9/11 Conspiracy Thread (There can be only one!)

[Ophiolite]

No, you just said that the only explanation you'll accept is incompetence. Like I said, zero objectivity.

Ganymede, try not to make yourself look keven more foolish. My starting point was to have no opinion on the cause(s) of 911. After reviewing the data, then I reached my conclusion. That is how it works. You don't maintain a belief in something that is contrary to the evidence. You move on.

Here's an disputable fact about you official story subscribers. You can't allow the evidence to make you insults for you, you have to use everything but the evidence to insult someone. When I'm debating, I allow the evidence to insult people. Example: what proof do you have that Ted Olson received a call from his wife Barbara, besides his omission? You're on the clock, this should be easy for you to prove with the phone records that are available.

Do you also write in English?

 

[Ganymede]

Ganymede, try not to make yourself look keven more foolish. My starting point was to have no opinion on the cause(s) of 911. After reviewing the data, then I reached my conclusion. That is how it works. You don't maintain a belief in something that is contrary to the evidence. You move on.
Do you also write in English?

Thank you for proving my point. As I've stated, you rely on insults to make your case instead of the material evidence.

 

[Ophiolite]

You have shown yourself incapable of recognising, evaluating andinterpreting material evidence. All that is left is insults. (Or I could just ignore you completely, but you would find it less satisfying.)

 

[Balerion]

Seriously, Ganymede, I'd reply, but everyone here has already completely debunked you. I mean, look at you. You've been reduced to petty insults.

You truthers only care about exposing some bogus conspiracy, and that's the problem.

Here are the other problems.

1) Claims of controlled demolition by people that have no experience in the field.

2) Claims of Hani Hanjour making an "impossible maneuver" by people that have never flown in their lives.

3) Claims about the "faulty physics" of the entire event by people whose last experience in the field was their high school physics class.

Laymen are making claims about expert fields, and it's ridiculous. They claim that squibs were going off in the WTC, but the sum total of their knowledge on controlled demolitions comes from news reel footage; they bitch about steel not being able to melt at temperatures as low as the fires in the WTC, but they completely forget that steel does not have to melt in order to fail; they point to the cell phone additions to the airliners after 9/11 as proof that making a cell phone call from the air was impossible on 9/11, to which I say, have you ever flown in an airplane? Making a cell phone call was absolutely possible on and before 9/11.

Duh.

 

[scott3x]

Seriously, Ganymede, I'd reply, but everyone here has already completely debunked you. I mean, look at you. You've been reduced to petty insults.

You truthers only care about exposing some bogus conspiracy, and that's the problem.

Well that's what you believe anyway.

Here are the other problems.

1) Claims of controlled demolition by people that have no experience in the field.

Actually, experts have testified that the government's story is seriously messed and if this thread hadn't gobbled up all the others I'd be able to show you links proving it. But the admins prefer a mighty tangle...

2) Claims of Hani Hanjour making an "impossible maneuver" by people that have never flown in their lives.

I'm not up on this story, but may be soon enough.

3) Claims about the "faulty physics" of the entire event by people whose last experience in the field was their high school physics class.

Hardly. Stephen Jones was a physics professor at BYU university:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_E._Jones

Here's a sampling of his critiques on NIST:
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/jones/StevenJones.html#paper

 

[KennyJC]

They claim that squibs were going off in the WTC, but the sum total of their knowledge on controlled demolitions comes from news reel footage

Ha! That's a good one. I think from the footage the "squibs" were going at 30-40mph leaving debunkers to call it "squelching squibs". I believe squibs from explosives go much faster than that and disappear as quickly as they appeared.

 

[scott3x]

Laymen are making claims about expert fields, and it's ridiculous.

Layman are basing their arguments from the work of experts who have preceeded them:

Architects and engineers for 9/11 Truth:
http://www.ae911truth.org/

Pilots for 9/11 Truth:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/

Patriots for Truth:
http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/

Scholars for 9/11 Truth:
http://911scholars.org/

 

[Stryder]

pity there wasn't a :
http://www.911bullshit.org

I mean just because a website has 911 in it, it must be credible.:bugeye:

 

[scott3x]

pity there wasn't a :
http://www.911bullshit.org

I mean just because a website has 911 in it, it must be credible.:bugeye:

You might try reading some of the material. You'll never be persuaded that the official story might not be true if you can't be bothered to do something as simple as that. You might start to ask questions in a forum that understands that it's easier for people to address issues if you separate different 9/11 elements of 9/11 into separate spaces. There are a bunch, but here are my favourites so far:

http://forum.911movement.org/

http://letsrollforums.com/index.php

http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/index/

 

[camilus]

Loose change is the truth!

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7218920724339766288&hl=en

 

[Read-Only]

This entire thread is bordering on insanity!

The people who buy into this nonsense obviously have impaired logical-thinking abilities which, in itself, is a very mild form of near-insanity. They are unable to distinguish between fact and fiction - and have a preference for fiction because it's more exciting!

And to attempt to educate them is also a mild form of insanity. It's like trying to teach a dog to work mathematical problems - the dog is not equipped to understand the principles involved and neither are these conspiracy theorists.

The lack the ability for critical thinking, are grossly under-educated in physics and readily accept nonsense as fact.

One cannot teach a dog algebra and neither can one teach an idiot to think when the idiot does NOT wish to learn. It's just that simple.

The people who want to believe in this garbage are no different than those who wish to believe in ET UFOs, Bigfoot, Nessie and dozens of other ridiculous things. No amount of facts or evidence will ever change the mind of an individual who doesn't have much of a mind to begin with.

To continue to parry and thrust with them is pointless and a fool's errand. I will have nothing more to do with any of it.

For those who DO want to continue, I wish you all Happy Insanity!

 

[shaman_]

Layman are basing their arguments from the work of experts who have preceeded them:

Architects and engineers for 9/11 Truth:
http://www.ae911truth.org/

I can’t get into the list of members but a quick scan of the website sees the same arguments we’ve seen before...

Squibs, quote mining for the word ‘explosion’, claims of a perfect symmetrical collapse, reliance of Steven Jones and the appeals such as “High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never “collapsed” .

Same old nonsense wrapped up in an appeal to authority.

Scholars for 9/11 Truth:
http://911scholars.org/

Ah the scholars. Still linking to that one? Yes ignore the opinion of the majority of structural engineers and take the word of experts in ‘French language and culture’ and English literature or a crackpot who thinks jesus visited America and lost his job for writing paper's outside his field which embarrassed his university.

 

[KennyJC]

Layman are basing their arguments from the work of experts who have preceeded them:

Architects and engineers for 9/11 Truth:
http://www.ae911truth.org/

Pilots for 9/11 Truth:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/

Patriots for Truth:
http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/

Scholars for 9/11 Truth:
http://911scholars.org/

Has their evidence been submitted for peer review in the relevant journals?

I already know that Steven Jones has made no effort, I'm just curious about the rest of them.

As for Richard Gage, he seems to think that comparing the WTC to two small cardboard boxes is a scientific thing to do:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=supBPWOYm78

In that one demonstration, Richard Gage quickly proved that he is an absolute idiot.

Remember when you were a kid and you would smash two toy cars together in a head-on collision and no damage was done? You can't compare toys to the real deal.

 

[scott3x]

Has their evidence been submitted for peer review in the relevant journals?

The freedom of the press belongs to those who own the presses. The official story is full of holes but if you don't want to see that, logic alone simply won't do. Steven Jones was put on administrative leave from BYU for questioning the official story. Kevin Ryan was fired. Tell me, are you a republican? I'm just curious, because it would fit in with something I could easily imagine; I mean, who would want to believe that part of their party could be part of such a heinous act? Far easier to believe that the truth isn't truth because it hasn't been peer reviewed in the 'relevant' journals. I have already posted many examples of experts who have been condemned by the authorities for daring to disagree with them. I think the most important thing is to not authority figures usurp one's power to use one's own mind to search for the truth. I'm not even an 'expert' but with a little research I came to easily see the holes of the official story and I was pointing them out in a few threads before they were all tangled together in this 'mighty tangle'. No one responded to the weak spots of the official story, but instead started questioning the credentials of those who questioned things. If the authorities are the ones trying to hide things, experts sanctioned by the authorities would be the last people to tell you the truth.

-They must find it difficult...
Those who have taken authority as the truth..
rather then truth, as the authority
- G. Massey, Egyptologist

 

[scott3x]

As for Richard Gage, he seems to think that comparing the WTC to two small cardboard boxes is a scientific thing to do:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=supBPWOYm78

In that one demonstration, Richard Gage quickly proved that he is an absolute idiot.

Remember when you were a kid and you would smash two toy cars together in a head-on collision and no damage was done? You can't compare toys to the real deal.

Sure you can. Look, this guy could probably give you a much more detailed analysis of why the towers shouldn't have collapsed due to some small fires, but you can't do that in a quick demonstration. He can give you an outline but if you want the details, you'll have to sleuth through the heavy stuff. I've already posted such heavy stuff here but it seems that in that, most of the official story believers simply aren't interested. Anyway, if you now feel inclined to do some heavy lifting, you can take a look at a very good article by Steven Jones criticizing a NIST report:

http://physics911.net/stevenjones

 

[scott3x]

Loose change is the truth!

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7218920724339766288&hl=en

One of the admins in the loose change forums wanted me to show you the following link (I'm guessing because it has higher resolution ):
http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=8510748876310097541&hl=en-GB

 

[KennyJC]

The freedom of the press belongs to those who own the presses. The official story is full of holes but if you don't want to see that, logic alone simply won't do. Steven Jones was put on administrative leave from BYU for questioning the official story. Kevin Ryan was fired. Tell me, are you a republican? I'm just curious, because it would fit in with something I could easily imagine; I mean, who would want to believe that part of their party could be part of such a heinous act? Far easier to believe that the truth isn't truth because it hasn't been peer reviewed in the 'relevant' journals. I have already posted many examples of experts who have been condemned by the authorities for daring to disagree with them. I think the most important thing is to not authority figures usurp one's power to use one's own mind to search for the truth. I'm not even an 'expert' but with a little research I came to easily see the holes of the official story and I was pointing them out in a few threads before they were all tangled together in this 'mighty tangle'. No one responded to the weak spots of the official story, but instead started questioning the credentials of those who questioned things. If the authorities are the ones trying to hide things, experts sanctioned by the authorities would be the last people to tell you the truth.

I don't know why Steven Jones was put on leave, perhaps you could link me to a non-conspiracy theory website so I can find out this information. I do know that Kevin Ryan was fired as he represented his views as the views of the company. He didn't even have any expertise in steel as his position was in water treatment.

As for me, I'm not a republican. I hate the republicans, I hate Bush, I hate Sarah Palin, and the South is full of fucking retards. I'm not keen on Obama either, but I guess you have to pick the best of a bad bunch.

Can you accept that it was wrong of Richard Gage to compare the WTC to a cardboard box?

 

[John99]

One of the admins in the loose change forums wanted me to show you the following link (I'm guessing because it has higher resolution ):

Why dont you try thinking for yourself or are things getting slow at imanimbecile.com?

 

[shaman_]

The freedom of the press belongs to those who own the presses. The official story is full of holes but if you don't want to see that, logic alone simply won't do. Steven Jones was put on administrative leave from BYU for questioning the official story.

From wiki -
The university cited its concern about the "increasingly speculative and accusatory nature" of Jones' work and the concern that perhaps it had "not been published in appropriate scientific venues" as reasons for putting him under review. The review was to have been conducted at three levels: BYU administration, the College of Physical and Mathematical Sciences, and the Physics Department.[30]

Kevin Ryan was fired. Tell me, are you a republican? I'm just curious, because it would fit in with something I could easily imagine; I mean, who would want to believe that part of their party could be part of such a heinous act?

The psychology behind people’s desires for conspiracies is interesting. Perhaps people just want their monotonous lives to be more interesting. Yes even if that means that they may not be as safe, at least life is more exciting and it gives them a mission.

Far easier to believe that the truth isn't truth because it hasn't been peer reviewed in the 'relevant' journals.

If this evidence is so strong it will stand up to the scrutiny. Clearly it does not.

It’s not like there hasn’t been time either.

I have already posted many examples of experts who have been condemned by the authorities for daring to disagree with them. I think the most important thing is to not authority figures usurp one's power to use one's own mind to search for the truth. I'm not even an 'expert' but with a little research I came to easily see the holes of the official story and I was pointing them out in a few threads before they were all tangled together in this 'mighty tangle'. No one responded to the weak spots of the official story, but instead started questioning the credentials of those who questioned things.

That is not true and you know it scott.

If the authorities are the ones trying to hide things, experts sanctioned by the authorities would be the last people to tell you the truth.

I've already posted such heavy stuff here but it seems that in that, most of the official story believers simply aren't interested.

No one has been dodging your posts scott. Have you had a look at http://www.loosechangeguide.com/LooseChangeGuide.html
?

 

[Ganymede]

Seriously, Ganymede, I'd reply, but everyone here has already completely debunked you. I mean, look at you. You've been reduced to petty insults.

Please tell me you're kidding? KennyJC, Shaman, Sockpuppy, and many others have attacked my character in each and everyone of their rebuttals.
So please, direct your unbiased vitriol towards them!

You truthers only care about exposing some bogus conspiracy, and that's the problem.

The material evidence indicates otherwise.

Here are the other problems.

1) Claims of controlled demolition by people that have no experience in the field.

Actually that's incorrect, please reread my posts. I've provided evidence from many experts, from all fields. Please re-read my post.

2) Claims of Hani Hanjour making an "impossible maneuver" by people that have never flown in their lives.

Actually, A Retired US Pilot who flew the very planes on 911 explains in verifiable terms why those maneuvers were impossible. I can't wait to hear your rebuttal.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDgEA-OQMS8&feature=related

3) Claims about the "faulty physics" of the entire event by people whose last experience in the field was their high school physics class.

Now you're resorting to unadulterated distortion.

Laymen are making claims about expert fields, and it's ridiculous. They claim that squibs were going off in the WTC, but the sum total of their knowledge on controlled demolitions comes from news reel footage; they bitch about steel not being able to melt at temperatures as low as the fires in the WTC, but they completely forget that steel does not have to melt in order to fail; they point to the cell phone additions to the airliners after 9/11 as proof that making a cell phone call from the air was impossible on 9/11, to which I say, have you ever flown in an airplane? Making a cell phone call was absolutely possible on and before 9/11.

I proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Ted Olsen the former Solicitor General, lied about receiving a call from his wife Barbara. The official records submitted in the Moussuai trial showed that Barbara's phonecalls to the DOJ never connected. Why we would he lie about something like that?