Stundie's "people who don't buy the official theory" thread

[stundie]

Is there a name for the annoying habit of some debaters of dodging pertinent and rational answers to their questions by bringing up other issues instead? Conspiracy theorists are pretty adept at it.

To paraphrase Mohammed Ali, I submit we call it the "float like a bee and sting like a butterfly' tactic.

Yes, it's called being new to the world of forums.

 

[stundie]

So you believe in this Loose-Change-Scenario?

Hahaha!

You cannot assume that I've seen Loose Change and got all my point from there, and yes some of the info is wrong, but not all of it. One of the posts is about Mineta which Loose Change hardly mention (From what I can remember about it!)

So please don't assume that I get my evidence from Loose Change, or even one source.

I've watched and read enough to understand the reasons for 9/11 and why we have the war on terror. But again, it needs another thread!

 

[beachnut]

Space Weapons....Please...I certinaly do not believe anything of a such.

No Planes. Planes hit WTC thats for sure. The only one I do doubt is the Pentagon, show me footage of the plane hitting it and I'll change my opinion.

Controlled Demolition. Yes I do kind of support this theory for various reasons, not just the squibs which you think are air pockets, not just the molten metal which you guys think is either aluminum (Laughable and unstubstantiated considering no plane hit WTC 7 and yet it was found there too) and plenty of other reasons...ignoring the people REPORTING explosions.....anyway I cannot go into because we are going off topic and I'll get a telling off....So I'll leave that one there.

So all you have to do is to present facts to prove there was no DNA from flight 77 in the pentagon.

You need to prove there was not fuel explosion as seen on the frame of the parking lot license plate car camera.

You have to prove all the witnesses did not see flight 77 hit poles and explode at the pentagon.

You have to prove a C-130 crew did not see flight 77 pass them and crash into the Pentagon.

You have to prove it to us. You have chosen the wrong path, you have chosen the CT no fact line of reasoning. You must be Docker!

Cause you have zero facts, zero numbers, no proof. Who are you?

so when will we see your facts to support you ideas, and I would like to see you disprove NIST or PM too?

 

[maccy]

So you believe in this Loose-Change-Scenario?

Oliver, can open a new thread if you want to discuss possible scenarios with stundie?

I think you'r only confusing an already confused thread.

 

[Oliver]

But again, it needs another thread!

Start one.

 

[beachnut]

Hahaha!

You cannot assume that I've seen Loose Change and got all my point from there, and yes some of the info is wrong, but not all of it. One of the posts is about Mineta which Loose Change hardly mention (From what I can remember about it!)

So please don't assume that I get my evidence from Loose Change, or even one source.

I've watched and read enough to understand the reasons for 9/11 and why we have the war on terror. But again, it needs another thread!

Your post prove you wrong!

You have not read much since you use Russ as an expert who says something can not be done when it was. You have not read enough to know anything or explain why PM and NIST differ and what it means. If you had read enough and understood what you read you would understand those who have told you about NIST and PM and how they relate.

Or would you?

 

[stundie]

So all you have to do is to present facts to prove there was no DNA from flight 77 in the pentagon.

You need to prove there was not fuel explosion as seen on the frame of the parking lot license plate car camera.

You have to prove all the witnesses did not see flight 77 hit poles and explode at the pentagon.

You have to prove a C-130 crew did not see flight 77 pass them and crash into the Pentagon.

You have to prove it to us. You have chosen the wrong path, you have chosen the CT no fact line of reasoning. You must be Docker!

Cause you have zero facts, zero numbers, no proof. Who are you?

so when will we see your facts to support you ideas, and I would like to see you disprove NIST or PM too?

You mean proof like this.

http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/news/961654/detail.html

A C-130 transport plane that has been sent to follow Flight 77 is trailing only a short distance behind the plane as it crashes. This curious C-130, originally bound for Minnesota, is the same C-130 that will be 17 miles from Flight 93 when it later crashes into the Pennsylvania countryside. [Star-Tribune (Minneapolis), 9/11/2002; Pittsburgh Channel, 9/15/2001] A number of people see this plane fly remarkably close to Flight 77:

Or how about

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2001/09/17/first-person.htm
USA Today reporter Vin Narayanan, who saw the Pentagon explosion, says, “I hopped out of my car after the jet exploded, nearly oblivious to a second jet hovering in the skies.” [USA Today, 9/17/2001]

USA Today Editor Joel Sucherman sees a second plane but gives few details. [eWeek, 9/13/2001] Brian Kennedy, press secretary for a congressman, and others also see a second plane. [Sacramento Bee, 9/15/2001] Link not working!


or what about....Sorry links aren't working, but the names in google...

John O’Keefe is driving a car when he sees the Pentagon crash. “The first thing I did was pull over onto the shoulder, and when I got out of the car I saw another plane flying over my head. ... Then the plane—it looked like a C-130 cargo plane—started turning away from the Pentagon, it did a complete turnaround.” [New York Law Journal, 9/12/2001]

The pilot of the C-130, Lieutenant Colonel Steve O’Brien, is later interviewed, but his account differs from the on-the-ground eyewitnesses. He claims that just before the explosion, “With all of the East Coast haze, I had a hard time picking him out,” implying he is not nearby. He also says that just after the explosion, “I could see the outline of the Pentagon,” again implying he is not nearby. He then asks “the controller whether should set up a low orbit around the building,” but he is told “to get out of the area as quickly as possible.” “I took the plane once through the plume of smoke and thought if this was a terrorist attack, it probably wasn’t a good idea to be flying through that plume.” [Star-Tribune (Minneapolis), 9/11/2002]

http://www.s-t.com/daily/12-01/12-20-01/a02wn018.htm

An unnamed worker at Arlington National Cemetery “said a mysterious second plane was circling the area when the first one attacked the Pentagon.” [Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 12/20/2001]

No...No evidence whatsoever!!

Stop changing the subject otherwise you'll get me into trouble!! lol

 

[Pardalis]

You know, there is an airport close to the Pentagon...

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

You mean proof like this.

http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/news/961654/detail.html

A C-130 transport plane that has been sent to follow Flight 77 is trailing only a short distance behind the plane as it crashes. This curious C-130, originally bound for Minnesota, is the same C-130 that will be 17 miles from Flight 93 when it later crashes into the Pennsylvania countryside. [Star-Tribune (Minneapolis), 9/11/2002; Pittsburgh Channel, 9/15/2001] A number of people see this plane fly remarkably close to Flight 77:

That article makes no mention of Flight 77. Regarding the C130 and Flight 93 it says,

The FBI said there was also a C-130 military cargo aircraft about 17 miles away that saw smoke or dust near the crash site, but that plane wasn't armed and had no role in the crash. That plane was flying at 24,000 feet.

 

[Kent1]

"Obvioulsly I’m wrong because there is NO CONTRADICTION…..hahahaha!! As these comedians point out.
So what you sceptics believe is that NIST and PM did collaboration on the WTC collapse. Like when Tarrantino and Rodriguez produced the 1st & 2nd parts (Respectively) of that great mobster/vampire film From Dusk Til Dawn…………..Yeah!!
So using Skeptic logic theory NIST explain the initial collapse (The 1st Part) and PM explained the actual collapse(2nd Part)!!
Even though NIST CONTRADICTS the PM version of the collapse and THEY DO NOT SUPPORT THE PANCAKE THEORY AT ALL!!
I’m laughing as I type this because no doubt you Skeptics will still be trying to defend the following contradiction with plenty of double-speak!
So he agrees with NIST Pancaking theory, which they state they don’t agree with the Pancake theory…"


I see nothing supporting your claim regarding NIST about post initaition.
Of cource again we have clear evidence of pancaking (sandwiched floor pieces)
http://www.amny.com/entertainment/news/am-wtcrelics-pg2006,0,6613706.photogallery?index=35
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5484916

Also compare PM and NIST

PM
"Once each tower began to collapse, the weight of all the floors above the collapsed zone bore down with pulverizing force on the highest intact floor. Unable to absorb the massive energy, the floor failed, transmitting the forces to the floor below, allowing the collapse to progress downward through the building in a chain reaction."

NIST FAQ
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
“… the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation.

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

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

Again no disagreement.

 

[beachnut]

You mean proof like this.

http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/news/961654/detail.html

A C-130 transport plane that has been sent to follow Flight 77 is trailing only a short distance behind the plane as it crashes. This curious C-130, originally bound for Minnesota, is the same C-130 that will be 17 miles from Flight 93 when it later crashes into the Pennsylvania countryside. [Star-Tribune (Minneapolis), 9/11/2002; Pittsburgh Channel, 9/15/2001] A number of people see this plane fly remarkably close to Flight 77:

Or how about

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2001/09/17/first-person.htm
USA Today reporter Vin Narayanan, who saw the Pentagon explosion, says, “I hopped out of my car after the jet exploded, nearly oblivious to a second jet hovering in the skies.” [USA Today, 9/17/2001]

USA Today Editor Joel Sucherman sees a second plane but gives few details. [eWeek, 9/13/2001] Brian Kennedy, press secretary for a congressman, and others also see a second plane. [Sacramento Bee, 9/15/2001] Link not working!


or what about....Sorry links aren't working, but the names in google...

John O’Keefe is driving a car when he sees the Pentagon crash. “The first thing I did was pull over onto the shoulder, and when I got out of the car I saw another plane flying over my head. ... Then the plane—it looked like a C-130 cargo plane—started turning away from the Pentagon, it did a complete turnaround.” [New York Law Journal, 9/12/2001]

The pilot of the C-130, Lieutenant Colonel Steve O’Brien, is later interviewed, but his account differs from the on-the-ground eyewitnesses. He claims that just before the explosion, “With all of the East Coast haze, I had a hard time picking him out,” implying he is not nearby. He also says that just after the explosion, “I could see the outline of the Pentagon,” again implying he is not nearby. He then asks “the controller whether should set up a low orbit around the building,” but he is told “to get out of the area as quickly as possible.” “I took the plane once through the plume of smoke and thought if this was a terrorist attack, it probably wasn’t a good idea to be flying through that plume.” [Star-Tribune (Minneapolis), 9/11/2002]

http://www.s-t.com/daily/12-01/12-20-01/a02wn018.htm

An unnamed worker at Arlington National Cemetery “said a mysterious second plane was circling the area when the first one attacked the Pentagon.” [Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 12/20/2001]

No...No evidence whatsoever!!

Stop changing the subject otherwise you'll get me into trouble!! lol

My goodness, I thought you were a CT guy, but you just proved a aircraft hit the Pentagon and it was flight 77, and you proved flight 93 crashed in PA, as for the fact a plane flying from DC to out west goes past PA, why who knew PA was west of DC.

You got me? So you are saying what? Your list of dolts still is a list of dolts if you take their statements of 9/11 as their only proof of having a brain.

So you still like your pilot Russ who said flight 77 did an impossible feat?

 

[Belz...]

Obvioulsly I’m wrong because there is NO CONTRADICTION…..hahahaha!! As these comedians point out.

Even if it were construed as a contradiction, what would it prove ?

I’m laughing as I type this because no doubt you Skeptics will still be trying to defend the following contradiction with plenty of double-speak!

If you spent less time laughing and more time thinking, you might be getting somewhere.

I'm going to wet myself here...

Well that surely says lots about your age group.

So you guys expect me to believe that there were no abnormal put options even though….

For months... and to everyone's knowledge. Not a very good conspiracy, is it ?

 

[maccy]

Summary

I started this thread so we could discuss this list from stundie's very first post on this forum:

Yes I maybe a tin hat wearing idiot, but that still doesn't answer the question? So I look forward to some serious debate.

BTW Other tin hat wearers who don't buy the official story are: -

Rep. Curt Weldon – Vice Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, Vice Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. Ten-term Republican Congressman from Pennsylvania.
Senator Max Cleland – Former member of the 9/11 Commission, resigned in December 2003. Currently serves on the board of directors of the Export-Import Bank of the United States. U.S. Senator from Georgia 1996 - 2002. Secretary of State of Georgia 1982 - 1996. Administrator of the U.S. Veterans Administration 1977 - 1981. Captain, U.S. Army awarded Silver Star and Bronze Star for bravery in Viet Nam. Triple amputee from war injuries
Senator Bob Graham – Former U.S. Senator from Florida 1987 - 2005. Former Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. Co-Chairman of the Joint House-Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (JICI) that investigated the events of 9/11. Former Governor of Florida 1979 - 1986
Senator Mark Dayton – Senate Committee on Armed Services, Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Services. U.S. Senator from Minnesota.
Louis Freeh – Director of the FBI, 1993 - 2001. Former U.S. District Court Judge for the Southern District of New York, appointed by President George H.W. Bush. Former Deputy United States Attorney in New York. Former FBI agent. Former officer in the United States Army JAG Corps Reserve.
Edward L. Peck – Deputy Director of the White House Task Force on Terrorism under Ronald Reagan. Former Deputy Coordinator, Covert Intelligence Programs at the State Department. U.S. Ambassador and Chief of Mission to Iraq (1977 - 1980). 32-year veteran of the Foreign Service.
Paul Craig Roberts, PhD – Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Treasury under Ronald Reagan, "Father of Reaganomics", Former Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal. Currently Chairman of the Institute for Political Economy and Research Fellow at the independent institute.
Major General Albert Stubblebine, U.S. Army (ret) – Commanding General of the U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command, 1981 - 1984. Also commanded the U.S. Army’s Electronic Research and Development Command and the U.S. Army’s Intelligence School and Center. Former head of Imagery Interpretation for Scientific and Technical Intelligence. 32-year Army career.
Col. Ronald D. Ray, U.S. Marine Corps (ret) – Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense during the Reagan Administration and a highly decorated Vietnam veteran (two Silver Stars, a Bronze Star and a Purple Heart). Appointed by President George H.W. Bush to serve on the American Battle Monuments Commission (1990 - 1994), and on the 1992 Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces. From 1990 through 1994, he served as Military Historian and Deputy Director of Field Operations for the U.S. Marine Corps Historical Center, Washington, D.C.
Col. Robert Bowman, PhD, U.S. Air Force (ret) – Director of Advanced Space Programs Development under Presidents Ford and Carter. U.S. Air Force fighter pilot with over 100 combat missions. (PhD in Aeronautics and Nuclear Engineering, Cal Tech).
Capt. Russ Wittenberg, U.S. Air Force – Former Air Force fighter pilot with over 100 combat missions. Commercial pilot for Pan Am and United Airlines

And here are some responses on that point:

Well what happens is Bob Graham says that XYZ document isn't being shown to them because it's being kept secret by ABC agency, so he makes a statement like "it'll be X years until we get the full truth about 9/11", and since he used the word "truth" and "9/11" in the same sentence, he gets added to the list of people who don't "buy" the official story, in a clever attempt to imply that their cause is widespread.

Weldon, my lame duck Representative, was leading the charge to investigate Able Danger. He lambasted the Defense Intelligence Agency for obstructing the investigation and initiating a smear campaign against whistleblower Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer.

He believed that the investigation into Able Danger would turn up evidence of pre-9/11 incompetence and that defense officials were engaged in a CYA campaign.

He's never suggested any intentional US involvement in 9/11.

Here are some links to the information that wikipedia has for these people:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curt_Weldon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Cleland
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Graham
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Dayton
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Freeh
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Peck
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Craig_Roberts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Stubblebine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_D._Ray

I've only skimmed through these but there seems to be some interesting reading here.

You're probably not far off there IIRC, Graham's book Intelligence Matters is very critical of the Bush administration's response to and investigation of 9/11, and Graham does believe there was more Saudi involvement than the 9/11 Commission concluded (he believes Omar al-Bayoumi - who Graham thinks was spying for the Saudis - helped out the hijackers).

I really don't think, and hope Graham's not, a tin-hat wearer...

Another one of these is Colleen Rowley, who ran for Congress in Minnesota and lost. If you read her website, it has a lot of information about her efforts to hold the CIA's feet to the fire for their handling of the 9-11 investigation. It's difficult to summarize in one sentence, but suffice it to say that there's no evidence she believes the WTC towers were destroyed by Star Wars Death Beams or anything of that sort. Of course, the twoofers claimed her as one of the candidates alongside their likes of Bob Bowman, and called her a "9-11 Whistleblower" as if she were Sibel Edmonds.

Should we be letting these people know that their names are being co-opted by the psycho misfits that make up the "9-11 Truth" movement, and that their beliefs are being represented? Rowley seems to have a powerful commitment to finding out why our intelligence system failed, even at the risk of her own career. And Bob Graham doesn't seem the conspiracy type either. I bet these people would be furious to know they're being associated with these kooks.

Just a quick hit before I go to work. Americans may not know Paul Hellyer very well, but he also believes in UFO coverups. So judge him accordingly.

Honestly, not all of us Hosers are like that.

Stundie, thanks for taking the time to put that together. It's rare that we get a critic of the official version who brings support for his arguments! Here are some brief observations. Where I've made dismissive comments such as "Idiocy," those issues have been discussed in detail on these forums.

Rep. Curt Weldon
Big on grandstanding and righteous indignation. Light on facts.
-------------------------------
Senator Bob Graham

As published, the Joint Intelligence Committee's report doesn't say that any solid evidence of foreign government support was found. The problem is that a whole chapter of that report dealing with that issue has been classified by the Bush administration. They say its release would reveal intelligence gathering methods. That may be true, but Bob Graham, who was in a position to know, says that the chapter ties some Saudi officials to two of the hijackers:

Graham wrote a book on the subject. I haven't read it, but I'll bet it's fascinating.

This report by the Congressional Research Service is an excellent overview of the subject: Saudi Arabia: Terrorist Financing Issues
----------------------

Senator Mark Dayton
Yes, NORAD officials did lie about the probability of being able to intercept flight 93, and they should be held accountable for that. The problem is, NORAD had no chance to intercept that plane, and that wasn't their fault.
----------------------

Louis Freeh
Former FBI Director Freeh has expressed concerns about how the information gathered by the Able Danger program was handled. The comments that Stundie quoted were made prior to the release of the Pentagon's Able Danger report. I don't know if Freeh has spoken about that report, which can be found here: http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/Able_Danger_report.pdf

I haven't read the report: 25 pages remain tied up in FOIA land. It's worth reading in full the analysis of JREFers Darth Rotor and Brainster on what has been released. Given the haziness of memories, the contradictory nature of the accounts, and the classification of some of the report, it seems unlikely that we'll know the full story about Able Danger any time soon, if ever. According to DR and Brainster, this is unlikely to be a "smoking gun."
--------------------------------

Major General Albert Stubblebine
Idiocy.
------------------------

Col. Ronald D. Ray
Opinions without evidence.
------------------------------

Col. Robert Bowman
Opinions without evidence.

"Prove?" Not that I've seen.
---------------------------

Capt. Russ Wittenberg
Idiocy.
-------------------------------

Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer
See Able Danger comments above. Schaeffer does not come off well. People who were more closely involved with the program do not verify his claims.
------------------------------------------------

Major Scott Ritter
Fair enough. I feel the same way.
------------------------------

Capt. Gregory M. Zeigler
False. All the hijackers' names are on the flight manifests. Zeigler is mistaking these for the lists of victims. Further, on 9/13/01 the Boston Globe did publish the passenger lists, including the hijackers, for AA11 and UA175.

Early, confused reports were quickly corrected. Zeigler needs to catch up with information since October, 2001.

Complete idiocy.
--------------------------------

Raymond L. McGovern
I disagree that the 9/11 report is a joke. I do think the Bush administration used 9/11 to justify attacking Iraq.
----------------------------
Robert David Steele
Discussed in these forums. Opinions not backed with evidence.
------------------------
Robert Baer
Opinions not backed with evidence.
-----------------------------------
Paul Hellyer
Opinions. I'd have to do some research about what he thinks wasn't investigated properly.
----------------------------------
Michael Meacher
Discussed in these forums. Gets most of his facts completely wrong.
-----------------------------------
Andreas von Buelow
Discussed in these forums. Gets most of his facts completely wrong.
-------------------------------------
General Leonid Ivashov
Opinions not backed with evidence.
------------------------
General Pervez Musharraf
Opinions not backed with evidence.
------------------------
General Mirza Aslam Beg
Opinions not backed with evidence.
-------------------------
Mohamed Hassanein Heikal
Opinions not backed with evidence.

Yes, but there's a big difference between thinking we haven't heard the whole story, and believing the whole LIHOP/MIHOP senario. Most of the reasonable people you've quoted don't believe that the government was actively involved in 9/11, they're concerned about the CYA cover-up of systemic problems that prevented the people responsible for protecting the US from doing their jobs. Any argument that uses these people to push any sort of "HOP" senario is inane at best, and actually fraudulent at worst.



"Prove", no. "Suspect with a preponderance of the evidence"? Absolutely! When someone starts going off about holographic planes, Star Wars Death Beams, or other nonsense, then yeah, tin hatter is a fair cop.



"Support" =/= "Funding". There's no contadiction here. A government could "support" someone by issuing a passport or visa, without actually funding them. "Support" includes funding, but it also includes a lot of other possible activities. They may be wrong, but they're not being illogical.

Then don't these persons have a legal (and moral) responsibility to do everything in their power to expose what they know? I don't see ANYONE in government, including our new Democratically controlled Congress, crying out for a new investigation. So are they just blowing smoke or negligent in their duties to a criminal level?

As for your comment that CTers aren't all creepy X-Files fans that live in their parent's basements, well ok, but it seems to me that the "Truthers movement" is gaining more "no planers" and "star wars beamers" everyday. If you're going to hang your hat with the CTers Stundie, I'm afraid that's who you're going to end up with.

Stundie:

Hi, welcome to the forum. As you can see, this is a skeptics site, and these threads in particular, concern skepticism over conspiracy theories, overwhelmingly those concerning 9/11. You will find, given the "side" you seem to fall on, that many posts in reply to you may be at the least, curt and to the point, and in other cases perhaps a little pushie or annoyed in tone. Can't really expect any different when you enter the lion's den so to speak. That said, evidence is always looked at, if brought here, but it is also very critically analyzed.

WRT your posted list:

The vast majority of those you posted, are LIHOP at most, the majority even less so, are probably LIHOI (Let It Happen Out of Incompetence). The problem most here will have with your list, is the use of it by many of the MIHOPers and extreme "truthers" to add weight to their arguments, which really is inappropriate since few of the listed people have mentioned Controlled Demolition, Star Wars Energy Beams, Hijackers alive, Missile hit Pentagon etc...

I agree, that many smart, knowledgable people feel they havent been given the whole truth on 9/11. I am personally one of those. The difference, is I think the things we havent been told relate to incompetence and arrogance by the administration that may have made them miss warnings that 9/11 was coming. I DO NOT believe 9/11 was an inside job, nor do I balieve the BUSH admin Let It Happen On Purpose.

As for your "too many coincidences" i do not think so. If this was a single bombing in one place, carried about by a couple of people, I would say, yes there are too many coincidences, but this was a multistaged multisite attack involving 19 assailants, and many more co-ordinators, that involved 4 seperate attacks, at different locations. It involved the collapse of two skyscrapers directly, another indirectly, as well as the destruction of a side of the pentagon, and a 4th plane crash site. Many coincidences, in a complex case like this, are to be expected.

TAM

All of which you should address by using the search function to find existing threads and then posting in them. Alternatively you can start a new thread for any of these subjects.

The subject here is the extent to which the people you have listed support either a MIHOP or a LIHOP theory. What we have seen so far suggests that many of them don't support either. Can you amend you list to only include those who are specific stating that the US government was either responsible for the attacks or let them happen on purpose?

Questioning the government does not mean support LIHOP or MIHOP.

As far as this thread is concerned, I think the point still stands that most of the people you have listed do not believe that there was a government conspiracy behind 9/11. Some of those that do have been shown to have beliefs on other subjects that would suggest that their relationship with reality is tenuous at best.

I'd like to know what you think about the following tinhatters in the movement:

Alex Jones (apparently believes every conspiracy theory ever, plus some he's made up himself)
Steve Jones (cold fusion)
Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds (star wars beam weapons, no planes)
Jim Fetzer (JFK)
Rick Ratjer (no planes, holocaust denier)
Eric Hufschmid (holocaust denier)

Plus the following cynical exploiters, profiting form a tragedy:
Dylan Avery, Korey Rowe, Jason Bermas (deadbeat kids trying to get themselves a career in movies).
Alex Jones, again (cynicism dependent on how deluded he really is, but he still profits).

Do you stand for or against these people?

And can you find a single person that supports a theory of any kind of deliberate action on behalf of the government to cause 9/11 (either MIHOP or LIHOP) who isn't crazy or doesn't have a financial motive for perpetuating conspiracy theories?

Rather than address these points stundi has sidetracked into any number of other issues, including molten metal, passenger manifests, asbestos and put options. I have tried several times to either open new threads on those subjects or point him or her in the direction of existing ones. Nevertheless, he still hasn't stuck to topic.

Edited to Add: every time stundie has sidetracked, his/her sidetracks have been addressed. Nevertheless s/he is still taking advantage of all the ocnfusion s/he has caused to attempt to portray posters as being unable to answer his/her points. S/he has also quoted posts from other threads in an attempt to confuse things further.

 

[Belz...]

No Planes. Planes hit WTC thats for sure. The only one I do doubt is the Pentagon, show me footage of the plane hitting it and I'll change my opinion.

Oh, yeah ? Well show me the dinosaurs dying and I'll change my opinion!

Yes, it's called being new to the world of forums.

That does not excuse your logic skills, your misunderstanding of terms or your personnal attacks.

A C-130 transport plane that has been sent to follow Flight 77 is trailing only a short distance behind the plane as it crashes. This curious C-130, originally bound for Minnesota, is the same C-130 that will be 17 miles from Flight 93 when it later crashes into the Pennsylvania countryside. [Star-Tribune (Minneapolis), 9/11/2002; Pittsburgh Channel, 9/15/2001]

And ? How is this odd ?

The pilot of the C-130, Lieutenant Colonel Steve O’Brien, is later interviewed, but his account differs from the on-the-ground eyewitnesses.

Well, that's something I've never seen. Two testimonies that differ ? Never seen that in honest people. Nope. Never.

 

[apathoid]

Stundie,

The threads you're posting in, especially this one, are getting very hard to follow. It would really help your credibility if you stuck to a single topic and started acknowledging offered rebuttals(like the passenger manifests) instead of telling us that we're lying comedians and hitting the exclamation key numerous times as if it proves your point. Others have put alot of effort into showing you where you are misinformed and others have tried to pin you to a single subject but you keep changing topics when shown to be embarassingly in error....

 

[Horatius]

Is there a name for the annoying habit of some debaters of dodging pertinent and rational answers to their questions by bringing up other issues instead? Conspiracy theorists are pretty adept at it.

To paraphrase Mohammed Ali, I submit we call it the "float like a bee and sting like a butterfly' tactic.

I think "Dope on a Rope" would be easier to type.

 

[stundie]

Rather than address these points stundi has sidetracked into any number of other issues, including molten metal, passenger manifests, asbestos and put options. I have tried several times to either open new threads on those subjects or point him or her in the direction of existing ones. Nevertheless, he still hasn't stuck to topic.

Edited to Add: every time stundie has sidetracked, his/her sidetracks have been addressed. Nevertheless s/he is still taking advantage of all the ocnfusion s/he has caused to attempt to portray posters as being unable to answer his/her points. S/he has also quoted posts from other threads in an attempt to confuse things further.

Maccy, I am very new to the world of forums! I haveonly ever been in 1 other forum regarding bank charges.

Here is what happened, you started off a thread. I defend what I've put and then mention something else to either back may claim or use it as a cross reference, then I'll get umpteen number of skeptics picking up every little thing I said, saying thinks like you can't prove that...it's just you opinion, then i post something to back up my claim which again in turn opens up other questions.


It the question which in turn make me go off the subject. I'm not making excuses but all of the posts that you see in my profile are all directed to the 3 links you created. I will try my best to keep on the subject but only if others do too.

You may call this a tactic from a CTer but it's just inexperience!!

 

[stundie]

My goodness, I thought you were a CT guy, but you just proved a aircraft hit the Pentagon and it was flight 77, and you proved flight 93 crashed in PA, as for the fact a plane flying from DC to out west goes past PA, why who knew PA was west of DC.

You got me? So you are saying what? Your list of dolts still is a list of dolts if you take their statements of 9/11 as their only proof of having a brain.

So you still like your pilot Russ who said flight 77 did an impossible feat?

I wish you skeptics would stop assuming things about me.

These are eye witness accounts, this may prove that a plane hit the building, but it doesn't mean its the one we were told about you. As I said in previous posts, just release the footage of the plane hitting the Pentagon and that will shut me up and plenty of other CTers wouln't it?

This is another trait from the Skeptics, I give you eyewitness accounts but now you assume they are all DOLTS?? Your logic for coming to that conclusion? Is it because it doesn't fit in with the offical story so they must be dolts hey?

Very clever!! Anyway....if you wanna continue this, open another thread!!

 

[chipmunk stew]

Gravy was quoting NIST.

Cherry-picking. Here are some quotes from your Vanderbilt link:

Here's a link to the Milloy piece, which the wikipedia article is using as its source:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,34342,00.html

More from the Vanderbilt link:

More:

All bolding mine.

Surely someone is spreading misinformation. Whether or not it's deliberate is a separate question.

We have three figures here. 64, 40, and 38. How do we go about discovering which one is correct? The most suspect number is 64, given its dubious source. The first step I would take is to look up the Glanz/Revkin NY Times article and the NIST report and see what sources they used to get those numbers. Why don't you take a stab at it and tell us what you find out.

Stundie, have you looked any further into these discrepant numbers?

Do you still think Gravy was lying about this?

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]