Real 9-11 Research

[ChumpDumper]

You forgot

5) How to place them precisely at the floors of impact for both towers in the first place.

6) How to make the "molten steel" fountain at only one corner of one tower (coincidentally where a banks of lead acid batteries were known to have existed) and nowhere else.

[RandomGuy]

None of this was in the 911 Commission report, nor in the NIST analysis....your speculating....could have been fairies and pixie dust too...or thermite

Let's put this into some perspective. Let's see how this would play in court.

Is is possible to conclusively identify a molten metal from a photograph or eyewitness account?
No.

Do banks, as a matter of course, have large battery backups to keep their computers running in the case of a blackout?
Yes.

Was there a large bank on the floor where this molten material was noted?
Yes.

Do the plans note that space was occupied by "UPS"?
Yes.

Is UPS a common acronym for "Uninterruptible Power Supply"?
Yes.

Are most large battery arrays made from lead-acid batteries?
Yes.

Would these batteries melt and short out when exposed to an uncontrolled office fire?
Yes.

What would that look like?
Electric arcing, a white-colored intensely bright fire, some explosions due to hydrogen gas from the batteries.

If a large bank of these, sufficient to provide power for a large bank's computer system were exposed to such a fire with temperatures normally associated with such fires, describe what would happen to the battery array.
The liquids in the battery, a strong lead-acid would start to heat and give off hydrogen gas in large amounts, leading to a series of explosions sounding much like sequential gun fire. As the fire progressed, the casings would melt, and a large amount of pure molten lead from the interior anodic and cathodic plates would start running down to the floor accumulating in a large puddle.

Would this be consistant with eyewitness accounts?
Yes.

Would this puddle then flow, like any liquid, seeking the lowest point due to gravity?
Yes.

---------------------------------------------------------

Now enter the truther to the stand.

You have shown it is possible to cut vertical columns using thermite, and contend that "super-thermite" was used to cut columns, leading to the collapse of these buildings.

How much super-thermite would be required?
I don't know.

Can you tell me if it was available in the large quantities in 2001?
No.

Your method for cutting vertical columns requires some pretty specific equipment, the "cutters" from the video that are not completely destroyed in the process. Do you have any pictures of these cutters being found at ground zero afterwards?
No.

Do you have any eyewitness testimony from the professional firefighters, or steelworkers noting the existance of these devices when they combed over the area intensively in the period after the collapse?
No.

Would these cutters have been completely destroyed in the process?
No.

How many cutters would have been required to collapse the building in the manner you suggested?
Hundreds, if not thousands.

To place these hundreds or thousands of devices, would access to the structural members be required?
Yes.

What would that have entailed?
Cutting through a lot of existing interior walls.

Would this have created some pretty notable disruptions to the crowded offices where this activity was taking place?
Yes.

Do you have any testimony or accounts of this happening?
No.

How much labor would have been required to place these cutters in sufficient numbers to implode the buildings in the manner you propose?
Thousands of man-hours.

Do you have any witnesses that describe such large amounts of unusual activity?
No.

You say that the material falling from the 80th floor is molten steel from this process. Is it possible to conclusively determine the composition of a molten metal from pictures or video?
No.

You have an eyewitness claiming it was "molten steel". Did he test the pools of molten metal for chemical composition?
No.

How did he arrive at the conclusion that it was molten steel?
He looked at it.

How is that different from looking at a picture of molten metal and trying to determine what kind of metal it is?
It isn't.

If the material was molten steel, and you theorize that almost all the other floors had such devices all melting steel at the same time, would there be other pools or streams of material?
Yes.

Were there any other places where such streams of material were witnessed?
No.

So the only stream of molten material witnesses just happened to be in the general area of a large array of lead-acid batteries?
Yes.

No further questions.

[RandomGuy]

You consistantly ignore relevant questions when they are put to you in this forum, but you cannot dodge them in court, and neither would your "experts" be able to under oath.

That is really where the weakness of your "thermite" theory rests.

I don't mind dishonesty on the part of you or your experts, but such dishonesty is called "perjury" when applied to witnesses under oath and it is a crime, and courts tend to view that pretty dimly.

[RandomGuy]

You forgot

5) How to place them precisely at the floors of impact for both towers in the first place.

6) How to make the "molten steel" fountain at only one corner of one tower (coincidentally where a banks of lead acid batteries were known to have existed) and nowhere else.

I got there, just had to type up a quick exchange.

I was going to ask Dan/mouse those questions, but we all know they would avoid/ignore/lie in response, so I thought it best to provide the honest answers and short cut the process.

[Nbadan]

I am still left with the impression that the guy was lying to me by omission.

So there you have it, this evidence is busted because RandomLie has 'an impression'...

....disagree with the status quo and you are dealt with......what a joke....

[Nbadan]

1) The requirement to have access to all the columns, including the requirement to cut through office walls to access the appropriate columns.

2) The sheer amount of labor it would take.

3) The massive amount of heat and smoke produced.

4) How to proof his cutters against the shock of impact and fire.

This is RandomLie's only forum weapon....try to bury you with details that you couldn't possibly know without a real September 11 investigation....pathetic....

[Nbadan]

Is is possible to conclusively identify a molten metal from a photograph or eyewitness account?
No.

Yet your convinced its lead from batteries...do you have physical evidence that the heat in that specific part of the building was hot enough and was sustained long enough to melt batteries and that these batteries in fact melted...

No...

[Marcus Bryant]

Either we believe that a group of 19 militants, part of an organization with a history of attacks against these United States, carried out the 9-11 attacks by exploiting various weaknesses in commercial airline security, immigration processes, and national intelligence or we believe in some kind of nebulous conspiracy (the members of whom, and goals thereof, changes with each passing day) which would require an incredible degree of secrecy, high levels of technical execution, rampant willingness to risk disgrace and financial and legal repercussions if their involvement was disclosed, and a fair amount of overkill given that even if the WTC towers did not fall, this nation would still have been in the frame of mind to go to war (the one constant goal of the shadowy, make believe league of treasonous villains).

Anyone who is sane or has actually managed to move out of mom's basement can figure out which scenario is more likely. The end.

[Nbadan]

Do the plans note that space was occupied by "UPS"?
Yes.

Your speculating again....now without any proof, the intense fire was sustained in that one area of the building long enough and the battery lead pooled...then fairies flew from your ass....

[Nbadan]

Either we believe that a group of 19 militants, part of an organization with a history of attacks against these United States, carried out the 9-11 attacks by exploiting various weaknesses in commercial airline security, immigration processes, and national intelligence or we believe in some kind of nebulous conspiracy (the members of whom, and goals thereof, changes with each passing day) which would require an incredible degree of secrecy, high levels of technical execution, rampant willingness to risk disgrace and financial and legal repercussions if their involvement was disclosed, and a fair amount of overkill given that even if the WTC towers did not fall, this nation would still have been in the frame of mind to go to war (the one constant goal of the shadowy, make believe league of treasonous villains).

Anyone who is sane or has actually managed to move out of mom's basement can figure out which scenario is more likely. The end.


Or, even the militants were mere patsies in the larger scheme of things...

....follow the money....

[Marcus Bryant]

The legacy of the cottage conspiracy theory industry spawned by the JFK assassination and penny ante utilitarian materialism rampant in American life. Show that someone benefits somehow and the conspiracy is proven. Qed.

[Nbadan]

Are most large battery arrays made from lead-acid batteries?
Yes.

That's your best evidence if you had to go to a court-of-law? Seriously?

Can you prove that those specific UPS were lead-acid battery?
Was it possible to produce the amount of lead scene in the video?
How many battery lead would have to pool to create that amount of lead?
Was the fire hot enough to melt batteries in that specific area?
Was the fire sustained long enough to melt batteries in that specific area?
Do you have physical evidence of melted batteries?
Do you have physical evidence that batteries exploded?


....Once again......No....

[Nbadan]

The legacy of the cottage conspiracy theory industry spawned by the JFK assassination and penny ante utilitarian materialism rampant in American life. Show that someone benefits somehow and the conspiracy is proven. Qed.

Yeah, heads rolled after 9/11...


NOT!

:rolleyes

[Marcus Bryant]

And so the initial conspiracy grows larger and more elaborate.

[Blake]

That's your best evidence if you had to go to a court-of-law? Seriously?

would your evidence of wrong doing be a youtube video?


Can you prove that those specific UPS were lead-acid battery?
Was it possible to produce the amount of lead scene in the video?
How many battery lead would have to pool to create that amount of lead?
Was the fire hot enough to melt batteries in that specific area?
Was the fire sustained long enough to melt batteries in that specific area?
Do you have physical evidence of melted batteries?
Do you have physical evidence that batteries exploded?


....Once again......No....

burden of proof does not go this way.

[Wild Cobra]

Excellent Juan Cole video destroys National Geographic and proves that thermite can be used to cut steel beams

jpPNRrylH00
What good does that do when the chemical markers that would be present were not? Tell me, how much of that oxidized aluminum did they find? Finding aluminum, iron, and other elements is not the same as finding specific markers.

[RandomGuy]

That's your best evidence if you had to go to a court-of-law? Seriously?

Can you prove that those specific UPS were lead-acid battery?
Was it possible to produce the amount of lead scene in the video?
How many battery lead would have to pool to create that amount of lead?
Was the fire hot enough to melt batteries in that specific area?
Was the fire sustained long enough to melt batteries in that specific area?
Do you have physical evidence of melted batteries?
Do you have physical evidence that batteries exploded?


....Once again......No....

"Can you prove that those specific UPS were lead-acid battery?"

I personally cannot. Nor do I care to fully flesh out everything for you. Sorry. It would be a fairly accessible item of information for the bank's IT director, I suppose.

Have at it.

FWIW:

Almost all UPSes use lead-acid batteries, like most car batteries.
http://www.jetcafe.org/npc/doc/ups-faq.html

"Was it possible to produce the amount of lead scene [sic] in the video?"

I think one of you truthers actually calculated the volume. It didn't seem to be on the scale that would rule out a large room full of industrial UPS batteries. I used to work in a building with an entire large room devoted to such UPS'. They were big, with several rows.

As for the rest of it:
These kinds of batteries do not react well to fires. Any car buff will tell you about the amount of hydrogen produced by any acid battery, lead or not.

I do not have any physical evidence of melted batteries, nor do I need to have them. All I need to do is to show they were there before hand.

You're cute, but your attempt at cross-examination is weaksauce on bread.

[RandomGuy]

This is RandomLie's only forum weapon....try to bury you with details that you couldn't possibly know without a real September 11 investigation....pathetic....

It was rather specifically remarked by many firefighters and investigators that they didn't see any kinds of remnants of explosive devices.

We don't need a specific "real" investigation to make the leap of logic that hundreds or thousands of thermite cutting devices would have stood out like a sore thumb to the professionals at the scene.

That isn't a trivial "detail", Dan. That is a fatal flaw in your theory.

As much as you might try to weasel out of it, you ain't got jack shit to show any such devices at the scene.

[Wild Cobra]

We have hundreds of computers and UPS' where I work. Every one of them uses one or more 12V lead acid batteries ranging in size from just smaller than motorcycle size battery, or larger. The building I work in is a single floor, 4.4 acre footprint. Not multiple stories of a 1 acre footprint.

[RandomGuy]

Your speculating again....now without any proof, the intense fire was sustained in that one area of the building long enough and the battery lead pooled...then fairies flew from your ass....

It is not speculation to say that explanation is fully aligned with what was observed.

I cannot state for certain that was what happened. I was not there.

I cannot rule it out, though, and it is pretty plausible.

Your theory can be ruled out, because in order for it to be the correct one, the event would have looked far different.

[Wild Cobra]

Isn't it funny how conspiracy theorists will hang on to implausible and impossible explanations, but discount far more probable explanations they don't like...

[ChumpDumper]

Or, even the militants were mere patsies in the larger scheme of things...

....follow the money....What money?

What do you think really happened on 9/11?

[Nbadan]

What good does that do when the chemical markers that would be present were not? Tell me, how much of that oxidized aluminum did they find? Finding aluminum, iron, and other elements is not the same as finding specific markers.

It's very likely that a thermite reaction was produced by molten aluminum from the plane and water, lime, gypsum and rust also present in the fires

http://www.911myths.com/WTCTHERM.pdf

This idea that it was battery lead is bogus, even FEMA and NIST speculated that the molten metal was aluminum.....

[Nbadan]

Isn't it funny how conspiracy theorists will hang on to implausible and impossible explanations, but discount far more probable explanations they don't like...

I know, but RandomLie and Chumpy buy into their own lies, so what do you do?

[ChumpDumper]

Seriously dan, which part of the battery theory do you think is bogus.

Be specific.

I would tell you exactly what part of your theory I thought was bogus.

If you had a theory, that is....

[mouse]

Debunking 9/11 Debunkers: Flight 93

A65h22cOL8Y

[mouse]

PwqLu8ZXIX0&feature

[mouse]

kP0Hs-v-uJ0

[ChumpDumper]

lol carpet bombing

[RandomGuy]

It's very likely that a thermite reaction was produced by molten aluminum from the plane and water, lime, gypsum and rust also present in the fires

http://www.911myths.com/WTCTHERM.pdf

This idea that it was battery lead is bogus, even FEMA and NIST speculated that the molten metal was aluminum.....

Soooo... the NIST is wrong when you want them to be wrong, and right when you want them to be right?

Oh man, that's too funny.

Honestly, up until I found out that a large UPS system was in that area I would have agreed.

In this case, I believe the NIST's speculation was probably wrong.

Both are still far more plausible than molten steel from self-destructing beam cutting devices planted by industrious, sneaky demolition experts.

[RandomGuy]

Looks like we are up for this again.

Cosmored wants to re-hash the whole thing.

[RandomGuy]

And on the anniversary or shortly thereafter we are at it again.

[RandomGuy]

(Begin EDIT)
FOR THOSE OF YOU READING THIS FOR THE FIRST TIME, SEE PAGES 3 AND 4 for the NIST FAQ that answers the biggest "truther" questions.(end EDIT)

Since the 9-11 CTers like to copy and paste ad inifinitum, let's see if we can get some good stuff here.

It might surprise you CTers but there is a whole cottage industry built up around your bullshit.

They don't sell T-shirts, mugs, or crappy videos.

http://www.lolloosechange.co.nr/

http://www.loosechangeguide.com/LooseChangeGuide.html

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6243624912447824934

http://www.911mysteriesguide.com/

http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Lies.pdf

Here is a gem: The 9-11 "truthers" in their own "like, words". Icky.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7216643725166640147&hl=en

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/

http://wtc.nist.gov/

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

http://www.911myths.com/

Best one out of all the lot so far:
http://www.debunking911.com/

Mike Walter talking about the plane hitting the pentagon, and how irritated he is with the 9-11 "truth" movement for lying about what he said.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycPUDktZpCU

Link to a TON of debunking links:
http://www.debunking911.com/links.htm

Here ARE SOME REALLY PRECIOUS LINKS.

9-11 "truth" scholars turning on each other. You thought they were unstable and kooky when they talk about the government, wait until they start talking about each other.

http://www.911myths.com/html/911_infighting_links.html


A whole page of youtube debunking videos (http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=RKOwens4&p=r)

A whole page of decent debunking links and one of the best ones so far. (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home)

Interesting point:
http://www.bautforum.com/conspiracy-theories/48507-911-pentagon.html

[RandomGuy]

Let the flaming begin. :hungry:

Either the conspiracy theorists are right about a massive organized evil conspiracy, or they are wrong.

If they are right about 9-11 being planned by an evil government conspiracy willing and capable of killing thousand of their own citizens, they would be just as motivated to keep that fact a secret.

An easy method of doing this is to do a disinformation campaign. All it takes is one or two paid evil guys willing to lie, a computer and some time.

The best way to do such a disinformation campaign is, as the conspiracy theorists themselves point out in my previous post is as follows:

Think of the stupidest shit possible
Present it in such a blatantly false and easily debunked manner that anybody with any common sense at all would recognize it immediately as stupid bullshit
This would then lead normal pepole to then associate all the real conspiracy evidence with this obvious quackery to discredit the whole movement to expose the grand evil conspiracy

IF there is a grand evil conspiracy, THEN at least SOME of the conspiracy "evidence" has been manufactured to be obviously stupid to put people off the trail.

THEREFORE:
IF the evil conpiracy exists AND you say you believe all of the conspiracy "evidence/theories" you MUST either:

1) Be one of those paid disinformation agents, and be lying and evil

or

2) Be too stupid to not recognize the obviously fake stuff that has been planted by the paid disinformation agents.
If there is no massive evil conspiracy then anybody who believes in ALL of the conspiracy theories is definitely too stupid to realize the conspiracy doesn't really exist.

Since no one can be part of something that doesn't exist, if you believe all the conspiracy theories/evidence, and the conspiracy doesn't exist you can't be lying and evil.

In either case it boils down to this:

If you say you believe in all of the conspiracy evidence, you MUST either be

1) A lying evil agent of the conspiracy

or

2) Too stupid to recognize obviously false information when you see it.

There are no other possibilities.

Which is it mouse/galileo/whoever?

[RandomGuy]

http://www.sawyerhome.net/whatilearned.html

What I Learned from
9-11 Conspiracy Theories.

The U.S. is actually quite popular worldwide; so much so, in fact, that its government must create artificial terrorist organizations to attack it. Left to their own devices, everybody else pretty much respects Americans and leaves them alone.
It takes the complacency or cooperation of the world's largest superpower to hijack a defenseless civilian aircraft.
If you believe what your government tells you about 9-11, you are part of the conspiracy or, at least, part of "the problem." But if you accuse people at all levels of the government, including the U.S. military, of planning and carrying out the largest terrorist attack on U.S. soil, killing thousands of civilians, then you are a patriot.
The large fireballs seen at the WTC impacts look like napalm explosions, so it was probably a napalm bomb that actually caused the damage. Of course, napalm being jellied fuel, and jet aircraft being full of fuel, you can see the vast difference there.
The WTC towers fell in what was obviously a controlled demolition. The largest, messiest, deadliest, most witnessed, most mismanaged, most ill-timed, most poorly executed, and most uncontrolled controlled demolition in history.
Even though our civilian airliner pilots had been trained to cooperate with hijackers and not try to physically resist, and even though short knives and box cutters were allowed in carry-on luggage, we shouldn't believe the absurd claim that four or five strong and very determined men armed with knives and a fanatic eagerness to die killing Americans could take over an unlocked cockpit.
Several of the hijackers are still alive, and apparently are living well.
The government planted explosives at the exact aircraft impact sites of the Pentagon and both WTC towers, the explosives and activity surrounding their placement went completely unnoticed, the rigging of the explosives was unharmed by the aircraft impacts, and they went off exactly when planned.
Somehow orchestrating the hijacking of multiple airliners to have them crash at explosive-rigged sites was more effective than just setting off the explosives by themselves in the first place.
Those plane crashes were like so totally fake cuz they were so totally unlike all the real fiery passenger jet crashes into buildings I've seen in real life.
When you refer to the planes, say "alleged aircraft." When referring to the terrorists, say "alleged terrorists." Because not only can we not be sure they even existed, but also, "alleged" has such a nice, objective ring to it.
The plane-shaped holes in the WTC towers were an absurdity, like a cat-shaped hole in a fence in a Tom and Jerry cartoon, because the planes would have either smashed to pieces against the building and fallen straight down to the street below, or flown right through the building (making a cartoon-like hole) and emerged out the other side relatively intact.
Cries of "Death to America!" and "America is the Great Satan!" by Islamic extremists are all part of our government's plan for world domination. Left to themselves, the so-called "extremists" are actually quite pleasant, simple folk (but very good actors).
The rigged explosives in the upper floors of WTC2 were powerful enough to collapse a skyscraper, but not powerful enough to instantly kill Kevin Cosgrove, on floor 105, who was talking on the phone with a fire dispatcher and managed to blurt out three words between the time of the "explosion" and the collapse that killed him.
The meandering directions of the hijacked aircrafts' flight paths were all part of well-planned routes, and not due to the terrorist pilots flying and navigating a large, real, multi-engine passenger jet for the first time.
Our service men and women chose not to shoot down the planes or protect the Pentagon and WTC because they were part of the conspiracy, and they're not speaking out because they've been bought off. Better still, NORAD actually sent the remote-controlled aircraft into their targets.
A black helicopter was hovering over the WTC South Tower before, during, and after the crashes, and the floor that was on fire the most must have had barrels and barrels of a crude oil-diesel mixture that was remotely ignited to ensure a hiding place for the helicopter which is the only thing that could explain black sooty smoke coming from an office building filled with office supplies, and the people working on that floor didn't notice the barrels and barrels of oil and went about their daily routine, and nobody working security or janitorial in the building noticed black-suited men rolling barrels of crude oil on the elevators, all to hide the black helicopter because we all know what black helicopters do. Seriously!
If a large, thin-skinned aircraft impacts the side of a thick concrete building at 400mph, and only small pieces of the aircraft are found outside on the lawn, then it's obvious the pieces were planted there, and a plane didn't crash at all.
The shape of the Pentagon and the approach path of the aircraft are Illuminati symbols. 'Nuff said.
Although the 1993 WTC bombing was obviously the work of terrorists, the idea that the 2001 attacks were perpetrated by terrorists is ludicrous.
Because the shape of the impact holes in the WTC towers and the Pentagon don't match what I think the shape of the planes should be, then it must have been some other type of craft that did the damage, in spite of all of the eyewitness reports and physical evidence to the contrary. Which means that, since the alleged hijacked aircraft are, indeed, missing, and the passengers on said aircraft are, indeed, missing, then the government must have landed those passenger jets in secret somewhere, removed the people, killed them, dismembered them, sprinkled their remains around the crash sites somehow, and destroyed/hid the aircraft somewhere else. Masterful. Much more convincing than just actually crashing the planes into the buildings in the first place.
The same nefarious conspirators that pulled off the single largest concerted suicide attack in history forgot to make a hole in the Pentagon to help fake the airliner impact site.
The images and other references of the WTC on pre-9-11 terrorism reports and books reveals a casual, open foreknowledge of the 9-11 attacks, and in no way could possibly ever ever refer to the largest pre-9-11 foreign terrorist attack on U.S. soil, the 1993 WTC parking garage bombing.
Of course, if the shadow government could pull off the 9-11 attacks, then plotting the 1993 WTC attack would have been child's play.
Incompetence, being unprepared, not foreseeing events, rushed decisions, finger pointing, blame trading, and hysteria equal "conspiracy."
More information only muddles "the truth:" The most accurate and complete reports of any disaster are from selections of the first hurried reports, not from more complete, thoughtful analysis and more thorough eyewitness reports that come later.
Of all the types of aircraft described by witnesses at the WTC and Pentagon, we should choose to believe only the ones that fit our theories, not the ones that describe actual planes that are missing that contained actual passengers who are missing and whose body parts and DNA were found at the crash sites and whose planes were tracked to impact.
When some eyewitnesses at the WTC describe a really big noise as an "explosion," we should believe them, and not our own eyes that saw floors pancaking on each other, ejecting debris out the windows. And we should believe their assessment of the "explosions" because, you know, of their experience discriminating between the sounds of some of the tallest skyscrapers in the world collapsing and explosions 80 stories up.
When we hear witnesses describing "something like a bomb going off" in the Pentagon, we should ignore subsequent (and concurrent) eyewitness reports of a rather large passenger jet flying into exactly the same spot, and ignored reports and photos of engines, landing gear, other aircraft parts, aircraft passengers, and other debris being found on and in the site, and absolutely no evidence of any explosive.
When pointing out how a B-25 flew into the Empire State Building in 1945, but the building easily survived and didn't collapse, we should disregard how much smaller the B-25 is than a 767, the amount of fuel that each contains, and that the ESB was constructed largely of concrete (like, say, the Pentagon).
Any videos of the crashes that surface more than a day or two after the event are obviously computer-generated fakes, because the time it took to create the fake videos explains why they weren't immediately released. Because everyone knows that if someone takes home video of a disaster, they run straight to a media outlet to share it with the rest of the world.
The same government conspirators who plotted this complex event didn't prepare fake videos ahead of time. They waited until the events happened to prepare the computer-generated fakery, which delayed their release until a cloud of suspicion could fall on their authenticity.
No buildings in history ever fell because of fire until 9-11. And if the WTC towers were the first modern, steel structures to collapse by fire, it is not a testament to the intelligent engineering put into the design of skyscrapers in general, but only evidence that the WTC was brought down by other means. No, I don't mean by airplanes filled with thousands of pounds of fuel ramming into them, I mean by a bomb. Yes!
Steel supports must liquify at their melting point of 3000°F in order to weaken and fail, and everything that metalurgists and engineers have told us about heat of only about 700°Fweakening steel is false, and for thousands of years, metal workers like blacksmiths and armorers have just had it all wrong, because they only needed large blast furnaces, spigots, and molds to form horseshoes, swords, and plowshares from liquid metal, and they didn't need a hammer and anvil, as you see in Hollywood movies' special effects.
If a large plane crashes into a large skyscraper and starts a raging fire inside, then a woman later waves from the outside edge of a lower part of the huge jagged entry hole, then that's proof that the fire inside isn't actually all that hot.
Although a simple concrete barrier can sucker punch a dump truck to a dead stop and virtually atomize a fighter jet, we should expect the impact site of a passenger jet on the world's largest reinforced concrete building to be marked by a plane-shaped hole in the wall.
When actor Charlie Sheen says that the U.S. government was behind the attacks, and that "We're not the conspiracy theorists on this particular issue," we should believe him because he is a "highly credible public figure" who is a star on the current hit comedy show "Two and a Half Men." And his stammering, "The more you look at stuff, especially specific incidents, specific events, in or around the fateful day, it just-- it just raises a lot of questions" makes you realize just how articulate he is, and how Tom "You don't know...psychiatry--I do" Cruise could take debating pointers from him.
Most of the WTC towers' exterior was glass; most of the Pentagon's exterior was thick concrete. Naturally, we should expect them to be affected by aircraft impacts the same way.
If there is disagreement on the approach angle and bank of the plane hitting the Pentagon in an official report and from online bloggers, then we can safely assume that the plane, in fact, did not exist.
When pointing out how the FAA rule allowing pilots to fly armed was rescinded two months before 9-11, we should ignore the fact that at the time, no pilots were taking advantage of the rule, and we should not jump to the conclusion that the repeal is any different than businesses or schools banning employees from carrying firearms.
It doesn't make sense that remains of the hijackers and passengers, who hit the sides of mostly open-spaced office buildings at hundreds of miles an hour and ejected out the other side, were some of the first remains discovered, and not under thousands of tons of rubble straight down. The body parts must have been planted on streets, on the roofs of buildings, and through broken windows by burglars. Or something.
If people aren't listening to my theories, then maybe shouting them in eye-searing hot pink will do the trick.
Disagreement between government reports and eyewitness accounts do not mean that the individuals witnessed the same event; they only mean that the accounts that don't agree with my paranoid point of view are lies as part of the government cover-up, are mass hallucinations, or, just to be thorough, both.
Since verbose, difficult-to-read scientific reports contradict my claims of conspiracy, I'll use a different approach: Nothing says "Science" like lots of photos, drawings, and short captions in a PowerPoint or Flash animation backed by spooky "conspiracy music."
If video is poor quality, or with low frame rates (like with a surveillance film), it must be fake.
The WTC towers fell straight down (more or less), which proves that it was a controlled demolition. If it were a true building falling down, it would have fallen over like a popsicle stick.
Although video clearly shows smoke and debris being blown out the pancaking WTC upper floors as the floors collapse against each other, but video of planned, controlled building demolitions clearly shows bright flashes of explosions before the building begins collapsing, the explosives planted in the towers must be some new super-secret kind because the explosive effect obviously goes back in time and starts the collapse of the building before the explosions throw stuff out the windows. So now there's the whole "Government Stuff Can Travel Through Time" conspiracy, and don't get me started.
George W. Bush is at once America's most deviously intelligent autocrat and its most stupidest president ever.
When an eyewitness describes a loud sound or strong, sudden vibration as "like a bomb," it means unequivocally that it was a bomb, because, you know, people have so much experience identifying bomb noises versus nearby passenger jet crashes.
If I am on the faculty of a university, and I use the university's good name and my position in the university as a crutch to substantiate my claims of a 9-11 mega-conspiracy, expecting my learned colleagues to believe and support me, I will get a harsh dose of reality when I am slapped down to administrative leave as my continued employment at said university is reconsidered.
99.9% of the worlds top engineers, architects, physicists, and chemists are all wrong, and I am right, because I read the Intarweb and I am so smart.
If I repeat the same absurd claims enough times, they will become truth: There are over 6.5 billion people in the world, and about 1.1 billion of those people use the Internet.
Chances are, I could claim anything on the Web, and at a million-to-one odds, over a thousand people would believe me. In the age of the Internet, that makes me an expert.
I can't be wrong because thousands of people believe my theories. But you can be wrong even though hundreds of millions believe you, because we all know there are millions of stupid people in the world.
Any information that comes from the government is suspect, because everybody knows that "the government" is one vast conspiracy utterly controlled by a small number of evil-doers, not made up of millions of honest, hard-working people, at all levels of bureaucracy, of all ages, of all parties, of all walks of life, each fighting in their own way for truth, justice, and the American way.
The jets that crashed were not piloted by hijackers, but by "advanced robotics and remote-control technology." So the video footage of "men of middle-eastern descent" boarding each of the aircraft was falsified, the cockpit voice recordings were falsified, the ground service crew, mechanics, and flight crew of the four aircraft didn't notice any of the advancedroboticsandremotecontroltechnology while prepping the aircraft, body parts of known terrorists were planted at the crash sites, the live phone conversations between crew, passengers, and their loved ones on the ground were implanted memories and falsified recordings, and the Flight 93 passengers actually wrestled with some hidden robotic equipment, not terrorists.
"The 9/11 hijacking attacks were very likely facilitated by a rogue group within the US government that created an Islamic terrorist 'Pearl Harbor' event as a catalyst for the military invasion of Middle Eastern countries." You know, because that strategy has worked so well in the past. And no it is not shameful to mention "conspiracy" and "Pearl Harbor" in the same breath.
The government has a track record of blowing up its own buildings to push its own nefarious agenda, like they did in the Oklahoma City bombing and the 1993 WTC attack, because, you know, those attacks enabled the government to, you know,... do stuff, and stuff. So you can see this isn't a new idea for them.
If I cave in to the majority and concede that the planes did, in fact, exist, then quibbling about the degrees of bank or impact angles or other meaningless trifles will somehow vindicate me.
If other conspiracy theorists make claims that are later widely disbelieved even in the conspiracy theory community, then it's not that fellow conspiracy theorists are wrong, it's that it was sinister counter-intelligence trying to undermine the "9/11 truth movement" with claims so absurd that it compromises the efficacy of the whole. Seriously.
Confusion of timelines and action reports at the time of the largest modern enemy attack on the United States were intentionally deceptive, and not the result of actual confusion, inconsistent memories, or finger pointing that usually accompany failures of intelligence.
The 9-11 attacks and the related misinformation/propaganda campaign were designed by the government to precipitate the lingering war in Iraq, so that we could get thousands of our men and women killed and thousands of Iraqi civilians killed to make the U.S. more popular and make the current administration more popular, which has worked like a charm.
The Pentagon fire owed much of its smoke to an emergency generator near the crash site that was remotely detonated, it's suspicious that an emergency generator would have a large extra fuel tank next to it, and the WTC was only made of steel and concrete, with little to no combustible materials inside like carpet, desks, electronics and electrical cables, cubicle walls, file cabinet contents, storage rooms, and pens.
When an "earwitness" to the Flight 93 crash claims she didn't hear a crash, but instead heard "an explosion, like an atomic bomb," we should believe her, because of her experience discriminating between the sounds of large passenger jets hitting the ground at high speed and the detonation of atomic weapons.
Cory Lidle's plane crash into an apartment building proves that the WTC should have survived a similar attack. Because although both planes were vastly different in size, mass, fuel load, and speed, and although the buildings were vastly different in structure, they both happened in New York City.
It's somehow productive to pontificate ad nauseum about whether there was a napalm bomb, or a missile, or a pod, or a whatever, attached under a passenger jet, since we all know how much more explosive power would be added by attaching something like that to a civilian jet already full of thousands of pounds of fuel.
It goes without saying (but I'll say it anyway) that any web pages that poke fun at conspiracy theories are a part of the conspiracy itself. Surely no right-thinking person could doubt and preach against the conspiracies by their own free will.
If I e-mail the author of a web site that pokes fun at my conspiracy theories, I will write masterfully persuasive arguments for several pages, taking an entire evening of my time, making the text flow juuust right, and when he gets the e-mail he will read it all and will naturally be persuaded to see the error of his ways. After seeing how much work I put into it, he wouldn't just delete it without reading past the first ranting line. He just wouldn't.
People will see what they want to see, and believe what they want to believe. Because rubbing someone's face in their own absurd beliefs only makes them close their eyes tighter, the claims in this list will continue to be believed by many. To all others: May our future rest in your capable hands.

Still funny to see it all summarized.

[Nbadan]

Soooo... the NIST is wrong when you want them to be wrong, and right when you want them to be right?

Oh man, that's too funny.

Honestly, up until I found out that a large UPS system was in that area I would have agreed.

In this case, I believe the NIST's speculation was probably wrong.

Both are still far more plausible than molten steel from self-destructing beam cutting devices planted by industrious, sneaky demolition experts.

I think the collapse of the twin towers have been independently investigated enough to put them to rest...the building fell because of the weight of the towers above them when interior support columns were severed by the aircraft...no big conspiracy there...

I've always said that the key to whether there was a more grandiose conspiracy was on 9/11 was with WTC7....and I gotta tell you....I still don't think the N.I.S.T. findings on WTC7, the little there is, would pass an independent peer review....

[ChumpDumper]

Why would WTC7 have to be brought down by controlled demolition if the twin towers weren't brought down by controlled demolition?

[Nbadan]

The key question should really be is why would Gulliani but a emergency response center in WTC7 after the previous attack on WTC if the building could collapse because of fire? What was the building reinforced with? Marsh mellows? but it did...the only building in modern times to collapse because of fire...no coincidink!

[DarrinS]

The key question should really be is why would Gulliani but a emergency response center in WTC7 after the previous attack on WTC if the building could collapse because of fire? What was the building reinforced with? Marsh mellows? but it did...the only building in modern times to collapse because of fire...no coincidink!

Pro wrestling is real.

[Nbadan]

there are much more scientific models than your simplified equation of ke and pe that prove that you are right ( i could link some, but you must be about a graduate student at physics or math to begin to understand them). However, once again these equations are based on assumptions on building structure that no one will release, and as a mathmatician, i really don't understand why.

I have always said that the tower 1 and 2 collapse could have happened just the way the official report says it did, but the collapse of tower 7, nah, i've never bought any of the official stories, still don't. So we can waste our time argueing about 1 and 2, but we should be arguing about the merits of the official story when it comes to tower 7.

......2007

[Nbadan]

Pro wrestling is real.

So is pro basketball

[Nbadan]

what is truely hilarious is how chumpdumper used to be borderline skeptical about all "official" stories regarding 9/11, then stayed quiet on it, and now is a full fledged author of the commission report, all within the course of like 2 years

:lmao

[DarrinS]

Oddly enough, WTC 3,4,5,6 also demolished. What a coincidink.

[ChumpDumper]

Why would WTC7 have to be brought down by controlled demolition if the twin towers weren't brought down by controlled demolition?

[ChumpDumper]

:lmaoI educated myself.

You chose to believe in nothing.

[ChumpDumper]

The key question should really be is why would Gulliani but a emergency response center in WTC7 after the previous attack on WTC if the building could collapse because of fire? What was the building reinforced with? Marsh mellows?The steel wasn't reinforced with anything. That was the problem. Notice how the new buildings on the site are being constructed?
but it did...the only building in modern times to collapse because of fire...no coincidink!Untrue, but par for the course for twoofers.

[DarrinS]

Why would WTC7 have to be brought down by controlled demolition if the twin towers weren't brought down by controlled demolition?

Obviously to get us into a war for oil where we end up not stealing the oil.

[DarrinS]

The 9/11 twoofer fantasy should be made into a series of poorly written comic books.

[Nbadan]

Obviously to get us into a war for oil where we end up not stealing the oil.

:lol Yes...we did...we told the Iraqi who they could, or rather who they should sell it to...not saying that 9/11 happened so we could attack Iraq....but to claim we didn't control the flow of oil in Iraq is stupid....the whole Iraqi government is a puppet-government for the US..that's why there won't be any legitimacy in the Iraqi government until we are gone...

[Nbadan]

I educated myself.

You chose to believe in nothing.

Yes, you chose to believe in a report created by a commission appointed by Bush...I chose not to...

[Nbadan]

The steel wasn't reinforced with anything. That was the problem. Notice how the new buildings on the site are being constructed?Untrue, but par for the course for twoofers.

Perfect place for an emergency response center....

:lol

[DarrinS]

Yes, you chose to believe in a report created by a commission appointed by Bush...I chose not to...

That report didn't paint a very flattering picture of the Bush admin.

Hey, do you believe in Bigfoot?

[ChumpDumper]

Yes, you chose to believe in a report created by a commission appointed by Bush...I chose not to...So you think Bush ordered the 9/11 attacks?

Yes or no, Dan. Let's hear it once and for all.

[Nbadan]

....bush couldn't order a pizza

[mouse]

So you think Bush ordered the 9/11 attacks?

Yes or no, Dan. Let's hear it once and for all.

Why would Bush have to get involved? Dick Cheney was in charge.

[ChumpDumper]

Why would Bush have to get involved? Dick Cheney was in charge.OK, mouse -- to you:

Do you think Dick Cheney ordered the 9/11 attacks?

Yes or no.

[Nbadan]

that's obvious.....lining up the evil attack drones..

[ChumpDumper]

So you think Bush ordered the 9/11 attacks?

Yes or no, Dan. Let's hear it once and for all.

[Nbadan]

Sure would have been nice to be a fly on the wall following Cheney around on 9/11....If anyone knew...Cheney knew....

[ChumpDumper]

Do you think Dick Cheney ordered the 9/11 attacks?

Yes or no.

[Nbadan]

Not sure... but...if the conspiracy was much more complex than we have been thought to believe there had to be someone at the highest level of government involved, not leading, but involved....Cheney sure makes sense, but the Bush administration was stacked with NeoCons who could have been involved, and had plenty of motivation to be involved....remember, this is likely the same group that almost got a couple of very armed nuclear bombs to Iraq before someone noticed and blew the whistle....

[ChumpDumper]

Not sure... but...if the conspiracy was much more complex than we have been thought to believe there had to be someone at the highest level of government involved, not leading, but involved....Cheney sure makes sense, but the Bush administration was stacked with NeoCons who could have been involved, and had plenty of motivation to be involved....remember, this is likely the same group that almost got a couple of very armed nuclear bombs to Iraq before someone noticed and blew the whistle....Noe of this "if" bullshit.

What do you believe?

[mouse]

Do you think Dick Cheney ordered the 9/11 attacks?

Yes or no.

He didn't have to order anything that is why he had Colin Powell

[Nbadan]

He didn't have to order anything that is why he had Colin Powell

Yeah, I don't think Powell was involved...in fact, Powell was duped...that's why he resigned

[DarrinS]

not sure... But...if the conspiracy was much more complex than we have been thought to believe there had to be someone at the highest level of government involved, not leading, but involved....cheney sure makes sense, but the bush administration was stacked with neocons who could have been involved, and had plenty of motivation to be involved....remember, this is likely the same group that almost got a couple of very armed nuclear bombs to iraq before someone noticed and blew the whistle....

very armed!!!!

[DarrinS]

I wonder why the wikileaks dildo hasn't published the smoking gun?

[Nbadan]

Hey you! quit asking questions

yuC_4mGTs98

[ChumpDumper]

Hey you! quit asking questions

yuC_4mGTs98I'm not going to watch it.

What is the conspiracy theory?

[RandomGuy]

The key question should really be is why would Gulliani but a emergency response center in WTC7 after the previous attack on WTC if the building could collapse because of fire? What was the building reinforced with? Marsh mellows? but it did...the only building in modern times to collapse because of [structural damange and uncontrolled, day-long] fire...no coincidink!

FIFY.

You always leave out the important parts.

Nbadan does not have sex with goats.

See how that works?

[Nbadan]

Problem is, there have been concrete support and steel support buildings that have burned for longer and hotter and not collapsed...neither the FEMA nor NIST report contributed the collapse to the exterior damage chumpy keeps saying was one of the causes of the collapse...nor was the diesel fuel a factor....so what was burning? Office furniture?

[ChumpDumper]

Problem is, there have been concrete support and steel support buildings that have burned for longer and hotter and not collapsed...neither the FEMA nor NIST report contributed the collapse to the exterior damage chumpy keeps saying was one of the causes of the collapse...nor was the diesel fuel a factor....so what was burning? Office furniture?Where was the concrete support in WTC7?

Show us all.

And yeah, office stuff burns in an office building, just like it did in the twin towers after the jet fuel burned off. And the exterior damage was how the fires in WTC7 started.

Again, you need to give everyone a plausible reason why you think WTC7 was brought down by a controlled demolition.

You haven't.

[Wild Cobra]

Problem is, there have been concrete support and steel support buildings that have burned for longer and hotter and not collapsed...neither the FEMA nor NIST report contributed the collapse to the exterior damage chumpy keeps saying was one of the causes of the collapse...nor was the diesel fuel a factor....so what was burning? Office furniture?
That's right. They do not attribute any of it to the external part of the building, but they do the internal damaged beams.

True, fire alone doesn't bring a building like these down. Structural damage alone doesn't bring the building down. Fire and structural damage together will.

[Agloco]

Problem is, there have been concrete support and steel support buildings that have burned for longer and hotter and not collapsed...neither the FEMA nor NIST report contributed the collapse to the exterior damage chumpy keeps saying was one of the causes of the collapse...nor was the diesel fuel a factor....so what was burning? Office furniture?


Sorry, I dont have time to review the entire thread but have any of the reports investigated the mechanical stress involved when 180 metric tonnes travelling at 450+ mph hits a building with a cross sectional area of about an acre?

[Wild Cobra]

Sorry, I dont have time to review the entire thread but have any of the reports investigated the mechanical stress involved when 180 metric tonnes travelling at 450+ mph hits a building with a cross sectional area of about an acre?
That type of thinking of way over their heads. They simply cannot believe that type of destruction occurs at that speed, regardless of size and weight.

RZjhxuhTmGk

[ChumpDumper]

Problem is, there have been concrete support and steel support buildings that have burned for longer and hotter and not collapsed...neither the FEMA nor NIST report contributed the collapse to the exterior damage chumpy keeps saying was one of the causes of the collapse...nor was the diesel fuel a factor....so what was burning? Office furniture?


That's right. They do not attribute any of it to the external part of the building, but they do the internal damaged beams.

True, fire alone doesn't bring a building like these down. Structural damage alone doesn't bring the building down. Fire and structural damage together will.


Sorry, I dont have time to review the entire thread but have any of the reports investigated the mechanical stress involved when 180 metric tonnes travelling at 450+ mph hits a building with a cross sectional area of about an acre?I'm guessing he's talking only about WTC7, but he doesn't know the most basic fact that there was no structural concrete in any of the building cores.

This is what we are dealing with. There's no way he can be serious about this.

[Nbadan]

Your an idiot defending a weak position....I said steel supports....reading is fundamental!

[Nbadan]

That type of thinking of way over their heads. They simply cannot believe that type of destruction occurs at that speed, regardless of size and weight.

RZjhxuhTmGk

A plane hit WTC7? that news to me...

[Nbadan]

Sorry, I dont have time to review the entire thread but have any of the reports investigated the mechanical stress involved when 180 metric tonnes travelling at 450+ mph hits a building with a cross sectional area of about an acre?

see above

[ChumpDumper]

Problem is, there have been concrete support and steel support buildings that have burned for longer and hotter and not collapsed...neither the FEMA nor NIST report contributed the collapse to the exterior damage chumpy keeps saying was one of the causes of the collapse...nor was the diesel fuel a factor....so what was burning? Office furniture?Why did you confuse the issue with concrete, then?

If you look at at least one of the building fires twoofers bring up frequently, you would actually find a steel structure collapse.

Let's see if you can find it!

[ChumpDumper]

Well, here's another one anyway:

lc1Lri34OmY

I don't believe a plane hit this one either.

[Agloco]

I'm guessing he's talking only about WTC7, but he doesn't know the most basic fact that there was no structural concrete in any of the building cores.

This is what we are dealing with. There's no way he can be serious about this.


see above

Ah, my bad.

Well, it always facinated me how a structure as large as 7 could implode like that......seemingly perfectly. I'd have to see more data on the distribution of the fires within the building. It looked like many of them were near the center.

[mouse]

I'm not going to watch it.




I have seen all your videos Mouse.

[ChumpDumper]

It's my new policy.

If you want to tell me what you think really happened on 9/11, mouse, I'll read it.

[Nbadan]

Well, here's another one anyway:

lc1Lri34OmY

I don't believe a plane hit this one either.

Now that building fell the way you would expect a building that suffered warped,softening steel support beams to fall, I never said it was impossible, just very unlikely that it would completely collapse the way WTC7 collapsed...the video confirms that hypothesis...

[Wild Cobra]

Now that building fell the way you would expect a building that suffered warped,softening steel support beams to fall, I never said it was impossible, just very unlikely that it would completely collapse the way WTC7 collapsed...the video confirms that hypothesis...
How can you compare a building less than 1/3rd the height with WTC 7? Less than 1/3rd the stress on the lower structure.

[RandomGuy]

Your an idiot defending a weak position....I said steel supports....reading is fundamental!


Problem is, there have been concrete support and steel support buildings that have burned for longer and hotter and not collapsed...neither the FEMA nor NIST report contributed the collapse to the exterior damage chumpy keeps saying was one of the causes of the collapse...nor was the diesel fuel a factor....so what was burning? Office furniture?

Yes, it is.

[RandomGuy]

Now that building fell the way you would expect a building that suffered warped,softening steel support beams to fall, I never said it was impossible, just very unlikely that it would completely collapse the way WTC7 collapsed...the video confirms that hypothesis...

It is very unlikely you know enough about structural engineering to be able to judge what it should "look like".

http://spurstalk.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=57&pictureid=1457

[Nbadan]

It is very unlikely you know enough about structural engineering to be able to judge what it should "look like".

http://spurstalk.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=57&pictureid=1457

So............... you got nothing, huh?


Who needs explosives to completely knock down steel support buildings when fire will do the job every time!

:lol

[Nbadan]

It is very unlikely you know enough about structural engineering to be able to judge what it should "look like".

http://spurstalk.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=57&pictureid=1457

....oh smite us with your engineering prow-ness smite, oh mighty smitter....

:rolleyes

[RandomGuy]

....oh smite us with your engineering prow-ness smite, oh mighty smitter....

:rolleyes

As soon as you regail us with tales from your extensive knowledge of physics and cell phone technology.

:lmao

[mouse]

As soon as you regail us with tales from your extensive knowledge of physics and cell phone technology.

:lmao

prove him wrong.

[ChumpDumper]

Now that building fell the way you would expect a building that suffered warped,softening steel support beams to fall, I never said it was impossible, just very unlikely that it would completely collapse the way WTC7 collapsed...the video confirms that hypothesis...If you knew anything about the way buildings are constructed, you'd know you're full of shit. You're full of shit...your post confirms that hypothesis...

[Nbadan]

If you knew anything about the way buildings are constructed, you'd know you're full of shit. You're full of shit...your post confirms that hypothesis...

...blah, blah, blah, I know enough about buildings to know that the only way to take down a whole building like WTC7 is for the center support beams, in this case, steel beams, to completely collapse evenly on a lower supporting floor and even in those cases,you might take down a big chunk of the building, but not the whole building...without another official investigation all the evidence that was used to justify the NIST findings on WTC7 will never be known, or at least not for another 50 years..

[Wild Cobra]

...blah, blah, blah, I know enough about buildings to know that the only way to take down a whole building like WTC7 is for the center support beams, in this case, steel beams, to completely collapse evenly on a lower supporting floor and even in those cases,you might take down a big chunk of the building, but not the whole building...without another official investigation all the evidence that was used to justify the NIST findings on WTC7 will never be known, or at least not for another 50 years..
"The only way?"

Dan... Time to put that crack pipe down.

If any if the beams attached to the center buckle, the center beams can also buckle. It only takes one to start the effect, and it can be just about any of the support beams.

Also...

Gravity will make almost any tall structure fall strait into itself. You don't expect it to tip over do you?

[Nbadan]

"The only way?"

Dan... Time to put that crack pipe down.

If any if the beams attached to the center buckle, the center beams can also buckle. It only takes one to start the effect, and it can be just about any of the support beams.

Also...

Gravity will make almost any tall structure fall strait into itself. You don't expect it to tip over do you?

WCT7 was a very unusual building, it's also very unusual that Gullyani would house his emergency coordination center in such a ill-equipped building...I don't think that the failure of just one center support beam is going to lead to the collapse of the whole building...I think even the NIST findings are that a whole section of center support beams collapsed leading to the catastrophic collapse...without looking at the technical details though there's no real way to tell if the NIST findings are supported by facts or if NIST just wrapped it's hypothesis around only one possible scenario...

[Wild Cobra]

Dan. You better sit down for this.

There is no way to know exactly what happened, beam by beam. It is an educated guess for a plausible explanation.

[ChumpDumper]

WCT7 was a very unusual building, it's also very unusual that Gullyani would house his emergency coordination center in such a ill-equipped building...I don't think that the failure of just one center support beam is going to lead to the collapse of the whole building...I think even the NIST findings are that a whole section of center support beams collapsed leading to the catastrophic collapse...without looking at the technical details though there's no real way to tell if the NIST findings are supported by facts or if NIST just wrapped it's hypothesis around only one possible scenario...Wait a minute -- you haven't looked at any of the technical details?

You aren't interested in this at all, are you?

[Nbadan]

Your an ass-hat you know they're classified...

Meanwhile, I'm going to enjoy watching the 'truths' in 9/11 Commission report completely collapse in the coming years...

:lol

Step 1:


In an interview aired on Aug. 11 on a local PBS affiliate in Colorado, Clarke charges that Tenet and two other senior CIA officials, Cofer Black and Richard Blee, deliberately withheld information about two of the hijackers of American Airlines Flight 77 — al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar. The two had entered the United States more than a year before the 9/11 attacks.

Clarke adds that the CIA then covered it all up by keeping relevant information away from Congress and the 9/11 Commission.

Lying by senior officials is bad enough, and there is now plenty of evidence that former CIA Director George Tenet and his closest agency associates are serial offenders. Think for a minute about the falsehoods spread regarding Iraq’s non-existent WMD stockpiles.

But withholding intelligence on two of the 9/11 hijackers would have been particularly unconscionable — the epitome of malfeasance, not just misfeasance.

That’s why Richard Clarke’s conclusion that he should have received information from CIA about al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar, “unless somebody intervened to stop the normal automatic distribution” amounts, in my view, to a criminal charge, given the eventual role of the two in hijacking on 9/11 of AA-77, the plane that struck the Pentagon.

Tenet has denied that the information on the two hijackers was “intentionally withheld” from Clarke, and he has enlisted the other two former CIA operatives, Cofer Black (more recently a senior official of Blackwater) and Richard Blee (an even more shadowy figure), to concur in saying, Not us; we didn’t withhold.

Whom to believe? To me, it’s a no-brainer. One would have to have been born yesterday to regard the “George is right” testimony from Black and Blee as corroborative.

Tenet’s Dubious Credibility

Tenet is the same fellow who provided the “slam dunk” on the existence of “weapons of mass destruction” in Iraq, as well as the “artist renderings” of equally non-existent mobile laboratories for developing biological warfare agents, based on unconfirmed information from the impostor code-named (appropriately) “Curveball.”

It was Tenet who, under orders from President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, ordered up and disseminated a fraudulent National Intelligence Estimate on WMD in Iraq, the purpose of which was to deceive our elected representatives out of their constitutional prerogative to authorize war. No small lies.

After a five-year investigation by the Senate Intelligence Committee, Chairman Jay Rockefeller described the intelligence adduced under Tenet to “justify” attacking Iraq as “uncorroborated, contradicted, and non-existent.”

Good enough to win Tenet the Presidential Medal of Freedom, though. The corruption of intelligence worked just fine for the purposes of Bush and Cheney, thank you very much.

It is a actually a matter of record that Tenet lies a lot — on occasion, demonstrating what I would call chutzpah on steroids. Recall, for example, Tenet in April 2007 snarling at Scott Pelley on “60 Minutes” — five times, in five consecutive sentences — “We do not torture people.”

Under Oath

Tenet has lied about 9/11, too. The joint statement from Tenet, Black and Blee – orchestrated by former CIA spokesman Bill Harlow – concludes: “We testified under oath about what we did, what we knew and what we didn’t know. We stand by that testimony.”

Almost made me laugh … almost.

In his sworn testimony to the 9/11 Commission on April 14, 2004, Tenet said he had not spoken to Bush — even on the telephone — during the entire month of August 2001.

But Tenet did fly down to see the President in Crawford — not once, but twice during August 2001, and briefed Bush again in Washington on the 31st.

After the TV cameras at the 9/11 Commission hearing were shut off, Bill Harlow phoned the commission staff to say, Oops, sorry, Tenet misspoke. Even then, Harlow admitted only to Tenet’s Aug. 17 visit to Crawford (and to the briefing on the 31st).

How do we know Tenet was again in Crawford, on Aug. 24? From a White House press release quoting President Bush to that effect — information somehow completely missed by our vigilant Fawning Corporate Media.

Funny, too, how Tenet could have forgotten his first visit to Crawford on Aug. 17. In his memoir, At the Center of the Storm, Tenet waxes eloquent about the “president graciously driving me around the spread in his pickup and me trying to make small talk about the flora and the fauna.” But the visit was not limited to small talk.

In his book Tenet writes: “A few weeks after the August 6 PDB was delivered, I followed it to Crawford to make sure the president stayed current on events.” The Aug. 6, 2001, President’s Daily Brief contained the article “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in the US.”

According to Ron Suskind’s The One-Percent Doctrine, the president reacted by telling the CIA briefer, “All right, you’ve covered your ass now.”

If, as Tenet says in his memoir, it was the Aug. 6, 2001, PDB that prompted his visit on Aug. 17, what might have brought him back on Aug. 24? I believe the answer can be found in court documents released at the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui, the fledgling pilot in Minnesota interested in learning to steer a plane but indifferent as to how to land it.

Those documents show that on Aug. 23, 2001, Tenet was given an alarming briefing focusing on Moussaoui, titled “Islamic Extremist Learns to Fly.” Tenet was told that Moussaoui was training to fly a 747 and, among other suspicion-arousing data, had paid for the training in cash.

It is an open question — if a key one — whether Tenet told Bush about the two hijackers, al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar, while keeping that key information from the person who most needed it — White House counter-terrorist czar Richard Clarke. Clarke finds the only plausible explanation in his surmise that Tenet was personally responsible.

Clarke says: “For me to this day, it is inexplicable, when I had every other detail about everything related to terrorism, that the director didn’t tell me, that the director of the counterterrorism center didn’t tell me, that the other 48 people inside CIA that knew about it never mentioned it to me or anyone in my staff in a period of over 12 months.”

Enter Harlow

But Tenet’s aide-de-camp Bill Harlow has branded Clarke’s statements “absurd and patently false.” The statement Harlow shepherded for Tenet, Black and Blee adds “reckless and profoundly wrong … baseless … belied by the record … unworthy of serious consideration.”

And Harlow never lies? Right.

I’m reminded of Harlow’s reaction to Newsweek’s publication on Feb. 24, 2003, of the intelligence information provided by Saddam Hussein’s son-in-law, Hussein Kamel when he defected to Jordan in 1995. Kamel brought with him a treasure trove of documents and unique knowledge of Iraq’s putative “weapons of mass destruction.”

Most significantly, he told his U.S. debriefers there were no WMD in Iraq. He knew, since he was in charge of the chemical, biological, nuclear and missile programs for almost a decade, and he ordered what weapons existed destroyed before the U.N. inspectors could discover them after the war in 1991.

In his words: “I ordered the destruction of all chemical weapons. All weapons — biological, chemical, missile, nuclear were destroyed.”

He told the U.S. much more, and the information that could be checked out was confirmed. But Kamel’s information didn’t fit with the Bush administration’s propaganda regarding its certainty that Iraq did have WMD stockpiles and was defying United Nations demands that the WMD be destroyed.

Those pushing the Iraq War juggernaut in early 2003 almost had a conniption when Newsweek acquired a transcript of Kamel’s debriefing and published this potentially explosive story barely three weeks before the invasion.

Newsweek noted gingerly that this information “raises questions about whether the WMD stockpiles attributed to Iraq still exist.” It was the kind of impeccably sourced documentary evidence after which intelligence analysts and lawyers lust.

But this was not at all what Bush, Cheney, and — by sycophantic extension — Tenet wanted Newsweek readers, or the rest of us, to learn less than a month before the U.S./U.K. attack on Iraq ostensibly to find and destroy those non-existent weapons.

Bill Harlow to the rescue: he told the FCM in no uncertain terms that the Newsweek story was, “incorrect, bogus, wrong, untrue.” And the media cheerleaders for war breathed a sigh of relief, saying, Gosh, thanks for telling us, and then dropped the story like a hot potato.

By all indications, Harlow is still able to work his fraudulent magic on the FCM, which has virtually ignored this major Clarke v. Tenet story since it broke several days ago.

If Harlow says it’s not true … and hurls still more pejorative adjectives in a crude attempt to discredit the very serious charge Clarke has made … well, I guess we’ll have to leave it there, as the FCM is so fond of saying.

No matter Clarke’s well-deserved reputation for honesty and professionalism — and Tenet’s for the opposite. And so it goes.

Link (http://consortiumnews.com/2011/08/16/did-tenet-hide-key-911-info/)

The credibility of the whole 911 commission report is based on a habitual liar

Told ya so...

[RandomGuy]

Your an ass-hat you know they're classified...

Meanwhile, I'm going to enjoy watching the 'truths' in 9/11 Commission report completely collapse in the coming years...

:lol

Step 1:



Link (http://consortiumnews.com/2011/08/16/did-tenet-hide-key-911-info/)

The credibility of the whole 911 commission report is based on a habitual liar

Told ya so...

So... the entirety of the 9-11 commission report's credibility is based on Tenet's testimony?

uh-hun. You get that strawman. He won't mind.

[RandomGuy]

I see cosmored is up for another round of his own insanity.

[mookie2001]

Yes, you chose to believe in a report created by a commission appointed by Bush...I chose not to...


Ruined I saidd, after all these years chump might have to go back and read the report again (for his research)

[ChumpDumper]

Ruined I saidd, after all these years chump might have to go back and read the report again (for his research)You didn't even read one page of it.

Not a one I saidd.

[RandomGuy]

6NckGGQ1yIs

Good riddance.

[ChumpDumper]

No one in the truth movement has the balls to say what he actually believes happened on 9/11, simply because even they don't believe their own bullshit anymore and they are embarrassed they ever bought into such idiocy.

Not even Cosmored is stupid enough to post an actual conspiracy theory that encompasses all the events of 9/11 because deep down he knows it will be destroyed almost immediately and he'll look like an even bigger fool than before.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Dan. You better sit down for this.

There is no way to know exactly what happened, beam by beam. It is an educated guess for a plausible explanation.

Actually that is exactly what the NIST model tries to do. You can actually make predictions on each and every beam.

Chumps point is key in that while the NIST model may be flawed it is certainly better than anything else the ninnies have put out there.

[ChumpDumper]

Actually that is exactly what the NIST model tries to do. You can actually make predictions on each and every beam.

Chumps point is key in that while the NIST model may be flawed it is certainly better than anything else the ninnies have put out there.
You are obviously not familiar with this model:


http://i193.photobucket.com/albums/z204/CaptainObvious2007/Animation2.gif

[Nbadan]

Ruined I saidd, after all these years chump might have to go back and read the report again (for his research)

:sleep

All the 9/11 Commission report cock-roaches are coming out of the wood work because the credibility of the whole report on which their case is built has been proven bullshit......

....it would be funny if it weren't so sad.....

[ChumpDumper]

:sleep

All the 9/11 Commission report cock-roaches are coming out of the wood work because the credibility of the whole report on which their case is built has been proven bullshit......

....it would be funny if it weren't so sad.....You never read it either.

And you'll never post an alternative theory because you know it would be full of shit. You don't even believe yourself.

It is funny because it is so sad.

[Nbadan]

Dan. You better sit down for this.

There is no way to know exactly what happened, beam by beam. It is an educated guess for a plausible explanation.

So you admit that NIST could have formed its conclusion around a hypothesis rather than forming its hypothesis around a conclusion...

[ChumpDumper]

So you admit that NIST could have formed its conclusion around a hypothesis rather than forming its hypothesis around a conclusion...What's your hypothesis, dan?

[Nbadan]

You never read it either.

And you'll never post an alternative theory because you know it would be full of shit. You don't even believe yourself.

It is funny because it is so sad.

Pathetic. I'm the one who has been saying from the start that the report has serious flaws...been labeled a too-fer, and that's cool because I'm completely enjoying watching the 9/11 commission report crumble into its own lies...

[ChumpDumper]

Pathetic. I'm the one who has been saying from the start that the report has serious flaws...been labeled a too-fer, and that's cool because I'm completely enjoying watching the 9/11 commission report crumble into its own lies...What do you think really happened on 9/11?

[Nbadan]

What's your hypothesis, dan?

Let's do another investigation.....fuck...what better thing to throw a billion dollars at?

[ChumpDumper]

Let's do another investigation.....fuck...what better thing to throw a billion dollars at?So you have no hypothesis.

We know.

[Nbadan]

I know you can't make cell phone calls from planes going 500+ mph...

[ChumpDumper]

I know you can't make cell phone calls from planes going 500+ mph...This is where dan tries to change the subject.

Because he's a coward.

[Nbadan]

This is where dan tries to change the subject.

Because he's a coward.

Right. So in other words, you have nothing significant to add...

[ChumpDumper]

Right. So in other words you have nothing significant to add...Add something significant, dan -- tell us what you think really happened on 9/11.

[Nbadan]

Add something significant, dan -- tell us what you think really happened on 9/11.

I think the nation suffered the worst terror attack ever perpetuated on its citizens in the history of the country.....I think the commission that was put together by the very people who were being investigated was severely compromised...I think the report which came out of this commission was so severly flawed it was laughable, yet sad...I think Tenet lied his ass off and one of the Co-chairman of the commission agrees with me...

I think the sooner we begin a new investigation the better..

what you got?

[ChumpDumper]

I think the nation suffered the worst terror attack ever perpetuated on its citizens in the history of the country.....I think the commission that was put together by the very people who were being investigated was severely compromised...I think the report which came out of this commission was so severly flawed it was laughable, yet sad...I think Tenet lied his ass off and one of the Co-chairman of the commission agrees with me...

I think the sooner we begin a new investigation the better..

what you got?You didn't answer the question.

Coward.

[Nbadan]

blah, blah, blah...said the desperate man...

A couple of months late, but hey I've been busy..


One of the best 9/11 videos to come on in some time (originally aired on the History channel in 09 i believe). It doesn't attempt to be a conspiracy video or make any pretentious innuendo either way, just a compilation of very well put together amateur video...but it really puts back into perspective why finding out what really happened is sooooo important

....its a 2-hour video, so not for the Chumpy-minded...

DSlDchQqXS4
Viewer discretion is advised

[ChumpDumper]

You're the coward dodging questions.

lol desperate

After a full decade, you don't even have an alternative theory.

[Nbadan]

Actually that is exactly what the NIST model tries to do. You can actually make predictions on each and every beam.

Chumps point is key in that while the NIST model may be flawed it is certainly better than anything else the ninnies have put out there.

You don't know your facts....if NIST is so certain of their conclusions why won't they release the research they did into WTC7 so that it can be peer reviewed? What is NIST hiding? Why did they break their own code of conduct during their investigation?

[Nbadan]

seriously....what if others in the engineering/scientific community put out findings on such an important issue as WTC7 and refused to publish the data they used for their research? That is where we are right now.....Why won't NIST release their data to scrutiny?

[ChumpDumper]

seriously....what if others in the engineering/scientific community put out findings on such an important issue as WTC7 and refused to publish the data they used for their research? That is where we are right now.....Why won't NIST release their data to scrutiny?Have you written the NIST to ask them why, dan?

Yes or no.

[RandomGuy]

http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=144746


There's some evidence that 9/11 was an inside job that's too clear for you shills to obfuscate.
http://www.opposingdigits.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1222


This picture shows the kind a damage that the wings of an airliner would do to a wall.
http://jabbajoo.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c0ac653ef00e5537c495d8834-pi


The fourth picture from the top of this page shows the side of the Pentagon before the collapse.
http://www.physics911.net/missingwings

That damage isn't consistent with wings having hit the walls.

Here's a related article.
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/ArticlesMeyer3March2006.html


This picture shows the nose of the craft that hit the Pentagon and it's obviously not the nose of a 757.
http://www.g7welcomingcommittee.com/blog/wp-content/images/pentagon1_plane.jpg

This proof shows that the craft that hit the Pentangon was too short to be a 757.
http://www.bcrevolution.ca/911_part_iii.htm

This closes the whole case by itself.

It takes a bit of study to see all of the evidence of an inside job.
http://tvnewslies.org/tvnl/index.php/911-facts/48/20647-why-you-can-not-believe-the-q911-conspiracy-theory-de-bunkersq.html

Objective thinking people who think it wasn't an inside job simply have taken the time to look at the evidence yet. People who have looked at the evidence and still don't think it was an inside job are usually in denial because they're experiencing cognitive dissonance.
http://www.learningandteaching.info/learning/dissonance.htm

That's understandable I suppose. Here's a video for those people to watch.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEGgAk1AbA4

Just ignore the shills.

How about I just ignore the sanity-challenged conspiracy theorists instead?

LOL cognitive dissonance.

Here is a video for you people to watch.

Ozwl4SsdCus

From an interesting movie made in Britain about the second coming of Christ.


(edit) It has nothing to do with the topic, I just like Orbital.

[ChumpDumper]

http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=144746


There's some evidence that 9/11 was an inside job that's too clear for you shills to obfuscate.
http://www.opposingdigits.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1222


This picture shows the kind a damage that the wings of an airliner would do to a wall.
http://jabbajoo.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c0ac653ef00e5537c495d8834-pi


The fourth picture from the top of this page shows the side of the Pentagon before the collapse.
http://www.physics911.net/missingwings

That damage isn't consistent with wings having hit the walls.

Here's a related article.
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/ArticlesMeyer3March2006.html


This picture shows the nose of the craft that hit the Pentagon and it's obviously not the nose of a 757.
http://www.g7welcomingcommittee.com/blog/wp-content/images/pentagon1_plane.jpg

This proof shows that the craft that hit the Pentangon was too short to be a 757.
http://www.bcrevolution.ca/911_part_iii.htm

This closes the whole case by itself.

It takes a bit of study to see all of the evidence of an inside job.
http://tvnewslies.org/tvnl/index.php/911-facts/48/20647-why-you-can-not-believe-the-q911-conspiracy-theory-de-bunkersq.html

Objective thinking people who think it wasn't an inside job simply have taken the time to look at the evidence yet. People who have looked at the evidence and still don't think it was an inside job are usually in denial because they're experiencing cognitive dissonance.
http://www.learningandteaching.info/learning/dissonance.htm

That's understandable I suppose. Here's a video for those people to watch.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEGgAk1AbA4

Just ignore the shills.No one is going to watch any of these.

What do you think really happened on 9/11, Cosmored?

In your own words.

Let's hear it all.

[Nbadan]

Have you written the NIST to ask them why, dan?

Yes or no.

People are sheep...the corrupt M$M has successfully put out the perception that any 'truther' talk equals 'birther' talk....except....they neglect to mention... 'truther' talk is based on real facts and science...were as birther talk is bullshit....and you got crazies like Alex Jones who muddy the waters...

[ChumpDumper]

People are sheep...the corrupt M$M has successfully put out the perception that any 'truther' talk equals 'birther' talk....except....they neglect to mention... 'truther' talk is based on real facts and science...were as birther talk is bullshit....and you got crazies like Alex Jones who muddy the waters...Have you written the NIST to ask them why, dan?

Yes or no.

[Nbadan]

I still stand by my original point....there needs to be a another investigation just on what we know now.....scientifically.....but also what we know factually......Tenet lying...committee members lied to and threatened....funding cut short....more money was spent to investigate a blow job than the worst terror attack in the Nation's history....

...not on my watch! ...not on my watch...

[ChumpDumper]

I still stand by my original point....there needs to be a another investigation just on what we know now.....scientifically.....but also what we know factually......Tenet lying...committee members lied to and threatened....funding cut short....more money was spent to investigate a blow job than the worst terror attack in the Nation's history....

...not on my watch! ...not on my watch...Have you written the NIST to ask them why, dan?

Yes or no.

[Nbadan]

Have you written the NIST to ask them why, dan?

Yes or no.

National Security bullshit....


Let's investigate NIST while we're at it.....there is tons of proof they broke laws in their own investigation...

[ChumpDumper]

National Security bullshit....


Let's investigate NIST while we're at it.....there is tons of proof they broke laws in their own investigation...Have you written the NIST to ask them why, dan?

Yes or no.

[Nbadan]

I called them....got the machine, left a message, but they haven't called back...


maybe I missed the call? Do they have an 800 number?

[ChumpDumper]

I called them....got the machine, left a message, but they haven't called back...What number did you use?

[ChumpDumper]

Need to google it?

We'll wait.

[RandomGuy]

http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=144746


There's some evidence that 9/11 was an inside job that's too clear for you shills to obfuscate.
http://www.opposingdigits.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1222


This picture shows the kind a damage that the wings of an airliner would do to a wall.
http://jabbajoo.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c0ac653ef00e5537c495d8834-pi


The fourth picture from the top of this page shows the side of the Pentagon before the collapse.
http://www.physics911.net/missingwings

That damage isn't consistent with wings having hit the walls.

Here's a related article.
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/ArticlesMeyer3March2006.html


This picture shows the nose of the craft that hit the Pentagon and it's obviously not the nose of a 757.
http://www.g7welcomingcommittee.com/blog/wp-content/images/pentagon1_plane.jpg

This proof shows that the craft that hit the Pentangon was too short to be a 757.
http://www.bcrevolution.ca/911_part_iii.htm

This closes the whole case by itself.

It takes a bit of study to see all of the evidence of an inside job.
http://tvnewslies.org/tvnl/index.php/911-facts/48/20647-why-you-can-not-believe-the-q911-conspiracy-theory-de-bunkersq.html

edit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry. I meant to post this article instead of the above one.
http://tvnewslies.org/tvnl/index.php/911-facts/48/20581-you-only-believe-the-official-911-story-because-you-dont-know-the-official-911-story-.html
--------------------------------------------------------------

Objective thinking people who think it wasn't an inside job simply have taken the time to look at the evidence yet. People who have looked at the evidence and still don't think it was an inside job are usually in denial because they're experiencing cognitive dissonance.
http://www.learningandteaching.info/learning/dissonance.htm

That's understandable I suppose. Here's a video for those people to watch.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEGgAk1AbA4

Just ignore the shills.

yytbDZrw1jc

[Nbadan]

Not so real research after all...


For more than a decade, questions have lingered about the possible role of the Saudi government in the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, even as the royal kingdom has made itself a crucial counterterrorism partner in the eyes of American diplomats.

Now, in sworn statements that seem likely to reignite the debate, two former senators who were privy to top secret information on the Saudis’ activities say they believe that the Saudi government might have played a direct role in the terrorist attacks.

“I am convinced that there was a direct line between at least some of the terrorists who carried out the September 11th attacks and the government of Saudi Arabia,” former Senator Bob Graham, Democrat of Florida, said in an affidavit filed as part of a lawsuit brought against the Saudi government and dozens of institutions in the country by families of Sept. 11 victims and others. Mr. Graham led a joint 2002 Congressional inquiry into the attacks.

His former Senate colleague, Bob Kerrey of Nebraska, a Democrat who served on the separate 9/11 Commission, said in a sworn affidavit of his own in the case that “significant questions remain unanswered” about the role of Saudi institutions. “Evidence relating to the plausible involvement of possible Saudi government agents in the September 11th attacks has never been fully pursued,” Mr. Kerrey said.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/01/us/graham-and-kerrey-see-possible-saudi-9-11-link.html

[ChumpDumper]

Not so real research after all...



Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/01/us/graham-and-kerrey-see-possible-saudi-9-11-link.htmlGreat, tell us how this fits in with your theory about what really happened on 9/11.

[RandomGuy]

Looks like Cosmored wants another round. meh.

[DarrinS]

Debating twoofers is soo 2007

[RandomGuy]

Debating twoofers is soo 2007

Debating them is 2007.

Making fun of them however... when will that go out of style?

[Nbadan]

So......NIST released their research data for peer review and admitted they broke their own policies (laws) when they investigated WTC7?

[Nbadan]

...and what of those cell phone calls from airplanes....

RG has a short memory.....

[spursncowboys]

Debating them is 2007.

Making fun of them however... when will that go out of style?

You might as well be Faith Hilling.

[mouse]

Not so real research after all...



Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/01/us/graham-and-kerrey-see-possible-saudi-9-11-link.html

[GSH]

How about I just ignore the sanity-challenged conspiracy theorists instead?




You mean like Van Jones? The really funny thing is that a big percentage of the hard-core truthers are from the hard left.

-----

Mr. Jones signed a statement for 911Truth.org in 2004 demanding an investigation into what the Bush Administration may have done that “deliberately allowed 9/11 to happen, perhaps as a pretext for war.”

His name is listed with 99 other prominent signatories supporting such an investigation on the 911Truth.org website, including Code Pink co-founders Medea Benjamin and Jodi Evans, comedienne Janeane Garofalo, Democratic Rep. Cynthia McKinney of Georgia and others. He's identified as the executive director for the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights on the statement, which he founded before going to the White House. The statement is available here. Mr. Jones is number 46.

Mike Berger, a spokesman for 911Truth.org, told the Washington Times over the phone that all of the signers had been verified by their group. He said 9/11Truth.org board members “spoke with each person on the list by phone or through email to individually confirm they had added their name to that list.”

[Blake]

...Meanwhile, Sen. Kit Bond, R-Mo., called for an investigation of Jones, who signed a 2004 petition by 911Truth.org, which wants attention paid to "unanswered questions that suggest that people within the (Bush) Administration may indeed have deliberately allowed 9/11 to happen, perhaps as a pretext for war."

[Van] Jones, a Yale Law School graduate, said in a statement Friday, "I do not agree with this statement and it certainly does not reflect my views now or ever."

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/09/04/MNNQ19IR6U.DTL#ixzz1qldOEfnS

[RandomGuy]

...and what of those cell phone calls from airplanes....

RG has a short memory.....

Debunked. There were no cell phone calls from the planes.

Fact fail, and already more than addressed in this thread.

[RandomGuy]

You mean like Van Jones? The really funny thing is that a big percentage of the hard-core truthers are from the hard left.

-----

Mr. Jones signed a statement for 911Truth.org in 2004 demanding an investigation into what the Bush Administration may have done that “deliberately allowed 9/11 to happen, perhaps as a pretext for war.”

His name is listed with 99 other prominent signatories supporting such an investigation on the 911Truth.org website, including Code Pink co-founders Medea Benjamin and Jodi Evans, comedienne Janeane Garofalo, Democratic Rep. Cynthia McKinney of Georgia and others. He's identified as the executive director for the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights on the statement, which he founded before going to the White House. The statement is available here. Mr. Jones is number 46.

Mike Berger, a spokesman for 911Truth.org, told the Washington Times over the phone that all of the signers had been verified by their group. He said 9/11Truth.org board members “spoke with each person on the list by phone or through email to individually confirm they had added their name to that list.”

Indeed. Left, right, whatever their political stripe... they are nutters.

The right has its scary creationists and global warming deniers, and the left has 9-11 nuttters.

[RandomGuy]

Looks like SA wants to do some research.

This thread is more than 5 years old and over 1,000 posts long.

Get doing your research, boy.

[RandomGuy]

By potential energy, I assume Dan is talking about gravitational potential energy. This is the total amount of possible “falling” energy if you drop something from any given height.

For the uninitiated/casual observer, the likely thrust of Dan’s question is to steer the conversation to the debunked “pulverized concrete” theory (http://arkanwolfshade.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!9E151F6EB6C7A35D!304.entry), as the idiot who put that abomination of science/logic out into the interwebs started with potential energy, and tried to prove that the towers fell “too quickly” by assuming that all the concrete in the twin towers was powdered.

PE=mgh
m= mass
g= gravity, i.e. gravitational acceleration or 9.8 m/s
h= height

G is a constant, 9.8 m/s/s
H is a height of 80 stories of 3.65 meters or almost exactly 292 meters. Remember we will assume that the top thirty stories of a 110 story building start falling. 110-30=80

So now that we have g and h, we can plug them in thusly:

PE=m(9.8)(292) or PE=m2861 (rounding decimal down)

This means that, any object, if dropped from 292 meters and ignoring air friction, will hit the ground with a force of roughly 2800 times the mass.

Here is an important point. What is mass? What is weight?

Weight is a force. It is the amount of force required to hold an object of a certain mass stationary against the pull of gravity. (see Newtons third law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_laws_of_motion)) When you climb on a scale you are really measuring the amount of force required to hold you at equilibrium (motionless) against gravity.
Think about what this means. This means that an object falling from 292 meters will seem to strike the ground with a force or “weight” of 2800 times what it weighed when it was held stationary, 292 meters above the ground.

The ground will then absorb the falling energy and then hold the body at equilibrium again after that energy has been absorbed to hold that mass at equilibrium/rest.

Let’s do a quickie, common sense thought experiment to help understand what the “controlled demolition” theory is trying to say.

The controlled demolition theory rests on the following assumption: “the building was too strong to have collapsed from simple gravity”

Put another way “the building could easily absorb the energy of the falling section and not fully collapse”

Does this pass the common sense muster?

Let’s take an average guy off the street. He can hold a 100 pound bag over his head for a few minutes. Say he is balancing it on his head to make things simple. In terms of physics this means he is providing a force equal to gravity in order to hold this bag motionless.

This is what the lower 80 stories did for the upper 30 stories for 30 years before 9-11.

Now, one story is about 12.32 feet. The thirty floors started falling through the damaged sections, and at least one damaged, weakened floor gave way.

Take that bag away from our average guy and hold it 12.32 feet over his head. Now drop it on his head. What happens?

Ouch is right.

Let’s see how many pounds of force will be applied by that bag to the guy’s head.

KE is measured in joules. KE= ½* mass * velocity *velocity
First let’s convert to metric for ease of calculation.
Mass=45.36 kg http://manuelsweb.com/kg_lbs.htm
H = 12.32 feet = 3.65 meters http://www.saudia-online.com/conversion%20Table.htm
Ending velocity of bag= 8.45 meters/s http://tutor4physics.com/calculators.htm

KE= ½(45.36)(8.45)(8.45) = 1619 joules
Convert 1619 Joules back to food/pounds force a.k.a. weight = 598 http://www.cleavebooks.co.uk/scol/ccenrgy.htm (http://www.cleavebooks.co.uk/scol/ccenrgy.htm)

For the controlled demolition theory to be correct the guy’s head must be able to apply almost 598 foot/pounds of force to stop the bag after such a fall.

Is this reasonable? I think we can safely, and without the possibility of jail time for seriously injuring some poor test subject, conclude that it is not.

Maybe “Galileo” would like to put this theory’s primary assumption to the test with a 100 bag of bullshit?

The original Galileo was actually instrumental in noting that the rate of falling objects is not dependant on mass http://www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/stargaze/Smass.htm . Perhaps our modern, more retarded, version of the real scientist can contribute something to science and prove that his head can hold, even for a split second, an eleven hundred pound object.

Dan, or anyone else, please feel free to recheck my calculations here. I might have deliberately made a mistake just to see if you are really following along… ;)

BTW... That hundred pound bag of bullshit, if dropped from 12.32 feet would hit with the same force as a stationary bag of bullshit held motionless weighing 1152 pounds.

That is why you don't see people catching other people jumping out of 2nd story windows with their bare hands.

I would note in ALL the years that this thread has been here, not a single truther bothered to check my figures to catch my deliberate error.

[Nbadan]

Debunked. There were no cell phone calls from the planes.

Fact fail, and already more than addressed in this thread.

Comprehension fail...

Your an asshat, I've already proven that your sacred 911 Commission report, RG's 911 Bible, states that at least 2 phone calls were made from the hijacked airplanes...

[Nbadan]

I would note in ALL the years that this thread has been here, not a single truther bothered to check my figures to catch my deliberate error.
RandomGuy is offline Reply With Quote

So what? You can't even explain how cell phone calls were made from planes traveling in excess of 500mph and why NIST won't release its building 7 research data....

[Nbadan]

At 8:52, in Easton, Connecticut, a man named Lee Hanson received a phone call from his son Peter, a passenger on United 175. His son told him: “I think they’ve taken over the cockpit—An attendant has been stabbed— and someone else up front may have been killed. The plane is making strange moves. Call United Airlines—Tell them it’s Flight 175, Boston to LA.

Press reports confirm that Peter Hanson was using his cell (i.e it was not an air phone)

http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO408B.html

[RandomGuy]

Comprehension fail...

Your an asshat, I've already proven that your sacred 911 Commission report, RG's 911 Bible, states that at least 2 phone calls were made from the hijacked airplanes...

Indeed there were phone calls made from the planes.

There were no cell phone calls made from the planes.

If you can't figure that out, you aren't looking in the right places, and this has been explained to you already. I'm not doing your work for you.

[Nbadan]

There were no cell phone calls made from the planes.

I'm looking at the 911 Commission report..saying that there were cell phone calls..where are you looking?

[RandomGuy]

"Press reports"

Wowie zowie. You got me.

Unnammed, unquoted "press reports" as told to you by a 9-11 truther website.

I can't imagine how I ever doubted it.

[Blake]

Comprehension fail...

Your an asshat, I've already proven that your sacred 911 Commission report, RG's 911 Bible, states that at least 2 phone calls were made from the hijacked airplanes...

the seat-back phones?

incredible that anyone still believes that it was cell phone calls.

[RandomGuy]

I'm looking at the 911 Commission report..saying that there were cell phone calls..where are you looking?

At my watch. Good night. This isn't going anywhere.

[RandomGuy]

(the thread that is...I have to sleep and the "cell phone" claim will still be there tomorrow my time to address it is at an end for now.)

[Nbadan]

the seat-back phones?

incredible that anyone still believes that it was cell phone calls.

Head meet sand...same old RG....yell, conspiracy theorists and duck and cover....some things never change..

[Nbadan]

the seat-back phones?

incredible that anyone still believes that it was cell phone calls.

Tell that to the 911 Commission reports which seems to not distinguish between the clarity of a cell phone call and the clarity of a seat back phone...

[Nbadan]

The two co-chairs of the Commission, Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, believe that the government established the Commission in a way that ensured that it would fail. In their book Without Precedent: The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission describing their experience serving, Hamilton listed a number of reasons for reaching this conclusion, including: the late establishment of the Commission and the very short deadline imposed on its work; the insufficient funds (3 million dollars), initially allocated for conducting such an extensive investigation (later the Commission requested additional funds but received only a fraction of the funds requested and the chairs still felt hamstrung); the many politicians who opposed the establishment of the Commission; the continuing resistance and opposition to the work of the Commission by many politicians, particularly those who did not wish to be blamed for any of what happened; the deception of the Commission by various key government agencies, including the Department of Defense, NORAD and the FAA; and, the denial of access by various agencies to documents and witnesses. "So there were all kinds of reasons we thought we were set up to fail."[21]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_9/11_Commission

[Nbadan]

Renee May, a flight attendant who a source said made a call on a cell phone from the hijacked American Airlines plane that crashed into the Pentagon, left behind a mother in Las Vegas.

http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2001/Sep-13-Thu-2001/news/16989631.html

[Nbadan]

From the report itself...


Shortly thereafter, the passengers and flight crew began a series of calls from
GTE airphones and cellular phones. These calls between family, friends, and
colleagues took place until the end of the flight and provided those on the
ground with firsthand accounts.They enabled the passengers to gain critical
information, including the news that two aircraft had slammed into the World
Trade Center.77

http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report_Ch1.pdf

[Nbadan]

I urge everyone who is interested in making an informed decision on 911 to watch explosive evidence and ask RG and other duck-and-coverers why NIST won't release its data into tbe collapse of WTC7

lw-jzCfa4eQ

[ChumpDumper]

lol another two hour video

dan, you never even bothered to join a protest for two hours.

You're a phony.

lol explosive

[RandomGuy]

Head meet sand...same old RG....yell, conspiracy theorists and duck and cover....some things never change..

Blake is not RG.

[Blake]

Tell that to the 911 Commission reports which seems to not distinguish between the clarity of a cell phone call and the clarity of a seat back phone...

K, why do you feel these two impossibly made cell phone calls are of such great importance.

[Blake]

Blake is not RG.

Conspiracy!

[RandomGuy]

Head meet sand...same old RG....yell, conspiracy theorists and duck and cover....some things never change..

You mean like your shitty sources dated from 2004?

Two calls, both made on the same plane, out of 64 calls made were from actual cell phones, from an estimated altitude of less than 1000 feet, and both were dropped in less than 2 minutes.


Z96MZOZyilo

Both calls were about what one would expect from 2001 technology.

As I said, this shit has been deunked YEARS AGO.

The "truth" movement lies and lied to you Dan. Sorry you can't see that.

[Parker2112]

http://stevequayle.com/News.alert/12_Global/120323.Bill.Lear.affadavit.pdf

[RandomGuy]

http://stevequayle.com/News.alert/12_Global/120323.Bill.Lear.affadavit.pdf

http://www.greatdreams.com/John-Lear.htm

http://thelivingmoon.com/47john_lear/index.html

http://science.howstuffworks.com/space/aliens-ufos/john-lear.htm

http://www.world-mysteries.com/doug_ufo2.htm


No Boeing 767 airliners hit the Twin Towers as fraudulently alleged by the government, media, NIST and its contractors. Such crashes did not occur because they are physically impossible as depicted

Mr. Lear is not an expert in the crashing of planes.

But hell, let's assume he is right, and all the other counterveiling evidence is wrong.

What do you think hit the Towers?

[RandomGuy]

At this stage, it cannot properly be assumed, much less asserted as factual, that wide-body jetliners crashed into the then Twin Towers of the WTC. Any declaration that such events occurred must be deemed false and fraudulently asserted, video images notwithstanding...

In fact, the witnesses tend, on balance, to confirm there were no jetliner crashes.

One man's opinion. All the video evidence, all the eyewitness acounts is all stacked up against him. He's right and everybody else is wrong.

Normally ad hominems are illogical, but in this case, it goes directly to his credibility for his other statements.

Not the most reliable of witnesses. I doubt he would hold up well under cross examination.


The image of the crash was caught on video from multiple vantage points on live television and amateur video, while approximately 100 cameras captured Flight 175 in photographs before it crashed

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/11/us/eyewitnesses-one-camera-then-thousands-indelibly-etching-a-day-of-loss.html

The guy claims that the pictures of the wreckage found on the roof of WTC is also impossible.

I suppose it was put there by the magic debris fairy in the middle of one of the world's largest, most crowded cities with no one noticing?

[Blake]

http://stevequayle.com/News.alert/12_Global/120323.Bill.Lear.affadavit.pdf

Smh

[RandomGuy]

http://www.drjudywood.com/pdf/080303_DeclaJVL_62.pdf

more stuff from the same law firm along the same lines...


We now have information from a February 23, 2008, newspaper article published in the N.Y. Times, copy annexed as Exhibit A, that defendant Gilsanz engaged in engineering work at Ground Zero, the site of the destroyed Twin Towers, on September 11, 2001. Accordingly, he has first-hand information that he knew, or should have, that confirms the claims of plaintiff herein that the Twin Towers were destroyed by directed energy weapons.

uh-huh.

[RandomGuy]

A. In the case of UAL 175 going into the south tower, a real Boeing 767 would have begun 'telescoping' when the nose hit the 14 inch steel columns which are 39 inches on center. The vertical and horizontal tail would have instantaneously separated from the aircraft, hit the steel box columns and fallen to the ground.

It would have bounced off. :lmao

[RandomGuy]

(Begin EDIT)
FOR THOSE OF YOU READING THIS FOR THE FIRST TIME, SEE PAGES 3 AND 4 for the NIST FAQ that answers the biggest "truther" questions.(end EDIT)

Since the 9-11 CTers like to copy and paste ad inifinitum, let's see if we can get some good stuff here.

It might surprise you CTers but there is a whole cottage industry built up around your bullshit.

They don't sell T-shirts, mugs, or crappy videos.

http://www.lolloosechange.co.nr/

http://www.loosechangeguide.com/LooseChangeGuide.html

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6243624912447824934

http://www.911mysteriesguide.com/

http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Lies.pdf

Here is a gem: The 9-11 "truthers" in their own "like, words". Icky.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7216643725166640147&hl=en

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/

http://wtc.nist.gov/

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

http://www.911myths.com/

Best one out of all the lot so far:
http://www.debunking911.com/

Mike Walter talking about the plane hitting the pentagon, and how irritated he is with the 9-11 "truth" movement for lying about what he said.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycPUDktZpCU

Link to a TON of debunking links:
http://www.debunking911.com/links.htm

Here ARE SOME REALLY PRECIOUS LINKS.

9-11 "truth" scholars turning on each other. You thought they were unstable and kooky when they talk about the government, wait until they start talking about each other.

http://www.911myths.com/html/911_infighting_links.html

Dan, if you are so convinced of the truth in your position, tell me which of these websites you have read through?

(a blast from the past... 2008. betcha dan hasn't read any of them)

[Parker2112]

9. My opinion, based on extensive flight experience both as captain and instructor in large 3 and 4 engine aircraft is that it would have been impossible for an alleged hijacker with little or no time in the boeing 767 to have taken over, then flown a boeing 767 at high speed, descending to below 1000 feet above mean sea level and flown a course to impact the twin towers at high speed for these reasons:
6

a. As soon as the alleged hijackers sat in the pilots seat of the boeing 767 they would be looking at an efis (electronic flight instrumentation system) display panel comprised of six large multi-mode lcds interspersed with clusters of 'hard' instruments. These displays process the raw aircraft system and flight data into an integrated picture of the aircraft situation, position and progress, not only in the horizontal and vertical dimensions, but also with regard to time and speed as well.

[Parker2112]

even on a clear day a novice pilot would be wholly incapable of taking control and turning a boeing 767 towards new york because of his total lack of experience and situational awareness under these conditions. The alleged hijackers were not 'instrument rated' and controlled high altitude flight requires experience in constantly referring to and cross-checking attitude, altitude and speed instruments. Using the distant horizon to fly 'visually' under controlled conditions is virtually impossible particularly at the cruising speed of the boeing 767 of .80 mach.

the alleged 'controlled' descent into new york on a relatively straight course by a novice pilot in unlikely in the extreme because of the difficulty of controlling heading, descent rate and descent speed within the parameters of 'controlled' flight.
its takes a highly skilled pilot to interpret the "efis" (electronic flight instrument display) display, with which none of the hijacker pilots would have been familiar or received training on, and use his controls, including the ailerons, rudder, elevators, spoilers and throttles to effect, control and maintain a descent. The boeing 767 does not fly itself nor does it automatically correct any misuse of the controls.

[Parker2112]

B. As soon as the speed of the aircraft went above 360 knots (=414 mph) indicated airspeed a "clacker" would have sounded in the cockpit. The 'clacker' is a loud clacking sound, designed to be irritating, to instantly get the attention of the pilot that he is exceeding the FAA-authorized speed of the aircraft. The clacker had no circuit breaker on September 11, 2001 although it does now simply because one or more accidents were caused, in part, by the inability to silence the clacker which made decision, tempered with reasoning, impossible because of the noise and distraction.

[Parker2112]

C. Assuming, however, that the alleged hijacker was able to navigate into a position to approach the WTC tower at a speed of approximately 790 feet per second the alleged hijacker would have about 67 seconds to navigate the last 10 miles. During that 67 seconds the pilot would have to line up perfectly with a 208 ft. wide target (the tower) and stay lined up with the clacker clacking plus the tremendous air noise against the windshield and the bucking bronco-like airplane, exceeding the Boeing 767 maximum stability limits and encountering early morning turbulence caused by rising irregular currents of air.

[Parker2112]

he would also have to control his altitude with a high degree of

precision and at the alleged speeds would be extremely difficult.
in addition to this the control, although hydraulically boosted, would be very stiff. Just the slightest control movements would have sent the airplane up or down at thousands of feet a minute.

[Parker2112]

to propose that an alleged hijacker with limited experience could get a boeing 767 lined up with a 208 foot wide target and keep it lined up and hold his altitude at exactly 800 feet while being aurally bombarded with the clacker is beyond the realm of possibility. [nist claims a descent from horizontal angle of 10.6 degrees for aa11 at impact and 6 degrees for ua175; see page 276 of 462 in ncstar 1-2].

that an alleged hijacker could overcome all of these difficulties and hit a 208 foot wide building dead center at the north tower and 23 feet east of dead center at the south tower is simply not possible. At the peak of my proficiency as a pilot i know that i could not have done it on the first pass. And for two alleged hijackers, with limited
8

experience to have hit the twin towers dead center on september 11, 2001 is total fiction. It could not happen.

[ChumpDumper]

Parker2112, are you saying you don't believe planes hit WTC 1, WTC 2 and the Pentagon on 9/11?

[Nbadan]

You mean like your shitty sources dated from 2004?

Two calls, both made on the same plane, out of 64 calls made were from actual cell phones, from an estimated altitude of less than 1000 feet, and both were dropped in less than 2 minutes.


Z96MZOZyilo

Both calls were about what one would expect from 2001 technology.

As I said, this shit has been deunked YEARS AGO.
The "truth" movement lies and lied to you Dan. Sorry you can't see that.

Don't be sorry for me, be sorry for yourself that you can't see when someone is pulling the wool over your eyes. The government couldn't admit that people were making cell phone calls at altitudes and speeds which were technologically impossible in 2001, so they created the scenario in the Zacarias Moussaoui trial of only two of the 60 alleged phone calls made from cell phones at altitudes, very conveniently, where it was possible that these calls were successfully made...

Of course, press reports of September 11 detail at least 15 cell phone calls made from all 4 planes including..


Madeline Sweeney's phone call: Flight attendant Sweeney placed a cell phone call to American Arilines flight services office, and reached her friend, services manager Michael Woodward, starting at 8:21 and talked for 25 minutes, until the plane crashed. Sweeney related many details such as wounds by victims of the hijackers to seat numbers of the hijackers. 3 There are conflicting reports on whether the call was recorded.


The man was identified as former Easton, Conn., resident Peter Hanson. A minister [Rev. Bonnie Bardot] confirmed the cell phone call to his father, Lee Hanson, an official in Easton, a small town near Bridgeport. 2


Burnett was able to determine that her husband was using his own cellular telephone because the caller identification showed his number, [XXXXXXXXXX]. Only one of the calls did not show on the caller identification as she was on the line with another call.

I could go on and on and on....


Quit being butt hurt, and just Keep hanging your hat on the 911 commission report RG, that's a sure winner

:lol

[Nbadan]

There were no cell phone calls made from the planes.



Two calls, both made on the same plane

:lol at RG moving the goal posts

[Nbadan]

K, why do you feel these two impossibly made cell phone calls are of such great importance.

They are what linked the whole hijacking scenario as well as the hijacking to 'middle-eastern men' on board the flights.... I'm not claiming that these calls were faked, but maybe these flights were not at altitudes which they were supposed to be at the times they were supposed to be...this is very significant...

[Nbadan]

16 million dollars and no peer review....

The NIST report is unscientific and false due to the Finite Element Analysis.... and the numerous fallacious arguments it gives to explain its work are further evidence of being unscientific and deliberately deceptive

iQdJuQLNFCk#!

:lol NIST

[RandomGuy]

:lol at RG moving the goal posts

That isn't moving the goal posts, dummy.

That is simply correcting an error.

I was unaware that there was any evidence, outside biased truther websites.

Once again, however, it seems truthers are jumping up and down, waving their arms at something that they think supports their implausible theories.

Yet when one drills down into the details, the "smoking gun" appears to be little more than mundane trivia.

[RandomGuy]

[/left]


A. In the case of UAL 175 going into the south tower, a real Boeing 767 would have begun 'telescoping' when the nose hit the 14 inch steel columns which are 39 inches on center. The vertical and horizontal tail would have instantaneously separated from the aircraft, hit the steel box columns and fallen to the ground.


It would have bounced off. :lmao

The man destroys his own credibility.

So, basically we have:


Thousands of eyewitnesses, hudreds of hours of video tape, tens of thousands of pictures, hundreds of tons of physical evidence, all saying that two large, widebody planes, specifically the types that UAL says were flying, DNA evidence from the passenger lists that day.
vs.


The word of a UFO chasing pilot who destroys his own credibility when he says that large airplanes would have just bounced off the buildings.
He is claiming that no large passenger planes hit the buildings.

Do you believe him?

For a second time:
What do you think hit the buildings?

Not that I think you have the courage to answer that question, but hell, I will play along.

[RandomGuy]

They are what linked the whole hijacking scenario as well as the hijacking to 'middle-eastern men' on board the flights.... I'm not claiming that these calls were faked, but maybe these flights were not at altitudes which they were supposed to be at the times they were supposed to be...this is very significant...

Except that the only two cell phone calls made were made from places and in a manner consistent with the governments account.

All the other calls were from the seatback phones, again consistant with the governments accounts.

You have not proven your case. You have only "press accounts" to support your claim that many of them were made from cell phone calls, essentially third-hand accounts.

The people receiving the calls would not know if the calls they recieved were from an airphone or a cell phone. You can't use their claims about "cell phone calls" as any kind of definitive proof.

The reporters, dutifully repeating those statements, would be just as wrong.

Is it possible this is the explanation for news reports about "cell phone" calls?

[RandomGuy]

16 million dollars and no peer review....

The NIST report is unscientific and false due to the Finite Element Analysis.... and the numerous fallacious arguments it gives to explain its work are further evidence of being unscientific and deliberately deceptive

:lol NIST

"numerous fallacious arguments"

Such as?

[RandomGuy]

Don't be sorry for me, be sorry for yourself that you can't see when someone is pulling the wool over your eyes. The government couldn't admit that people were making cell phone calls at altitudes and speeds which were technologically impossible in 2001, so they created the scenario in the Zacarias Moussaoui trial of only two of the 60 alleged phone calls made from cell phones at altitudes, very conveniently, where it was possible that these calls were successfully made...

Of course, press reports of September 11 detail at least 15 cell phone calls made from all 4 planes including..


I could go on and on and on....


Quit being butt hurt, and just Keep hanging your hat on the 911 commission report RG, that's a sure winner

:lol

You didn't watch the video, did you? Shocker.

[Blake]

....this is very significant...

Why do you believe that the vast majority of mainstream media outlets have ignored this significant information?

[SA210]

:lol at RG moving the goal posts

Sounds about right

[Nbadan]

I was unaware...

Yes you were, just as you are 'unaware' about a lot of things RG...

That's the way all these guys like RG will play it to save face when the narrative created by a underfunded and non authoritative committee whose own chair-people have admitted was deceived and evidence withheld by the Bush administration starts crumbling to the ground...

...it's ony a matter of time RG... better start composing that long post about how 'unaware' you were now...

[Nbadan]

Why do you believe that the vast majority of mainstream media outlets have ignored this significant information?

They didn't...they just never bothered to live up to their original claims that many of the phone calls originated from cell phones when the government made the argument during the Zacarias Moussaoui trial....for that, the M$M is either complicit or horrible at researching their facts...this is technology people, there are records...

[ChumpDumper]

Dan, in your heart you know all this conspiracy theory bullshit is just that. I can tell because you never actually say you believe any of it.

You have never once said you believe any alternative theory whatsoever.

Not once.

Because you don't -- you're personally invested in spreading alternative theories for some reason, but you don't believe any of them.

[Nbadan]

I don't advance any 'alternative theory' because there needs to be another official investigation, properly funded and with the power to subpena whomever and whichever documents they need, before any alternative claims can be either ruled out or ruled plausible...this is the largest single coordinated terrorists attack in the history of our nation, maybe people are still 'emotionally involved' to want to look into this attack again, it maybe take another decade or two until people are ready, but the longer we wait, the more evidence gets compromised..

[ChumpDumper]

I don't advance any 'alternative theory'Because you don't believe any of them after a full decade.

Sorry, you've had all the time in the world to decide what you actually believe. You're emotionally involved in being some kind of internets iconoclast, but nothing else. You know that all the alternative theories are bullshit and you would look like a fool if you espoused any of them, so you don't. You're trying to be a know-it-all without actually believing anything. After ten years, it simply doesn't work anymore.

[SA210]

I don't advance any 'alternative theory' because there needs to be another official investigation, properly funded and with the power to subpena whomever and whichever documents they need, before any alternative claims can be either ruled out or ruled plausible...this is the largest single coordinated terrorists attack in the history of our nation, maybe people are still 'emotionally involved' to want to look into this attack again, it maybe take another decade or two until people are ready, but the longer we wait, the more evidence gets compromised..

Just like JFK

[ChumpDumper]

Just like JFKYou don't believe any alternative theory either.

None of you do.

Judy Wood is a nutbag, but she is better than you because she actually believes something.

You people won't even say what alternative theories you find plausible and worth further investigation.

[Blake]

They didn't...they just never bothered to live up to their original claims that many of the phone calls originated from cell phones when the government made the argument during the Zacarias Moussaoui trial....for that, the M$M is either complicit or horrible at researching their facts...this is technology people, there are records...

lmao msm being horrible at researching facts

You're a nut.

[RandomGuy]

Yes you were, just as you are 'unaware' about a lot of things RG...

That's the way all these guys like RG will play it to save face when the narrative created by a underfunded and non authoritative committee whose own chair-people have admitted was deceived and evidence withheld by the Bush administration starts crumbling to the ground...

...it's ony a matter of time RG... better start composing that long post about how 'unaware' you were now...

"if you would just read the bible, you would see how true it is and how ignorant you are"
"if you would just read the book of mormon you would see how true it is and how ignorant you are"
"if you would just read dianetics, you would see how true it is and how ignorant you are"
"if you would just read truther websites, you would see how true it is and how ignorant you are "

If the best you have is "you just haven't read all the truther websites" you can fuck off and get in the same corner as the creationists, global warming deniers, and moon hoax believers.

It is your burden of proof. The official story best fits the available evidence to any reasonable standard, as the decade of floudering by truthers and people "with questions" like Charlie Sheen proves.

Don't get all pissy if your insanely stupid picking at the edges doesn't meet any reasonable standard of falsification.

The fact you can't put forward a coherent alternative theory supported by any evidence whatsoever is not going to convince anyone that we need to throw more money at the ambiguities to make you happy.

[RandomGuy]

Since this fair question got ignored, I will ask it again.


They are what linked the whole hijacking scenario as well as the hijacking to 'middle-eastern men' on board the flights.... I'm not claiming that these calls were faked, but maybe these flights were not at altitudes which they were supposed to be at the times they were supposed to be...this is very significant...

Except that the only two cell phone calls made were made from places and in a manner consistent with the governments account.

All the other calls were from the seatback phones, again consistant with the governments accounts.

You have not proven your case. You have only "press accounts" to support your claim that many of them were made from cell phone calls, essentially third-hand accounts.

The people receiving the calls would not know if the calls they recieved were from an airphone or a cell phone. You can't use their claims about "cell phone calls" as any kind of definitive proof.

The reporters, dutifully repeating those statements, would be just as wrong.

Is it possible this is the explanation for news reports about "cell phone" calls?

[Parker2112]

You guys side-stepped that damning bit of argument pretty good.

And if your going to propogate the half-truths and cover ups that we are fed in the official line, then it is YOUR UNMET BURDEN OF PROOF.

And the question of how these hack pilots hit dead on 3 times under such difficult circumstances HAS NEVER BEEN ANSWERED. I found Lear's take on the technical piloting aspect to be a pretty solid and condensed argument from someone who has the experience to address the technical issues (which none of you debunkers has, tmk) IMHO, anyone who believes that these questions are long settled is fos.

Do I believe planes hit the towers? Yes.

Do I believe these hack/terrorist-pilots flew massive and complex airliners into TINY targets, first try, DEAD ON, THREE TIMES OVER, without a hitch, with remarkable and exceptional skill, and most important without any real prior practice at the helm of such a plane?

Hell fuggin no. And you clowns can't pose a single argument to overcome that burden. And have predictably attempted to side-step it completely.

[ChumpDumper]

You guys side-stepped that damning bit of argument pretty good.

And if your going to propogate the half-truths and cover ups that we are fed in the official line, then it is YOUR UNMET BURDEN OF PROOF.

And the question of how these hack pilots hit dead on 3 times under such difficult circumstances HAS NEVER BEEN ANSWERED. I found Lear's take on the technical piloting aspect to be a pretty solid and condensed argument from someone who has the experience to address the technical issues (which none of you debunkers has, tmk) IMHO, anyone who believes that these questions are long settled is fos.

Do I believe planes hit the towers? Yes.

Do I believe these hack/terrorist-pilots flew massive and complex airliners into TINY targets, first try, DEAD ON, THREE TIMES OVER, without a hitch, with remarkable and exceptional skill, and most important without any real prior practice at the helm of such a plane?

Hell fuggin no. And you clowns can't pose a single argument to overcome that burden. And have predictably attempted to side-step it completely.No need to yell.

You were pimping the rants of a no-planer.

We wanted to know if you are a no-planer.

If you aren't a no-planer, why are you using the arguments of a no-planer?

And seriously, for every John Lear (you should really read up on ALL the conspiracies he espouses before using him as your sole expert witness FYI) there are several pilots that say it is well within the realm of possibility and have proved it within realistic reason using simulators and pilots with roughly the same experience as the terrorists.

If you really want to read and/or see these testimonies and experiments, just say so. I truly do not think you are interested.

[mouse]

I don't advance any 'alternative theory' because there needs to be another official investigation, properly funded and with the power to subpena whomever and whichever documents they need, before any alternative claims can be either ruled out or ruled plausible...this is the largest single coordinated terrorists attack in the history of our nation, maybe people are still 'emotionally involved' to want to look into this attack again, it maybe take another decade or two until people are ready, but the longer we wait, the more evidence gets compromised..



http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/mouse-MIT.jpg

[ChumpDumper]

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/mouse-MIT.jpgSo, what alternative theories do you want to be investigated, mouse?

[Parker2112]

No need to yell.

You were pimping the rants of a no-planer.

We wanted to know if you are a no-planer.

If you aren't a no-planer, why are you using the arguments of a no-planer?

And seriously, for every John Lear (you should really read up on ALL the conspiracies he espouses before using him as your sole expert witness FYI) there are several pilots that say it is well within the realm of possibility and have proved it within realistic reason using simulators and pilots with roughly the same experience as the terrorists.

If you really want to read and/or see these testimonies and experiments, just say so. I truly do not think you are interested.

John Lear is a kook. But you are dismissing him too early. Because though he is a kook, he is a kooky PILOT. One who worked in countless capacities, private, commercial, government, etc. And his credentials make him a kooky pilot who warrants respect on the topic.

Im sure the passangers care more that he is a good pilot than his belief in UFO conspiracies.

It is very convenient to dismiss him using character assasination, Chump...and his quirks make that an elementary exercise. However, his credibility in the cockpit cannot be dismissed so easily on unrelated quirks.

FTR, I dont study 9/11 conspiracies, however, this "kook" shares my belief that the terrorists could not have pulled off the flawless execution 3x on 9-11. Thats why he was pimped. I dont know how the event was pulled off, but I dont believe for a sec that the official story is truthful.

[Blake]

FTR, I dont study 9/11 conspiracies, however, this "kook" shares my belief that the terrorists could not have pulled off the flawless execution 3x on 9-11. Thats why he was pimped. I dont know how the event was pulled off, but I dont believe for a sec that the official story is truthful.

We already know you are the type that easily falls for conspiracies because you are lazy to study, but props to you for admitting it. :tu

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Lol the towers were wider than a landing strip. You guys suck at conspiracies.

[ChumpDumper]

John Lear is a kook. But you are dismissing him too early. Because though he is a kook, he is a kooky PILOT. One who worked in countless capacities, private, commercial, government, etc. And his credentials make him a kooky pilot who warrants respect on the topic.

Im sure the passangers care more that he is a good pilot than his belief in UFO conspiracies.

It is very convenient to dismiss him using character assasination, Chump...and his quirks make that an elementary exercise. However, his credibility in the cockpit cannot be dismissed so easily on unrelated quirks.

FTR, I dont study 9/11 conspiracies, however, this "kook" shares my belief that the terrorists could not have pulled off the flawless execution 3x on 9-11. Thats why he was pimped. I dont know how the event was pulled off, but I dont believe for a sec that the official story is truthful.I can't help but notice you didn't request the materials I offered.

I can only conclude you truly are not interesting in hearing anything that may challenge your current line of thought.

Anyone can find dozens of non-kook PILOTS (emphasis yours) who have concluded that inexperienced pilots like the hijackers could have pulled off the attacks with little difficulty flight-wise, and still others who have conducted successful experiments in simulators proving that to a certain degree. I offered to round some up for you. You did not accept.

[RandomGuy]

You guys side-stepped that damning bit of argument pretty good.

And if your going to propogate the half-truths and cover ups that we are fed in the official line, then it is YOUR UNMET BURDEN OF PROOF.

And the question of how these hack pilots hit dead on 3 times under such difficult circumstances HAS NEVER BEEN ANSWERED. I found Lear's take on the technical piloting aspect to be a pretty solid and condensed argument from someone who has the experience to address the technical issues (which none of you debunkers has, tmk) IMHO, anyone who believes that these questions are long settled is fos.

Do I believe planes hit the towers? Yes.

Do I believe these hack/terrorist-pilots flew massive and complex airliners into TINY targets, first try, DEAD ON, THREE TIMES OVER, without a hitch, with remarkable and exceptional skill, and most important without any real prior practice at the helm of such a plane?

Hell fuggin no. And you clowns can't pose a single argument to overcome that burden. And have predictably attempted to side-step it completely.


Thousand foot tall skyscrapers are "TINY targets". :rollin

Wow.

I didn't sidestep anything, goober.

You said "look here is an expert pilot who says it was impossible based on [laundry list here]"

Your "expert" is simply not all that credible to begin with, and said no few things that destroy his credibility out of the gate. That goes to the very heart of your argument. If he isn't credible, we can't reasonably rely on his claims.

That pretty much strikes to the heart of addressing what he says.

As has been pointed out, not being an expert pilot I have to evaluate what pilots do say about these things.

On one hand, you have Mr. Lear, who is arguably a kook, make claims that run counter to literally tons of physical evidence, pictures, video footage, and eyewitness accounts. He also makes assertions outside his area of expertise, such as how the liner would interact at speed with the building ('bounced off'... :lol)

On the other hand, there are more than a few non-kooky expert pilots who claim that it can be done, and have actually gone out and tested the "official" story.

Put those both on a scale, and the direction it tips is clear.

I will say that at least you admit you aren't being reasonable here. "no argument you can pose will change my mind".

Clapping your hands over your ears and saying "la-la-la-la-I-can't-hear-you" isn't going to convince anyone of anything, other than to confirm you aren't interested in facts, logic or evidence.

That's ok. No one expects much from dogmatics.

[RandomGuy]

John Lear is a kook. But you are dismissing him too early. Because though he is a kook, he is a kooky PILOT. One who worked in countless capacities, private, commercial, government, etc. And his credentials make him a kooky pilot who warrants respect on the topic.

Im sure the passangers care more that he is a good pilot than his belief in UFO conspiracies.

It is very convenient to dismiss him using character assasination, Chump...and his quirks make that an elementary exercise. However, his credibility in the cockpit cannot be dismissed so easily on unrelated quirks.

FTR, I dont study 9/11 conspiracies, however, this "kook" shares my belief that the terrorists could not have pulled off the flawless execution 3x on 9-11. Thats why he was pimped. I dont know how the event was pulled off, but I dont believe for a sec that the official story is truthful.

"this kook shares my belief"

"you clowns can't pose a single argument to overcome that burden"

Those aren't the words of someone who is logically evaluating evidence, or drawing reasonable conclusions.

Are you even reading what you are trying to say here?

What about the mountains of evidence that don't support your beliefs?

[Nbadan]

Lol the towers were wider than a landing strip. You guys suck at conspiracies.

you suck at facts...the 'pilots' couldn't land planes...not on a landing strip or anywhere else..

[Nbadan]

Do I believe these hack/terrorist-pilots flew massive and complex airliners into TINY targets, first try, DEAD ON, THREE TIMES OVER, without a hitch, with remarkable and exceptional skill, and most important without any real prior practice at the helm of such a plane?

Hell fuggin no. And you clowns can't pose a single argument to overcome that burden. And have predictably attempted to side-step it completely.

Beyond that, they turned off the plane's transponders and made some incredible moves in the air to get to the targets in the first place....all this from amateur pilots, and I use those words loosely, who had trouble even learning the controls to a small single engine plane...the ignorance here is incredible..

[Nbadan]

Just like JFK

EXACTLY like JFK, in fact probably many of the same perpetrators by the time we are all said and done...these guys learned a lot from Nixon and have been in complete control since LBJ...

[ChumpDumper]

you suck at facts...the 'pilots' couldn't land planes...not on a landing strip or anywhere else..Why would a suicide pilot need to know how to land a plane?


Beyond that, they turned off the plane's transponders and made some incredible moves in the air to get to the targets in the first place....all this from amateur pilots, and I use those words loosely, who had trouble even learning the controls to a small single engine plane...the ignorance here is incredible..Is turning off a transponder beyond the capacity of a novice pilot?

Incredible moves? They flew like bad pilots. No one said they were good pilots.

You're full of shit, dan. Tell us who you think was piloting the planes and what happened to the planes you think didn't crash and all the people on them.

We know you won't. You'll just whine about something else.

[ChumpDumper]

EXACTLY like JFK, in fact probably many of the same perpetrators by the time we are all said and done...these guys learned a lot from Nixon and have been in complete control since LBJ...:lmao

Everything is a conspiracy to you guys.

[RandomGuy]

Start at page one.

[RandomGuy]

(Begin EDIT)
FOR THOSE OF YOU READING THIS FOR THE FIRST TIME, SEE PAGES 3 AND 4 for the NIST FAQ that answers the biggest "truther" questions.(end EDIT)

Since the 9-11 CTers like to copy and paste ad inifinitum, let's see if we can get some good stuff here.

It might surprise you CTers but there is a whole cottage industry built up around your bullshit.

They don't sell T-shirts, mugs, or crappy videos.

http://www.lolloosechange.co.nr/

http://www.loosechangeguide.com/LooseChangeGuide.html

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6243624912447824934

http://www.911mysteriesguide.com/

http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Lies.pdf

Here is a gem: The 9-11 "truthers" in their own "like, words". Icky.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7216643725166640147&hl=en

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/

http://wtc.nist.gov/

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

http://www.911myths.com/

Best one out of all the lot so far:
http://www.debunking911.com/

Mike Walter talking about the plane hitting the pentagon, and how irritated he is with the 9-11 "truth" movement for lying about what he said.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycPUDktZpCU

Link to a TON of debunking links:
http://www.debunking911.com/links.htm

Here ARE SOME REALLY PRECIOUS LINKS.

9-11 "truth" scholars turning on each other. You thought they were unstable and kooky when they talk about the government, wait until they start talking about each other.

http://www.911myths.com/html/911_infighting_links.html


A whole page of youtube debunking videos (http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=RKOwens4&p=r)

A whole page of decent debunking links and one of the best ones so far. (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home)

Interesting point:
http://www.bautforum.com/conspiracy-theories/48507-911-pentagon.html

Bam.

[RandomGuy]

Let the flaming begin. :hungry:

Either the conspiracy theorists are right about a massive organized evil conspiracy, or they are wrong.

If they are right about 9-11 being planned by an evil government conspiracy willing and capable of killing thousand of their own citizens, they would be just as motivated to keep that fact a secret.

An easy method of doing this is to do a disinformation campaign. All it takes is one or two paid evil guys willing to lie, a computer and some time.

The best way to do such a disinformation campaign is, as the conspiracy theorists themselves point out in my previous post is as follows:

Think of the stupidest shit possible
Present it in such a blatantly false and easily debunked manner that anybody with any common sense at all would recognize it immediately as stupid bullshit
This would then lead normal pepole to then associate all the real conspiracy evidence with this obvious quackery to discredit the whole movement to expose the grand evil conspiracy

IF there is a grand evil conspiracy, THEN at least SOME of the conspiracy "evidence" has been manufactured to be obviously stupid to put people off the trail.

THEREFORE:
IF the evil conpiracy exists AND you say you believe all of the conspiracy "evidence/theories" you MUST either:

1) Be one of those paid disinformation agents, and be lying and evil

or

2) Be too stupid to not recognize the obviously fake stuff that has been planted by the paid disinformation agents.
If there is no massive evil conspiracy then anybody who believes in ALL of the conspiracy theories is definitely too stupid to realize the conspiracy doesn't really exist.

Since no one can be part of something that doesn't exist, if you believe all the conspiracy theories/evidence, and the conspiracy doesn't exist you can't be lying and evil.

In either case it boils down to this:

If you say you believe in all of the conspiracy evidence, you MUST either be

1) A lying evil agent of the conspiracy

or

2) Too stupid to recognize obviously false information when you see it.

There are no other possibilities.

Which is it mouse/galileo/whoever?

If it was an inside job... and you believe all the stupid shit, what does that say about you?

If you can't tell me what the stupid shit is, and what is valid, then get in the corner.

[RandomGuy]

The difference is we have a fairly complete working theory about the perpetrators, methods, motives and mechanisms involved in all aspects of all the 9/11 attacks.

What do you have?

What is your complete working theory about the perpetrators, methods, motives and mechanisms involved in all aspects of all the 9/11 attacks?

Let's hear it.

Still waiting on a theory. :depressed

Five years to get a working, provable theory.

Nuthin'.

[mouse]

You guys side-stepped that damning bit of argument

Do I believe these hack/terrorist-pilots flew massive and complex airliners into TINY targets, first try, DEAD ON, THREE TIMES OVER, without a hitch, with remarkable and exceptional skill, and most important without any real prior practice at the helm of such a plane?

Hell fuggin no. And you clowns can't pose a single argument to overcome that burden. And have predictably attempted to side-step it completely.

and RandomLie has the nerve to call it "real 9/11 research"

:lmao

[ChumpDumper]

and RandomLie has the nerve to call it "real 9/11 research"

:lmaoI offered several links to pilot testimony and experiments concerning the skill needed to pull off the attacks.

Parker did not accept.

Just as you never accepted any such offers or considered any evidence you were ever given.

Just like Nbadan.

Just like Cosmored.

Just like SA210.

None of you are interested in the truth.

[mouse]

Link

[ChumpDumper]

LinkTo what? Your refusal to read links?

[mouse]

Post one and find out

[ChumpDumper]

Post one and find outAlready done.

Several times.

[mouse]

That was the past show me something today that proves 9/11 was exactly like your 9/11 commission Bible said it took place.

[ChumpDumper]

That was the past show me something today that proves 9/11 was exzactlt like your 9/11 commission Bible said it took place.Start with the links in the OP.

Let me know when you're done with them, ok?

[Nbadan]

Mouse, let's take this internationally...or go e-z board...

[ChumpDumper]

Mouse, let's take this internationally...or go e-z board...Why don't you just post your 9/11 theory in the thread titled "Official Nbadan 9/11 theory thread"?

Much more convenient.

[mouse]

Start with the links in the OP.

Let me know when you're done with them, ok?

Well if you want me to start over I will but you do the same.

[ChumpDumper]

Well if you want me to start over I will but you do the same.The difference is it will be the first time for you.

And your quest for the truth should not depend on what other posters do. You just proved again you aren't serious about any of this.

[mouse]

The difference is it will be the first time for you.

And yet I already have a feeling I am about to take a ride down Bullshit HWY why is that?


And your quest for the truth should not depend on what other posters do. You just proved again you aren't serious about any of this.


Translation: This is my first time reading your links also.

[ChumpDumper]

And yet I already have a feeling I am about to take a ride down Bullshit HWY why is that?You paved that highway.





Translation: This is my first time reading your links also.Nah, you repeated yourself so much I lapped you.

But please, continue stalling and making your quest for the truth dependent on the perceived reading habits of a stranger. The truth is just that important to you.

[mouse]

I knew you couldn't honor your end of the deal.

[ChumpDumper]

I knew you couldn't honor your end of the deal.I know you aren't serious about finding the truth. Otherwise you wouldn't need to make any deals.

[mouse]

Well being I am the bigger person here I will read your links don't bother reading mine or Cosmored you have made it clear your all about coverups and your reputation.

[ChumpDumper]

Well being I am the bigger person here I will read your links don't bother reading mine or Cosmored you have made it clear your all about coverups and your reputation.But you won't read them.

You never have.

[RandomGuy]

Well being I am the bigger person here I will read your links .

Bullshit you will. :rollin

[mouse]

But you won't read them.

You never have.

I'm still on page one esse

[mouse]

(Begin EDIT)
FOR THOSE OF YOU READING THIS FOR THE FIRST TIME, SEE PAGES 3 AND 4 for the NIST FAQ that answers the biggest "truther" questions.(end EDIT)

Since the 9-11 CTers like to copy and paste ad inifinitum, let's see if we can get some good stuff here.

It might surprise you CTers but there is a whole cottage industry built up around your bullshit.

They don't sell T-shirts, mugs, or crappy videos.

http://www.lolloosechange.co.nr/

http://www.loosechangeguide.com/LooseChangeGuide.html

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6243624912447824934

http://www.911mysteriesguide.com/

http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Lies.pdf

Here is a gem: The 9-11 "truthers" in their own "like, words". Icky.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7216643725166640147&hl=en

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/

http://wtc.nist.gov/

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

http://www.911myths.com/

Best one out of all the lot so far:
http://www.debunking911.com/

Mike Walter talking about the plane hitting the pentagon, and how irritated he is with the 9-11 "truth" movement for lying about what he said.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycPUDktZpCU

Link to a TON of debunking links:
http://www.debunking911.com/links.htm

Here ARE SOME REALLY PRECIOUS LINKS.

9-11 "truth" scholars turning on each other. You thought they were unstable and kooky when they talk about the government, wait until they start talking about each other.

http://www.911myths.com/html/911_infighting_links.html


A whole page of youtube debunking videos (http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=RKOwens4&p=r)

A whole page of decent debunking links and one of the best ones so far. (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home)

Interesting point:
http://www.bautforum.com/conspiracy-theories/48507-911-pentagon.html




how much can a person read in 12 hours?

[ChumpDumper]

how much can a person read in 12 hours?Quite a bit actually.

Let us know how you do.

[RandomGuy]

Bump. Because it is sadly, relevant again.

[RandomGuy]

i didnt see you answer a few simple questions

Go for it.

Just to shake things up I will tally up your conspiracy points. The farther from reality, and the less evidence there is for each claim, the more points you get. Not answering simple yes or no questions earns bonus points the longer you ignore them.

You may begin, sir.