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

[Ganymede]

Official Story Supporters

Can I please see the evidence that indicates that Khalid Sheik Muhammad was responsible for 911 and not Bin Laden. I haven't heard any of you mention his name once. You haven't because you know it's Bullshit. AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Still think the Government is telling you truth? AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

 

[Ganymede]

Well atleast the government's giving up its hopeless case that Osama organized 9/11. The faked video where he claims to have done it was probably the icing on the cake of its demise and it may even be that they're now accusing this sheikh in an effort to take attention away from the fact that even the FBI never claimed to have enough evidence to accuse him of conspiring on 9/11. Anyway, since the guy is already in prison, they could perhaps torture him to get him to confess to whatever it is they want him to confess to.

One thing I will say, however. Dana Perino doesn't look like one of those people who know the truth but is too sly to tell us. She seems more like the 'doe caught in the headlights' type. I must admit she's nice on the eyes. I've been reading up on her and it seems that she wanted Bush Jr. in the whitehouse 2 years before he actually ran (http://www.uiaa.org/spfld/magazine/stxt0708.html).

Anyway, I think that if anyone could be said to be someone who actually believes the Bush administration's lies within the white house itself, she'd be a prime candidate. I think the article below essentially sums things up:
http://www.236.com/news/2007/12/12/are_you_smarter_than_a_white_h_1_2886.php

I simply don't think that she should be dismissed. The article itself hints at a compelling reason why; I believe that many americans don't know any more then she does. Reporters can work at educating her as well as the many who are still in the dark on so many things.

Scott,

We have successfully checkmated any argument that the official story supporters have presented. With the Revelation that Osama Bin Laden wasn't the mastermind behind 911 completely debunks their entire arguments.

This also proves that the Bin Laden tape where he admits to masterminding 911 is fake. Also, the impostor in Bin Laden tape was writing with this right hand, when Bin Laden is left handed. To overt for the Government apologists to recognize unfortunately.

 

[shaman_]

Or thought that they saw a plane. As I've mentioned before, few people have seen a missile in flight.

Could you please provide a link to this testimony?

Interesting that the majority most definitely saw a plane but you entertain the thought they are all wrong because supposedly someone saw a missile.

There was testimony from one person that only one pole was knocked down from the actual craft. As to the rest, I'm sure it wouldn't be too hard to pull a few more down to give a superficial appearance that a plane came down.

So people ran around knocking poles down as the missile was hitting and no one saw them doing it? The witnesses who saw the plane actually hitting the light poles were just wrong or government plants?

There is clear evidence of five poles being knocked down. http://www.pentagonresearch.com/lamps.html

Please show me the testimony of the person who claims only one was knocked down.

Fairly little wreckage that many people feel was planted.

There was plenty of wreckage.
http://www.911myths.com/html/757_wreckage.html

Some CTs may feel that it was planted. With no evidence all they have is their feelings.

I guess you can discard any evidence you don’t like as ‘planted’ just as you ignore relevant, qualified opinions that come from “NIST types”.

 

[scott3x]

Originally Posted by scott3x

Or thought that they saw a plane. As I've mentioned before, few people have seen a missile in flight.

Could you please provide a link to this testimony?

You mistook what I was trying to say. I meant that since few people have seen a missile in flight, they could easily confuse a missile for a plane. Anyway, if it's a plane, why is the government hiding the videos that could have proved it conclusively?

So people ran around knocking poles down as the missile was hitting and no one saw them doing it?

Perhaps someone did, but I haven't seen the evidence for this as of yet. However, I do know that one witness says that the craft only knocked down one pole. No, I don't have the link on me right now. It's probably in this 'mighty tangle' somewhere, but I'm not going to look.

The witnesses who saw the plane actually hitting the light poles were just wrong or government plants?

Perhaps a bit of both. And if in the ending, you see a bunch of knocked down poles well then.. you must have seen the plane knock down a bunch, right? Wouldn't want people thinking you're crazy or something.. poles don't knock themselves down now do they? Something like what happened when JFK was assassinate could have been at work here; some guys saying how things were and people who don't quite remember things that way, well.. you don't really want to go up against big brother now, do you?

There is clear evidence of five poles being knocked down. http://www.pentagonresearch.com/lamps.html

Agreed. But as I've said before there are claims that all but one weren't knocked down by the craft.

Fairly little wreckage that many people feel was planted.

There was plenty of wreckage.
http://www.911myths.com/html/757_wreckage.html

Where are the turbines? Personally, I believe that loose change does a better job of describing why the evidence doesn't stack with the idea of a plane hitting the pentagon then I care to ferret out right now..

Some CTs may feel that it was planted. With no evidence all they have is their feelings.

There may be some evidence, just too tired to look right now .

I guess you can discard any evidence you don’t like as ‘planted’ just as you ignore relevant, qualified opinions that come from “NIST types”.

Qualified lies maybe. But it seems all you official story believers choose to ignore the zingers that people like Steven Jones have for the glaring NIST report fallacies, no matter how many times I post them.

 

[scott3x]

Scott,

We have successfully checkmated any argument that the official story supporters have presented. With the Revelation that Osama Bin Laden wasn't the mastermind behind 911 completely debunks their entire arguments.

This also proves that the Bin Laden tape where he admits to masterminding 911 is fake. Also, the impostor in Bin Laden tape was writing with this right hand, when Bin Laden is left handed. To overt for the Government apologists to recognize unfortunately.

Apparently they're ignoring the fact that the official story has changed. Hey, if the BBC can do it (they did so today, for instance), why can't they.

 

[scott3x]

No, not 'infinitely'. It was certainly heavier, but its supports were a lot stronger then a cardboard box too. Kevin, why won't you just read Steven Jones critique of the official story?

It may as well be infinite, such is the difference between the force a falling cardboard box emparts compared the thousands of tons of building collapsing.

Steel is stronger then cardboard. And there was a lot of it in the towers. The story doesn't fly, but you don't want to actually read the arguments against the fatally flawed NIST report, so there's no helping you.

The outercasing of a toy car remains more fragile than the shell of a real car. So why is one damaged and the other not when collided when a solid object?

Simple: scale. I believe that if you could magnify your sturdy metal toy cars with the same amounts of things to a real sized car you'd see that they use more metal then real sized cars do proportionally. I'm no expert on toy car metal proportionality but experts -have- commented on what happened on the towers; and when they're not being paid by people who could stand to lose a lot if the truth were told, they paint quite a different picture. I've posted all this before, but you seem to be blind when it comes to those posts.

Well you do realize that the 2004 video were first shown by Aljazeera and accepted as genuine? I don't think Aljazeera would be willing to take part in any American cover-up. Do you?

No, but they could be duped. Much of the american public still is in my view.

It's always been unknown how much Bin Laden directly had to do with planning 9/11, but as he is the head of the organisation that carried out the attacks, you have to admit that he is still the prime target.

I think the prime target for the Bush administration was and always has been the acquisition of more power. The power to curtail the rights of their own citizens. The power to feed the military industrial complex. And the power to acquire more oil reserves and give some sweetheart deals in places like Iraq to some companies that high level government officials had very close ties to before 9/11.

Even Alan Greenspan admits that Iraq was really about oil:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article2461214.ece

I've even heard that they at first believed that Afghanistan had a fair amount of oil but were dissapointed. The opium trade is booming these days, however. And the military industrial complex certainly got a boost from both wars.

The people who suffer are the soldiers who die, the Iraqi civilians who die, the families of both.. if more money is diverted to fighting wars, less can be used for education and social programs, U.S. productivity is affected.. wallstreet monitoring is loosened, you get all these banks making poor economic choices and then the very people who are truly suffering are forced to pay for these rich people's mistakes (bailing them out).

I guess we can only hope it gets better with Obama. We certainly didn't have all this economic turmoil when Clinton was in office.. hopefully it'll get better if another democrat is elected.

 

[KennyJC]

Scott,

With the Revelation that Osama Bin Laden wasn't the mastermind behind 911 completely debunks their entire arguments.

It does nothing of the sort. AlQaeda was still responsible for the attacks, and even if it's up for debate how much Bin Laden directly had to to with planning the attacks, he is clearly accountable as he is the leader of the group.

This also proves that the Bin Laden tape where he admits to masterminding 911 is fake. Also, the impostor in Bin Laden tape was writing with this right hand, when Bin Laden is left handed. To overt for the Government apologists to recognize unfortunately.

Perhaps you should be aware, that for some insane reason, it's common for muslims to write with the right hand even if they are left handed:

It is true that in Islam it is highly recommended for us to use our right hand while doing things such as eating, drinking, dressing, and writing, and to use the left hand for acts such as cleaning ourselves after defecation. If, however, you are left-handed and you find it hard to write with your right hand, then you can consider yourself excused.
http://infad.usim.edu.my/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=6664

We have successfully checkmated any argument that the official story supporters have presented.

If it makes you feel better, just you continue to think that way. Meanwhile you will always be relegated to the realm of conspiracy kooks and you will never get the academic support your crave.

Wear your tinfoil hat loud and proud, you cretinous liar.

 

[shaman_]

You mistook what I was trying to say. I meant that since few people have seen a missile in flight, they could easily confuse a missile for a plane.

The testimonies give detailed description of a plane. ..

Anyway, if it's a plane, why is the government hiding the videos that could have proved it conclusively? .

It has been proven conclusively. You just refuse to accept the explanation. Many saw a plane, there was plane wreckage, five light poles were knocked down.

Don’t pretend that a video of a plane hitting the pentagon is going to stop conspiracy theorists creating absurd theories. If there was clear footage of the plane available they would say that bombs were involved.

Perhaps someone did, but I haven't seen the evidence for this as of yet. However, I do know that one witness says that the craft only knocked down one pole.. .

This person saw a missile knock down a pole?

You actually think it is plausible that people were driving around with trucks knocking over poles to make it look like a plane knocked them over, and no one saw these people. Then someone unloaded a bunch of plane parts out the front and no one saw them either. If this could all be arranged why not just fly a 757 into the pentagon?!

Do you have one theory that sounds logical?

Perhaps a bit of both. And if in the ending, you see a bunch of knocked down poles well then.. you must have seen the plane knock down a bunch, right? Wouldn't want people thinking you're crazy or something.. poles don't knock themselves down now do they? Something like what happened when JFK was assassinate could have been at work here; some guys saying how things were and people who don't quite remember things that way, well.. you don't really want to go up against big brother now, do you? .

Lots of people are standing up to big brother. Every poorly researched article you have linked to is someone standing up to big brother.

Agreed. But as I've said before there are claims that all but one weren't knocked down by the craft. .

So maybe that person didn’t see the other poles? Where is this testimony?

Where are the turbines? Personally, I believe that loose change does a better job of describing why the evidence doesn't stack with the idea of a plane hitting the pentagon then I care to ferret out right now..

There may be some evidence, just too tired to look right now .

Qualified lies maybe. But it seems all you official story believers choose to ignore the zingers that people like Steven Jones have for the glaring NIST report fallacies, no matter how many times I post them.

I think zingers is a good description for some of his theories.
Steven Jones’ work has been totally discredited by various sources which you refuse to look at.

As for the ignoring NIST report fallacies, your points have been addressed and any reasonable person reading these pages would see that you are struggling. You are the one who refuses to look at anything that could ruin the conspiracy theory.

If there are any that were missed then summarize them. Don't just randomly link to documents.

 

[scott3x]

I think zingers is a good description for some of his theories.
Steven Jones’ work has been totally discredited by various sources which you refuse to look at.

Can you give me some quotes with some info discrediting his research?

As for the ignoring NIST report fallacies, your points have been addressed

No, they haven't been.

If there are any that were missed then summarize them. Don't just randomly link to documents.

Steven Jones summarizes the arguments quite well is his article "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?"

The abstract of the article is this:

In writing this paper, I call for a serious investigation of the hypothesis that WTC 7 and the Twin Towers were brought down, not just by damage and fires, but through the use of pre-positioned explosives. I consider the official FEMA, NIST, and 9-11 Commission reports that fires plus damage alone caused complete collapses of all three buildings. And I present evidence for the explosive-demolition hypothesis, which is suggested by the available data, testable and falsifiable, and yet has not been analyzed in any of the reports funded by the US government.

Apart from his own knowledge in physics (which he puts to good use), he also cites other experts.

http://physics911.net/stevenjones

 

[John99]

Can you give me some quotes with some info discrediting his research?

Well there is this:

IIao mh a eem saasas aeaIe mn Ia nos Ile nI noa m l n.laa

and this:

na neaoa moloemlI.eamsa saooah

source: www.iamanimbecile/loosechangeforum.php?do=2005840

 

[John99]

And i see that some of my quote have made it to the LC forum. Do NOT use my quotes without my permission.

 

[scott3x]

The testimonies give detailed description of a plane. ..

Well, most people know what planes look like, so they can embellish what they saw with what they remember planes to look like. Anyway, give me some links of people testifying as to the appearance of the craft, I'd be interested in seeing it.

Originally Posted by scott3x

Anyway, if it's a plane, why is the government hiding the videos that could have proved it conclusively?

It has been proven conclusively. You just refuse to accept the explanation. Many saw a plane

You mean, many thought they saw a plane.

there was plane wreckage

Which could have been planted. The turbines were apparently never found. And I'm not sure the wings were either.

five light poles were knocked down.

Seems like more, but as I've mentioned before, one guy said only one was knocked down by the actual craft.

Don’t pretend that a video of a plane hitting the pentagon is going to stop conspiracy theorists creating absurd theories.

With computer graphics these days, they could perhaps create a false video. But the fact that they haven't released the many tapes they have recording the incident is fishy, don't you think?

If there was clear footage of the plane available they would say that bombs were involved.

Actually, there are already claims that explosives were used, apart from the missile. Their are claims that explosives smelling dogs were present after the event as well.

This person saw a missile knock down a pole?

He saw a craft knock down only one pole, yes.

You actually think it is plausible that people were driving around with trucks knocking over poles to make it look like a plane knocked them over, and no one saw these people.

I believe I once heard that explosives may have been used to knock down the poles.

Then someone unloaded a bunch of plane parts out the front and no one saw them either.

Maybe someone has seen them but I don't know about it yet. The thing I've most studied is the WTC Collapses, this whole issue isn't one I'm that familiar with.

If this could all be arranged why not just fly a 757 into the pentagon?!

I never said I had all the answers.

Do you have one theory that sounds logical?

Way more then one, but that doesn't mean that you'll think they're logical.

Lots of people are standing up to big brother. Every poorly researched article you have linked to is someone standing up to big brother.

Or atleast you think they're poorly researched. Anyway, some people do question the official story, but they tend to be people who won't be affected so much if at all; unlike Steven Jones, I'm not a proffessor at a university. Unlike Kevin Ryan, I'm not a lab director at the firm where they tested the steel of the WTC towers. Unlike a New York fireman, no ex CIA director is making me feel that I have to watch what I say concerning 9/11.

So maybe that person didn’t see the other poles? Where is this testimony?

Look it up in the mighty tangle . If I find the reference again and this is still an issue, I'll let you know.

 

[John99]

Can you give me some quotes with some info discrediting his research?

Well there is this:

IIao mh a eem saasas aeaIe mn Ia nos Ile nI noa m l n.laa

and this:

na neaoa moloemlI.eamsa saooah

source: www.iamanimbecile/loosechangeforum.php?do=2005840

 

[John99]

And i see that some of my quote have made it to the LC forum. Do NOT use my quotes without my permission. Or you will hear from me.

 

[scott3x]

Well there is this: (gibberish text and non existent link follows)

Right. Well, you go right on ahead and believe that stuff.

 

[John99]

i thought you would understand that.

 

[scott3x]

And i see that some of my quote have made it to the LC forum. Do NOT use my quotes without my permission. Or you will hear from me.

I believe such a thing as 'fair use' is allowed. Seriously, I quoted 3 lines from you, because I wanted more info on the subject. Is it that you prefer that your points remain unanswered?

 

[John99]

AHA....

So it WAS you then? Well i knew it all along anyway.

 

[Ophiolite]

And i see that some of my quote have made it to the LC forum. Do NOT use my quotes without my permission. Or you will hear from me.

Can I quote you on that?

 

[John99]

I made a statement on here, not an unanswered point, as Scott states and he copied it to paste it on another forum. Under a different name too.