The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

Discussions on 9/11, moon landing etc.

Moderators: Calilasseia, DarthHelmet86, Onyx8

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#21  Postby uke2se » May 05, 2010 6:37 pm

HoG wrote:
HoG wrote:I'll humour you uke2se, but really I'm just bookmarking the new thread.

- Hijacked airliners slammed into the WTC towers and the Pentagon: WTC, Accept. Pentagon, don't know but I'm leaning towards accept.

- The resulting damage and fires caused the towers to collapse: Don't know but I'm leaning towards accept.

- Debris from the collapse of the towers caused fires in WTC 7: Accept

- Damage from the collapse of the towers ruptured the water mains, knocking out any fire fighting effort in WTC7: Accept

- After burning for many hours, WTC7 collapsed due to the fire weakening the structure: Do not accept. If you re-word it to after burning for many hours, WTC7 collapsed due to fire weakening the structure and the damage caused from the collapse of WTC1 and WTC2, than I would say I don't know but I'm leaning towards accepting it.


I don't get it. You don't know but lean towards accepting the official story doesn't mean it's left out of the official story. The main points are those I listed, or did I forget any?
User avatar
uke2se
 
Posts: 641

Sweden (se)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#22  Postby HoG » May 05, 2010 6:44 pm

I never said you were missing parts from your list, I said "I still don't fully accept the official explanation as I do think it leaves things out." There are things that the official story has left out, that makes me answer "don't know" to some of your questions as opposed to "accept". You already know what some of those items are as I've discussed them with you in the past.
"There's no justice like angry mob justice" - Principle Skinner
User avatar
HoG
 
Posts: 105
Age: 37
Male

Country: Canada
Jolly Roger (arr)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#23  Postby uke2se » May 05, 2010 6:49 pm

HoG wrote:I never said you were missing parts from your list, I said "I still don't fully accept the official explanation as I do think it leaves things out." There are things that the official story has left out, that makes me answer "don't know" to some of your questions as opposed to "accept". You already know what some of those items are as I've discussed them with you in the past.


Ok, but the items on my list are the official story. That means that if you accept them, you accept the official story. As you are at least leaning towards accepting all but one of them, we have a good starting point.

Now, you need to present a case for the ones you feel are unanswered. This case must contain:

- What other possibilities there are than those the official story presents (reasonable possibilities).
- What evidence there is for these possibilities.
- What would alter in the main conclusion of the official story if the alternative possibilities were found to be true.
- How we test for these alternative possibilities.
- What it would take for you to accept them as fully tested.

I'm glad we can have this structured discussion. It keeps the burden of evidence on the one making the claim (you, in this case), and it lets us analyze something to a conclusion instead of running around in circles.

/Edit: I should note, this entails making claims that could possibly be tested in other ways than what you describe. For example, a claim of thermite residue would be linked to a claim of controlled demolition, which could be tested for in other ways.
User avatar
uke2se
 
Posts: 641

Sweden (se)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#24  Postby HoG » May 05, 2010 6:58 pm

Why do I need to present a case? If i have questions, why do i have to have the answers in order to ask them? I am not trying to prove anything, all I am saying and have been saying since i got here however many pages ago is that there are aspects of the official story that I question. Last time I presented these questions I got caught up in having to present and defend a hypothesis that I didn't necissarily believe in order to ask them. I'm not going down that road again as it goes nowhere and is frustrating for both parties involved.

Now if you want me to ask my questions again I will, but I am NOT going to present a case as I don't have a case.
"There's no justice like angry mob justice" - Principle Skinner
User avatar
HoG
 
Posts: 105
Age: 37
Male

Country: Canada
Jolly Roger (arr)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#25  Postby hotshoe » May 05, 2010 7:20 pm

Bookmarking the new thread, just in case 8-)
Now, when I talked to God I knew he'd understand
He said, "Stick by my side and I'll be your guiding hand
But don't ask me what I think of you
I might not give the answer that you want me to"
hotshoe
 
Posts: 3177

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread

#26  Postby PJG » May 05, 2010 8:28 pm

Moridin wrote:
No, because a fossil rabbit in the Precambrian (you didn't even get that quote right) is not an unexplained anomaly, it is something much more; it is something that can neither be predicted nor accommodated by evolution. This is not the same as unexplained anomalies. Every controlled scientific experiment you read about in Science or Nature most likely has unexplained anomalies, but if you look at the bigger picture, you will see that these are not really relevant.


I think I remember writing it - *checks* - yep – I said that if the microspheres are anomalous, then that is fine. I completely agree with you, anomalies are (and should be) dismissed as irrelevant. However, if there were hundreds of tons of Fe-rich microspheres in the WTC dust, then they would be representative, not anomalous, and they would - I will add "almost certainly" - falsify the fire-induced progressive collapse theory put forward by NIST – hence my reference to the fossil rabbit**


Moridin wrote:
But please, stop your passive aggressive tactic of being opressed (no one is buying it) and tell us what would disprove your position. Stop squirming. Describe what would disprove your position or admit that your belief is unfalsifiable.


You still do not seem to understand my “position” or my “belief”, as you call it – and I certainly don’t feel “oppressed” – why would you think that? Nor am I “squirming” - are you serious? If you ever read back on the old thread, you might understand why I am not going to get into long discussions with people who are no more able to answer my questions than I am. I am not suggesting this includes you, I am explaining why I chose not to respond to certain posts. I spent hours and hours explaining to one individual who did not believe the spherules existed not only that they existed but what they are, how they are formed, their chemical signatures and so on, including looking up links to papers and micrographs and so on, to have that individual turn around and claim that they were "rust". Following that, I responded to another post with fairly detailed reasons why a JREF Forumite had given irrelevant "evidence" to discredit a paper and not a single point was addressed, instead, the response entirely consisted of personal attacks. I'm not going that way again.... I hope you understand.

Back to your post:

It seems that “I don’t know” is not acceptable on this thread. I know that, had you made the list I suggested, that almost every single answer I would give would be “I don’t know” – with a few “accepts”, no doubt. However, those who support the official story claim that they DO know – when it is patently clear that most of the "evidence" they cite is irrelevant - it neither supports nor counters their claim that the official story is true. Also, as you may observe is happening to HoG at the moment, claims that there are some things that do not "fit" are being met by an insistence that he presents a case. If it goes the way it did with me, he will be asked for a complete alternative scenario - with means, motive and opportunity of each player neatly mapped out, with evidence bagged and labelled. This is what an investigation does - you don't present the evidence to the judge before the investigation has been carried out.

The problem is that IF the NIST report is falsified then the entire official claim is suspect.

** You are correct, of course, about the quotation, but are you seriously suggesting that had I said, “finding a fossil rabbit in the Silurian", you would not have understood the concept?

Edit for grammar
User avatar
PJG
 
Posts: 204
Female

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#27  Postby uke2se » May 05, 2010 10:50 pm

HoG wrote:Why do I need to present a case? If i have questions, why do i have to have the answers in order to ask them?


If you truly have questions about 9/11 and you aren't satisfied by the answers we have already given to the questions you have posted, email one of the people who wrote the NIST report. JAQing off on the interwebs is wooish behavior. If your questions are in any way pertinent to the major points of the official story, you should be able to provide something for people to understand why you are asking the question in the first place.

For example, let's go back to your point about how lamp poles couldn't have wound up where they did by Pentagon on 9/11. This question is completely useless unless the premise is to establish if something other than a plane hit the Pentagon. As such, if we can determine that a plane in fact did hit the Pentagon, you can withdraw your question as the answer is obviously that, yes, lamp poles could have wound up where they did. Context is important. Picking up details without context is useless.

/Edit: Another example I probably should give is the spherules which PJG goes on and on about. Anything regarding the spherules is completely useless unless it can be shown that the towers didn't come down as a result of the planes and fires. As we have scientific studies that show that the towers could and did come down as a result of the planes and fires, and a report that says that WTC7 could and did come down as a result of fires, the spherules are just an anomalous detail, ripped from it's context. I'm not entirely sure it's even that, as I seriously doubt PJG has as firm a grasp on this as she likes to claim. The spherules are most likely not really anomalous at all, and are just the result of the fires that day.

HoG wrote:
I am not trying to prove anything, all I am saying and have been saying since i got here however many pages ago is that there are aspects of the official story that I question.


Which parts of the official story that I posted do you question? Do you doubt that a plane hit the Pentagon? If so, would showing you plane debris fix that? Do you doubt that fire and plane damage could bring the WTC towers down? If so, would presenting scientific evidence for it help?

What could have hit the Pentagon except for the airliner that eyewitnesses said they saw and cause the kind of damage and debris we see at the Pentagon? Could a cruise missile knock down the lamp poles? How about the WTC towers? What could have brought them down except for the planes and the fires?

HoG wrote:
Last time I presented these questions I got caught up in having to present and defend a hypothesis that I didn't necissarily believe in order to ask them. I'm not going down that road again as it goes nowhere and is frustrating for both parties involved.


As I said, just JAQing off is wooish behaviour. Last time we talked I answered all your questions. You weren't satisfied. What would satisfyingly answer your questions?

HoG wrote:
Now if you want me to ask my questions again I will, but I am NOT going to present a case as I don't have a case.


That's alright. Answer to this post instead. It seems to me that you have an unfalsifiable belief. Please prove me wrong. What would make you change your mind?
Last edited by uke2se on May 05, 2010 11:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
uke2se
 
Posts: 641

Sweden (se)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread

#28  Postby uke2se » May 05, 2010 10:52 pm

PJG wrote:
Moridin wrote:
No, because a fossil rabbit in the Precambrian (you didn't even get that quote right) is not an unexplained anomaly, it is something much more; it is something that can neither be predicted nor accommodated by evolution. This is not the same as unexplained anomalies. Every controlled scientific experiment you read about in Science or Nature most likely has unexplained anomalies, but if you look at the bigger picture, you will see that these are not really relevant.


I think I remember writing it - *checks* - yep – I said that if the microspheres are anomalous, then that is fine. I completely agree with you, anomalies are (and should be) dismissed as irrelevant. However, if there were hundreds of tons of Fe-rich microspheres in the WTC dust, then they would be representative, not anomalous, and they would - I will add "almost certainly" - falsify the fire-induced progressive collapse theory put forward by NIST – hence my reference to the fossil rabbit**


Moridin wrote:
But please, stop your passive aggressive tactic of being opressed (no one is buying it) and tell us what would disprove your position. Stop squirming. Describe what would disprove your position or admit that your belief is unfalsifiable.


You still do not seem to understand my “position” or my “belief”, as you call it – and I certainly don’t feel “oppressed” – why would you think that? Nor am I “squirming” - are you serious? If you ever read back on the old thread, you might understand why I am not going to get into long discussions with people who are no more able to answer my questions than I am. I am not suggesting this includes you, I am explaining why I chose not to respond to certain posts. I spent hours and hours explaining to one individual who did not believe the spherules existed not only that they existed but what they are, how they are formed, their chemical signatures and so on, including looking up links to papers and micrographs and so on, to have that individual turn around and claim that they were "rust". Following that, I responded to another post with fairly detailed reasons why a JREF Forumite had given irrelevant "evidence" to discredit a paper and not a single point was addressed, instead, the response entirely consisted of personal attacks. I'm not going that way again.... I hope you understand.

Back to your post:

It seems that “I don’t know” is not acceptable on this thread. I know that, had you made the list I suggested, that almost every single answer I would give would be “I don’t know” – with a few “accepts”, no doubt. However, those who support the official story claim that they DO know – when it is patently clear that most of the "evidence" they cite is irrelevant - it neither supports nor counters their claim that the official story is true. Also, as you may observe is happening to HoG at the moment, claims that there are some things that do not "fit" are being met by an insistence that he presents a case. If it goes the way it did with me, he will be asked for a complete alternative scenario - with means, motive and opportunity of each player neatly mapped out, with evidence bagged and labelled. This is what an investigation does - you don't present the evidence to the judge before the investigation has been carried out.

The problem is that IF the NIST report is falsified then the entire official claim is suspect.

** You are correct, of course, about the quotation, but are you seriously suggesting that had I said, “finding a fossil rabbit in the Silurian", you would not have understood the concept?

Edit for grammar


You still didn't answer the challenge, despite all those words. How about you attempt to engage in rational discourse for once and just answer what could falsify your beliefs?
User avatar
uke2se
 
Posts: 641

Sweden (se)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#29  Postby Moridin » May 05, 2010 11:02 pm

Though-provoking post PJG, but I am afraid that you still did not answer my question. Also, I do not think that you are strictly honest in saying that your position is purely agnostic. If so, why have you spent arguing dozen after dozen of pages arguing for popular truther positions using popular truther arguments and assertions?

So, what would falsify your position?

We are not going away. You cannot squirm your way out of this one; we will simply keep asking. :)
User avatar
Moridin
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 810
Male

Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#30  Postby BlackBart » May 06, 2010 8:21 am

:popcorn:
You don't crucify people! Not on Good Friday! - Harold Shand
User avatar
BlackBart
 
Name: rotten bart
Posts: 12152
Age: 58
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#31  Postby econ41 » May 06, 2010 9:04 am

:popcorn: :coffee: :drunk:
User avatar
econ41
 
Posts: 1283
Age: 79
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#32  Postby PJG » May 06, 2010 9:13 am

Moridin wrote:Though-provoking post PJG, but I am afraid that you still did not answer my question. Also, I do not think that you are strictly honest in saying that your position is purely agnostic. If so, why have you spent arguing dozen after dozen of pages arguing for popular truther positions using popular truther arguments and assertions?

So, what would falsify your position?

We are not going away. You cannot squirm your way out of this one; we will simply keep asking. :)



I will humour you but if you like, my answer will only show that you have misunderstood my "position" since it is not a case of "falsification", it is a case of getting satisfactory answers and you don't seem to understand this. I fully accept it may be my inability to get the message across, but I am not sure how to say it in any other way.

The "falsification" of my "agnostic" position in the case of the collapse of the buildings would be a satisfactory answer to the question of the cause of the microspheres - including, either, verification that the samples to date were anomalies or an explanation of the cause of them if the samples were representative as to how limited ordinary office fires and gravitational collapse could account for them.
The "falsification" of my "agnostic" position regarding whether a plane hit the Pentagon would be properly verified video footage from one or more of the 84 (?) CCTV cameras confiscated by the government. I would probably be pushed towards acceptance by release of the final seconds of the flight recorder - this is probably too late now.
The "falsification" of my "agnostic" position regarding whether the plane in Shanksville crashed or was shot down would be acknowledgement by someone in the air force that it was shot down and they did it - or CVR evidence that the hijackers were flying the plane when it crashed.
The "falsification" of my "agnostic" position regarding whether the US government were operating some sort of cover-up or even were actively involved would be complete disclosure of information (other than individuals' names which may endanger them or their families) which was denied the 9/11 Commission, FEMA and NIST with samples from the buildings/dust etc being given to independent laboratories.

You see, one of my big questions, if it really was 19 fundamentalist nutters with zero connection to the government and their only motive was "hating America's freedoms", is why on Earth would the government destroy evidence, restrict access to evidence, block investigation - people resigned from the 911 Commission over this - and confiscate evidence from private companies/citizens - as they did with the Pentagon videos? It doesn't make sense. But it isn't "evidence" FOR complicity either -therefore I am "agnostic".

Also, there are loads and loads of things that are unverifiable - either way. On these I am agnostic in the true sense of the word, I think they are "unknowable". I'll give you a few examples - and I have many:

Was it "fundamentalist Islamic hijackers who hated America who flew the planes into the buildings?" I don't know. The official "evidence" includes a passport that miraculously escaped destruction of the plane, the "inferno at the crash site that weakened the building" and initiate the collapse and the collapse itself. Is that possible - yes it is possible. Could the passport have been planted? Is it possible? Yes it is possible. If it was not planted, then the official story holds up. If it was planted, the official story collapses. I don't know which it was AND NEITHER DO YOU. Would you believe someone who, in ten years say, came out and said they had planted the passport? I probably would not but nor am I convinced that it survived as the official story claims - it is POSSIBLE, but I find it unlikely. It seems even more "unlikely" in view of the fact that, according to the official story, not one of the four black boxes from the two planes that hit the buildings were found - not found at all - you know, not crushed beyond use, not found in bits, nothing. That seems "odd". Is it possible that they were missed - when passports and fragments of bones were found? Yes, it is possible so I remain, as in most of the official vs. truther claims, agnostic.

You ask me why I have remained on this thread all this time, it is for two reasons. First, I am genuinely interested in 9/11 - I have spent a great deal of time reading about it and trying to come to a conclusion with regards to which side of the fence I sit on - and I sit on the side that thinks there are questions that can and should be answered before it is "put to bed" and so I support a new investigation. However, the second reason is that I am interested in the psychology of belief - I did confess at one point that I am a psychologist by training though my (paid) work is nothing to do with that now.

My "specialism" is the origin of religious belief and, having been researching 9/11, I noticed the uncanny similarities between the defence of religious beliefs and that of the "official story" with regards to 9/11. One of the interesting things about the development of religious beliefs appears to be (and you probably know this) the transference of the (all-powerful, all-loving and all-knowing) parental "protection" of the child into adulthood, once the (dependent) infant recognises that its human carers are not all-powerful, all-loving and all-knowing - they are human. What I have noticed is that some atheists transfer this need to the government. The origin of the word "patriotism" is "father". The need for this (government) father, (as opposed to the "God" father) to be all-powerful, all-knowing and, perhaps most important of all, all-loving, is as strong in a "patriot" as the need for God to be those things in someone of religious faith. One of the things that people seem to find most unpalatable about 9/11 is the mere possibility that "their own government could murder its own citizens". This is clearly nonsense - governments have been "disappearing" people as long as there have been governments, they have certainly been sacrificing their young men in armies for millennia.

I won't go on. You see - motive is all. My interest in 9/11 was sparked by the apparent evidence of a government involvement, but my motive for remaining on this thread has been mostly because of my interest in the psychology of those who want (need?) their governments to be benign.

OK?
User avatar
PJG
 
Posts: 204
Female

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#33  Postby econ41 » May 06, 2010 10:09 am

PJG wrote:... it is a case of getting satisfactory answers and you don't seem to understand this.
Where you apply a fundamentally different meaning to the word "satisfactory".

"We" - me and most others posting here, by "satisfactory" mean an answer which is soundly based on evidence and valid application of logic.

"You" however seem to mean "satisfactory to your own emotions or feelings" PLUS being a shifting target every time one of us gives a "satisfactory" answer in the normal usage meaning of "satisfactory" as applies to discussions of this type.

Taking only one of your issues:
PJG wrote:...The "falsification" of my "agnostic" position in the case of the collapse of the buildings would be a satisfactory answer to the question of the cause of the microspheres - including, either, verification that the samples to date were anomalies or an explanation of the cause of them if the samples were representative as to how limited ordinary office fires and gravitational collapse could account for them.


You already have posted on these threads OR their RDNet predecessors OR any number of other sites satisfactory answers to each of the partial questions in this example. Remember that you have, on this occasion, granted us a defined boundary to the issue under consideration. It is "...in the case of the collapse of the buildings..." So the answers are:
  1. "...would be a satisfactory answer to the question of the cause of the microspheres" - the satisfactory answer is that there is no evidence of any incendiary being used to assist the collapses AND the logistic/security aspects of any potential use make such use impossible using that term in the normal meaning for communication with lay persons THEREFORE the microspheres, if they are representative which is unproven, are anomalous evidence within the context of "...the case of the collapse of the buildings ..." ;
  2. "...verification that the samples to date were anomalies..." - already done under the previous. The microspheres are irrelevant whether or not their presence as representative samples can be verified.
  3. "...an explanation of the cause of them if the samples were representative as to how limited ordinary office fires and gravitational collapse could account for them..." - simply reveals the bias as to which way you want the answers to fall.
  4. Taking the core bit "...how limited ordinary office fires and gravitational collapse..." - strawman false premise. Remember you allowed the question to be limited to "...the collapse of the buildings..." meaning WTC1, WTC2 & WTC7 to be sure you cannot misrepresent the next statement. Your premise is false hence "strawman" The collapses of those buildings did not involve "..ordinary office fires..." Since your premise is false the bits standing on it fail also. HOWEVER
  5. "...collapse could account for them..." - straight forward false logic. The microspheres evidence, if it is valid, is anomalous. It could be caused by anything. You cannot link its causality to the collapse (without doing some real work of explanation.)

So how about you start to use words such as "satisfactory" with the same meaning as the rest of us?

OR use your own word to describe the subjective self serving meaning you seem to have in mind.

OR at the least publish what meaning you want to apply to "satisfactory" and let the rest of us find an alternative word to describe "proper answers".
User avatar
econ41
 
Posts: 1283
Age: 79
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#34  Postby Galaxian » May 06, 2010 10:25 am

Moridin wrote:
I think a quote from Michael Shermer could be fitting here.
"The belief that a handful of unexplained anomalies can undermine a well-established theory lies at the heart of all conspiratorial thinking (that includes, in addition to Holocaust denial, creationism and crank theories of physics), and is easily refuted by noting that beliefs and theories are not built on single facts alone, but on a convergence of evidence from multiple lines of inquiry. All of the “evidence” for a 9/11 conspiracy falls under the rubric of this fallacy" - Michael Shermer
http://trueslant.com/michaelshermer/201 ... -truthers/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-s ... 84154.html

And who the fuck is Michael Shermer but an establishment toadie? How does he even begin to compare with the brilliance of Galaxian?
But, seeing that you've swallowed something of him hook, line & sinker, let's humour you & him a little longer: "...beliefs and theories are not built on single facts alone, but on a convergence of evidence from multiple lines of inquiry."
Shermer is evidently too preoccupied with trivialities to have researched 9/11 or 7/7, (see attendant thread), but his arrogance (or coercion or pay-off) compelled him to jerk off with an inane remark.
Here is the "convergence of evidence from multiple lines of inquiry which you & Shermer put down to chance:
1) That the air defense of NY & Washington DC was stood down on 9/11.
2) That WTC 1 & 2 were hit by non-commercial planes; as evident from the bulky add-on under their fuselage.
3) That the planes impacting WTC 1 & 2 were preceded milliseconds before impact by a flash of light.
4) That 3 towers, of 110 floors & 47 floors, collapsed at close to freefall accelaration, despite the fact that each floor had to collide with & dis-engage each floor below it, and thus set it accelarating, from scratch. So how did they reach the ground as fast as if there had been nothing in the way?
5) That 3 towers, of 110 floors & 47 floors, fell on to their own footprint, despite the fact that natural variability in inter-floor impact & failure would have given them a preferred lateral movement.
6) That 3 towers, of 110 floors & 47 floors, fell within minutes or hours, supposedly due to a fire, even though that fire was low intensity, and secluded, and no tower in history had collapsed due to fire, even when the whole tower was engulfed in the conflagration.
7) That the massive steel core of WTC 1&2 was brought down by the flimsy connections of light floors.
8) that squibs are clearly seen emanating tens of metres outwards from floors below the collapse.
9) That there are numerous witness reports of explosions at lower levels, long before & at time of collapse.
10) That thermate has been found in the dust from the towers.
11) That light poles were neatly, and gently bent over (at the Pentagon). Where an impact of 400+ mph would have mangled them & flung them far from their foundations.
12) That amateur Cessna trainees with very few hours & little talent ALL managed to direct large jet airliners to bulls-eye hits...except for 1 which was heroically brought down by the passengers.
13) That very little plane debris was found at the Pentagon or Pennsylvania, and no bodies or luggage either, contrary to all other land impacts, even into mountainsides.
14) That the lawn at the Pentagon was left neatly trimmed & unscathed.
15) That fuel-fed fires at the Pentagon left timber & paper untouched.
16) That plane parts were found up to several miles away from the Pennsylvania crash site, but not at it.
17) That WTC 7, fell, again on its own footprint, for no clear reason (no, fire was NOT it).
18) That there are a significant number of witnesses with accounts contrary to the official mantra.
19) That the 9/11 Commission was long delayed & only set up under protest. That the White House refused to answer questions. That the Commission refused to accept witness testimony from contrarians. That a single dissenter on the Commission meant that a point was not admissible.
20) That NIST constantly hedged its bets & either refused to be candid or blundered in its replies.
21) That, contrary to ALL laws & protocols of criminal investigation, the debris was urgently cleared AND DESTROYED, so that no forensic investigation could be carried out.
22) That similar scenarios had been contemplated several times by high office, and 'war-games' based on such scenarios were in operation at the time.
23) That Rice denied that the Administration had ever contemplated such a possibility. That she was soon to reveal evidence of Bin-Laden's orchestrating of 9/11.
24) But her evidence...which never materialized...was so weak that to this day the FBI has not charged Bin-Laden with anything to do with 9/11.
25) That we even have slip-up or admissions by some of the central players from Bush down to Silverstein.
26) That the destruction of 2 nations, & the murder of over a million people was launched on the back of 9/11. With later evidence, (& admissions) that the reasons for war were fabricated...as was the blame for 9/11.
27) That, to this day, not one of the administration, from President & Prime Minister, down to filing clerk has been arraigned for trial on charges of treason, launching wars of aggression, war crimes, torture, etc.

ETC. ETC...
The above looks like more than a 'single fact'. It looks like a hell of a lot more than you lot have to offer.
So, dig up that filthy, gormless quote of yours, stick it in a pipe, & smoke it! Send some to Shermer as well. :smoke:
The true seeker looks for the truth wherever it may be and readily accepts it, without shame, without hope for reward and without fear of punishment_Sam Nejad

To know who rules over you find out who you are not allowed to criticize. -Voltaire
User avatar
Galaxian
Banned User
 
Posts: 1307

Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#35  Postby Jumbo » May 06, 2010 10:43 am

Just a few things, aviation related that i can be bothered at the moment to mention, that have i'm sure been done to death.

2) That WTC 1 & 2 were hit by non-commercial planes; as evident from the bulky add-on under their fuselage.

The 'bulky add on to the fuselage is not an add on at all.

I'm sure this has been pointed out before but:
United Airlines Flight 175 Was a Boeing 767-200. American Airlines Flight 11 was a Boeing Boeing 767-200ER.
IIRC The 'bulky add on' is simply the contour of the wing meeting the fuselage. Seen from certain angles it shows as being markedly different from the generally cylindrical fuselage cross section.

3) That the planes impacting WTC 1 & 2 were preceded milliseconds before impact by a flash of light.

Specular reflections on shiny aircraft are hardly unheard of.

10) That amateur Cessna trainees with very few hours & little talent ALL managed to direct large jet airliners to bulls-eye hits...except for 1 which was heroically brought down by the passengers.

They aimed at some of the largest and most distinct targets in each area in good weather and hitting them would require using only the primary flight controls (Stick and rudder + Throttle). Detailed knowledge of the aircraft systems wouldn't be needed. Landing and emergency procedures along with instrument flying and navigation (other than simple vfr eyeballing) are what require pilot skill and consume training time.

11) That very little plane debris was found at the Pentagon or Pennsylvania, and no bodies or luggage either, contrary to all other land impacts, even into mountainsides.

184 bodies were identified form the pentagon crash site.
The Feynman Problem-Solving Algorithm

1. Write down the problem.
2. Think very hard.
3. Write down the answer.
User avatar
Jumbo
 
Posts: 3599
Age: 41
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread

#36  Postby Galaxian » May 06, 2010 10:49 am

uke2se wrote:
PJG wrote:
Tell you what - you make a list of the things that you think represent the "mainstream view presented in this thread" and I will tell you if I "accept", "don't believe/accept" or "don't know".
- Hijacked airliners slammed into the WTC towers and the Pentagon.
- The resulting damage and fires caused the towers to collapse.
- Debris from the collapse of the towers caused fires in WTC 7.
- Damage from the collapse of the towers ruptured the water mains, knocking out any fire fighting effort in WTC7.
- After burning for many hours, WTC7 collapsed due to the fire weakening the structure.
- A hijacked plane crashed in Pennsylvania due to a struggle between passengers and hijackers.
- The criminals perpetrating the attacks were 19 misguided Muslim extremists, funded in part by rich Muslim extremists.
That's the mainstream view. What do you not agree with?

What a load of CRAP. That is NOT the mainstream view! the mainstream view by a big margin is that 9/11 was a totally inside job or hugely aided & abetted by the US secret services & possibly Israel's Mossad.
And yu fucking well know what we don't agree with, don't play silly buggers; this is a serious issue.
Since you don't even know what the mainstream view is; the opposite of "Truther" is "Liar" is it not??? :coffee:
The true seeker looks for the truth wherever it may be and readily accepts it, without shame, without hope for reward and without fear of punishment_Sam Nejad

To know who rules over you find out who you are not allowed to criticize. -Voltaire
User avatar
Galaxian
Banned User
 
Posts: 1307

Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#37  Postby cursuswalker » May 06, 2010 10:50 am

Galaxian wrote:
12) That amateur Cessna trainees with very few hours & little talent ALL managed to direct large jet airliners to bulls-eye hits...except for 1 which was heroically brought down by the passengers.


I'll take this one.

The WTC towers were hardly bullseyes were they? And the second plane only just hit.

The pentagon was a bit harder, but not impossible.

And United 93 didn't make it. That's a 25% failure rate.
Image http://www.caerabred.org/

Space Corps Directive 723. 'Terraformers are expressly forbidden from recreating Swindon.'
User avatar
cursuswalker
 
Posts: 3311
Age: 53
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#38  Postby Galaxian » May 06, 2010 10:52 am

cursuswalker wrote:
Galaxian wrote:
12) That amateur Cessna trainees with very few hours & little talent ALL managed to direct large jet airliners to bulls-eye hits...except for 1 which was heroically brought down by the passengers.
I'll take this one.
The WTC towers were hardly bullseyes were they? And the second plane only just hit.
The pentagon was a bit harder, but not impossible.
And United 93 didn't make it. That's a 25% failure rate.

Oh, goody goody, you found something!
Get back to me after you've done a Cessna course for a few weeks. Ever heard of 'homing beacons', eh? :coffee:
The true seeker looks for the truth wherever it may be and readily accepts it, without shame, without hope for reward and without fear of punishment_Sam Nejad

To know who rules over you find out who you are not allowed to criticize. -Voltaire
User avatar
Galaxian
Banned User
 
Posts: 1307

Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#39  Postby cursuswalker » May 06, 2010 10:57 am

Galaxian wrote:
cursuswalker wrote:
Galaxian wrote:
12) That amateur Cessna trainees with very few hours & little talent ALL managed to direct large jet airliners to bulls-eye hits...except for 1 which was heroically brought down by the passengers.
I'll take this one.
The WTC towers were hardly bullseyes were they? And the second plane only just hit.
The pentagon was a bit harder, but not impossible.
And United 93 didn't make it. That's a 25% failure rate.

Oh, goody goody, you found something!


No, I just can't be bothered going through the whole list. so I suspect it will be dealt with piranha style.

Get back to me after you've done a Cessna course for a few weeks. Ever heard of 'homing beacons', eh? :coffee:


1) Have you? (I don't doubt you might have done)

2) Was any evidence found of a homing beacon? Or any evidence of a signal from one? Let me guess......no because all the evidence was removed by conspirators posing as "rescue workers".

Which of them have come forward anonymously to confess to this?

And can you say, for absolute certain, that there is no cheese on the Moon?

etc.
Image http://www.caerabred.org/

Space Corps Directive 723. 'Terraformers are expressly forbidden from recreating Swindon.'
User avatar
cursuswalker
 
Posts: 3311
Age: 53
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#40  Postby cursuswalker » May 06, 2010 10:58 am

19) That the 9/11 Commission was long delayed & only set up under protest. That the White House refused to answer questions. That the Commission refused to accept witness testimony from contrarians. That a single dissenter on the Commission meant that a point was not admissible.


Have you read the report?
Image http://www.caerabred.org/

Space Corps Directive 723. 'Terraformers are expressly forbidden from recreating Swindon.'
User avatar
cursuswalker
 
Posts: 3311
Age: 53
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Conspiracy Theories

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest