Any Conspiracy-Busters here?

[Kevin_Lowe]

Really, I was under the impression I had been doing that the entire time...if the supplied links to various sources are not good enough for you, perhaps you should do your own research....or better yet, get to work debunking as you do.

The problem is that you are asking anyone who wants to engage in a meaningful discussion with you to read and then critique many thousands of words of text, of wildly varying quality. It's just far too much content to be usefully discussed in a forum like this.

If you could narrow it down to one or maybe two issues that proved something was amiss with the official story, that would be a great help.

yep, you want me to narrow it down to two or one, as if there is ever a single piece of evidence that would beyond a shadow of a doubt convince a person one way or the other...besides that my contention has been that the linking of catastrophic coincidental failures, political agenda's, political histories, inconsistent timelines, poor investigations, muddled cover-ups, and events that defy any previously known or anticipated outcome... such as the way and means of the collapse itself that is, regardless of view point, very much in question.

Is there any concrete thesis hiding in there somewhere? Is there so much as a single significant place where you can confidently say "The official story says this, but I can prove that is false"?

Your entire arguments hinges on: They are too dumb to have done anything this involved...even though there is plenty of historical precedent for political conspiracy.

No it doesn't.

 

[thesyntaxera]

The problem is that you are asking anyone who wants to engage in a meaningful discussion with you to read and then critique many thousands of words of text, of wildly varying quality.

That is what would be required for us to be on a level playing field. Is that too much to ask? I didn't think it would be considering the claims made in the intial stages of this thread, although not so much by you however.

If you could narrow it down to one or maybe two issues that proved something was amiss with the official story, that would be a great help.

to narrow it down is useless, as in.. the components need to be viewed in a wider context. Simply arguing over the claims does nothing because the greatest evidence is in the news articles and government documents that set the stage for the theory to exist in the first place. I have posted all the links you really need to investigate from the CT side.

Is there any concrete thesis hiding in there somewhere? Is there so much as a single significant place where you can confidently say "The official story says this, but I can prove that is false"?

This isn't a case where you can do that. My point in playing devils advocate as I stated initially was to see what evidence there was to contest the CT theories which in some forms seems more realistic than the official CT claim.

No it doesn't.

Yes...it does...maybe not you specifically, but you are one of many who has posted on this thread.

If you want to have a reasonable discussion, review my sources...

 

[thesyntaxera]

Very very entertaining article.


http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2005/4/28/104931/652

Those who are truly addicted to conspiracy delusions should find a more appropriate outlet for their paranoia.

 

[kookbreaker]

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060109135344541

This is what they say:

Steel cannot remain in a molten state for weeks due to a hydro-carbon fire. Case closed again…

Of course this never happened. Molten steel is the wet dream of the CT'er. It never existed.

A paper passport cannot survive a plane crashing at 400 miles an hour into a building, survive the collapse of a 110 story tower which pulverized thousands of tons of concrete into fine dust, then be found intact on top of the rubble. Case closed again…

This is arrogant of the author, to think he knows exactly how things will happen in an explosion. Other paper, of mucher lower durability, survived the explosion, so could a passport.

And once again, the passport is moot. CT'ers act like it is the most important thing to the investigation, but it is irrelevant.

The rest of this 'case closed' claims is just a house of cards based on falsde assumptions.

 

[Belz...]

[...] my contention has been that the linking of catastrophic coincidental failures, political agenda's, political histories, inconsistent timelines, poor investigations, muddled cover-ups, and events that defy any previously known or anticipated outcome...

I'm not sure I see any of that in the events. Would you care to elaborate ?

If the government is not responsible they should feel some measure of duty to prove innocence to a skeptical world. If they have nothing to hide there should be a full disclosure for there is nothing that would be to sensitive to no be included in a investigation.

But that doesn't make sense. Why would you have to prove your innocence ? If that's the way things worked, we'd spend our entire lives in court defending against unsubstantiated accusations. Now you're shifting the burden of proof, which is typical of CT'ers, woo, theists and the like.

The reason I have stated earlier is: there is no real evidence to support it.

Funny, everybody here seems to be convinced otherwise.

Your entire arguments hinges on: They are too dumb to have done anything this involved...even though there is plenty of historical precedent for political conspiracy.

You mean OTHER conspiracy theories ?

Isn't that what skepticism does too?

No. Skepticism doesn't do anything. Skeptics who DO are just as bad as non-skeptics, but cherry-picking sure isn't a typical skeptical response.

 

[thesyntaxera]

Of course this never happened. Molten steel is the wet dream of the CT'er. It never existed.

so prove that there wasn't any.

This is arrogant of the author, to think he knows exactly how things will happen in an explosion. Other paper, of mucher lower durability, survived the explosion, so could a passport.

That paper wasn't in the pocket of one of the highjackers...to assume they could find such a thing requires the same leap of faith.

And once again, the passport is moot. CT'ers act like it is the most important thing to the investigation, but it is irrelevant.

Actually it's quite relevant. It's how the investigators claim they knew it was al-qaeda...isn't it?

The rest of this 'case closed' claims is just a house of cards based on falsde assumptions.

So knock that house of cards down.

 

[thesyntaxera]

I'm not sure I see any of that in the events. Would you care to elaborate ?

then you need to be the researcher and read. it is well documented, and supplied for you...would you like me to get some free time and a spoon as well...???

But that doesn't make sense. Why would you have to prove your innocence ? If that's the way things worked, we'd spend our entire lives in court defending against unsubstantiated accusations. Now you're shifting the burden of proof, which is typical of CT'ers, woo, theists and the like.

Listen, what doesn't make sense is that this group of words is emblematic of your logic...

Funny, everybody here seems to be convinced otherwise.

Thats because everyone here apparently only read the commision report, FEMA's report, and the NIST which have all been fully disputed.

You mean OTHER conspiracy theories ?

The official story is a poorly supported conspiracy theory, why are you not attacking it?

No. Skepticism doesn't do anything. Skeptics who DO are just as bad as non-skeptics, but cherry-picking sure isn't a typical skeptical response.

then quit doing it.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

That is what would be required for us to be on a level playing field. Is that too much to ask? I didn't think it would be considering the claims made in the intial stages of this thread, although not so much by you however.

It's too much to ask if you can't show us any good reason to make the effort, I think. If you don't have a single clear-cut point to make, just a cloud of vague suspicions, then what's the incentive to read all links you paste up?

to narrow it down is useless, as in.. the components need to be viewed in a wider context. Simply arguing over the claims does nothing because the greatest evidence is in the news articles and government documents that set the stage for the theory to exist in the first place. I have posted all the links you really need to investigate from the CT side.

That's a bit of a cop-out isn't it? Anyone can raise doubts about a complex issue if they feel like making the effort. The moon landing conspiracy theorists and creationists are proof enough of that. If there is no compelling evidence that the official story is incorrect on any point, why do you expect us to take conspiracy theories seriously?

This isn't a case where you can do that. My point in playing devils advocate as I stated initially was to see what evidence there was to contest the CT theories which in some forms seems more realistic than the official CT claim.

Please be more specific. Which forms? Which theories seem more realistic on which points, and why?

Yes...it does...maybe not you specifically, but you are one of many who has posted on this thread.

If you want to have a reasonable discussion, review my sources...

To be completely frank, nothing you have presented here is new to me. I'm sure I'm not the only one posting here who has kept an eye on the 9/11 conspiracy theories over the last four years. We're skeptics, we check this stuff out for fun. So assuming that you're better informed than everybody else here is probably a mistake. I've read all or most of this stuff, and I'm not in the least bit convinced by it because it doesn't hold water. I have seen the big picture you refer to, and I don't see any grounds for serious doubts about the basic story in it.

If you want me, and us, to revise that opinion you need to show us some issue or point where the official story is false.

 

[kookbreaker]

so prove that there wasn't any.

You still misunderstand the concept of 'burden of proof'. No wonder you are considered to be such a flipping moron.

There is no (real) evidence for molten steel in the basement.

That paper wasn't in the pocket of one of the highjackers...to assume they could find such a thing requires the same leap of faith.

At least two items of mail from the 911 planes were found. Much more flammable paper than a passport was able to survive. Again, this has been explained to you several times. You don't get it. Things survive.

Actually it's quite relevant. It's how the investigators claim they knew it was al-qaeda...isn't it?

No. It wasn't. That is entirely an invention on your part. You've been told this several times already in this thread. Obviously you are as thick as lead or are deliberately ignoring facts.

So knock that house of cards down.

Its been knocked down and stomped on. You just keep insisting its a magnificent tower.

 

[thesyntaxera]

It's too much to ask if you can't show us any good reason to make the effort, I think. If you don't have a single clear-cut point to make, just a cloud of vague suspicions, then what's the incentive to read all links you paste up?

Now later your going to tell me you read them already. Good reason? Wasn't the point of this thread to debunk 9/11 conspiracy theories? Did you think you were going to just make masturbatory comments to each other without anyone challenging anything you were saying?

That's a bit of a cop-out isn't it? Anyone can raise doubts about a complex issue if they feel like making the effort. The moon landing conspiracy theorists and creationists are proof enough of that. If there is no compelling evidence that the official story is incorrect on any point, why do you expect us to take conspiracy theories seriously?

Nice of you to identify what you are doing with this post, it is indeed a cop out. No compelling evidence? I have given you pages of compelling "evidence"...since there was no real evidence gathered. It's not that the official story is incorrect on any of it's points, it's that it isn't sure 100% on all it's points, and it leaves a lot of stuff out...potentially on purpose.

Please be more specific. Which forms? Which theories seem more realistic on which points, and why?

*fart noise*

To be completely frank, nothing you have presented here is new to me.

Ah yes, the old back up..."why should I bother to read it..??"

I'm sure I'm not the only one posting here who has kept an eye on the 9/11 conspiracy theories over the last four years. We're skeptics, we check this stuff out for fun. So assuming that you're better informed than everybody else here is probably a mistake. I've read all or most of this stuff, and I'm not in the least bit convinced by it because it doesn't hold water. I have seen the big picture you refer to, and I don't see any grounds for serious doubts about the basic story in it.

I don't really want to compare intellectual testicles with you over this, but it would be safe for you to assume I am at least as informed as you are, and further more, I feel that if you had done the research and been left totally unconvinced you surely have some line of logic that you followed that led you to this conclusion, and that most likely it is the esteem you hold for your own logic that is leading you to this conclusion.

Whatever it is, you have reasoning behind your conclusion and if you think you can rationalize away all the inconsistancies then I would love to hear it...it IS what I asked you to do in the first place.

If you want me, and us, to revise that opinion you need to show us some issue or point where the official story is false.

I don't desire to change your opinion, I asked to know why you have it, and then argued the points that contest it.

 

[thesyntaxera]

You still misunderstand the concept of 'burden of proof'. No wonder you are considered to be such a flipping moron.

You have broken nothing...kookbreaker.

There is no (real) evidence for molten steel in the basement.

There is a claim that was never investigated fully however.

At least two items of mail from the 911 planes were found. Much more flammable paper than a passport was able to survive. Again, this has been explained to you several times. You don't get it. Things survive.

Oh I get that things survive...it's just that your ignoring the improbability that you would find that specific piece of paper out of that whole mess...talk about needle in a haystack...

No. It wasn't. That is entirely an invention on your part. You've been told this several times already in this thread.

Yes... it is. No invention....how else would they have known for sure...no video getting on the plane, no name on the passenger list, nothing.....if your going to credit prior intelligence then your only damning the official story more.

Besides, telling me several times...and linking to a direct quote or page is compelling, not just your bare words.

Its been knocked down and stomped on. You just keep insisting its a magnificent tower.

How has it been knocked down and stomped on then? I haven't found one good argument yet, and trust me, I have been looking for a loooooog time.

 

[kookbreaker]

You have broken nothing...kookbreaker.
There is a claim that was never investigated fully however.

They also didn't scan for Unicorns and Elves. Big freaking deal!

Oh I get that things survive...it's just that your ignoring the improbability that you would find that specific piece of paper out of that whole mess...talk about needle in a haystack...

It is not as if the paper was crtical or even relevant to the investigation. If you look at what we have on the investigation, the FBI has never made much of the passport. The ones who scream and jump and down about it are the CT'ers

Yes... it is. No invention....how else would they have known for sure...no video getting on the plane, no name on the passenger list, nothing.

The FBI has done actual investigation and following of leads to determine the names. They had evidence, the passport was not a big part of it.

....if your going to credit prior intelligence then your only damning the official story more.

Give me a quote where the FBI says we know who it was because of the passport. You seem to think that the passport was part of the 'official story; when in fact it is a strawman of the CT'ers.

Besides, telling me several times...and linking to a direct quote or page is compelling, not just your bare words.

If you can't be bothered to keep up with the things said on this thread, then do not bother replying.

How has it been knocked down and stomped on then? I haven't found one good argument yet, and trust me, I have been looking for a loooooog time.

You haven't found one because you are a dishonest conspiracy theorist who doesn't want his little world of psuedo-superior knowledge shattered with actual facts.

You've disgusted several people who tried to work with you by your base dishonesty. You took that as a victory of some kind. That says volumes about what you are.

 

[kookbreaker]

*fart noise*

That's all that pretty much comes out of any side of you.

 

[thesyntaxera]

Big freaking deal!

The fact that a poor investigation was done is a big deal...your response is unsurprising.

The FBI has done actual investigation and following of leads to determine the names. They had evidence, the passport was not a big part of it.

So what was a big part of it. Your avoiding answering yet again. Here is the FBI pages related to 9/11...

http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/penttbom/penttbomb.htm

nothing in there about that which you speak. if you have something better I am waiting to see it.

There isn't a quote because there was no investigation into it. It was mentioned in the media while raising some eyebrows.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/september11/story/0,11209,669961,00.html

If you can't be bothered to keep up with the things said on this thread, then do not bother replying.

My thoughts exactly, if all your going to do is come here and hurl diatribe don't waste your time.

You haven't found one because you are a dishonest conspiracy theorist who doesn't want his little world of psuedo-superior knowledge shattered with actual facts.

You are just being an ass here I assume, incapable of forming an argument you resort to name calling again. I mentioned what I thought happened, it doesn't make me a "dishonest conspiracy theorist". Pseudo superior?? Sheesh...do you have self esteem issues or something? AND WHAT FACTS!!!!????? Still waiting for those.

I have posted links to hundreds of resources to investigate, many, many, many of them journalistic pieces based on independent investigation...you have supplied nothing but your unwavering faith in the 9/11 commision report even though it doesn't even make sense!

You've disgusted several people who tried to work with you by your base dishonesty. You took that as a victory of some kind. That says volumes about what you are.

Oh really, gosh I am sorry for having a dissenting opinion. I am not here to claim intellectual victories, I stated my intentions from the get go...get over it. Speaking of saying volumes Kookbreaker, your moniker might lead one to think you are the one who views this as competition.

NOW, are you done? Can you discredit any of that information? Do what you claim you can do, or explain your line of logic, or just answer my intial question without stooping to name calling caveman behavior.

 

[thesyntaxera]

That's all that pretty much comes out of any side of you.

 

[thesyntaxera]

Here I did the work for you....

http://www.fbi.gov/publications/terror/terror2000_2001.htm

It is believed that Mohamed Atta, who had obtained flight training in the United States during the prior two years, had taken over the aircraft’s controls, redirecting it toward New York City. At approximately 8:46 a.m., AA flight 11 crashed into the North Tower of the World Trade Center. Less than two hours later, at 10:25 a.m., the North Tower collapsed.

There is no mention of a passport at all, although they believe he was flying...

Why can't you admit that they may have planted it? It is certainly much easier to believe.

* This number does not include the 19 hijackers, all of whom died in the attack

they mean 15 right because four of them are possibly still alive...right?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1559151.stm

Also, lets throw out the passport all together...the only way to say with 100% certainty that it was Atta would be from the flight recorder.

http://www.pnionline.com/dnblog/extra/archives/001139.html

Two men who worked extensively in the wreckage of the World Trade Center claim they helped federal agents find three of the four “black boxes” from the jetliners that struck the towers on 9/11 - contradicting the official account.

Both the independent 9/11 Commission and federal authorities continue to insist that none of the four devices - a cockpit voice recorder (CVR) and flight data recorder (FDR) from the two planes - were ever found in the wreckage.

But New York City firefighter Nicholas DeMasi has written in a recent book -- self-published by several Ground Zero workers -- that he escorted federal agents on an all-terrain vehicle in October 2001 and helped them locate three of the four.

His account is supported by a volunteer, Mike Bellone, whose efforts at Ground Zero have been chronicled in the New York Times and elsewhere. Bellone said assisted DeMasi and the agents and that saw a device that resembling a “black box” in the back of the firefighter’s ATV.

Their story raises the question of whether there was a some type of cover-up at Ground Zero. Federal aviation officials - blaming the massive devastation - have said the World Trade Center attacks seem to be the only major jetliner crashes in which the critical devices were never located.

A footnote to the 9/11 Commission Report issued this summer flatly states: “The CVRs and FDRs from American 11 and United 175” - the two planes that hit the Trade Center - “were not found.”

And officials for the FBI - which oversaw the cleanup at Ground Zero - and the New York City Fire Department repeated this week that the devices were never recovered.

 

[richardm]

Oh I get that things survive...it's just that your ignoring the improbability that you would find that specific piece of paper out of that whole mess...talk about needle in a haystack...

Several things were found after the buildings came down that would have been in the front of the aircraft. That is to say, ahead of the explosion. Is it too much of a leap of imagination to consider that they could have been blasted straight through the building?

Also you - or one of your links - express astonishment that

A paper passport cannot survive a plane crashing at 400 miles an hour into a building, survive the collapse of a 110 story tower which pulverized thousands of tons of concrete into fine dust, then be found intact on top of the rubble. Case closed again…

If the passport was indeed found on top of the rubble, that would indeed be an amazing thing. But it wasn't. It was found - according to another one of your links -

[FONT=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif] two blocks away from the twin towers

.

Doesn't that seem a bit less amazing? The passport and, indeed, the hands presumed to be from one of the stewardesses were found on nearby buildings after they were thrown clear. Not dug out of the rubble. Or sitting perched on the ruins for an investigator to find. Plus, of course, they weren't the only things found at a distance from the towers. But they were the only things that were interesting enough to be worth reporting.
[/FONT]

 

[Belz...]

then you need to be the researcher and read. it is well documented, and supplied for you...would you like me to get some free time and a spoon as well...???

Just give me a summary. You can breast-feed me later.

Listen, what doesn't make sense is that this group of words is emblematic of your logic...

You haven't answered my objection: why would someone need to prove their innocence ?

The official story is a poorly supported conspiracy theory, why are you not attacking it?

Yes, those pesky fundamentalist islamic terrorists who think westerners are devil-worshippers would never do something like that.

then quit doing it.

You didn't even read what I wrote, did you ?

 

[richardm]

Also, lets throw out the passport all together...the only way to say with 100% certainty that it was Atta would be from the flight recorder.

Let's suppose that we did find the flight recorder. And the flight recorder showed that Atta was not one of the hijackers.

Would you find it more believable that his passport could have been found?

How many other passports were found belonging to passengers, by the way? Or if not passports some other form of identification (I'm not sure what the rules were regarding ID on internal flights in the USA, but I assume something would be required).

 

[delphi_ote]

I never said I agree with him....so, where are you getting this? I pulled that quote because Zero stated that basically no strucural engineers thought demolition the day it happened.

a) He wasn't a structural engineer.

b) Do you know how many thousands of structural engineers there are in our country? Even with one, that would basically be none.

Isn't that what skepticism does too? Besides, I am not cherry picking anything...the Commision, FEMA report, and NIST investigation have all been thoroughly disputed....all I am am doing is pointing out where.

The articles you've linked so far have mostly been the personal web sites of nobodies who are scouring the footage and reports looking only for information that bolsters their nonsense argument, but you've dismissed the experts who examined the wreckage and the building plans.

Instead of comparing me to the "disgusting tradition of holocaust deniers" in some sordid attempt at getting a rise out of me you could be reading and debasing all the information I have linked....

Or would that not be near as fun as hurling insults of the most immature variety?

You're making the same logical fallacies they do. You exhibit the same insensitivity. The comparison is apt.