911 Truth Movement

[Harry]

Could you please explain, in your own words, what did it?

don't know what did it, but it looks more like the work of a bunker buster missile than a commercial plane. just because it says it was a plane in the OR doesn't make it true.

 

[evo]

what % do you reckon might accept the NIST report?

A question " do you accept the NIST report" is pretty lame in my opinion - every report dealing with a complex will have errors in it. The question you chose as the survey for this thread is also lame.

Most people are going say sure, I wouldn't mind seeing a more thorough NIST report. Particulalry if you aren't a U.S taxayer. Why wouldn't I want a report, it's no skin off my nose. At the very least it would give us something more to sqaubble about until NAB starts.

I'd rather 911 truthers stop beating around the bush with, "oh I'm just asking questions" and "why do you believe everything in the official report". It is utterly banal.

Personally I'm more interested in poeople's level of credulity. Ask people telling questions that require a yes/no answer:

"Do you believe that WTC1,2 + 7 were bought down by controlled Demolition?"

"Do you believe the 2nd plane was a hologram?"

"Do you believe that it wasn't a plane that hit the Pentagon, but rather a missile"

"Do you believe the 4th plan was shot down over shanksville"

"Do you believe the government or some unspecific "elite" planned the whole thing"

 

[Harry]

Yet you claim that you know (in your bozo opinion that it couldn't be caused by a plane.

Yet you claim it was a plane based on the investigation where evidence was destroyed, removed, and investigators were lied to. It works both ways so you can't state that you have hard evidence based on a farce investigation. And around and around we go. So we both don't have sufficient evidence yet one of us is the crackpot.

 

[Disco08]

You aren't insinuating bungling in isolation though. As you admit, you are insinuating a massive conspiracy. You shift the goal posts in a single paragraph - (You say that they insinuate a conspiracy and then ask if I agree with Chomsky - 2 very different things). Like I said in my previous post, I wouldn't be surprised if the US government bungled in its failure to prevent the events of 9/11, nor in their attempts to minimise their appearance of ineptitude after the fact (also Chomsky's position). You are pointing out 'evidence' of a conspiracy. I just don't see it.

No, I don't support an investigation, because I haven't seen one shred of hard evidence to justify the massive expense of such a thing. You have pointed out hearsay, innuendo, coincidence and circumstantial evidence, but not one shred of incriminating evidence. In the absence of such evidence, how do you justify such a stance - I know you value such things.

The evidence is the result. That's obvious. If you want to avoid such results in the future wouldn't you need to investigate what made it happen this time? Why resist doing that? What's to gain except a sum of money that's utterly paltry compared to other methods the US employs to defend its citizens? Massive expense by bottom.

I didn't shift the goal posts at all. I only used Chomsky's insistence that the US's role in 9/11 was one of incompetence. I made no reference at all to his other theories/conjecture.

I'm only pointing out evidence that exists that I think needs investigating. If that evidence suggests conspiracy that's not my fault. Do you deny any of the evidence I listed in that previous post?

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

Yet you claim it was a plane based on the investigation where evidence was destroyed, removed, and investigators were lied to. It works both ways so you can't state that you have hard evidence based on a farce investigation. And around and around we go. So we both don't have sufficient evidence yet one of us is the crackpot.

I'll draw my conclusions based on a so-called 'farce investigation' by experts, as well as the footage of events of that day over the hunches of the conspiracy theorists, yes.

Knighters posted a good description of how to weigh evidence and that the truth of a matter is not determined by democracy, but by the presentation of evidence. The 'truthers' seem to lack on the evidence side of things from what I can see - despite their protests.

 

[Disco08]

A question " do you accept the NIST report" is pretty lame in my opinion - every report dealing with a complex will have errors in it. The question you chose as the survey for this thread is also lame.

Most people are going say sure, I wouldn't mind seeing a more thorough NIST report. Particulalry if you aren't a U.S taxayer. Why wouldn't I want a report, it's no skin off my nose. At the very least it would give us something more to sqaubble about until NAB starts.

I'd rather 911 truthers stop beating around the bush with, "oh I'm just asking questions" and "why do you believe everything in the official report". It is utterly banal.

Personally I'm more interested in poeople's level of credulity. Ask people telling questions that require a yes/no answer:

"Do you believe that WTC1,2 + 7 were bought down by controlled Demolition?"

"Do you believe the 2nd plane was a hologram?"

"Do you believe that it wasn't a plane that hit the Pentagon, but rather a missile"

"Do you believe the 4th plan was shot down over shanksville"

"Do you believe the government or some unspecific "elite" planned the whole thing"

You realise that the 2000 architects and engineers signed a petition denouncing the NIST WTC7 report right? I didn't just pluck that question from thin air.

My poll question requires a yes/no answer. It's not lame at all. It's also the entire point of the truth movement. All those experts, scholars, victims and their families, firefighters, police, etc are asking for is the investigation they feel should have been carried out initially. Do you actually think the Commission was adequate?

Here's some more:

"Do you think it was right for WTC evidence to be removed and destroyed before it could be examined?"

"Do you think it was smart for George Bush to remove the ability of commercial pilots to defend themselves when he had been extensively warned that Al Qaeda was preparing to attack the US with hijacked aircraft?"

I could go on and on but you get the jist.

 

[Tigers of Old]

If explosives were in the WTC why go to all the trouble of hijacking planes? Why not just blow them up and say it was a terrorist bomber?

Soo soo much could have gone wrong if this was some grand master plan. It really does seem a little crackpot to think it was IMO.

 

[Harry]

You have admitted that you don't have the expertise to decipher the physics of building collapse and in the next breath you quote details that assume knowledge (steel frame buildings and fires etc). If you don't know, then the only thing you can say with any certainty is that you don't know. There is no harm in that. It is okay not to know things. It is a bit far-fetched however to conclude that because you don't know things, they are impossible.

so what do you base your assumed knowledge on then. Are you an expert in any of these fields. Disco and I are throwing up questions and holes in the official OR but you shoot us down as if you know that what has been reported is the truth.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

The evidence is the result. That's obvious. If you want to avoid such results in the future wouldn't you need to investigate what made it happen this time? Why resist doing that? What's to gain except a sum of money that's utterly paltry compared to other methods the US employs to defend its citizens? Massive expense by bottom.

I didn't shift the goal posts at all. I only used Chomsky's insistence that the US's role in 9/11 was one of incompetence. I made no reference at all to his other theories/conjecture.

I'm only pointing out evidence that exists that I think needs investigating. If that evidence suggests conspiracy that's not my fault. Do you deny any of the evidence I listed in that previous post?

My point is that a series of coincidences does not equate to evidence, nor justifies the expense of such an investigation when the official report appears to cover the major events reasonably well. I haven't seen anything on this thread that makes me seriously question the 'official story'.

As to the fact that such an investigation would only amount to a small % of the US defence budget is one for another discussion (you won't get disagreement from me on most of that thread methinks).

 

[Disco08]

What benefit was there of Bush and his team murdering thousands of innocent civilians? How are they benefitting from this now?

The motivation is almost entirely the same as Northwoods. Create events that stir public emotion as a platform for war. Do you know how much money some people make from the US war effort?

If explosives were in the WTC why go to all the trouble of hijacking planes? Why not just blow them up and say it was a terrorist bomber?

Because no plane impact and no fire had ever brought down a steel framed building.

[youtube=560,315]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4MjsVnasLA[/youtube]

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

so what do you base your assumed knowledge on then. Are you an expert in any of these fields. Disco and I are throwing up questions and holes in the official OR but you shoot us down as if you know that what has been reported is the truth.

Experts in the field VS. Disco and Harry (sorry, couldn't resist ;D) - As I am no expert, I know who's opinion I favour.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

The motivation is almost entirely the same as Northwoods. Create events that stir public emotion as a platform for war. Do you know how much money some people make from the US war effort?
Because no plane impact and no fire had ever brought down a steel framed building.

[youtube=560,315]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4MjsVnasLA[/youtube]

I think you missed the point on that one. Why go to the trouble of such a massive conspiracy when a simpler option (ie. just blowing up airplanes) would have been just as effective, far safer and less likely to leak?

 

[KnightersRevenge]

Flight 93 debris fields debunked by you? No way. Not even close. Barry Jennings' testimony of multiple explosions within WTC7 before either tower collapsed debunked by you? Again, not even close. Finally the gray planes theory. All I asked was a good photo that disproved it as it's obviously a very outlandish theory that would change everything if proven. You didn't provide one though, I found that on my own.

Which means what, that you were wrong about that plane? And the flight recorders, and that there is a evidence of "human remains" 8 miles from the flight 93 crash site? That's a lot of wrong.

Just like Baloo, what have you disproved/discredited? Black boxes not found? Fair enough, like I said I should have brushed up before posting. What about the fact that so much of their evidence is being suppressed?

BTW, talking of false dichotemies, I've never said any of this evidence proves US complicity. I've only ever said it demands that a proper investigation be undertaken. You know that I'm sure.

If you can't see that jumping to the defense of the OR every step of the way is in fact defending it, we need to rethink our use of the word "defend".

Your reasoning is based on TM nonsense about explosives, and contradictory eyewitness accounts, and removed evidence which you still haven't provided proof of by the way. I haven't jumped to the defence of anything, I have asked for something other than conjecture to be provided to back your story.

Yes they do. The difference is I'm willing to accept that there might be a reasonable explanation for it (any ideas? I gave you the list of evidence you asked you a few days ago and you haven't acknowledged it which isn't like you) and the best way to find the truth is through thorough independent investigation. Don't you agree? Don't you agree with Noam Chomsky that the US reaction was severely bungled and that if it wasn't the attacks could possibly have been thwarted? If you do, why is it you wouldn't support an investigation into these facts? Just because it makes the conspiracy nutcases happy?

There are reasonable explanations that have been provided, you don't accept them okay, but they are out there and they are reasonable.

 

[evo]

You realise that the 2000 architects and engineers signed a petition denouncing the NIST WTC7 report right? I didn't just pluck that question from thin air.

I did know that. And in a way it is pretty disheartening for your case that such a meagre % signed it.

My poll question requires a yes/no answer. It's not lame at all. It's also the entire point of the truth movement. All those experts, scholars, victims and their families, firefighters, police, etc are asking for is the investigation they feel should have been carried out initially. Do you actually think the Commission was adequate?

No it probably wasn't adequate. Big ferking deal. Most people will say they think any report is "inadequate".It is like asking someone "Should the government spend more on education".

Bloody oath it is lame. If all the thread was aboutis should they commision another report it probably would've ended at page 1. The reason we are on page 30 is because truthers keep suggesting demolitions, holograms and missiles hitting the pentagon are plausible.

Here's some more:

"Do you think it was right for WTC evidence to be removed and destroyed before it could be examined?"

"Do you think it was smart for George Bush to remove the ability of commercial pilots to defend themselves when he had been extensively warned that Al Qaeda was preparing to attack the US with hijacked aircraft?"

lame and lame

 

[KnightersRevenge]

so what do you base your assumed knowledge on then. Are you an expert in any of these fields. Disco and I are throwing up questions and holes in the official OR but you shoot us down as if you know that what has been reported is the truth.

Yes you are, and I am asking you why? Why do you believe that your lack of knowledge makes things you don't understand impossible?

 

[Disco08]

My point is that a series of coincidences does not equate to evidence, nor justifies the expense of such an investigation when the official report appears to cover the major events reasonably well. I haven't seen anything on this thread that makes me seriously question the 'official story'.

As to the fact that such an investigation would only amount to a small % of the US defence budget is one for another discussion (you won't get disagreement from me on most of that thread methinks).

Even the investigators say the initial investigation was a crock. Limited subpoena power. Severe interview restrictions. Totally inadequate funding. Suppression of evidence. If you think that reasonable we'll have to agree to disagree.

Experts in the field VS. Disco and Harry (sorry, couldn't resist ;D) - As I am no expert, I know who's opinion I favour.

Experts in what field Pantera?

I think you missed the point on that one. Why go to the trouble of such a massive conspiracy when a simpler option (ie. just blowing up airplanes) would have been just as effective, far safer and less likely to leak?

Becuase they didn't have intelligence surrounding a terrorist plot to blow up planes. They had intelligence on the Al Qaeda plot to fly planes into symbolic US targets. I also think it's a massive leap to say blowing up a plane or two would have been just as effective in stirring up public emotion as flying planes into the twin towers. What are you basing that on? There's been planes blown up by terrorists before but no war has ever come of it.


Also, I don't understand how you can agree with Chomsky on the incompetence of the US reaction in hindsight and not want an investigation into it. Isn't it critically important to do everything possible to make sure this never happens again? Isn't the first step to doing that an independent investigation into why the *smile* ups occured?

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

Why do you believe that your lack of knowledge makes things you don't understand impossible?

That's a keeper. ;D

 

[evo]

That's a keeper. ;D

yeah, it is not every day you see a triple negative. It's like a four leaf clover!

 

[Harry]

My point is that a series of coincidences does not equate to evidence, nor justifies the expense of such an investigation when the official report appears to cover the major events reasonably well. I haven't seen anything on this thread that makes me seriously question the 'official story'.

do you not question the way the investigations were conducted where the investigators themselves claimed they were compromised, lied to and evidence witheld?

 

[Tigers of Old]

The motivation is almost entirely the same as Northwoods. Create events that stir public emotion as a platform for war. Do you know how much money some people make from the US war effort?

George Bush is a bazillionaire? Seriously the guy as a US president is set for life anyway. Big stretch IMO to suggest he killed millions of innocents for millions of dollars.
How about all his cronies who are in on it? Are they now bazllionaires too?
I just don't get the notion that the number of people required to set this up and execute it are all walking around filthy rich without the guilty consciences to match.
They'd have to be the devil incarnate to unleash that sort of pain on their own citizens. Someone would have snapped. Someone would have spilled the beans by now.
Or are they sipping cocktails in the Bahamas?

Because no plane impact and no fire had ever brought down a steel framed building.

Sorry Disco that means little to the point I am trying to make. This hijacking was hardly a foolproof plan.
What if one of the passengers managed to stop the hijackers? What if they were caught at the security gates?
The whole thing could have fallen apart very easily.

The Americans could have started a war against someone a hell of a lot easier than that if they wanted to.