all 9/11 and related american political threads, merged here

[David Jamieson]

The idea that a secret can't be kept by large groups of people is simply incorrect.

There are entire organizations that are secret in operations.
What the CIA does is not common knowledge, except to those that are doing it. And even then, the participants swear an oath they will not divulge any information.

so, when the CIA is running drugs and guns, most of it is kept secret with an occasional leak here and there that mostly goes unresponded to because that's teh quickest way to kill a story.

It's like a who's gay in hollywood story. Many people know, but no one is telling for whatever reasons.

They could be right, but there is a lot of evidence to the contrary of the official story on 911. Some structural engineers say it's this way, some say it's that, some physicists say (a) and others say (b).

In this free for all of the deluge of arguments and information, the greatest thing is happening for the perpetrators of this crime. The truth is lost in the sea of propoganda.

[Merryprankster]

In this free for all of the deluge of arguments and information, the greatest thing is happening for the perpetrators of this crime. The truth is lost in the sea of propoganda.

Or, alternately, the perpetrators have already been identified, and the truth is generally well known.


There are entire organizations that are secret in operations.
What the CIA does is not common knowledge, except to those that are doing it. And even then, the participants swear an oath they will not divulge any information.


Uhhhh. Compartmentalization is what creates this. When "the CIA" runs an operation, it is a very small number of people, perhaps even as few as one, with only people in the direct chain knowing what is involved. That chain owns the op from start to finish. The reason the secrets are kept is not because the whole organization is steeped in mysterious, arcane ways of co-opted secrecy, but because the right hand doesn't know what the left toenail is doing, except at the highest levels of the organization. It's designed that way.

Contrast that with the farming out of the 9/11 investigation to contractors, regular GS grade civil servants.

Completely bad analogy.

In order for it to work, the conspiracy would have to own the process from start to finish, including the investigation. There are local, state and federal agencies involved. There are civilian contractors, civil servants, military personnel, academics etc involved. There are politicians involved too, and you can't tell me that one group wouldn't try to use it as political fodder in an election.

Bottom Line: IMO there are way too many people involved in this for some kind of giant secret to be kept. If something truly were rotten, good decent people, who had the access and the proof, would come forward. Or, alternately, an embittered angry person with an axe to grind might come forward with the proof. No proof has been forthcoming. We have conjecture. We have people who are very upset that some questions go unanswered - but that is the nature of any situation like this. Like a trial there are unanswered questions. That the questions remain unanswered - and may STAY unanswered for eternity - does not invalidate the rest of the case.

[David Jamieson]

there is no proof of the official story and much of the debumking is very strong in content and hypothesis.

the official story was handed to friendlies to write. That much is clear.

and if I have a plan and an army, the army I have only needs to know at the veritable last minute what it is I am going to have them do. They do not understand the entire scope of the project tha is going and in cellular fashion, one group only knows it's tasks.

can 100 people have the same agenda and carry out a plan using resources at their disposal that don't really know what it is overall they are doing? You bet they do.

Or in teh words of Ronald Reagan at teh Ollie North Hearings "I can't recall" infinitum.:rolleyes:

[Merryprankster]

and if I have a plan and an army, the army I have only needs to know at the veritable last minute what it is I am going to have them do. They do not understand the entire scope of the project tha is going and in cellular fashion, one group only knows it's tasks.

can 100 people have the same agenda and carry out a plan using resources at their disposal that don't really know what it is overall they are doing? You bet they do.


I agree with this. The difference is that in the army, somebody owns that plan, and all the people are dedicated to the same goal.

I don't think you can say the same re: local/state/federal agencies, contractors, civil employees, etc.

I also agree the story was given to friendlies to write. I would like to see harder journalism overall - not just here. I would like to see harder journalism about the stuff that matters, rather than who banged whom.

[Kymus]

Enter the phoney left/right paradigm David. The left scewers Bush when half the things he does are what Clinton did (albeit on worse levels, but that's no excuse) back in the day and it was ignored. Partisan poltics is damaging, and intellectual laziness and ignorance are deadly.

[quote]I don't have to deal with nightly propoganda that skews the truth.

Just about every country is subject to this. The most common form of it is in attempts at Nationalism by saying "look at that country! see what they did? We're not like that, we're good :cool: ". Americans have been hearing this type of propaganda for a very long time. While the Government was drafting plans to stage an attack by Cuba as an excuse for war (Operation Northwoods) and testing untreated syphilis on black men (Tuskegee Study) the media was still churning out the typical BS.


My internet service doesn't block me from seeing controversial sites.

Neither does ours.... yet. If they get their internet 2 bills through, we can all kiss the internet good bye and say hello to White House approval for everything. Bush or no Bush.


You gotta remember, just because someone says it, doesn't mean it's true, that applies to alex jones and George Bush both.

I agree whole heartedly. What I like about Alex Jones is that when he assumes something, he admits to it and he bases everything off of things he can physically prove. Further, he encourages his listeners to do their own research on everything.

"And I don't want you to believe Alex Jones. I want you to go to my website, read these articles, call these major publications and find out that the stories are tue about the White House preparing for Martial Law"
- Alex Jones on his July 2001 broadcast where he predicted a staged terror attack in the US link (http://www.prisonplanet.tv/articles/august2004/082604alexwarned.htm)

[Kymus]

You start with references to the disinfo wagon and then 1-8 above are as irrelevant as any other more malicious disinfo.

I've been involved in countless debates about the subject. I posted 1-9 because those are always the most common things that come up first and detract from the subject for 100 posts or more.


our argument is what counts, and I notice in point 9 you tell us of the countless hours you’ve spent researching this but you don’t show us any research

That's because I'm encouraging people to investigate it for themselves; I wasn't trying to "prove" anything in that post.


and yet you expect “detailed analysis complete with sources” if anyone opposes you.

How many debates concerning 9/11 have you been involved in? Based upon the ones I've been in, the most common response to anyone who professes doubt in the official story is "OMG UR A FUGGAN KOOK! TIN FOIL HAT!!!!1111"; not much substance there huh? Hyperbole and strawman arguments are very common short handed responses to initial claims such as mine. I would like to avoid them.


Where’s your “detailed analysis complete with sources”? Just telling us how much ‘research’ you’ve done doesn’t count.

Debate me and I guess we'll find out.


I understand: I’m not a liberal either, but countless times on this board and others people without enough critical faculty to hold a conversation about something they don’t agree with will shoot me down as a liberal (I’m old-fashioned: I don’t even see what’s wrong with being a liberal, despite not being one). But it doesn’t make sense.

Freedom isn't left or right; it's central to this Republic and the phoney left/right paradigm helps to distract people from this, as I assume you have seen.


And if you spent a few seconds on that site you would see that their first article (which YOU later quote) is bullsh!t. If they have such compelling evidence from their 600 mainstream, international and independent media, why do they resort to such ‘Sunday Sport’ kind of ‘reportage’ for their main page?

Their main page consists of numerous reports from different media organisations. It's a compilation of latest news, not 9/11 info. You'll see that in a side tab labeled 9/11.


So what? Parliamentarians of long standing and cabinet ministers are often caught talking complete nonsense. Especially when they try to take on something outside their brief. Even skiving politicians are very busy reading reports and briefs about their own field. And what makes you think that a member of the just post-Cold-War German parliament would have access to the kind of information he would need to make such a definitive statement about things that happened in the US which anyway are highly classified?

1) Your first example is a strawman argument. Please stay away from such disinformation tactics.
2) Andreas Von Buelow has a lot more knowledge about the operations of governments than most do. From what I see, he is citing his opinion based upon his experience.


2) he’s a ‘global intelligence expert’.

Again, so what!? First you’re saying you don’t trust the US’s global intel experts, then you’re saying that this German one is right? Why? Because he doesn’t have anything to gain from lying or selling his story? … think again. Furthermore, again in what part of global intel is he an expert? How much classified info does he have from his (I’m sure) close friends in the 17 (25) US intel services? The benchmark for experts is renowned for being slack. Anyone who works in a university gets awarded expert status half the time from Joe Public.

Another strawman argument.


His claim about Building 7 is in no way substantiated, and let’s be honest is pretty d@mn stupid: why on earth in this remote age would they have a command centre on the same site?

Are you telling me that WTC7 didn't house the FBI, CIA, etc?


The quote ‘the official story is so wrong it must have been an inside job’ is in itself nonsense.

It's nonsense because you say so? Alright, don't read it then. It's not gonna harm my argument any even if the guy is 110% BS


Here your logic seems faulty. Because there are so many intel agencies, the chances of failures are more slight?

I was using logic based upon what I understand. I wasn't using it as a strawman to show that the government was involved in 9/11.


Divide and rule. Divide and conquer. So well known I can’t even remember who said them first. One of the reasons there are so many intel agencies is to prevent any one of them gaining too much power. Is this conspiracy? Do members of the admin sit down and work out ways of dividing the agencies to lessen their power? Of course not! It’s a natural law, it’s common sense, it’s human nature. On the odd occasion that any kind of agency is joined with another it’s for the same purpose: to weaken it. Look at FEMA which was always causing trouble asking for preventative budget allocations for poorer areas of the country, which was then merged with the Dept of Homeland Security so they could shut the f up!

This has nothing to do with my comment. I wasn't saying that having x-ammount of intelligence agencies was a conspiracy against the people.


Yet you’re talking about such a conspiracy to include the govt, silencing 20-odd intel agencies and the military?

Or perhaps you are reaching and misunderstanding what I am saying. I don't think that they silenced all the agencies and military. I think that the folks at the very top are much more in the know than the good folks at the bottom who try to do their job. Take John O'Neill for example. He was inches away from capturing bin Laden, but at every attempt he was stiffled by higher ups and the Clinton and Bush admins.


Don’t get me wrong Kymus, I’m not picking on you and I think what you’re doing is commendable in some ways.

I undrstand that you're just being critical, and that's fine, but the problem is that most of it is based on a misunderstanding.


I don’t know what happened on 9/11 and I think it is important… but what exactly have you achieved?

I've learned a lot about how governments work, world history, the bill of rights, the founding fathers... Even if I am a$$-wrong, I've still learned a lot of things; that makes it all worth it, the knowledge I gain.

[qupte]If you have this kind of research, to whom have you given it?[/quote]

Everyone I know, and when I go to NYC for the 2600 meetings (or this year for HOPE), everyone I don't know.


When can we read your book?

I won't be writing a book; there are others like Alex Jones, David Ray Griffin, etc etc etc that are better suited for that and have already written books. If I ever write a book, it'd be on either Kung Fu or Medicine.


How many letters have you written to your govt, to your senator…?

Seeing as how this is a Republic? A lot.


But what should we remember?

What went down. Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it.

[Kymus]

So, if you’ve really been researching 9/11 so competently and you can hold up your results so confidently, **** you man, show somebody useful: do something to prevent the system from doing this again!

I've been doing this since day 1. I will continue to do this as long as the freedom of speech is protected under the Bill of Rights.


Join the govt!

Would be fun, but I'm better suited to be a doctor and kung fu teacher. All I can do is promote honest politicians; like perhaps Michael Badnarik, the 2004 Libertarian presidential candiate.

[/quote]Write a book![/quote]

There are dozens out there; mine wouldn't be a blip on the radar in comparisson.


Otherwise, everything you are so enthusiastic about is more banal chitchat, and nothing more.

Which is why I encourage others to do what you are encouraging me to do.


Already 9/11 is popular mythology: the useful discourse on it gets less and less! The 9/11 commission was defanged and largely ignored.

Didn't you know? What Brad and Angelina are doing is much more important than the Bill of Rights.


The biggest failure of 9/11 was this: Bush (and Blair) got in again. Bush with the whole Pappy Bush, Rumsveld, Cheney self-serving, corporate haves-and-have-mores deal, the whole Halliburton, Blackwater, KBR, Dyncorp deal who supplied and trained Bin-Laden and his al-Qaeda in the 80s, Hussein and his Republican Guard in the 70s etc etc, the whole ‘civilian’ (corporate) command is still there!

Don't forget the media.


Why are people still insisting on rabbiting on about oil monopolization when there are so many obvious corporate interests in this whole admin?

Actually, I'm more concerned with Diebold than Halliburton.


Why is anybody still wasting time with these conspiracies, when the truth is in front of your noses!? Stop chasing phantoms!

They're chasing the men that bring tyranny to the citizens.


The 9/11 terrorism was horrific. It was an unpardonable act by extremist terrorists. If you want to believe your own admin had some involvement be my guest: I have no idea. BUT the aftermath: the whole War on Terror gag – this is still continuing, and this is directly and obviously attributable to the admin of the US with its’ members corporate connections in the region going back 30 years and who should be held accountable.

The War on Terror was not for WMDs. It was not for the Iraqi people, or democracy, or the American people’s future safety or standard of living. It was not for the ousting of Hussein. It was not to liberate the oil supplies. It is for big, blatant business.

Just a couple of cents. The rest is going to more useful ends.

I think you are grosely misunderstanding me and my views. ALL of this is important, and ALL of it is connected. I do my best to inform myself on ALL of this, not just a single subject. There are subjects I sort of specialise on - like 9/11 - but I think it's important to study any current events.

[Crushing Fist]

I read most of it.

No offense, but the reason it's so long is because it's mostly a political polemic. The last third of it is basically an anti-government diatribe. Which is fine.




it is?


really?


:confused:

ummm... ok

I don't think so... the politcal sections of this paper account for exactly none of its length. The only politcal anything in it is that he questions the official theory, which is the whole point of this paper.

maybe you could point to how it is a "political polemic" and "anti-government diatribe". That would help a lot. Use specific examples please.



I also don't understand why he talked about stuff staying hot for months. I would expect this. It's perfectly normal fire behavior. You can bury a large wood fire in sand for weeks and it can still be quite hot when you come back - you can even bring it back up to flaming. It looks to me like an effort to create something fishy where none exists.


I think maybe you have a bit of a blind spot here, as I have pointed to it already and you seem to ignore it completely.

He in fact says that it is normal for such a thing to stay hot so long... completely within the laws of natural forces. Not fishy in the least.

The point is HOW hot it is. Not that it is hot. The point is that the was molten iron/steel in large quantities at the time of collapse and immediately after.

yes it stayed very hot, as is natural.

how did it get this hot if the fires never reached a temperature that could melt iron/steel?


that is the point you seem to keep missing/aren't concerned with

and that is, to me, a pretty big question regardless of how plausible the official theory of the collapse is. Where did this come from?



all other points aside


how did it get that hot?

[fa_jing]

I was talking to my boss, about how voting has failed us in the US primarily because of the two-party lock. I said, it would be better if no one voted one election to shake things up. His response, hilarious as we were drinking, was "You want Lyndon LaRouche to be President???"

That's it in a nutshell. Fear of a Lyndon LaRouche world, that's what stops Americans from voting outside the box.

[fa_jing]

The one truly striking thing when I watched the Loose Change video were the stills released by the government of the Pentagon impact -- no plane could be seen, and the damage also looked inconsistent with a plane crash.

I wonder if there were in fact bombs aboard these planes?

[Kymus]

The one truly striking thing when I watched the Loose Change video were the stills released by the government of the Pentagon impact -- no plane could be seen, and the damage also looked inconsistent with a plane crash.

I wonder if there were in fact bombs aboard these planes?

I saw a news article that claimed one of the planes (forget which) was grounded due to a bomb threat. The story was later pulled because basically they said that can't be true cause the government says that flight # hit X.

I'm currious how Barbara Olsen is alive if she was supposedly on one of the 4 planes.

[Kymus]

I was talking to my boss, about how voting has failed us in the US primarily because of the two-party lock. I said, it would be better if no one voted one election to shake things up. His response, hilarious as we were drinking, was "You want Lyndon LaRouche to be President???"

That's it in a nutshell. Fear of a Lyndon LaRouche world, that's what stops Americans from voting outside the box.

Our voting system has been fuXored for a while now. Half of it - it appears to me - is rigging, and the other half is blind a$$ed people who either vote one party down the line all the time or don't realise that there are other parties to vote for. A friend of mine honestly thought that there was only Democrat and Republican.

The only way we will see a real change in America is with a 3rd party (or a very very good rep from one of the Dem or Repub sides) guy. A decent politician will never get elected to office untill the media wh0res stop selling out to the controlled duopoly and start putting the People before their share holders.

I'm amongst many who feel that the choice is either vote 3rd party (save for rare exceptions) or just don't vote. The lesser of 2 evils isn't going to do much but screw things up and half the time he's really just as bad.

[chud]

Larry Silverstein, WTC 7,
and the 9/11 Demolition (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/cutter.html)

Also I noticed that USAToday is reporting on the National Security Agency's goal to create a database of every call made in the USA: click here (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-10-nsa_x.htm)

[Hieronim]

so is it true the japanese would have given up without the atomic bomb and truman dropped them just to show off the american *****?

[@PLUGO]

so is it true the japs would have given up without the atomic bomb and truman dropped them just to show off the american *****?

That's a rather racist term you just used there Hieronim, I'd sugget you edit your post and rephrase that. Quickly.

[Sifu Darkfist]

so is it true the japanese would have given up without the atomic bomb and truman dropped them just to show off the american *****?


This is a deeper debate than the original thread. I have examined the primary documents on this issue and i find that both the Emperors advisors, the Japanese military and the growing tensions between Truman and the Soviets (so called showing off) are all to blame for the deaths of those wonderful dedicated and nationalist people in the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

In short the Japanese would have fought to the end and the American War Department wanted to show off the weapon (at Churchills urging as well) quite frankly because Stalin did have enough power to raise nine kinds of H ell in Europe at will (although documents prove he never intended aggressive movement).

[Crushing Fist]

Darkfist -

I agree that an invasion of the mainland would have been a massacre.

Certainly they also wanted to show off the weapon...


but why did they drop the second bomb? and only days after the first?


the only reason I can think of is that it was for experimental purposes

to see which bomb was better, fatman or little boy.

seems like they went with the fatman design.

I guess they liked how it destroyed things better.

[Sifu Darkfist]

in all actuality it seems through certain suggestive documents that the second bomb was to ensure the world that we had more than one. It is known worldwide that this weapon is very hard to produce and the fact is we had only two, but by using two it seemed we had several. This of course is all conjecture until the documents with definitive proof is released (never?).

[chud]

Videos of American Flight 77 striking the Pentagon on September 11, 2001 released:

http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/foi/index.html (scroll down about half-way)

[Kymus]

Videos of American Flight 77 striking the Pentagon on September 11, 2001 released:

http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/foi/index.html (scroll down about half-way)

I wonder when the other 84 will be released. Not like it matters; none of them can explain how that boeing avoided going into a mid-air stall or how 2 idiot "pilots" could perform aerial maneuvers that are next to impossible for even the most experienced of pilots...

[Hieronim]

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Former_NY_Times_reporter_Judith_Miller_0518.html

[Nexus]

Theorys and such don't help us further along the healing process from what happened. Whether or not it was an inside job doesn't change what happened. Families were destroyed, people forever erased from the earth. Heros rose up from the ashes, especially in Flight 93 which is an amazing story in itself.

Understanding must start within our own hearts if we are to learn from this event.

[Crushing Fist]

ummm...


whether or not it was an inside job doesn't change what happened...


that's true enough


but


if it was an inside job, shouldn't those responsible be held accountable?


or does that not make any sense? well it was a tragedy and families were destroyed, so the people who let it happen or actively participated in making happen, well we shouldn't bother them.


let's give them promotions.

[bustr]

Be careful about focusing on the pentagon.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ppfinal.html

There are other charges being made. If the repubs can prove that it was a plane it might discredit all of the other forensic analysis.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/quickindex/

[Kymus]

Be careful about focusing on the pentagon.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ppfinal.html

There are other charges being made. If the repubs can prove that it was a plane it might discredit all of the other forensic analysis.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/quickindex/

CNN has already been caught trying to engage in such a strawman argument.

[chud]

Rumsfeld slips up about 9/11, plane was indeed shot down: http://www.shoutwire.com/viewstory/14090/Rumsfeld_s_Slip_of_the_Tongue_of_What_Happened_to_ Flight_93

[Mr Punch]

in all actuality it seems through certain suggestive documents that the second bomb was to ensure the world that we had more than one. It is known worldwide that this weapon is very hard to produce and the fact is we had only two, but by using two it seemed we had several. This of course is all conjecture until the documents with definitive proof is released (never?).The documents, ie extensive letters from between the US and UK high command, pres and PM and state depts are already released and on display in the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum.

It is clearly stated and agreed upon that both bombs were for purely experimental purposes and even more cynically to persuade the US and UK public (tho mostly the US, as the UK public were more in the dark about it) that the enormous budgets spent on developing the bombs were justified. And then they discuss what they are going to tell the public, and the whole story about saving the Japanese people and the US army is concocted. It's clear. It's there.

The choices of cities and why they made sense (civilian population size, area, the fact that they'd stopped conventional bombing some months before so they could assess the blast better, the number of allied PoWs although a good few thousand bought it), the timing, why it was Japan and not Germany (the German scientists had already advanced down the nuclear road, the Japanese had not, so if the bombs did not detonate the Japanese wouldn't be able to use them)... the lies to the public... it's all there in black and white.

Unfortunately, this testament to the banality of evil doesn't seem to be in any book form, and in the museum most of the really chilling parts are not even translated into Japanese, and most Japanese I've spoken to (even those who lived near there, or who had relatives who did, or who had been in the war, or who had been to the museum...) still belive the official version that there now allies HAD to bomb them.

BTW, the reason for the two bombs was simple: one was uranium, and one was plutonium. They wanted to check them both out.

The place (the museum) made me extremely angry and chills me as I write this. It is a testament to the lies and expediency of government leaders which continue now.

[Shaolinlueb]

Watch the google video then browse the other links.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8260059923762628848&q=%22loose+change%22

http://www.911inplanesite.com/index.html

http://www.rense.com/general56/flfight.htm


i watched that first vidoe, and it left me undecided what to think.

[Shaolinlueb]

but the facts are still, 2 landmark towers in nyc are gone and thousands of people lost their lives.

and so people can get richer and bush can go after iraq eventually?

[Royal Dragon]

How do we veryfy the claims in that video.

If it IS true, a HUGE number of people would have had to be in on all, or a significant part of the scam. I'm not sure our government is capable of something that percise.

[Ou Ji]

Thought some of you guys might be interested in this.

Article (http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2006/310706cspan.htm)

Link to the archived video, click on American Perspective at the top.

Video (http://www.c-span.org/homepage.asp?Cat=Series&Code=APS&ShowVidNum=10&Rot_Cat_CD=APS&Rot_HT=206&Rot_WD=&ShowVidDays=100&ShowVidDesc=&ArchiveDays=100)

[neilhytholt]

Whatever.

All this debate and war and stuff is doing is to remove people's attention from the issues of environmental catastrophe and global warming.

Since energy consumption and environmental degradation will continue to rise...

The planet is toast.

Therefore does it really matter what happened on 911? No, it does not.

It is just taking people's attention away from the real environmental issues and the demise of the human race.

[Merryprankster]

http://www.911myths.com/

[Ou Ji]

Thanks for the link MP. It's always good to hear different viewpoints. I haven't looked over all of it but I haven't watched the whole symposium yet either. To be honest though the site you provided mentions stuff I never heard about and I read a lot of 'conspiracy theory' stuff. It would be nice if the investigators involved could get together and argue point for point.

As usual the truth is probably somewhere in between. I'd really like to see all the evidence laid out but unfortunately the government has a habit these days of burying as much of it as they can. Makes it easier for conspiracy theories to flourish.

Most people, myslef included, don't want to spend the time to individually track these claims down so we rely on the work of others. Personally I think the government should come forward with all the facts and evidence any time something of this magnitude occurs.

Even the smaller ones like Waco cause a lot of mistrust of the government when critical evidence like the front door magically disappears from FBI control.

Hopefully this symposium will prompt enough honest investigation that the truth can be easily laid out for all to see.

[Shaolinlueb]

are we talking about the new movie with nicolas cage?

yeah im not gonna go see it.

[Ou Ji]

Nope, not that movie. I doubt I'll watch although I generally like his films. I suspect it's a propaganda piece.

I prefer stuff like the symposium and the link that MP provided.

[David Jamieson]

alternative histories are actual histories more often than not.

It is the winners who write the History.

9/11 has plenty of stink around it, that is for sure. Probably some stink that doesn't belong either.

It bears further investigation by a non-partisan, non-government body. I wonder how the official report would stand up under that kind of scrutiny.

I would venture to guess it would be hard pressed to defend it's points on all levels. there are many inconsistencies between what appareently happened and what is in the official report which by the way, if you're gopnna give face to any argument to the contrary you should probably read first.

I found the document more interesting for what is not there as opposed to what is. The official report that is.

You can get your own copy here: http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf

If you can't be bothered to read it, then you probably shouldn't be bothered to regurgitate what Alex Jones or Jeff Rense have to say on the matter.

Both sides first, then find the middle ground. You'll likely form your own opinion that way. :)

[rogue]

I'm watching the tin foil hat guys right now on C-SPAN. So far they haven't convinced me of their view point. I mean facts.:rolleyes:

One professor is saying that the buildings were brought down using Thermade. The logical question would be why bring down the buildings, weren't two planes slamming into the side enough? Also what about the fourth plane? Why let the passengers get on the cellphones?

[rogue]

Now some Lt Col (Retarded) just used all of the buzzwords that make the tin foil hat crowd all excited, and then he announced that he's running for congress in FL. He'll impeach Bush and Chaney too.:rolleyes: I love these guys.

[Ou Ji]

Wow, fair and reasonable commentary from someone who is completely objective.

NOT!


One professor is saying that the buildings were brought down using Thermade. The logical question would be why bring down the buildings, weren't two planes slamming into the side enough?

The point being that no, two planes hitting high in the building are not enough to take them down. The building were designed to withstand similar destruction. Jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough melt the steel. Your way too biased to pay attention enough to get it right.

Why don't you try to offer some substantial facts or is that too hard?

Agree or disagree, at least get their claims right.


Also what about the fourth plane? Why let the passengers get on the cellphones?

From what I've read the claim is that cell phones don't operate at those speeds. At least they didn't at the time. They may have improved since then.

Can anyone verify or refute that? With facts I mean.

[Ou Ji]

Funny how all the nutcases want open discussions and investigations while the other side just wants to call people names.

[rogue]

I am biased, and I'm watching these clowns for entertainment. Put it this way, the operation as described by these nutcases is too complicated to pull off without a hitch.

[Asia]

I told my self I wouldn't get into this. I hate these discussing but I'm a glutton for punshiment.


The point being that no, two planes hitting high in the building are not enough to take them down. The building were designed to withstand similar destruction. Jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough melt the steel. Your way too biased to pay attention enough to get it right.

There are simple things I think that keeps getting overlooked. There was never an idident of the magnitude to base many assumptions on. ie We never had two planes hit buildings of the WTC size to say that would or would not happen. We do know that buildings do indeed collapse do to fire damage and some have remained standing too. The Jet fuel was NOT the only thing burning in the buildings. This was said over and over by pple who were there including the firefighters.


From what I've read the claim is that cell phones don't operate at those speeds. At least they didn't at the time. They may have improved since then.

Can anyone verify or refute that? With facts I mean.

I don't know too much about cell phones and altitude but I during my last trip to CA I did use my cell phone to call my friend in Santa Barbara to tell him I was coming into LV and that I should be ther in about 2hrs. I don't know how high we were or how fast were going but the phone worked fine, and yes I know I'm not suppose to make calls on the plane. :o

[Radhnoti]

Um...they have some of the cell phone calls made by the victims on the 4th plane on tape. Right? That's how they know that they intended to fight the terrorists.

Here's a link confirming this:

http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010916phonecallnat3p3.asp

[Ou Ji]

Cool. Intelligent conversation is much more interesting.

Seems he used the in-flight phone. The argument is that cells phones didn't work because of timing issues at aircraft speed making it difficult to lock in on a tower.

Supposedly that's no longer a problem since improvements the last few years.

Asia
As I understand it there are similar incidents to compare it to but I don't recall the specifics or where I read that.

Do you happen to have an explanation for WTC7 coming down even though it wasn't hit?

Supposedly Silverstein gave an order to 'pull it' just before it came down.

[rogue]

I apologize to the tin hat crowd, the show on C-SPAN was nothing more than the fringe far, far left ranting about the usual crap. No logical arguments, a "good" idea from Hugo Chevez was mentioned and of course the "stolen election", the basic script. It was kind of fun when they also blasted the Democrats, Air America and Mother Jones besides others who aren't left enough for them.

Sorry folks nothing of interest and nothing new, just a big lefty wacko circle jerk.

[Asia]

As I understand it there are similar incidents to compare it to but I don't recall the specifics or where I read that.
I found examples of buildings burning and collasping and buildings burning and staying up. In the case of the Madrid Tower the upper floors collasped but the rest remained standing. But the thing is none of them shared the same architecture characteristics as the WTC. I found some examples of planes hitting builidings but they weren't 757's and didn't carry the same amount of fuel.


Do you happen to have an explanation for WTC7 coming down even though it wasn't hit?
The offical story is that it was ignited by debris form the planes. Looking at the video that is plausibleand have a long burning process, about 7hrs later I think. Its possible for it to have substained the same amount of damage to collapse, but thas just my speculation.


Supposedly Silverstein gave an order to 'pull it' just before it came down.
True but I recall he explained that he meant for the unit of firefighters in it to come out because the couldn't save the building. Those two words have been spun every which way but loose.

[MasterKiller]

When the Bush admin finally cops to shooting down Flight 93, maybe their other "explainations" will gain some credibility.

[MasterKiller]

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The 10-member commission that investigated the US response to the September 11 attacks reportedly considered seeking a criminal probe of the
Pentagon, believing it had deliberately misled the panel and the public.

The Washington Post said that the panel found discrepancies between statements officials of the North American Aerospace Command (NORAD) and the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) made about their response to the hijackings and audiotapes and e-mails later made available.

The panel, in a secret meeting at the close of its investigation in 2004, decided there was probable cause to believe the officials had broken the law by making false statements in the hope of hiding their bungled response, sources knowledgeable of the debate told the newspaper.

The commission, however, decided to refer the matter not to the Justice Department but to the inspectors general for the Defense and Transportation departments, who can make criminal referrals if they see fit.

The inspectors general report is complete and is being drafted, an FAA spokeswoman told the daily without divulging any aspect of the report.

Originally, vague and at times contradictory statements about how the Pentagon tracked one or more of the four hijacked airliners were attributed to the confusion prevalent on the day of the attacks.

The Pentagon for the first two years after the attacks maintained that its response had been quick and that jets had been scrambled in response to the last two hijackings.

But after analyzing the audiotapes and other material the commission subpoenaed from NORAD and FAA, panel members found that the Air Force never had any of the hijacked airliners in its sights.

"I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described," John Farmer, a former New Jersey attorney general who led the staff inquiry into events on September 11, told the daily in a recent interview.

"The tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years ... This is not spin. This is not true."

[n00854180t]

I'm watching the tin foil hat guys right now on C-SPAN. So far they haven't convinced me of their view point. I mean facts.:rolleyes:

One professor is saying that the buildings were brought down using Thermade. The logical question would be why bring down the buildings, weren't two planes slamming into the side enough?

I've read that professor's paper. If you read through it and check out the basic Newtonian physics, you can see it's fairly evident they were taken down with charges. The collapse time was ~11s. The fall time for objects in free fall in vacuum at the height of the towers is about 9s. The building (including the huge support beams meant to withstand many times the weight of the tower, plus wind stresses etc.) would have had to provide LESS THAN zero resistence to fall in 11s from "gravitational collapse".

It's also interesting to note that the WTC-7 building collapsed in a similar amount of time, and was never hit with anything (and the "official" reports still claim that the WTC-7 collapse was due to "gravitational collapse" (that is, the top floor buckling the supports because of "fire damage" and then subsequently buckling the floor under etc.). How they expect anyone with a brain to believe that a building made to support its own weight multiple times over would just randomly collapse without being on fire (and, it can easily be shown that building fires and common kerosene fires WILL NOT COLLAPSE BUILDINGS (there are videos of older buildings than the WTC burning for HOURS with the same type of fires, and not collapsing. ) or having been hit with anything.

The basic, high school level physics don't support the official story. Any time that is the case, the official story needs to be questioned or discounted completely.

[n00854180t]

One other thing most people don't consider is that a main government tactic in coverups is to discredit everything that disagrees with them, and label them as "conspiracy theories" so that actual scientific evidence based on ordinary observation is also discounted (e.g., the many papers and accounts that do not follow the inadequate and insulting "official"/media explanation).

[Asia]

There was a conspiracy on 9/11. It was done by ISLAMIC TERRORIST.

Pple have ***** and pondered over this thing over and over and over and the majority do not have the expereince to put things in context. I can tell you form growing up as a military brat across the globe that terrorism is ALWAYS happening. The vast majority of it never gets reported. In Germany during the 80s I was witnessed to a bombing at RM AFB, I was on base. There was an attack on the USAEUR Commander in Heidleberg with an RPG. There were TWO bombs found in my neighborhood, one found right across from my house. In the 90s pple know about the bombing in Beruit, the Cole, the first the attack on the WTC. There were alot more attempted and threatened attacks that weren't reported. I can't speak for everywhere but I know bases get terrorist threats constantly. Its hard trying to seperate whats real and whats not.

[Ou Ji]

Nobody said terrorists don't exist.

Nobody said they don't attack.

They just question whether it was really islamic terrorists or the homegrown kind.

They also question who is behind these terrorists. Certainly not Saddam Hussein.

You mention the first WTC attack. Who was their contact for explosives? As I recall it was an FBI undercover agent.

Oops.

[MasterKiller]

Not to mention that the FBI says they have no proof, at all, that Osama Bin Laden was responsible for the 9/11 attacks. He is listed on the FBI's most wanted website as Public Enemy No. 1 for............(drumroll)...............the attack on the Cole. Not 9/11.


MURDER OF U.S. NATIONALS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES; CONSPIRACY TO MURDER U.S. NATIONALS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES; ATTACK ON A FEDERAL FACILITY RESULTING IN DEATH

[Ou Ji]

Saying islamic terrorists exist does not prove they were involved in 9/11.

It's like the webite link MP posted. On it they present as evidence the fact that an unidentified passerby in a business suit turned over the passport to a uniformed cop to proove that the passport was indeed recoverd from the crash.

Unfortunately there's no proof the passerby actually picked it up from the wreckage.

The most reliable way to plant it (it one were inclined to do so) would be to turn it to a cop or fireman on the scene.

[Asia]

Not to mention that the FBI says they have no proof, at all, that Osama Bin Laden was responsible for the 9/11 attacks. He is listed on the FBI's most wanted website as Public Enemy No. 1 for............(drumroll)...............the attack on the Cole. Not 9/11.

Actually its the Bombing of the embasies in Kenya and other places not the Cole.


USAMA BIN LADEN IS WANTED IN CONNECTION WITH THE AUGUST 7, 1998, BOMBINGS OF THE UNITED STATES EMBASSIES IN DAR ES SALAAM, TANZANIA, AND NAIROBI, KENYA. THESE ATTACKS KILLED OVER 200 PEOPLE. IN ADDITION, BIN LADEN IS A SUSPECT IN OTHER TERRORIST ATTACKS THROUGHOUT THE WORLD.


Saying islamic terrorists exist does not prove they were involved in 9/11.
Bin Laden was on video twice admiting he ordered the 9/11 attacks and on audiotape as well.

[rogue]

I've read that professor's paper. If you read through it and check out the basic Newtonian physics, you can see it's fairly evident they were taken down with charges.

Oh boy are you guys goofy. Please take all of "the facts" from the fringe and layout how this entire operation was co-ordinated and executed, and why the use of both planes and charges to bring down the buildings. If everything is so evident this should be very easy for you smart guys to do.

[David Jamieson]

Time to lay down the basic zen. :mad: :)

All is mind.

[MasterKiller]

Bin Laden was on video twice admiting he ordered the 9/11 attacks and on audiotape as well. Yeah, and the "fat" Bin Laden was on tape calling for jihad in Iraq. :rolleyes:

You would think a video-tape confession would be enough for the FBI to say Bin Laden was responsible; nevertheless, they conclude they have absolutely no evidence he was involved.

[MasterKiller]

And if you don't think the U.S. government would lie about attacks to instigate war, check out "operation bingo":

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0801061castro3.html

or maybe read up on the Gulf of Tonkin...

[Shaolinlueb]

i still think its a conspiracy theory.

[B-Rad]

The problem with many of the "conspiricy theorists" is they come up with a conclusion then try to find evidence to support it rather than follow the evidence where it leads (much like Bush is accused of doing). Just the flip side of the same coin :p

[MasterKiller]

Honestly, I think the buildings were pre-wired, probably years in advance, IN CASE of an attack. It would make sense that they might need to bring the building down safely since the WTC has been a target for so long. So, when it happened, they waited as long as they could, and then dropped them to avoid the buildings from falling and causing much, much more collateral damage.

The only 'conspiracy' I think is feasible is that the administration knew attacks were immenent and did not try to stop them because they wanted an excuse to install their mid-East plan ala Project for a New American Century.

They just simply lie about a lot of the details of 9/11 to bend the motives of the attacks to fit their political agenda.

[David Jamieson]

ok, let's break and go watch V for Vendetta.

Then we'll meet back here and share our thoughts on that movie as it relates to this story here.

:p

mixing lies with truth is the oldest political ploy in the book.
of course people are lying. of course people are being truthful.

the problem is the suppression of facts in a so called "free" society.

where there is a void of information, people will fill that void with speculation and conjecture in an attempt to understand what happened.

no one here can argue that facts of the matter aren't being witheld.
Hence the birth of the conspiracy theory around this.

btw, wtc 7 is really fishy. no matter how you slice it, how does a building collapse into itself from a few small fires?

the pentagon is fishy, how can you not see a huge airliner in the released pictures, just some fuzzy little thing, remarkably few pieces of debris etc etc.
why would dozens of cops and firemen on the scene report multiple explosions in the towers before their collapse?
why would there be reports of explosions from the basement of the towers?
why were the port authority records and reports withheld so long and then release with heavy censoring?

If the facts aren't laid on the table in such a way as to absolutely convince us all, then the theories will continue and the distrust will continue and so on.

It is not beyond a government to create a reality to gain support through covert operations or psy ops. why even have those divisions in ones command if they weren't used?

some things can be held as self evident.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with questioning authority. You give those people authority and you should demand accountability and clear, concise and succint explanations of what is going on.

It is clear, this is not occuring. No conspiracy there.

[Merryprankster]

The point being that no, two planes hitting high in the building are not enough to take them down. The building were designed to withstand similar destruction. Jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough melt the steel. Your way too biased to pay attention enough to get it right.

Yeah. It is.

It's not about MELTED steel, it's about softened steel. If you're going to shout conspiracy, this is a non-starter.

http://www.representativepress.org/BowingDebunksExplosives.html

Check out the McCallister pdfs. Great stuff. You can see the inward bowing that occurred.

So much for explosives.:rolleyes:

Conspiracy theorists do a bunch of things I hate:

They build an internally consistent theory then place the burden on the skeptic to prove them wrong. If you can't prove them definitively wrong, then they must be right!

Evidence that refutes their idiocy just proves how deep the conspiracy goes.

They ask us to believe two mutually exclusive things:

1. The gubmint is so all-knowing and all powerful that it can pull stuff off like this without you knowing about it.

2. They can't keep a secret.

Pick one. You can't have both.

Bottom line, I can build an irrefutable theory that the Unions committed 9/11. I can provide motive, opportunity and intent. It is internally consistent and it cannot be proven wrong. I must therefore be right.

Eventually this is all going to go the way of the Kennedy Assassination. A small cadre of idiots will continue to pursue their lunacy, hold meaningless conferences and rage against their pet mastermind.

The rest of the world will get on with their lives and relegate the above sorts of absurdity to late-night discovery channel specials debunking their paranoid delusions.

Incidentally, did anybody see the special on the Kennedy Assassination? Turns out you can recreate the assassination - including the now experimentally verified fact that the "magic bullet" wounds were, in fact, created by a single round.


Of course, that's what they WANT you to think...they want you to BELIEVE it was a recreation....

After all, I might be a plant by THEM....

[Water Dragon]

I blame the Reptilians for both the WTC and the Kennedy Assasination.

[Asia]

It's not about MELTED steel, it's about softened steel.

Thank you, MP.


1. The gubmint is so all-knowing and all powerful that it can pull stuff off like this without you knowing about it.

2. They can't keep a secret.

Tell me about it. The same pple will say Bush is an idiot but then say he was behind 9/11!?!?! So either he's a moron or the pretty **** smart to not only coordinate but have Bin Laden WILLINGLY take the fall for it.


Incidentally, did anybody see the special on the Kennedy Assassination? Turns out you can recreate the assassination - including the now experimentally verified fact that the "magic bullet" wounds were, in fact, created by a single round.
The "Magic Bullet" thing was killed long time ago. It was only the steadfast of CTist that kept it up.

[Water Dragon]

Thank you, MP.


Tell me about it. The same pple will say Bush is an idiot but then say he was behind 9/11!?!?! So either he's a moron or the pretty **** smart to not only coordinate but have Bin Laden WILLINGLY take the fall for it.
.

Bush is an idiot, Cheney was behind 9/11, get it right, Bro. I don't think anyone on either side is giving the Dubya that much credit.

[Asia]

Bush is an idiot, Cheney was behind 9/11, get it right, Bro. I don't think anyone on either side is giving the Dubya that much credit.
Cheney is the Devil. He's behind everything. ;)

Think about it. How bad of a man do you have to be to shoot someone in the face and have them apologize to YOU for the trouble they brought you.

[Water Dragon]

that's because Cheney is half Reptilian.

[Asia]

that's because Cheney is half Reptilian.
Only half?:confused:

[Water Dragon]

Yeah, he's also half c*ck sucker

[Asia]

Yeah, he's also half c*ck sucker
ROFLMAO!!!!!:D

[rogue]

What I've learned about theories is they are all good until you actually try to implement them, and that was something none of the "panel" tried to do.


Honestly, I think the buildings were pre-wired, probably years in advance, IN CASE of an attack. It would make sense that they might need to bring the building down safely since the WTC has been a target for so long. So, when it happened, they waited as long as they could, and then dropped them to avoid the buildings from falling and causing much, much more collateral damage.

That was the most creative and almost sane sounding theory that I've ever read. Good work MK.

[The Willow Sword]

i have tried to avod this thread but now i gotta chime in with my 2 cents.

9-11 was a horrible and terrible incident that will forever be engrained in my psyche.

I dont believe that the buildings were wired to collapse. Buildings like that are built very strong but also have a bit of resiliency to the constant change in weight distribution of foot traffic as well as wind currents. But the buildings are not indestructable (as we saw). You have to go on physics here and realize that an impact as hard and as fast as it was on both buildings it created a shockwave so bad that it rattled those buildings straight down to the foundation. and it softened that steel and with the mass rush to get out of that building all at once combined with wind currents just caused the integrity of the towers to buckle and they fell.

Now as to the bush administrations inability to act before the hijacking took place, given the intelligence they had before hand comes in to play here. It brings up questions as to why they would just ignore what was being told to them over and over. id hate to think that these hijakcings and attacks were allowed to go forth by those in the white house who would think it was feasable to sacrifice the lives of over 4000 for the advancement of our policies and oil dealings in the middle east. Even though i do not like the republican mindset nor do i agree with the bush administrations policy in the middle east i dont believe that they are so indecent as to allow such a horrid act to take place on our own soil. They are Idiots YES, this was the biggest bumblefuk in the history of bumblefuks since pearl harbour when we knew THEN that the japanese were going to attack us.
No the only consiracy here is that the current administration and its president have the typical IQ's of a frog(as most corporate ceos have), i say this because most CEO's and corporations are so far removed from the populace and public that they have no IDEA WHAT it means to have common sense and a brain that doesnt go beyond that of just an academic one.

Oh and as for the Kennedy assasination, those who believe in the "magic bullet" theory need to take another close look at the zapruder film, i have it, ive looked at it for hours actually. There were two snipers who took JFK out. Plain and simple. There was a cover up and a scandal and JFK WAS being eradicated from the white house. by who? who knows.

the fatal shot to the head is the key to opening the door of a second sniper. if you are being shot from behind by a sniper 25-30ft up and 50-60 yds away you DONT jerk backwards as the bullet travels to your head, and your skull does NOT fly up and backward. Its interesting that last shot because if you look closely and can slow the film down, the moment that bullet hits him from the FRONT you can see the ricochet of the bullet go straight upwards thus removing a good part of his skull(rather than going through and blowing out the back of his head. so the shot was in essence deflected by a 1.hard head and 2. that sniper prolly took the shot too quickly and moved his stabilizing hand a tad which caused that bullet to "tumble" towards his head. PLUS High grain loads tend to tumble anyway.

anyway thats my say. lets get back to KUNG FUUUUUUUUUU,,,,TWS

[rogue]

TWS, can you explain what actually happens with that type of a head shot?

[The Willow Sword]

:rolleyes:

[rogue]

Great response TWS.

[Kymus]

One professor is saying that the buildings were brought down using Thermade. The logical question would be why bring down the buildings

A bigger thrust into the emmotional minds of the people, political BS (the rebuilding of the buildings has taken so long due to so much political usage of it it's insane), and insurance pay backs


weren't two planes slamming into the side enough?


Hardly.

"The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting".
- Frank A Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center

The buildings were designed to take it.


Also what about the fourth plane? Why let the passengers get on the cellphones?

I'm not sure what you're asking, could you clarify?

[Kymus]

I am biased, and I'm watching these clowns for entertainment. Put it this way, the operation as described by these nutcases is too complicated to pull off without a hitch.

Not only is that a strawman argument and thus void of any sort of substance, it's also wrong. The Hegelian Dialectic throughout history has proven this wrong. By your account, Nero could never of burnt down Rome, and Hitler could never of burnt down the Reichstag.

[Kymus]

I apologize to the tin hat crowd, the show on C-SPAN was nothing more than the fringe far, far left ranting about the usual crap. No logical arguments, a "good" idea from Hugo Chevez was mentioned and of course the "stolen election", the basic script. It was kind of fun when they also blasted the Democrats, Air America and Mother Jones besides others who aren't left enough for them.

Sorry folks nothing of interest and nothing new, just a big lefty wacko circle jerk.

Translation: I am too fixated into this phoney left/right paradigm to even attempt to see for myself is something is true or not. Instead of independant research, I would rather rely upon partisan thinking and will simply define this as "left", which is the most logical way to discredit anything the "right" agrees with.

[Kymus]

The offical story is that it was ignited by debris form the planes. Looking at the video that is plausibleand have a long burning process, about 7hrs later I think. Its possible for it to have substained the same amount of damage to collapse, but thas just my speculation.

Where did you hear this? I've always heard from those that are very supportive of the official story that it was falling debris from the WTC that did it. Just curious



True but I recall he explained that he meant for the unit of firefighters in it to come out because the couldn't save the building. Those two words have been spun every which way but loose.

Larry Silverstein can try to weasel his words around all he wants. I've yet to see anyone provide a resource that shows that "pull it" is a common term to remove firefighters from a building. I understand that you are explaining things are you best understand it - and that's cool - but most others state this as "fact". That's the problem I have with this common explaination.

[Kymus]

The problem with many of the "conspiricy theorists" is they come up with a conclusion then try to find evidence to support it rather than follow the evidence where it leads (much like Bush is accused of doing). Just the flip side of the same coin :p

This sounds EXACTLY like all the folks that I debate with on 9/11 that believe the governments official conspiracy theory.

[MasterKiller]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3E-26oVIIs

[Kymus]

I have spent two years studying this issue independantly. I don't like the Democrats, and I don't like the Republicans. I don't do this for petty partisan reasons (being so attached to a political party that everyone knows is gonna stab you in the back is complete idiocy), I do it because I want to learn the truth. I've read probably close to 700 different news articles (independant, national, international), and have seen most likely a dozen different doccumentaries. Instead of listening to some dude give his reasons, I investigate it myself. I don't rely on the conspiracy or anti-conspiracy blogs (99% of the time, the anti-conspiracy blogs substitute a good argument for poor disinfo tactics. I'm sorry, calling someone a conspiracy theorist doesn't discredit their claims.); I look at both and go from there.

I've heard all the phoney claims one can make, all the strawman arguments. It's funny how people will gladly claim with certainty that 9/11 wasn't a conspiracy but 98% of them have never even bothered investigating 9/11. Tell me, why did Bush extend Clinton's executive order W199I? What a coincidence that that kept the intelligence gathering agencies from investigating Salem bin Laden and his organisation WAMY which was harboring some of the terrorists! Oh, everything is a coincidence. The NORAD war games of hijacked jets flying into buildings is litterally a 1 in 1 Quadrillion chace. It's also a "coincidence" that the FBI had a mole living with some of the terrorists and never did anything. It's just "coincidence" that months before 9/11 the JCS changed the shoot-down policy. It's just "coincidence" that NORAD didn't do their job on 9/11.

At best, 9/11 occured because of 4 or 5 coincidences that without which it never would of been able to of happened. Not from faulty intelligence or imcompetence, and most certainly not because of too many "freedom" (the most absurd reason I've ever heard). Officials that say that are avoiding responsibility and people who say it obviously have never taken more than 5 minutes to study the subject outside of reading some dumb blog that's full of holes.

Numerous foreign governments are on record warning us about 9/11. I've seen 60+ news articles on this. People in the WTC towers heard bombs going off. Oh, but the Government Conspiracy Theorists say "it was falling beams" and others say "it was compressed air pockets". No source, just theory; the same thing others are criticised for. I suppose it's just another "coincidence' that William Rodriguez who survived the 1993 bombings heard what sounded just like a bomb (He lived through it once before, so he knows what it sounds like!).

Investigate it, or not. Whatever. The 9/11 Truth movement is growing every day despite the poor disinfo scare tactics of "no one believes that but you". Every major poll (and please spinmeisters, I'm talking about Zogby, CNN, etc, not conspiracy sites) I've seen since 9/11 has shown a majority of people believe the same - if not similar - things that the 9/11 Truth movement does.

False flag operations are a classic move by governments and America isn't so pure and great that it'd not do it. Instances are numerous, even in America. Operation Northwoods, Operation Gladio.... nah! The gov would never do anything like that. Even though they have carried out, and planned out, false flag operations in the past that are now declassified, people will always refuse it. People like to suffer from "that was then" syndrome, believing that bad things only happen in the past. Nero, Hitler, Russia, the list of instances that are purely doccumented and openly accepted go on and on.

But no, people are too sucked into the phoney left/right paradigm to ever pay attention for a mere second and put the Bill of Rights ahead of their leaders that they have such idolatry for. If you talk to a Liberal, they will argue into infinity that Clinton never invited tyranny - even though it's doccumented that he's done nothing to correct instances like with the Egyptian informant who wasn't allowed to stop the bombing of the WTC in 93. Conservatives will accept that but will never accept any acts of Tyranny under a supposed conservative even though it's just as doccumented. It's utterly pathetic.

[Kymus]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3E-26oVIIs

Didn't you? Larry Silverstein says that he didn't commit insurance fraud by imploding the buildings, so therefore "pull it" must mean something else. It's just "coincidence" that "pull it" means demolish ;)

Kinda like how it's a "coincidence" that the same group that's investigating voter fraud gets harassed with the Patriot Act.

Close your eyes, it's all just coincidences.

[rogue]

Since you have all the answers please answer in detail how the operation was coordinated and carried out.

[Kymus]

Since you have all the answers please answer in detail how the operation was coordinated and carried out.

What's the point? Irregardless of what I say, or how I lay it out, you will never believe what I have to say unless Bush himself says that he is guilty. I've debated Bush supporters before on this, and each time it's the same thing: strawman arguments, and poor excuses. Explaining this to you is going to be no different than trying to explain to a Liberal how Clinton blew off 3 chances to nab bin Laden: each time they either ignore the direct evidence or use one of a myriad of disinformation tactics.

[rogue]

I'd take that to mean your theories fall apart once they hit the real world. Don't worry, that's normal.

The fact is some terrorists managed to pull off an operation that was even more succesful than they could have dreamed it would be.

[Kymus]

I'd take that to mean your theories fall apart once they hit the real world. Don't worry, that's normal.

Oh, you mean like your pathetic strawman argument from earlier? Please, you haven't a leg to stand on with this discussion; you haven't even bothered to educate yourself on it in the least. But of course, why would you? Your mind is already made up. Like I said, it'd be pointless to try. I've been around the block on this issue plenty more times than you have, obviously, and I'm not stupid enough to get baited so poorly. I don't need disinformation tactics to prove myself right, I leave that to the conspiracy theorists like yourself. ;)


The fact is some terrorists managed to pull off an operation that was even more succesful than they could have dreamed it would be.

Oh really? Perhaps you can explain then to me - since you seem to know this for a fact - why it is that Bush extended Clinton's executive order W199I that took the FBI off the trail of the hijackers? Why did NORAD stand down? Who exactly was it that warned Pentagon officials not to fly on 9/11? Why did Condi tell Mayor Willie Brown not to fly on 9/11? I suppose it's just a coincidence that the Pentagon was undefended on 9/11 just like it's a coincidence that NORAD was having drills of hijacked jets flying into buildings on 9/11? Please, spare me the rhetoric, this stuff is mainstream news.

[bustr]

http://www.911myths.com/

Typical republican tactic, attack the messengers and avoid debating the facts.

[rogue]

Oh really? Perhaps you can explain then to me - since you seem to know this for a fact - why it is that Bush extended Clinton's executive order W199I that took the FBI off the trail of the hijackers? Why did NORAD stand down? Who exactly was it that warned Pentagon officials not to fly on 9/11? Why did Condi tell Mayor Willie Brown not to fly on 9/11? I suppose it's just a coincidence that the Pentagon was undefended on 9/11 just like it's a coincidence that NORAD was having drills of hijacked jets flying into buildings on 9/11? Please, spare me the rhetoric, this stuff is mainstream news.

Read what you wrote. Someone in the US Gov't had the ability and support to pull off the biggest black bag operation against US Citizens and the US economy, but left numerous and obvious "clues" that they did so. A few joint cheifs and the mayor of San Francisco would be a small sacrifice to maintain operational security and deniability considering the magnitude of the supposed act.

What defenses does the Pentagon normally have? Have you seen them? Do you have proof that they existed on a permanant basis?


I'm not stupid enough to get baited so poorly.
But you can fall for a grand conspiracy that doesn't standup to facts. You have just earned the Tin Foil Hat award for screwy thinking on this subject. Wear it proudly.

[rogue]

Here's some more facts for you Tin Hatters. I have it on from an unnamed source that W and Rummy used their control of space and time to pull off both of these ops.


ABRAHAM LINCOLN WAS ELECTED TO CONGRESS IN 1846.
JOHN F. KENNEDY WAS ELECTED TO CONGRESS IN 1946.

ABRAHAM LINCOLN WAS ELECTED PRESIDENT IN 1860.
JOHN F. KENNEDY WAS ELECTED PRESIDENT IN 1960.

THE NAME LINCOLN AND KENNEDY EACH CONTAIN SEVEN LETTERS.
BOTH WIVES LOST CHILDREN WHILE LIVING IN THE WHITE HOUSE.

BOTH WERE PARTICULARLY CONCERNED WITH CIVIL RIGHTS.
BOTH PRESIDENTS WERE SHOT ON FRIDAY.
BOTH WERE SHOT IN THE HEAD.

BOTH WERE ASSASSINATED BY SOUTHERNERS.
BOTH WERE SUCCEEDED BY SOUTHERNERS.
BOTH SUCCESSORS WERE NAMED JOHNSON.
ABRAHAM LINCOLN WAS BORN FEBRUARY 12, 1809 IN KENTUCKY. HE WAS ASSASSINATED ON GOOD FRIDAY,
APRIL 14, 1865, JUST BEFORE
THE EASTER HOLIDAY.
JOHN F. KENNEDY WAS BORN MAY 29, 1917 IN MASSECHUSETTS. HE WAS ASSASSINATED ON NOVEMBER 22, 1963, JUST BEFORE
THE THANKSGIVING HOLDAY.
EVERY TWENTY YEARS...

YEAR ELECTED
1840: WILLIAM HENRY HARRISON (DIED IN OFFICE)
1860: ABRAHAM LINCOLM (ASSASSINATED)
1880: JAMES A. GARFIELD (ASSASSINATED)
1900: WILLIAM MCKINLEY (ASSASSINATED)
1920: WARREN G. HARDING (DIED IN OFFCE)
1940: FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT (DIED IN OFFICE)
1960: JOHN F. KENNEDY (ASSASSINATED)
1980: RONALD REAGAN (SURVIVED ASSASSINATION ATTEMPT)
2000: GEORGE W. BUSH (SURVIVED ASSASSINATION ATTEMPT
BY A GRENADE IN 2005-RUSSIA)

http://www.homestead.com/thewebs/kennedy.html

[CaptinPickAxe]

When the Bush admin finally cops to shooting down Flight 93, maybe their other "explainations" will gain some credibility.

Yhatze!!!

and motherf@ckers are trying to portray them as heros. Yeah, right. hero's until the Air Force shot the plane down.:rolleyes:

Standard Proceedure concidering WTC and the Pentagon was just hit.

[Kymus]

Read what you wrote. Someone in the US Gov't had the ability and support to pull off the biggest black bag operation against US Citizens and the US economy, but left numerous and obvious "clues" that they did so. A few joint cheifs and the mayor of San Francisco would be a small sacrifice to maintain operational security and deniability considering the magnitude of the supposed act.

What defenses does the Pentagon normally have? Have you seen them? Do you have proof that they existed on a permanant basis?

Answering questions with questions is a cute way of avoiding things you can't answer. I knew you couldn't answer my questions :)

Answer my questions, I answer yours. It's that simple.



But you can fall for a grand conspiracy that doesn't standup to facts.

Whos facts? Yours? Please, you don't even know how to debate properly. Futher, it's painfully obvious that you know nothing about either side of this issue other than what your transparent political bias has allowed you to comprehend (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11009379/).


You have just earned the Tin Foil Hat award for screwy thinking on this subject. Wear it proudly.

You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your undemonstrated charges against the messenger have nothing to do with the facts or the issues, and fly in the face of reason. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 5 - sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule)?

[Kymus]

http://www.911myths.com/

Typical republican tactic, attack the messengers and avoid debating the facts.

Both sides do it when they refuse to question things. I have never once debated someone on the issue of 9/11 that has been able to structure an actual argument, and only about .5% include sources instead of baseless theories formed from god knows what.

[Kymus]

Here's some more facts for you Tin Hatters. I have it on from an unnamed source that W and Rummy used their control of space and time to pull off both of these ops.



http://www.homestead.com/thewebs/kennedy.html


Poor rhetoric and strawman arguments are no substitute for a structured argument with backed sources. Maybe one day you will understand that. It's really quite sad that an adult is acting like a 13 year old when faced with something that he finds too hard to believe.

[Kymus]

Rogue, because I know you care so much for the truth, I wanted to share this list of other "tin foil hats" with you, since apparently only crazy undeducated people believe this stuff :)

Here's a few of the prominent people that agree with me: Congressman Ron Paul (R, Texas), Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney (D, Georgia), former Blair environment Minister Michael Meacher , Former German Defence Minister Andreas Von Buelow, Former Chief Economist for the Department of Labour Morgan Reynolds, Parliament Member George Galloway, MI5 agent David Shayler, Former CIA Analyst Ray McGovern, Former United Nations weapons inspector and Marine Scott Ritter, The former head of the Star Wars missile defense program under Presidents Ford and Carter Dr. Robert M. Bowman (Lt. Col., USAF )

Hmmm, former CIA, MI5, a Defense Minister, and the head of the Star Wars program.... ah, what do they know about national intelligence, huh? :rolleyes:

[neilhytholt]

You know, it wasn't pitiful enough that we angered terrorists with our foreign policy. Yes, they hate us, we weren't smart enough to catch them.

But most of the country got all mad about it, we're right, how dare they do this to us, go to war ... let's go kill them all.

Which is totally wrong, because the bottom line is, the warning signs were there all over the place, but the government was too inept to stop them.

So there's those people. But then there's a lot of you people who seem to think this was all a government conspiracy.

HELLO!!! The government is too STUPID to catch terrorists. It's too STUPID to win a war in Iraq. It's so STUPID that Afghanistan is now starting to go back to the Taliban!!!

You really think a government that dumb could have planned all this. WAKE UP!!! Your leaders are freaking idiots!

But instead you go off about conspiracy theories because I guess that helps you sleep at night so you don't have to worry about what could really happen because of this inept regime.

[Kymus]

You know, it wasn't pitiful enough that we angered terrorists with our foreign policy. Yes, they hate us, we weren't smart enough to catch them.

But most of the country got all mad about it, we're right, how dare they do this to us, go to war ... let's go kill them all.

Which is totally wrong, because the bottom line is, the warning signs were there all over the place, but the government was too inept to stop them.

So there's those people. But then there's a lot of you people who seem to think this was all a government conspiracy.

HELLO!!! The government is too STUPID to catch terrorists. It's too STUPID to win a war in Iraq. It's so STUPID that Afghanistan is now starting to go back to the Taliban!!!

You really think a government that dumb could have planned all this. WAKE UP!!! Your leaders are freaking idiots!

But instead you go off about conspiracy theories because I guess that helps you sleep at night so you don't have to worry about what could really happen because of this inept regime.

So how is it that you can say something is wrong based totally on your own personal theory and lack of much - if any - investigation but at the same time call others "conspiracy theorists" and thus attack them for doing the exact same thing? BTW, your accusations of it being "easier to accept" and thus why they have been chosen are completely baseless and false (who in the hell gave you that idea???). I actually believed the official story for 3 long years until I started to research it and saw evidence to the contrary.

9/11 aside, have you seen the 3-part BBC Doccumentary entitled "The Power of Nightmares"? It outlines the central neoconservative ideology of using manufactured and exadgerated propaganda to invoke fear and thus recieve total compliance and support from its dupped supporters (and sometimes even detractors). I think it demonstrates how Bush Jr. is a complete idiot; the rest of them not so much.

Clinton missed 3 chances to capture bin Laden. I don't think this means he's an idiot, I think it means he's a rather evil man. But that's just my opinion ;).

[rogue]

Answer my questions, I answer yours. It's that simple.

I'd love to, but your questions have little to do with boring reality. You might as well ask how many angles can dance on the head of a pin. But if you want to answer your own questions with documented facts please go ahead, I'll be waiting.

Yes I saw Bowman on that panel and he was quite impressive with playing to the crowd to get elected to either the House or Senate. Seemed like a real serious fellow.


Hmmm, former CIA, MI5, a Defense Minister, and the head of the Star Wars program.... ah, what do they know about national intelligence, huh?

You'd be surprised how little people with impressive titles know, not to mention that while some may be experts in one field are totally clueless in others.

Now I have to go, the black helicopters are circling.

[CaptinPickAxe]

Rouge you should run for a political job.

I've watched you dance around questions by responding more questions. I've seen you beat around more bushes than a landscaper. I've seen you refuse a friendly debate and instead replace it with a Falun Gong-esque blindnesss.

Honestly, you've done nothing but F@ck yourself. I don't see how you could be helping your honor with an almost Republican mindset on answering questions.

Maybe...*gasp* you can't answer the questions because you too don't have any answers. My god...then...then...YOUR JUST LIKE THE REST OF US!!!

Here's your tin hat, fool.... It's just a different color.;)

[rogue]

There really is nothing to debate. In regards to the pro-conspiracy argument I see at best a bunch of non-related coincidences, partial facts and facts from made up from whole cloth with a bunch a people blinded by their politics. You guys see someone who can't or won't see things your way because he's a right leaning Republican. I guess we all should be hanged in the pubic square along with our masters. I asked very few but direct questions about how this was pulled off from an operational stand point and about the pre-9/11 defenses around the Pentagon didn't get one answer. You guys are cutting and pasting directly from the pro-conspiracy handbook, yes, I've seen all of of those questions before,and the answers, but the proconspiracy group won't accept the boring real world answers no matter what. Sorry but that's not debate or discussion.

Now if you'll excuse me I'm going to make breakfast for my kids, go to church and then head out to the firing range.

[Kymus]

I'd love to, but your questions have little to do with boring reality. You might as well ask how many angles can dance on the head of a pin. But if you want to answer your own questions with documented facts please go ahead, I'll be waiting.

Again you refuse to answer my questions due to your supreme level of self-indulged ignorance. This is becoming funnier and more predictable with each new post. Please Rogue, keep it up! However, I must ask if that was some sort of squirmy way of implying that the issues I question do not exist? Did you miss the part about "mainstream news"? Or do you simply make it habit to ignore unfavourable information like the partisan idiots in the study I linked to?


Yes I saw Bowman on that panel and he was quite impressive with playing to the crowd to get elected to either the House or Senate. Seemed like a real serious fellow.

If it was his decision to offer lip service in order to ensure his election like Bush (and 98% of every other Democrat and Republican) does every time he gets up to the mic, I think he could of chosen a much, much more gullible and wider crowd: most Christian conservatives. I notice here that again your response is devoid of any real substance, any sources, anything that remotely proves any of the individuals I mentioned wrong. Instead you again rely 100% on theory and opinion.


You'd be surprised how little people with impressive titles know, not to mention that while some may be experts in one field are totally clueless in others.

I'm glad you have your own opinions Rogue; however you seem to be under the illusion of "I think, therefore it is". Sadly, opinions are not worth much; they lack substance. Instead, it may be more intelligent and better serving for you to deal in facts, things that you can prove, evidence, that kind of stuff...


Now I have to go, the black helicopters are circling.

More disinformation tools in an attempt to take away from the subject at hand and drag this debate down to the typical partisan blathering that is equal to the mental maturity of a 5 year old.

[rogue]

I rest my case.

Thanks for playing.

[Kymus]

There really is nothing to debate. In regards to the pro-conspiracy argument I see at best a bunch of non-related coincidences, partial facts and facts from made up from whole cloth with a bunch a people blinded by their politics.

How would you know? You know 1% of the issues at best. You can't even answer a few basic questions pertaining to the subject.


You guys see someone who can't or won't see things your way because he's a right leaning Republican.

Wrong. I don't care what your politics are.


I guess we all should be hanged in the pubic square along with our masters.

Unlike you, I do not hold such vendetta against another that is opposite of me in a phoney paradigm. Therefore, it really doesn't matter to me what your politics are, but how you decide to use them. If it is to further ignorance and predictably blame everything on some sort of leftist/partisan agenda, then I know I'm going to waste my time from the get-go.


I asked very few but direct questions about how this was pulled off from an operational stand point and about the pre-9/11 defenses around the Pentagon didn't get one answer.

You have already proven me right in your rhetorical and disinfo-filled banter: irregardless of what answer is given, you would never believe it and refuse to comprehend it. I've debated this issue with many, and I know now that when someone is adept at ignoring that which they do not like, it's pointless to discuss anything with them since they will simply inject theory in substitute for fact.


You guys are cutting and pasting directly from the pro-conspiracy handbook

Where is this handbook? No one told me of this. I am simply basing this on the hundreds of different media pieces I have seen and read.


yes, I've seen all of of those questions before,and the answers

Then why do you weasel out of my questions?


but the proconspiracy group won't accept the boring real world answers no matter what.

AAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA You are so hypocritical it's astounding! Dude, I feel really bad for you. I atleast try to read both sides and check their facts, because that's important to me. You haven't even gotten that far yet.


Sorry but that's not debate or discussion.

Your standards for "debate or discussion" are very interesting. By the examples you have given, "debate or discussion" means invoking strawman arguments, ridicule, calling people names, avoiding questions, characterising everything as either left or right, using total theory in substitute of facts etc, and ignoring every single thing that you disagree with. Astounding standards of protocol you have there.

[Kymus]

Rouge you should run for a political job.

I've watched you dance around questions by responding more questions. I've seen you beat around more bushes than a landscaper. I've seen you refuse a friendly debate and instead replace it with a Falun Gong-esque blindnesss.

Honestly, you've done nothing but F@ck yourself. I don't see how you could be helping your honor with an almost Republican mindset on answering questions.

Maybe...*gasp* you can't answer the questions because you too don't have any answers. My god...then...then...YOUR JUST LIKE THE REST OF US!!!

Here's your tin hat, fool.... It's just a different color.;)

You will notice that most people - especially those that paint every subject as left or right - are afraid of accepting something they disagree with. As we have seen, all the typical tacitics come out similar to a politician with his feet to the fire. I've already been proven wrong once, having believed the official story for 3 years, so being proven wrong again really doesn't frighten me. I hold no alliegance to any political party specifically to prevent such indulgance of ignorance that we often see in these political flame-wars. Wrong or right, I like to know that I'm looking at facts, so I will gladly look through these anti-conspiracy blogs, but instead of holding them up as the holy messiah of debunking, I check them like they check others; it's really sad that this is such a worthless concept to most.

[The Willow Sword]

Rogue is engaging you guys pretty well. Instead of a politician, Rogue should be an interrogator. Because all he has to do with you knuckleheads is make a veiled statement and you guys just start spouting.

Rogue doesnt know any more or less than all of us about this whole issue. He has the same info as all of US has. He has his opinions, maybe some of his opinions are based on how he constructs the facts as HE sees it, Like the rest of us. But rogue does one thing here that i kinda admire, he doesnt reveal his own agenda and therefore gives away his position(much like a sniper would).

I dont consider myself a conspiracy theorist, not to the degree as the no-lifers who create these blog sites. I do , however, give some creedence to the possibility of such actions within our government. i mean come on, history is filled with conspiracies and government betrayals.

anyway back to the ramblings.
TWS

[Kymus]

TWS,

I understand what you mean about opinions, however one thing I am careful of if substituting theory or opinion for fact. My stance on this issue is based upon not blogs or books that I have read, but information I have gathered researching the issue. That is where myself and Rogue differ.

[rogue]

You know 1% of the issues at best. You can't even answer a few basic questions pertaining to the subject.

I understand what you mean about opinions, however one thing I am careful of if substituting theory or opinion for fact. My stance on this issue is based upon not blogs or books that I have read, but information I have gathered researching the issue. That is where myself and Rogue differ.

Excellent Kymus, you have caught my attention. Let's go from the assumptions that one, as you stated that I am ignorant to this issue, and two, as you have also stated that you have done independent and thorough research and hold some expertise on the issue. That means I get to ask some questions and since I'm ignorant do not have to answer any. Let's start with some simple questions that I have.

Question 1: Why? Why fly planes into the towers in the first place? Who did it benefit to knock the buildings down?

Question 2: Was knocking down the towers overkill? Why so much destruction? Wouldn't two planes flying into the towers have been enough?

Question 3: Let's assume that thermite was used to knock down building 7. Three part question:
Why knock down 7 at all? How much thermite was needed? Where was it placed?

The ball is in your court.

[CaptinPickAxe]

Question 1: Why? Why fly planes into the towers in the first place? Who did it benefit to knock the buildings down?

Question 2: Was knocking down the towers overkill? Why so much destruction? Wouldn't two planes flying into the towers have been enough?

Question 3: Let's assume that thermite was used to knock down building 7. Three part question:
Why knock down 7 at all? How much thermite was needed? Where was it placed?

1. A good way to strike up rage is to have civilian casualties...the more the better. It would be one thing to simply blow them up. It's a whole nother ballgame when you punk America by stealing planes from under thier nose and ramming them into the icon of free trade. It benifited the Executive branch as they seem to hold the most sway now. Because of 9/11 we invaded Iraq with no proof what so ever that they had anything to do with it.

2. You have to drive the point home. What's more memorable? Seeing broken buildings repaired? Or watching them on live television fall before your very eyes. Look at it this way. The first WTC attack was far from mind. That's why it happend again. Whoever was behind this (in this case let's say the US) may have done it in order to have supreme command to invade whoever it deemed responsible. It's like the shotgun method now. We're just pointing the barrel at the middle east trying to find a boogy man who may or may have not been truely responsible for the attacks.

3. No idea.

This all ties into who stands to benefit from this. With the middle east sitting on a virtual gold mine of oil and our country being lead by two people who have well known roots in the oil game, why wouldn't they sacrafice a few thousand for millions upon millions of dollars in monopoly of the oil game. On top of monopoly, destroy a country, have a connected company rebuild it, and slap the new "government" with a hefty bill. All this can be traced to greed.

However, this is one theory. And a theory does has flaws. But I ask you rouge, is this so hard to believe? Can you see any logic in my thoughts. Please don't just brush this off with black and white partisonship, actually let me know if there is any viability in this theory. I assure you there is room for reasonable doubt in the offical report on 9/11.

[Fei jiao]

HELLO!!! The government is too STUPID to catch terrorists. It's too STUPID to win a war in Iraq.

HELLO!!!!! You haven't yet figured out that as long as the war goes on, this administration will make huge piles of money (espescially through Halliburton). In other words "winning" the war in Iraq is the last thing they wish!

They're not too stupid to catch terrorists, they NEED terrorists to keep you afraid. This way they have your blessing to do whatever they want in the name of the "War on terror". Wake up already!!!!

[Kymus]

Excellent Kymus, you have caught my attention. Let's go from the assumptions that one, as you stated that I am ignorant to this issue, and two, as you have also stated that you have done independent and thorough research and hold some expertise on the issue. That means I get to ask some questions and since I'm ignorant do not have to answer any. Let's start with some simple questions that I have.

Question 1: Why? Why fly planes into the towers in the first place? Who did it benefit to knock the buildings down?

Question 2: Was knocking down the towers overkill? Why so much destruction? Wouldn't two planes flying into the towers have been enough?

Question 3: Let's assume that thermite was used to knock down building 7. Three part question:
Why knock down 7 at all? How much thermite was needed? Where was it placed?

The ball is in your court.

Interesting that you are still using disinformation tactics by answering questions with questions. Answer mine, and I will be more than happy to answer yours thoroughly. Is it really so hard to answer my questions? After all, you said yourself that these are all just baseless theories. If this is indeed fact based upon your own research *cough* then it shouldn't be too hard to answer those very few basic questions. I am currious as to why you ask those questions specifically since all they do is question opinion; the most that can show is someone's basic understanding of the issue as they see it, which is easily seen once people are receptive to learning instead of deciding that a book sucks before even opening it. This is the problem with government conspiracy theorists such as yourself; you rely way too much on phoney arguments and these irrelevant issues all the while deciding that your mind is already made up. Why bother? We both know that nothing will change your mind. It's obvious through the very poorly attempted disinfo you try that you aren't interested in what may or may not be true, but rather this phoney left/right paradigm that you seem supremely fixated upon.

[rogue]

You're using the some old redundent script Kymus. Saying that I'm using disinformation is as silly as saying I'm a government conspiracy theorist. You've done research and I haven't, so why look to me to answer any questions?

How are these questions irrelevent to the issue? They pertain to motive and if it is possible and probable that things went down the way you're saying it did.

Question 1: Why? Why fly planes into the towers in the first place? Who did it benefit to knock the buildings down?

Question 2: Was knocking down the towers overkill? Why so much destruction? Wouldn't two planes flying into the towers have been enough?

Question 3: Let's assume that thermite was used to knock down building 7. Three part question:
Why knock down 7 at all? How much thermite was needed? Where was it placed?



However, this is one theory. And a theory does has flaws. But I ask you rouge, is this so hard to believe? Can you see any logic in my thoughts. Please don't just brush this off with black and white partisonship, actually let me know if there is any viability in this theory. I assure you there is room for reasonable doubt in the offical report on 9/11.

Quite hard to believe. Is what you say possible, very remotely, but it is very improbable.


Because of 9/11 we invaded Iraq with no proof what so ever that they had anything to do with it.

Why invade Iraq? IMO the Iraq invasion had nothing to with 9/11 and it was something that would have happened anyway; And not because of oil which doesn't seem to be in short supply or availability. Think more along the lines of location, location, location. Saddam even set himself up to get taken out having earned enough bad karma points and playing games with someone whose dad he had tried to assasinate. Not smart.

It's 11:46PM and I just finished watching Loose Change 2.0. Sorry but I didn't see any smoking gun in his "evidence".

[CaptinPickAxe]

Why invade Iraq? IMO the Iraq invasion had nothing to with 9/11 and it was something that would have happened anyway; And not because of oil which doesn't seem to be in short supply or availability. Think more along the lines of location, location, location. Saddam even set himself up to get taken out having earned enough bad karma points and playing games with someone whose dad he had tried to assasinate. Not smart.

It's 11:46PM and I just finished watching Loose Change 2.0. Sorry but I didn't see any smoking gun in his "evidence".[/QUOTE]

First things first...No such thing as bad karma...Karma is Karma. No good to it.

Secondly, I believe that 9/11 had everything to do with Iraq. We needed a scape goat and a reason to go in and take what we wanted. Location is correct...because Iraq sits on the 3rd largest oil reserve on this beautifully fuct planet. You think oil isnt' scarce? Bush isn't stupid, he knew a good gust of wind to the gulf coast would severely hamper the US oil reserve. Instead of investing in revamping the coast, why not go for the cash cow (in this case an easily over-throwable country torn with strife, struggle, and dissent) Don't even mention the massive amounts of oil under Denali national park in Alaska, because we know that is pipe dreams. We would never sacrafice a national treasure when, when all else fails, there are more efficent sources of energy for transportation. This has everything to do with oil. Hailiburton...HELLO! Kiss the oil goodbye, kiss the income for most of the executive branch goodbye. $450,000 a year salary would never quench the hunger of these fat cat playboys.

Yes, my theory may be unprobable... just like the notion of a terrorist attack on American soil Pre-9/11. At least from the uninformed public.

I'm not mad, and thanks for answering my questions. Even if it was with more questions and half attempts at meeting my request.

[mickey]

Greetings,

Does anyone remember that within fourty five minutes of the 911 incident a van was intercepted trying to cross the George Washington Bridge (leaving Manhattan) that was chock full of explosives? This was reported once on the CBS news and then it was "forgotten."


Additionally, has anyone noticed the lack of media followup to the allegations that no Jewish people who worked in those buildings reported to work that day? If this was true then the the Conspiracists may not be the ill people they are being portrayed as. And no, I did not say the Jews did it.

The US gov't only admitted to being warned of possible terrorist threats after the international community's saturated of the web stating the the US had prior knowledge,

I remember a news report by the late Peter Jennings that revealed a plot to use airplanes as missiles. I think this was back in 1999.


mickey

[David Jamieson]

I think many are all to quick to see incompetence as conspiracy.

These are the canadians who died in the wtc and the aircraft, a few of them were Jewish, they showed up for work that day. http://members.shaw.ca/kcic1/cdnwtc.html

Almost 3000 people all in all lost their lives that day.

The situation may very well have served as political advantage and was used as such. This doesn't change the fact that the wtc was a target for islamic fundamentalist terrorists back in tehClinton days and before.

Im sure a lot of people took advantage of this attack, and shame on them for doing so. Even the film makers who would want you to believe that your own government is staging attacks on you. Either on the conspiracy story side of things or the hollywoodisms that are starting to come out now.

Point of fact is, that when there is chaos, people will take advantage of the situation. It is a sad state that the factual information is blurred by conspiracy theory, half truths, incomplete reports and simple lack of knowledge.

To narrow it all down to the Bush /Cheney administration is incorrect. While they may very well have taken advantage of the situation to benefit themselves, it is not likely in my opinion that they ordered the attack. More likely a lot of blundering going on and that is the real embarrasment and shame of it all.

You cannot protect yourselves, how are you going to bring peace and liberty to others? I think the drawing board is waiting to be revisited on many levels in the Americas. 9/11 showed wherethe flaws in National Security were across North America. It was shown clearly and concisely that the US government is not capable of protecting it's home front. When and if there is another attack, what then? Will that get lost in the muck and mire of theory and conjecture or will people wake up and see where the issues realy lie?

[mickey]

Hello David,

I took a look at the link you provided. There is no indication that any of those victims were Jewish. Having a name that seems to suggest that does not mean that they were.


I did managed to find this link. Scroll down to the 4000 rumour and click. It supports your argument.



http://www.snopes.com/rumors/israel.htm#add



mickey

[mickey]

This page from wikipedia really covers it all, along with refutations. They say the Jewish thing is just a rumour that is not true.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_domestic_conspiracy_theory




mickey

[The Willow Sword]

Well Mickey you know what ole Mel Gibson thinks about em:rolleyes:

hehe just had to interject that. TWS


Mel is as mentally ill as alot of the conspiracy theorists,not as to say that all CT's are mentally ill,,just mostof em;) , like mel. whata wanker.

[Kymus]

You're using the some old redundent script Kymus. Saying that I'm using disinformation is as silly as saying I'm a government conspiracy theorist.

I'm very sorry Rogue that you don't understand the first thing about debate or how to form an argument. But since you challenge the fact that you have engaged in disinformation tactics, let me quote each one:


Put it this way, the operation as described by these nutcases is too complicated to pull off without a hitch.

Here you use two different tactics:

#5: Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary 'attack the messenger' ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as 'kooks', 'right-wing', 'liberal', 'left-wing', 'terrorists', 'conspiracy buffs', 'radicals', 'militia', 'racists', 'religious fanatics', 'sexual deviates', and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.

You do this by throwing in the word "nutcases" just because you disagree with them based on ignorance and bias.

#4: Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.

You claim it would of been "too complicated" (you're substituting theory for fact here!) and thus everything they said has to be wrong. A perfect, and very common, strawman argument.


Sorry folks nothing of interest and nothing new, just a big lefty wacko circle jerk.

#5 again. You keep relying on these insults instead of either: a) proving anyone wrong, or b) proving your own claims right.


What defenses does the Pentagon normally have? Have you seen them? Do you have proof that they existed on a permanant basis?

Answering questions with questions


But you can fall for a grand conspiracy that doesn't standup to facts.

You tell me that what I believe doesn't "standup to facts", but yet you offer nothing that disproves anything that I - or those that spoke on the panel - have said. Instead you keep relying on your own personal theories and claim that because of (theory), myself and others are wrong. This is also doubling as a strawman argument for you.


You have just earned the Tin Foil Hat award for screwy thinking on this subject. Wear it proudly.

Again with tacitc #5: Sidetrack opponents with name calling, ridicule

Again and again, it's the same thing: Strawman arguments, name-calling, answering questions with questions, and substituting theory for facts - or at least a source to back your claims. That's a lot of disinfo there Rogue. When will you be able to articulate a real argument devoid of such things?


You've done research and I haven't, so why look to me to answer any questions?

You said yourself that we are conspiracy theorists - which means that we have no basis in fact, just theory and no proof. You have already stated that we are wrong. Since you are so sure of this, I am simply asking you to prove this by answer just a few of my questions. Let's not forget that you claimed that you've seen all the answers to these, so I expect that you were being honest and not blowing more smoke.


How are these questions irrelevent to the issue? They pertain to motive and if it is possible and probable that things went down the way you're saying it did.

Oh, they're certainly relevant. I never said they weren't. The problem is that you are asking questions that deal with theory, and not facts. You don't do research very often, do you? My answer to those questions simply demonstrates my understanding of the alternative to the government's conspiracy theory, not whether I am right or they are wrong. If you want to understand the who what why, just study the Hegelian dialectic and think of who benefits from this. It's really not that hard.

[rogue]

Then just present your facts instead of the endless repitition. So far most of your posts have been about me and not presenting any evidence to your theories.

Oh, and who said I was debating you? I personally have no interest in doing so as there really isn't anything to debate. From what I've seen of the so-called evidence all that I see is the fantasy of a 22 year old who needs to get a life. (Whoops, was that tactic #5 again?)

Thanks for playing.

[CaptinPickAxe]

Then just present your facts instead of the endless repitition. So far most of your posts have been about me and not presenting any evidence to your theories.

Oh, and who said I was debating you? I personally have no interest in doing so as there really isn't anything to debate. From what I've seen of the so-called evidence all that I see is the fantasy of a 22 year old who needs to get a life. (Whoops, was that tactic #5 again?)

Thanks for playing.

That'a hell of a thing to say, seeing how you facilitate this endless cycle by further questioning and re-questioning. Also, I'm taking your attack at a 22 year old as directed at me. If so, you have again made an ass of yourself by making a hasty generalization. I'm sure at the ripe young age of 22, I have done more than you can claim. I'm not here to brag of my accomplishments, but I assure you there are people on here who know quite well what I have done. You really hit the bone on this one, rouge. I can truely see you are too much of a coward to out and say where you stand and instead try to belittle people in hopes of making your shortcomings seem less significant. Coda Scott-complex? I bet your the type to buy a porsche just to make up for what you lack in machismo and self-confidence.

Get a life...wait...you probably already wasted it.

P.s. I've been playing devil's advocate and I don't believe most conspiracy theories, however I don't subscribe to popular belief. You on the contrary play the devil's ***** boy and in the process demean your own arguement by tossing insults our librally. You sir, are truely pittiful.

[rogue]

Also, I'm taking your attack at a 22 year old as directed at me.

Don't be so egocentric, I don't know you or your age. The remark was aimed at the guy, Dylan Avery, who made the silly Loose Change video. (Oh, there I go doing a #5 again)
Want to retract what you said about me?


I can truely see you are too much of a coward to out and say where you stand
How many ways do I have to say it, 9/11 was pulled off by a group of 19 hijackers. There wasn't any other conspriacy other than those of the 19 murdering thugs and their AQ handlers. If that isn't clear enough then there is nothing else I can say to you.


They build an internally consistent theory then place the burden on the skeptic to prove them wrong. If you can't prove them definitively wrong, then they must be right!

You are so right Merry. Well I've been entertained enough.

[rogue]

I'm out of here but interested parties may want to look at the
Loose Change video (http://www.lolloosechange.co.nr/) with handy commentary.

[David Jamieson]

well played rogue.

[CaptinPickAxe]

I fail to see how this was well played. All he managed to do was raise more questions than answer. He failed to answer anything aimed at him and yet he gets praise? It's so easy to answer a question with a question. It's like playing basketball with a retard... turn his headgear around and he can't see the basket.

Whatever, though. I tried to have an intellectual debate, but all I got was questions. That's cool, though. I guess people just like the smell of rouge's pubes.

[CaptinPickAxe]

Also, people don't really understand the meaning of "beyond reasonable doubt." You have failed to provide any evidence that proves that 9/11 was perpetrated by Islamic terrorist beyond reasonable doubt.

Check. Your turn

[David Jamieson]

Also, people don't really understand the meaning of "beyond reasonable doubt." You have failed to provide any evidence that proves that 9/11 was perpetrated by Islamic terrorist beyond reasonable doubt.

Check. Your turn

I would say that "beyond reasonable doubt" is something that applies in a court of law. This stage has not been attained yet.

But did you know that the wtc was bombed before in an attempt to bring it down that failed. This was the admitted act of the faction in question who also proclaimed "we will not fail next time".

I would also add that the attitude of the people who made the CT films that was hashed in the clip that rogue gave is very poor and disregards the living breathing people who were killed in the attack.

The very idea that these people don't exist, didn't exist and are all just fake identities that were put forth is at best ludicrous.

My point is that perhaps some people took advantage of the situation that was presented following the attacks to put forth theior agendas, but this does not necessarily implicate them as teh perpetrators, it only indicates them as opportunistic types who perhaps have made a bad play in doing so.

My position above is that there was gross incompitence and neglegance on the part of the US military, the office of the president and so on and the event is indicative of americas inability to defend itself from attacks such as this.

The last 5 years has shown nothing more than archaic and draconian measures as an attemnpt at making a remedy to the glaring fact that america is NOT safe, is still NOT safe and won't be made safe by a patriot act or new immigration laws or spying on citizens. Clearly a different measure of response is required as the borders are still not properly secured as shown in the latest study where people got across without being asked for identification etc etc etc. The whole airport security goons is another issue where you have improperly trained people doing the jobs they are not qualified to do and so on.

A real solution has not been forthcoming.

As for all the physics and math and photos and film and criticisms etc etc. THose will continue I think.

If people don't think that the militant and radical fundamentalist arm of islam is not a problem and will not continue to be a problem, then I would say that it is those folks who are the retarded kid with the helmet on backwards that you speak of.

Honestly, there is no rocket surgery involved in determinig that these factions do indeed want to do harm to the west.

Now, could the west change their foreign policies in teh middle east? What does that mean? Which foreign policy does the radical islamic faction have the most trouble with? I believe that would be the existance of Israel as a state unto itself and the support for said state by the west. Should we not support Israel? It is the only real democracy in the region. It has a right to exist as a state unto itself and it deserves our full support in maintaining that existance and that democracy.

This doesn't mean we should be trying to shove democratic models down arab states throats however. And that part of the policy should be changed.

Threats must be dealt with and generally they are dealt with in whatever fashion is known. It is clear that as a species we are unable to move past the idea of conflict as a type of solution to this type of problem.

To turn on yourself when the enemy is still at the gate is the action of blind apathetic self loathing. Why hate yourself? Bush is not an appropriate person for the office he resides in, I agree. His cronies are all opportuinistic chickenhawks, but what else is new in the GOP? But is their truly indication that they were responsible for the attack?

There are many unanswered questions surrounding that fateful day. Perhaps we will never know some of the answers, much the same as teh speculation revolving around the kennedy assassination to this day.

But is it reasonable to discount the lives of those people who died in favour of promoting what amounts to a theory? There are some conspiracy theorists out there that are making a good living off this. They are ethical? Do you think they really want to know the truth or do they want to perpetuate a meme that keeps the money rolling into and the hits on their sites high? Are they not being the samne opportunistic types?

My opinion is that people don't want to face the truth that there is a faction out there who want you and your family dead and your country in flames. they are not your government, they are radical islamic fundamentalists and they have taken it to the extremes in their bent to kill as many of you as they possibly can.

To the tune of about 2000 soldiers in Iraq, 2 soldiers a week in afghanistan for Canada are lost in firefights with these factions who do indeed exist. UBL is still free and has not been run down. Hezbollah is gaining acceptance in the middle east because of Israels attemnpts at destroying their militant arm.

Im not saying the democvratic way is the best way, but frankly, I'd rather live under rule of law than under the rule of some cleric who is fanatically trying to wipe oput any advances in civilization in favour of retaiuning their own power over a mass of people who do not have even close to the standard of living afforded by a democracy or the freedoms of same o the educational opportunity etc etc etc.

If you think this faction doesn't exist and this is all a big sham based on power retention and control in the west by western elements, then that is really stretching it.

Call a spade a spade and take the blinders off. the Conspiracy theories have less grounding than the reality that radical fundamentalist islam wants YOU dead. suck it up and get with the program. The more division and indecisiveness and second thinking in the west the better for them. Understand that. We are our own worst enemies with this kind of dicision based on speculation and conjecture.

Just try and think for yourselves and try to gain some clarity. It is neither black nor white.

[David Jamieson]

MK-

arms and ordinance are everywhere.
Part of the overall problem is this fact.
In the name of commerce, huge amounts of guns, minitions, ordinance and explosives have been distributed all over the world with no fed ex tracking records. :rolleyes:

For instance, up here in canuck land there was a guy in alverta who was a religious extremist and he was into blowing up oil wells. He got his explosives by breaking into a rail maintenace yard and stealing dynamite and cordite they used for clearing avalanche fall off of the tarcks that run through the mountains.

In highway construction there is a lot of ordinance used as well, not to mention that US arms dealers aren't the only ones unchecked wandering the deserts of the arab regions and selling truckloads of deadly devices.

So, I wouldn't venture to guess where they got the explosives, it's not important really, that's a pandoras box that has been opened and there is frankly tons of the stuff floating around with no record of who sold it. You can determine where it was manufactured, but culpability in regards to it's use is another matter entirely.

Turns out the gas saddam used on the Kurds in the 80's was supplied by the USA itself. turns out the oklahoma bombing ordinance used was manufactured from farm supplies and diesel fuel. Improvised devices do not require a degree in science, only a simple recipe using readily available goods taht by themselves are inert.

So, what are you saying? Where did the original bombers get their explosives in the first attempt in 96 to drop the towers?

well, here's the story on it:
http://www.answers.com/topic/world-trade-center-bombing

you tell me what your best guess is.

[MasterKiller]

The FBI and Israel had at least 1 year foreknowledge of that attack.

From the New York Times:

"Law-enforcement officials were told that terrorists were building a bomb that was eventually used to blow up the World Trade Center, and they planned to thwart the plotters by secretly substituting harmless powder for the explosives, an informer said after the blast.

"The informer was to have helped the plotters build the bomb and supply the fake powder, but the plan was called off by an F.B.I. supervisor who had other ideas about how the informer, Emad Salem, should be used, the informer said.

"The account, which is given in the transcript of hundreds of hours of tape recordings that Mr. Salem secretly made of his talks with law-enforcement agents, portrays the authorities as being in a far better position than previously known to foil the February 26th bombing of New York City's tallest towers."

The FBI had had all documents relating to plans to blow up the World Trade Center, the Lincoln and Holland Tunnels and other targets in their possession since 1990. Fifty storage boxes of documents concerning detailed plans to blow up the World Trade Center were in police and FBI possession, as Los Angeles Times confirmed July 4, 1993. Every time Salem met with his stooges to discuss these operations, he was "wired" and the FBI was fully aware that the actions were Salem's idea.

[David Jamieson]

Ok, so a police outfit knew there were bad guys that wanted to do bad things.
I would imagine that there is a lot of intelligence gathering going on at all times and that quite a lot is known about some of the plans that are on the table or in motion.

This doesn't mean that it can be stopped in time or the culprits can be easily nabbed.

this doesn't mean that the purchases of ingredients can be stopped either or that said ingredients for the making of ordinance can be easily found without infringing on the civil liberties of a lot of people.

would you rather live in a police state where summary searches and seizures were ok? I don't understand your point I guess.

In order to catch and control the enemy within the gates with relative ease, martial law would need to be put into place. There are failings in the investigative and strike abilities of various police and military organizations and combined with the rule of law, it becomes a very difficult process to get the timing exactly right one wheres and whens. How and why is fairly clear in regards to the bombings. When and where is another matter entirely and the future is not ours to see, que sera sera.

I wish I lived in a perfect world too. But that is the furthest thing from the truth that there is right now.

[MasterKiller]

EDIT---


Nevermind. I don't need to get dragged into this today.

[Ou Ji]

Hmm, can you say 'allowed to happen'?

Was 9/11 'allowed to happen'?

[rogue]

Maybe this (http://www.vanityfair.com/features/general/060801fege01) will answer the questions about NORAD.

I'm surprised the Loose Change guys didn't post this first. Actually I'm not as this blows some of their insanity out of the water.

[David Jamieson]

Hmm, can you say 'allowed to happen'?

Was 9/11 'allowed to happen'?

speculation and conjecture.

imo a better question is why are the facts not on the table for all to see in teh hopes that someone can help bring resolution to the issue.

Instead it's limited access to a smaller group of people who may or may not have the ability to sort it. This limited access to information plan is where the failing is.
First it protects those who have culpability and second it lengthens the process of resolution by not having it in the top of everyones mind until resolution and solution is met.

Part of the problem is what you see in the mirror every morning.
So, yes, in that sense 9/11 was allowed to happen. Through apathy, through indifference and through a "me me" attitude that we have all come to wear in this "civilization" we live in. Relativism leading to pluralism leading to indifference when the wading in the minutia overwhelms the motivation to take action because we are all so turned topsy turvy on the reality of the issues that to take the right action is a difficult thing to do.

Truth in point is that we stifle ourselves from caring about the issue and instead choose to debate it intellectually from a point of view that is very one sided more often than not. The power of the people doesn't really exist unless teh people rise up and rising up takes effort and usually includes more problems tacked on on top of things.

the status quo here in the west is a place where most people want to be. Killing and destruction in our own neighbourhood shouldn't be the only thing that shakes any of us awake. But despite this grand idea, it is hard to care for an anonymous person killed in a bombing 5 thousand miles away and who is propagandized as a sympathizer with your known enemy.

Acceptance is a greater issue on the overall matter in my opinion. Over here, we should not be trying to remake the world in our own model. Our own model is not the thing for everyone and it is a mistake to think so. This is a failing of mind on all our parts. The idea that we think we are better when in fact we are only better at insultaing our minds at the evil we do that effects everyone. The trickle down effect of everything from war to slavery to starvation et al that can be related back to anyone of us buying a pair of 6 dollar jeans at a big box store that were made in a sweatshop with endentured slaves. The effect of wanting to buy energy for less than what it costs to produce it. The effect of wanting to be wealthy and successful despite the fact that there is only so much wealth in the world and that if you have more, someone, somewhere is going to have to settle for less. If you have enough wealth compiled into a small segment, you are left with a huge segment that has nothing at all. In the simplest of terms if you had 50 people and 3 apples and only two people held those three apples, what part of the apples would the other 48 people get?

And so we live our lives and if we don't see it or hear of it, it is unimportant to us entirely. We are not concious of ourselves at a level beyond self and sometime immediate family and friends and the rest is just an idea. This is a failing in all of us. It is a fundamental mechanism that allows for lack of compassion and understanding and it is remarkably few people who put into practice the benevolence required to actually make it work for all of us. Some would say that it is so few that it is a veritable waste of time.

Be the change in the world that you want to see. If we each held to that, we would most definitely be in a same but different world to a great extent.

[MasterKiller]

Maybe this (http://www.vanityfair.com/features/general/060801fege01) will answer the questions about NORAD.

I'm surprised the Loose Change guys didn't post this first. Actually I'm not as this blows some of their insanity out of the water.

Out of 3 hours of audio, he posts about 30 seconds of dialogue. :rolleyes:

[rogue]

Here's what you do MK, ask for the full 30 hours and host it on the web yourself.

Here's the other thing about the audio. The people speaking and their jobs are on record along with some context for what is happening, contrast that with the nameless voices used by the Loose Change idiots (Darn, yet another #5) in their silly video.

[rogue]

09:03:52NASYPANY (to Marr): Sir, we got—we've got unconfirmed second hit from another aircraft. Fighters are south of—just south of Long Island, sir. Right now. Fighters are south of Long Island.




With both towers now in flames, Nasypany wants the fighters over Manhattan immediately, but the weapons techs get "pushback" from civilian F.A.A. controllers, who have final authority over the fighters as long as they are in civilian airspace. The F.A.A. controllers are afraid of fast-moving fighters colliding with a passenger plane, of which there are hundreds in the area, still flying normal routes—the morning's unprecedented order to ground all civilian aircraft has not yet been given. To Nasypany, the fact that so many planes are still in the sky is all the more reason to get the fighters close. ("We've already had two," he told me, referring to the hijackings. "Why not more?")


09:07:20NASYPANY: Okay, Foxy. Plug in. I want to make sure this is on tape.… This is what—this is what I foresee that we probably need to do. We need to talk to F.A.A. We need to tell 'em if this stuff's gonna keep on going, we need to take those fighters on and then put 'em over Manhattan, O.K.? That's the best thing. That's the best play right now. So, coordinate with the F.A.A. Tell 'em if there's more out there, which we don't know, let's get 'em over Manhattan. At least we got some kinda play.

Hmmm, is that what we call a stand down?


"The problem there would have been I'd have all my fighters in the air at the same time, which means they'd all run out of gas at the same time," Marr later explained.


Incredibly, Marr has only four armed fighters at his disposal to defend about a quarter of the continental United States. Massive cutbacks at the close of the Cold War reduced NORAD's arsenal of fighters from some 60 battle-ready jets to just 14 across the entire country. (Under different commands, the military generally maintains several hundred unarmed fighter jets for training in the continental U.S.) Only four of NORAD's planes belong to NEADS and are thus anywhere close to Manhattan—the two from Otis, now circling above the ocean off Long Island, and the two in Virginia at Langley.

Remember the peace dividend. But last I looked Canada and us were friends and Mexico's AF wasn't much of a threat.

[FuXnDajenariht]

so who saw that frontline special about tricky **** and the incompetent bunch? called the darkside i think....

and the concensus is. i think they allude to some incredible notions. beyond outting them for the lies they told. im surprised PBS allowed it. but its a good documen. what did you think of it?

[Kymus]

Then just present your facts instead of the endless repitition.

Such hypocricy! You have yet to answer the questions I asked you since you're just so sure you're right based on your level of ignorance on this subject. Further, you and I both know that irregardless of what I present outside of Bush himself on national TV admitting to it all, you won't believe it. You follow the mentality of the article I linked to to a T. If you were honestly interested in any sort of truth, you wouldn't keep it up with such disinformation tactics. You tell me we're wrong, but you can't answer any of the very simple questions I've given you. Did you not already say that you saw all the answers debunking this? I knew you were lieing :)


So far most of your posts have been about me and not presenting any evidence to your theories.

I'm very sorry that I do not substitute theory and disinfo for personal research. I've already explained all of this.


Oh, and who said I was debating you?

I wouldn't call throwing ad homs at people you disagree with based on complete self-indulged ignorance a "discussion".


I personally have no interest in doing so as there really isn't anything to debate.

HAHAHAHAHAHAH So says the person that can't form a single valid argument or disprove anyone outside of their own personal theory. That's rich Rogue, that's really rich.


From what I've seen of the so-called evidence all that I see is the fantasy of a 22 year old who needs to get a life.

But you undermine all the experts that know a crapload more than you on this subject, as well as the miles of evidence. You have not answered any of the questions I have given you, nor have you even attempted to present ANYTHING that proves ANY of us wrong. Pot, Kettle, Black rogue


(Whoops, was that tactic #5 again?)

Again and again we see no substance from any of your posts, just continual disinfo. If I am so wrong, prove me wrong. Why can't you answer my questions? I already know why: you're adept at ignoring what you don't like.

Answer my questions Rogue. You can't, you won't. Prove your words Rogue, because right now you're showing everyone that you're a liar. Oh "You're all lunatics with no proof" you exclaim, but then you counter that with what? No proof, nothing. You answer my very simple questions with more questions and instead of actually answering them, you demand answers of me trying to ignore the questions I gave you. Please Rogue. You said we're wrong, you said that you saw the answers to all of this. Let's see it. I'm calling your bluff.

[Kymus]

I'm out of here but interested parties may want to look at the
Loose Change video (http://www.lolloosechange.co.nr/) with handy commentary.


Oh Rogue, what would you do without your petty strawman arguments? That's right: you would have even less of an argument.

Unlike you Rogue, I research things because truth and fact are much more important to me than pathetic and rather petty cheerleading for a party or corrupt group of individuals. You see, I've already read a very good analysis (http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/loose_change/index.html) of Loose Change, devoid of the strawman arguments so common of debunker sites, and have known for quite a while now that Loose Change has a LOT of factual inconsistencies.

You can pretend that a debunking of a poor film disproves things, but in reality it just further shows the level of ignorance you hold on this subject. Tell me Rogue, where's your handy-dandy debunking for the dozens of other doccumentaries out there? what about the 600+ mainstream news articles (no Rogue, they weren't all written by the NYT, sorry!)? You have nothing because what may or may not be fact is irrelevant to you. Instead we just see this continual barrage of disinformation and then you sink so low as to actually lie just to make a petty attempt at debunking us.

[Kymus]

They build an internally consistent theory then place the burden on the skeptic to prove them wrong. If you can't prove them definitively wrong, then they must be right!

I am formally challenging you to prove this outright fabrication.

Why must you lie about people?

You government conspiracy theorists really should get some new arguments; this hollow bull**** is really lame. Atleast I can prove everything I make claim to (and when I can't, I will readily admit to it (are you listening Rogue?)).

edit: anyone who honestly believes what you procalimed above is not only an ignoramus, but they're also engaging in disinformation tactics (strawman argument). It's funny though that I see this all the time from the government conspiracy theorists.

[Kymus]

speculation and conjecture.

Are you saying this of the question originally asked or your words that follow? I'm just trying to understand, specifically.


Instead it's limited access to a smaller group of people who may or may not have the ability to sort it. This limited access to information plan is where the failing is.

Despotism is the new Democracy



The power of the people doesn't really exist unless teh people rise up and rising up takes effort and usually includes more problems tacked on on top of things.

But accourding to Sean - Great American - Hannity and the other Michael Moore's of the right, anyone who questions the emperor needs to be locked up :)

[David Jamieson]

kymus, my reference to "speculation and conjecture" is multi-leveled.
Thw whole conspiracy theory behind the bush admin being responsible for 9/11 is speculation, conjecture and in my opinion, likely untrue. I think the real cover up is in the fact that america, and it's administration was unable to effectively nullify a threat of this type when they should very well be able to do so.

I'm as curious as the next guy as to why the buildings that fell, steel frame buildings, fell at all and certainly i am more than curious as to the physics of falling into it's own footprint at near freefall. That is indeed strange and deserves more looking into.

It also doesn't mean that cordite, thermite or whatever couldn't have been pre-installed by covert tactics. Fake maintenance crews could've set it up I suppose. It's troubling that if this information is correct then why isn't that on the table. I believe there are photos that show what appears to be hallmarks of cordite or thermite burns and burning.

The failure of so called human intelligence in the matter is another issue.

Really, I think the bigger issue is the embarrassment of the so called worlds greatest superpower being hit so hard by a ramshackle group of thugs numbering less than 20. Pretty weird and opens the door to all kinds of horrors for our near future.

However, I know for a fact that there are radical fundamentalist islamic folks who are hell bent for leather when it comes to destroying Israel and it's chief supporter the USA. The IED they produce, the ordinance they have acquired as of late and are using in Lebanon to the tune of a few hundred rockets a day not too mention the cache of small arms and the armed militant wing of their structure show that sophistication a la mission impossible is not required to do damage to teh worlds greatest superpower.

quite the conundrum for the big boys sitting in the leather chairs pondering how to get their asses out of this mess that gets worse and worse with each and every passing day. Now there's a flap in the UK that isn't 100% clear quite yet, but I think that sort of thing is only the tip of the iceberg.

But, lets not forget, there are terrorists, they are many, they want to see you suffer, they will go to any ends to make it so, they will not negotiate and they are all too familiar with leaving their legacy of hatred to their children and thereby perpetuating their agenda.

How do you propose to deal with that?

[WinterPalm]

I heard the Queen of England was responsible for 9/11 because she was mad at America for inventing Paparazzi which always embarass Prince Charles in his Kilt pictures. Just heard it somewhere in the underground...

[rogue]

This keeps going round and round with most of your side being about me rather than producing your research.

I answered your questions, just maybe not the way you wanted. I'm an analyst by trade and make a good living at it, and most of the times I will ask questions to get more information in order to give an accurate answer. If a client asks some questions that are too vague I will ask more questions or even point out possible problems and flaws with the questions that they are asking. I gave a link to that organ of the Right Wing, Vanity Fair about what was happening at the NORAD site that covers the east coast, but you haven't mentioned it. Take a look and share what you think.
BTW, I'm not here to jump through your hoops to get at whatever wisdom you have on the subject, so if you have some either share it or stop talking about your "research". If you're keeping us in the dark about something this important then shame on you.



Quote:
Oh really? Perhaps you can explain then to me - since you seem to know this for a fact - why it is that Bush extended Clinton's executive order W199I that took the FBI off the trail of the hijackers? Why did NORAD stand down? Who exactly was it that warned Pentagon officials not to fly on 9/11? Why did Condi tell Mayor Willie Brown not to fly on 9/11? I suppose it's just a coincidence that the Pentagon was undefended on 9/11 just like it's a coincidence that NORAD was having drills of hijacked jets flying into buildings on 9/11? Please, spare me the rhetoric, this stuff is mainstream news.

Read what you wrote. Someone in the US Gov't had the ability and support to pull off the biggest black bag operation against US Citizens and the US economy, but left numerous and obvious "clues" that they did so. A few joint cheifs and the mayor of San Francisco would be a small sacrifice to maintain operational security and deniability considering the magnitude of the supposed act.

What defenses does the Pentagon normally have? Have you seen them? Do you have proof that they existed on a permanant basis?


And before I go...




Quote:
They build an internally consistent theory then place the burden on the skeptic to prove them wrong. If you can't prove them definitively wrong, then they must be right!

I am formally challenging you to prove this outright fabrication.

Why must you lie about people?

The above quote is from Merryprankster, a much smarter person than I. It's not a fabrication but a very good insight about certain groups of people. Now I can't prove it but some people here can.

Have a nice day.

[WinterPalm]

I also heard that Osama Bin Ladin is actually George Bush Sr. dressed up to convince people to buy more SUV's. The fact is, and you heard it here first, it is the milk industry behind all these American wars...not oil. Think about it, how many people do you know that drive cars? Do they drink milk? That's what I thought. Now consider what happens if we don't have oil and must walk everywhere? Who is going to walk all the way to the farm to get some milk?
What about England? I heard that planned attack was a Pepsi-Cola publicity stunt gone awry when Vladimir Putin kissed that boy's stomach.
I also heard that following the track record of Sudia born terrorists attack America and America invades Afghanistan, the Pakistani born terrorists are going to lead Britain to invade Uzbekistan. Oil pipes? Or cow farms?

[rogue]

Watch it WP, or Barbara Bush will hunt you down for leaking our secrets.;)

[David Jamieson]

Babs and leaking is a taboo subject rogue.
Look out behind you!!!!

[bustr]

Since the evidence has been destroyed it will be impossible to say what hit the pentagon, what collapsed the twin towers and who piloted those planes. Experts on both sides can make strong cases. Here is, IMHO, one of the more suspicious parts that the neocon apologists can't easily explain and thus avoid.

http://www.wtc7.net/index.html

This and the secrecy surrounding the the case is where the debate needs to center. Theories about missles, thermite and cell phone calls are just poison in the well.


We should also look at who benefited from the attack. Larry Silverstein, The Carlyle Group, Halliburton and big oil.

[rogue]

Maybe not a neo-con but how about a firefighter?

Firefighter Quotes on WTC7

"WTC Building 7 appears to have suffered significant damage at some point after the WTC Towers had collapsed, according to firefighters at the scene. Firefighter Butch Brandies tells other firefighters that nobody is to go into Building 7 because of creaking and noises coming out of there. [Firehouse Magazine, 8/02]

According to Deputy Chief Peter Hayden, there is a bulge in the southwest corner of the building between floors 10 and 13. [Firehouse Magazine, 4/02]

Battalion Chief John Norman later recalls, “At the edge of the south face you could see that it is very heavily damaged.” [Firehouse Magazine, 5/02]

Deputy Chief Nick Visconti also later recalls recounts, “A big chunk of the lower floors had been taken out on the Vesey Street side.” Captain Chris Boyle recalls, “On the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors.” [Firehouse Magazine, 8/02]

"The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was the collapse (Of the WTC towers) had damaged 7 World Trade Center, which is about a 50 story building, at Vesey between West Broadway and Washington Street. It had very heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we [wouldn't] lose any more people. We continued to operate on what we could from that distance and approximately an hour and a half after that order was [given], at 5:30 in the afternoon, World Trade Center collapsed completely" - Daniel Nigro
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/Nigro_Daniel.txt

"They told us to get out of there because they were worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it, coming down. We were up on the upper floors of the Verizon building looking at it. You could just see the whole bottom corner of the building was gone. We could look right out over to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high up. Looking over the smaller buildings. I just remember it was tremendous, tremendous fires going on. Finally they pulled us out. They said all right, get out of that building because that 7, they were really worried about. They pulled us out of there and then they regrouped everybody on Vesey Street, between the water and West Street. They put everybody back in there. Finally it did come down. From there - this is much later on in the day, because every day we were so worried about that building we didn't really want to get people close. They were trying to limit the amount of people that were in there. Finally it did come down." - Richard Banaciski
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/Banaciski_Richard.txt

"Early on, there was concern that 7 World Trade Center might have been both impacted by the collapsing tower and had several fires in it and there was a concern that it might collapse. So we instructed that a collapse area -- (Q. A collapse zone?) -- Yeah -- be set up and maintained so that when the expected collapse of 7 happened, we wouldn't have people working in it. There was considerable discussion with Con Ed regarding the substation in that building and the feeders and the oil coolants and so on. And their concern was of the type of fire we might have when it collapsed." - Chief Cruthers
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/Cruthers.txt

"Then we found out, I guess around 3:00 [o'clock], that they thought 7 was going to collapse. So, of course, [we've] got guys all in this pile over here and the main concern was get everybody out, and I guess it took us over an hour and a half, two hours to get everybody out of there. (Q. Initially when you were there, you had said you heard a few Maydays?) Oh, yes. We had Maydays like crazy.... The heat must have been tremendous. There was so much [expletive] fire there. This whole pile was burning like crazy. Just the heat and the smoke from all the other buildings on fire, you [couldn't] see anything. So it took us a while and we ended up backing everybody out, and [that's] when 7 collapsed.... Basically, we fell back for 7 to collapse, and then we waited a while and it got a lot more organized, I would guess." - William Ryan
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/Ryan_William.txt

(There are many more from that same location - you can get to them here: http://www.nytimes.com/packages/htm...stories_01.html)

[canglong]

They say the Chicago symposium had 500 people and I was at the LA symposium and there were well over a 1000 participants over that weekend. The most interesting thing I took away from the symposium was the fact that if you name the conspiracy and research it some years after the fact you will find either it was uncovered to be brought about by a faction of the internal government in power at the time or a majority of its popullation believes that the incident was a false flag orchestrated for the puposes of misleading the public into action they might not otherwise agree with.

911
OKC bombing
1993 first WTC bombing
TWA flight 800
USS Cole
WACO
Ruby Ridge
Iran Contra
USS Liberty
Kennedy Assassination
Pearl Harbor
International
7/7 bombings in London

There are more but the real point is that if you use history as the guide you will find very little terrorism that was not either an inside job or known of in advance and then allowed to happen on this point history is clear.

[rogue]

How about a picture of building 7? (http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7_Smoke.jpg)

Bankers Trust Building (http://www.debunking911.com/Bankers.jpg)
But the towers fell in on their own footprint without damaging any other buildings, right?


Tony, I really do hope you are kidding?

Zogby's site with information about the poll, including who sponsored it. (http://www.zogby.com/search/ReadNews.dbm?ID=855)

[bustr]

From http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/cutter.html

Larry Silverstein, the controller of the destroyed WTC complex, stated plainly in a PBS documentary that he and the FDNY decided jointly to demolish the Solomon Bros. building, or WTC 7, late in the afternoon of Tuesday, Sept. 11, 2001.
In the documentary "America Rebuilds", aired September 2002, Silverstein makes the following statement;

"I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse." [wmv download]

In the same program a cleanup worker referred to the demolition of WTC 6: "... we're getting ready to pull the building six." [mp3 download]

There can be little doubt as to how the word "pull" is being used in this context.



Consider the facts:
The fires in WTC 7 were not evenly distributed, so a perfect collapse was impossible.
Firemen anticipated the building's collapse (even though fire had never brought down a fire-protected steel building prior to 9/11).
Silverstein said of the building "the smartest thing to do is pull it."
WTC 7 subsequently collapsed perfectly into its footprint at freefall speed.
Molten steel and partially evaporated steel members were found in the debris.
When you add to the above the fact that Madrid's Windsor Building remained standing after an 18+ hour 800°C fire there can be only one conclusion as to what happened to WTC 7: it was demolished.


The fires in WTC 7 were supposedly started by the collapse of WTC 1 meaning there would have been no time the rig the building for demolition on 9/11, therefore this had to have been done whilst the building was still occupied prior to 9/11.


http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/SMALL_wtc-7_1_.gif

Take a close look at the manner in which WTC 7 collapses straight down. For the building to collapse in this fashion, all of the load bearing supports would have had to fail at exactly the same time.
The claim that the collapse was the result of a fire requires the fire be equally distributed throughout the entire floor of the building, providing equal heat for an equal amount of time, so that all the load bearings members would fail at the exact same moment.

[rogue]

So someone set explosives in a burning building?


In the same program a cleanup worker referred to the demolition of WTC 6: "... we're getting ready to pull the building six." [mp3 download]

There can be little doubt as to how the word "pull" is being used in this context.



Well there is. When did the clean up worker make his statement, was it on different days?

[canglong]

rogue,
Sad to say its no joke look 'em up. Do a little research the '93 WTC bombing was so poorly botched by the FBI it would almost be laughable if people hadn't died.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5946593973848835726&hl=en

rogue,
Do you believe six poor hatians were actually planning to blow up the Sears tower provided they could actually find their way from Miami to Chicago.

[canglong]

From an eyewitness for your consideration
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3498980438587461603

[rogue]

Funny that you bring up the helicopters. On the morning of 9/11 I was working with a Blackhawk pilot who was a real hotdog, one of the goto guys for inserting and extracting special ops teams. I asked him why nobody was trying to attempt a helicopter rescue and the answer was with the updrafts and smoke from the fires that only a handful of helo pilots could actually perform the rescue. And he was one of them. The rest of the video is the same bad reporting as usual.


Sad to say its no joke look 'em up. Do a little research the '93 WTC bombing was so poorly botched by the FBI it would almost be laughable if people hadn't died.
Can you produce proof that the FBI did it? Laurie Mylroie did a pretty good job of documenting what went down in 93. She may have been off on showing how it was Saddam that sponsored the op but she did a good job on the other parts. Also do you know how close this botched operation came to working?
I'm still on the fence about Salem but there's a difference from FBI screwing up and the FBI knowingly allowing it to happen.

[Kymus]

kymus, my reference to "speculation and conjecture" is multi-leveled.
Thw whole conspiracy theory behind the bush admin being responsible for 9/11 is speculation, conjecture and in my opinion, likely untrue.

I give you a lot of credit here. Instead of saying that you are sure without a doubt that all the "9/11 conspiracy stuff" is bullsh!t, you fully admit that you base this on your own opinion. You'd be surprised as to how many people I encounter on this subject that believe that theory = fact.


I think the real cover up is in the fact that america, and it's administration was unable to effectively nullify a threat of this type when they should very well be able to do so.

There are a couple different scenarios that I've seen. Personally, my "anti-conspiracy" theory is that 9/11 would never of happened if it were not for a few coincidences:

1) Months before 9/11 Bush extended Clinton's original executive order W199i-wf-213589, which instructed the intelligence gathering agencies to back off Salem bin Laden and his organisation WAMY. WAMY "coincidentally" was harboring a few of the 9/11 terrorists. This comes from the BBC and other mainstream news sources.

2) On the morning of 9/11, NORAD had multiple war games they were going through (one of which was called Vigilant Gaurdian) of preparing for an event exactly like 9/11 (hijacked jets targeting east coast landmarks). This confused the air traffic controllers as well as left the east coast severely undefended. I've heard that there were only a few planes (like 5) left to defend the entire east coast, but I haven't looked too much into this claim as true as it probably is. This also left the pentagon undefended. What a magical coincidence

3) Directive CJCSI 3610.01A changed the shoot-down orders and made it so that the decission rested solely on - from what I remember - Rummy.

edit: 4) Months before 9/11, the handgun bill that allowed pilots to carry handguns on board was nixed.

I have asked endlessly for an answer as to why Bush reauthorised Clinton's executive order, but as you can see here, no one wants to even attempt to do so. This list of coincidences doesn't even figure in prior motives and benefits (PNAC), or the countless warnings that were ignored (I've personally seen over 60 different mainstream news articles that discuss this).


I'm as curious as the next guy as to why the buildings that fell, steel frame buildings, fell at all and certainly i am more than curious as to the physics of falling into it's own footprint at near freefall. That is indeed strange and deserves more looking into.

I've discussed this matter endlessly. It all depends on who and what you want to believe. I don't put all my faith in baseless claims, but many do. The most common answer I hear is that the buildings were designed to fall in their own foot print. I have never seen one single source to this. This directly contradicts the statements of those who worked on the WTC and stated before 9/11 that it was designed to take multiple hits from airliners and still stand unphased. My father has been a draftsman for over 30 years, and he knows of not a single engineer that would be able to design a building to fall in that method.


It also doesn't mean that cordite, thermite or whatever couldn't have been pre-installed by covert tactics.

I agree with you that a question doesn't automatically lead to a specific answer. The "bomb theory" stems from the fact that numerous firefighters, eyewittnesses and even media figures reported there being bombs in the WTC buildings. This includes William Rodriguez who survived the 1993 bombings. Supporters of the official story claim generally two things (I have never once seen a source for either): either a) it was falling beams (personally, I would think the firefighters and someone who lived through bombings in the same building would know what a bomb sounded like), or compressed pockets of air (???????????).


Fake maintenance crews could've set it up I suppose. It's troubling that if this information is correct then why isn't that on the table.

I assume you are talking about the 9/11 Comission. The answer to that is simple: the members of the panel were picked for a reason. I sure hope that I can choose the man who will choose my jury if I ever stand trial.


I believe there are photos that show what appears to be hallmarks of cordite or thermite burns and burning.

Well, some claim it was molten steel melting, others (like Steven E Jones who went into great detail about it) say it's thermite


The failure of so called human intelligence in the matter is another issue.

This is the biggest black eye of all. The Russians, Israelis, Germans, Italians, French, and others are all on record stating that they warned the US.


However, I know for a fact that there are radical fundamentalist islamic folks who are hell bent for leather when it comes to destroying Israel and it's chief supporter the USA.

Oh, I agree too. A common strawman tactic used by the debunker blogs is to mischarachterise the beliefs or statements of those that represent the 9/11 Truth Movement and then knock the argument down.


Now there's a flap in the UK that isn't 100% clear quite yet, but I think that sort of thing is only the tip of the iceberg.

Are you speaking of the supposed terror alert? I think you know as well as I do that these are always used as a political ploy.


But, lets not forget, there are terrorists, they are many, they want to see you suffer, they will go to any ends to make it so, they will not negotiate and they are all too familiar with leaving their legacy of hatred to their children and thereby perpetuating their agenda.

How do you propose to deal with that?

To be honest with you, I can only offer theorisations based upon what sounds good to me. A theory doesn't make fact. I wish that others would understand this very simple concept. I really don't like talking about things when it is based upon pure theory.

The task isn't as hard as we are lead to believe, because the number of these terrorists is severly over-stated as the BBC pointed out in their marvelous 3-part doccumentary "The Power of Nightmares".

[Kymus]

This keeps going round and round with most of your side being about me rather than producing your research.

Which I have already explained multiple times.


I answered your questions, just maybe not the way you wanted.

You lie again. You didn't answer my questions. You just ignored them and tried to change the subject.


I'm an analyst by trade and make a good living at it, and most of the times I will ask questions to get more information in order to give an accurate answer.

This is such crap. Asking me about the Pentagon's air-defences has nothing to do with an executive order. You should understand that.


why it is that Bush extended Clinton's executive order W199I that took the FBI off the trail of the hijackers?

You didn't answer this question


Why did NORAD stand down?

You gave me the coincidence & incompetence theory I guess. Typical, but I'll take it.


Who exactly was it that warned Pentagon officials not to fly on 9/11?

You didn't answer this question


Why did Condi tell Mayor Willie Brown not to fly on 9/11?

Didn't answer this either


I suppose it's just a coincidence that the Pentagon was undefended on 9/11 just like it's a coincidence that NORAD was having drills of hijacked jets flying into buildings on 9/11?

You provided a typical strawman answer to this. What you don't understand however is that there is no known motive for the coincidences you listed; nor - to my knowledge - is there anyone who could possibly (or has) benefited from it and I know of no way there can be any sort of conspiracy through that. The Pentagon being undefended - magically on 9/11 - has everything to do with that. That makes the two much different.

Let's see you put your money where your mouth is Rouge. You said that all the alternative explanations are bullsh!t conspiracy theories promulgated by morons and are baseless theories. I want you to prove it. Maybe now you'll learn the lesson of not talking about something unless you know what you're talking about. It's amazing that - as a supposed lunatic conspiracy theorist - I understand and practice this concept fully.

It's funny how government conspiracy theorists constantly use the excuse of "burden of proof" to weasel out of proving their hollow claims, but don't respond well when that table is turned. I'll give you credit where it's due though: you haven't tried this excuse; not yet atleast.


Take a look and share what you think.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2006/040806laxattitude.htm
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2006/020806tapesintensify.htm

Those two articles by Paul Joseph Watson express my beliefs.


BTW, I'm not here to jump through your hoops to get at whatever wisdom you have on the subject, so if you have some either share it or stop talking about your "research". If you're keeping us in the dark about something this important then shame on you.

Shame on me? You selectively ignore items that show the guilt of a man who is destroying the Bill of Rights. Shame on YOU! If you were ever honestly interested in what the truth was outside of petty political pandering and partisanship, you would of done what I started 2 years ago: independent research. I have already explained why I have not delved into this subject deeper: we both know that there is nothing but an admission by Bush that will convince you. You display the hallmark signs shown by the people in the study I linked to. Why would I try to engage in a discussion with someone who can not make an argument without the usage of disinformation tactics as well as being "adept at ignoring facts"? I've already debated with folks like that, and it doesn't get anywhere.


The above quote is from Merryprankster, a much smarter person than I. It's not a fabrication

Excuse me, I've spent much more time on this issue than you have, and I have dealt much, much more with the people that express the alternative views to 9/11. The quote is absolute fabrication, and I've seen that poor fabrication in the past from others that are ignorant on this subject. It's BS each time, and I know that it is a fabrication.


but a very good insight about certain groups of people.

How would you know? You seem to know nothing about those expressing alternative views aside from the Loose-Change analysis, which is hardly a representation of the rest of the 9/11 Truth group. See, if you spent time researching this instead of focusing on this phoney left/right paradigm, you would know that Loose Change (both 1 & 2) speak predominantly of things that no one has ever mentioned.


Now I can't prove it but some people here can.

I know they can't, that's why I issued the challenge. I don't like it when people feel they have to lie and fabricate to prove something.

[David Jamieson]

All propganda aside Kymus.

The groups that are confirmed to exist like Hezbollah, Hamas, Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade and others, not to mention the Al Qaeda grow in number.

Their position deals a lot with the support of Israels military superiority in the region and that they would like to see Israel gone.

There are of course members of the arab league that are reconciled with Israel and do look for terms in order to peacefully co-exist with them as a nation to nation thing.

But still, here are these huge numbers of impressionable young men and women who are willing to stand behind the terror groups and to aid them in their agenda, which is of course the installation of a cleric controlled Caliphate and the expulsion of western influences and government models from the entire region.

I think a lot of the conspiracy theories out there diminish this and as an aside like to throw all teh zionist plot material in there which memes a dangerous idea in and of itself in taht these theories would like you to believe that these people don't actually exist.

These groups have been around all my life and have cowardly killed thousands of people around teh world. I'm not saying that the response or the counter tactics of teh west have been appropriate and I think tehre are a great deal of blundering idiots who are charged with making a solution to the issues.

People want their cake and they want to eat it too. On both sides. And the muck and mire of the lies told on both sides obscures the reality from vision.

Since 9/11 the obfuscation of the truth has been taken to an all time high in my opinion. It is even getting to the point where it is getting to be more and more of a struggke to even give a **** about it all. Or at least not until the next strike that hits closer and closer to home.

The fact that the west throws out these big arrests then pats themselves on the back for breaking up a terror ring and then weeks later these guys are getting bail and released because there was no evidence to begin with! It's like a big freaking game of "create a new reality".

I don't like it coming from my government and I don't like the idea that government is above the people it serves. To me, that's the bigger problem. The very idea that government is seperate from teh people it serves and acts with impunity against the wishes of the people who install that government is the real hard core problem that has come to fore and has been at the fore for as long as kingdoms, presidencies and houses of lords has gone on.

If terrorists have taught us anything, they've shown us some of the great flaws in how we install and let governments run in secrecy anbd against the greater will of the people.

[bustr]

I was mistaken. The NORAD standdown is another issue that needs to be emphasized in the search for the truth about 9/11.

http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/indict-1.htm



U.S. air safety and air defense emergency systems are activated in response to problems every day. On 9-11 they failed despite, not because of, the extreme nature of the emergency. This could only happen if individuals in high positions worked in a coordinated way to make them fail.

Such operatives would almost surely have failed if they tried to disrupt and abort routine protection systems without top-level support. The failure of the emergency systems would be noticed immediately. Moreover, given the catastrophic nature of the attacks, the highest military authorities would be alerted. Acting on their own, the operatives could expect that their orders would be countermanded and that they themselves would be arrested.

The sabotage of routine protective systems, controlled by strict hierarchies, would never have been contemplated let alone attempted absent the involvement of the supreme U.S. military command. This includes at least U.S. President George Bush, U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and the then-Acting Head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Air Force General Richard B. Myers.

[rogue]

I guess you didn't read the article I posted on page 7 from Vanity Fair (http://www.vanityfair.com/features/general/060801fege01). It explains much of what happened at NORAD that day and shoots holes in the supposed stand down. It uses a lot of named sources, context and transcripts.

[Kymus]

The groups that are confirmed to exist like Hezbollah, Hamas, Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade and others, not to mention the Al Qaeda grow in number.

Their position deals a lot with the support of Israels military superiority in the region and that they would like to see Israel gone.

There are of course members of the arab league that are reconciled with Israel and do look for terms in order to peacefully co-exist with them as a nation to nation thing.

But still, here are these huge numbers of impressionable young men and women who are willing to stand behind the terror groups and to aid them in their agenda, which is of course the installation of a cleric controlled Caliphate and the expulsion of western influences and government models from the entire region.

I think a lot of the conspiracy theories out there diminish this and as an aside like to throw all teh zionist plot material in there which memes a dangerous idea in and of itself in taht these theories would like you to believe that these people don't actually exist.

No one - that I know of at least - believes that all these men either do not exist or are gov patsies. I have always believed that it is the very top men that are part of the conspiracy. Their job - ever since the US began to fund and train them - has been to radicalise the men below them and feed them propaganda so that they will be willing to die; similar in a way to the Japanese Kamikaze. Fact of the matter is, the US has either a bunch of incompetent morons working for them and every time someone comes close to catching OBL (or other top-notchers), they are stifled in their progress. It's documented that Clinton had 3 different chances to do this, and Bush has already stated (in 2002) that he's "not interested" in OBL. The common misconception that the "debunker blogs" will have you believe is an unsupported fairy tale that all the 9/11 Truthers believe that either A) none of these terrorists exist, or that B) They're all "in on it". I say bollocks. Whatever version of the story I gave is true, either side of the story is a bit scary. Incompetence or Conspiracy, both are extremely unacceptable.

My problem is that i see the Hegelian dialectic playing out over and over again throughout history. Nero burned down Rome and blamed the Christians, Hitler Burned down the Reichstag and then blamed it on the communists and his men captured the supposed perpetrator who was mentally retarded. Russian FSB were caught trying to blow up their own buildings and blame it on terrorists, also we have recently declassified documentation that points directly to conspiracy with Pearl Harbour and the Gulf of Tonkin. I find it troubling that each time we have one of these supposed terrorist attacks, the same things happen. We are told that it was due to incompetence and coincidence. Operation Northwoods & Operation Gladio were both false flag operations that are now declassified. With 9/11 and 7/7, drills of the same terrorist event were occurring as they happened; that is literally a 1 in 1 Quadrillion chance. Often times as well, the supposed perpetrators are mentally retarded or too unintelligent to logically pull of what they are claimed to have done.

I think that Alex Jones elaborated on all this excellently in his recent documentary film TerrorStorm. (http://tinyurl.com/qvdcv)

I don't doubt for a minute that the groups of terrorists we see on TV truly believe that they are killing for Allah. But the fact that we have all these screw-ups that are out in the open (ie, not the words of some dude with a web site as is often erroneously claimed) learns much more in favour of my version than that of the government's. The CIA was caught meeting with OBL at a hospital in July of 2001; that was mainstream news as well (Le Figueroa Times I believe). No one is trying to undermine the threat of terrorism. We just believe that the big fish are part of the conspiracy based upon the countless pieces of available information. False flag operations are the oldest and most common trick in the book of governments, and we've seen it countless times throughout history and even in the US according to our own declassified documents.


Since 9/11 the obfuscation of the truth has been taken to an all time high in my opinion. It is even getting to the point where it is getting to be more and more of a struggle to even give a **** about it all. Or at least not until the next strike that hits closer and closer to home.

Well, personally I find it to be absolutely absurd that we are to give up our natural-born liberties for supposed protection and accept national ID cards and other Orwellian items but yet **** Cheney says that a terrorist attack is still unavoidable. I'm sorry, I've attended talking sessions with Robert Steele - former US Spy of 20 years - and he agrees that despotism isn't the answer. Gen. Tommy Franks says that after the next terrorist attack, "we'll probably throw out the constitution for a military form of government". That is exactly what the government wants: total control. Sorry, I'm ranting. Hopefully you understand what I'm trying to express.


The fact that the west throws out these big arrests then pats themselves on the back for breaking up a terror ring and then weeks later these guys are getting bail and released because there was no evidence to begin with! It's like a big freaking game of "create a new reality".

Again we are faced with incompetence or conspiracy. Both sides of the spectrum are unacceptable. So why are they dealing with these guys with kid gloves? Who's lying?


I don't like it coming from my government and I don't like the idea that government is above the people it serves. To me, that's the bigger problem. The very idea that government is seperate from teh people it serves and acts with impunity against the wishes of the people who install that government is the real hard core problem that has come to fore and has been at the fore for as long as kingdoms, presidencies and houses of lords has gone on.

I don't like it either, and that's what drives me to study this even more.


If terrorists have taught us anything, they've shown us some of the great flaws in how we install and let governments run in secrecy anbd against the greater will of the people.

Oh most definitely. Americans have totally forgotten the lessons of those before them. The founding fathers were very aware of the old tricks that governments used to pull, and tried to warn their people of that. But the corporations have been running the US government for a long time now (at least since the instalment of the Federal Reserve) and as long as that continues, we're going to see the same continual crap.

[canglong]

rogue,
You ask but in reality there could never be enough proof for someone that is willing to ignore so many facts, but here you go enjoy.


Salem informed the FBI about the more than 1,000 conversations he had recorded within Rahman's circle sometime between December 1991 and June 1993. Unbeknownst to the FBI, he had also been secretly taping their conversations too. Bugging the FBI, Salem had deceived them, which would prove to be very problematic as these tapes established that the FBI was at the very least, aware of Salem's role of being an 'agent provocateur' in the bombing, as well as his involvement in the plans to blow up the United Nations Building and Lincoln and Holland Tunnels.
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/adam.htm

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/OK/wtcbomb.html


originally posted by rogue
The rest of the video is the same bad reporting as usual.
When the facts are so overwhelming you have to say something as not to look foolish hey rogue. Yeah rogue you got me with answers like that one what could I possibly say against sound arguments like yours. :rolleyes:

[Royal Dragon]

I just watched several consiracy vids about the towers. One thing that seems to be missing in each one, is that

1. the fires were fuled by jet fule, and were not common fires. So they were insanely hot, compared to a normal fire. They were defenetly hot enough to soften the beams, and surely melt away any strength the attatching rivets would have had.

2. The second is that even though the steel beams "May" have withstood the initial shock of upper floors collapsing on them, these are all held together with common steel plates and rivets. Even if the beams held, how could just a bunch of rivets hold up under the sudden shock of TONES of upper structure sudenly jolting them out of position?

Why is it that no one seems to be taking about the fact that the rivets that hold the beams together are the real weak point, and it is THOSE that failed, not the beams themselves?

All the supposed pre explosions that people are claiming to be controlled demlition charges, were more likely beams scheering from thier mounts under insane amounts of pressure.

I did Auto collision for many years, and I have experiance explosive like pops coming form cars as i pulled frames many times (It sounds like little caps going off as the metal un bends when you pull the fram back to specs). That is just a little car, imagine how loud those pops would be under the pressure of a support beam snapping from it's mount under many tones of pressure. I can see how that sound could be mis interperated as as pre planed demolition explosion.

Thoughts gentilemen?

[Kymus]

I just watched several consiracy vids about the towers. One thing that seems to be missing in each one, is that

May I ask which ones?


1. the fires were fuled by jet fule, and were not common fires. So they were insanely hot, compared to a normal fire.

Jet fuel is kerosene. It's nothing amazing like the media claims.


They were defenetly hot enough to soften the beams, and surely melt away any strength the attatching rivets would have had.

I'm surprised you say that. I would expect most doccumentaries on this to elaborate some on this.

Jet fuel - at its absolute hottest point - is still not hot enough to melt steel; infact it's still about 1000 degrees to cool.

As noted from 9/11 Review (http://www.911review.com/coverup/fantasy/melting.html):


The Killer Fires Theory is Pure Fantasy

The simple facts of temperatures:

* 1535ºC (2795ºF) - melting point of iron
* ~1510ºC (2750ºF) - melting point of typical structural steel
* ~825ºC (1517ºF) - maximum temperature of hydrocarbon fires burning in the atmosphere without pressurization or pre-heating (premixed fuel and air - blue flame)

Diffuse flames burn far cooler.
Oxygen-starved diffuse flames are cooler yet.

The fires in the towers were diffuse -- well below 800ºC.
Their dark smoke showed they were oxygen-starved -- particularly in the South Tower.

Honestly, if the fires were so hot, how on earth could this woman be standing in an impact hole waving (http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2005/170105womanwaving.htm)?

Further, Frank A. Demartini who was the manager for the construction of the WTC towers is on record stating (http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2004/141104designedtotake.htm) that they were designed to take multiple hits from a plane that actually puts forth a greater load of force than the planes used on 9/11 and still stand almost unphased.


2. The second is that even though the steel beams "May" have withstood the initial shock of upper floors collapsing on them, these are all held together with common steel plates and rivets. Even if the beams held, how could just a bunch of rivets hold up under the sudden shock of TONES of upper structure sudenly jolting them out of position?

If Mr. Demartini didn't die on 9/11, I'm sure that he would be able to answer this in detail.


Why is it that no one seems to be taking about the fact that the rivets that hold the beams together are the real weak point, and it is THOSE that failed, not the beams themselves?

Because the government conspiracy theorists rely upon a simulation produced by NIST to explain what went wrong, and the 9/11 Truth Movement relys upon the fallacies of the official story as well as the numerous firefighters and bystanders that reported hearing bombs going off before the towers even collapsed.


All the supposed pre explosions that people are claiming to be controlled demlition charges, were more likely beams scheering from thier mounts under insane amounts of pressure.

I have never seen one source that proves this. I have, however, viewed 30+ articles that deal with explosives. This includes Steven E. Jones recent testing of the debris and finding the proper chemicals needed on it to be explosives.

I
did Auto collision for many years, and I have experiance explosive like pops coming form cars as i pulled frames many times (It sounds like little caps going off as the metal un bends when you pull the fram back to specs). That is just a little car, imagine how loud those pops would be under the pressure of a support beam snapping from it's mount under many tones of pressure. I can see how that sound could be mis interperated as as pre planed demolition explosion.

Personally, RD, I would think that firefighters as well as a man who lived through the 1993 WTC bombings know what bombs sound and feel like. The problem with the explaination you gave (and I'm glad that you speak from experience!) is that we are dealing with sound AND feel. William Rodriguez has explained how the entire place shook, like it did in 1993.

[Royal Dragon]

As for the woman waveing, I have used cutting tourches to cut steel while fabricateing things, and I have spend 20+ minutes at a time welding machine bases with more than enough heat to liquify metal, just inches from my hands, all while being showered in molten metal sparks, with not more than a "T" shirt, a Flannel and a pair of army BDU's on. I was just fine.

Another thing, she was standing at the air intake that feeds the fire. She was feeling the cool air comming in, not the blaze behind her. The heat will not travel AGAINST the movement of the air flow feeding it.

That fire had a super hot core, fed by the gapeing holes in the building. Your black smoke was caused by the material burning around the cooler edges surrounding the hotter core.

Nextime you are camping, make your fire by building a square structure of wood around a central core (like Lincoln logs). You will see the air sucking into the sides, and feeding a super hot center. Notice how (when your corn falls into the fire) that you can put your hand right into the campfire to retreive your corn, and not get burnt so long as you approach from the air inlet side? You can just about touch a red hot coal, and not get singed. Now try going at it from the other side, you can't get even close because your skin will start to bubble and blister before you even get near due to the heat radiateing off the fire.

Also, during the repair of some perticularly bad wrecks, I have had to heat the buckled areas of the Highstength steel structure to get it to unbend while pulling it back to position(Ten ton hydralic rams are used to pull autobody structures).

High strength steel cannot be heated beyond a certian point for more than a short time or it loses it's strength, and cannot be repaired due to safety issues (especially so if suspension components are bolted to it).

During the repair process, I had to be very careful not to over heat the steel, but I also had to apply enough heat to soften it just enough so it will release the tension in the buckle preventing it from returning to position. 800 degrees is just about right to soften the metal so it's load bearing strength is significantly reduced enough to allow it to be pulled back into position, but it is also cool enough to let it keep it's strength apon cooling.

We have a range of about 800-1200 degrees to work with. If we exceed that range, we ruin the frame rail and it must be replaced as all the strength cooks out of it. Please notice, even though we have not got it hot enough to melt, we have destroyed it's structural integrity if we over heat it.

Heating times here are only a few minutes at a time, as this procedure is generally done while there is great pressure from the ten ton pulling tool being used. As soon as the structural member is pulled back in place, the pressure and heat are off. Even at the recomended tempratures, heating for an excessive duration will damage the metal beyond repair.

The structures of those beams and thier attaching rivets in the WTC building very easily would have been in the temperature range to soften thier strength to the point where thier ability to hold thier normal load had been severely compromised, even if they were still hundreds of degrees below the melting point. Now add to the fact that they were that hot for an extended period of time (Anything in excess of a few minutes), and it is doubtfull that they would be anywhere near thier proper load bearing strength, let alone able to hold up the tones of building above.

Also you must realise that it's not the beams that would give here, it's the rivets and plates that fasten them together, which are considreably weaker than the beam itself. So just becasue it wasn't hot enough to melt, does not mean it wasn't hot enough to weaken the structure's attaching rivets to be well under the required load bearing strength.

Those buildings collapsed from the inside out, and the supposed "Explosions", were really the sounds of the super structure giving just prior to it fully collapsing, just as a car structure pops when you pull it with a ten ton hydralic frame machine, as it reaches the limit of it's load bearing strength during a repair.

[Royal Dragon]

I have never seen one source that proves this. I have, however, viewed 30+ articles that deal with explosives. This includes Steven E. Jones recent testing of the debris and finding the proper chemicals needed on it to be explosives.

Reply]
I am curious as to how credible his research is. Who is this guy? When and where did he do this testing?

[rogue]

Welcome to the Twilight Zone RD.

Here's a link from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_E._Jones) on Jones. As usual always keep in mind that Wiki content can be changed at any time and should always be double checked against other reliable sources.


Criticism

Jones' paper has been met by indifference and dismissiveness in the scientific community. Since Jones' paper has not been published in a scientific journal, there are academicians, including some from Jones' own university, who question whether the article has been properly vetted by other experts in the field. [10]

The BYU College of Physical and Mathematical Sciences has issued a statement in which they distanced themselves from Jones' research. A similar statement was issued by BYU's structural engineering faculty, the "Ira A. Fulton College of Engineering and Technology". These statements noted that Jones' hypotheses and interpretations of evidence were being questioned by scholars and practitioners, and that his analyses and hypotheses had not been "submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review." [11]

D. Allan Firmage, Professor Emeritus, Civil Engineering, BYU [12], responded to an article from the Provo Daily Herald which detailed a presentation that Steven Jones had recently given, and remarked that after reading reports from FEMA, the ASCE and from other professional engineering organizations, as well as Jones' paper, he found the thesis that planted explosives (rather than fire from the planes) had caused the collapse of the Towers, "very unreliable". Dr. Firmage further added: "Before one (especially students) supports such a conspiracy theory, they should investigate all details of the theory. To me, a practicing structural engineer of 57 continuous years, Professor Jones' presentations are very disturbing.".[13]

[canglong]

Some seldom reported events of the day 9/11/2001

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/essay.jsp?article=essayaninterestingday

[Royal Dragon]

That is what I thought.

Everything I know about metal, from a lifetime of working with it, tells me those towers went down from the planes crasing into them, and the subsequent fire.

[rogue]

Survivor Story (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/above.html)

Transcript to NOVA program about WTC (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/2907_wtc.html)


NARRATOR: In Robertson's design, the downward weight of the building was also supported by large steel columns around the building's inner core, which is where he placed elevator shafts, emergency stairs and other building services. But the tall vertical columns of the inner core and outer walls were like freestanding stilts until Robertson tied them together with floor trusses.



NARRATOR: No one was thinking that there might be even worse to come, but the seeds of destruction that would eventually bring the tower down had already been sown.

These images reveal that spray-on fireproofing was completely blown off critical load-bearing steel, and several of the floor trusses were destroyed. Inside, additional trusses would have been weakened or dislodged, and fireproofing everywhere would have been obliterated.

CHARLES THORNTON: Once the plane hit and the fragments of the plane came through the building, we know it knocked out floors. We also know that it knocked spray-on fireproofing off a lot of the components. Once you lose the spray-on fireproofing you have bare steel. Once you have bare steel you don't have a fire rating anymore.

NARRATOR: Without fireproofing the steel in the core was now exposed to intense heat.

MATTHYS LEVY: So that fire caused the steel to soften up. The columns in the interior of the core began to soften, buckle, fail. And I saw that the building had really a good chance of collapsing at that point.

[canglong]

a summary of the anomalies

http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/fake3.html

[rogue]

Iron Burns email (http://www.debunking911.com/ironburns.htm)

[canglong]

9/11 The Complete Timeline

http://cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&startpos=1100#a903

[Royal Dragon]

Yes, iron burns. That artical was too long for me, but you really need to heat only a small portion to almost molten, and inject a good stream of air to burn it. That is how a cutting torch works. it's the fresh air that keeps the burn going, and perfroms the cutting process. The high intensity flame just starts the process. You don't need the flame once it gets going.

[canglong]

The Woody Box Files

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/woody%20b

[rogue]

Watch the video on this page (http://www.lolloosechange.co.nr/). Get to hear Alex Jones, Korey and Dylan on the radio. They are even more impressive when you get to hear them speak.

[canglong]

A German Documentary for your consideration...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2159492340370566087

Part2
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6333638875931728358

[CaptinPickAxe]

The demolition charges, I assume, would give off a shockwave that would not be present in the instance of steal buckling. I'm through arguing, so I'll go ahead and leave with this:

anatomy of an explosion:
http://features.cgsociety.org/story_custom.php?story_id=3154&page=
http://www.ilpi.com/MSDS/ref/explosive.html

[CaptinPickAxe]

This one is for you analyst-ass, rouge (and did you know analyist has "anal" in it? coincidence? I does explain you to a T)


In 2004 Bush and Karl Rove managed to flummox the Democrats by conflating the war in Iraq with the war against al-Qaeda and insisting that any Democratic reservations about Iraq were a sign of weakness. This was infuriating. It was Bush's disastrous decision to go to war—and worse, to go to war with insufficient resources—that transformed Iraq into a terrorist Valhalla

http://www.time.com/time/columnist/klein/article/0,9565,1226053,00.html?cnn=yes

Wait...I bet Time magazine is a little too libral for you, rouge.

[rogue]

That's one down.


Wait...I bet Time magazine is a little too libral for you, rouge.
Yes it is, but I do still read it and Newsweek when I come across them at the gym. I'm more of a book reader than a reader of news weeklies.

Kymus.

I wrote,

The above quote is from Merryprankster, a much smarter person than I. It's not a fabrication

To which you replied

Excuse me, I've spent much more time on this issue than you have, and I have dealt much, much more with the people that express the alternative views to 9/11. The quote is absolute fabrication, and I've seen that poor fabrication in the past from others that are ignorant on this subject. It's BS each time, and I know that it is a fabrication.

Here it is again,

Conspiracy theorists do a bunch of things I hate:

They build an internally consistent theory then place the burden on the skeptic to prove them wrong. If you can't prove them definitively wrong, then they must be right!

See? It's not a fabrication, MP posted it on the third page. You can check it for yourself. Honest. And your quote, "Let's see you put your money where your mouth is Rouge. You said that all the alternative explanations are bullsh!t conspiracy theories promulgated by morons and are baseless theories. ", does seem to lend some credence to his insight. One point for MP.



http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles...axattitude.htm
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles...sintensify.htm

Those two articles by Paul Joseph Watson express my beliefs.


This is the 9/11 stand down in plain site. Watson
Too funny. Call it what you will but it's not a stand down. I do have to ask for someone in the chain of command who said to stand down.


This is such crap. Asking me about the Pentagon's air-defences has nothing to do with an executive order. You should understand that.

No, but it does pertain to your question I suppose it's just a coincidence that the Pentagon was undefended on 9/11 just like it's a coincidence that NORAD was having drills of hijacked jets flying into buildings on 9/11?
Before 9/11 I've never seen the Pentagon defended by anything other than the usual guards. But it's very likely I could have missed something. So in order make a comparison or link I need a starting place to find a possible connection between the two.

I wrote "This keeps going round and round with most of your side being about me rather than producing your research.", to which you replied, "Which I have already explained multiple times."

I apologize, but I missed it. I also apologize for not being clear by what I mean by "research". I mean your sources, testing procedures, reference material, any lab work and who assisted you. I'm assuming it's been peer reviewed. Can you put up with me one more time and point me back to it?


why it is that Bush extended Clinton's executive order W199I that took the FBI off the trail of the hijackers?
Honestly I'm still trying to track this one down. I'm starting at why Clinton originally would have issued such an EO in the first place. I'll get back to you on this one.

[Merryprankster]

What defenses does the Pentagon normally have? Have you seen them? Do you have proof that they existed on a permanant basis?


It has no defenses. It's a ****ING OFFICE BUILDING.

How do I know this?

1. I lived half a mile from it.
2. My dad works there.
3. I've been there frequently.
4. I know several people who work there.

It has some SECURITY (rent a cops and 19 year old marines), but it's not like there's a SAM infantry division running around the place.

Incidentally, just to lay to rest the absurdity of something other than a plane striking the Pentagon, you can see the Pentagon from the air control tower from the Reagan National Airport.

How do I know this? Because you can see the Pentagon almost immediately on take off. It's maybe 3/4 of a mile away tops.

Incidentally, stow the dialectic bull**** already. You're building in a false dichotomy, since you are such a fan of pointing out rhetorical fallacy...Rogue isn't arguing that it's IMPOSSIBLE, and neither am I. It's POSSIBLE that 9/11 was a giant government conspiracy committed by whomever you decide.

What we are saying, is that it's highly IMPROBABLE, for a variety of reasons. You can disagree with that if you like, but you can't run around throwing out terms like "Hegelian Dialectic" and not expect to get called on it when you are building in your own set of strawmen and dilemmas.

Personally, I've found that jargon is the refuge of the ignorant or the insecure. Either the person doesn't actually know enough about what it is they are talking about to explain it in plain english, or they want to sound like they know more than the other guy.

[rogue]

Thanks Merry, I didn't think it did.

Does that mess up Kymus' question?
I suppose it's just a coincidence that the Pentagon was undefended on 9/11 just like it's a coincidence that NORAD was having drills of hijacked jets flying into buildings on 9/11?

[Merryprankster]

Incidentally, Unions committed 9/11. Here is a debate chain I had with another fellow elsewhere.


From: Merryprankster
Date: 06/27/06 12:49 PM
Member Since: 01/01/2001
3754 Total Posts Ignore User
Edit

Unions.
Only Unions have the requisite skill sets across the wide range of activities needed to pull this off.

Unions have the access - they are ubiquitous across an array of organizations and industry.

Unions have motive - 9/11 sparked a massive amount of spending on security, not to mention the direct construction/demolition/clean-up costs.

You can't prove me wrong. My theory is self-consistent.




From: ilikefighting2
Date: 06/27/06 01:58 PM
Member Since: 01/31/2006
935 Total Posts Ignore User


"Unions have motive - 9/11 sparked a massive amount of spending on security, not to mention the direct construction/demolition/clean-up costs.
You can't prove me wrong. My theory is self-consistent."

Some questions regarding this theory.

1) How did unions set up the numerous war games that day which distracted our air defense?

2) Does your theory suggest they(unions) were responsible for the insider trading? If so, was the SEC in collusion?

3) Are the secret service included in the "union" category? Seeing as they failed to remove Bush from danger the moment it became apparent we were under attack.

4) You mention profit motive as a result of the attacks. Do you see anyone else benefiting from the 9/11 aftermath? Because it's certainly not Al Qeada or the Islamic world in general, is it?

5) How did unions fool our government into believing 19 arabs did it?





From: Merryprankster
Date: 06/27/06 07:43 PM
Member Since: 01/01/2001
3758 Total Posts Ignore User
Edit Last edited:27-Jun-06 07:44 PM

"1) How did unions set up the numerous war games that day which distracted our air defense?"
A good chunk of the civil service is unionized. In addition many of the contractors employ unionized workers. This includes analysts, logistics personnel, etc. If you don't think this vast source of manpower has an impact on policy and operations, then you're kidding yourself. Unions controlled the date of the war games by ensuring funding, procurement, materials etc for said war games were only available when they chose.

"2) Does your theory suggest they(unions) were responsible for the insider trading? If so, was the SEC in collusion?"

The SEC would not need to be in collusion. Unions include a significant number of people in supervisory position in the private sector who would be well placed to release corporate secrets, not to mention tech workers who would be quite able to access corporate secret files and disseminate that information, while covering their tracks expertly. It's called "Industrial Espionage," and it is quite common throughout the corporate world.

"3) Are the secret service included in the "union" category? Seeing as they failed to remove Bush from danger the moment it became apparent we were under attack."

The secret service is a Department of the Treasure agency with Law Enforcement powers. As such, its members can join the AFGE, the NTEU and the FCIA. Incidentally FBI agents can also join unions. The Secret Service agents, or at least enough of them, were most assuredly unionized.

They would not have been caught during the screening processes because background investigations, the processing of those papers, and the lie detector tests are also handled by a workforce that is largely unionized.

"4) You mention profit motive as a result of the attacks. Do you see anyone else benefiting from the 9/11 aftermath? Because it's certainly not Al Qeada or the Islamic world in general, is it?"

Anybody else benefiting is an incidental effect. Unions didn't care about anything but potential for increased revenue and membership. Nobody else's benefit or loss was considered. Why would it matter? Besides which, have you been paying attention to the news lately? A large number of port workers are non-unionized immigrant labor. The transportation workers' ID program is just another Union attempt to increase membership and dues - a manipulation of corrupt politicians and administrators playing on public fears.

"5) How did unions fool our government into believing 19 arabs did it?"

I have cited the highly trained, well placed workforce throughout elements of the United States government. Unions delayed, garbled, intercepted or confused communications - who maintains the equipment, after all? (hint - unionized contractors or AFGE members) Appropriate air traffic controllers (famously unioned if you'll recall Reagan firing all of them - prescient, don't you think?) were part of the plan so that radio reports from the flights would not be questioned as fanatical airline union pilots crashed their planes into the Pentagon, and the WTC. "Volunteers," who were members of unions and unionized emergency response personnel ensured that "black boxes," were found and destroyed before everybody else. The flight that crashed in Pennsylvania was merely pilot error, which the radar and comms records would reflect, except that unionized communications workers, air traffic controllers and emergency responders all ensured the information was kept under wraps.

In the meantime, unionized commercial artists forged videotapes, documentation, etc, to implicate UBL and Al Qaida - a conveniently shadowy organization with little public or government attention, but with a well documented. Unionized financial workers planted false bank and monetary transfer records. Unionized labor, FAA and LE officials planted residence addresses, pilot training, and other pertinent information. Unionized communications workers spoofed phone and e-mail records.

My theory is self-consistent. You cannot prove me wrong.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




My theory is elegant in its simplicity, internally consistent, and non-falsifiable.

Therefore, I must be correct.

[Merryprankster]

I suppose it's just a coincidence that the Pentagon was undefended on 9/11 just like it's a coincidence that NORAD was having drills of hijacked jets flying into buildings on 9/11?

Of course it doesn't! Kymus will come back and ask if we "really expect him to believe that the nation's largest military office building doesn't have super secret defense capabilities that we know nothing about."

I mean, how gullible do we think he is? HONESTLY.

With regard to NORAD and hijacked jets, I've always been curious as to what, exactly, this was supposed to demonstrate. That the government runs drills? Even better - that the government agency that at the time was responsible for what we now cringingly term "homeland defense" (HD) was running drills related to responses for HD emergencies?

Imagine this: During the Cold War, NORAD runs a Nuclear Missile attack scenario (that was its primary mission at the time). The next day, the Soviets launch. Would anybody seriously suggest that there was something afoot in our government? (Except the sorts who are 9/11 conspiracists?)

I mean - it's so SUSPICIOUS when an agency runs a drill designed to address a mission area for which they are responsible...

[Merryprankster]

Incidentally, re: the Magic Bullet - this little Gem from Wikipedia


Discovery Channel's reenactment of bullet CE399's path
A Discovery Channel special Unsolved History: JFK - Beyond the Magic Bullet atempted to replicate, as well as possible, the conditions of that day. The participants set up blocks of ballistics gel with a substance similar to human bone inside. These studies showed that largely undeformed bullets were possible to produce, if they were slowed by a passage though a tissue-like substance before striking bone. Next, two mannequin figures made of ballistic anatomical substances (animal skin, gelatin, and interior bone-like cast) were set up in the exact relative position of JFK and Connally. A marksman, from a distance equal to that of the sixth floor of the book depository building, fired the same rifle model found in the Book Depository, using a round from the same batch of the same "Western Case Cartridge Company" 6.5x52 mm ammunition purchased with the surplus Carcano weapon in early 1963 (and three expended brass from which was found with the weapon, in the book depository Nov. 22, 1963). The path of their single bullet (followed by high speed photography) duplicated, almost exactly, the wounds suffered by the victims that day, the only difference being that the bullet did not quite have enough energy to penetrate the "thigh" substance in front of the Connally figure, due to striking an extra bone in the "rib" model (i.e., it fractured 2 ribs in the model vs. one rib in Connally). It was also slightly more deformed than CE 399, possibly for the same reason. However, this bullet came close enough to duplicating all wounds in both men with a single shot, with a bullet having little deformation, that the theory, while technically improbable, is much more plausible than previously thought [14].


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_bullet_theory#Discovery_Channel.27s_reenact ment_of_bullet_CE399.27s_path

I saw the whole thing (the re-enactment). One of the keys is that Connally was sitting 3 inches lower than the president, which is conveniently ignored by conspiracy nuts. This had quite an impact on the whole thing (chaos theory gentlemen).

It was really quite interesting. Incidentally, the ballistics expert who saw the results of the experiment concluded that the wounds must have come from two rounds, not one. He was quite shocked to find out that he was wrong in his initial assessment.

Of course, that's what they WANT you to think. NORAD was actually running an "anti-presidential assassination drill" the day before the Discovery Channel re-enactment, and took control over the whole operation to ensure that the "truth" never got out....

Because hey! God forbid empirical experiments be used to model what actually happened.

[rogue]

My theory is elegant in its simplicity, internally consistent, and non-falsifiable.

Therefore, I must be correct.

Oh my, you are! :eek:

I'm amazed that the 9/11 conspiracy crowd is going with such a complicated and convoluted scenerio involving thousands of people and having all pull off their tasks with utmost secrecy and timing. Personally I would have just said that Silverstein was running the hijackers to recoup his money. It's simple and even has a bit of a Zionist angle to it. Now if I can tie Sivlerstein to the Bilderberg Group I'll really have something.


With regard to NORAD and hijacked jets, I've always been curious as to what, exactly, this was supposed to demonstrate.

I don't know either, but from what I understand accepted doctrine for a hijacking was to escort the plane down safely and let the group that doesn't exist take the plane down. If NORAD was drilling a 9/11 type hijacking attack I doubt that it was in the "what to do book" for the guys at the scopes and in the air.

[Merryprankster]

Well, everybody knows that the Zionists were intimately linked to unions and worker's parties.

:D

[canglong]

Arms for drugs, unauthorized activities, dealing with the enemy, hiding from Congress, flying drugs into the country to raise money for an illegal war... All of this happened in the Iran-Contra scandal.
Many like to brush off notions of vast conspiracies, saying how could so many people keep a secret? This affair was ongoing for five years without a peep from any participants! The Kennedy assassination was, after all, in the end, a one day event. But this went on for five years before story started coming out, and it involved thousands of participants. When people want to keep something secret, they can. It was a freak accident that brought this story into the mainstream, the downing of Eugene Hasenfus.
http://www.oilempire.us/iran-contra.html


http://nwcitizen.us/wic/Quickly/WherearetheynowEugeneHase.html

[rogue]

Darn Merry, you are good! :D

Check this out (http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2006/020806tapesintensify.htm)


Wilson states in his article(?) about the Vanity Fair article about NORAD...

It is clear that the exercises revolving around hijacked airliners scheduled for that morning created so much noise in the system that controllers could not pinpoint the positions of any of the real airliners to orchestrate any kind of intercept.

but then quotes Maj. Nasypany,

"When they told me there was a hijack, my first reaction was 'Somebody started the exercise early,'" said mission-crew commander Major Kevin Nasypany.

So the excercise created noise even though it didn't start?

This just in!
Liquid Bomb Pakistan Link Is False Flag Smoking Gun (http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2006/130806liquidbomb.htm)


The Pakistani ISI is a CIA front and controls terror cells at the discretion of the highest levels of the US military-industrial complex. This means that the potential mastermind of the liquid bomb plot, Rashid Rauf (pictured), was operating under the oversight and direction of Pakistani and by proxy American intelligence agencies.

Wow, now that's really something! Do these guys do any research into the kinds of relationships that they are saying exist?

[Merryprankster]

When people want to keep something secret, they can.

Actually, it's very difficult to keep a secret.

Or are you forgetting that the Iran Contra affair unravelled...precisely because it's hard to keep secrets?


Oops. "Hoist by your own petard," as the saying goes.

The difference between 9/11 conspiracies and the Iran-Contra conspiracy is that the Iran Contra affair is loaded with verifiable facts. Or Watergate, for instance. Or the Pentagon Papers. Or the Holocaust, about which Hitler famously quoted "who any longer remembers the Armenians?"

The actual, substantive evidence for the above is overwhelming. In contrast, 9/11 substitutes innuendo "NORAD was holding hijacking drills...." etc, for evidence. Conspiracy whackadoos cite "inconsistencies" as "proof." 1000 people say a plane hit the Pentagon, and one says he thinks it was a missile....

Rubbish of an argument.

A professor of law once remarked:

"When the facts are in your favor, pound on the facts. When the law is in your favor, pound on the law. When neither are in your favor, pound on the table."

Passion is no substitute for evidence. The conspiracies you cite have factual, irrefutable evidence. They actually happened and can be verified. Unless, of course, you're a Oliver North fan who insists he was framed, a Nixon apologist, or in the case of the last two, a moron. I'd rather think somebody was stupid than anti-Semitic.

In contrast, the various 9/11 conspiracy theories do not have such factual evidence.

This reminds me.... somebody once said "Don't you find it suspicious that stuff like 9/11 only happens after an intelligence failure..."

Uhhhh.... "Gee...don't you think it's odd that death follows after your head is blown off?"

[Merryprankster]

Wow, now that's really something! Do these guys do any research into the kinds of relationships that they are saying exist?

The relationship between the CIA and the ISI is well documented. However, it was allowed to lapse after the Soviets left Afghanistan. We simply didn't need them any more. That relationship was renewed after 9/11. It's quite public, and not at all a secret.

However, to call the ISI a "front" for the CIA is simply over the top. Pakistan has a particular set of national interests that do not necessarily coincide with those of the United States. In many cases, according to both Stephen Coll (Ghost Wars) and Rohan Gunaratna (Too many to list), the ISI and the Pakistani government often pursued quite different agendas than the CIA would have liked them to.

Here's a question: What motive does Pakistan have to behave as a co-conspirator?


Of note, they did a poll not too long ago and discovered that a significant majority of French Muslims believe that Bin Laden and Co committed 9/11. Any takers on why that is?

[rogue]

Right, there is a relationship but I've never heard from anybody that the ISI was a front for the CIA. Even within Pakistan the ISI has it's own agenda. I just finished reading "Charlie Wilson's War" and that made clear the relationship the CIA had with the ISI wasn't one of the CIA calling all of the shots.

[Merryprankster]

Exactly.

A couple of things to keep in mind...

A 30 year veteran of the foreign service once taught a class I took and he said something I will NEVER forget:

"There is only one thing worse than believing that everybody is meddling in your affairs...realizing that nobody thinks about you at all."

The second thing was about the limits of power. People around the world view the United States in a godlike way. They don't understand that U.S. power has limitations.

Couple the first remark with the second, and it's a short leap to "The United States runs (or tries to run) everything."

Speaking of power, I'm going to play Civilization IV.

Cheers!

[Royal Dragon]

Incidentally, Unions committed 9/11. Here is a debate chain I had with another fellow elsewhere.

Reply]
ALL Unions are controlled by either the Italian's NY Mob, or the Chicago Mob.

So basically ur saying the Mob did it.

Now, i do remember Mob owned trucking companies taking debris away to thier scrap yards when they weren't supposed to right after the towers collapsed..... hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm......................

[Merryprankster]

See Royal Dragon! People need to think this through, and they will realize that I am correct.

[Royal Dragon]

I buy "the Mob did it" way before the Government. If you think about it, they have the most to gain. All that debris went to mob owned scrap yards, and was hauled by Mob owned trucks driven by Mob controlled Union workers.

Also, the Mob controlled Union workers will be the ones to rebuild whatever structure goes in that spot, so they win on the take down by getting an enormous amount of free scrap thay can sell off, AND they win because they get the contract to clean it up and haul it away, *ANNNND* they win on the rebuild side as the construction industry as a whole is pretty much Mob controlled through the Unions.


DAMMMM! how come no one has seen this before!! :D

[rogue]

Women!:p :D

[rogue]

I have asked endlessly for an answer as to why Bush reauthorised Clinton's executive order, but as you can see here, no one wants to even attempt to do so. This list of coincidences doesn't even figure in prior motives and benefits (PNAC), or the countless warnings that were ignored (I've personally seen over 60 different mainstream news articles that discuss this).

Kymus keeps bringing up a supposed Clinton EO W199I-WF-213589 that was extended by Bush. For the life of me I can't find any reference to the thing except for This (http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils%20in%20Government/911%20Cover-up/w199i.htm) and this (http://propagandamatrix.com/us_agents_told_to_backoff.html) and they do not look too credible. All stories seem to come from an episode of BBC's Newsnight.

So Merry, any idea of what in the Sam Hill Kymus keeps harping on. I'd like to answer his question but I think this is another red herring.


Just in case the younger crowd isn't familiar with the term "red herring" here's a definition from Wikipedia.

* a type of logical fallacy in which one purports to prove one's point by means of irrelevant arguments. See Ignoratio elenchi.
* in politics, a minor or even phony issue trumped up as being of great importance, in order to influence voters to vote for one party or candidate and against the other, or distract from more important issues that might help the opposing party.
* in literature, a plot device intended to distract the reader from a more important event in the plot, usually a twist ending. See also MacGuffin.
* in detective work, mystery fiction, and puzzle-solving, a false clue which leads investigators, readers, or solvers towards an incorrect solution.
* in adventure games, an item or object of no practical use; its purpose may be to frustrate the gamer who tries to find the intended use for it. In The Secret Of Monkey Island a red herring is ironically a key item for progression in the game. And in Simon the Sorcerer 2, Simon makes a comment about a carriage that he always thought herrings would be fishes.

[canglong]

GREG PALAST:
The CIA and Saudi Arabia, the Bushes and the Bin Ladens. Did their connections cause America to turn a blind eye to terrorism?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/events/newsnight/1645527.stm

[Merryprankster]

All stories seem to come from an episode of BBC's Newsnight.

Couldn't tell you. But this is one common problem in much of journalism - when you trace it back, it all winds up being the same source material, not 60 different sources.

By way of example, the story that the Israelis told all the Jews not to come to work can be traced back to a single paper - a Lebanese daily I believe...one well known for it's anti-Israel bent... Hizballah's media organ.

[canglong]

Notice how all official government stories come from the government so what's the point.

Perhaps some prefer the Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/waronterror/story/0,1361,583254,00.html

[David Jamieson]

merry, you say it's hard to keep a secret.

I don't believe it is. I mean, jeez, D-Day for cripes sake was a secret and it was kept, by not one or two people. And that was how they did it 50 years ago or so.

Nowadays, a small group can do big things and keep them secret.
Regardless of who did 9/11, it was kept secret long enough that no one could do anything about it when it happened.

If anyone believes that anyone outside of your immediate family and friends (and even then) always has your best interests at heart, then think again. This is not true and terrible things are done on a daily basis by one group set against another to suit what they want and not what is the greater good.

Pollyannas are not what the world needs. Turning in on yourself is not the solution to the crisis we face in the world right now which if one knows anything about ramifications, then the likelyhood of nuclear war is growing closer and closer and closer.

If these groups can be eliminated through guns or talk it doesn't matter, as long as they're gone.

[WinterPalm]

I read somewhere that way more people die every year in America as a result of car crashes than they do by terrorist attacks.

So no, I don't even slightly think that terrorism is the biggest or worst threat. It creates a great level of hysteria and fear...much like muggings and drive by shootings...all horrible acts, but the guys in the suits calling the shots are the real terrorists. The ones who will cut off the energy supply to a state and let people's homes lose all power...where some people have life support equipement that necessitates power. How about the enron criminals? Destroying the golden years of countless people for a profit. How about corporate militaries in third world countries that kill off the public when they demand a piece of their rightful resources? How about all the Saddams who are given full support until they fail to tote the line?

Terrorists and pirates, communists and gays, heretics and atheists...it's always something else.

[Merryprankster]

I mean, jeez, D-Day for cripes sake was a secret and it was kept, by not one or two people. And that was how they did it 50 years ago or so.


First, the Germans were WELL aware something was going on, just not where, which explains their surprise (sounds like our pre-9/11 briefing to the president....).

If I were to follow the conspiracy theorists logic, then actually, somebody in the German High Command planned the invasion....

Secondly, the secret wasn't kept at all. Once the invasion occurred, there was no secret. Contrast that with the idea of keeping something like a 9/11 conspiracy secret indefinately.

Never mind that the controls on the media were something altogether different back then, and that Watergate hadn't yet occurred...

Quite a different circumstance, IMO.

You'd have been better off suggesting that this is a giant misdirection campaign - except that you would still have the problem of trying to keep the truth perpetually under wraps.

Besides which, the Unions did it.

[Royal Dragon]

And by Unions, he really means the Mob.

[rogue]

Which is run by the Zionists!



By the way, where is Kymus?

[Kymus]

As for the woman waveing, I have used cutting tourches to cut steel while fabricateing things, and I have spend 20+ minutes at a time welding machine bases with more than enough heat to liquify metal, just inches from my hands, all while being showered in molten metal sparks, with not more than a "T" shirt, a Flannel and a pair of army BDU's on. I was just fine.

Perhaps you can explain to me how this differs from the official story? NIST claims that inside the towers, it was a furnace of (if memmory serves me right) 750C.


That fire had a super hot core, fed by the gapeing holes in the building. Your black smoke was caused by the material burning around the cooler edges surrounding the hotter core.

I understand the black smoke, and I'd say I would agree. However, how hot is super hot? We already know that jet fuel burns at a maximum temperature that is still 1200 degrees too cool to begin to melt steel.


We have a range of about 800-1200 degrees to work with. If we exceed that range, we ruin the frame rail and it must be replaced as all the strength cooks out of it. Please notice, even though we have not got it hot enough to melt, we have destroyed it's structural integrity if we over heat it.

There is no way that the fire could of gotten that hot that fast. Firstly, it had fire proofing due to the first fire in 1975 which "burned at temperatures in excess of 700°C (1,292°F) for over three hours and spread over some 65 percent of the 11th floor, including the core, caused no serious structural damage to the steel structure. In particular, no trusses needed to be replaced.". Secondly, it was designed structurally to withstand multiple hits from a plane with more force than those that hit it on 9/11 and still stand without a problem.


The structures of those beams and thier attaching rivets in the WTC building very easily would have been in the temperature range to soften thier strength to the point where thier ability to hold thier normal load had been severely compromised, even if they were still hundreds of degrees below the melting point.

The problem, is that even if the jet fuel was at its max temperature (which I don't know how that would of been possible in that environment), it still would be 1,200 degrees too cool. Even the firefighters tapes show that the fires were actually minimal.


Now add to the fact that they were that hot for an extended period of time (Anything in excess of a few minutes), and it is doubtfull that they would be anywhere near thier proper load bearing strength, let alone able to hold up the tones of building above.

Maybe you can explain to me RD how it is that no modern steel building has ever collapsed in history even after being on fire for days at a time. I assume you saw pictures of the building in Madrid? White hot flames on just about every floor and it still stands but the WTC has much smaller flames for a total of 1 hour & 104 mins and it collapses to dust. Doesn't make a bit of sense to me.


Also you must realise that it's not the beams that would give here, it's the rivets and plates that fasten them together, which are considreably weaker than the beam itself.

This makes enough sense. However every official report I've read has never mentioned this aspect. Therefore, it's not something I've taken the time to study.


So just becasue it wasn't hot enough to melt, does not mean it wasn't hot enough to weaken the structure's attaching rivets to be well under the required load bearing strength.

This is a direct contradiction of what Frank A. Demartini spoke of. Poking a pencil through a screen netting as he described sounds a heck of a lot sounder than the theory you give. No disrespect meant RD, but I must side with Mr. Demartini.


Those buildings collapsed from the inside out, and the supposed "Explosions", were really the sounds of the super structure giving just prior to it fully collapsing

So a man who survived the 1993 bombing wouldn't know the difference between the sound AND feel of another bombing? I find that hard to believe. Even if all the firefighters, eyewittnesses, and media do not know what a bomb sounds and feels like; I would expect someone who lived through it before in the same building to know it.

[Kymus]

I have never seen one source that proves this. I have, however, viewed 30+ articles that deal with explosives. This includes Steven E. Jones recent testing of the debris and finding the proper chemicals needed on it to be explosives.

Reply]
I am curious as to how credible his research is. Who is this guy? When and where did he do this testing?

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

I hope this answers your questions.

[Kymus]

See? It's not a fabrication, MP posted it on the third page. You can check it for yourself. Honest.

What he said was fabrication, and I know for a fact that he can't prove it because it is fabrication.


And your quote, "Let's see you put your money where your mouth is Rouge. You said that all the alternative explanations are bullsh!t conspiracy theories promulgated by morons and are baseless theories. ", does seem to lend some credence to his insight. One point for MP.

Hardly. Nice try with the spin though. Taking lessons from Bush?


Watson
Too funny. Call it what you will but it's not a stand down. I do have to ask for someone in the chain of command who said to stand down.

I guess you can explain to me what Cheney meant then?


I apologize, but I missed it. I also apologize for not being clear by what I mean by "research". I mean your sources, testing procedures, reference material, any lab work and who assisted you. I'm assuming it's been peer reviewed. Can you put up with me one more time and point me back to it?

I want to make sure we're clear here. You will answer my original questions if I provide you with a resource? That's fair enough, but I gotta ask: how is it you can claim that everything alternative to 9/11 is bullsh!t when you don't know anything except for the myriad of problems Loose Change had?


Honestly I'm still trying to track this one down. I'm starting at why Clinton originally would have issued such an EO in the first place. I'll get back to you on this one.

Because catching Osama isn't important to him or Bush. He's "the boogey man they need for this phoney Orwellian system" (to quote Alex Jones from his TV broadcast the day he predicted a terrorist attack would occur soon in July of 2001)

[Kymus]

Incidentally, Unions committed 9/11. Here is a debate chain I had with another fellow elsewhere.

My theory is elegant in its simplicity, internally consistent, and non-falsifiable.

Therefore, I must be correct.


Strawman argument. I knew you were full of sh!t. In all my research and correspondense with others, this is the first I have EVER heard anyone say this. Never has Alex Jones said this, nor Mike Rupert, nor David Ray Griffin, nor any others that are at the fore-front of the 9/11 Truth Movement.

[Royal Dragon]

Secondly, it was designed structurally to withstand multiple hits from a plane with more force than those that hit it on 9/11 and still stand without a problem.

When the Towers were designed, and built, planes THAT big, carying THAT much fuel had not even been invented yet. I highly doubt they were built to withstand the impact from a plane that size, fully loaded with fuel, when a plane that size didn't even exist at the time the blue prints were drawn.

Also, like I said before, the steel beams do not have to MELT, just heat up enough to soften.

As for other building buring for days, and not giving, I doubt those buildings were anywhere near as heavy as the twin towers, nor did they sustain a full trottle impact of a HUGE comercial jet liner in the process.

It would have taken much more heat to topple a smaller, lighter building.

[rogue]

Kymus, I'm laughing my a$$ off that you doubt that unions were at the core of all of this. The theory is gaining steam.


There is no way that the fire could of gotten that hot that fast. Firstly, it had fire proofing due to the first fire in 1975 which "burned at temperatures in excess of 700°C (1,292°F) for over three hours and spread over some 65 percent of the 11th floor, including the core, caused no serious structural damage to the steel structure. In particular, no trusses needed to be replaced.". Secondly, it was designed structurally to withstand multiple hits from a plane with more force than those that hit it on 9/11 and still stand without a problem.

It's simple!

From wikipedia (of course double check everything in wikipedia)

The combined effects of the airplane impacts and subsequent fires caused the buildings to collapse. The impacts severed load bearing columns and dislodged fireproofing from the structural steel. Heat from the fires then gradually weakened the structures, causing the floors to sag and the perimeter columns to bow inwards. The towers collapsed abruptly when the perimeter walls finally buckled. Once the collapse was initiated, the enormous weight of the portion of the towers above the impact areas overwhelmed the load bearing capacity of the structures beneath them. Total collapse was then inevitable.

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

On top of that the damage occured on multiple floors.

[rogue]

And just for the record, the "waving woman" has a name and it's Edna Cintron. I think we should refer to her by name from now on.

RIP Mrs. Cintron.

[Kymus]

It has no defenses. It's a ****ING OFFICE BUILDING.

How do I know this?

1. I lived half a mile from it.
2. My dad works there.
3. I've been there frequently.
4. I know several people who work there.

It has some SECURITY (rent a cops and 19 year old marines), but it's not like there's a SAM infantry division running around the place.

I am quite aware that the Pentagon doesn't have SAM; atleast never before 9/11. Is this not a no-fly zone? Last I checked, there was an AFB very close and I've read elsewhere (and I'll see if I can dig it up) that in the past, there were planes stationed to defend the pentagon.


Incidentally, just to lay to rest the absurdity of something other than a plane striking the Pentagon, you can see the Pentagon from the air control tower from the Reagan National Airport.

Okay, since you claim that it's absurd that a plane didn't hit it as described, I'm sure that you must be able to explain to me how that plane didn't encounter a high-speed buffet and fall out of the sky, further, I'd love to know how it's possible for the plane to be going top speed and still be able to hover such a small space over ground and not get spun out of control as military piliots have described. Further, I'd love to know how a pilot who is known to not be able to handle a cesna can perform manouvres that are nearly impossible for even an experienced fighter pilot. It was physically impossible for the plane and pilot to do as described on 9/11 unless the official story is wrong and the direction, etc. was totally different.


Incidentally, stow the dialectic bull**** already. You're building in a false dichotomy

I guess that's why I'm the one that's not engaging in pittiful disinformation tactics like strawman arguments, huh? Please. You know nothing about the holes in the official story.


since you are such a fan of pointing out rhetorical fallacy...Rogue isn't arguing that it's IMPOSSIBLE, and neither am I. It's POSSIBLE that 9/11 was a giant government conspiracy committed by whomever you decide.

I'm used to dealing with partisan tools that cheer for their political party every time they stab them in the back. I've heard this useless argument before, I know that anything is "possible". I'm not claiming it happened as I say because of a "possibility" window, I'm saying it happened because of the countless research I've done. I don't ignore things that I don't like; that's why I look at BOTH sides instead of creating fake arguments.

{quote]What we are saying, is that it's highly IMPROBABLE, for a variety of reasons. You can disagree with that if you like, but you can't run around throwing out terms like "Hegelian Dialectic" and not expect to get called on it[/quote]

ROFL. I know what the Hegelian Dialectic is, that's why I refer to it. It's amazing that you completely ignore both my words and history.

Instances of the Hegelian Dialectic throughout history:
Nero Burning down Rome
Hitler burning down the reichstag
Russian FSB (attempting to) blowing up buildings
Pearl Harbor
Gulf of Tonkin
USS Liberty
Operation Northwoods
Operation Bojinka
Operation Ajax
Operation Gladio

Honestly, if you're so d@mned lazy that you have to create conspiracy theories about my "jargon", I'll just define it for you myself:

the Hegelian Dialectic is best described as problem, reaction, solution. The best and most accepted example is Hitler. Hitler wanted to create a Martial-Law Police-State within Germany and take away everyone's rights. So, he created a problem ("Commies" burning down the Reichstag, and "Polish" starting a war), then the people react to this and want safety so he took away their rights with the Enabling Act and Reich Fire Decree in order to give them safety (who does that remind me of... hmm...), the solution gained was that he was able to make himself a dictator all the while his people cheered for it. The majority of Germans willingly accepted this type of enslavement because of how things were carried out.

To say that it's "impropable" that a government would do this is very ignorant. It's the oldest trick in the book (obviously since Nero did it). You can theorise into eternity about how impropable it is, but by Rogue's own strawman logic, it's also impropable that 4 large "coincidences" are all that allowed the terrorists to carry out their attacks. You can keep building these phoney arguments and stick your head in the sand all you want, but I actually spend time researching these things instead of saying "you're wrong because I think X".


when you are building in your own set of strawmen and dilemmas.

Rofl, now I'm building strawman arguments? Which post?


Personally, I've found that jargon is the refuge of the ignorant or the insecure. Either the person doesn't actually know enough about what it is they are talking about to explain it in plain english, or they want to sound like they know more than the other guy.

I'm sorry, I'm very used to the term "hegelian dialectic" and it's in the encyclopedia for christ sake. If that's too far above your head and it's somehow me trying to sound smart, I don't know what to tell you.

[Kymus]

Kymus, I'm laughing my a$$ off that you doubt that unions were at the core of all of this. The theory is gaining steam.



It's simple!

From wikipedia (of course double check everything in wikipedia)


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

On top of that the damage occured on multiple floors.

I'm laughing my @ss off that you have to lie and create disinfo-ridden arguments on a subject you know nothing about all to baselessly claim that others are wrong.

If you had a real argument, you wouldn't need to do this. :)

[Kymus]

Secondly, it was designed structurally to withstand multiple hits from a plane with more force than those that hit it on 9/11 and still stand without a problem.

When the Towers were designed, and built, planes THAT big, carying THAT much fuel had not even been invented yet. I highly doubt they were built to withstand the impact from a plane that size, fully loaded with fuel, when a plane that size didn't even exist at the time the blue prints were drawn.

I'ts known to most anyone that has researched this that the WTC towers were designed to take a hit from a fully loaded 747. The 747 produces more force than the 767 that hit the WTC.


Also, like I said before, the steel beams do not have to MELT, just heat up enough to soften.

I am aware. A "couple hundred" is much different that 1,200.


As for other building buring for days, and not giving, I doubt those buildings were anywhere near as heavy as the twin towers, nor did they sustain a full trottle impact of a HUGE comercial jet liner in the process.

So if I poked a pencil through your screen door, I assume then that it would all collapse?

[rogue]

I am quite aware that the Pentagon doesn't have SAM; atleast never before 9/11. Is this not a no-fly zone? Last I checked, there was an AFB very close and I've read elsewhere (and I'll see if I can dig it up) that in the past, there were planes stationed to defend the pentagon.

At least I know that Reagan airport is right by the Pentagon.

From Wikipedia

Because of its proximity to central Washington, the airport has been subject to special security procedures for many years. Before 2001, the most notable of these was the southbound approach into the airport. Most of central Washington is restricted airspace up to 18,000 feet: in order to land on National's southbound runway, pilots had to follow the path of the Potomac River and make a steep turn shortly before landing, in a procedure called the "River Visual." Similarly, flights taking off to the north are required to climb quickly and bank left sharply to avoid the Washington Monument and follow a path which does not go over either the White House or the Pentagon.



I'ts known to most anyone that has researched this that the WTC towers were designed to take a hit from a fully loaded 747. The 747 produces more force than the 767 that hit the WTC.
I don't think the 747 existed when they designed the towers.


The Boeing 747, commonly called a Jumbo Jet, is one of the most recognizable jet airliner and is the largest airliner currently in airline service. First flown commercially in 1970, it held the size record for more than 35 years until surpassed by the Airbus A380 (due to enter service in early 2007). The Soviet-built Antonov An-225 cargo transport remains the world's largest aircraft in service, while the Hughes H-4 Hercules had a larger wing-span.[2]
Yup, I'm right.

[Kymus]

It's simple!

From wikipedia (of course double check everything in wikipedia)


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

On top of that the damage occured on multiple floors.

True to the article I linked to, you are adept at ignoring facts. I'm not going to even bother repeating myself again about Frank A. Demartini.

[rogue]

n 1966, construction of the World Trade Center began with a groundbreaking that razed 13 square blocks of low rise buildings, some of which predated the US Civil War. The construction was under the auspices of the semi-autonomous Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. In 1970, construction was completed on One World Trade Center, with its first tenants moving into the building in December 1970.

Just double checked the completion date, and it's the same year that the 747 rolled off the line.

When did Frank A. Demartini start working at WTC? Was he part of the design team or a member of the building crew?:confused:

[Kymus]

At least I know that Reagan airport is right by the Pentagon.

But you still have trouble making real arguments and getting yourself out of this petty partisan world. Amazing how that works.





I don't think the 747 existed when they designed the towers.


Yup, I'm right.

I mixed up the numbers.

http://hawaii.indymedia.org/news/2003/07/3257.php

got a new excuse?

[Kymus]

Kymus keeps bringing up a supposed Clinton EO W199I-WF-213589 that was extended by Bush. For the life of me I can't find any reference to the thing except for This (http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils%20in%20Government/911%20Cover-up/w199i.htm) and this (http://propagandamatrix.com/us_agents_told_to_backoff.html) and they do not look too credible. All stories seem to come from an episode of BBC's Newsnight.

So Merry, any idea of what in the Sam Hill Kymus keeps harping on. I'd like to answer his question but I think this is another red herring.[/.quote]

I knew you couldn't answer my question Rogue :). Why do you tell others they are wrong when you don't know the first thing of what you're even talking about?


[quote]Just in case the younger crowd isn't familiar with the term "red herring" here's a definition from Wikipedia.

* a type of logical fallacy in which one purports to prove one's point by means of irrelevant arguments. See Ignoratio elenchi.
* in politics, a minor or even phony issue trumped up as being of great importance, in order to influence voters to vote for one party or candidate and against the other, or distract from more important issues that might help the opposing party.
* in literature, a plot device intended to distract the reader from a more important event in the plot, usually a twist ending. See also MacGuffin.
* in detective work, mystery fiction, and puzzle-solving, a false clue which leads investigators, readers, or solvers towards an incorrect solution.
* in adventure games, an item or object of no practical use; its purpose may be to frustrate the gamer who tries to find the intended use for it. In The Secret Of Monkey Island a red herring is ironically a key item for progression in the game. And in Simon the Sorcerer 2, Simon makes a comment about a carriage that he always thought herrings would be fishes.

The disinformation artist tries to cry about supposed disinformation? Wow, so not only are you a liar, but you're a hypocrite too! :)

[Kymus]

I read somewhere that way more people die every year in America as a result of car crashes than they do by terrorist attacks.

Statistics prove prescription drugs are 16,400% more deadly than terrorists (http://www.newstarget.com/009278.html)

Following deplorable attacks in London, pharmaceuticals are still more deadly than terrorists (http://www.newstarget.com/009335.html)


So no, I don't even slightly think that terrorism is the biggest or worst threat. It creates a great level of hysteria and fear...

Fear is the pretext needed to pass abysmal legislation like the Patriot Act 1 & 2, Victory Act, and New Freedom Initiative. the BBC's Power of Nightmares did a great job of dissecting how fear is the central ideology of neoconservativism.

[rogue]

Well if someone named Mad Max says it then it must be true!


Also, why did the hijackers choose to hijack aircraft leaving Boston, when they could have just as easily hijacked aircraft from one of the New York city airports (LaGuardia, Newark or JFK). Hijacking aircraft from Boston, meant that they had to deviate from their designated routes, while still a long way from Manhattan. Of course, as is usual, all sorts of alarm bells would be set off as soon as the aircraft deviated substantially from their prescribed routes. Not only that, the US Air Force specialist quick response unit, the Air National Guard, would almost certainly intercept them before they reached their target (and would have assuredly shoot down the second 767, after seeing what happened to the first).

Boston is not a long way to Manhattan (I just checked Expedia, the quickest flight is 59 minutes), but it is far enough away to give the hijackers time to take over the plane, point it at NYC and stand a better chance of hitting their target. Much better operationally than trying to takeover a plane moving away from your target and getting it into a tight turn trying to hit your target. Those flights were also known to carry few passengers.

Some support for my theory.

Using AirTrain and the Long Island Rail Road at Jamaica Station, travel time between JFK and Midtown Manhattan is about 45 minutes.
LaGuardia is a little closer.



Once again it's all about me. Thanks I love having my ego stroked.

[Kymus]

Just double checked the completion date, and it's the same year that the 747 rolled off the line.

Scroll up some Rogue. I got the number wrong, and provided a source.


When did Frank A. Demartini start working at WTC? Was he part of the design team or a member of the building crew?:confused:

I mentioned him in one of my original comments to you. Instead of quoting him, I'll source you to the video of him saying all this (http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2004/141104designedtotake.htm).

[Kymus]

Well if someone named Mad Max says it then it must be true!

Or George Bush! :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[rogue]

Scroll up some Rogue. I got the number wrong, and provided a source.



I mentioned him in one of my original comments to you. Instead of quoting him, I'll source you to the video of him saying all this (http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2004/141104designedtotake.htm).

"We place absolute confidence in the Titanic. We believe the boat is unsinkable."
White Star Line Vice President P.A.S. Franklin

"The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting".

People sometimes make mistakes when they don't really know.

Come to think of it, maybe the original designers were wrong about the towers even surviving a run in with the 707.

[Hua Lin Laoshi]

http://www.rense.com/general73/osam.htm

[Kymus]

"We place absolute confidence in the Titanic. We believe the boat is unsinkable."
White Star Line Vice President P.A.S. Franklin

Strawman.


"The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting".

People sometimes make mistakes when they don't really know.

Come to think of it, maybe the original designers were wrong about the towers even surviving a run in with the 707.

Substituting theory for fact.

And you wonder why I don't bother to delve into this any deeper with you :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[canglong]

Interesting cast of characters to say the least.
http://www.thetruthaboutgeorge.com/cronies/index.html

[rogue]

Substituting theory for fact.

I find it interesting that you say that as the theory was that the towers could with stand multiple planes crashing into the towers, but the reality was that they couldn't.
The outside of the towers did behave like he thought, but they weren't the only part of the building holding it up and together. In this instance Mr. Demartini was using a very restricted view of what a plane crashing into the towers would do. Mr. Demartini says that "he believes" rather than he knows because he's never tested his theory in the real world. I have to wonder if anybody ever took the theory about 707s vs the towers and game how the plane could win.


And you wonder why I don't bother to delve into this any deeper with you

Hmmm, looking back at most of the posts I'd say I've done a lot more explaining how things happened then you have. So far you haven't shown any real insight into how things work in the real world even though you've been looking into this longer than me. That's OK, I've been around longer and have done more, so I may have a leg up when it comes to knowing about things that may explain why something happened the way it did. I may be biased but MP, RD, Dave and myself have made a better case, with more depth, for why 9/11 happened the way it did than you have for your theory. So far your main response has been to blurt out "strawman", "disinformation" or call people liars when they present you with facts and examples. I'm honestly getting suspicious that you are just pulling our legs and really don't believe what you're writing. If so then you got us good, if not then it's just tiresome.

Once again, please produce your research and not just your conclusions.

[canglong]

the con
the conspiracy
and
the cover-up
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8024076748679173978&q=boogieman+productions&hl=en

[rogue]

Kymus wrote,

Maybe you can explain to me RD how it is that no modern steel building has ever collapsed in history even after being on fire for days at a time. I assume you saw pictures of the building in Madrid? White hot flames on just about every floor and it still stands but the WTC has much smaller flames for a total of 1 hour & 104 mins and it collapses to dust. Doesn't make a bit of sense to me.



Kymus wrote: I assume you saw pictures of the building in Madrid? White hot flames on just about every floor and it still stands...

From Wiki...

It was gutted by a huge fire on February 12, 2005, and partially collapsed; it has since been demolished.

More fun facts from Wiki...


The Caracas Tower, First Interstate Bank [36] and 1 New York Plaza were constructed using the conventional steel girder system consisting of a grid of steel columns and trusses connecting the columns. The Windsor Tower (Madrid, helpful Rogue), however, was constructed with concrete columns and a concrete core for the first 16 floors, steel girder and concrete core for the floors above that, and two additional concrete slabs to provide additional strength [37], [38]. The Twin Towers used gypsum instead of concrete around their core.

Looks like you're comparing apples to oranges as the construction of the other buildings was quite different from WTC 1 & 2. Guess you missed that little tidbit about construction in your research. I'll admit it was hard to find and took me an entire 10 minutes to locate.

[Merryprankster]

Ah.

We've reached the pointless phase of all of this. Got it.

Kymus - You're boring. Not becuase you believe something we don't but because you spend more time tossing around jargon than actually arguing. You got haughty and trotted out "strawman!" "Hegelian Dialectic!" "Red herring!"

Hey guess what? The reason I called you on it is because I took Western Political Theory and rhetoric as classes too. You can't toss around that crap to make you look smarter - it doesn't win any points - and further in an argument like this, it is not enough merely to point out the mistakes of the opposition.

And yes, of course I was full of bull**** with respect to the Unions comitting 9/11. That was the entire point - to demonstrate an alternative complete, self-consistent, non-falsifiable theory of 9/11. That, along with citing holes as smoking gun proof that the story itself is wrong, it the heart and core of conspiracy theory. It's easy and I did it to demonstrate how simple building your very own argumenum ad ignoratum is. (Argumentum ad Ignoratum is the fallacy that just because something hasn't been proved wrong, it must be true).

Anything you post about it, I can explain it via a Union conspiracy. I GUARANTEE it.

Mind you, there's no evidence for it, but I never intended there to be. I think it might make for a good novel - or maybe even the Godfather IV.

To get back to the matter at hand: Merely saying "There are unanswered questions in the story," doesn't make the whole story arc wrong. I'm sorry. This is not a formal debate, where you earn points with the judging panel by pointing out logical flaws in the proposing/affirmative side's argument. Nor is it a court of law, where you are the defense attorney and all you must do is demonstrate that the proposing side didn't meet its burden of proof. It is not a trial. Variations on Argumentum ad Logicam. I'm sure you know it....:rolleyes:

(Argumentum ad Logicam is the fallacy of believing/assuming that shooting or citing holes in the proposing side's argument renders the premise - ie, the story arc - invalid. There may be alternative lines of reasoning/argumentation - or even the same line with better information - that demonstrates the proposition is true).

Here's the bottom line: There will always remain unanswered questions about 9/11. Those unanswered questions do not by neccessity imply conspiracy or cover-up. They are unanswered questions, nothing more, and nothing less.

Take your Pentagon flight example: You cite that a 747 never could have manuevered like that. OK. Great. I cite a missing plane, the dead passengers, air traffic controllers that say the radar picture tells us all otherwise, and visual confirmation from a variety of on-scene witnesses, not to mention wreckage (which despite alternative theories, does, in fact, exist, of course, you could argue it was planted, but how deep does this rabbit hole go?). Incidentally, I also cite the death of the Solicitor General's wife that day. Guess he wasn't in on it.

Do I know how somebody manuevered a 747 like that? Nope. It's an unanswered question. Perhaps scientific models will solve it. But treating unanswered questions like smoking guns is EXACTLY how creationists argue. They say that because evolution can't provide every single step in the chain, then it is incomplete and therefore wrong/highly flawed. Exploration of the natural world (by natural I mean the observable universe) is a lengthy, time consuming process where specific answers are often not available.

Contrary to creationists claims, that does not make the story arc of evolution wrong - merely incomplete.

With respect to the physics of the issues, they have been rehashed in detail, over and over again. You keep bringing up certain studies, but fail to mention that the overwhelming consensus of the national and international scientific community is that "yeah, 9/11 could definitely have happened the way it appeared to happen." Heck, the University of Pennsylvania even ran computer simulations to try and figure out what happened, and ultimately concluded that it could have. They used to have their model posted on the interweb.

My own experience working with metal and with the tremendous forces involved with something as relatively benign as ship driving also informs some of my decision - that is, I've seen what mass, momentum and inertia can do, and it's awe inspiring. Low temp flames are used to soften metal, and all experts - even the ones that insist that 9/11 couldn't have happened the way the official story reads - agree that a 40-50% reduction in the strength of the metal could definitely have led to a collapse. I find the inward bowing a particularly compelling argument, because it suggests to me that the building was beginning to lose tension on its outer structures - precisely part of the distributed load design inherent in the WTC. If it was starting to lose tension then it was beginning to sag. After that the cascade effect makes quite a bit of sense to me. I've seen what fire can do to a metal compartment.

Dr. Greening's articles on the energy transfers involved, I found quite excellent, as are the discussions of the towers' collapses. The seismic evidence is especially compelling, IMO. A great deal turns on the actual time it took for the towers to collapse (which was not freefall BTW).

http://www.911myths.com/html/other_contributions.html

You can find them about half-way down.

I admit to having got them from 911myths.com, but then again, we wouldn't want to commit the fallacy of evaluating the hosting website rather than the information presented, now, would we? Especially not when looking at quantitative, vice qualitative arguments.

Interestingly, there is also a refuation of the "couldn't have flown a 747 that way on there." Haven't read it.

Don't care.

Here's what I want - I want a coherent, alternative theory of the crime rather than a great big list of what's wrong with the official story. A great big list of what's wrong with the other side is exactly why the Israelis and Palestinians keep fighting.

[Royal Dragon]

Mind you, there's no evidence for it, but I never intended there to be. I think it might make for a good novel - or maybe even the Godfather IV.

Reply]
What about the Mob controlled union Scrap trucks that were taking away debris before the fire was even out?

[David Jamieson]

MP- are you saying 747 on purpose? :p

[cam]

C'mon Kymus, don't you realize that it was all just a coincidence!
That and the fact that just about everyone in any position of authority in the US are a bunch of bumbling incompetent idiots.
Just look at the results of Hurricane Katrina, if that wasn't a total cluster****, it should convince anyone of the total failure of your government institutions....Oh wait that was all a coincidence too:rolleyes:

OKay let the character assination begin:D

[rogue]

Here's what I want - I want a coherent, alternative theory of the crime rather than a great big list of what's wrong with the official story.

Good luck with that!

I do get the feeling that most of those yelling incompetence have never even read the 9/11 Commision Report (http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/index.html), and yes there was some incompetence and lost opportnunities. And I have to ask those who are so outraged by the failure of their government what they were doing before 9/11 and did they know who AQ and bin Laden were?

[cam]

Thanks for supplying the link Rogue. After reading the first few pages, well incompetence just doesn't do this idiocy justice! Someone will have to invent a new word for such a colossal failure!
Actually there is only one conspiracy, How was the American Media so completely neutered?

[rogue]

Which page numbers did you read? What did you find so idiotic on them?

[Kymus]

I find it interesting that you say that as the theory was that the towers could with stand multiple planes crashing into the towers

Which was proclaimed by one of the two men with the most experience and knowledge of that building.


but the reality was that they couldn't.

See, you're doing it again.


The outside of the towers did behave like he thought, but they weren't the only part of the building holding it up and together. In this instance Mr. Demartini was using a very restricted view of what a plane crashing into the towers would do. Mr. Demartini says that "he believes"

Spin. He "believes" that it could withstand MULTIPLE hits. He clearly said it was DESIGNED to take atleast 1 plane.


I have to wonder if anybody ever took the theory about 707s vs the towers and game how the plane could win.

It's called mathematics.


Hmmm, looking back at most of the posts I'd say I've done a lot more explaining how things happened then you have.

Creating strawman arguments, spinning things people have said and telling people they're wrong on a subject you know nothing about isn't explaining, it's called bullsh!t tactics.


So far you haven't shown any real insight into how things work in the real world even though you've been looking into this longer than me.

Again, why bother? At every step of this, you continually try to foist these phoney tactics. It's evident that you are adept at ignoring the facts that you don't like.


That's OK, I've been around longer and have done more, so I may have a leg up when it comes to knowing about things that may explain why something happened the way it did.

I base things on what I can prove. When I theorise, I readily admit to and explain that. You are still strugling to understand that.


I may be biased

Biased eh? Never would of guessed. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11009379/) :rolleyes: :rolleyes:


but MP, RD, Dave and myself have made a better case, with more depth, for why 9/11 happened the way it did than you have for your theory.

I'm sorry, offering theorisations that sound good is something that you won't find me doing or supporting. I base everything on that which I can prove. If I can't prove it, I don't bother.


So far your main response has been to blurt out "strawman", "disinformation" or call people liars when they present you with facts and examples.

For which the definition of those words fits. You tell me I'm wrong, and I've got nothing to prove my claims, but you can't answer my questions. That makes you a liar. You also claimed you answered my questions, which is another lie.


I'm honestly getting suspicious that you are just pulling our legs and really don't believe what you're writing.

I don't believe in false words.


If so then you got us good, if not then it's just tiresome.

Likewise, I get tired of trying to discuss issues with people who are still locked into this phoney paradigm and allow their very petty partisanship determine what issues are important for truth, and which are not.


Once again, please produce your research and not just your conclusions.

Again Rogue, what is the point? You and I both know that nothing short of GW going on national TV and admitting that he engaged in treason will ever change your mind. If you honestly cared more about hoensty than you did about protecting your fragile world of the good guys of the right fighting the bad guys of the left, you already would of done research on this subject and others. I care more about the Bill of Rights than I do petty partisan leanings, so I research things, and I look at both sides. I've debated with folks like yourself Rogue; it doesn't get anywhere.

[Kymus]

We've reached the pointless phase of all of this. Got it.

Actually, the pointless phase began when I thought for a moment I’d encounter someone who wouldn’t engage in phoney debate tactics even thought they were incredibly biased


Kymus - You're boring. Not becuase you believe something we don't but because you spend more time tossing around jargon than actually arguing. You got haughty and trotted out "strawman!" "Hegelian Dialectic!" "Red herring!"

Oh I see, you don’t like it when I call your BS arguments, so now you gotta create these funny theories about “jargon”. I explained each. Did you miss the definition? btw, I wasn't the one that threw the "Red Herring" bomb, it was your little buddy :) oops! :eek:


Hey guess what? The reason I called you on it is because I took Western Political Theory and rhetoric as classes too. You can't toss around that crap to make you look smarter - it doesn't win any points - and further in an argument like this, it is not enough merely to point out the mistakes of the opposition.

Looks like you never did much in the ways of debate or you’d understand that each shoe fit.


And yes, of course I was full of bull**** with respect to the Unions comitting 9/11. That was the entire point - to demonstrate an alternative complete, self-consistent, non-falsifiable theory of 9/11.

Your hypocrisy is astounding. You accuse others of creating a self-sustained theory and using that to proclaim they are right, but that’s exactly what you are doing here. Not only creating theories about others, but theories about evidence and back story as well.


That, along with citing holes as smoking gun proof that the story itself is wrong, it the heart and core of conspiracy theory.

Well gosh, it’s a good thing I don’t use that logic. Of course, you’ll still say “nu uh nu uh!! Yes you are!!!111” :rolleyes:


It's easy and I did it to demonstrate how simple building your very own argumenum ad ignoratum is. (Argumentum ad Ignoratum is the fallacy that just because something hasn't been proved wrong, it must be true).

You think I don’t know that? Wow, looks like you must apply well to the article I’ve been citing to Rogue :rolleyes:


Anything you post about it, I can explain it via a Union conspiracy. I GUARANTEE it.

Doesn’t make it right, it just makes it theory. That’s the difference between us


Mind you, there's no evidence for it, but I never intended there to be. I think it might make for a good novel - or maybe even the Godfather IV.

You’re right, Bush’s executive order never existed and **** poor pilots can perform manoeuvres that are physically impossible. Go back to sleep, it’s all a dream. Torching the Bill of Rights is good, it’ll give us more freedom :rolleyes: :rolleyes:


To get back to the matter at hand: Merely saying "There are unanswered questions in the story," doesn't make the whole story arc wrong. I'm sorry.

Tell me something I don’t know. That type of argument flies REAL close to a strawman argument. I don’t need those to prove my point, I leave them to you guys :)


This is not a formal debate, where you earn points with the judging panel by pointing out logical flaws in the proposing/affirmative side's argument.

I am not here to gain points. I point out the bullsh!t in yours and Rogue’s pitiful arguments in a desperate hope that you’ll stop with the bullsh!t and get directly to the matters at hand.


Nor is it a court of law, where you are the defense attorney and all you must do is demonstrate that the proposing side didn't meet its burden of proof.

ROFL! It’s so funny you bring that up MP. “burden of proof” is the #1 excuse given to me by those that I debate with on this issue. Know what I think? I think it’s a wonderful excuse for the intellectually lazy. So again, I am not following this course of action you try to theorise about me.


It is not a trial. Variations on Argumentum ad Logicam. I'm sure you know it....

Yep. Ignoramus’s love it. Then they don’t have to bother with pesky research :P


(Argumentum ad Logicam is the fallacy of believing/assuming that shooting or citing holes in the proposing side's argument renders the premise - ie, the story arc - invalid. There may be alternative lines of reasoning/argumentation - or even the same line with better information - that demonstrates the proposition is true).

You can also call it a strawman argument. But wait, I forgot, you don’t like it when I use “jargon” :rolleyes: :rolleyes:


Here's the bottom line: There will always remain unanswered questions about 9/11. Those unanswered questions do not by neccessity imply conspiracy or cover-up. They are unanswered questions, nothing more, and nothing less.

I am fully aware of that. Your theorisations about me are inaccurate. At no point have I said that because there are unanswered questions that it means a conspiracy, and at no point have I said that because “my theory” makes sense, that means it must be true.


Take your Pentagon flight example: You cite that a 747 never could have manuevered like that. OK. Great. I cite a missing plane, the dead passengers, air traffic controllers that say the radar picture tells us all otherwise, and visual confirmation from a variety of on-scene witnesses, not to mention wreckage (which despite alternative theories, does, in fact, exist, of course, you could argue it was planted, but how deep does this rabbit hole go?). Incidentally, I also cite the death of the Solicitor General's wife that day. Guess he wasn't in on it.

So by your logic, if the official story was that superman flew in there and punched a hole in the pentagon killing people, then just because there’s a hole, and dead people, it must be true! Hyperbole, yes. But see, the plane and superman both have something in common: they are performing something that is physically impossible to do. I’ve yet to see anyone provide a source (other than Screw Loose Changes very pitiful strawman of calling pilot Russ Whittenburg (sp, I’m sure) a “conspiracy theorist”) that explains how that plane didn’t fall out of the sky (not to mention the details after that). By your own logic MP, it must’ve been superman!


Do I know how somebody manuevered a 747 like that? Nope. It's an unanswered question. Perhaps scientific models will solve it. But treating unanswered questions like smoking guns is EXACTLY how creationists argue. They say that because evolution can't provide every single step in the chain, then it is incomplete and therefore wrong/highly flawed.

See, that’s another example of a strawman argument. Am I now demystifying this mysterious jargon that’s right there in the encyclopedia?

[/quote]Contrary to creationists claims, that does not make the story arc of evolution wrong - merely incomplete.[/quote]

I agree.


Dr. Greening's articles on the energy transfers involved, I found quite excellent, as are the discussions of the towers' collapses. The seismic evidence is especially compelling, IMO. A great deal turns on the actual time it took for the towers to collapse (which was not freefall BTW).

http://www.911myths.com/html/other_contributions.html

I’ve seen lengthy discussions on this subject by engineers and physicists. Both are missing something.


I admit to having got them from 911myths.com, but then again, we wouldn't want to commit the fallacy of evaluating the hosting website rather than the information presented, now, would we? Especially not when looking at quantitative, vice qualitative arguments.

Another common strawman. I find it a lot actually when debating other political issues. It’s commonly used by people who fear the truth. I’ve read through 911myths and other debunker blogs. I’m not impressed in the least.


Interestingly, there is also a refuation of the "couldn't have flown a 747 that way on there." Haven't read it.

I’ll have to read that. Hopefully they stay away from the pitiful strawman argument.


Here's what I want - I want a coherent, alternative theory of the crime rather than a great big list of what's wrong with the official story. A great big list of what's wrong with the other side is exactly why the Israelis and Palestinians keep fighting.

You and Rogue have already demonstrated to me that there is no point in it. Even if I were to give a long and detailed explanation, you both would still say “that’s wrong because of (theory)”. I should of learned my lesson the first hundred times: when people care more about their favourite poltical party than the truth (whatever it may be), there will be no progress. Honestly, I’ve never once seen a debate on 9/11 without the so-called debunkers throwing out a myriad of bullsh!t tactics. It's no different than explaining to a haughty practictioner your best move. Their response is always "Oh, well I'd just do that and...". Never gets anywhere.

In the words of Penn and Teller: “Elvis didn’t do no drugs!”

[Kymus]

C'mon Kymus, don't you realize that it was all just a coincidence!
That and the fact that just about everyone in any position of authority in the US are a bunch of bumbling incompetent idiots.
Just look at the results of Hurricane Katrina, if that wasn't a total cluster****, it should convince anyone of the total failure of your government institutions....Oh wait that was all a coincidence too:rolleyes:

OKay let the character assination begin:D

You're right, it's just coincidence that Hitler used the same tactics that Bush is using, and we all know that Bush is an infallable leader. Anyone who says different must be a scum sucking liberal that hates God and hates this country!! I don't need to research anything for myself because I know that right wing politicians never lie. If Emperor Bush says it was all coincidence (http://www.thewebfairy.com/killtown/oddities.html), then it was.

(and a note for my little buddies: For the love of God, that link that I posted is provided for humor. It doesn't make me right, it doesn't make the government wrong, it doesn't make you wrong. Just thought I'd put up a disclaimer to avoid more theorisations. Have a nice day :) :) )

[rogue]

You and Rogue have already demonstrated to me that there is no point in it. Even if I were to give a long and detailed explanation, you both would still say “that’s wrong because of (theory)”. I should of learned my lesson the first hundred times: when people care more about their favourite poltical party than the truth (whatever it may be), there will be no progress. Honestly, I’ve never once seen a debate on 9/11 without the so-called debunkers throwing out a myriad of bullsh!t tactics. It's no different than explaining to a haughty practictioner your best move. Their response is always "Oh, well I'd just do that and...". Never gets anywhere.


Perhaps another day I will take the time to show these poor arguments made by the supposed debunkers in detail. From the Kymus Blog (http://phracktivist.blogspot.com/) which contains a reference to this thread.

And we'll be waiting a very long time for that day. By your own admission you haven't presented us with any details.


Creating strawman arguments, spinning things people have said and telling people they're wrong on a subject you know nothing about isn't explaining, it's called bullsh!t tactics.
That's an assumption on your part, how do you know what MP or myself know or doesn't know?

[Merryprankster]

See, that’s another example of a strawman argument. Am I now demystifying this mysterious jargon that’s right there in the encyclopedia?

Actually, what you did is precisely what you have done throughout your "debate." You have evaluated a statement without the context. You have attacked a specific thing while failing to refute the arc of the story. I made the comment to which you responded to demonstrate that the sort of "logic" you are engaged in is the sort of "logic" creationists engage in.

HOWEVER, in CONTEXT, it should have become clear that I was simply stating that you are embarking along the same fallacious argumentation.

That is not, in fact, a strawman. You are trying to poke holes in an argument by citing instances of weakness in that argument, such as information gaps, while ignoring the story arc. This is exactly how creationists argue. The fallacy committed by the creationists, and by you, is the argumentum ad logicam.

Since I seem to be having trouble communicating why I think your arguments are equivalent, allow me to 'splain.

The creationists cite specific instances where evolutionary theory has either failed to find complete evidence supporting their theory, or where evolutionary theory appears to contain impossible elements. They then state "Evolutionary theory is wrong and unreliable and unproven." This ignores an alternative: That the theory might be incorrect in part, but perhaps largely correct - and is therefore correct and reliable in the majority. They have successfully cited instances of doubt ie, gaps in our knowledge, but those instances to not, of themselves, negate the entire arc of Evolutionary Theory.

Similarly, you cite specific instances where the 9/11 story has failed to find complete evidence in support of that story, or where the story appears to contain impossible elements, such as:


I’ve seen lengthy discussions on this subject by engineers and physicists. Both are missing something.

You successfully cite instances of gaps in our knowledge, but those instances do not negate the 9/11 story arc. They are not even suspicious, inherently.

On to the next part: Where you (paraphrasing here, don't want to get anybody confused) laugh at the people who throw burden of proof at you.

There is a very simple reason for this: When you suggest that the totality of the evidence DOES indicate government conspiracy, and state so, you have just made a proposition.

And what do we all remember from our days in debate and rhetoric, boys and girls? That it is the burden of the proposing side in the debate to prove its claims. This is why I say it is not enough to shoot holes in the theory, but that you need to present a coherent, workable story. By advocating a particular stance, you have changed your status from "critical skeptic," of the 9/11 theory, into the proposition. And, in so doing, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate the validity of your claims. In legal terms, you have taken on the role of the prosecutor.

Now, if you are merely limiting your commentary to "critical skeptic," then I have misunderstood your position, and offer my apologies on that count - but maintain my criticism of your arguments - and acknowledge that you can quite properly occupy the role of the "defense." That is, you can punch holes in the official story all day long with glee.

But, if you are actually advocating the proposition, then you must go beyond punching holes to make your point. You must actually prove your point before anybody should be expected to take it seriously. And so far, all I see are some holes that do not invalidate the story arc, and of which there are majority expert interpretations supporting the official story arc, opposed by a few rather noisy dissenters. I also see some coincidences that some might take as "evidence" that the government was involved. In legal parlance, it would be circumstancial evidence - and what I have seen is not nearly strong enough to make the case.

Note: Lest somebody try to nail me with appeal to authority/majority, citing consensual, expert opinion on a subject is hardly considered fallacious in a debate.... after all, how do you think scientific consensus is reached? I will admit that that consensus can be wrong, however, and the fullness of time would presumably bear that out.

And, if you are merely implying that foul play is afoot along the "something fishy is going on here," lines, then that is your opinion, and while I think worth entertaining as a conversation piece, hardly rises to the level of either of the above circumstances.

Regarding Unions, I'm not sure I was clear:

With respect to your discussion of my "hypocrisy." I stated at the beginning of my postings regarding "Unions committed 9/11" that the purpose of the story was to demonstrate how easily the argumentum ad ignoratum can be constructed. I don't know how you could possibly have thought that this:


Mind you, there's no evidence for it, but I never intended there to be. I think it might make for a good novel - or maybe even the Godfather IV.

was anything other than acknowledging that the "Union Theory" was a spurious invention, designed only to make a point. I have no intention of spreading this around as some sort of alternative theory. It exists only to show the ease with which a good, non-falsifiable fiction can be built. It is one fundamental problem with conspiracy that any evidence contradicting "their" story only shows you the depths/heights to which the conspirators go to cover up the "truth," or the depths/heights of the "stupidity/credulity of the herd." Never mind the neo-con like Argumentum ad Baculum....

Of course, the mainstream approach of calling conspiracy theorists crazy isn't much better.

[Kymus]

From the Kymus Blog (http://phracktivist.blogspot.com/) which contains a reference to this thread.

And we'll be waiting a very long time for that day. By your own admission you haven't presented us with any details.

If you want to think that I do not base my words on things that I can prove, go right ahead. It really doesn't matter to me any.


That's an assumption on your part, how do you know what MP or myself know or doesn't know?

It's painfully obvious on this subject.

[Kymus]

Actually, what you did is precisely what you have done throughout your "debate." You have evaluated a statement without the context. You have attacked a specific thing while failing to refute the arc of the story.

When someone uses a strawman argument, there's no argument there to begin with. Did that somehow escape you?


I made the comment to which you responded to demonstrate that the sort of "logic" you are engaged in is the sort of "logic" creationists engage in.

Did you somehow miss what I was trying to explain?


HOWEVER, in CONTEXT, it should have become clear that I was simply stating that you are embarking along the same fallacious argumentation.

A fallacious argument eh? Funny, I'm not the one creating conspiracy theories about ooky spooky "jargon", now am I?


That is not, in fact, a strawman. You are trying to poke holes in an argument by citing instances of weakness in that argument, such as information gaps, while ignoring the story arc.

I'm sorry MP, but your precious little strawman arguments are not real arguments, they are phoney arguments that are meant to appear as a valid retort. it doesn't work like that, sorry ;)


This is exactly how creationists argue. The fallacy committed by the creationists, and by you, is the argumentum ad logicam.

Interesting that when you use jargon it's okay, but me? Nahhhh, can't have that.


The creationists cite specific instances where evolutionary theory has either failed to find complete evidence supporting their theory, or where evolutionary theory appears to contain impossible elements.

My step father is very active in this. He has dozens of evolution-debunking books. His entire argument is a strawman. If you're trying to claim that my argument is somehow a strawman, then you are again lying.




Typically, you only get part of this right and fill the rest with the theory that sounds best. Better luck next time!

[quote]You successfully cite instances of gaps in our knowledge, but those instances do not negate the 9/11 story arc.

I'm sorry, but if I honestly believed that just cause I knew of gaps in the official story that you didn't that it somehow made me right and you wrong, that would be a strawman argument. I don't need them, you do. I am simply demonstrating your massive level of ignorance on this subject and how it is incredibly absurd that you tell others they are wrong on a subject you obviously know next to nothing about.


They are not even suspicious, inherently.

Of course. Nothing in the world is wrong with Bush subsequently protecting 9/11 hijackers. Naaah. Bush is great, I think we should throw a party for every single piece of legislation he issues that attacks the Bill of Rights :rolleyes:


On to the next part: Where you (paraphrasing here, don't want to get anybody confused) laugh at the people who throw burden of proof at you.

I have no problem backing my claims. I strongly believe that anyone who makes any claim should back it. The "burden of proof" argument, as I have seen it applied atleast, is always used as an excuse by the intellectually lazy. It's a tool used so that they can sit there and tell someone they are wrong into infinity without actually having to produce a single shred of evidence that debunks the claims or sources provided by the other person. Perhaps when you say burden of proof, you mean is should apply to anyone who makes a comment? If that is your stance, I agree. But the problem is that I have never seen this work that way.


There is a very simple reason for this: When you suggest that the totality of the evidence DOES indicate government conspiracy, and state so, you have just made a proposition.

let me guess: the typical response of the intellectually lazy and moronically partisan: "burden of proof"?


And what do we all remember from our days in debate and rhetoric, boys and girls? That it is the burden of the proposing side in the debate to prove its claims.

The burden of proof rests on anyone who makes a comment. I acknowledge that I have provided .01% of the massive evidence that has been collected against the Bush Administration; but you must've had your eyes closed all those times I explained why I'm not going to bother to go into it in detail. Ever debate a Liberal concerning Clinton? I have. It doesn't get very far. Yourself and Rogue are no different. I've wasted my time in the past with such people, and I care not to do it again. If you were honestly interested in truth, you would of researched this issue a long time ago.


This is why I say it is not enough to shoot holes in the theory, but that you need to present a coherent, workable story. By advocating a particular stance, you have changed your status from "critical skeptic," of the 9/11 theory, into the proposition. And, in so doing, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate the validity of your claims. In legal terms, you have taken on the role of the prosecutor.

I never said it was enough to just shoot holes. But I won't ever put it past you to inject theory to create something that's more acceptable for you.


Now, if you are merely limiting your commentary to "critical skeptic," then I have misunderstood your position, and offer my apologies on that count - but maintain my criticism of your arguments - and acknowledge that you can quite properly occupy the role of the "defense." That is, you can punch holes in the official story all day long with glee.

I already explained my stance a number of posts ago. Would you like me to get the exact # for you?


But, if you are actually advocating the proposition, then you must go beyond punching holes to make your point.

I am advocating that people do their own research and throw away their very, very pathetic partisan stances.


You must actually prove your point before anybody should be expected to take it seriously.

Don't take me seriously, I honestly couldn't care less. If you were interested in the truth more than party leanings, you wouldn't still be supporting the criminal. Same goes for all the little Clinton supporters.


And so far, all I see are some holes that do not invalidate the story arc, and of which there are majority expert interpretations supporting the official story arc, opposed by a few rather noisy dissenters. I also see some coincidences that some might take as "evidence" that the government was involved. In legal parlance, it would be circumstancial evidence - and what I have seen is not nearly strong enough to make the case.

You can research it for yourself. There's more than enough resources out there. I'm sure you hold more alliegance to the Bill of Rights than to your preconcieved notions of what is and is not true on this subject.


Regarding Unions, I'm not sure I was clear

Clear enough to get your theory of me wrong. You can think I am a liar/fool/crazy all you want, but I don't like it when people get totally wrong the vast majority of the 9/11 Truth movement because of their misunderstanding based on ignorance.


It exists only to show the ease with which a good, non-falsifiable fiction can be built.

Anyone who honestly thinks that just because they can create a percievingly infallable story thus makes it true and makes the official story wrong is an idiot and obviously knows nothing about personal research.


It is one fundamental problem with conspiracy that any evidence contradicting "their" story only shows you the depths/heights to which the conspirators go to cover up the "truth," or the depths/heights of the "stupidity/credulity of the herd." Never mind the neo-con like Argumentum ad Baculum....

Tell me MP, is it accurate when someone says that all conservatives base their arguments on bullsh!t talking points just cause that's what the discredited media pundits do? I really don't think so. In fact, I've met some very intelligent conservatives that know their facts. Why do you use such broad brush tactics? Hasn't politics taught you that it's always inacurate when used? I'm no expert on conspiracy theories as I don't read about UFOs or anything like that. But I can tell you that it's quite a gross misunderstanding for you to claim that all conspiracies follow this tactic you mention. This would then apply to real conspiracies such as the military operations I mentioned previously as well as any main-stream recognised instance of the hegelian dialectic (do I need to explain what that means again??).


Of course, the mainstream approach of calling conspiracy theorists crazy isn't much better.

I believe in researching something and then using that to determine whether someone is right or wrong. Many are still trying to comprehend this and until then will rely on such 5th grader tactics as you mentioned.