Any Conspiracy-Busters here?

[Manny]

that isn't even a comparison.

Correct. The Holocaust was not broadcast on live television, did not feature the perpetrators on video bragging about it and left less physical evidence of precisely how it was perpetrated. It would be more accurate to compare you to a moon landing denier.

 

[CurtC]

The outside bit bows outwards and the inside bit falls down inside. Repeatedly.

To be fair, that's not a good explanation for the WTC1 collapse, which video shows started at the middle (the antenna on top of the building starts moving downwards before the perimeter of the building does. There were two major supports in the towers - the perimeter columns, and several columns in the center. In WTC1, the center columns had to fail first, but that doesn't mean that they all had to fail, just that enough so that the building couldn't support the weight of the upper part of the building. Remember, WTC1 was the tower that was hit by a well-centered 767 impact, so it would have done maximum damage to those center columns.

WTC2 was a different story - it failed at the perimeter, because the 767 hit more along one edge.

 

[Belz...]

So how are you going to explain this? That all the fire proofing did fall off? How is that even possible?

You've never rammed a passenger jet through a building, have you ?

So then I am asked to produce something of more substance...hence the hundreds of newspaper articles that seem to suggest to everyone but you guys apparently that something was amiss that morning.

We're either very stupid or we can make the difference between good and bad evidence.

This is the easy part, one that you don't seem to notice has been done for you. There are literally 3000 books, and hundreds of movies finding ambiguity in the evidence.

Oh NO! Laymen have opinions. What ever shall we do ?

A building is hit by a plane, and falls in 85 minutes in defiance of every known law of physics.

I'm not sure if you accept this, but there is such a thing as gravity that pulls the buildings down. Fire also tends to consume things and metal expands when heated. You'll also be amazed to learn that debris can fly several blocks away from a falling skyscraper and that fuel is flammable.

You all argue it by chopping it down to the plane hit it and weakened the steel and the building collapsed.....is over simplification a requisite for skepticism?

Funny, seeing how complicating matters is an innate trait of conspiracy theorists.

Besides, the biggest clue is that the Commission report, FEMA report, and NIST report all contradict each other and you guys... If you have read them you would notice they don't credit jet fuel, but the burning office contents as enough of a fire to weaken the steel. Which is impossible...

Oh NO! Furniture is flammable. What ever shall we do ?

Then there's the fact that white smoke is coming out of the hole the majority of the 85 minutes suggesting a weakened fire, not some raging inferno....

I was under the impression that colour is an indication of what's burning, not how.

The way the buildings have collapsed has been analyzed a million different ways, and each time there is never an explanation why the center of the buildings falls first. It's like somebody went in and removed an 8 foot tall section of all the 47 steel core beams and then magically made them completely disappear in three buildings in one day.

OR... or maybe because the building's main support is on its outside ?

The official story hasn't even been proven may I remind you. It is a conspiracy theory itself.

Oh NO! Crazy fundamentalist muslim terrorists who believe westerners are demon-worshipping decadents conspire to destroy our economy. What ever shall we do ?

but it's stupid of me to assume they maybe had some help???

Not stupid, just misguided. There is no need for any other involvement, no motive, and no evidence. Isn't that enough ?

The argument you are making based on the article is right brained moronism, the entire 911myths site is a terrible debunking source. It only offers more conservative assumptions to back up the unsupported initial assumptions....it's like a conspiracy site for official hacks like you.

I'd like you to read your own paragraph, there. Perhaps you can spot how flawed your reasoning is. If not, I offer the following alteration:

"The argument you are making based on the links is right brained moronism, the entire conspiracy theory is a terrible idea. It only offers more paranoid assumptions to back up the unsupported initial assumptions...."

Basically, you're just putting your hands to your ears and chanting, hoping that, if you don't even consider the opposite arguments, they don't matter.

 

[thesyntaxera]

The message I'm sending is that you're using the same logical fallacies and exhibiting the same insensitivity of a Holocaust denier. Like the Holocaust denier, because you think there are holes in the official story, you claim it is entirely false.

No, if you haven't been reading closely, I explained that personally I didn't feel that there was some massive conspiracy by the government to undermine the lives of thousands of victims by killing them. I suggested that the actual evidence in the least, outside of any collapse theories, and other ridiculousness, gives more than enough credence to the theory of politcal cover up and damage control because the federal government had more than enough warning. If you had reviewed the news sources this would be apparent to you.

Therefore if this had happened it allows one to look with different eyes on the official version of events which is also contradictory in case you haven't checked.

To say that your rationalizations are as good as proof is stupidity. There was no investigation worth it's salt, therefore any conclusions you draw are faulty.

One percived inconsistency is enough for you to accuse government officials of covering up the murder of thousands, because that's what you want to believe.

The problem is that there is hundreds of varying inconsistencies that you are convienently overlooking...like the news links, and the alternate interpretations of the collapse. For all we know there were demolitions charges, and any cover up is just to hide the fact that the executive branch is as stupid as you have been claiming...you could literally come up with a hundred different reason for there to be explosives in the building that don't involve the government putting it there.

The point is, you don't know for sure, you are making a guess just like everyone else...the fact that you don't know for sure should be a big clue. Instead you argue points garnered through faulty logic to back up an explanation that itself lacks much logic.

Any official or expert disagreeing with you is part of the cover up. Though millions witnessed both the Holocaust and the 9/11 terrorist attacks, eye witnesses are only to be believed if they support your case.

Not so much. I have never suggested that any official that disagrees with me is bunk, I suggested that based on the evidence surrounding the event it is plausible to think that politics was involved in coming to conclusions.

All of the eyewitness' in this case are questionable, no one remembers anything exactly how it happened, and further more there are just as many eye witness accounts that you write off because they don't agree with your world view.

Despite overwhelming evidence for the official story

Bull! IF there were such evidence you would have linked it up by now. There is no overwhelming evidence! How many sites do I need to link, how many references need cited before you will understand that the investigation was bogus. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT IS CONCRETE. That said, if you can find something I would live to hear it...

IT IS WHAT I HAVE ASKED FOR THIS ENTIRE TIME.

you still claim that there is "not one shred of evidence." Despite the fact that many people lost their lives in a tragic way, you maintain that the murderers who did it are not culpable.

So where's the difference again?

Your one of those shady skeptics that has such a hard time admitting thier own stupidity that it drives you to become a flat out LIAR....aren't you? I never said that the people accused are not culpable. I said there wasn't enough proof to assume they did it, and then to go fight two wars that killed thousands more than 9/11 all based on this.

The fact that people died is not evidence of anything except that there was a crime commited.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Kevin, I am trying really hard to understand you, however it seems fit for you to disregard any point I bring up with documentation saying I am asking you to comb through thousands of words of text, and that it is too difficult. I had initially only posted 5 links. You only needed to read the wiki article because it has every argument you have stated, and every counter argument to them written there for you. If that was too much to ask...sorry.

At the risk of repeating myself, it's unreasonable to expect people to do this if you can't give them a good reason to do so. You have not done so, except for naked assertions that if you read enough of this stuff you will become convinced there is some vague conspiracy.

Now that alone is not much of a reason. It doesn't help that I have read plenty of this stuff, and as a matter of fact I'm not convinced there is a vague conspiracy.

So then I am asked to produce something of more substance...hence the hundreds of newspaper articles that seem to suggest to everyone but you guys apparently that something was amiss that morning.

It might suggest that to everyone who is also a conspiracy theorist, and I suspect that if you hang out around such people you will get a biased view of what is normal.

Newspaper articles rushed to press in an emergency aren't terribly good evidence of anything, especially if they can't be backed up, and especially if you are using them as the basis of an extraordinary claim. If someone found a newspaper article saying Uri Geller had real psi powers that would not convince a rational person that Uri Geller had real psi powers.

I have already explained this several times, apparently my answers aren't good enough for you. You have said already that none of this is new to you so why even ask this question anyway? You should already know what the synthesis of the content of those articles is....in case you haven't guessed yet they are refutations of your claims and investigations into the circumstances leading up to 911 and after...something that I suppose doesn't have any bearing on your logical process.

Why do I ask these questions? Two reasons. Maybe you'll have some really convincing piece of evidence that I somehow missed (although you have already admitted you do not). Maybe you'll realise, in the attempt to get your thoughts in order on the issue so you can commit them to paper, that you don't actually have a single sensible reason to fix the belief there was a conspiracy.

Either of these outcomes would suit me. If there is a conspiracy I want to know, and if you are getting overexited by a cloud of innuendo I want you to know.

This is the easy part, one that you don't seem to notice has been done for you. There are literally 3000 books, and hundreds of movies finding ambiguity in the evidence. The simple fact that no true investigation into anything was done is enough ambiguity...then there's the building collapses which despite what you and your skeptical witch hunter friends say is mysterious...and this is what baffles me about all the responses so far...

There are books saying UFOs built the pyramids too, and books "finding" ambiguities in the evidence that the earth is billions of years old. You seem to think that if the volume of twaddle about a given topic is large enough there must be some truth to it, but that is not necessarily so. What you really want is a single bit of solid evidence.

A building is hit by a plane, and falls in 85 minutes in defiance of every known law of physics. You all argue it by chopping it down to the plane hit it and weakened the steel and the building collapsed.....is over simplification a requisite for skepticism?

That's the consensus of the people who understand the ins and outs of engineering and physics far, far better than me. We have already established that I know engineering and physics better than you.

Now if you want us to believe that you and the other conspiracy theorists have cottoned on to something that people who have studied and worked in the field for decades have missed, you need some convincing evidence. You simply do not have this evidence.

All you have is a thousand variations on "How could it fall like that? It doesn't make sense to me personally! Me, an ignorant person! How do I know all those experts aren't just wrong, or lying?".

The thing is, the reason we have professional engineers with years of university training is that having laypeople take a guess at the outcome of engineering issues is not a way of proceeding that reliably works.

Besides, the biggest clue is that the Commission report, FEMA report, and NIST report all contradict each other and you guys... If you have read them you would notice they don't credit jet fuel, but the burning office contents as enough of a fire to weaken the steel. Which is impossible...

How would you know what is possible and what is not? You didn't even know whether or not steel was a good conductor of heat, and now you're confidently making claims about what is or isn't possible?

Then there's the fact that white smoke is coming out of the hole the majority of the 85 minutes suggesting a weakened fire, not some raging inferno....

and there is of course the pyroclastic flow of smoke that wafts down...

Which proves what? Show your work. What does this mean in terms of the temperature inside the building, and what does this mean for the strength of damaged trusses?

The way the buildings have collapsed has been analyzed a million different ways, and each time there is never an explanation why the center of the buildings falls first. It's like somebody went in and removed an 8 foot tall section of all the 47 steel core beams and then magically made them completely disappear in three buildings in one day.

This has, I think, been explained to you repeatedly. The WTC towers used a modular truss system of construction which was practically unique, and which failed under the combination of impact damage and fire. No magic needs to be invoked.

The official story hasn't even been proven may I remind you. It is a conspiracy theory itself.

It's ok for you to believe a poorly supported conspiracy theory about 19 highjackers(even though it is 15 now)who made it through every international, national, and state investigation agency, and every terrorist counter measure our nation, and the international community has to offer. Then after getting here are able to plan and carry out despite numerous warnings from government agencies, as well as international intelligence agencies the deadliest attack on our nation...with the aid of every concieveable coincidental catasrophic failure there could ever be....

but it's stupid of me to assume they maybe had some help???

Thinking that it was unlikely is a perfectly good place to start an investigation, but an idiotic place to stop one.

Ruling out the possibility of complacency and incompetence without any evidence isn't exactly logically rigorous. So if you want to put it that way, yes, it is very stupid to assume as a fact that they had inside help.

There is more than enough evidence supplied in the news articles you haven't read to make this a valid concern. In fact, it's really only americans who don't question the official story...just about everyone else in the international community thinks it was an inside job as well.

Even if this was true (and it's a lie), so? Lots of people think the official story about the Kennedy assassination is false too, and a disturbing number of people think the earth is 6000 years old, or think we never landed on the moon. Lots of people think aliens abduct people, and that homeopathy works.

What matters is the evidence, not the popularity.

also, what are you terming "essentials"? Is this your way of accounting for all the inconsistencies that you find when you compare the three official explanantions?

No. It's to allow for the fact that there are legitimate questions about who knew what when and whether the White House deliberately made Islamic terrorism a low priority for the intelligence services because they knew any overt acts of terrorism that did occur would suit their agenda for Afghanistan and Iraq.

The essentials of the story are that a cell of Islamic nutters backed by Al Qaeda conspired to hijack four planes and crash them into things, that they succeeded because the existing systems to deal with such attacks were totally inadequate, that one plane hit the Pentagon and two planes hit the WTC buildings causing them to collapse.

 

[Belz...]

No, if you haven't been reading closely, I explained that personally I didn't feel that there was some massive conspiracy by the government to undermine the lives of thousands of victims by killing them. I suggested that the actual evidence in the least, outside of any collapse theories, and other ridiculousness, gives more than enough credence to the theory of politcal cover up and damage control because the federal government had more than enough warning. If you had reviewed the news sources this would be apparent to you.

I don't understand your position, then. If you DON'T believe there was a government conspiracy, and you STILL believe that the official story is not the truth, then what DO you think happened ?

The problem is that there is hundreds of varying inconsistencies that you are convienently overlooking...like the news links, and the alternate interpretations of the collapse.

Oh NO! Different people have different opinions when not in possession of the full facts. What ever shall we do ?

For all we know there were demolitions charges, and any cover up is just to hide the fact that the executive branch is as stupid as you have been claiming...you could literally come up with a hundred different reason for there to be explosives in the building that don't involve the government putting it there.

OH! I see. So you believe that, since ramming jets into the WTC couldn't possibly have toppled the buildings, the terrorists put explosives there to knock the things down ? Then why ram jets into it ? Why give people time to react and evacuate ?

Have you even SEEN a real demolition ?

The point is, you don't know for sure, you are making a guess just like everyone else...the fact that you don't know for sure should be a big clue.

Of what ? When do we EVER know anything for sure ?

All of the eyewitness' in this case are questionable, no one remembers anything exactly how it happened,

For once, I agree with you. Eyewitnesses are unreliable. Always.

Your one of those shady skeptics that has such a hard time admitting thier own stupidity that it drives you to become a flat out LIAR....aren't you?

Careful, now. One could also say that when you're out of arguments, you resort to insults. Don't open that door.

 

[richardm]

To be fair, that's not a good explanation for the WTC1 collapse

Fair enough - thanks!

 

[thesyntaxera]

You have not done so, except for naked assertions that if you read enough of this stuff you will become convinced there is some vague conspiracy.

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.

Now that alone is not much of a reason. It doesn't help that I have read plenty of this stuff, and as a matter of fact I'm not convinced there is a vague conspiracy.

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

It might suggest that to everyone who is also a conspiracy theorist, and I suspect that if you hang out around such people you will get a biased view of what is normal.

And blanket skepticism isn't a bias?

Newspaper articles rushed to press in an emergency aren't terribly good evidence of anything

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

especially if they can't be backed up

Which they are if you had read them this would be obvious.

and especially if you are using them as the basis of an extraordinary claim.

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.

Maybe you'll realise, in the attempt to get your thoughts in order on the issue so you can commit them to paper, that you don't actually have a single sensible reason to fix the belief there was a conspiracy.

there is no smoking gun in favor of the official conspriacy either. There is plenty of evidence to suggest a governmental cover up of the events.

If there is a conspiracy I want to know, and if you are getting overexited by a cloud of innuendo I want you to know

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.

What you really want is a single bit of solid evidence.

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

That's the consensus of the people who understand the ins and outs of engineering and physics far, far better than me.

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.

We have already established that I know engineering and physics better than you.

When, and how could you know anything about me?

You simply do not have this evidence.

Nor do you or the government,

All you have is a thousand variations on "How could it fall like that? It doesn't make sense to me personally! Me, an ignorant person! How do I know all those experts aren't just wrong, or lying?".

Actually I posted links to very detailed step by step looks at the official series of events, and every single one of the theories you supply is debunked, thoroughly.

The thing is, the reason we have professional engineers with years of university training is that having laypeople take a guess at the outcome of engineering issues is not a way of proceeding that reliably works.

Agreed and as I stated, it's ok for you to disregard the views of other scientists/researchers because they don't jive with you.

How would you know what is possible and what is not?

How would you know?

You didn't even know whether or not steel was a good conductor of heat, and now you're confidently making claims about what is or isn't possible?

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.

Which proves what? Show your work.

i did, you made excuses for not reading it.

This has, I think, been explained to you repeatedly. The WTC towers used a modular truss system of construction which was practically unique, and which failed under the combination of impact damage and fire. No magic needs to be invoked.

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

What matters is the evidence, not the popularity.

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

The essentials of the story are that a cell of Islamic nutters backed by Al Qaeda conspired to hijack four planes and crash them into things, that they succeeded because the existing systems to deal with such attacks were totally inadequate, that one plane hit the Pentagon and two planes hit the WTC buildings causing them to collapse.

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

 

[Belz...]

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

Bias. News are ALWAYS rushed when there's something big going on. That's why they keep giving conflicting accounts.

 

[thesyntaxera]

I don't understand your position, then. If you DON'T believe there was a government conspiracy, and you STILL believe that the official story is not the truth, then what DO you think happened ?

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

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...

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

 

[kookbreaker]

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.

No, there is not. Despite your claims and repeating factoids that have been shown to be false, you have yet to establish that the official story is signifigantly wrong by any measure.

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

We support it as fact because it is fact.

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...

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

You have low standards for "100%".

 

[thesyntaxera]

Bias. News are ALWAYS rushed when there's something big going on. That's why they keep giving conflicting accounts.

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

 

[thesyntaxera]

No, there is not. Despite your claims and repeating factoids that have been shown to be false, you have yet to establish that the official story is signifigantly wrong by any measure.

The official story maintains the the flight recorders were not found, you guys say otherwise. The official story maintains that burning office contents brought down the towers...this is impossible.

All of the things you are claiming as fact are inferences from experts viewing the same video evidence. There are other experts who disagree with them...you are ignoring them.

It's a guess, get it...not fact...there was no investigation beyond the supported story. They couldn't have even known who did it until afterward unless they had previous knowledge, which just points to ineptitude or conspiracy yet again.

We support it as fact because it is fact.

What are the facts? What is the physical evidence? They didn't find anything after the event. So did they use all that intell from before that was no good and worth ignoring until the buildings were attacked?

You have low standards for "100%".

Really, well I challenge you to discredit with facts any of the hundreds of news links supplied....if you can't than this statement means nothing as well.

 

[kookbreaker]

The official story maintains the the flight recorders were not found, you guys say otherwise.

We have never said that. Ever. I defy you to find the post where I have said the WTC recorders were found. This is your imagination run wild. Retract this claim.

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

According to you, but you are in fact wrong and not an expert in any field to declare something to be impossible.

All of the things you are claiming as fact are inferences from experts viewing the same video evidence. There are other experts who disagree with them...you are ignoring them.

Actually, not one single person you have quoted is an expert. You have not quoted a structural engineer, failure analyist, or anyone relevant. You've been called on this several times. But you keep claiming otherwise.

It's a guess, get it...not fact.

No. It is fact. You wanting it to be otherwise does not make it different.

..there was no investigation beyond the supported story.

According to you, and you have demonstrated a deliberate lack of knowledge in this matter

They couldn't have even known who did it until afterward unless they had previous knowledge, which just points to ineptitude or conspiracy yet again.

This does not follow. There are many ways that they could have found out after the fact via the names on the manifest, eyewitness accounts, and other investigation techniques. Your rejection of them does not make them illegitimate.

What are the facts? What is the physical evidence? They didn't find anything after the event. So did they use all that intell from before that was no good and worth ignoring until the buildings were attacked?

If a person is suspected of being sympathetic to terrorists, we do not have the right to keep him off airplanes, at least not before 9/11.

Really, well I challenge you to discredit with facts any of the hundreds of news links supplied....if you can't than this statement means nothing as well.

In your last blast of links I spent two seconds to spot fallacies and mythmaking that had already been debunked in this very thread. Your response to that was for me to 'prove it wasn't there', a la Ed Wood.

You have not produced any experts to show the collapse model is flawed, you have not produced any evidence that the investigation was bungled, you have not done anything except repeat the 'If I ran the zoo' fallacy. Your tactics are the same as those of Holocost deniers, deny it though you might.

Is there any reason we should take a petulant, whiney little child like you seriously in any way?

 

[thesyntaxera]

We have never said that. Ever. I defy you to find the post where I have said the WTC recorders were found. This is your imagination run wild. Retract this claim.

What you seem to be missing is the element of common sense and the burden of proof. Planes hit the Trade Center and the Pentagon. That is undisputed (yes, even for the Pentagon -- people who don't believe that a commercial airliner hit the Pentagon should be disregarded as, at absolute best, idiots. Hundreds of people saw the plane. Passengers on the plane reported its flight path in real time. The flight data recorder was recovered.)

Year Zero??? Didn't you make this claim as well?

According to you, but you are in fact wrong and not an expert in any field to declare something to be impossible.

Am I, how do you know I am not? More assumptions I suppose? Wasn't there that guy from brigham young university? And the designer of the buildings themselves?

Actually, not one single person you have quoted is an expert. You have not quoted a structural engineer, failure analyist, or anyone relevant. You've been called on this several times. But you keep claiming otherwise.

No, usually I cite something that disagrees...you just ignore them and repeat what you just wrote above.

This does not follow. There are many ways that they could have found out after the fact via the names on the manifest, eyewitness accounts, and other investigation techniques. Your rejection of them does not make them illegitimate.

Name one eyewitness who saw them in an airport that day? Name one reliable eyewitness... Show me a link that says there names were on the manifest, because every source says otherwise that I have seen.

You have not produced any experts to show the collapse model is flawed...

read, because yes I have.

you have not produced any evidence that the investigation was bungled..

read, because yes...in fact I have...

Your tactics are the same as those of Holocost deniers, deny it though you might.

smeg off.

Is there any reason we should take a petulant, whiney little child like you seriously in any way?

didn't somebody just suggest staying away from name calling...

prove your case, or be ignored...

 

[Blackwell]

Year Zero??? Didn't you make this claim as well?

Reread manny's post - he's referring to the flight recorder from the Pentagon. It was recovered, along with the recorder from the field in Pennsylvania.

Now, reread kook's post. He's referring to the WTC recorders.

 

[kookbreaker]

Year Zero??? Didn't you make this claim as well?

*Snort* So, did you deliberately mix up the Petnagon planes with the WTC planes, or are you just stupid?

Am I, how do you know I am not?

The rank idiocy you have demonstrated is more than enough evidence.

More assumptions I suppose?

Its an assumption along the lines of "If I let go of this ball, it will fall to the ground."

Wasn't there that guy from brigham young university?

He's a physics professor. As a physics student I can rightly say he ain't qualified. Pretty much every sentence of that "paper" demonstrates that he wasn't much of a physics guy, either.

And the designer of the buildings themselves?

Nope.

No, usually I cite something that disagrees...you just ignore them and repeat what you just wrote above.

You can cite all you want, it doesn't make it any better.

Name one eyewitness who saw them in an airport that day? Name one reliable eyewitness...

Micheal Tuohey.

Show me a link that says there names were on the manifest, because every source says otherwise that I have seen.

That's because all you use are nutter sources. Maybe if you actually went and read the 'official version' that you constantly disdain you might learn something:

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf

Read section 1.1 in particular. It has pretty much all their steps.

read, because yes I have.

read, because yes...in fact I have...

Nope. Sorry, but what you have produced doesn't pass the smell test.

smeg off.

Make me. I am not the one employing the same tactics as holocost deniers.

didn't somebody just suggest staying away from name calling...

I doubt it was me.

prove your case, or be ignored...

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?

 

[thesyntaxera]

Reread manny's post - he's referring to the flight recorder from the Pentagon. It was recovered, along with the recorder from the field in Pennsylvania.

Now, reread kook's post. He's referring to the WTC recorders.

I stand corrected.

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

9/11: Missing Black Boxes in World Trade Center Attacks Found by Firefighters, Analyzed by NTSB, Concealed by FBI

All four of the devices were recovered from the two planes that hit the Pentagon and that crashed in rural Pennsylvania. In the case of American Airlines Flight 77, which hit the Pentagon, the FBI reports that the flight data recorder survived and had recoverable information, but the voice recorder was allegedly too damaged to provide any record. In the case of United Airlines Flight 93, which hit the ground at 500 mph in Pennsylvania, the situation was reversed: the voice recorder survived but the flight data box was allegedly damaged beyond recovery.

But the FBI states, and also reported to the 9-11 Commission, that none of the recording devices from the two planes that hit the World Trade Center were ever recovered.

Speaking of the pentagon:

what do you make of that?

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?

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?

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.

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.

 

[thesyntaxera]

To add some more:

http://www.911citizenswatch.org/mod...e=article&sid=699&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0

Dr. Griffin listed ten characteristics of the collapses which all indicate that the buildings did not fall due to being struck by planes or the ensuing fires. He explained the buildings fell suddenly without any indication of collapse. They fell straight into their own footprint at free-fall speed, meeting virtually no resistance as they fell--a physical impossibility unless all vertical support was being progressively removed by explosives severing the core columns. The towers were built to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707 and 160 mile per hour winds, and nothing about the plane crashes or ensuing fires gave any indication of causing the kind of damage that would be necessary to trigger even a partial or progressive collapse, much less the shredding of the buildings into dust and fragments that could drop at free-fall speed. The massive core columns--the most significant structural feature of the buildings, whose very existence is denied in the official 9/11 Commission Report--were severed into uniform 30 foot sections, just right for the 30-foot trucks used to remove them quickly before a real investigation could transpire. There was a volcanic-like dust cloud from the concrete being pulverized, and no physical mechanism other than explosives can begin to explain how so much of the buildings' concrete was rendered into extremely fine dust. The debris was ejected horizontally several hundred feet in huge fan shaped plumes stretching in all directions, with telltale "squibs" following the path of the explosives downward. These are all facts that have been avoided by mainstream and even most of the alternative media. Again, these are characteristics of the kind of controlled demolitions that news people and firefighters were describing on the morning of 9/11. Those multiple first-person descriptions of controlled demolition were hidden away for almost four years by the City of New York until a lawsuit finally forced the city to release them. Dr. Griffin's study of these accounts has led him beyond his earlier questioning of the official story of the collapses, to his above-quoted conclusion: The destruction of the three WTC buildings with explosives by US government terrorists is no longer a hypothesis, but a fact that has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[thesyntaxera]

http://www.911proof.com/

Here are some quotes from this site.

Preliminarily, President Bush and Vice-President Cheney took the rare step of personally requesting that congress limit all 9/11 investigation solely to "intelligence failures", so there has never been a congressional probe into any of the real issues involved.

The administration also opposed the creation of a 9/11 commission. Once it was forced, by pressure from widows of 9-11 victims, to allow a commission to be formed, the administration appointed as executive director an administration insider (and see this article), starved the commission of funds, providing a fraction of the funds used to investigate Monica Lewinsky, failed to provide crucial documents (and see this article also), and refused to require high-level officials to testify under oath, and allowed Bush and Cheney to be questioned jointly.

More importantly, the 9-11 Commission refused to examine virtually any evidence which contradicted the administration's official version of events. As just two of numerous examples, the 9-11 Commission report does not even mention the collapse of World Trade Center building 7 or any explosions in the buildings (the word "explosion" does not appear in the report), and refused to allow any firefighters to testify publicly.

Indeed, former 9/11 Commissioner Max Cleland reputedly resigned in disgust from the Commission. See for example this article.

Indeed, the very 9-11 widows who had pressured the administration to create the 9/11 Commission declared it a failure which ignored 70% of their detailed questions and "suppressed important evidence and whistleblower testimony that challenged the official story on many fronts".

Moreover, a leading firefighters' trade publication called the investigation concerning the world trade center a "half-baked farce". In addition, the official investigators themselves were largely denied funding, access to the site and the evidence contained there, or even access to such basic information as the blueprints for the world trade center. Similarly, a professor of fire protection engineering, and the former chief of the fire science and engineering division of the agency now investigating the world trade center disaster, wrote that the world trade center buildings could not have collapsed due to jet fuel fires, that evidence was being destroyed, and that there was no real investigation into the collapses.

Indeed, the blueprints for the world trade center are apparently STILL being withheld from reporters and the public, and the government agency in charge of the investigation has grossly mischaracterized the structure of the buildings.

And the government agency tasked with examining the collapse of the World Trade Centers did NOT investigate any anomalies in the collapse of the buildings, failing to even examine any of the following evidence: the buildings’ impossible near free-fall speeds and symmetrical collapses; the unexplained fact that the core of the North Tower failed first; the apparent demolition squibs; the fact that the buildings turned to dust in mid-air; the presence of molten metal in the basement areas in large pools in all of the buildings; the unexplained presence of unusual compounds in the steel; the unexplained swiss-cheese like holes in the steel; and the unexplained straightening out of the upper 34 floors of the South Tower after they had precipitously leaned over and started toppling like a tree.

And did you know that investigators for the Congressional Joint Inquiry discovered that an FBI informant had hosted and even rented a room to two hijackers in 2000 and that, when the Inquiry sought to interview the informant, the FBI refused outright, and then hid him in an unknown location, and that a high-level FBI official stated these blocking maneuvers were undertaken under orders from the White House?

Or did you know that the tape of interviews of air traffic controllers on-duty on 9/11 was intentionally destroyed by crushing the cassette by hand, cutting the tape into little pieces, and then dropping the pieces in different trash cans around the building as shown by this NY Times article (summary version is free; full version is pay-per-view) and by this article from the Chicago Sun-Times

Indeed, while he focuses on a very superficial issue, even the former director of the FBI says there was a cover up by the 9/11 Commission.

Just read the pages....every one of these quotes has a story linked to it on the main page.

A firefighter stated "it looked like sparkling around one specific layer of the building . . . Then the building started to come down. My initial reaction was that this was exactly the way it looks when they show you those implosions on TV."

9/11 hero, who was the last person out of the north tower, said that there was a massive explosion in the North Tower BEFORE the plane hit (see also this interview and also this interview)

Firefighter stated "the Maydays started coming in to vacate the north tower . . . we started going down. At that point, we proceeded down . . . Made it down to the lobby. There were about maybe 30 firefighters that were with us. Made it to the lobby, and the lobby was like a war zone. All the windows were blown out, and the command post wasn't there. We made it to the corner of West and Vesey when the building came down." (pages 5 & 6)

yes...just read

http://www.911proof.com/