911 Truth Movement

[KnightersRevenge]

Because they're experts far more qualified than you or me. Their qualifications are as relevant as you can get to the princicples in question. They state specific reasoning that can and has been tested but until that is done officially it's dismissed as nutcase conspiracy theory. Your failure to give their opinion any credence at all is a classic example of exactly that.

When was it tested? I haven't seen anything to suggest their assertions have been tested? I'm wondering why so many people who are supposedly "experts" in the effects of planes crashing into skyscrapers and the fallout and effects on surrounding buildings (no that's right, they aren't really are they, they are architects and engineers - of which stripe were not always told, could be electronics, software engineers - haven't had their excellent work tested in a respected scientific journal?

p.s. I've seen architects design buildings with walls that are physically impossible to construct, I've seen them draw electrical infrastructure into the middle of glass structures where they cannot be. They are often not as au fait with the physical laws as you might think.

The burden of proving how a controlled demolition could have been achieved does not fall on the experts who assert that there is evidence of controlled demolition that needs to be tested properly. Just let science do its thing. Let a group of independent experts examine the evidence, test their hypotheses and come to a conclusion. That's what should have happened the first time. Worry about the implications of the evidence once you actually have a conclusion that has been reached properly.

The simplest way to stop all the speculation on WTC7 is to do this. What's possible reason can there be not to do that?

Burden of proof? The burden of proof is on the one making the assertion. It would be lovely to be able to simply shift wherever you like. Make your assertion, test it. Submit your work for peer-review (and not to your self published journal). Doco's can be made by anyone. Did you see the one I posted on the conspiracy thread about how the Australian Government framed Schapelle Corby?

The examples you sight are not independent or scientific they come from people who peddle fear and paranoia. That isn't science IMO. By all means a complete and fully independent test of the conditions and effects would be the only way to test the hypothesis. I doubt however you will ever get it. You would need to be able to recreate the conditions exactly and no-one really knows what the conditions were.

These are your assertions and are basically meaningless unless you have some way of proving them. You may be right but until there's a proper investigation of the evidence its a moot point.

So my assertions are moot, but unproved, untested assertions are informative? OK.

This is a discussion forum on a footy website in the middle of summer. Every point I make isn't intended to be absolute proof or part of any theory. I put a lot of stuff up here just for discussion because they are interesting facts/rumours. I've tried to spell out my "case" a few times

I know, and in principle I agree with much of your reasoning, I simply object to the constant, in fact incessant, use of dubious far-fetched conspiracy driven conjecture and speculation to make it.

BTW the martial law point stands. Unless of course you think people actually believed the government of Florida had been overthrown and the armed forces had taken complete control of the state. The compelling points are the extremely convenient dates that the orders were executed and the addition of the terrorism clause 1 business day prior to 9/11.

No, the martial law point does not stand in any way. Florida was not under martial law. It is not ambiguous, it is simply wrong.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

Yep. 2nd law of thermodynamics be damned.

Um. I do not think that law means what you think it means.

Appealing to the 2nd law of thermodynamics? Where have we seen that before? Has Jayfox hijacked your account Disco?

You are becoming harder and harder to pin down on this thread...you are jumping around everywhere raising doubts where possible and slipping away with "I just want the truth" outs when the flaws, inconsistencies and outright fabrications are pointed out. You have also started appealing to emotion (Who will think of the families!!), creating strawmen (so you all just accept the OR?) and using feigned indignation when challenged.

At the end of the day the 100% absence of any peer-reviewed article questioning the OR should stand out to you as a big flashing indicator that the claims made on youtube vids and the like probably aren't robust enough to stand up to any expert scrutiny.

Manufacturing doubt has nothing to do with the 'scientific method'. Seeing patterns in complex events is just something we as humans do, some of us are just more hyper-pattern seeking than others.

 

[Disco08]

When was it tested? I haven't seen anything to suggest their assertions have been tested? I'm wondering why so many people who are supposedly "experts" in the effects of planes crashing into skyscrapers and the fallout and effects on surrounding buildings (no that's right, they aren't really are they, they are architects and engineers - of which stripe were not always told, could be electronics, software engineers - haven't had their excellent work tested in a respected scientific journal?

The AE doco lists their specific areas of expertise. You watched that didn't you say?

By tested mean by computer analysis such as the one I showed you regarding WTC7 freefall collpase.

Burden of proof? The burden of proof is on the one making the assertion. It would be lovely to be able to simply shift wherever you like. Make your assertion, test it. Submit your work for peer-review (and not to your self published journal). Doco's can be made by anyone. Did you see the one I posted on the conspiracy thread about how the Australian Government framed Schapelle Corby?

Yep. And the experts who question NIST's WTC7 aren't asserting anything about conspiracy. You are.

I don't mention these docos because they're docos. mention them because believe they have valuable information and insight to offer.

I didn't watch the Schapelle conspiracy doco.

The examples you sight are not independent or scientific they come from people who peddle fear and paranoia. That isn't science IMO. By all means a complete and fully independent test of the conditions and effects would be the only way to test the hypothesis. I doubt however you will ever get it. You would need to be able to recreate the conditions exactly and no really know what the conditions were.

So my assertions are moot, but unproved, untested assertions are informative? OK.

Every point you made there was baseless assertion and conjecture. If you disagree tell me why.

Which examples that I cite come from people who peddle fear and paranoia?

The OR was completed years after 9/11. The conditions and much of the evidence were already long gone and I don't see why the state of the evidence would have changed significantly since then.

I know, and in principle I agree with much of your reasoning, I simply object to the constant, in fact incessant, use of dubious far-fetched conspiracy driven conjecture and speculation to make it.

I just posted my list of evidence and motive towards US 9/11 complicity. Which of those points are you asserting is dubious far-fetched conspiracy theory conjecture and speculation?

When was it tested? I haven't seen anything to suggest their assertions have been tested? I'm wondering why so many people who are supposedly "experts" in the effects of planes crashing into skyscrapers and the fallout and effects on surrounding buildings (no that's right, they aren't really are they, they are architects and engineers - of which stripe were not always told, could be electronics, software engineers - haven't had their excellent work tested in a respected scientific journal?

p.s. I've seen architects design buildings with walls that are physically impossible to construct, I've seen them draw electrical infrastructure into the middle of glass structures where they cannot be. They are often not as au fait with the physical laws as you might think.

Burden of proof? The burden of proof is on the one making the assertion. It would be lovely to be able to simply shift wherever you like. Make your assertion, test it. Submit your work for peer-review (and not to your self published journal). Doco's can be made by anyone. Did you see the one I posted on the conspiracy thread about how the Australian Government framed Schapelle Corby?

The examples you sight are not independent or scientific they come from people who peddle fear and paranoia. That isn't science IMO. By all means a complete and fully independent test of the conditions and effects would be the only way to test the hypothesis. I doubt however you will ever get it. You would need to be able to recreate the conditions exactly and no really know what the conditions were.

So my assertions are moot, but unproved, untested assertions are informative? OK.

I know, and in principle I agree with much of your reasoning, I simply object to the constant, in fact incessant, use of dubious far-fetched conspiracy driven conjecture and speculation to make it.

No, the martial law point does not stand in any way. Florida was not under martial law. It is not ambiguous, it is simply wrong.

No. You're missing the point. Why don't you address the points I made about it?

 

[Disco08]

Um. I do not think that law means what you think it means.

The expert I saw explain did so by saying the energy from one floor would have to be absorbed by the floor it was crashing into therefore slowing its acceleration. That's governed by TSLoTD isn't it?

Sorry I have to go to work but I'll get to the rest of your critique of my posting later on.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

The AE doco lists their specific areas of expertise. You watched that didn't you say?

Sure it did, my point is that being an engineer doesn't qualify to speak about things outside your field. Seeing as this is a once in history event and the conditions are not known their experience is only partially informative.

By tested mean by computer analysis such as the one I showed you regarding WTC7 freefall collpase.

Again many assumptions have to be made even in a computer model. Mostly they are testing the OR which was necessarily full of assumptions, not the actual events which are virtually impossible to recreate.

Yep. And the experts who question NIST's WTC7 aren't asserting anything about conspiracy. You are.

Really? There is no way to explain a controlled demolition without the conspiracy, they are inseperable.

I don't mention these docos because they're docos. mention them because believe they have valuable information and insight to offer.

From one perspective only.

I didn't watch the Schapelle conspiracy doco.

You didn't miss anything, except maybe a hearty chortle.

Every point you made there was baseless assertion and conjecture. If you disagree tell me why.

Really? So you do know with certainty what the conditions inside each of the buildings was at the time of collapse....do tell.

Which examples that I cite come from people who peddle fear and paranoia?

The 911 conspiracy web is the source for most of your material.

The OR was completed years after 9/11. The conditions and much of the evidence were already long gone and I don't see why the state of the evidence would have changed significantly since then.

Neither do I

I just posted my list of evidence and motive towards US 9/11 complicity. Which of those points are you asserting is dubious far-fetched conspiracy theory conjecture and speculation?

Later, my boss is going to kill me.

No. You're missing the point. Why don't you address the points I made about it?

No I'm not. The point is you asserted that Florida was under martial law. It wasn't, there is no ambiguity.

 

[Rosy]

I have it on good authority that Al-Gebra was responsible, not Al-Qaeda as originally claimed

Teacher Arrested At JFK Airport in NYC

NEW YORK — Shortly after midnight today, a man was arrested while trying to board an international flight at JFK airport in New York City while in possession of a ruler, protractor, setsquare, slide rule, log tables, and a calculator. The 37-year-old man, whom officials declined to identify pending further investigation by the homeland security team, was revealed to be a math teacher in the New York City public school system.

At a press conference this morning, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales said he believes the man is a member of the notorious Al-Gebra movement. He is being charged with transporting weapons of math instruction.

“Al-Gebra is a fearsome cult,” Gonzales said. “They desire average solutions by means and extremes, and sometimes go off on tangents in search of absolute values. They use secret code names like ‘x’ and ‘y’ and refer to themselves as ‘unknowns,’ but we have determined that they belong to a common denominator of the axis of medieval, with co-ordinates in every country. They test the limits. As the Greek philanderer Isosceles used to say: ‘There are three sides to every triangle’.”

When asked to comment on the arrest, President Bush said, “If God had wanted us to have better weapons of math instruction, he would have given us more fingers and toes.”

 

[bullus_hit]

Disco, Bull and I better watch our backs

I've already outed myself as an infiltrator working for the realists Harry. I came in to try and stir the pot and start a few spot fires for you guys, in the hope you could come up with some coherent argument which links all the inconsistencies in official 9/11 narrative. I probably would have stayed the course if that happened but it hasn't to date.

Let's just assume the cornerstone to argument is true and WTC7 came down via explosives, the question then beckons as to why only buliding 7? We could use insurance fraud as a motive but that seems insignificant given that WTC7 was a small fry compared to the twin towers payout. We could then migrate the conspiracy to the twin towers, but then we have to come up with a reasonable timeframe to get the wiring laid down without being detected, not to mention getting the right personnel to do the job undetected.

This is where we would probably open ourselves up to ridicule, Bush's brother left Securacom in June 2000, the Wirt III link is tenuous at best, and we simply don't have much physical proof that explosives were used to demolish both towers.

So let's rewind a bit and focus on what we do best and that's preying on people's disdain for government and the existence of widespread corruption. At least this way we can't be exposed as twisting and contorting the evidence.

With that in mind I would focus on the Silvermann insurance payout and the notion that he was informed of an imminent attack on his newly acquired realestate. We've got some juicy coincidences to play with, such as the fact he signed three weeks prior, his buildings were loss-makers, he was faced with an almighty bill to clean up the asbestos and he and his daughter didn't turn up for work that day.

We can then link in the scramble jets being shut down and contend that there was a cover-up in the investigation, we can focus on the amazing coincidence that a hijacker's passport magically turned up in a New York laneway and we can highlight the incidence of anomalies of the Osama confession video which shows him to be right handed, wearing a gold ring and without any greying in his beard.

At this point, our focus should be on discreditting the government as much as possible to have them exposed as evidence tamperers who were looking to manufacture a public enemy. We can then highlight the jump in the polls and the fact that 9/11 fear generated enough public support for a war and a spate of Orwellian security measures. This also leads us into homeground territory where can hammer the opposition over WMD and other such lies.

We should also distance ourselves from loose cannons like Jesse Ventura and Charlie Sheen, claiming that they are thorns in our side who have lost sight of the true message. We could also hire a slick movie maker who could put togther an impressive video which could be marketed in Europe & the Middle East, certainly long enough for any anti-American world leaders to chime in and gives us some credibility and profile.

Our final move should be to have one of our high profile members run for government on a platform of deception in government, and press home the need for a new investigation, which hopefully uncovers enough dirt to taint the Republicans for a decade or more.

 

[AngryAnt]

So lets review the facts here. Larry's mate Lew is the controller of the WTC complex. The Port Authority had for years wanted to demolish the towers because they were full of asbestos, unprofitable and in need of $200m worth of repairs. Larry must have known this because he developed WTC7 in 1986 and his good mate ran the towers at the time. Larry ignored all this and became the first leaseholder of the WTC complex in its 33 year history, 7 weeks before 9/11. Larry profited $500m. Larry tried to profit $3B.

One clause in Silverstein Properties' insurance policies for the new WTC holdings soon proved instrumental. Quoting the British Financial Times of September 14, 2001, the American Reporter wrote that ‘ the lease has an all-important escape clause: If the buildings are struck by “an act of terrorism”, the new owners' obligations under the lease are void. As a result, the new owners are not required to make any payments under their lease, but they will be able to collect on the loss of the buildings that collapsed or were otherwise destroyed and damaged in the attacks.

Again you say you are not presenting facts, but then you present "items" that require a great deal of extrapolation for them to become any evidence or argument that accepts that there was a "conspiracy" of these players.

For example, you now have an insurance job that relies on the cooperation of the CIA, NORAD, the Pentagon, and a bunch of Al Qaeda operatives whether doing the bidding of Osama Bin Laden or some shadowy figures top and central of the US government. Oh, and the former owner of the lease. As if he has the keys to the buildings and can let demolition squads in without anyone else in the buildings noticing.

Oh wait, they were either in on it too or were all killed later. Without anyone else noticing.

Whichever angle you come at this, it doesn't work.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

A multitude of specific warnings that al Qaeda terrorists were inside the US and that they were planning on flying hijacked planes into buildings such as the Pentagon and WTC. All completely ignored by the US administration.

How many threats would you imagine the U.S. intelligence services were tracking in the decade leading up to the attacks, including the ones that succeded? To "adequately" respond to each of them would be a herculean task IMO. I think it is simplistic to suggest that they could have somehow ascertained these particular threats were the specific ones that would succeed.

Actions taken by the US administration to actually make it easer for such an attack to succeed.

I think this is revisionist logic, of course it "now" looks like these changes made it easier, but there may have perfectly logical reasons for them at the time.

Reactions on 9/11 which were completely anomalous that helped allow the attacks to succeed.

They reacted poorly, even negligently, but it is a harsh critic in my opinion that says after the event that they would have done things differently - The Campbell Newman defence.

The complete and utter removal, suppression and destruction of vast sources of evidence.

So they should have declared each of the sites a crime scene and left everything right where it was? If there was one crime scene maybe, two would be logistically difficult I imagine, three seems far-fetched, but they had four and had no idea whether they were still under attack or if it was all over. While I don't disagree that it removed any chance of getting at the true causes of the failures I can understand why they wanted to remove the outward signs of what had happened and show off a proud American "right back to work" attitude to the world and their enemies.

The complete abandonment of standard procedure.

See above.

The resistance to investigate the murder of 3000 people.

This is an emotive appeal really, not much I can say about it.

The rigging of the inquiry that occurred due to immense public pressure.

This is an unsubstantiated statement.

The failure of the US administration to cooperate with the inquiry.

No surprises here, I have dealt with this.

The absolute inadequacy of the OR.

It was rushed and probably isn't all that accurate.

The historical precedent for US administrations to contemplate faked attacks on its own citizens.

This is a massive leap and it represents flawed logic IMO. Two completely different groups of people in the same roles will do things and make decisions independently of each other, there is no logical reason to believe that the fact they share the same collective noun "The Joint Chiefs" means they are representative of each other.

The historical precedent for the US to manipulate/create events as a platform for war.

This actually defeats itself IMO. They have never needed to involve their own citizens to start an imperial war overseas, see Chomsky vs Buckley for a pretty good summary of the nature of the US imperial war machine. Most thought they got out of Iraq too soon the previous time and would have supported a return I would say. No need to manufacture it.

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

The historical precedent for the US to use preemptive conflicts.

See above

The documented massive gains to powerful individuals when the US is at war.

See above

The documented anomalous trading on AA and UAL prior to 9/11.

If you rely on Wall St it will let you down, never have a group of less qualified people decided so much.

None of this is proof of anything. But it is certainly demonstrated motive and evidence towards conspiracy that demands proper investiation.

True, it isn't proof of anything, it barely qualifies as evidence.

It's exactly the same as when you discuss the logic of omnipotence (for example) with Christians in my experience.

Seems both sides think the other side are like pie-eyed Christians. I maintain only that the substance is just as important as the process. If I can't find independent and trusted sources for material outside the 911 websites then I have no reason to trust it and am reticent to call it "evidence".

 

[Harry]

I've already outed myself as an infiltrator working for the realists Harry. I came in to try and stir the pot and start a few spot fires for you guys, in the hope you could come up with some coherent argument which links all the inconsistencies in official 9/11 narrative. I probably would have stayed the course if that happened but it hasn't to date.

Let's just assume the cornerstone to argument is true and WTC7 came down via explosives, the question then beckons as to why only buliding 7? We could use insurance fraud as a motive but that seems insignificant given that WTC7 was a small fry compared to the twin towers payout. We could then migrate the conspiracy to the twin towers, but then we have to come up with a reasonable timeframe to get the wiring laid down without being detected, not to mention getting the right personnel to do the job undetected.

This is where we would probably open ourselves up to ridicule, Bush's brother left Securacom in June 2000, the Wirt III link is tenuous at best, and we simply don't have much physical proof that explosives were used to demolish both towers.

So let's rewind a bit and focus on what we do best and that's preying on people's disdain for government and the existence of widespread corruption. At least this way we can't be exposed as twisting and contorting the evidence.

With that in mind I would focus on the Silvermann insurance payout and the notion that he was informed of an imminent attack on his newly acquired realestate. We've got some juicy coincidences to play with, such as the fact he signed three weeks prior, his buildings were loss-makers, he was faced with an almighty bill to clean up the asbestos and he and his daughter didn't turn up for work that day.

We can then link in the scramble jets being shut down and contend that there was a cover-up in the investigation, we can focus on the amazing coincidence that a hijacker's passport magically turned up in a New York laneway and we can highlight the incidence of anomalies of the Osama confession video which shows him to be right handed, wearing a gold ring and without any greying in his beard.

At this point, our focus should be on discreditting the government as much as possible to have them exposed as evidence tamperers who were looking to manufacture a public enemy. We can then highlight the jump in the polls and the fact that 9/11 fear generated enough public support for a war and a spate of Orwellian security measures. This also leads us into homeground territory where can hammer the opposition over WMD and other such lies.

We should also distance ourselves from loose cannons like Jesse Ventura and Charlie Sheen, claiming that they are thorns in our side who have lost sight of the true message. We could also hire a slick movie maker who could put togther an impressive video which could be marketed in Europe & the Middle East, certainly long enough for any anti-American world leaders to chime in and gives us some credibility and profile.

Our final move should be to have one of our high profile members run for government on a platform of deception in government, and press home the need for a new investigation, which hopefully uncovers enough dirt to taint the Republicans for a decade or more.

always been a Charlie Sheen fan and am loving Jesse Ventura's work of late.

"I'm not bi-polar, I'm bi-winning" :rofl

 

[AngryAnt]

Every point you made there was baseless assertion and conjecture.

Oh the irony

 

[Disco08]

Sure it did, my point is that being an engineer doesn't qualify to speak about things outside your field. Seeing as this is a once in history event and the conditions are not known their experience is only partially informative.

"Once in history" can describe many events. It doesn't mean you abandon the usual process. NIST's investigation failed the scientific method as pointed out by many experts. This is central to the call for proper investigstion. Honestly I'm surprised a few of you are so ambivalent to this point.

Again many assumptions have to be made even in a computer model. Mostly they are testing the OR which was necessarily full of assumptions, not the actual events which are virtually impossible to recreate.

Untrue. The test is very simple. WTC7 achieved demonstrated freefall speed. This contradicts the NIST report.

Really? There is no way to explain a controlled demolition without the conspiracy, they are inseperable.

That's not the experts' problem. Their expertise is in areas other than conspiracy theory and as such all they can do is use their expertise to examine the evidence. Again this is how science rolls and has done for a long time.

From one perspective only.

Of course. I'm obviously wrong but I thought a forum such as this was designed to share ideas and opinions.

If you've watched either I'd be very intesrested in any specific objections you may have.

Really? So you do know with certainty what the conditions inside each of the buildings was at the time of collapse....do tell.

For a start that has nothing whatsoever to do with your assertions about the magnitude of conspiracy required to achieve the results of 9/11. Also no one has that information because the buidings collapsed before anyone could gather any data.

The 911 conspiracy web is the source for most of your material.

Now you've got 2 baseless assertions to try and support.

Neither do I

Yet you assert that the unavailability of some evidence that was availabe to the first inquiry is a reason a proper inquiry isn't justified.

No I'm not. The point is you asserted that Florida was under martial law. It wasn't, there is no ambiguity.

Yes you are but to save getting bogged down I'll admit that was inaccurate. Would you care to comment on the points I made now at all?

 

[Disco08]

You are becoming harder and harder to pin down on this thread...you are jumping around everywhere raising doubts where possible and slipping away with "I just want the truth" outs when the flaws, inconsistencies and outright fabrications are pointed out. You have also started appealing to emotion (Who will think of the families!!), creating strawmen (so you all just accept the OR?) and using feigned indignation when challenged.

Absolute rubbish on all counts.

I've discussed a few different aspects of 9/11 but often after other have iniated the focus. My central beliefs are constant and I've stated them clearly and repeatedly since the beginning of the thread.

When errors I've made become apparent I accept it.

I'm not appealing to emotion at all. You don't think the victims deserve better than the 9/11 commission? Many of them were invited to submit questions. Those questions were routinely ignored. You think that's fine?

I've asked many times if people fully accept the OR and if not what areas in particular they are critical of. These questions have been ignored or avoided every time.

The only time I've shown anything like indignation was with KR. I still maintain his posting at the time was disrespectful. I've been accused of plenty on this thread though for nothing other than honestly offering my opinion and have done my best to focus on the topic. You can't expect me to cop the irrational vitriol dished out here without the odd retort. In fact it's rich that you chip me about it at all given how much I've copped compared to how much I've dished out. I challenge you to provide a single example of me "feigning indignation" when I've been challenged on any matter regarding 9/11. I also challenge you or anyone to provide a single example of anyone arguing against complicity admitting any merit in any point made by me, Harry, Azza, snaps truly or crackpot bully. Not once have any of you even admitted it's possible that the Bush regime played any part at all.

 

[Rosy]

Not once have any of you even admitted it's possible that the Bush regime played any part at all.

Ok I'll admit it's possible then for what it's worth. It's a hollow admission but I guess anything is possible really. If it involves deliberately killing US citizens I think it's highly, highly, highly unlikely. Not one thing posted on here has made me think otherwise. I don't pretend to know the answers but I've certainly not seen anything here to convince me that 9/11 wasn't an act of terrorism.

And on that note I think I'll bow out. I have better things to do with my time. It's been fun but it's one of the weirdest threads in PRE's history. Some very strange posting and a bit too personal at times. Not worth doing a foofer valve over.

Have fun everyone. :wave

 

[KnightersRevenge]

"Once in history" can describe many events. It doesn't mean you abandon the usual process. NIST's investigation failed the scientific method as pointed out by many experts. This is central to the call for proper investigstion. Honestly I'm surprised a few of you are so ambivalent to this point.

Certainly not. But it is disingenuous IMO to characterise objection to the presentation of unproven material in support of a particular position as ambivalence. I think you unfairly conflate opposition to your assertions and acceptance of OR.

Untrue. The test is very simple. WTC7 achieved demonstrated freefall speed. This contradicts the NIST report.

Freefall is in fact contested.

That's not the experts' problem. Their expertise is in areas other than conspiracy theory and as such all they can do is use their expertise to examine the evidence. Again this is how science rolls and has done for a long time.

The evidence is not present. To make conclusions based upon incomplete evidence is not ideal. Pictures tell lies.

Of course. I'm obviously wrong but I thought a forum such as this was designed to share ideas and opinions.

Sure, perhaps I take it all a bit seriously but I feel that if, say, a kid did a search on 911 and caught a hit that brought them here I want to make sure they end up well informed. That they don't get only one perspective, and that they don't come away believing that someone's opinion, however well informed, is the sum of accepted wisdom on a subject where there is disagreement.

If you've watched either I'd be very intesrested in any specific objections you may have.

I've lost track of where I am is this about the rigging of the inquiry?

For a start that has nothing whatsoever to do with your assertions about the magnitude of conspiracy required to achieve the results of 9/11. Also no one has that information because the buidings collapsed before anyone could gather any data.

I think it is relevant.

. By all means a complete and fully independent test of the conditions and effects would be the only way to test the hypothesis. I doubt however you will ever get it. You would need to be able to recreate the conditions exactly and no-one really knows what the conditions were.

There is nothing in there about conspiracies, simply that the true conditions are unknown. It doesn't make sense to me assume because we don't know what the conditions were that they were not sufficient to produce the known outcomes.

Now you've got 2 baseless assertions to try and support.

At least I'm not Robinson Crusoe. So what are your independent sources, where are all the reputable investigative journalist's pieces?

Yet you assert that the unavailability of some evidence that was availabe to the first inquiry is a reason a proper inquiry isn't justified.

I may have misspoke but I don't think that was my assertion. All of the evidence is gone. It was gone before the first enquiry was over. Crashing jets into buildings will do that.

Yes you are but to save getting bogged down I'll admit that was inaccurate. Would you care to comment on the points I made now at all?

Why? They're only pertinent to talk of conspiracy, and we're not talking about that are we?

 

[Disco08]

How many threats would you imagine the U.S. intelligence services were tracking in the decade leading up to the attacks, including the ones that succeded? To "adequately" respond to each of them would be a herculean task IMO. I think it is simplistic to suggest that they could have somehow ascertained these particular threats were the specific ones that would succeed.

Countries don't send specific warnings about already deployed al Qaeda terrorists planning to fly hijacked commercial airliners into the Pentagon and WTC (or parts thereof) on a whim.

I think it's irrational to believe that these warnings shouldn't have been recognised.

http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?startpos=300&before_9/11=warnings&timeline=complete_911_timeline

http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&complete_911_timeline_key_events=complete_911_timeline_key_warnings

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/650218260/Probe-debunks-charges-of-forewarning-on-911.html?pg=all

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/11/opinion/the-bush-white-house-was-deaf-to-9-11-warnings.html?_r=0

I think this is revisionist logic, of course it "now" looks like these changes made it easier, but there may have perfectly logical reasons for them at the time.

True but these were long standing protocols changed very shortly before 9/11. Disbanding the Bin Laden tasforce in the context of the warnings they were recieving seems especially odd to me.

http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&complete_911_timeline_counterterrorism_before_9_11=huntForBinLaden&startpos=100

They reacted poorly, even negligently, but it is a harsh critic in my opinion that says after the event that they would have done things differently - The Campbell Newman defence.

Maybe so but there's no doubt some anomalous events occured and those events helped the attacks succeed.

http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&complete_911_timeline_key_events=complete_911_timeline_key_day_of_9_11_events

So they should have declared each of the sites a crime scene and left everything right where it was? If there was one crime scene maybe, two would be logistically difficult I imagine, three seems far-fetched, but they had four and had no idea whether they were still under attack or if it was all over. While I don't disagree that it removed any chance of getting at the true causes of the failures I can understand why they wanted to remove the outward signs of what had happened and show off a proud American "right back to work" attitude to the world and their enemies.

See above.

Yes. They should have followed protocol. Doing so projects far more strength than destroying crucial evidence.

http://www.mountingevidence.org/appendix-c.html

http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&investigations:_a_detailed_look=911Commission

This is an emotive appeal really, not much I can say about it.

Seriously?

3000 people were allegedly murdered by terrorists. Bush's regime agrued against an inquiry and resisted it for 442 days before succumbing to public pressure. These are all facts. How is this in any way an emotive appeal?

This is an unsubstantiated statement.

No it's not. Even the slightest amount of research will confirm it. As I've mentioned a few times even its co-chairmen are adament it was compromised and set up to fail.

No surprises here, I have dealt with this.

Suffice to say I don't believe any attemp to rationalise this here has been convincing. I've said why before (and been ignored) so we'd best just agree to disagree.

It was rushed and probably isn't all that accurate.

To put it mildly.

This is a massive leap and it represents flawed logic IMO. Two completely different groups of people in the same roles will do things and make decisions independently of each other, there is no logical reason to believe that the fact they share the same collective noun "The Joint Chiefs" means they are representative of each other.

Personnel can change but policy is ongoing. Northwoods clearly demonstrates that there are very few boundaries the US war machine will not cross. t'd also be hard to argue that the members of PNAC are any more morally upstanding.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/analysis_louise_010603_pnac.html

This actually defeats itself IMO. They have never needed to involve their own citizens to start an imperial war overseas, see Chomsky vs Buckley for a pretty good summary of the nature of the US imperial war machine. Most thought they got out of Iraq too soon the previous time and would have supported a return I would say. No need to manufacture it.

Doesn't mean they wouldn't do it if given the chance. Starting the Vietnam war on a lie was no less dispicable. You can't start a war just because some of your citizens thought you pulled out too early last time.

See above

It's still a non-sequitur the second and third times.

True, it isn't proof of anything, it barely qualifies as evidence.

IYO. In mine you'd have to have your head well and truly buried in the sand not to see that these facts offer both compelling evidence and demonstrated motive for the Bush regime's complicity.

Seems both sides think the other side are like pie-eyed Christians. I maintain only that the substance is just as important as the process. If I can't find independent and trusted sources for material outside the 911 websites then I have no reason to trust it and am reticent to call it "evidence".

You don't trust any of the people listed here?

http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/

There's plenty of substance here if you're prepared to look for and acknowledge it.

 

[Freezer]

I reckon you'd have knocked WTC7 over by yourself Disco, you've been banging your head against a brick wall for that long.

 

[Disco08]

True that.

Again you say you are not presenting facts, but then you present "items" that require a great deal of extrapolation for them to become any evidence or argument that accepts that there was a "conspiracy" of these players.

For example, you now have an insurance job that relies on the cooperation of the CIA, NORAD, the Pentagon, and a bunch of Al Qaeda operatives whether doing the bidding of Osama Bin Laden or some shadowy figures top and central of the US government. Oh, and the former owner of the lease. As if he has the keys to the buildings and can let demolition squads in without anyone else in the buildings noticing.

Oh wait, they were either in on it too or were all killed later. Without anyone else noticing.

Whichever angle you come at this, it doesn't work.

If you say so.

At its simplest the Bush regime hears of the al Qaeda plot and PNAC decides to use it as a platform for was in Afghanistan and a foothold in the middle east. Larry and Lew get the tip from their buddies and decide to ensure a huge payday by rigging up the buildings. Controlled demo teams could be easily disguised.

 

[Disco08]

Certainly not. But it is disingenuous IMO to characterise objection to the presentation of unproven material in support of a particular position as ambivalence. I think you unfairly conflate opposition to your assertions and acceptance of OR.

Freefall is in fact contested.

The evidence is not present. To make conclusions based upon incomplete evidence is not ideal. Pictures tell lies.

There's nothing unproven about the fact that the NST report fails the scientific method.

Who contests freefall of WTC7?

All crash sites are investigated after the event and all investigations have to draw conclusions on incomplete evidence.

I've lost track of where I am is this about the rigging of the inquiry?

Yep.

http://www.personalgrowthcourses.net/video/9-11_video

The best insight into 9/11 so far IMO.

There is nothing in there about conspiracies, simply that the true conditions are unknown. It doesn't make sense to me assume because we don't know what the conditions were that they were not sufficient to produce the known outcomes.

Who assumes that?

At least I'm not Robinson Crusoe. So what are your independent sources, where are all the reputable investigative journalist's pieces?

Paul Thompson's timiline is one thought you'd like as it creates a strong case for complicity purely from mainstream media reports.

I may have misspoke but I don't think that was my assertion. All of the evidence is gone. It was gone before the first enquiry was over. Crashing jets into buildings will do that.

No. Shipping all the physical evidence off to China to be destroyed before it could be examined did that.

All the evidence was gone before the 9/11 commission started.

Why? They're only pertinent to talk of conspiracy, and we're not talking about that are we?

I thought maybe you could offer a reasonable explanation for the extremely convenient timing or maybe even admit it does appear suspicious.

 

[AngryAnt]

I reckon you'd have knocked WTC7 over by yourself Disco, you've been banging your head against a brick wall for that long.

The expired equine is not so much flogged as ground into the dirt with a steam roller