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

So Glad

Diogenes wrote:

Hang on So Glad.

A) Didn't you swear not to post on this thread?

I lied.

Diogenes wrote:

Didn't you then post on this thread claiming you didn't believe 911 Conspiracy.

Nope, I said I am 50/50. I just like poking around, like this for example.

Diogenes wrote:

They weren't unarmed. Thats untrue. They were armed with knives and boxcutters. They murdered people. As pointed out earlier on this thread it was standard pratice for crews to acquiesce to the demands of hijackers.

Hahahahahaahah. Boxcutters & Knives? How does one get past heavy airplane security with boxcutters and knives?

Diogenes

So Glad wrote:

I lied.



Nope, I said I am 50/50. I just like poking around, like this for example.

You actually said "I don't believe in 911 conspiracy theories.

Hahahahahaahah. Boxcutters & Knives? How does one get past heavy airplane security with boxcutters and knives?

Like this
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1733918.stm
Note the date months after sept 11th

And Incase you missed this story two years ago

A team of undercover investigators from the European Civil Aviation Conference and the transportation department of Ireland smuggled knives, a gun and a fake bomb past security checkpoints at Dublin Airport during an unannounced four-day security audit during the past week.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/04/15/news/travel16.php

Need one in America?

WASHINGTON — Undercover investigators were able to sneak explosives and weapons past security screeners at 15 airports nationwide, according to a government report on aviation security.

http://www.usatoday.com/travel/news/2004-09-22-weapons_x.htm

Diogenes

Nick_oliveri wrote:

I hope to fúk im never in the company of a madman with boxcutters, them things could do some heavy damage.

A razor sharp blade cutting across the carotid artery in the neck, will leave you dead in five minutes flat. Before dying the blood spray can travel 10feet.

Imagine that in the confines of a passenger plane, and you can see how passengers were cowed.

bonkey

Ever work in a bank? I did and as part of our training we each did a week-long stint in a branch. One of the very first things they tell you is that if someone attempts to rob the bank, you do one thing and one thing only....cooperate.

Prior to 911, planes were hijacked for one reason and one reason only. The passengers were used as bargaining chips to achieve some goal. The survival maximisation strategy was exactly the same as in a bank. You cooperated.

If someone says on a plane "I have a bomb", then (in a pre-911 world, at least) what you did was exactly what you were told to do. You didn't ask them to prove it. You didn't tackle them just in case they were bluffing. You sat down and hoped to God that no-one would do anything stupid, especially not while the plane was in the air.

Today, thats different. Today, people might rush the guy anyway, lest they find themselves in a 911-copycat situation. But pre-911? Pre-911, you could hijack a plane with a good bluff. You didn't even need a box-cutter. If you had one, though, then all you needed was one hostage...and straight away everyone is going to listen to you.

Take a larger number of hijackers than one (which was the case on 911), so that some are "screening" the guy holding the hostage, and you guarantee than any rescue attempt mounted by passengers will result in at least one death.

And remember...back then, people didn't hijack planes to fly them into buildings. They hijacked them to fly somewhere.

So tell me Nick...would you sacrifice the life of a fellow passenger rather than sit in your seat and wait for events to unfold? Would you take the risk that the guy was bluffing if he said he had a bomb? And remember....at the time in question, you have absolutely NO reason to believe that the hijacker will do anything other than what hijackers always do (and presumably what these guys are telling you they will do). They will fly you somewhere, land, and negotiate.

One last point...

A friend of mine flew back from the US on one of the first flights post 911. After the plane touched down, one guy unbuckled his seat-belt early and started to open the overhead locker. Now tell me...do you believe the reaction to this would be the same or different to someone doing the exact same thing on September 10th, 2001???

To analyse the reactions of September 11th, you have to remember that you cannot take anything that we know of the day into account, with the exception of perhaps some of the planes, post-hijacking, assuming you accept the evidence that says passengers communicated with people on the ground and/or could have otherwise received news of what was happening in the outside world.

Nick_oliveri

bonkey wrote:

So tell me Nick...would you sacrifice the life of a fellow passenger rather than sit in your seat and wait for events to unfold? Would you take the risk that the guy was bluffing if he said he had a bomb? And remember....at the time in question, you have absolutely NO reason to believe that the hijacker will do anything other than what hijackers always do (and presumably what these guys are telling you they will do). They will fly you somewhere, land, and negotiate.

I wouldnt flinch, i wouldnt move and i certainly wouldnt talk. Having never been on a plane (before) there would probably be a certain smell coming from my general direction!!

I can see how my previous post might have seemed sarcastic. This is not the case.

And if it was me, Bonkey, i wouldnt be thinking about them landing the Plane and negotiating. I'd be thinking about how and when i was going to die. Rational thinking goes out the door when you are faced with the situation of being a couple of miles high in a tin can with some crazy fúk waving a razor blade in your face telling you he has a bomb.

Land the plane and negotiate? Dont think so. I might have even waved my athiest stance and said a few hail marys to myself just to make sure!

____________________________________

miju wrote:

outta complete curiousity civdef whats the split like among structural & fire engineers and what is the main point of debate?

Sorry to bring this point up again but i was reading through the BBC News Editors comments and noticed this comment/link.
It was posted March teh 1st (on vermont gaurdian, not bbc comments page!).
http://www.vermontguardian.com/commentary/032007/TwinTowers.shtml

He really just makes the same points that have been made before. I'd love if there was a contact page for the guy. If we could have some serious and professional diologue going on here it would be a good thing.

Did we banter about this guy before? I think we did!!

____________________________________

Muckrakerreport has mailed a request letter to the NIST outlining what it/he believes to be factual inaccuracys/research conflicts of interests in the current and previous NIST report(s).

March 1, 2007 – The following Request for Correction was e-mailed to the National Institute of Standards and Technology on February 28, 2007. It will be certified mailed on March 1, 2007. Attorney Jerry Leaphart has informed me that he will work on the legal papers for an injunction this weekend.

The subject matter within this Request for Correction and pending filing for injunction is purposeful. The reader might be tempted to conclude that many other contradictions found within the government investigation of WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 should have been referenced in this Request for Correction. I can assure you that great thought went into this effort and it mirrors the advice of counsel. What some might conclude as “too narrow” is actually advantageous to achieving the goal – the truth.

Now, we all seen this happening, whether it be denial, debunkery, attempted debunkery or ignorance of said reports. But this guy has got some serious request grammar going on there!!

Full request can be seen here:
http://www.muckrakerreport.com/id367.html

The Gnome

Apologies if this was posted before, I did search and didn't find it.

BBC News Reports Building 7 collapse 23 Minutes before it collapses.

Seems quite interesting and brings up numerous questions. Too numerous for the moment, 5.28am an no sleep. I'll be back later to flesh my theories.

Anyone else care to comment in the meantime?

Ciaran500

The Gnome wrote:

Apologies if this was posted before, I did search and didn't find it.

BBC News Reports Building 7 collapse 23 Minutes before it collapses.

It was the thread below this one.

shane86

On a related note I have to say the documentary on BBC 2 was possibly the worst documentary on any subject I have ever seen. Evidence based on grainy, incomplete, inconclusive footage and rumour, propogated by some stoned young lad and a loudmouth Texan who has made god knows how much money from the interviews/radio shows/guest speaker engagements.

"Well, this thing at the side of the Pentagon, it could be a rocket"

It could be. It could have been Ron Jeremys schlong for all we know from the quality of the footage. Honest to jesus, who in the BBC allowed this ****e to get aired.

Flyingfish

Dr. David Ray Griffin - Debunking the 9/11 Debunkers
Vancouver BC, May 16, 2007 (May 16, 2007)

http://www.archive.org/download/Dr-David-Ray-Griffin-Debunking-the-911-Debunkers-Vancouver-BC-May16-2007/DavidRayGriffin.Vancouver.05.16.07.mp3

Diogenes

Flyingfish wrote:

Dr. David Ray Griffin - Debunking the 9/11 Debunkers
Vancouver BC, May 16, 2007 (May 16, 2007)

http://www.archive.org/download/Dr-David-Ray-Griffin-Debunking-the-911-Debunkers-Vancouver-BC-May16-2007/DavidRayGriffin.Vancouver.05.16.07.mp3

What happens if someone debunks this, what will Griffin to, release another book, "Debunking, the debunking of my debunking of 911 Debunkers?"

There are numerous errors in Griffins fantasy rant, much of which has already been discussed and rejected on this thread earlier.

Nick_oliveri

Diogenes wrote:

What happens if someone debunks this, what will Griffin to, release another book, "Debunking, the debunking of my debunking of 911 Debunkers?"

There are numerous errors in Griffins fantasy rant, much of which has already been discussed and rejected on this thread earlier.

I didnt listen to the mp3 stream, but did we discuss this book earlier?

And yes, whoever is right or wrong, the debunking will continue on each side. Probably until severe repitition, whens no-ones fcuking interested anymore.

Diogenes

Nick_oliveri wrote:

I didnt listen to the mp3 stream, but did we discuss this book earlier?

No but griffin is happy to repeat the same old chesnut in his book. Bush's cousin wrote the 911 popular mechanics rebuttal, hijackers are still alive. He's repeating the same bullshít we've heard before, and presenting it as new information.

And yes, whoever is right or wrong, the debunking will continue on each side. Probably until severe repitition, whens no-ones fcuking interested anymore.

We're already there

tunaman

Nick_oliveri wrote:

And yes, whoever is right or wrong, the debunking will continue on each side. Probably until severe repitition, whens no-ones fcuking interested anymore.

The facts cannot be debunked, instead many people supporting the official story try to claim, that basically everybody is an idiot, except the hijackers.

The reason Bush stayed put in the classroom was because he was an idiot, even though it was the job of the secret service to protect him.

So they must be idiots aswell...

Silverstein making the comment that they decided "to pull it" when talking about the obvious demolition of building 7 would make him an idiot.

BBC and CNN both reported building 7 had collapsed 15 minutes before it actually did, so their only conclusion is that they must also be idiots...

What about the Mossad agents who were seen celebrating on the roof of a van, in 3 different locations, while recording the twin towers burning?

To be spotted once would be careless, but I suppose to be caught 3 times really would mark them out as idiots, unless they wanted to be seen.

This video has a look at these examples and makes the claim that all of the above are examples of bizarre, seemingly deliberate self-incrimination.

The first 18 minutes is all about the insider trading which is fairly tedious, and unfortunately can be a problem with this video in other parts, but otherwise it is a very interesting look at the incredibly strange actions of those involved.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=347655064407137426&q=open+complicity

The conclusion being that all this powerful evidence which was deliberately left for people to find, was in order to create a situation where so many people were incriminated, that everybody had to deny everything.

bonkey

tunaman wrote:

The facts cannot be debunked,

By definition, facts cannot be debunked.
The question is what are the facts.
Calling something a fact doesn't make it so....for either side.

instead many people supporting the official story try to claim, that basically everybody is an idiot, except the hijackers.

While it may be true that many people supporting the official account of events make that argument, I would maintain that such people are, themselves, idiots.

The reason Bush stayed put in the classroom was because he was an idiot,

I don't care why Bush stayed put in the classroom. Until someone can show it to be significant, it has no relevance.

even though it was the job of the secret service to protect him.
So they must be idiots aswell...

Only if someone can show that there was a good reason to believe that Bush was under threat in his current location and that the Secret Service ignored that threat.

Silverstein making the comment that they decided "to pull it" when talking about the obvious demolition of building 7 would make him an idiot.

It would, were the collapse of building 7 obviously a demolition, if "pull it" meant "to demolish using explosives", if it could be shown that Silverstein was in on the plot as well as those he was referring to as having made said decision.

Given that it is not obviously a demolition, pull it does not mean to demolish with explosives, there is no indication that Silverstein or anyone else was in on anything...it would take an idiot supporter of the established version of events to argue that Silverstein is an idiot.

BBC and CNN both reported building 7 had collapsed 15 minutes before it actually did, so their only conclusion is that they must also be idiots...

They both also reported explosions at Capitol Hill, amongst any number of other things. Indeed, it is well established that in major breaking stories, major news channels report first, and verify later in a bid to ensure that they aren't scooped on any major eventualities.

It would take an idiot to ignore such patterns and conclude that one mis-reporting amongst many was down to idiocy on their part.

What about the Mossad agents who were seen celebrating on the roof of a van, in 3 different locations, while recording the twin towers burning?

To be spotted once would be careless, but I suppose to be caught 3 times really would mark them out as idiots, unless they wanted to be seen.

I thought you were saying that supporters of the official account of events require these people to be idiots? The official account of events doesn't refer to these people at all, so I don't see why they would be required to be commented on, let alone be referred to as idiots.

This video has a look at these examples and makes the claim that all of the above are examples of bizarre, seemingly deliberate self-incrimination.

I don't need a video to tell me that there's nothing bizarre about any of them, nor is there any seemingly-deliberate self-incrimination unless one first assumes guilt and then tries to explain their actions within that supposition.

it is a very interesting look at the incredibly strange actions of those involved.

How many events can you compare 911 to in order to judge whether or not the reactions were strange? How many times in your lifetime have multiple major cities of any nation been attacked in a comparable manner and a comparably short timeframe?

What is your baseline of establishing what normal behaviour should be for any of those people?

The only one I would argue you can get a baseline for is the behaviour of reporters during major breaking-news events. In this case, you've ignored it as it would support the reality that they report first and verify later.

The President? No precedent in living memory.
The Secret Service? No precedent in living memory.
Silverstein? No precedent in living memory.

So what, exactly, makes their behaviour strange?

The conclusion being that all this powerful evidence which was deliberately left for people to find, was in order to create a situation where so many people were incriminated, that everybody had to deny everything.

Well, at least we've got a new twist now...

They knew the couldn't cover it up, so they made sure that there was enough suspicious evidence that they could be incriminated by so they wouldn't be incriminated.

Diogenes

bonkey wrote:

They knew the couldn't cover it up, so they made sure that there was enough suspicious evidence that they could be incriminated by so they wouldn't be incriminated.

This has to be a new low specious reasoning, it's almost like an episode of Scooby Do, where the gang discover that the ghost haunting old man Jenkin's amusement park, is in fact themselves.

"Jinkeys, and we would have gotten away with it with if it wasn't for our pesky selves."

Flyingfish

Thanks Tunaman!

9/11 Debunkers Hide From Slam Dunk Evidence Of Controlled Demolition
Electron microscope analysis of steel spheres from WTC site proves thermate, proves collapse of twin towers was an act of deliberate arson

Professor Steven Jones presented brand new and compelling evidence for the controlled demolition of the twin towers and WTC 7 recently, but the 9/11 debunkers and the corporate media are loathe to tackle it because it represents a slam dunk on proving the collapse of the buildings was a deliberate act of arson.

The Full Article:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may2007/220507controlleddemolition.htm

Video of Jones' presentation:
Professor Steven Jones' groundbreaking presentation at the Rebuilding America's Senses event at the University of Texas
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6334568018024386918&

Flyingfish

Diogenes

Flyingfish wrote:

Thanks Tunaman!

9/11 Debunkers Hide From Slam Dunk Evidence Of Controlled Demolition
Electron microscope analysis of steel spheres from WTC site proves thermate, proves collapse of twin towers was an act of deliberate arson

Professor Steven Jones presented brand new and compelling evidence for the controlled demolition of the twin towers and WTC 7 recently, but the 9/11 debunkers and the corporate media are loathe to tackle it because it represents a slam dunk on proving the collapse of the buildings was a deliberate act of arson.

The Full Article:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may2007/220507controlleddemolition.htm

Video of Jones' presentation:
Professor Steven Jones' groundbreaking presentation at the Rebuilding America's Senses event at the University of Texas
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6334568018024386918&

Flyingfish

It's always so funny when troofers claim people are avoiding answers, and running away from issues.

Firstly, and need I say obviously, Jones hasn't published his findings in any scientific journal, as per usual.

Secondly lets look at how Jones gathered his sample. They were taken from the apartment of Janette Mc Kinley, who lived close to the WTC. The prison planet link you gave is down and so this is a quote from Jones' paper;

The provenience (sic) of the dust sample used in my study is from an apartment at 113 Cedar St. in New York City. This fourth-floor apartment was the residence of Janette MacKinlay and was approximately 100 meters or so from the closest Tower the South Tower.

Janette told me that she had a sense, almost a spiritual or reverential feeling (knowing the origin of the dust) to preserve some of it, which she did, placing dust from her apartment into a plastic bag.

However Janette isn't just some innocent bystander in 911 circles. She was given Star Billing at a 911 truth conference in Phoenix, and sat next to Jones at a press conference. So she's hardly an impartial source for empirical evidence. Using truther logic she'd be discredited on this and this alone.

But lets look at the science of Jones claim to be sure. This is the only dust sample Jones' tests. Thats a reprehensible breach of basic scientific testing priniciples, theres no control sample, theres no attempt to test any other dust in the area. To use the same logic if I went to a diamond cutters and selected a sample of their dust, and found small diamond fragments. Then I announced that there are "usually diamonds can be found in dust!".

Secondly Jones, and this is just as appalling science as the example above, doesn't even contemplate alternative explanations for the spherules. For example; sparks from Angle grinders, cutting metal (which did occur in the days and weeks after the attack as people cut through debry) could account for the spherules. As could the fact that in article written about Janette mentions her loftmate was a scupltor, if he works with stone or metal, the spherules could be accounted for that way.

No Jones has a predetermined idea that thermate was used, and is now manipulating the evidence to agree with his already formed conclusion.

Now I'm not physicist or metalurgist, or a chemist. But you can read people who are discuss the matter here

Debunkers aren't running away from this matter Flyingfish, it's been discussed at length.

But while we're on the subject of people running away from discuss, don't suppoe you've any evidence of those pentagon air defences?

Flyingfish

Interesting development, powerful image.

A Marine for 9/11 Truth
Story from May 11th 2007 - More details
http://www.911blogger.com/node/8544



He's gonna be there on the 11th of every month from now on.
Flyingfish

Diogenes

Flyingfish wrote:

Interesting development, powerful image.


He's gonna be there on the 11th of every month from now on.
Flyingfish

Wow, so you're just going to ignore the whole rebuttal of Jones.

Heres a few points for you to ignore FF. If this guy is a Marine, what does it mean? Does he have access to information that makes his opinion more credible? Finally are you aware that it is a crime for a US Marine, or indeed any US servicemen to engage in political campaigning in uniform?

I await your next non sequitur.

Flyingfish

If one were to actually click the link above....

9/11 Truthers,
First off, thank you all, for what I learned of each person's bold responsibilities they have taken for this movement. I have nothing but gratitude for everyone.

May 11th was a great beginning for me, and I look forward to much more. It was great to experience a team that held my back while service member after service member tried their best to attack us. Each person who approached with negativity was ushered away by facts, and personal responsibilities. I've never actually been so proud of a group of people I had never met. I purposely pushed the envelope by wearing my uniform, knowing that I was still under contract of the Marine Corps' IRR. But it was a statement that had to be made, and I look forward to making it again.

Something that I wanted you all to know is the reactions I recieved from every astonished service member after they calmed down. The first person to walk up and tell me this movement would leave a black mark on my life, later admitted that he agreed with more of our beliefs than he could admit. (Air Force Officer) The second Marine simply told me "you can't do this yet." ...yet. The third Marine took my number and later called me with two other Marine Corps Officers to inform me that I was facing a dishonorable discharge, but also saying that I was an outstanding individual and more people needed to voice their opinions to stop this war. The fourth Lt. Col. actually gave me ideas to continue this march after three 9/11Truthers jumped down his throat in protection of our 1st Amendment.

Everyone did an outstanding job! Thank you very much.
I'll see you all soon,
Johnny Wave

bonkey

Flyingfish's marine article... wrote:

The third Marine took my number and later called me with two other Marine Corps Officers to inform me that I was facing a dishonorable discharge, but also saying that I was an outstanding individual and more people needed to voice their opinions to stop this war.

"911 Truth Now" is, apparently, some sort of code for "withdraw the troops from Iraq".

I see. So this guys truth is that the whole thing was done to get the US into Iraq.

Truther

Diogenes wrote:

...Jones hasn't published his findings in any scientific journal, as per usual....

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/JonesWTC911SciMethod.pdf

Flyingfish

Thanks for the link Thruther!

bonkey

"Journal of 911 studies" is not a scientific journal. Diogenes' point still stands.

Diogenes

bonkey wrote:

"Journal of 911 studies" is not a scientific journal. Diogenes' point still stands.

Thank you. Judy Woods, resigned from the scholars for 911 truth (who publish the journal of 911 studies) on the grounds of it's shoddy selection over who would peer review articles.

A fact that was already pointed out to you, flying fish on this thread, already, and you ran away from it.

Now Who is Judy Woods. Well she wrote This piece of nonsense The glossary of terms, alone, is actually a work of comedic genius, and frankly if this woman walks away from your peer review system, well you really have to have a shoddy peer review methodology.

CB_Brooklyn

Diogenes wrote:

Thank you. Judy Woods, resigned from the scholars for 911 truth (who publish the journal of 911 studies) on the grounds of it's shoddy selection over who would peer review articles.

A fact that was already pointed out to you, flying fish on this thread, already, and you ran away from it.

Now Who is Judy Woods. Well she wrote This piece of nonsense The glossary of terms, alone, is actually a work of comedic genius, and frankly if this woman walks away from your peer review system, well you really have to have a shoddy peer review methodology.

Just because you don't have the ability to understand her new paper does not make it nonsense. Fact is it's her best work yet and I encourage everybody interested in the REAL truth of 9/11 to look through it. Also listen to her recent radio interviews.

"Molecular Dissociation: from Dust to Dirt" and radio interview MP3 links:
http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/#news

humanji

Look at the foreward of the piece, alone. You can tell it's completely biased and as such has to be taken with a pinch of salt.

(and the glossery of terms is hilarious. Even truthers have to admit that.)

CB_Brooklyn

humanji wrote:

Look at the foreward of the piece, alone. You can tell it's completely biased and as such has to be taken with a pinch of salt.

(and the glossery of terms is hilarious. Even truthers have to admit that.)

Nothing in your comment above refutes the data in Dr Wood's paper.

Diogenes

CB_Brooklyn wrote:

Just because you don't have the ability to understand her new paper does not make it nonsense. Fact is it's her best work yet and I encourage everybody interested in the REAL truth of 9/11 to look through it. Also listen to her recent radio interviews.

"Molecular Dissociation: from Dust to Dirt" and radio interview MP3 links:
http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/#news

Oh no, I do get what she's doing, or trying to do.

So Judy, what exactly powers a "Directed Energy Weapon?"

Answer; Dunno.

Where was this weapon?

Answer; Dunno.

How could such immense energy be focused so that it dissolve steel, but not boil the organs of those around the building?

Answer. Dunno, but it Alka Seltzered the steel.

It what?

How does it work?

Answer; Dustification of the steel.

THAT'S NOT EVEN A WORD!

The woman is 24 carat of crazy and it's worth pointing out that the supporting paper by "Ace Baker" is a musician and conspiracy nut, who doesn't believe planes hit the building at all.

humanji

CB_Brooklyn wrote:

Nothing in your comment above refutes the data in Dr Wood's paper.

Nothing in my comments was meant to, other than to say that she is incredibly biased, so that she is hardly going to be objective, is she?

When an objective observer of this "debate" comes along and offers unbiased information on the events, then I'll take notice. But if the best "truthers" can come up with is people who, for reasons known only to themselves, go out of their way to sound like they're making things up (even if they're not), then can you really be surprised if their arguments aren't taken seriously?