I'm Scott75 on the loose change forums. I haven't posted much there, but anything with that name is (as far as I can tell) mine.
9/11 Conspiracy Thread (There can be only one!)
- Thread starter Stryder
- Start date
- Status
I'm Scott75 on the loose change forums. I haven't posted much there, but anything with that name is (as far as I can tell) mine.
Last edited:
The difference in name is minor (I decided I'd use part of the year of my birth instead of a reference to my current age). You made some statements that I wanted some help debunking. I was very clear that it was a quote from a 9/11 conspiracy debunker, so no plagiarism there. Here is the famous 3 lines that I quoted:
http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/637353/1/#new
LOL, how cute.
If you want to learn something I would recommend you don't go to kooky websites. I mean, if you don't know something about evolution, you wouldn't go to a creationist website would you? Only a dishonest person would do that.
Is this it?
Ovo je zamišljeno na na#269;in da ljudi stavljaju linkove na stranice sa kojih je moguce skidati besplatno(!) muziku.
http://www.labin.com/lc/forum/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=183
Neddy Bate
Valued Senior Member
Scott3x,
I have heard that the "no plane at the pentagon" theory was introduced as a way to sidetrack 911-truthers and keep them diverted from more obvious problems with the official story.
Likewise, the arguments that there were no planes at the WTC (some say it was done with special effects at the news stations, etc). This disinformation technique is called "poisoning the well". Mixing bad theories in with the good ones so as to reduce the credibility of all of the theories taken together as a whole.
You've got a lot of good evidence on your side without the missile theory, but I understand that it is always tempting to add one more log to the fire, so to speak.
Haha.. good one.
That's the first time I've heard that the 9/11 conspiracy theories are actually part of the so-called "cover up".
Wow - talk about advancing to the rear! That IS just plain nuts!!!
(But what else would you expect from them, anyway?)His research has been addressed many times throughout this thread but I will find a couple of articles.
Here is a discussion of his work.
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/commentsonstevenjones'hypothesesbydavero
If you go to the middle of the page there are several articles discussing his theories.
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/theyoughtaknowbetter:critiquesoftheinept
While we're discussing Jones hear him evading the question here regarding peer review. It's pretty funny.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4997804576359751731
Here is the professor of civil engineering from Jones' old university:-
http://www.debunking911.com/jones.htm
" I find Professor Jones' thesis that planted explosives (rather than fire from the planes) caused the collapse of the Towers, very unreliable."
Department chair of civil engineering from the same university:-
"I think without exception, the structural engineering professors in our department are not in agreement with the claims made by Jones in his paper, and they don't think there is accuracy and validity to these claims"
http://www.debunking911.com/civil.htm
Like David Ray Griffin...
Perhaps you didn't read my post properly. I asked you to summarise which points had not been addressed and not just link an article we have discussed many times before. Your claim was that we are ignoring his 'zingers'. We have addressed the ones you have brought up. Don't expect us to post a rebuttal to the entire document.
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/F77penta04.html
http://www.pentagonresearch.com/eye.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/witnesses/sgydk.html
http://www.geocities.com/someguyyoudontknow33/witnesses.htm
Here is a summary
"
104 directly saw the plane hit the Pentagon.
6 were nearly hit by the plane in front of the Pentagon. Several others were within 100-200 feet of the impact.
26 mentioned that it was an American Airlines jet.
39 others mentioned that it was a large jet/commercial airliner.
2 described a smaller corporate jet. 1 described a "commuter plane" but didn't mention the size.
7 said it was a Boeing 757.
8 witnesses were pilots. One witness was an Air Traffic Controller and Pentagon tower Chief.
2 witnesses were firefighters working on their truck at the Pentagon heliport.
4 made radio calls to inform emergency services that a plane had hit the Pentagon.
10 said the plane's flaps and landing gear were not deployed (1 thought landing gear struck a light pole).
16 mentioned seeing the plane hit light poles/trees, or were next to to the poles when it happened. Another 8 mentioned the light poles being knocked down: it's unknown if they saw them hit.
42 mentioned seeing aircraft debris. 4 mentioned seeing airline seats. 3 mentioned engine parts.
2 mentioned bodies still strapped into seats.
15 mentioned smelling or contacting aviation/jet fuel.
3 had vehicles damaged by light poles or aircraft debris. Several saw other occupied vehicles damaged.
3 took photographs of the aftermath.
Many mentioned false alarm warnings of other incoming planes after the crash. One said "3-4 warnings."
And of course,
0 saw a military aircraft or missile strike the Pentagon.
0 saw a plane narrowly miss the Pentagon and fly away."
Okay but lots of people thought they saw a plane. Where is the evidence for a missile?
Scott the wings aren't made that sturdy. They would have been torn apart on impact with the reinforced wall and then destroyed further by the subsequent explosion.
I think part of a turbine is on this page.
http://www.911myths.com/html/757_wreckage.html
Perhaps they have a clear video of it and maybe they don't. Perhaps they don't want to release another highlight reel for terrorists to enjoy and be encouraged by.
Scott you need to apply some critical thinking to claims like these.
So where was the evidence for a missile?
Did this person claim that they looked around and so that no other poles were definitely knocked down? They may certainly have seen only one get knocked down but that doesn't mean that more weren't. This sounds like more quote mining that conspiracy theorists are so fond of.
Again, you really need to apply some critical thinking to nonsense like that.
If someone saw such a thing a conspiracy theorist would have latched onto it by now. No one did.
The point is that the theory doesn't sound plausible, does it? The CTs have a list of what they see as anomalies or lies but the theories they lead to are ridiculous.
Many firemen would have retired or left the profession since 2001 and they aren't speaking up. People are making videos and websites all the time and no one is being killed. I think you need to move on from the idea that people are scared to speak up.
Last edited:
The missile story is nonsense. Unless it were a two-hundred foot long missile that knocked over light poles and left a wide set of wing marks in the side of the Pentagon.
For the life of me, I can't imagine what other airborne machine would leave marks like that.
Have we given up on the molten metal theory then?
For the life of me, I can't imagine what other airborne machine would leave marks like that.
Have we given up on the molten metal theory then?
I believe I have heard this too but at present I do believe that a missile was indeed used there. However, my main focus has been on the collapse of the WTC towers so I won't contest this issue for now.
In this case, I do agree that planes did indeed hit the WTC towers.
Yes, I've heard this too.
Well all I can say is that based on what I know now, the missile theory seems the most likely. But this may change.
Well it's certainly not news to me. It's because there is so much information out there (good and bad) that I am constantly learning more to be more and more sure that my conclusions are right.
Neddy Bate
Valued Senior Member
KennyJC, I'm just saying that there is such a theory. You can read all about it here:
http://www.oilempire.us/bogus.html
Of course, it might just be that some people have heard so many lies that they just don't know what to believe or not believe anymore.
I looked at that link. Didn't get too far, but I did get to this point:
I'm wondering if Rogers didn't notice something that Steven Jones said, however, namely:
Since it lowers the temperature, perhaps 1000C would have been enough then. I'm not sure and I'd like it verified, but something to think about at any rate.
Loose Change is not a source for good information. Only a conspiracy nut would fail to understand that... or maybe you do, but continue anyway.
You've continually demonstrated on this forum that even though there are simple explanations, you would rather believe the X-files type of information. Thus you are a conspiricy nut and it's no surprise that the scientific, demolition and civil engineering community disagrees with you.
The great zig-zagging missle that knocked over numerous light posts and smashed into a large generator before finally hitting the pentagon. It just looked like a large plane with American Airlines written on it, but that was just to fool the eye witnesses. The light posts were cut down afterwards even though nobody witnessed this (bit like your demolition setup), and the mass amount of AA 757 wreckage was merely planted... as were the body parts of the people on board the plane who were of course carted there after being shot in a bunker in the Pentagon then cut up into little peices.
And all this before the rescuers arrived on the scene seconds/minutes later.
But of course, that you concede planes hit the WTC, I am now confused that you ignore the obvious evidence that a 757 hit the Pentagon.
If there was no video of the planes hitting the WTC, you would be as stupid to say that no planes hit the WTC as you are with the Pentagon.
Wait a minute, this guy said that the no plane theory of the Pentagon was invented by the government to reduce credibility of the truth movement, then you go ahead and agree that no plane hit the Pentagon... LMAO!
Or that's what you believe anyway.
The 'simple explanations' are full of holes. And X-files had an episode that essentially predicted the even that would happen months before it actually did happen. It's also dealt briefly with things like depleted uranium, something my mother knows a lot of. Do you?
I've already given links showing just how many scientists disagree with the official theory, as well as the vast amount of normal people who do, but you seem to turn a blind eye to such things.
Good post moementum. If only we could focus on this instead of all the insults, I think this thread could do much better.
According to 1 eye witness, only one light post was knocked down by the craft itself. I believe I heard that the rest were knocked down by explosives.
I don't know about this large generator bit. As I've mentioned before, my research has mainly been done on the WTC collapses.
How many people claimed to see American Airlines written on it? And how many of them were aware that the official story claimed that an American Airlines plane hit the building?
If they were knocked out soon after the craft passed over them, only an eye witness would have been able to see that the craft itself didn't hit them.
I haven't heard that it was a massive amount.
I hadn't heard of any body parts either.
From what I remember, there were some very suspicious 'rescuers'. And why did they have to bury the crime scene with a bunch of gravel?
They were very different events. There's publicly available video of one or both of the towers being hit by plane(s). In the case of the Pentagon, however, all the decent video of the event was confiscated and remains under wraps to this day. Why?
Kenny, your insults only show that you are incapable of continuing a civilized discussion with someone. In any case, your are mistaken. If I felt that the majority of the evidence pointed to a plane in the case of the WTC towers, I would still believe it was a plane even if there were no video evidence.
I did no such thing. I said that while I still believe that a missile hit the Pentagon, I wouldn't contest it vehemently because I haven't investigated the Pentagon crash as much as I've investigated the collapse of the WTC buildings.
- Status