Any Conspiracy-Busters here?

[thesyntaxera]

And claims in that video have already been debunked. If you support that video can we assume that any claim it makes is the claim that YOU are supporting/asserting?

So you have debunked the multiple news sources, and government issued documents he cites in them...?? You can assume whatever you want, or you could actually watch the video's.

As I said previously, ignore his claims about the evidence he presents, and just look at the documentation.

I got banned from Hannity's forum for something called "Contempt of Host" for pointing out a verifiable lie that Hannity had repeated several times.

LOL...Well, he is a great american......

 

[thesyntaxera]

Who cares what the fireman said, really ? What are you saying ?

I do, because they were there on the burning floor directly observing the fire as it burned radioing back to inform the ground that the fire was containable.

Apparently your knowledge of skyscrapers, fires and impacts is not very impressive. Even if the plane missed the key components of the support structure, the fire could have caused more damage than you realise. After all, the heat didn't need to MELT or somehow BREAK the steel... just heat it enough for it to expand. I'm certain you remember your elementary physics: metals expand when heated.

So what does that have to do with the building falling like a house of cards? No it didn't need to break or melt it...but it needed to essentially knock out all of the steel on a floor for the pancake theory to work. Are you saying that a entire floor was incinerated in a hour, to the point where the whole building could fall down? What about the reinforced unaffected lower floors?

Unnecessary. Conspiracy theories are, by definition, self-defeating. Anyone with a basic knowledge of human behaviour knows that people involved in conspiracies tend to TALK about what they've done. It's been said, in fact, that the best conspiracies work when only one person is involved. In case you didn't get that, at that point it's no longer a conspiracy.

The official story is a conspiracy theory. They did talk, we heard, we did nothing...

In addition, CTs generally tend to get bigger and bigger as they are debunked, necessitating more and more people, which, as stated above, is self-defeating.

Except that this one hasn't for the most part, it's been pretty consistant....at least from the 9/11 truth folks. The people at letsroll are kind of wack...I was reading the forums, and they are attributing some of the damage to experimental ball lightning weapons....whatever that means.....

Now you demonstrate your lack of knowledge of science and inquiry in general. The official, accepted story IS the default explanation. Any competing theory bears the burden of proof. How does "all the evidence" point the other way if at least SOME of the evidence doesn't ?

So the official story, something that is well documented to be a poor excuse for an investigation in the first place, does not suffer the burden of truth?

Fascinating. Now you demonstrate lack of knowledge of Occam's razor.

Occams razor would suggest the the two wtc towers and wtc7 were brought down by explosives. It took government appointed "experts" analyzing the same video evidence to determine that it was remotely possible for the buildings to come down in the way acsribed to in the official account.

why would they NOT send a plane into the pentagon anyway ? What would [a missile ?] accomplish that a plane couldn't ? Wouldn't it be simpler to use a plane so eyewitnesses can CONFIRM the event ? Doesn't make sense to me.

An argument I have seen used in the book and documentary painfull deceptions is that it was a plane, or more like a drone, that was rigged to explode..namely a global hawk, which the ct's think is more consistent with the visible evidence. Did they fit that whole plane under the blue tarp?

First off, I don't think all 40 need to be damaged in order for the building to collapse. I mean, rip ONE of my legs off and I'll have trouble standing, especially if I'm stuck to the ground and can't hop.

You legs aren't 40 steel beams that were wider at the bottom than at the top, and they weren't designed to sustain multiple 707 impacts as the building designer states, and they aren't designed to shift wieght around the way most sky scrapers are built...imagine if they were rigid, the wouldn't be able to stand for very long...

Second, considering the amount of damage surrounding buildings were subjected to, I don't see how you can say the WTC collapse looked controlled. Would you elaborate ?

Sure, building 7 is the furthest away from ground zero. Care to explain how it caught on fire in the first place? Care to explain why the closer buildings didn't sustain similar damage? Care to explain why only Larry Silverstein's buildings were the ones that collapsed?

Wtc7 looks that way is why. In the first few minutes of loose change they compare clips of it next to multiple clips of other controlled demolitions, and they look identical.

There is the pull it reference too...in Martial Law there is a clip from the demolitions of the remaining structures, and they use the term "pull it" to blatantly mean demolish. The efforts to say that he meant, "pull the rescue workers out" are debased by the fact that there were no rescue workers in the building by that time.

Indeed. Have you EVER visited a site about this subject that happens to disagree with you ? Did you ever CONSIDER that you may be wrong ?

Yes, all the time.

 

[Belz...]

I do, because they were there on the burning floor directly observing the fire as it burned radioing back to inform the ground that the fire was containable.

Again: they didn't, and couldn't, see the structural damage. They thought the fire was containable, but they were wrong. You know... if doctors can misdiagnose a cancer after hours of scrutinizing you, firemen in the heat of the moment can be wrong, too.

So what does that have to do with the building falling like a house of cards? No it didn't need to break or melt it...but it needed to essentially knock out all of the steel on a floor for the pancake theory to work. Are you saying that a entire floor was incinerated in a hour, to the point where the whole building could fall down? What about the reinforced unaffected lower floors?

Syntax, if enough steel beams expand to the point where the floor can no longer support what's above it, the upper floors will collapse, and I'm pretty sure no scycraper can withstand a block of 15 stories falling on itself.

The official story is a conspiracy theory. They did talk, we heard, we did nothing...

So they did talk, didn't they ? Thanks.

Occams razor would suggest the the two wtc towers and wtc7 were brought down by explosives.

How so ? Occam's razor is the "law" of the "simplest" exaplanation. That means making as few assumptions as possible. With the EVIDENCE we have, which does NOT point to demolition, Occam's razor tells us that the buildings were NOT brought down by explosives. In order to believe that they were, we have to make a number of unsupported assumptions.

An argument I have seen used in the book and documentary painfull deceptions is that it was a plane, or more like a drone, that was rigged to explode..namely a global hawk, which the ct's think is more consistent with the visible evidence. Did they fit that whole plane under the blue tarp?

Again: WHY WOULDN'T THEY use the actual plane ? The actual model ? Why go through all the trouble of having to cover it up afterwards ?

Sure, building 7 is the furthest away from ground zero. Care to explain how it caught on fire in the first place? Care to explain why the closer buildings didn't sustain similar damage? Care to explain why only Larry Silverstein's buildings were the ones that collapsed?

Just because they're all owned by the same person or company does not prove anything. It's called circumstancial evidence. The fact that it's the furthest building is meaningless: did you SEE the damage to it before it collapsed ? And I certainly didn't hear any explosions on the tapes, and it didn't really fall in a controlled manner. Neither did the towers.

But then, if they wanted to destroy the towers with explosives, why didn't they plant the explosives in the first place and call it a terrorist bombing ?

There is the pull it reference too...in Martial Law there is a clip from the demolitions of the remaining structures, and they use the term "pull it" to blatantly mean demolish. The efforts to say that he meant, "pull the rescue workers out" are debased by the fact that there were no rescue workers in the building by that time.

I'm sure firefighters use demolition terms, yeah.

 

[thesyntaxera]

Again: they didn't, and couldn't, see the structural damage. They thought the fire was containable, but they were wrong. You know... if doctors can misdiagnose a cancer after hours of scrutinizing you, firemen in the heat of the moment can be wrong, too.

you go ahead and trust speculation, I will go ahead and give credit to those who were staring at it. Cancer and fire makes no analogy. Firemen are trained to deal with and assess fires.

Syntax, if enough steel beams expand to the point where the floor can no longer support what's above it, the upper floors will collapse, and I'm pretty sure no scycraper can withstand a block of 15 stories falling on itself.

So is your explanation in the "pretty sure" part of this comment. For the entire building to shatter, the entire building would have to have been affected, otherwise, the same laws of physics you say brought it down, would have held up, you make it sound like when steel gets hot it becomes unreliable, if I follow you logic, then this destruction should be repeatable and testable...it is not. The computer models used in demonstrating this convieniently leave out the center column from the equation. Building 7 comes down practically in unison on the exterior, with the middle imploding....like a demolition....

How so ? Occam's razor is the "law" of the "simplest" exaplanation. That means making as few assumptions as possible. With the EVIDENCE we have, which does NOT point to demolition, Occam's razor tells us that the buildings were NOT brought down by explosives. In order to believe that they were, we have to make a number of unsupported assumptions.

MY point is that if the government said it was controlled demolitions, you wouldn't be saying that the fire brought it down, you would be saying...

"look at all the video evidence supporting the demolition theory..."

Again: WHY WOULDN'T THEY use the actual plane ? The actual model ? Why go through all the trouble of having to cover it up afterwards?

Why wouldn't they use a global hawk? AS you may have noticed, the flight path of the plane brings it in to just about two feet off the ground, most real pilots talk about how difficult it is to bring a huge plane down that fast without crashing into the dirt first.


read and watch....don't be dumb.

 

[Belz...]

NOTE: Please include my name in your replies, so I don't have to read the entire post to assess if you're replying to me.

you go ahead and trust speculation, I will go ahead and give credit to those who were staring at it. Cancer and fire makes no analogy. Firemen are trained to deal with and assess fires.

Speculation ? COULD they or could they NOT see the STRUCTURAL damage in the building ? There is no way that they could see how the structure was doing, seeing as though they weren't inside. My cancer example simply shows that seasoned specialists can make mistakes even when they're staring right at a tumor. And they're in no hurry. Imagine in a firefighter's situation.

For the entire building to shatter, the entire building would have to have been affected, otherwise, the same laws of physics you say brought it down, would have held up,

How could it possible handle the mass coming down on it ? Can you imagine the stress on each floor as the top of the tower collapsed on it ?

you make it sound like when steel gets hot it becomes unreliable, if I follow you logic, then this destruction should be repeatable and testable...it is not. The computer models used in demonstrating this convieniently leave out the center column from the equation.

What center column ? Are we talking about the same towers ?

Building 7 comes down practically in unison on the exterior, with the middle imploding....like a demolition....

Even if that were true, "like" doesn't mean "is".

MY point is that if the government said it was controlled demolitions, you wouldn't be saying that the fire brought it down, you would be saying...

"look at all the video evidence supporting the demolition theory..."

Of course, but this isn't the case, so your point is moot.

Why wouldn't they use a global hawk? AS you may have noticed, the flight path of the plane brings it in to just about two feet off the ground, most real pilots talk about how difficult it is to bring a huge plane down that fast without crashing into the dirt first.

Haven't answered my question: wouldn't it be far easier to use the REAL plane than cover it up ?

read and watch....don't be dumb.

Tread lightly. Don't start an insult match with Belz...

 

[kookbreaker]

you go ahead and trust speculation, I will go ahead and give credit to those who were staring at it. Cancer and fire makes no analogy. Firemen are trained to deal with and assess fires.

And they never make mistakes assessing fires, that is why no fireman has ever died in the line of duty.

</SARCASM>

 

[kookbreaker]

Why wouldn't they use a global hawk? .

Because it adds more complication to a conspiracy claim that is already loaded down with complications. When a Global Hawk enters the equation, you now need to account for the original plane, the pilots, the passengers, you need to add another hidden landing strip for launching your global hawk (unless you think planes take off like cars pull out of parking spaces). You need another pilot to control it (remotely or otherwise), etc. etc. etc.

 

[Manny]

In my view the members of the executive branch named as conspirators are most likely nothing more than bad politicians that used their postions to put forward an unpopular and harmfull agenda, they utilized mass media idea control to keep the populace concerned about other things in the meantime. They covered up any harmfull connections between themselves and the terror organizations/governments involved, they impeded anything that would reveal any information about these connections...the motive being preservation of power...

In short they went on damage control.

I have had the impression for a long time that bin Laden, or someone who possibly hired bin Laden had insight into these connections and sought to inflict a double blow, both to the Saudi Royals and the American Power Elite in an effort to destablize the region there and create chaos here...possibly revolution.

In summary: The disinformation, and confusion of 9/11 is a symptom of the cover up that was enacted as a reaction to the potential blow bin Laden could have struck with the attacks.

If that's all you believe, then why do you keep referring to crap like:

Occams razor would suggest the the two wtc towers and wtc7 were brought down by explosives. It took government appointed "experts" analyzing the same video evidence to determine that it was remotely possible for the buildings to come down in the way acsribed to in the official account.

and

An argument I have seen used in the book and documentary painfull deceptions is that it was a plane, or more like a drone, that was rigged to explode..namely a global hawk, which the ct's think is more consistent with the visible evidence. Did they fit that whole plane under the blue tarp?

and

Sure, building 7 is the furthest away from ground zero. Care to explain how it caught on fire in the first place? Care to explain why the closer buildings didn't sustain similar damage? Care to explain why only Larry Silverstein's buildings were the ones that collapsed?

Wtc7 looks that way is why. In the first few minutes of loose change they compare clips of it next to multiple clips of other controlled demolitions, and they look identical.

 

[richardm]

Why wouldn't they use a global hawk?

Apart from anything else, it's far too small to pass off as a 757. It's 40 feet long vs. 155 feet, and weighs 25,600 lbs vs 255,000 lbs. Plus, it doesn't look remotely like a commercial airliner. So all the people who say they saw a 757 crash into the Pentagon would say "No way was that a 757! It's was some titchy weird looking thing. Must be a cover-up!".

They are not saying this.

QED.

Apologies if this has already been covered.

 

[Hutch]

There is the pull it reference too...in Martial Law there is a clip from the demolitions of the remaining structures, and they use the term "pull it" to blatantly mean demolish. The efforts to say that he meant, "pull the rescue workers out" are debased by the fact that there were no rescue workers in the building by that time.

As most of your other points have been dealt with competently, I'll make a couple of remarks on the above.

The full quote is as follows:

I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it (WTC7)." And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."

In context, the pull it reference seems to describe quite clearly that the effort to fight the fire there and the personnel involved were what should be pulled. Not the building.

And admittedly my experience is limited to various TV shows, but at no time have I heard controlled demolition people describing their work, they use the term "Drop it" or "Dropping". I never recall the term "Pull it" used in describing a controlled demolition, but would be interested in finding that professional demolitions folks use that term--if you can find said references.

Press on.

 

[kookbreaker]

And admittedly my experience is limited to various TV shows, but at no time have I heard controlled demolition people describing their work, they use the term "Drop it" or "Dropping". I never recall the term "Pull it" used in describing a controlled demolition, but would be interested in finding that professional demolitions folks use that term--if you can find said references.

Press on.

JayUtah, of the BAUT forums, is a Civil Engineer. The demo groups he talked to use the term 'Shoot'. 'Pull' is too likely to be mistaken for an instruction on setting up the rig.

Supervisor: Pull that wire around the corner over there!
Demolitionist: Pulling!
Supervisor: Not you! Oh crud.

 

[Hutch]

Apart from anything else, it's far too small to pass off as a 757. It's 40 feet long vs. 155 feet, and weighs 25,600 lbs vs 255,000 lbs. Plus, it doesn't look remotely like a commercial airliner. So all the people who say they saw a 757 crash into the Pentagon would say "No way was that a 757! It's was some titchy weird looking thing. Must be a cover-up!".

They are not saying this.

QED.

Apologies if this has already been covered.

For reference points, again, if covered previously my apologies

GLobal Hawk:

Boeing 757:

I have ridden my share of 757's. I have also seen a Global Hawk closer than most Americans have. I don't think there is much trouble telling one from the other. IMHO as always.

 

[kookbreaker]

For reference points, again, if covered previously my apologies

GLobal Hawk:

You know, it may not be that big, but you'd think someone would notice they were missing one. Oh wait, 'they' are in on the conpsiracy too. Add more complcations.

This is why you are stupid thesyntaxera. You claim to be thinking, but you're not.

 

[azazal]

Why do I feel that it would take a "psychic" channeling Atta to convince CTers?

 

[Belz...]

This is why you are stupid thesyntaxera. You claim to be thinking, but you're not.

There, there, Breaker. Let's not make a fistfight out of this.

 

[Manny]

You know, it may not be that big, but you'd think someone would notice they were missing one.

I think the bigger problem is that at some point along the way American Airlines might notice that they are not missing a 757. Also, then-Soliciter General (and presumbably conspirator) Theodore Olsen might notice that his wife is not dead.

 

[delphi_ote]

There, there, Breaker. Let's not make a fistfight out of this.

C'mon. The guy is begging for an Aldrin.

 

[Belz...]

C'mon. The guy is begging for an Aldrin.

Wow. I actually get it! Thank you mr.Hoagland.

 

[Blackwell]

I have had the impression for a long time that bin Laden, or someone who possibly hired bin Laden had insight into these connections and sought to inflict a double blow, both to the Saudi Royals and the American Power Elite in an effort to destablize the region there and create chaos here...possibly revolution.

Sure, bin Laden came from a rich, highly-connected Saudi family. I can see how this could be seen as a blow to the Saudi royals. What I'm not clear on is how you see the potential for a revolution here. Anybody with the ability to plan and carry out the attacks could have easily foreseen the galvanizing effect it had on the American public. Could you explain how this could have lead to a revolution?

In summary: The disinformation, and confusion of 9/11 is a symptom of the cover up that was enacted as a reaction to the potential blow bin Laden could have struck with the attacks.

So there was a cover up of the POTENTIAL blow bin Laden COULD HAVE struck with the attacks? Please clarify - are you saying that the American Power Elite™ covered up something that DIDN'T happen?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Thesyntaxera? How about you identify what you think are the strongest one or two arguments for a conspiracy, the arguments that are best supported by the evidence and which lead us most directly to the conclusion that there was a conspiracy, and explain them to us?

I asked this on the previous page, but I don't blame you if you missed it. Lots of people have been replying to you.

If you are going to argue that each individual piece of "evidence" can be explained away, but that the explanations are mutually contradictory, then pick two pieces of evidence such that there is no consistent explanation other than conspiracy.

I think that would give us a good basis for a reasonable discussion. Just the one or two things that you think best show a conspiracy or a flaw in the official story.