My September 11 Thoughts

split_p_j · June 9, 2014, 7:10am

Budget_Player_Cadet:

And of course, you’re wrong. The north tower collapse has been explained very thoroughly on the basis of what we know. It’s just that you’re holding out for a piece of evidence that you know is never going to exist, because it’s unreasonable and because the world has moved on.

No, demanding unreasonable standards of evidence in order to accept a well-supported hypothesis, then rejecting it when your unreasonable standards are not fulfilled without any sort of viable alternative hypothesis is unscientific. If the towers didn’t come down due to planes and fires, what’s the alternative hypothesis that’s as viable given what we know? Oh wait, there isn’t one.

Citation needed.

There was the 9/11 Commission investigation, the Popular Mechanics investigation, The NIST investigation, PBS Nova, this guy, that guy, all these guys… There was tons of investigation, both from inside the government as well as outside. The result was an overwhelming flop for conspiracy theorists. Of course, for conspiracy theorists, no investigation that disagrees with them is “real”. It’s all either compromised or assuming the “myth” or corrupted by the government or <insert excuse here>.

Well, no, the reason it’s not valid is because it’s paint chips. Seriously, the claims of nanothermite are just dumb.

Look, what I’m saying is all the sources you bring up didn’t even think about any other possibility. It had to be bin laden, Muslims, hate us for freedom, fire collapses steel buildings , but passports survive intact, ect They were all in service to the official myth. I believed all that stuff for years myself.

It wasn’t until later that people started really looking at things, things like all the lies, that a real investigation would have picked up right away.

split_p_j · June 9, 2014, 7:29am

I rebut this with AE911truth. So which architect or engineer should I believe? How do you explain the lies and other evidence? We can go round and round here.

GIGObuster · June 9, 2014, 7:32am

A myth also, what typically happens is that someone posted a list or a petition. That is not really formed by experts nor it shows that there is a significant number of experts that go against what the vast majority agrees it happened.

DWMarch · June 9, 2014, 7:34am

Okay, let’s say I’m a conspirator. I tell these people “You will tell this version and only this version or I will kill your family!” Since I just murdered upwards of 3000 of my fellow citizens they take me seriously.

But then some years pass. Things happen. The people whose silence I have bought decide they need some more incentive or else they’ll start talking. So they come back to me and tell me so. I repeat my threats but they say they’ve hidden evidence everywhere, made multiple copies, told family and friends to do this if anything terrible happens to me, et cetera.

Well now what do I do?

What good is NORAD? Assuming they had perfect, advance knowledge and a full staff that day, what exactly were they going to do? Shoot the planes down? But that’s not what you’re trying to say, is it? You’re trying to say NORAD was in on it. For what purpose? What does the air defense network accomplish in this conspiracy?

If 9/11 was a conspiracy then every aspect of your existence is a cynical lie. You are a prop of the government to be used, abused or entirely destroyed at their whim for any purpose they choose. You have no control over anything at all and you are always being watched. If something good happens to you it is because they let it happen. If something bad happens it is because they are punishing you. And they will punish you because even if they don’t know what you did wrong… you do. There is no democracy, no “pursuit of happiness” (other than as a cynical lie to keep you in line), no land of the free and home of the brave. There is just an all-powerful monster that destroys as it pleases because it likes chaos. It is the government (all that Democrats versus Republicans stuff is all just a show they put on), the media (especially the Jews!), the people (sheeple) and the society (jingoism, patriotism, commercialism). If you get out of line, you’ll develop an “illness” that has to be treated with “medication” that will pacify you while costing you a handsome sum for daring to question Authority. We have always been at war with those other guys and Big Brother is definitely watching you.

Welcome to Hell, or as they say locally, God Bless America.

GIGObuster · June 9, 2014, 7:35am

Yep, exactly what anti-vaccine, climate deniers, scientific racists and creationists do. Saw that “fake consensus petition” before and coming a mile away. Sorry, but you are playing with misguided sincerity, what you have there is only a minority of the fringe.

What AE911truth is doing is already a recognised misleading FUD move.

Budget_Player_Cadet · June 9, 2014, 7:40am

:rolleyes:

Boring. Next!

And there are biologists that say the Darwin story is not possible. They’re generally ignored

Yes, and he had total influence over all the other people in NORAD, or what? This is a particularly silly insinuation.

Hey, I can make completely baseless assertions too, you know.

What, you mean like Gage? Who has never published anything in a serious peer-reviewed journal on the subject and whose seminal work, a 600-page slideshow, is notoriously full of obvious errors that even a rank amateur could spot.

Excuses, excuses, excuses. How do you even want to know that this is the case? You claim that all of these sources didn’t even consider any alternative hypotheses? Okay, prove it. Prove that all these sources were committed to the “official” story from the start, then prove that there is a viable “other possibility”. Because lemme tell you, “they planted bombs in the building that caused it to collapse from the spot of plane impact” ain’t a viable hypothesis.

I feel the need to bring this up specifically. Your personal incredulity has led you to believe that this is a clear red flag. It isn’t. Whole seats from the airplane survived - were thrown clear of the crash before everything went up in flames. A letter carried by one of the passengers was found mostly intact. This is pretty standard fare for plane crashes like this.

So… where are the peer-reviewed papers? Oh right, there are none. Because investigations of this tend to go the same way as “investigations” of Laetrile or “investigations” or HAARP - a bunch of conspiracy-mongering horseshit that doesn’t stand up to the most rudimentary scrutiny and relies on insane leaps in logic.

Budget_Player_Cadet · June 9, 2014, 7:49am

Here’s an email conversation between me and AE911Truth.

Dear <me>:

Thank you for contacting us. You point to one mystery of 9/11. Even though the technical absurdity of the mythical attribution of the twin towers’ destruction to Osama bin Laden’s fanatical hijackers can be understood and sustained by people with an average intelligence and no formal technical education, major scientific and technical organizations have surprisingly shown very little concern over this grand obfuscation. Their publications on this matter have been few and have treated the myth as an absolute truth. They have never even bothered or claimed to reconcile it with what is known of the construction and condition of the twin towers, what is known of the aircraft that allegedly destroyed them, the obvious macroscopic attributes
of their destruction, and the laws of physics. In particular, the latest official technical report on this matter, by the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology, claims to credibly explain only why the structural failure started suddenly and is a transparent cover-up, as summarized in our slide show starting here
.

Serious 9/11 researchers have experienced great difficulties getting their work accepted for publication by mainstream technical journals. Several technical papers have been published that are technically compatible with the actual mode of destruction of the twin towers, but always watered down in their criticism of the myth. The nanothermite paper you allude to is a prime example of this pattern, as it deals with an aspect of the controlled demolition that is important but rather abstract and therefore hard to base an outreach on. Ironically, its peer review included the unusual step of including one peer whom the authors did not know and therefore could not contact directly. The authors found that dealing with this anonymous peer delayed the publication by a few months.

Another technical paper compatible with the actual mode of destruction of the twin towers bears the humiliating title of “14 Points of Agreement” with the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s analysis. It reads like a praise for the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s work, sparsely peppered with subdued suggestions for improvement that only allude to its fraudulent essence.

Incidentally, this is only one aspect of the mainstream scientific and technical organizations’ astonishing blind spot over the self-evident criminal controlled demolition of the twin towers, not to mention Building 7’s. Professional associations of civil engineers and faculties of civil engineering, anywhere in the world, could have effortlessly produced our summary diagram
or similar materials weeks after 9/11, but have not done so. Efforts to ask them to stop ignoring the major attributes of the twin towers’ destruction have generally been ignored. The very few exceptions confirm the rule.

Best Regards,

Dan Noël
volunteer, Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth

Thank you for the response, Dan. I guess the problem is that I’m really not impressed. It seems to me like what you’re alluding to is a vast number of engineering and architectural journals that are “in on the conspiracy”. I mean, I haven’t seen the papers you and your associates at AE9/11 have tried to publish, so I can’t really judge, but as someone with an acute (if not expert) interest in, among other things, evolutionary biology and medicine, this type of claim seems very familiar. Big Pharma is stopping medical journals from publishing papers that attest to the value of <insert “alternative” modality here>; the gigantic atheist conspiracy is stopping biology journals from publishing papers that show that evolution is a hoax, et cetera. And of course, nobody from those journals is ever saying anyhting.

You also seem to allude to it being obvious to those with no training… But that’s equally unimpressive, as what actually happens can very often be different from what is seen. For example, the squibs - sure, one would expect jets of air if the floors were being blown out by explosives, but you would also expect it if the floors were compressed on top of each other, pushing air out (plus, if it was an explosion, you would expect the squib to start strong and then weaken, not start weak, get larger, and then stop). And those with no experience in engineering might be taken in by the claim made by someone (I forgot the name and I’m not sure if he’s associated with you guys) that large steel-frame buildings simply cannot fall like that without a controlled demolition, but the actual available scientific research which did get published points in the other direction.

Can you show me some of the papers that were rejected? I mean, I’m not the greatest expert in engineering, but I have some basic scientific training as well as a few college courses in physics under my belt, but if I can’t find anything wrong with them, I can try to pull some strings at my college’s engineering department.

Thanks,
-me

Your March 15 Email delves into several distinct topics. I’ll try to treat them all…

You allude to the fields of biology, medicine, spirituality. This is beyond our mission and we will decline to comment on that.

The allegation of a conspiracy by “a vast number of engineering and architectural journals” cannot be rejected. However, we do not have the competence to analyze it, and its existence or non-existence is not directly relevant to our work anyway. What is relevant is that leading scientific and technical institutions, which scientific and technical publications are only one part of, should have but have not denounced the twin towers’ self-evident controlled demolition. The root cause of this empirical observation has no bearing on the scientifically established truth of the twin towers’ controlled demolition.

Of course the controlled demolition of the twin towers is obvious even to people with no formal engineering background, thanks to Its widely broadcasted video record. If the mass media had properly reported on it instead of persistently attributing it to the impact of airplanes hijacked by Osama bin Laden’s fanatics, it would be common knowledge.

You mention the “squibs,” the premature and isolated explosions. This phenomenon is usually a poor means to introduce people to the twin towers’ controlled demolition. If you wish to emphasize it in your outreach, make sure to get people to understand other macroscopic attributes of the twin towers’ destruction beforehand: the uniformity and symmetry of the descending destruction wave, the absence of visible destruction of the facades ahead of the destruction wave, and the speed of the destruction wave.

You allude to “the claim made by someone […] that large steel-frame buildings simply cannot fall like that without a controlled demolition.” Regarding the twin towers, this claim is evidently much closer to the reality than their mythical destruction by airplanes and fires. Your following statement that “the actual available scientific research which did get published points in the other direction” is, as I have explained, an important empirical observation, but it does not disprove the reality of the twin towers’ controlled demolition. It is just one element that contributes to the finding that the scientific and technical community is missing in action on this particular subject. Fortunately, the principal such piece of “research,” the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s latest report, can be quickly exposed as a transparent cover-up by lay people with minimal technical guidance.

You mention the possibility of “[trying] to pull some strings at [your] college’s engineering department.” Good idea! But inviting them to work on a topic that the academic engineering community at large has shunned looks is a good way to be labeled a conspiracy theorist. Consider instead starting with something more compelling. For instance, show them videos of Building 7’s destruction. Or play the devil’s advocate and ask them if the conspiracy theorists are correct when they claim that the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s latest report on the twin towers’ destruction does not provide a technically credible explanation for most of the major attributes of its video record.

Finally, we have not built a list of rejected technical papers on this subject, nor have we looked for them, nor do we have plans to do so. It would not significantly boost 9/11 activism anyway, as people who won’t reflect on Building 7’s video record are unlikely to be willing to learn about 9/11 by studying this much more arcane subject. It could be an interesting project, but it is not essential.

Dan

As a strong advocate of scientific observation, I try very hard to know when my opinion does not go beyond that of a layman. This is the case in architecture - I’m not an architect, I have very little formal training in any relevant fields (beyond a handful of classes tangentially related to my degree in physics, which certainly does not extend to “giant building collapsing”), so what I have to go on is pretty much expert opinion. And the best place to find out what the experts actually think is the peer-reviewed journals. The reason for this is simple: I know that anyone with a halfway-convincing sales pitch could fool me with regards to any scientific discipline I’m not well-educated on, but they’re considerably less likely to fool the editors at “Structure” or similar high-impact peer-reviewed architecture journals, and those editors are considerably less likely to lie to me than almost any other source.

So when examining claims on scientific evidence I’m not well-equipped to understand, I try to hold out for that, so that I don’t get bamboozled by people with an agenda to push. This applies on every subject in every direction. So when I hear that your organization has upwards of 2000 people with degrees in relevant fields who feel strongly enough about this to sign a petition, I figure you might be able to help me out - surely someone published something interesting. Again, the arguments you make in the slideshow are fairly convincing at first glance, but I can look around the web and easily find someone else who will claim that they are not, and then offer an explanation as to why they are not which is similarly convincing. Who should I accept as a referee? Who can I take as an impartial source? Well, the peer-reviewed journals. Which is why this is such a sticking point for me - if these things are so obvious, then why has nobody taken the time to put them together into a scientific paper and publish? And if they attempted to and were rejected, on what grounds? The reverse cannot be said - there are numerous peer-reviewed papers which support the “official” hypothesis, published in high-impact journals.

The more I read from your emails, the more it sounds like pseudoscience. “It’s clear from the video record” “self-evident controlled demolition”… Is it wrong of me to be reminded of the people who looked at the footage from president Kennedy’s assassination and said, “It obviously could not have come from he book repository”? “Obvious” and “self-evident” are very, very dangerous terms in science. Especially when dealing with the collapse of large skyscrapers where the available evidence largely comes down to partially incomplete video footage from the outside, usually from a fairly large distance away, and in the case of WTC7, almost exclusively from one side of the building.

For me at least, it’s not good enough to say, “that’s obviously a controlled demolition”. Could it have not been a controlled demolition? From what I’ve seen in the peer-reviewed literature, the answer is a clear “yes”. Yes, I know, you offer evidence in your slideshow… But why hasn’t that been compressed into a paper, or a series of papers, to be presented to major peer-reviewed journals? I can’t get past this in my mind. Stanislaw Burzynski (you don’t have to know the guy, but understanding the crap behind his clinic will help explain why I think what I think) taught me in no uncertain terms that if you have important, scientific evidence, and that evidence doesn’t cut it in peer-review, there’s something wrong. My experience in medicine has also taught me that if someone is willing to claim a conspiracy that cuts through the entirety of the peer review process, they’re not worth taking seriously. I’m not sure if you’re claiming that this conspiracy exists or not from your wording; I’m assuming you’re not.

I came to you guys to see what the other side had for evidence, in an open-minded attempt to broaden my horizons. And you have evidence. But so does Debunking911.com, 911myths.com, 911truth.org, and countless other sources on either side of the debate. Sure, you have people with the science background… But so does the Discovery Institute. The evidence needs to be examined by experts and presented in a manner that removes bias, half-truths, and mistakes. Hence: peer review. It all comes back to that.

When I wrote my 3-17 message to you, I was concerned that we were engaged in a dialog of the deaf. Your 3-17 response confirms this. It also provides an important piece of information that is sufficient to explain it: you have spent much personal energy reviewing 9/11 yet do not know that the mechanism of the twin towers and Building 7’s destruction was a triple criminal controlled demolition.

You have determined that the only way you can understand the essence of the twin towers’ and Building 7’s destruction is through a study of peer-reviewed technical publications on this topic, based on article counts, measures of reputation of publishing organizations, and peers’ justifications for authorizing and denying publication. Following is what may be our farewell advice as you engage on your quest.

I’ll reiterate and reformulate my 3-15 statements:

· Amazingly few peer-reviewed articles have been published over the destruction of the twin towers and Building 7, given the extraordinary magnitude of these structural engineering catastrophes and their unique attributes.

· Building 7 and the twin towers’ controlled demolitions are scientifically established truth, irrespective of what peer-reviewed papers may claim.

· The peer-reviewed papers that deny this truth have been systematically identified by experts as erroneous. Lay people have difficulty understanding this unless it is explained to them in layman’s terms, though.

· The most prominent technical reference documents on these matters are the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology’s final reports. Since they were not peer-reviewed, you may determine that they are irrelevant to your project. But they make it clear that they do not account for major aspects of the video record and even lay people can understand this with minimal help.

We understand and respect that your humility prevents you from personally engaging in a technical analysis of these events, but we suggest that you perform the following modest technical investigative work before contacting us again and before launching your project:

· Review the video comparison
of the motions of Building 7’s destruction and of a controlled demolition. Since you have studied our slide show, you may have already been exposed to it.

· List the attributes of Building 7’s motion that appear to be compatible with the hypothesis of its controlled demolition, based on this comparison.

This will serve all parties involved, the reviewing peers you will contact, you, and us:

· You will be able to better evaluate the technical articles, better understand the reviewing peers’ explanations for their approvals and rejections, formulate more precise and more pertinent questions to them, and better understand their answers. This will enhance the value of your report.

· The reviewing peers will appreciate your knowledge of important elements of the subject matter. They may even correct your above-mentioned list.

· We will have a better idea of your understanding of the basic elements of the subject matter and will be able to give you more useful advice.

Dan

Daniel, the idea that this is an argument with the deaf because I’ve investigated this thoroughly and did not come to the same conclusion that you did is not a rational position. Especially when from what I can tell, a very large majority of those with qualifications in the field who studied it came not to the conclusion that it was a controlled demolition, but rather that it was brought down by planes. I’ve seen extensive evidence backing that. Not just slideshows from random groups on the internet, but papers published in scientific journals, which I have examined to the best of my ability and from which none support AE911’s hypothesis.

I came to you not looking for your slideshow (I read from where you linked me to the first blatantly obvious error, and got exactly zero pages - this is why I try to keep it to peer reviewed journals!), but looking for evidence published in peer review that I might have missed. I don’t care about your slideshow. If there was anything to it, I’m fairly certain that it wouldn’t be languishing on your organization’s internet site, but would be published in high-impact journals. It’s got nothing to do with humility - it’s simply that I wouldn’t know if you guys were trying to pull the wool over my eyes. So I figure, what the hell, you guys have 2000 architects and engineers… Surely there’s something in the peer-reviewed literature. And the best I got was one paper with very little of actual interest to say, which did nothing to establish a controlled demolition and did a fairly weak job of discrediting the progressive collapse theories. That’s it? That’s the full extent of the scientific research from over 2000 architects and engineers? Look, that numbers is pretty and all, but if it’s completely meaningless (as in this case), and you lead off with that, it’s just a touch misleading. I mean, I suspected from the start of this exchange that you guys were cranks, but I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt. I guess I’ll just leave you to it.

This assumption that someone has not examined the evidence or won’t hear evidence because they disagree with you works for rock-solid, globally-accepted scientific theories with mountains of solid, peer-reviewed evidence behind them. If your theory is fringe and not backed by solid evidence in peer review, all it does is make you look like a pseudoscientific crank.

Sorry for wasting your time.

It’s long, but take the time to read into it, then tell me with a straight face that these guys aren’t absolutely acting the part of the pseudoscientific orgainzation with an agenda to push. Virtually every single beat is there, from “Peer review is corrupt” to “it’s just obvious”.

Then look over this thread, which analyzes the “2000” signatures of that stupid petition and looks into how many have relevant credentials (answer: 6). And of course, 2000 still isn’t even close to 1% of the architects in the USA alone. That’s sad. You can probably find that many doctors who oppose vaccination.

AE911Truth is a pseudoscientific organization. They have little interest in the truth and no understanding of evidence or the scientific method. The fact that they continue to tout the long-debunked slideshow is evidence enough of that. It’s really akin to the question of “do I trust the vast majority of biologists, or do I trust the Discovery Institute?” - it’s not really a good question to be asking yourself.

GIGObuster · June 9, 2014, 7:58am

Even though he recently passed away Gene Corley is more correct than the one from AE911truth.

http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/11-09-07/

Someday you will have to face what is clear to many others that use some scepticism, many of the ones that look at pseudo-science report that truthers are in the same discredited column as anti-vaccine people, climate deniers, scientific racists, creationists, astrologers, etc. That use boiler plate tactics like the “fake consensus petition”

Budget_Player_Cadet · June 9, 2014, 8:01am

Seriously, check it out, it’s really really bad.

split_p_j · June 9, 2014, 8:02am

DWMarch:

Okay, let’s say I’m a conspirator. I tell these people “You will tell this version and only this version or I will kill your family!” Since I just murdered upwards of 3000 of my fellow citizens they take me seriously.

But then some years pass. Things happen. The people whose silence I have bought decide they need some more incentive or else they’ll start talking. So they come back to me and tell me so. I repeat my threats but they say they’ve hidden evidence everywhere, made multiple copies, told family and friends to do this if anything terrible happens to me, et cetera.

Well now what do I do?

What good is NORAD? Assuming they had perfect, advance knowledge and a full staff that day, what exactly were they going to do? Shoot the planes down? But that’s not what you’re trying to say, is it? You’re trying to say NORAD was in on it. For what purpose? What does the air defense network accomplish in this conspiracy?

If 9/11 was a conspiracy then every aspect of your existence is a cynical lie. You are a prop of the government to be used, abused or entirely destroyed at their whim for any purpose they choose. You have no control over anything at all and you are always being watched. If something good happens to you it is because they let it happen. If something bad happens it is because they are punishing you. And they will punish you because even if they don’t know what you did wrong… you do. There is no democracy, no “pursuit of happiness” (other than as a cynical lie to keep you in line), no land of the free and home of the brave. There is just an all-powerful monster that destroys as it pleases because it likes chaos. It is the government (all that Democrats versus Republicans stuff is all just a show they put on), the media (especially the Jews!), the people (sheeple) and the society (jingoism, patriotism, commercialism). If you get out of line, you’ll develop an “illness” that has to be treated with “medication” that will pacify you while costing you a handsome sum for daring to question Authority. We have always been at war with those other guys and Big Brother is definitely watching you.

Welcome to Hell, or as they say locally, God Bless America.

You are joking right? Who said anything about threats. Remember, we are talking about 2001 here. I was 29, and remember very well what that time was like. There was no investigative reporting by that time, the anchors were kings, and all the younger reporters wanted to be them. Network news was (and still is) controlled by a few huge corporations, and they got information straight from the pentagons PR department. Do you really believe any one would need to be threatened to maintain the status-quo?

Your second paragraph is just your rant, don’t try to put words in my mouth. I will say that “land of the free and democracy” BS is pure propaganda.

GIGObuster · June 9, 2014, 8:18am

As a guy who already knows in real life how propaganda worked by distorting what was going on in Central America (El Salvador) I already know what to look for and how to be an sceptic against the government, thank you very much.

What I have to tell you is that me and many others that are smarter than I am looked if the information was altered in this case, there are still a lot of things done by the past administration using the 911 terror attack and information on the location and connections of the perpetrators were altered later to justify the Iraq war, but just as in the case of the guy that burned the German Reightag, it turned out that it was indeed a lone guy with communist tendencies the one who did the burning, not the evil Nazis. Of course history shows that then they indeed used the incident to take over. Freud can tell you that sometimes a cigar can be just a cigar, and in this case the terrorists under the command of Osama Bin Laden did the deed.

Budget_Player_Cadet · June 9, 2014, 8:19am

Well that’s just a complete non-sequitur at best. The point we’re trying to make is that it would have taken, at most, one person opening their mouth about this for the operation to be blown wide open. Hell, in the internet age, you wouldn’t even need the help of some big news organization, although it’s worth noting that even without the internet, you still have countless sources with a strong incentive to blow the story open - Al-Jazeera, RT, the New York fucking Times (scoop of the century, anyone?)… And of course, you think that you wouldn’t find one news anchor to talk to if you really had the goods? You have this incredibly simple, shallow view of reality, in which certain people have far more control than is reasonable or realistic. Please, fix that.

tomndebb · June 9, 2014, 10:44am

Every list of these “architects and engineers” that I have ever seen has been a list of housing project architects (building one-story houses framed of wood), and chemical engineers, and a handful of high school physics teachers.

Show us this list that has impressed you so much so that we can see whether it has any validity.

tomndebb · June 9, 2014, 10:48am

No, it was not. The 19 guys on the planes and their outside facilitators were never “altered later to justify the Iraq war.” The lies told for Iraq were separate from the information regarding the WTC/Pentagon attacks. (Cheney nattering on for six years ablout Iraq’s or Hussein’s “involvement” did not require anything more than his willingness to make a non-existent connection to feed Fox news.)

Urbanredneck · June 9, 2014, 10:50am

You know, I can almost see a conspiracy behind the Oklahoma city bombing because it took place in a city far removed from the public eye.

The twin towers OTOH took place in the middle of one of the busiest, crowded, and advanced cities in the US. Its full of detectives, police, investigative reporters, and thousands more people who would have sniffed out something suspicious going on.

Anyways when I look at 9/11 I dont focus on finding conspiracies. I focus on the heroes who rescued others, the priest who ran out of a nearby church and gave last rites to victims (himself dieing later from the collapse), and the reporter/photographer who was helping people with one hand while snapping pictures of the event with the other so history would have record (he also was killed but his camera survived). Later the engineers who worked tirelessly to get equipment and crews in to attempt any rescues plus prevented any further damage (the sewers nearly collapsed).

So I ask any conspiracy finders to put your energies to studying those parts.

Urbanredneck · June 9, 2014, 11:03am

What the terrorists did was to carefully study the US security system and found the chink in our armor that allowed this to happen. Nothing more. Hopefully our security people are getting more careful about looking for any other weaknesses.

Monty · June 9, 2014, 11:29am

Good grief. The word amateurish is, itself, disgraced by how bad just the site navigation there is. No telling how bad the PPT is since the site’s navigation is a royal pain.

Mr.Miskatonic · June 9, 2014, 12:39pm

Bwhahahahaha! That’s like saying “I rebut this with the Discovery Institute” in an evolution argument or “I rebut this with TimeCube” in a discussion of Relativity.

The ones who actually build large buildings as opposed to dropping cardboard boxes on top of each other as proof

To date, most things regarding 9/11 have been explained very well. The truther argument bank is bankrupt.

o0oTOPCATo0o · June 9, 2014, 1:10pm

I realize that no minds will be changed here and that’s OK.
I just want to know why the 2008 NIST report said building 7 fell at 40% free fall speed. When a high school teacher challenged their findings, the final NIST report admitted that it fell at free fall speed. Why would they lie in initial reports? You can’t tell me that they goofed up something like that on accident.

Latro · June 9, 2014, 1:11pm

Well, how many people do you think would actually be in the know?

At least those that set the charges themselves. Those that acually affixed a device to a beam. I don’t think it would just be some innoccuos order like ‘put case M24 at that spot in elevator shaft x’. In order to cut a beam it must have been precisely placed.

Getting the stuff inside the buildings and near the designated spots would be quite easy, with nobody in the know, but one or two people giving orders to pack stuff and move it from A to B.
No one doing the packing, driving the stuff or getting it to the right floor needs to have any clue of what they are doing.

So how many people would be needed to place the carges, set detonators and actually pull the trigger?

5? 6?

Topic		Replies	Views
WTC Collapse: Need airtight answer please! Great Debates	242	33459	February 20, 2014
9/11 Great Debates	384	47616	July 24, 2012
The REALLY crazy conspiracy theory: WTC buildings downed by controlled demolition Great Debates	301	17341	June 23, 2007
9/11 Conspiracy Theories! Great Debates	497	27371	May 9, 2006
Is it futile to discuss 9/11 with truthers? Great Debates	134	15845	January 1, 2016

My September 11 Thoughts

Related topics