The Improbable 9/11 and its followers

[Newtonian]

I like your style. You got guts. Come by my office some time and I'll give you a job.

The day you have an actual office I would apply

Hope you can handle a joke.

 

[Macgyver1968]

Come on guys! At least the guy is trying to be nice. Do have to treat every new poster with such assholishness? Not everyone new poster that comes to this board is a loudmouthed arrogant douchebag...just because 99% of them are doesn't mean we have to treat them all that way.

It's called taking the higher road.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Im sorry to say, this does not link him to 9/11.

Bin Laden's meetings with KSM, Binalshibh, al-Midhar, and al-Hazmi, as well as his selection of Atta as the leader of the teams links him very clearly. So do statements made by KSM. And let's not forget OBL's own videotaped statements.

Not knowing what evidence exists isn't the same as evidence not existing. Your whole issue is that you don't comprehend what exists.

I believe that vital information about the events of 9/11 has been
witheld from the public. And I am very curious why the
9/11 commision was as they would state "set up to fail" .

What that specifically is, Im not sure.

But the lack of evidence linking bin laden to the attacks
serves as a vital clue in my perspective.

Again: Not knowing what evidence is there is not the same as evidence not existing. All you're admitting to is an incomplete understanding of history.

 

[Newtonian]

Bin Laden's meetings with KSM, Binalshibh, al-Midhar, and al-Hazmi as well as his selection of Atta as the leader of the teams does. So do statements made by Atta. And let's not forget OBL's own videotaped statements.

Not knowing what evidence exists isn't the same as evidence not existing. Your whole issue is that you don't comprehend what exists.



Again: Not knowing what evidence is there is not the same as evidence not existing. All you're admitting to is an incomplete understanding of history.

Well, maybe I don`t have the whole story.
I just don`t understand the british and US not coming forward with this
as criminal evidence, and proof.

 

[Newtonian]

Come on guys! At least the guy is trying to be nice. Do have to treat every new poster with such assholishness? Not everyone new poster that comes to this board is a loudmouthed arrogant douchebag...just because 99% of them are doesn't mean we have to treat them all that way.

It's called taking the higher road.

They are atleast very convinced they are right

And not to friendly to those who may oppose their views
in any manner.

Thanks for taking my side as a humanitarian action

Very much appreciated.

 

[Newtonian]

In Norway we have a saying that would roughly translate to this: If your strongest argument is the characteristics of your opponent, or you resort thereof,
then the argument has no place at all. Not sure how Im gonna get the true
meaning of this "abroad" but... hey

 

[Newtonian]

What I see as problematic is this: If there is not evidence suitable for a criminal court
to even convict Bin Laden. How can we invade the country he supposedly resides? Killing a group called Taleban, and subsequently invade Iraq on even more flimsy evidence.

You can call me what you want : Idiot, Ignorant, truther or whatever.

Or you can try to reason with me and be atleast semi-polite

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Well, maybe I don`t have the whole story.
I just don`t understand the british and US not coming forward with this
as criminal evidence, and proof.

But they did. That's how we know about it. The FBI PENTTBOM investigation uncovered information that went before the 9/11 Commision and was published in their report. This isn't secret knowledge, nor is it obscure; on the contrary, it's published and freely available.

Understanding of 9/11 doesn't start with the supposed "holes" that conspiracy peddlers present. It starts with understanding what knowledge was developed, discovered, uncovered, etc. and going from there. BigAl's links list is just a summary, and each item he lists isn't a single piece of evidence; on the contrary, many of them are entire narratives in and of themselves, containing multiple points, lines of evidence, or links between people or individuals and events.

The information is out there. And short of mass mailing it to every citizen in the US, I'm not really sure how else to get it out.

 

[Newtonian]

But they did. That's how we know about it. The FBI PENTTBOM investigation uncovered information that went before the 9/11 Commision and was published in their report. This isn't secret knowledge, nor is it obscure; on the contrary, it's published and freely available.

Understanding of 9/11 doesn't start with the supposed "holes" that conspiracy peddlers present. It starts with understanding what knowledge was developed, discovered, uncovered, etc. and going from there. BigAl's links list is just a summary, and each item he lists isn't a single piece of evidence; on the contrary, many of them are entire narratives in and of themselves, containing multiple points, lines of evidence, or links between people or individuals and events.

The information is out there. And short of mass mailing it to every citizen in the US, I'm not really sure how else to get it out.

I will look into this again, there might be something I have missed that can be confirmed in the official story.

 

[T.A.M.]

What I see as problematic is this: If there is not evidence suitable for a criminal court
to even convict Bin Laden. How can we invade the country he supposedly resides? Killing a group called Taleban, and subsequently invade Iraq on even more flimsy evidence.

You can call me what you want : Idiot, Ignorant, truther or whatever.

Or you can try to reason with me and be atleast semi-polite

OBL did not carry out the attacks of 9/11. He had them carried out for him. He had this done through KSM, who organized and orchestrated the attacks. He did this with the assistance of Ramzi Bin Alshibh, Who liasoned between he and Mohamed Atta. Atta was the ringleader of the Germany Cell that went on to become the pilots of the planes in the "planes" mission.

SO in essence, the attacks were carried out by 19 arab hijackers, most of Saudi ethnicity, under the orders of KSM (via Al-Shibh) who, at the time, had pledged to OBL, the leader of Al-Qaeda.

If this is not enough for you, then I have two words for you (from Norway you may not get the reference)...Al Capone.

TAM

 

[TexasJack]

I believe that vital information about the events of 9/11 has been
witheld from the public. And I am very curious why the
9/11 commision was as they would state "set up to fail" .

What that specifically is, Im not sure.

But the lack of evidence linking bin laden to the attacks
serves as a vital clue in my perspective.

This is an out of context quote that truthers like to use (also known as quote mining). At the beginning of the commission, he did feel this way. In the end, however, he feels it succeeded despite the initial odds against it. If you just take snippets, and don't read the entire passages, it gives the impression that it did fail.

 

[Macgyver1968]

What I see as problematic is this: If there is not evidence suitable for a criminal court
to even convict Bin Laden. How can we invade the country he supposedly resides? Killing a group called Taleban, and subsequently invade Iraq on even more flimsy evidence.

You can call me what you want : Idiot, Ignorant, truther or whatever.

Or you can try to reason with me and be atleast semi-polite

There is no doubt we invaded Afghanistan to get OBL's ass and the rest of AQ as revenge for 9/11. I have heard many people in the truth movement claim that this was also the reason that we invaded Iraq. It is simply not true. We invaded Iraq (with which I whole heartedly disagree with) because we believed them to have WMD's. It wasn't until we got there and didn't find any WMD's did the Bush administration try to link Saddam with OBL and 9/11 to give legitimacy to the invasion, and TRY to save some face. Personally, I'm not sure the American public bought it. I know I didn't.

 

[TexasJack]

There is no doubt we invaded Afghanistan to get OBL's ass and the rest of AQ as revenge for 9/11. I have heard many people in the truth movement claim that this was also the reason that we invaded Iraq. It is simply not true. We invaded Iraq (with which I whole heartedly disagree with) because we believed them to have WMD's. It wasn't until we got there and didn't find any WMD's did the Bush administration try to link Saddam with OBL and 9/11 to give legitimacy to the invasion, and TRY to save some face. Personally, I'm not sure the American public bought it. I know I didn't.

It was also Saddam's obstinacy of not allowing inspectors in and the countless UN violations. He complies, no invasion.

 

[triforcharity]

You did go to war on this evidence , right?

Why would we attack Iraq if 15 of the 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia?

Now, before you go building strawmen, I will tell you that I do not agree with us being in Iraq. Afganistan? Sure. Since that is where the majority of terrorists hide. So sure, take the bombing to them.

 

[Quad4_72]

I will look into this again, there might be something I have missed that can be confirmed in the official story.

Hi again newtonian. I had made a post in this thread welcoming you and asking you a couple of questions. You did not respond to it so I will assume that you just simply missed it. It was post #71. Here is what it said:

Hi Newtonian. Welcome to the forums. I have read through this thread and have found that you are making a few critical errors in your analysis of the events on September 11, 2001.

I see you have been trying to find some comparisons to what occured that day, and you have tried to make a few by comparing them to other building fires and bombings in Iraq. This kind of comparison I'm afraid will not be of much use to you. The reason being because there is no other event comparable to 9/11 that has ever occured before on planet Earth. Never before has a fully fueled 767 crashed at full speed into a skyscraper before. The only comparable event office fire wise would be at the Windsor Tower. In that fire, the entire steel portion of the structure sagged and failed while the cement core remained in tact.

Another flaw you are making is using probablility as some form of proof that the buildings should not have collapsed. Just because it was unlikely to happen does not make that a form of evidence.

Now so we can continue with this discussion, I would love to see what knowledge you have of the findings of the NIST report. So I ask this one favor. Could you please, in your own words, briefly explain the findings of the NIST report? It can honestly be done in one paragraph. Thanks.

I am still quite curious about your knowledge of the NIST report and would still greatly appreciate it if you could in your own words, explain briefly the conclusions that were drawn in the NIST report. I feel this would help get your thread back on topic and facilitate further discussion.Thanks.

 

[triforcharity]

I would say that chances of a highrise steel framed structure collapsing after being hit by a 767 at about 733 fps, is about 1in.....1?

Or would that be like a baseball term, like 1.000?

 

[Travis]

What I see as problematic is this: If there is not evidence suitable for a criminal court
to even convict Bin Laden. How can we invade the country he supposedly resides? Killing a group called Taleban, and subsequently invade Iraq on even more flimsy evidence.

Iraq had nothing to do with it....until certain people tried to make it about that. Lots of us that wanted the invasion of Iraq were pushing for it even before the Sept 11th attacks happened.

I was all for the Iraq invasion but I saw the attempt to link it to Sept 11 as a huge mistake.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

Iraq had nothing to do with it....until certain people tried to make it about that. Lots of us that wanted the invasion of Iraq were pushing for it even before the Sept 11th attacks happened.

I was all for the Iraq invasion but I saw the attempt to link it to Sept 11 as a huge mistake.

Yeah, Iraq was pretty much an inevitable war sooner or later unless the Baathists were taken out in a coup. Between taking potshots at the planes enforcing the no-fly zone and the denial of access to the UN weapons inspectors (two big violations of the cease fire agreement from Desert Storm) there was already enough justification to resume the war without WMDs or terrorists being brought into it.

I think that if Bush Sr. had won in '92 that he would've been fed up with it after about 2 years or so and been much more aggressive about it than what Clinton did about it (basically ignore it unless it was politically favorable for him to do something). Bush Jr. trying to tie it into terrorism and then 9/11 was just monumentally stupid and ended up creating more problems in the long run.

 

[BigAl]

Yeah, Iraq was pretty much an inevitable war sooner or later unless the Baathists were taken out in a coup. Between taking potshots at the planes enforcing the no-fly zone and the denial of access to the UN weapons inspectors (two big violations of the cease fire agreement from Desert Storm) there was already enough justification to resume the war without WMDs or terrorists being brought into it.

I think that if Bush Sr. had won in '92 that he would've been fed up with it after about 2 years or so and been much more aggressive about it than what Clinton did about it (basically ignore it unless it was politically favorable for him to do something). Bush Jr. trying to tie it into terrorism and then 9/11 was just monumentally stupid and ended up creating more problems in the long run.

In 1998-2000 activists were ramping up protests to get the US-led blockade changed because Saddan was making a humanitarian crisis of it. The election cycle took the wind out of the movement.

 

[Architect]

Newtonian

In 2009, the team in our office crowded around a computer screen to watch not-quite live pictures of the impacts on WTC 1 and 2. A group of trained professionals, all more than familiar in the design and performance of similar structures. One of us (I can't remember who any more) said "that's going to come down" and not one person disagreed. Wew were, of course, right.

Now on this this forum you have several of us who design and construct buildings for a living; NB can talk authoritively about structural performance, for example. I've been part of the design team working on tall buildings on this side of the pond. All of us have university level qualifications and professional associations with the field. I would therefore ask you to forgive me when I point out that a pissing competition where you mention (say) an electrical engineering qualification isn't going to impress.

As an engineer, you will also appreciate that collapse analysis has nothing to do with mathematical probability in the way that you mean it but instead relies on a systemic assessment of cause and effect based on hard evidence. It is wrong, for example, to assert that a structure is unlikely to fail under a certain load condition unless one is able to discuss and review design loads, critical paths, and so on.

In fact, when I was at university, forensic analysis of building failure (as it was rather grandly called) was a specialist one-year elective class and that was just for the very basic, easy stuff.

If you want to cover the issues you raise yet again, then you really need to approach it in a much more focussed manner. Raise very specific points, cross-referenced to what we really know about building performance/failure and evidence arising from the day. Cite credible, sensible sources (hint: Prison Planet doesn't count). Weigh up the options, set out your thinking, and come to a conclusion.

But most of all, don't try bluster and woo. We've seen it too often.

Newtonian

I suspect you've missed this amongst the flurry of postings.

Yours,

Architect