9/11 conspiracy theorists best evidence

[ImANiceGuy]

To help you with your own terminology, any fusion of LIHOP and MIHOP is MIHOP by definition, an unnecessarily complicated one. Think about it.

...

I don't doubt it. One could also say that if you believe the Gov't could be involved ...etc, then it's not that far of a stretch to say that Bigfoot pilots a UFO powered by Original Coke.

Firstly, none of the terminology is my own. I don't believe that any explanation of 9/11 considered a conspiracy theory, could be adequately categorized as LIHOP or MIHOP. Can 'they' not make it happen, and also let it happen?

There is a difference between the CIA running Al-Queda, and a sasquatch piloting soda machines, when it comes to making a stretch. Re-reading your comment actually makes me question whether you re-read it or not. It is a little ridiculous. You won't need to make jokes to get your point across with me.

Thanks for the reply!

 

[beachnut]

...
Also, can anyone answer a question with regards to the Put Call options trading at higher than usual volume? Can someone knowledged on this subject present themselves for a query?

Do you trade stocks? If you do something simple wrong they are all over you! Records and a trail are the problem stock stuff; they catch simple stuff, they catch the big stuff. If some bad guys did the stock stuff they would have been caught in days. Research is the key to stop repeating the dirt dumb ideas of 911Truth.

So far not one thing 911Truth has is past the pure stupid opinion, hearsay, lie, and false information; backed up with zero evidence.

...
There is a difference between the CIA running Al-Queda, and a sasquatch piloting soda machines, when it comes to making a stretch. ...
Thanks for the reply!

Not for 911Truth. A machine powered by classic coke, not a soda machine. Did you read...

a UFO powered by Original Coke.

Best evidence for a 911Truth believer is hearsay, what the idiot experts in 911Truth say; their best evidence is "no evidence" and pure belief in delusions made up for them by other people; a no need to think it up for yourself. An easy road to stupid idea on 911 - 911Truth.

 

[ImANiceGuy]

....Sigh.

Beachnut, do you think it's the same type of stretch of imagination? One isn't a little more of a stretch than the other?

All I'm trying to say is it is incorrect to label every member of alternate theory as "911Truth". Let each member speak for themselves.

I don't immediately believe you think that hydrogen generated from water vapor fueled the fires of WTC7, but a Skeptic does......see what I'm saying?

 

[Baylor]

You know what this subforum needs? Another troll.

 

[beachnut]

....Sigh.

Beachnut, do you think it's the same type of stretch of imagination? One isn't a little more of a stretch than the other?

All I'm trying to say is it is incorrect to label every member of alternate theory as "911Truth". Let each member speak for themselves.

I don't immediately believe you think that hydrogen generated from water vapor fueled the fires of WTC7, but a Skeptic does......see what I'm saying?

What does hydrogen have to do with the idiotic ideas of 911Truth?

Prove the CIA is behind UBL. Do it, solve the delusions of 911Truth, make them reality and earn a Pulitzer Prize.

911Truth is a big tent; all the nut case ideas from CIA to nukes is 911Truth.

What other failed ideas are you going to recycle to apologize for 911Truth?

 

[Sabrina]

The main difference between the two scenarios, as I understand your question at least ImANiceGuy, is one key word between them; namely one has the word "let", as in "it's more than likely to happen without any interference on my part, so I'll just sit back and watch", and the other has the word "make", as in "if I position the pieces just right, what I want to happen will happen, or close enough to it".

One scenario involves direct interference, the other does not. So no, by the standard definition of the words, one cannot "make" it happen and also "let" it happen. It has to be one or the other.

Also, and please forgive me if I sound a tad snippy, but your questions indicate to me that you have never worked in a government agency. Believe me, if you had, you would realize it's not the powerful singular entity it's mostly made out to be; all the different cogs and parts are working at different speeds and in different directions a great deal of the time, and it isn't until cooperation is forced, for lack of a better term, that things begin to work as people think they should. The idea that our government could have been controlling a group of individuals across the pond who have sworn to bring down the Western way of life seems very counterintuitive to me; what would be the purpose of it? Can you explain that to me please?

 

[Mr. Skinny]

....Sigh.

Beachnut, do you think it's the same type of stretch of imagination? One isn't a little more of a stretch than the other?

All I'm trying to say is it is incorrect to label every member of alternate theory as "911Truth". Let each member speak for themselves.

I don't immediately believe you think that hydrogen generated from water vapor fueled the fires of WTC7, but a Skeptic does......see what I'm saying?

ImANiceGuy, are you refering to me?

If so, let me say this. Leftyseargent and Sunstealer both provided evidence that hydrogen can be generated. Sunstealer even showed the chemical process (though I admit I'm taking his word for it) and Lefty pretty much admitted that hydrogen was not a major fuel contributor in the pile.

They backed up their statements and provided reasonable answers.

I'm satisfied. Why aren't you?

 

[T.A.M.]

Firstly, none of the terminology is my own. I don't believe that any explanation of 9/11 considered a conspiracy theory, could be adequately categorized as LIHOP or MIHOP. Can 'they' not make it happen, and also let it happen?

There is a difference between the CIA running Al-Queda, and a sasquatch piloting soda machines, when it comes to making a stretch. Re-reading your comment actually makes me question whether you re-read it or not. It is a little ridiculous. You won't need to make jokes to get your point across with me.

Thanks for the reply!

That is kind of like saying "I caught 14 whales off the wharf" is a much bigger tall tale than "I caught two whales off the wharf". Yes that is true, but they are both RIDICULOUS tall tales.

TAM

 

[ImANiceGuy]

Mr.Skinny, I was not referring to you, only to Lefty, who, at the time of this post, had yet to respond in a different thread to his claim that hydrogen fueled the WTC7 fires pre-collapse. It was proven that hydrogen can be created by water vapor, and I don't dispute this. I dispute the theory that hydrogen was an accelerent; more so than any other comparable office tower fire.

And the difference between what I suggest and what r.mackey suggests (re:stretches of imagination) and what Johnnyk has aptly described above is simple. It is more like a fisherman saying "I caught two whales off of the wharf" versus "I caught a mermaid off of the wharf." If you are prone to beleive fisherman's tales(we all know the type, you use the word Twoofer), you might buy into a fisherman catching a couple whales, but you would be hard-pressed to believe in a mythical creature. So with that said, the two examples are greatly different stretches of the imagination.

As to the LIHOP vs the MIHOP, I would like first to offer a pre-amble. I do not subscribe to any conspiracy theories, and am not an 'apologist for 911Truth'. I only wish to suggest that the two theories could be merged in order for a 911 conspiracy theory to be logistically possible. Enter "smacco's razor" which states that since a simple explanation won't work, it must get more and more complicated in order to succeed. It's all highly suspect and improbable, not very plausible, etc. If a rogue agency were planning 911 for whatever reason, they would need to make it happen; mix 2 cups of thermite, with a teaspoon of remote controlled plane; but would also passively let it happen by ignoring the intel that is predicting an imminent attack. So I guess, after re-reading that sentence, that a LIHOP scenario would actually be a MIHOP, because ommision of action is still an act. Does that make sense?

"The idea that our government could have been controlling a group of individuals across the pond who have sworn to bring down the Western way of life seems very counterintuitive to me; what would be the purpose of it? Can you explain that to me please?" - Sabrina

There are plenty of documented connections throughout the history of the CIA with rogue/terrorist groups. Al-Queda for one, Guerilla groups in South America, the Balkans, etc. This is NOT to say that these groups are completely controlled by the Gov't, which they are not. This is NOT to say that there is a shadowy group pulling the world's puppet strings. CIA assets exist numerously and sometimes famously around the world; they are the Central Intelligence Agency. I think even the most hardcore skeptics would agree with this.

 

[BigAl]

Mr.Skinny, I was not referring to you, only to Lefty, who, at the time of this post, had yet to respond in a different thread to his claim that hydrogen fueled the WTC7 fires pre-collapse.

Nobody claims that the generation of hydrogen contributed to the collapse.

 

[T.A.M.]

Mr.Skinny, I was not referring to you, only to Lefty, who, at the time of this post, had yet to respond in a different thread to his claim that hydrogen fueled the WTC7 fires pre-collapse. It was proven that hydrogen can be created by water vapor, and I don't dispute this. I dispute the theory that hydrogen was an accelerent; more so than any other comparable office tower fire.

And the difference between what I suggest and what r.mackey suggests (re:stretches of imagination) and what Johnnyk has aptly described above is simple. It is more like a fisherman saying "I caught two whales off of the wharf" versus "I caught a mermaid off of the wharf." If you are prone to beleive fisherman's tales(we all know the type, you use the word Twoofer), you might buy into a fisherman catching a couple whales, but you would be hard-pressed to believe in a mythical creature. So with that said, the two examples are greatly different stretches of the imagination.

As to the LIHOP vs the MIHOP, I would like first to offer a pre-amble. I do not subscribe to any conspiracy theories, and am not an 'apologist for 911Truth'. I only wish to suggest that the two theories could be merged in order for a 911 conspiracy theory to be logistically possible. Enter "smacco's razor" which states that since a simple explanation won't work, it must get more and more complicated in order to succeed. It's all highly suspect and improbable, not very plausible, etc. If a rogue agency were planning 911 for whatever reason, they would need to make it happen; mix 2 cups of thermite, with a teaspoon of remote controlled plane; but would also passively let it happen by ignoring the intel that is predicting an imminent attack. So I guess, after re-reading that sentence, that a LIHOP scenario would actually be a MIHOP, because ommision of action is still an act. Does that make sense?

"The idea that our government could have been controlling a group of individuals across the pond who have sworn to bring down the Western way of life seems very counterintuitive to me; what would be the purpose of it? Can you explain that to me please?" - Sabrina

There are plenty of documented connections throughout the history of the CIA with rogue/terrorist groups. Al-Queda for one, Guerilla groups in South America, the Balkans, etc. This is NOT to say that these groups are completely controlled by the Gov't, which they are not. This is NOT to say that there is a shadowy group pulling the world's puppet strings. CIA assets exist numerously and sometimes famously around the world; they are the Central Intelligence Agency. I think even the most hardcore skeptics would agree with this.

you might "buy" a fisherman catching 2 whales off a wharf, if you were a layman without any concept of how whales are "caught", or where, but the chances of it occurring are virtually nil...that was my point (why I used that analogy).

Though to the uneducated, or perhaps better to say not in the know, it might be "plausible", I suspect (hey I am not in the CIA) that the chances (of the CIA being incontrol of Al-Qaeda) are incredibly SLIM.

TAM

 

[beachnut]

... There are plenty of documented connections throughout the history of the CIA with rogue/terrorist groups. Al-Queda for one, ...

Al-Qaeda? or Al-Queda? Which one is the CIT with? Prove it!

Prove the CIA used Al-Qaeda/UBL to do 911.
Prove a connection and explain in detail the connection of CIA to Al-Qaeda/UBL. Otherwise you have a nut case idea you made up to prove nothing. And you did a great job doing it. Sources?

 

[ImANiceGuy]

Al-Qaeda? or Al-Queda? Which one is the CIT with? Prove it!

Prove the CIA used Al-Qaeda/UBL to do 911.
Prove a connection and explain in detail the connection of CIA to Al-Qaeda/UBL. Otherwise you have a nut case idea you made up to prove nothing. And you did a great job doing it. Sources?

To me this just proves quality over quantity. I could barely understand your first post, but swallowed my grammatical pride and responded anyway.Now it seems as though you have not even read what I wrote, but merely skimmed it over and replied hastily.

Just so we're clear, and you may feel free to claim a moral victory, I cannot prove that Al-Keida(arrific sharmouta) is controlled by the CIA. I don't even believe this to be the case.

It is, however, well documented that Al-Qaeda members received training from the CIA during the Mujahadeen guerilla war in Afghanistan, to fight the soviets. Duh.

 

[Baylor]

It is, however, well documented that Al-Qaeda members received training from the CIA during the Mujahadeen guerilla war in Afghanistan, to fight the soviets. Duh.

Care to provide some of this documentation.

 

[ImANiceGuy]

Moreover................................is a good enough segue.

I figure that since you will get very few MoAT (Members of Alternate Theory) through here posting their evidence, as they are aptly torn to shreds, I could shoot a few questions out there to the crowds; things I have on my list to look into......you can help me wade through the bs.

As background, I began my 9/11 research a couple months ago, and recently joined jref as an alternate to the horrible,horrible threads at youtube. I read completely through any thread I post in, but do not have time to read through 50+ page threads....only<50.

Does anyone know of rumors that the towers were going to need asbestos removal and that it would cost billions? ie. possible motive?

 

[Hokulele]

Does anyone know of rumors that the towers were going to need asbestos removal and that it would cost billions? ie. possible motive?

Financial motives, insurance, asbestos removal, blah blah blah, discussed here.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=69261

 

[BigAl]

Does anyone know of rumors that the towers were going to need asbestos removal and that it would cost billions? ie. possible motive?

Many big buildings of that vintage were fireproofed with asbestos. The process for making such buildings safe is well understood and widely practiced. I've worked and done renovations in such buildings.

It's called abatement.

http://www.sacredplaces.org/PSP-InfoClearingHouse/articles/Asbestos Abatement.htm​

This is just one more topic that the Twoofers are clueless about. It's a long list.

 

[Dave Rogers]

As to the LIHOP vs the MIHOP, I would like first to offer a pre-amble. I do not subscribe to any conspiracy theories, and am not an 'apologist for 911Truth'. I only wish to suggest that the two theories could be merged in order for a 911 conspiracy theory to be logistically possible. Enter "smacco's razor" which states that since a simple explanation won't work, it must get more and more complicated in order to succeed. It's all highly suspect and improbable, not very plausible, etc. If a rogue agency were planning 911 for whatever reason, they would need to make it happen; mix 2 cups of thermite, with a teaspoon of remote controlled plane; but would also passively let it happen by ignoring the intel that is predicting an imminent attack. So I guess, after re-reading that sentence, that a LIHOP scenario would actually be a MIHOP, because ommision of action is still an act. Does that make sense?

No, I don't think it does.

Reduce it to a simple example. Suppose you see a mugger lying in wait for the next passer-by, you notice that the next person passing by is an old enemy of yours, and you decide not to tell him there's a mugger coming. That's a classic LIHOP scenario. If, on the other hand, you go and talk to the mugger, and say, "There's a guy in a blue jacket coming round the corner in a minute, and I happen to know he's carrying $20,000 in cash", then leave the scene, that's a MIHOP scenario. In the latter scenario, you've still allowed the attack to happen, but you've also taken positive action to instigate it. In the former, there is only a decision not to act. There's also the false flag scenario, where you mug your enemy yourself and frame the mugger for it. That's a purer form of MIHOP because you're taking all the action yourself.

The point of all this is that MIHOP can encompass a degree of LIHOP, but not vice versa.

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

It is, however, well documented that Al-Qaeda members received training from the CIA during the Mujahadeen guerilla war in Afghanistan, to fight the soviets. Duh.

As I understand it, that's not the case. It's well-documented that the Afghan Mujihadeen received training from the CIA, but they were a different group from the foreign Mujihadeen who went on to become the basis of al-Qaeda. There's no known connection between the CIA and the foreign Mujihadeen, who were financially supported by other Arab nations. The CIA - al-Qaeda link is a classic example of something that's automatically assumed by conspiracy theorists to be not only true but obvious, when a study of the actual history shows that reality is far more complex. This has been discussed here in the past, but I don't have a link to the thread.

Dave

 

[ozeco41]

...Does anyone know of rumors that the towers were going to need asbestos removal and that it would cost billions? ie. possible motive?

There is a far simpler way of dealing with issues/claims of that type - ie Motivation in this case.

Motivation for what? Answer "Demolition" etc...

BUT there was no demolition and that is readily provable to:
a) Any honest engineer;
b) any non-engineer with a modicum of physics - all the energy and complicated stuff is totally unnecessary to show no demolition.
c) Any non engineer no physics type who will accept the word of experts in the field.

By my count that only leaves engineers and physics aware persons who are dishonest; "truthers" with no qualifications whose agenda includes "Never See or Admit The Truth" and that sector of uninvolved general public who don't want to think clearly anyway.

Have I missed any?

Therefore why do we debate here?

My objective is simple. I will continue to rebut nonsense about demolition whilst ever I want to use the energy AND I believe that the information will assist genuine seekers for truth.

The David S Chandlers and the Tony Szambotis and Richard Gages and Steven E Jones are not my target. Generally they are too far down the track of commitment to whatever their mendacious objective is.

All the other esoteric engineering and physics may be useful debate for interest of those involved - it is strictly irrelevant to proving "no demolition" for the "reasonable person".