And RickJay, see above. The same goes for you. It’s time to own up to the fact that you have been duped.
People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
Distilling all the arguements of the last 255 posts in this thread, here’s what I see as the core arguements of the Vast Conspiracy Theory.
An airplane flying into one of the Towers couldn’t have made the building fall straight down.
In fact, there’s never been a full-scale model of a 110-story building having a passenger jet loaded with fuel crash into it, so we don’t really know what would happen, would we? On the other hand, we know that if you weaken enough structural supports, a building will pancake instead of tip over. And I haven’t seen any videos that showed either tower beginning to collapse at any point other than where the planes impacted.
WTC 7 collapsed without a direct impact.
And the best way for the Vast Conspiracy to deflect attention away from their destruction of WTC 7 was to implode it seven hours after the Towers came down? Why wait so long?
*** The hole in the Pentagon was too small to be made by a passenger jet crashing into it, therefore a missile must have hit it.***
As pointed out, the jet hit the ground first, then bounced into the Pentagon. And why wouldn’t the Vast Conspiracy implode the Pentagon? After all, they imploded three other buildings, right? An implosion would have caused a lot more damage and destroyed the evidence of the missile. Oh yeah, if it was actually a missile that hit the Pentagon, where’s the hijacked jet?
Flight 93 must have been shot down, because there wasn’t a big enough crater at the crash site.
So the Vast Conspiracy can testify to the 9/11 Commission that A) military pilots were authorized to shoot down a hijacked jet but B) couldn’t get there before the jet crashed on its own. Obviously, hitting the Pentagon and then not being able to shoot down Flight 93 must have been intended to show the military as incompetent. And who was behind this? The Vast Conspiracy, which included. . . the military, whose motive for making itself look incompetent was. . .
Wait, my head is now spinning so much that I’m getting nauseated. However, I’m sure that someone will come along who understands the Vast Conspiracy better than I, and who can point me to…
All the angry career military officers who resigned or were booted out when they refused to participate in blowing up buildings, shooting down planes and killing thousands of civilians;
Who, instead of going to the New York Times, Washington Post, 60 Minutes, CNN or Fox News – organizations with the resources to investigate the claims and a desire to break what would be the biggest story in the history of journalism;
Or even going to the American Legion, VFW or John McCain on the right, or Howard Dean, Jesse Jackson or Hillary Clinton on the left;
Have instead been posting on homemade web sites with their evidence being grainy photos taken from the New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, Fox News, etc.
Actually, at 11000 posts, you get a masters degree and at 18000 a PHD. Guests have not passed the entrance exams. The exam is tough. All that evidence you’re expected to provide…cites? WTF?
You’re trying to say that no information of this was reported from any credible media outlet?
Dick Cheney. Take your head out of the sand and listen to Minetta’s testimony.
You speak in ignorance here of the concept of compartmentalization. It requires far less individuals than the “too many conspirators” arguers think. Study this concept.
Again you speak in ignorance. I have written letters and sent detailed evidence to every major news organization, I have sent emails to every publicly available email address of all of these organizations, including dozens of employees of the New York Times. I have received no response. You have a lot to learn about the “desire” of the people heading these organizations. 60 Minutes? Are you kidding? Tell me, if we can interview Bin Laden’s bodyguard who tells us he’s going to help Bin Laden in the future, why can’t we capture him? We’re willing to kill 100,000 Iraqis to get Saddam, but we can’t bother to lift a finger to get this guy? Please.
[/QUOTE]
And even if there was no radio interference that set them off, pouring a few thousand gallons of jet fuel around your carefully planted explosive devices and igniting it might do something. Or crashing a plane into them, no chance of dislodging any detonators.
I read (no cite, but I can find it. Facts seem to not be needed in this thread) that the WTC towers were built with 244 outer perimeter columns, made from 36mm thick steel, on 100mm centers. Every other column could be taken out and the building would still be structurally sound. So you would need to surreptitiously plant over 122 charges on each tower and be able to accurately control their detonation. That’s just for the outer perimeter. There were central shafts in each building. You’d need to plant devices on those as well.
Piece of cake!
Take the hint.
The same 60 Minutes who had no compunction about leading off with the Bush National Guard memo*? Which side are they on, again?
*Yeah, I know they retracted, and I don’t want to get that whole thing going again, but it speaks to the motives implied by our CT here.
He didn’t need to. Reports are that two bombs were found in the building, where in the building is not known. Is it not possible that they were mail bombs?
Could that be because major news organizations also require proof?
Believe me, I have.
They are apparently on the side of whatever news works for them financially.
You cannot “retract” undeniable evidence of government conspiracy. Well you can, but it doesn’t work unless you can completely destroy the evidence, which in this case they couldn’t. This is an Orwellian nightmare. As I watch local news video footage of the BATF going into the Murrah building to retrieve the bombs, see the news reporter speaking of a delay in reaching the survivors because we have to wait until they get the other bombs out, see discussions later that day on the local news of the type of bombs that were found, the admissions by federal officials that these were in their posession and had been diffused, do you really expect me to believe that this was all a mistake “as we often find with initial reports”? How easily fooled do they think the American people are? I suppose the answer is, very easily. Trying to flush it down the Memory Hole doesn’t always work.
I see hot, glowing steel. Not molten steel. Steel will glow well before it is molten and still be in its solid state. The tempertures of the fires could have easily produce heated metal. That metal could have remained heated if packed under debris.
Again. Same as above.
I was certain you’d bring this one up. The most obvious ‘stuff’ is rebar. Rebar has a much lower melting point than structural steel, so how did rebar survive sinking into the slab of molten steel?
Answer: That is not a slag of formerly molten steel. That is a hunk of reenforced concrete with rebar sticking out of it. The rusty color could have been caused by hundreds of things, and not all of them have to do with the events of 9/11. (ever seen the concrete under metal drainpipe? There appear to be chunks of glass melted to this chunk of concrete, not a big deal.
Do you need to wonder why Dr. Jones isn’t taken seriously? He wants to X-ray this puppy up and down and yet even an untrained eye can see this thing is concrete.
So much for the ‘molten steel’.
Actually, only homemade thermite uses sulfides. The commercial stuff stopped using that ages ago.
Whatever your claims are, why was this not REPORTED in the media’s reconstruction of events? Your argument in defense of mainstream outlets falls flat in the light of their monumental failures of investigative journalism, or alternatively, failure to report what they know.
Could it be that the only proof that they, and you, will accept is admission of guilt by the conspirators? I can show you audio or video proving federal officials confiscated bombs from the A.P. Murrah building, but I can’t actually physically show you those bombs because THEY TOOK THEM, along with the surveillance tapes showing the same thing. I can show you audio and video, and even basic math, showing that bombs were also used on 9/11, but I can’t show you steel columns that were retrieved proving this because THEY TOOK THEM WITHOUT A LEGITIMATE INVESTIGATION. But I suppose that’s all in my head too.
That would help your case immensely, yes. Failing that, all you have is a bunch of stuff that may or may not be what you claim, leaving both sides at an impass. And here we are.
Gah. I meant CBS/60 Minutes retracted the story (or apologized, or threw Dan Rather under a bus, whatever) about the Bush memo. I didn’t want to get the Bush memo debate going here again.
It had no more to do with your conspiracy theory than your conspiracy theory has to do with the truth.
How about you show us the bombs they planted, where they planted them, who planted them? How they accessed the support columns to plant the bombs. Which offices on which floors the bombs were planted? Show the work orders closing the offices so the workers could get in there to plant the bombs. Produce some of the workers who planted the bombs. Some details other than “there were some bombs”.
[QUOTE=Lute Skywatcher]
Failing that, all you have is a bunch of stuff that may or may not be what you claim, leaving both sides at an impass.
[QUOTE]
Well then, with respect to you in this matter Skywatcher I rest my case and I see no reason to respond to anything further by someone foolish enough to refuse even the possibility of conspiracy without a detailed, thorough admission on the part of the conspirators! The “bunch of stuff” you refuse to see is what is called a prima facie case leading to full-blown investigation of conspiracy.
No, because they explained it in a way that I, or you, could understand the mechanics of what really did happen. They used logical choices; logically, it is difficult to consider that it was a huge conspiracy, involving any number of people who would’ve talked. It just makes sense. It has been picked apart enough to see that what happened, horrible as it is, really happened the way it was shown and reported.
It doesn’t strain credulity.
I do hope you pony up the dough and stick around the only bunny. Intellectually honest people are always welcome here. They get run over a lot, but they are welcome.
Hold on now. I am completely open to the idea that our government was more implicit than they seem but I require solid evidence of implicitness. Opinion, conjecture, and hypotheses are not evidence.
Well when I get back from my afternoon tea with the conspirators I’ll fill you in. :dubious:
Many floors, enormous bombs in the basement levels. Ask William Rodriguez and others who saw the machine shop obliterated into dust from these explosions…no fireball damage there.
Bomb-sniffing dogs removed during stand-down of heightened security days before attacks.
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-nyaler122362178sep12,0,1255660.story
Interview with WTC employee…the mainstream media is not where the facts are usually at my friends. You have to work hard to put the pieces together yourself, and think for yourself.
http://www.nogw.com/download/2005_interview-with-scott-forbes.pdf
You guys are fighting the good fight here…but seriously, everything is just going around and around. Nearly every point has been brought up multiple times in this thread alone and the CT’s have yet to actually engage the debate. They just keep throwing the same old photos, blurry videos and out the ass speculations that they started with. I’m unsure whether these, er, guys have even bothered reading the myriad cites provide to them. Take the fire and melting steel thing. Cites have been provided (one by me) to this at least 4 times in this thread alone…yet has any of these CT’s engaged that question? Or even acknowledged it? Or even made any kind of indication at all that they READ the cite? Afaict they have not even bothered reading it and trying to come to grips with a new idea…they just know what they know. You guys (and the idiot who is typing this earlier in the thread 
) are just trying to confuse them with the facts.
I’ll second (or third) a recommendation that you get a full member account. Just have them change your name to The Only Bunny instead. 
(love the name btw). We can always use open and fair minded people on this board. Someone who actually bothers to LOOK at the cites provided and then make an attempt to be objective and weigh the data…without a bunch of preconceived notions that they already know all there is to know because some CT site spoon fed them a line of bull…and they swallowed it whole without a critical thought in their bodies.
-XT
Physician, heal thyself.