911 CT absurdities list.

[MRC_Hans]

I guess most of us (us skeptics) are aware that the 911 CTs are full of absurdities, but I thought it would be useful to sum them up.

Let us begin with the WTC.

Let us assume that the US Government (or somebody within it) actually wanted to fake a terrorist attack, presumabley to get an excuse for going to war (for whatever reason).

So, the plan is to fake a situation where muslim terrorists hijack passenger planes and fly them into the towers. This is already a far call, because such an act is unprecedented. All previous terrorist attacks have been performed by detonating bombs brought in on ground vehicles, sometimes involving suicide bombers, sometimes not.

Absurdity #1: Why fake something as elaborate and unprecedented to simulate a terrorist attack, when a truckload of explosives would have been immidiately recognized by the public as a terrorist attack?

Going on, while planning the plane attacks, it was realized that such an attack might not make the buildings collapse, so demolition charges had to be secretly planted in busy commerce buildings to .... to what? Planes hitting them would surely do the job? Had the buildings not collapsed, the upper parts (above the impact points) would have been ravaged by uncontrollable fires, that would probably have raged for days, killing most or all persons above the impact points. Wouldn't that have been quite sufficiently for the purpose? (OBL thought so, he did not expect the buildings to collapse.)

Absurdity #2: Why run the enormous extra risk of placing demolition charges (assuming it could be done at all), when crashing planes into the buildings would be more than enough?

Absurdety #3: Why demolish WTC7?

Then comes the Pentagon: Surely WTC would serve to enrage the population, while the Pentagon, being basically a military target, will be viewed much more pragmatically by many. So, why simulate an attack on the Pentagon? Since you are faking the whole thing, why not take something with a more symbolic value the the US population?

Absurdety #4: While the symbolism of the Pentagon is evident for muslim terrorists, a faked attack could have much more effective targets (e. g. the Pearl Harbour).

CTers claim that the Pentagon was not hit by a plane, but alternately by a missile or a planted charge (they can't seem to make their minds up).

Absurdety #5: Since the routine of flying planes into things was already well established, why suddenly change the tactics for the Pentagon?

Finally, in the scope of things, what use is flight 93? CTers claim this crash is faked, complete with voice synthesis faked phone calls. For what purpose? How does flight 93 serve any purpose worth such an elaborate scheme?

Absurdety #6: Flight 93 is completely superfluous for an inside job (but makes perfect sense in a real terrorist attack).

These were just the gross incongruencies. Going into detail, I'm sure we can reach #100.

Hans

[gumboot]

Going on, while planning the plane attacks, it was realized that such an attack might not make the buildings collapse, so demolition charges had to be secretly planted in busy commerce buildings to .... to what? Planes hitting them would surely do the job? Had the buildings not collapsed, the upper parts (above the impact points) would have been ravaged by uncontrollable fires, that would probably have raged for days, killing most or all persons above the impact points.


Oooh, that's actually a really good point, and something I didn't think of.

What's the scenario if the buildings didn't collapse?

From what I recall the vast overwhelming percentage of fatalities were people trapped in the buildings above the impact point (or killed in the impact itself). The only other major fatality group were first responders.

You'd probably have been looking at a very similar fatality list if the towers hadn't collapsed. Based on the 911 calls, the people above the impact knew they were doomed before collapse came into the equation - the heat was unbearable and FDNY abandoned any efforts to actually put the fire out within a matter of minutes of ariving.

-Andrew

[KingMerv00]

Absurdity #7: No planes.



http://radified.com/911/JPEGs/911_plane_03.jpg



http://911review.org/images/net/wtc.pkl.net/plane1.jpg


http://www.adabyron.net/images/Plane2on911.jpg

[Bell]

Absurdety #4: While the symbolism of the Pentagon is evident for muslim terrorists, a faked attack could have much more effective targets (e. g. the Pearl Harbour).

CTers claim that the Pentagon was not hit by a plane, but alternately by a missile or a planted charge (they can't seem to make their minds up).

Absurdety #5: Since the routine of flying planes into things was already well established, why suddenly change the tactics for the Pentagon?



Actually, seems like it is getting harder and harder for the troofers to denie that there was a plane. So now they are talking of a plane flying very low over the Pentagon.

I guess during that fly over, it dropped lampposts and a cruise missile from the bombbay?

[chran]

Absurdity #8: The high sulphur-content in the ruins show that Therm(a)ite was used in a controlled demolition.

This is easily explained by the gypsum cladding (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gypsum) used, ironically enough, for fire-proofing. It has a sulphur content of 19%

[shuize]

Although it has been mentioned before ad nauseam, here's another twist on the "Why a government willing and able to murder 3,000 civilians without a hitch would allow a couple of college punks to expose their evil deeds" absurdity this thread inspired.

See, CTers want everyone to believe that the evil government needed the Pentagon attack as the extra little cherry on top to get Americans to go along with their War On Terror and that the military or extra-super-secret NWO guys would willingly attack their own. No questions asked.

But maybe what the CTers are saying sort of makes sense. See, maybe during the middle of planning simultaneous attacks on New York city and the thousands upon thousands of man-hours needed for organizing the wiring of the towers, recruiting Middle Eastern patsies, coordinating with the police and firemen to be ready to "pull it" at just the right time, making sure enough personnel and transportation was on hand to quickly remove evidence from the scene (not to mention the gold from the tower vaults), planning for NORAD to stand down, arranging for actors to fake phone calls and preping the MSM for its role as shill -- Yeah, maybe in the middle of all that someone stood up and said, "Hey, you know what we really need? Let's hit the Pentagon too while we're at it."


The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced the LC guys either know they're spouting crap or are the biggest f*cking morons on the planet.

[stateofgrace]

One of the biggest absurdities I can think of is that the cters actually believe somebody in the US Government authorized this.

Can anybody honestly imagine this happening?

Take for example the Pentagon.

“Ok guys here are what we are going to do. We are going to fire something (for this example a missile) at the Pentagon and make out it was a hijacked plane. This will involve naturally actually hijacking a plane ourselves, full of innocent people and taking them somewhere else. We are going to do this in broad daylight, in full view of potentially hundreds of witnesses, who may or may not have hand held camcorders, capture it and give the game away straight away. And here is the kicker we are then going to involve hundreds of people on the ground, plant body parts, plane parts and both black boxes. We are going to let CCTV capture it all and just for effect we are going to knock over a few lamp posts. Hopefully nobody will notice."

" Great plan, when do we start? "

I mean really, nobody is this stupid and nobody would ever suggest this and it certainly would never get of the ground.

This is just the Pentagon, Imagine putting forward plans for the Towers, WTC 7, and god knows what else these guys think happened.

Absurd.

[Class]

Absurdity #10: The government has no problem with killing nearly 3,000 of their own citizens but do not kill the 19 supposed hijackers.

Sure, 3,000 American citizens they have no problem killing, but 19 Middle Eastern men? No way, Jose!

[R.Mackey]

The thing I've never understood is, if the 767's weren't enough to wipe out the WTC towers, why didn't "they" use 747's?

[gumboot]

I think the simpliest nail in the CT coffin is right there in their faces through history.

You want a big horrible event like the terrorist would carry out?

Simple. You set an enormous number of charges in the WTC basement (a lot easier to do) and you blow the bottom out of one of the towers, letting it fall into the other one. THAT is what the terrorists wanted in 1993.

Throw a massive amount of explosives in there, and say the terrorist used X many truck bombs or whatever.

Done and delivered.

-Andrew

[Triterope]

Absurdity #11. Insurance companies will pay your $1.2 billion claim, even if you ordered your own property destroyed, and admitted it to the media.

Absurdity #12. Controlled demolitions routinely scatter debris over several square blocks, damaging beyond repair other expensive buildings that were not targeted for demolition.

Absurdity #13. Airline stocks as a motivation for the attacks. This operation took years to plan, cost thousands of dollars to train the operatives, sacrificed 19 of its own people, killed thousands of civilians, did billions of dollars in property damage, and incited the United States to take military action... just to make a few million on a stock deal. Doesn't this seem like overkill?

[TruthSeeker1234]

This is a great thread. I'll address each of these points, but I'll wait till it fills up some more. Keep going. Make this an exhaustive list of everything you guys find absurd or implausible about the inside job theory, and I'll come back in a few days and answer point by point.

[KingMerv00]

Absurity #14: Mass murderers are rare (Gacy, Charles Whitman, McVeigh, etc.) but the US government could find thousands to pull off the deed.

[twinstead]

This is a great thread. I'll address each of these points, but I'll wait till it fills up some more. Keep going. Make this an exhaustive list of everything you guys find absurd or implausible about the inside job theory, and I'll come back in a few days and answer point by point.

It would be nice if you would answer, or even acknowledge, the many rational and well-thought out point-by-point responses to the many bogus things you have brought up lately. That would be a better start, no?

Hate to break the news to you, but every single reason you claim for believing 911 was an inside job has been shown to be wrong or irrelevant, both on this board, and many others. It would be helpful to we lurkers if you could actually respond to these rebuttals instead of bringing up more stuff.

For example, I would love for you to explain away the loads of evidence Gravy has posted on this board concerning flight 93. You just ignore it. You ignore every rebuttal to your posts by simply throwing out another bit of 'evidence'. Just once I'd like to see you stick to a single topic and PROVE it.

So please, for criminy's sake, throw us lurkers a bone, huh?

[RenaissanceBiker]

Absurdity #15: Bush agrees to be reading a story to school children when all this occurs. He then pretends to sit stunned for several minutes before allowing himself to be whisked off by the Secret Service.

The neocons would have arranged for Bush to leap into action looking very much the leader they wish he was.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Absurdity# 16: The use of mostly Saudi nationals instead of a mix of Syrian, Iraqi and Iranians.

[KingMerv00]

Absurdity #17(credit goes to Mince):

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?

Even if some of the charges survived the impact, wouldn't it be unwise for the Conspiracy to rely on them?

[Dog Town]

#18
Bill....ions of dollars worth of ,insured, gold stolen! Insurance not collected, or reported?

[apathoid]

Absudity 19.

If 9/11 was engineered as a pretext for war based on the (fake)threat of WMD. Why didnt the invasion forces simply plant some our own really nasty stuff and pin it on Saddam? Instead of looking like liars and morons?
Any ideas? Too difficult maybe?

[DavidJames]

Absudity 19.

If 9/11 was engineered as a pretext for war based on the (fake)threat of WMD. Why didnt the invasion forces simply plant some our own really nasty stuff and pin it on Saddam? Instead of looking like liars and morons?
Any ideas? Too difficult maybe?I have seen that addressed by CTist saying the WMD's could be traced back to the U.S.

Somehow in their twisted mind, the U.S. govt. is unable to cover up the trial of a couple of chemcial weapons, but can arrange 757 flyovers, remote controlled airplanes, shooting down commercial jets, load up the TT's with explosives, etc.etc. etc.

This goes back to my comment about CTists preferring the complex vs. the simple.

[KingMerv00]

Absudity 19.

If 9/11 was engineered as a pretext for war based on the (fake)threat of WMD. Why didnt the invasion forces simply plant some our own really nasty stuff and pin it on Saddam? Instead of looking like liars and morons?
Any ideas? Too difficult maybe?

A dirty bomb would have worked fine. All the Conspiracy would have to do is "trace" the uranium back to Iraq. So friggin simple by comparison.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

This is a great thread. I'll address each of these points, but I'll wait till it fills up some more. Keep going. Make this an exhaustive list of everything you guys find absurd or implausible about the inside job theory, and I'll come back in a few days and answer point by point.

Absurdity #20: This promise will likely never be fulfilled.

[Oliver]

I guess most of us (us skeptics) are aware that the 911 CTs are full of absurdities, but I thought it would be useful to sum them up.

They are all crap at all. But i would like to hear
from you guys: What´s left? What´s worth to
look into?

Regards,
Oliver

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

They are all crap at all. But i would like to hear
from you guys: What´s left? What´s worth to
look into?

Regards,
Oliver

* The irregularities highlighted in the Vanity Fair article with regard to the NEAS recordings.
* The failure of the US intelligence/law-enforcement communities cooperation and information exchange.
* The lack of WMDs in Iraq
* The lack of real security improvements since 9/11 (still no full searching of cargo on passenger planes, the craptacular screeners (at least around here)), etc

This is just another of the dangers of the CTists; they distract from real issues that need to be addressed.

[David Wong]

#21 - All of the workers at the Pentagon, including secretaries and IT guys and janitors and workers from Verizon and everyone else who was standing around in the aftermath, watched as truck after truck pulled up and mysterious government agents started spreading shredded airplane parts on the lawn. No one considered this strange.

[Nihilanth]

This is a great thread. I'll address each of these points, but I'll wait till it fills up some more. Keep going. Make this an exhaustive list of everything you guys find absurd or implausible about the inside job theory, and I'll come back in a few days and answer point by point.

A few days? You can't answer any of this stuff NOW? What, you got pressing business over in Wackoland, you can't take a few minutes to set us right on any one of these points? Or is it going to take a few days to either a)make stuff up, or b) wait for people to forget about this. I mean, seriously, why do you have to wait until it fills up more before you deign to illuminate us with your superior knowledge?

ANYWAY, sorry, everybody. To make up for me jumping off the handle like that, I suggest you guys check out the 9/11 conspiracy theory entry in the Rotten Library (http://www.rotten.com/library/conspiracy/september_11_conspiracy_theories/)

Here's one of my favorite quotes from it:

"Meyssan, who is not a journalist no matter how hard he tries, was drawn to the case when he noticed that the images of the jet that crashed into the Pentagon just didn't look right. It's unclear how he reached this conclusion, since a jet had never crashed into the Pentagon before"

So don't say I never gave you guys nothin'.

[shuize]

Similar to what's been posted above, but just in case absurdity # 20 is not true, absurdity # 22:

It's really no trouble to wire two buildings the size of the towers with enough explosives to achieve "free fall" without anyone noticing.

Come to think of it, that's another absurdity right there -- Why not simplify the operation by half and just blow up/crash a plane into one tower? Oh, I forgot, because killing say 1,500 citizens instead of 3,000 just wouldn't be enough to convince Americans that terrorism was a problem, right?

[Class]

#21 - All of the workers at the Pentagon, including secretaries and IT guys and janitors and workers from Verizon and everyone else who was standing around in the aftermath, watched as truck after truck pulled up and mysterious government agents started spreading shredded airplane parts on the lawn. No one considered this strange.

Add on to that the fact that the security gate camera footage does not show anyone driving up and scattering debris on the lawn.

[kevin]

What´s left?

vote the current morons out of office.

[jhunter1163]

#23 - Pentagon officials canceled their travel plans on 9/10.

So they could be in the Pentagon when the plane hit?

[Mince]

#23 - Pentagon officials canceled their travel plans on 9/10.

So they could be in the Pentagon when the plane hit?

Right. And why did they cancel travel plans when they new exactly which flights would be hijacked?

[shuize]

Absurdity # 24:

After executing a flawless operation involving a conspiracy the scale of which the world has never seen and not one of the presumably hundreds if not thousands of co-conspirators has come forward with information, a couple of obnoxious college kids uncover the "truth."

[kevin]

Absuridity (I forget which number): Everything that happened was exactly and precisely as planned.

Every dip and turn and elevation change made was done on purpose, no other pilot could follow those exact changes, therefore they must be expert pilots.

Simple example for this. Sign your name. Have someone try to exactly follow your signature. Does this mean they are incapable of writing?

[David Wong]

#26 Donald Rumsfeld was in the Pentagon when it was hit... but he just happened to be in a different section than was hit. A building with five sections... what are the odds that he would just happen to be in one of the other four?

Gotta be a thousand to one. Clearly he was in on it.

[Arus808]

Absurdity # 24:

After executing a flawless operation involving a conspiracy the scale of which the world has never seen and not one of the presumably hundreds if not thousands of co-conspirators has come forward with information, a couple of obnoxious drop-outcollege kids uncover the "truth."


Dylan Avery never finished college...(edited to add in that fact)

[shuize]

Absurdity # 27

Every licensed structural engineer in the country is in on the conspiracy. That's the only reason none of them have come forward to debunk the "official" version of how the towers fell.

[kevin]

Absurdity - Can't keep secret Generals pissed at not getting enough men for after war, can't keep secret illegal wiretaps, can't keep secret buying information from phone companies, can't keep secret cia prisons, can't keep secret prision torture. Can keep secret murder of thousands of own civilians and soldiers.

[Oliver]

vote the current morons out of office.

I´m sorry, Kevin. After seeing all the debunkings
you guys made, there´s nothing left to me in the
main issues of LC and co. Everything seems to be
speculation - and that´s not my world, because i
can specualte that it was bush, who was the first
one on the moon - or the first one who was´nt.
And we could discuss that until the moon does
suicide down on us to stop us speculating. :D

@Thank you Arkan, i appriciate the issues you
reffered to. I look for my own tomorrow to get
a picture of these undiscovered, open issues.

Sweet dreams,
Oliver

[jhunter1163]

Oh, don't give it up so soon, Oliver. No one's even mentioned Shanksville yet. That should be good for a couple dozen more absurdities.

[Bell]

#28 (I guess?) FDNY firechief was in on it because he 'pulled' WTC 7. But had no trouble (or guilt afterward) to have 343 of NY bravest die in the Towers?

[Triterope]

Right. And why did they cancel travel plans when they new exactly which flights would be hijacked?

More to the point, if they knew this attack was coming, why did they make conflicting travel plans in the first place?

[Mince]

29. Those who posit that flight 77 never hit the pentagon use the errors contained in the FDR to support their arguments.

xxx(dot)forums. randi. org/showthread. php?t=62446

Wait. If no plane hit the pentagon, which FDR is this? And if it's a Govt. fabricated FDR, why the errors?

Hmm. Maybe someone from the conspiracy intentionally applied the errors in an attempt to tell the world about the conspiracy without actually telling the world about the conspiracy.

[stateofgrace]

30. All the calls from Flight 93 were faked and used special voice morphing technology. This fooled the family members who received these calls into believing the hijacking was real. This would also involve more people in an already complex plan. Solution: disable all air phones and ensure NO calls was made.

[shuize]

Absurdity # 31

OK, maybe this isn't directly related to the attacks, but I think it's absurd that most of the people in the U.S. who claim to believe the government organized 9/11 still pay taxes and social security.

[Bell]

#32. Have any of the troofers taken all their evidence to court? What did they do to bring the ones responsible to justice? What? Nuffing???

[Dog Town]

#33
The fact that they believe spewing nonsense in an echo chamber is a revolution!

[Sword_Of_Truth]

#34: The impact of a fuel laden jet airliner will create a fire exactly identical to the kind started by misplaced cigarettes and electrical shorts. The aircraft impact is insufficient for the resultant fire to be considered extraordinary in comparison to other fires.

ETA: S'ok, Manc. Great minds think alike

[Mancman]

Absurdity #35: The fires in the WTC, which was full of jet fuel and hundreds of thousands of square feet of combustible offices, were tiny, and no hotter than 250C.

ETA: Sword of Truth got there first.

[defaultdotxbe]

34/35a - This picture shows that the fires were not very hot, as the people are not burned

the fact that something going on inside the building has prompted them toscramble out a 100th story window is inconsequential

http://xbehome.com/screwloosechange/pictures/6174.jpg

Solemn note: a moment of silence for the people picture here, who all died shortly after the picture was taken.

[Bell]

Default, I find that picture heartbreaking, everytime I see it.

In light of that:

#36 Why do the deniers say they do it out of respect for the victims, while all they do is mock them (ala Mark Bingham et al)

[Mince]

34/35a - This picture shows that the fires were not very hot, as the people are not burned

the fact that something going on inside the building has prompted them toscramble out a 100th story window is inconsequential.

And jump! What was the something, then, that wasn't very hot yet compelled many people to end their lives by jumping from the building?

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Absurdity #35: The fires in the WTC, which was full of jet fuel and hundreds of thousands of square feet of combustible offices, were tiny, and no hotter than 250C.

ETA: Sword of Truth got there first.

Actually, Mancman, having thought about it, you did bring up a point distinct from my own.

My point was the aircraft impacts made the fires unusual, something the 9-11 deniers deny.

Your comment about the temperature applies even if the fires were mundane and not out of the ordinary.

In only 3 1/2 minutes, the heat from a house fire can reach over 1100 degrees Fahrenheit.
(http://www.redcross-cmd.org/Chapter/fireFactsMD.html)

This refers to fires wich are not started by the impact of a 200,000 pound mother-of-all-molotov cocktails.

[Architect]

Absurdity # 27

Every licensed structural engineer in the country is in on the conspiracy. That's the only reason none of them have come forward to debunk the "official" version of how the towers fell.

27(a): Every structural engineer in the world (except that Pegelow guy)

27(b): Even countries that hate the US, like North Korea and Iran

27(c): And don't forget the architects.

27(d): Or the fire engineers.

27(e): And, of course, the demolition contractors.


Now for a new one:

#100 (hell I can't remember where we're at). Steel doesn't fail in normal fires, but bizarrely every set building regulations/codes in the developed world requires protection of steel structural elements AND notes that unprotected integrity is usually less than an hour.

[Dog Town]

#37
I am only asking questions.
The Bushies did it! You liar!

[jskowron]

#38- there were inconsistencies in Mineta's testimony, thus it was an inside job

#39- the exit/entrance hole at the pentagon was too small for a commercial jet

#40- No son would ever identify himself to his mother using his full name, thus the calls from flight 93 were fake


#41- A building hit by planes would not fail in the manner that the WTC did (with no expert explanation, informed guess, or, heck, even a psychic prediction about how building such as the WTC should have performed when hit by 767s full of fuel)

[shuize]

27(a): Every structural engineer in the world (except that Pegelow guy)

Who's Pegelow? I've never heard of him.

But more importantly, is he still alive? If so then it'd be absurdity # 42 -- since we should expect the floodgates to open and every other structural engineer, architect, fire engineer and demolition contractor to come forward now that it's safe to talk.

Oh, right. They're all still in on it.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Who's Pegelow? I've never heard of him.

He only has a Bachelors degree (accepted on job apps by McDonalds, KFC and Wendy's managers everywhere) and his work has been limited to oil derricks.

[Dog Town]

Who's Pegelow? I've never heard of him.


New "Scholar", in his 80's I believe. Not much longer to go.

edit SoT beat me.

[shuize]

He only has a Bachelors degree (accepted on job apps by McDonalds, KFC and Wendy's managers everywhere) and his work has been limited to oil derricks.

Is he in the U.S.? I'd like to be able to keep using my "every structural engineer in the United States disagrees with you" argument.

[Architect]

Is he in the U.S.? I'd like to be able to keep using my "every structural engineer in the United States disagrees with you" argument.

'fraid so.

However he's yet to put anything on paper....

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Is he in the U.S.? I'd like to be able to keep using my "every structural engineer in the United States disagrees with you" argument.

Texas, I think.

Not in the U.S (according to a handful of Texans). ;)

[Dog Town]

Texas, I think.

Not in the U.S (according to a handful of Texans). ;)

Hey, we're like a whole other country! Were one too, nanner nanner!

[twinstead]

Is he in the U.S.? I'd like to be able to keep using my "every structural engineer in the United States disagrees with you" argument.

Yea, we may be stuck with "every structural engineer in the US except for one" disagrees.

Well, that settles it. It was controlled demolition...

[kevin]

He only has a Bachelors degree (accepted on job apps by McDonalds, KFC and Wendy's managers everywhere) and his work has been limited to oil derricks.

a bachelors of engineering (and 4 years exp and passing a couple of tests) are sufficient to become a professional engineer.

I think we should be wary of playing a game of raise the bar lest we look hypocritical. Take the guy down on the basis of science, not the fact that he doesn't have a masters or doctorate.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Yea, we may be stuck with "every structural engineer in the US except for one" disagrees.

Well, that settles it. It was controlled demolition...

124,999 structural engineers CAN be wrong! :p

[Bell]

124,999 structural engineers CAN be wrong! :p

But who needs real experts when you have access to Google?

[shuize]

Well, I guess I shouldn't be too surprised that there are one or two crack-pots out there.

In a way, it's almost better to have him around. As I mentioned, the fact that he's still alive -- but apparently alone in his lunacy -- only supports the idea that the thousands and thousands of other structural engineers could speak up against the "official version" if they so chose.

Of course, since posters have mentioned he's in his 80s, it's only a matter of time until the all-powerful government "silences" him for good.

[dissonance]

#whatever we are up to: The Naudet brothers got some incredibly lucky footage of the first plane hitting the WTC, therefore they must have had advance knowledge about the attacks.

Seriously, so the theory is, what, that someone phoned up the Naudets and said 'we're going to fly a plane into the WTC tomorrow at around 8:45, make sure you are filming!' and they just agreed to do it? Huh?

[defaultdotxbe]

#whatever we are up to: The Naudet brothers got some incredibly lucky footage of the first plane hitting the WTC, therefore they must have had advance knowledge about the attacks.

Seriously, so the theory is, what, that someone phoned up the Naudets and said 'we're going to fly a plane into the WTC tomorrow at around 8:45, make sure you are filming!' and they just agreed to do it? Huh?

actually there are a sizable number of people who think the naudets were hired by the govt to document their big scheme

[Woody-]

#whatever we are up to: The Naudet brothers got some incredibly lucky footage of the first plane hitting the WTC, therefore they must have had advance knowledge about the attacks.

Seriously, so the theory is, what, that someone phoned up the Naudets and said 'we're going to fly a plane into the WTC tomorrow at around 8:45, make sure you are filming!' and they just agreed to do it? Huh?


Related to this one.

Its suspicious that the Naudets caught the first plane on film but it is also suspicious that the plane that hit the pentagon wasn't caught on film.

[Bell]

Related to this one.

Its suspicious that the Naudets caught the first plane on film but it is also suspicious that the plane that hit the pentagon wasn't caught on film.

It's also suspicious that 85 (who ever came up with that number) surveilance camera footage have been conviscated by the FBI, but the FBI refuses to release them.

First, wouldn't the owner of the camera who made that footage have the rights to that footage? And decide to release them or not?

Second, wouldn't a surveilance camera at - let's say the Sheratton hotel be filming like, ehm, the street infront of the hotel, instead of the Pentagon?

[Triterope]

30. All the calls from Flight 93 were faked and used special voice morphing technology. This fooled the family members who received these calls into believing the hijacking was real. This would also involve more people in an already complex plan. Solution: disable all air phones and ensure NO calls was made.

Good one. And I can think of some additional absurdities related to the "voice morphing technology" angle:

Absurdity #42. If you have the ability to morph people's voices so convincingly that their own families don't catch on, wouldn't there be a more productive way to use it? Why do we never hear of this awesome government technology being used for anything other than the 9/11 passenger calls?

Why didn't George W. Bush just generate an audio recording of Saddam Hussein admitting he had WMDs? Or better yet: call the president of Iran, put Saddam Hussein's voice on the ol' voice-morpher, and declare war. Or maybe just tell him that his family tree includes a disproportionate number of goats.

If this voice-morphing technology really existed, we wouldn't be seeing it on CNN, we'd be seeing it on the Andy Milonakis Show.

Absurdity #43. Why the hell bother? If the US government is going to arrange this convoluted plot, and has no qualms slaughtering thousands of its people to do it, why not just let the victims' cell calls be real? It would be more convincing, and would be one less obstacle to the plan succeeding.

And if the CT's answer to #43 is "the planes were empty", then my rejoinder is once again "so what happened to the passengers?"

Absurdity #44. Difficulty of research. Just as an exercise, let's assume that the government really did use voice-morphing technology to falsify phone calls from the "supposed" passengers on 9/11 flights. This plot would still face many, many obstacles to feasability.

There's the issue of making the doppleganger sound like the real person. It's not enough to imitate the person's voice. Speech has many other qualities. There's speed, there's word usage, there's subtle inflections, and a host of other traits that could make the audio track suspect even if the sound was a dead-on match. Sounding like a person, and talking like a person, are not the same thing. You can't just flip a switch, even if we assume that such a switch exists.

In other words, this effort would require the conspirators to research the people they were impersonating, so the fake voice track would convincingly resemble the real people. And who were the real people behind the voices we heard? Celebrities? No, they were ordinary citizens. Ordinary citizens who would have had little or no readily-available information about their speech patterns. Paradoxically, it would have been easier to fake the voice of someone like Barbara Olson or David Angell, since their TV appearances would have left behind useful information about the way they speak.

Now, I know what the CTs are thinking: the government tapped the phone lines of CeeCee Lyles et al. to compile information about their speaking patterns. But even if I grant you that, it still takes a lot of study to be able to convincingly imitate someone else's voice. The conspiracy plot would have had to devote hundreds of man-hours to analyzing and studying the speech patterns of a bunch of irrelevant citizens, just because they happened to buy tickets for the flight that the conspiracy was using. And for what? To leave behind seconds of compelling audio at the risk of betraying the entire plot?

Which brings up another problem: turnaround time. Typically, if you want to get good fares on a flight, you have to buy two weeks in advance. Even if we allow that, that's not much time for the linguistic experts that were in on the plot (yet another group of talented people who would have to know of the plot and never blab) to dissect the passengers' speech patterns so you could imitate them effectively. And again, that's if we assume that the voices could be imitated with 100% accuracy.

If someone really wanted to puncture the "voice morphing" theory, they could investigate how far in advance the cell phone callers purchased their tickets on the doomed flights. If it could be proven that a non-noteworthy citizen had purchased a last-minute ticket and then made a phone call during the flight, the "voice morphing" theory would become indefensible. Not that this would stop the Troofers from using it, of course.

[dissonance]

actually there are a sizable number of people who think the naudets were hired by the govt to document their big scheme

What kind of horrible people would the Naudet's have to be to go along with that? And really, if you were creating a conspiracy on the scale of 9/11, wouldn't you want to limit the number of unnecessary people involved? A couple of documentary filmmakers catching 2 seconds of a plane hitting a tower - footage that didn't reach the news until Sept 12, IIRC - how is that necessary to the conspiracy? Answer: it's not. It's just two more people who could possibly blow the whistle on the whole thing.

Augh, this stuff makes my head hurt.

[rwguinn]

a bachelors of engineering (and 4 years exp and passing a couple of tests) are sufficient to become a professional engineer.

I think we should be wary of playing a game of raise the bar lest we look hypocritical. Take the guy down on the basis of science, not the fact that he doesn't have a masters or doctorate.

2 tests -1 8 hour test at graduation, and a 2nd 8 hour test (only 8 questions, BTW--and it takes all 8 hours!) on your area of expertise.

Anyone who passes the PE exam has my respect. However, for many years, Texas did NOT require the test--all you needed was for 3 people to say they knew your work, and you had done increasingly responsible work over the past 6 years--and poof you werre a PE. They Grandfathered a lot of those guys in when they switched to the NSPE standard in the late 80's or whenever it was (all I know is that it was after 1980...

And all I have is a BS, myself. Yes, I passed the tests. Yes, I have many years of experience at steel structures, titanium, and aluminum structures, plus some composites-and they move, they don't sit still waiting for things to run into them.

[Bell]

If someone really wanted to puncture the "voice morphing" theory, they could investigate how far in advance the cell phone callers purchased their tickets on the doomed flights. If it could be proven that a non-noteworthy citizen had purchased a last-minute ticket and then made a phone call during the flight, the "voice morphing" theory would become indefensible. Not that this would stop the Troofers from using it, of course.


The documentary on Discovery, The Flight That Fought Back, talked about Mark Bingham missing an earlier flight due to a hangover, and a woman who took 93 as an earlier flight.

[Bell]

Also, since the deniers appearantly have no apprehention whatsoever of what happened on that day, ask them if they have heard

http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/audio/P200016-2.wav

or have heard

http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/audio/cosgrove_movie_high.mp4

[G-K-4]

#39- the exit/entrance hole at the pentagon was too small for a commercial jet
Absurdity #46 (?) -- Not only that, but cruise missiles can penetrate several reinforcd concrete walls before exploding.

Absurdity #47 -- It is impossible for anyone to simply and honestly disagree with THE TRUTH. Anyone who does is obviously one of the actual conspirators or a paid shill.

Absurdity #48 -- Despite whistle-blowing for other Bush Administration screw-ups and misdeeds, he's still popular enough with co-conspirators to not be ratted out for 9/11.

Absurdity #49 -- Once the American people know what really happened on 9/11, that will be enough to spontaneously generate legal indictments, grand juries, and special prosecutors.

Absurdity #50 -- Cui bono? Certainly not Osama bin Laden. Only Bush could (...and maybe Blair, and maybe Putin and the Chinese gov't and the Indian gov't...ahem)... Only Bush could have benefitted from 9/11.

Absurdity #51 -- U.S. imperial ambition and lies for war began with George W. Bush's Presidency. When he's kicked out, somehow (see #49), things will go back to normal and everything will be a-okay.

Absurdity #52 -- The day that 9/11 TRUTH is proclaimed from every hill and mountaintop in the land, all the U.S. military forces in Iraq and Afghanistan will board special 9/11 TRUTH airplanes and be taken back to the loving arms of their families.

Absurdity #53 -- The world isn't run by long-standing, observable, powerful institutions or systems. It's run by small groups of shadowy individuals who pull the strings behind the scenes. (Now if we could only agree on which ones....)

[Woody-]

#54 They fell in their own footprint is proof of controlled demolitions, the debris ejected from the towers is evidence of explosives.

[Bell]

Absurdity #53 -- The world isn't run by long-standing, observable, powerful institutions or systems. It's run by small groups of shadowy individuals who pull the strings behind the scenes. (Now if we could only agree on which ones....)

Pull the strings? Like with WTC 7 ?

[G-K-4]

Pull the strings? Like with WTC 7 ?
No, more like Bela Lugosi in Plan 9 from Outer Space.

ETA: Which makes me wonder how much better Ed Wood would have been at a 9/11 documentary. At least it would be more entertaining than the ones I've seen.

[shuize]

Someone please remind me, what was the supposed reason "they" needed to "pull" WTC 7? I know there's got to be plenty of absurity there.

[Bell]

No, more like Bela Lugosi in Plan 9 from Outer Space.

ETA: Which makes me wonder how much better Ed Wood would have been at a 9/11 documentary. At least it would be more entertaining than the ones I've seen.

Ed Wood would have been passionate about his Plan 9/11 From Inner Space. Unlike Tex Avery, who aledgely only made the movie LC for his own personal benefit. And he got a good laugh at the victims in the bargain as well.

How are the profits adding up, Tex?
And does mocking the victims still give you pleasure?
Just asking questions.

[defaultdotxbe]

hey dont compare dylco with tex avery, tex avery is cool, he made daffy duck

[Bell]

hey dont compare dylco with tex avery, tex avery is cool, he made daffy duck

I stand corrected.

Tex Avery cartoons are more prone to realisme than LC :)

[Dog Town]

hey dont compare dylco with tex avery, tex avery is cool, he made daffy duck

Don't forget" Eh what's up doc"?

[Bell]

Don't forget" Eh what's up doc"?

Yeah, Barbra Streisand as well.

Ehm... What??

[shuize]

55. The MSM is controlled by Zionist shills. Except when it's interviewing them, of course.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

56. The destruction of the most famous office buildings in the world, billions of dollars of prime Wall St. real estate and the loss of nearly 3,000 lives was insufficent impetus to war. The destruction of a much smaller building (WTC7), nearly completely unknown outside NYC until that day was also required. No additional loss of life was required, just the building was enough.

56a. WTC7 contained records wich needed to be destroyed wich somehow could not fit into a standard paper/computer disc shredder.

Based on Shuize's suggested absurdity

[hellaeon]

But maybe what the CTers are saying sort of makes sense. See, maybe during the middle of planning simultaneous attacks on New York city and the thousands upon thousands of man-hours needed for organizing the wiring of the towers, recruiting Middle Eastern patsies, coordinating with the police and firemen to be ready to "pull it" at just the right time, making sure enough personnel and transportation was on hand to quickly remove evidence from the scene (not to mention the gold from the tower vaults), planning for NORAD to stand down, arranging for actors to fake phone calls and preping the MSM for its role as shill -- Yeah, maybe in the middle of all that someone stood up and said, "Hey, you know what we really need? Let's hit the Pentagon too while we're at it."





hahahahahahaha cant put it any better.
Brilliant

[LashL]

56. The destruction of the most famous office buildings in the world, billions of dollars of prime Wall St. real estate and the loss of nearly 3,000 lives was insufficent impetus to war. The destruction of a much smaller building (WTC7), nearly completely unknown outside NYC until that day was also required. No additional loss of life was required, just the building was enough.

56a. WTC7 contained records wich needed to be destroyed wich somehow could not fit into a standard paper/computer disc shredder.

Based on Shuize's suggested absurdity

56b. On a related note, the same administration that is so inept that it can't manage to figure out how to shred or otherwise disappear a relatively small amount of paper without destroying a 47 storey building in a controlled demolition perpetrated on live television is simultaneously so diabolically clever that it can pull off the massive conspiracy required by the tinhat crowd.

Oh, and that's all assuming, of course, that the only copies of the incriminating documents were in paper form and located only in WTC7. Yeah, that's the ticket.

[gumboot]

56b. On a related note, the same administration that is so inept that it can't manage to figure out how to shred or otherwise disappear a relatively small amount of paper without destroying a 47 storey building in a controlled demolition perpetrated on live television is simultaneously so diabolically clever that it can pull off the massive conspiracy required by the tinhat crowd.


Don't forget the demolition of WTC7 spewed said secret documents all over Manhattan for any schmuck to pick up and read.

-Andrew

[Sword_Of_Truth]

#56c. The fire that poured smoke from every floor of the building was insufficient to destroy the documents. Only dropping a 47 story office tower on them would do the trick.

[shuize]

That reminds me of alternative history book review I read about a Japanese plan to send a newly designed Zero fighter to Germany to help it win the war in Europe. Of course, to make it dramatic, I seem to recall the plot had a pair of daring Japanese pilots flying two planes all the way across Asia or something equally far-fetched.

I may have been judging the book by it's cover (ha ha) but at the time I thought to myself, "Why not just walk the plans over to the German embassy in Tokyo?"

I don't remember the supposed justification to "pull" WTC 7 (thus my question above), but if it the CT is that it was about destroying documents, that's got to be one of the dumbest things I've ever heard.

After all this time, I'm surprised that the level of their idiocy still surprises me.

[gumboot]

I don't remember the supposed justification to "pull" WTC 7 (thus my question above), but if it the CT is that it was about destroying documents, that's got to be one of the dumbest things I've ever heard.


Now, now. It wasn't that simple. Destruction of sensitive documents and insurance fraud.

(And possibly a distraction whole they stole all the worlds Gold Reserves from themselves... or something)

-Andrew

[shuize]

Assuming the CT about WTC 7 was about destroying documents:

Absurdity 56(b)(1) Nobody would notice the thousands of workers needed to wire the WTC Towers with explosives. However, someone just might notice a couple of guys carrying boxes of documents out of WTC 7.

No, really. What's the CT about WTC 7? This can't really be it.

ETA: Wait, the mention of insurance fraud reminded me. Something about "pulling it" so the owner -- a Jew as I recall -- could get the insurance money, since burning for hours and having one of the world's tallest buildings basically collapse on top of it wouldn't be enough to make a claim.

[Dr Richard]

This is a great thread. I'll address each of these points, but I'll wait till it fills up some more. Keep going. Make this an exhaustive list of everything you guys find absurd or implausible about the inside job theory, and I'll come back in a few days and answer point by point.

#58

[jhunter1163]

56(b)(2)

The whole idea that the towers were destroyed for insurance is ludicrous. Silverstein's paid $600+ million since 9/11 on that pesky 99-year lease he signed on the towers six weeks before they were destroyed.. and what's he got to show for it? A hole in the ground. The $4.1 billion he got from the insurance will cover about one-third of the cost of the Freedom Tower. So he's gonna have to incur $8 billion in debt to finish that, plus the aforementioned $600 million, plus his not inconsiderable legal fees. All in all, not a good deal for Mr. S.

[MRC_Hans]

56(b)(3) .. or something

If you wanna collect the insurance, what is wrong with good old arson? Why risk history's most complicated plot, which even holds the additional risk of the insures declaring the insurance void because it was an act of war.

Hans

[qarnos]

Don't forget the demolition of WTC7 spewed said secret documents all over Manhattan for any schmuck to pick up and read.

-Andrew

I think we're onto something here... It was all about espionage!!!

Someone in the gubmint wanted to send the secret documents to a foreign agent. Rather than do it in person and risk being caught, he orchestrated this entire thing and arranged for the foreign agent to walk past and just "stumble across" those secret documents!

It's all perfectly clear now!

[AWPrime]

I think we're onto something here... It was all about espionage!!!

Someone in the gubmint wanted to send the secret documents to a foreign agent. Rather than do it in person and risk being caught, he orchestrated this entire thing and arranged for the foreign agent to walk past and just "stumble across" those secret documents!

It's all perfectly clear now!

With of course more than a 1000 agents to make sure that they got the right document.

[G-K-4]

Absurdity #57 -- Bush and company destroyed major office towers in downtown Manhattan, which had the effect of shutting down Wall Street and scaring the public in a way where they might not want to spend money unnecessarily. And the weapons used were airlines, which almost went bankrupt and had to be bailed out by the goverment. This was part of a larger plan to boost the U.S. economy.

[Mancman]

Assuming the CT about WTC 7 was about destroying documents:

Absurdity 56(b)(1) Nobody would notice the thousands of workers needed to wire the WTC Towers with explosives. However, someone just might notice a couple of guys carrying boxes of documents out of WTC 7.

No, really. What's the CT about WTC 7? This can't really be it.

ETA: Wait, the mention of insurance fraud reminded me. Something about "pulling it" so the owner -- a Jew as I recall -- could get the insurance money, since burning for hours and having one of the world's tallest buildings basically collapse on top of it wouldn't be enough to make a claim.

Indeed. It's a standard CT claim that Silverstein claimed $860 million insurance for WTC7, so he must have been in on it. But they fail to mention that:

a) He only built the damn thing 14 years earlier, investing approx $350 million into it.
b) Blowing it up means the loss of nearly 5 years of rent takings.
c) He built a new one ASAP. It cost $700 million to build. He did it speculatively as well, the new one has few tenants so far.

There really is no valid motive for WTC7 being demolished. The insurance one is a none starter. The 'it had tons of CIA/FBI/DOD/Enron files inside' is really rubbish.

The only other variation I have heard is that Guliani had a reinforced office on the 23rd floor, and it was a HQ for the attack, the 'perfect' vantage point to conduct the plane crashes and collapses. The building was dropped to hide the evidence for this. This is ridiculous because:

a) Being on the 23rd floor would be very close to the range of flying debris from WTC1, too risky.
b) WTC7 itself would then need to be demolished from some secret vantage point - what would be the point when they could just use the one location for the entire operation and not have to drop WTC7 at all.
c) As pointed out earlier, the WTC collapses sent thousands of bits of paper into the streets. It would be a bit of a mess up if someone picked up a document entitled 'OPERATION 9/11 - A NEW PEARL HARBOUR'.

[Bell]

#58 (?) As part of the evergrowing plot, CIA ops went into Afganistan, and killed the leader of the northern alliance 2 days before 9/11, as to make friends with the Taliban regime. Which offcourse, was defeated and ousted later that year, by the same US government.

[MortFurd]

#59 The conspirators had no qualms about killing 3000 people, but Avery Dylan and friends are still walking around alive and free.

This is the most telling, actually. A conspiracy that could manage what the CTists claim and do it so efficiently would have no trouble at all arranging "accidents" for anyone who unconvered the plot.

[juryjone]

No, more like Bela Lugosi in Plan 9 from Outer Space.

ETA: Which makes me wonder how much better Ed Wood would have been at a 9/11 documentary. At least it would be more entertaining than the ones I've seen.

Actually, "Pull the string!" was said by Bela in Glen or Glenda?

Why I know that, I'm not sure.

I'm not sure if this is covered yet, but...

#60 All these questions have been asked, yet nobody is able to come up with a coherent theory that incorporates all the "facts". Certainly none of the CTers on this board have attempted to tell us exactly what they think happened that day.

[sleahead]

With regard to WTC7, the building was ablaze for seven hours and that is a good evidence destroyer in itself (No CTs, it did not just have "two small fires"). And what if the building had burned for God knows how long, until the fires eventually burn themselves out, but the bulding remained standing? What stops the alledged perps from sending in THEIR OWN PEOPLE to deal with anything that hasn't been burnt beyond recognition?

[Bell]

#61 Why edit out certain parts of the movie "What we saw" and subsequently release it? Why not destroy the movie to begin with?

(It drives me mad to see these deniers pick that movie apart, to back up their ridiculous claimes, and accuse the makers to be part of the conpiracy)

[Blackadder_no]

How about this little gem of CT logic; we were explaining the behaviour of the steel during the tower fires...

Of course you'd have to have an explanation to cover up what happened, otherwise the world wouldn't believe it. It's also logical and unsurprising. But this wasn't presented until later, when people were beginning to discover the fakery.

:boggled:

[Soapy Sam]

He only has a Bachelors degree (accepted on job apps by McDonalds, KFC and Wendy's managers everywhere) and his work has been limited to oil derricks.


I have two words for him then.

Piper Alpha.

[Grundar]

#62: A possible explanation for the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 is nuclear bombs set of in the basement.

/Hans

[Peephole]

#62: A possible explanation for the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 is nuclear bombs set of in the basement.

/Hans

Who exactly proposed that?

[G-K-4]

Actually, "Pull the string!" was said by Bela in Glen or Glenda?

Why I know that, I'm not sure.
Ah, I haven't seen Glen or Glenda. I must have been thinking of the film Ed Wood, with Martin Landau as Lugosi. "Pull ze strings! PULL ZE STRINGS!!" [cue buffalo]

Hmmm... Maybe it was those buffalo what stampeded the Pentagon.

[Bell]

Ed Wood -> Orson Welles -> War of the Worlds

There! I proved Ed Wood did it.

[Dog Town]

Serving number 63 for your parusal! This tasty treat from none other than TWEAKER1234, on why "troofers" can't get no blueprints!

Could it be that "they" don't want anyone to be able to build an accurate model of a twin tower?

LMFAO!!!

I'm thinking of a new song here,"Troofers cain't get no blues, cuz they ain't got no soul"! In three chord acoustic blues of course! Hit it!

[Grundar]

Who exactly proposed that?

It was in a post at the LC forum. I quoted part of it here.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1879279#post1879279

Maybe not mainstream CT but it exists.
/Hans

[jhunter1163]

Oxymoron of the week, "mainstream CT"...

[uruk]

Hey! where's truthsneaker's reply to all the points brought up? wer'e already up to 63.

[Dog Town]

#64

Folding a 20$ to reveal the plans, of the evil gubberment!
Stupid yet funny!

[uruk]

make that 64!

[Mancman]

Absurdity #65: Someone offered Dylan Avery a seven figure sum for the rights to Loose Change.

[Dr Richard]

This is a great thread. I'll address each of these points, but I'll wait till it fills up some more. Keep going. Make this an exhaustive list of everything you guys find absurd or implausible about the inside job theory, and I'll come back in a few days and answer point by point.

Bump for Truthseeker.

Or was that statement one of those not-true things?

How about making a start now?

[Nihilanth]

I went ahead and messaged Truthseeker about how long this thread is getting and if he could either address the points raised, or simply bake us all a tasty cake instead. I'm betting neither, and too bad; I don't want to have to go out and BUY cake.

[TruthSeeker1234]

Absurdity #1: Why fake something as elaborate and unprecedented to simulate a terrorist attack, when a truckload of explosives would have been immidiately recognized by the public as a terrorist attack?

Shock and Awe. See Hitler, Mein Kompf, on “The Big Lie”. They tried the explosives in the basement thing, and it didn’t work. It didn’t bring down the building, but more importantly, it wasn’t big enough to be a New Pearl Harbor.

Absurdity #2: Why run the enormous extra risk of placing demolition charges (assuming it could be done at all), when crashing planes into the buildings would be more than enough?
Same as answer #1. It wouldn’t be big enough. It wouldn’t bring down the tower, how ridiculous.

Absurdety #3: Why demolish WTC7?
Destruction of important SEC documents is one theory, incriminating equipment in Giuliani’s bunker is another. Why wasn’t Giuliani in his bunker that day, it seems like exactly the kind of situation it was designed for. Considering the tenant list of WTC7 (FBI, CIA, SEC, DOD) there could be so much filthy stuff there it would choke the sewers.

Absurdity #4: While the symbolism of the Pentagon is evident for muslim terrorists, a faked attack could have much more effective targets (e. g. the Pearl Harbour).
The Pentagon is a legitimate military target. The idea is to justify endless war, among other things.

Absurdity #5: Since the routine of flying planes into things was already well established, why suddenly change the tactics for the Pentagon?
There may well have been a plane crash at the Pentagon. At this point, I’m with Russell Pickering. We don’t really know what happened there. Of all the possible scenarios, however, the official story seems the least likely. Remote control 757 seems more likely.



Absurdety #6: Flight 93 is completely superfluous for an inside job (but makes perfect sense in a real terrorist attack).
First of all, perhaps 93 was supposed to hit building 7. In any event, the heroic tale of Todd Beamer and “Let’s Roll” could not support the official story more even if it was scripted by a Hollywood screenwriter. In fact, it was so perfect, it WAS made into a movie.

Absurdity #8: The high sulphur-content in the ruins show that Therm(a)ite was used in a controlled demolition.
It’s not just “in the ruins” and its not just sulfur. The metallurgical report found that steel was oxidized in the presence of sulfur, leaving a “swiss cheese” appearance. The New York Times called this a great mystery. Add to that the fact that Dr. Jones had found chemical signatures of much rarer chemicals in the formerly molten metal, such as barium, which is commonly used in thermate. Then consider the di-phenyl propane, found “in quanties that dwarfed all others”, quite rare, but used in “sol-gels”, a medium which is used in suspending thermates.



Absurdity #10: The government has no problem with killing nearly 3,000 of their own citizens but do not kill the 19 supposed hijackers.
Add to that the soldiers and civilians killed in the middle east, and you’re up over 100,000, easy.

The thing I've never understood is, if the 767's weren't enough to wipe out the WTC towers, why didn't "they" use 747's?
747’s aren’t enough to wipe them out, either. Plus, they’re less agile.

Simple. You set an enormous number of charges in the WTC basement (a lot easier to do) and you blow the bottom out of one of the towers, letting it fall into the other one. THAT is what the terrorists wanted in 1993.

Way too uncontrolled. Could wipe out buildings and real estate not owned by Silverstein.

Absurdity #11. Insurance companies will pay your $1.2 billion claim, even if you ordered your own property destroyed, and admitted it to the media.
Good point, and not often noticed by truthseekers. First, I think it was more than $1.2 billion. If actually operating in a free market (which they aren’t) the insurance company would have a strong interest to expose Silverstein and fight his claims, and promote the controlled demolition theory. They had to be greased. The only people who could have pulled this off must have had access to essentially unlimited funding. The only entity that can truly claim that is the partnership between the executive branch of the US government, and the Federal Reserve.

Absurdity #12. Controlled demolitions routinely scatter debris over several square blocks, damaging beyond repair other expensive buildings that were not targeted for demolition.
Never before had buildings this large been demolished. WTC1 and 2 had to be exploded top-down, thus requiring even more explosives than if it had proceeded from the bottom up. Considering the complete and total devastation of all 7 WTC buildings,the damage to surrounding real estate was remarkably little. Certainly not an outcome that al-Quaeda terrorists would desire.


Absurdity #13. Airline stocks as a motivation for the attacks. This operation took years to plan, cost thousands of dollars to train the operatives, sacrificed 19 of its own people, killed thousands of civilians, did billions of dollars in property damage, and incited the United States to take military action... just to make a few million on a stock deal. Doesn't this seem like overkill?
No, the put-options were just a little gravy for some insiders, not the main motivation at tall.

Absurity #14: Mass murderers are rare (Gacy, Charles Whitman, McVeigh, etc.) but the US government could find thousands to pull off the deed.
Mass murderers in high office are, unfortunately, common. Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Pol-Pot, Idi Amin, . . .

Absurdity #15: Bush agrees to be reading a story to school children when all this occurs. He then pretends to sit stunned for several minutes before allowing himself to be whisked off by the Secret Service.
The secret service is trained to protect the President, regardless of the situation. The fact that they did not whisk him away from this very public and pre-announced photo-op is extremely hard to explain.

Absurdity# 16: The use of mostly Saudi nationals instead of a mix of Syrian, Iraqi and Iranians.
It’s got to be fairly hard to develop good patsies, even with an unlimited budget. You take what you have. Also, consider that Saudi Arabia has been under puppet control of the U.S. for awhile now, to the point where we have military bases there. Not so with Iraq and Iran, in 2001. Now we have bases in Iraq, Iran coming soon.


Absurdity #17(credit goes to Mince):

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?
Those towers had explosives and incendiaries all over. Some of them probably went off in the plane crash, but obviously not enough to initiate collapse. If it had, I’m sure they were prepared to finish the collapse. In fact, an immediate collapse may well have been the plan, it might have been more believable. In any case, whichever explosives went off during impact did their job, weakening the structure where they were placed.


#18
Bill....ions of dollars worth of ,insured, gold stolen! Insurance not collected, or reported?
Some of it was recovered. I simply don’t know about the rest of it, whether it existed, and if so, what happened. This is a nice area of research. Whose was it? Who insured it? Was it recovered?

Absudity 19.

If 9/11 was engineered as a pretext for war based on the (fake)threat of WMD. Why didnt the invasion forces simply plant some our own really nasty stuff and pin it on Saddam? Instead of looking like liars and morons?
Any ideas? Too difficult maybe?
Even though they had 9/11, they weren’t blaming it on Iraq, they were blaming it on al-Quaeda, supposedly headquartered in Afghanistan. WMD was another lie to justify another war. There will be more lies, and more wars. Do you see the pattern?

Absurdity #20: This promise will likely never be fulfilled.
Here I am. Although the murder threats on this board genuinely scare me, a promise is a promise.

#21 - All of the workers at the Pentagon, including secretaries and IT guys and janitors and workers from Verizon and everyone else who was standing around in the aftermath, watched as truck after truck pulled up and mysterious government agents started spreading shredded airplane parts on the lawn. No one considered this strange.
Some within the truth movement think no plane hit the Pentagon, some do. I honestly don’t know. I think that remote controlled crash is plausible, but so are planted plane parts. There were very few parts recovered, and those that are seen almost all have red-lettering on them, a coincidence. Considering the speed with which FBI agents showed up at Citgo gas station, I don’t think it is difficult to imagine plane parts being planted quickly.

Why not simplify the operation by half and just blow up/crash a plane into one tower?
See Hitler – The Big Lie.

#23 - Pentagon officials canceled their travel plans on 9/10.

So they could be in the Pentagon when the plane hit?

And why did they cancel travel plans when they new exactly which flights would be hijacked?
Maybe they didn’t know exactly which flights. Or, maybe they did, and knew the plane was going to hit in the remodeled and blast-fortified section, far from where they were.

Absurdity # 24:

After executing a flawless operation involving a conspiracy the scale of which the world has never seen and not one of the presumably hundreds if not thousands of co-conspirators has come forward with information, a couple of obnoxious college kids uncover the "truth."
No, the Loose Change filmmakers came after many independent researchers had laid a lot of groundwork, and also made a lot of mistakes. We still haven’t figured it out totally, that is for sure. But there are thousands of independent researchers working, not just two college kids. According to recent polls, the number of Americans who agree with the 9/11 truth movement is about 1/3, and growing very rapidly.

Absurdity # 25:

Everything that happened was exactly and precisely as planned.
Not hardly. No way was WTC7 supposed to just fall down at 5:20 in the afternoon. There are several theories as to what was supposed to happen, but I don’t think that was according to plan.


#26 Donald Rumsfeld was in the Pentagon when it was hit... but he just happened to be in a different section than was hit.
Correct. This supports the notion that 9/11 was an inside job. The wedge housing the top brass was a much easier target than the recently blast-fortified and mostly unoccupied wedge that was hit.

Absurdity # 27

Every licensed structural engineer in the country is in on the conspiracy.
Excellent point, I admit. Some engineers are just out-and-out part of the conspiracy. Bazant released his (now discredited) paper 48 hours after the attacks. Come on. This is suspicious on its face. But indeed, there are 100,000 + structural engineers, and none (or almost none) have come out against the official theory. This is not the same as saying they support it.

My own brother-in-law is, in fact, a structural engineer. I know him to be a very kind, honest, decent man. He supports the official theory, and last Thanksgiving was quick to dismiss my “conspiracy theories”, and said that “we know why the towers fell”. He referred me to the NOVA show, and indicated that the show’s producer, Larry Klein, was his college roommate and friend.

However, I asked him what he thought happened to WTC7, and he didn’t know what I was talking about. He was completely unaware that a third building had collapsed that day. Think about this. On the day of the three greatest structural failures in history, and a day that is seared into the consciousness of everyone, and he did not know about WTC7. He didn’t know about the molten metal either. He didn’t know about the 4 ton piece of steel that landed 600 feet from WTC1. He didn’t know that the “pancake” theory had been abandoned by NIST. I showed him a cropped picture of the WTC dust cloud and he thought it was a bomb. He didn’t know the collapse times. He told me that fire had caused lots of steel framed buildings to collapse, but he couldn’t name any.

After Thanksgiving 2005, my brother-in-law simply will not discuss 9/11 with me. Period.

Here’s my take on my brother-in-law, and I think it applies to a whole lot of people, including a lot of engineers. He knows what happened on 9/11. He knows that buildings don’t crush themselves into shredded steel and powder, systematically spewing it hundreds of feet in all directions, leaving a crater that smolders for months. He knows that those buildings were blown to kingdom come. But he fears that exposing the truth would lead to a “Constitutional Crises”. It’s better, safer, to just let the evil jerks do their thing, as horrible and distasteful as it is to him. Allowing the truth to come out could genuinely lead to a coup, or a military dictatorship in this country. Better just to go along.

#28 (I guess?) FDNY firechief was in on it because he 'pulled' WTC 7. But had no trouble (or guilt afterward) to have 343 of NY bravest die in the Towers?
“Leaders” justify the sacrifice of foot soldiers all the time. It’s known as “the greater good”.

Absurdity #29

Wait. If no plane hit the pentagon, which FDR is this? And if it's a Govt. fabricated FDR, why the errors?
As above, we don’t know what happened at the Pentagon. Faking a flight data recorder and its information is easy. Errors in the data, as with all of this, can help with the whole smokescreen. The idea is to create a mess so huge and so complicated that nobody ever gets all the way to the bottom of it. So far they have succeeded in that.

30. All the calls from Flight 93 were faked and used special voice morphing technology.
I am an audio professional. I use audio software on a daily basis. There are multitudes of plug-ins that manipulate voices in all sorts of ways, but I am not aware of any commercial software that can imitate a specific person’s voice. It’s conceivable that the government has better technology that is commercially available, but I highly doubt it. Such a product would be very marketable in the music industry.

I haven’t actually heard any of the 9/11 cell phone calls, except Betty Ong. Faking an audio recording such as Betty Ong is quite easy, of course. But faking out family members would be next to impossible. Either the all the family members are lying (hard to believe, but not impossible), or else some of the calls actually took place. If so, it means that there really were hijackers. This does not invalidate the conspiracy theory, but it would invalidate the no-planes theory, and the no-hijackers theory. It would not invalidate the remote control theory, as patsy-hijackers could have been tricked into hijacking a plane that then was electronically hijacked from them.

The 911 operator who allegedly took Todd Beamer’s call could certainly be a liar. She has a whole book deal and the works, and there is no recording. It is quite odd that there is no recording of this 911 call.

Clearly I do not know for sure what happened with the calls, and more research is required. Transcripts without recordings should be disregarded.

Absurdity # 31

OK, maybe this isn't directly related to the attacks, but I think it's absurd that most of the people in the U.S. who claim to believe the government organized 9/11 still pay taxes and social security.
This is because if you don’t pay your taxes, government agents will seize your bank account and/or property. If you refuse to give that up, they will put you in jail, If you refuse to surrender for jail they will kill you.

#32. Have any of the troofers taken all their evidence to court?
Yes, there are 9/11 lawsuits. See Phillip Berg, William Rodriquez, etc. But bear in mind that, ultimately, this is asking the government to allow prosecution of itself. They aint’ gonna do that. 9/11 lawsuits will get nowhere.

#33
The fact that they believe spewing nonsense in an echo chamber is a revolution!
The United States of America was founded by people who believed that revolution was needed.

#34: The impact of a fuel laden jet airliner will create a fire exactly identical to the kind started by misplaced cigarettes and electrical shorts.
That’s absurd! And irrelevant. It is true that the jet fuel served as a source of ignition only. Most of the jet fuel was consumed in 5-10 seconds, and the rest in 5-10 minutes. Afterwards what remained was an office fire, according to the official theory. Observation of the videos, and consideration of the eyewitness testimony would support the contention that these office fires were stoked by explosions.

Absurdity #35: The fires in the WTC, which was full of jet fuel and hundreds of thousands of square feet of combustible offices, were tiny, and no hotter than 250C.

According to the official reports, most of the steel only got that hot. That’s different than the fire temperatures. None of this is relevant to the conspiracy theory. For the sake of argument, one can assume fires at hot as needed to cause local collapse. There is still no way that local collapse can lead to the type of pulverizing, explosive, total destruction that was observed.

#36 Why do the deniers say they do it out of respect for the victims, while all they do is mock them (ala Mark Bingham et al)
We believe that getting to the truth of what really happened, and who really did it, is the ultimate act of respect.

#100 (hell I can't remember where we're at). Steel doesn't fail in normal fires, but bizarrely every set building regulations/codes in the developed world requires protection of steel structural elements AND notes that unprotected integrity is usually less than an hour.
Fires codes are words on paper. The relevant point is that (ignoring controlled demolitions) never before or since 9/11 have we observed anything remotely resembling what happened that day.

#38- there were inconsistencies in Mineta's testimony, thus it was an inside job
Mineta wasn’t inconsistent. He was revealing. He reported that Dick Cheney said “Of course the orders still stand”. These could be interpreted to mean orders to “Shoot the plane down”, but it makes far more sense to think that the orders were “Don’t shoot the plane down”.

#39- the exit/entrance hole at the pentagon was too small for a commercial jet
The entrance hole was about 90 feet at ground level. Loose Change is wrong, Jim Hoffman is right. It is still very difficult to believe that a 757 caused it, because of ground effect, and the extreme difficulty in coming down the hill, not hitting the ground, maintaining control after hitting light poles, etc.

The C-ring exit hole is a different matter. This looks very much like a shaped charge, and it is next to impossible for an aircraft part to punch a hole this clean through a reinforced concrete wall. Even if it did, the part (landing gear? Fuselage?) would have to be quite intact, yet no such part is observed.

#40- No son would ever identify himself to his mother using his full name, thus the calls from flight 93 were fake
Unless it was a running joke. As it turns out, I used to use my full name when talking to my mom on the phone. Once, I called my mom about 2 months after I had said I was going to call. When I said my name, “John”, she jokingly said “John who?”. After that, every time I called her, I used my first and last name. It was our little joke. My mom is in heaven now.

This supports the official story, or at least supports the notion that there really were hijackers and planes. I only include it for full disclosure. See above for my admitted confusion on phone calls.

#41- A building hit by planes would not fail in the manner that the WTC did (with no expert explanation, informed guess, or, heck, even a psychic prediction about how building such as the WTC should have performed when hit by 767s full of fuel)
Correct. For a building to fall straight down, the vertical supports must fail at the same time. There’s just no getting around this with any amount of jet fuel.

First, wouldn't the owner of the camera who made that footage have the rights to that footage? And decide to release them or not?

Second, wouldn't a surveilance camera at - let's say the Sheratton hotel be filming like, ehm, the street infront of the hotel, instead of the Pentagon?
In a free world, yes, property rights are respected. We’re talking about the government here, an agency completely premised on the systematic violation of property rights. See Murray Rothbard, Hans-Hermann Hoppe.

Absurdity #42. If you have the ability to morph people's voices so convincingly that their own families don't catch on, wouldn't there be a more productive way to use it? Why do we never hear of this awesome government technology being used for anything other than the 9/11 passenger calls?
I too see no evidence of voice morphing technology.

Absurdity #43. Why the hell bother? If the US government is going to arrange this convoluted plot, and has no qualms slaughtering thousands of its people to do it, why not just let the victims' cell calls be real?
I think they probably were real, but I don’t know for sure. Maybe some were, some weren’t.

Absurdity #46 (?) -- Not only that, but cruise missiles can penetrate several reinforcd concrete walls before exploding.
We don’t know what happened at the Pentagon, I’m with Russell Pickering. He has put together an entire website with all the evidence, and he concludes that he doesn’t know.

Absurdity #47 -- It is impossible for anyone to simply and honestly disagree with THE TRUTH. Anyone who does is obviously one of the actual conspirators or a paid shill.
I think most supporters of the OCT are sincere, but misguided.

Absurdity #48 -- Despite whistle-blowing for other Bush Administration screw-ups and misdeeds, he's still popular enough with co-conspirators to not be ratted out for 9/11.
Limited hangouts are crucial. Government profits when things go wrong. See Hurricane Katrina. The choice in the public’s mind is either to think it was accidental or on purpose. Better to let the people think it was an accident, the “incompetent government theory”. I believe a more accurate theory for most events is the “evil government theory”.

Absurdity #49 -- Once the American people know what really happened on 9/11, that will be enough to spontaneously generate legal indictments, grand juries, and special prosecutors.
Again, the government is the ultimate decision maker in all disputes, including dispute involving itself. See Hans-Hermann Hoppe.

Absurdity #50 -- Cui bono? Certainly not Osama bin Laden. Only Bush could (...and maybe Blair, and maybe Putin and the Chinese gov't and the Indian gov't...ahem)... Only Bush could have benefitted from 9/11.
Lots of people benefited from 9/11. The government itself, of course. Silverstein and co, for them it was old-fashioned insurance fraud. Military contractors. The endless war is extremely profitable, and the endless excuse to milk the U.S. taxpayers raw, while pursuing empire. Please just watch the stinkin’ news. Look what they are doing.

Absurdity #51 -- U.S. imperial ambition and lies for war began with George W. Bush's Presidency. When he's kicked out, somehow (see #49), things will go back to normal and everything will be a-okay.
U.S imperial ambition began, arguably, with the Spanish American war, also based on a false-flag operation known as “Remember the Maine”. It kicked into full gear with the founding of the Federal Reserve System (the theft and monopolization of the money supply) in 1913 and WWI shortly thereafter.

Absurdity #52 -- The day that 9/11 TRUTH is proclaimed from every hill and mountaintop in the land, all the U.S. military forces in Iraq and Afghanistan will board special 9/11 TRUTH airplanes and be taken back to the loving arms of their families.
This is absurd.

Absurdity #53 -- The world isn't run by long-standing, observable, powerful institutions or systems. It's run by small groups of shadowy individuals who pull the strings behind the scenes. (Now if we could only agree on which ones....)
Allow me to monopolize a country’s money supply, and I care not who makes its laws. Please realize that money evolved on the free market, and was stolen by governments in partnership with the large bankers.

#54 They fell in their own footprint is proof of controlled demolitions, the debris ejected from the towers is evidence of explosives.
Conrtolled demolitions can be engineered to behave in all sorts of ways. They can make a building fall to one side, or the other, or come down one section at a time, or straight down into to the basement. The twin towers were over-exploded because they were so strong, and because they had to do it from the top-down. Top-down makes less-efficient use of gravity than the standard bottom-up.

56a. WTC7 contained records wich needed to be destroyed wich somehow could not fit into a standard paper/computer disc shredder.
Well, it’s paper, and hard drives, and computers. It could also be incriminating equipment in Giuliani’s bunker.

56b. On a related note, the same administration that is so inept that it can't manage to figure out how to shred or otherwise disappear a relatively small amount of paper without destroying a 47 storey building in a controlled demolition perpetrated on live television is simultaneously so diabolically clever that it can pull off the massive conspiracy required by the tinhat crowd.
I favor the evil government theory, as opposed to the incompetent government theory. Katrina was a huge success, from the government’s perspective. Massive funding increase.

The whole idea that the towers were destroyed for insurance is ludicrous. Silverstein's paid $600+ million since 9/11 on that pesky 99-year lease he signed on the towers six weeks before they were destroyed.. and what's he got to show for it? A hole in the ground. The $4.1 billion he got from the insurance will cover about one-third of the cost of the Freedom Tower.
First, the twin towers were losing money big-time. They were faced with a huge cost of replacing all the asbestos. $4.1 billion in cash, now, is huge. The cost of the Freedom tower can be financed. Silverstein made out very well indeed.

Absurdity #57 -- Bush and company destroyed major office towers in downtown Manhattan, which had the effect of shutting down Wall Street and scaring the public in a way where they might not want to spend money unnecessarily. And the weapons used were airlines, which almost went bankrupt and had to be bailed out by the goverment. This was part of a larger plan to boost the U.S. economy.
It was part of a larger plan to take over security at the airports, an often overlooked chapter in this sordid tale. A police state requires control of transportation. Bankrupting the airlines would benefit the government as well, because it would give them a great excuse to “nationalize” (i.e. take over) the airlines.

#58 (?) As part of the evergrowing plot, CIA ops went into Afganistan, and killed the leader of the northern alliance 2 days before 9/11, as to make friends with the Taliban regime.
Sounds like the invasion of Afghanistan was already in place before 9/11.

#59 The conspirators had no qualms about killing 3000 people, but Avery Dylan and friends are still walking around alive and free.
Yes, but less free than before 9/11. Government spending is way, way up. And once government spends money, the productive citizens are on the hook for it, whether it is ultimately paid for with taxes, or borrowing, or inflation. And those are the only three ways that government has of expropriating wealth. The more wealth that is expropriated, the less free we are. When will government say “enough”? I don’t know. The Patriot Act, the takeover of the airports, the Department of Homeland Security, the new Secret Prisons, the wiretapping, etc. These are all invasions of our liberty, and they are all based on 9/11.

#61 Why edit out certain parts of the movie "What we saw" and subsequently release it? Why not destroy the movie to begin with?
Why destroy a great piece of propaganda? The “controversy” about it perpetuates the myth that there is meaningful dissent.

v#62: A possible explanation for the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 is nuclear bombs set of in the basement.
Some have said it was a mini nuke, but there are no signs of radiation. An afterglow is observed on several videotapes. We know with certainly that there were very powerful explosives, we don’t know exactly what sort.

Could it be that "they" don't want anyone to be able to build an accurate model of a twin tower?
Hey, that’s my question!! And a good one.

Peace.

[stateofgrace]

I am an audio professional. I use audio software on a daily basis. There are multitudes of plug-ins that manipulate voices in all sorts of ways, but I am not aware of any commercial software that can imitate a specific person’s voice. It’s conceivable that the government has better technology that is commercially available, but I highly doubt it. Such a product would be very marketable in the music industry.

I haven’t actually heard any of the 9/11 cell phone calls, except Betty Ong. Faking an audio recording such as Betty Ong is quite easy, of course. But faking out family members would be next to impossible. Either the all the family members are lying (hard to believe, but not impossible), or else some of the calls actually took place. If so, it means that there really were hijackers. This does not invalidate the conspiracy theory, but it would invalidate the no-planes theory, and the no-hijackers theory. It would not invalidate the remote control theory, as patsy-hijackers could have been tricked into hijacking a plane that then was electronically hijacked from them.

The 911 operator who allegedly took Todd Beamer’s call could certainly be a liar. She has a whole book deal and the works, and there is no recording. It is quite odd that there is no recording of this 911 call.

Clearly I do not know for sure what happened with the calls, and more research is required. Transcripts without recordings should be disregarded


I posted this one and this is the only one I will address. I have no desire to enter into a full blown debate with you until you apologies for your dreadful remarks about people being on a par with holocaust deniers.

I want to prove your allegation, simple as that.

This one.

The 911 operator who allegedly took Todd Beamer’s call could certainly be a liar.

Prove this or shut up.

[Architect]

Fires codes are words on paper. The relevant point is that (ignoring controlled demolitions) never before or since 9/11 have we observed anything remotely resembling what happened that day.



With respect, that's hand-waving. EVERY single building code in the West has recognised for years that fire - NORMAL fire - causes failure of steel structures. They are wholly relevant. Please explain why, therefore, they have "lied"?

[Bell]

#58 (?) As part of the evergrowing plot, CIA ops went into Afganistan, and killed the leader of the northern alliance 2 days before 9/11, as to make friends with the Taliban regime.

Sounds like the invasion of Afghanistan was already in place before 9/11.

Never heard of sarcasm? Let me explain. On 9/9 Ahmed Shah Massoud, the leader of the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, was killed by Al Quada operatives posing as TV journalists. It is a general believe OBL had him killed, as to ensure protection from the Taliban regime.

Since in the denier mind 9/11 and everything related was orchestrated by the gubmint, I tried to think as a denier, and therefor concluded the CIA must be behind the assasination.

Kind of silly, no? To win favours with the Taliban, and then in October bomb them out of power. Shows how silly the deniers claims are.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

*Ahem*

My own brother-in-law is, in fact, a structural engineer. I know him to be a very kind, honest, decent man. He supports the official theory, and last Thanksgiving was quick to dismiss my “conspiracy theories”, and said that “we know why the towers fell”. He referred me to the NOVA show, and indicated that the show’s producer, Larry Klein, was his college roommate and friend.

And...

Correct. For a building to fall straight down, the vertical supports must fail at the same time. There’s just no getting around this with any amount of jet fuel.

You admit to having spoken with an actual qualified engineer whom you described as "kind, honest, decent". You know that he contradicted your response to point #41 (among others).

You made your response to point #41 already having admitted you knew it wasn't true.

You lied.

I hope for your sake that you are kind and decent, because unlike your brother-in-law, you are in no way honest.

[Nihilanth]

First of all, I'm glad you decided to show up here after all. Although it was a lame way to conduct this discussion, most people would have run away with their tails between their legs.

Unfortunately, this salute will become a full hand slap in the face. I didn't realize you were the same guy that said skeptics of the 9/11 conspiracy movement are on par with Holocaust deniers. That's pretty damned offensive, not too mention heavy on the hyperbole, so I have absolutely no respect for you now. Jerk.

But I'll go ahead and address some of these points anyway. For added fun, I am typing this after getting off my night shift and exhausted. In addition, I am writing all this on my sister's Princess keyboard with the tiny buttons.




Same as answer #1. It wouldn’t be big enough. It wouldn’t bring down the tower, how ridiculous.



I'm sorry, I don't see how it's ridiculous to think that an entire plane crashing into the side of a building is enough to bring it down. I mean, if the plane were made of styrofoam and fueled by magical pixie dust, then yeah, totally, get the Illuminati on line 1 because I TOTALLY want on their side. But tons of metal flying through the air and laden with a massive amount of jet fuel? Yeah, I think that's more than enough to down a building.



Destruction of important SEC documents is one theory, incriminating equipment in Giuliani’s bunker is another. Why wasn’t Giuliani in his bunker that day, it seems like exactly the kind of situation it was designed for. Considering the tenant list of WTC7 (FBI, CIA, SEC, DOD) there could be so much filthy stuff there it would choke the sewers.


I'm sorry, did you learn to talk by watching the X-files or something? Nobody in the real world talks like that. "So much filthy stuff there it would choke the sewers"? Come on. That's the kind of stuff they edit out of scripts because it's too cliche.
However, I don't know anything about this so I can't really argue it. You just sounded dumb saying it.



There may well have been a plane crash at the Pentagon. At this point, I’m with Russell Pickering. We don’t really know what happened there. Of all the possible scenarios, however, the official story seems the least likely. Remote control 757 seems more likely.


You know what seems even MORE likely? Terrorists hijacked a plane and crashed it into the Pentagon as an attack against godless, heathen America. Do you have any proof that a remote control 747 is more likely than what we were told happened? Or is this whole conspiracy theory thing just a reason for you to put on your extra-special black trenchcoat and pretend the feds are after you?



First of all, perhaps 93 was supposed to hit building 7. In any event, the heroic tale of Todd Beamer and “Let’s Roll” could not support the official story more even if it was scripted by a Hollywood screenwriter. In fact, it was so perfect, it WAS made into a movie.


So, wait...it was TOO perfect, then? Just what are you saying here? I don't understand and, quite frankly, I'm a little afraid, too. Question: When I join you crazy club, can I pick out my own color of tinfoil hat?


It’s not just “in the ruins” and its not just sulfur. The metallurgical report found that steel was oxidized in the presence of sulfur, leaving a “swiss cheese” appearance. The New York Times called this a great mystery. Add to that the fact that Dr. Jones had found chemical signatures of much rarer chemicals in the formerly molten metal, such as barium, which is commonly used in thermate. Then consider the di-phenyl propane, found “in quanties that dwarfed all others”, quite rare, but used in “sol-gels”, a medium which is used in suspending thermates.


HAHAHA! "No time for love, Dr. Jones!"
I'm legally retarded, though, so I don't know anything about chemistry. I'll let the smarties field this one, if you haven't alienated them already with your stunning, offensive display of hyperbole.



Add to that the soldiers and civilians killed in the middle east, and you’re up over 100,000, easy.


"Sir! I have several terrorist cells that are ready to kamikaze the WTC on file. Should I contact them and pretend not to be the government asking them to please crash into us?"
"No need, Jimmy. We'll use robot planes instead."
"But...why, sir?"
"Because when the inevitable war happens we'll kill more muslims than we know what to do with! HAHAHAHA!!!" *Eats babies*

...no, I can't see that happening, either.


747’s aren’t enough to wipe them out, either. Plus, they’re less agile.


The planes are going to be running into a building, not entering the Olympic slalom. Why the hell would they have to be agile? Were they afraid that the WTC was going to jump out of the way at the last second?
And, yes...planes crashing into buildings are often enough to topple them.


Way too uncontrolled. Could wipe out buildings and real estate not owned by Silverstein.


Yeah, cuz, Lord knows...when you're planning to blow up your own citizens on your own soil to kick start a war, you want to keep the collateral damage to a minimum.
Oh, and, just so you know, that was sarcasm. I don't know, do they have sarcasm on planet Wacko?



Never before had buildings this large been demolished. WTC1 and 2 had to be exploded top-down, thus requiring even more explosives than if it had proceeded from the bottom up. Considering the complete and total devastation of all 7 WTC buildings,the damage to surrounding real estate was remarkably little. Certainly not an outcome that al-Quaeda terrorists would desire.


So THAT'S how we know it wasn't Al-Qaeda! They would have cuased MORE damage than the complete and utter destruction of the World Trade Center! And they would have packed the airplane with adorable kittens first!
You know what works better than explosives when demolishing a building? A plane.


No, the put-options were just a little gravy for some insiders, not the main motivation at tall.


"...just a little gravy"? Man, you're not real. You're some kind of robot that learned to interact by watching Hollywood movies. I'm onto you, Conspiracy-Bot!


Mass murderers in high office are, unfortunately, common. Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Pol-Pot, Idi Amin, . . .


Right...but none of these people pulled off Super-secret squirrel mass murders that could only be cracked by intrepid journalists working out of their mom's basement.
I'm sorry, that one was too easy. I'll try not to take the really easy set-ups you're giving me anymore, Conspiracy-bot, you wacky android. But so far you've given us no proof except for lame rationalizations and the chemical thing, which I'll let someone else get to. Do you HAVE any proof, or is the reality you've chosen to live in just more exciting for you?


The secret service is trained to protect the President, regardless of the situation. The fact that they did not whisk him away from this very public and pre-announced photo-op is extremely hard to explain.


No it's not. In fact, looks kind of bad when they bundle up the president and whisk him away from a CLASSROOM OF LITTLE CHILDREN. I can just see George Bush, re-enacting George Castanza, pushing over little kids and screaming "GET OUT OF THE WAY! SATAN'S COMING!"

Blah blah blah, I'll get the rest later. I'm sorry, but arguing with a crazy person who makes insulting hyperboles about the greatest tragedy in recent memory (the Holocaust, dummy, not 9/11) isn't high on my priorities list. In fact, it's right below "Getting eaten alive by zombies", but who knows.

[Blackadder_no]

Add to that the fact that Dr. Jones had found chemical signatures of much rarer chemicals in the formerly molten metal, such as barium, which is commonly used in thermate.

Oh, so now he has suddenly found barium.

Let me see if I got this timeline straight:

- Jones claims thermate was used, points to traces of sulphur found on the steel and claims this as "evidence" of the presence of thermate.

- Skeptics point out that the sulphur could have a variety of sources, and also note that there is no mention of barium, which should have been found in much higher quantities than the sulphur.

- Jones starts "finding" traces of barium.

Sorry, I don't buy it. This reeks of dishonesty.

[shuize]

TS1234,

I'm mildly impressed that you actually attempted to answer most of the questions. All the same, I defy any rational person to read the questions next to your answers without concluding you're nuts.

[Architect]

TS1234,

I'm mildly impressed that you actually attempted to answer most of the questions. All the same, I defy any rational person to read the questions next to your answers without concluding you're nuts.


In all fairness, next to Christopher.......

[stateofgrace]

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234 http://www.randi.org/forumlive/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1927165#post1927165)

First of all, perhaps 93 was supposed to hit building 7. In any event, the heroic tale of Todd Beamer and “Let’s Roll” could not support the official story more even if it was scripted by a Hollywood screenwriter. In fact, it was so perfect, it WAS made into a movie.


Absolute rubbish and speculation. Flight 93 was not targeted at WTC 7, if you had even bothered to read the sworn testimony from the guy who allegedly masterminded 911 you would know this, but you prefer to make up absolute garbage instead.

Flight 93 was heading towards Washington not New York.

You are lying.

The movie incidentally was made with the full backing of the families involved and some of the people that were actually involved in the event actually played themselves in it. So I guess you would say they are lying too.

[chracatoa]

This would be hilarious if it weren't so sad...

Anyway, I watched LC before I knew anything about the conspiracy or its debunkers. In the beginning of the movie (before they stated their most absurd theories) I actually thought there might be something there. After all, I did not know many details of 9/11. But then they start to contradict themselves. First they said there wasn't any plane debris on the Pentagon site. Later they said there WAS debris, but they were supposed planted there. What the hell? And later yet they started talking about controlled demolition. Unbelievable. I stopped watching it right there. I thought what a bunch of thrash, this is what happens when anyone can make a movie today.

I confess I was surprised to learn about the controversy. There shouldn't be any. Here in Brazil we have not hear anything about it. There are some blogs commenting on those issues, but the majority of them say how silly the theory is.

[Pyrrho]

Feh. Removed. Already too late.

I'll say this instead: Perhaps the most egregious thing about Argumentum ad ignorantiam is that is requires us to accept and be ignorant.

[Loss Leader]

Well, let others handle the engineering ones. I'll take this piece of lunacy:


First of all, perhaps 93 was supposed to hit building 7. In any event, the heroic tale of Todd Beamer and “Let’s Roll” could not support the official story more even if it was scripted by a Hollywood screenwriter. In fact, it was so perfect, it WAS made into a movie.

If the government let the "Let's roll!" story out to boost morale, why didn't the government stick with it? New information from 93's black box, radar data and the transmissions from the flight deck to the air traffic controllers show that the passengers never regained control of the plane. The hijackers jinked the plane violently to disrupt the passengers and then decided to crash. The hijackers were heard discussing whether to crash and praying as the plane went down. The passengers never got through the door of the flight deck.

Why would the government let out "invented" information that takes away from the story of the heroism of the passengers?

They wouldn't. You're wrong. And, sadly, it seems to have hurt your relationship with some of your family members.

[DavidJames]

TS1234 - you are a sad excuse of a human being, really, sad. To loser CTists, everything (except facts) are part of the CT. You talk with a structural engineer who disagrees with your lunacy, but you are unfazed. You have no education, knowledge or experience in these matters and completely disregard the opinions of someone, who you feel is "honest and decent". You are either driven by your arrogance, ego, or pure stupidity. I see no other alternative.

You are so delusional I'm not sure how you exist in daily life. I wish you well, but for the sake of our future, please don't reproduce.

[firecoins]

Betty Ong didn't use a cell phone! She used an airphone that was installed in the plane for passengers and crew.

Rudy G., FDNY and NYPD officals were in the bunker in building #7 & evacuated. He was videotaped walking out of building #7.

[Bell]

Betty Ong didn't use a cell phone! She used an airphone that was installed in the plane for passengers and crew.

Rudy G., FDNY and NYPD officals were in the bunker in building #7 & evacuated. He was videotaped walking out of building #7.

Which was, if I'm not mistaken, after the collapse of 2. I remember hearing they even had a hard time getting out of the bunker.

[LashL]

First, the twin towers were losing money big-time. They were faced with a huge cost of replacing all the asbestos. $4.1 billion in cash, now, is huge. The cost of the Freedom tower can be financed. Silverstein made out very well indeed.


That is complete and utter BS.

Please provide evidence to substantiate your claims.

[LashL]

I posted this one and this is the only one I will address. I have no desire to enter into a full blown debate with you until you apologies for your dreadful remarks about people being on a par with holocaust deniers.

I want to prove your allegation, simple as that.

This one.

The 911 operator who allegedly took Todd Beamer’s call could certainly be a liar.

Prove this or shut up.


Todd Beamer didn't even talk to a 911 operator. He spoke to a GTE Airfone supervisor.

[firecoins]

Which was, if I'm not mistaken, after the collapse of 2. I remember hearing they even had a hard time getting out of the bunker.

your right! The Mayor and top officials left the bunker after the second collapse and difficulty leaving.

[defaultdotxbe]

Absurdity #1: Why fake something as elaborate and unprecedented to simulate a terrorist attack, when a truckload of explosives would have been immidiately recognized by the public as a terrorist attack?


Shock and Awe. See Hitler, Mein Kompf, on “The Big Lie”. They tried the explosives in the basement thing, and it didn’t work. It didn’t bring down the building, but more importantly, it wasn’t big enough to be a New Pearl Harbor.

no, the question was why such an elaborate method of bringing down th ebuildings (airplanes hitting them) why not blow up another truck in the basement, THEN CD the buildings, it would be immediately recognized as a terrorist attack, immediately recognized as OBL's MO, and when the issue of "why didnt 93 work and this did?" come up, the answer is simple, they used a hel of a lot more explosives this time to make SURE they got it right

[Mancman]

First, the twin towers were losing money big-time. They were faced with a huge cost of replacing all the asbestos. $4.1 billion in cash, now, is huge. The cost of the Freedom tower can be financed. Silverstein made out very well indeed.

False.


"February 12, 2001

As Real Estate Director, a position Mrs. Nanninga has held since 1996, the occupancy rate at the trade center has risen from 78 percent to a healthy 98 percent, retail soared in the trade center's mall, and available office space in the Newark Legal Center has nearly been filled.

Today, only about 250,000 of the 10.4 million square feet of office space in the trade center remains vacant. And the legal center has an occupancy rate of over 99 percent."

http://www.panynj.gov/AboutthePortAuthority/PressCenter/PressReleases/PressRelease/index.php?id=61

And $4.1 billion? The WTC contained asbestos in one tower, upto the 38th floor only:

"Several materials were considered for the sprayed thermal insulation. The exterior columns required insulation not only for fire protection but also to control column temperatures under service conditions. Alcoa recommended for the exterior columns the use of a sprayed material produced by U.S. Mineral Products, Co. known as BLAZE-SHIELD Type D. The same material was eventually selected for the floor trusses and core beams and columns. This product, however, contained asbestos fibers. On April 13, 1970, New York City issued restrictions on the application of sprayed thermal insulation containing asbestos. The use of BLAZE-SHIELD Type D was discontinued in 1970 at the 38th floor of WTC 1. The asbestos-containing material was subsequently encapsulated with a sprayed material that provided a hard coating. A green dye was added to the encapsulating material so that the asbestos containing SFRM could be identified. Thermal protection of the remaining floors of WTC 1 and all of WTC 2 was carried out using BLAZE-SHIELD Type DC/F, a product that contained mineral wool (glassy fibers) in place of the crystalline asbestos fibers. On the basis of tests, it was reported that the thermal properties of BLAZE-SHIELD Type DC/F were equal to or "slightly better" than those of BLAZE-SHIELD Type D"

[defaultdotxbe]

The cost of the Freedom tower can be financed


so could the cost of asbestos removal, when you have as much colateral as someone like larry silverstein does you can get a loan for almost anything

[firecoins]

no, the question was why such an elaborate method of bringing down th ebuildings (airplanes hitting them) why not blow up another truck in the basement, THEN CD the buildings, it would be immediately recognized as a terrorist attack, immediately recognized as OBL's MO, and when the issue of "why didnt 93 work and this did?" come up, the answer is simple, they used a hel of a lot more explosives this time to make SURE they got it right
Blowing up several truck bombs in NYC would have been effective in getting a war started. Using hijacked planes was not the MO of terrorists.

If a truck bomb blew up in any of the following locations the Holland tunnel, Lincoln Tunnel, the Queens-Midtown Tunnel, the Brooklyn Bridge, Manhattan Bridges or Times Square could have brought NYC and the US to a halt and started the wars. There was no need for a convoluted plan to fake a terror attack that included switching out of commercial airplanes and filling up 3 skyscrapers with explosives invisibly and faking phone calls from airplanes and the like.

[TruthSeeker1234]

no, the question was why such an elaborate method of bringing down th ebuildings (airplanes hitting them) why not blow up another truck in the basement, THEN CD the buildings,

I answered that. Thewy wanted to involve airplanes because that is the rationale for taking over airport security. Did you forget that little detail? Also, jets are photogenic, and big, and fast. It's about the big lie.

[joemailman]

Perhaps sufficient motivation for a conspiracy has not been expressed. Perhaps the CT debunkers think that this was not a well thought out series of events. Perhaps they think their government and those who control it have their best interests in mind.

[Bell]

so could the cost of asbestos removal, when you have as much colateral as someone like larry silverstein does you can get a loan for almost anything

Regarding the above post by Default:

BS1234,
I'm sure that the rescueworkers and ironworkers at GZ today agree that crashing airplanes into the WTC, and then blowing them to kingdom come, was a more efficient way than having the asbestos removed by people in protective hazard suits? :mad:

[firecoins]

I answered that. Thewy wanted to involve airplanes because that is the rationale for taking over airport security. Did you forget that little detail? Also, jets are photogenic, and big, and fast. It's about the big lie.

THe car bombs in NY would have been photogenic particuly in Times Square. Airport security could have been taken over with any major US terror attack. Why would they want to take over airport security when they could have just given it to Haliburton to do?

[TruthSeeker1234]

The 911 operator who allegedly took Todd Beamer’s call could certainly be a liar.

Prove this or shut up.

I said she could be, not she that was.

1) 911 calls are recorded. This wasn't.
2) She has a book out, profiting from the story.

This does not prove she is a liar, but it raises questions.

[Mancman]

A little more on the asbestos issue.

Tour Montparnasse in Paris is full of asbestos, and it will cost €4M per floor (http://www.ibtpartners.com/opportunities/environment#article2) to remove it. The floorplates of Tour Montparnasse are approx 40% of the size of a WTC floorplate, so we could estimate it would cost €10 million per WTC floor, or €380 million total if we use the 38 floor figure, which is $481 million.

Not cheap, but not $4.1 billion either.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I said she could be, not she that was.

1) 911 calls are recorded. This wasn't.
2) She has a book out, profiting from the story.

This does not prove she is a liar, but it raises questions.

Truthseeker using question marks to avoid committing slander? Question marks useful tool for avoiding having to provide evidence? Hey, I'm just asking questions here.

[TruthSeeker1234]

- Jones starts "finding" traces of barium.

Sorry, I don't buy it. This reeks of dishonesty.

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

This paper and associated links contains the xray and other analyses done by jones. He invites others to reproduce his results

[firecoins]

I answered that. Thewy wanted to involve airplanes because that is the rationale for taking over airport security. Did you forget that little detail? Also, jets are photogenic, and big, and fast. It's about the big lie.

I am sure Playboy will use the 737 and 757 as centerfolds.

[Bell]

I said she could be, not she that was.

1) 911 calls are recorded. This wasn't.
2) She has a book out, profiting from the story.

This does not prove she is a liar, but it raises questions.

1) As stated to you before, he didn't call 911, but the phone service provider (Verizon, IIRC from 'the flight that fought back')
2) Dylan et al have a DVD and t-shirts out, profiting from the story.

Or should I say. Are Dylan et al making money over the backs of death people, which as a matter of fact they also like to mock?

Does BS1234 like to mock death people?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

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

This paper and associated links contains the xray and other analyses done by jones. He invites others to reproduce his results

How about since you're making the claim, you do the legwork and cite specific pages that he talks about barium.

[defaultdotxbe]

I answered that. Thewy wanted to involve airplanes because that is the rationale for taking over airport security. Did you forget that little detail?

they could use any event to take over airport security:

"how did these hijackers get into the country when they didnt have valid passports"

see? now the govt can take over airport security and any border security they want


Also, jets are photogenic, and big, and fast. It's about the big lie.

conspirator #1: we'll use car bombs because everyone already knows OBL uses them

conspirator #2: no, we should use planes because they are they are big and go "whooooooosh" and they look really really cool!

[Architect]

Truthseeker using question marks to avoid committing slander? Question marks useful tool for avoiding having to provide evidence? Hey, I'm just asking questions here.


Libel, surely?

Except in Scotland, where it would be defamation.

[Infinite]

Does any of this matter, really? No one will really know what happened on that fatefull day when so many people died. Just go on the facts. A bunch of fellow American's died. That is the truth in all of this. What are we asking, what for and why for. There will never really be a magical book that puts it all together. Maybe the Goverment is partly to blame because they never paid attention to the warning signs, because someone was too busy playing golf. I think everyone in goverment is directly and indirectly to blame because everyone was too busy with their heads up their @sses working and trying to make money to notice that our country was about to be attacked. Isn't that why we pay spys to do the homework and write the reports that need to be read.

[stateofgrace]

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234 http://www.randi.org/forumlive/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1928373#post1928373)

I said she could be, not she that was.

1) 911 calls are recorded. This wasn't.
2) She has a book out, profiting from the story.

This does not prove she is a liar, but it raises questions.

NO it does not. There are no questions here; it is black or white, truth or lie. This lady is telling the truth or lying.

Why would you even question whether she is lying if you didn’t think she was?

Prove she is lying or stop questioning her integrity.

And for god sake save your self righteous indignation, as though somebody who was involved and talked to a now dead, murdered individual as done anything wrong. Her story is actually factual and based on real events, not garbage pumped out on conspiracy websites for gullible idiots to lap up. It’s called reality pal and in the real world human interest stories, told by real people are read by real people. Not like the drones and droids that inhabit the nut house of LC.

You really annoy me, by your sleazy tactics and the way you feel you can call anybody you like a liar and then come back with some false outrage because people are offended by your remarks.

Incidentally, you self righteous savoir of humanity I am yet to see an apology for your gross thread, comparing everybody to holocaust deniers.

[kc440_]

Absurdity #15: Bush agrees to be reading a story to school children when all this occurs. He then pretends to sit stunned for several minutes before allowing himself to be whisked off by the Secret Service.

The neocons would have arranged for Bush to leap into action looking very much the leader they wish he was.

Had this happened, Biker, Bush would have called for the planes to come down and the 2nd tower wouldn't have been hit. But God told him to do nothing, thereby allowing it to happen.and looking like the stupid moron he is. IMO, Cheney's the real puppet master.

kc440

[LashL]

I said she could be, not she that was.

1) 911 calls are recorded. This wasn't.
2) She has a book out, profiting from the story.

This does not prove she is a liar, but it raises questions.

As I previously pointed out, Todd Beamer did not talk to a 911 operator.

You are the one being dishonest here. Your choice of user name is a joke.

[Bell]

Had this happened, Biker, Bush would have called for the planes to come down and the 2nd tower wouldn't have been hit. But God told him to do nothing, thereby allowing it to happen.and looking like the stupid moron he is. IMO, Cheney's the real puppet master.

kc440

Did you note (I guess not) that when Bush got wispered in his ear, it was about the second plane?? I don't think even God could send Bush back in time to prevent UA175 hit WTC2.

[Loss Leader]

I want to add an absurdity:

John Kerry was in on the plan and agreed to let Bush win the 2004 election.

In 2001, John Kerry was certainly highly placed in our nation's government as well as being just about as wealthy as a person can get. If there is a government cabal, Kerry is in on it.

Otherwise, he's the stupidest Presidential candidate in history. If the Republican government whipped up 9/11 in their first eight months in office, any insinuation at all that Kerry could have made about it in 2004 would have guaranteed him the White House. Hell, it would have guaranteed the Democrats the White House for the next two hundred years. But Kerry - while campaigning against the war Bush started using 9/11 as an excuse - kept his mouth shut. He didn't even let his stand-ins leak tiny hints about it and then distance himself from them (like Bush and the stupid Veterans for Truth group).

Kerry was in on it, that's the only avenue the Troofers have left.

[kc440_]

The 911 operator who allegedly took Todd Beamer’s call could certainly be a liar.

Prove this or shut up.

I have tried making cell phone calls from an airplane on the east coast, several times. The phone couldn't find a network. I couldn't call anyone. I'm not offering this as proof it didn't happen, but it must be very rare. I don't wish to get into a squabble with anyone.

kc440

[firecoins]

I have tried making cell phone calls from an airplane on the east coast, several times. The phone couldn't find a network. I couldn't call anyone. I'm not offering this as proof it didn't happen, but it must be very rare. I don't wish to get into a squabble with anyone.

kc440
I too have had problems finding a network on board a commercial jet. However most of the cell phone calls that went through were cut off or short. We don't know how many people on board who tried to make cell phone calls.

However most of the successful phone calls, the lenthgy phone calls were from airphones installed for passangers to use with credit cards.

[gumboot]

I was going to respond to TS1234's post, point by point. But then I realised there was no point. The "arguments" presented are upper garbage. They display the logic processes of a 14 year old, and virtually every point involves blatantly false claims.

A typically pathetic attempt from the CT crowd.

-Andrew

[bduddy]

I have tried making cell phone calls from an airplane on the east coast, several times. The phone couldn't find a network. I couldn't call anyone. I'm not offering this as proof it didn't happen, but it must be very rare. I don't wish to get into a squabble with anyone.

kc440
What is all this stupid "cell phone" stuff people keep talking about? The calls were made from the payphones installed in the back of the seats by the airplanes. I even remember a news article about the family of a F93 person saying something to the effect of...
"it was arranged for the phones to not be visible, because they might something or other...
Have any CTers tried making calls from those, or are they all cheap, too?
"

[David Wong]

What is all this stupid "cell phone" stuff people keep talking about? The calls were made from the payphones installed in the back of the seats by the airplanes. I even remember a news article about the family of a F93 person saying something to the effect of...
"it was arranged for the phones to not be visible, because they might something or other...
Have any CTers tried making calls from those, or are they all cheap, too?
"

You'll see.

You see up there where TS1234 responded to the Pentagon "no plane" absurdity by saying he didn't believe in the "no plane" theory?

In the Pentagon thread we've got going, he posted saying he believed in the "no plane" theory.

Okay. So if he believes in it now, doesn't he have to come back here and address the "no plane" absurdity? It's logical right? And yet, he won't. He'll just retreat into, "we're just asking questions."

No, what you're seeing is their primary tactic for debate. The CTers have put enough different false points out there that when one is debunked, they just jump to another. It doesn't matter how many times it's been debunked. You'll see CTers agree that a point has been debunked and then start using it again in interviews a week later.

So you get this:

"Larry Silverstein admitted it was a controlled demolition."

"No, he didn't. (link)"

"Well, maybe he didn't, but with the amount of pulverization of the towers, it had to be explosives."

"It'd be impossible to get that many explosives in the buildings unnoticed."

"But we know they did because Larry Silverstein admitted it."


They just jump from one to the other to the other, then start the rotation again. Come back in 2011 for the 10th anniversary, and they'll still be talking about the cell phone calls.

[defaultdotxbe]

I was going to respond to TS1234's post, point by point. But then I realised there was no point. The "arguments" presented are upper garbage. They display the logic processes of a 14 year old, and virtually every point involves blatantly false claims.

A typically pathetic attempt from the CT crowd.

-Andrew
false claims when he actually addresses the point, mostly he simply dodges the point and restates the absurdity, lol

[LashL]

Planes and phones.

I have tried making cell phone calls from an airplane on the east coast, several times. The phone couldn't find a network. I couldn't call anyone. I'm not offering this as proof it didn't happen, but it must be very rare. I don't wish to get into a squabble with anyone.

kc440

RE:
The 911 operator who allegedly took Todd Beamer’s call could certainly be a liar.

Prove this or shut up.

It has been pointed out several times in this very thread that Todd Beamer did not talk to a 911 operator but a GTE Airfone supervisor, and that he used an Airfone, not a cell phone.

Try a little reading for comprehension.

[LashL]

You'll see.

You see up there where TS1234 responded to the Pentagon "no plane" absurdity by saying he didn't believe in the "no plane" theory?

In the Pentagon thread we've got going, he posted saying he believed in the "no plane" theory.

Okay. So if he believes in it now, doesn't he have to come back here and address the "no plane" absurdity? It's logical right? And yet, he won't. He'll just retreat into, "we're just asking questions."

No, what you're seeing is their primary tactic for debate. The CTers have put enough different false points out there that when one is debunked, they just jump to another. It doesn't matter how many times it's been debunked. You'll see CTers agree that a point has been debunked and then start using it again in interviews a week later.

So you get this:

"Larry Silverstein admitted it was a controlled demolition."

"No, he didn't. (link)"

"Well, maybe he didn't, but with the amount of pulverization of the towers, it had to be explosives."

"It'd be impossible to get that many explosives in the buildings unnoticed."

"But we know they did because Larry Silverstein admitted it."


They just jump from one to the other to the other, then start the rotation again. Come back in 2011 for the 10th anniversary, and they'll still be talking about the cell phone calls.


An excellent summary, David. And sadly accurate.

[jhunter1163]

If Cheney's the puppet master, why isn't he running for president?

[stateofgrace]

I have tried making cell phone calls from an airplane on the east coast, several times. The phone couldn't find a network. I couldn't call anyone. I'm not offering this as proof it didn't happen, but it must be very rare. I don't wish to get into a squabble with anyone.

kc440

You don't wish to squabble with anybody? Then I suggest you start reading the responses that have been put to you and your fellow truthers.

I am going to be as candid as I possibly can here. This lady spoke at length to this man, who is now dead. She by all accounts actually said the Lords prayer with him. This is accepted by most as fact. But more importantly this is an account from somebody that was actually involved in this dreadful event.

So, along comes a truther and actually as the nerve to question whether she is lying and not only that profiting from his death by writing a book about it.

NOW, can you just step back for a moment and see, just genuinely see how appalling this looks? You are not only trying to accuse the big bad US but the unfortunate people that was caught up in this. They are the victims, not the perpetrators.

If you cannot see how awful this and other “questions" regarding the validity of statements from those involved are, then you genuinely have my pity.

[-=Vagrant=-]

I answered that. Thewy wanted to involve airplanes because that is the rationale for taking over airport security. Did you forget that little detail? Also, jets are photogenic, and big, and fast. It's about the big lie.

Since they already managed to use two airplanes in New York (and it was photogenic), did they run into budget problems in the Pentagon strike?

[The Atheist]

Apologies if this has been covered previously, but I don't come in here often and am too lazy to read the entire thread. I just put it all in the box with Santa, the Tooth Fairy and god.

BUT. I do have an absurdity.

How could anyone with half a brain think that the US government and military would ever in their wildest dreams manage to arrange and complete such an insanely complex attack?

The president would have had difficulty reading the damned script, never mind knowing what to do or say! Mind you, that goes with the literary ability of most of the CTists. Good luck with it, guys!

[gumboot]

So, along comes a truther and actually as the nerve to question whether she is lying and not only that profiting from his death by writing a book about it.


I was waiting for someone else to call Troothy on this, but no one has...

It wasn't the operator - 911 or otherwise - who wrote the book. It was Lisa Beamer - Todd Beamer's wife.

The Book is called Let's Roll: Ordinary People, Extraordinary Courage (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Let-Roll-Ordinary-Extraordinary-Courage/dp/0842373195/sr=8-6/qid=1158537248/ref=sr_1_6/026-3098624-7706850?ie=UTF8&s=gateway). I gather it is a sort of "faith inspiration" piece - focusing on how her faith helped her deal with the tragedy. It was published by a religious publishing company.

-Andrew

[twinstead]

No matter how many times they are told, the 'troofers' always seem to forget they are talking about real people. They are accusing real people of falling for fakes of their loved ones calling them. They are accusing real people of profiting from their loved one's deaths. They are accusing real people of lying about what is indeed the worst experience of their lives.

These are REAL people. As usual, the actual implications of their theories are completely ignored. The experiences of these people are simply inconvenient facts for the troofers, something to be hand waived away like a gnat.

It really is disgusting.

[stateofgrace]

Andrew, I have seen a book by Liza Jefferson but wasn’t quite sure where. I’m sure a read also a percentage was going to a charity trust but again can’t find the link.

Anyways I checked up and found this.

http://www.christianbook.com/Christi...004344#details (http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product/?item_no=27375X&p=1004344#details)

Maybe this was the book the truthers refer to when they accuse this lady of lying and profiteering. But hey who knows what goes on in their minds

stateofgrace

[LashL]

I was waiting for someone else to call Troothy on this, but no one has...

It wasn't the operator - 911 or otherwise - who wrote the book. It was Lisa Beamer - Todd Beamer's wife.

The Book is called Let's Roll: Ordinary People, Extraordinary Courage (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Let-Roll-Ordinary-Extraordinary-Courage/dp/0842373195/sr=8-6/qid=1158537248/ref=sr_1_6/026-3098624-7706850?ie=UTF8&s=gateway). I gather it is a sort of "faith inspiration" piece - focusing on how her faith helped her deal with the tragedy. It was published by a religious publishing company.

-Andrew

Andrew,
The operator's name is Lisa Jefferson, and she did write a book entitled "called" about the experience.

http://www.amazon.com/Called-Jefferson-Understand-Hijacked-September/dp/188127375X

However, Troofy is still wrong about everything else he has said about these real people who were inadvertently drawn into the horrific events of that day.

[gumboot]

Maybe this was the book the truthers refer to when they accuse this lady of lying and profiteering. But hey who knows what goes on in their minds[/COLOR]

stateofgrace


Could be. Thanks for that. :)

I figured it was Todd Beamer's wife because the Looser boys mention her "multi-million dollar book deal" fairly frequently.

-Andrew

[Bell]

The deniers using the phrase 'alegded passengers' etc time and again, really pisses me off. :mad:

LC even uses that phrase as a subtitle on their passengers forum.

I said it on the SLC forums, but will say it here agian:

"Aledgely Dylan Avery et al are a bunch of a-holes!!" :mad:

[LashL]

The deniers using the phrase 'alegded passengers' etc time and again, really pisses me off. :mad:

LC even uses that phrase as a subtitle on their passengers forum.

I said it on the SLC forums, but will say it here agian:

"Aledgely Dylan Avery et al are a bunch of a-holes!!" :mad:

I agree with your post, except there is no need for the use of the word "allegedly" in the final sentence.

Dylan Avery etal and most (not necessarily ALL) of the LC followers are a bunch of a-holes. No "allegedly" about it.

That said, there are probably a few who have some semblance of decency and some semblance of intelligence. They are just difficult to pick out amongst the crowd there.

[Bell]

I agree with your post, except there is no need for the use of the word "allegedly" in the final sentence.

Dylan Avery etal and most (not necessarily ALL) of the LC followers are a bunch of a-holes. No "allegedly" about it.

That said, there are probably a few who have some semblance of decency and some semblance of intelligence. They are just difficult to pick out amongst the crowd there.

Thanks Lashl :)

I used aledgely in the same way they did. They say alleged passengers, but those passengers were real passengers. I say aledged a-holes, but they are real a-holes ;)

[kc440_]

Did you note (I guess not) that when Bush got wispered in his ear, it was about the second plane?? I don't think even God could send Bush back in time to prevent UA175 hit WTC2.

I stand corrected. You are right. It was the second plane. But hearing about another plane crashing into the WTC makes it even worse. He should have gotten up immediately and given the order to bring the planes down. Who knows how many other planes were going to fly into buildings?

kc440

[Dog Town]

#66
kc440

[gumboot]

I stand corrected. You are right. It was the second plane. But hearing about another plane crashing into the WTC makes it even worse. He should have gotten up immediately and given the order to bring the planes down. Who knows how many other planes were going to fly into buildings?


I (vaguely) agree with you. Just out of curiosity, if you knew that NORAD could not have intercepted any of the aircraft, would that change your stance on this particular scenario?

Much as I feel a shoot-down order needed to happen sooner (frankly it needed to be in place before 9/11), it was actually irrelevant on the day.

-Andrew

[Bell]

I stand corrected. You are right. It was the second plane. But hearing about another plane crashing into the WTC makes it even worse. He should have gotten up immediately and given the order to bring the planes down. Who knows how many other planes were going to fly into buildings?

kc440

kc440, I don't even think the Secret Service knew about other hijacked planes at that moment. They probably knew nothing more than you and I did, that two planes crashed into the towers. It proofs that Bush and the Secret Service acted inadequate at that moment, not that they're involved in a plot.

[gumboot]

kc440, I don't even think the Secret Service knew about other hijacked planes at that moment. They probably knew nothing more than you and I did, that two planes crashed into the towers. It proofs that Bush and the Secret Service acted inadequate at that moment, not that they're involved in a plot.


At 0903, when UA175 hit the South Tower, UA93 had not been hijacked yet. AA77 had been hijacked 9 minutes earlier, however Indianapolis Centre (who were tracking AA77 at the time) thought the aircraft had crashed.

At 0903 NEADS had three incidents:

AA11 - Hijacked, location unknown
UNKNOWN - Aircraft hit WTC1, possibly a 737
UA175 - UA175 hit WTC2 about 4 seconds into the call from Boston ATC notifying NEADS of the hijack.

-Andrew

[KingMerv00]

Mass murderers in high office are, unfortunately, common. Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Pol-Pot, Idi Amin, . . .

Nice to see that all of these guys had time to get together to plant the explosives in the WTC. (Overcoming the sizable handicap of being dead.) Also, I don't recall Hitler and Stalin getting along that well. Something about "Operation Barbarossa" I think. I'm glad they've buried that hatchet.


Seriously though...where do you find thousands of Joe Average murderers?

[MortFurd]

Seriously though...where do you find thousands of Joe Average murderers?
Anywhere that you can convince them that they are doing the best thing for their country/way of life/religion.

Hitler (the SS actually) certainly found enough.

Also note that while a good many Germans will tell you that they didn't know what was going on, they most certainly knew that something was up. If you listen to the old folks here, you'll hear references from WWII about being sent to where you won't come back. This is not in reference to being sent to the front, either.

As much of a police state as Germany was during that time, it was still known that something was up and that it was happening the Jewish people who were quite conspiuously disappearing and to anyone who looked too closely.

So, Nazi Germany found enough killers but even they couldn't keep a secret that involved a group of people they had been trained to hate.

Somewhere among the army of "Joe Average killers" that would have been needed to pull off what the CTists claim happened on 911 there would have to be someone with doubts who would speak up. That hasn't happened, and I doubt that it will. Where there is no conspiracy, there can be no one to betray it.

[KingMerv00]

Anywhere that you can convince them that they are doing the best thing for their country/way of life/religion.

Hitler (the SS actually) certainly found enough.

Also note that while a good many Germans will tell you that they didn't know what was going on, they most certainly knew that something was up. If you listen to the old folks here, you'll hear references from WWII about being sent to where you won't come back. This is not in reference to being sent to the front, either.

As much of a police state as Germany was during that time, it was still known that something was up and that it was happening the Jewish people who were quite conspiuously disappearing and to anyone who looked too closely.

So, Nazi Germany found enough killers but even they couldn't keep a secret that involved a group of people they had been trained to hate.

Somewhere among the army of "Joe Average killers" that would have been needed to pull off what the CTists claim happened on 911 there would have to be someone with doubts who would speak up. That hasn't happened, and I doubt that it will. Where there is no conspiracy, there can be no one to betray it.

I would argue that WWII was completely different. You are talking about finding killers after years of propganda, depression, and war. Do you really think that you could find hundreds of people to demolish the worlds most famous office buildings (with a daycare center inside) on a Tuesday morning, when the work is at its peak?

[MRC_Hans]

Well, thank you for actually attempting to answer. So, here I address your replies:

Shock and Awe. See Hitler, Mein Kompf, on “The Big Lie”. They tried the explosives in the basement thing, and it didn’t work. It didn’t bring down the building, but more importantly, it wasn’t big enough to be a New Pearl Harbor.


Same as answer #1. It wouldn’t be big enough. It wouldn’t bring down the tower, how ridiculous.

The questions were:

1) Why bring down the buildings, since flying a plane into them would be quite a disaster in itself?

You did not provide an answer, except repeating the unfounded speculation that this would somehow "Not be enough". However, you fail to explain how the vastly increased complexity and risk to the operation could be justified.

2) If they wanted the building to fall down, why not lace a bomb in the basement?

And as we know it was already tried earler, with rather serious effect. Obviously, the success of such a scheme depends solely on the size of the bomb. So you did not answer the question of why the evil government should opt for a vastly complex and high-risk operation instead of the relatively simple solution of placing a sufficient amount of explosives in the basement.



Destruction of important SEC documents is one theory, incriminating equipment in Giuliani’s bunker is another. Why wasn’t Giuliani in his bunker that day, it seems like exactly the kind of situation it was designed for. Considering the tenant list of WTC7 (FBI, CIA, SEC, DOD) there could be so much filthy stuff there it would choke the sewers.


The question was why include WTC7.

You have just reiterated silly claims about documents. I don't know about you, but if I have a document I want nobody to read (and this happens in my line of work), the idea of demolishing the building comes rather far down on my list. It is noisy, expensive, and does not really guarantee the result. Instead, I recommend a 20$ paper scredder, and a 50c book of matches.

And, as others have documented, Giuliani was indeed in his bunker. Since you state the opposite as a positive claim, you ate lying (if you did not know, you should have said "was Giuliani in his bunker?").

As for the "stuff the sewers" remeark, it does not answer the question. Surely demolishing the building is hardly a method to protectthe sewers.

In short, you have not posed even one remotely plausible reason for the conspiracists to demolish WTC7.

The Pentagon is a legitimate military target. The idea is to justify endless war, among other things.

That was exactly my question: Since the Pentagon is a military target (whether attacking it without a declaration of war is legitimate is another question), why would conspiracists include it? The idea was to provide an excuse for aggression, and for this purpose a "legitimate" military target must be far down the list.

Repeating the question is not an answer.

There may well have been a plane crash at the Pentagon. At this point, I’m with Russell Pickering. We don’t really know what happened there. Of all the possible scenarios, however, the official story seems the least likely. Remote control 757 seems more likely.

Based on what? How did the remains of passengers arrive?


First of all, perhaps 93 was supposed to hit building 7. In any event, the heroic tale of Todd Beamer and “Let’s Roll” could not support the official story more even if it was scripted by a Hollywood screenwriter. In fact, it was so perfect, it WAS made into a movie.


If it was headed for WTC7, it sure took a strange course. So, if the story fits the official story well, it must be wrong? So all evidence, in your line of reasoning, is against the official story? If it fits it, it must be fake?


It’s not just “in the ruins” and its not just sulfur. The metallurgical report found that steel was oxidized in the presence of sulfur, leaving a “swiss cheese” appearance.

This was only a few samples. The vast majority of the material found supports the official story. There is not enough "swiss cheese" steel to support the idea that the building was demolished.


Way too uncontrolled. Could wipe out buildings and real estate not owned by Silverstein.


Again on the bomb in the basement issue.

Would planting bombs in the basement be less controlled than faking hijacking of airliners, flying them into the buildings, and then staging a never before tried mode of demolition (top-down)?

So these people, who have no scrouples killing thousands and destroying enormous amounts of property, are supposed to be concerned about collateral damage? Could you get a bit more silly, perhaps??


Never before had buildings this large been demolished. WTC1 and 2 had to be exploded top-down, thus requiring even more explosives than if it had proceeded from the bottom up. Considering the complete and total devastation of all 7 WTC buildings,the damage to surrounding real estate was remarkably little. Certainly not an outcome that al-Quaeda terrorists would desire.


So, you now acknowledge that the collapse of the buildings were NOT "exactly like a controlled demolition". Fine, we're making some progress.

I'm sure al-Quaeda would desire to level the entire city, if they could. Failing that, I would expect them to be quite satisfied with burning the upper dozen of floors of the WTC.


Mass murderers in high office are, unfortunately, common. Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Pol-Pot, Idi Amin, . . .


Mention one insanely complicated and risky plot perpetrated by either of those gentlemen.


The secret service is trained to protect the President, regardless of the situation. The fact that they did not whisk him away from this very public and pre-announced photo-op is extremely hard to explain.


So you acknowledge that this is evidence against a government plot?

Those towers had explosives and incendiaries all over.

Unfounded assumption. These discussions have shown that you had no tangible evidence for such explosives, and there is plenty of evidence of how extremely difficult (to be charitable) it would have been to plant them secretly.


Some of them probably went off in the plane crash, but obviously not enough to initiate collapse. If it had, I’m sure they were prepared to finish the collapse. In fact, an immediate collapse may well have been the plan, it might have been more believable. In any case, whichever explosives went off during impact did their job, weakening the structure where they were placed.


Unfounded speculation.


Even though they had 9/11, they weren’t blaming it on Iraq, they were blaming it on al-Quaeda, supposedly headquartered in Afghanistan. WMD was another lie to justify another war. There will be more lies, and more wars. Do you see the pattern?

Frankly, no. Are you claiming that the government needed to stage 911 to invade Afganistan, but a lie was enough to invade Iraq? Please explain the pattern.



Here I am. Although the murder threats on this board genuinely scare me, a promise is a promise.


Which murder threats? Any kind of threats are against the rules of this forum, so if you receive threats, I suggest you report it to the administrators.


Some within the truth movement think no plane hit the Pentagon, some do. I honestly don’t know. I think that remote controlled crash is plausible, but so are planted plane parts. There were very few parts recovered, and those that are seen almost all have red-lettering on them, a coincidence. Considering the speed with which FBI agents showed up at Citgo gas station, I don’t think it is difficult to imagine plane parts being planted quickly.


Please explain in detail how you suggest that several tons of plane parts could be quickly planted at the scene, in broad daylight, in full wiew from publicly accessable areas.



We still haven’t figured it out totally, that is for sure.


That would easily qualify as the understatement of the century.


According to recent polls, the number of Americans who agree with the 9/11 truth movement is about 1/3, and growing very rapidly.


Incorrect. That figure includes those who thinks that the official report may hide something. Not that it matters. HALF the Americans believe creationism is true. I suppose it must be something in your water.


Correct. This supports the notion that 9/11 was an inside job. The wedge housing the top brass was a much easier target than the recently blast-fortified and mostly unoccupied wedge that was hit.


Did OBL know that?


Excellent point, I admit. Some engineers are just out-and-out part of the conspiracy.


So you now accuse, how many, engineers of beign accomplices in mass murder?


But indeed, there are 100,000 + structural engineers, and none (or almost none) have come out against the official theory. This is not the same as saying they support it.


It is, however, evident that they don't find any glaring faults with it.


However, I asked him what he thought happened to WTC7, and he didn’t know what I was talking about. He was completely unaware that a third building had collapsed that day. Think about this.


What about it? How does this influence his evaluation on how the TT fell?

After Thanksgiving 2005, my brother-in-law simply will not discuss 9/11 with me. Period.

Wise of him. For the peace in the family, no doubt.


Here’s my take on my brother-in-law, and I think it applies to a whole lot of people, including a lot of engineers. He knows what happened on 9/11. He knows that buildings don’t crush themselves into shredded steel and powder, systematically spewing it hundreds of feet in all directions, leaving a crater that smolders for months. He knows that those buildings were blown to kingdom come. But he fears that exposing the truth would lead to a “Constitutional Crises”. It’s better, safer, to just let the evil jerks do their thing, as horrible and distasteful as it is to him. Allowing the truth to come out could genuinely lead to a coup, or a military dictatorship in this country. Better just to go along.


Here's my take on your brother-in-law: He knows that the official report makes sense. He knows that buldings can collapse when sufficiently structurally damaged. He realizes that you are a nutjob and would like to rub your nose in it, but for the sake of family harmony has decided not to discuss it.


Snipped, a lot where you essentially acknowledge your ignorance.

The 911 operator who allegedly took Todd Beamer’s call could certainly be a liar. She has a whole book deal and the works, and there is no recording. It is quite odd that there is no recording of this 911 call.

Well, anybody could be a liar. However, we know that you are, because before you wrote this, it had already been pointed out that it was not a 911 call.


Observation of the videos, and consideration of the eyewitness testimony would support the contention that these office fires were stoked by explosions.

Let's start with the videos, since you are generally so fond of those:

Please present videos that show evidence of explosions (that could not be explained by aerosol bottles, gas containers, etc.). To make a good case, I suggest you limit yourself to signs of HE.

For the sake of argument, one can assume fires at hot as needed to cause local collapse. There is still no way that local collapse can lead to the type of pulverizing, explosive, total destruction that was observed.

Please name one precedence where the upper part of a high-rise building fell one story down, impacting on the lower part of the building, without leading to catastrophic failure.

The relevant point is that (ignoring controlled demolitions) never before or since 9/11 have we observed anything remotely resembling what happened that day.

Correct. So you have now abandoned your comparisons to earlier demolitions? Good, we take small steps forward.


The entrance hole was about 90 feet at ground level. Loose Change is wrong, Jim Hoffman is right. It is still very difficult to believe that a 757 caused it, because of ground effect, and the extreme difficulty in coming down the hill, not hitting the ground, maintaining control after hitting light poles, etc.


You are contradicting yourself, here. The ground effect would serve to keep the plane off the ground, just as observed. A few light-poles don't affect a large airliner going 400kts much. Even if they affected the control, they were hit only a few seconds before the plane impacted the building, so there would be no time to change course.

You don't have a case.



The C-ring exit hole is a different matter. This looks very much like a shaped charge, and it is next to impossible for an aircraft part to punch a hole this clean through a reinforced concrete wall. Even if it did, the part (landing gear? Fuselage?) would have to be quite intact, yet no such part is observed.


As we have discussed, and as is evident from the pictures, it is not a reinforced concrete wall. It appears to be a simple brick wall (presumably, the constructors were not overly worried about things impacting the inner walls). A pickup truck going 20mph could have made that hole.

And in several pictures, the remains of the nose wheel are plainly visible in the wreckage outside the hole.

How does it feel to have a case you can only defend by deliberately ignoring glaring evidence against it?

My mom is in heaven now.

Well, that spares her the embarassment of wathing your present antics.


Correct. For a building to fall straight down, the vertical supports must fail at the same time. There’s just no getting around this with any amount of jet fuel.

No, they must fail in a short sequence. Which they will as the weight of the building is transferred to fewer and fewer remaining supports.

We don’t know what happened at the Pentagon, I’m with Russell Pickering. He has put together an entire website with all the evidence, and he concludes that he doesn’t know.

The rest of us do.


I think most supporters of the CT are sincere, but misguided.


I corrected it for you. I agree, but I don't count you among them. I suspect you know you don't really have a case.


Limited hangouts are crucial. Government profits when things go wrong. See Hurricane Katrina. The choice in the public’s mind is either to think it was accidental or on purpose. Better to let the people think it was an accident, the “incompetent government theory”. I believe a more accurate theory for most events is the “evil government theory”.


Katrina was a government plot also? Do elaborate :rolleyes:.

Hans

[MortFurd]

I would argue that WWII was completely different. You are talking about finding killers after years of propganda, depression, and war. Do you really think that you could find hundreds of people to demolish the worlds most famous office buildings (with a daycare center inside) on a Tuesday morning, when the work is at its peak?
I said they could be found. I also said that they wouldn't be able to keep it a secret.

And, yes, I grant that Hitler and the SS had a much better opportunity to pick their "Joe Average killers" - and that much less of an excuse for word getting out.

I do NOT claim that the World Trade Center was brought down by the US government with the aid of thousands of "Joe Average killers." I am NOT on the side of the CT loonies.

My only point was that it is possible to find enough people, but that it takes a lot of convincing and even then you can expect leaks and out and out betrayal.

[TruthSeeker1234]

Lisa Jefferson was a GTE airphone operator, not a 911 operator. My mistake, I stand corrected. This doesn't change the point. She could be lying, there are no recordings of this famous phone call. She could be telling the truth. A real Todd Beamer phone call does not validate the whole OCT. SHe does indeed have a book out, indeed profiting from the tragedy. As has LC, and others.

The overarching point here is that physical evidence rules over statements, and statements by people who were there rule over statements by people who were not there.

I never said that there was no plane at the Pentagon. I'm with Russell Pickering, read his entire website. We don't know what happened at the Pentagon, but of all the various possibilities, the official story is least likely, based on the evidence.

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/

[KingMerv00]

I said they could be found. I also said that they wouldn't be able to keep it a secret.

And, yes, I grant that Hitler and the SS had a much better opportunity to pick their "Joe Average killers" - and that much less of an excuse for word getting out.

I do NOT claim that the World Trade Center was brought down by the US government with the aid of thousands of "Joe Average killers." I am NOT on the side of the CT loonies.

My only point was that it is possible to find enough people, but that it takes a lot of convincing and even then you can expect leaks and out and out betrayal.

I knew you weren't a CTist, just replying to a devil's advocate.

I doubt you could find hundreds (or thousands) of people willing to wire the WTC to collapse. The Holocaust took years of propaganda and gradual restrictions on Jewish freedom. Hitler got his people to believe that Jews were the enemy.

Nobody considered the people in those office buildings to be enemies. How do you interview for a job like that? What do you do when the person refuses to carry out the deed when you ask? The logistics are mind-bending.

[Bell]

Lisa Jefferson was a GTE airphone operator, not a 911 operator. My mistake, I stand corrected. This doesn't change the point. She could be lying, there are no recordings of this famous phone call. She could be telling the truth. A real Todd Beamer phone call does not validate the whole OCT. SHe does indeed have a book out, indeed profiting from the tragedy. As has LC, and others.

The overarching point here is that physical evidence rules over statements, and statements by people who were there rule over statements by people who were not there.

I never said that there was no plane at the Pentagon. I'm with Russell Pickering, read his entire website. We don't know what happened at the Pentagon, but of all the various possibilities, the official story is least likely, based on the evidence.

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/

http://www.amazon.com/Lets-Roll-Ordinary-Extraordinary-Courage/dp/0842373195

Lisa Beamer is Todd's wife, she wrote the book!

[realitybites]

TS, how in the hell are these two statements of yours in the same post?

The overarching point here is that physical evidence rules over statements...

Mere seconds before that you typed:
A real Todd Beamer phone call does not validate the whole OCT....
Do you not consider the numerous phone calls to be physical evidence - even if they're real? What does constitute phyiscal evidence in your mind? What part of your brain to you use to distinguish between genuine evidence and that which has been faked, planted, or touched by JOOS?

[MortFurd]

I knew you weren't a CTist, just replying to a devil's advocate.

I doubt you could find hundreds (or thousands) of people willing to wire the WTC to collapse. The Holocaust took years of propaganda and gradual restrictions on Jewish freedom. Hitler got his people to believe that Jews were the enemy.

Nobody considered the people in those office buildings to be enemies. How do you interview for a job like that? What do you do when the person refuses to carry out the deed when you ask? The logistics are mind-bending.
All points granted and agreed to.

As some one else pointed out, the only option for dealing with someone who doesn't go along when asked is immediate death. Any other course of action leaves the conspirators open to discovery. And as that other person pointed out, that would leave one bloody large trail of bodies before 911. The CTists pretty much ignore that.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Lisa Jefferson was a GTE airphone operator, not a 911 operator. My mistake, I stand corrected. This doesn't change the point. She could be lying, there are no recordings of this famous phone call. She could be telling the truth. A real Todd Beamer phone call does not validate the whole OCT. SHe does indeed have a book out, indeed profiting from the tragedy. As has LC, and others.

The overarching point here is that physical evidence rules over statements, and statements by people who were there rule over statements by people who were not there.

I never said that there was no plane at the Pentagon. I'm with Russell Pickering, read his entire website. We don't know what happened at the Pentagon, but of all the various possibilities, the official story is least likely, based on the evidence.

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/

Howabout this, we do some real scientific analysis, some real scientific process; following the scientific methodology as it were. Pick one thing from Pickering's site, the thing you find most convincing. Start a thread to discuss that one thing and let's follow it all the way to its conclusion. In the new thread, stick to only talking about that one thing, and once resolution is achieved, drop that thread and start a new on on the next one thing to discuss.

[DavidJames]

TS, how in the hell are these two statements of yours in the same post?



Mere seconds before that you typed:

Do you not consider the numerous phone calls to be physical evidence - even if they're real? What does constitute phyiscal evidence in your mind? What part of your brain to you use to distinguish between genuine evidence and that which has been faked, planted, or touched by JOOS?I've given up on BricksForBrains1234. He is completely committed to CT's. Any facts, data, evidence which points to the official story are lies and fabrications. While any diarrhea that flows from CT sites is blessed as real. If, when refuted, they actually admit the vomit is wrong, they simply move on to the next piece of garbage. CTists will come up 100 "coincidences", 99 can be whacked and they will cling to that last one as proof. When that one is whacked, they will make up more.

Insane and crazy or simply lying scum. Flip a coin.

[stateofgrace]

Lisa Jefferson was a GTE airphone operator, not a 911 operator. My mistake, I stand corrected. This doesn't change the point. She could be lying, there are no recordings of this famous phone call. She could be telling the truth. A real Todd Beamer phone call does not validate the whole OCT. SHe does indeed have a book out, indeed profiting from the tragedy. As has LC, and others.

The overarching point here is that physical evidence rules over statements, and statements by people who were there rule over statements by people who were not there.

I never said that there was no plane at the Pentagon. I'm with Russell Pickering, read his entire website. We don't know what happened at the Pentagon, but of all the various possibilities, the official story is least likely, based on the evidence.

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/

This is a joke right?

Is there some part of what has been said to you not sinking in ?
Let me sum it up for you.

Lisa Jefferson was there, she has NO reason to lie. She did not know Todd Beamer before, did not research him and has said on record she spoke to him.

Her book is based on FACT, not fiction.The profits from her book are justifiable by virtue of the fact it is based on real events.

LC on the other hand are profiting from lies and distortions. Only idiots buy into this rubbish.

Now, this will be the last time I am civil to you as you are starting to become annoying. So you have two options

1. Prove Lisa Jefferson is lying.
2. Stop suggesting she is lying.

Choose the later.

[MortFurd]

This is a joke right?

Is there some part of what has been said to you not sinking in ?
Let me sum it up for you.

Lisa Jefferson was there, she has NO reason to lie. She did not know Todd Beamer before, did not research him and has said on record she spoke to him.

Her book is based on FACT, not fiction.The profits from her book are justifiable by virtue of the fact it is based on real events.

LC on the other hand are profiting from lies and distortions. Only idiots buy into this rubbish.

Now, this will be the last time I am civil to you as you are starting to become annoying. So you have two options

1. Prove Lisa Jefferson is lying.
2. Stop suggesting she is lying.

Choose the later.
[CT Mode ON]Dude. She was PART OF IT. Her 6.7Gazillion dollar payoff wasn't enough to make the payment on her new yacht and fill the tank, so she wrote the book to pay for the fuel.[CT Mode OFF]:rolleyes:

Farking CT freaks.

[firecoins]

http://www.amazon.com/Lets-Roll-Ordinary-Extraordinary-Courage/dp/0842373195

Lisa Beamer is Todd's wife, she wrote the book!

Lisa Beamer was Todd's wife. He died on 9/11.;)

[rwguinn]

I've given up on BricksForBrains1234. He is completely committed to CT's. Any facts, data, evidence which points to the official story are lies and fabrications. While any diarrhea that flows from CT sites is blessed as real. If, when refuted, they actually admit the vomit is wrong, they simply move on to the next piece of garbage. CTists will come up 100 "coincidences", 99 can be whacked and they will cling to that last one as proof. When that one is whacked, they will make up more.

Insane and crazy or simply lying scum. Flip a coin.

Almost correct, DavidJ--
When "When that one is whacked", they go back to #1, hoping nobody remembers it, or, realizing that it was whacked 14,576.2 posts ago, require that we go thru the same, tired mess again

[DavidJames]

Almost correct, DavidJ--
When "When that one is whacked", they go back to #1, hoping nobody remembers it, or, realizing that it was whacked 14,576.2 posts ago, require that we go thru the same, tired mess again
Thanks, yes, you are correct - making up new ones is usually beyond the capabilties of many CTists.

[Bell]

Lisa Beamer was Todd's wife. He died on 9/11.;)

Ouch! :boxedin:

[MRC_Hans]

Lisa Jefferson was a GTE airphone operator, not a 911 operator. My mistake, I stand corrected. This doesn't change the point. She could be lying, there are no recordings of this famous phone call.

It does change your point, because it is now no longer "telling" that no record exists.

She could be telling the truth. A real Todd Beamer phone call does not validate the whole OCT.

Of course it doesn't. Nobody claimed it did.

SHe does indeed have a book out, indeed profiting from the tragedy. As has LC, and others.

Nope. Todd Beamer's wife has.

The overarching point here is that physical evidence rules over statements, and statements by people who were there rule over statements by people who were not there

And the physical evidence says planes were taken over by hijackers and crashed into the TT and Pentagon, and one crashed in a field. Thank you.


I never said that there was no plane at the Pentagon. I'm with Russell Pickering, read his entire website. We don't know what happened at the Pentagon, but of all the various possibilities, the official story is least likely, based on the evidence.


Yes we know what happened at the Pentagon. Repeating your unfounded assessement that the evidence does not support the official account does not make it true. All your refutations of the evidence have been countered. There is a load of evidence you have chosen to ignore.

Hans

[MRC_Hans]

*snip*
I never said that there was no plane at the Pentagon. I'm with Russell Pickering, read his entire website. We don't know what happened at the Pentagon, but of all the various possibilities, the official story is least likely, based on the evidence.

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/I read it. All the points in it have already been discussed. The best conclusion from what is present at that website is that the official version is true.

Hans

[robinson]

I'm not sure where to put this link, so I dropped it here. I don't read the 911 conspiracy threads, don't care about them, and pretty much could give a crap about them.

Heres a clip of what happens to a plane when it hits concrete. Thick concrete.

http://gprime.net/video.php/planevsconcretewall

I don't think it will matter to some idiot who thinks a plane didn't hit the Pentagon, but for those of you who want to battle on, have fun.

If somebody has already posted the link, sue me. I don't have time to read this crap.

[LashL]

Lisa Jefferson was a GTE airphone operator, not a 911 operator. My mistake, I stand corrected.

Finally, for once, you admit that you got the very basics upon which you built one aspect of your ridiculous conspiracy theories wrong. That's a start.

This doesn't change the point.

Yes, it does change the point. It turns your point entirely on its head because you repeatedly got the facts wrong, you ignored the facts when they were presented to you several times, and the entire basis of your argument was, to paraphrase, that "9/11 calls are always taped and this one wasn't, thus it 'proves' that it was an inside job".

She could be lying, there are no recordings of this famous phone call.

There you go again, true to paranoid conspiracy theorist form - you got the facts dead wrong, you ignored them even though they were pointed out to you repeatedly, you were finally forced to admit that you got it dead wrong, and then.... even though you've just admitted that you got it dead wrong, you revert instantly to accusing the same innocent party of collusion in mass murder.

How pathetic and disgusting. And how sadly typical of the twisted paranoid conspiracy theorist mindset.

She could be telling the truth. Oh, how big of you to say that she "could" be telling the truth after having accused the woman of being "in on it" for so long without ever bothering to get the most basic of facts right and right after admitting that you had them wrong. That is truly pathetic.

Have you ever - even once - talked to Ms. Jefferson?

Have you ever - even once - made any attempt to talk to Ms. Jefferson?

Have you ever - even once - talked to any of her co-workers who were there that day and who knew that she was on that call with Mr. Beamer?

Have you ever - even once - used your prolific typing fingers to try to contact anyone who was personally involved in that aspect of the events of that day?

Have you ever - even once - picked up your telephone and called anyone who was involved with the Todd Beamer call and asked them about it?

Have you ever - even once - made the slightest personal effort to talk to any, even one of, the people that you are so willing to disparage on the basis of BS claims that you repeat like a CT lemming ad nauseum?

My guess is that you never have and that you are content to beat your keyboard in a furious attempt to find whatever you can that supports your twisted view by way of googling conspiracy sites. That seems to be the extent of your research skills. Here's a hint: in the real world, it doesn't work that way.


She does indeed have a book out, indeed profiting from the tragedy. As has LC, and others.

Yes, she has a book out, and I strongly suspect that you haven't read it and that you have no idea what it includes.

If you had, you would not equate her or her book with the ghouls at LC who make their misguided livings out of mocking the victims and their families.

The overarching point here is that physical evidence rules over statements, and statements by people who were there rule over statements by people who were not there.

Nice try, but it has been made abundantly clear by your posts here that you are wholly incapable of comprehending the physical evidence, that you dismiss out of hand the actual facts and evidence in favour of your twisted PCT worldview, and that you accept at face value only the very few personal statements of people whose statements you think help your conspiracy theory views while you dismiss out of hand the vast majority of personal statements that support the facts and evidence.

You are a complete and utter fraud, and dishonest to the extreme.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

You know... it occurred to me that if we refine this list a little, it'd make a great counterpoint to KKKilltowns absurd and asinine "200 smoking guns".

[Brainache]

So LashL, don't be shy. Tell him what you really think...







although I think that was pretty clear

[calebprime]

I've given up on BricksForBrains1234. He is completely committed to CT's. Any facts, data, evidence which points to the official story are lies and fabrications. While any diarrhea that flows from CT sites is blessed as real. If, when refuted, they actually admit the vomit is wrong, they simply move on to the next piece of garbage. CTists will come up 100 "coincidences", 99 can be whacked and they will cling to that last one as proof. When that one is whacked, they will make up more.

Insane and crazy or simply lying scum. Flip a coin.

First part: spot on.

Coin flip alternatives: maybe not quite right, although moral indignation is appropriate.

Speculation:

I think that TS1235 actually likes it here and wants to impress. He shows he has a good understanding of some aspects of rhetoric. He can pick up "facts" quickly, although he can't understand them. He wants to "outskeptic" the skeptics and show that he has a better mind than they have. But for him, it's all an exercise in debate. The rubber never meets the road. He doesn't seem to realize that there are real people at the other end of these theories. Common sense is not good enough for him because he thinks he is superior to common sense. So he always prefers the more over-ingenious explanation. It's partly a consequence of growing up in some kind of an artificial TV/computer virtual reality, and partly the result of thinking that because he is a little smarter than average, that what ordinary people believe must be wrong. And maybe some bad things have happened to him that make him distrust everything. Or maybe he's a jerk.

I could be speaking about myself, except for maybe 10-25 more years on the planet and more respect for common sense.

anyway, I said I wouldn't jump in, so now I must hold myself to that promise.

[twinstead]

I have to second the last few posts. To most 911 conspiracy theorists this is simply a rhetorical exercise, a way for them to feel smarter than the average Joe, a way to be 'in the know' and a step ahead of the poor blind sheep. There appears to be a total disconnect from the fact that they are accusing people of complicity in mass murder. To them, it's a video game.

To them, the witnesses, victims and their families are simply inconvenient gnats that swarm around either contradicting or complicating their precious theories, and are worthy of only contempt.

One only has to listen to them and see the smirks on their faces to see. I can't say enough just how disgusting it is.

[tsig]

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

This paper and associated links contains the xray and other analyses done by jones. He invites others to reproduce his results

Seekers after truth seem much happier when the are off the path.

[tsig]

I have tried making cell phone calls from an airplane on the east coast, several times. The phone couldn't find a network. I couldn't call anyone. I'm not offering this as proof it didn't happen, but it must be very rare. I don't wish to get into a squabble with anyone.

kc440

Well if you coudn't do it it's obviously not possible.

Thanks for clearing that little bit of reality for me.

[tsig]

Who knows how many other planes were going to fly into buildings?

kc440

Who knew?

It was really common before 911 for jets to crash into buildings so how many would it be this time?

[tsig]

Lisa Jefferson was a GTE airphone operator, not a 911 operator. My mistake, I stand corrected. This doesn't change the point. She could be lying, there are no recordings of this famous phone call. She could be telling the truth. A real Todd Beamer phone call does not validate the whole OCT. SHe does indeed have a book out, indeed profiting from the tragedy. As has LC, and others.

The overarching point here is that physical evidence rules over statements, and statements by people who were there rule over statements by people who were not there.

I never said that there was no plane at the Pentagon. I'm with Russell Pickering, read his entire website. We don't know what happened at the Pentagon, but of all the various possibilities, the official story is least likely, based on the evidence.

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/



Ts1234

Why with the lie. Is this tiyat?

[tsig]

I've given up on BricksForBrains1234. He is completely committed to CT's. Any facts, data, evidence which points to the official story are lies and fabrications. While any diarrhea that flows from CT sites is blessed as real. If, when refuted, they actually admit the vomit is wrong, they simply move on to the next piece of garbage. CTists will come up 100 "coincidences", 99 can be whacked and they will cling to that last one as proof. When that one is whacked, they will make up more.

Insane and crazy or simply lying scum. Flip a coin.

I vote both

You can be insane and crazy and lying scum. We elect them all the time.

[jhunter1163]

Bumpez-vous

[eeyore1954]

Back on the original theme of the thread. I was driving on the Long Island Expressway past where the Maspeth gas tanks were and it reminded of the following dumb CT claim. The tank were demolished a few months before 9/11 and according to a few people on the Loose Change board it was for no reason. But according to Jerry who I think got it from a speech by Dr Griffin they were demolished as practice for the 9/11 demolitions. First of all as if they would be demolished for no apparent reason (they hadn't been used for over 4 years) and secondly as if demolishing two large gas storage facilities would in any way be practice for the WTC.

[Muckar-duva]

This may be an offtopic question, but I didn't find anything valuable while doing a search: is there an opposite of this thread, where VALID questions about 9/11 are listed?

The reason I ask is because obviously, no commission report, or government reports/accounts will ever be complete, and that doesn't ever imply a conspiracy. But: with all the diligence of truthers (and others, I guess...?), some viable and possibly important questions must still remain unanswered?

[defaultdotxbe]

no thread exists, although feel free to make one

mainly the CTers pose the rediculous questions because they are far more interesting than the real ones, sometimes LIHOPers have some valid questions

[Muckar-duva]

no thread exists, although feel free to make one

mainly the CTers pose the rediculous questions because they are far more interesting than the real ones, sometimes LIHOPers have some valid questions

Thanks. I will consider it, but that will require me taking notes. I could start, using the commission report (after all, they seem to have been complaining about not getting access to certain intelligence and about not being given time enough).

LIHOPers, indeed. So far- having actually been employed by a large company and seeing just how effective things can be(meaning "utterly ineffective")- I have yet to see a claim from a LIHOPer that can't easily be explained (and verified, by Hersh[although he'd be the 2nd source], or Richard Clarke) by bad organisation or the usual rivalry between departments. LIHOP, to me, is so far a theory based on an assumption that every US official/govt employee is intelligent, organised, competent, ambitious enough to do their best in every turn of events- plus briefed on what exactly the govt wants with the world. An incredibly naive assumption, as it implies that every human being does their "best" at any given time and isn't affected in any way by anything else but hard facts.


If that were the case, it's my assumption that a 9/11 conspiracy wouldn't even be needed, given that the govt and its administration would have succesfully manipulated things to their own liking anyway, in a far more sofisticated manner.

So far all I see is an intelligence in disarray and partial dismantling.

The patriot 9/11 troothers are raving on about how WTC were indestructible buildings, yet they have proven to be less stable than the Madrid Windsor tower.

[MRC_Hans]

LIHOP???

Hans

[Muckar-duva]

LIHOP???

Hans


Never in my life!

[kc440_]

Absurdety #3: Why demolish WTC7? Hans

That's what I'd like to know. There are videos of the building imploding inward like demolition, then the floors going down one at a time. When all that white soot started to fill the street and people started running, most of that white powder was from WTC7.

kc440

[Gravy]

That's what I'd like to know. There are videos of the building imploding inward like demolition, then the floors going down one at a time. When all that white soot started to fill the street and people started running, most of that white powder was from WTC7.

kc440
Ever hear of gypsum drywall?

[Alareth]

LIHOP???

Hans

LIHOP = Let It Happen On Purpose

MIHOP = Make It Happen On Purpose

[maccy]

Bumping for lurkers because I think this is an interesting thread.

Also, I'd be curious to see how stundie responds to some of the points raised here.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Bumping for lurkers because I think this is an interesting thread.

Aye, that it is.

It was especially telling to see TS$1.98 admit that he had consulted a real structural engineer, but prepferred to have his head up his own ass.

[Toro]

One of my favourites is:

"The WTC was designed to withstand a plane crash"


This, of course, presumes that engineers have information annointed to them from God and could never be wrong.

I always like to point out the Tacoma Narrows bridge, which was also designed by engineers and wasn't supposed to collapsed but - shock! - did anyways!

You can download a clip of the bridge collapsing. Its fascinating.

http://www.enm.bris.ac.uk/anm/tacoma/tacoma.html

[LashL]

One of my favourites is:

"The WTC was designed to withstand a plane crash"


This, of course, presumes that engineers have information annointed to them from God and could never be wrong.

I always like to point out the Tacoma Narrows bridge, which was also designed by engineers and wasn't supposed to collapsed but - shock! - did anyways!

You can download a clip of the bridge collapsing. Its fascinating.

http://www.enm.bris.ac.uk/anm/tacoma/tacoma.html

Similarly, an overpass in Quebec collapsed in October of this year although it, too, was designed by engineers and was not supposed to collapse, especially with vehicles travelling on it and under it, with tragic results.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060930/overpass_collapse_061001?s_name=&no_ads=

<snips>The Quebec government held a news conference Sunday afternoon announcing its response to the disaster.

"The public inquiry will allow us to understand the situation that is exceptional because no expert can explain to us how a modern structure could have fallen here in Laval," Despres said.

The cause of the collapse remains unknown. The overpass was built in 1970 and is owned by the province.

Transport Quebec sent an inspector to the overpass the morning of the day it fell, after receiving calls about chunks of concrete falling from the overpass at about 11:30 a.m.

The crew picked up the debris and an inspector performed a visual and auditory inspection, but the overpass was not shut down.

"The evaluation he made himself of the situation did not call for the closure of the bridge," Despres said, speaking in French.

Less than an hour later, the structure collapsed.

Despres said there is so far no technical explanation for why the bridge -- which was built with a 70-year lifespan -- gave out.

[tsig]

One of my favourites is:

"The WTC was designed to withstand a plane crash"


This, of course, presumes that engineers have information annointed to them from God and could never be wrong.

I always like to point out the Tacoma Narrows bridge, which was also designed by engineers and wasn't supposed to collapsed but - shock! - did anyways!

You can download a clip of the bridge collapsing. Its fascinating.

http://www.enm.bris.ac.uk/anm/tacoma/tacoma.html

Good old Galloping Gertie a true testament to engineering foresight.

Sometimes we are right.

The TT fell due due to impact damage and fire.

[jhunter1163]

Good old Galloping Gertie a true testament to engineering foresight.

Sometimes we are right.

The TT fell due due to impact damage and fire.



I worked for the company that insured Galloping Gertie in the early 80's. The corporate legend was that the agent who took the premium for the bridge pocketed it, assuming that no one would ever know, as the bridge would never fail.

D'oh!

[PerryLogan]

Two more 9/11 absurdities:

1. International bankers would never finance a plan to close down Wall Street.

Many conspiracists say international bankers, or people under the control of international bankers, are behind 9/11. But I'm sure international bankers would have asked them to find a target that didn't close down Wall Street. So I guess there was no conspiracy after all.

The administration's anxiousness to get Wall Street back open (even to the point of exposing New Yorkers to toxic fumes) also suggests they didn't plan it. If they didn't want it, they didn't plan it.

2. The administration flew members of the bin Laden family out of America shortly after 9/11.

If the administration had planned 9/11, or even known about it beforeheand, they would most certainly have flown the Saudis out before 9/11. This proves there was no conspiracy. Now we can stop making false accusations of mass murder and live constructive lives.

[Toro]

Good points Perry. I hadn't thought about the Wall Street angle. Tens of billions were lost after 9/11.

[PerryLogan]

Merci! Four more:

1. It's absurd (or at least very dumb) to say the Bushes used family friends to bring off this subterfuge. Shucks, I woulda found someone with no known connection to myself.

2. It was absurd of the perps to frame Osama and not Saddam for 9/11, since they apparently wanted to invade Iraq. They must be as dumb as conspiracy guys.

3. Too much prior knowledge constitutes an absurdity in the conspiracy paradigm. If you're planning a hoax, you make damned sure you don't have your own people warning you of the crime you yourself are about to commit.

Duh-uh!

4. It was absurd, or super-stupid, to forewarn people. The bad guys worked out this whole secret plan--then blew it by warning people not to fly. Hmm...

By the way, Willie Brown says he was never warned of anything:

"This one of those stories that takes on a life of its own on the ‘Net and talk radio. In fact, I never received any particular warning of anything. In the previous months we at City Hall, like those at city halls across the country, were receiving notices of increased concern about terrorism. But there was never anything specific. And I didn't get any special notice from Condoleezza Rice. We just received the same info all municipalities did." http://pjsf.typepad.com/pjsf/2004/04/pocketful_of_no.html

[Toro]

Destruction of important SEC documents is one theory

All SEC documents are kept electronically. You can find them here.

http://www.sec.gov/edgar.shtml

If you wanted to get rid of documents, you could engineer the greatest conspiracy in the nation's history or you could ... shred them!

First of all, perhaps 93 was supposed to hit building 7. In any event, the heroic tale of Todd Beamer and “Let’s Roll” could not support the official story more even if it was scripted by a Hollywood screenwriter. In fact, it was so perfect, it WAS made into a movie.

One of my favourite arguments from the CTers is that they say passengers wouldn't idly sit by while being hijacked and flown into a building, and instead would resist. But when they actually do resist, the CTers say the plane was shot down by missile.

The secret service is trained to protect the President, regardless of the situation. The fact that they did not whisk him away from this very public and pre-announced photo-op is extremely hard to explain.

Not really. The President wasn't under attack.

He sure looked stupid just sitting there.

It’s got to be fairly hard to develop good patsies, even with an unlimited budget.

Not when you have legions of people in the Mid East willing to blow themselves up in the name of Allah. Ror example, as Ted Koppel highlighted on his recent documentary, there are "suicide brigades" in Iran.

You take what you have. Also, consider that Saudi Arabia has been under puppet control of the U.S. for awhile now, to the point where we have military bases there.

Doesn't make much sense to focus blame on your best Arab ally in the region.

Even though they had 9/11, they weren’t blaming it on Iraq, they were blaming it on al-Quaeda, supposedly headquartered in Afghanistan. WMD was another lie to justify another war. There will be more lies, and more wars. Do you see the pattern?

It makes no sense to invade Afghanistan. It has shown time and again to be one of the most difficult countries to invade and occupy. And there are zero strategic resources there.

Lots of people benefited from 9/11. The government itself, of course. Silverstein and co, for them it was old-fashioned insurance fraud. Military contractors. The endless war is extremely profitable, and the endless excuse to milk the U.S. taxpayers raw, while pursuing empire. Please just watch the stinkin’ news. Look what they are doing.

Endless war is profitable for a few, but unprofitable for everyone else because taxes go up, inflation goes up, interest rates go up, consumer confidence goes down, etc., etc. The Republican Party takes in many, many times more in donations from corporations who are not military contractors and energy companies. It makes little sense to say that the party of big business would screw 90% of big business to pay off the other 10%.

Allow me to monopolize a country’s money supply, and I care not who makes its laws. Please realize that money evolved on the free market, and was stolen by governments in partnership with the large bankers.

Let's look past this highly point about the merits of the banks solely controlling the money supply as they were before the creation of modern central banking (i.e. cycles of inflation and deflation, economic volatility, periodic depressions, etc.) and ponder what this has to do with 9/11.

I favor the evil government theory, as opposed to the incompetent government theory. Katrina was a huge success, from the government’s perspective. Massive funding increase.

Its in the best interest of the government to look grossly incompetent.

It was part of a larger plan to take over security at the airports, an often overlooked chapter in this sordid tale. A police state requires control of transportation. Bankrupting the airlines would benefit the government as well, because it would give them a great excuse to “nationalize” (i.e. take over) the airlines.

That's why they gave the airlines low-cost loans after 9/11 to help them through/out of bankruptcy.

[Toro]

That was exactly my question: Since the Pentagon is a military target (whether attacking it without a declaration of war is legitimate is another question), why would conspiracists include it? The idea was to provide an excuse for aggression, and for this purpose a "legitimate" military target must be far down the list.

It also doesn't make a whole lot of sense, if you are going to engage in endless war after endless war, to try and destroy the place where much of that endless war is going to occur.

Plus, why would a "legitimate military target" be hit by itself? It is not a "legitimate military target" to yourself. It is a legitimiate military target to your enemies.

Katrina was a government plot also? Do elaborate :rolleyes:.

Hans


The neocons created a weather machine!

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=14015

[Beerina]

Similar to what's been posted above, but just in case absurdity # 20 is not true, absurdity # 22:

It's really no trouble to wire two buildings the size of the towers with enough explosives to achieve "free fall" without anyone noticing.

Come to think of it, that's another absurdity right there -- Why not simplify the operation by half and just blow up/crash a plane into one tower? Oh, I forgot, because killing say 1,500 citizens instead of 3,000 just wouldn't be enough to convince Americans that terrorism was a problem, right?

Wouldn't have waiting an extra 45 minutes until the towers were full, then blowing up one, killing 20k, provide a much stronger incentive than what we got? And if they wanted to do both, they'd have had 40k. Heck, at the end of the first night, there were still an estimated 9k dead, down from 20k in the first few hours.

[beachnut]

I never said that there was no plane at the Pentagon. I'm with Russell Pickering, read his entire website. We don't know what happened at the Pentagon, but of all the various possibilities, the official story is least likely, based on the evidence.

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/

There are no facts on Russell's web site, just false junk!

He does not research, he is ranting about his political ideas and has mislead you due to the fact you can not research yourself and make correct conclusions.

good luck with your beam weapon