Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

[MikeW]

One of the reasons we know al Qaeda were behind 9/11 is that they've told us, several times, in lengthy video tapes.

Have you taken the time to view one, though?

If not, then you might like to try a transcript, instead, not least because it's so much quicker. Reading "Knowledge is for Acting Upon - The Manhattan Raid" will give you al Qaeda's justifications for the attacks, some general information on hijacker selection and training, the choice of targets and more, and you can maybe pick all of this up in around five minutes.

The down side? This particular transcript is on a jihad-supporting site. The people there applaud 9/11, and would like more of the same: this isn't a website for the sensitive.

If that doesn't put you off, though, you'll find the transcript on this page. Browse the forums and you'll also find sections that contain other transcripts, and links to download other videos, though again, beware: along with the relatively mild as Sahab stuff are compilations of "execution and beheading videos", so again this isn't a site to treat lightly, some of the content is as unpleasant as you'll find anywhere. Caution is advised.

 

[bill smith]

One of the reasons we know al Qaeda were behind 9/11 is that they've told us, several times, in lengthy video tapes.

Have you taken the time to view one, though?

If not, then you might like to try a transcript, instead, not least because it's so much quicker. Reading "Knowledge is for Acting Upon - The Manhattan Raid" will give you al Qaeda's justifications for the attacks, some general information on hijacker selection and training, the choice of targets and more, and you can maybe pick all of this up in around five minutes.

The down side? This particular transcript is on a jihad-supporting site. The people there applaud 9/11, and would like more of the same: this isn't a website for the sensitive.

If that doesn't put you off, though, you'll find the transcript on this page. Browse the forums and you'll also find sections that contain other transcripts, and links to download other videos, though again, beware: along with the relatively mild as Sahab stuff are compilations of "execution and beheading videos", so again this isn't a site to treat lightly, some of the content is as unpleasant as you'll find anywhere. Caution is advised.

Given that we have every reason to dispute the authenticity of at least one of those videos- the one provided by the Americans in 2001 combined with the fact that few people in the World had ever heard the name 'Al-Quaeda' until the day of 9/11 itself the jury is still out on whether Al-Quaeda ever actually existed as anything other than a small ragged band of impoverished bandits.

Many believe that the 'giant terrorist network ' was simply invented by the Americans-who incidentally apparently worked closely with bin laden himself right up until 9/11. (see video)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTTgpsAs4_c&feature=related BBC Clip

 

[Dave Rogers]

Given that we have every reason to dispute the authenticity of at least one of those videos-

- we can completely ignore all of them. Given that we have every reason to dispute at least one piece of evidence that 9/11 was not an inside job, we can ignore all of them, too.

Is that how it works, bill?

Dave

 

[bill smith]

- we can completely ignore all of them. Given that we have every reason to dispute at least one piece of evidence that 9/11 was not an inside job, we can ignore all of them, too.

Is that how it works, bill?

Dave

If one of them- the most important and influential of them- is a blatant forgery it does not raise the confidence level in the authenticity of the rest . This is obvous Dave.

 

[Dave Rogers]

If one of them- the most important and influential of them- is a blatant forgery

Reason to dispute authenticity = blatant forgery now, does it? I must have missed the memo.

Dave

 

[bill smith]

Reason to dispute authenticity = blatant forgery now, does it? I must have missed the memo.

Dave

Check it out. Look up ''Osama fatty'. It should get you started.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41UAnkQARFs

 

[Grizzly Bear]

I don't like posting new threads unless I find that its purpose can be useful. I'd like to start compiling specific case studies of some of the notable high rise building fires both before and after 911. There are sites which bring up the main problems with comparing prior incidents to the trade centers in an overall perspective but I'd like to -- if possible -- look into doing some detailed case studies of a few of these which talk about the building construction, the materials they were built from, and details concerning the aftermath of the fires in those cases and why the structures performed either poorly or successfully under those conditions as a result of their design. These cases might when possible include AutoCAD sectional details, or where that's not practical pictures which show the construction details.

The case studies could be linked if they're already written by another provider, the major purpose behind my idea is mostly to compile this information for a semi-permanent usage, both for this subsection and it could be useful for other material.

Would anyone be interested in the idea? Would anyone have any suggestions to improve this?

 

[R.Mackey]

It's been done. Try here for starters: http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire/CaseStudy/default.htm

 

[Grizzly Bear]

It's been done. Try here for starters: http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire/CaseStudy/default.htm

Curses Manchester!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Oh well it was a thought.... Thanks...

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Reason to dispute authenticity = blatant forgery now, does it? I must have missed the memo.

Heh. Just like "caught your wife sleeping with your best friend" is "reason to suspect infidelity".

"fanciful speculation" = "inside job", yet "blatant forgery" = "might not be real; up for debate"

 

[TruthersLie]

Heh. Just like "caught your wife sleeping with your best friend" is "reason to suspect infidelity".

"fanciful speculation" = "inside job", yet "blatant forgery" = "might not be real; up for debate"

can't forget my other favorites one lately
"exposed as a fabrication" = I think that this is bs.
"into own footprint"= the building fell down, with some inside and some outside the footprint.
"symmetrically" because in a 2d video, it kinda looks symetrical, if you squint and don't pay close attention.

It is rather obvious most truthers need some remedial english language classes, because those words they keep using don't mean what they think they do

 

[Dave Rogers]

Check it out. Look up ''Osama fatty'. It should get you started.

Do you honestly think I didn't know all about this well-known piece of selective analysis before you'd ever heard of it? Even people in the truth movement have debunked the "fat Osama" canard.

Dave

ETA: And then, of course, there's Ron Weick's Osama Conundrum. Rather than quote a banned member, I'll simply let him speak for himself from beyond the JREF grave.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3814182#post3814182

How do you respond to the Osama Conundrum, bill?

Dave

 

[Pardalis]

Bump for Red Ibis.

There's quite a bit of interesting conversation that you hve left hanging.

What kind of evidence would satisfy you?

Remember, this is what you had to say about the victims DNA:

since within the laws of the physical world, there would be other ways such DNA could have been reported without that flight having been at the Pentagon.

But you can plug any type of evidence in the argument:

"since within the laws of the physical world, there would be other ways such debris could have been reported without that flight having been at the Pentagon"

"since within the laws of the physical world, there would be other ways such video could have been recorded without that flight having been at the WTC"

"since within the laws of the physical world, there would be other ways such a core column could have been reported without having been at the WTC 7"

"since within the laws of the physical world, there would be other ways such victim could have been reported without that person having been at the WTC"

So, according to your own logic, how do you go about and discriminate which statement is more likely than the other?

Okay, here are the ways I can conceive of that would lead to reports of the passenger's DNA at the Pentagon:

1. A plane containing the victims crashed at the Pentagon.
2. The remains of the victims were planted at the Pentagon.
3. Somewhere in the chain of custody of the evidence from the Pentagon to the DNA testing labs, the DNA evidence was tampered with.
4. Somewhere in the chain of custody of the DNA samples of immediate relatives being sent to the testing labs, the samples were tampered with.
5. Someone at the testing labs tampered with the evidence and/or samples after receiving them but before analysis.
6. Someone tampered with equipment used to perform the DNA analysis.
7. Someone tampered with the raw data generated by the tests before the data was analyzed.
8. The testing labs lied about the results that they got.
9. The government lied about the reports the labs gave.

Do you dismiss any of these explanations out of hand?

Are there any that you think more or less probable than the others?

Or perhaps you mean: even if there was a 110% guarantee that no sort of trickery whatsoever happened with regards to the DNA evidence, it still wouldn't be enough to prove, in and of itself, that Flight 77 had crashed at the Pentagon. And if this is what you mean, do you mean that no single piece of evidence alone can prove something like that, no matter how genuine that piece of evidence is?

ETA: And if the above is what you mean, do you mean that there's more than one trickery-free way for the DNA of the victims to have gotten into the Pentagon? Or do you mean that even there was no trickery, and even if the only trickery-free way for the DNA to get into the Pentagon was via Flight 77, it still wouldn't be enough evidence (in and of itself) that Flight 77 crashed at the Pentagon?

Ok, Joe Citizen purchases a seat on Flt 77

Pays with his credit card

Wife drops him off at the airport

Wife watches him get into the airplane that is labeled flt. 77

His baggage is loaded onto said airplane

the gate agent checks his ID, and allows him to board said plane

Said flight crashes into Pentagon

Joe Citizen's DNA is found at the Pentagon via his fingers being found, however, not attached to his hand where they SHOULD be

This is repeated HOW MANY TIMES???

Right. Totaally plausable that it is ALL 100% faked.

Retarded conclusions you have about reality.

Ya know what red.

You are VERY right. Reports of the DNA of the passengers BY THEMSELVES do not unconditionally point to flight 77 as crashing at the pentagon.

But when you couple that with the following facts
1. the debris of a jet similar to 77 was found all over the pentagon
2. the eyewitnesses saw a jet similar to flt 77 hitting the pentagon
3. the radar tracks show it taking off and follow it to the pentagon
4. the debris are consistent with a jet striking a reinforced concrete building at 400+ mph
5. passenger affects match the DNA found
6. NO mystery jet landed anywhere and unloaded the passengers has ever been reported
7. HOw does the DNA of the people who took off that morning end up in a building on fire and in the debris which collapsed?
8. You have the reports of the people on flight 77 (known people) that their aircraft had been hijacked. (you can listen to the victims final minutes)

When you take ALL of that together, it is unmistakable that flight 77 struck the pentagon.

And what you are saying is the equivalent of someone pointing to a thin stream of light coming through their window between the blinds, at 11am, and concluding that someone is out there with a spotlight shining it in the window, rather than just realize that it's actually sunlight.

Of course, it's possible that the evidence was planted, or whatever. It's possible that someone is outside the window shining in the light. But as Paradilis pointed out, you can apply that logic to virtually every argument imaginable. When you are willing to entertain complete lunacy, and put it on equal grounds with tangible and credible evidence.. that should be a red flag for you that maybe your theory is INSANE.

Possible does not automatically mean plausible.

 

[bill smith]

Do you honestly think I didn't know all about this well-known piece of selective analysis before you'd ever heard of it? Even people in the truth movement have debunked the "fat Osama" canard.

Dave

ETA: And then, of course, there's Ron Weick's Osama Conundrum. Rather than quote a banned member, I'll simply let him speak for himself from beyond the JREF grave.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3814182#post3814182

How do you respond to the Osama Conundrum, bill?

Dave

I think icould decisively decimate it Dave. Ron is not much at debating. Here's the actual post you were referring to.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3814182&postcount=117

 

[beachnut]

Journalist job to expose fraud or give Gage a platform to spread lies?

Notes during breakfast - yes I stayed up watching the vast wasteland ...

http://www.metroactive.com/metro/09.09.09/cover-0936.html

Is Gage being aided by the news? Are his lies being exposed as lies or used to fill space.

Says Gage, "In the twin towers, it's very explosive. You can see the explosions in all the videos, and what's happening is the explosions are creating this incredible dust cloud. The dust clouds are forming immediately. In the dust from the WTC, you have millions of these tiny, perfectly spherical microspheres of iron. Now, where did they come from?

I saw a chaotic gravity collapse of two towers which didn't come down symmetrically as they collapsed and spread debris over 19 acres many times greater than the two acres footprint of the towers. How many dumb ideas does Gage have?

I was going to send a letter to the editor about Gage:

Gage spreads lies about 911 and takes donations so he can travel around spreading more. He has a business model based on the gullibility of people to donate money for his false ideas. What happen to knowledge based articles instead of giving half baked conspiracy theories (based on hearsay, lies and fantasy) a platform to mislead more people.
Math reveals Gage’s lies have the support of less than 0.01 percent of all engineers. Help your readers see fraud and the lies of Gage; do you have the knowledge to understand Gage is a fraud? Dripping with molten steel; real scientific stuff.

The article is easy to see Gage is a fraud. How many will think Gage's lies are real? I wish I had time to write a letter but with only 804 acting like dolts and signing Gage's petition who needs to remind the news paper they missed the story of fraud; what Gage does.

Humor from the article:

Today, far from being isolated, Munyak now counts as allies 804 professional architects and building engineers from around the country.

Wow, less than 0.01 percent of professional architects and engineers agree with Gage or failed to see what he stands for signed up for his fraud. 804 members does not make the delusion real, it makes for a longer list of frauds and poor Munyak is still isolated and should not be working for a city if he can't recognize fraud in his own claimed expertise! If he is fooled by Gage how can he catch the errors as he does his job, a fire protection engineer for the city of San Jose.

804 sounds like a lot. Sure it does, but my engineering class graduated the same numbers of engineers in one year and not one of my fellow alumni agree with Gage's delusions. So we have the same numbers of engineers who think Gage is nuts just from one year, at one school. Take all the schools and all engineers and you find 804 is less than 0.01 percent of engineers. 804 amounts to a group of people who failed to see Gage is a fraud. 804 failed professionals when it comes to signing a petition and understanding 911. Failure

Close to 900 professionals acting like dolts, supporting lies, unable to think for themselves, and what a waste of education. Must be sad to be dumbed down so bad you fail to figure out Gage is a fraud. For each supporter of Gage there are over 1,000 engineers who can see the fraud of Gage. Out numbered by rational engineers by more than 1000 to 1 Gage will only fool those who lack knowledge and like Gage apologize poorly for terrorists by blaming those they can't name with conclusions they have no evidence for.

 

[bill smith]

Even since then Beachnut it is closer to 900 Architects and Engineers that have signed up. Why will you not agree to a new and independent enquiry ? Let's settle this thing .

 

[bill smith]

Actually that's a really great new slogan for the Movement for Truth.

' Let's settle this thing for once and for all '

 

[twinstead]

Even since then Beachnut it is closer to 900 Architects and Engineers that have signed up. Why will you not agree to a new and independent enquiry ? Let's settle this thing .

Not on my tax dollars. You want one? Find a way for me to not have to pay for what I believe would be a redundant investigation. I could give a crap if you think the previous one was insufficient.

 

[bill smith]

Not on my tax dollars. You want one? Find a way for me to not have to pay for what I believe would be a redundant investigation. I could give a crap if you think the previous one was insufficient.

Why would you not agree to contribute a few paltry dollars to prove the government innocent ? Just think of all the time you spend here that you could buy back ? You could make thousands with the extra time as well as vindicating the government. A win-win aituation if ever I saw one. lol

 

[A W Smith]

Why would you not agree to contribute a few paltry dollars to prove the government innocent ?

because we already did

Just think of all the time you spend here that you could buy back ? You could make thousands with the extra time

This is my leisure time. I amuse myself observing the jackass stupidity of your virtual movement. Don't tell me how to spend my time.

as well as vindicating the government. A win-win aitution if ever I saw one. lol

We already won. You are in a diminishing minority of agenda grinding fanatical conspiracy believers. We live in a democracy. Majority rule. what we say (the majority) goes. So get over yourself because to put it simply, its over.