• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

Any Conspiracy-Busters here?

PWAH! Oh puh-leeze. The entire mentallity of a CT nutter like you is basicly a giant cry for attention: "LOOK AT ME!!! I DOUBT THINGS FOR NO GOOD REASON! I THINK I KNOW BETTER THAN THE EXPERTS!!"

You think that your little petty comment up there even begins to look like a threat?

WTF!!!!

Okay, you are a jackass after all. I am done having anything to do with you in this thread until you can learn how to have a conversation that doesn't involve you validating your massive ego.
 
They aren't naked assertions, I have posted links to ALL of the information I am referencing...you have not bothered to read them offering excuses in place of analysis.

You post links that do not give a reasonable person grounds to believe there was a conspiracy. Then you claim over and over again that you have proven there was a conspiracy.

your opinion based on what you have read...these does not equate fact.

This is true, but your opinion based on what you have read is not fact either.

What is telling is that you cannot or will not post a single fact wich discredits the official story or proves the existence of a conspiracy.

And blanket skepticism isn't a bias?

Believe me, there are plenty of posters around here perfectly happy to believe bad things about the Bush administration - if and only if the evidence supports it. If there was credible evidence that the current US government conspired to bring about 9/11 I and at least half a dozen others would love to see it.

In fact if ironclad proof emerged tomorrow that Cheney personally piloted the planes into the buildings by remote control and then GW Bush pushed a big red button that detonated the secret explosive concrete I would do a happy dance in my lounge room. I would probably even sing a happy song too.

The problem is that if you approach the official story and the conspiracy theories with equal skepticism, you conclude that the conspiracy theories are a big pile of the brown stuff.

first off, this is an assumption, there is no indication that these were rushed to the presses.

You're missing the point. Newspaper stories alone are not sufficient proof of extraordinary claims because newspapers get the facts wrong all the time.

The research done by the independent media is invaluable. They are not making extraordinary claims, they are claiming based on hard evidence that there has been a cover up of events.

Great! This is exactly what I have been asking for from the start, and you were claiming up until a minute ago that you didn't have it.

What's the hard evidence? Where is it? What does it prove is being covered up? Please be completely specific, don't just handwave and say "Oh, it's somewhere in one of the links I posted". Tell us exactly what the hard evidence is, where it is documented, and what it proves.

I have been researching this since the event occured. The time for me to be over excited has passed. If you aren't a little paranoid in light of current/recent events than you haven't been paying attention.

Like I said earlier, suspicion of the motives and character of the current administration is a great place to start an investigation and a terrible place to stop one. I've been paying attention, but I have seen no hard evidence of a conspiracy.

Exactly, as I have been saying there isn't ANY, one way or the other...it is foolish to believe any unsupported story.

Oh, for pity's sake. There is a mountain of evidence for the official story, not the least of which is that literally thousands of government employees would have to be in on any cover-up of the major events of 9/11.

But it's ok for you to ignore other engineers, and scientists that are in favor of a different version of events? Most don't claim a conspiracy theory, they just say it's not possible. I have linked all the information, and the step by step explanations as to why they believe this...you haven't read them.

Actually I probably have, although it's possible I missed one or two. Invariably the people claiming conspiracy do not represent the majority of people with relevant expertise. They're isolated individuals who are acting outside their area of competence.

I find it hard to believe that the overwhelming majority of high-rise building engineers and failure analysts worldwide are in on a conspiracy.

Perhaps equally importantly there is absolutely no plausible story as to why the evil conspirators would particularly want the WTC buildings to fall down, nor why they would choose a ridiculously complicated plan involving kamikaze airliners if they did.

When, and how could you know anything about me?

You didn't know how well steel conducts heat. Now you are trying to pretend it was a rhetorical question and you knew all along. That indicates to me firstly that you don't have the grasp of physics I expect from a reasonably talented high school student who studies physics, and that you are a bit dishonest.

The first is nothing to be ashamed of. Many perfectly intelligent people choose subjects other than physics in high school. The second, well...

Why? Because I asked a rhetorical question about the heat conduction of steel. It is a strong metal, it conducts heat well...no rocket science there.

Oh really? Allow me to quote you. You said "I am not familiar, but I would wonder how well steel diffuses heat, and if this would bolster, or work against the point of view that a fire weakened them to breaking."

Here's a link to the remark in context:

http://www.internationalskeptics.co...579&highlight=steel+conducts+heat#post1362579

That does not sound to me, in or out of context, remotely like a rhetorical question from someone informed about the physical properties of steel.

I think you are trying to be sneaky, thesyntaxera/love.

Magic is invoked in the official tale however. The entire truss theory has been debunked. Like I said, read.

Debunked by relevant experts? Or poked at by irrelevant laypeople, much as the moon landings are poked at?

That is a rhetorical question, by the way, just so you know what one might look like.

Yes, so what is the evidence that proves the official story? A list will do.

Your wacky claim, your burden of proof.

Except that this snippet is completely turned inside out when you look at how much was known in advance.

Facts? Evidence? Why is it that you first deny you have a single solid bit of evidence disproving the official story, and then you turn around and make claims like this that imply you have exactly such evidence?

Given that I already believe you to be a bit dishonest, you are not helping yourself by behaving this way.
 
I stand corrected.

And then we Sashay....

http://www.counterpunch.org/lindorff12202005.html

Speaking of the pentagon:

punchout-path.jpg


what do you make of that?
[/QUOTE]

I would say: "Do not depend on straight lines when the impacting item is not a solid block."

More to the point, if it was not a plane that did this damage, what did? And where did the plane go that everyone saw? hmm?

It was garnered from here:

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=3308&st=0

They ask some good questions:

"If DNA is destroyed at ~150 degrees C, how did a fire hot enough to consume tons of metal, seats, and luggage fail to destroy the passengers DNA?"

Answer is so easy its laughable. First of all, the seats were not all destroyed, nore was the luggage, nor all the metal. If you read the links that you provided below you would see a picture of one of the seats. Missed that, did you?

Even if those things were destroyed, fire is not an even item. Body parts have been recovered from buildings that have been burned to the ground.

"To investigate the dynamics of the crash more, I looked at the most expensive and comprehensive computer simulation of the Pentagon incident I know of, the Purdue study. It showed the wings and tail disappearing at the moment of impact, and only purported to account for the single hole, which they say was made by the fuselage. They didn't show the wings and tail folding up; only disappearing. They said the plane entered the building "in a state resembling a liquid more than a solid". And yet they didn't show anything penetrate the building besides the fuselage. How could this happen?"

I really can't say too much here except that this person seems to want an excess of graphic detail from what was a simple computer model demo.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/911_pentagon_757_plane_evidence.html

The photo included is the only one not included in the above link. A very well thought argument however.

I would agree.

As I read more and more of this thread:

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=3308&st=0

the more I think we all need to stop and read it if for no other reason than to realize we are being a little too serious here...please...read that thread.

It is an interesting thread, but there really is nothing new. I note that the OP in that one is pulling some very familiar stunts.

I note that suddenly we are talking about the Pentagon again, and the next few posts by TheSyntaxeria are mostly verbiage.
 
I thought this was interesting...it doesn't really mean anything however....

this is rumsfeld talking in a parade interview.

They [find a lot] and any number of terrorist efforts have been dissuaded, deterred or stopped by good intelligence gathering and good preventive work. It is a truth that a terrorist can attack any time, any place, using any technique and it's physically impossible to defend at every time and every place against every conceivable technique. Here we're talking about plastic knives and using an American Airlines flight filed with our citizens, and the missile to damage this building and similar (inaudible) that damaged the World Trade Center. The only way to deal with this problem is by taking the battle to the terrorists, wherever they are, and dealing with them.

http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2001/t11182001_t1012pm.html

could this have been the source of controversy?

I was cruising around this conversation at wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:9/11_conspiracy_theories
 
Last edited:
Given that I already believe you to be a bit dishonest, you are not helping yourself by behaving this way.

First, you have nothing to base any claims of my dishonesty on...you don't know me...at all...you know 139 posts of me arguing an opposing point of view...chill out captain serious.

My first post:

hey fellow skeptics...it my first time...be gentle
When I saw this thread I just had to reply...conspiracies theory is a pet hobby of mine as well.
I am electing to play devils advocate, due in part to the fact that no one has done any real debunking in this thread...so I thought I would supply some info to be debunked...sound fun? ok...
Is it logical to believe the following:

In it I have listed the popular claims, and wondered if it were logical...etc Year Zero makes an honest attempt to explain things in a rational way, and based on my reaction to what appears to be a "warm welcome" everyone leaps into "smash the stupid newbie troll guy mode"... since then I have been on the defensive while maintaining my argument...

Now pretend for a second that the assumptions you have been making since my first post aren't clouding every response you make to me.

These are the arguments you have to refute, and you can't do so by quoting 911myths. Especially when there is a 911proof that has just as convincing information.

So I ask again what is the list of evidence that refutes this all and makes you believe the official account.

Your previous answers have all revolved around following a line of logic instead of evidence...the usual answer simply being "It's not logical". I have asked you to demonstrate how illogical it is and you freak out and use the crappiest analogies I have ever read to explain yourself, instead of evidence...


So what is the evidence. We have all looked at the same things...whats are you seeing that this side of the argument isn't seeing???

Why couldn't you have just answered the question to begin with if you are so sure.

Remember, "logical" analogies don't count.
 
I thought this was interesting...it doesn't really mean anything however....
You got that right.

this is rumsfeld talking in a parade interview.

http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2001/t11182001_t1012pm.html

could this have been the source of controversy?
Only for idiots.

Here we're talking about plastic knives and using an American Airlines flight filed with our citizens [as] the missile to damage this building and similar (inaudible) that damaged the World Trade Center.
Not much to hang your theory on, really. One mis-transcribed word in a partly inaudible response.
 
First, you have nothing to base any claims of my dishonesty on...you don't know me...at all...you know 139 posts of me arguing an opposing point of view...chill out captain serious.

Do you think this issue merits seriousness? I do.

In it I have listed the popular claims, and wondered if it were logical...etc Year Zero makes an honest attempt to explain things in a rational way, and based on my reaction to what appears to be a "warm welcome" everyone leaps into "smash the stupid newbie troll guy mode"... since then I have been on the defensive while maintaining my argument...

You are not honest, you repeat claims which have already been demolished, and you are rude. That is not how to make friends around here.

These are the arguments you have to refute, and you can't do so by quoting 911myths. Especially when there is a 911proof that has just as convincing information.

No it doesn't.

So I ask again what is the list of evidence that refutes this all and makes you believe the official account.

Your weird claims, your burden of proof.

Your previous answers have all revolved around following a line of logic instead of evidence...the usual answer simply being "It's not logical". I have asked you to demonstrate how illogical it is and you freak out and use the crappiest analogies I have ever read to explain yourself, instead of evidence...

So what is the evidence. We have all looked at the same things...whats are you seeing that this side of the argument isn't seeing???

Your weird claims, your burden of proof. Show us credible reason to question an aspect of the official story, and maybe someone will dig for evidence to support the official story. So far you've provided nothing of substance.

Remember, "logical" analogies don't count.

Didn't we already demonstrate that in addition to being less than honest, you wouldn't know formal logic from a hole in the ground?
 
thesyntaxera said:
It should be obvious that the official story is not the truth...regardless of sweeping conspiracies, there is more than enough evidence to support that.

Suspicions and inconsistencies are not evidence, per se.

So then what happened? That is my stance. You guys championing a poorly crafted pseudo-fiction as fact isn't helping.

Careful, Syntax. The mere fact that you don't believe the official story does not make it fiction.

As far as I can tell from the actual evidence available outside of the attacks, the government had foreknowledge, they had an established agenda that was waiting for a event of this kind, they went to great lengths to confuse the information about this event which leads to people like you and I arguing and never finding anything out, they sealed or destroyed all the evidence related to this attack in a clamoring attempt at protecting themselves and the saudi's from backlash, they have abused this event in every way possible to take maximum advantage of the fallout, they have covered up the environmental impact...

If they destroyed all the evidence, how do YOU know about it ?

all of this alone is conspiracy...and 100% provable.

100% ? Wow! You'll make millions with your book, then, and probably topple the government. Good luck with that. I won't be holding my breath.

thesyntaxera said:
It's understandable to say what you are saying, but you have not read nor verified any of them...so this statement means nothing.

So... because I haven't read all of the articles, I cannot say that "News are ALWAYS rushed when there's something big going on. That's why they keep giving conflicting accounts." ? So who else has read them, here ? Maybe YOU can tell Syntax. You've never seen a news room, have you ?

thesyntaxera said:
The official story maintains that burning office contents brought down the towers...this is impossible.

How would you know this ? How would you know that whole storeys of burning stuff can't heat up the structure sufficiently ?

Really, well I challenge you to discredit with facts any of the hundreds of news links supplied....

Been done already, methinks.
 
what bothers me about conspiracy theories is they tend discredit information that might actually be true and we might need to know. It is my theory that conspiracy theories are cooked up by people engaged in actual conspiracies.
 
thesyntaxera said:
First, you have nothing to base any claims of my dishonesty on...you don't know me...at all...you know 139 posts of me arguing an opposing point of view...chill out captain serious.

So what you are saying is that experience is worth nothing ? Another thread, perhaps.

In it I have listed the popular claims, and wondered if it were logical...etc Year Zero makes an honest attempt to explain things in a rational way, and based on my reaction to what appears to be a "warm welcome" everyone leaps into "smash the stupid newbie troll guy mode"... since then I have been on the defensive while maintaining my argument...

It's typical of people in your position to switch to the victim-mode. Namely, that, for some obscure reason, people will smash you although you are somehow correct. Perhaps it never occured to you that, if everybody takes down your arguments in this way, it might be because your arguments are flawed.

Now pretend for a second that the assumptions you have been making since my first post aren't clouding every response you make to me.

I can do that. Can you ? Can you honestly say that your responses to our objections have been completely unbiased ?

These are the arguments you have to refute, and you can't do so by quoting 911myths. Especially when there is a 911proof that has just as convincing information.

We're not quoting 911myths exclusively. In fact I didn't even know about that site until you started this thread. People are posting and linking and quoting from professionals and specialists who know what they're talking about. You're mostly quoting from lay sources that "feel" that something's wrong.

Your previous answers have all revolved around following a line of logic instead of evidence...the usual answer simply being "It's not logical". I have asked you to demonstrate how illogical it is and you freak out and use the crappiest analogies I have ever read to explain yourself, instead of evidence...

Logic is a good way to determine if a line of reasoning is worth following. Perhaps you've heard of it.

So what is the evidence. We have all looked at the same things...whats are you seeing that this side of the argument isn't seeing???

You're again assuming that there's something wrong to start with. That's a circular argument.
 
You post links that do not give a reasonable person grounds to believe there was a conspiracy. Then you claim over and over again that you have proven there was a conspiracy.

I post links that make arguments against yours, and I have never claimed I have proof 100% that all the 9/11 crap is all true...I suggested that based on the the investigative reporting done between then and now enough information has come to light to draw into question the official explanation, which as true as it may be is still riddled with faults that are exploited in favor of conspiracy.

Talk about dishonest...your main method of reply has been to distort everything I say to fit the CT'er picture you have imagined me as being.

What is telling is that you cannot or will not post a single fact wich discredits the official story or proves the existence of a conspiracy.

What is even more telling is that you won't admit that there is no way to disprove conspiracy with evidence, and that aside from professional opinion there isn't much you have to go on...you can make a general claim like..."it's basic physics..." as a means to validate your argument...but this is not evidence...There has never been a 100% accurate model made of the attacks because not all of the variables can be known, as well, any scientist will tell you that science is probabilities, which means we can argue until the cows come home about the science behind it...some will never agree.


The problem is that if you approach the official story and the conspiracy theories with equal skepticism, you conclude that the conspiracy theories are a big pile of the brown stuff.

I agree, most are outlandish. They exploit that lack of support information in the official versions to thier own ends, typical ct tactics...but that doesn't mean that the official version is all rosy either...you say the essentials are all that matter...and I say all the FACTS matter...this could be just a difference in opinion I think.

You're missing the point. Newspaper stories alone are not sufficient proof of extraordinary claims because newspapers get the facts wrong all the time.

But the research and interviews behind them is...you can write off some for sure...but not all...this is how you avoid having to look at any of them I assume...very nice.


Great! This is exactly what I have been asking for from the start, and you were claiming up until a minute ago that you didn't have it.

then read the news article links.

What's the hard evidence? Where is it? What does it prove is being covered up? Please be completely specific, don't just handwave and say "Oh, it's somewhere in one of the links I posted". Tell us exactly what the hard evidence is, where it is documented, and what it proves.

read the news links and draw your own conclusions.

Like I said earlier, suspicion of the motives and character of the current administration is a great place to start an investigation and a terrible place to stop one. I've been paying attention, but I have seen no hard evidence of a conspiracy.

The reverse question would be...why do you think there would be? I don't know if you have ever had to deal extensively with american government, but the beauracracy alone is almost enough to cover up anything.

Oh, for pity's sake. There is a mountain of evidence for the official story?

So where is the physical evidence that says that the buildings came down according to the official story? This is what I am asking...what is there that proves it...as simple question you keep dodging for apparently no reason since, I guess only hardcore skeptics like you guys are the only ones that would know anything as truth.

You didn't know how well steel conducts heat. Now you are trying to pretend it was a rhetorical question and you knew all along.

It was...if you were to reread my posts you would see the rhetorical question is frequently used.

and that you are a bit dishonest.

Prove it...or is this another inductive guess?

The second, well...

Do me a favor..prove that I am a liar, or have been actively lying...I have explained myself according the truth...you just don't want to say that you and everyone else reacted like a bunch of kindergarten asses.


I am not familiar
I don't know the exact properties of steel like an expert would?

but I would wonder how well steel diffuses heat, and if this would bolster, or work against the point of view that a fire weakened them to breaking...

the rhetorical part...a speculation based on not being an expert...are you noid much Kevin?


Link away.

That does not sound to me, in or out of context, remotely like a rhetorical question from someone informed about the physical properties of steel.

yeah it does...because it is....and when did I say I was an expert about steel?

I think you are trying to be sneaky, thesyntaxera/love.

I can say that if you have a mod investigate my IP you will find that love and I are not the same...there is no connection outside your swollen head.


Facts? Evidence? Why is it that you first deny you have a single solid bit of evidence disproving the official story, and then you turn around and make claims like this that imply you have exactly such evidence?

I don't deny, I post links that contest your uncited claims...I ask you to cite them, and you refuse because "I have posted to many links"....

all I am asking is what physical evidence is there that proves the official account....a very easy task if you are so well informed.
 
Last edited:
what bothers me about conspiracy theories is they tend discredit information that might actually be true and we might need to know. It is my theory that conspiracy theories are cooked up by people engaged in actual conspiracies.

you might not want to say anything like this in this thread...even if I agree with you to a small extent.

or since you already have said it...I will loan you my flame retardant suit, it is a little worn now, but still in good condition.
 
I suggested that based on the the investigative reporting done between then and now enough information has come to light to draw into question the official explanation, which as true as it may be is still riddled with faults that are exploited in favor of conspiracy.

I'm starting to wonder if you know what a conspiracy is. But what's evident is that, although you do not support every CT idea for the WTC tragedy, you are convinced of your principal assumption, which is that something is wrong with the official story.

Talk about dishonest...your main method of reply has been to distort everything I say to fit the CT'er picture you have imagined me as being.

Well, you do.

What is even more telling is that you won't admit that there is no way to disprove conspiracy with evidence

Er... yes you can. If evidence is useless, then why do you try to convince other people with what you consider evidence ?

and that aside from professional opinion there isn't much you have to go on...you can make a general claim like..."it's basic physics..." as a means to validate your argument...but this is not evidence...

Professional opinions, laws of physics and physical proof aren't evidence ? What IS evidence, then Syntax ? Your thoughts ? Talk to Iacchus, then.

There has never been a 100% accurate model made of the attacks because not all of the variables can be known, as well, any scientist will tell you that science is probabilities, which means we can argue until the cows come home about the science behind it...some will never agree.

Unfortunately this is true of EVERYTHING, so this entire paragraph is useless. The point is to reach the most reasonable and likely conclusion.

I say all the FACTS matter...this could be just a difference in opinion I think.

If I say the Great Brown Chicken sat on the WTCs astral counterparts and caused the collapse.. is that acceptable evidence ?

read the news links and draw your own conclusions.

We have.

The reverse question would be...why do you think there would be? I don't know if you have ever had to deal extensively with american government, but the beauracracy alone is almost enough to cover up anything.

I don't think the usual level of competence you guys attribute to your government allows them to be so efficient at covering up anything.

So where is the physical evidence that says that the buildings came down according to the official story?

Let me see. Logic doesn't work. Analogies don't work. Testimony, expert or otherwise, doesn't work. I guess now we have to rely on the molten steel found on the site. Next question.

yeah it does...because it is....and when did I say I was an expert about steel?

You didn't, but you doubt what people say about its properties under duress because it would put a large thorn in your opinion's side.

all I am asking is what physical evidence is there that proves the official account....a very easy task if you are so well informed.

As I said, evidence has been provided, but you ignore every single one of them because they contradict your views.
 
I'm starting to wonder if you know what a conspiracy is. But what's evident is that, although you do not support every CT idea for the WTC tragedy, you are convinced of your principal assumption, which is that something is wrong with the official story.

no..Belz...you are not a very close reader are you? I am convinced that there is no way to prove the official story 100% with facts and physical evidence.

Er... yes you can. If evidence is useless, then why do you try to convince other people with what you consider evidence ?

Whose trying to do anything...except argue the opposite side with the evidence they use, and asking you to debunk it which is what this thread is what this was all about intially.

Professional opinions,

are not facts.

laws of physics

What laws of physics support the official story? See I pointed this tactic out in one of my last posts...do you realize that the collapse is a chain reaction of events...??? How do the indisputable laws of physics explain each part of the chain reaction?

and physical proof aren't evidence ?

Just tell me what it is then? Thats what I am asking?
 
So what you are saying is that experience is worth nothing ? Another thread, perhaps.

What has that go to do with anything, except to justify why you can make assumption about people with no basis.

It's typical of people in your position to switch to the victim-mode.

and it's typical of skeptics to leap to conclusions based on little but logic which at times is flawed, and then to argue into obscurity any point that is being attempted...without ever justifying your own in this case.


Can you honestly say that your responses to our objections have been completely unbiased ?

As I said, I posted the arguments that contest the official account...there are whole sites debunking every one of the official claims, and some that make convincing arguments...I asked you to debunk them...these have been my responses to your "evidence"...my responses to personal attacks are heavily biased...as would yours be.

We're not quoting 911myths exclusively. In fact I didn't even know about that site until you started this thread. People are posting and linking and quoting from professionals and specialists who know what they're talking about. You're mostly quoting from lay sources that "feel" that something's wrong.

You haven't read a single link I have posted have you.
 
what bothers me about conspiracy theories is they tend discredit information that might actually be true and we might need to know.

On another board, one skeptic put the matter succinctly:

A conspiracy theorist is like having a guard dog that growls at every single shadow, day and night. It thinks its doing a great job, but in fact it is worse than useless.


It is my theory that conspiracy theories are cooked up by people engaged in actual conspiracies.

:D


Edited due to a dumb spelling error
 
Last edited:
you might not want to say anything like this in this thread...even if I agree with you to a small extent.

or since you already have said it...I will loan you my flame retardant suit, it is a little worn now, but still in good condition.

WOOOSH!!
 
http://911review.com/articles/griffin/commissionlies.html

and what about these?

1. The omission of evidence that at least six of the alleged hijackers--including Waleed al-Shehri, said by the Commission probably to have stabbed a flight attendant on Flight 11 before it crashed into the North Tower of the WTC--are still alive (19-20).

2. The omission of evidence about Mohamed Atta--such as his reported fondness for alcohol, pork, and lap dances--that is in tension with the Commission's claim that he had become fanatically religious (20-21).

3. The obfuscation of the evidence that Hani Hanjour was too poor a pilot to have flown an airliner into the Pentagon (21-22).

4. The omission of the fact that the publicly released flight manifests contain no Arab names (23).

5. The omission of the fact that fire has never, before or after 9/11, caused steel-frame buildings to collapse (25).

6. The omission of the fact that the fires in the Twin Towers were not very big, very hot, or very long-lasting compared with fires in several steel-frame buildings that did not collapse (25-26).

7. The omission of the fact that, given the hypothesis that the collapses were caused by fire, the South Tower, which was struck later than the North Tower and also had smaller fires, should not have collapsed first (26).

8. The omission of the fact that WTC 7 (which was not hit by an airplane and which had only small, localized fires) also collapsed--an occurrence that FEMA admitted it could not explain (26).

9. The omission of the fact that the collapse of the Twin Towers (like that of Building 7) exemplified at least 10 features suggestive of controlled demolition (26-27).

10. The claim that the core of each of the Twin Towers was "a hollow steel shaft"--a claim that denied the existence of the 47 massive steel columns that in reality constituted the core of each tower and that, given the "pancake theory" of the collapses, should have still been sticking up many hundreds of feet in the air (27-28).

11. The omission of Larry Silverstein's statement that he and the fire department commander decided to "pull" Building 7 (28).

12. The omission of the fact that the steel from the WTC buildings was quickly removed from the crime scene and shipped overseas before it could be analyzed for evidence of explosives (30).

13. The omission of the fact that because Building 7 had been evacuated before it collapsed, the official reason for the rapid removal of the steel--that some people might still be alive in the rubble under the steel--made no sense in this case (30).

14. The omission of Mayor Giuliani's statement that he had received word that the World Trade Center was going to collapse (30-31).

15. The omission of the fact that President Bush's brother Marvin and his cousin Wirt Walker III were both principals in the company in charge of security for the WTC (31-32).

16. The omission of the fact that the west wing of the Pentagon would have been the least likely spot to be targeted by al-Qaeda terrorists, for several reasons (33-34).

17. The omission of any discussion of whether the damage done to the Pentagon was consistent with the impact of a Boeing 757 going several hundred miles per hour (34).

18. The omission of the fact that there are photos showing that the west wing's facade did not collapse until 30 minutes after the strike and also that the entrance hole appears too small for a Boeing 757 to have entered (34).

19. The omission of all testimony that has been used to cast doubt on whether remains of a Boeing 757 were visible either inside or outside the Pentagon (34-36).

20. The omission of any discussion of whether the Pentagon has a anti-missile defense system that would have brought down a commercial airliner--even though the Commission suggested that the al-Qaeda terrorists did not attack a nuclear power plant because they assumed that it would be thus defended (36).

21. The omission of the fact that pictures from various security cameras--including the camera at the gas station across from the Pentagon, the film from which was reportedly confiscated by the FBI immediately after the strike--could presumably answer the question of what really hit the Pentagon (37-38).

22. The omission of Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld's reference to "the missile [used] to damage [the Pentagon]" (39).

23. The apparent endorsement of a wholly unsatisfactory answer to the question of why the Secret Service agents allowed President Bush to remain at the Sarasota school at a time when, given the official story, they should have assumed that a hijacked airliner might be about to crash into the school (41-44).

24. The failure to explore why the Secret Service did not summon fighter jets to provide air cover for Air Force One (43-46).

25. The claims that when the presidential party arrived at the school, no one in the party knew that several planes had been hijacked (47-48).

26. The omission of the report that Attorney General Ashcroft was warned to stop using commercial airlines prior to 9/11 (50).

27. The omission of David Schippers' claim that he had, on the basis of information provided by FBI agents about upcoming attacks in lower Manhattan, tried unsuccessfully to convey this information to Attorney General Ashcroft during the six weeks prior to 9/11 (51).

28. The omission of any mention of the FBI agents who reportedly claimed to have known the targets and dates of the attacks well in advance (51-52).

29. The claim, by means of a circular, question-begging rebuttal, that the unusual purchases of put options prior to 9/11 did not imply advance knowledge of the attacks on the part of the buyers (52-57).

30. The omission of reports that both Mayor Willie Brown and some Pentagon officials received warnings about flying on 9/11 (57).

31. The omission of the report that Osama bin Laden, who already was America's "most wanted" criminal, was treated in July 2001 by an American doctor in the American Hospital in Dubai and visited by the local CIA agent (59).

32. The omission of news stories suggesting that after 9/11 the US military in Afghanistan deliberately allowed Osama bin Laden to escape (60).

33. The omission of reports, including the report of a visit to Osama bin Laden at the hospital in Dubai by the head of Saudi intelligence, that were in tension with the official portrayal of Osama as disowned by his family and his country (60-61).

34. The omission of Gerald Posner's account of Abu Zubaydah's testimony, according to which three members of the Saudi royal family--all of whom later died mysteriously within an eight-day period--were funding al-Qaeda and had advance knowledge of the 9/11 attacks (61-65).

35. The Commission's denial that it found any evidence of Saudi funding of al-Qaeda (65-68).

36. The Commission's denial in particular that it found any evidence that money from Prince Bandar's wife, Princess Haifa, went to al-Qaeda operatives (69-70).

37. The denial, by means of simply ignoring the distinction between private and commercial flights, that the private flight carrying Saudis from Tampa to Lexington on September 13 violated the rules for US airspace in effect at the time (71-76).

38. The denial that any Saudis were allowed to leave the United States shortly after 9/11 without being adequately investigated (76-82).

39. The omission of evidence that Prince Bandar obtained special permission from the White House for the Saudi flights (82-86).

40. The omission of Coleen Rowley's claim that some officials at FBI headquarters did see the memo from Phoenix agent Kenneth Williams (89-90).

41. The omission of Chicago FBI agent Robert Wright's charge that FBI headquarters closed his case on a terrorist cell, then used intimidation to prevent him from publishing a book reporting his experiences (91).

42. The omission of evidence that FBI headquarters sabotaged the attempt by Coleen Rowley and other Minneapolis agents to obtain a warrant to search Zacarias Moussaoui's computer (91-94).

43. The omission of the 3.5 hours of testimony to the Commission by former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds--testimony that, according to her later public letter to Chairman Kean, revealed serious 9/11-related cover-ups by officials at FBI headquarters (94-101).

44. The omission of the fact that General Mahmoud Ahmad, the head of Pakistan's intelligence agency (the ISI), was in Washington the week prior to 9/11, meeting with CIA chief George Tenet and other US officials (103-04).

45. The omission of evidence that ISI chief Ahmad had ordered $100,000 to be sent to Mohamed Atta prior to 9/11 (104-07).

46. The Commission's claim that it found no evidence that any foreign government, including Pakistan, had provided funding for the al-Qaeda operatives (106).

47. The omission of the report that the Bush administration pressured Pakistan to dismiss Ahmad as ISI chief after the appearance of the story that he had ordered ISI money sent to Atta (107-09).

48. The omission of evidence that the ISI (and not merely al-Qaeda) was behind the assassination of Ahmad Shah Masood (the leader of Afghanistan's Northern Alliance), which occurred just after the week-long meeting between the heads of the CIA and the ISI (110-112).

49. The omission of evidence of ISI involvement in the kidnapping and murder of Wall Street Reporter Daniel Pearl (113).

50. The omission of Gerald Posner's report that Abu Zubaydah claimed that a Pakistani military officer, Mushaf Ali Mir, was closely connected to both the ISI and al-Qaeda and had advance knowledge of the 9/11 attacks (114).

51. The omission of the 1999 prediction by ISI agent Rajaa Gulum Abbas that the Twin Towers would be "coming down" (114).

52. The omission of the fact that President Bush and other members of his administration repeatedly spoke of the 9/11 attacks as "opportunities" (116-17).

53. The omission of the fact that The Project for the New American Century, many members of which became key figures in the Bush administration, published a document in 2000 saying that "a new Pearl Harbor" would aid its goal of obtaining funding for a rapid technological transformation of the US military (117-18).

54. The omission of the fact that Donald Rumsfeld, who as head of the commission on the US Space Command had recommended increased funding for it, used the attacks of 9/11 on that very evening to secure such funding (119-22).

55. The failure to mention the fact that three of the men who presided over the failure to prevent the 9/11 attacks--Secretary Rumsfeld, General Richard Myers, and General Ralph Eberhart--were also three of the strongest advocates for the US Space Command (122).

56. The omission of the fact that Unocal had declared that the Taliban could not provide adequate security for it to go ahead with its oil-and-gas pipeline from the Caspian region through Afghanistan and Pakistan (122-25).

57. The omission of the report that at a meeting in July 2001, US representatives said that because the Taliban refused to agree to a US proposal that would allow the pipeline project to go forward, a war against them would begin by October (125-26).

58. The omission of the fact that Zbigniew Brzezinski in his 1997 book had said that for the United States to maintain global primacy, it needed to gain control of Central Asia, with its vast petroleum reserves, and that a new Pearl Harbor would be helpful in getting the US public to support this imperial effort (127-28).

59. The omission of evidence that some key members of the Bush administration, including Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy Paul Wolfowitz, had been agitating for a war with Iraq for many years (129-33).

60. The omission of notes of Rumsfeld's conversations on 9/11 showing that he was determined to use the attacks as a pretext for a war with Iraq (131-32).

61. The omission of the statement by the Project for the New American Century that "the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein" (133-34).

62. The claim that FAA protocol on 9/11 required the time-consuming process of going through several steps in the chain of command--even though the Report cites evidence to the contrary (158).

63. The claim that in those days there were only two air force bases in NORAD's Northeast sector that kept fighters on alert and that, in particular, there were no fighters on alert at either McGuire or Andrews (159-162).

64. The omission of evidence that Andrews Air Force Base did keep several fighters on alert at all times (162-64).

65. The acceptance of the twofold claim that Colonel Marr of NEADS had to telephone a superior to get permission to have fighters scrambled from Otis and that this call required eight minutes (165-66).

66. The endorsement of the claim that the loss of an airplane's transponder signal makes it virtually impossible for the US military's radar to track that plane (166-67).

67. The claim that the Payne Stewart interception did not show NORAD's response time to Flight 11 to be extraordinarily slow (167-69).

68. The claim that the Otis fighters were not airborne until seven minutes after they received the scramble order because they did not know where to go (174-75).

69. The claim that the US military did not know about the hijacking of Flight 175 until 9:03, when it was crashing into the South Tower (181-82).

70. The omission of any explanation of (a) why NORAD's earlier report, according to which the FAA had notified the military about the hijacking of Flight 175 at 8:43, was now to be considered false and (b) how this report, if it was false, could have been published and then left uncorrected for almost three years (182).

71. The claim that the FAA did not set up a teleconference until 9:20 that morning (183).

72. The omission of the fact that a memo by Laura Brown of the FAA says that its teleconference was established at about 8:50 and that it included discussion of Flight 175's hijacking (183-84, 186).

73. The claim that the NMCC teleconference did not begin until 9:29 (186-88).

74. The omission, in the Commission's claim that Flight 77 did not deviate from its course until 8:54, of the fact that earlier reports had said 8:46 (189-90).

75. The failure to mention that the report that a large jet had crashed in Kentucky, at about the time Flight 77 disappeared from FAA radar, was taken seriously enough by the heads of the FAA and the FBI's counterterrorism unit to be relayed to the White House (190).

76. The claim that Flight 77 flew almost 40 minutes through American airspace towards Washington without being detected by the military's radar (191-92).

77. The failure to explain, if NORAD's earlier report that it was notified about Flight 77 at 9:24 was "incorrect," how this erroneous report could have arisen, i.e., whether NORAD officials had been lying or simply confused for almost three years (192-93).

78. The claim that the Langley fighter jets, which NORAD had previously said were scrambled to intercept Flight 77, were actually scrambled in response to an erroneous report from an (unidentified) FAA controller at 9:21 that Flight 11 was still up and was headed towards Washington (193-99).

79. The claim that the military did not hear from the FAA about the probable hijacking of Flight 77 before the Pentagon was struck (204-12).

80. The claim that Jane Garvey did not join Richard Clarke's videoconference until 9:40, after the Pentagon was struck (210).

81. The claim that none of the teleconferences succeeded in coordinating the FAA and military responses to the hijackings because "none of [them] included the right officials from both the FAA and the Defense Department"--although Richard Clarke says that his videoconference included FAA head Jane Garvey as well as Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and General Richard Myers, the acting chair of the joint chiefs of staff (211).

82. The Commission's claim that it did not know who from the Defense Department participated in Clarke's videoconference--although Clarke's book said that it was Donald Rumsfeld and General Myers (211-212).

83. The endorsement of General Myers' claim that he was on Capitol Hill during the attacks, without mentioning Richard Clarke's contradictory account, according to which Myers was in the Pentagon participating in Clarke's videoconference (213-17).

84. The failure to mention the contradiction between Clarke's account of Rumsfeld's whereabouts that morning and Rumsfeld’s own accounts (217-19).

85. The omission of Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta's testimony, given to the Commission itself, that Vice-President Cheney and others in the underground shelter were aware by 9:26 that an aircraft was approaching the Pentagon (220).

86. The claim that Pentagon officials did not know about an aircraft approaching Pentagon until 9:32, 9:34, or 9:36--in any case, only a few minutes before the building was hit (223).

87. The endorsement of two contradictory stories about the aircraft that hit the Pentagon--one in which it executed a 330-degree downward spiral (a "high-speed dive") and another in which there is no mention of this maneuver (222-23).

88. The claim that the fighter jets from Langley, which were allegedly scrambled to protect Washington from "Phantom Flight 11," were nowhere near Washington because they were mistakenly sent out to sea (223-24).

89. The omission of all the evidence suggesting that the aircraft that hit the Pentagon was not Flight 77 (224-25).

90. The claim that the military was not notified by the FAA about Flight 93's hijacking until after it crashed (227-29, 232, 253).

91. The twofold claim that the NMCC did not monitor the FAA-initiated conference and then was unable to get the FAA connected to the NMCC-initiated teleconference (230-31).

92. The omission of the fact that the Secret Service is able to know everything that the FAA knows (233).

93. The omission of any inquiry into why the NMCC initiated its own teleconference if, as Laura Brown of the FAA has said, this is not standard protocol (234).

94. The omission of any exploration of why General Montague Winfield not only had a rookie (Captain Leidig) take over his role as the NMCC's Director of Operations but also left him in charge after it was clear that the Pentagon was facing an unprecedented crisis (235-36).

95. The claim that the FAA (falsely) notified the Secret Service between 10:10 and 10:15 that Flight 93 was still up and headed towards Washington (237).

96. The claim that Vice President Cheney did not give the shoot-down authorization until after 10:10 (several minutes after Flight 93 had crashed) and that this authorization was not transmitted to the US military until 10:31 (237-41).

97. The omission of all the evidence indicating that Flight 93 was shot down by a military plane (238-39, 252-53).

98. The claim that Richard Clarke did not receive the requested shoot-down authorization until 10:25 (240).

99. The omission of Clarke's own testimony, which suggests that he received the shoot-down authorization by 9:50 (240).

100. The claim that Cheney did not reach the underground shelter (the PEOC [Presidential Emergency Operations Center]) until 9:58 (241-44).

101. The omission of multiple testimony, including that of Norman Mineta to the Commission itself, that Cheney was in the PEOC before 9:20 (241-44).

102. The claim that shoot-down authorization must be given by the president (245).

103. The omission of reports that Colonel Marr ordered a shoot-down of Flight 93 and that General Winfield indicated that he and others at the NMCC had expected a fighter jet to reach Flight 93 (252).

104. The omission of reports that there were two fighter jets in the air a few miles from NYC and three of them only 200 miles from Washington (251).

105. The omission of evidence that there were at least six bases with fighters on alert in the northeastern part of the United States (257-58).

106. The endorsement of General Myers' claim that NORAD had defined its mission in terms of defending only against threats from abroad (258-62).

107. The endorsement of General Myers' claim that NORAD had not recognized the possibility that terrorists might use hijacked airliners as missiles (262-63).

108. The failure to highlight the significance of evidence presented in the Report itself, and to mention other evidence, showing that NORAD had indeed recognized the threat that hijacked airliners might be used as missiles (264-67).

109. The failure to probe the issue of how the "war games" scheduled for that day were related to the military's failure to intercept the hijacked airliners (268-69).

110. The failure to discuss the possible relevance of Operation Northwoods to the attacks of 9/11 (269-71).

111. The claim--made in explaining why the military did not get information about the hijackings in time to intercept them--that FAA personnel inexplicably failed to follow standard procedures some 16 times (155-56, 157, 179, 180, 181, 190, 191, 193, 194, 200, 202-03, 227, 237, 272-75).

112. The failure to point out that the Commission's claimed "independence" was fatally compromised by the fact that its executive director, Philip Zelikow, was virtually a member of the Bush administration (7-9, 11-12, 282-84).

113. The failure to point out that the White House first sought to prevent the creation of a 9/11 Commission, then placed many obstacles in its path, including giving it extremely meager funding (283-85).

114. The failure to point out that the Commission's chairman, most of the other commissioners, and at least half of the staff had serious conflicts of interest (285-90, 292-95).

115. The failure of the Commission, while bragging that it presented its final report "without dissent," to point out that this was probably possible only because Max Cleland, the commissioner who was most critical of the White House and swore that he would not be part of "looking at information only partially," had to resign in order to accept a position with the Export-Import Bank, and that the White House forwarded his nomination for this position only after he was becoming quite outspoken in his criticisms (290-291).

some of these are already in dispute here...the problem I am seeing is a lack of strength in a few of the claims that he doesn't cite as fact...
 
Last edited:
no..Belz...you are not a very close reader are you? I am convinced that there is no way to prove the official story 100% with facts and physical evidence.

Which is why I said that "you are convinced of your principal assumption, which is that something is wrong with the official story."

You've just confirmed what I said RIGHT AFTER saying that I can't read.

Whose trying to do anything...except argue the opposite side with the evidence they use, and asking you to debunk it which is what this thread is what this was all about intially.

What opposite side ? You're the one who's challenging the official account. You're the one who's expected to present evidence.

[professional opinions] are not facts.

True. I said they were evidence.

What laws of physics support the official story?

Heavy things tend to fall down. But not according to you. You claim they should fall slower than free-fall speeds, whatever that means. Since when do debris fall faster in a controlled demolition ?

See I pointed this tactic out in one of my last posts...do you realize that the collapse is a chain reaction of events...???

I know you said that. That's why I pointed out that laws of physics are, according to you, apparently NOT evidence. In fact, I suspect that NOTHING is evidence so long as it goes against your close-minded belief.

How do the indisputable laws of physics explain each part of the chain reaction?

Are you actually saying that the collapse DEFIED the laws of physics ? Wow.

Just tell me what it is then? Thats what I am asking?

I asked a question: is physical things considered evidence ?
 
What has that go to do with anything, except to justify why you can make assumption about people with no basis.

Will you eventually start putting NAMES in the messages you answer to ? This is getting annoying and confusing.

and it's typical of skeptics to leap to conclusions based on little but logic which at times is flawed,

Yes. Reaching conclusions with logic. I can see how annoying that must be to you.

As I said, I posted the arguments that contest the official account...there are whole sites debunking every one of the official claims, and some that make convincing arguments...I asked you to debunk them...these have been my responses to your "evidence"...my responses to personal attacks are heavily biased...as would yours be.

I'm not talking about responses to personal attacks, but to facts and evidence. You basically ignore, for example, the opinion of actual experts in favor of those of laymen. How is this rational ?
 
http://911review.com/articles/griffin/commissionlies.html

and what about these?

1. The omission of evidence that at least six of the alleged hijackers--including Waleed al-Shehri, said by the Commission probably to have stabbed a flight attendant on Flight 11 before it crashed into the North Tower of the WTC--are still alive (19-20).

This one has been beaten to death:
http://www.911myths.com/html/still_alive.html

2. The omission of evidence about Mohamed Atta--such as his reported fondness for alcohol, pork, and lap dances--that is in tension with the Commission's claim that he had become fanatically religious (20-21).

And televangelists would never solicit prostitutes, right? They are soooo religious, after all.

3. The obfuscation of the evidence that Hani Hanjour was too poor a pilot to have flown an airliner into the Pentagon (21-22).

Hani flopped out of flight school the first time he took it, but he perservered and was awarded his pilot's liscence. They don't hand those out just because you take the course many times. You have to pass a test.

http://www.911myths.com/html/flight_school_dropouts.html

4. The omission of the fact that the publicly released flight manifests contain no Arab names (23).

Is this the official manifests, or the victims lists?

I suspect the latter:

http://www.911myths.com/html/missing_arabs.html

5. The omission of the fact that fire has never, before or after 9/11, caused steel-frame buildings to collapse (25).

Buildings have never been hit with 90,000L molotov cocktails before.

Again, NO STRUCTURAL ENGINEER HAS FOUND PROBLEMS WITH THE FAILURE OF THE WTC.

6. The omission of the fact that the fires in the Twin Towers were not very big, very hot, or very long-lasting compared with fires in several steel-frame buildings that did not collapse (25-26).

Unsupported claim. NIST studies have shown the fires had enough time to do the damage required.

7. The omission of the fact that, given the hypothesis that the collapses were caused by fire, the South Tower, which was struck later than the North Tower and also had smaller fires, should not have collapsed first (26).

If one expects even events from chaotic events such as fire, one will be disappointed with more than the WTC collapse.

8. The omission of the fact that WTC 7 (which was not hit by an airplane and which had only small, localized fires) also collapsed--an occurrence that FEMA admitted it could not explain (26).

But that NIST has. While WTC 7 was not hit by an airplane, it was hit by large amounts of falling, burning debris from the WTC 1&2. The suggestion that the fires were small and localized has been debunked.

9. The omission of the fact that the collapse of the Twin Towers (like that of Building 7) exemplified at least 10 features suggestive of controlled demolition (26-27).

These people have a funny defintion of 'suggestive of controlled demolition' becuase no demolitionist agrees with them.

10. The claim that the core of each of the Twin Towers was "a hollow steel shaft"--a claim that denied the existence of the 47 massive steel columns that in reality constituted the core of each tower and that, given the "pancake theory" of the collapses, should have still been sticking up many hundreds of feet in the air (27-28).

As can be seen in the video,for a short time they were. But having that much material collapsing around you isn't healthy.

Again. I'll stick with the Structural Engineers take on things rather than this silly amateur night.

I hit 10 and this loser is off to a lousy start. I might continue with more of these, but I suspect their quality will not improve.
 
Continueing to destroy thesyntaxera's cut n'paste arguement.

http://911review.com/articles/griffin/commissionlies.html


11. The omission of Larry Silverstein's statement that he and the fire department commander decided to "pull" Building 7 (28).

Irrelevant. 'Pull' is not the term used by building demolitionists. 'Shoot' is the prefered term. We already covered this.

12. The omission of the fact that the steel from the WTC buildings was quickly removed from the crime scene and shipped overseas before it could be analyzed for evidence of explosives (30).

The steel was finally all removed from the site by May, 2002.

http://www.911myths.com/html/recycled_steel.html

The investigators had time to look at the steel. Since there was no evidence of explosives being used, there was no reason to test the material.

13. The omission of the fact that because Building 7 had been evacuated before it collapsed, the official reason for the rapid removal of the steel--that some people might still be alive in the rubble under the steel--made no sense in this case (30).

It makes perfect sense in this matter. Even if there were no survivors, the citizens of NYC wanted the remains of their lost returned. The city wanted to recover the area and move on.

14. The omission of Mayor Giuliani's statement that he had received word that the World Trade Center was going to collapse (30-31).

Since he was told that by structural engineers who were on the scene:

http://www.911myths.com/html/giuliani_and_the_wtc_warning.html

This is not a big deal or surprise. I find it very difficult that Guilliani, the biggest cheerleader for the city of NYC, would be complict in anything so devastating to his city.

15. The omission of the fact that President Bush's brother Marvin and his cousin Wirt Walker III were both principals in the company in charge of security for the WTC (31-32).

Marvin was in charge until 6/2000. It is hard to accept that he had any hand in the matter some 15 months later.

16. The omission of the fact that the west wing of the Pentagon would have been the least likely spot to be targeted by al-Qaeda terrorists, for several reasons (33-34).

Had they full working knowledge of the work being done and could pick out the side from several thousand feet up this might come scraping near a relveant point.

17. The omission of any discussion of whether the damage done to the Pentagon was consistent with the impact of a Boeing 757 going several hundred miles per hour (34).

Several models have been made regarding the damage. It is spot on.

18. The omission of the fact that there are photos showing that the west wing's facade did not collapse until 30 minutes after the strike and also that the entrance hole appears too small for a Boeing 757 to have entered (34).

Photo's shown are deliberately picked by CT'ers with firefighting efforts and smoke obscuring the impact point. Other photos prior to the collapse show the hole at expected size.

19. The omission of all testimony that has been used to cast doubt on whether remains of a Boeing 757 were visible either inside or outside the Pentagon (34-36).

As if Blackwell's link wasn't enough, there is also this:

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/911_pentagon_757_plane_evidence.html

20. The omission of any discussion of whether the Pentagon has a anti-missile defense system that would have brought down a commercial airliner--even though the Commission suggested that the al-Qaeda terrorists did not attack a nuclear power plant because they assumed that it would be thus defended (36).

The Pentagon is within a very short distance from Ronald Reagan Airport. Missile systems would be quite a hazard.
 
Will you eventually start putting NAMES in the messages you answer to ? This is getting annoying and confusing.

The minute you start reading the contents of my posts, namely the links that contain the names you seek...



Yes. Reaching conclusions with logic. I can see how annoying that must be to you.

Logic is not fact...so what is the physical evidence that proves the official story, and that has you so convinced...or is it just your faith in your own logic that has you convinced..need I remind you this isn't evidence either.

I'm not talking about responses to personal attacks, but to facts and evidence. You basically ignore, for example, the opinion of actual experts in favor of those of laymen. How is this rational ?

have been asking for evidence, cold hard evidence this whole time...and not a single thing...just a lot of excuses and links to sites that say that "we don't know for sure but it is logical to make this guess"...as far as experts...the word experts doesn't mean infalliable as you seem to suggest, it means they are more educated, and just like anyone who is only viewing the video evidence they are going to be limited in the claims they can make.
 
Here is something a little more reasonable:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticisms_of_the_9/11_Commission_Report

Unresolved issues regarding prior advance warning

In the months preceding September 11, the governments of at least four countries—Germany, Egypt, Russia and Israel— are said to have given specific "urgent" warnings to the US of an impending terrorist attack, indicating that hijacked commercial aircraft might well be used to attack targets in the USA. [2], full list of July-August 2001 intelligence warnings here. The Egyptian and French warnings to the USA are claimed to have originated from Mossad and German intelligence.

German intelligence service BND told both US and Israeli intelligence agencies in June that Middle East terrorists were "planning to hijack commercial aircraft to use as weapons to attack important symbols of American and Israeli culture." (Source: Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, September 14, 2001)
Egypt sent an urgent warning to the US June 13. Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak told the French newspaper Le Figaro that the warning was originally delivered just before the G-8 summit in Genoa, and was taken seriously enough that antiaircraft batteries were stationed around the Genoa airport. According to Mubarak, "an airplane stuffed with explosives" was mentioned. (Source: New York Times, September 26, 2001)
Russian intelligence notified the CIA during the summer that 25 terrorist pilots had been specifically training for suicide missions. In an interview September 15 with MSNBC, Russian President Vladimir Putin confirmed that he had ordered Russian intelligence in August to warn the US government "in the strongest possible terms" of imminent attacks on airports and government buildings. (Source: MSNBC).
The Israeli Mossad warned FBI and CIA in August that as many as 200 followers of Osama bin Laden were slipping into the country to prepare "a major assault on the United States." The advisory spoke of a "large-scale target," and The Los Angeles Times cites unnamed US officials confirming Mossad's warning had been received. (Source: Sunday Telegraph, September 16, 2001; Los Angeles Times, September 20, 2001)
The Independent, a liberal daily in Great Britain, published an article asserting the US government "was warned repeatedly that a devastating attack on the United States was on its way." The Independent cited an interview given by Osama bin Laden to a London-based Arabic-language newspaper, al-Quds al-Arabi, in late August. (Source: Independent, September 17, 2001).
 
Adding to Kookbreaker's point:

16. The omission of the fact that the west wing of the Pentagon would have been the least likely spot to be targeted by al-Qaeda terrorists, for several reasons (33-34).

Less likely than a field in Pennsylvania? I can't imagine what point you're trying to make with this. You seem to imply that the terrorists would have had pin-point precision in their piloting, and would have been able to aim an airliner EXACTLY to the spot they wanted.
 
I post links that make arguments against yours, and I have never claimed I have proof 100% that all the 9/11 crap is all true...I suggested that based on the the investigative reporting done between then and now enough information has come to light to draw into question the official explanation, which as true as it may be is still riddled with faults that are exploited in favor of conspiracy.

Talk about dishonest...your main method of reply has been to distort everything I say to fit the CT'er picture you have imagined me as being.

This is hilarious. Out of one side of your mouth you paint yourself as a poor, skeptical victim of unreasonable distortion. Then out of the other you post a 100+ point conspiracy kook laundry list that includes silly claims which have already been flogged to death right in this very thread.

What is even more telling is that you won't admit that there is no way to disprove conspiracy with evidence, and that aside from professional opinion there isn't much you have to go on...you can make a general claim like..."it's basic physics..." as a means to validate your argument...but this is not evidence...There has never been a 100% accurate model made of the attacks because not all of the variables can be known, as well, any scientist will tell you that science is probabilities, which means we can argue until the cows come home about the science behind it...some will never agree.

I don't know exactly how life arose from non-living materials either. It was a long time ago and it was probably complicated.

In issues like this we are obliged to go with the best explanation available, and the consensus of people who know what they are talking about is that the conventional story does the job just fine.

read the news links and draw your own conclusions.

The hilarity continues. I ask you to state specifically what your evidence is and not to claim it is hidden somewhere in an unspecified link. So you claim you have it, and that it is somewhere in an unspecified link.

The reverse question would be...why do you think there would be? I don't know if you have ever had to deal extensively with american government, but the beauracracy alone is almost enough to cover up anything.

Doubting the honesty of government bureaucracy is a great place to start an investigation but a stupid place to stop one.

So where is the physical evidence that says that the buildings came down according to the official story? This is what I am asking...what is there that proves it...as simple question you keep dodging for apparently no reason since, I guess only hardcore skeptics like you guys are the only ones that would know anything as truth.

That's a dumb question. The smart question is "Is there a skerrick of evidence which contradicts the consensus of the relevant experts?". The answer is no, and while it stays that way you are a kook if you believe the WTC buildings were demolished, built out of explosive concrete or whatever.

It was...if you were to reread my posts you would see the rhetorical question is frequently used.

Fine, keep pretending.

I can say that if you have a mod investigate my IP you will find that love and I are not the same...there is no connection outside your swollen head.

We're neither ignorant nor stupid.
 
http://911review.com/articles/griffin/commissionlies.html

and what about these?

1. The omission of evidence that at least six of the alleged hijackers--including Waleed al-Shehri, said by the Commission probably to have stabbed a flight attendant on Flight 11 before it crashed into the North Tower of the WTC--are still alive (19-20).
What evidence?

2. The omission of evidence about Mohamed Atta--such as his reported fondness for alcohol, pork, and lap dances--that is in tension with the Commission's claim that he had become fanatically religious (20-21).
So he's a hypocrite. That's no less common among the fanatically religious than among any other group.

3. The obfuscation of the evidence that Hani Hanjour was too poor a pilot to have flown an airliner into the Pentagon (21-22).
He missed the Pentagon, and hit the ground. Then the plane continued along the ground until it hit the wall of the Pentagon. Which indicates that he was in fact a poor pilot.

4. The omission of the fact that the publicly released flight manifests contain no Arab names (23).
So they lied.

5. The omission of the fact that fire has never, before or after 9/11, caused steel-frame buildings to collapse (25).
You have got to be kidding. Steel-framed buildings are well-known to collapse in fires. This may be unusual for skyscrapers, but steel framed houses (for example) can collapse more quickly in fires than wooden-framed ones.

6. The omission of the fact that the fires in the Twin Towers were not very big, very hot, or very long-lasting compared with fires in several steel-frame buildings that did not collapse (25-26).
The WTC was structurally very different from other buildings, so this doesn't really say anything.

7. The omission of the fact that, given the hypothesis that the collapses were caused by fire, the South Tower, which was struck later than the North Tower and also had smaller fires, should not have collapsed first (26).
"Should not"? Without a full characterisation of the fires and the structural damage due to impact, there's no way you can say which one "should" have collapsed first.

8. The omission of the fact that WTC 7 (which was not hit by an airplane and which had only small, localized fires) also collapsed--an occurrence that FEMA admitted it could not explain (26).
That, at least, is not obvious nonsense. But neither is it positive evidence of anything.

9. The omission of the fact that the collapse of the Twin Towers (like that of Building 7) exemplified at least 10 features suggestive of controlled demolition (26-27).
1. Smoke
2. Dust
3. Debris
4. The buildings fell down
5-10. etc

10. The claim that the core of each of the Twin Towers was "a hollow steel shaft"--a claim that denied the existence of the 47 massive steel columns that in reality constituted the core of each tower and that, given the "pancake theory" of the collapses, should have still been sticking up many hundreds of feet in the air (27-28).
Uh, why? The building just fell down.

11. The omission of Larry Silverstein's statement that he and the fire department commander decided to "pull" Building 7 (28).
"Pull"? That's it?

12. The omission...
13. The omission...
14. The omission...
15. The omission...
16. The omission...

17. The omission of any discussion of whether the damage done to the Pentagon was consistent with the impact of a Boeing 757 going several hundred miles per hour (34).
This has been discussed at length. First, the plane hit the ground before it hit the Pentagon. That tends to slow the aircraft down a bit. Second, parts of the plane were picked out of the rubble inside the Pentagon.

18. The omission of the fact that there are photos showing that the west wing's facade did not collapse until 30 minutes after the strike and also that the entrance hole appears too small for a Boeing 757 to have entered (34).
Once the wings and undercarriage have been sheared off by colliding with the ground, a 757 isn't very big. Its size, in fact, matches that of the entrance hole.

19. The omission of all testimony that has been used to cast doubt on whether remains of a Boeing 757 were visible either inside or outside the Pentagon (34-36).
Since such testimony would be factually wrong, its omission comes as no surprise.

20. The omission...
21. The omission...
22. The omission of Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld's reference to "the missile [used] to damage [the Pentagon]" (39).
Which was a reference to the plane. Duh.

23. The apparent endorsement of a wholly unsatisfactory answer to the question of why the Secret Service agents allowed President Bush to remain at the Sarasota school at a time when, given the official story, they should have assumed that a hijacked airliner might be about to crash into the school (41-44).
Why would they assume that?

24. The failure to explore...
25. The claims that...
26. The omission...
27. The omission...
28. The omission...
29. The claim...
30. The omission...
31. The omission...
32. The omission...
33. The omission...
34. The omission...
35. The Commission's denial...
36. The Commission's denial...
37. The denial...
38. The denial...
39. The omission...
40. The omission...
41. The omission...
42. The omission...
43. The omission...
44. The omission...
45. The omission...
46. The Commission's claim that it found no evidence...
47. The omission...
48. The omission...
49. The omission...
50. The omission...
51. The omission...
52. The omission...
53. The omission...
54. The omission of the fact that Donald Rumsfeld, who as head of the commission on the US Space Command had recommended increased funding for it, used the attacks of 9/11 on that very evening to secure such funding (119-22).
Yeah. So?

55. The failure to mention...
56. The omission...
57. The omission...
58. The omission...
59. The omission...
60. The omission...
61. The omission...
62. The claim that FAA protocol on 9/11 required the time-consuming process of going through several steps in the chain of command--even though the Report cites evidence to the contrary (158).
Well, which one is true?

63. The claim that in those days there were only two air force bases in NORAD's Northeast sector that kept fighters on alert and that, in particular, there were no fighters on alert at either McGuire or Andrews (159-162).
And?

64. The omission...
65. The acceptance...
66. The endorsement of the claim...
67. The claim that the Payne Stewart interception did not show NORAD's response time to Flight 11 to be extraordinarily slow (167-69).
Was it?

68. The claim that the Otis fighters were not airborne until seven minutes after they received the scramble order because they did not know where to go (174-75).
Did they?

69. The claim that the US military did not know about the hijacking of Flight 175 until 9:03, when it was crashing into the South Tower (181-82).
Did they?

70. The omission...
71. The claim that the FAA did not set up a teleconference until 9:20 that morning (183).
And?

72. The omission of the fact that a memo by Laura Brown of the FAA says that its teleconference was established at about 8:50 and that it included discussion of Flight 175's hijacking (183-84, 186).
Okay! Finally a point that is possibly relevant, if insignificant.

73. The claim that...
74. The omission...
75. The failure to mention...
76. The claim that Flight 77 flew almost 40 minutes through American airspace towards Washington without being detected by the military's radar (191-92).
Being detected by the military's radar as what?

77. The failure to explain...
78. The claim that the Langley fighter jets, which NORAD had previously said were scrambled to intercept Flight 77, were actually scrambled in response to an erroneous report from an (unidentified) FAA controller at 9:21 that Flight 11 was still up and was headed towards Washington (193-99).
And?

79. The claim that the military did not hear from the FAA about the probable hijacking of Flight 77 before the Pentagon was struck (204-12).
And?

80. The claim that Jane Garvey did not join Richard Clarke's videoconference until 9:40, after the Pentagon was struck (210).
And?

81. The claim that none of the teleconferences succeeded in coordinating the FAA and military responses to the hijackings because "none of [them] included the right officials from both the FAA and the Defense Department"--although Richard Clarke says that his videoconference included FAA head Jane Garvey as well as Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and General Richard Myers, the acting chair of the joint chiefs of staff (211).
The head of department is not necessarily the right official.

82. The Commission's claim that it did not know who from the Defense Department participated in Clarke's videoconference--although Clarke's book said that it was Donald Rumsfeld and General Myers (211-212).
And?

83. The endorsement of General Myers' claim that he was on Capitol Hill during the attacks, without mentioning Richard Clarke's contradictory account, according to which Myers was in the Pentagon participating in Clarke's videoconference (213-17).
And?

84. The failure to mention...
85. The omission...
86. The claim that Pentagon officials did not know about an aircraft approaching Pentagon until 9:32, 9:34, or 9:36--in any case, only a few minutes before the building was hit (223).
And?

87. The endorsement of two contradictory stories about the aircraft that hit the Pentagon--one in which it executed a 330-degree downward spiral (a "high-speed dive") and another in which there is no mention of this maneuver (222-23).
Then how are they contradictory?

88. The claim that the fighter jets from Langley, which were allegedly scrambled to protect Washington from "Phantom Flight 11," were nowhere near Washington because they were mistakenly sent out to sea (223-24).
Were they?

89. The omission...
90. The claim that the military was not notified by the FAA about Flight 93's hijacking until after it crashed (227-29, 232, 253).
Were they?

91. The twofold claim that the NMCC did not monitor the FAA-initiated conference and then was unable to get the FAA connected to the NMCC-initiated teleconference (230-31).
And?

92. The omission of the fact that the Secret Service is able to know everything that the FAA knows (233).
:boggled:

93. The omission of any inquiry into why the NMCC initiated its own teleconference if, as Laura Brown of the FAA has said, this is not standard protocol (234).
Hey, maybe because there were multiple hijackings and planes flying into buildings and all that sort of thing.

94. The omission of any exploration...
95. The claim that the FAA (falsely) notified the Secret Service between 10:10 and 10:15 that Flight 93 was still up and headed towards Washington (237).
And?

96. The claim that Vice President Cheney did not give the shoot-down authorization until after 10:10 (several minutes after Flight 93 had crashed) and that this authorization was not transmitted to the US military until 10:31 (237-41).
And?

97. The omission...
98. The claim that Richard Clarke did not receive the requested shoot-down authorization until 10:25 (240).
99. The omission of Clarke's own testimony, which suggests that he received the shoot-down authorization by 9:50 (240).[/quote] And when did he receive the authorisation?

100. The claim that Cheney did not reach the underground shelter (the PEOC [Presidential Emergency Operations Center]) until 9:58 (241-44).

101. The omission of multiple testimony, including that of Norman Mineta to the Commission itself, that Cheney was in the PEOC before 9:20 (241-44).
And?

102. The claim that shoot-down authorization must be given by the president (245).
And?

103. The omission...
104. The omission...
105. The omission...
106. The endorsement of General Myers' claim that NORAD had defined its mission in terms of defending only against threats from abroad (258-62).
And?

107. The endorsement of General Myers' claim that NORAD had not recognized the possibility that terrorists might use hijacked airliners as missiles (262-63).
And?

108. The failure to highlight the significance...
109. The failure to probe...
110. The failure to discuss...
111. The claim--made in explaining why the military did not get information about the hijackings in time to intercept them--that FAA personnel inexplicably failed to follow standard procedures some 16 times (155-56, 157, 179, 180, 181, 190, 191, 193, 194, 200, 202-03, 227, 237, 272-75).
Inexplicably?

You've never met a human being, have you?

112. The failure to point out that the Commission's claimed "independence" was fatally compromised by the fact that its executive director, Philip Zelikow, was virtually a member of the Bush administration (7-9, 11-12, 282-84).
Conspiracy!

113. The failure to point out...
114. The failure to point out...
115. The failure ... to point out...
Wow. That was staggeringly pathetic. Do you know what "positive evidence" means?
 
Last edited:
So thesyntaxera, how does posting a huge list of lies, distortions, and insignificant facts advance your case? Can you pick a few things anywhere that you would actually stand behind? People here have asked for a few pieces of good evidence, and you claimed that they just need to read voluminous web sites. Then you post something, but it's simply a huge amount of extremely poor evidence. Is there anything good?
 

Back
Top Bottom