Official Story of 9/11 Like Holocaust Denial

[TruthSeeker1234]

The orignal holocaust denial came from the rank and file people of Germany, who simply could not believe their government would do something like that. (Argument from incredulity, despite evidence). Such is the case with 9/11. People simply can not believe that officials in their government would do such a thing, despite the evidence.

[rwguinn]

The orignal holocaust denial came from the rank and file people of Germany, who simply could not believe their government would do something like that. (Argument from incredulity, despite evidence). Such is the case with 9/11. People simply can not believe that officials in their government would do such a thing, despite the evidence.
this from a fellow who can't pour unine out of a boot when the directions are written on the heel?

[Stellafane]

The orignal holocaust denial came from the rank and file people of Germany, who simply could not believe their government would do something like that. (Argument from incredulity, despite evidence). Such is the case with 9/11. People simply can not believe that officials in their government would do such a thing, despite the evidence.

Please save your idiocy for another day.

[TK0001]

People simply can not believe that officials in their government would do such a thing, because of the evidence.

Fixed.

[ImaginalDisc]

Of all the days and times to post this drivel, it is an insult to the lives that were lost that day that you chose today.

Just try to provide any evidence which contradicts the accepted explaination that a group of dedicated hijackers flew three planes into three seperate buildings.

[Cylinder]

...despite the evidence.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Inigo Montoya

[Katana]

The orignal holocaust denial came from the rank and file people of Germany, who simply could not believe their government would do something like that. (Argument from incredulity, despite evidence). Such is the case with 9/11. People simply can not believe that officials in their government would do such a thing, despite the evidence.

Are you saying that you believe that the government was resonsible for 9/11?

[DavidJames]

The orignal holocaust denial came from the rank and file people of Germany, who simply could not believe their government would do something like that. (Argument from incredulity, despite evidence). Such is the case with 9/11. People simply can not believe that officials in their government would do such a thing, despite the evidence.like pretty much every other claim you've made, you make it without a shred of evidence. You make stuff up "truthspeaker". Why does someone who uses the word truth in their name, make stuff up?

[TK0001]

Are you saying that you believe that the government was resonsible for 9/11?

I think he's saying the holocaust didn't happen, or something.

[jhunter1163]

Are you joking? I seem to remember that there were war-crimes trials, Nuremberg or someplace, where officials of the Nazi government, all the way up to Goering, ADMITTED that the "Final Solution" was to kill every Jew they could. The commandant of Auschwitz, Rudolf Hoess, testified that he was supplied with enough Zyklon B to kill a couple of million people. (This testimony, by the way, got the CEOs of the supplying company executed.) The good burghers of Germany may not have wanted to believe that their government committed the Holocaust, but IT DID, their beliefs notwithstanding. There are mountains of evidence of Nazi guilt. There is ZERO compelling evidence of US government in 9/11. EVERY claim the CTers have made has been debunked, thoroughly, even if they don't want to hear it.

This comparison is offensive, and I'm not even Jewish.

[Bell]

I think he's saying the holocaust didn't happen, or something.

He should go and Seek the Truth in Poland or Germany, at the sites the concentration camps once stood. :mad:

[Loss Leader]

See, shmuck, one of the main things that the Holocaust has is witnesses (http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/vhi/).

And more witnesses (http://remember.org/witness/).

And even more witnesses (http://www.holocausttestimonies.com/).

Do you have any of those, ackjass?

No. What you do have is a thread in which you tried to hold yourself out as a structural engineer and got your butt whomped. And now you have an argument from a false analogy ... a very insulting analogy.

Unless you pull together an actual witness to your stupid, stupid theory, don't invoke the Holocaust again.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Aside from Nazis themselves trying to deny their actions, the modern Holocaust history revisionism began in the 1960's.

Looking at what Holocaust Denial is

Holocaust denial (commonly called Holocaust revisionism by its supporters) is the belief that the Holocaust did not occur as it is described by mainstream historiography. Key elements of this belief are the explicit or implicit rejection that, in the Holocaust:

The Nazi government had a policy of deliberately targeting Jews, people of Jewish ancestry, and the Roma (also known as Gypsies) for extermination as a people;
Over six million Jews[1] were systematically killed by the Nazis and their allies.
Tools of efficient mass extermination, such as gas chambers, were used in extermination camps to kill Jews.
In addition, most Holocaust denial implies, or openly states, that the Holocaust is the result of a deliberate Jewish conspiracy created to advance the interest of Jews at the expense of other peoples. For this reason, Holocaust denial is generally considered an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory. Because of this, Holocaust denial is also illegal in a number of European countries, as their governments hold that it is motivated by an anti-Semitic and anti-democratic agenda.

Holocaust deniers themselves do not accept "denier" as an appropriate term to describe their point of view, preferring the term "Holocaust revisionists" instead. They are nevertheless commonly labeled as "Holocaust deniers" to differentiate them from historical revisionists by those who consider their goal to be not historical inquiry using evidence and established methodology, but rather to try to prove that the Holocaust did not occur, regardless of historical evidence.[2]

Terminology: Holocaust denial or Holocaust revisionism?
The term "denier" (also but less often in English "negationist"[3]) is objected to by the people to whom it is applied, who prefer "revisionist," though most scholars contend that the latter term is deliberately misleading.[4] While historical revisionism is the re-examination of accepted history, with an eye towards updating it with newly discovered, more accurate, and less-biased information, "deniers" have been criticized for seeking evidence to support a preconceived theory, omitting substantial facts. Broadly, historical revisionism is the approach that history as it has been traditionally told, may not be entirely accurate and should hence be revised accordingly. Historical revisionism in this sense is a well-accepted and mainstream part of history studies, and it is applied to the study of the Holocaust as new facts emerge and change our understanding of it.

Holocaust "deniers" maintain that they apply proper revisionist principles to Holocaust history, and therefore the term Holocaust revisionism is appropriate for their point of view. Their critics, however, disagree and prefer the term Holocaust denial.

In general, the term Holocaust denial fits the description at the beginning of this article, while the term Holocaust revisionism is ambiguous, in theory ranging from Holocaust denial to standard historical techniques applied to examine aspects of the Holocaust that have been understudied. However, because the latter term has become associated with Holocaust deniers, mainstream historians today generally avoid using it to describe themselves. Though they do not use the term revisionism, historians do continue to study and revise opinions on aspects of the Holocaust, though no reputable historian has challenged the basic scale and outlines of the event. In the words of historian Donald Niewyk from Southern Methodist University: "With the main features of the Holocaust clearly visible to all but the willfully blind, historians have turned their attention to aspects of the story for which the evidence is incomplete or ambiguous. These are not minor matters by any means, but turn on such issues as Hitler's role in the event, Jewish responses to persecution, and reactions by onlookers both inside and outside Nazi-controlled Europe." [6]

Despite the best attempts of some to make a distinction between the terms Holocaust denial and Holocaust revisionism, the jailing of the discredited self-taught historical author[7] David Irving in Austria in February 2006 shows that the British news media frequently use the term revisionist when referring to a Holocaust denier. [8] source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial#History_of_Holocaust_denial)

People who have chosen to give provisional agreement to the mainstream accepted explanation of the events that occurred on 9/11 do not exhibit the above mentioned traits.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I think he's saying the holocaust didn't happen, or something.

No, he's saying WE are the holocaust deniers.

It's a standard tinfoiler tactic. They know they don't have squat to back thier crap up with so they reduce themselves to childish nonsense like "I know you ware but what am I?".

[Katana]

Why waste our time in this thread given the lack of evidence that TruthSeeker1234 has any plans to participate in/answer for what he started?

[TK0001]

No, he's saying WE are the holocaust deniers.

It's a standard tinfoiler tactic. They know they don't have squat to back thier crap up with so they reduce themselves to childish nonsense like "I know you ware but what am I?".

I know that. I was intentionally making it look like a cared so little about his stupid attempt to get a rise out of us that I misread his original post.

It was actually pretty brilliant.



until i had to explain it. dah.

[TK0001]

Why waste our time in this thread given the lack of evidence that TruthSeeker1234 has any plans to participate in/answer for what he started?

Perhaps we should not take him seriously at all and use this space for something more constructive, like talking about our favorite breakfast cereal?


Peanut Butter Crunch, all day, every day.

[stateofgrace]

The orignal holocaust denial came from the rank and file people of Germany, who simply could not believe their government would do something like that. (Argument from incredulity, despite evidence). Such is the case with 9/11. People simply can not believe that officials in their government would do such a thing, despite the evidence.

Stop, just stop you pathetic idiot.

Dare to liken me to a holocaust denier again and you had better pray to which ever god you worship we never met in person.

Save your absolute garbage for naive teenagers and trash like LC.

Whatever point you tried to make is lost in this garbage, get yourself off to the gutter and wallow around there for the rest of your paranoid pathetic life.

Idiot.

(Sorry for the rant guys, but nobody needs this rubbish today of all days)

[Katana]

Perhaps we should not take him seriously at all and use this space for something more constructive, like talking about our favorite breakfast cereal?


Peanut Butter Crunch, all day, every day.
Cereal just doesn't fill me up. I need something with more substance like a good breakfast bagel. Ham, egg, & cheese on a sesame bagel. Mmmm.

Having said that, Peanut Butter Crunch is, admittedly, quite tasty for non-meal purposes.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I know that. I was intentionally making it look like a cared so little about his stupid attempt to get a rise out of us that I misread his original post.

It was actually pretty brilliant.



until i had to explain it. dah.

And I wanted to call him childish and rub in the fact that he's got nothing to back his garbage up.

Worked out for both of us. ;-)

[Bell]

Cereal just doesn't fill me up. I need something with more substance like a good breakfast bagel. Ham, egg, & cheese on a sesame bagel. Mmmm.

Having said that, Peanut Butter Crunch is, admittedly, quite tasty for non-meal purposes.

Just coffee and cigarets for me. Breakfast of Champions :)

[elaine]

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Inigo Montoya

LOL

[TK0001]

And I wanted to call him childish and rub in the fact that he's got nothing to back his garbage up.

Worked out for both of us. ;-)

:highfive:

[Bell]

Maybe TruthSeeker can find answers in this thread by KKKilltown?

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=7618

[TK0001]

Cereal just doesn't fill me up. I need something with more substance like a good breakfast bagel. Ham, egg, & cheese on a sesame bagel. Mmmm.

Having said that, Peanut Butter Crunch is, admittedly, quite tasty for non-meal purposes.

Oh, I need about 7 bowls of Peanut Butter Crunch to fill up, but it's worth it. In a completely disgusting and unhealthy sorta way.

I'm also a sucker for that granola ceral that Quaker puts out, that's like $10 an ounce. With the dates in it. Gotta have the dates.

[CurtC]

TruthSeeker1234, since you've now started this substance-free thread, I assume that means you concede the other thread, and admit that the towers could have globally collapsed without CD explosives below?

[TobiasTheViking]

it worked well, imo, untill it was ruined

[apathoid]

"truth"seeker1234 apparently is unaware that all the Holocaust Deniers are on his 911Denial team

Here are a couple of relevant articles from fellow 9/11 Deniers(pro and con):

http://www.oilempire.us/holocaust-denial.html
http://www.erichufschmid.net/Separating_truth_from_lies.htm

and a nice summary here:
http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2006/07/holocaust-deniers-and-9-11-truth.html

[Peephole]

The orignal holocaust denial came from the rank and file people of Germany, who simply could not believe their government would do something like that. (Argument from incredulity, despite evidence). Such is the case with 9/11. People simply can not believe that officials in their government would do such a thing, despite the evidence.

Oh please, stop the pathetic trolling attempt. If anything, your "trooooth" movement is the one riddled with holocaust deniers and use the same methods as those bastards.

[Dora]

The orignal holocaust denial came from the rank and file people of Germany, who simply could not believe their government would do something like that. (Argument from incredulity, despite evidence). Such is the case with 9/11. People simply can not believe that officials in their government would do such a thing, despite the evidence.



My grandparents both used to work for the rank and file department of Germany. Opa's job was to rank the papers and oma had to file them.

[slingblade]

Seems like as good a place as any to say this:

I don't know what my government did or didn't do. I know there are lots of theories and hypotheses, and lots of unanswered, or poorly answered, questions even still.

But I'm not going to make a direct and specific accusation against ANYONE until I have these answers, or get as close as anyone can get to them. I think doing so without sufficient evidence, and by relying largely on speculation, makes me look like a woo-moron (wooron?) and I'm not going there if I can help it.

It was said: "People simply can not believe that officials in their government would do such a thing ..." It's not a matter of belief: it's a matter of proof, and of evidence. Another problem with that sentence snippet is that there is not, and has never been, just one thing my government is accused of doing. It's been accused of many things, and I simply do not have the evidence to back up all the claims out there. For many of those claims, I'm reasonably certain there is no evidence, but I'm not fully certain, and what I think could change, based on what I learn next.

An emotional appeal isn't what I need. I need evidence. I need proof. I need to be asked to do more than just "believe."

[jon]

The orignal holocaust denial came from the rank and file people of Germany, who simply could not believe their government would do something like that.

Evidence? There's a range of different movements of/incorporating holocaust denial. They don't generally deny that the Nazis could do something like that (though it is more common to deny that the German people could have allowed this to happen). I also have not seen evidence that holocaust denial emerged as a 'rank and file' movement among the German people - have you got any?

Such is the case with 9/11. People simply can not believe that officials in their government would do such a thing, despite the evidence.

The issue is not whether the government would do such a thing, it's whether they did. The evidence is that they didn't. Most 9/11 CT is literally incredible because it is: filled with errors; makes claims that are either extremely improbable or impossible; and is presented by nut-jobs. Rejecting this CT BS does not make me like a holocaust denier - it means that I am not a whack job.

You manage to give a good example of the usual quality of 9/11 CT thinking in the original post. You argue that those who reject 9/11 CTs are like Holocaust deniers - but only do so by completely misrepresenting both parties. I doubt that you've done any significant research into Holocaust denial, and you really misrepresent sceptical stances towards 9/11 CT.

[Katana]

Just coffee and cigarets for me. Breakfast of Champions :)
You must never be constipated.
Oh, I need about 7 bowls of Peanut Butter Crunch to fill up, but it's worth it. In a completely disgusting and unhealthy sorta way.

I'm also a sucker for that granola ceral that Quaker puts out, that's like $10 an ounce. With the dates in it. Gotta have the dates.
Would that be Quaker 100% Natural? Tasty indeed.

[defaultdotxbe]

My grandparents both used to work for the rank and file department of Germany. Opa's job was to rank the papers and oma had to file them.

my Opa served in AfrikaKorps under Rommel, and my Oma was in Das HitlerJunge

neither of them are holocaust deniers (although Oma will often argue that Hitler was only doing what was best for Germany)

[Bell]

You must never be constipated.

Nail on the head! :D

[gmanontario]

my Opa served in AfrikaKorps under Rommel, and my Oma was in Das HitlerJunge

neither of them are holocaust deniers (although Oma will often argue that Hitler was only doing what was best for Germany)

Hey your Opa and my pa might have been shooting at each other! Good thing they both missed isn't it?

Holocaust deniers and CTers are both cut from the same pathetic cloth. Best ignore the morons and talk about kittens.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

And my great uncle dropped bombs on your Opa and Oma from 30,000 feet in the middle of the night.

Small world, ain't it? ;)

[Regnad Kcin]

The orignal holocaust denial came from the rank and file people of Germany, who simply could not believe their government would do something like that. (Argument from incredulity, despite evidence). Such is the case with 9/11. People simply can not believe that officials in their government would do such a thing, despite the evidence.Grow up. Everyone will be much happier, including you.

[Loss Leader]

my Opa served in AfrikaKorps under Rommel, and my Oma was in Das HitlerJunge.

I think the most important thing to remember about WWII is that my grandfather won. Not alone, of course. Still, he was on the winning team.

[The_Fire]

I think the most important thing to remember about WWII is that my grandfather won. Not alone, of course. Still, he was on the winning team.

Lucky you: I probably had one on each side. Grandfathers that is.
Paternal Grandfather was a colaborator. Maternal Grandfather was most likely a freedomfighter (According to family rumours. He never talked about it).

[Dog Town]

I think the most important thing to remember about WWII is that my grandfather won. Not alone, of course. Still, he was on the winning team.

Mine as well! B-26 Marauder, or Widow Maker! He survived, glad he missed some of you folks folks!

[Pardalis]

Stop, just stop you pathetic idiot.

Dare to liken me to a holocaust denier again and you had better pray to which ever god you worship we never met in person.

Save your absolute garbage for naive teenagers and trash like LC.

Whatever point you tried to make is lost in this garbage, get yourself off to the gutter and wallow around there for the rest of your paranoid pathetic life.

Idiot.

(Sorry for the rant guys, but nobody needs this rubbish today of all days)

Very well said. Truthseeker deserves every single word.

[Pardalis]

Seems like as good a place as any to say this:

I don't know what my government did or didn't do. I know there are lots of theories and hypotheses, and lots of unanswered, or poorly answered, questions even still.

But I'm not going to make a direct and specific accusation against ANYONE until I have these answers, or get as close as anyone can get to them. I think doing so without sufficient evidence, and by relying largely on speculation, makes me look like a woo-moron (wooron?) and I'm not going there if I can help it.

It was said: "People simply can not believe that officials in their government would do such a thing ..." It's not a matter of belief: it's a matter of proof, and of evidence. Another problem with that sentence snippet is that there is not, and has never been, just one thing my government is accused of doing. It's been accused of many things, and I simply do not have the evidence to back up all the claims out there. For many of those claims, I'm reasonably certain there is no evidence, but I'm not fully certain, and what I think could change, based on what I learn next.

An emotional appeal isn't what I need. I need evidence. I need proof. I need to be asked to do more than just "believe."

Perfect.

[defaultdotxbe]

I think the most important thing to remember about WWII is that my grandfather won. Not alone, of course. Still, he was on the winning team.

mine holds no grudges, he was a POW for a few years (spent time in camps in michegan, colorado, and illinois) and says hed much rather be a german captured by the americans than an american captured by the germans

after the war he worked as a liason between the USAF (at hahn airbase) and the german govt

[Oliver]

The orignal holocaust denial came from the rank and file people of Germany, who simply could not believe their government would do something like that. (Argument from incredulity, despite evidence). Such is the case with 9/11. People simply can not believe that officials in their government would do such a thing, despite the evidence.

Is this you, Eric?

Beside the fact that the holohoax-crap is a CT for
it´s own, it´s as stupid as deniying a murdered victim
on your own feet.

Not even worth to talk about. It´s just making people angry.

End of thread? Don´t reply if you chose "yes".

[TruthSeeker1234]

Evidence 1 - Molten Iron

Pools of molten metal, which have turned out to be mostly iron, were observed, photographed, and reported at all three rubble sites, and also flowing out of the south tower before collapse. Incindiaries are the only explanation for this. OCT's deny this, just like holocaust denial.

Evidence 2 - Stand Down

The US air defenses failed to routinely intercept wayward aircraft. A single example of this would be difficult to believe, 4 examples are beyond the pale. OCT's deny this evidence, just like holocaust denial.

Evidence 3 - Horizontal ejection.

Huge pieces of steel and tons of dense powder were systematically ejected hundreds of feet sideways. Gravity operates vertically. OCT's deny this evidence, just like holocaust denial.

Evidence 4 - Collapse time

The towers fell very rapidly, about at the speed of free fall considering air resistence. NIST even says one of the towers fell in 9 seconds, faster than free fall. This would mean that intact steel superstructures offered no more resistance to falling mass than air. OCT's deny this evidence, just like holocaust denial.

Evidence 5 - Siesmograph

Small earthquakes were recorded before each tower was struck by an aircraft. OCT's deny this evidence, just like holocaust denial.

Evidence 6 - WTC7

WTC7 collapsed in 6.5 seconds, straight down, with explosive squibs blowing out windows in sequence. OCT's deny this evidence, just like holocaust denial.

Evidence 7 - Litany of eyewitness reports of explosions

Hundreds of people who were actually there reported seeing, hearing, feeling, and being injured by explosions. OCT's deny this, just like holocaust denial

Evidence 8 - Hijacker passport

A hijacker passport in pristine condition was "found" near ground zero. This is absurdly unlikely. OCT's deny this, just like holocaust denial.

Evidence 9 - PNAC

Project for a New American Century (Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Jeb Bush, Paul Wolfowitz, et al) outlined their strategy for global dominance in the document "Rebuilding America's Defenses" which complained that the plan would take a long time "absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event like a new Pearl Harbor". OCT's deny this evidence, just like holocaust denial.

Evidence 10 - Bogus confession tape

The guy in the 2001 confession tape looks absolutely nothing like Osama bin Laden. Not even close. OCT's deny this evidence, just like holocaust denial.

Evidence 11 - NIST report

NIST was charged with understanding how these unprecedented structural failures could have occured, not once, not twice, but three times in one day. Despite $20,000,000 and 10,000 pages, NIST did not even study the collapses, only the events leading up to them. As yet, 5 years later, they have not even bothered to release their final report on WTC7. OCT's deny this evidence, just like holocaust denial.

I could go on and on with much more evidence, but I will rest for a moment. Most who defend the official story are sincere, just misguided. Some who defend the official story know perfectly well, and are evil. Refusing to confront the mountain of evidence indicating that individuals within the executive branch of the US government orchestrated 9/11 is denial, just like holocaust denial.

If we are to honor the dead, we must confront the evidence, follow where it leads, identify the perpetrators, impeach them, try them and convict them. Anything else is a disgrace and a dishonor to the thousands of innocent human beings who were murdered 5 years ago today.

[Bell]

mine holds no grudges, he was a POW for a few years (spent time in camps in michegan, colorado, and illinois) and says hed much rather be a german captured by the americans than an american captured by the germans

after the war he worked as a liason between the USAF (at hahn airbase) and the german govt

That's a nice little story, Default. You never hear anything about German POW's, but I'll bet there are a lot of interesting stories out there! I still think it's a shame that the stories of German and Japanese* soldiers are not as widespread as those of American, English and Canadian* soldiers.

* And al the other countries, be they axis or allies.

[Pardalis]

Truthseeker, we deny your "evidence" because it is false.

Get a life.

[fuelair]

The orignal holocaust denial came from the rank and file people of Germany, who simply could not believe their government would do something like that. (Argument from incredulity, despite evidence). Such is the case with 9/11. People simply can not believe that officials in their government would do such a thing, despite the evidence.

Pathetic. Wrong name.

[Regnad Kcin]

Dear alternative conspiracy theorist:

You are 100% wrong.

Love,

RK

[apathoid]

:words:

Dont you guys ever tire of spewing complete idiocy? Seriuos question.

[Bell]

Truthseeker, we deny your "evidence" because it is false.

Get a life.

No, we deny because we still haven't 'woken up'. Wake up, Pardalis! :p

[stateofgrace]

Somebody "wake me" up when this idiot stops posting rubbish, please.

[Dog Town]

Speaking of "Deniers", check out the pics of them at GZ today. Limp writsed wimps from the other side of town!
From LGF
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=22522_9-11_Conspiracists_Defile_WTC_Site&only

[defaultdotxbe]

Evidence 1 - Molten Iron

Pools of molten metal, which have turned out to be mostly iron, were observed, photographed, and reported at all three rubble sites, and also flowing out of the south tower before collapse. Incindiaries are the only explanation for this. OCT's deny this, just like holocaust denial.
do you have a source stating these are mostly iron? do you have a source that the "flow" was iron?

also, the fact that the molten metal (and near molten steel) was fouind weeks later cannot be explained by any inscendiary or explosives, only slow-burning fires underground, CTs deny this

Evidence 2 - Stand Down

The US air defenses failed to routinely intercept wayward aircraft. A single example of this would be difficult to believe, 4 examples are beyond the pale. OCT's deny this evidence, just like holocaust denial.
intercepts over US airspace were not routine, the only time this has occured it took over an hour (76 minutes) for fighters to intercept, in that period of time all 4 airliners reached their targets, CTs deny this

Evidence 3 - Horizontal ejection.

Huge pieces of steel and tons of dense powder were systematically ejected hundreds of feet sideways. Gravity operates vertically. OCT's deny this evidence, just like holocaust denial.
the force of the downward collapsed pushed debris sideways when floor slabs blocked it from moving downward, this is physics, force has to go somewhere, CTs deny this

as a try-it-at-home, put some confetti in an open book and slam the book shut, see where the confetti goes, now imagine it with a million-ton skyscraper, the "confetti" will be a bit heavier

Evidence 4 - Collapse time

The towers fell very rapidly, about at the speed of free fall considering air resistence. NIST even says one of the towers fell in 9 seconds, faster than free fall. This would mean that intact steel superstructures offered no more resistance to falling mass than air. OCT's deny this evidence, just like holocaust denial.
the collapses are near impossible to estimate, the collapse times from NIST were fromt he time of collapse start to the time the collapse could no longer be visibly observed because obscured by the dust cloud, this is considerably shorter than the actual collapse time, CTs deny this

also, it is impossible for anything to fall faster than freefall unless the gravitational constant of the earth were changed, since i dont think that happened on 9/11/2001 the "faster than freefall" estimates must not be accurate, CTs deny this

Evidence 5 - Siesmograph

Small earthquakes were recorded before each tower was struck by an aircraft. OCT's deny this evidence, just like holocaust denial.
seismologists state there is nothing unusual about the readings, and specifically state they show no evidence of explosives, CTs deny this

Evidence 6 - WTC7

WTC7 collapsed in 6.5 seconds, straight down, with explosive squibs blowing out windows in sequence. OCT's deny this evidence, just like holocaust denial.
the "sqibs" are only apparent in heavily editied and artifacted video, they are not appreant in the original films, CTs deny this

Evidence 7 - Litany of eyewitness reports of explosions

Hundreds of people who were actually there reported seeing, hearing, feeling, and being injured by explosions. OCT's deny this, just like holocaust denial
exploSIONS =/= exploSIVES, CTs deny this

Evidence 8 - Hijacker passport

A hijacker passport in pristine condition was "found" near ground zero. This is absurdly unlikely. OCT's deny this, just like holocaust denial.
lightweight materials are very often ejected from airline crashes and no investigators have stated a passports survival is unusual, CTs deny this

Evidence 9 - PNAC

Project for a New American Century (Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Jeb Bush, Paul Wolfowitz, et al) outlined their strategy for global dominance in the document "Rebuilding America's Defenses" which complained that the plan would take a long time "absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event like a new Pearl Harbor". OCT's deny this evidence, just like holocaust denial.
PNAC had nothign to do with "global dominance" and the entire project was outlining how to advance defense technology WITHOUT "a new pearl harbor" the occurance of a pearl harbor-type evient makes the document pointless, CTs deny this

Evidence 10 - Bogus confession tape

The guy in the 2001 confession tape looks absolutely nothing like Osama bin Laden. Not even close. OCT's deny this evidence, just like holocaust denial.
the fat-faced osama only appears in directionally-lit and particularly low quality portions of the video, other frames from the same video show it is clearly OBL in the tape, CTs deny this

Evidence 11 - NIST report

NIST was charged with understanding how these unprecedented structural failures could have occured, not once, not twice, but three times in one day. Despite $20,000,000 and 10,000 pages, NIST did not even study the collapses, only the events leading up to them. As yet, 5 years later, they have not even bothered to release their final report on WTC7. OCT's deny this evidence, just like holocaust denial.
the WTC7 report is not complete, thats what happens when you investigation is more substantial than examining low-res stills on youtube

the reports didnt have to model the collapse, because once it started its obvious its isnt going to just stop in midair

[Loss Leader]

idiotic blithering

How about this - Produce one witness. Just one. Produce one guy who says they helped plant explosives in the towers. Bring me one lady who says she detonated the explosives after the planes. Just show me one single person who claims independent first-hand knowledge of your conspiracy. Send me one demolitions expert who says the government asked him how he would bring down a 110 story skyscraper.

Is there no one wracked with guilt, driven mad with dreams of the dead, tormented to his very soul who will come forward and admit that he had any hand in this whatsoever? I mean, there are former Nazis who are still coming forward to this day (http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,435821,00.html) even though they got away with it and, in some cases, won a Nobel fracking Prize.

Get me your witness to the conspiracy and we'll talk.

Untill then, here's a cat:

http://www.lantorlimited.com/photos/VSP-005-PC-2T.jpg

[Dog Town]

Hey LL, love the cat shot can I use it for an Av ?

[Oliver]

If we are to honor the dead, we must confront the evidence, follow where it leads, identify the perpetrators, impeach them, try them and convict them. Anything else is a disgrace and a dishonor to the thousands of innocent human beings who were murdered 5 years ago today.

Quoting myself:

...but would´nt have someone noticed

- all these guys?

- ripping all the walls open?

- over several months?

- to place anything to the main-beams to bring seven/&or towers down?

[jon]

truthseeker1234- you haven't answered the question of whether your characterisation of holocaust denial is accurate: as I've said (and others have said) it seems like BS. Are you going to provide justification for this part of your accusation, or not bother with details like credible evidence? Once you've found this evidence, perhaps you'd also like to compare the wealth of documentary, witness and physical evidence that the Holocaust took place with the CT conjecture about 9/11 - and justify why you think both are equally convincing?

Then again, that'd require actually checking the facts before you make accusations. Of course, in the absence of any evidence or credible research you could also be polite enough to withdraw the accusation that those who are sceptical about 9/11 CTs are like holocaust deniers (I find this accusation incredibly offensive).

I'm still waiting, but won't hold my breath.

[Loss Leader]

Hey LL, love the cat shot can I use it for an Av ?

Feel free to steal it from whomever I stole it from. I typed "cat" and "branch" into yahoo images.

[orphia nay]

Defaultdotxbe, that excellent reply was (almost) above and beyond the call of duty - Twoofreeker1+2=4 does not deserve such a comprehensive reply.

Thankyou, for the sake of any lurking fencesitters, for putting in that effort.

[defaultdotxbe]

Defaultdotxbe, that excellent reply was (almost) above and beyond the call of duty - Twoofreeker1+2=4 does not deserve such a comprehensive reply.


gotta keep in shape though :)

[TruthSeeker1234]

Pardalis self-deified I don't know what my government did or didn't do. I know there are lots of theories and hypotheses, and lots of unanswered, or poorly answered, questions even still.

But I'm not going to make a direct and specific accusation against ANYONE until I have these answers, or get as close as anyone can get to them.
Too late. The specific accusation was already made for you, and all of us, long ago. Osama and the 19 hijackers did it, and two wars, a federal department, the patriot act, the takeover of the airports, the building of secret prisons was all based on it, and we're all paying for it.

Defaulto replied do you have a source stating these are mostly iron? do you have a source that the "flow" was iron?
Yes, Dr. Steven Jones, the only guy who bothered to actually do some scientific testing. Please read.

http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/WhyIndeedDidtheWorldTradeCenterBuildingsCompletely Collapse.pdf

Defaulto then postulatedthe fact that the molten metal (and near molten steel) was fouind weeks later cannot be explained by any inscendiary or explosives, only slow-burning fires underground,
Hmmm, alumino-thermic reations don't explain this, but hydrocarbon fires do ??? Any explanation you'd like to give?

Then defaulto repeated the PM fabrication intercepts over US airspace were not routine, the only time this has occured it took over an hour (76 minutes)

No, in the 9 months before 9/11, 67 routine intercepts were made, this from the very man popular mechanics quotes in their propaganda. The "only one intercept" lie is from popular mechanics, and is easily refuted.

http://www.wanttoknow.info/020812ap

More later, this is very educational. Gotta go unfortuantely.

[MarkyX]

No, in the 9 months before 9/11, 67 routine intercepts were made, this from the very man popular mechanics quotes in their propaganda. The "only one intercept" lie is from popular mechanics, and is easily refuted.


Read again.

Popular Mechanics talks about scrambles inside the North America borders, which was one intercept involving Payne Stewart's plane which took over an hour to get into despite the transponder being on.

None of those 67 scrambles were in those borders, but outside, because NORAD were trained for those situations.

As usual, a strawman argument.

[defaultdotxbe]

Yes, Dr. Steven Jones, the only guy who bothered to actually do some scientific testing. Please read.

http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/W... Collapse.pdf
i was unaware prof jones aided in the cleanup at ground zero, my understanding is that all his researched was performed on samples scraped from a memorial

Hmmm, alumino-thermic reations don't explain this, but hydrocarbon fires do ??? Any explanation you'd like to give?
thermite burns out and cools very quickly, it is not a "slow burning" reaction and there is absolutely no way to make it burn slowly, anythign heated by thermite would be long-since cooled 8 weeks later

No, in the 9 months before 9/11, 67 routine intercepts were made, this from the very man popular mechanics quotes in their propaganda. The "only one intercept" lie is from popular mechanics, and is easily refuted.
67 scrambles (not necessarily intercepts) were ordered, all for targets OUTSIDE of US airspace, the whole purpose of NORAD was to watch for and defend against foriegn air attacks, they were never charged with looking within our own airspace for threats

[apathoid]

No, in the 9 months before 9/11, 67 routine intercepts were made, this from the very man popular mechanics quotes in their propaganda. The "only one intercept" lie is from popular mechanics, and is easily refuted.

More later, this is very educational. Gotta go unfortuantely.

Are you sure these were intercepts and not scrambles? Do you know the difference?

Were these scrambles in response to civilian aircraft in US airspace or something else?

ETA: Damn, you guys type fast!

[gumboot]

No, in the 9 months before 9/11, 67 routine intercepts were made, this from the very man popular mechanics quotes in their propaganda. The "only one intercept" lie is from popular mechanics, and is easily refuted.

http://www.wanttoknow.info/020812ap.



Ack. Why this dribble again?

Read this (http://screwloosechange.xbehome.com/fst/NORAD.pdf)

The 67 intercepts occured within the USCON ADIZ. This is OFF SHORE. It is for flights ENTERING the United States from OUTSIDE.

NORAD do not respond to incidents inside the USA, as a matter of course. In the ten years prior to 9/11 the military were only involved in ONE intercept over Continential US soil, outside the CONUS ADIZ - that was Stewart Payne's learjet. The intercept took 81 minutes from first loss of contact to the USAF F-16 test pilot reaching the aircraft.

Get it? It's very simple.

9 months prior to 9/11 - 67 intercepts inside the CONUS ADIZ
10 year prior to 9/11 - 1 intercept outside CONUS ADIZ.

Got it yet? 67 inside. 1 Outside.

Now. Did the 9/11 hijackings occur INSIDE the CONUS ADIZ, or OUTSIDE the CONUS ADIZ?

They occured outside the CONUS ADIZ

-Andrew

[Senor_Pointy]

3 plane intercepts on 4 zone centers! :D

[Josh Redstone]

Yes, Dr. Steven Jones, the only guy who bothered to actually do some scientific testing. Please read.



Well to bad Jones didn't actually find proof of thermate or thermite or whatever substance you think was supposed to have been planted...all he found was sulfur. Sulfur also comes from.......and this is really cool..............DRYWALL!!
So when the drywall(you know, the drywall on almost every wall in the towers) burned in the fires, sulfur was released. Not really that surprising.

Oh and by the way, thermite isn't used for controlled demolitions. It creates a very volatile reaction which doesn't cut in a straight line or burn horizontally. It just kind of drips as it melts....the thermite would also have had to survive security searches, not be seen by employees and not gone off early in the fires from the collision.

I'd say I've said enough, since there are piles of more evidence against your junk science, I wouldn't have room for it all here.

[TruthSeeker]

Please try not to call Truthseeker1234 "Truthseeker" without the 1234. Perhaps he/she can be TS1234 or simply 1234

Silly, but it weirds me out, and I don't want anyone to think Truthseeker1234 = me and, besides, I was here first.

Thanks

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Pardalis self-deified
Too late. The specific accusation was already made for you, and all of us, long ago. Osama and the 19 hijackers did it, and two wars, a federal department, the patriot act, the takeover of the airports, the building of secret prisons was all based on it, and we're all paying for it.

Defaulto replied
Yes, Dr. Steven Jones, the only guy who bothered to actually do some scientific testing. Please read.

http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/WhyIndeedDidtheWorldTradeCenterBuildingsCompletely Collapse.pdf

Defaulto then postulated
Hmmm, alumino-thermic reations don't explain this, but hydrocarbon fires do ??? Any explanation you'd like to give?

Then defaulto repeated the PM fabrication

No, in the 9 months before 9/11, 67 routine intercepts were made, this from the very man popular mechanics quotes in their propaganda. The "only one intercept" lie is from popular mechanics, and is easily refuted.

http://www.wanttoknow.info/020812ap

More later, this is very educational. Gotta go unfortuantely.

It would be educational if you would ****ing listen to any of the counter-arguments being presented against your already debunked claptrap.

[Blue Mountain]

The orignal holocaust denial came from the rank and file people of Germany, who simply could not believe their government would do something like that. (Argument from incredulity, despite evidence). Such is the case with 9/11. People simply can not believe that officials in their government would do such a thing, despite the evidence.
I could let you know what I think of your post, but even the patient and long suffering moderators here at JREF would ban me for it.
The fact you're still able to post should give you a clue as to how patient they are. (Cutting my reply short to prevent ever further ad hominem.)

[kc440_]

People simply can not believe that officials in their government would do such a thing, despite the evidence.

There was a military man on Hannity and Colmes. He said on the night of Sept. 11, 2001, he went to Ground Zero by himself, just to see the damage and that it was all real. When he got there, he found Mayor Guiliani by himself, doing the same thing.

A lot of people think Guiliani is going to run for President. Some say it was promised to him. If he had any complicity...

We'll see.

kc440

[DavidJames]

Well LieSeeker1234, it's comforting to see you've abandon the "science" approach and retreated to the well worn path of innuendo, selective interpretation of facts and outright lies. The suit of science didn't quite fit you, looked kinda rumpled and ill fitting. Now with your full CT dress, you look stunning :)

[Regnad Kcin]

There was a military man on Hannity and Colmes. He said on the night of Sept. 11, 2001, he went to Ground Zero by himself, just to see the damage and that it was all real.I find this exceptionally hard to believe. There was nobody "by himself" at the WTC site on the night of the attacks.

When he got there, he found Mayor Guiliani by himself, doing the same thing.Again.

A lot of people think Guiliani is going to run for President. Some say it was promised to him."Some say" the Earth is flat and weekends were made for Michelob.

If he had any complicity...

We'll see.Should I be hearing spooky background music right now? 'Cause I do!

[defaultdotxbe]

That's a nice little story, Default. You never hear anything about German POW's, but I'll bet there are a lot of interesting stories out there! I still think it's a shame that the stories of German and Japanese* soldiers are not as widespread as those of American, English and Canadian* soldiers.

* And al the other countries, be they axis or allies.

theres actually alot more to that story, i think ill type it up and post it at the SLC forums later tonight

[kc440_]

Quoting myself:

...but would´nt have someone noticed

- all these guys?

- ripping all the walls open?

- over several months?

- to place anything to the main-beams to bring seven/&or towers down?

The people who worked in the WTC were told that there was going to be new cable or something installed, so if they saw someone fooling around with something, it's OK. These men had an OK to go about their "work." They were laying bombs just a few days before the tragedy. So the WTC would collapse very fast.

Also, at this point, the planes were being flown by remote. One theory is the passengers were all gassed so as not to resist, and the planes flew via remote control.

kc440

[Gravy]

Truthseeker1234, I notice from the times of your posts that if you are in the New York area you would have had time to be at Ground Zero. Were you there, and did you tell any firefighters or family members of victims that they are akin to Holocaust deniers?

If not, when you get the opportunity, will you do so?

I've never so happily put someone on "Ignore" than you on 9/11/06. You've joined the ranks of despicable creepdom with victim-accuser Ray Ubinger. Please think long and hard about the desperate measures you've resorted to in order to insult those who disagree with you, and who present facts to support their statements when you do not.

[kc440_]

Perhaps we should not take him seriously at all and use this space for something more constructive, like talking about our favorite breakfast cereal?


Peanut Butter Crunch, all day, every day.

My choice is Kellogg's Mueslix. I could eat a whole box in one day. I love raisens -- and nuts.

kc440

[CurtC]

Well, I see that TS1234, after coming in here and thinking he was going to give us skeptics the what-for with his assertion that the towers' collapses required explosives farther down, and then having his *ss handed to him technically, starts with the Kent Hovind technique of spewing lies like a firehose.

TS1234, you see this, right? You can't defend even one of your points on its own, so you have to spew them all out at once, hoping that the ensuing confusion lets you skate away. If you really have any huevos, you'd make these one at a time.

[TruthSeeker1234]

Loss Leader said How about this - Produce one witness. Just one. Produce one guy who says they helped plant explosives in the towers. Bring me one lady who says she detonated the explosives after the planes. Just show me one single person who claims independent first-hand knowledge of your conspiracy.
Consider the NSA. Formed in the late 1940's. Became public knowledge in the 1980's. Here is an entire federal agency, funded with taxpayer dollars, with a budget larger than the CIA, and thousands of employees, doing heaven knows what, to whom, for almost 40 years, and no body finds out about it.

No one.

So, Loss. Produce one witness. Just one. Produce one guy who came forward about the NSA from 1949 to 1985. Bring me one lady who says she translated messages intercepted off the trans atlantic cable lines. Just show me one single person who admitted independent first-hand knowledge of the NSA from 1940-1985

Do you deny that the NSA existed during this time and conducted secret ops including operation shamrock?

[kc440_]

I find this exceptionally hard to believe. There was nobody "by himself" at the WTC site on the night of the attacks.

Again.

"Some say" the Earth is flat and weekends were made for Michelob.

Should I be hearing spooky background music right now? 'Cause I do!

Hear all the spooky music you want. Hannity and Colmes repeats at 12 am (I believe) on the East Coast, Fox News.

kc440

[Bell]

theres actually alot more to that story, i think ill type it up and post it at the SLC forums later tonight

I'll keep an eye out. All the best, Default!

[defaultdotxbe]

Loss Leader said
Consider the NSA. Formed in the late 1940's. Became public knowledge in the 1980's. Here is an entire federal agency, funded with taxpayer dollars, with a budget larger than the CIA, and thousands of employees, doing heaven knows what, to whom, for almost 40 years, and no body finds out about it.

No one.

So, Loss. Produce one witness. Just one. Produce one guy who says they worked for the NSA from 1949 to 1985. Bring me one lady who says she translated messages intercepted off the trans atlantic cable lines. Just show me one single person who claims independent first-hand knowledge of the 1949-1985 NSA.

Do you deny that the NSA existed during this time and conducted secret ops including operation shamrock?

well the difference is we dont have NSA operatives going into (very) public buildings and planting thousands of pounds of explosives in front of thousands of civilians over the course of several weeks at least

i suspect that in the 35 years the NSA remained under raps agents had little to no contact with anyone not directly involved in the NSA (at least not as far as their missions were concerned)

so if you can show me an NSA op who planted explosives (or listening devices or anything fairly obvious) in front fo thousands of people with no one realizing what he was doing or why, then ill give you some credit

[apathoid]

Loss Leader said
Consider the NSA. Formed in the late 1940's. Became public knowledge in the 1980's. Here is an entire federal agency, funded with taxpayer dollars, with a budget larger than the CIA, and thousands of employees, doing heaven knows what, to whom, for almost 40 years, and no body finds out about it.

No one.

So, Loss. Produce one witness. Just one. Produce one guy who came forward about the NSA from 1949 to 1985. Bring me one lady who says she translated messages intercepted off the trans atlantic cable lines. Just show me one single person who admitted independent first-hand knowledge of the NSA from 1940-1985

Do you deny that the NSA existed during this time and conducted secret ops including operation shamrock?

You are on the fastrack to Christophera-ness. Well done. Now, how about you stop dodging and start actually replying.

[TruthSeeker1234]

kc wondered ...but would´nt have someone noticed

- all these guys?

- ripping all the walls open?

- over several months?

- to place anything to the main-beams to bring seven/&or towers down?

Not necessarily. The core columns were right next to the elevator shafts. A few elevators could be shut down at a time without any notice at all. Work on the perimeter could be done at night, and covered up by morning. Might not have had to be several months either.

Would help if the security company was in on it, for sure. Anybody know anything about Securacom/Stratasec?

[WildCat]

Work on the perimeter could be done at night, and covered up by morning.
You think the WTC shut down at night?

[Dog Town]

Would help if the security company was in on it, for sure. Anybody know anything about Securacom/Stratasec?

3035

[Bell]

kc wondered

Not necessarily. The core columns were right next to the elevator shafts. A few elevators could be shut down at a time without any notice at all. Work on the perimeter could be done at night, and covered up by morning. Might not have had to be several months either.

Would help if the security company was in on it, for sure. Anybody know anything about Securacom/Stratasec?

I thought you 9/11 deniers believe the elevator shafts were hermetical sealed?

[TruthSeeker1234]

You've both missed the obvious point about the NSA. The point is, big secrets involving thousands of people can be, and have been, kept for decades. 9/11 could have been done with only a few dozen people with full knowledge, and a few hundred with partial, need-to-know information.

Remember, we are talking about an entitly that has truly unlimited funding. Recall that on 9-10-01, Rummy announced that $2.6 Trillion (with a T) was "missing". That'll buy a lot of silence. Also recall that the executive branch orders the CIA, the NSA, and various other spooks. That'll buy you a lot of threats.

[apathoid]

You've both missed the obvious point about the NSA. The point is, big secrets involving thousands of people can be, and have been, kept for decades. 9/11 could have been done with only a few dozen people with full knowledge, and a few hundred with partial, need-to-know information.

Remember, we are talking about an entitly that has truly unlimited funding. Recall that on 9-10-01, Rummy announced that $2.6 Trillion (with a T) was "missing". That'll buy a lot of silence. Also recall that the executive branch orders the CIA, the NSA, and various other spooks. That'll buy you a lot of threats.

No we didn't. There weren't thousands of cameras on the NSA and they weren't required to do their work in front of 50,000 people every day for months on end. They also didn't coldbloodedly murder 3000 people. That all this must be pointed out to you is telling. You guys just love apples and kitchen sink comarisons for some reason..

In a little place called the real world, to rig the WTC for demo would take a helluva long time. For instance, the Landmark Tower in Fort Worth took 5 months to prepare and thats with the building all to demolitionists. It also had 47 floors, a far cry from 267.

47 floors(that are a 1/3 area of the WTCs floors). Empty building. 5 months.
267 floors(3x bigger than Landmarks). Fully staffed building 24X7. ?? months.

You 24 hour powerdown people need to actually research the topic, you still may come off as ignorant - but not moronic.

[defaultdotxbe]

Remember, we are talking about an entitly that has truly unlimited funding. Recall that on 9-10-01, Rummy announced that $2.6 Trillion (with a T) was "missing". That'll buy a lot of silence. Also recall that the executive branch orders the CIA, the NSA, and various other spooks. That'll buy you a lot of threats.

you realize that money isnt "missing" its unaccounted for, theres a difference

liek my last paycheck, im not sure what i spent it all on, i just know its gone, it wasnt stolen, i just spent it and didnt keep all my receipts

[gumboot]

Loss Leader said
Consider the NSA. Formed in the late 1940's. Became public knowledge in the 1980's. Here is an entire federal agency, funded with taxpayer dollars, with a budget larger than the CIA, and thousands of employees, doing heaven knows what, to whom, for almost 40 years, and no body finds out about it.

No one.


The NSA was founded in 1952...

In 1972 former NSA analysist Perry Fellwock (at the time using the name Winslow Peck) gave an account of the NSA from the inside to a journalist at Ramparts magazine.

That was, of course, the first time the media received detailed insider information. But the NSA was commonly known to exist for a long time, even if it had not publicly been acknowledged. Where do you think the joke acronym "No Such Agency" comes from?

-Andrew

[Blue Mountain]

Loss Leader said
Consider the NSA. Formed in the late 1940's. Became public knowledge in the 1980's. Here is an entire federal agency, funded with taxpayer dollars, with a budget larger than the CIA, and thousands of employees, doing heaven knows what, to whom, for almost 40 years, and no body finds out about it.

That idea was discussed on this forum here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=54640), specifically to the code breaking efforts during World War II. The general thrust of that thread was the people who did the work at Bletchley Park and, by extension, at the NSA kept quiet ad do keep quiet because very important things were and are at stake, like the very survival of the country.

However, keeping a lot of people quiet about the deliberate mass murder of their own citizens would probably be very tough to do. Look at how much trouble the administration has keeping the lid on goings-on at Guantanimo Bay. And the people being held there aren't even friends of the US.

To others on the JREF forum: is it an argument from incredulity to state, "I don't think the government could keep this thing [a 9/11 conspiracy] a secret"?

[Oliver]

I thought you 9/11 deniers believe the elevator shafts were hermetical sealed?

Hahaha... :D

Psst: Hey, don´t make them angry with this illuminati-holohoax-alien-
zionism-conspiracy-term called "logic"... They really don´t like it. ;)

[defaultdotxbe]

That was, of course, the first time the media received detailed insider information. But the NSA was commonly known to exist for a long time, even if it had not publicly been acknowledged.
sortof like area 51 then? everyone knows its there, but officially it isnt

[CptColumbo]

Hahaha... :D

Psst: Hey, don´t make them angry with this illuminati-holohoax-alien-
zionism-conspiracy-term called "logic"... They really don´t like it. ;)

You forgot the Skulls.

[slingblade]

Pardalis self-deified
Too late. The specific accusation was already made for you, and all of us, long ago. Osama and the 19 hijackers did it, and two wars, a federal department, the patriot act, the takeover of the airports, the building of secret prisons was all based on it, and we're all paying for it.

That may be true in a sense, but the way you put it gives me this queasy sense of empty rhetoric. All I can say, as an opinion, about the CT stuff I've read and seen so far:

If any of these assertions are, somehow, proven true in part or in whole, it may very well be in spite of things like Loose Change, not because of them.

The errors of fact or context I've seen in that alone has turned my stomach. Why for crying out loud, even release a movie that would be very important if even half of what is implied is true, but being so damned sloppy about it that you need to release a second edition to correct your crap?

Tonight I was told in an interview with a group showing the film that LC is negotiating a deal to get this thing remade in a cinematic format, "a real movie," and that there will be another chance to correct yet more errors. I have no idea if this is true, and you may take it as purest AFOAF rumor. But it really bugs me that they didn't get it right the first time, hence this Second Edition. That the old, and now obviously erroneous, first edition is still circulating. That people may not know that the filmmakers know they made mistakes.

Doesn't that bug you? Don't you think it should?

[TruthSeeker1234]

Apathoid argued There weren't thousands of cameras on the NSA and they weren't required to do their work in front of 50,000 people every day for months on end. They also didn't coldbloodedly murder 3000 people.

Let's see. One secret project involved overthrowing the government of Iran. How many were killed? They did it "right in front of" millions of Iranians. Got rid of a democratically elected leader and installed the Shah. Americans didn't find out for decades. Til then it was just "a conspiracy theory".

This is one example that we know about now. There are others. Likely there is plenty that we still don't know about. What is the CIA and NSA up to right now? I have no idea. Niether do you. It's secret, and there are tens of thousands of people doing heaven knows what to whom.

[Brainache]

Apathoid argued

Let's see. One secret project involved overthrowing the government of Iran. How many were killed? They did it "right in front of" millions of Iranians. Got rid of a democratically elected leader and installed the Shah. Americans didn't find out for decades. Til then it was just "a conspiracy theory".

This is one example that we know about now. There are others. Likely there is plenty that we still don't know about. What is the CIA and NSA up to right now? I have no idea. Niether do you. It's secret, and there are tens of thousands of people doing heaven knows what to whom.


And yet you walk free. How is this possible?

[TruthSeeker1234]

default propagandized you realize that [the $2.5 triliion] isnt "missing" its unaccounted for, theres a difference

liek my last paycheck, im not sure what i spent it all on, i just know its gone, it wasnt stolen, i just spent it and didnt keep all my receipts

Default, of course they spent it. That's the point of money. You spend it on what you want. Suppose your employee was supposed to spend company money on office supplies for the business, but instead told you that the money was unaccounted for. Don't worry Mr. Default, it isn't missing, it's just unaccounted for. I'm sure I spent it on something, I just don't know what. Can I have some more money now?

Have you ever thought of writing copy for politicians?

It's not missing, it's unaccounted for! LOL

[TruthSeeker1234]

Anyone care to address the point that large government secret ops are possible, and can be kept secret for a long time? Anyone seriously deny this?

[gumboot]

Apathoid argued

Let's see. One secret project involved overthrowing the government of Iran. How many were killed? They did it "right in front of" millions of Iranians. Got rid of a democratically elected leader and installed the Shah. Americans didn't find out for decades. Til then it was just "a conspiracy theory".


Ugh. Here we go again. That wasn't the NSA. That was MI6 and the CIA. Operation Ajax. And as for no one knowing about it... um hello... what do you think the US Embassy takeover was all about? Operation Eagle Claw? Desert One?




This is one example that we know about now. There are others. Likely there is plenty that we still don't know about. What is the CIA and NSA up to right now? I have no idea. Niether do you. It's secret, and there are tens of thousands of people doing heaven knows what to whom.

Do you actually know what the NSA does? They're a SIGNALS INTELLIGENCE service. They don't have secret agents running around in black suits assassinating people.

Ugh.

This isn't James Bond.

-Andrew

[TruthSeeker1234]

Andrew, who at the time was using the name Gumboot, supported TruthSeeker's point that large scale government black ops involving thousands could be kept secret for decades

The NSA was founded in 1952...

In 1972 former NSA analysist Perry Fellwock (at the time using the name Winslow Peck) gave an account of the NSA from the inside to a journalist at Ramparts magazine.

That was, of course, the first time the media received detailed insider information. But the NSA was commonly known to exist for a long time, even if it had not publicly been acknowledged. Where do you think the joke acronym "No Such Agency" comes from?

-Andrew

When did we learn what the spooks were up to in Iran? Indonesia? Nicaragua?

If secrets are really so leaky, what are they doing now? Care to tell me? I know, i know, you could but you'd have to have me killed.

[jon]

Truthseeker1234, are you going to answer my question about Holocaus denialt? Have you bothered to do and research and get any evidence for your view of it? Or do you just like to use (responses to) the murder of millions of people in order to 'prove' a point?

truthseeker1234- you haven't answered the question of whether your characterisation of holocaust denial is accurate: as I've said (and others have said) it seems like BS. Are you going to provide justification for this part of your accusation, or not bother with details like credible evidence? Once you've found this evidence, perhaps you'd also like to compare the wealth of documentary, witness and physical evidence that the Holocaust took place with the CT conjecture about 9/11 - and justify why you think both are equally convincing?

Then again, that'd require actually checking the facts before you make accusations. Of course, in the absence of any evidence or credible research you could also be polite enough to withdraw the accusation that those who are sceptical about 9/11 CTs are like holocaust deniers (I find this accusation incredibly offensive).

I'm still waiting, but won't hold my breath.

[TruthSeeker1234]

Yes, Iran in the early 1950's is now "credited" to the CIA. What do the CIA and the NSA have in common? They are secret black ops under dictatorial control of the executive branch of the US goverment with lavish funding. Sort of like the FBI. And FEMA. And Special Forces. And heaven knows who else doing what to whom.

It doens't change the point, which you are carefully avoiding. There are huge black ops involving billions of dollars and thousands of people kept very secret for decades. Routinely.

[jon]

You've both missed the obvious point about the NSA. The point is, big secrets involving thousands of people can be, and have been, kept for decades. 9/11 could have been done with only a few dozen people with full knowledge, and a few hundred with partial, need-to-know information.

The NSA wasn't able to keep warrantless wiretapping secret for long - if information on that leaked out, imagine how much harder information on mass murder would be to contain.

[MRC_Hans]

Troothseeker1234 attempted sarcasm
*snip* Care to tell me? I know, i know, you could but you'd have to have me killed.

Which raises a rather interesting point: That government of yours, which apparantly does not hesitate at killing off its own citizens by the thousands (and some random citizens of friendly foreign nations), not because they resisted it or did anything wrong, but simply because it needed a certain body-count, how come that same government is reluctant to silence YOU? Why are YOU alive just now?

Oh, and:

Troothseeker1234 equivocated
Anyone care to address the point that large government secret ops are possible, and can be kept secret for a long time? Anyone seriously deny this?

Uhhh, no. How does this line up with the 911 CT, now? Lessee:

a) A secret intelligence agency built and maintained over years by changing administrations, with the purpose of doing legitimate (if shady) work.

b) A plot for large-scale murdering of innocent citizens and destruction of private property, to serve egoistic political ambitions.

Does a = b ? Mmmmm, perhaps not quite.

Hans

[TruthSeeker1234]

The NSA wasn't able to keep warrantless wiretapping secret for long

They kept their entire existance secret for decades.

[TruthSeeker1234]

Hans, false flag ops are not new. There have been many, many of them, by the US gov and many others. They work very well, unfortunately. Hitler used them effectively to incite the Germans into supporting war in the 1930s

[valis]

like talking about our favorite breakfast cereal?
Peanut Butter Crunch, all day, every day.

Did you ever notice on the show Futurama, that takes place in the year 3000, Captain Crunch has become Admrial Crunch and Count Chocula is ArchDuke Chocula?

I think that is something everyone should appriceate.

[jon]

They kept their entire existance secret for decades.

Decades? Have you done the research to find out how far back reports/rumous of NSA existence go? While these have been officially denied by the government - hence the No Such Agency joke - the existence of the NSA has been largely taken as fact for longer than I've been around, at least.

Also, as has been said, keeping 'legitimate' intelligence work secret is one thing. Information on illegal wiretapping leaked out pretty quickly, though. Mass murder would be rather harder to keep quiet.

Anyway, are you going to answer my question about the Holocaust? I'm still waiting.


truthseeker1234- you haven't answered the question of whether your characterisation of holocaust denial is accurate: as I've said (and others have said) it seems like BS. Are you going to provide justification for this part of your accusation, or not bother with details like credible evidence? Once you've found this evidence, perhaps you'd also like to compare the wealth of documentary, witness and physical evidence that the Holocaust took place with the CT conjecture about 9/11 - and justify why you think both are equally convincing?

Then again, that'd require actually checking the facts before you make accusations. Of course, in the absence of any evidence or credible research you could also be polite enough to withdraw the accusation that those who are sceptical about 9/11 CTs are like holocaust deniers (I find this accusation incredibly offensive).

[TruthSeeker1234]

Jon said truthseeker1234- you haven't answered the question of whether your characterisation of holocaust denial is accurate: as I've said (and others have said) it seems like BS. Are you going to provide justification for this part of your accusation, or not bother with details like credible evidence? Once you've found this evidence, perhaps you'd also like to compare the wealth of documentary, witness and physical evidence that the Holocaust took place with the CT conjecture about 9/11 - and justify why you think both are equally convincing?
The evidence that 9/11 was an inside job is huge. The best places to begin your study would be David Ray Griffin and Steven Jones. Jim Hoffman's site is quite well organized, and the Paul Thompson Timeline is a nice resource.

I realize there are those who do not accept this huge body of evidence, but that doesn't make it go away. In my view, clinging on to the notion that insiders would not do such a thing, despite the mountain of evidence, is the same psychological phenomenon as holocaust denial. People will deny plain facts when those facts conflict with a deeply held world view. Many people have an indoctrinated world view that says that their government is automatically led by good and decent people.

The original holocaust deniers were the rank and file German citizens. There were in fact, millions of Germans, ordinary average people, who simply would not, could not accept that their government had done such a thing. With sufficient indoctrination, it becomes easier to deny facts than abandon a sacred world view.

Americans have been indoctrinated to believe that it is impossible for our leaders to do anything like this. Consider the Pledge of Allegiance, for example, drilled into school children.

Whether you accept this or not aside, I hope it is now clear why I hold this view. Belief in the ludicrous official story of 911 and holocaust denial are two examples of the same psychological effect.

[MRC_Hans]

Hans, false flag ops are not new. There have been many, many of them, by the US gov and many others. They work very well, unfortunately.

Name one that involved killing thousands of your own citizens, and required you to recruit and keep silent hundreds of accomplices, and required you to perform complex operations in clear view of practically everybody. .... Just a moment! One that is proven. Not one you also believe in, thank you.

Hitler used them effectively to incite the Germans into supporting war in the 1930s

I suggest you read up on WW2 history. While Hitler did pull a couple of those, they played a minor role in engineering the war.

Oh, and suppose YOU had been there in the 1930ies, in Germany, and had been loudly exposing one of Hitler's plots; just how long do you think you would have stayed alive? (Well, it was your own analogy)

Hans

[Brainache]

Did you ever notice on the show Futurama, that takes place in the year 3000, Captain Crunch has become Admrial Crunch and Count Chocula is ArchDuke Chocula?

I think that is something everyone should appriceate.


Yes and I always wonder why Gadaffi is only a colonel.

[gumboot]

Yes, Iran in the early 1950's is now "credited" to the CIA. What do the CIA and the NSA have in common? They are secret black ops under dictatorial control of the executive branch of the US goverment with lavish funding. Sort of like the FBI. And FEMA. And Special Forces. And heaven knows who else doing what to whom.


I'm sorry, are you saying the FBI, FEMA, NSA, and Special Forces are all "secret black ops under dictatorial control of the executive"?

That's... um... retarded...

The NSA are geeks in offices listening to and reading messages. They are geeks cracking file encryptions.

Black ops?

Hilarious.

I'd love for someone to provide some photos of a super-elite FEMA-ninja too. That would be worth a laugh.

-Andrew

[MRC_Hans]

In my view, clinging on to the notion that insiders would not do such a thing*snip*

I quite agree. If that was the only reason, it would be feeble. What really counts is that the inside job theories are impossibly convoluted, with so many caveats that they had very little chance of succeeding. And that is your own making; it is your mountains of "evidence" that are destroying your case.

The unlikeliness that it could be kept secret is just another brick in the wall.

Hans

[TruthSeeker1234]

Would you please explain why FEMA was in lower Manhattan on 9-10-01?

[gumboot]

Forgetting everything else,

I have two questions for you, that I hope you will answer.


The evidence that 9/11 was an inside job is huge.

In you're own opinion, what is the single most compelling piece of evidence that 9/11 was an inside job? Just one. The biggest piece. The ultimate "smoking gun".



Belief in the ludicrous official story of 911 and holocaust denial are two examples of the same psychological effect.

If you wouldn't mind, can you briefly explain what you feel is especially ludicrous about the official explanation for 9/11?

Thanks.

-Andrew

(By the way, I don't dispute that black ops can be kept secret for long periods of time. You're quite right. I'm not sure how that relates to 9/11 however, since I'm not aware of anyone here who refutes the 9/11 CTs based on "the Government could never keep a black ops secret")

[gumboot]

Would you please explain why FEMA was in lower Manhattan on 9-10-01?

Exercise Tripod II, scheduled to begin September 12, a bio-hazard exercise, sponsored by New York City, the Justice Department, and FEMA.

-Andrew

[Dora]

my Opa served in AfrikaKorps under Rommel, and my Oma was in Das HitlerJunge

neither of them are holocaust deniers (although Oma will often argue that Hitler was only doing what was best for Germany)


well, on a more serious note, my mom is german my stepdad belgian, so Xmas with the grandparents was always very entertaining (no fights, just reminissing and my german grandparents NEVER denying the Holocaust)
Also my grandad did end up in a concentration camp himself -
before anyone starts owhyeah, right, another one of those. He wasn't put there it for any altruistic reasons on his part, he just AWOl'ed to go get a beer and got caught.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

9/11 could have been done with only a few dozen people with full knowledge, and a few hundred with partial, need-to-know information.

Bull-[rule8].

It damn well could not have. To suggest otherwise is nothing less than a bald-faced lie.

The largest steel frame building ever imploded was 33 floors and it took a 21 man crew 4 months to complete the necessary preprations (http://www.controlled-demolition.com/default.asp?reqLocId=7&reqItemId=20030225133807).

21 men x 22 workdays per month x 8 hours per day = 3,696 man hours

Just one world trade center tower is more than three times bigger. So let's say 12,000 man hours per tower total. Plus an additional 6,000 or so for WTC7.

That 30,000 man hours to prepare all three buildings for demolition. That's a just minimum. Add in the fact that the conspiracy theorists claim that a completely untested, never before used technology was involved and the number will climb even higher.

To do it all in the span of just one day would require 30,000 man hours / 24 hours = 1,250 men.

But that's just the tip of the iceberg. Once your MIB's have set the building up for demolitions, they need to have THOUSANDS more painters, drywallers and flooring contractors to cover up the tens of thousands of explosive charges and the thousands of partially cut structural members so that nobody notices what was done.

And all of this is just for the New York site. The Pentagon and Shanksville sites would have called for thousands more conspirators and bought off witnesses.

If you ever claim again that "only a few hundred" would need to be involved, then we will know that you are a LIAR.

[TruthSeeker1234]

If you wouldn't mind, can you briefly explain what you feel is especially ludicrous about the official explanation for 9/11?

Very brief, gotta go to bed.

Fire cannot cause steel framed skyscapers to collapse. Even if collapse is initiated, objects cannot crush themselves into fine powder under their own weight. 3 times in one day, 0 in all of the rest of history? Ludicrous.

Plane crashes in fields that leave no serialized parts, no recognizable parts at all? Ludicrous.

A lousy pilot who can't fly a Cessna not only navigates by instruments, finds the Pentagon, and hits it at ground level after a very precision approach that stunned the radar operators, even maintaining control at full speed while knocking down light poles? Ludicrous

Hijackers know the code for disabling transponders? Ludicrous

Tripod II just happens to be in lower Manhattan and the FEMA guys are all in place the night before? Ludicrous

Molten iron with entrained sulfur just happens to be in the rubble? Ludicrous

The collapse of WTC7 just happens to look exactly like a controlled demolition? Ludicrous

Multiple war games involving real jets, and also false radar blips and planes crashing into buildings just happen to be occurring on 9/11? ludicrous

Put options on AA and United stock just happen to skyrocket a few days before 9/11? ludicrous

The guy in the confession video just happens to not look anything like Osama bin Laden? Ludicrous

Peace

[gumboot]

First, thanks for responding. I also hope you will soon produce what you consider to be the strongest evidence for an inside job on 9/11.

Very brief, gotta go to bed.

Fire cannot cause steel framed skyscapers to collapse. Even if collapse is initiated, objects cannot crush themselves into fine powder under their own weight. 3 times in one day, 0 in all of the rest of history? Ludicrous.


What is your expertise for making such a judgement? As I am sure you know, fire generates heat. Steel, when heated, loses strength. Lose enough strength and a steel structure will collapse.

This is very elementary physics and chemistry. Thus I find your statement "fire cannot cause steel framed skyscrapers to collapse" a bit... well... laughable.

On your other notes... what is your evidence that the WTC was "crushed into a fine powder"? I myself recall photos of ground zero including enormous chunks of steel.





Plane crashes in fields that leave no serialized parts, no recognizable parts at all? Ludicrous.


I will assume you're referring to UA93. I'm not sure what you mean by "serialized parts". As for the rest - plenty of parts from an aircraft were found. It was all fairly small. That's what happens when fragile objects hit solid objects at high speed. I've personally seen car crashes that left "no recognisable parts". Not pleasant.




A lousy pilot who can't fly a Cessna not only navigates by instruments, finds the Pentagon, and hits it at ground level after a very precision approach that stunned the radar operators, even maintaining control at full speed while knocking down light poles? Ludicrous


I'm not sure where to begin with this one.

1) Hani Hanjour had a commercial pilots license
2) He did not "navigate by instruments" - he used the autopilot. Anyone who is familiar with Microsoft Flight Simulator can do this. Incidentally, he ignored the standard autopilot input function, which is NOT in the computer game, and instead used the less-commonly used basic autopilot function, which IS reproduced accurately in Microsoft Flight Simulator
3) Finding The Pentagon is relatively easy. Visibility was excellent, and it is the largest office building in the world.
4) There is nothing remotely precise about his approach.
5) The radar operators were stunned to see a commercial aircraft flying in a way that was dangerous and uncomfortable for passengers.
6) I doubt Hanjour specifically aimed to knock over the light poles




Hijackers know the code for disabling transponders? Ludicrous

The hijackers did not input a code. They used a more physical method of disabling the transponders. I believe Boeing has since addressed this problem.




Tripod II just happens to be in lower Manhattan and the FEMA guys are all in place the night before? Ludicrous

Why? Government agencies run exercises all the time.




Molten iron with entrained sulfur just happens to be in the rubble? Ludicrous

I'm not sure what you mean by "just happened". There was hot iron (it wasn't actually molten, but never mind) at GZ, of course. The buildings had been on fire, and subterranean fires burn for a very long time - there are underground fires in Australia that have been burning for millenia. Sulfur is present in the drywall of the WTC in large quanities. I'd be surprised if there wasn't sulfur at GZ.




The collapse of WTC7 just happens to look exactly like a controlled demolition? Ludicrous


I don't see why. There's only so many ways a large building can collapse due to structural failure.




Multiple war games involving real jets, and also false radar blips and planes crashing into buildings just happen to be occurring on 9/11? ludicrous


Well that's just completely false. There was one wargame on 9.11, it was a Command Post Exercise (it didn't involve any operational units), there were no "false radar blips", and there was no "plane crashing into building" scenario.

I must warn you, this is the aspect of 9/11 I know the most about. You won't get far making false claims in this issue.




Put options on AA and United stock just happen to skyrocket a few days before 9/11? ludicrous


Put options are put on stock when you think it will fall. They were put on AA and Boeing stocks, not United. And the numbers were lower than had occured on other dates in recent months. The Airline industry was in a recession. It was a safe bet.



The guy in the confession video just happens to not look anything like Osama bin Laden? Ludicrous


In one particular frame, no. I can personally attest to how appearance can change drastically depending on lighting, lens size, framing, and camera angle. The lower the image quality, the more easily distortion occurs.

In other frames on the same video is looks very much like Osama Bin Laden.

-Andrew

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Addendum to my post above, the interior renovations contractors brought in to cover up the demo charges would have to be top-notch tradesmen.

50,000 people showing up to work the following day would notice immedeately the several million square feet of poorly laid carpet and sloppily painted and crappily installed drywall.

[twinstead]

Very brief, gotta go to bed.

Fire cannot cause steel framed skyscapers to collapse. Even if collapse is initiated, objects cannot crush themselves into fine powder under their own weight. 3 times in one day, 0 in all of the rest of history? Ludicrous.

Plane crashes in fields that leave no serialized parts, no recognizable parts at all? Ludicrous.

A lousy pilot who can't fly a Cessna not only navigates by instruments, finds the Pentagon, and hits it at ground level after a very precision approach that stunned the radar operators, even maintaining control at full speed while knocking down light poles? Ludicrous

Hijackers know the code for disabling transponders? Ludicrous

Tripod II just happens to be in lower Manhattan and the FEMA guys are all in place the night before? Ludicrous

Molten iron with entrained sulfur just happens to be in the rubble? Ludicrous

The collapse of WTC7 just happens to look exactly like a controlled demolition? Ludicrous

Multiple war games involving real jets, and also false radar blips and planes crashing into buildings just happen to be occurring on 9/11? ludicrous

Put options on AA and United stock just happen to skyrocket a few days before 9/11? ludicrous

The guy in the confession video just happens to not look anything like Osama bin Laden? Ludicrous

Peace

This is a prime example of a post from somebody who totally ignores evidence that is contrary to his beliefs. I have seen EVERY single one of these 'points' addressed and either totally debunked, or given a more logical explanation, in this forum and many others.

Dude, your ideologial bias is showing badly.

[The_Fire]

In one particular frame, no. I can personally attest to how appearance can change drastically depending on lighting, lens size, framing, and camera angle. The lower the image quality, the more easily distortion occurs.

In other frames on the same video is looks very much like Osama Bin Laden.

-Andrew

I'm backing you on that one. It's amazing what things like lighting and not knowing the proper contrast ratios on cameras can do. Not to mention colordepth and compression codecs. Particulary jpg based compression *Shiver*.

[Oliver]

You forgot the Skulls.

Because you named it: Bush and some other freaks
confirmed that they´re skulls. Now here we have a
real CT and nobody talks about this? In here? Why not?

May i start a thread or would this be another dead
horse beating to sludge?

[gumboot]

I'm backing you on that one. It's amazing what things like lighting and not knowing the proper contrast ratios on cameras can do. Not to mention colordepth and compression codecs. Particulary jpg based compression *Shiver*.


I have a number of prestine professional photos , taken on 35mm format, of myself, taken for the portfolio for my agent.

Despite this, I look totally different in a number of photographs. I know for a fact they are all me, but even so.

These are perfect quality, high resolution, professionally lit.

-Andrew

[The_Fire]

Jup. Right up there with you. Well, portfolio pics aside (haven't needed them yet).

[jon]

Jon said
The evidence that 9/11 was an inside job is huge. The best places to begin your study would be David Ray Griffin and Steven Jones. Jim Hoffman's site is quite well organized, and the Paul Thompson Timeline is a nice resource.

I realize there are those who do not accept this huge body of evidence, but that doesn't make it go away. In my view, clinging on to the notion that insiders would not do such a thing, despite the mountain of evidence, is the same psychological phenomenon as holocaust denial. People will deny plain facts when those facts conflict with a deeply held world view. Many people have an indoctrinated world view that says that their government is automatically led by good and decent people.

I've read Ray Griffin and Jones' work - lots of conjecture, bad physics, distortion of reports of events etc. Are you saying that this is comparable to the evidence found by Allied troops who liberated the concentration camps - the mass graves, the equipment to murder people to put into the mass graves, the horribly detailed eyewitness testimony and written records of what happened etc. How would you justify saying that these are the same? Actually, I don't think even Ray Griffin would claim equivalence - his book on the 9/11 Commission, at least, focuses on inconsistancies, distortions etc. in the official story: he never claims to have the level of evidence found after the removal of the Nazis.

I would use lots of four letter words to describe those running the US and UK government, but 'good' isn't one of them. They have done lots of things I don't like, and I would want both governments to be removed as soon as possible.. However, there is not the evidence to show that 9/11 (or 7/7) were inside jobs.


The original holocaust deniers were the rank and file German citizens. There were in fact, millions of Germans, ordinary average people, who simply would not, could not accept that their government had done such a thing.

I asked for evidence, not assertion. My understanding of events is that, after the defeat of the Nazis, Allied troops made sure to document the Holocaust (and ensure that German civilians knew about it in other ways - for example, forcing some to help clear up the camps). When presented with this evidence, the 'average, ordinary' Germans pretty quickly accepted what happened.

Do you have any evidence of this 'rank and file' German Holocaust denial movement, and the motivation which you attribute to it, or not?

[stateofgrace]

Toothseeker.

You have made the assertion that 911 was an inside job, despite the fact that every single one of your claims has been debunked time and time again. You have further gone on to make highly offensive accusations that those who don't subscribe to your insanity are infact on a par with holocaust deniers.
So here what you can do, simply state what you believe happened on 911.

Let me start you off.

Before 911 (Insert suspects) planned an inside job. On 911 the Towers were prerigged with explosives (insert amount and where). Flight 77 was (insert theory) and (insert theory) hit the Pentagon.
Flight 93 was (insert theory) and the calls were faked by (insert theory).
WTC 7 was (insert theory) because (insert theory).
911 were therefore carried out by (insert names) so the USA could (insert theory).

Once you have filled in the gaps and not made yourself look like a complete loon, maybe you will be so kind as to offer up evidence to back your theories.

Or maybe you could do the honorable thing and withdraw your accusation and rejoin the rest of humanity.

[Belz...]

Pools of molten metal, which have turned out to be mostly iron, were observed, photographed, and reported at all three rubble sites, and also flowing out of the south tower before collapse. Incindiaries are the only explanation for this.

No, they're not. Also, why would you use incendiaries to demolish a building ?

The US air defenses failed to routinely intercept wayward aircraft. A single example of this would be difficult to believe, 4 examples are beyond the pale.

They never had orders to shoot down, though. Plus, they were notified too late to do anything.

Huge pieces of steel and tons of dense powder were systematically ejected hundreds of feet sideways. Gravity operates vertically.

Oh, golly. You were explained this many times. Can you read ? If a piece of debris hits something, it's not going to stay vertical.

The towers fell very rapidly, about at the speed of free fall considering air resistence. NIST even says one of the towers fell in 9 seconds, faster than free fall.

Idiotic. How could it possibly fall FASTER ?

This would mean that intact steel superstructures offered no more resistance to falling mass than air.

I wouldn't expect them to offer MUCH more resistance, but you can CLEARLY see debris falling FASTER than the tower on the pictures and videos. You are lying.

Small earthquakes were recorded before each tower was struck by an aircraft.

What the hell would be the point ?

WTC7 collapsed in 6.5 seconds, straight down, with explosive squibs blowing out windows in sequence.

They're called explosive CHARGES, and when demolishing a building, they don't explode randomly.

Hundreds of people who were actually there reported seeing, hearing, feeling, and being injured by explosions.

Explosions do not equal explosives. Get that through your "skull".

A hijacker passport in pristine condition was "found" near ground zero. This is absurdly unlikely.

Argument from incredulity.

Project for a New American Century (Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Jeb Bush, Paul Wolfowitz, et al) outlined their strategy for global dominance in the document "Rebuilding America's Defenses" which complained that the plan would take a long time "absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event like a new Pearl Harbor".

Now you're simply lying. It wasn't about global domination, and "absent" doesn't mean "we would proceed with staging".

The guy in the 2001 confession tape looks absolutely nothing like Osama bin Laden. Not even close.

Yes he does. Stop lying.

NIST was charged with understanding how these unprecedented structural failures could have occured, not once, not twice, but three times in one day.

Argument from non-precedence. You might have noticed the large planes that crashed into the towers.

Despite $20,000,000 and 10,000 pages, NIST did not even study the collapses, only the events leading up to them. As yet, 5 years later, they have not even bothered to release their final report on WTC7.

Unlike your mediocre armchair analysis, real investigations take time.

I could go on and on with much more evidence, but I will rest for a moment.

Yes, lying through your teeth takes effort.

[Belz...]

Not necessarily. The core columns were right next to the elevator shafts. A few elevators could be shut down at a time without any notice at all. Work on the perimeter could be done at night, and covered up by morning. Might not have had to be several months either.

I thought people worked there 24/7.

You've both missed the obvious point about the NSA. The point is, big secrets involving thousands of people can be, and have been, kept for decades. 9/11 could have been done with only a few dozen people with full knowledge, and a few hundred with partial, need-to-know information.

Planting explosives in the WTC where thousands work is not need-to-know. The people who planted the explosives SAW the towers collapse. Surely, they must know it was their fault.

Remember, we are talking about an entitly that has truly unlimited funding. Recall that on 9-10-01, Rummy announced that $2.6 Trillion (with a T) was "missing".

You really don't understand anything, do you ?

It's not missing, it's unaccounted for!

Why would Rumsfeld SAY this, then ? Don't you find that a tad non-suspicious ?

Yes, Iran in the early 1950's is now "credited" to the CIA. What do the CIA and the NSA have in common? They are secret black ops under dictatorial control of the executive branch of the US goverment with lavish funding. Sort of like the FBI. And FEMA. And Special Forces. And heaven knows who else doing what to whom.

Paranoid, much ?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Loss Leader said
Consider the NSA. Formed in the late 1940's. Became public knowledge in the 1980's. Here is an entire federal agency, funded with taxpayer dollars, with a budget larger than the CIA, and thousands of employees, doing heaven knows what, to whom, for almost 40 years, and no body finds out about it.

No one.

So, Loss. Produce one witness. Just one. Produce one guy who came forward about the NSA from 1949 to 1985. Bring me one lady who says she translated messages intercepted off the trans atlantic cable lines. Just show me one single person who admitted independent first-hand knowledge of the NSA from 1940-1985

Do you deny that the NSA existed during this time and conducted secret ops including operation shamrock?



Agency history
The origins of the National Security Agency can be traced to an organization originally established within the Department of Defense, under the command of the Joint Chiefs of Staff as the Armed Forces Security Agency (AFSA), on May 20, 1949. The AFSA was to be responsible for directing the communications and electronic intelligence activities of the military intelligence units - the Army Security Agency, Naval Security Group and the Air Force Security Service. However, the agency had little power and lacked a centralized coordination mechanism. The creation of NSA resulted from a December 10, 1951, memo sent by CIA Director Walter Bedell Smith to James B. Lay, Executive Secretary of the National Security Council. The memo observed that "control over, and coordination of, the collection and processing of Communications Intelligence had proved ineffective" and recommended a survey of communications intelligence activities. The proposal was approved on December 13, 1951, and the study authorized on December 28, 1951. The report was completed by June 13, 1952. Generally known as the "Brownell Committee Report," after committee chairman Herbert Brownell, it surveyed the history of U.S. communications intelligence activities and suggested the need for a much greater degree of coordination and direction at the national level. As the change in the security agency's name indicated, the role of the NSA was extended beyond the armed forces.

The creation of the NSA was authorized in a letter written by President Harry S. Truman in June of 1952. The agency was formally established through a revision of National Security Council Intelligence Directive (NSCID) 9 on October 24, 1952, and officially came into existence on November 4, 1952. President Truman's letter was itself classified and remained unknown to the public for more than a generation
source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA#Agency_history)

Consider also that the NSA was not a supposed conspiracy that caused the deaths of thousands of individuals on a single day.

If you want to compare situations, then compare it to other conspiracies, such as Watergate or Enron; in which case people did step forward.

[Belz...]

Fire cannot cause steel framed skyscapers to collapse. Even if collapse is initiated, objects cannot crush themselves into fine powder under their own weight. 3 times in one day, 0 in all of the rest of history? Ludicrous.

So many things are wrong in that paragraph, I don't know where to start. Fire CAN and HAS demolished buildings before, some even more resilient than the WTC. Also, you're oversimplifying the "powder" thing, and lying about "0 in all [...] of history".

Plane crashes in fields that leave no serialized parts, no recognizable parts at all? Ludicrous.

Lies, lies lies.

A lousy pilot who can't fly a Cessna not only navigates by instruments, finds the Pentagon, and hits it at ground level after a very precision approach that stunned the radar operators, even maintaining control at full speed while knocking down light poles? Ludicrous

He COULD fly, just not very well. He didn't need to fly WELL to crash into a building. He also didn't need to lift off or land.

Hijackers know the code for disabling transponders? Ludicrous

Code ? All you need to do is unplug them.

The collapse of WTC7 just happens to look exactly like a controlled demolition? Ludicrous

I don't know what demo you've seen so far.

Multiple war games involving real jets, and also false radar blips and planes crashing into buildings just happen to be occurring on 9/11? ludicrous

Sure, NO TWO THINGS can ever happen at the same time. Ever.

Put options on AA and United stock just happen to skyrocket a few days before 9/11? ludicrous

Read Gravy's guide about this.

The guy in the confession video just happens to not look anything like Osama bin Laden? Ludicrous

Lies, lies and MORE lies.

[Pardalis]

I have a number of prestine professional photos , taken on 35mm format, of myself, taken for the portfolio for my agent.

Despite this, I look totally different in a number of photographs. I know for a fact they are all me, but even so.

These are perfect quality, high resolution, professionally lit.

-Andrew

Also, Shrinker once made the very clever observation that maybe the Osama tapes shown on TV, which the CTs have taken their picture from, had their picture compressed to allow the subtitle box.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1612444&postcount=2347

Which would change Osama's face slightly, and change his "nose ratio".

[Pardalis]

Very brief, gotta go to bed.
CT BS
Peace

Truthseeker, you have been presented many very credible explanations for your questions, but you keep coming back to your CT nonsense.

You are incapable of learning, because you do not want to acknowledge when you are wrong.

Someone who is incapable of learning is an idiot.

[jhunter1163]

Speaking of "Deniers", check out the pics of them at GZ today. Limp writsed wimps from the other side of town!
From LGF
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=22522_9-11_Conspiracists_Defile_WTC_Site&only

Thanks a LOT, Dog. I was up half the night trying to remember what the hell song that came from. My CD stash is in utter disarray.

But I did find it, "Like China" by Phil Collins.

Sheesh.. I need to get a LIFE...

[CurtC]

TS1234, you keep firehosing the thread with false assertions. Is that because in your single-issue post about momentum transfer, you were shown to have absolutely no basis for your assertion?

All these things you've posted have been shown to be false or not relevant. Why don't you pick two or three that you really think have some merit, and let's go over those? It's just not practical to discuss 20 different subjects in one thread.

[Loss Leader]

So, I think I've figured out TS1234's argument style from this thread and the last one which he abandoned when he got his head handed to him. It goes like this:

1. Make a lunatic assertion about a detail of 9/11 with no evidence.
2. Offer some links to pictures.
3. Become exceptionally beligerant.
4. Make an unwarranted analogy with no evidence.
5. Deflect attention away from yourself by demanding that others offer information about your analogy (Holocaust, NSA, whatever).
6. Make a new lunatic assertion, possibly in another thread.

I fear that we will never defeat him because he will never stop moving. As soon as we close in on a point, he will slip away and begin to demand some utterly unrelated point. And he will always demand that we bring him evidence.

Here is what he will never do: He will never state a full theory of what he thinks happened on 9/11. When pressed, he linked to a physical theory of how the towers came down that nowhere stated any theory of who planted explosives, when, whether the planes did or didn't hit, or anything else.

Here's why he will never do it: Because he can't defend such a theory and he knows it.

For that reason, I am personally declaring TS1234 a shmendrick (http://tafkac.org/language/shmendrick.html).

[twinstead]

TS1234, you keep firehosing the thread with false assertions. Is that because in your single-issue post about momentum transfer, you were shown to have absolutely no basis for your assertion?

All these things you've posted have been shown to be false or not relevant. Why don't you pick two or three that you really think have some merit, and let's go over those? It's just not practical to discuss 20 different subjects in one thread.

I suspect that for people like him, it's not the quality of evidence that counts, but the quantity and speed its presented. He just feels more comfortable wrapping himself up in a thousand bits of debunked or irrelevant snippets, as if somehow it will protect him from having his world view challenged.

It's like a woo woo surge protector.

[gumboot]

Someone seriously needs to make a "wack-a-mole" emoticon for these boards...

-Andrew

[Dog Town]

Thanks a LOT, Dog. I was up half the night trying to remember what the hell song that came from. My CD stash is in utter disarray.

But I did find it, "Like China" by Phil Collins.

Sheesh.. I need to get a LIFE...


No, thank you! That came right out of me from left field.Could not remember where it came from. It bugged me, and everyone I asked, gave me a daft look! I love the line though. I wonder how a line from a song, I might have heard twice, just jumped on to the page?
Ha ha ha!

[juryjone]

Americans have been indoctrinated to believe that it is impossible for our leaders to do anything like this. Consider the Pledge of Allegiance, for example, drilled into school children.

...must...obey...NWO...:eye-poppi

Whether you accept this or not aside, I hope it is now clear why I hold this view.

Because it's
easier to deny facts than abandon a sacred world view.

Or perhaps because you just want to hold your viewpoint.

[Regnad Kcin]

What's remarkable (so I will!) is not that, within the general topic of 9/11, CTers are completely wrong. No, it's that they're arrogantly and belligerently wrong.

It would be one thing to discuss the topic(s) with someone actually interested in answering questions. No one knows everything, and life can provide an ongoing, endless education. But to stroll around proudly maintaining something along the lines of the new 2006 Ford Mustang being made entirely out of creamcheese and ground up Smurf dolls is just... strange.

I know there are people who enjoy tweaking others and stirring up trouble. Immature, minor-league anarchists. And Mr. Bush and his administration do provide easy targets. But when you have to resort to putting forth nothing but falsehoods, half stories, and outright lies, aren't you then worse? Even despicable?

I would not want to go through life as a person who is despicable.

[twinstead]

I would not want to go through life as a person who is despicable.

Sadly, often the more despicable one is, the less likely one is to actually realize that fact.

[gumboot]

I would not want to go through life as a person who is despicable.


Doesn't this just sum up the difference?

You, sir, could never be despicable. Day in and day out on these boards I am impressed by your truely gentleman-like ways.

My hat is off to you.

-Andrew

[KingMerv00]

Many people have an indoctrinated world view that says that their government is automatically led by good and decent people.

What makes you think we like the government?

[Oliver]

My Grandma had to escape as little child from "Weißrussland"
(white russia?) and they were split up during the their walk
back to germany. Parts of her family ended up in canada and
still live there.

My Grandpa was a simple soldier during war and he got heavy
wounded during fights.

I know that my grandparents were no acitve members of
the mob, but i think they´re still deeply ashamed and
still shocked about how this could happen.

They rareley spoke about it, and if, then just in small
peaces. They can´t talk about the ugly things they
saw. And yes - they saw what happend to jewish
people, too.

It´s their helplessness during the time, wich is still deep in
my grandparents´s mind - a kind of "contributory fault" that
they saw but did´nt interact. I believe if they helped and
get caught or betrayed, they also went to the Camps.
A lot of people helped anyway that time - risking everything.

[Mince]

kc wondered

Not necessarily. The core columns were right next to the elevator shafts. A few elevators could be shut down at a time without any notice at all. Work on the perimeter could be done at night, and covered up by morning. Might not have had to be several months either.

Would help if the security company was in on it, for sure. Anybody know anything about Securacom/Stratasec?



Surely the preset explosives, at the area of aircraft impact would have been destroyed or rendered utterly useless. So, then, is it not peculiar to you that is exactly where the collapse initiated? Where are the 'squibs' at the area of initial collapse? Also, how could the debris in all of the videos of the collapse be falling faster than freefall speed if the buildings are falling at freefall speed?

Caution: You will not be able to google these anwers. Your only source, Steven Jones, will not provide them for you. You'll have to think for yourself here. I apologize.

[ponderingturtle]

I'm sorry, are you saying the FBI, FEMA, NSA, and Special Forces are all "secret black ops under dictatorial control of the executive"?

That's... um... retarded...

The NSA are geeks in offices listening to and reading messages. They are geeks cracking file encryptions.

Black ops?


Everyone knows math Phd's make the best ninjas

[KingMerv00]

Surely the preset explosives, at the area of aircraft impact would have been destroyed or rendered utterly useless. So, then, is it not peculiar to you that is exactly where the collapse initiated?

Funny...why didn't I think of that? Even if some of the charges survived the impact, wouldn't it be unwise for the Conspiracy to rely on them?

I'm stealing this for the "absurdities list" thread.

[ponderingturtle]

Idiotic. How could it possibly fall FASTER ?


The large invisible rocket packs strapped to the outside of the building of course.

[Mince]

Code ? All you need to do is unplug them.


Not even that. Any transponder I've ever seen is complete with an on/off function.

wxw.avionicswest.com/images/gtx327.gif

TS1234: that you just made a seemingly authoritative assertion, regarding transponders, that is completely inaccurate, must lead me to believe that you did not reasearch it (beyond, maybe, reading about it on a CT website). Accordingly, I must now assume that nothing which you assert has been sufficiently researched.

[defaultdotxbe]

default propagandized

Default, of course they spent it. That's the point of money. You spend it on what you want. Suppose your employee was supposed to spend company money on office supplies for the business, but instead told you that the money was unaccounted for. Don't worry Mr. Default, it isn't missing, it's just unaccounted for. I'm sure I spent it on something, I just don't know what. Can I have some more money now?

Have you ever thought of writing copy for politicians?

It's not missing, it's unaccounted for! LOL

sigh, you missed my entire point

it WAS spent on office supplies and other piddle and crap, they just didnt keep any record of it

you act liek the DoD can just give up 2.3 trillion dollars out of their budget for paying people off and not feel it elsewhere, no more quilted toilet paper for rumsfelds private bathroom

[TruthSeeker1234]

Idiotic. How could it possibly fall FASTER [than free fall speed]?

I agree. The 9 second figure is NIST, not me.

[DarkMagician]

Everyone knows math Phd's make the best ninjas

I knew there was a reason I went into mathematics.

[defaultdotxbe]

I agree. The 9 second figure is NIST, not me.

as i stated already, the time is from the start of the collapse to when they could no longer measure it visually, it is not a total time for the entire collapse

[Regnad Kcin]

The evidence that 9/11 was an inside job is huge...See? That's what I mean about these people. There is none, nothing, no evidence whatsoever. And yet on and on they lie. Why? I'm curious.

[Josh Redstone]

The people who worked in the WTC were told that there was going to be new cable or something installed, so if they saw someone fooling around with something, it's OK. These men had an OK to go about their "work." They were laying bombs just a few days before the tragedy. So the WTC would collapse very fast.

Also, at this point, the planes were being flown by remote. One theory is the passengers were all gassed so as not to resist, and the planes flew via remote control.

kc440


That is absolute nonsense. Sorry to be late getting to it but it's a perfect example of something that doesn't stand up yet is still seriously entertained by CTers.
Think about how long it takes a building to be wired for demolition. It would have taken monthes, maybe even over a year to wire the towers. It is impossible for them to have been wired 'just a few days before the tragedy'. I have a source from this and will post the link as soon as I'm over 15 posts.

Why are these debunked theories still touted as fact? Do you CTers want this all to be true or something or are you just bored?

[Belz...]

I agree. The 9 second figure is NIST, not me.

You, sir, are a dishonest person of the worst order. You didn't even bother to read the other responses, one of which states that the 9 second figure was ONLY the time that the falling structured could be tracked visually. The actual collapse was longer.

[KingMerv00]

You, sir, are a dishonest person of the worst order. You didn't even bother to read the other responses, one of which states that the 9 second figure was ONLY the time that the falling structured could be tracked visually. The actual collapse was longer.

Don't forget that the ejected debris fell faster than "faster than freefall".

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I agree. The 9 second figure is NIST, not me.

At 9:58:59, the South Tower collapsed in ten seconds, source (http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/pdf/sec9.pdf) No estimated stated for North Tower.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=6&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.house.gov%2Fscience%2Fhot%2Fw tc%2Fwtc-report%2FWTC_ch2.pdf&ei=YqaaRPHhDo3QoALImaiMBA&sig2=k29dgwYq4F0RvDFt5J23xw : No estimates provided for collapse time.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=5&c=y 8-10 second estimate, based upon seismic data

http://www.jnani.org/mrking/writings/911/king911.htm#_Toc144445996 rebuttal to Jones' collapse time argument

http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_collapse_time_estimates.html collapse time estimates 8-14 seconds

Height of towers Height (ft) 1,368 source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wtc)

Let's check this, for freefall, in a vacuum we use X=at^2/2 or X= .5*a*t^2 where X=distance, a=9.8 m/s^2 and t=time. http://www.lerc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/mofall.html
X=.5*a*t^2
X=.5*9.8*t^2
X=4.9*t^2
0 seconds => X=0
1 seconds => X=4.9m
2 seconds => X=19.6m
3 seconds => X=44.1m
4 seconds => X=78.4m
5 seconds => X=122.5m
6 seconds => X=176.4m
7 seconds => X=240.1m
8 seconds => X=313.6m
9 seconds => X=396.9m = 1028.87139 feet
9.25 seconds => X=419.25625m = 1375.51263 feet
9.5 seconds => X=442.225m = 1450.86942 feet
10 seconds => X=490.0m = 1607.61155 feet

Now, please cite exactly where NIST said it fell in exactly 9 seconds.

[WildCat]

Don't forget that the ejected debris fell faster than "faster than freefall".
That's just proof of the new sooper-sekrit NSA explosives that shoot debris exclusively downward.

[Belz...]

Don't forget that the ejected debris fell faster than "faster than freefall".

I've got a new theory.

In the months prior to 9/11, a group of super-sekrit NSA ninjas went into the towers and installed, on every individual piece of steel column, a miniature rocket. This gravity-triggered device would fire once the piece was ejected from the structure, and would accelerate it downwards in a curved trajectory. This was, obviously, designed to fool skeptikz into believing that the collapse of the towers looked nothing suspicious.

[KingMerv00]

I've got a new theory.

In the months prior to 9/11, a group of super-sekrit NSA ninjas went into the towers and installed, on every individual piece of steel column, a miniature rocket. This gravity-triggered device would fire once the piece was ejected from the structure, and would accelerate it downwards in a curved trajectory. This was, obviously, designed to fool skeptikz into believing that the collapse of the towers looked nothing suspicious.

Ok that is just dumb. How is the goverment supposed to know exactly how the building will break up? How would they know where to put the rockets? Plus the super-sekrit NSA rockets might break then the thermate charges started to burn.

The answer? A thin nanomachine spray coating inside the building. These nanomachines convert concrete cores into rockets and rocket fuel. Much simpler.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Also,

6. How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds (WTC 1) and 9 seconds (WTC 2)—speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from similar height in a vacuum (with no air resistance)?

NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2. These elapsed times were based on: (1) precise timing of the initiation of collapse from video evidence, and (2) ground motion (seismic) signals recorded at Palisades, N.Y., that also were precisely time-calibrated for wave transmission times from lower Manhattan (see NCSTAR 1-5A).

As documented in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, these collapse times show that:

“… the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation.

Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.”

In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass.

From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse. Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
bolding mine

ETA: What this means is that it was not (and I've been saying this for months) a strictly top down collapse. The structure began collapsing and the entire structure began to fail as a whole. Therefore, timing the collapse is completely and utterly useless because it ignores the manner in which the structure failed. It is a red herring. EOF

[valis]

Jon said
Americans have been indoctrinated to believe that it is impossible for our leaders to do anything like this.


In which America do you live? I am in my forties and the vast majority of teachers that I had during my life were anything but trusting of the government. For pity's sake go to a University that offers an education major; you'll not find a hot bed of government conformity (I have a wife and a brother that are both school teachers). In fact the students at a teachers college would probably be more likely to belive the 'truth' nonsense than the average person.

[Mince]

Funny...why didn't I think of that?

What I find really funny is that all of the professional scientists, i.e. Steven Jones, either also never thought of this or did think of it but ignored its implications.

I'm stealing this for the "absurdities list" thread

Absolutely. Glad to contribute to the cause.

[tsig]

First, thanks for responding. I also hope you will soon produce what you consider to be the strongest evidence for an inside job on 9/11.




What is your expertise for making such a judgement? As I am sure you know, fire generates heat. Steel, when heated, loses strength. Lose enough strength and a steel structure will collapse.

This is very elementary physics and chemistry. Thus I find your statement "fire cannot cause steel framed skyscrapers to collapse" a bit... well... laughable.

On your other notes... what is your evidence that the WTC was "crushed into a fine powder"? I myself recall photos of ground zero including enormous chunks of steel.







I will assume you're referring to UA93. I'm not sure what you mean by "serialized parts". As for the rest - plenty of parts from an aircraft were found. It was all fairly small. That's what happens when fragile objects hit solid objects at high speed. I've personally seen car crashes that left "no recognisable parts". Not pleasant.






I'm not sure where to begin with this one.

1) Hani Hanjour had a commercial pilots license
2) He did not "navigate by instruments" - he used the autopilot. Anyone who is familiar with Microsoft Flight Simulator can do this. Incidentally, he ignored the standard autopilot input function, which is NOT in the computer game, and instead used the less-commonly used basic autopilot function, which IS reproduced accurately in Microsoft Flight Simulator
3) Finding The Pentagon is relatively easy. Visibility was excellent, and it is the largest office building in the world.
4) There is nothing remotely precise about his approach.
5) The radar operators were stunned to see a commercial aircraft flying in a way that was dangerous and uncomfortable for passengers.
6) I doubt Hanjour specifically aimed to knock over the light poles





The hijackers did not input a code. They used a more physical method of disabling the transponders. I believe Boeing has since addressed this problem.





Why? Government agencies run exercises all the time.





I'm not sure what you mean by "just happened". There was hot iron (it wasn't actually molten, but never mind) at GZ, of course. The buildings had been on fire, and subterranean fires burn for a very long time - there are underground fires in Australia that have been burning for millenia. Sulfur is present in the drywall of the WTC in large quanities. I'd be surprised if there wasn't sulfur at GZ.






I don't see why. There's only so many ways a large building can collapse due to structural failure.






Well that's just completely false. There was one wargame on 9.11, it was a Command Post Exercise (it didn't involve any operational units), there were no "false radar blips", and there was no "plane crashing into building" scenario.

I must warn you, this is the aspect of 9/11 I know the most about. You won't get far making false claims in this issue.






Put options are put on stock when you think it will fall. They were put on AA and Boeing stocks, not United. And the numbers were lower than had occured on other dates in recent months. The Airline industry was in a recession. It was a safe bet.





In one particular frame, no. I can personally attest to how appearance can change drastically depending on lighting, lens size, framing, and camera angle. The lower the image quality, the more easily distortion occurs.

In other frames on the same video is looks very much like Osama Bin Laden.

-Andrew

Controlled demolitions are designed to induce structual failure, so how can they tell the difference beween cd' and simple structual failure?

[Bell]

Controlled demolitions are designed to induce structual failure, so how can they tell the difference beween cd' and simple structual failure?

It's the squibs, you foo'
The squibs!!!1!

[TruthSeeker1234]

Now, please cite exactly where NIST said it fell in exactly 9 seconds.

NIST said

6. How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds (WTC 1) and 9 seconds (WTC 2)—speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from similar height in a vacuum (with no air resistance)?
NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2.


http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

[defaultdotxbe]

NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2.
so basicly their measurements are near freefall because they measured how long it took the freefalling debris to hit the ground, a look at any picture or video will show the exterior panels falling well ahead of the bulk of the collapse

[WildCat]

NIST said




http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
Is there something wrong with your reading comprehension? I'll bold the important part for you:
NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2.
This isn't the time for the complete collapse.

[LashL]

That is absolute nonsense. Sorry to be late getting to it but it's a perfect example of something that doesn't stand up yet is still seriously entertained by CTers.
Think about how long it takes a building to be wired for demolition. It would have taken monthes, maybe even over a year to wire the towers. It is impossible for them to have been wired 'just a few days before the tragedy'. I have a source from this and will post the link as soon as I'm over 15 posts.

Why are these debunked theories still touted as fact? Do you CTers want this all to be true or something or are you just bored?

Josh, you can post the url but just change www to wXw and I (or someone else) will gladly reproduce it as a live link for you.

[LashL]

NIST said




http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

R-e-a-d-i-n-g

C-o-m-p-r-e-h-e-n-s-i-o-n

Look it up.

Then learn how to implement it. It requires reading and understanding entire sentences, not just the words you like.

[apathoid]

NIST said

6. How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds (WTC 1) and 9 seconds (WTC 2)—speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from similar height in a vacuum (with no air resistance)?
NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

:dig:

You should've quit when you were ahead. Next strawman Lieteller1+2=4?
You havent pulled out the "pull it" ca(na)rd yet, what are you waiting for?

[Mince]

NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2.

This isn't the time for the complete collapse.

Right. These numbers describe the speed at which objects with mass fall near the surface of planet Earth, with only air offering resistance. This is otherwise known as free-fall. (as close as you can get to it in our atmosphere). The deniers claim that the substantive matter (the core of the building) itself collapsed at free-fall speed. In every video of the collapse I've seen, the debris falls significantly faster than the substantive matter. So the obvious question remains:*

If the building itself is traveling at free-fall speed in all of the videos, what is causing the debris to fall and considerably greater than free-fall speed?



*I've repeatedly asked this question; but no denier has ever offered even their typical pseudo-scientific, uninformed explanations for this anomaly.


Is it too much to hope that a bunch of 9/11 deniers all take the same flight en route to yet another meaningless conference sponsored by their god, Alex Jones; and the plane gets hijacked by radical Muslim terrorists? No one gets hurt, but the deniers get so frightened that they are forced to acknowledge and repent their own patent stupidity.

[KingMerv00]

Right. These numbers describe the speed at which objects with mass fall near the surface of planet Earth, with only air offering resistance. This is otherwise known as free-fall. (as close as you can get to it in our atmosphere). The deniers claim that the substantive matter (the core of the building) itself collapsed at free-fall speed. In every video of the collapse I've seen, the debris falls significantly faster than the substantive matter. So the obvious question remains:*

If the building itself is traveling at free-fall speed in all of the videos, what is causing the debris to fall and considerably greater than free-fall speed?



*I've repeatedly asked this question; but no denier has ever offered even their typical pseudo-scientific, uninformed explanations for this anomaly.


Is it too much to hope that a bunch of 9/11 deniers all take the same flight en route to yet another meaningless conference sponsored by their god, Alex Jones; and the plane gets hijacked by radical Muslim terrorists? No one gets hurt, but the deniers get so frightened that they are forced to acknowledge and repent their own patent stupidity.

I've heard CTist say that the debris was blown downward by the explosion.

:boxedin:

Don't look at me like that. THEY said it not me!

[Josh Redstone]

Josh, you can post the url but just change www to wXw and I (or someone else) will gladly reproduce it as a live link for you.

Thankyou :)

Here is the link - http ://xbehome.com/screwloosechange/pictures/
WTC_COLLAPSE_STUDY_BBlanchard_8-8-06.pdf

Incidently I forgot that there isn't a www in the name after all but thankyou for your help anyway (I left a space between the http and the : so that I could still post it)

[rwguinn]

Thankyou :)

Here is the link - http ://xbehome.com/screwloosechange/pictures/
WTC_COLLAPSE_STUDY_BBlanchard_8-8-06.pdf

Incidently I forgot that there isn't a www in the name after all but thankyou for your help anyway (I left a space between the http and the : so that I could still post it)
here (http://xbehome.com/screwloosechange/pictures/WTC_COLLAPSE_STUDY_BBlanchard_8-8-06.pdf)

[TruthSeeker1234]

The 9 second thing was from NIST. Not me. Absolutely correct that trying to pin down total collapse times is not possible. You can't see the roof hit. A better approach is the one used by Legge. He doesn't look at the total time, he plots the measured times all along the way, and compares that to free-fall in a vacuum, and compares curves.

Both towers, and especially WTC7, exhibit something very close to free fall.

One of my favorite researchers is Jim Hoffman, he uses 15 seconds as a the estimated collapse time for the twin towers, and I think that is reasonable based on the videos.

[Mince]

One of my favorite researchers is Jim Hoffman, he uses 15 seconds as a the estimated collapse time for the twin towers, and I think that is reasonable based on the videos.

15 seconds is approximately 50% longer than free-fall speed. That is a huge disparity. Are you actually admitting that the buildings did not fall at free-fall speed?

[apathoid]

The 9 second thing was from NIST. Not me. Absolutely correct that trying to pin down total collapse times is not possible. You can't see the roof hit. A better approach is the one used by Legge. He doesn't look at the total time, he plots the measured times all along the way, and compares that to free-fall in a vacuum, and compares curves.

Both towers, and especially WTC7, exhibit something very close to free fall.

One of my favorite researchers is Jim Hoffman, he uses 15 seconds as a the estimated collapse time for the twin towers, and I think that is reasonable based on the videos.

I don't think you understand, please re-read the last several replies directed at you. I am starting to think you either have a learning disorder, a major reading comprehension problem or you're only glancing at replies and not reading them. Start reading.

You said NIST said that the towers fell in 9 seconds. You were wrong and were quickly corrected, will you acknowledge your mistake? Just once would be nice.

[defaultdotxbe]

The 9 second thing was from NIST. Not me. Absolutely correct that trying to pin down total collapse times is not possible. You can't see the roof hit. A better approach is the one used by Legge. He doesn't look at the total time, he plots the measured times all along the way, and compares that to free-fall in a vacuum, and compares curves.

Both towers, and especially WTC7, exhibit something very close to free fall.

One of my favorite researchers is Jim Hoffman, he uses 15 seconds as a the estimated collapse time for the twin towers, and I think that is reasonable based on the videos.

so you agree its impossible to time the collapse exactly

you acknowledge that 9 seconds is not a total collapse time

you state that your favored researcher estimates the time 15 seconds

so why did you initially claim 9 seconds? if you yourself belive the towers collapsed in 15 seconds why use a smaller number? unless you are deliberately trying to decieve us

[R.Mackey]

Well, well, well, look who's still here.

After your disappointing other thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=63535), wherein you open with a hilarious strawman, proceed to answer no questions at all, get caught in several lies, and finally abandon it altogether, I thought you might have given up.

So how are we doing here? Let's roll the tape:

The orignal holocaust denial came from the rank and file people of Germany, who simply could not believe their government would do something like that. (Argument from incredulity, despite evidence). Such is the case with 9/11. People simply can not believe that officials in their government would do such a thing, despite the evidence.
Wow. Just... wow.

You could use that argument to "prove" the existence of everything from aliens to Compassionate Conservatism.

Did you ever get around to explaining yourself? Where are we now? Let's see:

The 9 second thing was from NIST. Not me. Absolutely correct that trying to pin down total collapse times is not possible. You can't see the roof hit. A better approach is the one used by Legge. He doesn't look at the total time, he plots the measured times all along the way, and compares that to free-fall in a vacuum, and compares curves.

Both towers, and especially WTC7, exhibit something very close to free fall.

One of my favorite researchers is Jim Hoffman, he uses 15 seconds as a the estimated collapse time for the twin towers, and I think that is reasonable based on the videos.
Oh, c'mon, not that old canard again. People already explained to you what NIST actually said, that the "9 seconds" refers to impact of the first pieces of debris hitting ground, the ones that fell off to the sides and, were, y'know, freefalling. That shouldn't shock anyone.

And then you say that "trying to pin down collapse times is not possible" and in the same post claim that "both towers exhibit something very close to freefall."

Looks like y'all are doing just fine. Wake me up when we get some evidence, or even a lucid question.

[DavidJames]

Wake me up when we get some evidence, or even a lucid question.Your (well deserved) rest will be long and peaceful.

[Axiom_Blade]

The people who worked in the WTC were told that there was going to be new cable or something installed, so if they saw someone fooling around with something, it's OK. These men had an OK to go about their "work." They were laying bombs just a few days before the tragedy. So the WTC would collapse very fast.

Also, at this point, the planes were being flown by remote. One theory is the passengers were all gassed so as not to resist, and the planes flew via remote control.

And another theory is that it was all an illusion, created by Bush's Satanic, Bohemian Grove, magick powers.
Where's your proof for all this?

[Kent1]

Often after these guys get worked they become more delusional.
Sometimes (like this case) they turn into trolls or spam bots.
Sad that he had picked 9/11 on post this garbage:(

I'd almost request that it get removed, but at the same time it shows us how low these type of people can sink.

[Bell]

And another theory is that it was all an illusion, created by Bush's Satanic, Bohemian Grove, magick powers.
Where's your proof for all this?

Proof? They don't need proof.
They are just asking questions.

The burden of proof is on the perpetrators.

Or something.

[gumboot]

Something to consider...

The NIST times for the FIRST pieces of debris to hit the ground are 9 seconds (WTC2) and 11 seconds (WTC1).

But of course, that first debris did not fall from the TOP - it fell from the impact point. The impact point in WTC2 was well below the top of the building. So even the NIST time for the FIRST pieces to hit the ground is considerably longer than freefall (considering, at that speed, how much difference 1 second makes).

Assuming an even spread of floor spacing, from the 78th floor you're talking about 294 metres to the ground.

That's 7.75 seconds for freefall.

-Andrew

[R.Mackey]

But of course, that first debris did not fall from the TOP - it fell from the impact point. The impact point in WTC2 was well below the top of the building. So even the NIST time for the FIRST pieces to hit the ground is considerably longer than freefall (considering, at that speed, how much difference 1 second makes).

It's possible the impact broke some pieces loose above the impact point, and that the first debris did fall from close to the top. From my recollection of the video, however, you are right -- the first pieces to be broken free and ejected to the side probably did so at the interface, viz. the impact point.

I've never understood what the CT's argument here is supposed to prove.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

It's possible the impact broke some pieces loose above the impact point, and that the first debris did fall from close to the top. From my recollection of the video, however, you are right -- the first pieces to be broken free and ejected to the side probably did so at the interface, viz. the impact point.

I've never understood what the CT's argument here is supposed to prove.

I think I understand their thought process on this (Ed help me). The feel the pancake collapse idea meant that floor 107 hit floor 106, 106 failed hitting 105, 105 failed hitting 104, etc. Therefore, if floor 107 hit the ground in 9 seconds it fell faster than freefall in the vacuum and therefore lower floors must have been demo'd to allow it to freefall rather than encounter resistence from lower floors. Of course, this entire assumption is flawed since the structural failure started at the point of impact and was not perfectly serial in nature.

[shuize]

Both towers, and especially WTC7, exhibit something very close to free fall.

One of my favorite researchers is Jim Hoffman, he uses 15 seconds as a the estimated collapse time for the twin towers, and I think that is reasonable based on the videos.

Fifteen seconds is not even close to free-fall. 6/15 = .4 = 40% slower. Here, let me give you an example along the same time scale to emphasize this point. World class sprinters can run 100 meters in sub-10 seconds. Even my fat ass can do it in 15.

Would you say I'm "very close" to being as fast as Asafa Powell?*

* World record holder 100 meter dash (9.77 seconds).

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Fifteen seconds is not even close to free-fall. 6/15 = .4 = 40% slower. Here, let me give you an example along the same time scale to emphasize this point. World class sprinters can run 100 meters in sub-10 seconds. Even my fat ass can do it in 15.

Would you say I'm "very close" to being as fast as Asafa Powell?*

* World record holder 100 meter dash (9.77 seconds).

Another way to put it in perspective is that in 15 seconds you could fall

X = 4.9*15^2 = 1102.5m = 3617.12598 feet which is ~2.64 times taller than the WTC 1 & 2 towers stood.

[Belz...]

The 9 second thing was from NIST. Not me. Absolutely correct that trying to pin down total collapse times is not possible. You can't see the roof hit. A better approach is the one used by Legge. He doesn't look at the total time, he plots the measured times all along the way, and compares that to free-fall in a vacuum, and compares curves.

Both towers, and especially WTC7, exhibit something very close to free fall.

One of my favorite researchers is Jim Hoffman, he uses 15 seconds as a the estimated collapse time for the twin towers, and I think that is reasonable based on the videos.

You're contradicting yourself, here. Was it 9 or 15 ?

Also, read the responses to your NIST claim. It wasn't the complete collapse that was timed.

[TruthSeeker1234]

I'm not contradicting myself. With the towers, you have building dissociating into dust and shredded steel in mid air. There is no "it" to mearsure really.

The best way to look at the "free fall" issue is what Legge did.

http://worldtradecentertruth.com/Journal_2_Evidence_for_demolition_20.pdf

Instead of just measuring the total collapse times, which we all agree is impossible because of the huge clouds, Legge did something more scientific. He plotted a curve with seperate positions on one axis and corresponding times on the other. He then compared that curve and those points to theoretical free fall. Arkan has provided the same type of starting data upthread.



Guess what? The curve and the points fit very well together. A building bumping and grinding and pulverizing itself could not match this curve, because every impact would not only slow the fall, but would make it irregular.

Again, we have an apparent violation of the 2nd law. This near-perfect fit of the curves is not going to happen by random accident, which is what we're being asked to believe.

WTC7, of course, is more obvious. Legge did the same type of analysis there and the curves fit again. With WTC7, we can measure the time the roof line falls to the ground, and it's 6.5 seconds, +/- .2 seconds. Free fall in a vacuum in 6.0. Free fall with air resistance would be something very much like 6.5 seconds.

Arkan, using your free fall distances and times from above, you could attempt to confirm or refute Legge. WHy don't you give it a go?

[DavidJames]

I will refute your claims, point by point with the same level of elegance, evidence and analysis with which they were made.

Again, we have an apparent violation of the 2nd law. no we don't

This near-perfect fit of the curves is not going to happen by random accidentsure it could


Please could the mods move this to the science forum, I'm concerned the technical depth of lierproclaimer1234's arguments may confound and confuse.

[kookbreaker]

WTC7, of course, is more obvious. Legge did the same type of analysis there and the curves fit again. With WTC7, we can measure the time the roof line falls to the ground, and it's 6.5 seconds, +/- .2 seconds. Free fall in a vacuum in 6.0. Free fall with air resistance would be something very much like 6.5 seconds.


Did Legge account for the Penthouse collapse? Or does that part not count for some reason?

[chipmunk stew]

Did Legge account for the Penthouse collapse? Or does that part not count for some reason?
If you count that, it would disconfirm his bias. Ergo, it doesn't count. QED

[CptColumbo]

Did Legge account for the Penthouse collapse? Or does that part not count for some reason?

Did he account for the armory and diesel tanks? Did he account for it's unusual support structure?

[KingMerv00]

Are we clear then? The twin towers fell much slower than free fall right?

No CD?

[chipmunk stew]

Are we clear then? The twin towers fell much slower than free fall right?

No CD?
He's started another thread. Apparently he's conceded this argument.

[KingMerv00]

He's started another thread. Apparently he's conceded this argument.

Nah, he didn't concede. That behavior is in line with the Kent Hovind style of debate. Make dozens of scattershot claims and let your opponent pick them up.

It is fine if he wants to discuss WTC 7 but he should realize he just implied that the Towers were not demolished.

[CurtC]

Again, we have an apparent violation of the 2nd law.
Really? Please show your calculations of the system entropy before and after the collapses.

[Loss Leader]

Nah, he didn't concede. That behavior is in line with the Kent Hovind style of debate. Make dozens of scattershot claims and let your opponent pick them up.


He also likes to make insane analogies and then force us to defend them - like this whole Holocaust thing.

But he's gone from this thread so none of it really matters.

[Belz...]

Guess what? The curve and the points fit very well together. A building bumping and grinding and pulverizing itself could not match this curve, because every impact would not only slow the fall, but would make it irregular.

You DO know that real controlled demolitions don't actually do so at free-fall speeds ?

Again, we have an apparent violation of the 2nd law. This near-perfect fit of the curves is not going to happen by random accident, which is what we're being asked to believe.

You don't have a clue what you're talking about. The 2nd law was not violated, nor does it appear to. That has nothing to do with the matter at hand.