Questions for 9/11 Truthers

[uk_dave]

Yes, we are all paid US government shills.

But those of us from the UK get paid in euros and elves, coz the dollar aint worth crap right now.

 

[Oliver]

Welcome on Board, Ref! What´s your forename?

 

[Kage]

This clearly seems to be a forum mainly for non-questioners of the official account of 9/11. Which seemed quite odd to me, since I always thought sceptics actually question all things. But it seems that here people only are sceptic about people, who are sceptical about 9/11 official account. Which amazed me at first, since it seems that many of you question nothing about that days events. You call that sceptical thinking?

If you had spent time looking through the forum, you would see that most people here have spent time going over what happened on 9/11 using multiple sources. Most have come to the conclusion that the official version of events is the one that best fits the evidence.

Skeptical thinking means looking at evidence. If there were evidence that there was a coverup I would be willing to rethink my position on the matter. I am no fan of the administration, but I am not willing to go off the deep end because I don't like the administration. This is a huge difference between a skeptic and a troofer. A troofer uses their dislike of Bush et. al., and their dislike towards the foreign policy decisions made post 9/11 as an underlying rational for their theories, no matter how crazy and nonsensical those theories are. As a skeptic you have to look at the evidense and put aside you feelings about it.

The Pros on this forum have spent huge amounts of their own time doing actual research in order to prevent some loonies from making a buck off of a hugely tragic event. I can't thank them enough for their help with the debates I've had on this subject.

You'll find that when you post a question or some evidence or theory people will reply with actual research, which starkly contrasts with conspiracy forums.

 

[dubfan]

I just recently found out about this forum, so here goes the first post.

Welcome.

This clearly seems to be a forum mainly for non-questioners of the official account of 9/11. Which seemed quite odd to me, since I always thought sceptics actually question all things. But it seems that here people only are sceptic about people, who are sceptical about 9/11 official account. Which amazed me at first, since it seems that many of you question nothing about that days events. You call that sceptical thinking?

You're new here, so we'll go easy on you. Briefly, your impression here is just flat wrong. There are numerous individuals here who have researched 9/11 in depth -- nearly all of them have run into aspects of the official account that are problematic. The question is, what do they add up *to*? 9/11 truthers aren't able to discriminate between coincidence, faulty reasoning, and actual problems in the offiical account. So far, no one has uncovered anything that even remotely implicates anyone in the US government being behind these attacks.

Being from Europe, I may not share the same viewpoint that some of you guys do. But I'll give my view anyway from this viewpoint.

What does being from Europe have to do with it? We have plenty of people from Europe here at JREF. Some of the most prolific and knowledgeable and witty posters here on this very subject are Europeans.

First, it seems very odd that many people speaking for the official account question nothing about it. You see nothing strange there? Or call it sceptical to question nothing? I give a couple of examples.

The red bandana, recovered from the flight 93 crash site, part of evidence of the Moussaoui trial. This is the clearest example of false evidence. Supposed to be a hijackers head bandana, gone through the enourmous plane crash, and what do you see in the picture? Not a single drop of blood. Not a single tiny bit of dust. Not a single tear. Not a single hole, dirt, nothing. And still they claim that this bandana went through a maximum speed plane crash and survived fresh and clean. Does this not ring any bells to you?

Argument from incredulity.

Second clear false evidence is the will. Supposedly Mohammed Atta had written his will and put it in his bag. Then his bag by 'mistake' did not make the flight, and was to be found by the feds. This means that we are supposed to believe, that Atta intended to take his will with him to the flight. Why on earth would any single person take time to write his will, only to take it with him to the suicide mission to be destroyed. Make no sense at all.

Doesn't this make you at all suspicious? If we have such clear false evidence, who should we trust any of the rest?

More argument from incredulity.

What about the famous Osama confession tape. Isn't it strange it was found in a house in Afganistan, released by Pentagon. Imagine if it hadn't been found? What a miserable way to confess the most terrible attack on earth. Why he first denied it. Osama planned that way? I doubt.

I don't find that strange at all. AQ headquarters was in Afghanistan. There was a war there. That war involved raids on AQ safehouses. Why wouldn't they find AQ propaganda in them? What should we have found in them?

And why did you believe his initial denial, but not his subsequent confession?

If that doesn't make you a little bit suspicious, what will? Or is your only purpose to bash all those, who question anything? I don't agree with all the CT points. I don't agree with all the offial point. What i do, is I find something strange about that days events, and that raises questions. And should raise with everybody.

I won't go into debate with all of the points discussed here, but I answer few questions.

"Why do truthers never tell us who planted the explosives in WTC 1, 2 and 7?
Why do truthers never tell us exactly what happened on 911?
Why do truthers never tell us exactly who was behind 911?"

Why should we?

Because you're the one making the claim, and you haven't provided any evidence to support your claim. And don't try to wriggle out of providing an answer by saying, "I'm just asking questions" -- it's nothing more than an excuse to avoid having to think. By all means, ask the question, but if you ask the question, and you get an answer that's supported by physics, eyewitnesses, logic, and history, you better accept it.

Does it mean, that when you see something strange and start asking questions, you immediately should know perfectly the whole string of events.

No, but you should be able to put forward a hypothesis or scenario that withstands scrutiny.

How stupid is that?

How stupid is what? 9/11 "Truth"? Pretty stupid.

If you are suspicious of something, does not mean that you should know exactly what happened. For example. I know that Litvinenko was poisoned. I don't know who did it. Does that make me a crazy truther, because I don't know exactly how that was done?

It means if you're going to claim that the US Government planned and carried out the 9/11 attacks, you should be able to provide evidence to support your claim, and not just repeat a string of spurious coincidences, faulty reasoning, and outright lies.

"Why haven't any Truthers in the world asked any of these questions first?"

Why don't you ask any questions?

We ask lots of questions. See the OP.

"Why do truthers always ignore the damage the planes caused to the Towers and insist that fires have never brought down steel framed building before?"

Why do you believe, that a maximum steel temperature of 250 celsius in the south tower was enough to weaken steel and cause collapse in 50+ minutes? We are accustomed to celcius here, and my own oven heats up to 300 celcius. Do I have any problems with steel components? No. NIST itself reports, that not a single steel beam was hotter that that. Ask questions. Do not read it as a bible.

You don't know much about engineering, do you? Do you know any professional engineers?

I'll ask you a few questions.

Please.

What proof do you have, that fireproof was removed by the impact?

Photographic and video evidence. See NIST report.

What proof do you have of Osama's quilt? Since FBI does not have enough hard evidence.

He's confessed it, as have other AQ leaders. He has a track record of prior terrorist activity, and has made his plans and motivations public. We know who the hijackers were. They made videotaped last wills & testaments. They professed their loyalty to AQ and OBL. The jihadist movement claims credit for the attacks. They're proud of them. They proclaim this pride on their websites and use it as incitement and a recruiting tool -- "We struck the great Satan!" OBL declared war on the US in 1999 (IIRC) in a famous fax of a fatwa authored by him and Zawahiri and sent to the UK media. It wasn't exactly a surprise.

What proof do you have of your presidents honesty in this case? Since there is massive amounts of proven dishonesty in any other case.

Who said anyone needs to believe George Bush? Is he the only one making the claim that 19 Islamist fanatics hijacked 4 planes and flew them into buildings? I can take George Bush completely out of the equation and have thousands of eyewitnesses and investigators and a historical record of threats and motive and everything else. GWB has nothing to do with it.

What proof do you have of anyones honesty in this case?

How does one obtain proof of honesty?

Do you see any suspicious evidence, and if do, why not suspect anything else?

No, not particularly. The things that trouble me point more toward incompetence and ass-covering rather than any sort of malevolent conspiracy. Any discrepancies in the official account indicate more to me that the government is incompetent, not that it's evil.

Why did the planes take so long detours? Just to consume fuel and risk the whole event.

Um, they were hijacked.

Why don't you ask any questions, and ridicule anyone who does?

Because your thinking is so badly flawed that it's worthy of ridicule.

 

[chacal]

ref, a good opening post and a welcome.

The red bandana, recovered from the flight 93 crash site, part of evidence of the Moussaoui trial. This is the clearest example of false evidence. Supposed to be a hijackers head bandana, gone through the enourmous plane crash, and what do you see in the picture? Not a single drop of blood. Not a single tiny bit of dust. Not a single tear. Not a single hole, dirt, nothing. And still they claim that this bandana went through a maximum speed plane crash and survived fresh and clean. Does this not ring any bells to you?

It's not a clear sample of false evidence to me. If you look at the Moussaoui trial evidence you see other items like driving licences that survived the crash. It's possible that the bandana survived too.

Second clear false evidence is the will. Supposedly Mohammed Atta had written his will and put it in his bag. Then his bag by 'mistake' did not make the flight, and was to be found by the feds. This means that we are supposed to believe, that Atta intended to take his will with him to the flight. Why on earth would any single person take time to write his will, only to take it with him to the suicide mission to be destroyed. Make no sense at all.

He was an idiot?

What about the famous Osama confession tape. Isn't it strange it was found in a house in Afganistan, released by Pentagon. Imagine if it hadn't been found? What a miserable way to confess the most terrible attack on earth. Why he first denied it. Osama planned that way? I doubt.

Well, had the confession tape not been found it wouldn't have made much difference. Ossy B might have deniend it first for everybody knowed already what the deal was and he was trying to save the Taliban government, innocent Afghan civilians and himself.

I'll ask you a few questions.

What proof do you have, that fireproof was removed by the impact?

besides common sence None, I'm not a n expert on fire proofing.

What proof do you have of Osama's quilt? Since FBI does not have enough hard evidence.

I thaught the "mastermind" was Khalid Shaykh what ever rather that Osama been hiding.

What proof do you have of your presidents honesty in this case? Since there is massive amounts of proven dishonesty in any other case.

Absolutey nothing, rule8 him.

What proof do you have of anyones honesty in this case?

none

Do you see any suspicious evidence, and if do, why not suspect anything else?

Yes, and thats just why I think it's by far the most logical explanation that the magnificent 19 were responsible for the attacs.

Why did the planes take so long detours? Just to consume fuel and risk the whole event.

say wha?

Why don't you ask any questions, and ridicule anyone who does?

To me it's quite the opposite. it's the truthers that do not ask the right question or ignore the answers. Do you have any provable fact that would show the planes were not hijacked and crashed by the 19 mideastern gentlemen?

 

[MikeW]

Second clear false evidence is the will. Supposedly Mohammed Atta had written his will and put it in his bag. Then his bag by 'mistake' did not make the flight, and was to be found by the feds. This means that we are supposed to believe, that Atta intended to take his will with him to the flight. Why on earth would any single person take time to write his will, only to take it with him to the suicide mission to be destroyed. Make no sense at all.

Your second sentence is misleading with regards to time frame. Atta's will actually dated from 1996 (http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/atta/resources/documents/will2.htm), so there's no reason to believe it was anything other than one personal document amongst others. And a largely irrelevant one, as it mostly deals with the preparations for a funeral he wouldn't have, so seeing it destroyed may not have bothered him at all.

 

[Kent1]

Sounds like another person trying to misquote NIST like Steven Jones, but even worse. This one gets old.
Max temp 250C? LOL! Even Steven Jones doesn't believe that.
The Ignition Temperature of Paper BTW is 233C

 

[PerryLogan]

Why don't 9/11 Truthers pay their traffic fines?

 

[28th Kingdom]

How could such an elaborately planned subterfuge have THAT many smoking guns?

Planned and executed are two completely different things. The plan may have been elaborate but the execution of said plan contained many flaws i.e. smoking guns

How could such a Keystone Kops Kaper have fooled everyone in the world--except a few white guys who got on the web?

That is entirely false. At least half of the American population believe the USG is at least, in part, culpable for 9/11.

http://www.cnn.com/POLLSERVER/results/23968.exclude.html - http://www.zogby.com/search/ReadNews.dbm?ID=855

Why would international bankers fund a plan to close down Wall Street?

Not, salient information in determining the criminals who perpatrated 9/11.

Why do the world's structural engineers, architects, and demolitions experts side with the government's story? Why do no historians, journalists, sociologists, or political science experts disagreed?

That's also false. Many people from the government and the science world have been outspoken about the lies contained in the, official story:
http://www.wanttoknow.info/officialsquestion911commissionreport - that is only a very short list...none the less, it contains many credible people, including: scholars, politicians, military personal, war vets etc.

Why are so many 9/11 Truth organizations overtly anti-Semitic?

Saying people in the KKK (select group of individuals from a certain race) are evil = Good Upstanding Citizen (Non-racial statement)

Saying people in 'al Qaeda' (select group of individuals from a certain race) are evil = Good Upstanding Citizen (Non-racial statement)

Saying people in the Zionist Movement (select group of individuals from a certain race) are evil = Anti-Semite (Racist statement)

Why have the Scholars for 9/11 Truth split up?

Just because individuals share a common belief, doesn't mean they agree on everything. Certain individuals within the Truth Movement are giving it a bad image. You can't dismiss an entire group of people just because there are individuals within it that are more radical than the majority. Radicals can be found within every movement, sector and/or religion.

Why have all of Alex Jones's predictions been bummers, and why doesn't Alex notice this?

This is false. Not all of Jones' predictions have been bummers. In fact, he predicted the one major event that we are all discussing here i.e. 9/11 -

http://video.google.de/videoplay?docid=-1222445722544874066

Why do the 9/11 Truth organizations attack and criticize one another, accuse one another of being CIA agents, etc.?

I have not personally seen this, but again - these are probably the radicals.

Why can't the 9/11 Truth Movement agree on the specifics of the scenario? If there were real evidence, it seems they could agree.

It's hard enough to get two people to agree on what they want to eat for dinner...let alone millions of people to agree on every single fact in one of the largest crimes in US history.

If the Bush Administration planned 9/11, why did the President go into brainlock on 9/11? Wouldn't they have planned something to make him look good?

This question implies too many things - like the president knew beforehand that he would be taped in the classroom...I'm sure he had 1000 other things that were occupying his thoughts that day.

Why would the cover story be lame (a few guys with box cutters, kidney patient in a cave, etc.), when they could just as well have made up something good (ten men with Uzis take over the plane, etc.)?

Because OBL is the boogeyman we have been taught to fear. This propaganda machine of movies and television shows and articles on Islamic terror had been initiated years before 9/11 - so, that's why they used OBL and Islamic terrorists as the masterminds of 9/11 in their story.

How could they have forgotten to leave wreckage around the Pentagon? And how did this fool everyone in the world except you-know-who?

One of the reasons I didn't like LC, was the fact that it focused too much on the Pentagon. The twin towers are at the heart of the events on 9/11, so that is where the attention should be directed.

How could they get the planes to fly into the buildings at the exact spot where the charges were planted?

Charges were planted on every floor...the buildings didn't collapse for about an hour after impact, so all they had to do was visually assess the buildings to determine the impact floors, and then detonate the wave of explosives from that point down.

Why didn't they just put a few drops of dioxin in a city's water supply, blame it on terrorists, then declare martial law?

Because as stated in the PNAC...only a catalyzing event like Pearl Harbor, could give them the power they were after. A few drops of dioxin is not a new Pearl Harbor. In fact, someone else raised the question of why they had to knock down the buildings, when crashing planes would have been good enough. Watch this video: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=545886459853896774 - notice the demeanor of the people on the ground. Although two commercial size airliners had just flown into the WTC Towers - everyone is rather calm and subdued. Now, watch how this microcosm of America (the people on the ground) break into mass hysteria once the first building starts to collapse.

Why didn't they blame Saddam, since they evidently wanted to invade Iraq?

Because OBL is the boogeyman we have been taught to fear, not Saddam or Iraq. This propaganda machine of movies and television shows and articles on Islamic terror had been iniated years before 9/11 - so, that's why they used OBL and Islamic terrorists as the masterminds of 9/11 in their story.

Why have none of the Truthers been killed or discredited or framed for a crime--or otherwise neutralized?

Because this group of individuals who are seeking a one world government, are so consumed with power and arrogance, that mere accusations from whistleblowers mean nothing to them. The only people who really concern them, are the ones who can actually prevent them from executing their plans and/or obtaining their goals i.e. President Kennedy.

Why do Truthers immediately throw people out of their forums when they disagree with the party line?

I've never been to a Truther forum, so I wouldn't know.

Why do Truthers attack one another so much?

Again, I haven't seen this...so, I'm not sure what they're attacking i.e. the facts surrounding 9/11 or each others character. Again, just because people are on the same team, doesn't mean they're not gonna have arguments or a difference of opinion on certain things. One question to deniers: Why do you hold Truthers up to a higher standard than yourselves? Do you all agree on everything...do any of you ever have arguments or disagreements?

Why are almost all Truthers angry white males of subnormal intelligence who think they're geniuses?

Not based in fact. That's an opinion you have created...and it's painted with broad strokes.

Do Truthers even realize they are making false accusations of mass murder?

No we fully realize that the only people making false accusations of mass murder are the USG.

Why does the Truth Movement repeat right-wing disinformation about Democrats? If they have to use disinformation to back up their theory, their theory must be wrong...right?

I don't need to use disinformation to back up my claims. I use scientific facts: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2182277#post2182277

If everyone is waking up, why did the Republicans get their butts kicked in the 2006 midterm elections? If people were waking up in great numbers, they would be abandoning both major parties.

Because, you know that Truthers are enlightened past the fake left/right political paradigm. Elected Democrats are just as evil as elected Republicans.

Why was there so much "prior knowledge"? If you're planning a hoax, you don't want your own people warning you of the job you are in fact committing.

There was a lot of prior knowledge that Alex Jones used to predict 9/11 a couple months before it happened: http://video.google.de/videoplay?docid=-1222445722544874066 - this group of one world individuals think they are invincible...so, they actually get a kick out of leaving clear signs of their wrongdoings...because they know that the majority of Americans will never catch on. And since it would not only take a majority, but the collective whole of the American people to rise up and start a revolution...they can safely assume that no matter how much evidence they leave, their plans will not be sabotaged.

United We Stand...and Divided...

 

[dubfan]

It's hard enough to get two people to agree on what they want to eat for dinner...let alone millions of people to agree on every single fact in one of the largest crimes in US history.

Not so. It's easy to get people to agree on facts. They're objective and verifiable.

All of the disagreement and dissent in the Truther ranks is prima facie evidence that the whole movement is almost completely fact-free.

 

[Firestone]

Why are Truthers smart enough to see Big Conspiracies others don't even imagine, but not smart enough to understand the wording of a poll or the PNAC-text?

 

[Thunder]

Hey Kingdom. The "Truthers" very often refer to their their theories as "the truth" and those who refuse to accept their "truth", they label as sheep, blind, brainwashed, stiff-necked...or worse...they accuse us as being paid shills, agents for the governmant, slaves to the nwo..etc.

many religous movemants in the past have used such tactics. many past religiouns saw themselves as the "undeniable truth" and those who disagree were blind..slaves....etc.

why exactly, should we not see your movemant, as just another domino in a long line of cult-like belief systems who insist that they have "the truth" and those who disagree are blind like sheep?

 

[Bell]

lol... internet polls...

 

[ref]

Second time

Argument from incredulity.

So what's your view on the freshness of the bandana? Not at all strange to you?

I don't find that strange at all. AQ headquarters was in Afghanistan. There was a war there. That war involved raids on AQ safehouses. Why wouldn't they find AQ propaganda in them? What should we have found in them?

My point was, what kind of confession is left on a pure chance that it must be found by the enemy? Terrorists usually take credit. Claim responsibility for the attacks. We were so great we could achieve this. But on 9/11. First deny it, then leave a tape in a house in Afganistan and hope for it to be found, or nobody knows who is responsible for the attacks? Not a very likely confession strategy. And still. FBI has not included 9/11 on Osama's record. Lack of evidence.

And why did you believe his initial denial, but not his subsequent confession?

Initial reaction is usually the correct one. Or is it more believable to deny first, then claim responsibility? I find it strange that this is so clear with you, that his second reaction was the correct one. Supposing that you believe that the second was actually his own confession.

Because you're the one making the claim, and you haven't provided any evidence to support your claim. And don't try to wriggle out of providing an answer by saying, "I'm just asking questions" -- it's nothing more than an excuse to avoid having to think. By all means, ask the question, but if you ask the question, and you get an answer that's supported by physics, eyewitnesses, logic, and history, you better accept it.

What I really ask for is logic. It is not logic that a bandana escapes a plane crash without a single bit of dust or tear. It is not logic that someone first denies, then claims responsibility.

No, but you should be able to put forward a hypothesis or scenario that withstands scrutiny.

You mean, that because I suspect there is some false evidence and twisting of the actual events, I should reconstruct the whole story according to my suspicions? Quite hard to start building up a story with one bandana. I just think there are a lot of suspicious events.

How stupid is what? 9/11 "Truth"? Pretty stupid.

Name calling is stupid. My bad. The truth. Everyone has their own.

It means if you're going to claim that the US Government planned and carried out the 9/11 attacks, you should be able to provide evidence to support your claim, and not just repeat a string of spurious coincidences, faulty reasoning, and outright lies.

I don't thinks I repeated any lies. I disagree with many aspects of so called CT. But I agree on many others. It seems there is no middle ground for the majority of people. Either you are with us, or you are against us -mentality.

We ask lots of questions. See the OP.

What does OP mean? If it means opening post, I think it is written with an attitude. Dissing from the beginning. Not really constructive.

You don't know much about engineering, do you? Do you know any professional engineers?

There was a little mistake on my part. I meant that core columns of the south tower got no hotter that 250C. My english is not good enough to debate on the engineering aspects, I'm sorry. But I know the NIST report for sure, and the official collapse theory. I guess there has been a debate on the John Skilling statements on this board somewhere.

He's confessed it, as have other AQ leaders. He has a track record of prior terrorist activity, and has made his plans and motivations public. We know who the hijackers were. They made videotaped last wills & testaments. They professed their loyalty to AQ and OBL. The jihadist movement claims credit for the attacks. They're proud of them. They proclaim this pride on their websites and use it as incitement and a recruiting tool -- "We struck the great Satan!" OBL declared war on the US in 1999 (IIRC) in a famous fax of a fatwa authored by him and Zawahiri and sent to the UK media. It wasn't exactly a surprise.

If you believe this, then what's your take on the warnings made by foreign agencies? And other warnings.

Who said anyone needs to believe George Bush? Is he the only one making the claim that 19 Islamist fanatics hijacked 4 planes and flew them into buildings? I can take George Bush completely out of the equation and have thousands of eyewitnesses and investigators and a historical record of threats and motive and everything else. GWB has nothing to do with it.

I can take GWB and start with his non-existent first reaction to the America under attack -sentence. His repeated claim that he saw the first tower hit live on TV, which he could not have seen, and could not confuse with the second hit. And so on. We should begin from the top down. There something really wrong with his story.

No, not particularly. The things that trouble me point more toward incompetence and ass-covering rather than any sort of malevolent conspiracy. Any discrepancies in the official account indicate more to me that the government is incompetent, not that it's evil.

The same government has made those false WMD claims and Saddam-Al Qaida connections. That not incompetent. That's evil. And this is all part of the big picture. That's why I asked, why should we trust the government on this topic then?

Um, they were hijacked.

I mean, that they continued to fly away from their targets for a long while after the hijackings. And even after that, did not head straight towards their targets.

Because your thinking is so badly flawed that it's worthy of ridicule.

Really?

 

[ref]

Correction

Sounds like another person trying to misquote NIST like Steven Jones, but even worse. This one gets old.
Max temp 250C? LOL! Even Steven Jones doesn't believe that.
The Ignition Temperature of Paper BTW is 233C

I meant the core columns of the south tower. You just need to look at the NIST core column steel temperature charts to find that out. Not making it up. Show me the misquote.

 

[28th Kingdom]

The red bandana, recovered from the flight 93 crash site, part of evidence of the Moussaoui trial. This is the clearest example of false evidence. Supposed to be a hijackers head bandana, gone through the enourmous plane crash, and what do you see in the picture? Not a single drop of blood. Not a single tiny bit of dust. Not a single tear. Not a single hole, dirt, nothing. And still they claim that this bandana went through a maximum speed plane crash and survived fresh and clean. Does this not ring any bells to you?

Second clear false evidence is the will. Supposedly Mohammed Atta had written his will and put it in his bag. Then his bag by 'mistake' did not make the flight, and was to be found by the feds. This means that we are supposed to believe, that Atta intended to take his will with him to the flight. Why on earth would any single person take time to write his will, only to take it with him to the suicide mission to be destroyed. Make no sense at all.

Doesn't this make you at all suspicious? If we have such clear false evidence, who should we trust any of the rest?

What about the famous Osama confession tape. Isn't it strange it was found in a house in Afganistan, released by Pentagon. Imagine if it hadn't been found? What a miserable way to confess the most terrible attack on earth. Why he first denied it. Osama planned that way? I doubt.

Don't leave out this other, "Crying Virgin Mary," piece of evidence...where one of the passports from the terrorists, magically floated down and survived not only the plane crash but the collapse of the Twin Towers.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92492&page=2

Bin-Ladin Denies Involvement in the 9/11 Attacks

"The Al-Qaidah group had nothing to do with the 11 September attacks on the USA, according to Usama bin Ladin in an interview with the Pakistani newspaper Ummat. Usama bin Ladin went on to suggest that Jews or US secret services were behind the attacks, and to express gratitude and support for Pakistan, urging Pakistan’s people to jihad against the West. The following is the text of an interview conducted by a "special correspondent," published in the Pakistani newspaper Ummat on 28 September (2001) place and date of interview not given.

http://www.911review.com/articles/usamah/khilafah.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_tapes

 

[kookbreaker]

I meant the core columns of the south tower. You just need to look at the NIST core column steel temperature charts to find that out. Not making it up. Show me the misquote.

Sorry ref, you misunderstand what those tests were for and what they can do.

The tests were based on exposure of the paint on the columns to heat. They only tested columns that they could identify and had paint on them to test. The columns that were exposed to higher levels of heat would have had such paint burnt off and thus were untestable.

The tests were done to see if the physical evidence matched the computer model of the fire they had done, not to test 'how hot' critical columns got.

You misunderstand the purpose of NIST's test.

 

[dubfan]

So what's your view on the freshness of the bandana? Not at all strange to you?

My take on the red bandana is this:

The forces and accelerations involved in a commercial airliner crash are beyond our normal experience, and it is not surprising that surprising things happen. I wouldn't have thought that a flight recorder from the Space Shuttle Columbia would've survived its destruction in the upper atmosphere, and come to rest in a muddy swamp, in a nearly completely functional state. But it did.

So, no. I'm not surprised they found a bandana. And I'm not surprised at all that a lightweight piece of fabric could be ejected from a crash and be found intact. BFD.

My point was, what kind of confession is left on a pure chance that it must be found by the enemy? Terrorists usually take credit. Claim responsibility for the attacks. We were so great we could achieve this. But on 9/11. First deny it, then leave a tape in a house in Afganistan and hope for it to be found, or nobody knows who is responsible for the attacks? Not a very likely confession strategy. And still. FBI has not included 9/11 on Osama's record. Lack of evidence.

Why did the denials cease? If they didn't do it, why not continue to profess their innocence? Don't you think that's a little strange?

Initial reaction is usually the correct one. Or is it more believable to deny first, then claim responsibility? I find it strange that this is so clear with you, that his second reaction was the correct one. Supposing that you believe that the second was actually his own confession.

Are you familiar with the concept of taqiyya?

What I really ask for is logic. It is not logic that a bandana escapes a plane crash without a single bit of dust or tear.

No, you are confusing logic with what you think should have happened.

It is not logic that someone first denies, then claims responsibility.

You're trying to apply the principles of logic to the actions of a terrorist? It's not logical to ascribe logical motivations to man who's an Islamic extremist. He's not motivated by logic. He's motivated by his (very illogical) religious beliefs. The failure in logic here is completely yours.

You mean, that because I suspect there is some false evidence and twisting of the actual events, I should reconstruct the whole story according to my suspicions? Quite hard to start building up a story with one bandana. I just think there are a lot of suspicious events.

What proof do you have that the bandana (or anything else) is false evidence? Your ill-founded belief that bandanas just cannot or should not survive plane crashes intact does not qualify as evidence.

I don't thinks I repeated any lies. I disagree with many aspects of so called CT. But I agree on many others. It seems there is no middle ground for the majority of people. Either you are with us, or you are against us -mentality.

I think there is no middle ground on the basic facts, which are that 19 jihadists hijacked some airplanes and flew them into buildings on September 11. All else is open for debate.

What does OP mean? If it means opening post, I think it is written with an attitude. Dissing from the beginning. Not really constructive.

Perhaps. But many of the questions are valid, and remain unanswered by the CTs.

There was a little mistake on my part. I meant that core columns of the south tower got no hotter that 250C. My english is not good enough to debate on the engineering aspects, I'm sorry. But I know the NIST report for sure, and the official collapse theory. I guess there has been a debate on the John Skilling statements on this board somewhere.

You're fond of logic. Let's talk logic. Is it logical that in the most-studied building collapse in history NOT ONE -- not a single ONE -- credentialed structural or construction engineer has published a refereed paper -- or even gone on the public record -- taking issue with the basic cause of the collapse (plane crash and subsequent fire)?

Not one.

If you believe this, then what's your take on the warnings made by foreign agencies? And other warnings.

Now you're asking a different question. You're asking if the government had warning of an impending attack. I think that's an honest question worthy of investigation and debate.

I can take GWB and start with his non-existent first reaction to the America under attack -sentence. His repeated claim that he saw the first tower hit live on TV, which he could not have seen, and could not confuse with the second hit. And so on. We should begin from the top down. There something really wrong with his story.

The same government has made those false WMD claims and Saddam-Al Qaida connections. That not incompetent. That's evil. And this is all part of the big picture. That's why I asked, why should we trust the government on this topic then?

I think you are infected with Bush Derangement Syndrome.

And you are wrong on both counts -- about there being no connection between Saddam and Al-Qaeda, and about your implication that WMD was somehow a phony issue with Iraq that Bush "lied" about. It was a real issue, and the subject of grave concern by people inside and outside the Bush administration (and even outside the United States), and for very good reasons.

I mean, that they continued to fly away from their targets for a long while after the hijackings. And even after that, did not head straight towards their targets.

That's untrue.

Really?

Really.

 

[ref]

Sorry ref, you misunderstand what those tests were for and what they can do.

The tests were based on exposure of the paint on the columns to heat. They only tested columns that they could identify and had paint on them to test. The columns that were exposed to higher levels of heat would have had such paint burnt off and thus were untestable.

The tests were done to see if the physical evidence matched the computer model of the fire they had done, not to test 'how hot' critical columns got.

You misunderstand the purpose of NIST's test.

Too bad I can't post links yet. But for example using google you can find the NIST media public briefing. On page 31. Shows maximum temperature reached by each column. That has what to do with paint? No mention of paint there. That is an actual column temperature picture, with color indicating the temperature reached in.

 

[beachnut]

I just recently found out about this forum, so here goes the first post.

The red bandana, recovered from the flight 93 crash site, part of evidence of the Moussaoui trial. This is the clearest example of false evidence. Supposed to be a hijackers head bandana, gone through the enourmous plane crash, and what do you see in the picture? Not a single drop of blood. Not a single tiny bit of dust. Not a single tear. Not a single hole, dirt, nothing. And still they claim that this bandana went through a maximum speed plane crash and survived fresh and clean. Does this not ring any bells to you?

Second clear false evidence is the will. Supposedly Mohammed Atta had written his will and put it in his bag. Then his bag by 'mistake' did not make the flight, and was to be found by the feds. This means that we are supposed to believe, that Atta intended to take his will with him to the flight. Why on earth would any single person take time to write his will, only to take it with him to the suicide mission to be destroyed. Make no sense at all.

What about the famous Osama confession tape. Isn't it strange it was found in a house in Afganistan, released by Pentagon. Imagine if it hadn't been found? What a miserable way to confess the most terrible attack on earth. Why he first denied it. Osama planned that way? I doubt.

If that doesn't make you a little bit suspicious, what will? Or is your only purpose to bash all those, who question anything? I don't agree with all the CT points. I don't agree with all the offial point. What i do, is I find something strange about that days events, and that raises questions. And should raise with everybody.

What proof do you have, that fireproof was removed by the impact?
What proof do you have of Osama's quilt? Since FBI does not have enough hard evidence.
What proof do you have of your presidents honesty in this case? Since there is massive amounts of proven dishonesty in any other case.
What proof do you have of anyones honesty in this case?
Do you see any suspicious evidence, and if do, why not suspect anything else?
Why did the planes take so long detours? Just to consume fuel and risk the whole event.
Why don't you ask any questions, and ridicule anyone who does?

That for starters. Viewpoint from here. Give your replys.

Proof is your problem. Small objects from horrific crashes survive. Sometimes it is a simple photograph of a wife, the dead pilot buried 20 feet in the desert; the photograph nearby. Only a dolt does not know about things like simple things found at crash sites. You messed up and did not research enough to know this can happen, has happened and now you call it a lie; I say you are the liar!

The rest of your stuff, good questions; some you answer yourself; some you have to research.

Damn, the fireproofing was coming off when people fixed their offices, some of it was so fragile it would fall off just touching it. You have messed up again, you did not see proof of how fragile it is. Now watch the impact of the Aircraft and tell me the 1.5 inch wall board didn't come off the core column in that impact. Tell me the floor insulation was not taken off in big sections. The impact of the aircraft was 2066 pounds of TNT energy!!! You must be right a small impact of a ton of TNT energy would not dent the super fireproofing of wall board and blown-on insulation. You got me. Could never blow off simple super wall board and blown-on insulation.

You must be dishonest troofer.

Welcome to hell!