9/11

[TigerForce]

Alright genius, let's look at it your way then. The US government "trained terrorists" to conduct an attack "so absurd" - your words - and so complex, and so ridiculous - when it would have been so much easier for them (the government) to plant bombs in the building and say that it was a conventional terrorist bombing attack. Your way introduces so many elements of failure and complexity that no government or agency would ever attempt it that way.

This is ultimately why all the conspiracy theories fail - they depend on a supposed government plot so ridiculously absurd, convoluted and complex, and also reliant on the complicity of literally thousands of people, THAT NO GOVERNMENT AGENCY would EVER attempt to do it that way.

If it really was a government conspiracy THEY WOULD HAVE DONE IT SO MUCH MORE EASILY AND SIMPLY IF THEY REALLY WANTED TO. No nutty terrorists enrolling in flight training, no emails from public libraries, no complicity with airline pilots, security, air traffic control, military, airforce, CIA, FBI, Department of State, New York Fire Brigades, emergency services, rescue people, the list goes on and on and on and on and on. No weird doctoring of video and images after the event a la Disco's nutty website. Not needed, no sirree.

If the goverment really did it it would have gone down like this - terrorists snuck in, planted bombs, waited til the next day, blew buildings up. Oh dear, 4000 or so people dead. And so much simpler this way. Oh, and here's a convenient scapegoat or two we set up earlier. Job done, problem solved, no ridiculous loose ends and no conspiracy of thousands of people needed. No planes, no UFOs, no wreckage, nada. Simple and easy.

The very complexity and absurdity that conspiracy theorists point to making it a "Government plot, oh noes" make it conspiracy an absolute impossibility.

Wrap your conspiracy-oriented little mind around that one for a while. Same goes for you Disco - get off the grass for Pete's sake :hihi

I originally said it would be 'so absurd' if the terrorists organised themselves to fly a plane with no US govt involvement. If they were known to be pilots, why not just hijack as has been done in other terrorist attacks?

A 'pancake collapse' is caused from controlled demolition, and in that case, there must have been bombs planted in the WTC because if the plane just hit a top part of the building, it wouldn't have made the lower floors collapse with a 'pancake' effect.

You're the one who's mixing up my quotes.

This remains a conspiracy because, for the millionth time, it is a case which is NOT SOLVED.

Too many Americans are still unsure on who actually caused this, which is why it remains a topic for debate. I can accept other people's thoughts and opinions, and don't need to patronise by saying 'Your argument is weak'. I'm just going on what I've heard and read which many other people believe in also.

Let's relax, open the stubbies and celebrate the new year. ......(although mine will be a mellow one)

 

[AngryAnt]

I originally said it would be 'so absurd' if the terrorists organised themselves to fly a plane with no US govt involvement. If they were known to be pilots, why not just hijack as has been done in other terrorist attacks?

What?

A 'pancake collapse' is caused from controlled demolition, and in that case, there must have been bombs planted in the WTC because if the plane just hit a top part of the building, it wouldn't have made the lower floors collapse with a 'pancake' effect.

Again, have you seen the footage? Apparently not.

You're the one who's mixing up my quotes.

Where? I pointed out the absurdity of your argument. I see you have no response to the complexity of the conspiracy theory.

This remains a conspiracy because, for the millionth time, it is a case which is NOT SOLVED.

A case being "unsolved" does not make it a conspiracy dude.

Too many Americans are still unsure on who actually caused this, which is why it remains a topic for debate. I can accept other people's thoughts and opinions, and don't need to patronise by saying 'Your argument is weak'. I'm just going on what I've heard and read which many other people believe in also.

A bunch of people also believe in intelligent design - that does not make it a scientific theory.

Let's relax, open the stubbies and celebrate the new year. ......(although mine will be a mellow one)

Happy New Year - I'm sure it will be a good one for conspiracy nuts as well.

 

[TigerForce]

Again, have you seen the footage? Apparently not.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=nIZp6aOibiM

Unless I'm blind, this is called a 'pancake collapse'.

Doubt a plane would cause this type of collapse.

 

[evo]

Why? It falls from the top down--the top being where the plane hit,hence pancake.(Unlike a demolition)

Looks exactly how'd u would expect,to me.

The building 7 looks a little like a demo collapse if you need an example of a non pancake collapse.But that one had a fire raging on many levels for many hours.

 

[TigerForce]

Why? It falls from the top down--the top being where the plane hit,hence pancake.(Unlike a demolition)

Looks exactly how'd u would expect,to me.

The building 7 looks a little like a demo collapse if you need an example of a non pancake collapse.But that one had a fire raging on many levels for many hours.

http://www.wtc7.net/demolition.html

No plane hit WTC 7. Strange hey?

 

[evo]

Not really strange.It had a fire burning in it unabated for about 12 hours before it fell.

The steel doesn't have to melt only buckle to weaken the joints.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Afb7eUHr64U
Anyway I'll leave u to it Xenu.

Happy New year.

 

[TigerForce]

Not really strange.It had a fire burning in it unabated for about 12 hours before it fell.

The steel doesn't have to melt only buckle to weaken the joints.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Afb7eUHr64U
Anyway I'll leave u to it Xenu.

Happy New year.

Happy New Year Dr. Evo

 

[Disco08]

I am definitely not in the mood to trawl through 12000 of your posts, but is it fair enough to say you do not understand how a person of intelligence can rationally believe in a God?

No, not at all. I can only speak from my own experience. I don't have a clue what a religious experience feels like so how can I judge those that claim to have had them? What I do believe though is that it must be quite powerful to engender such faith. This may not be rational but if the sensation is strong enough how can one resist, whether it be delusional or genuine? Maybe you should ask Jay or Djevv if they've felt I've mocked them at all.

What this has to do with accepting expert analysis of the 9/11 evidence is beyond me.

Why? It falls from the top down--the top being where the plane hit,hence pancake.(Unlike a demolition)

Looks exactly how'd u would expect,to me.

These 500 odd engineers and architects disagree. In fact some of the world's leading experts in this area have stated very clearly that the collapse of the twin towers was a controlled demolition.

I've looked for rebuttals of their arguments, but the only place that seems to address some of them (poorly) is Popular Mechanics. Trusting Popular Mechanics on this matter is akin to trusting AIG when they tell you the earth is 6000 years old IMO.

Not really strange.It had a fire burning in it unabated for about 12 hours before it fell.

The steel doesn't have to melt only buckle to weaken the joints.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Afb7eUHr64U

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=GEPjOi2dQSM&NR=1

 

[Tiger74]

No, not at all. I can only speak from my own experience. I don't have a clue what a religious experience feels like so how can I judge those that claim to have had them? What I do believe though is that it must be quite powerful to engender such faith. This may not be rational but if the sensation is strong enough how can one resist, whether it be delusional or genuine? Maybe you should ask Jay or Djevv if they've felt I've mocked them at all.

What this has to do with accepting expert analysis of the 9/11 evidence is beyond me.

As mentioned already, you are doing what you have accused others of doing previously, finding select pieces of evidence to back up a belief you have (that the US Govt is capable and willing to kill innocents and that it is covering up the truth behind 9/11 - to what means you have not yet told us). This is despite you ignoring the basic premise that the nature of the conspiracy you allude to would be so complex that to pull it off successfully would me a miracle.

If there is a conspiracy by the US Govt, it will be involving the government, FBI, CIA, USAF, air traffic control, and god knows how many other agencies. How is it that no-one has leaked worked of this great work, given that it would have involved thousands to be achieved?

The reason terrorist plots often tend to work is by their nature the cells remain small, keeping information secure to a select few. If the US Govt tried to cover up what they would need to do here, too many people would need to be involved to keep it quiet.

 

[Disco08]

I've already told you that I don't want to make broader conclusions on these events. I'm only really interested in the veracity of the evidence presented in the official report.

This site seems to explain quite well why it wasn't necessary for a large number of people to have been involved. I'm not really interested in this as proof, just as I don't see why details should be ignored because of your personal incredulity.

 

[Redford]

Pffft. All this huffing and puffing with big long winded posts. Amateurs. All of you ! All of you !

Where's Dyer Disciple when you need him ? He has definitive proof that Willis, Copperfield and Adams formed a triumvirate of precise hate on 9/11 and that THEY are the truth. All this conspiracy stuff....or terrorists from the Middle East blah blah blah..... absolute piffle.

 

[Tiger74]

I've already told you that I don't want to make broader conclusions on these events. I'm only really interested in the veracity of the evidence presented in the official report.

This site seems to explain quite well why it wasn't necessary for a large number of people to have been involved. I'm not really interested in this as proof, just as I don't see why details should be ignored because of your personal incredulity.

I found this blog somewhat confusing, sometimes arguing the govt was standing by and letting it happen, other times that it was directly engineering it. Putting that aside, I disagree with many the examples they raised. The Pearl Harbour issue is still debated heavily today. While its clear FDR wanted in, how much he knew is still argued (Churchill is another matter). In addition, most the examples shown were prior to the age of instant communications. Much easier to shuffle someone off to the other side of the word, falsify records, or bury someone in the 50's than it is now.

Even the Iraq example of the Govt deliberately faking evidence was found out pretty quickly, yet the 9/11 "fakes" somehow continue to be impenetrable to any serious examination? If you assume they have the US media in their pocket, what about foreign govts? The Russians would love to humiliate the US with something like this, and they are hardly subtle these days.

Also the idea of keeping it to just 7 people I find hard to swallow. Where did Cheney find these people? Who vetted them? Who trained them for the specific roles? Who provided them with their materials and requisitions? Who were their back-ups in case someone was sick on the given day? More importantly, who managed clean up control during the investigations to ensure the evidence at the sites was ignored to ensure the "right" version went out?

Its just way too hard.

 

[Disco08]

This is by no means what I think happened, but say they had forewarning of these attacks. Instead of deciding to stop them they decide to let them happen. What do they really need to do? Confuse NORAD by bringing forward war games simulating the exact events they know are going to happen on that day? What else?

 

[Tiger74]

This is by no means what I think happened, but say they had forewarning of these attacks. Instead of deciding to stop them they decide to let them happen. What do they really need to do? Confuse NORAD by bringing forward war games simulating the exact events they know are going to happen on that day? What else?

If they allowed it to happen though what does this mean for all the stuff about planes couldn't do those maneuvers and the building collapses? We have been hearing here all yesterday that those maneuvers were too complex and the building collapse was wrong unless the govt were involved.

Does this mean you think these things now were done by the terrorists but the govt let it happen?

 

[Disco08]

I don't know '74. I've already said I don't want to draw conclusion on the overall turn of events. There are so many possibilities I think trying to decipher it all accurately is likely impossible.

I think my position is best summed up as extremely sceptical of the commission report (influenced mostly by the number of experts questioning it and the data they present to support their arguments) but beyond that I'm clueless. I'd like to see Obama listen to the voices of these experts and instigate a new investigation with full subpoena power given to the investigators. Perhaps if the truth can be objectively determined about each individual incident the underlying truth of these events may also become apparent.

 

[Tiger74]

I don't know '74. I've already said I don't want to draw conclusion on the overall turn of events. There are so many possibilities I think trying to decipher it all accurately is likely impossible.

I think my position is best summed up as extremely sceptical of the commission report (influenced mostly by the number of experts questioning it and the data they present to support their arguments) but beyond that I'm clueless. I'd like to see Obama listen to the voices of these experts and instigate a new investigation with full subpoena power given to the investigators. Perhaps if the truth can be objectively determined about each individual incident the underlying truth of these events may also become apparent.

I can actually understand this position, the only thing I would suggest though is while reviewing the position don't necessarily condemn the commissions outcome. Why you may not like it or the govt that commissioned it, any further investigations may only further validate its outcomes if they are fact.

The best example I can give on this is the Warren Commission. If they unsealed the remaining files, a lot of the speculation and innuendo regarding the Kennedy assassination may finally cease. While I have massive issues with this report, over time I've come to believe that rather than a grand govt conspiracy, the inconsistencies of that commission may be due more to sloppy work and the need to get a quick and definitive outcome.

For 9/11, I wouldn't be surprised if further investigations show govt ineffectiveness (rather than deceit) helped the attacks succeed, but thats just because I'm a cynic about the performance of govts in general.

 

[Disco08]

I struggle to see how further investigation will validate the commission's findings. As I said the criticisms of it are wide and varied, attacking the content, the methodology and the omissions. Have a look at this article detailing the lack of funding given to the commission. If the US government was truly interested in discovering the truth behind the 9/11 attacks wouldn't you reasonably expect funding of investigation into the events to be almost limitless? I know I would, however in reality they spent a lot less money on this investigation that they did on investigating the Monica Lewinsky affair, rejecting all requests for more funding. Why?

 

[Liverpool]

Got any pictures of the big hole? ;D

 

[Disco08]

Did you have a read of the site you got the second image from Livers?

 

[TigerForce]

Pretty big for a small hole.