Where does Bin Laden / Al Qaeda fit into Truther Theories?

JoeBentley · 17th April 2012, 06:49 PM

Believe it or not this is a serious, no snark question that I want to advance to the Truthers. Something occurred to me in another thread and I thought it would actually make a, no B.S, honest question.

Where does Bin Laden and other senior members of Al Qaeda that have admitted being responsible or at least involved in the events of 9/11 fit into your... well le me be gracious here and just call them "Alternative theories."

Was OBL/AQ involved in 9/11 at all? Where they plants, patsies, fall guys? Are they delusional nutcases that took credit for something they didn't do? Doctored footage?

Seriously, no snark... what do you think the deal is?

cjnewson88 · 18th April 2012, 02:26 AM

From what I can gather after arguing with truthers is OBL/AQ is a fabrication by the CIA. Plants, fall guys, there to 'fake' global terror threats so that nwo can fear munger the world into control.

WTC Dust · 18th April 2012, 06:29 AM

Most 9/11 Truthers include whole-hog the story of Bin Laden and the hijackers. What they do is add things to the Bin Laden story to "make it work", because
airplane crashes do not cause steel framed buildings to explode into dust.

Often 9/11 Truthers add "bombs in the building" or "mini-nukes" to make it work,
but in reality, they don't deny a single bit of the hijacker story.

Funny, when I ask Truthers (thermite theorists, mostly) which part of the
story on 9/11 they think is false, they start with the 9/11 Commission Report,
even though that isn't actually the story on 9/11.

The story on 9/11, the day of 9/11, is about hijackings and planes crashing
in various U.S. locations. The vast majority of 9/11 Truthers do not question
these basic aspects of the story, and so do not deny the involvement of
Bin Laden in any way. They just think the U.S. government was allied with
Bin Laden (and there's plenty of truth in that).

Most 9/11 Truthers think Bin Laden was a part of the 9/11 story, and
implicate the U.S. government along with him. I do not. I see no reason to
talk about Bin Laden because I see no good reason to legitimize the hijackings
themselves.

All other hijackings end in a plane being recovered somewhere, even if it
crashes to the ground. No planes have been recovered from any of the
9/11 sites where planes were supposed to have crashed.

twinstead · 18th April 2012, 06:49 AM

Originally Posted by WTC Dust

All other hijackings end in a plane being recovered somewhere, even if it
crashes to the ground. No planes have been recovered from any of the
9/11 sites where planes were supposed to have crashed.

And THIS is your reason for doubting the hijackings?? You do realize that plane parts were recovered from EVERY site where planes crashed, right?

WTC Dust · 18th April 2012, 07:26 AM

Oh, you might have misunderstood me. What I meant to say was that
a plane was not recovered at any of the 9/11 sites. I'm not talking about
parts of a plane. I'm talking about the whole plane, in parts.

The topic was what most 9/11 Truthers think of the involvement of
Bin Laden. The answer is that most of them (not me) think that he
was very much involved.

Originally Posted by twinstead

And THIS is your reason for doubting the hijackings?? You do realize that plane parts were recovered from EVERY site where planes crashed, right?

twinstead · 18th April 2012, 07:40 AM

Originally Posted by WTC Dust

Oh, you might have misunderstood me. What I meant to say was that
a plane was not recovered at any of the 9/11 sites. I'm not talking about
parts of a plane. I'm talking about the whole plane, in parts.

The topic was what most 9/11 Truthers think of the involvement of
Bin Laden. The answer is that most of them (not me) think that he
was very much involved.

He was very much involved, but not in the way you obviously think.

But, your thinking processes are a little suspect to me, especially since you apparently believe that in all of those crashes at such high speed and mass that there should actually be an attempt at reconstruction a plane from the resulting relatively few tiny parts that would be found, and that they would even attempt such an expensive and time-consuming process when the reason the planes crashed was never in doubt. That's something you'd do to find out the reason a plane crashed.

We know how they crashed

WTC Dust · 18th April 2012, 07:49 AM

I can't claim expertise in airplane crashes. I'm making the simple
point that other airplane crashes involve reconstruction of the
plane, and this wasn't seen for any of these supposed plane
crashes on 9/11.

You aren't claiming that these reconstructions actually happened,
and that I just haven't seen the evidence. You're agreeing with me
that they did not happen, and offering an explanation as to why.

But it doesn't jibe with me. All other hijackings end up with an
airplane at the end of the hijackings. This is a fact. You can't name
any other hijacking where the plane landed in a known place that
they didn't recover a plane.

Originally Posted by twinstead

He was very much involved, but not in the way you obviously think.

But, your thinking processes are a little suspect to me, especially since you apparently believe that in all of those crashes at such high speed and mass that there should actually be an attempt at reconstruction a plane from the resulting relatively few tiny parts that would be found, and that they would even attempt such an expensive and time-consuming process when the reason the planes crashed was never in doubt. That's something you'd do to find out the reason a plane crashed.

We know how they crashed

WTC Dust · 18th April 2012, 07:56 AM

My point is that most 9/11 Truthers do not deny one tiny bit of the Bin Laden story.

What they do instead is add stuff to the story to try and make it work.
They say that Bin Laden was in cahoots with the U.S., and this appears
to be true. They claim this as evidence that the U.S. attacked itself
on 9/11, a claim I find instinctively repellent but also unsupported by
the lack of real evidence of any hijackings or airplane crashes.

Yes, it is orthogonal thinking. It's fleshing out the bits of correct stuff
that comes from different directions, and identifying stuff that isn't right.

It makes me laugh, really, to ask most Truthers which part of the official
story of 9/11 that they think is false, because they can't name one.
They believe the entire official story front to back and just add extra
things onto it: conspiracy theories.

Mr.Herbert · 18th April 2012, 07:57 AM

Originally Posted by WTC Dust

But it doesn't jibe with me. All other hijackings end up with an
airplane at the end of the hijackings. This is a fact. You can't name
any other hijacking where the plane landed in a known place that
they didn't recover a plane.

Wait... what? Is she serious?

WTC Dust · 18th April 2012, 08:09 AM

Yes, I am quite serious. Can you name a single airplane hijacking
where the location of the landing was known where a whole
airplane wasn't recovered in bits and pieces or in its entirety?

I'm betting you can't, but I'd consider changing my theory
if you could.

Originally Posted by Mr.Herbert

Wait... what? Is she serious?

beachnut · 18th April 2012, 08:15 AM

Originally Posted by WTC Dust

I can't claim expertise in airplane crashes. I'm making the simple
point that other airplane crashes involve reconstruction of the
plane, and this wasn't seen for any of these supposed plane
crashes on 9/11.

You aren't claiming that these reconstructions actually happened,
and that I just haven't seen the evidence. You're agreeing with me
that they did not happen, and offering an explanation as to why.

But it doesn't jibe with me. All other hijackings end up with an
airplane at the end of the hijackings. This is a fact. You can't name
any other hijacking where the plane landed in a known place that
they didn't recover a plane.

On 911 the airplane crashes were on purpose, flown into building on purpose. I am a trained aircraft accident investigator, and we reconstruct the aircraft to figure out what happen to the aircraft. On 911 we were told by crew the planes were taken by terrorists - they flew good aircraft, functioning aircraft into buildings. We reconstruct to find out what caused the crash, we know what caused the crash on 911.

They did recover plane parts at all sites! You should try doing research before spreading insane lies. RADAR shows exactly where each plane impacted; aircraft investigators pull the RADAR data and use the RADAR data as evidence. RADAR shows on 911 each planes path from takeoff to impact.

You can't stop making up silly doubts. Your argument does not make sense.

Jackanory · 18th April 2012, 08:18 AM

Originally Posted by WTC Dust

I can't claim expertise in airplane crashes. I'm making the simple
point that other airplane crashes involve reconstruction of the
plane, and this wasn't seen for any of these supposed plane
crashes on 9/11.

You aren't claiming that these reconstructions actually happened,
and that I just haven't seen the evidence. You're agreeing with me
that they did not happen, and offering an explanation as to why.

But it doesn't jibe with me. All other hijackings end up with an
airplane at the end of the hijackings. This is a fact. You can't name
any other hijacking where the plane landed in a known place that
they didn't recover a plane.

Your admitted lack of expertise is no excuse.

Landed? LANDED? Are you for real? Stundie.

We ended up with aircraft at the end of each hyjacking on 911!

If it doesnt jibe with you then you must surely have something to show that can help change at least one persons perspective of what happened. Give it a go. A like for like incident perhaps. Maybe you have some photos or videos of some aircraft recovered after slamming into buildings that collapsed engulfing the remains of aircraft or how about some video/photos of the aircraft that nosedived into a swamp.

Instinct tells me that you will compare apples & oranges and photos of the remains from something like the Lockerbie aircraft.

Try again.

Jackanory · 18th April 2012, 08:19 AM

Originally Posted by WTC Dust

Yes, I am quite serious. Can you name a single airplane hijacking
where the location of the landing was known where a whole
airplane wasn't recovered in bits and pieces or in its entirety?

I'm betting you can't, but I'd consider changing my theory
if you could.

Purple rinse has gone to your head.

CompusMentus · 18th April 2012, 08:21 AM

Originally Posted by WTC Dust

Yes, I am quite serious. Can you name a single airplane hijacking
where the location of the landing was known where a whole
airplane wasn't recovered in bits and pieces or in its entirety?
I'm betting you can't, but I'd consider changing my theory
if you could.

EgyptAir Flight 990

Depending on your definition of "whole plane" and "hijacking" oc.

Compus

000063 · 18th April 2012, 08:45 AM

Originally Posted by WTC Dust

Most 9/11 Truthers include whole-hog the story of Bin Laden and the hijackers. What they do is add things to the Bin Laden story to "make it work", because
airplane crashes do not cause steel framed buildings to explode into dust....

Time to first lie, two sentences.

dafydd · 18th April 2012, 09:59 AM

Originally Posted by WTC Dust

Most 9/11 Truthers include whole-hog the story of Bin Laden and the hijackers. What they do is add things to the Bin Laden story to "make it work", because
airplane crashes do not cause steel framed buildings to explode into dust.

Often 9/11 Truthers add "bombs in the building" or "mini-nukes" to make it work,
but in reality, they don't deny a single bit of the hijacker story.

Funny, when I ask Truthers (thermite theorists, mostly) which part of the
story on 9/11 they think is false, they start with the 9/11 Commission Report,
even though that isn't actually the story on 9/11.

The story on 9/11, the day of 9/11, is about hijackings and planes crashing
in various U.S. locations. The vast majority of 9/11 Truthers do not question
these basic aspects of the story, and so do not deny the involvement of
Bin Laden in any way. They just think the U.S. government was allied with
Bin Laden (and there's plenty of truth in that).

Most 9/11 Truthers think Bin Laden was a part of the 9/11 story, and
implicate the U.S. government along with him. I do not. I see no reason to
talk about Bin Laden because I see no good reason to legitimize the hijackings
themselves.

All other hijackings end in a plane being recovered somewhere, even if it
crashes to the ground. No planes have been recovered from any of the
9/11 sites where planes were supposed to have crashed.

That is a lie. Why are you lying about it?

dafydd · 18th April 2012, 10:00 AM

Originally Posted by WTC Dust

Yes, I am quite serious. Can you name a single airplane hijacking
where the location of the landing was known where a whole
airplane wasn't recovered in bits and pieces or in its entirety?

I'm betting you can't, but I'd consider changing my theory
if you could.

Change your ''theory''.

NoahFence · 18th April 2012, 10:02 AM

Quote:

I'm not talking about
parts of a plane. I'm talking about the whole plane, in parts.

Uh...

what?

dafydd · 18th April 2012, 10:03 AM

Originally Posted by Jackanory

Your admitted lack of expertise is no excuse.

Landed? LANDED? Are you for real? Stundie.

We ended up with aircraft at the end of each hyjacking on 911!

If it doesnt jibe with you then you must surely have something to show that can help change at least one persons perspective of what happened. Give it a go. A like for like incident perhaps. Maybe you have some photos or videos of some aircraft recovered after slamming into buildings that collapsed engulfing the remains of aircraft or how about some video/photos of the aircraft that nosedived into a swamp.

Instinct tells me that you will compare apples & oranges and photos of the remains from something like the Lockerbie aircraft.

Try again.

She did once tell us a story about a plane that crashed into the Empire State Building and then all the ''passengers''( she was unaware that it was an Air Force plane) caught the lift to the ground floor. The crew all died in the crash in the real world. This is what passes for research in her world.

dafydd · 18th April 2012, 10:04 AM

Originally Posted by NoahFence

Uh...

what?

Uh indeed. The dangers of medical marijuana have been underestimated.

NoahFence · 18th April 2012, 10:05 AM

Quote:

You aren't claiming that these reconstructions actually happened,
and that I just haven't seen the evidence. You're agreeing with me
that they did not happen, and offering an explanation as to why.

Accident reconstruction is done to figure out what happened. No need to do it on 9/11. We know what happened to the planes. Not only that, but at least in the case of NYC, most of the plane probably melted in the fires.

Quote:

But it doesn't jibe with me. All other hijackings end up with an
airplane at the end of the hijackings. This is a fact. You can't name
any other hijacking where the plane landed in a known place that
they didn't recover a plane.

Why do you think this worked so well for the hijackers?

Moss · 18th April 2012, 10:07 AM

Sounds a wee bit like a distinction without difference to me.

NoahFence · 18th April 2012, 10:08 AM

I think SHC may have found his twoo love

notheist · 18th April 2012, 10:11 AM

Originally Posted by WTC Dust

I can't claim expertise in airplane crashes. I'm making the simple
point that other airplane crashes involve reconstruction of the
plane, and this wasn't seen for any of these supposed plane
crashes on 9/11.
.

Wrong, reconstruction only happens when there is a question on why the plane crashed. Mechanical issue. If it is pilot error no need, on 9/11 it was pilot deliberate action.

cjnewson88 · 18th April 2012, 10:14 AM

Originally Posted by beachnut

On 911 the airplane crashes were on purpose, flown into building on purpose. I am a trained aircraft accident investigator, and we reconstruct the aircraft to figure out what happen to the aircraft. On 911 we were told by crew the planes were taken by terrorists - they flew good aircraft, functioning aircraft into buildings. We reconstruct to find out what caused the crash, we know what caused the crash on 911.

This ^^. Although I don't have any hands on experience, I done three levels of Air *Safety Investigation for my Bachelor of Aviation and am familiar with their practices and procedures, especially the NTSB (because most of the practices of TAIC come from the states). I have been telling truthers for years this very point, yet they still don't seem to let go of the idea that should have rebuilt the aircraft in its entirety and shown the world. I've also heard them claim they should have recorded parts numbers from the engines etc and matched them to see if they belonged to the aircraft.. what a stupid ******* idea.

*Safety = Crash, but for political correctness sake, my university called it Safety.

notheist · 18th April 2012, 10:21 AM

Originally Posted by WTC Dust

But it doesn't jibe with me. All other hijackings end up with an
airplane at the end of the hijackings. This is a fact. You can't name
any other hijacking where the plane landed in a known place that
they didn't recover a plane.

Well, DUH, yeah, BEFORE 9/11 hijacking ended with the plane being flown to a location and demand being made, but on 9/11 they were flown into buildings at high speed, 450 mph.

In the 70s a air Israel jet was hijacked and then blown up after the captives were let off.

Fact is the aircraft were found as we're ALL the passengers by their DNA.

It jibes with everyone who is not prone to conspiracy theorists thinking.

notheist · 18th April 2012, 10:31 AM

Saw this myself back in 88, here around Detroit. they knew what brought this plane down, pilot forgot to lower flaps on takeoff.

notheist · 18th April 2012, 10:33 AM

Mind you this plane was going well 100 mph when it crashed, not 450 mph like on 9/11.

notheist · 18th April 2012, 10:38 AM

Originally Posted by WTC Dust

It makes me laugh, really, to ask most Truthers which part of the official
story of 9/11 that they think is false, because they can't name one.
They believe the entire official story front to back and just add extra
things onto it: conspiracy theories.

Funny, but the few truthers I have been able to find in the wild find people who think the towers were turned to dust funny. They see how silly that idea is.

dafydd · 18th April 2012, 11:01 AM

Originally Posted by Mr.Herbert

Wait... what? Is she serious?

Experience has shown that she is, unfortunately.

dafydd · 18th April 2012, 11:04 AM

Originally Posted by WTC Dust

But it doesn't jibe with me. All other hijackings end up with an
airplane at the end of the hijackings. This is a fact. You can't name
any other hijacking where the plane landed in a known place that
they didn't recover a plane.

So you have never heard of the Dawson's Fields hijacking?

cjnewson88 · 18th April 2012, 04:57 PM

Originally Posted by notheist

http://forum.globaltimes.cn/forum/at...273&d=12738018

Saw this myself back in 88, here around Detroit. they knew what brought this plane down, pilot forgot to lower flaps on takeoff.

IIRC it wasn't that he forgot to lower the flaps, but that he forgot to push back in the circuit breaker which would have lowered the flaps.

The aircraft had a fault whereby an audible warning would sound while the aircraft was on the ground. Pilots soon figured if they pulled the circuit breaker controlling the flaps, the alarm wouldn't be triggered. The pilot not only forgot the put this back in, but because it was out, the stall alarm sounded different to what it would normally sound, and so when it went off, the pilot did not recognise it was the stall warning.

I'm pretty sure that's the flight anyway

Sabretooth · 20th April 2012, 12:00 PM

Originally Posted by notheist

http://forum.globaltimes.cn/forum/at...273&d=12738018

Saw this myself back in 88, here around Detroit. they knew what brought this plane down, pilot forgot to lower flaps on takeoff.

ORLY? I don't see a plane there. It would be just sticking up out of the ground cuz aluminum can't penetrate the ground! Ima give Dylan a call....

George152 · 20th April 2012, 01:57 PM

Originally Posted by WTC Dust

I can't claim expertise in airplane crashes. I'm making the simple
point that other airplane crashes involve reconstruction of the
plane, and this wasn't seen for any of these supposed plane
crashes on 9/11.

The simple reason as to why they didn't assemble the 911 aircraft parts is that 911 wasn't an accident.
The Accident Inspectors know exactly what, where, when and how the aircraft crashed.
Any such remains would probably be held as evidence by Law Enforcement for any murder trials

dafydd · 24th April 2012, 04:46 AM

Where is wtcdust? Her heart's not in it any more, methinks.

MarkLindeman · 24th April 2012, 05:13 AM

Originally Posted by dafydd

Where is wtcdust? Her heart's not in it any more, methinks.

Well, you know, there's just no reasoning with debunkers!

(Often I wonder exactly what is going through the minds of people who slip away from this sort of discussion. I'm guessing that often, it isn't much more than what I just said.)

Miragememories · 24th April 2012, 06:57 AM

This a great example of a thread that where the responders are totally off topic and no one, not even the thread's owner cares.

The 'atta boy' club strikes again.

MM

Horace Wheeljack · 24th April 2012, 07:09 AM

WTC DUST,

Do you think they recovered all the plane parts here?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4q35xHzjxB0

dafydd · 24th April 2012, 07:23 AM

Originally Posted by Miragememories

This a great example of a thread that where the responders are totally off topic and no one, not even the thread's owner cares.

The 'atta boy' club strikes again.

MM

Only a handful of people in the world care about truther ''theories''.

MarkLindeman · 24th April 2012, 07:29 AM

Originally Posted by Miragememories

This a great example of a thread that where the responders are totally off topic and no one, not even the thread's owner cares.

The 'atta boy' club strikes again.

MM

Better to light a candle than to curse the darkness?

I don't know. Maybe not.

I agree that the thread has been off topic pretty much since people started responding to the last paragraph of WTC Dust's first post. I wonder how (and whether) the thread would have developed if that hadn't happened.

17th April 2012, 06:49 PM	#1
JoeBentley Self Employed Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Norfolk, VA Posts: 1,768	Where does Bin Laden / Al Qaeda fit into Truther Theories? Believe it or not this is a serious, no snark question that I want to advance to the Truthers. Something occurred to me in another thread and I thought it would actually make a, no B.S, honest question. Where does Bin Laden and other senior members of Al Qaeda that have admitted being responsible or at least involved in the events of 9/11 fit into your... well le me be gracious here and just call them "Alternative theories." Was OBL/AQ involved in 9/11 at all? Where they plants, patsies, fall guys? Are they delusional nutcases that took credit for something they didn't do? Doctored footage? Seriously, no snark... what do you think the deal is?
	__________________ - Opinions require evidence and no before you ask defining something as "Something doesn't require evidence" doesn't count. - In extreme cases continuing to be wrong when you've been repeatedly proven to be wrong is a form of rudeness. - Major in philosophy. That way you can also ask people "why" they would like fries would that.

18th April 2012, 02:26 AM	#2
cjnewson88 Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: The van with the big antenna Posts: 1,289	From what I can gather after arguing with truthers is OBL/AQ is a fabrication by the CIA. Plants, fall guys, there to 'fake' global terror threats so that nwo can fear munger the world into control.
	__________________ Common sense has clearly been snuck up on from behind beaten several times on the head and left to bleed. Over 140 pieces of evidence showing American 77 hit the Pentagon http://therightbloggerbastard.blogspot.co.nz/ http://www.youtube.com/user/cjnewson88

18th April 2012, 06:29 AM	#3
WTC Dust Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Battery Park City Posts: 3,355	Most 9/11 Truthers include whole-hog the story of Bin Laden and the hijackers. What they do is add things to the Bin Laden story to "make it work", because airplane crashes do not cause steel framed buildings to explode into dust. Often 9/11 Truthers add "bombs in the building" or "mini-nukes" to make it work, but in reality, they don't deny a single bit of the hijacker story. Funny, when I ask Truthers (thermite theorists, mostly) which part of the story on 9/11 they think is false, they start with the 9/11 Commission Report, even though that isn't actually the story on 9/11. The story on 9/11, the day of 9/11, is about hijackings and planes crashing in various U.S. locations. The vast majority of 9/11 Truthers do not question these basic aspects of the story, and so do not deny the involvement of Bin Laden in any way. They just think the U.S. government was allied with Bin Laden (and there's plenty of truth in that). Most 9/11 Truthers think Bin Laden was a part of the 9/11 story, and implicate the U.S. government along with him. I do not. I see no reason to talk about Bin Laden because I see no good reason to legitimize the hijackings themselves. All other hijackings end in a plane being recovered somewhere, even if it crashes to the ground. No planes have been recovered from any of the 9/11 sites where planes were supposed to have crashed.
	__________________ The World Trade Center did not collapse. It was turned into dust while it was standing there, and then the dust fell to the ground.

18th April 2012, 06:49 AM	#4
twinstead Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Big corner office in NWO Towers Posts: 11,576	Originally Posted by WTC Dust All other hijackings end in a plane being recovered somewhere, even if it crashes to the ground. No planes have been recovered from any of the 9/11 sites where planes were supposed to have crashed. And THIS is your reason for doubting the hijackings?? You do realize that plane parts were recovered from EVERY site where planes crashed, right?
	__________________ You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your INFORMED opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. -- Harlan Ellison

18th April 2012, 07:26 AM	#5
WTC Dust Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Battery Park City Posts: 3,355	Oh, you might have misunderstood me. What I meant to say was that a plane was not recovered at any of the 9/11 sites. I'm not talking about parts of a plane. I'm talking about the whole plane, in parts. The topic was what most 9/11 Truthers think of the involvement of Bin Laden. The answer is that most of them (not me) think that he was very much involved. Originally Posted by twinstead And THIS is your reason for doubting the hijackings?? You do realize that plane parts were recovered from EVERY site where planes crashed, right?
	__________________ The World Trade Center did not collapse. It was turned into dust while it was standing there, and then the dust fell to the ground.

18th April 2012, 07:40 AM	#6
twinstead Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Big corner office in NWO Towers Posts: 11,576	Originally Posted by WTC Dust Oh, you might have misunderstood me. What I meant to say was that a plane was not recovered at any of the 9/11 sites. I'm not talking about parts of a plane. I'm talking about the whole plane, in parts. The topic was what most 9/11 Truthers think of the involvement of Bin Laden. The answer is that most of them (not me) think that he was very much involved. He was very much involved, but not in the way you obviously think. But, your thinking processes are a little suspect to me, especially since you apparently believe that in all of those crashes at such high speed and mass that there should actually be an attempt at reconstruction a plane from the resulting relatively few tiny parts that would be found, and that they would even attempt such an expensive and time-consuming process when the reason the planes crashed was never in doubt. That's something you'd do to find out the reason a plane crashed. We know how they crashed
	__________________ You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your INFORMED opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. -- Harlan Ellison

18th April 2012, 07:49 AM	#7
WTC Dust Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Battery Park City Posts: 3,355	I can't claim expertise in airplane crashes. I'm making the simple point that other airplane crashes involve reconstruction of the plane, and this wasn't seen for any of these supposed plane crashes on 9/11. You aren't claiming that these reconstructions actually happened, and that I just haven't seen the evidence. You're agreeing with me that they did not happen, and offering an explanation as to why. But it doesn't jibe with me. All other hijackings end up with an airplane at the end of the hijackings. This is a fact. You can't name any other hijacking where the plane landed in a known place that they didn't recover a plane. Originally Posted by twinstead He was very much involved, but not in the way you obviously think. But, your thinking processes are a little suspect to me, especially since you apparently believe that in all of those crashes at such high speed and mass that there should actually be an attempt at reconstruction a plane from the resulting relatively few tiny parts that would be found, and that they would even attempt such an expensive and time-consuming process when the reason the planes crashed was never in doubt. That's something you'd do to find out the reason a plane crashed. We know how they crashed
	__________________ The World Trade Center did not collapse. It was turned into dust while it was standing there, and then the dust fell to the ground.

18th April 2012, 07:56 AM	#8
WTC Dust Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Battery Park City Posts: 3,355	My point is that most 9/11 Truthers do not deny one tiny bit of the Bin Laden story. What they do instead is add stuff to the story to try and make it work. They say that Bin Laden was in cahoots with the U.S., and this appears to be true. They claim this as evidence that the U.S. attacked itself on 9/11, a claim I find instinctively repellent but also unsupported by the lack of real evidence of any hijackings or airplane crashes. Yes, it is orthogonal thinking. It's fleshing out the bits of correct stuff that comes from different directions, and identifying stuff that isn't right. It makes me laugh, really, to ask most Truthers which part of the official story of 9/11 that they think is false, because they can't name one. They believe the entire official story front to back and just add extra things onto it: conspiracy theories.
	__________________ The World Trade Center did not collapse. It was turned into dust while it was standing there, and then the dust fell to the ground.

18th April 2012, 07:57 AM	#9
Mr.Herbert Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Massachusetts Posts: 1,357	Originally Posted by WTC Dust But it doesn't jibe with me. All other hijackings end up with an airplane at the end of the hijackings. This is a fact. You can't name any other hijacking where the plane landed in a known place that they didn't recover a plane. Wait... what? Is she serious?
	__________________ Please go to www.curedfoundation.org and make a donation of only a dollar to help find a cure for a rare autoimmune disease that my son is currently battling called Eosinophilic Esophagitis. Learn more about EOE here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eosinophilic_esophagitis

18th April 2012, 08:09 AM	#10
WTC Dust Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Battery Park City Posts: 3,355	Yes, I am quite serious. Can you name a single airplane hijacking where the location of the landing was known where a whole airplane wasn't recovered in bits and pieces or in its entirety? I'm betting you can't, but I'd consider changing my theory if you could. Originally Posted by Mr.Herbert Wait... what? Is she serious?
	__________________ The World Trade Center did not collapse. It was turned into dust while it was standing there, and then the dust fell to the ground.

18th April 2012, 08:15 AM	#11
beachnut Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Dog House Posts: 19,905	Originally Posted by WTC Dust I can't claim expertise in airplane crashes. I'm making the simple point that other airplane crashes involve reconstruction of the plane, and this wasn't seen for any of these supposed plane crashes on 9/11. You aren't claiming that these reconstructions actually happened, and that I just haven't seen the evidence. You're agreeing with me that they did not happen, and offering an explanation as to why. But it doesn't jibe with me. All other hijackings end up with an airplane at the end of the hijackings. This is a fact. You can't name any other hijacking where the plane landed in a known place that they didn't recover a plane. On 911 the airplane crashes were on purpose, flown into building on purpose. I am a trained aircraft accident investigator, and we reconstruct the aircraft to figure out what happen to the aircraft. On 911 we were told by crew the planes were taken by terrorists - they flew good aircraft, functioning aircraft into buildings. We reconstruct to find out what caused the crash, we know what caused the crash on 911. They did recover plane parts at all sites! You should try doing research before spreading insane lies. RADAR shows exactly where each plane impacted; aircraft investigators pull the RADAR data and use the RADAR data as evidence. RADAR shows on 911 each planes path from takeoff to impact. You can't stop making up silly doubts. Your argument does not make sense.

18th April 2012, 08:18 AM	#12
Jackanory Graduate Poster Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: UK Posts: 1,339	Originally Posted by WTC Dust I can't claim expertise in airplane crashes. I'm making the simple point that other airplane crashes involve reconstruction of the plane, and this wasn't seen for any of these supposed plane crashes on 9/11. You aren't claiming that these reconstructions actually happened, and that I just haven't seen the evidence. You're agreeing with me that they did not happen, and offering an explanation as to why. But it doesn't jibe with me. All other hijackings end up with an airplane at the end of the hijackings. This is a fact. You can't name any other hijacking where the plane landed in a known place that they didn't recover a plane. Your admitted lack of expertise is no excuse. Landed? LANDED? Are you for real? Stundie. We ended up with aircraft at the end of each hyjacking on 911! If it doesnt jibe with you then you must surely have something to show that can help change at least one persons perspective of what happened. Give it a go. A like for like incident perhaps. Maybe you have some photos or videos of some aircraft recovered after slamming into buildings that collapsed engulfing the remains of aircraft or how about some video/photos of the aircraft that nosedived into a swamp. Instinct tells me that you will compare apples & oranges and photos of the remains from something like the Lockerbie aircraft. Try again.
	__________________ The mind of the bigot is like the pupil of the eye; the more light you pour upon it, the more it will contract. Oliver Wendell Holmes

18th April 2012, 08:19 AM	#13
Jackanory Graduate Poster Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: UK Posts: 1,339	Originally Posted by WTC Dust Yes, I am quite serious. Can you name a single airplane hijacking where the location of the landing was known where a whole airplane wasn't recovered in bits and pieces or in its entirety? I'm betting you can't, but I'd consider changing my theory if you could. Purple rinse has gone to your head.
	__________________ The mind of the bigot is like the pupil of the eye; the more light you pour upon it, the more it will contract. Oliver Wendell Holmes

18th April 2012, 08:21 AM	#14
CompusMentus Waiting for the Worms Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Wales UK Posts: 1,446	Originally Posted by WTC Dust Yes, I am quite serious. Can you name a single airplane hijacking where the location of the landing was known where a whole airplane wasn't recovered in bits and pieces or in its entirety? I'm betting you can't, but I'd consider changing my theory if you could. EgyptAir Flight 990 Depending on your definition of "whole plane" and "hijacking" oc. Compus
	__________________ Tongue-tied and twisted just an earth-bound misfit

18th April 2012, 08:45 AM	#15
000063 Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: Not America. Posts: 4,735	Originally Posted by WTC Dust Most 9/11 Truthers include whole-hog the story of Bin Laden and the hijackers. What they do is add things to the Bin Laden story to "make it work", because airplane crashes do not cause steel framed buildings to explode into dust.... Time to first lie, two sentences.
	__________________ No, I'd like you to answer the question in two, simple, coherent sentences. ... That's how you present credible arguments in written form. -ergo, on me giving him a 2 digit number I can think of two reasons why bedunkers are often so loathe to explain their theories using plain, concise language--words even. - ergo

18th April 2012, 09:59 AM	#16
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,478	Originally Posted by WTC Dust Most 9/11 Truthers include whole-hog the story of Bin Laden and the hijackers. What they do is add things to the Bin Laden story to "make it work", because airplane crashes do not cause steel framed buildings to explode into dust. Often 9/11 Truthers add "bombs in the building" or "mini-nukes" to make it work, but in reality, they don't deny a single bit of the hijacker story. Funny, when I ask Truthers (thermite theorists, mostly) which part of the story on 9/11 they think is false, they start with the 9/11 Commission Report, even though that isn't actually the story on 9/11. The story on 9/11, the day of 9/11, is about hijackings and planes crashing in various U.S. locations. The vast majority of 9/11 Truthers do not question these basic aspects of the story, and so do not deny the involvement of Bin Laden in any way. They just think the U.S. government was allied with Bin Laden (and there's plenty of truth in that). Most 9/11 Truthers think Bin Laden was a part of the 9/11 story, and implicate the U.S. government along with him. I do not. I see no reason to talk about Bin Laden because I see no good reason to legitimize the hijackings themselves. All other hijackings end in a plane being recovered somewhere, even if it crashes to the ground. No planes have been recovered from any of the 9/11 sites where planes were supposed to have crashed. That is a lie. Why are you lying about it?
	__________________ Yesterday upon the stairs I met a man who wasn't there He wasn't there again today I wish that he would go away.

18th April 2012, 10:00 AM	#17
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,478	Originally Posted by WTC Dust Yes, I am quite serious. Can you name a single airplane hijacking where the location of the landing was known where a whole airplane wasn't recovered in bits and pieces or in its entirety? I'm betting you can't, but I'd consider changing my theory if you could. Change your ''theory''.
	__________________ Yesterday upon the stairs I met a man who wasn't there He wasn't there again today I wish that he would go away.

18th April 2012, 10:02 AM	#18
NoahFence Psycho Kitty Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: Patriot Nation Posts: 9,323	Quote: I'm not talking about parts of a plane. I'm talking about the whole plane, in parts. Uh... what?
	__________________ Our truest life is when we are in our dreams awake. -Henry David Thoreau

18th April 2012, 10:03 AM	#19
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,478	Originally Posted by Jackanory Your admitted lack of expertise is no excuse. Landed? LANDED? Are you for real? Stundie. We ended up with aircraft at the end of each hyjacking on 911! If it doesnt jibe with you then you must surely have something to show that can help change at least one persons perspective of what happened. Give it a go. A like for like incident perhaps. Maybe you have some photos or videos of some aircraft recovered after slamming into buildings that collapsed engulfing the remains of aircraft or how about some video/photos of the aircraft that nosedived into a swamp. Instinct tells me that you will compare apples & oranges and photos of the remains from something like the Lockerbie aircraft. Try again. She did once tell us a story about a plane that crashed into the Empire State Building and then all the ''passengers''( she was unaware that it was an Air Force plane) caught the lift to the ground floor. The crew all died in the crash in the real world. This is what passes for research in her world.
	__________________ Yesterday upon the stairs I met a man who wasn't there He wasn't there again today I wish that he would go away.

18th April 2012, 10:04 AM	#20
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,478	Originally Posted by NoahFence Uh... what? Uh indeed. The dangers of medical marijuana have been underestimated.
	__________________ Yesterday upon the stairs I met a man who wasn't there He wasn't there again today I wish that he would go away.

18th April 2012, 10:05 AM	#21
NoahFence Psycho Kitty Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: Patriot Nation Posts: 9,323	Quote: You aren't claiming that these reconstructions actually happened, and that I just haven't seen the evidence. You're agreeing with me that they did not happen, and offering an explanation as to why. Accident reconstruction is done to figure out what happened. No need to do it on 9/11. We know what happened to the planes. Not only that, but at least in the case of NYC, most of the plane probably melted in the fires. Quote: But it doesn't jibe with me. All other hijackings end up with an airplane at the end of the hijackings. This is a fact. You can't name any other hijacking where the plane landed in a known place that they didn't recover a plane. Why do you think this worked so well for the hijackers?
	__________________ Our truest life is when we are in our dreams awake. -Henry David Thoreau

18th April 2012, 10:07 AM	#22
Moss Dramatocrat Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Heiligsblechle country Posts: 3,229	Sounds a wee bit like a distinction without difference to me.

18th April 2012, 10:08 AM	#23
NoahFence Psycho Kitty Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: Patriot Nation Posts: 9,323	I think SHC may have found his twoo love
	__________________ Our truest life is when we are in our dreams awake. -Henry David Thoreau

18th April 2012, 10:11 AM	#24
notheist Thinker Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Detroit Posts: 196	Originally Posted by WTC Dust I can't claim expertise in airplane crashes. I'm making the simple point that other airplane crashes involve reconstruction of the plane, and this wasn't seen for any of these supposed plane crashes on 9/11. . Wrong, reconstruction only happens when there is a question on why the plane crashed. Mechanical issue. If it is pilot error no need, on 9/11 it was pilot deliberate action.

18th April 2012, 10:14 AM	#25
cjnewson88 Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: The van with the big antenna Posts: 1,289	Originally Posted by beachnut On 911 the airplane crashes were on purpose, flown into building on purpose. I am a trained aircraft accident investigator, and we reconstruct the aircraft to figure out what happen to the aircraft. On 911 we were told by crew the planes were taken by terrorists - they flew good aircraft, functioning aircraft into buildings. We reconstruct to find out what caused the crash, we know what caused the crash on 911. This ^^. Although I don't have any hands on experience, I done three levels of Air Safety Investigation for my Bachelor of Aviation and am familiar with their practices and procedures, especially the NTSB (because most of the practices of TAIC come from the states). I have been telling truthers for years this very point, yet they still don't seem to let go of the idea that should have rebuilt the aircraft in its entirety and shown the world. I've also heard them claim they should have recorded parts numbers from the engines etc and matched them to see if they belonged to the aircraft.. what a stupid ****** idea. *Safety = Crash, but for political correctness sake, my university called it Safety.
	__________________ Common sense has clearly been snuck up on from behind beaten several times on the head and left to bleed. Over 140 pieces of evidence showing American 77 hit the Pentagon http://therightbloggerbastard.blogspot.co.nz/ http://www.youtube.com/user/cjnewson88

18th April 2012, 10:21 AM	#26
notheist Thinker Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Detroit Posts: 196	Originally Posted by WTC Dust But it doesn't jibe with me. All other hijackings end up with an airplane at the end of the hijackings. This is a fact. You can't name any other hijacking where the plane landed in a known place that they didn't recover a plane. Well, DUH, yeah, BEFORE 9/11 hijacking ended with the plane being flown to a location and demand being made, but on 9/11 they were flown into buildings at high speed, 450 mph. In the 70s a air Israel jet was hijacked and then blown up after the captives were let off. Fact is the aircraft were found as we're ALL the passengers by their DNA. It jibes with everyone who is not prone to conspiracy theorists thinking.

18th April 2012, 10:31 AM	#27
notheist Thinker Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Detroit Posts: 196	Saw this myself back in 88, here around Detroit. they knew what brought this plane down, pilot forgot to lower flaps on takeoff.

18th April 2012, 10:33 AM	#28
notheist Thinker Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Detroit Posts: 196	Mind you this plane was going well 100 mph when it crashed, not 450 mph like on 9/11.

18th April 2012, 10:38 AM	#29
notheist Thinker Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Detroit Posts: 196	Originally Posted by WTC Dust It makes me laugh, really, to ask most Truthers which part of the official story of 9/11 that they think is false, because they can't name one. They believe the entire official story front to back and just add extra things onto it: conspiracy theories. Funny, but the few truthers I have been able to find in the wild find people who think the towers were turned to dust funny. They see how silly that idea is.

18th April 2012, 11:01 AM	#30
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,478	Originally Posted by Mr.Herbert Wait... what? Is she serious? Experience has shown that she is, unfortunately.
	__________________ Yesterday upon the stairs I met a man who wasn't there He wasn't there again today I wish that he would go away.

18th April 2012, 11:04 AM	#31
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,478	Originally Posted by WTC Dust But it doesn't jibe with me. All other hijackings end up with an airplane at the end of the hijackings. This is a fact. You can't name any other hijacking where the plane landed in a known place that they didn't recover a plane. So you have never heard of the Dawson's Fields hijacking?
	__________________ Yesterday upon the stairs I met a man who wasn't there He wasn't there again today I wish that he would go away.

18th April 2012, 04:57 PM	#32
cjnewson88 Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: The van with the big antenna Posts: 1,289	Originally Posted by notheist http://forum.globaltimes.cn/forum/at...273&d=12738018 Saw this myself back in 88, here around Detroit. they knew what brought this plane down, pilot forgot to lower flaps on takeoff. IIRC it wasn't that he forgot to lower the flaps, but that he forgot to push back in the circuit breaker which would have lowered the flaps. The aircraft had a fault whereby an audible warning would sound while the aircraft was on the ground. Pilots soon figured if they pulled the circuit breaker controlling the flaps, the alarm wouldn't be triggered. The pilot not only forgot the put this back in, but because it was out, the stall alarm sounded different to what it would normally sound, and so when it went off, the pilot did not recognise it was the stall warning. I'm pretty sure that's the flight anyway
	__________________ Common sense has clearly been snuck up on from behind beaten several times on the head and left to bleed. Over 140 pieces of evidence showing American 77 hit the Pentagon http://therightbloggerbastard.blogspot.co.nz/ http://www.youtube.com/user/cjnewson88

20th April 2012, 12:00 PM	#33
Sabretooth No Ordinary Rabbit Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Wyoming, NY Posts: 6,149	Originally Posted by notheist http://forum.globaltimes.cn/forum/at...273&d=12738018 Saw this myself back in 88, here around Detroit. they knew what brought this plane down, pilot forgot to lower flaps on takeoff. ORLY? I don't see a plane there. It would be just sticking up out of the ground cuz aluminum can't penetrate the ground! Ima give Dylan a call....
	__________________ -------------------------------------- Stop asking me about that stupid fruity cereal...that's the OTHER rabbit!

20th April 2012, 01:57 PM	#34
George152 Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Hamilton New Zealand Posts: 2,043	Originally Posted by WTC Dust I can't claim expertise in airplane crashes. I'm making the simple point that other airplane crashes involve reconstruction of the plane, and this wasn't seen for any of these supposed plane crashes on 9/11. The simple reason as to why they didn't assemble the 911 aircraft parts is that 911 wasn't an accident. The Accident Inspectors know exactly what, where, when and how the aircraft crashed. Any such remains would probably be held as evidence by Law Enforcement for any murder trials
	__________________ Unemployment isn't working

24th April 2012, 04:46 AM	#35
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,478	Where is wtcdust? Her heart's not in it any more, methinks.
	__________________ Yesterday upon the stairs I met a man who wasn't there He wasn't there again today I wish that he would go away.