The 9/11 Conspiracy Facts

[T.A.M.]

You mean you havent posted here since you stopped posting implying that people shouldnt post on this thread (which you started on p1).

And you question the psychological stability of others?

Please explain to me oh master of psychology, how my telling people they shouldn't feed into your "trolling", followed by myself listening to said advice, until now, implies psychological instability, as you are insinuating with the above comment.

Thanks in advance.

Edit: and I am qualified, legally in my country, to not only comment on the mental stability or lack there of, of an individual, but to confine them against their will if I feel appropriate...how about you?

TAM

 

[twinstead]

Lol, well that would depend on the ideology of course, wouldnt it?

Let's put it this way: your world view for some odd reason prohibits you from admitting you are wrong or mistaken about any point whatsoever, no matter how small.

That is pretty much my definition of an ideologue.

 

[lapman]

Talk about a liar. This statement:goes completely against what you claim. This statement shows that any link you claim between the RAD and Iraq is completely false and you know this. Yet you continue to repeat the blatantly false claim.

Hilarious. The statement is that the importance of Iraq transcends the issue of Saddam. Hence US interests there are not limited to the threat posed to the US, or to US interests, by Saddam. Hence when he is gone, US interests still persist. This will explain a lot of contemporary events for you.

That is false, as usual. They were talking about the gulf region in general, not Iraq specifically.

You getting a tad hysterical now; dont worry- you are not alone in being miles out of your depth here.

Wow, you're arrogance is astounding. Of course, my "ilk" and I would rather not step into the humongous pile of BS that spews forth from your fingers.

When I state that no one has responded to the post, it should be implied, to serious people, that this means sensible responses. Of course, someone could reply to the post "blablabla"- this would not constitute, to serious people, a response. Hence my point, about the lack of responses, and about your lack of seriousness in response.

Though you are correct about "blah blah blah," that response is in the overwhelmingly minority of the responses. Who said that it's up to you to decide what is sensible or not? So now you've given yourself the role of a god in this decision making it yours and yours alone. Ok, we got ya.

Cheney came out and said that Iraq was linked to 911. Hence he made the link between Iraq and 911. End of story.

Nope, not even close. In order for this to be the "end of story," Bush and the rest of his admin would have had to buy into it. The article says that didn't happen. So Cheney's comments are immaterial since Bush did not use it as a reason to go into Iraq until after they couldn't find any WMD's. End of story.

Ok good. So you state that the testimony of the middle man tasked with dealing with the disposal of OBL between the US and the Taliban, is "not evidence" when investigating the dealings with the disposal of OBL between the US and the Taliban.

I guess you and your ilk have a problem with what evidence is. His testimony would be evidence if it was backed up with documentation, photo's, recordings, etc. Since none of that was produced, we only have his word and that's not good enough for any reasonable adult to consider evidence just like somebody saying they heard explosions is not evidence of explosives when such a sound was never recorded by the many audio recording devices that were close enough to be able to record the very loud sound that explosives make and the people who are doing the investigation specifically state that there was no evidence of explosives found in the debris.

 

[BillyRayValentine]

Well no, since as Rodriguez says, it happened every year...Abd before you get hysterical about Rodriguez, he could have stated that such never happened, if he really wanted to lie to exacerbate the story. He went against it, and so what he says has credence.

Every year, eh? Though this claim is absurd on its face, let's see if Scott Forbes concurs. How about a few snippets from his Killtown interview:

KT: Was it unusual for you to be working on the weekend?

Scott Forbes: ... I guess what was odd about this weekend was that as all power was going down then all of our systems were being shutdown. This was extreme and unprecedented.

--------

KT: How long did you work in the WTC 2 before 9/11?

Scott Forbes: I started in the company as a consultant in June 1998 and I joined full time in December 1998.

KT: During all this time, how many times did the WTC have a "power down"?

Scott Forbes: None in Tower 2 that I was aware of. We had a backup Generator for our Data Center on floor 97 in the event of an unplanned power outage but it had not been used during my time in the company. You have to understand how unprecedented the power down was.


----------

KT: Had you or any of your colleagues ever heard or experienced a power down before?

Scott Forbes: No, except when the bomb went off in the car park in '93.

'Nuff said.

The fact is, William Rodriguez is a fraud. Why, it seems like just yesterday he was in front of NIST, saying:

"The fire, the ball of fire, for example, I was in the basement when the first plane hit the building. And at that moment, I thought it was an electrical generator that blew up at that moment. A person comes running into the office saying 'explosion, explosion, explosion.' When I look at this guy; has all his skin pulled off of his body. Hanging from the top of his fingertips like it was a glove. And I said, what happened? He said the elevators. What happened was the ball of fire went down with such a force down the elevator shaft on the 58th (50A) – freight elevator, the biggest freight elevator that we have in the North Tower, it went out with such a force that it broke the cables. It went down, I think seven flights. The person survived because he was pulled from the B3 level. But this person, being in front of the doors waiting for the elevator, practically got his skin vaporized."

Or on CNN saying:

“And at that terrible day when I took people out of the office, one of them totally burned because he was standing in front of the freight elevator and the ball of fire came down the duct of the elevator itself, I put him on the ambulance.”

When you compare these quotes to his later claims regarding what transpired, the contradictions are almost comical. There is no rational way to bridge the gap.

Yet there he is, taking his side-show to places like Venezuela, spreading his poison and fomenting hatred for the U.S. He is a sick piece of garbage who has capitalized on this crap to turn himself into a regular cottage industry. The world's a big place, so it's no surprise he's found so many sycophants, both here and abroad, to adore him. He preaches to the choir and they love him for it. It's perfectly symbiotic. They get someone to validate their delusions (hopes, really), and he gets to continuously self-aggrandize and play the role of the hero to a nauseating extereme.

It's best viewed from afar.

 

[BillyRayValentine]

The reasons why few people have been inclined to talk about it, have been related in my prior post to you. Slanderous attacks are one such facet. I will tell you again- I have met the man, spent 1/2 hour chatting to him, he is incredibly self effacing, modest and quiet- hence why he hasnt been going round making a huge deal about it.

Whether he wanted to make a big deal out of it or not (and I'd guess he has regrets now), as soon as he penned that first ridiculous letter, his fairy tale spread among the fruitcake community like wildfire. It became a "big deal" almost immediately.

And yet, not a single person has come forward to corroborate his version of events. NOT ONE.

There is no imaginable scenario in which a NYC office tower would be "powered down", outside of a natural disaster or some other catasrtrophic event. And under no circumstances would they ever do so without alerting each and every person who worked in the affected area. That would be 10,000+ people in the area Forbes describes. As I've said before, and you've ignored, people often work during the weekend in NYC. EVERYONE would have had to have been informed of the (totally implausible) power down beforehand, in case they were planning on heading into the office. Hell, Forbes himself seems to imply it was no great secret.

And so again, I ask you. Why hasn't a single other person corroborated his story?

Either all these people are all liars (i.e. everyone who disagrees with you), or people are worried that if they intimate that the US government killed 3000 of its own people, they might get into problems. I think the choice is a simple one, for honest people.

Yes. One brave soul out of 10,000, give or take. The rest, without exception, refuse to acknowledge the event, lest they "get into problems"? Patently ridiculous. With an equally ridiculous corollary, namely the implicit assumption that each and every person who knew about the power down considered it potential evidence that "intimate(s) that the US government killed 3000 of its own people". Not one of them considered it an unrelated event, or an unremarkable annual event (as alleged by freakshow Willy). Else why would they be afraid to mention it? And so, each and every person who was aware of the event immediately saw its connection to the murder of 3,000 of their friends, colleagues, etc., and then decided to just let it go out of self-interest.

What is it about truthers that allows them to assume that everyone outside of standard roster of truther "heroes" is a self-absorbed, soul-less, subhuman scumbag who would ever ignore (legitimate) potential evidence of such a crime and just keep quiet?

Mental illness is the only reason that comes to mind.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Normally I tell people to read my posts before they respond to them. In your case, read your own posts before you post them. You state that I have said something that is an "insult", yet you cannot be "certain" that it was "offensive".

Poor reading comprehension again. I said I couldn't be certain it was "less offensive". That's a relative statement, not an absolute one.

Of course, anyone who would even dream of comparing "rag heads" with a comment on "chinese motorcycles", is someone who has no inclination to serious dialogue, nor indeed much respect for his own comments.

Carry on defending your own racist comments. I'm sure it will increase people's respect for you. Of course it's OK for you to make racist comments because they're, well, less racist. Or was it that it was a common expression? Because everyone knows racist comments are less offensive if they're made more often.

And we're back to the old "anyone who disagrees with me is not taking things seriously" bit. It won't wash. You've been caught being hypocritical, and the more you deny it, the more petty you look.

I note quite interestingly that I am alone in denouncing DR's unquestionable, disgusting bigotry.

Darth Rotor, I didn't like your use of the term "rag heads". I felt it was inappropriate and lowered the tone of your remarks. From your own disapproval of the Stundies, I'd have thought you would be more careful about preserving the dignity of the forum by avoiding slurs like this.

Happy now, MJD1982?

Dave

 

[Belz...]

You mean your group intimidation tactics haven't worked on him so you are giving up. Chalk that up as a win MJD.

Asking for evidence is intimidation ?

Truther logic.

There is further proof of MJDs victory. You have to resort to petty insults like calling him insane.

Sorry, but you don't know what "proof" means.

 

[nicepants]

Heres the original quote, I assume its German

"Nach meiner Meinung ist das Gebäude WTC 7 mit grosser Wahrscheinlichkeit fachgerecht gesprengt worden», sagt Hugo Bachmann, emeritierter ETH-Professor für Baustatik und Konstruktion. Und auch Jörg Schneider, ebenfalls emeritierter ETH-Professor für Baustatik und Konstruktion, deutet die wenigen vorhandenen Videoaufnahmen als Hinweise, dass «das Gebäude WTC 7 mit grosser Wahrscheinlichkeit gesprengt wurde. "

To english (via babelfish):

"According to my opinion the building WTC 7 with large probability was blown up professionally ", says Hugo brook man, emeritierter ETH professor for structural design and construction. And also Joerg cutter, likewise emeritierter ETH professor for structural design and construction, interprets the few existing video photographs than references that "the building WTC 7 with large probability was blown up."

Guess it wasn't "utmost probability" after all.

 

[lapman]

There is further proof of MJDs victory. You have to resort to petty insults like calling him insane.

In that case, we won long ago. mjd has been using petty insults for dozens of posts now. So I guess we can declare victory based on rev's definition.

 

[Darth Rotor]

QDR?

Qadrennial Defense Review

http://www.defenselink.mil/qdr/

IIRC, the first one was mandated under Secretary of Defense Perry. This was about four years after Les Aspin asked for and got the Bottom's Up Review (a mere year or so after the great Post 1991 Kuwait War Roles and Missions wrangle) and CJCS Powell presented the Base Force (12 Divisions, etc). This got Aspin fired by President Clinton, as the cuts were not deep enough, fast enough. Then came the "official" commission on Roles and Missions, which was the prelude to Paneta's butcher knife caming out (budget wise) in the DoD meat shop.

By the time Dr Perry was looking at the end of the first Clinton Term, the QDR came about as a basis for defense posture, end strength, and funding. Part of the need for a comprehensive review was five years of significant change to the geo strategic picture, and other demands were simply fiscal: getting more bang per buck was the alleged aim.

http://www.fas.org/man/docs/qdr/quad_leg.html

The Legislation
The legislation mandating the Quadrennial Defense Review is the National Defense Authorization Act of 1996, Public Law 104-201. The relevant sections fall under "Subtitle B-Force Structure Review," sections 921-926. Here is the text.

DR

 

[T.A.M.]

like I said, you show anyone, engineer, the pope, jesus, whoever, the collapse of WTC7, without any context, simply show them the video, and they will all say that there is a high probability it was blown up. Why?

1. It fell relatively straight down. It fell quickly.
2. There is no precident of a building falling this way by other means for them to mentally reference for comparison, except via CD.

It really proves nothing.

Now, you tell them that it was adjacent to the Twin Towers, had a 20 storey gash put into it from debris, and had fires raging multiple floors for 7 hours unchecked, as well as have then READ the NIST WTC7 interim report, and then see what they say.

TAM

 

[JonnyFive]

You mean your group intimidation tactics haven't worked on him so you are giving up. Chalk that up as a win MJD.

I thought mjd1982 came here to convince us all of the facts of 9/11, as he sees them. That's what his OP seemed to be about.

After all this, I don't think he's convinced one person to change their mind on this issue.

Ah, but apparently it isn't about convincing someone you're right or supporting your beliefs with evidence - no, it's about "winning" by holding out long enough.

Good show, then. Mjd is an ace at this - he doesn't change his argument or present new evidence, or even just agree to disagree and move to the next point. He hammers home the same point until everyone gives up.

You honestly believe that we use "group intimidation" because no one here agrees with mjd? That's a funny way of interpreting things.

 

[HeyLeroy]

Heres the original quote, I assume its German

"Nach meiner Meinung ist das Gebäude WTC 7 mit grosser Wahrscheinlichkeit fachgerecht gesprengt worden», sagt Hugo Bachmann, emeritierter ETH-Professor für Baustatik und Konstruktion. Und auch Jörg Schneider, ebenfalls emeritierter ETH-Professor für Baustatik und Konstruktion, deutet die wenigen vorhandenen Videoaufnahmen als Hinweise, dass «das Gebäude WTC 7 mit grosser Wahrscheinlichkeit gesprengt wurde. "

To english (via babelfish):

"According to my opinion the building WTC 7 with large probability was blown up professionally ", says Hugo brook man, emeritierter ETH professor for structural design and construction. And also Joerg cutter, likewise emeritierter ETH professor for structural design and construction, interprets the few existing video photographs than references that "the building WTC 7 with large probability was blown up."

Guess it wasn't "utmost probability" after all.

Beat me to it again, nicepants.

I was just gonna pipe in and say that that says what my earlier post says, only in zee Cherman, but providing the Babelfish translation is good, too.

Now are the truthers gonna dispute that since the last names were translated literally, and that Babelfish had a problem with the Latin words, that somehow invalidates the translation?

 

[mjd1982]

Please explain to me oh master of psychology, how my telling people they shouldn't feed into your "trolling", followed by myself listening to said advice, until now, implies psychological instability, as you are insinuating with the above comment.

Thanks in advance.

Edit: and I am qualified, legally in my country, to not only comment on the mental stability or lack there of, of an individual, but to confine them against their will if I feel appropriate...how about you?

TAM

a) How Orwellian and worrying
b) I dont know what trolling is

 

[Unsecured Coins]

oh no, not another Orwell reference!!

 

[mjd1982]

Let's put it this way: your world view for some odd reason prohibits you from admitting you are wrong or mistaken about any point whatsoever, no matter how small.

That is pretty much my definition of an ideologue.

[url="http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=84473&page=62]Errr...[/url]

Excuse me, that was an error on my part

Just 1 example. Now. Your turn.

 

[mjd1982]

That is false, as usual. They were talking about the gulf region in general, not Iraq specifically.

Yes, thats why they said "interests in Iraq".

Nope, not even close. In order for this to be the "end of story," Bush and the rest of his admin would have had to buy into it. The article says that didn't happen. So Cheney's comments are immaterial since Bush did not use it as a reason to go into Iraq until after they couldn't find any WMD's. End of story.

Oh dear...

Urging War Support, Bush Repeats 9/11 Link to Iraq
The House vote came hours after President Bush released an interim progress report that says the Iraqi government has failed to meet most key benchmarks set by Congress. These include the passage of a U.S.-backed oil law heavily criticized by Iraqi unions. Speaking at the White House, Bush dismissed recent polls showing seventy-percent of Americans back a withdrawal and called on Congress to continue funding the war. The president also repeated his erroneous linkage of the Iraq war to 9/11. President Bush: “The same folks that are bombing innocent people in Iraq were the ones who attacked us in America on September the 11th, and that's why what happens in Iraq matters to the security here at home.”

(from yesterday)

I guess you and your ilk have a problem with what evidence is. His testimony would be evidence if it was backed up with documentation, photo's, recordings, etc. Since none of that was produced, we only have his word and that's not good enough for any reasonable adult to consider evidence just like somebody saying they heard explosions is not evidence of explosives when such a sound was never recorded by the many audio recording devices that were close enough to be able to record the very loud sound that explosives make and the people who are doing the investigation specifically state that there was no evidence of explosives found in the debris.

Hmmm, something of a pattern here...

From the documents he's supplied us and from his detailed account we regard Kabir Mohabbat's story as credible and are glad to make public his story of the truly incredible failure of the Bush administration to accept the Taliban's offer to eliminate Bin Laden.

 

[Unsecured Coins]

linky no worky.

 

[mjd1982]

Whether he wanted to make a big deal out of it or not (and I'd guess he has regrets now), as soon as he penned that first ridiculous letter, his fairy tale spread among the fruitcake community like wildfire. It became a "big deal" almost immediately.

And yet, not a single person has come forward to corroborate his version of events. NOT ONE.

There is no imaginable scenario in which a NYC office tower would be "powered down", outside of a natural disaster or some other catasrtrophic event. And under no circumstances would they ever do so without alerting each and every person who worked in the affected area. That would be 10,000+ people in the area Forbes describes. As I've said before, and you've ignored, people often work during the weekend in NYC. EVERYONE would have had to have been informed of the (totally implausible) power down beforehand, in case they were planning on heading into the office. Hell, Forbes himself seems to imply it was no great secret.

And so again, I ask you. Why hasn't a single other person corroborated his story?



Yes. One brave soul out of 10,000, give or take. The rest, without exception, refuse to acknowledge the event, lest they "get into problems"? Patently ridiculous. With an equally ridiculous corollary, namely the implicit assumption that each and every person who knew about the power down considered it potential evidence that "intimate(s) that the US government killed 3000 of its own people". Not one of them considered it an unrelated event, or an unremarkable annual event (as alleged by freakshow Willy). Else why would they be afraid to mention it? And so, each and every person who was aware of the event immediately saw its connection to the murder of 3,000 of their friends, colleagues, etc., and then decided to just let it go out of self-interest.

What is it about truthers that allows them to assume that everyone outside of standard roster of truther "heroes" is a self-absorbed, soul-less, subhuman scumbag who would ever ignore (legitimate) potential evidence of such a crime and just keep quiet?

Mental illness is the only reason that comes to mind.

I can argue this on 2 levels. 1 is a base level, whereby I tell you that I am not a charlatan, nor a fraud, nor do I have any great interest in convincing you of my views on 911. I am also a very good judge of character. You do not have to believe this if you do not want, but I will tell you as someone who has met Scott and chatted with him for a good length of time, that he is not lying- this is something I can say as conclusively as couldd realistically be expected.

Now of course you dont have to believe the former part of my assertions, and thus not the latter part, so I will argue on a second level- there is a very good reason why the main pillar of your counter arguments is completely unsound- that is that there is plenty of reason for the people in the towers not to have come forward so far. You must remember that the power down is not a de facto implication of the government in killing its own people. Its an oddity, which will have little gravitas on the one side of the coin- making people believe the CT- but which willl have sever implications for the person who comes out with it, as he or she will be lumped as a CTer, will most likely be fired, and will be vilified and slandered by you and you kind. The risk is not worth it. Need I remind you that Scott did not, and does not think that the power down is proof of anything. It is the subsequent backlash against his account that has made him a truther- the extent to which official and authoritarian bdies are going to whitewash his story, whitewash the record, and silence him. This is the implicating element, and the same goes for Rodriguez et al

 

[mjd1982]

Poor reading comprehension again. I said I couldn't be certain it was "less offensive". That's a relative statement, not an absolute one.



Carry on defending your own racist comments. I'm sure it will increase people's respect for you. Of course it's OK for you to make racist comments because they're, well, less racist. Or was it that it was a common expression? Because everyone knows racist comments are less offensive if they're made more often.

And we're back to the old "anyone who disagrees with me is not taking things seriously" bit. It won't wash. You've been caught being hypocritical, and the more you deny it, the more petty you look.



Darth Rotor, I didn't like your use of the term "rag heads". I felt it was inappropriate and lowered the tone of your remarks. From your own disapproval of the Stundies, I'd have thought you would be more careful about preserving the dignity of the forum by avoiding slurs like this.

Happy now, MJD1982?

Dave

The facile and puerile nature of your pursuit of this reflects pretty badly on any attempts that you are wishing to make at serious debate on 911, I'm afraid.

You are attempting to deem all racial stereotyping as racist. Thus if I were to state that Sri Lankans are bad swimmers, that would be racist. Now of course, on one level this is true; yet if anyone were to seriously accuse someone of being a racist for saying that, or actually calling that a racist comment, then that person would be dismissed, by adults, as being puerile and facile.

Similarly, your attempt at lumping my comment together with DR's, is puerile and facile; as is, fittingly, your attempt at rebuking him.