warren zevon rip wrote:
> Firstly, it was your first post that mentioned "FACTS" - you
> were not calling them theories then. I would love to know why
> you believe some things but not others - where is your standard
> of proof?
I was refering 7/7 facts (such as the visor drill), not the contents of the video I linked initially.
> Secondly, while I myself love Wikipedia and all who sail in
> her, I have also written plenty of fake entries on it, just to
> prove that you can. So whatever your link goes to, it may well
> have been writtien to someone like me, albeit with more time on
> their hands.
man, the wiki page has a link to the OFFICIAL document in PDF format. The contents of the wiki page is basically a summary of it. Just read the de-classified document, straight from the horses mouth.
> This idea of just posting a link to a website and saying it
> proves something is nonsense. History is made from 1000s of
> pages of eyewitness accounts, memoirs, recordings of
> conversations, films, etc. - not one link.
>
> You need to sort out what constitutes historical evidence, and
> I would advise you do a course in history to help you do that.
> I don't come that cheap, but I am willing to try - let's say
> ?50 an hour via email.
LMAO, you're saying de-classified official documents are basically not worthy of being historical evidence? let's get this straight?
To make it even easier for you, here's a link to scans of it http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/northwoods.html
By saying this can't be taken as evidence, you're really making yourself look pretty dumb. Please point me in the direction of ANY history course in the world which would overlook such a thing???
9/11 prediction
Re: 9/11 prediction
Why not watch the film mentioned
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?doc ... 3&q=9%2F11
and see what it is about instead of denouncing everything as conspiratory nonsense?
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?doc ... 3&q=9%2F11
and see what it is about instead of denouncing everything as conspiratory nonsense?
They're locking them up today, they're throwing away the key...I wonder who it be tomorrow, you or me?
Re: 9/11 prediction
The Google video, if you'd care to actually WATCH it, uses the "Official" live footage in some detail and, in actual fact, this footage is of paramount importance in finding the "Official" explanation somewhat lacking.
They're locking them up today, they're throwing away the key...I wonder who it be tomorrow, you or me?
Re: 9/11 prediction
warren zevon rip wrote:
> But anyone can create a pdf file. So a link to a pdf file
> purporting to be something controversial is only a link to
> something that needs to be substantiated and corroborated with
> evidence from OTHER reliable sources.
You're just being silly now. The Operation Northwoods documents have been de-classifieds and are available for anyone to read if they so wish.
> No historian worthy of the title would accept one document
> (especially one that could easily be typed up on a PC) as
> incontrovertible proof of anything! The mere words, "Hitler
> Diaries" should bring you back down to earth!
LMFAO, so you're saying this document has been faked? you're a funny guy. It's an OFFICIAL DE-CLASSFIED document, deal with it!!! even (some) of the mainstream news media reported it http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92662
> I am sorry you do not believe that is how history is taught at
> University, but there you go. I imagine I have done more of
> this than you, from your naive trust in single source theories.
> The offer is still available, but up to ?60 an hour..
>
> "there's lots more on google video, simply search 9/11, alex
> jones or terrorstorm, David Ray Griffin. He also has lots of
> FACTS on the 7/7 bombings you may not have heard....."
>
> Why are these things "FACTS", but the official version (i.e.
> the one seen by millions of people in New York and Washington
> D.C.) of 9/11 not a "FACT"?
What exactly did I say wasn't a fact? you quoted me but the quote does not back up anything you say. Here's what I said... I'll put it in Captials for you.....
'HE ALSO HAS A LOT OF FACTS ON THE 7/7 BOMBINGS YOU MAY NOT HAVE HEARD'........
Also, where exactly in this thread have I tried to say what happened on the day of 9/11 was not fact. It is a FACT two planes flew into the WTC towers, it is a fact that they collapsed along with WTC7.
It is NOT a fact that a plane hit the pentagon, nor is it a fact that all 3 building fell due to fire alone, nor is it a fact the US administration didn't know about it beforehand, nor is it a fact that Bin Laden masterminded it all from his cave. Why is it not a fact? because it is yet to be proven beyond reasonable doubt, thus it is a theory.
> But anyone can create a pdf file. So a link to a pdf file
> purporting to be something controversial is only a link to
> something that needs to be substantiated and corroborated with
> evidence from OTHER reliable sources.
You're just being silly now. The Operation Northwoods documents have been de-classifieds and are available for anyone to read if they so wish.
> No historian worthy of the title would accept one document
> (especially one that could easily be typed up on a PC) as
> incontrovertible proof of anything! The mere words, "Hitler
> Diaries" should bring you back down to earth!
LMFAO, so you're saying this document has been faked? you're a funny guy. It's an OFFICIAL DE-CLASSFIED document, deal with it!!! even (some) of the mainstream news media reported it http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92662
> I am sorry you do not believe that is how history is taught at
> University, but there you go. I imagine I have done more of
> this than you, from your naive trust in single source theories.
> The offer is still available, but up to ?60 an hour..
>
> "there's lots more on google video, simply search 9/11, alex
> jones or terrorstorm, David Ray Griffin. He also has lots of
> FACTS on the 7/7 bombings you may not have heard....."
>
> Why are these things "FACTS", but the official version (i.e.
> the one seen by millions of people in New York and Washington
> D.C.) of 9/11 not a "FACT"?
What exactly did I say wasn't a fact? you quoted me but the quote does not back up anything you say. Here's what I said... I'll put it in Captials for you.....
'HE ALSO HAS A LOT OF FACTS ON THE 7/7 BOMBINGS YOU MAY NOT HAVE HEARD'........
Also, where exactly in this thread have I tried to say what happened on the day of 9/11 was not fact. It is a FACT two planes flew into the WTC towers, it is a fact that they collapsed along with WTC7.
It is NOT a fact that a plane hit the pentagon, nor is it a fact that all 3 building fell due to fire alone, nor is it a fact the US administration didn't know about it beforehand, nor is it a fact that Bin Laden masterminded it all from his cave. Why is it not a fact? because it is yet to be proven beyond reasonable doubt, thus it is a theory.
Re: 9/11 prediction
lukeolson wrote:
>>>>>Erik, I think you are missing the point slightly ... Most of the information on the web about 9/11 does not offer alternative wild theories ... If you study the FACTS, just the facts without going into any theories then the official theory just falls apart.<<<<<
No, my friend. It's the silly "alternative" conspiracy theories (the ones that you're trying to pass off as "facts") that come tumbling down like a house of cards.
Conspiracy theorists appear to be incapable of believing or accepting that anyone who doesn't agree with their half-baked fantasies has done any research.
Presumably they think that there's no information available that can challenge the "evidence" of such "unimpeachable" sources as PrisonPlanet, the "Loose Change" documentary or that high-profile serial conspiracy theorist Alex Jones (who by the way was predicting another calamitous terrorist attack in October as a precursor to the U.S. starting World War 3 - we're still waiting for that one, guys!).
"Just google Alex Jones or watch 'Loose Change'", they loudly proclaim. "Check out this link and all will be revealed!"
Well guys I've googled and I've checked. In fact I've read and listened to more conspiracy theories than I can list and I've yet to see one single, solitary conspiracy argument that holds water when subjected to proper scrutiny or that can't be debunked by simple common sense.
The conspiracy theorists' argument seems to be merely that anyone who believes anything in the "regular media" must be a na?ve fool, lacking the intelligence or curiosity to question anything they are spoon-fed - including the "official" version of 9/11.
On the other hand, they say, there are those (i.e. themselves) with the "intelligence" to delve into "alternative" sources of information (the aforementioned "Loose Change" etc.) in order to find the "real truth" as they see it (in other words the "truth" that fits in with the conspiracy theories).
It really is the most fatuous, patronising nonsense.
And just as an aside: if the whole 9/11 and War On Terror thing was just one big conspiracy, then surely the easiest thing for the U.S. Government to have done while cooking up all these cunning Machiavellian plans would have been to fake the discovery of WMDs in Iraq, thereby solving the ongoing debate about the legality of the invasion in one fell swoop. Yet this they didn't do. Hmmmm, I wonder why? Could it possibly be because there was no conspiracy after all.
>>>>>Erik, I think you are missing the point slightly ... Most of the information on the web about 9/11 does not offer alternative wild theories ... If you study the FACTS, just the facts without going into any theories then the official theory just falls apart.<<<<<
No, my friend. It's the silly "alternative" conspiracy theories (the ones that you're trying to pass off as "facts") that come tumbling down like a house of cards.
Conspiracy theorists appear to be incapable of believing or accepting that anyone who doesn't agree with their half-baked fantasies has done any research.
Presumably they think that there's no information available that can challenge the "evidence" of such "unimpeachable" sources as PrisonPlanet, the "Loose Change" documentary or that high-profile serial conspiracy theorist Alex Jones (who by the way was predicting another calamitous terrorist attack in October as a precursor to the U.S. starting World War 3 - we're still waiting for that one, guys!).
"Just google Alex Jones or watch 'Loose Change'", they loudly proclaim. "Check out this link and all will be revealed!"
Well guys I've googled and I've checked. In fact I've read and listened to more conspiracy theories than I can list and I've yet to see one single, solitary conspiracy argument that holds water when subjected to proper scrutiny or that can't be debunked by simple common sense.
The conspiracy theorists' argument seems to be merely that anyone who believes anything in the "regular media" must be a na?ve fool, lacking the intelligence or curiosity to question anything they are spoon-fed - including the "official" version of 9/11.
On the other hand, they say, there are those (i.e. themselves) with the "intelligence" to delve into "alternative" sources of information (the aforementioned "Loose Change" etc.) in order to find the "real truth" as they see it (in other words the "truth" that fits in with the conspiracy theories).
It really is the most fatuous, patronising nonsense.
And just as an aside: if the whole 9/11 and War On Terror thing was just one big conspiracy, then surely the easiest thing for the U.S. Government to have done while cooking up all these cunning Machiavellian plans would have been to fake the discovery of WMDs in Iraq, thereby solving the ongoing debate about the legality of the invasion in one fell swoop. Yet this they didn't do. Hmmmm, I wonder why? Could it possibly be because there was no conspiracy after all.
Re: 9/11 prediction
Flat_Eric wrote:
> lukeolson wrote:
>
> >>>>>Erik, I think you are missing the point slightly ... Most
> of the information on the web about 9/11 does not offer
> alternative wild theories ... If you study the FACTS, just
> the facts without going into any theories then the official
> theory just falls apart.
>
> No, my friend. It's the silly "alternative" conspiracy theories
> (the ones that you're trying to pass off as "facts") that come
> tumbling down like a house of cards.
> Conspiracy theorists appear to be incapable of believing or
> accepting that anyone who doesn't agree with their half-baked
> fantasies has done any research.
It's sad you have this opinion. What's wrong with peope wanting to know such things as .......
- Where are the black boxes?
- Where are the pentagon videos?
- Who purchased the PUT options
- Why was evidence removed?
- Why did building 7 collapse?
- Why did the ISI wire $100k to atta?
etc...
These are legitimate questions I assume even you would want to know the answers to.
Also, as you mentioned it. I'd like you point out exactly what I have said in this thread that you or anyone else can disprove?? I have not given any conspiracy theory regarding bombs or drone planes but simply raised issues that are not covered in the official theory. Like many others do, how can people that simply raise these issues by conspiracy theorists?
Wouldn't you like to know just why the pentagon videos were taken so swiftly and to this day have never been released?
> Presumably they think that there's no information available
> that can challenge the "evidence" of such "unimpeachable"
> sources as PrisonPlanet, the "Loose Change" documentary or that
> high-profile serial conspiracy theorist Alex Jones (who by the
> way was predicting another calamitous terrorist attack in
> October as a precursor to the U.S. starting World War 3 - we're
> still waiting for that one, guys!).
>
> "Just google Alex Jones or watch 'Loose Change'", they loudly
> proclaim. "Check out this link and all will be revealed!"
>
> Well guys I've googled and I've checked. In fact I've read and
> listened to more conspiracy theories than I can list and I've
> yet to see one single, solitary conspiracy argument that holds
> water when subjected to proper scrutiny or that can't be
> debunked by simple common sense.
>
> The conspiracy theorists' argument seems to be merely that
> anyone who believes anything in the "regular media" must be a
> na?ve fool, lacking the intelligence or curiosity to question
> anything they are spoon-fed - including the "official" version
> of 9/11.
It's interesting that you mention Alex Jones because it seems a lot of his information is gathered from mainstream media which he mentions often so that kinda goes against your point.
After all is said and done. I don't see how anyone with half a braincell can research into 9/11 and at >LEAST< come to the conclusion that there has a been a massive cover up. It's all there in the 9/11 commission report, or rather not.
And ofcourse that begs the question, if the official theory holds water, then why cover it up? and omit so much information.
> lukeolson wrote:
>
> >>>>>Erik, I think you are missing the point slightly ... Most
> of the information on the web about 9/11 does not offer
> alternative wild theories ... If you study the FACTS, just
> the facts without going into any theories then the official
> theory just falls apart.
>
> No, my friend. It's the silly "alternative" conspiracy theories
> (the ones that you're trying to pass off as "facts") that come
> tumbling down like a house of cards.
> Conspiracy theorists appear to be incapable of believing or
> accepting that anyone who doesn't agree with their half-baked
> fantasies has done any research.
It's sad you have this opinion. What's wrong with peope wanting to know such things as .......
- Where are the black boxes?
- Where are the pentagon videos?
- Who purchased the PUT options
- Why was evidence removed?
- Why did building 7 collapse?
- Why did the ISI wire $100k to atta?
etc...
These are legitimate questions I assume even you would want to know the answers to.
Also, as you mentioned it. I'd like you point out exactly what I have said in this thread that you or anyone else can disprove?? I have not given any conspiracy theory regarding bombs or drone planes but simply raised issues that are not covered in the official theory. Like many others do, how can people that simply raise these issues by conspiracy theorists?
Wouldn't you like to know just why the pentagon videos were taken so swiftly and to this day have never been released?
> Presumably they think that there's no information available
> that can challenge the "evidence" of such "unimpeachable"
> sources as PrisonPlanet, the "Loose Change" documentary or that
> high-profile serial conspiracy theorist Alex Jones (who by the
> way was predicting another calamitous terrorist attack in
> October as a precursor to the U.S. starting World War 3 - we're
> still waiting for that one, guys!).
>
> "Just google Alex Jones or watch 'Loose Change'", they loudly
> proclaim. "Check out this link and all will be revealed!"
>
> Well guys I've googled and I've checked. In fact I've read and
> listened to more conspiracy theories than I can list and I've
> yet to see one single, solitary conspiracy argument that holds
> water when subjected to proper scrutiny or that can't be
> debunked by simple common sense.
>
> The conspiracy theorists' argument seems to be merely that
> anyone who believes anything in the "regular media" must be a
> na?ve fool, lacking the intelligence or curiosity to question
> anything they are spoon-fed - including the "official" version
> of 9/11.
It's interesting that you mention Alex Jones because it seems a lot of his information is gathered from mainstream media which he mentions often so that kinda goes against your point.
After all is said and done. I don't see how anyone with half a braincell can research into 9/11 and at >LEAST< come to the conclusion that there has a been a massive cover up. It's all there in the 9/11 commission report, or rather not.
And ofcourse that begs the question, if the official theory holds water, then why cover it up? and omit so much information.
Re: 9/11 prediction
Erik & Warren,
I suspect I'm one of the few people here(?) who has read the 9-11 Commission Report and anyone who says they are happy with the offical story is quite simply living in Wonderland.
If you lost someone that day I suspect your attitude toward discovering the truth would be quite different. Just imagine if your son or daughter died in the Pentagon attack and it turns out Dick Cheney knew about the planes approach(Norman Mineta's testimony to the 9-11 Commission) well in advance. Wouldn't you want to know this information? This was just one of the things the Report failed to inlude. Rather vital peice of evidence wouldn't you say? did Cheney know or didn't he? It's of great importance given the VP has powers to order air strikes, ie. Could he or could he not have prevented the death of your child?
The truth is all people want. The 9-11 Commission Report is filled with half truths, omissions and distortions and it has to be one of the most daring cover ups in History. If you're happy with that then you have my pity.
To give you an idea of just how daring the report is. When they come to the subject of who funded the whole operation and who's responsible for the money transfers prior to the attack, they say "It's of little importance"...
It's simply wrong to shout down anyone who questions the offical story as crazy conspiracy theorists with tin-foil hats. Which is what you seem to be doing.
I suspect I'm one of the few people here(?) who has read the 9-11 Commission Report and anyone who says they are happy with the offical story is quite simply living in Wonderland.
If you lost someone that day I suspect your attitude toward discovering the truth would be quite different. Just imagine if your son or daughter died in the Pentagon attack and it turns out Dick Cheney knew about the planes approach(Norman Mineta's testimony to the 9-11 Commission) well in advance. Wouldn't you want to know this information? This was just one of the things the Report failed to inlude. Rather vital peice of evidence wouldn't you say? did Cheney know or didn't he? It's of great importance given the VP has powers to order air strikes, ie. Could he or could he not have prevented the death of your child?
The truth is all people want. The 9-11 Commission Report is filled with half truths, omissions and distortions and it has to be one of the most daring cover ups in History. If you're happy with that then you have my pity.
To give you an idea of just how daring the report is. When they come to the subject of who funded the whole operation and who's responsible for the money transfers prior to the attack, they say "It's of little importance"...
It's simply wrong to shout down anyone who questions the offical story as crazy conspiracy theorists with tin-foil hats. Which is what you seem to be doing.
Re: 9/11 prediction
>>
Thanks for that - because by making that statement, you confirm in one sentence what I said in my earlier post, namely that the CTs' "logic" goes something like this: "You cannot prove 100% that the official story is correct. Therefore it might be incorrect. Therefore our case could be correct. If both cases might or might not be correct then they are equally valid".
CTs like to seize on any anomaly that can't be immediately explained and then trumpet it as "proof" that sinister forces must be at work.
But the fact is that as far as 9/11 is concerned, pretty much all of the main CT arguments (especially the more fanciful ones) can be and indeed have been sensibly explained away many times over.
But the CTs choose to conveniently ignore any and all counter-arguments, claiming that anyone disputing their view must be a government stooge or otherwise "in on it".
>>>>
Back-tracking a little are you, luke? !wink!
The idea of a "cover-up" I can buy: A cover-up to hide incompetence and failures on the part of government agencies and high officials that may have directly led to or exacerbated the tragedy. In fact I'd be amazed if there wasn't some desperate ass-covering going on in the immediate aftermath. And its most likely still going on today.
But a "cover-up" for the purpose of hide-saving after the event isn't the same thing as a "conspiracy" before the event. World of difference.
>>>>
Aaaaaaah. That old chestnut. The "Pentagon CCTV tapes"! Another favourite of the CTs. They see the lack of CCTV footage of AA 77 striking the Pentagon as "proof" that "it must have been a missile". This is despite hundreds of eyewitnesses nearby saying that they actually saw a jetliner strike.
No doubt that the Pentagon and the area around it is indeed bristling with CCTV cameras. But CCTV cameras tend to be trained downwards to monitor what's going on at ground level along access roads, pathways and at entrances to buildings. Why is it that the CTs appear to expect that in the case of the Pentagon, these cameras would be trained skywards on the lookout for errant aircraft?
Building 7 is another CT favourite. "Why did it collapse?" they like to ask - usually before launching into fanciful theories about controlled explosions.
Well I'm no structural engineer, but (apparently unbelievably in the eyes of the CTs) a lot of other buildings in the immediate neighbourhood of the Twin Towers also sustained varying degrees of damage that day. And amazingly, this damage may have had something to do with several million tons of rubble from the Towers violently collapsing a mere stone's throw away. No real mystery why it collapsed later either - after earthquakes it's not uncommon for buildings to collapse hours or even days later.
>>>>>
Even if they knew that a plane was heading for Washington (as they apparently did), they couldn't have known its precise target. My understanding is that Mineta said that that some guy entered the situation room and said that a rogue plane was heading for DC and that Dick Cheney, when asked, confirmed that orders still stood.
We don't know what these orders were or what they referred to. Yet the CTs have seized upon this of "solid evidence" that there must have been some sort of conspiracy.
>>>>>
As are the wacky conspiracy theories, I'm afraid.
>>>>
It may well be a cover-up, mark. A lot of people are unhappy with the report. And no doubt more details will emerge over time. But as I said above - a "cover-up" afterwards isn't the same as a "conspiracy" beforehand.
Thanks for that - because by making that statement, you confirm in one sentence what I said in my earlier post, namely that the CTs' "logic" goes something like this: "You cannot prove 100% that the official story is correct. Therefore it might be incorrect. Therefore our case could be correct. If both cases might or might not be correct then they are equally valid".
CTs like to seize on any anomaly that can't be immediately explained and then trumpet it as "proof" that sinister forces must be at work.
But the fact is that as far as 9/11 is concerned, pretty much all of the main CT arguments (especially the more fanciful ones) can be and indeed have been sensibly explained away many times over.
But the CTs choose to conveniently ignore any and all counter-arguments, claiming that anyone disputing their view must be a government stooge or otherwise "in on it".
>>>>
Back-tracking a little are you, luke? !wink!
The idea of a "cover-up" I can buy: A cover-up to hide incompetence and failures on the part of government agencies and high officials that may have directly led to or exacerbated the tragedy. In fact I'd be amazed if there wasn't some desperate ass-covering going on in the immediate aftermath. And its most likely still going on today.
But a "cover-up" for the purpose of hide-saving after the event isn't the same thing as a "conspiracy" before the event. World of difference.
>>>>
Aaaaaaah. That old chestnut. The "Pentagon CCTV tapes"! Another favourite of the CTs. They see the lack of CCTV footage of AA 77 striking the Pentagon as "proof" that "it must have been a missile". This is despite hundreds of eyewitnesses nearby saying that they actually saw a jetliner strike.
No doubt that the Pentagon and the area around it is indeed bristling with CCTV cameras. But CCTV cameras tend to be trained downwards to monitor what's going on at ground level along access roads, pathways and at entrances to buildings. Why is it that the CTs appear to expect that in the case of the Pentagon, these cameras would be trained skywards on the lookout for errant aircraft?
Building 7 is another CT favourite. "Why did it collapse?" they like to ask - usually before launching into fanciful theories about controlled explosions.
Well I'm no structural engineer, but (apparently unbelievably in the eyes of the CTs) a lot of other buildings in the immediate neighbourhood of the Twin Towers also sustained varying degrees of damage that day. And amazingly, this damage may have had something to do with several million tons of rubble from the Towers violently collapsing a mere stone's throw away. No real mystery why it collapsed later either - after earthquakes it's not uncommon for buildings to collapse hours or even days later.
>>>>>
Even if they knew that a plane was heading for Washington (as they apparently did), they couldn't have known its precise target. My understanding is that Mineta said that that some guy entered the situation room and said that a rogue plane was heading for DC and that Dick Cheney, when asked, confirmed that orders still stood.
We don't know what these orders were or what they referred to. Yet the CTs have seized upon this of "solid evidence" that there must have been some sort of conspiracy.
>>>>>
As are the wacky conspiracy theories, I'm afraid.
>>>>
It may well be a cover-up, mark. A lot of people are unhappy with the report. And no doubt more details will emerge over time. But as I said above - a "cover-up" afterwards isn't the same as a "conspiracy" beforehand.
Re: 9/11 prediction
Flat_Eric wrote:
> point out exactly what I have said in this thread that you or
> anyone else can disprove??">>>
>
>
> Thanks for that - because by making that statement, you confirm
> in one sentence what I said in my earlier post, namely that the
> CTs' "logic" goes something like this: "You cannot prove 100%
> that the official story is correct. Therefore it might be
> incorrect. Therefore our case could be correct. If both cases
> might or might not be correct then they are equally valid".
Surely the one with most evidence is more likely to be correct!! perhaps you'd like to list the evidence that supports the official theory, against the evidence that supports other theories....
> CTs like to seize on any anomaly that can't be immediately
> explained and then trumpet it as "proof" that sinister forces
> must be at work.
>
> But the fact is that as far as 9/11 is concerned, pretty much
> all of the main CT arguments (especially the more fanciful
> ones) can be and indeed have been sensibly explained away many
> times over.
What???! If that is correct why is it all the scientists involved in the official theory refuse(ALL OF THEM) to enter into public debate with any experts who challenge their theory.
Secondly, the official theory doesn't even look into various questions, so how can it answer them? you have to ask the question in order to answer it.
> But the CTs choose to conveniently ignore any and all
> counter-arguments, claiming that anyone disputing their view
> must be a government stooge or otherwise "in on it".
Look into the 911truth movement, your statement is so far from the correct. 911truth simply raises questions that were not answered and stray away from 'wild' conspiracy theories.
> theory regarding bombs or drone planes but simply raised issues
> that are not covered in the official theory. Like many others
> do, how can people that simply raise these issues be conspiracy
> theorists? …. After all is said and done. I don't see how
> anyone with half a brain cell can research into 9/11 and at
> LEAST come to the conclusion that there has a been a massive
> cover up.">>>>>
>
>
> Back-tracking a little are you, luke? !wink!
>
> The idea of a "cover-up" I can buy: A cover-up to hide
> incompetence and failures on the part of government agencies
> and high officials that may have directly led to or exacerbated
> the tragedy. In fact I'd be amazed if there wasn't some
> desperate ass-covering going on in the immediate aftermath. And
> its most likely still going on today.
>
> But a "cover-up" for the purpose of hide-saving after the event
> isn't the same thing as a "conspiracy" before the event. World
> of difference.
You don't find it amazing that on 1 day so many parts of the administration failed all at once? At least 3 times over? Payne Steward had fighters jets on his tail within minutes of losing contact, this is proceedure. Yet apparently, on 9-11 jet liners were allowed to circle the US with nothing to stop them.
> pentagon videos were taken so swiftly and to this day have
> never been released?">>>>>
>
>
> Aaaaaaah. That old chestnut. The "Pentagon CCTV tapes"! Another
> favourite of the CTs. They see the lack of CCTV footage of AA
> 77 striking the Pentagon as "proof" that "it must have been a
> missile". This is despite hundreds of eyewitnesses nearby
> saying that they actually saw a jetliner strike.
that's not true. Why don't you actually read the witness statements! You'll find various accounts. And for your information, I have no idea whether it was a plane or a missle. You're doing this thing again of trying to say I'm a crazy theorist
> No doubt that the Pentagon and the area around it is indeed
> bristling with CCTV cameras. But CCTV cameras tend to be
> trained downwards to monitor what's going on at ground level
> along access roads, pathways and at entrances to buildings. Why
> is it that the CTs appear to expect that in the case of the
> Pentagon, these cameras would be trained skywards on the
> lookout for errant aircraft?
>
> Building 7 is another CT favourite. "Why did it collapse?" they
> like to ask - usually before launching into fanciful theories
> about controlled explosions.
>
> Well I'm no structural engineer, but (apparently unbelievably
> in the eyes of the CTs) a lot of other buildings in the
> immediate neighbourhood of the Twin Towers also sustained
> varying degrees of damage that day. And amazingly, this damage
> may have had something to do with several million tons of
> rubble from the Towers violently collapsing a mere stone's
> throw away.
All this things you bring up, on strengthen the alternative theories....You are correct in that the other WTC building, 3, 4, 5...sustained massive damage due to the collpase of 1 and 2. These building were mashed up far far more than WTC7 which is much further away. Yet, amazingly... All these other buildings that are at the foot of WTC 1 and 2 did not collapse.
> point out exactly what I have said in this thread that you or
> anyone else can disprove??">>>
>
>
> Thanks for that - because by making that statement, you confirm
> in one sentence what I said in my earlier post, namely that the
> CTs' "logic" goes something like this: "You cannot prove 100%
> that the official story is correct. Therefore it might be
> incorrect. Therefore our case could be correct. If both cases
> might or might not be correct then they are equally valid".
Surely the one with most evidence is more likely to be correct!! perhaps you'd like to list the evidence that supports the official theory, against the evidence that supports other theories....
> CTs like to seize on any anomaly that can't be immediately
> explained and then trumpet it as "proof" that sinister forces
> must be at work.
>
> But the fact is that as far as 9/11 is concerned, pretty much
> all of the main CT arguments (especially the more fanciful
> ones) can be and indeed have been sensibly explained away many
> times over.
What???! If that is correct why is it all the scientists involved in the official theory refuse(ALL OF THEM) to enter into public debate with any experts who challenge their theory.
Secondly, the official theory doesn't even look into various questions, so how can it answer them? you have to ask the question in order to answer it.
> But the CTs choose to conveniently ignore any and all
> counter-arguments, claiming that anyone disputing their view
> must be a government stooge or otherwise "in on it".
Look into the 911truth movement, your statement is so far from the correct. 911truth simply raises questions that were not answered and stray away from 'wild' conspiracy theories.
> theory regarding bombs or drone planes but simply raised issues
> that are not covered in the official theory. Like many others
> do, how can people that simply raise these issues be conspiracy
> theorists? …. After all is said and done. I don't see how
> anyone with half a brain cell can research into 9/11 and at
> LEAST come to the conclusion that there has a been a massive
> cover up.">>>>>
>
>
> Back-tracking a little are you, luke? !wink!
>
> The idea of a "cover-up" I can buy: A cover-up to hide
> incompetence and failures on the part of government agencies
> and high officials that may have directly led to or exacerbated
> the tragedy. In fact I'd be amazed if there wasn't some
> desperate ass-covering going on in the immediate aftermath. And
> its most likely still going on today.
>
> But a "cover-up" for the purpose of hide-saving after the event
> isn't the same thing as a "conspiracy" before the event. World
> of difference.
You don't find it amazing that on 1 day so many parts of the administration failed all at once? At least 3 times over? Payne Steward had fighters jets on his tail within minutes of losing contact, this is proceedure. Yet apparently, on 9-11 jet liners were allowed to circle the US with nothing to stop them.
> pentagon videos were taken so swiftly and to this day have
> never been released?">>>>>
>
>
> Aaaaaaah. That old chestnut. The "Pentagon CCTV tapes"! Another
> favourite of the CTs. They see the lack of CCTV footage of AA
> 77 striking the Pentagon as "proof" that "it must have been a
> missile". This is despite hundreds of eyewitnesses nearby
> saying that they actually saw a jetliner strike.
that's not true. Why don't you actually read the witness statements! You'll find various accounts. And for your information, I have no idea whether it was a plane or a missle. You're doing this thing again of trying to say I'm a crazy theorist
> No doubt that the Pentagon and the area around it is indeed
> bristling with CCTV cameras. But CCTV cameras tend to be
> trained downwards to monitor what's going on at ground level
> along access roads, pathways and at entrances to buildings. Why
> is it that the CTs appear to expect that in the case of the
> Pentagon, these cameras would be trained skywards on the
> lookout for errant aircraft?
>
> Building 7 is another CT favourite. "Why did it collapse?" they
> like to ask - usually before launching into fanciful theories
> about controlled explosions.
>
> Well I'm no structural engineer, but (apparently unbelievably
> in the eyes of the CTs) a lot of other buildings in the
> immediate neighbourhood of the Twin Towers also sustained
> varying degrees of damage that day. And amazingly, this damage
> may have had something to do with several million tons of
> rubble from the Towers violently collapsing a mere stone's
> throw away.
All this things you bring up, on strengthen the alternative theories....You are correct in that the other WTC building, 3, 4, 5...sustained massive damage due to the collpase of 1 and 2. These building were mashed up far far more than WTC7 which is much further away. Yet, amazingly... All these other buildings that are at the foot of WTC 1 and 2 did not collapse.