A Coincidence Theorists Guide to 911

[Doges]

So much info, so little time.....(Before the next power cut...)

 

[LoneGunman]

Doges - this thread has hardly any data - the one with fairly serious quantities of info (& back and forth arguments), and lots of supporting/dismissing links & points of view, is "WHY 911 WASN'T WHAT YOU THOUGHT IT WAS.': http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showthread.php?t=37553

A good starting point for 911 truth, is a documentary called 'LOOSE CHANGE': http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8260059923762628848&q=loose+change
and for serious factual-case-building for conspiracy - THE TRUTH AND LIES OF 911
heres the GOOGLE VIDEO DOWNLOAD:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8797525979024486145&q=9/11+ruppert
- which is fascinating because its a public lecture by an ex LAPD cop, using ONLY newspaper articles - no conjecture, no theory, just facts - as reported in various newspapers ahead of time - to build a solid case for proving a clear, deliberate conspiracy.

I'd also recommend this speech given by David Ray Griffin, (author of The New Pearl Harbor and Ommissions and Distortions) who was invited by the Muslim-Jewish-Christian Alliance to give a lecture at The University of Wisconsin. This lecture was aired on C-Span Book TV. Here (click into for alt mirrors)
part 1: http://www.question911.com/linkout.php?filename=David Ray Griffin CSPAN2 Speech 04302005 Part 1.wmv
part 2: http://www.question911.com/linkout.php?filename=David Ray Griffin CSPAN2 Speech 04302005 Part 2.wmv

A tiny file that's of interest - is this one, showing how Bush reacts to being asked about advance knowledge of 911:
http://images.indymedia.org/imc/washingtondc/media/video/6/9_11laugh.mpg

 

[skywatch]

Seeing that you’re talking about logic and context, let’s put this list into context.

This list was started sometime in 2004/5 by somebody on the message board at www.democraticunderground.com. As you rightly say, LoneGunman, one of the main intentions of the list is to try and establish family ties between George Bush and some of the other involved parties. Let’s compare the actual facts with the wording of the example used earlier. And, by the way, note that I’m not focusing on this particular example but am using it as an illustration of how the list was put together.

Fact: Jonathan Bush ran an investment management company owned by Riggs Bank. According to the Washington Post “he has run his company as a distinct, wholly owned subsidiary of the bank, responsible for generating his own business”.

So, taking this into account, if you want to describe the scandal at Riggs Bank, what would be a reasonable why to describe the bank?

The 911 list says: “That Jonathan Bush’s Riggs Bank…”

Think there is any factual basis for calling it “J Bush’s bank”? He didn’t own the bank and he didn’t head the bank. He didn’t even manage the bank. Riggs Bank had many subsidiaries. Why use the name of the head of one particular subsidiary? Perhaps because it’s Bush? This leads me to think that the only plausible reason to call it “J Bush’s bank” would be if you want to make a connection between G Bush and the bank, however tenuous. But, of course, this is the intent of the list and that is what the author does, no matter the actual facts.

Let’s look at the next piece of the claim. What was the actual charge? According to the Washington Post: “Regulators have not charged the bank with money laundering, but they have charged that Riggs failed to comply with laws that require banks to report to law enforcement officials any suspicious transactions.”

The 911 list says: “has been found guilty of laundering terrorist funds and fined a US-record $25 million”

Does this seem to be a true reflection of the actual event? Laundering? Terrorist funds? Why would one use these terms unless you want to be emotive and link G Bush to both the scandal and terrorists in one go. But, of course, this is the intent of the list and that is what the author does, no matter the actual facts.

So, what would the claim look like in the real world? Perhaps “Riggs Bank found guilty of lax financial controls”? Hmm, not catchy at all. Think it will still make the list? You should try and analyse and cross-reference a few of the other claims on the list. It’s fun. (OK not really)

But I hope you get my point. It is my opinion that the list has been carefully crafted to point to a certain predictable outcome, no matter the actual facts.

saying that there's a difference between "Jonathan Bush's bank" and 'A bank where Jonathan Bush has a financial interest' - and assuming that this is somehow a major point - is to be missing the point so completely, its funny.

As demonstrated above, J Bush really shouldn’t be in the equation at all. The only reason he is mentioned is exactly because the author wants to make the link, not because there actually is a meaningful link. In any event, glad you had occasion for a good laugh, always glad to bring happiness to someone

There again, you're a coincidence theorist. Thus a nit-picker of non relevant data, apologist and defender of any 'official' version of anything (therefore inherently politically-speaking, right-wing and conservative) while flying the false flag of being 'progressive' and 'logical'.

I am a right-wing conservative because I question some pretty wild claims? Quite a few leaps you’re making here LoneGunman. But I guess you must be getting used to these jumps based on the stories you seem to favour.

overly-literal theorists who can't perceive 'context' 'trends' - or 'sustained irony',

Dang, my irony detection meter is on the blink again. Keep on picking up sarcasm and innuendo. Let me bang it on the table a few times. Maybe that will help.

the larger scheme of things, maybe a phrase like 'can't see the forest for the trees' is applicable.

In this case, no, I don’t think I’m ignoring the forest for the trees. I’m examining the trees to see what kind of forest I’m in. Based on the 911 list, seems to me I’m in forest Cuckoo Land.

 

[LoneGunman]

For someone who thinks they're in cloud cuckoo land, you spend an awful lot of time cutting and pasting and dissecting material you want everyone else to believe isn't of value.
Sounds like you're seriously invested in proving 'something'.
Or maybe you just want to do your best to show you're supporting the official story.

For folks wanting information and arguments for and against the conspiracy of 911, use this thread - http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showthread.php?t=37553

 

[neio]

Sounds like you're seriously invested in proving 'something'.

bwahahahah,

Thats classic coming from you LG, rofl

 

[LoneGunman]

the only thing I'm routinely invested in - is proving that the official/Media-spread view on something, isn't always the complete story. No secret there I'm pretty consistent

However someone going troll, and investing a lot of energy in trying to disprove this above approach, for no stated reason - and providing no alternative - shows a personal investment in them trying to sustain the 'official story'.

So I point them towards where the good arguments have raged - and let them either put their view, or disprove the evidence -
-again - For folks wanting information and arguments for and against the conspiracy of 911, use this thread - http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showthread.php?t=37553

 

[neio]

Off Topic

Dude, I dont mean to be rude but the irony on this thread is so thick right now you could cut it with a knife

/Back to topic

 

[skywatch]

you spend an awful lot of time cutting and pasting and dissecting material you want everyone else to believe isn't of value.
Sounds like you're seriously invested in proving 'something'.
Or maybe you just want to do your best to show you're supporting the official story.

I have to admit that some of my posts about this have been a bit tongue-in-cheek, but you’re right, I do have strong feelings about ‘conspiracy theories”. So let me tell you why. I’ll probably bore you to tears but you did ask.

My hobby is astronomy and I’m a keen amateur telescope builder. From time to time we have public outreach evenings where we get the public to look through our telescopes and chat about all things astronomical. Without fail at these events someone will come up to me with big eyes and say: “Do you know that NASA never sent a man to the Moon?” Now, I know that this is a trivial example as this particular conspiracy theory has been debunked so many times in the past that it is not even funny. But do the questions stop? Not at all. Fox even made a TV program ‘investigating’ this claim. How is the theory constructed? Pretty much the same way as the 911 list you posted.

In other words, lots of bogus claims and unrelated facts are used together to construct an argument.

So no, I’m not really for or against any particular point of view. What I object to is the method that is used to construct the argument. Kids and other innocent bystanders read this type of nonsense and serious brain damage is not totally out of the question with some of the more outlandish claims.

And I didn’t invest any significant effort to construct my counter-argument. It’s actually ridiculously simple to debunk these theories. Unfortunately, you have to do it factoid by factoid and that does take time if you want to look at all the ‘facts’ that are quoted. In this case, one “fact” was enough as I was only trying to illustrate my point.

Especially if you know that you’re dealing with people that will tell you that: “now, don’t focus on the data, look at the big picture” and “well, if you don’t like that fact, I’ve got lots more where that comes from” and (sigh) if you don’t agree with me then you must be a troll.

By the way if, you’re interested in the Moon Hoax have a look at http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html

 

[bb_matt]

“now, don’t focus on the data, look at the big picture”

I think without the data, you can't really focus on the bigger picture. There are documentaries that make things easier to digest, ones which present a series of unbiased facts, leaving the viewer to follow the threads.

The best one related to this topic I've seen, I posted in another thread, "Why we fight"

I've watched a number of the links you've posted in the past, LGM and find them incredibly addictive, as I do the entire subject. There's nothing better than feeding the mind.

I would urge anyone who is even remotely interested in what is really going on in the world (or at least, what we can try to work out) to follow these links and make your own deductions. I would say LGM is not trying to convince anyone, but rather to say "look, there's facts out there, read, digest and form an opinion - don't form that opinion on emotion"

I'm entirely convinced that 9/11 was a partial setup, I'm not yet certain it was a total setup. Just watching that documentary I mentioned above (after watching a bunch of others), is eye opening.

We DO get back to the "bigger picture" after some time, because the more you learn about history, the more you can begin to piece together the various trails that it presents. Events you may consider unrelated, suddenly become related, often invoking personal conflict as you realise the world you figured was so organised is really little more than organised chaos, or scarier still, planned years, if not decades in advance of the final outcome (the long game)

 

[skywatch]

I would say LGM is not trying to convince anyone, but rather to say "look, there's facts out there, read, digest and form an opinion - don't form that opinion on emotion"

Well, I may have the wrong end of the stick here.

LoneGunman, if your intention by posting the 911 list was to illustrate that there are other views to consider, I’m totally with you. My impression was that you were punting this particular version of events. If I was wrong, my apologies for a few sarcastic comments.

To belabour the obvious, in my opinion you have:
- the official version of events
- 911 (no, sorry scratch that ) lots of other versions from other sources
- and the truth

Unfortunately the truth is a very elusive thing. Sometimes it will take decades or even centuries to establish. Perhaps even never.

So, what do we do in the meantime to try and understand the world and what’s happening?

In my opinion, we have to work with verifiable data and a structured approach in building an argument. Rumours and speculation don’t cut it. Otherwise, how on earth can one come to an informed conclusion?

 

[bb_matt]

In my opinion, we have to work with verifiable data and a structured approach in building an argument. Rumours and speculation don’t cut it. Otherwise, how on earth can one come to an informed conclusion?

Firstly, I really have no exact notion of what LGM's motives are, just that I see an enquiring mind who likes to share info.

Secondly, regarding "verifiable data", it can be said quite obviously that the average person on the street will never have that kind of certainty, so we are left to deduce as close to the truth as possible via as many sources as possible.

You can reach a point where all the evidence gathered forms an overwhelming bent toward one side of the story, or a slight bent.

In the case of 9/11, I'd say there's an overwhelming amount of information that clearly indicates that all is not as it was reported. The amount of uncertainty generated by the official story when seen in the light of subsequent events in the middle east paints a picture of deceit on a massive scale.

This is all conjecture, as the truth has been buried under so much other conjecture, lies and confusion it's hard to see that old forest for trees.

Sometimes it's not the immediate events which lead us to figure out the most logical of stories, but the subsequent ones. That the events of 9/11 led to the the "war on terror" and that this "war" was then used as an excuse for the invasion of Iraq goes a long way to the conclusion that the official story of the events of 9/11 are anything but fact.

The fact that the US and UK have been blatantly caught out in their lies to their own people in relation to the invasion of Iraq can only lead one to question the events surrounding 9/11.

One thing is clear, whether we find the truth or not, we can at least see where the lies are.

 

[nocilah]

wait. so you telling me people still believe that 9/11 was thought up by peasants in afghanistahn?

buwahahahahahaha.

 

[LoneGunman]

Debunking conspiracy theorists' paranoid fantasies about Sept. 11

http://portland.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=44629&group=webcast
Astute observers of history are aware that for every notable event there will usually be at least one ,often several wild conspiracy theories which spring up around it. "The CIA killed Hendrix" " The Pope had John Lennon murdered ", "Hitler was half Werewolf", "Space aliens replaced Nixon with a clone" etc,etc. The bigger the event, the more ridiculous and more numerous are the fanciful rantings which circulate in relation to it.

So its hardly surprising that the events of Sept 11 2001 have spawned their fair share of these ludicrous fairy tales. And as always, there is - sadly - a small but gullible percentage of the population eager to lap up these tall tales, regardless of facts or rational analysis.

One of the wilder stories circulating about Sept 11, and one that has attracted something of a cult following amongst conspiracy buffs is that it was carried out by 19 fanatical Arab hijackers, masterminded by an evil genius named Osama bin Laden, with no apparent motivation other than that they "hate our freedoms."

Never a group of people to be bothered by facts, the perpetrators of this cartoon fantasy have constructed an elaborately woven web of delusions and unsubstantiated hearsay in order to promote this garbage across the internet and the media to the extent that a number of otherwise rational people have actually fallen under its spell.

Normally I don't even bother debunking this kind of junk, but the effect that this paranoid myth is beginning to have requires a little rational analysis, in order to consign it to the same rubbish bin as all such silly conspiracy theories.

These crackpots even contend that the extremist Bush regime was caught unawares by the attacks, had no hand in organizing them, and actually would have stopped them if it had been able. Blindly ignoring the stand down of the US air-force, the insider trading on airline stocks - linked to the CIA, the complicit behavior of Bush on the morning of the attacks, the controlled demolition of the WTC, the firing of a missile into the Pentagon and a host of other documented proofs that the Bush regime was behind the attacks, the conspiracy theorists stick doggedly to a silly story about 19 Arab hijackers somehow managing to commandeer 4 planes simultaneously and fly them around US airspace for nearly 2 hours ,crashing them into important buildings, without the US intelligence services having any idea that it was coming, and without the Air Force knowing what to do.

The huge difficulties with such a stupid story force them to invent even more preposturous stories to distract from its core silliness, and thus the tale has escalated into a mythic fantasy of truly gargantuan proportions.

It's difficult to apply rational analysis to such unmitigated stupidity, but that is the task which I take on in this article. However, it should be noted that one of the curious characteristics of conspiracy theorists is that they effortlessly change their so called evidence in response to each aspect which is debunked. As soon as one delusion is unmasked, they simply invent another to replace it, and deny that the first ever existed. Eventually, when they have turned full circle through this endlessly changing fantasy fog , they then re-invent the original delusion and deny that you ever debunked it, thus beginning the circle once more. This technique is known as "the fruit loop" and saves the conspiracy theorist from ever having to see any of their ideas through to their (ill)logical conclusions.

According to the practitioners of the fruit loop, 19 Arabs took over the 4 planes by subduing the passengers and crew through the use of guns,knives,box cutters and gas, and then used electronic guidance systems which they had smuggled on board to fly the planes to their targets.

The suspension of disbelief required for this outrageous concoction is only for the hard core conspiracy theorist. For a start, they conveniently skip over the awkward fact that there weren't any Arabs on the planes. If there were, one must speculate that they somehow got on board without being filmed by any of the security cameras and without being registered on the passenger lists. But the curly question of how they are supposed to have got on board is all too mundane for the exciting world of the conspiracy theorist. With vague mumblings that they must have been using false ID ( but never specifying which IDs they are alleged to have used, or how these were traced to their real identities), they quickly bypass this problem, to relate exciting and sinister tales about how some of the fictitious fiends were actually searched before boarding because they looked suspicious. However, as inevitably happens with any web of lies, this simply paints them into an even more difficult corner. How are they supposed to have got on board with all that stuff if they were searched ? And if they used gas in a confined space, they would have been affected themselves unless they also had masks in their luggage.

"Excuse me sir, why do you have a boxcutter, a gun, a container of gas, a gas mask and an electronic guidance unit in your luggage?"
"A present for your grandmother? Very well sir, on you get."

"Very strange", thinks the security officer. "That's the fourth Arabic man without an Arabic name who just got on board with a knife, gun or boxcutter and gas mask. And why does that security camera keep flicking off every time one these characters shows up? Must be one of those days I guess..."

Asking any of these basic questions to a conspiracy theorist is likely to cause a sudden leap to the claim that we know that they were on board because they left a credit card trail for the tickets they had purchased and cars they had rented. So if they used credit cards that identified them, how does that reconcile with the claim that they used false IDs to get on to the plane? But by this time ,the fruit loop is in full swing, as the conspiracy theorist tries to stay one jump ahead of this annoying and awkward rational analysis.They will allege that the hijackers' passports were found at the crash scenes. "So there!" they exalt triumphantly, their fanatical faces lighting up with that deranged look of one who has just a revelation of questionable sanity.

Hmm? So they got on board with false IDs but took their real passports with them? However, by this time the fruit loop has been completely circumnavigated,and the conspiracy theorist exclaims impatiently, "Who said anything about false IDs? We know what seats they were sitting in! Their presence is well documented!" And so the whole loop starts again. "Well, why aren't they on the passenger lists?"

"You numbskull! They assumed the identities of other passengers!" And so on...

Finally, out of sheer fascination with this circular method of creative delusion , the rational sceptic will allow them to get away with this loop, in order to move on to the next question, and see what further delights await us in the unraveling of this marvelously stupid story.

"Uh, how come their passports survived fiery crashes that completely incinerated the planes and all the passengers? " The answer of course is that its just one of those strange co-incidences, those little quirks of fate that do happen from time to time. You know, like the same person winning the lottery four weeks in a row. The odds are astronomical, but these things do happen...

This is another favourite deductive method of the conspiracy theorist. The "improbability drive" , in which they decide upon a conclusion without any evidence whatsoever to support it, and then continually speculate a series of wildly improbable events and unbelievable co-incidences to support it, shrugging off the implausibility of each event with the vague assertion that sometimes the impossible happens (just about all the time in their world). There is a principle called "Occam's razor" which suggests that in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the simplest explanation is most likely to be correct. Conspiracy theorists hate Occam's razor.

Having for the sake of amusement, allowed them to get away with with the silly story of the 19 invisible Arabs, we move on to the question of how they are supposed to have taken over the planes.

Hijacking a plane is not an easy thing to do. Hijacking it without the pilot being able to alert ground control is near impossible. The pilot has only to punch in a four digit code to alert ground control to a hijacking. Unconcerned with the awkward question of plausibility, the conspiracy buffs maintain that on that Sept 11, the invisible hijackers took over the plane by the rather crude method of threatening people with boxcutters and knives, and spraying gas (after they had attached their masks, obviously), but somehow took control of the plane without the crew first getting a chance to punch in the hijacking code. Not just on one plane, but on all four. At this point in the tale, the conspiracy theorist is again forced to call upon the services of the improbability drive.
(C0NT)

 

[LoneGunman]

(part two)

At this point the mad but cunning eyes of the conspiracy theorist will narrow as they sense the corner that they have backed themselves into, and plan their escape by means of another stunning backflip.
"Ah, but planes have never crashed into buildings before, so there's no way of telling." they counter with a sly grin.

Well, actually planes have crashed into buildings before and since, and not vapourized into nothing.
"But not big planes, with that much fuel ", they shriek in hysterical denial.
Or that much metal to vapourize.
"Yes but not hijacked planes!"
"Are you suggesting that whether the crash is deliberate or accidental affects the combustion qualities of the fuel?"
"Now you're just being silly".

Although collisions with buildings are rare, planes frequently crash into mountains, streets, other aircraft, nosedive into the ground,or have bombs planted aboard them, and don't vapourize into nothing. What's so special about a tower that's mostly glass? But by now, the conspiracy theorist has once again sailed happily around the fruit loop.
"Its a well documented fact that planes explode into nothing on impact."
Effortlessly weaving back and forth between the position that its a "well known fact" and that "its never happened before, so we have nothing to compare it to", the conspiracy theorist has now convinced themselves ( if not too many other people) that the WTC plane was not loaded with explosives, and that the instant vapourization of the plane in a massive fireball was the same as any other plane crash you might care to mention. Round and round the fruit. loop...

But the hurdles which confront the conspiracy theorist are many, and they are now forced to implement even more creative uses for the newly discovered shockingly destructive qualities of kerosine. They have to explain how the Arabs also engineered the elegant veritcal collapse of both the WTC towers, and for this awkward fact the easiest counter is to simply deny that it was a controlled demolition, and claim that the buildings collapsed from fire caused by the burning kerosine.

For this, its necessary to sweep aside the second law of thermodynamics and propose kerosine which is not only impossibly destructive, but also recycles itself for a second burning in violation of the law of degradation of energy. You see, it not only consumed itself in a sudden catastrophic fireball, vapourizing a 65 ton plane into nothing, but then came back for a second go, burning at 2000C for another hour at the impact point, melting the skyscraper's steel like butter. And while it was doing
all this it also poured down the elevator shafts, starting fires all through the building. When I was at school there was a little thing called the entropy law which suggests that a given portion of fuel can only burn once, something which is readily observable in the real world, even for those who didn't make it to junior high school science.
But this is no problem for the conspiracy theorist. Gleefully, they claim that a few thousand gallons of kerosine is enough to
:completely vapourize a 65 ton aircraft
:have enough left over to burn ferociously enough for over an hour at the impact point to melt steel ( melting point about double the maximum combustion temperature of the fuel )
:still have enough left over to pour down the elevator shafts and start similarly destructive fires all through the building.

This kerosine really is remarkable stuff! How chilling to realize that those kerosine heaters we had in the house when I was a kid were deadly bombs, just waiting to go off. One false move and the entire street might have been vapourized. And never again will I take kerosine lamps out camping. One moment you're there innocently holding the lamp - the next - kapow! Vapourized into nothing along with with the rest of the camp site, and still leaving enough of the deadly stuff to start a massive forest fire.

These whackos are actually claiming that the raging inferno allegedly created by the miraculously recycling, and impossibly hot burning kerosine melted or at least softened the steel supports of the skyscraper. Oblivious to the fact that the smoke coming from the WTC was black, which indicates an oxygen starved fire -therefore, not particularly hot, they trumpet an alleged temperature in the building of 2000 C , without a shred of evidence to support this curious suspension of the laws of
physics.

Not content with this ludicrous garbage, they then contend that as the steel frames softened, they came straight down instead of buckling and twisting and falling sideways. Since they're already re-engineered the combustion qualities of jet fuel, violated the second law of thermodynamics, and re-defined the structural properties of steel, why let a little thing like the laws of gravity get in the way?

The tower fell in a time almost identical to that of a free falling object, dropped from that height, meaning that its physically impossible for it to have collapsed by the method of the top floors smashing through the lower floors. But according to the conspiracy theorists, the laws of gravity were temporarily suspended on the morning of Sept 11. It appears that the evil psychic power of those dreadful Arabs knew no bounds. Even after they were dead, they were able, by the power of their evil spirits, to force down the tower at a speed physically impossible under the laws of gravity, had it been meeting any resistance from fireproofed steel structures originally designed to resist many tons of hurricane force wind as well as the impact of a Boeing passenger jet straying off course.

Clearly, these conspiracy nuts never did their science homework at school, but did become extremely adept at inventing tall tales for why.
"Muslim terrorists stole my notes, sir"
"No miss, the kerosine heater blew up and vapourized everything in the street, except for my passport."
"You see sir, the schoolbus was hijacked by Arabs who destroyed my homework because they hate our freedoms."

Or perhaps they misunderstood the term "creative science" and mistakenly thought that coming up with such rubbish was in fact, their science homework.
The ferocious heat generated by this ghastly kerosine was, according to the conspiracy theorists, the reason why so many of the WTC victims can't be identified. DNA is destroyed by heat. (Although 2000 C isn't really required, 100C will generally do the job.) This is quite remarkable, because according to the conspiracy theorist, the nature of DNA suddenly changes if you go to a different city.

That's right! If you are killed by an Arab terrorist in NY, your DNA will be destroyed by such temperatures. But if you are killed by an Arab terrorist in Washington DC, your DNA will be so robust that it can survive temperatures which completely vapourize a 65 ton aircraft.

You see, these loonies have somehow concocted the idea that the missile which hit the pentagon was not a missile at all, but one of the hijacked planes. And to prove this unlikely premise, they point to a propaganda statement from the Bush regime, which rather stupidly claims that all but one of the people aboard the plane were identified from the site by DNA testing, even though nothing remains of the plane. The plane was vapourized by the fuel tank explosion maintain these space loonies, but the people inside it were all but one identified by DNA testing.
So there we have it. The qualities of DNA are different, depending upon which city you're in, or perhaps depending upon which fairy story you're trying to sell at any particular time.

This concoction about one of the hijacked planes hitting the Pentagon really is a howler. For those not familiar with the layout of the Pentagon, it consists of 5 rings of building, each with a space inbetween. Each ring of building is about 30 to 35 ft deep, with a similar amount of open space between it and the next ring. The object which penetrated the Pentagon went in at about a 45 degree angle, punching a neat circular hole of about a 12 ft diameter through three rings ( six walls).A little later a section of wall about 65 ft wide collapsed in the outer ring. Since the plane which the conspiracy theorists claim to be responsible for the impact had a wing span of 125 ft and a length of 155 ft, and there was no wreckage of the plane, either inside or outside the building, and the lawns outside were still smooth and green enough to play golf on, this crazy delusion is clearly physically impossible.

But hey, we've already disregarded the combustion qualities of jet fuel, the normal properties of common building materials, the properties of DNA, the laws of gravity and the second law of thermodynamics, so what the hell - why not throw in a little spatial impossibility as well ? I would have thought that the observation that a solid object cannot pass through another solid object without leaving a hole at least as big as itself is reasonably sound science. But to the conspiracy theorist
(CONT)

 

[LoneGunman]

(cont)
But to the conspiracy theorist, this is "mumbo jumbo". It conflicts with the delusion that they're hooked on, so it "must be wrong" although trying to get them to explain exactly how it could be wrong is a futile endeavour.

Conspiracy theorists fly into a curious panic whenever the Pentagon missile is mentioned.They nervously maintain that the plane was vapourized by it's exploding fuel load and point to the WTC crash as evidence of this behavior. (That's a wonderful fruit loop.) Like an insect which has just been sprayed, running back and forth in its last mad death throes, they first argue that the reason the hole is so small is that the plane never entered the wall, having blown up outside, and then suddenly backflip to explain the 250 ft deep missile hole by saying that the plane disappeared all the way into the building, and then blew up inside the building (even though the building shows no sign of such damage).

As for what happened to the wings - here's where they get really creative. The wings snapped off and folded into the fuselage which then carried them into the building, which then closed up behind the plane like a piece of meat.

When it suits them, they'll also claim that the plane slid in on its belly, (ignoring the undamaged lawn) while at the same time citing alleged witnesses to the plane diving steeply into the building from an "irrecoverable angle." How they reconcile these two scenarios as being compatible is truly a study in stupidity.

Once they get desperate enough, you can be sure that the UFO conspiracy stuff will make an appearance. The Arabs are in league with the Martians. Space aliens snatched the remains of the Pentagon plane and fixed most of the hole in the wall, just to confuse people. They gave the Arabs invisibility pills to help get them onto the planes. Little green men were seen talking to Bin Laden a few weeks prior to the attacks.

As the nation gears up to impeach the traitor Bush, and stop his perpetual oil war, it's not helpful to have these idiots distracting from the process by spreading silly conspiracy theories about mythical Arabs, stories which do nothing but play into the hands of the extremist Bush regime.

At a less serious time, we might tolerate such crackpots with amused detachment, but they need to understand that the treachery that was perpetrated on Sept 11, and the subsequent war crimes committed in "retaliation" are far too serious for us to allow such frivolous self indulgence to go unchallenged.

Those who are truly addicted to conspiracy delusions should find a more appropriate outlet for their paranoia.

Its time to stop loony conspiracy theories about Sept 11.
=====================================================================

If you enjoyed this above conspiracy theory - then the main thread, with lots of supporting/dismissing links & points of view, is "WHY 911 WASN'T WHAT YOU THOUGHT IT WAS.': http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showthread.php?t=37553

A good starting point for 911 truth, is a documentary called 'LOOSE CHANGE': http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8260059923762628848&q=loose+change
and for serious factual-case-building for conspiracy - THE TRUTH AND LIES OF 911
heres the GOOGLE VIDEO DOWNLOAD:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8797525979024486145&q=9/11+ruppert
- which is fascinating because its a public lecture by an ex LAPD cop, using ONLY newspaper articles - no conjecture, no theory, just facts - as reported in various newspapers ahead of time - to build a solid case for proving a clear, deliberate conspiracy.

I'd also recommend this speech given by David Ray Griffin, (author of The New Pearl Harbor and Ommissions and Distortions) who was invited by the Muslim-Jewish-Christian Alliance to give a lecture at The University of Wisconsin. This lecture was aired on C-Span Book TV. Here (click into for alt mirrors)
part 1: http://www.question911.com/linkout.php?filename=David Ray Griffin CSPAN2 Speech 04302005 Part 1.wmv
part 2: http://www.question911.com/linkout.php?filename=David Ray Griffin CSPAN2 Speech 04302005 Part 2.wmv

And a tiny file that's of interest - is this one - observe Bush's reaction when being asked about advance knowledge of 911:
http://images.indymedia.org/imc/washingtondc/media/video/6/9_11laugh.mpg

 

[skywatch]

Secondly, regarding "verifiable data", it can be said quite obviously that the average person on the street will never have that kind of certainty, so we are left to deduce as close to the truth as possible via as many sources as possible.

That was a thoughtful post bb_matt and this point is perhaps the crux of the matter. How can the ordinary guy come to a reasonable conclusion? Do you believe the official version? Do you believe the crackpots with their weird and wonderful notions? Do you believe any of the other versions of an event?

As you suggest, the best we can probably do is to consult as many different sources as we can and then look at the information with a critical mind.

I tend to favour reputable mainstream sources for information. At least there you are relatively sure that facts have been checked and that reports are provided reasonable objectively. I especially steer clear of bitter academics with their own agendas and failed journalists publishing outside the mainstream with no peer review mechanism in place.

 

[skywatch]

... huge wad of copied factoids snipped

And with one mighty cut-and-paste the wind is taken completely out of my sails. The skills of a real master debater at work. Very persuasive.

OK, that attempt at humour was pretty lame. But I do get the point, maybe belatedly, that you don’t want to discuss this issue. So, I will move on.

 

[LoneGunman]

Gee, I'm missing you already.
you're welcome to work through the above 'Debunking conspiracy theorists' paranoid fantasies about Sept. 11' article - and point out piece by piece where the writer got it wrong. Unless you can't And avoiding addressing the facts referred to in the above article by saying "And with one mighty cut-and-paste the wind is taken completely out of my sails." - just gives the impression that you just want someone to troll with, regardless of the issue. Play with the facts in that article - or go to the previously linked 911 thread and tell everyone, including physics professors, how we're all getting it wrong.
(For folks wanting information and arguments for and against the conspiracy of 911, use this thread - http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showthread.php?t=37553 )

 

[skywatch]

What happened so far? You posted a list which contained wild claims about 911. I then pointed out the following:

- the list was fabricated by people with a point to prove and
- the list contains bogus claims.

I then examined one of the claims on the list to substantiate my contention that some of the claims are bogus, which, in my opinion, I did successfully. You responded by posting an even bigger list, with even wilder claims. Now, this is a style of debate with which I’m not familiar. Unless you're making the point that there's a lot of conspiracy lists to be found on the Internet. In which case, yes, I agree and I think we should move on.

But, I’m a sucker for punishment, so let’s look at your latest conspiracy list. I really do not have the time or energy to look at all the claims, but will pick one to support my brand new contention that this list was also fabricated by people with a point to prove, ignoring the facts in the real world.

Let’s look at the claim that it was a missile that struck the Pentagon and not American Airlines Flight 77. I’m quite surprised that this particular item is still being punted as ‘evidence’. There was an actual plane with actual passengers that went missing and lots of eyewitnesses. You have to wish a lot of real world things away if you want to contend that it was actually a missile that struck the building. Just using Occam’s razor will guide you to a sensible conclusion with no further effort.

But I picked the missile story as an example, so let’s labour on. If you go to www.thenewamerican.com/artman/publish/article_1253.shtml, you'll read an examination of this event and find their conclusion which is that there's “overwhelming evidence from eyewitnesses, photos, independent experts, and government officials that the Pentagon was hit by American Airlines Flight 77 on September 11, 2001”

A cursory search reveals plenty of sites who, after careful analysis of the event, come to the same conclusion. I deliberately picked New American as an example for you as they’re hardly a bastion of right-wing conservatives. It’s very clear to me that it was indeed American Airlines Flight 77 that struck the Pentagon and that it is a very simple fact to establish. You earlier on questioned my motives in responding to your ‘conspiracy theory’ posts. I think it’s now time for me to do the same. Why are you posting statements that are quite evidently very far removed from reality?

And if you actually do believe that there's a conspiracy, I suggest that you take the advice of the New American. They politely ask all their brothers-in-arms to remain current with the latest thinking in conspiracy and not to spread ‘sensational and irrational conjecture about the September 11 terrorist attacks” as these are being used to “discredit any consideration of conspiracy in general”. In other words, please be a reasonable and objective conspiracy theorist and refrain from using the claims that've already been debunked. If you’re not careful and you keep on posting lists like you’ve done in this thread, you‘ll soon be put by your fellow conspirators in the “missile people” bucket just as they’ve done with the poor ‘pod people’.

Of course, there’s the possibility that you’re just making these posts to get a rise out of people and that you’re not actually interested in establishing the truth after all. If so, you can consider me a successful catch. In any event, it’s fun to browse about from time to time to see what the crackpots are up to. I’ve even learnt a new phrase: “pod people” and maybe even dreamt up a new one: ‘missile people’. ROFL

 

[LoneGunman]

re taking one tiny fact from a larger collection of info, and waffling on about it, as if this is proof of something. You seem to fixate on the Pentagon and some peoples 'missile' theory - not mine - as if this means or proves anything.
Taking a couple of out there theories, and using these to try suggest the literally hundreds of other facts, anomalies and 'coincidences' making up the official story of 911, are all in doubt - is hardly evidence, or proof of anything.
Again, you fail to adress any of the points made in the coincidence theorists guide to 911.

re "I deliberately picked New American as an example for you as they’re hardly a bastion of right-wing conservatives."
-Excuse me? Digging information out of a blatantly conservative US-flag waving right wing 'patriot' site - is hardly an acceptable or neutral information source. (Note the flags everywhere, the banner adverts saying 'GET THE US OUT OF THE UNITED NATIONS'. Adverts for the John Birch Society.. article headings "Why Punish Lindh -- But Not Fonda?")
Duh.

Are you honestly that ignorant or stupid in data gathering, that you can't tell when you're clearly on a raving rightwing conservative 'patriot' site that has a range of serious agenda's. And you expect your point of view to be taken seriously?
Either you're stupid, or you're a troll, with an agenda. u wrote: "I deliberately picked New American as an example for you as they’re hardly a bastion of right-wing conservatives." Really?
note the John Birch Society adverts on that site.

-John Birch Society "The John Birch Society (JBS) is an ultra-conservative, Americanist organization that was founded in 1958 to fight what it saw as growing threats to the constitution of the United States, especially a perceived Communist infiltration, and to "promote the free-enterprise system". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Birch_Society

That's like saying 'I chose an AWB-supporting site to find info to disprove what you said, because they're hardly an example of racists'. You're therefore either an idiot - or a troll, or both.

Seeing as you rather raised the Pentagon, and the theories in some quarters, of a missile. Okay, lets look at the evidence showing that 'an airplane' struck the Pentagon..

By the way, as regards the idea that the hole was 90 feet wide in the Pentagon. Nope. I don't care what organisation 'says' there was a 90ft wide hole. None of the photographs taken, some within minutes of the explosion, show a hole 90 feet wide.

show me a 90 foot wide 'hole' in this picture?
http://911review.org/Wget/investigate911.batcave.net/5a.jpg
and here's a closer view - where's the hole?
http://911review.org/Wget/investigate911.batcave.net/facade-intacte-hte-def2c.jpg
and here's the photo, with the area circled, that an entire airplane somehow folded its wings up, and went inside. I dont see a wide 90foot hole anywhere - or even half of the alleged hole, (ie: '45 feet' wide.)
http://911review.org/Wget/investigate911.batcave.net/facade-intacte-s.jpg
Please note the vast quantity of airplane debris littering the lawn, in all three pix.
And this one as well: http://www.crc-internet.org/images/jun2a.jpg

Here's a close view of the hole that an entire airplane somehow shrunk and slipped into, while magically leaving no wing parts - like in other crashes. http://911review.org/Wget/investigate911.batcave.net/facade-intactesma.jpg

If you bothered to do any meaningful research, or look at the facts, or even the Loose Change documentary, where among other things, the alleged amazing pilot who managed this - was clearly described as 'incompetent' by a flight school instructor who vetted his skills ahead of 911. look again at: http://www.crc-internet.org/images/jun2a.jpg

""The photograph was taken in the first minutes of the fire. Firetrucks are on the scene, but as yet these vehicles have not gone into action. Moreover, the upper floors of the building are yet to collapse. Now, there is no trace of significant debris, no engine, no black box, no undercarriage. Nothing! And yet, according to the official version, a Boeing 757-200, an air freighter with a wingspan of 38.05 m, a length of 47.30 m, a height of 13 m and a weight of 100 tons, struck the ground and first floors of the front of the building, hedge-hopping as it approached, flying just a few metres above the ground at a minimum speed.. "

Just another coincidence that someone who couldn't even fly a basic Cessna, managed to do the above.

There again, you're a coincidence theorist. So hundreds of coincidences 'concidentally' happening on the same day - will forever remain 'coincidences' in your Government supporting eyes. You'd rather waste peoples time I guess, and argue over points you simply can't or won't defend, based on the evidence.

For what its worth, read an opposing view 'The Pod People and the Plane That Crashed Into the Pentagon':
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ppfinal.html

Do some honest research - and instead of choosing arbitrary theories about 911, which you 'think' demonstrate looney theories - so that you can cleverly disprove them - address the points raised in the coincidence theorists guide.

That's if you actually want to do more than play at being a troll. You clearly have no interest in the truth.

For the rest of you normal humans out there

(AN INTRODUCTION) 20 REASONS TO DOUBT THE OFFICIAL STORY OF 911:
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/IntroductionToS911T.html

THEN READ "The Destruction of the World Trade Center: Why the Official Account Cannot Be True" (by David Ray Griffin, Ph.D) http://911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html
-and read "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?" (by Steven E. Jones, Ph.D)
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

and dive in at "WHY 911 WASN'T WHAT YOU THOUGHT IT WAS.': http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showthread.php?t=37553