9/11 Attacks

Horse_box · 12-09-2010 3:06am

I think soveriegn has been on the sauce tonight!

MrStuffins · 12-09-2010 8:22pm

At the moment i am watching a documentary called "9/11 Conspiracies" on Nat Geo +1.

Can anyone tell me is this specific documentary available on the web? I tried You Tube but typing "9/11 Conspiracies" into You Tube brings up.... well.... everything!

DublinWriter · 12-09-2010 8:44pm

alastair wrote: »

Well the head-honcho seismologist man at Columbia's Palisades seismology lab, which recorded the seismic data that Rousseau based his (unquantified) theory on, St. Arthur Lerner-Lam, seems to believe otherwise:

What's his name?

Objectively, could you really imagine any academic with tenure at an American University or Research facility retaining his/her position if they took any controversial stance on the events of 9/11?

Brown Bomber · 12-09-2010 8:52pm

MrStuffins wrote: »

At the moment i am watching a documentary called "9/11 Conspiracies" on Nat Geo +1.

Can anyone tell me is this specific documentary available on the web? I tried You Tube but typing "9/11 Conspiracies" into You Tube brings up.... well.... everything!

If its the one where the planes crash into the skyscrapers this is probably it
http://natgeotv.com/uk/911-conspiracies/videos/911-conspiracies

MrStuffins · 12-09-2010 8:56pm

Brown Bomber wrote: »

If its the one where the planes crash into the skyscrapers this is probably it
http://natgeotv.com/uk/911-conspiracies/videos/911-conspiracies

That's the exact one BB thanks a lot.

Although this is only the opening 1 minute 54 seconds. I hope i can find the full video!

DublinWriter · 12-09-2010 9:00pm

Brown Bomber wrote: »

If its the one where the planes crash into the skyscrapers this is probably it
http://natgeotv.com/uk/911-conspiracies/videos/911-conspiracies

Watch that vid at exactly 10 seconds in where they play the collapse backwards and tell me there weren't explosives involved.

Brown Bomber · 12-09-2010 9:01pm

MrStuffins wrote: »

That's the exact one BB thanks a lot.

Although this is only the opening 1 minute 54 seconds. I hope i can find the full video!

haha, sorry. I had no idea

MrStuffins · 12-09-2010 9:08pm

DublinWriter wrote: »

Watch that vid at exactly 10 seconds in where they play the collapse backwards and tell me there weren't explosives involved.

Just did.

There weren't explosives involved

That wasn't explosives i'm afraid.

Divorce Referendum · 12-09-2010 9:12pm

DublinWriter wrote: »

Watch that vid at exactly 10 seconds in where they play the collapse backwards and tell me there weren't explosives involved.

I dont think that was explosives. The floor collapsing above dispelled air which created the flash of fire you saw on the floor were the plane hit. Its the same the whole way down as the building collapsed except its dust thats being dispelled.

alastair · 12-09-2010 9:19pm

DublinWriter wrote: »

What's his name?

Objectively, could you really imagine any academic with tenure at an American University or Research facility retaining his/her position if they took any controversial stance on the events of 9/11?

Dr. Arthur Lerner-Lam

Yes. Not too difficult to find them: James H. Fetzer spouts patently ludicrous conspiracy theories in relation to 9/11 and still hold sown a high powered academic career. In fact, if you're tenured, it's pretty hard to force someone out of their position.

Di0genes · 12-09-2010 9:23pm

DublinWriter wrote: »

What's his name?

Objectively, could you really imagine any academic with tenure at an American University or Research facility retaining his/her position if they took any controversial stance on the events of 9/11?

Lots of Americans Academics take controversial positions on a variety of subjects. This isn't the 1950s.

The alternative argument is the number of Engineering and Architectural journals who have embraced the findings of the NIST.

You're implying cowardice to professors, and scientist in case they are stripped of power. Can you explain how the Alex Jones and Dylan Averies of this world haven't been bumped off, to silence them?

Happyman42 · 12-09-2010 9:37pm

alastair wrote: »

Happyman42 wrote: »

the very same Mr Fury (he of the delta force actions) that was supposedly told to 'let him go' has this to say:

So a former major (probably publicising and selling a book) talking on CBS is a source now?:rolleyes:

alastair · 12-09-2010 9:48pm

Happyman42 wrote: »

alastair wrote: »

So a former major (probably publicising and selling a book) talking on CBS is a source now?:rolleyes:

ehh - he's the source of the original quote, which was taken as evidence of Bin Laden being 'let go', so I'm not sure who's better placed to disprove that suggestion? Do you?

alastair · 12-09-2010 10:03pm

I guess not.

Happyman42 · 12-09-2010 10:07pm

alastair wrote: »

Happyman42 wrote: »

ehh - he's the source of the original quote, which was taken as evidence of Bin Laden being 'let go', so I'm not sure who's better placed to disprove that suggestion? Do you?

You use CBS as a source only because it chimes in with what you believe Alastair. Yet you can blithely ignore other accounts, witness statements and demand official proofs.
See anything wrong or inconsistent with that at all?
Because it is fundamentally inconsistent and marks you out as somebody who is trenchantly defending a biased position without fairly reviewing what is being put in front of you.
Which is something I believe the Commission did and therefore it has failed.

Happyman42 · 12-09-2010 10:15pm

Hurry up Alastair:rolleyes:

alastair · 12-09-2010 10:23pm

Happyman42 wrote: »

alastair wrote: »

You use CBS as a source only because it chimes in with what you believe Alastair. Yet you can blithely ignore other accounts, witness statements and demand official proofs.
See anything wrong or inconsistent with that at all?
Because it is fundamentally inconsistent and marks you out as somebody who is trenchantly defending a biased position without fairly reviewing what is being put in front of you.
Which is something I believe the Commission did and therefore it has failed.

Rubbish - try to keep up.

The one guy (Mr. Fury) is quoted as stating that his team got pretty close to Bin Laden but was refused permission to launch an attack at that point. Clear so far?

That's taken (in the usual distorted fashion) as 'They let him go!' by those who have their blinkers on.

But wait! The same Mr. Fury (he who is now the supposed sole source for this 'they let him go at Tora Bora!' meme), hasn't finished his piece yet. What happened next Mr Fury? Well - they cornered him, believed they saw him enter a particular cave, and they bombed that cave 'with everything they had in the sky' for hours until they believed they had killed him and anyone else in there. Now there's possibly a line between 'we let him go' and 'we thought we killed him', but it's quite the distance.

I love the irony of this btw:

Yet you can blithely ignore other accounts, witness statements and demand official proofs.

Happyman42 · 12-09-2010 10:34pm

Whatever about Mr Fury.
My point is; had that piece been saying catergorically 'they let him go', you would have rubbished it as a source, you have been doing that since this thread began.

alastair · 12-09-2010 10:38pm

Happyman42 wrote: »

Whatever about Mr Fury.
My point is; had that piece been saying catergorically 'they let him go', you would have rubbished it as a source, you have been doing that since this thread began.

Ah - the mind-reading is strong with this one.

I thought you were about to produce a bunch of 'other accounts, and witness statements' from Tora Bora, which exposed my selective and biased reading of the event. But no - just more straw men.

seannash · 12-09-2010 10:39pm

is anyone else having a hard time following this now.seems like were getting really pedantic

squod · 12-09-2010 10:42pm

seannash wrote: »

is anyone else having a hard time following this now.seems like were getting really pedantic

That's the point of it. There have been unmpteen attempts to derail this thread. ( not backseat modding). It's been obvious from page on that this is going no-where.

alastair · 12-09-2010 10:46pm

squod wrote: »

That's the point of it. There have been unmpteen attempts to derail this thread. ( not backseat modding). It's been obvious from page on that this is going no-where.

At least you've learned that there's precious little to undermine the 9/11 Commission's presentation of facts. That's something.

squod · 12-09-2010 10:49pm

alastair wrote: »

At least you've learned that there's precious little to undermine the 9/11 Commission's presentation of facts. That's something.

Blah, blah, blah. Gotta hand it to you alastair. You've obviously wasted a considerable amount of your life digesting that gobbledegook. The very fact that you want to continue on a loosing argument is almost commendable.

Happyman42 · 12-09-2010 10:51pm

alastair wrote: »

selective and biased reading of the event.

Funny that. It has been my point all along that the commission has been selective and biased in it's reading of the event.
The 'found' passport investigation was completely inadequate and then there is this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Able_Danger#cite_note-H5250-12 which completely undermines the integrity of the findings.
But hey, you can live with key players not being adequately examined and cross examined to get at the truth. I and others can't, so I say once again, thank the Lord for CTers.

Jeboa Safari · 12-09-2010 10:55pm

squod wrote: »

The very fact that you want to continue on a loosing argument is almost commendable.

I've seen nothing even remotely convincing in this thread that disproves the ops theory. A couple of poster clutching at straws, thats about it.

alastair · 12-09-2010 10:57pm

Happyman42 wrote: »

Funny that. It has been my point all along that the commission has been selective and biased in it's reading of the event.
The 'found' passport investigation was completely inadequate and then there is this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Able_Danger#cite_note-H5250-12 which completely undermines the integrity of the findings.
But hey, you can live with key players not being adequately examined and cross examined to get at the truth. I and others can't, so I say once again, thank the Lord for CTers.

Eh - there was no investigation needed of the passport beyond establishing whose it was - it's unambigiously the guy's passport - and it obviously came from the plane lodged in the building overhead. There's nothing to support any other contention, and no reason to suspect the logic of the facts.

The key players were called to give evidence. Try reading the report some day.

Divorce Referendum · 12-09-2010 10:57pm

Happyman42 wrote: »

Funny that. It has been my point all along that the commission has been selective and biased in it's reading of the event.
The 'found' passport investigation was completely inadequate and then there is this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Able_Danger#cite_note-H5250-12 which completely undermines the integrity of the findings.
But hey, you can live with key players not being adequately examined and cross examined to get at the truth. I and others can't, so I say once again, thank the Lord for CTers.

In regards to 9/11 is there any theory the CTers came up with that has actually been proven?

alastair · 12-09-2010 10:57pm

Divorce Referendum wrote: »

In regards to 9/11 is there any theory the CTers came up with that has actually been proven?

Or even makes sense within it's own construct?

Happyman42 · 12-09-2010 10:58pm

And I believe that this will be officially revisited, the truth will out as they say. I don't know if it was a conspiracy by insiders, how could anyone know that, the right questions just weren't asked.

Happyman42 · 12-09-2010 11:00pm

alastair wrote: »

Or even makes sense within it's own construct?

Because you use a flawed and failed report to refute them.

9/11 Attacks

Comments