument rather than clarifying or advancing it. It’s like trying to pick up Jell-O without the bowl.

That's because you assume the bush administration is out to no good, you're just saying propaganda.

Nor can this ever be a merely intellectual game.

Propaganda isn't anything intellectual. You switch your mind off and let the cassette player roll.

our imperialism, our invasions of Iraq and Iran

Invasion of Iran?????


the rise in repressive laws, loss of civil liberties, increase in the state power of Christian fundamentalism, and its accompanying marginalization of women that always accompanies fascisms and fundamentalisms.

Woah, slow down here! We are here talking freely are we? What the hell are you talking about?

[Pardalis]

Hey now...have a little patience. I'm only describing why it's redundant to dismiss anyone as CT, especially when the person holds multiple evidence as proof.

Still waiting for your evidence.

True, my gut intuition tells me sept 11 was an inside job, but it also comes along with common sense and the ability to gather coincidences as there are far too many of them and putting thing together like pieces of puzzle, then you can clearly see the big picture.

Coincidences happen at every second of every minute of every hour. It's just the paranoid type who can actually put them together and make up conspiracies. Gut feeling isn't a good source for evidence, brother.

Does the word apophenia mean anything to you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophenia

[Dackefejden]

Don't underestimate velocity. You don't get much lighter-weight than air, but when air gets moving fast enough it can cause obliterating destruction.

Very true, I don't want to underestimate or discount anything, as I said I'm not in any position to make definitive claims as it's not my field.

The damage from the impact and the fire didn't have to affect the lower floors to cause the collapses that we saw--once the initial failure occurred on the upper floors, gravity and kinetic energy did the rest.

The weight of the damaged levels above is only say a 1/4 of the lower levels I understand that the falling upper sections would cause substantial damage not enough I would've thought to near on flatten it to the ground in under a minute.

Regarding "close to free fall": this fuzzy, subjective term is used often by CTs, but it's meaningless. The buildings' collapse time was at least a few seconds longer than it would be at free fall.


The buildings were about 415m tall.
Freefall acceleration is 9.8m/s/s.
Collapse time at freefall would be about 9.2s.
Average velocity would be about 45 m/s.

The buildings collapsed in about 12s.
That would make the acceleration about 5.8m/s/s--about 40% less than freefall!
Average velocity was about 35 m/s.

I think it's safe to say "close to" with only a few seconds difference in the collapse time. If the Towers slowly collapsed over the span of an hour to few hours or a day/s then we could say with "great difference" to freefall time.


The lower floor, where the plane hit, only had two walls, and only the outer one had the extra reinforcement. There was a lot of wreckage. There's an abundance of photographic evidence showing it. Almost all of the wreckage & carnage followed the momentum of the plane deep inside the building. At the velocity the plane was travelling, there was no chance of much being blown back out onto the lawn.

The plane would mostly break up, the wings wouldve been sheared off, the aluminium panels would've been blasted away, leaving what I gather to be the titanium fuselage that's not a solid mass of steel, more like a framework regardless of the velocity and momentum I can't see how that would punch a neat whole through several layers of concrete, after all the two planes that hit the WTC Towers didn't penetrate through the other side although I may have read something where an engine and landing gear was found on the opposite side of impact to one of the towers. Why didn't the the fuselage or parts of it from the two planes hitting the WTC Towers turn into a virtual demoltion ball and smash all the way through when the impact damage to the planes in the WTC Towers would've been substantially less since it's hitting mostly glass/steel framework instead of a mass of solid reinforced concrete and according to you subsequent non reinforced concrete walls as at the Pentagon?

I've never seen images showing "a lot" of wreckage I've seen substantial damage to the facade of the Pentagon and the gaping hole but as far as wreckage only the mainstream media footage/pics of some aluminium siding with red and white markings, and assorted bits and pieces of aircraft hardware. Not enough wreckage relative to that of a 767 or whatever it was.

Actually isn't the official story for the Pentagon most of the materials were vaporised by the explosion? How then does vaporised/molten aluminium/titanium punch such a hole?

[Pardalis]

Actually isn't the official story for the Pentagon most of the materials were vaporised by the explosion? How then does vaporised/molten aluminium/titanium punch such a hole?

I understand there is a lot of things that seem suspicious to the suspicious mind that happened that day. But what is the alternative to the official story?

A high-tech-multi-angled conspiracy from the Illuminati-globalists-neocon-mossad-who-ever-else, or a low tech Al Qaida attack?

[kookbreaker]

Actually isn't the official story for the Pentagon most of the materials were vaporised by the explosion? How then does vaporised/molten aluminium/titanium punch such a hole?

No. The word 'vaporized' does not appear the official explanations from NIST or any other official source I have seen.

[Dackefejden]

I'll quickly respond to this before I'm off to bed, I will deal with the rest on my next visit.

Oh, and on "hearsay." You misunderstand the term. Hearsay is simply someone saying what someone else said. The reason that it's not usually allowed in court cases is because the court will want to hear it from the person who actually said it. There are several exceptions which do allow hearsay testimony, the most relevant one here being if the person who said it was speaking against his/her penal interests -- a confession, for example.

No I don't think I did, For instance in news coverage where a journalist relays "eyewitness reports" the given journo is simply someone saying what they were told ie: Hearsay. ;)

It doesn't hold as much weight if any as it would coming from the person or persons who actually said/witnessed whatever... as in a court of law. But still in that instance you have to take what is said with a grain of salt. If several people were saying they saw a giant hamburger piloted by a group of cross dressing leprechaun's slam into the Pentagon and that was run on CNN/FOX in a serious manner not them just giving some token nutters airtime to clown themself would you believe it? Obviously not. I hope :p

[Pardalis]

I'll quickly respond to this before I'm off to bed, I will deal with the rest on my next visit.



No I don't think I did, For instance in news coverage where a journalist relays "eyewitness reports" the given journo is simply someone saying what they were told ie: Hearsay. ;)

It doesn't hold as much weight if any as it would coming from the person or persons who actually said/witnessed whatever... as in a court of law. But still in that instance you have to take what is said with a grain of salt. If several people were saying they saw a giant hamburger piloted by a group of cross dressing leprechaun's slam into the Pentagon and that was run on CNN/FOX in a serious manner not them just giving some token nutters airtime to clown themself would you believe it? Obviously not. I hope :p

Actually, alot of the so-called CT evidence of explosions in the WTC comes from hearsay and witnesses who in the heat of the moment thought they heard explosions.

[Dackefejden]

No. The word 'vaporized' does not appear the official explanations from NIST or any other official source I have seen.

Ok thanks for the correction, I'm not a 9/11 scholar I'm only going on what vague info I have in mind from mainstream media and web searching.

If the use of the '' and alternate spelling was intended as a correction I hope you realise that vaporise is the UK/Australian spelling, naturally 'vaporised' wouldn't appear in any source from Americans :)

[bob_kark]

Yet still no attempted suicide bombing with an airliner on Israel? It's a very small country surrounded by hostile countries I doubt they'd have much chance to scramble say F-16's as an airliner invades their airspace at 300-500 odd mph and I also doubt there are many AA installations in the Tel Aviv business district. If they were able to pull it off in the US why hasn't there been atleast one attempt on Israel?

That would be due to the security on El Al Airlines, From Wiki: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Al#Security)

At least six (formerly two) undercover agents accompany each international El Al flight, sitting amongst passengers whilst holstering firearms. All El Al pilots must be former Israeli Air Force fighter pilots, and all El Al flight crew members are trained in hand to hand combat. In fact, most El Al employees have served in the Israeli army (since national service is compulsory in Israel).

El Al security procedures also require that all passengers be interviewed individually prior to boarding, allowing El Al staff to identify possible security threats. All passengers are classified on a 3 tier threat scale: Israelis and Jews are classified as the lowest threat, Westerners are classified as medium level threats, and any Arab (particularly males) are classified as high threat. In addition, all luggage must pass through a decompression chamber. El Al is the only airline in the world that passes all luggage through this special chamber.

The El Al fleet is also the only commercial airline fleet in the world to be equipped with anti-missile countermeasures.

As a result of the tight security, only one El Al plane has been successfully hijacked, in 1968.

[Pardalis]

I think we shouldn't put the palestinian terrorists and Alquaida in the same basket. They are different organisations with different modus operandi. The fact that there hasn't been a airline jet attack on Israel has nothing to do with 9/11. I think people tend to over simplify history.

[Manny]

I'll quickly respond to this before I'm off to bed, I will deal with the rest on my next visit.



No I don't think I did, For instance in news coverage where a journalist relays "eyewitness reports" the given journo is simply someone saying what they were told ie: Hearsay. ;)

It doesn't hold as much weight if any as it would coming from the person or persons who actually said/witnessed whatever... as in a court of law. But still in that instance you have to take what is said with a grain of salt. If several people were saying they saw a giant hamburger piloted by a group of cross dressing leprechaun's slam into the Pentagon and that was run on CNN/FOX in a serious manner not them just giving some token nutters airtime to clown themself would you believe it? Obviously not. I hope :pI'm not sure if you realize what you're saying here. By this standard you can't believe anything you didn't personally witness. It wasn't just the eyewitness testimony -- everyone saw planes, BTW, though some thought they saw different kinds, not something unexpected given the circumstances. But in addition to everyone seeing planes, there was a plane strewn all over the Pentagon site. And American found themselves missing an airplane. And all the passengers and crew on that particular airplane are missing, and some of them were found at the Pentagon. And some of those same passengers called their families and reported exactly what was happening, in real time.

One of the things which distinguishes homo sapiens from other animals is our ability to assemble facts into a coherent whole. It's turned out to be a pretty good survival mechanism. Don't abandon that hard-evolved tool.

[chipmunk stew]

Yet still no attempted suicide bombing with an airliner on Israel? It's a very small country surrounded by hostile countries I doubt they'd have much chance to scramble say F-16's as an airliner invades their airspace at 300-500 odd mph and I also doubt there are many AA installations in the Tel Aviv business district. If they were able to pull it off in the US why hasn't there been atleast one attempt on Israel?
Israel has excellent airport security, their plane cockpits lock, and their pilots are armed, IIRC.

I realise Palestine is an excuse the terrorists use for their actions but still the point I was making is Israel is enemy #1 in their eyes yet they chose to go the hard route and attack the US. Still no attacks on western interests or the Saudi regime in Saudi Arabia with airliners, no attacks using airliners on US military bases. It's such a devastating and proven means of attack I don't fathom why they don't use it more often. It's been 5 years since 9/11 not one iota of an instance of another terrorist attack using an airliner.The 9/11 attacks took a lot of planning, it wasn't an easy operation by any means, and now it's a known possibility. Flight schools will be much more scrutinized, and passengers and crews won't let cockpits be taken over. Al-Qaeda isn't being given any breathing room. And who knows, it may happen yet.

[geggy]

Surely I have evidence...

From wikipedia: Squib: "A squib is not an electric match, even though the terms are used interchangeably by the uninitiated. It is a small explosive device which has a wide range of uses generating mechanical forces as well as pyrotechnic uses. A squib can range in size from a small cap only millimeters in diameter to ones which can be 15 millimetres in diameter. The squib being an explosive device, releases a lot of energy, and can be used for shattering, triggering, propelling and cutting a wide range of pyrotechnic and non-pyrotechnic materials."

Photograph of squibs shooting out...

911wasalie.com/phpwebsite/images/photoalbum/5/wtc_small_1056.jpg

Unless you think the picture was doctored, here is a link to several videos of WTC collapsing, with some of them showing squibs (especially click on "This 8-second KTLA5 video shows the North Tower as it starts to collapse. It shows squibs and streamers ahead of the mushrooming top", and among others )

911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/videos/index.html

Unless you think that video is CGI, here is a short video clip of NYC firefighters hearing something go "boom-boom-boom"...

whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/discussion_in_firehouse.wmv

Unless you think they were actors then let me know, I can provide even more links...

I apologize if any of you feel like I've ignored your questions which it is not in my intention to do so, as there are too many of them to even catch up with all..

[delphi_ote]

Photograph of squibs shooting out...

911wasalie.com/phpwebsite/images/photoalbum/5/wtc_small_1056.jpg
That's a squib? You have proof? Let's hear it!

[Manny]

And while you're on the subject, precisely what were these "squibs" supposed to do -- they pretty obviously weren't damaging the exterior of the building.

[chipmunk stew]

FEMA's report of the collapsing of WTC1 and 2 plausible yes but..
1. neither plane hit the center of the towers, damages made to south side of WTC7 as one of you pointed out yet all towers fell almost straight down. I would have a lot of doubt about the demolition theories if they tipped over.
On 7, it seems that the internal support structures failed first, which caused it to implode. It wasn't exactly straight down, though, the debris biased to the south. (You can see this in aerial photos.) 1 & 2 had a "tube-within-a-tube" construction--downward collapse is what would be expected (and virtually every structural engineer in the world agrees).

2. Then there's the rate of fall being nearly at the speed of freefall, just doesnt make sense unless there was timed demolition.
See my post above: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1589960#post1589960

3. The pulverization of concrete that exploded into dust and small bits
The crushing energy of the collapsing building is more than enough to account for this.

4. Explosive charges shooting out of buildings at high speed and long distance
If you've ever seen a tank explode, you appreciate the power of large volumes of compressed air.

5. Molten metal in the rubble that burned for weeks and couldn't be put out, that lends to the demolition theory and this might be one of the most critical pieces of evidence.
Please name for me one instance in the history of controlled demolitions that included molten metal that burned for weeks. Of all these points, this is the least convincing and the least characteristic of a controlled demo.

[pgwenthold]

I'm not sure if you realize what you're saying here. By this standard you can't believe anything you didn't personally witness. It wasn't just the eyewitness testimony -- everyone saw planes, BTW, though some thought they saw different kinds, not something unexpected given the circumstances. But in addition to everyone seeing planes, there was a plane strewn all over the Pentagon site. And American found themselves missing an airplane. And all the passengers and crew on that particular airplane are missing, and some of them were found at the Pentagon. And some of those same passengers called their families and reported exactly what was happening, in real time.


Hearsay.

Did you actually see the passengers get on the plane? Did you actually see their body parts at the scene? Did you actually see the plane before it took off?

If not, then you are just relying on someone else relating the tales to you. It's all just hearsay. Means nothing.

(see, you just have be skeptical...)

[Nyarlathotep]

Surely I have evidence...

From wikipedia: Squib: "A squib is not an electric match, even though the terms are used interchangeably by the uninitiated. It is a small explosive device which has a wide range of uses generating mechanical forces as well as pyrotechnic uses. A squib can range in size from a small cap only millimeters in diameter to ones which can be 15 millimetres in diameter. The squib being an explosive device, releases a lot of energy, and can be used for shattering, triggering, propelling and cutting a wide range of pyrotechnic and non-pyrotechnic materials."

Photograph of squibs shooting out...

911wasalie.com/phpwebsite/images/photoalbum/5/wtc_small_1056.jpg

Unless you think the picture was doctored, here is a link to several videos of WTC collapsing, with some of them showing squibs (especially click on "This 8-second KTLA5 video shows the North Tower as it starts to collapse. It shows squibs and streamers ahead of the mushrooming top", and among others )

911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/videos/index.html

Unless you think that video is CGI, here is a short video clip of NYC firefighters hearing something go "boom-boom-boom"...

whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/discussion_in_firehouse.wmv

Unless you think they were actors then let me know, I can provide even more links...

I apologize if any of you feel like I've ignored your questions which it is not in my intention to do so, as there are too many of them to even catch up with all..

You present only false dichotomies. There are other possibilites for the ejcted material besides "squibs" or doctored photos. Likewise there are other possibilities for the firemen hearing noises besides bombs or them being actors.

In short, it is up to you to prove that the ejected material is a squib and that there were bombs, the evidence you have presented so far does not do that. Presenting your 'evidence' in the form of such a blatant false dichotomy doesn't help your case, either.

[CurtC]

The plane would mostly break up, the wings wouldve been sheared off, the aluminium panels would've been blasted away, leaving what I gather to be the titanium fuselage...Titanium fuselage? I remember hearing something like this in the Loose Change video - where do you guys come up with this stuff? Most everything on the plane is aluminum. Parts of the engine are titanium, but this is extremely small compared to the rest of the plane.

I've never seen images showing "a lot" of wreckage I've seen substantial damage to the facade of the Pentagon and the gaping hole but as far as wreckage only the mainstream media footage/pics of some aluminium siding with red and white markings, and assorted bits and pieces of aircraft hardware. Not enough wreckage relative to that of a 767 or whatever it was.It was a 757, and there were twisted, scorched, and melted parts from a 757 inside the Pentagon. Lots of them, along with enough human remains to identify (almost?) every passenger.

Actually isn't the official story for the Pentagon most of the materials were vaporised by the explosion? How then does vaporised/molten aluminium/titanium punch such a hole?Again, this is more misinformation from the Loose Change video. The material was not titanium, it was not vaporised or even melted in the initial explosion. The resulting fire melted much of it.

here is a link to several videos of WTC collapsing, with some of them showing squibs (especially click on "This 8-second KTLA5 video shows the North Tower as it starts to collapse. It shows squibs and streamers ahead of the mushrooming top", and among others )I thought the purpose of the explosions in controlled demolitions was to initiate the collapse. In every CD video I've ever seen, the explosions happen first, then the building falls. In these videos and pictures you're talking about, the material is ejected well after the collapse is underway. Why would that be evidence of a CD?

[aggle-rithm]

Hello people,

Now if they were capable of firstly infiltrating the country and avoiding authorities whom should have been on their tail, yet they were even able to undertake flying lessons and book flight simulator time why hasn't this same terrorist organization been hijacking planes from say other Middle Eastern countries, Africa or Eastern European countries with airport security far less stringent than the US and been flying airliners into Israel or foreign US military bases/embassies on a regular basis? Or why haven't the sponsors of terrorism been supplying terrorist organizations with airliners laden with fuel and explosives to fly into Israel etc etc?


I apologize if this has already been addressed.

The reason there were no such hijackings before or after 9/11 is because this was a one-shot deal. They could do it once and only once, but then the jig was up.

Tell me, if you were a passenger on a hijacked airline in this day and age, would you and the other passengers sit meekly and await your fate, or would you, knowing you were going to die anyway, try to take charge of the situation?

That's why the tactic doesn't work anymore. In fact, it stopped working on 9/11, when the fourth hijacking occurred later than it should have, the passengers learned the fate of the other hijacked planes, and fought back.

I could imagine what a planeful of Israelis would do in this situation -- each and every one of them with compulsory military experience! I would pay money to see that show.

[aggle-rithm]

True, my gut intuition tells me sept 11 was an inside job...

"Yes, when you have a small brain, your other organs have to kick in like that."

-- Dogbert

Sorry, I couldn't resist! ;)

[aggle-rithm]

I think we shouldn't put the palestinian terrorists and Alquaida in the same basket. They are different organisations with different modus operandi. The fact that there hasn't been a airline jet attack on Israel has nothing to do with 9/11. I think people tend to over simplify history.

I think if the Palestinians were behind the hijacking it wouldn't have been so successful. Half of the hijackers would have overslept and missed their flight. The other half would have accidentally stabbed themselves trying to undo their seat belts.

It's true. :)

[Beleth]

Photograph of squibs shooting out...

911wasalie.com/phpwebsite/images/photoalbum/5/wtc_small_1056.jpg
Classic "affirming the consequent" fallacy.

If A, then B.
B.
Therefore A.

Actually, it's two AtC fallacies, one nested within the other.

In a controlled demolition, squibs are ignited.
- When squibs are ignited, little puffs of smoke come out of the sides of buildings.
- Little puffs of smoke came out of the sides of the WTC.
- Therefore squibs were ignited.
Therefore the WTC was a controlled demolition.

This is the same logic as:
If it purrs and drinks milk, it's a cat.
- If it's a cat, it has claws on its feet.
- This parakeet has claws on its feet.
- Therefore this parakeet is a cat.
Therefore this parakeet purrs and drinks milk.

[Pardalis]

Surely I have evidence...

Is that all? The only things you have brought to this thread so far are anti-Bush propaganda and links to paranoid CT sites. Can you summon any good objective and reliable evidence?

[WildCat]

I cannot say what hit the Pentagon as there has been no footage screened of a commercial airliner hitting said Pentagon. Hearsay isn't admissible in a court of law so I'm not going to buy into the conflicting reports of those who say they definitely saw a commercial airliner or those who say they saw a missile or any form of military aircraft.
Glad you're here, I'm sure you can answer one simple question I have. Earlier in this thread I posted a long list of eyewitnesses to the pentagon crash, all reported that it was a civilian airliner consistent w/ the official version of events. Can you show a single contemporary (ie, reported in a reputable news source at the time) account where any witness reported seeing anything but a civilian airliner hitting the Pentagon? Thanks!

[Gravy]

I cannot say what hit the Pentagon as there has been no footage screened of a commercial airliner hitting said Pentagon.
You're wrong. The families of flight 77 victims have seen all the footage of the 757 hitting the Pentagon, and none of them are calling for an "investigation." Before the FBI took the tapes, several employees of buildings with security cameras also saw the footage, and none of them are calling for an investigation.

And why wouldn't you believe all the people who were on the scene and had to pick up the aircraft pieces and body parts, people from a dozen different organizations? Are they all lying?

“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?" Source (http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html)
All but one of the flght 77 passengers and crew were positively identified through DNA, radiological and fingerprint analysis. Were all the forensic pathologists all lying? Many families received personal effects that were found in the wreckage. Was that all faked?

And where did the tons of airliner wreckage come from, wreckage that was there when the first responders arrived? Was all that American Airlines Boeing 757 wreckage created by magic?

Do a count: how many eyewitnesses saw a plane that didn't look like a 757, compared to those who did? The information is available. Just tally it up.