Real 9-11 Research

[mookie2001]

the word "collapsed" was used, the collapse was not explained


how did a 6 year old FBI webpage that says they are still trying to find the true iden ies of the hijackers prove your point??

If this is so important to you, you will do it

that may be the weakest ive ever heard on this site
and ive read mannyisgod post about heroes season 2

[ChumpDumper]

the word "collapsed" was used, the collapse was not explained

So it's a fact. One of many that has not been connected to the rest in a single alternative theory.

how did a 6 year old FBI webpage that says they are still trying to find the true iden ies of the hijackers prove your point??

It proves they already had names and several birth dates and that you didn't even bother to look there when you claimed you did. How does it prove yours? Are you saying they found evidence that these weren't the guys then just gave up?

that may be the weakest ive ever heard on this site
and ive read mannyisgod post about heroes season 2

You can certainly contact your local FBI office and clear the whole issue up quickly -- or are you still on the lam?

[mookie2001]

One of many that has not been connected to the rest in a single alternative theory.

thats not what we're talking about



fbi found all that information in 2 weeks, then nothing for 6 years, not a very good investigation

You can certainly contact your local FBI office

so can you

[ChumpDumper]

thats not what we're talking about

It was before you tried to move the goalposts. There is no alternative theory.

fbi found all that information in 2 weeks, then nothing for 6 years, not a very good investigation

Actually they found all that in two weeks because the hijackers made no attempt to conceal their iden ies, and there was no reason to amend that list because nothing changed.

so can you

Why would I? I believe those are the guys.

Besides. I'm on the lam.

[ChumpDumper]

Hey Chumpy, this guy spanks your guy McDermott

I finally got around to listening to this. I have two observations.

1) Maybe if this guy identified himself he could be taken more seriously.

2) He gets pissed at McDermott for not mirroring his single issue agenda at every opportunity. He seems to think he is the only person in the world who figures Islamic terrorists might have a problem with US support of Israel.

There was not much of a spanking here, and certainly no disputing McDermott's research into the iden ies of the hijackers. And this guy's other videos debunk conspiracy nontheories. So I don't really know why you brought it up.

[RandomGuy]

the building damage, fire, melting steel and collapse that was left out of the 9/11 commission report

The purpose of the report was not to improve fire or building safety, in case you missed the whole first section that explained what the purpose of the report was.

You did read it, didn't you?
(he asked, knowing the answer no)

[RandomGuy]

your best link has been a 6 year old press release that says they are still trying to find the true inden ies of the hijackers

Here are some links from the original post that provide you with enough to read...

9-11 Myths.com

Or since it took you 6 months to click that other link, I will save you a year's worth of effort:

Myths about the hijackers

Note that the above link actually sources all of their material.

[mookie2001]

whats the difference between marriott A's debunking site and marriott B's alternative theory site?

[Nbadan]

2) He gets pissed at McDermott for not mirroring his single issue agenda at every opportunity. He seems to think he is the only person in the world who figures Islamic terrorists might have a problem with US support of Israel.

Yeah, McDermott writing a column stressing the most significant point, that Al Queda attacked us because of our unilateral support for Israel, and this guy being cut off for stressing that very same point publicly are completely unrelated.....

[ChumpDumper]

They pretty much are unrelated, and it is still completely off the topic of the hijackers iden ies.

[RandomGuy]

They pretty much are unrelated, and it is still completely off the topic of the hijackers iden ies.

Meh.

If the 9-11 truth nuts spent even 1/10th the amount of time on the debunking websites reading stuff that they do on the conspiracy sites, I *might* have some modi or respect for them.

As it is, I have come to one inescapable conclusion.

The "truth" movement is a religion. I will start a thread on that topic as it warrants its own discussion.

[Galileo]

WTC7 - This is an Orange
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...arch&plindex=1

Only a lunatic would believe an office fire can make a steel building fall down in a controlled demolition.

Wake Up!!

[Galileo]

The only thing more underreported than Tim Duncan, is Ron Paul and WTC 7.

Wake Up!!!

[Wild Cobra]

WTC7 - This is an Orange
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...arch&plindex=1

Only a lunatic would believe an office fire can make a steel building fall down in a controlled demolition.

Wake Up!!

OK, I'm a lunatic then.

Some shots of WTC7 clearly show windows breaking from stress. Not heat, well before the building collapsed. Experts say this is because the structure was sagging.

The structure was severely damaged by the debris from one of the twin towers. That alone didn't bring it down.

Fired, burning as long as they did, heated the steel frame. Far from melting, the steel does get soft. As it gets soft, the strength is reduced. The building started to sag in places, and once the beams lost their squareness, the building went down like a house of cards.

Now I understand the physical sciences enough to believe that it was not an intentional demolition. If that makes me a lunatic, then I will wear that with honor. It makes those conspiracy theorists worse than imbeciles.

[ChumpDumper]

Only a lunatic would believe an office fire can make a steel building fall down in a controlled demolition.

Since a good chunk of the north tower ripped of the front of the building, and there were diesel fuel tanks located in several areas of WTC 7, and it was built over a ConEd substation with a system of trusses, the failure of which could indeed send the entire building down -- there is definitely more to believe than a little "office fire."

Nice condescending video though. I like the way it tells a baldfaced lie about the fires in WTC7 being extinguished. Nice touch.

[RandomGuy]

Since a good chunk of the north tower ripped of the front of the building, and there were diesel fuel tanks located in several areas of WTC 7, and it was built over a ConEd substation with a system of trusses, the failure of which could indeed send the entire building down -- there is definitely more to believe than a little "office fire."

Nice condescending video though. I like the way it tells a baldfaced lie about the fires in WTC7 being extinguished. Nice touch.

Lie, spin, repeat.

These people could work for the Bush adminstration...

[RandomGuy]

Bump. Just cause this fell off he front page.

[JoeChalupa]

This thread cracks me up.

[RandomGuy]

This thread cracks me up.

I take it you've been reading the "what I learned from 9-11 conspiracy theories" bit.

[xrayzebra]

This thread cracks me up.

Well, if it makes the "conspiracy" folks any happier they
had a program on the "History Channel" last night.

Of course, some of the conspiracy folks kinda changed
their tunes over time........

[RandomGuy]

bumpski.

HA!

[Galileo]

(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 bull .

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?do...24912447824934

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?do...66640147&hl=en

http://www.popularmechanics.com/tech...w/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

I've read through all this stuff over the past two years, let's cut to the chase:

I have two very simple questions I'd like answered;

# 1

Why does the collapse of WTC 7 look like a controlled demolition?

WTC7 - This is an Orange
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...62504721899003

# 2

Would our president George Bush, or our vice president Cheney, or Donald Rumsfeld, be capable of making a decision that would cause the death of 3000 people?

[ChumpDumper]

# 1

Why does the collapse of WTC 7 look like a controlled demolition?

Because the point of failure in the structure was far below every camera angle that managed to record the collapse.

# 2

Would our president George Bush, or our vice president Cheney, or Donald Rumsfeld, be capable of making a decision that would cause the death of 3000 people?

Not this way. The plan was carried out far to effectively for those guys to plan it.

Since by asking that question you are implying that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld planned 9/11 -- I only have one question for you:

What do you think really happened on 9/11?

[clambake]

i think a bunch of saudi's flew planes into our buildings.

i know...........boring.

[Yonivore]

i think a bunch of saudi's flew planes into our buildings.

i know...........boring.

So, 19 (mostly) Saudi men woke up on September 11, 2001 and decided, independently of one another, to board four separate planes, hijeack them, and fly them into various economic and government landmarks in New York City and Washington, D.C.?

And, they did this with no planning, no centralized organization helping them, and no governments supporting them?