The Great Big 9/11 Conspiracy Theory Thread [Megamerge]

bonkey

So Glad wrote:

I have tried to search for more witnesses regarding this but unfortunately the internet is flooding with his story and google show up loads of pages regarding him only.

So does this mean you're retracting your earlier claim that there are other witnesses etc.

Or are you fallnig back on the "I know they exist and have seen their testimonies, but I've misplaced them and can't show them to you" line of reasoning?

Or...hey...I know...you could blame The Man for removing them

So Glad

No, just Google.

Diogenes

So Glad wrote:

No, just Google.

So you think there are cooberating witnesses but Google is blocking the sites that prove this?

Hang on why stop there, why don't they just remove any mention of Scott Forbes? Or any 911 conspiracy? Why not silence the lot? Unless... Wait a minute... maybe there are a load of witness' to Scott Forbe's claim, but google, working for teh gubiment conspiracy, removed the witness's statements but not Scott Forbes to discredit Forbes. If it looks like Forbes is the only witness he comes off a delusional nut and we can disregard the whole claim. Damn you Larry Page and Sergey Brin!!! Damn you and your repitilian overlords straight to hell!!!

Oh and So Glad if you're going to claim Google is in on hiding the conspiracy, don't point us to a conspiracy video hosted on google video like you did a few days ago. It's confusing. And a bit silly.

bonkey

So Glad wrote:

No, just Google.

Well there you go. Mystery solved.

Google blew up the WTC.

Conclusive proven by the lack of proof.

Phew. I'm glad we got to the bottom of that one.

For my next trick, I shall show that the Tellietubbies are, in fact, the secret power behing the throne of Kim Jong Il. Again, the lack of evidence shall be the decisive evidence in this case.

Diogenes wrote:

Damn you Larry Page and Sergey Brin!!! Damn you and your repitilian overlords straight to hell!!!

What are you talking about, you crazy skeptic you?

There's no evidence of alie.....

Ah!!!!! No evidence.....I see!!!!!

Those lizard overlords were too sneaky for me, but they didn't pull any wool over your eyes.

Its all clear now. Thank you for enlightening me.

Is my mind open enough yet?

So Glad

I Just Said Google Turn Up Too Much Results, Not That They Were In A Conspiracy!

Jesus!

Diogenes

bonkey wrote:

Its all clear now. Thank you for enlightening me.

Is my mind open enough yet?

Couldn't be more open if you used a rusty tin opener on your cranium.

I honestly believe this is why when you go further up the conspiracy hierarchy, you meet people like Shayler the "no planers" types. Because after they've decided it's a conspiracy they realise that theres no way it could be demolition, and they start spouting guff about "holographic planes" and "hidden missiles" Because once you make your conspiracy theory so outlandish it's impossible dismiss it using rational arguments.

So Glad wrote:

I Just Said Google Turn Up Too Much Results, Not That They Were In A Conspiracy!

Jesus!

And again for the hard of thinking. There are loads of results for his story because it is his story and his alone. If there were cooberating witness it would cease to be his story, and it would be their story.

The fact that you cannot find anyone cooberating Scott Forbes doesn't mean what Scott Forbes claims what happened didn't happen, it just isn't likely.

The fact that you keep finding links to Scott Forbes and Scott Forbes alone making these claims, makes your claim that there are witnesses you just cannot find them, look unlikely.

And the fact that you're still scratching around trying to find these witnesses, makes you look like you're clutching at straws. And finally this all makes that claim of yours;

So Glad wrote:

This is a new video.
By far the best compilation of evidence I have ever seen. Has lots of new clips and evidence, some not even www.911myths.can solve.

Look like hubris on your part.

bonkey

So Glad wrote:

I Just Said Google Turn Up Too Much Results, Not That They Were In A Conspiracy!

Jesus!

No...sorry...thats not what you said. You responded to a comment suggesting that you blame the man, and you said no...just google. You blamed google.

Now, this may not be what you meant. Its almost certainly not what you intended to suggest. But it is the correct and logical interpretation of what you said based on what you were responding to.

If nothing else, this should serve as a perfect illustration as to how easy it is to take someone's quotes out of context, or to read too much into them...wouldn't you agree?

I could carry this a bit further, and start pointing out that where you clearly blamed google in the first comment, you've now backed away from that. In true CT fashion, I should be suspicious that you've been gotten to by Larry & Sergey's seekr1t flying monkey terror squad, and that your change in story only supports the theory of myself and Diogenes that google is behind it all. The more you protest, the more you'll prove our point.

Can you imagine? Now....imagine that we established this as a pattern. We got hundreds of people to never cease hounding you. No matter what you said, unless it was agreeing with our google conspiracy, we'd just insist that the seekr1t flying monkey terror squad had cowed you into changing your story, so that your disagreement was really proving our point as much as your agreement would

Tell me....in the face of such unrelenting attention, would you keep trying to correct your story, or would you walk away and refuse to return to banging your head off that particular wall?

If nothing else, it should show the folly of resorting to any argument where the lack of proof becomes proof, once you can add the tiniest bit of a connection to what happened (your original comment in this case).

So Glad

C:/>stopusingthisthread
>
>>Windows has stopped the use of this thread.
>
C:/>remindnevertousethreadagain
>
>>Windows will now remind you every 2 hours not to frequent this thread.
>
C:/>shutdown

bonkey

Looks like the seekr1t flying-monkey terror-squad got to him.

Hide Diogenes. The voices tell me Larry has it in for you next!

billy the squid

So Glad wrote:

No, just Google.

Not good enough. If you are going to pose an arguement, then you'd better back it up yourself. Telling people to Google it themselves is unacceptable.

Diogenes

[butters]
Oh Hamburgers, I wanted to see Larry & Sergey's leet seekr1t flying monkey terror squad
[/butters]

Seeing as this is the 2nd time in as many pages that So Glad has threatened to quit this thread we'll never know what So Glad's reasoning was for running away.

Was he persuaded by the holes and inaccuracies in his argument and acknowledged the implausibilities in his position? We may never know. Perhaps he went off to lick his wounds and wander over to youtube or 911truth.org, and sympathise with those who gullibly swallow every shoddy conspiracy theory. Perhaps. But I think we know the truth. He's locked in a cage somewhere in a silicon valley as Larry and Sergey search out for other conspiracy theorists, and cry to their army of leet seekr1t flying monkey terror squads';

"FLY OUR PRETTIES! FLY! FLY! FLY!"

pH

Does anyone (sane) seriously believe that anything other than a plane hit the Pentagon?

I'm presuming that people accept the video evidence from New York that planes hit the WTC, so airliners were crashing into buildings on that day.

So you're saying the neo-cons launch a cruise missile (from where?) in broad daylight against the Pentagon just hoping (and getting lucky) that no citizen or news crew had a video camera handy. I mean seriously that's a huge risk to take and for what?

George Bush didn't think that the WTC was enough in itself? Well Donald dropping two major buildings in NY (and killing thousands) is good, but I think that if we also attacked the Pentagon with a rocket only then would we have justification to invade Iraq!

bonkey

pH wrote:

Does anyone (sane) seriously believe that anything other than a plane hit the Pentagon?

Yes. I genuinely believe they do.

I do not believe that a single one of these people actually formulated the theory however. I believe that was done by people seeknig to cynically exploit the events of the day to their own benefit (fame...fortune...whatever).

I'm presuming that people accept the video evidence from New York that planes hit the WTC, so airliners were crashing into buildings on that day.

There's been a couple of people who have argued otherwise, but yeah, I think that once you start postulating that the planes were either missiles with holographic cloaking technology, or that they never existed and were added by CNN and that every eyewitness account is a fake....once you get to that state I think its fair to question sanity.

So you're saying the neo-cons launch a cruise missile (from where?) in broad daylight against the Pentagon just hoping (and getting lucky) that no citizen or news crew had a video camera handy. I mean seriously that's a huge risk to take and for what?

Not to mention that the hundreds of eyewitnesses were all fooled, bought off, or, well, something.

George Bush didn't think that the WTC was enough in itself? Well Donald dropping two major buildings in NY (and killing thousands) is good, but I think that if we also attacked the Pentagon with a rocket only then would we have justification to invade Iraq!

Someone linked to a great cartoon once. Seekrit Service discussing the Kennedy Assasination. Went something like this:


MIB 1 : So, we want to make this look like he was shot once, from behind.

MIB 2 : Simple. We'll shoot him in the face.

MIB 1 : Twice.


Ultimately, all of these "wild" scenarios need similar logic. Whatever the reason for the government-did-it conspiracy, the reality is that the postulated events are an unbelievably complex and error-prone way of doing a set-up.


MIB 1 : Lets make it look like an aircrft smacked into the Pentagon.

MIB 2 : OK. Lets not use the aircraft we comandeer though. Lets use a cruise, buy off a few hundred people, corrupt the investigation. Oh, and make sure Rummy is in on it and does one of his Freudian Slip moments. That will really fool them.

MIB 1 : Sorted. What about the passengers of the aircraft we comandeer?

MIB 2 : Fancy a pint?


or


MIB 1 : We want to destroy secret evidence on computers in WTC 7 that no-one knows about.

MIB 2 : No worries. We'll blow up WTC 1 and 2, crashing planes into them first to make it seem like a terrorist attack. Then in the confusion, we'll set fires in WTC 7 to make it look like it was damaged, then we'll blow it up too.

MIB 1 : Why not just remove the disks as part of an upgrade and smelt them down in a furnace?

MIB 2 : Take off the suit. You're obviously not one of us.

bonkey

Revisiting an old topic somewhat, see if you can tell me what the following quotes refer to.

I'm not going to ask that people don't use google or other search-engines, because I know some will do so anyway.

- "Explosions could be heard within the building"

- ... an explosion ... and that was the last thing that crossed my mind," a witness said

- "I heard a huge explosion"


In all these cases, I would like people to tell me if this is or is not evidence of foul play.

The first one, incidentally, is the most interesting. Its an entire conspiracy just waiting to be created. Bonus points for anyone who can tell me how.

tunaman

If we compare your unspecific quotes with what people saw at the WTC on 9/11, then there is a huge difference...

These explosive testimonies were kept from the public for nearly 4 years, it's not hard to see why...

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_01.html

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GREGORY Interview Date: October 3, 2001

In my conversation with Lieutenant Evangelista, never mentioning this to him, he questioned me and asked me if I saw low-level flashes in front of the building, and I agreed with him because I thought -- at that time I didn't know what it was. I mean, it could have been as a result of the building collapsing, things exploding, but I saw a flash flash flash and then it looked like the building came down.

Q. Was that on the lower level of the building or up where the fire was?

A. No, the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls down? That's what I thought I saw. And I didn't broach the topic to him, but he asked me. He said I don't know if I'm crazy, but I just wanted to ask you because you were standing right next to me. He said did you see anything by the building? And I said what do you mean by see anything? He said did you see any flashes? I said, yes, well, I thought it was just me. He said no, I saw them, too.

CAPTAIN KARIN DESHORE Interview Date: November 7, 2001

Whatever this explosion was simply sucked all the oxygen out of the air.

Somewhere around the middle of the world trade center, there was this orange and red flash coming out. Initially it was just one flash. Then this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that building had started to explode. The popping sound, and with each popping sound it was initially an orange and then a red flash came out of the building and then it would just go all around the building on both sides as far as I could see. These popping sounds and the explosions were getting bigger, going both up and down and then all around the building. I went inside and I told everybody that the other building or there was an explosion occurring up there and I said I think we have another major explosion…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER THOMAS FlTZPATRlCK Interview Date: October 1, 2001

We looked up at the building straight up, we were that close. All we saw was a puff of smoke coming from about 2 thirds of the way up. Some people thought it was an explosion. I don't think I remember that. I remember seeing, it looked like sparkling around one specific layer of the building. I assume now that that was either windows starting to collapse like tinsel or something. Then the building started to come down. My initial reaction was that this was exactly the way it looks when they show you those implosions on TV.

FDNY recall "detonations" in South Tower on 9/11:

fireman2: We made it outside, we made it about a block.
fireman1: We made it at least 2 blocks.
fireman2: 2 blocks.
fireman1: and we started runnin'
fireman2: poch-poch-poch-poch-poch-poch-poch
fireman1: Floor by floor it started poppin' out ..
fireman2: It was as if as if they had detonated, det..
fireman1: yea detonated yea
fireman2: as if they had planned to take down a building,
boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom ...
fireman1: All the way down, I was watchin it, and runnin'

FIREFIGHTER EDWARD CACHIA Interview Date: December 6, 2001

As my officer and I were looking at the south tower, it just gave. It actually gave at a lower floor, not the floor where the plane hit, because we originally had thought there was like an internal detonation explosives because it went in succession, boom, boom, boom, boom, and then the tower came down.

PARAMEDIC DANIEL RIVERA Interview Date: OCTOBER 10 2001

It was a frigging noise. At first I thought it was -- do you ever see professional demolition where they set the charges on certain floors and then you hear “pop, pop, pop, pop, pop”? That’s exactly what -- because I thought it was that. When I heard that frigging noise, that’s when I saw the building coming down.

FIREFIGHTER KENNETH ROGERS Interview Date: December 10, 2001

then there was an explosion in the south tower, which according to this map, this exposure just blew out in flames. A lot of guys left at that point. I kept watching. Floor after floor after floor. One floor under another after another and when it hit about the fifth floor, I figured it was a bomb, because it looked like a synchronized deliberate kind of thing. I was there in '93.

LIEUTENANT GEORGE J. DeSIMONE Interview Date: October 22, 2001

The next thing I know, we heard a little bit of a rumbling, and then white powder came from the first collapsed building. I thought it was an explosion initially.

After that, I still thought it was an explosion.

I don't think we understood the magnitude of what was going on. I was fearful that there were bombs in the building. That was my first thought, being the military kind of guy that I am.

FIREFIGHTER TIMOTHY JULIAN Interview Date: December 26, 2001

right when we got to the corner of Washington and Albany, that’s when I heard the building collapse. First I thought it was an explosion. I thought maybe there was a bomb on the plane, but delayed type of thing, you know, secondary device. I was convinced for a week it was secondary devices. … You know, and I just heard like an explosion and a then a cracking type of noise, and then it sounded like a freight train, rumbling and picking up speed, and I remember I looked up, and I saw it coming down…

LIEUTENANT ROBERT DORRITIE Interview Date: December 11, 2001

we were deciding which way to go into the south tower. That's when I looked up, and the tower started coming down, which at the time I said I thought it was a secondary device. I had warned the guys about secondary devices on the way down and to be careful of that.

FIRE MARSHAL JOHN COYLE Interview Date: December 28, 2001

The tower was -- it looked to me – I thought it was exploding, actually. That’s what I thought for hours afterwards, that it had exploded or the plane or there had been some device on the plane that had exploded, because the debris from the tower had shot out far over our heads. It was raining down.

While I was down at Battery Park, I finally got through on my phone to my father and said, “I’m alive. I just wanted to tell you, go to church, I’m alive. I just so narrowly escaped this thing.” He said, “where were you? You were there?” I said, “yeah, I was right there when it blew up.” He said, “you were there when the planes hit?” I said, “no, I was there when it exploded, the building exploded.” He said, “you mean, when it fell down?” I said, “no, when it exploded.” I still didn’t realized what had happened. I totally thought it had been blown up. That’s just the perspective of looking up at it, it seemed to have exploded out. But that I guess was the force of the upper stories collapsing down.

BATTALION CHIEF DOMINICK DeRUBBIO Interview Date: October 12, 2001

It was weird how it started to come down. It looked like it was a timed explosion, but I guess it was just the floors starting to pancake one on top of the other.

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER JAMES DRURY Interview Date: October 16, 2001

We were in the process of getting some rigs moved when I turned, as I heard a tremendous roar, explosion, and saw that the first of the two towers was starting to come down.

That was the north tower now coming down. I should say that people in the street and myself included thought that the roar was so loud that the explosive - bombs were going off inside the building. Obviously we were later proved wrong.

As I said I thought the terrorists planted explosives somewhere in the building. That's how loud it was, crackling explosive, a wall.

LIEUTENANT GREGG HANSSON Interview Date: October 9, 2001

Then a large explosion took place. In my estimation that was the tower coming down, but at that time I did not know what that was. I thought some type of bomb had gone off.

FIREFIGHTER WILLIAM REYNOLDS Interview Date: December 11, 2001

After a while, and I don't know how long it was, I was distracted by a large explosion from the south tower and it seemed like fire was shooting out a couple of hundred feet in each direction, then all of a sudden the top of the tower started coming down in a pancake. …

Q. … where was the fire? Like up at the upper levels where it started collapsing?
A. It appeared somewhere below that. Maybe twenty floors below the impact area of the plane.

So we kind of just all were walking around dazed and I ran into a Battalion Chief. I don't know who he was. I said to him, I said, "Chief, they're evacuating the other building; right?" … Before the north tower fell. He said, "No." I said, "Why not? They blew up the other one." I thought they blew it up with a bomb. I said, "If they blew up the one, you know they're gonna blow up the other one." He said, "No, they're not." I said, "Well, you gotta tell them to evacuate it, because it's gonna fall down and you gotta get the guys out."

FIREFIGHTER THOMAS TURILLI Interview Date: January 17, 2002

sounded like bombs going off, like boom, boom, boom, like seven or eight, and then just a huge wind gust just came.

FIREFIGHTER KEITH MURPHY Interview Date: December 5, 2001

I had heard right before the lights went out, I had heard distant boom boom boom, sounded like three explosions. I don’t know what it was. At the time, I would have said they sounded like bombs, but it was boom boom boom and then the lights all go out.

EMT MICHAEL OBER Interview Date: October 16, 2001

Then we heard a rumble, some twisting metal, we looked up in the air, and to be totally honest, at first, I don’t know exactly…but it looked to me just like an explosion. It didn’t look like the building was coming down, it looked like just one floor had blown completely outside of it. I was sitting there looking at it. I just never thought they would ever come down, so I didn’t think they were coming down.

LIEUTENANT NEIL BROSNAN Interview Date: December 12, 2001

Actually the explosion came in through those doors and came up behind the way I had come in. And I realized that, that the explosion came from the way had just left.

They observed the explosion and the hallway disappeared. They thought the hallway blew up where I had come from.

FIREFIGHTER RICHARD BANACISKI Interview Date: December 6, 2001

We were there I don't know, maybe 10, 15 minutes and then I just remember there was just an explosion. It seemed like on television they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions.

CHIEF STEVE GRABHER Interview Date: December 6, 2001

Just as I go out of the building, one of my guys says hey Captain, the building is coming down. I looked over my shoulder and you could see the whole top of the south tower leaning towards us. It looked like it was coming over. You could see the windows pop out just like in the picture, looked like a movie. I saw one floor of windows pop out, like poof, poof. I saw one and a half floors pop out. It looked almost like an explosion. The whole top was teetering, and I really thought just the top of the building was falling off.

FIREFIGHTER CHRISTOPHER FENYO Interview Date: December 11, 2001

There was an explosion at the top of the Trade Center and a piece of Trade Center flew across the West Side Highway and hit the Financial Center.

About a couple minutes after George came back to me is when the south tower from our perspective exploded from about midway up the building.

At that point a debate began to rage because the perception was that the building looked like it had been taken out with charges. We had really no concept of the damage on the east side of 2 World Trade Center at that point, and at that point many people had felt that possibly explosives had taken out 2 World Trade…


All these people risked their lives that day, but when they tell us of their experiences why do so many still write them all off as being simply mistaken?

Diogenes

Tunaman that link is just to a series of testimonys it doesn't back up the relevant quotes. Instead of asking us to dig up the correct url for each quote could you point us to the correct quotes in each specific PDF.

Diogenes

bonkey wrote:

Revisiting an old topic somewhat, see if you can tell me what the following quotes refer to.

I'm not going to ask that people don't use google or other search-engines, because I know some will do so anyway.

- "Explosions could be heard within the building"

- ... an explosion ... and that was the last thing that crossed my mind," a witness said

- "I heard a huge explosion"


In all these cases, I would like people to tell me if this is or is not evidence of foul play.

The first one, incidentally, is the most interesting. Its an entire conspiracy just waiting to be created. Bonus points for anyone who can tell me how.

Okay I'll bite what are they?

Tunaman thought we'd lost you, you're rapidly turning into the littlest conspiracy theorist on this forum

lyrics wrote:

THERE'S A VOICE,
THAT KEEPS ON CALLING ME.
DOWN THE ROAD,
IS WHERE I'LL ALWAYS BE.
EVERY STOP I MAKE,
I'LL MAKE A NEW FRIEND.
CAN'T STAY FOR LONG, JUST TURN AROUND AND I'M GONE AGAIN.

MAYBE TOMORROW, I'LL WANNA SETTLE DOWN,
UNTIL TOMORROW, I'LL JUST KEEP MOVING ON

DOWN THIS ROAD, THAT NEVER SEEMS TO END,
WHERE NEW ADVENTURE, LIES JUST AROUND THE BEND

SO IF YOU WANNA JOIN ME FOR A WHILE,
JUST GRAB YOUR HAT, COME TRAVEL LIGHT,
THAT'S HOBO STYLE.

MAYBE TOMORROW, I'LL WANT TO SETTLE DOWN,
UNTIL TOMORROW, THE WHOLE WORLD IS MY HOME

SO IF YOU WANNA JOIN ME FOR A WHILE,
JUST GRAB YOUR HAT, COME TRAVEL LIGHT,
THAT'S HOBO STYLE.

MAYBE TOMORROW, I'LL WANT TO SETTLE DOWN,
UNTIL TOMORROW, I'LL JUST KEEP MOVING ON.

Instrumental Bridge

MAYBE TOMORROW, I'LL WANT TO SETTLE DOWN,
UNTIL TOMORROW, I'LL JUST KEEP MOVING ON.

THERE'S A WORLD, THAT'S WAITING TO UNFOLD,
A BRAND NEW TALE, NO ONE HAS EVER TOLD,
WE'VE JOURNEY'D FAR BUT, YOU KNOW IT WON'T BE LONG,
WE'RE ALMOST THERE AND WE'VE PAID OUR FARE, WITH THE HOBO SONG.

MAYBE TOMORROW, I'LL WANT TO SETTLE DOWN,
UNTIL TOMORROW, I'LL JUST KEEP MOVING ON.

SO IF YOU WANNA JOIN ME FOR A WHILE,
JUST GRAB YOUR HAT, COME TRAVEL LIGHT,
THAT'S HOBO STYLE.

MAYBE TOMORROW I'LL FIND WHAT I CALL HOME,
UNTIL TOMORROW, YOU KNOW I'M FREE TO ROAM.

Nick_oliveri

Diogenes wrote:

Tunaman that link is just to a series of testimonys it doesn't back up the relevant quotes. Instead of asking us to dig up the correct url for each quote could you point us to the correct quotes in each specific PDF.

Em, the names are right there above the quotes. All you have to do is search the corresponding name in the link that Tunaman posted.

Then click search and paste in the paragraph needed to find this quote (in the PDF reader). Im not sure if you can hotlink directly to a paragraph in a PDF.

Maybe i read what you posted wrong, i dunno!

bonkey

tunaman wrote:

If we compare your unspecific quotes with what people saw at the WTC on 9/11, then there is a huge difference...

Thats nice. When you apologise fir previous comments like the moderator suggested, I'll be more than happy to discuss your point of view with you and explain why you're wrong.

In the meantime, I'll just save myself the possibility of subjecting myself to more of your vitriol by choosing not to engage you, thanks.

Anyway, for the rest of you....

The quotes I provided were taken from three events - two crane collapses, and the by-now-famous Windsor Tower fire in Spain.

The Windsor tower one is the one with a whole conspiracy theory just waiting for it, incidentally.

The only reason I know of this fire is because "Truthers" have repeatedly pointed to it as proof that steel-frame buildings don't collapse in normal fires. Only the steel-frame in the Windsor did fail - the parts that didn't collapse were concrete-supported. If you don't believe me, look at a before-and-after of the building, and see how different the shapes were.

So when I went to try this exercise yesterday - looking for quotes about explosions which weren't about explosives - imagine my surprise when the first hit I got that wasn't about 911 was someone saying that they heard explosions in the Windsor tower.

So we have the Spanish...who've also been attacked by Al Qaeda. They had a tall building burn, where the steel supports failed and where explosions were heard. Also, similarly to tunaman's insistence that the top of the WTC exploded far too vigorously, there was a cordon set around the Windsor when they thought it would collapse....set a whopping 500m away!!!! Not only that, but having set up such a massive cordon (which could have been to keep people away), the collapse of the steel-supported sections of the building was surprisingly neat.

In almost every sense - except for the plane crashing into it - the Windsor is a mini-wtc event. Al-Qaeda targetted nation, skyscraper, big fire, explosions, a 500m cordon for the potential collapse of "only" 100m of building....everything points to a set-up right? Indeed, one can go further and speculate that teh Spanish are in it with the American government - that they staged the train-bombings to try and help convince their voters and Old Europe that it wasn't just others who were being targetted. Then in 2005, when the whole conspiracy thing was picking up steam, they sabotaged one of their own skyscrapers to undermine the claims that "steel doesn't fail in normal high-rise fires" at the American's request.

Of course, I know that I can't really have found a conspiracy, because I don't ahve a youTube or google video to link to.

Incidentally, listening to the live connentary on CNN last night about the plane crashing into the building reminded me of just how people form associations.

Many people agreed with inital reports that it was a helicopter...only it wasn't. They never actually saw the impact, only the aftermath, but heard others (like the interviewer) saying it was a helicopter and went with that.

Similarly, Some eyewitnesses immediate reaction was "terrorist attack"...only it wasn't. Why did they think this? Because their strongest association for a plane flying into a multi-storey building is a terror attack.

Ask these people tomorrow if theyu believe it was a helicopter-mounted terrorist attack, and I'm pretty sure they'll tell you they were mistaken and/or may deny ever having believed any such thing.

Sinister, huh?

bonkey

Oh yeah...and just so's you heard it hear first...

Officials first suspected NY Ynkees pitcher Corey Lidle was on the plane that crashed into the Bel Air because his passport was found on the street near the crash.

I couldn't make this stuff up if I tried.

Diogenes

BUSH: So, what's the plan again?

CHENEY: Well, we need to invade Iraq and Afghanistan. So what we've decided to do is crash a whole bunch of remote-controlled planes into Wall Street and the Pentagon, say they're real hijacked commercial planes, and blame it on the towelheads; then we'll just blow up the buildings ourselves to make sure they actually fall down.

RUMSFELD: Right! And we'll make sure that some of the hijackers are agents of Saddam Hussein! That way we'll have no problem getting the public to buy the invasion.

CHENEY: No, Dick, we won't.

RUMSFELD: We won't?

CHENEY: No, that's too obvious. We'll make the hijackers Al Qaeda and then just imply a connection to Iraq.

RUMSFELD: But if we're just making up the whole thing, why not just put Saddam's fingerprints on the attack?

CHENEY: (sighing) It just has to be this way, Dick. Ups the ante, as it were. This way, we're not insulated if things go wrong in Iraq. Gives us incentive to get the invasion right the first time around.

BUSH: I'm a total idiot who can barely read, so I'll buy that. But I've got a question. Why do we need to crash planes into the Towers at all? Since everyone knows terrorists already tried to blow up that building complex from the ground up once, why don't we just blow it up like we plan to anyway, and blame the bombs on the terrorists?

RUMSFELD: Mr. President, you don't understand. It's much better to sneak into the buildings ourselves in the days before the attacks, plant the bombs and then make it look like it was exploding planes that brought the buildings down. That way, we involve more people in the plot, stand a much greater chance of being exposed and needlessly complicate everything!

CHENEY: Of course, just toppling the Twin Towers will never be enough. No one would give us the war mandate we need if we just blow up the Towers. Clearly, we also need to shoot a missile at a small corner of the Pentagon to create a mightily underpublicized additional symbol of international terrorism -- and then, obviously, we need to fake a plane crash in the middle of ****ing nowhere in rural Pennsylvania.

RUMSFELD: Yeah, it goes without saying that the level of public outrage will not be sufficient without that crash in the middle of ****ing nowhere.

CHENEY: And the Pentagon crash -- we'll have to do it in broad daylight and say it was a plane, even though it'll really be a cruise missile.

BUSH: Wait, why do we have to use a missile?

CHENEY: Because it's much easier to shoot a missile and say it was a plane. It's not easy to steer a real passenger plane into the Pentagon. Planes are hard to come by.

BUSH: But aren't we using two planes for the Twin Towers?

CHENEY: Mr. President, you're missing the point. With the Pentagon, we use a missile, and say it was a plane.

BUSH: Right, but I'm saying, why don't we just use a plane and say it was a plane? We'll be doing that with the Twin Towers, right?

CHENEY: Right, but in this case, we use a missile. (Throws hands up in frustration) Don, can you help me out here?

RUMSFELD: Mr. President, in Washington, we use a missile because it's sneakier that way. Using an actual plane would be too obvious, even though we'll be doing just that in New York.

BUSH: Oh, OK.

RUMSFELD: The other good thing about saying that it was a passenger jet is that that way, we have to invent a few hundred fictional victims and account for a nonexistent missing crew and plane. It's always better when you leave more cover story to invent, more legwork to do and more possible holes to investigate. Doubt, legwork and possible exposure -- you can't pull off any good conspiracy without them.

BUSH: You guys are brilliant! Because if there's one thing about Americans -- they won't let a president go to war without a damn good reason. How could we ever get the media, the corporate world and our military to endorse an invasion of a secular Iraqi state unless we faked an attack against New York at the hands of a bunch of Saudi religious radicals? Why, they'd never buy it. Look at how hard it was to get us into Vietnam, Iraq the last time, Kosovo?

CHENEY: Like pulling teeth!

RUMSFELD: Well, I'm sold on the idea. Let's call the Joint Chiefs, the FAA, the New York and Washington, D.C., fire departments, Rudy Giuliani, all three networks, the families of a thousand fictional airline victims, MI5, the FBI, FEMA, the NYPD, Larry Eagleburger, Osama bin Laden, Noam Chomsky and the fifty thousand other people we'll need to pull this off. There isn't a moment to lose!

BUSH: Don't forget to call all of those Wall Street hotshots who donated $100 million to our last campaign. They'll be thrilled to know that we'll be targeting them for execution as part of our thousand-tentacled modern-day bonehead Reichstag scheme! After all, if we're going to make martyrs -- why not make them out of our campaign paymasters? ****, didn't the Merrill Lynch guys say they needed a refurbishing in their New York offices?

RUMSFELD: Oh, they'll get a refurbishing, all right. Just in time for the "Big Wedding"!

ALL THREE: (cackling) Mwah-hah-hah!

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/11818067/the_low_post_the_hopeless_stupidity_of_911_conspiracies/1

DS

The new South Park episode aired last night (in the US) parodies the 9/11 conspiracies, I'd highly recommend it. If you don't know how to acquire it PM me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mystery_of_the_Urinal_Deuce

They sum it up best at the end:
Kyle: So then who's responsible for 9/11?
Stan: Whaddya mean, a bunch of pissed off muslims.
Hardly Boy: Yea. What are you retarded?

edit: 911truth.org's response to the episode

murdoc8

this guy alex jones,came out and said that Bin Laden was working for tha cia and that he was going to crash airliners into buildings in the us before 9/11,have a look at his site www.infowars.com

also this very good, video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4315024059102108031:mad:

Nick_oliveri

DS wrote:

The new South Park episode aired last night (in the US) parodies the 9/11 conspiracies, I'd highly recommend it. If you don't know how to acquire it PM me.

www.911blogger.com links to the episode (WMV) stream.

DS wrote:

They sum it up best at the end:
Kyle: So then who's responsible for 9/11?
Stan: Whaddya mean, a bunch of pissed off muslims.
Hardly Boy: Yea. What are you retarded?

The response link DS posted! wrote:

Some "retards" believe the strongest evidence for government complicity is the collapse of a THIRD building on 9/11, WTC7, which South Park didn't show (just like the mainstream media...)

Teh Other Response.
_________________

Also, the original response DS posted contains a video which hasnt been linked here.

This video discusses the NIST report (probable collapse initiation, and testing carried out by NIST), FEMA findings, the afformentioned "NYC Testimonies", fireproofing, the "Pancake Theory", molten metal, and Building 7 East Penthouse early collapse (amongst other 7 related things!).

Improbable Collapse examines the increasingly widespread notion that the World Trade Center buildings were brought down using explosives. The film proceeds from an exclusive interview with Steven Jones, a professor of physics at Brigham Young University.

Jones argues that the mechanism of the building collapses proposed by US government investigators is extremely unlikely, hence the title of the film. This is Jones's first film appearance concerning the issues raised in his influential research paper, "Why Indeed did the WTC Buildings Collapse?"

Jim Hoffman pioneered research in the hypothesis that the WTC buildings were demolished as the creator of three meticulous and sprawling sites, wtc7.net, 911review.com and 911research.wtc7.net.


With Don Paul, who also appears briefly in the film, Hoffman is the co-author of Waking Up from Our Nightmare: The 9/11/01 Crimes in New York City.


Professor David Ray Griffin is the author of The New Pearl Harbor and Omissions and Distortions: The 9/11 Commission. Griffin spoke to standing-room only crowds in New York last October on "The Destruction of the World Trade Center".


Improbable Collapse critically examines the demolitions hypothesis and carefully evaluating evidence.


In a series of powerful episodes, the film's stunning first scenes depict the rise of a movement to demand the full truth about 9/11, and the increasingly public clash of paradigms: The received story of September 11th is confronted with the evidence marshalled by the 9/11 skeptics.

Entire video (1hr excluding credits)
Also this film contains new footage, so even if you dont want to watch it because you prefer the written word, put it on mute or something!

Diogenes

Nick_oliveri wrote:

Also this film contains new footage, so even if you dont want to watch it because you prefer the written word, put it on mute or something!

Are you saying the film shows brand new never before seen footage of the towers collaspe that has somehow escaped the mainstream media for half a decade?

Nick_oliveri

Diogenes wrote:

Are you saying the film shows brand new never before seen footage of the towers collaspe that has somehow escaped the mainstream media for half a decade?

Why dont you watch it and find out!!:p

Ah no, no not really, just new angles and some footage which i never seen before of the 7 aftermath and other settings (like some supposed NIST test site footage and steel "samples".

Diogenes

Nick_oliveri wrote:

Why dont you watch it and find out!!:p

Ah no, no not really, just new angles and some footage which i never seen before of the 7 aftermath and other settings (like some supposed NIST test site footage and steel "samples".

I am not watching another bloody video for an hour. Summerise the points raised and list them for us.

Just a cursory check at Jones shows he's currently on paid leave as his university checks his claims, and his area of expertise is not structural engineering but fusion and solar energy.

Nick_oliveri

Diogenes wrote:

I am not watching another bloody video for an hour. Summerise the points raised and list them for us.

And im not transcribing teh video! I made a good attempt at what the video is about, its up to you really to watch it or not.

And im not going to argue about the points raised here either, for or against.

If a mod disagrees with this method of providing links, then so be it, i wont do it again.

I was just providing something that hasn't been posted. Im not trying to market the fecking thing, as i hold different views of the events. (some aspects of said views are uncertain!)

Diogenes

Nick_oliveri wrote:

And im not transcribing teh video! I made a good attempt at what the video is about, its up to you really to watch it or not.

No you didnt, the video proclaims to be about the rise of the "911 truth movement" (what are we supposed to watch a bunch of domain names get registered) and then you vaguely say what its about.

What evidence does it bring to this thread that has not already been presented and rejected?

And im not going to argue about the points raised here either, for or against.

Way to sell the film to me. So basically you what? Want me to watch the film and discuss it? Even though you can't be bothered to do the later?

I was just providing something that hasn't been posted. Im not trying to market the fecking thing, as i hold different views of the events. (some aspects of said views are uncertain!)

Way to sell the conspiracy.

Nick_oliveri

Diogenes wrote:

No you didnt, the video proclaims to be about the rise of the "911 truth movement" (what are we supposed to watch a bunch of domain names get registered) and then you vaguely say what its about.

my quoted description wrote:

the film's stunning first scenes depict the rise of a movement to demand the full truth about 9/11

I quoted the best page i could find which was descriptive of the video in question, hence the quote tags around the "domain names"!
And yes, i think someone could have done better with a description, but i believe they want you to buy the fecking thing before you can know whats its about, which is wrong.

Diogenes wrote:

What evidence does it bring to this thread that has not already been presented and rejected?

I dont know, and i dont really care, im posting a link, just like you post some random lyrics and some rolling stone parodies. People dont have to read what i posted, just scroll past it.

Diogenes wrote:

Way to sell the film to me. So basically you what? Want me to watch the film and discuss it? Even though you can't be bothered to do the later?

I never said i wanted you to watch it, because i knew you wouldnt, and as i said earlier, i dont care if you do.

Diogenes wrote:

Way to sell the conspiracy.

Yeah, im selling the conspricy by posting one shítty link to a video which is relevant to the thread. I linked to the South Park episode too, do you want me to explain why i did this and discuss this episode also??

Its called relevance.

Speaking of relevance, when i posted this i didnt see you jumping all over it asking me to discuss it.

way to sell the conspiricy Nick....

Or this.

Or this
post which seems to be acceptable for me not to discuss as long as i post critisism!

that post wrote:

If this has been posted before, let me know if possible and i will delete this post.

You see what i was doing there? And im still doing it, posting relevant links and videos based on my assertion that they haven't been posted before. Contributing, in my own little way.

bonkey

Nick_oliveri wrote:

And yes, i think someone could have done better with a description, but i believe they want you to buy the fecking thing before you can know whats its about, which is wrong.

Which? Improbable Collapse?

Nah. Its on google video. Linked to from their own page an all.

Its the standard model...poor down-sampled quality available online, with the proper quality on the DVD, or something.

I dont know, and i dont really care, im posting a link, just like you post some random lyrics and some rolling stone parodies. People dont have to read what i posted, just scroll past it.

Again, coming to your defence, this is exactly what you did. YOu said it was something that hadn't been linked before.

You refrained from encouraging us to watch it, nor from passing any one-or-two-word synopsis like "this excellent movie" or whatever....which are the things that normally bug me.

Nick_oliveri

bonkey wrote:

Which? Improbable Collapse?

Nah. Its on google video. Linked to from their own page an all.

Its the standard model...poor down-sampled quality available online, with the proper quality on the DVD, or something.

Yep, "Improbable Collapse"!
My first impression was that the google video rip wasn't authorised, lol i was worried about getting banned for posting a link to it!!

bonkey wrote:

Again, coming to your defence, this is exactly what you did. YOu said it was something that hadn't been linked before.

You refrained from encouraging us to watch it, nor from passing any one-or-two-word synopsis like "this excellent movie" or whatever....which are the things that normally bug me.

I've learned a lot about posting links and posting in general on this forum and others lately. I did my best to give a good description, suppose i could have done better.

And i was disappointed to find no adequate description of the video online.

Diogenes

Nick_oliveri wrote:

And i was disappointed to find no adequate description of the video online.

Might I suggest you pen a few lines to describe it? What you have described means I need to wade through alot of tedious self congratulatory nonsense about the rise of the "911 truth" movement.

What exactly in this documentary is so "new" and "important"

tunaman

Diogenes wrote:

What evidence does it bring to this thread that has not already been presented and rejected?

In case you missed the poll in this thread, the majority disagree with your claims...

Another new poll out also reveals that roughly just 16% of Americans believe the truth has been told about prior knowledge...

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/13469

Many adults in the United States believe the current federal government has not been completely forthcoming on the issue of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, according to a poll by the New York Times and CBS News. 53 per cent of respondents think the Bush administration is hiding something, and 28 per cent believe it is lying.

Only 16 per cent of respondents say the government headed by U.S. president George W. Bush is telling the truth on what it knew prior to the terrorist attacks, down five points since May 2002.

Al-Qaeda operatives hijacked and crashed four airplanes in the U.S. on Sept. 11, 2001, killing nearly 3,000 people. In October, after Afghanistan’s Taliban regime refused to hand over al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, the U.S. launched the war on terrorism.

On Aug. 6, 2001, a Presidential Daily Briefing titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." mentioned "patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York."

On May 17, 2002, Bush discussed the situation, saying, "The American people know this about me, and my national security team, and my administration: Had I known that the enemy was going to use airplanes to kill on that fateful morning, I would have done everything in my power to protect the American people."

On Sept. 11, Bush referred to the attacks, saying, "Five years after 9/11, our enemies have not succeeded in launching another attack on our soil, but they’ve not been idle. Al-Qaeda and those inspired by its hateful ideology have carried out terrorist attacks in more than two dozen nations. And just last month, they were foiled in a plot to blow up passenger planes headed for the United States. They remain determined to attack America and kill our citizens—and we are determined to stop them."

Polling Data

When it comes to what they knew prior to September 11th, 2001, about possible terrorist attacks against the United States, do you think members of the Bush Administration are telling the truth, are mostly telling the truth but hiding something, or are they mostly lying?

Oct. 2006

May 2002

Telling the truth

16%

21%

Hiding something

53%

65%

Mostly lying

28%

8%

Not sure

3%

6%

Source: The New York Times / CBS News
Methodology: Telephone interviews with 983 American adults, conducted from Oct. 5 to Oct. 8, 2006. Margin of error is 4 per cent.

Former intelligence officer makes very interesting comments on 9/11...

“After spending the better part of the last five years treating these theories with utmost skepticism, I have devoted serious time to actually studying them in recent months, and have also carefully watched several videos that are available on the subject. I have come to believe that significant parts of the 9/11 theories are true, and that therefore significant parts of the ‘official story’ put out by the U.S. government and the 9/11 Commission are false.”
Bill Christison, former National Intelligence Officer and the Director of the CIA's Office of Regional and Political Analysis

Aerial view of the aftermath seen at the WTC...

http://www.flyboyed.com/groundzero.jpg

Do you really believe that two airliners managed to completely destroy those three huge steel-framed buildings, with each collapse taking a matter of seconds?

Diogenes

tunaman wrote:

In case you missed the poll in this thread, the majority disagree with your claims...

In case you havent notice the poll in this thread is whether a plane hit the pentagon or something else.

Seeing as you've now admitted that you think a plane hit it, and (only after having this fact dragged out of you) pointing to the results of a poll you now disagree with, as proof people believe your point of view, is a tad hyprocritical.

Furthermore when any real rigour was brought to the anti side, the conspiracy theorists ran away, Kernel Squaddie et all have all faded away when their back slapping platitudes were met with rigourous scientific and logically debates.

In case you've not notice tunaman its pretty lonely for you on this thread right now, so claiming the thread as proof that you're winning is bullcrap when

A) You now disagree with the poll you voted for

The people who said yes, have run away when they are asked to defend it.

Another new poll out also reveals that roughly just 16% of Americans believe the truth has been told about prior knowledge...

Only 16 per cent of respondents say the government headed by U.S. president George W. Bush is telling the truth on what it knew prior to the terrorist attacks, down five points since May 2002.

Thats an interesting figure I mean it doesn't identify what exactly they distrust about the offical story if they think Bush was behind it, or if they believe they are covering for government incompedence.

Incidently 43% of americans believe that that Saddam had a direct involvement with 911.

So bringing opinion poles as proof of something is beyond weak.

DS

Wow tunaman, I've been following this thread recently and that is the most ridiculous argument I've seen. You've devoted a page long post to basically construct an argument that amounts to "most of those guys think it's true, so it's obviously true". That is truly pathetic.

Diogenes

Tunaman has, as usual, cherry picked the data. If you add the 16% who believe the goverment is telling the truth, to the 53% who think they are "hiding something" You get 69%. I'd suggest that people who believe that government is "hiding something" don't buy into the "controlled explosion" theory.

I'd consider myself in the "hiding something" category. I think Bush Cheney and Rice have shown themselves to be duplicious about the way they treated, threat assesments and warning about potential attacks in the run up to 9/11.

However I think people who consider the government to have carried out
9/11 in a series of controlled explosions would go further then claim the government is hiding something, they'd said that the government was lying about everything. So that figure is closer to 28% at the end if your poll.

A significantly different results that your 16% believe the government.

Nick_oliveri

Diogenes wrote:

What you have described means I need to wade through alot of tedious self congratulatory nonsense about the rise of the "911 truth" movement.

Im going to quote my text again, and underline it this time so you might understand better.

my quoted description wrote:

the film's stunning first scenes depict the rise of a movement to demand the full truth about 9/11

First scenes.... :rolleyes:

And it just happens that the first scenes do nothing of the sort! In my search for an adequate description i have come up with a meaningless and unresearched one! I didn't know this at the time and had finished watching the film hours before so i posted up what i thought was adequate from the sites i searched.

So no, sorry! No self congragulatary bullshít there. Ahh well. It was misquoted anyways, but i'll let it slide.

Diogenes wrote:

What exactly in this documentary is so "new" and "important"

"Important" hmm, where did i say that? Let me get my glasses, no i dont remember saying that. Ctrl+f!...... The only "important" i can find is the one in your post.

Diogenes wrote:

Might I suggest you pen a few lines to describe it?

From my earlier post:

Nick_oliveri wrote:

This video discusses the NIST report (probable collapse initiation, and testing carried out by NIST), FEMA findings, the afformentioned "NYC Testimonies", fireproofing, the "Pancake Theory", molten metal, and Building 7 East Penthouse early collapse (amongst other 7 related things!).

You have dragged the fact that i posted a video you didn't agree with through the mud, over the hill, into the post office and any other place it could possibly go!

No-one questioned your Rolling Stone parodies or your Lyics. So wtf? Have i done something to annoy you by posting relevant links in this thread?

If you have an issue about my posting's take it up with a Moderator. Or create your own posting guidelines in this Forum and hope someone will sticky it.

These guidelines may read as follows.

#Thou shalt not post relevant links (be they video or of the written kind) to a Thread with or without descriptions.

#Thou shalt post irrelevant Lyrics and Parodies for us all to enjoy instead with one, possibly two cups of tea and a cheese toasty.
__________
Heres another relevant link: NIST WTC7 Approach Summary 12th Oct 2006.

Page 5:

• Identify initiating event scenarios –location and type of local failures that could have led to collapse as observed

Page 7:

• Investigation of hypothetical blast scenarios
• Evaluation of thermite as a possible blast substance
• Awarded contract for evaluation of hypothetical blast scenarios

Page 11:

Hypothetical Blast Analysis:
NIST is analyzing scenarios for the event that initiated the collapse of WTC 7. As a part of this work, NIST is considering whether hypothetical blast events could have played a role in initiating the collapse. While NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, NIST will estimate the magnitudeof hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure ofone or more critical elements as a result of blast.

• Phase I Identify hypothetical blast scenarios and materials, based on analysis and/or experience, for failing specified columns by direct attachment methods. Preliminary section cutting shall be considered. Compare estimated overpressures for each scenario against windowstrength.
• Phase II For blast scenarios with overpressures that clearly would not have broken windows, the worst case scenario(s) will be analyzed using SHAMRC software to determine overpressures at windows.
• Phase III If Phase II overpressures did not clearly fail windows, 3 blast scenarios will be selected to determine the sound levels that would be transmitted outside the building through intact windows.

Oh looksies, Nicks sellin teh Conspiricy again. Omgzorz!!!11eleventy

Diogenes

Nick_oliveri wrote:

Im going to quote my text again, and underline it this time so you might understand better.



First scenes.... :rolleyes:

And it just happens that the first scenes do nothing of the sort! In my search for an adequate description i have come up with a meaningless and unresearched one! I didn't know this at the time and had finished watching the film hours before so i posted up what i thought was adequate from the sites i searched.

So no, sorry! No self congragulatary bullshít there. Ahh well. It was misquoted anyways, but i'll let it slide.

No lets not. Let it slide.

I asked you to summerise the points raised in the film that have not been discussed on this thread before. Apparently even thats beyond you.

You went and searched for a description of the film.

How will a description of the film you've cut and pasted, tell us what points in this film have or have not been raised and disregarded in this specific discussion?

You're not even bothering to do the above so why should we bother watching it.

"Important" hmm, where did i say that? Let me get my glasses, no i dont remember saying that. Ctrl+f!...... The only "important" i can find is the one in your post.

So you're claiming new evidence that may help prove what would be the most incredible criminal conspiracy in the history of humanity isn't important? I would have thought you writing "important" would have been a tad redundant.

So basically this is an unimportant film that discussing this grand conspiracy. Great you've just admited I don't have to bother my arse watching it.

You have dragged the fact that i posted a video you didn't agree with through the mud, over the hill, into the post office and any other place it could possibly go!

No I'm annoyed by someone posting yet another bloody hour long video and not bothering their arse to summerise why its relevant or what new information it brings to the debate.

No-one questioned your Rolling Stone parodies or your Lyics. So wtf? Have i done something to annoy you by posting relevant links in this thread?

The rolling stones article isn't a parody. It would be a parody if it was a humourous or satirical send up of actual events. It's not, the conversation it presents never happened. You cannot parody what did not occur. It is dyed in the wool satire.

How long did it take you to read the rolling stone article? Five? Ten minutes? How long is the video you've linked to? An hour? 90 minutes?

Theres a world of difference between asking someone to endure yet another tedious conspiracy video, and linking to a short article.

Asking a theorist to summerise what new information is contained in the film, and what relevant and new information it brings to the thread isn't unreasonable. But it seems to be beyond you.

Heres another relevant link: NIST WTC7 Approach Summary 12th Oct 2006.


Oh looksies, Nicks sellin teh Conspiricy again. Omgzorz!!!11eleventy

Um how exactly does that "sellin teh conspiricy"? (sic) All it is the fact that the NIST looked at, examined and disregarded the demolition scenario.

Wow. Real smoking gun there Nick.

Nick_oliveri

Again i'll quote MY DESCRIPTION
You might want to read the original post, maybe on its own again.

Nick_oliveri wrote:

This video discusses the NIST report (probable collapse initiation, and testing carried out by NIST), FEMA findings, the afformentioned "NYC Testimonies", fireproofing, the "Pancake Theory", molten metal, and Building 7 East Penthouse early collapse (amongst other 7 related things!).

You dont seem to understand that i

1. Was posting a link relevant to the thread

2. Dont care if you watch it

3. Gave my own description And no it wasn't cut and pasted.

4. Quoted under my description what i thought was the best discription at the time from teh intarweb. And it turned out not to be. (i apologise for this.)

5. Never claimed new evidence that may help prove what would be the most incredible criminal conspiracy in the history of humanity.

6. Said there was new footage (that i have not seen before, dont know about you, oh yeah this footage i speak of has no smoking gun)



This all started because you took up on this new footage thing i was supposedly "selling".


_________________________


Your claims about me to date.

1. Nick_oliveri did not give his own description in this original "Selling teh video post"

2. Nick_oliveri cares if anyone watches the video

3. Nick_oliveri is "selling" the video

4. (NEW) Nick_oliveri is a "theorist" (for posting a link to a theorist video, relevant to the thread).

5. (NEW) Nick_oliveri parades a "smoking gun" by posting the fact that NIST considered "Hypothetical Blast Analysis". Would they even consider this of they were "in on teh conspiricy"? No they wouldnt.

6.(NEW) Nick_oliveri claimed that there is new evidence (in the video) that may help prove what would be the most incredible criminal conspiracy in the history of humanity.
______
See with number 5 there i was posting another link relevant to the thread and could forsee your "Omg Nick is a theorist he sells conspiricy theories" claims, so i posted a bit of sarcasm underneath number 5 just so you would know where i was coming from with my relevancy posts.

NicksSarcasmpost wrote:

Oh looksies, Nicks sellin teh Conspiricy again. Omgzorz!!!11eleventy

Didn't work though.

Back to the NIST link again, dated 12th October. I thought this was the most up to date .pdf at the time. Maybe you could show me where they disregarded the "Hypothetical Blast Analysis".

In page 2 of said report (dated 12th October)

No findings or conclusions will be presented as the analysis is ongoing

Again i must stress that i am not trying to "sell" anything. I just would like to be pointed in the right direction.

civdef

A deputy director of the Building Fire Research Laboratory at NIST who was a lead investigator on the WTC report is in Ireland at a seminar next week. Some of the posters here might like to put some of their theories to him directly?

AbusesToilets

I am amazed this post is still going.I mean how times and in how many ways can it be shown how full of **** these theories are?I don't want to be insulting to people but in the words of the great Gob Bluth - "Come ON!"
I can't remember which page of this thread had it but there was a link to a transcript of an interview with Dylan Avery.He talks about how he made all of this crap up to promote a movie script he had written.

arbeitsscheuer

AbusesToilets wrote:

I can't remember which page of this thread had it but there was a link to a transcript of an interview with Dylan Avery.He talks about how he made all of this crap up to promote a movie script he had written.

Er.... No, that's not true. And it's also libellous.

Dylan Avery and his friend, Korey Rowe, came up with an idea to make a fictional movie script about 9/11 in which the whole event is a Government conspiracy. In order to make it believable, they undertook considerable research and, the more informed and knowledgeable about the subject matter they became, were soon convinced that the "fictional" movie script they had created was much closer to the truth than the Official story of 9/11.

Diogenes

arbeitsscheuer wrote:

Er.... No, that's not true. And it's also libellous.

Dylan Avery and his friend, Korey Rowe, came up with an idea to make a fictional movie script about 9/11 in which the whole event is a Government conspiracy. In order to make it believable, they undertook considerable research and, the more informed and knowledgeable about the subject matter they became, were soon convinced that the "fictional" movie script they had created was much closer to the truth than the Official story of 9/11.

Not strictly true Avery recieved funding from a noted conspiracy theorist to make the documentary, in fact the noted revisions have often been padded the first edition (I think) included the missile pod under the wing, to beef up running time to over 90 minutes, so the piece was available for competition in festivals. It's also includes information that has been retracted or throughly debunked, which have been revised or removed, or even left in, despite being (as aformentioned debunked). So it would be hard for Avery to claim that he was being libelled by such a comment.

Actually the website fictionalised a (alledged) true conversation between Avery and James Galdofini (sic) where Tony Soprano told Avery that to be a direct he needed a story to tell. It could be argued that Avery found a easier and more profitable market, marketing fiction to conspiracy theorists, than fiction to the realists.

Oh and the Finally the threat of Libel? I think there are any number of people libelled by loose change who'd sue them, if they knew or cared about them. Never mind the copyright abuses.

AbusesToilets

by arbeitsscheuer
Er.... No, that's not true. And it's also libellous.

What i was referring to was a transcript of an interview Avery did in which he admits to having come up with the whole premise as a way to gain publicity.

bonkey

AbusesToilets wrote:

What i was referring to was a transcript of an interview Avery did in which he admits to having come up with the whole premise as a way to gain publicity.

What you claimed in your previous post is wrong.

Your current description of the underlying truth, while different to your original description, is still wrong.

And if you believe otherwise, then provide the link and show how the transcript of the interview matches your description of it.

Avery's work is bad enough that you don't need to resort to mischaracterising it to show it for what it is.

AbusesToilets

My apologies,in my zest i confused and combined two separate things in my mind. This is the site which i initially saw http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/911truth.html (still trawling through the pages of this thread trying to find).On there is a fictionalised transcript of a conversation between Avery and Gandolfini,which is there to illustrate the authors view that Avery is using his documentary for personal gain.I got that confused with the interview on the same page,the transcript of which has Avery laughing at the prospect of the pilots being attacked by the terrorists.This site also carries the same transcript: http://www.911myths.com/LooseChangeCreatorsSpeak.pdf

Mea Culpa

bonkey

I see Prof Alex Jones has retired from BYU.

I wonder how that will be construed.....

civdef

They got to him at last!

I was at that seminar today where Dr. Shyam Sunder from NIST delivered a keynote address on the WTC investigation. For the record, he didn't reckon it was a demolition job, but he did a very good of summarising his findings.

One thing he pointed out that was interesting was the broadcasting masts on top of the two towers - if anyone is bothered, might be worth having a look at some videos of the collapses to see how they behaved.

http://www.iei.ie/PressArchive/pressdetails.pasp?INT_NEWS_ITEM_ID=388&recordsperpage=20&PageNumber=1&ShowTab=1&MenuID=20

Nick_oliveri

bonkey wrote:

I see Prof Alex Jones has retired from BYU.

I wonder how that will be construed.....

Steven?

http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,650200587,00.html

Professor Steven Jones and Brigham Young University finalized a retirement package Friday, six weeks after the school placed the physicist on paid leave to review his statements and research about the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center.

"I am electing to retire so that I can spend more time speaking and conducting research of my own choosing," Jones said in a statement released by the university. "I appreciate the wonderful opportunity I have had to teach and serve and do research at BYU for more than 21 years."

I lol'd at the below quote.

"I stand firmly against the war in Iraq and any war of aggression," Jones wrote. "I support scientific scrutiny of the events of 9/11/2001, a day which will live in infamy."

Roosevelt?