The nostradamus stuff I mean.
If you want to get a Mods attention, click on the bad post button (its like an exclaimation point in a triangle on the right side). They are really good at getting back to you around here and will either take steps to remove a bad post, spank the offending poster, or email you back with why they can’t or won’t take steps. Give it a try.
-XT
It’s not anymore inaccurate than some of the other stuff I’ve read in this thread. Thanks, XT, for fighting the good fight. I don’t have the patience, especially outside the Pit.
D_Odds
Who was in 2 World Financial Center, across the street from and facing the Towers, the morning of 9/11/2001. I don’t neet no steenkin’ video to tell me what happened; I lived it.
Oh right. Well you don’t live right outside Shanksville, so I think you do need some video to tell you what happened.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?d...485671999456333
17 minutes, 25 seconds. Jump to that time and tell me if that crater looks like a plane crashed in it. I guarantee you it doesn’t, or your money back! Listen to the reporters, they’re surprised themselves!
Your link doesn’t work. I get a google error that the video is not available. Again though do you have any proof other than video or still shots? Doesn’t it strike you as odd that your only proof seems to be something thats subjective and open to interperatation?
-XT
-
No one would have dared to float such a plan even for discussion purposes. You get fired for stuff like that. Look what happened to the Northwoods guys, and those were going to be *feigned * attacks.
-
Think what you will of Bush/Cheney, and I don’t like them one little bit, to suggest they ordered the murder of thousands of civilians for something as trivial as an oil pipeline is ludicrous and outrageous. And becomes no less so by infinite repetition. Whereas the terrorists’ motives are perfectly clear.
-
There’s no way the military and/or CIA could have pulled off an operation of this complexity. Name any similarly-sized undertaking in the last thirty years that worked. Doesn’t have to be a secret one.
-
There’s no way an undercover operation of this scope hasn’t been blown.
-
If such a plan had been developed, it would have been directed at Saddam, not bin Laden.
-
The alleged plan is stupid. What if the Taliban had turned bin Laden over? Or arranged for asylum in some other country? The whole thing would have been for nothing.
-
If there were a plot, the President wouldn’t have been caught flat-footed in a Florida classroom.
-
Barbara Olson, wife of Bush’s Solicitor General (who argued the election case to the Supreme Court), was on United Flight #77.
-
How did we manage to lure so many al Qaeda operatives onto just four flights, all on the same morning?
-
Why bother with WTC 7 at all? (In which, remember, the CIA, etc. had offices.)
11, Why four planes and why hit anything? Recruit one cell of Iraqis; have them hijack one jet; fly around for a while, implicating Saddam with demands; next, threaten to fly into the WTC. Prez reluctantly authorizes taking it down. Then angrily demands a declaration of war, which he receives in hours.
-
Why waste a plane on the Pentagon? To al Qaeda, it’s an important symbol of their principal point of contact with the U.S. (the military). Not nearly so compelling, from a domestic propaganda standpoint, as dozens of other targets which could be named.
-
Taking down the towers with both planes and explosives would have been stupid. Greatly increased risk of failure and/or breach of security for very little additional propaganda value.
-
Where did all the thousands of pieces of evidence implicating al Qaeda come from? How was it successfully planted in so many locations? Over what period of time? How many people are in on this?
-
Al Qaeda admits it orchestrated the attacks, permitted itself to be turned into an outlaw organization and precipitated the invasion of two Arab nations. All to facilitate the Neocon agenda?
So Dopers, what did I miss?
The thing I keep harping on. 
Where is the physical evidence for any of these claims? Where are the OBJECTIVE proofs? Why does all this rely on blury photos/videos that are open to differing interperetations?
IOW…WHERE’S THE BEEF?!? 
-XT
Fair point, of course. To me, the flaws in the conspiracy theory is a separate list. Several lists, in fact, since there are several theories.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7721485671999456333
There, that one will work. 17 minutes, 25 seconds into it you will see the crater.
This isn’t a blury photo or video, it’s quite clear. If you think a plane crashed into that crater then you must not be very smart. The reporters were surprised by the lack of debris, and you can really hear how astonished she is when all she sees is that single, smoking crater. It’s not open for interpretation, no plane crashed there.
Gee you sure made a lot of points that seem to make sense, and while that crap doesn’t work on me, I’m afraid it might on all these other fragile minds reading that list. I’m smarter than that, but other people aren’t as smart as me. :smack: While the motives of the people who pulled this off aren’t especially clear and easily pinpointed by the layman, it’s easy to see why a bunch of terrorists would do it: they hate our freedom! AaarGghHh hate our freedom thinks like a caveman They hate it! They hate us!
It’s very blurry and poorly contrasted ans tells the viewer nothing. Do you have objective, physical evidence the plane was shot down?
What’s This?
Okay, so where’d the plane go?
Oh, that’s right, it was shot down, so it must have pretty much disintegrated while in mid-air.
You’d think a plane that was shot down in mid-air might explode into a fireball like TWA 800 and that witnesses might have seen it.
You’d think that the military who shot the plane down wouldn’t have admitted that they had received authorization to shoot it down, but didn’t have a plane in range – thereby admitting weakness at a critical moment.
You’d think that the vast conspiracy behind the whole thing wouldn’t have crashed the plane in rural Pennsylvania, but instead gone ahead and flown it into Camp David, the Capitol or the White House. Or perhaps crashed it into the Potomac. Or shot it down in a more visible place where the necessary-but-regrettable reaction to terrorism would have been in plain sight.
But, no. The vast conspiracy decided the best method to achieve their goals was to:
Hijack two airplanes and fly them into buildings (wired to implode, just for good measure)
Implode a third building without flying a plane into it
Pretend to hijack a plane and crash it into the Pentagon, but actually use a missile
And blow up another plane over a rural area while claiming that, although they would have shot it down if they could have, they didn’t have any plane within range to do it.
No, it’s not. It doesn’t tell the viewer nothing, it’s footage that quite clearly shows you the official crash site. Should I have physical evidence? I’m sure if I did I’d get thrown in jail for theft, and then it would get melted away as scrap metal like all the rest of the evidence did.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7721485671999456333
17 minutes, 25 seconds into the video you really do get a good look at the “crash site”. I really should call it the detonation crater, because that’s what it looks like more than anything and that’s what it probably is.
That looks like the crash site on a rainy day. Way to show everyone all the destruction. If you want to see the crash site right after the plane hit the ground, click on that link and it’s 17 minutes, 25 seconds into the video. It’s not very hard to judge for yourself, that plane did not hit that spot.
Yes, I’ve seen it before thanks. To humor you though I watched it again. You are right…its ‘quite clear’…quite clearly its a video compiled by a CT organization. I’m sorry that warning bells don’t go off in your own head when ANY organization puts together its own mosaic of events and ties it all together, shading data to ‘prove’ their points. I guess you have never seen organizations use the mosaic technique to take things out of context, to distort meaning, or present ‘facts’ that backup (or seem to backup) their position while ignoring others that don’t. I haven’t been as lucky myself…so when I see such things my bullshit detector pegs out at the max. I’m also sorry that you still can’t seem to get that nothing presented there constitutes solid physical evidence.
Take the fire thing they dwell on for several minutes about a third of the way through. They are playing fast and loose with the data there, mixing (very little) fact with a lot of other bullshit (and some outright incorrect information) to lead you by the nose to the conclusion THEY want you to draw. Did you read the cite I provided up thread discussing the fire aspect? What about my cite didn’t you find convincing…or to put it another way, why do you find THIS information, obviously spoon fed to you in a video so compelling?
To continue, they rely heavily on eye witness acounts and fire fighter interviews after the event. Now, this was a traumatic experience for the firefighters. It was also a very chaotic event with a lot of things happening in a very compressed time frame. Does ‘fog of war’ mean anything to you? I ask not to be snide but from a genuine curiosity about if you really understand what this concept means. Put simply, people thrown into a chaotic situation, with limited data, and isolated from other people who also have limited data, find it difficult (to say the least) in assessing whats actually going on. Or to put it another way…have you ever been in a accident involving multiple people? If so, did you notice how just about everyones story is different…sometimes radically different?
Finally, lets talk about these ‘explosions’ a bit. Now, as with you, I’m no expert on building demolition. I have (probably like you) seen buildings brought down with controlled explosions on TV (Discovery/Learning Channel, History Channel, stuff like that). Watching them, basically you see a series of explosions and then the whole building comes down within seconds…it certainly starts its collapse immediately.
Now, watching your film they have what are appearently eye witness accounts from firefighters in the building saying that they are hearing explosions or seeing the results of explosions that already occured in the building. Doesn’t this strike you as the least bit odd? Explosions are going off in the building (or have gone off), and the building is still up…for aproximately another HOUR or so (not minutes or seconds). And then during the collapse we have what I suppose is ANOTHER series of explosions going off (to finally bring the building down I guess), again appearently eye witnessed by these same fire fighters. So, what you are asking me to believe here (with no evidence other than an obviously biased film by a CT organization…IOW no PHYSICAL evidence) is that we had a plane crash into a building (purportedly one that, though carrying jet fuel on board isn’t going to burn much), followed by a series of explosions (in a non-prepared building…having watched buildings brought down by controlled explosion I’m familiar enough to know it takes quite a bit of preparation to get the building ready…weeks or months in most cases for something that big). Since THESE explosions didn’t bring down the building (what was their purpose I wonder?), we then have a follow up series of explosions (in a burning (or not) building that has already been wracked with OTHER explosions…did they use magic det-cord/detenators?..to finally bring the building down.
And not only doesn’t any of this ring your bullshit detector (appearently you aren’t even remotely skeptical about this chain of events), but you also don’t bat an eye that there is no physical evidence for any of this stuff. Where are the det-cords? Where are the detenators or other physical evidence of explosives (residue, etc)? Where are the building demolition experts saying that its obviously a controlled detonation? The structural engineers? The architechs? Where is the independent analysis (i.e. not from an obviously biased source as your CT site) backing up the CT’s analysis?
Look…you can’t offer a biased source who has a direct stake in the subject, who prepared and presented the facts as THEY wanted, and expect this to fly as ‘proof’. It would be like me presenting ‘evidence’ on how good GW Bush is as president…prepared by the Republican party or by the White House. Its a biased source. If you want to convince anyone you will need to produce PHYSICAL evidence…not a propaganda video prepared by a CT organization.
-XT
By crap, you mean logic 
The putz smiley is a direct insult and may not be directed at any posters on the SDMB outside of the BBQ Pit.
Please refrain from this use in the future, thank you.
[ /Moderating ]
I’m sorry, but it’s a horrible quality video and at time it’s quite difficult to ascertain just what you’re looking at. Maybe you have the video on your hard drive or something.
No, it does nothing of the sort. What I see and hear is what appears to be debris on the ground and a reporter talking about how there’s a lot of little bits of debris. I don’t see anything indicating that this is an “official crash site,” whatever that might mean. The reporter says “there is a large crater on the ground” at the point that the camera, which is swinging around, focuses on what might be a burn mark on the ground or a hole; it’s hard to tell. It’s impossible to say if that is in fact the place the airplane crashed or if it’s the “official site.”
Forty seconds later this video shows what is obviously a completely different “crater” and says this is the only evidence of the crash - that there is no other evidence at all. Which is clearly contradicted by the previosu video in which the rpeorter says she can see all kinds of bits of debris, as well as innumerable other photos I’ve seen of debris of Flight 93.
If you have no evidence, nobody has any reason to believe your claims. But if you do acquire such evidence, by all means provide us with it.
Well, you’re (surprise) wrong. It’s a different crash site, just after the crash.
Can you tell it’s where a plane crashed? There is no wreckage visible.
OK. For comparison purposes, show us a picture of the crater created when a similar aircraft buried itself nose first into the ground. Few crashes occur at that attitude, with most either being skidding crashes as planes fly along the ground taking off or landing or being scattered across a wide area after mid-air disintegration.
Planes are deliberately built with material that gets its strength from its shape and certain stresses applied during manufacture. They are not filled with large hunks of massive steel fixtures the way a ship or locomotive is built.
The fact that local news reporters (who have seen no more major airline crashes than anyone else, such events being quite rare) were surprised that the crater was as “small” as it was indicates only that local news reporters have seen no more major airline crashes than anyone else, not that their “expert” opinions indicate some other source for the appearance.
In fact, comparing the Flight 93 crater with the Lockerbie crater (from a much larger plane that had flown a comparable distance but was carrying much more fuel), I would say that the Pennsylvania crater is quite consistent with a 757 burying itself in the ground.
(And if you zoom in on this photo taken during the examination of the site you will see a lot of wreckage that has been dug up from being buried in the ground.)