Thread: Conspiracy theories.

I'm not sure what the Air Force has to do with the London Bombings. They were bombs on tube trains.

There really is no elaborate conspiracy needed. It's extremely easy to get a bomb on the tube, anybody could do it if they wanted. No security breaches were required.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

That is a lovely sidestep, but I was under the impression that this thread was not only about the 9/11 attack. I actually asked for your opinion of those conspiracies (more along the lines of "not all conspiracy theories (and/or theorists) are ridiculous"). I will go so far as to say that they give more evidence to the fact that the government is (ethically) capable of committing such acts, than you have given that they are not. You are easily just as guilty of illogically assuming that the government is completely benevolent, as many truthers are, that they are evil. Not very much objectivity, there. When you talk about the scale - where is the cut-off point? What exactly, in your opinion, is the maximum scale of attack/experimentation that the government is capable of committing. Apparently you dont think 9/11 was possible, but you didn't seem to dispute the documented cases. So where is the mid-point where you say "the government can and won't do such a thing", and how do you come to that conclusion?

I didn't sidestep anything. I was debating the 9/11 theories with Dreamsun, so that is what was on my mind. I don't know anything about those other things except that Northwood never happend and human experiments are hardly a new thing, not that I'm saying there isn't anything ethically wrong with it. I'm saying there is a significant difference between conducting unethical experiments to gain knowledge and straight murdering thousands of citizens in a single blow. Experiments get precise results, terror attacks do not. How could they expect not to get caught? It's hard enough to commit a single homicide and get away with it.

All I want is a little bit of evidence that it was planned by members of our government. Is that too much to ask? Proving that previous conspiracies were true doesn't make the 9/11 conspiracy any more credible.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

And when I mention the physical capabilities, I'm not talking about bombs in buildings, or holographic planes, or Devil faces in the clouds, or any of the more fringe theories. I'm talking about the fundamental concept of the attacks either being allowed to happen, or planned by the U.S. government, itself, as a precursor to war. Do you have an opinion about the "coincidence" of their being an impromptu training exercise on that very morning, which made it impossible for the Air Force to scramble jets, at the first sign of trouble? Do you have an opinion on how the exact same scenario took place on the May 7th bombings in the UK? Were they both merely coincidence, or did Al Qaeda know exactly when and where the Western governments hold their training exercises?

There is zero evidence that the attack was planned by the U.S. government or "allowed" to happen. The problem with your point of view is that a theoretical possibility is all they need to convince themselves that it actually happened. Forget about evidence, just construct an extravagent plot of how it could have happened and you will gain followers. A tip off that terrorists are interested in possibly using airplanes to attack the United States does not equate to "the U.S. allowed it to happen." When are they going to do it? How? Where? What are their targets? How large and professional is the operation? Are they going to hijack the planes and land somewhere? How accurate is the information? How many false alarms had they had in the past decade from Al Qaeda? There are so many possibilities with such a tip that it's impossible to be 100% effective in preventing an actual attack. That's without mentioning that we have problems with the accuracy of intelligence in our country.

What coincidence are you talking about exactly? That interceptor jets were conducting a training exercise which is conducted on a regular basis? As a future military pilot who knows a little about a typical days work, I can tell you that training exercises are conducted on a daily basis. Do you think they just kick back with their feet on their desks while they wait for something to happen? The interceptor jets did their job on 9/11. The only problem is that conspiracy theorists expect them to perform superhuman, supernatural feats. Are the jets supposed to materialize out of thin air right in front of the planes? They are still human beings controlling a jet which moves at a limited speed using instruments with a limited capability. One of my professors is an air traffic controller who worked on 9/11. He talked about the mass of confusion and how the controllers couldn't find the planes that had been hijacked. (At least one of them flew over my state.) If ATC doesn't know where the planes are, how can an interceptor pilot find it? They were literally MIA. The reason there was so much confusion is because ATC was looking for the planes out West over Illinois when the planes had actually pulled a sharp u-turn and were heading East over Ohio and West Virginia. Is that not a logical explanation? It came from my professor who is obviously not a part of this conspiracy.

With regards to 9/11, I think some Americans find it extremely difficult to believe that their intelligence agencies/military are capable of failure, therefore they must've been in on it. The fact of the matter is the CIA and others dropped the ball and failed to act on or take seriously info they had about Al-Qaeda planning an attack. The more people there are working together, the more chances there are for mistakes, and the less likely a conspiracy will hold together. There are a LOT of people in the US intelligence community, and they're only human. Unfortunately this mistake was very costly for them.

Originally Posted by ArcanumNoctis

lol, that doesn't mean anything because I don't adopt mainstream mentality or automatically agree with it. I really don't agree with anything and just pick up on interesting bits of information to see if I can identify propaganda or a pattern later on due to residual cause and effect. It is actually kind of like a game. You should try it sometime.

We, in the logician community, call this deceptive reasoning "post hoc ergo propter hoc."[1]

You need to calm down. You are acting on emotion. Saying all conspiracy theories are false would be illogical. Conspiracy theories are neither true, nor false.

In these two statements, you made the mistake of stating that "Saying all conspiracy theories are false would be illogical", and yet immediately after, you claimed that [all] "conspiracy theories are neither true, nor false". Therefore, according to your former claim, the latter statement is "illogical". Also, according to the Law of non-contradiction [2], all conspiracy theories cannot be not true and not false (which is the same as saying true and false), but must be, according to the Law of excluded middle [3], either true or false. Therefore, the latter claim you made is self-refuting. I would also like to point out the former claim you made that said "all conspiracy theories are false would be illogical," as false, because unless there are premises to contradict it as a conclusion, and/or other arguments stated by your opponent to contradict it , the claim itself is a synthetic statement that is non-contradictory, and therefore not illogical.


[1] Post hoc ergo propter hoc - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[2] Principle of contradiction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[3] Law of excluded middle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ok. To try to get everything:

Originally Posted by Caprisun

Their evidence, if you want to call it that, is 100% anecdotal and 0% empirical. The truther argument consists of stressed interviewees being taken out of context and amateur analyses of shaky amateur videos. They'll play a video and say something like "See! See how fast it fell?" or "Look how it fell straight down!" So? What is that? Am I supposed to take that seriously? Real evidence would be a det cord in the rubble, some trace of explosives, maybe an e-mail or a letter which suggests a secret plan. Anything! What they have though, is nothing. Quite literally nothing. I could honestly go all day about how ridiculous the whole situation is. There is just so much to ridicule.

Honestly, if those have been the only accounts of "evidence" you've seen brought forth by truthers, you haven't been paying attention.

How about the thermite (and other chemical compounds, the likes of which you say don't exist), which have (allegedly) been found in the rubble? (More on that, later, if you watch the vids in this post.)

And the idea that there would be some e-mail laying around, suggesting a secret plan, is as baseless as saying "Well if it were real, we'd have known about it, by now." If all incriminating texts were immediately unearthed, declassification of information wouldn't be an event that happens every 20 years or more.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

The debunking effort is multi-faceted because the theories are wrong on so many levels. Not just in technical terms of whether the collapses indicated controlled demolition or whatever else they claim, but in terms of planning, the sheer scale of the operation, in terms of secrecy as I already mentioned, in terms of personal credibility, in terms of risk compared to potential reward, in general the logic of even attempting to carry out such a ridiculous plan in the first place.

What's interesting is that your assessment all of those things as "wrong on so many levels" is based on nothing but a priori assumption. The technical terms are precisely what are being evidenced, by many architects, engineers and scientists. The sheer scale of the operation as being ridiculous is based on what, empirically? The "terms of secrecy" being ridiculous is based on what, empirically? (And remember how limited the margin of comparison you gave me, for the association between the unethical experiments I referenced and 9/11, was? I want you to adhere to the same standard.) Im not quite sure what you meant by terms of personal credibility, and to even question terms of risk over reward is the flimsiest of the lot. Exactly what dollar amount would you settle for, to defy the entire industrial military complex, in a potential coup that could threaten the power of the government over the American people? If you think the reward outweighs the risk, you're either braver than I am, dumber than I am, or both.

What is also interesting is that you post a picture of a controlled demolition's interworkings. Forget the two towers. Look at building 7's destruction. Essentially, you are saying that all of that det cord and design is completely useless, because all it takes to flatten a 40-something story building - symmetrically and flawlessly, into its own footprint - is to toss in a few molitov cocktails and light a few fires. Please explain to me how building 7 collapsed, perfectly. The asserstion that this was done by fire is 100x more ridiculous than the bulk of the conspiracy theories I've heard, since the "truther movement" began.

Please read the following and comment:
Building 7

Silverstein's response to criticism of his "pull it" comment
(I hate using links from sites that are already filed away under "Conspiracy Theorist", but they are the quickest sources of info, and I try to only place links which site more reputable sources. Feel free to do your own cross-referencing.)

Originally Posted by Caprisun

I don't believe I ever said it was a crime to speak your mind and I didn't say anybody should be censored. I stated that explicity. My original statement was that it irritated me, and it still does.

My mistake. I did not mean to say that you said it should be censored. I did read that you explicitly said that it shouldn't. That was simply a poor use of wordage, on my part. I apologize.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

This conspiracy is completely unfounded. Anybody who goes on TV and advertises such a conspiracy is doing a disservice to every individual who plays witness. Any evidence you think exists of the CIA acting against the interests of the American population is completely irrelevant, especially since no recorded crime could ever compare to 9/11 on any level. You are only validating the contentions of many psychologists when they say these conspiracies must stem from a general discontent with the government. Your true feelings on the matter, whether they be conscious or unconscious, are betrayed when you say the question of whether the government would do such a thing shouldn't even be considered. That's hardly an objective stance. It's unfair to say the least and it doesn't indicate the attitude of someone who really wants to find the truth.

That's completely false. Your assessment that the conspiracy is completely unfounded is simply not true, given the trio of evidence, history and motive - which our legal system will inform you are stable grounds for suspicion. Any evidence of the CIA acting against the interests of the American population is most certainly not irrelevant - especially in respect to your arbitrary assessment than no recorded crime "could ever compare" to 9/11 on any level. When it is submitted that the government (or any other faction) knows clearly what it stands to gain by a crime; has actually premeditated similar acts (such as Northwoods, which was simply stopped by one man's disapproval); indeed has profited greatly by the crime itself; and has shown a history of sacrificing the good of a few, for some arbitrary "greater good" (the Tuskegee experiment, for one example. War, in its broader sense, for another) - which are all compounded by the fact that the official report doesn't make a lick of sense, when brought under scrutiny - suspicion of guilt is far from "completely unfounded." Whether it can be proven, beyond a reasonable doubt is one thing. But to call any suspicion of guilt as 'ridiculous' or 'completely unfounded' or 'idiotic' - or to attempt to garner any other appeal to ridicule - is to show bias, to say the very least. And I stand by my statement that "the government wouldn't do that" is not a sustainable argument. The government has a detailed history of "sacrificing for the greater good", even at the expense of its own people. That much is fact. That "the government wouldn't kill innocent people to progress an agenda" has been proven false, throughout history. That "the government is morally/ethically incapable of committing something like 9/11" is - while most hopeful - 100% insubstantial.

Contrary to your assumption, I'm not "anti-government", I'm just not completely ignorant to the fact that there are elements of any government that may (and often do) put their own interests over those of the people they govern. That is a fundamental wisdom that any citizen, of any government, should not lose sight of.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

As I said ealier, none of these things are at all relevant to the feasibility of the 9/11 attack. None of those things even come close.

I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree on that one. Sure, they don't compare, when it comes to sheer loss of life, but the over-arching methodology is the same. It's called "Macro-management." When it is for the "greater good", the ends are often perceived to justify the means. Do the words "collateral damage" mean anything to you? Our government (and others) have been - and will continue to be - guilty of this. If you don't believe me, ask all of the civilians who have been killed in the Middle East, for the sake of our national security.

Originally Posted by Xei

I'm not sure what the Air Force has to do with the London Bombings. They were bombs on tube trains.

Excuse me, Xei. I was in a hurry, and actually mis-spoke. I'm surprised you didn't simply correct me, unless you really didn't know about what I had actually meant.

What I meant was that - just like on 9/11 - there were training exercises going on which led to authoritive confusion (in the air on 9/11, on the ground on May 7th), which "coincidentally" (and severely) hindered any possible response.

Article: London Underground Bombing "Exercises" Took Place at Same Time of Attack

Originally Posted by Caprisun

I'm saying there is a significant difference between conducting unethical experiments to gain knowledge and straight murdering thousands of citizens in a single blow.

Tomato / Tomahto. If you want to make an omelette, you break a couple of eggs. When you want to egg a house, you clear out the entire fucking dairy section.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

It's hard enough to commit a single homicide and get away with it.

I'm sure the C.I.A. would be laughing, hysterically, at this comment.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

All I want is a little bit of evidence that it was planned by members of our government. Is that too much to ask?

Of course not. But is it too much to bother yourself with?

Spoiler for Motive:

"New Pearl Harbor"

Section V of Rebuilding America's Defenses, entitled "Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force", includes the sentence: "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor" (51).[13]

Though not arguing that Bush administration PNAC members were complicit in those attacks, other social critics such as commentator Manuel Valenzuela and journalist Mark Danner,[37][38][39] investigative journalist John Pilger, in New Statesman,[40] and former editor of The San Francisco Chronicle Bernard Weiner, in CounterPunch,[41] all argue that PNAC members used the events of 9/11 as the "Pearl Harbor" that they needed––that is, as an "opportunity" to "capitalize on" (in Pilger's words), in order to enact long-desired plans.[42]

Project for the New American Century - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[/quote]

Spoiler for Timeline for arguable coincedences leading up to 9/11:

Between September 1999 and September 10, 2001: NORAD Exercises Simulate Plane Crashes into US Buildings; One of Them Is the World Trade Center

According to USA Today, “In the two years before the Sept. 11 attacks, the North American Aerospace Defense Command conduct[s] exercises simulating what the White House [later] says was unimaginable at the time: hijacked airliners used as weapons to crash into targets and cause mass casualties.” One of the imagined targets is the World Trade Center. According to NORAD, these scenarios are regional drills, rather than regularly scheduled continent-wide exercises. They utilize “[n]umerous types of civilian and military aircraft” as mock hijacked aircraft, and test “track detection and identification; scramble and interception; hijack procedures; internal and external agency coordination; and operational security and communications security procedures.” The main difference between these drills and the 9/11 attacks is that the planes in the drills are coming from another country, rather than from within the US. Before 9/11, NORAD reportedly conducts four major exercises at headquarters level per year. Most of them are said to include a hijack scenario (see Before September 11, 2001). [USA Today, 4/18/2004; CNN, 4/19/2004]

(September 2000-September 10, 2001): Pentagon Clinic Develops Emergency Plan, Significantly Aiding Response on 9/11

Over the 12 months preceding September 11, the Army’s DiLorenzo Tricare Health Clinic (DTHC) at the Pentagon works to develop its mass casualty (MASCAL) plan. This work will significantly and fortuitously help the clinic when it has to implement the plan in response to the Pentagon attack on 9/11. Major Lorie Brown, the chief nurse at the DTHC, is the chairperson for the DiLorenzo Action Response Team (DART). As she will later recall, over this 12-month period, the DART team works “on developing that [MASCAL] plan, really creating a whole new plan. We sat down and met on numerous occasions with the Air Force clinic [also based in the Pentagon], civilian EMS [Emergency Medical Services], Pentagon and [Department of Defense] hierarchy, DPS [the Defense Protective Service], and with the other civilian medical agencies.” They work through various issues, such as “what would happen in the event of a MASCAL, what each of our roles would be.” The DART team, Brown says, participates “in several large tabletop exercises with these external bodies, to include FEMA [the Federal Emergency Management Agency] and the others I just mentioned. We even did our own internal exercise where we made up the scenario of a plane crashing into the building.” [Office of Medical History, 9/2004, pp. 7] This “internal exercise” is likely a reference to an exercise held by the DTHC in May 2001 (see May 2001). [US Department of Health and Human Services, 7/2002, pp. B17] Another exercise Brown participates in over this period is the Pentagon Mass Casualty Exercise in October 2000 (see October 24-26, 2000), which also includes a scenario of a plane hitting the Pentagon. [MDW News Service, 11/3/2000] Brown will later credit this work developing the MASCAL plan as being of great benefit when the Pentagon is hit on 9/11, and the plan is initiated (see Soon after 9:37 a.m. September 11, 2001). She will say: “[O]ur planning truly made such a huge difference on that day. Our commander had the foresight to focus on MASCAL prep and gave us the time and budget to really revamp our old MASCAL plan. I can’t say enough about how critical this was to our success.” [Office of Medical History, 9/2004, pp. 7]

October 24-26, 2000: Military Holds Exercise Rehearsing Response to a Plane Crash at the Pentagon

A plane crash is simulated inside the cardboard courtyard of a model Pentagon.A plane crash is simulated inside the cardboard courtyard of a model Pentagon. [Source: Dennis Ryan, MDW News Service]Pentagon and Arlington County emergency responders assemble in the Office of the Secretary of Defense conference room in the Pentagon for a mass casualty exercise (“MASCAL”). The exercise involves several mock-scenarios. One is of a commercial airliner crashing into the Pentagon and killing 341 people, while two others are a terrorist attack at the Pentagon’s subway stop and a construction accident. The plane crash exercise is conducted using a large-scale model of the Pentagon with a model airplane literally on fire in the central courtyard of the building. An Army medic who participates calls it “a real good scenario and one that could happen easily,” while a fire chief notes: “You have to plan for this. Look at all the air traffic around here.” [MDW News Service, 11/3/2000; Mirror, 5/24/2002; United Press International, 4/22/2004; 9/11 Commission, 7/24/2004, pp. 314]

April 17-26, 2001: Joint Chiefs of Staff Holds Exercise for Continuity of Government if US is Attacked; Proposal to Simulate Airliner Crash into Pentagon Rejected

The Joint Chiefs of Staff holds a large, worldwide exercise called Positive Force, which focuses on the Defense Department’s ability to conduct large-scale military operations and coordinate these operations. [Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, 8/14/2000 pdf file] The 2001 Positive Force exercise is a “continuity of operations exercise,” meaning it deals with government contingency plans to keep working in the event of an attack on the US. [Guardian, 4/15/2004] Over a dozen government agencies, including NORAD, are invited to participate. The exercise prepares them for various scenarios, including non-combatant evacuation operations, cyber attacks, rail disruption, and power outages. It includes “a series of simulated attacks against the maritime, surface and aviation sectors” of America’s national security transportation infrastructure. [US Congress, 5/8/2001; Provider Update, 10/2001; GlobalSecurity (.org), 6/9/2002] Apparently, one of the scenarios that was considered for this exercise involved “a terrorist group hijack[ing] a commercial airliner and fly[ing] it into the Pentagon.” But the proposed scenario, thought up by a group of Special Operations personnel trained to think like terrorists, was rejected. Joint Staff action officers and White House officials said the additional scenario is either “too unrealistic” or too disconnected to the original intent of the exercise. [Air Force Times, 4/13/2004; Boston Herald, 4/14/2004; Washington Post, 4/14/2004; New York Times, 4/14/2004; Guardian, 4/15/2004]

August 27, 2001: Conflict between Minneapolis and FBI Headquarters Comes into the Open

FBI agents at the bureau’s Minneapolis field office have been arguing with the FBI’s Radical Fundamentalist Unit (RFU) over whether there is sufficient evidence to secure a warrant to search Zacarias Moussaoui’s belongings (see August 20-September 11, 2001). The tensions surface in a call between Minneapolis agent Greg Jones and Supervisory Special Agent Mike Maltbie. This is a partial reconstruction of the conversation based on Jones’ notes: Maltbie: “What you have done is couched [the request] in such a way that people get spun up.” Jones: “Good. We want to make sure he doesn’t get control of an airplane and crash it into the [World Trade Center] or something like that.” Maltbie: “[T]hat’ not going to happen. We don’t know he’s a terrorist. You don’t have enough to show he is a terrorist. You have a guy interested in this type of aircraft—that is it.” Jones also asks whether the warrant request has been shown to Section Chief Michael Rolince yet, and Maltbie replies it has not. [US Congress, 10/17/2002; US Department of Justice, 11/2004, pp. 153-5 pdf file; US Department of Justice, 3/1/2006 pdf file] Another Minneapolis agent, Harry Samit, also contacts Maltbie and expresses his frustration with RFU’s position that they do not have enough evidence. In an interview with the Justice Department’s Office of Inspector General he recalls telling Maltbie: “… if you’re not going to advance this the FISA route, or if you don’t believe we have enough for a FISA, I shudder to think—and that’s all I got out. And [Maltbie] cut me off and said, ‘You will not question the unit chief and you will not question me. We’ve been through a lot. We know what’s going on. You will not question us.’ And that could be the mantra for FBI supervisors.” [US Department of Justice, 11/2004, pp. 155 pdf file]

May 16, 2002: Condoleezza Rice Incorrectly Claims President Bush’s Pre-9/11 Warning Contains Only Historical Information

National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice holds a press conference to respond to the public leak (see May 15, 2002) of the title of President Bush’s August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Brief item entitled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US” (see August 6, 2001).
Presidential Daily Brief - She asserts: “It was an analytic report that talked about [Osama bin Laden]‘s methods of operation, talked about what he had done historically, in 1997, in 1998.… I want to reiterate, it was not a warning. There was no specific time, place, or method mentioned.” [White House, 5/16/2002] In April 2004, Rice will testify under oath before the 9/11 Commission and repeatedly assert that it was “a historical memo… not threat reporting” (see April 8, 2004).
Comment by Philip Shenon - Author Philip Shenon will later comment, “She failed to mention, as would later be clear, that the PDB focused entirely on the possibility that al-Qaeda intended to strike within the United States; it cited relatively recent FBI reports of possible terrorist surveillance of government buildings in New York.” After rereading the transcript of the press conference, Shenon will call it a “remarkable document,” because “To many of the Commission’s staff, it offered proof of how, to Condoleezza Rice, everything is semantics. A threat is not a threat, a warning is not a warning, unless she says it is. The word historical appeared to have an especially broad definition to Rice. To her, a warning that was a few weeks or months old was of relatively little value because it was ‘historical.’”
Aircraft as Weapons - Rice also says, “I don’t think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon—that they would try to use an airplane as a missile.” However, various government agencies were well aware of the concept of planes as missiles, including the FBI (see August 27, 2001), the Defense Department (see April 17-26, 2001), and the White House itself (see June 20, 2001). Shenon will point out that this news conference occurs eight months after the attacks, yet Rice is “suggesting that in all that time, no one had bothered to tell her [of these reports].” [Shenon, 2008, pp. 213, 237-239]

Spoiler for Japanese Parliament Discussion over 9/11 being an inside job:

Excerpted quotes from Transcript:

"Now let us move to the next photograph. Here is a photograph of a hole, as Minister Komura knows the Pentagon is a very strong building with many walls. Yet the airplane has pierced them. But as you know, airplanes are made of the lightest possible material. An airplane made of such light material could not make a hole like that. Next I would like to show a photograph of how the airplane hit the building. The airplane made a U-turn, avoiding the Defense Secretary’s office and hitting the only part of the Pentagon that had been specially reinforced to withstand a bomb attack."

"Also, in the middle of page five we have a comment from a U.S. airforce official. He says I have flown the two types of airplane used on 911 and I cannot believe it would be possible for someone who is flying one for the first time to be able to carry out such a maneuver. Also, as you know, they have not recovered the flight recorders from most of these 4 airplanes. Also, there were more than 80 security cameras at the Pentagon but they have refused to release almost all of the footage. In any case, as you have just seen there is no picture of the airplane or of its wreckage in any of these photographs. It is very strange that no such pictures have been shown to us."

"Normally it is said that the twin towers collapsed because they were hit by airplanes. However, one block away from the twin towers is building number 7. It can be seen in the following map a block away from the WTC. This building collapsed 7 hours after the WTC buildings were attacked. If I could show you a video it would be easy to understand but take a look at this photograph. This is a 47 story building that fell in this manner (He drops and object to demonstrate). The building falls in five or six seconds. It is about the same speed as an object would fall in a vacuum. This building falls like something you would see in a Kabuki show. Also if falls while keeping its shape. Remember it was not hit by an airplane. You have to ask yourself if a building could fall in that manner due to a fire after 7 hours. Here we have a copy of the 911 commission report. This is a report put out by the U.S. government in July of 2004 but this report does not mention the collapse of the building I just described. It is not mentioned at all in here (he waves the book). FEMA also issued a report but they also fail to mention this building. Many people believe, especially after seeing the story about building number 7, that something is strange. Since this is an incident where many people died people think is should be investigated."

[quote]"We are running out of time but I would also like to mention the put options. Just before the 911 attacks, ie on September 6th, 7th and 8th there were put options put out on the stocks of the two airlines United and American that were hit by hijackers. There were also put options on Merril Lynch, one of the biggest WTC tenants. In other words somebody had insider information and made a fortune selling put options of these stocks. The head of Germany’s Bundesbank at the time, who is equivalent to the Governor of the Bank of Japan, said there are lots of facts to prove the people involved in the terror attacks profited from insider information. He said there was lots of suspicious trading involving financial companies etc prior to the attacks. The had of the Bundesbank was willing to say this much. I would like to ask the Finance Minster about these put options. Did the government of Japan know about this, and what do you think about this? I would like to ask Finance Minister Nukaga about this"

Finance Minister Fukushiro Nukaga:

I was in Burkina Fasso in Africa when I heard about this incident. I decided to fly immediately to the U.S. but when I got to Paris I was told there were no flights to America. So I only heard what was reported later about the facts. I know there have been reports about the points you raise. So we made it obligatory that people provide ID for securities transactions and for suspicious transactions to be reported and we made it a crime to provide money to terrorist organizations. We believe the international financial system should not be abused. In any case, terrorism is a horrible thing and must be condemned. This type of terrorism cannot be stopped by one country but needs to be stopped by international society.

Mr. Fujita:

I would like to ask finance specialist Mr. Asao to tell me about put options. A group of people with large amounts of money, clear insider information and financial expertise would have been necessary for such a thing to take place. Could a few terrorists in Afghanistand and Pakistan carry out such a sophisticated and large scale set of transactions? I would like to ask Mr. Asao to respond.

Keiichiro Asao:

I understand put options are a deal to sell stocks at a fixed price. In this case somebody must have had insider information to carry out such transactions because nobody could normally predict these airlines would have their planes hijacked. So, I believe this was certainly a case of insider trading."

Video

(Please offer some discussion on the contents of these videos. No rush.)

Blueprint for Truth

DC Press Conference - Sept 9th 2010

Pilots for 9/11 Truth

Originally Posted by Caprisun

The problem with your point of view is that a theoretical possibility is all they need to convince themselves that it actually happened.

The problem with your point of view is that you're too busy generalizing to actually look at what is being said, in detail, and assess them on a case by case basis - for instance, the fact that I'm not convinced that there is a conspiracy. I simply see a considerable case for inquiry, and refuse to ignore what evidence I have been exposed to. What I am convinced of, it that there are far too many inconsistencies and misdirections in the official story/report, to be completely glossed over - as so many people with your perspective are doing. What happened to building 7? (So far, I am convinced that it did not merely collapse due to structural fire. I reserve judgment on what actually happened, though.) Why was there a 99-year lease on the WTC taken out, so soon before the attacks, which only affected/benefited the Silverstein group, whose buildings (all of them) were the only buildings destroyed by the attacks? Why was thermite proven to be found in the remains? Why is there - to this day - no official report of the physics of the collapse of the towers, which extends beyond the initial onset of collapse? Why were all of the pieces of WTC hauled away before any investigation could be done? This is pretty much the only major crime that I can think of, in our history, which has had any and all gateways to a concise and independent investigation barred. Why did Larry Silverstein lie about what was meant by his comment about "pulling" building 7 (six years later). What about all of the financial "put options" placed on United and American airlines just before the attacks, which were referenced by the Japanese parliament meeting? Why did Donald Rumsfeld (who is arguably not cut from the same ethical cloth as Defense Secretary Robert McNamara, who rejected to the Northwoods proposal) amend a "Stand down" Order, which (further) prevented military intercept of aircraft, 2 months before the attack? Why did Flight 77 fly 200-some-odd miles out of its way, to then turn around and hit the one, virtually unoccupied and recently reinforced section of the Pentagon?

Seriously, to say the conspiracy theory is completely unfounded is to completely ignore that which you are condemning.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

The reason there was so much confusion is because ATC was looking for the planes out West over Illinois when the planes had actually pulled a sharp u-turn and were heading East over Ohio and West Virginia. Is that not a logical explanation?

It would be, if it were true. But it's not (at least, not entirely).

The (more complete) truth is: The reason there was so much confusion is because of the clusterfuck of ATC intel, due to NORAD's wargames, and like exercises, which made any competent operation of both civilian and military aviation impossible. These were not all your "typical days' work" exercises, and I would have to assume that this, all-encompassing network of simultaneous exercises and events (I say again: simultaneous) is fairly rare.

So is all of this proof (or the, ever-ambiguous, "conclusive evidence," if you prefer) that the U.S. Government is involved in a conspiracy concerning 9/11? No. But if you can honestly say that - after sincerely considering all arguments - any suspicion of, or call to inquiry about the whole thing is "ridiculous" or the fodder of "nut-jobs" (or whatever other 'objective' assessments you care to tag it as) then I'd have to say we're both wasting our time here.

....I just hope your response is as rigorous.

Alright, LETS DO THIS SHIT!! (I hope I don't get Carpal Tunnel.)

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Ok. To try to get everything:



Honestly, if those have been the only accounts of "evidence" you've seen brought forth by truthers, you haven't been paying attention.

How about the thermite (and other chemical compounds, the likes of which you say don't exist), which have (allegedly) been found in the rubble? (More on that, later, if you watch the vids in this post.)

And the idea that there would be some e-mail laying around, suggesting a secret plan, is as baseless as saying "Well if it were real, we'd have known about it, by now." If all incriminating texts were immediately unearthed, declassification of information wouldn't be an event that happens every 20 years or more.

(I didn't say an e-mail was a necessary piece of evidence, I was merely offering an example of an acceptable piece of evidence, something which unambiguously points you in a certain direction.) I knew the thermite argument was coming, it was only a matter of time. I know all about their thermite claims, and obviously I have a major problem(s) with it.

Thermite and Sulfer- Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition

The main point of contention is that the ingredients needed to create these chemical compounds were present in all of those buildings. When you have scorching hot fires burning for hours on end, things melt and chemical reactions take place. The presence of these chemicals is to be expected and certainly isn't conclusive evidence that any sort of incendiary chemical was used to take these buildings down. In fact, credible scientists have used this chemical evidence against the conspiracy theorists and proved beyond any question of a doubt that thermite couldn't have been used.

Here is a good video which outlines the most likely causes for these chemical signatures:




But wait! There is more. It has been proven that thermite would be insufficient to cut through a steel beam because it would burn out too fast, while alternatively, slow burning jet fuel fires are more than sufficient to cut through steel beams. This was proven in an experiment conducted during a National Geographic documentary that I saw on TV a while back. It's a great movie, I recommend you watch the whole thing.

Here is the fuel fire experiment



More information about fires in the buildings.



Thermite experiment




I also have another point which is just my own personal musing and not a part of any official debunking effort. If thermite was used in the world trade center buildings, why didn't any of the thousands of people who escaped from the lower floors see it burning? Surely fire fighters would have been alert enough to see it. Also, how did they light it? I don't think you can light thermite remotely, and all accounts I've heard say thermite is still hard to light unremotely in a controlled environment. You can't say that the thermite was placed only around the scene of the crash, because then how would they know exactly where the plane was going to crash? It seems to me that even if it was theoretically possible to take a building down with thermite, it still just seems like such a stupid idea. There must be a better way, right?

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

What's interesting is that your assessment all of those things as "wrong on so many levels" is based on nothing but a priori assumption. The technical terms are precisely what are being evidenced, by many architects, engineers and scientists. The sheer scale of the operation as being ridiculous is based on what, empirically? The "terms of secrecy" being ridiculous is based on what, empirically? (And remember how limited the margin of comparison you gave me, for the association between the unethical experiments I referenced and 9/11, was? I want you to adhere to the same standard.) Im not quite sure what you meant by terms of personal credibility, and to even question terms of risk over reward is the flimsiest of the lot. Exactly what dollar amount would you settle for, to defy the entire industrial military complex, in a potential coup that could threaten the power of the government over the American people? If you think the reward outweighs the risk, you're either braver than I am, dumber than I am, or both.

What is also interesting is that you post a picture of a controlled demolition's interworkings. Forget the two towers. Look at building 7's destruction. Essentially, you are saying that all of that det cord and design is completely useless, because all it takes to flatten a 40-something story building - symmetrically and flawlessly, into its own footprint - is to toss in a few molitov cocktails and light a few fires. Please explain to me how building 7 collapsed, perfectly. The asserstion that this was done by fire is 100x more ridiculous than the bulk of the conspiracy theories I've heard, since the "truther movement" began.

Please read the following and comment:
Building 7

Silverstein's response to criticism of his "pull it" comment
(I hate using links from sites that are already filed away under "Conspiracy Theorist", but they are the quickest sources of info, and I try to only place links which site more reputable sources. Feel free to do your own cross-referencing.)

Your first mistake was calling my opinion an assumption. I can back myself up thoroughly and unequivocally, which is a hell of a lot more than you can say. Your view is entirely based on illinformed opinions about illinformed opinions about questionable heresay. It seems like 95% of your arguments are based on faith. "We know the government did it, we just have to find out how." Do you see a parallel with creationism?

Lets knock these out one at a time. (1) The scale of the opertion: If this was a simple terrorist attack, it would be relatively easy to pull off in comparison to a conspiracy. You simply employ some devout Muslim brothers who are willing to die for Allah, train them to hijack an airplane and fly it into a building. This conspiracy on the other hand, reaches levels of complexity which are beyond absurd. It is no longer a matter of a simple suicide attack. You need lots of people with a wide variety of skill sets and you need to take measures to ensure secrecy. You need someone who is qualified to plant explosives in the buildings, a monumentous undertaking in itself and one which would be impossible to carry out undetected. You need to higher some Arabs with known ties to Al Qaeda to walk through an airport so that cameras can see them. You also need to convince them to give up their lives because they got onto the airplanes which were doomed to crash. You need to figure out what to do with the two planes filled with people which allegedly never crashed. Also, you need a way to make the planes disappear from radar, something which is also impossible by today's techological standards. Then, the most ambitious task of them all, coordinating the whole thing perfectly so as to look like a genuine attack. Then there is the matter of making sure you aren't detected afterwards, such as somehow hiding the fact that you used explosives to bring the buildings down. (I most definitely left a lot things out here, for the sake of time and effort I kept it brief.)

(2.) For the sake of secrecy: Here is a list of all of the people who would have to be in on this conspiracy

Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition Myths - Massive Conspiracy

What are the odds that not a single individual in that list would not either outright object to such a plan or speak up after it happened?

(3.) In terms of credibility: I am talking about the conspiracy theorists. The leaders constantly exhibit a high amount of dishonesty, a strong bias, a lack of relevant skills or knowledge, a lack of basic reasoning skills, and they contradict themselves on a regular basis. Also, the leader and originator of the movement was an 18 year old high school student with spikey hair and a soul patch. Hardly the kind of person I want investigating such serious matters.

(4.) Risk-reward: Somehow you see this as flimsy. I never once mentioned money. I don't know where you got that idea. The goal was to create a political climate which would allow them to further their agenda, was it not? So my argument is whether or not it would be smart to launch a mission which was almost sure to fail, for the sake of such an uncertain reward. Even if by the grace of God they succeeded, there is still a chance that they don't get the desired result. No human being in their right mind would take such a risk. You can read my response to Dreamsun to see more of my view on this.

As for the building 7 collapse, there is literally mountains of information for you to read on that subject. The only logical way for building 7 to collapse was straight down. The conspiracy argument says that due to damage on the south side of the building, it should have first collapsed in that direction since the integrity of that side of the building was more compromised than the north side. The condition of the exterior of the building is completely irrelevant when you are speaking of a building which collapsed due to fire. If a fire ravaged the building for hours on end, fueld by gas tanks scattered throughout the building, including a rather large one in the basement, then the building would have been weakened from the inside out. If the core of the building, the parts which hold it at center mass, were weakened by fire, then the building would most definitely collapse straight down. I would have been infinitely more surprised to see such a building collapse sideways. The building collapsed due to fires which were present througout the entire building, not from damage to the exterior.

I won't even bother with the "pull it" situation because I've seen the interviews with that guy and it is ridiculous to assume that he is in on the conspiracy.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

That's completely false. Your assessment that the conspiracy is completely unfounded is simply not true, given the trio of evidence, history and motive - which our legal system will inform you are stable grounds for suspicion. Any evidence of the CIA acting against the interests of the American population is most certainly not irrelevant - especially in respect to your arbitrary assessment than no recorded crime "could ever compare" to 9/11 on any level. When it is submitted that the government (or any other faction) knows clearly what it stands to gain by a crime; has actually premeditated similar acts (such as Northwoods, which was simply stopped by one man's disapproval); indeed has profited greatly by the crime itself; and has shown a history of sacrificing the good of a few, for some arbitrary "greater good" (the Tuskegee experiment, for one example. War, in its broader sense, for another) - which are all compounded by the fact that the official report doesn't make a lick of sense, when brought under scrutiny - suspicion of guilt is far from "completely unfounded." Whether it can be proven, beyond a reasonable doubt is one thing. But to call any suspicion of guilt as 'ridiculous' or 'completely unfounded' or 'idiotic' - or to attempt to garner any other appeal to ridicule - is to show bias, to say the very least. And I stand by my statement that "the government wouldn't do that" is not a sustainable argument. The government has a detailed history of "sacrificing for the greater good", even at the expense of its own people. That much is fact. That "the government wouldn't kill innocent people to progress an agenda" has been proven false, throughout history. That "the government is morally/ethically incapable of committing something like 9/11" is - while most hopeful - 100% insubstantial.

Contrary to your assumption, I'm not "anti-government", I'm just not completely ignorant to the fact that there are elements of any government that may (and often do) put their own interests over those of the people they govern. That is a fundamental wisdom that any citizen, of any government, should not lose sight of.

Trio of evidence, huh? There is no history, the motive is weak and doesn't fit the crime, and they had no means.

This on a whole was very incoherent, and I can't say I understood it entirely. It just seems like a rant without a point. I did notice you were back on the Northwood thing though.

Operation Northwood never happened and it doesn't constitute a history of "false flag" operations since they never carried it out. Your viewpoint takes the Northwood situation and says "look, here is evidence that the government is willing to commit acts of terror on its own population." While a person like myself may alternatively say "look, here is evidence that the goverment is not willing to commit such atrocious acts." The plan was drawn up by God knows who, and when it was brought to Kennedy, he said no. You could further analyze the situation and say that the methods of attack outlined in the Northwood plan were significantly less complex and less risky than the 9/11 attacks, and they were conceived of and proposed during a political climate which was significantly more volatile than it was in 2001. The situation with Cuba and the Soviet Union was obviously more dire than the situation with the Middle East in the present. Yet the government is willing to go to greater lengths for a much less important cause? Talk about things not adding up.

Please don't assume that I am ignorant of a government's capacity to exploit it's people. I know fundamentally much more about that than you might expect. I am honest enough to take a reasonable approach to the matter despite my knowledge of the great evil of which the world governments are responsible for.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree on that one. Sure, they don't compare, when it comes to sheer loss of life, but the over-arching methodology is the same. It's called "Macro-management." When it is for the "greater good", the ends are often perceived to justify the means. Do the words "collateral damage" mean anything to you? Our government (and others) have been - and will continue to be - guilty of this. If you don't believe me, ask all of the civilians who have been killed in the Middle East, for the sake of our national security.

I agree that I disagree.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Tomato / Tomahto. If you want to make an omelette, you break a couple of eggs. When you want to egg a house, you clear out the entire fucking dairy section.

I'm afraid it isn't that simple. Fundamentally, no attack in the history of the Earth can compare on any level to the 9/11 conspiracy.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

I'm sure the C.I.A. would be laughing, hysterically, at this comment.

I sure hope they would be more professional than that. This is what I am talking about with the government bashing. This comment was innocent enough, but you are still calling into question the moral fortitude of individuals you know nothing about. I hope to work for the CIA one day. Are you going to call me a murderer now? I happen to know for a fact that both the CIA and FBI are filled with good people.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Of course not. But is it too much to bother yourself with?

Spoiler for Motive:

"New Pearl Harbor"

Section V of Rebuilding America's Defenses, entitled "Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force", includes the sentence: "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor" (51).[13]

Though not arguing that Bush administration PNAC members were complicit in those attacks, other social critics such as commentator Manuel Valenzuela and journalist Mark Danner,[37][38][39] investigative journalist John Pilger, in New Statesman,[40] and former editor of The San Francisco Chronicle Bernard Weiner, in CounterPunch,[41] all argue that PNAC members used the events of 9/11 as the "Pearl Harbor" that they needed––that is, as an "opportunity" to "capitalize on" (in Pilger's words), in order to enact long-desired plans.[42]

Project for the New American Century - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Spoiler for Timeline for arguable coincedences leading up to 9/11:

Spoiler for Japanese Parliament Discussion over 9/11 being an inside job:

Excerpted quotes from Transcript:

"We are running out of time but I would also like to mention the put options. Just before the 911 attacks, ie on September 6th, 7th and 8th there were put options put out on the stocks of the two airlines United and American that were hit by hijackers. There were also put options on Merril Lynch, one of the biggest WTC tenants. In other words somebody had insider information and made a fortune selling put options of these stocks. The head of Germany’s Bundesbank at the time, who is equivalent to the Governor of the Bank of Japan, said there are lots of facts to prove the people involved in the terror attacks profited from insider information. He said there was lots of suspicious trading involving financial companies etc prior to the attacks. The had of the Bundesbank was willing to say this much. I would like to ask the Finance Minster about these put options. Did the government of Japan know about this, and what do you think about this? I would like to ask Finance Minister Nukaga about this"

Finance Minister Fukushiro Nukaga:

I was in Burkina Fasso in Africa when I heard about this incident. I decided to fly immediately to the U.S. but when I got to Paris I was told there were no flights to America. So I only heard what was reported later about the facts. I know there have been reports about the points you raise. So we made it obligatory that people provide ID for securities transactions and for suspicious transactions to be reported and we made it a crime to provide money to terrorist organizations. We believe the international financial system should not be abused. In any case, terrorism is a horrible thing and must be condemned. This type of terrorism cannot be stopped by one country but needs to be stopped by international society.

Mr. Fujita:

I would like to ask finance specialist Mr. Asao to tell me about put options. A group of people with large amounts of money, clear insider information and financial expertise would have been necessary for such a thing to take place. Could a few terrorists in Afghanistand and Pakistan carry out such a sophisticated and large scale set of transactions? I would like to ask Mr. Asao to respond.

Keiichiro Asao:

I understand put options are a deal to sell stocks at a fixed price. In this case somebody must have had insider information to carry out such transactions because nobody could normally predict these airlines would have their planes hijacked. So, I believe this was certainly a case of insider trading."

Video

(Please offer some discussion on the contents of these videos. No rush.)

Blueprint for Truth

DC Press Conference - Sept 9th 2010

Pilots for 9/11 Truth

I thought more a moment there you were going to come up with something substantial, but alas it's just more of the same BS.

--I know all about the motive. I can create all kinds of motives in my head. I can create a motive for why Barrack Obama would want to form concentration camps for illegal immigrants. It means nothing without any evidence that he commited the crime. It means even less when the motive doesn't match the crime.

--You can't be serious with the coincidences. You are really busting my balls here and it is all for nothing. Coincidences are not evidence for anything. We can go all day about all kinds of crazy coincidences and get nowhere because in reality there is no connection between any of these events. So please, let the coincidences rest until you find a connection.

--Japanese insider trading somehow points to American involvment in the attack? That is a stretch. A giant stretch. Who knows where they really got their information? You certainly don't.


None of these things constitute acceptable forms of evidence. Acceptable forms are evidence are as I mentioned, facts which lead you unambiguously in a certain direction. There is no subjective interpretation, no logical discourse, just objective facts which have no chance of being misconstrued. You can ponder all day long about Japanese insider trading, but it won't get you anywhere. There could literally be thousands of innocent explanations for every one of these "coincidences." It will never be evidence for anything until it ceases to be a coincidences and commences to be a meaningful event which is definitely connected to the attack. Why not invest your time in something which might yeild the results you are looking for? You seem to me to be on a fool's errand with this train of thought.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

The problem with your point of view is that you're too busy generalizing to actually look at what is being said, in detail, and assess them on a case by case basis - for instance, the fact that I'm not convinced that there is a conspiracy. I simply see a considerable case for inquiry, and refuse to ignore what evidence I have been exposed to. What I am convinced of, it that there are far too many inconsistencies and misdirections in the official story/report, to be completely glossed over - as so many people with your perspective are doing. What happened to building 7? (So far, I am convinced that it did not merely collapse due to structural fire. I reserve judgment on what actually happened, though.) Why was there a 99-year lease on the WTC taken out, so soon before the attacks, which only affected/benefited the Silverstein group, whose buildings (all of them) were the only buildings destroyed by the attacks? Why was thermite proven to be found in the remains? Why is there - to this day - no official report of the physics of the collapse of the towers, which extends beyond the initial onset of collapse? Why were all of the pieces of WTC hauled away before any investigation could be done? This is pretty much the only major crime that I can think of, in our history, which has had any and all gateways to a concise and independent investigation barred. Why did Larry Silverstein lie about what was meant by his comment about "pulling" building 7 (six years later). What about all of the financial "put options" placed on United and American airlines just before the attacks, which were referenced by the Japanese parliament meeting? Why did Donald Rumsfeld (who is arguably not cut from the same ethical cloth as Defense Secretary Robert McNamara, who rejected to the Northwoods proposal) amend a "Stand down" Order, which (further) prevented military intercept of aircraft, 2 months before the attack? Why did Flight 77 fly 200-some-odd miles out of its way, to then turn around and hit the one, virtually unoccupied and recently reinforced section of the Pentagon?

Seriously, to say the conspiracy theory is completely unfounded is to completely ignore that which you are condemning.

You really like to personify me as an extremist. Do you really think I haven't first read into any of these claims before arguing against them?

This is very frustrating. All of the questions you just raised have been thoroughly answered, with maybe the exception of some far-fetched "coincidences." You just aren't willing to look at the answers which are in plain sight. And I myself answered most of them above, so hopefully you'll excuse me for not repeating myself. Larry Silverstein didn't lie about anything, he has been wrongfully villainized and taken out of context by the conspiracy theorists. If the order to "pull it" really meant "detonate the building," why in the wild fucking world of sports would he say that in a television interview? Where is the logic in that? This is the kind of thing I am talking about. Stupid little things which need not even a second glance to completely discredit. If only people were willing to use their heads.

Also, the supposed "stand down" order has also been explained. The conspiracy theorists took the liberty of misconstruing an ambigious quote for their own benefit without any way of knowing what it really meant. Shocker.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

It would be, if it were true. But it's not (at least, not entirely).

The (more complete) truth is: The reason there was so much confusion is because of the clusterfuck of ATC intel, due to NORAD's wargames, and like exercises, which made any competent operation of both civilian and military aviation impossible. These were not all your "typical days' work" exercises, and I would have to assume that this, all-encompassing network of simultaneous exercises and events (I say again: simultaneous) is fairly rare.

So is all of this proof (or the, ever-ambiguous, "conclusive evidence," if you prefer) that the U.S. Government is involved in a conspiracy concerning 9/11? No. But if you can honestly say that - after sincerely considering all arguments - any suspicion of, or call to inquiry about the whole thing is "ridiculous" or the fodder of "nut-jobs" (or whatever other 'objective' assessments you care to tag it as) then I'd have to say we're both wasting our time here.

....I just hope your response is as rigorous.

I'd certainly say I've wasted my time. My professor was intimately involved in the events of September 11th. He knows what happened with those aircraft better than you and I. While you have a 911truth website to form your opinion, he used his own two eyes which were glued to a radar screen. How can you say with a straight face that he blatantly lied to me? The country's civilian airports were largely unaffected by the NORAD exercises, and they were the ones who were conducting the search. There is no exercise that is so large as to render "competent aviation impossible." That's one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard, and that says a lot considering what I've read today.

Actually, the most ridiculous thing is how long it took me to write this.

Let's see how this debate goes.

Caprisun VS Oneironaut
Who will be the winner?

Even though there are flaws in the arguments of both parties,
I will...restrain myself.

Just wanted to say; sorry about the delay. Been pretty busy through the week, but I will have a reply posted up this weekend!

Originally Posted by malac

Even though there are flaws in the arguments of both parties,

As is to be expected. I know, for certain, that my argument is not airtight. Simply throwing my train of thought out there. But this is all just speculation, on both our parts - no matter how objective we try to be.

You know, at one point, I promised myself I wouldn't keep getting into long, drawn-out debates like this - especially about things I'm only arguing toward the possibility of, rather than certainty. Old habits die hard I guess. I know there's points that I wanted to make, which I'm leaving out, but oh well.

Spoiler for Evidence and Chemical Compounds:

Originally Posted by caprisun

(I didn't say an e-mail was a necessary piece of evidence, I was merely offering an example of an acceptable piece of evidence, something which unambiguously points you in a certain direction.)

Evidence is not always unambiguous. I'm sure you know this. Just because there is another possible alternative for something does not mean it is not evidence. It stands to be countered, and unless that counter-argument is definitive, beyond doubt, the initial evidence is still evidence.

But, I'll bite. I'll submit that the designers of the World Trade center stated that it was designed to withstand impact from a 707 - a quote that was later expanded into the suggestion that it could withstand impact several times over. (Why did the airplanes cause so much damage?) See, also, the relative similarity between the mass and velocity of the two planes, upon impact.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v6...comparison.gif

I'd say such evidence is acceptable, no? (Unless your counter-argument to that is something more than "well, apparently they were wrong." Heh. America: We can send a man to the moon in the '60's, but we can't guess how strong our buildings are in the late '70's.)

Originally Posted by caprisun

The main point of contention is that the ingredients needed to create these chemical compounds were present in all of those buildings. When you have scorching hot fires burning for hours on end, things melt and chemical reactions take place. The presence of these chemicals is to be expected and certainly isn't conclusive evidence that any sort of incendiary chemical was used to take these buildings down. In fact, credible scientists have used this chemical evidence against the conspiracy theorists and proved beyond any question of a doubt that thermite couldn't have been used.

Here is a good video which outlines the most likely causes for these chemical signatures:

Once again, I never said the chemical compounds were conclusive. I was merely making the point that you asked for some trace of explosives, and the compounds are there. That those compounds could have possibly come from something else isn't conclusive, in itself, either. It does not prove anything beyond any question of a doubt. It is simply another, very likely, suggestion. One that, considering both sides of the overall argument, could've benefited from further investigation.

Spoiler for Fire and Support Columns:

slow burning jet fuel fires are more than sufficient to cut through steel beams.

You understand that the experiment in the video was a concentrated burn, yes? I'm not even going to go into how the video, itself, outlines a host of other points that weren't even explored. But, while I was watching it, the most obvious oversight was that it was not a vat of jet fuel, that the towers' beams were roasting over. When the planes entered the towers, the concentration of fuel was splashed, in succession, throughout the buildings, as the wings ripped through them and disintegrated. Logically, this thins out the layer of jet fuel considerably. Take a look at the videos, yourself. The massive fireball, from the second impact? (1, 2) Where do you think that comes from? That is jet fuel exploding - a lot of it - dissipating into the air. I hope you're not suggesting (and I hate to say this, as much as I love NatGeo) that the experiment shown was a "perfect" representation of what happened inside the towers - in relation to the actual damage to the buildings caused by the burning fuel, itself. It would have been more precise, if they'd taken the jet fuel and splashed it over a pile of wood, concrete, plastic and other metals - you know; the stuff that was actually burning, for all that time - and then roasted some beams over it. And, no, not just some random I-beams, but something to the scale of the service core columns.

Speaking of those core columns - what is being said by the official story is that these core columns - which you can also see in this awesome picture - were severed by the fuselage and fuel-filled wings and/or weakened by fire, at the point of impact. Then, at collapse, that compromised section of core column fell an awkwardly angled (diagonal, judging by the accounts of the entry of the first plane) one or two floors, and created a pile driver from the 20 floors above it. That pile driver was so heavy, and attained such velocity (again, at a "uniform" drop from maybe 2 stories) that it systematically pulverized the entire network of vertical columns beneath it - without resistance. It did not follow the path of least resistance, which would have likely shifted from center mass, from the tons upon tons of support columns - still holding at full strength - beneath it. I'm not a physics expert, so of course this is speculative, but I have a hard time believing that. Apparently, I'm not alone in my skepticism.

The second video is definitely something to be considered, but is in no way conclusive, most of all for the fact that they were using a completely different type of thermite. They actually concluded that, since that (normal) type of thermite couldn't melt steel, no form of thermite could melt steel - yet they offered nothing to back that up. That there were other, legitimate, unanswered questions at the end of the video shows that - while possibly the most likely answers - the explanations given were not conclusive.

Originally Posted by caprisun

I also have another point which is just my own personal musing and not a part of any official debunking effort. If thermite was used in the world trade center buildings, why didn't any of the thousands of people who escaped from the lower floors see it burning? Surely fire fighters would have been alert enough to see it. Also, how did they light it? I don't think you can light thermite remotely, and all accounts I've heard say thermite is still hard to light unremotely in a controlled environment. You can't say that the thermite was placed only around the scene of the crash, because then how would they know exactly where the plane was going to crash? It seems to me that even if it was theoretically possible to take a building down with thermite, it still just seems like such a stupid idea. There must be a better way, right?

So, you've discredited the eye-witness accounts of all of those "stressed" witnesses, who allegedly saw something conspiratorial, and yet you debunk the thermite possibility because people didn't come out saying "Yeah, I saw thermite burning in a back hallway somewhere"?

And I honestly don't know that using thermite to take down a building would be a "stupid" idea. I've never seen ones taken down with what I've known to be thermite. I have heard that thermite is used in such cutter charges, so I don't know that it would be such a stupid idea, if it's something that's already being done in other cases. You say you don't think thermite can be lit by remote? Where is this idea coming from? Do you have a source for the claim, or are you simply assuming?

Spoiler for Faith:

Your first mistake was calling my opinion an assumption. I can back myself up thoroughly and unequivocally, which is a hell of a lot more than you can say.

Actually, what I've seen you do so far is present a counter-argument - one that, I'd contend, has not been nearly as "conclusive" as you apprently think it is. And, as I highlighted above, there are plenty of assumptions being used in your argument (as well as mine) - so lets not kid ourselves, here. I have no problem with admitting that any support for either side is speculative, but you seem to have a hard time with showing a bit of humility...

Originally Posted by caprisun

It seems like 95% of your arguments are based on faith. "We know the government did it, we just have to find out how." Do you see a parallel with creationism?

That's twice you've completely misrepresented my position. I've never once implied that I "know the government did it." What I have implied is that I believe there are things in the official story that I don't believe add up, and that it is logical - for many reasons - to question whether or the not the official story is the whole story. That's it. And to answer your question, the parallel I see with creationism is that you're essentially insulting my intelligence for not having faith in the 'official' story, based on what I perceive to be holes in it - which is precisely what the religious do to atheists. Works both ways.

Originally Posted by caprisun

(1) The scale of the opertion:

You basically stated a bunch of variables and surmised that they couldn't be done, without giving any inclination as to why not. Upper eschelons of government are (conceivably) more than capable of coordinating such campaigns. Contractors can be paid to do any job, no matter how unethical (which is why the U.S. Government uses 'defense contractors' for specific jobs, instead of its own, commercial military. Blackwater, anyone?). And I'd hate for you to take me even less seriously by compounding conspiracy theory on top of conspiracy theory, but if one considers the possibility of a Freemason agenda (which is part of many of the over-arching accusations) - the organization being alleged at over six-million strong and sworn to secrecies which have lasted since around the 16th century - then it would be a lot less "impossible" to pul it off. Of course, I'm sure you'll ridicule the idea, with the same amount of "conclusiveness" as you've provided so far, but I just thought I'd throw it out there, because my argument is simply an exploration of the realm of possibilities and established motives.

You say it would be "impossible" to plant explosives in the building without people knowing that you're actually planting explosives in the building. I don't know how many times you've ever seen it attempted, but I'd say that assessment is pretty faith-based. How many demotion crews have you seen have to work within the guidelines of discretion? Must be a lot, to say that it can't be done. And you suggest it would be hard to hire Arabs to give up their lives for such a scheme? Well, according to the official story, Bin Laden didn't have too much trouble with it. Did he? I said nothing about the conspiracy theories that had anything to do with "planes that didn't crash," though your mentioning it is a great example of the straw man arguments you've tossed about, here and there.

You also assume that the whole thing has to go "perfectly", so as to look like a genuine attack. That's not true at all, as any credible psychologist would tell you. All it has to do is look close enough, and be distorted by propaganda. People are more likely to perceive what they are conditioned to believe, rather than what they think they might have seen. And yes, before you bring it up, I know that that also works both ways. That is why I'm arguing for the realm of possibility - rather that certainty, which you are doing.

Originally Posted by caprisun

(2.) For the sake of secrecy: Here is a list of all of the people who would have to be in on this conspiracy

I'm sorry, but that list is idiotic - and I mean that toward the author, not you. Most of that is a list of people who likely fell victim to the (alleged) deception - not people who were "in on" the conspiracy, as you suggested. When he starts going into "the liberals who don't believe they were brought down" and "every structural engineer in the world who didn't write..." as if their only reasons for doing so are because they are {i]"IN ON THE CONSPIRACY"[/i], I had to force myself to keep from refusing to even read the rest of it. Not going to waste much time on it.

Originally Posted by caprisun

(3.) In terms of credibility

There you go again; attacking "the movement," instead of individual points. You're constantly making the mistake of assuming that everyone who feels they have legitimate questions about the official story is a part of some politically-motivated "movement." Not sure how you can put other peoples biases on blast, while being so adherent to your own.

Originally Posted by caprisun

(4.) Risk-reward: Somehow you see this as flimsy. I never once mentioned money. I don't know where you got that idea. The goal was to create a political climate which would allow them to further their agenda, was it not? So my argument is whether or not it would be smart to launch a mission which was almost sure to fail, for the sake of such an uncertain reward.

There it is again. You keep making these assessments that have absolutely no backing. What amount of recon informed you that the mission was "almost sure to fail." That mere phrase sounds like nothing more than (as I said before) a priori assumption. But, just to offer something to your suggestion, I've already posted a quote which stated - rather consciously - that an event "Like Pearl Harbor" would (again) likely galvanize the country into war. You imply that no one could be so certain of its success as to try it. I submit that the chance of success has already been determined as significant.

Spoiler for Building 7 and History:

Originally Posted by caprisun

As for the building 7 collapse...

The conspiracy argument also acknowledges that no steel-structured building has ever collapsed due to fire. Also, the fires were told to be scattered, and even if there was a natural collapse (despite your "explanation"), I don't see how it could be as uniform as it was. Every single strut and support column on an entire floor (or set of floors) doesn't fail at the exact time. Rather, if it does, I would be completely shocked. Have you seen the demolitions where the buildings are blown from center-mass, outward? The walls fall apart in sections. They are not connected so that a single section of wall will stay up, unless everything around it comes down at the same time. IF the building did collapse due to fire, I just have a hard time believe that compartmentalized fires could have caused such a uniform collapse.

Originally Posted by caprisun

Trio of evidence, huh? There is no history, the motive is weak and doesn't fit the crime, and they had no means.

I guess we disagree that such false flag operations having been drafted in the past grants reason to suspect that such operations could be initiated in the future. To me, that puts "history" on the table. The motive is not only strong, but it is something that has been hinted at as an important, long-term goal of government. It is, perhaps, the strongest feasible motive, if a conspiracy like this were to actually have happened.

And, to correct you, my viewpoint takes the Northwood situation and says "look, here is evidence that the government's being willing to commit such atrocious acts was within the realm of possibility - and should not be simply discarded as ridiculous, without genuine consideration. Period. Once again, you are trying to cast me as someone saying "the government did it!" My argument is simply against your stance that it is stupid to question the possibility, or to be skeptical of the official story. I am not saying that the government is willing to go through with it. I'm simply saying that the idea that it's ridiculous to think it possible is based on faith.

Originally Posted by wikipedia

Journalist James Bamford summarized Operation Northwoods in his April 24, 2001 book Body of Secrets:

Operation Northwoods, which had the written approval of the Chairman and every member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called for innocent people to be shot on American streets; for boats carrying refugees fleeing Cuba to be sunk on the high seas; for a wave of violent terrorism to be launched in Washington, D.C., Miami, and elsewhere. People would be framed for bombings they did not commit; planes would be hijacked. Using phony evidence, all of it would be blamed on Castro, thus giving Lemnitzer and his cabal the excuse, as well as the public and international backing, they needed to launch their war.[18]

Operation Northwoods - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A little more significant than "God knows who" being the one who drafted/approved the motion, which is as gray as you left it, before.

And the motion was stopped by the Secretary of Defense, Robert McNamara, which I said in my last post. Not Kennedy...
(Implying that, if 9/11 was a false flag operation, it would likely be motioned into action by Donald Rumsfeld, whose ethics - as I said before - I believe to be questionable.)

Originally Posted by caprisun

I'm afraid it isn't that simple. Fundamentally, no attack in the history of the Earth can compare on any level to the 9/11 conspiracy.

Not being a historian, myself (and, thus, familiar with the mechanics of every attack in the history of the Earth), I'm going to have to take your word for that, though I find myself instantly awed by your knowledge of every attack the world has ever seen. I'm joking, of course. But I couldn't resist, against such hyperbole.

Originally Posted by caprisun

I sure hope they would be more professional than that. This is what I am talking about with the government bashing. This comment was innocent enough, but you are still calling into question the moral fortitude of individuals you know nothing about. I hope to work for the CIA one day. Are you going to call me a murderer now? I happen to know for a fact that both the CIA and FBI are filled with good people.

I don't know where you're getting this stuff. I said nothing about the moral character of anyone in the C.I.A., in that statement. You said that it would be hard to commit one homicide, and get away with it. And I implied that the C.I.A., or any of it's members, if corrupt, would be able to kill any number of people, and slip through the cracks. (They would laugh at your statement.) It was an acknowledgment of the C.I.A.'s skill - not a dig at them. I find your misinterpretation interesting, though.

Spoiler for Evidence (again), My Fault, and Where Are We Going With This?:

Originally Posted by caprisun

None of these things constitute acceptable forms of evidence. Acceptable forms are evidence are as I mentioned, facts which lead you unambiguously in a certain direction.

There is a difference between evidence and proof. You say nothing is "acceptable", but on what grounds? Acceptable against your own biases, or whomever else disbelieves the theory? Evidence can be counter-argued. That is why it's evidence, and not proof. That evidence doesn't prove anything, beyond doubt, doesn't mean it's not evidence. And when you compile so many questionable factors (on top of a motive which is well-established), suspicion - and further inquiry - is reasonable; at least, in my opinion. (I feel like all of this has been said before. Is it me?)

Originally Posted by caprisun

If the order to "pull it" really meant "detonate the building," why in the wild fucking world of sports would he say that in a television interview?

Point taken, on that one.
However, why would he wait 5 years to release a statement (or, excuse me, his spokesman to release a statement) saying what he actually meant? I'm not saying that implies anything, but I'd like to know. Wouldn't you?

Originally Posted by caprisun

My professor was intimately involved in the events of September 11th. He knows what happened with those aircraft better than you and I. While you have a 911truth website to form your opinion, he used his own two eyes which were glued to a radar screen. How can you say with a straight face that he blatantly lied to me?

I didn't say he blatantly lied to you, but I had actually mistaken what you'd said, also. I mistook you for implying that your professor had worked at NORAD, and the center was unaffected. I completely switched around what I see, now, that you were actually saying. Again, my mistake.

I'm tempted to just let this stand where it is, because - as I said - I'm only making the argument that the official story and "investigation" (and, so far, your rather condescending support of them) remain inconclusive; not to the point of being proven false, but to the point where skepticism is neither "foolish" or "ridiculous." It seems as though you are looking for me to prove to you that the "The Government Did It!" That's, in no way, what I am trying to accomplish, here. If that's what you're seeking, then there's no reason for us to either continue this. Even if that's not the case, though, I'm pretty confident that you have not shown your argument to as solid as you seem to think it is...

FINALLY! Just kidding, I understand you are busy.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

"Evidence and Chemical Compounds"

Evidence is not always unambiguous. I'm sure you know this. Just because there is another possible alternative for something does not mean it is not evidence. It stands to be countered, and unless that counter-argument is definitive, beyond doubt, the initial evidence is still evidence.

No, evidence is not always unambiguous, but good evidence is. Evidence in any sort of scientific debate needs to be unambiguous. This would pertain to claims about buildings collapsing and fires and explosives and what have you. In a court of law, they may accept things such as eyewitness testimony or other less precise pieces of evidence in light of a more clear picture which has been painted by a coherent case. They can use a collection of individually weak pieces of evidence to form a larger picture which itself is much stronger than it's disparate parts. These disparate parts aren't necessarily unambiguous, though. If a lawyer presented a case of nothing but strange phenomena/coincidences which could be interpreted in a million different ways, his case would be considered very weak.

I know what you will say now, though. You will say "but the conspiracy has an extremely large collection of individually weak pieces of evidence." Yes, this is true, but there also exists an equally large body of evidence which contradicts nearly everything they have. You say building 7 couldn't have collapsed due to fire, but the vast majority of experts say that it most definitely could collapse from a fire. But unlike the conspiracy theorists, they have the backing of the collective scientific community. They publish in respected journals, unlike the "engineers for 9/11 truth." Their analyses make logical sense, unlike their adversaries. Now repeat this argument for all other claims.

One of the central fallacies employed by the conspiracy argument is that they only need one damning piece of evidence to destroy a solid foundation. That isn't how things work in the world of science. We might find a strange phenomenon in nature which at first glance seems to contradict the theory of evolution, but it is only due to a lack of information about the phenomenon that we can't accurately explain it's purpose. We don't trash one of the most validated theories in history at the sight of one of these strange phenomena. The same applies to the conspiracy. In that National Geographic documentary I showed you, they presented all of their experiments to the leaders of the movement. In every case, they would call on some contexual irrelevancy or triviality so they could ignore the larger truth revealed by the experiments, kind of like you have. One example was when they were shown the very experiment I showed you about fuel fire weakening steel. They started grapsing at straws, talking about things like scale, completely ignoring the relevant fact that the fire did infact weaken the steel to the point where it gave way, directly refuting one of their arguments which states that this could not happen. A quote I remember exactly was from the lawyer who said "It doesn't matter because we still have evidence for explosives," then they all nodded their heads in agreement, like they were taking refuge from the onslaught. At what point do you let go of that "evidence?" When the cards are stacked so high against you, how long should you cling to such an empirically weak piece of evidence? This is only one example, the case is much the same with the other claims.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

But, I'll bite. I'll submit that the designers of the World Trade center stated that it was designed to withstand impact from a 707 - a quote that was later expanded into the suggestion that it could withstand impact several times over. (Why did the airplanes cause so much damage?) See, also, the relative similarity between the mass and velocity of the two planes, upon impact.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v6...comparison.gif

I'd say such evidence is acceptable, no? (Unless your counter-argument to that is something more than "well, apparently they were wrong." Heh. America: We can send a man to the moon in the '60's, but we can't guess how strong our buildings are in the late '70's.)

The buildings did survive the impact, they would have otherwise collapsed immediately like a stack of cards hit by a tennis ball. It was fire, not the impact, which ultimately destroyed the buildings.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Once again, I never said the chemical compounds were conclusive. I was merely making the point that you asked for some trace of explosives, and the compounds are there. That those compounds could have possibly come from something else isn't conclusive, in itself, either. It does not prove anything beyond any question of a doubt. It is simply another, very likely, suggestion. One that, considering both sides of the overall argument, could've benefited from further investigation.

This has been exhastively investigated. What more could be done other than test the rubble for explosive residue? The findings were inconclusive, and that is that. This is not evidence for explosives since the situation would be exactly the same if explosives were not present. It is therefore not "another, very likely suggestion," it is an unsubstantiated claim with no deliberate reasoning behind it. It is plain and simply not evidence for anything.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

"Fire and Support Columns"
You understand that the experiment in the video was a concentrated burn, yes? I'm not even going to go into how the video, itself, outlines a host of other points that weren't even explored. But, while I was watching it, the most obvious oversight was that it was not a vat of jet fuel, that the towers' beams were roasting over. When the planes entered the towers, the concentration of fuel was splashed, in succession, throughout the buildings, as the wings ripped through them and disintegrated. Logically, this thins out the layer of jet fuel considerably. Take a look at the videos, yourself. The massive fireball, from the second impact? (1, 2) Where do you think that comes from? That is jet fuel exploding - a lot of it - dissipating into the air. I hope you're not suggesting (and I hate to say this, as much as I love NatGeo) that the experiment shown was a "perfect" representation of what happened inside the towers - in relation to the actual damage to the buildings caused by the burning fuel, itself. It would have been more precise, if they'd taken the jet fuel and splashed it over a pile of wood, concrete, plastic and other metals - you know; the stuff that was actually burning, for all that time - and then roasted some beams over it. And, no, not just some random I-beams, but something to the scale of the service core columns.

I think you've pretty well missed the point here. The purpose of the experiment was not to exactly recreate the conditions inside the building, it was to prove that a fire from jet fuel could burn through a steel beam, and the results were a big affirmative. Not only did the beam give way, but it did so in a fraction of the time it was expected to.

To say that all of the fuel was ejected out of the building on impact is a little ridiculous. Yes there was a big fire ball, but there was still an astronomical amount of fuel inside that building, dousing every square inch of that floor. Factors that should be considered are that jet fuel burns slow, fire naturally spreads and it won't necessarily lose viatlity when there is no fuel left, and it burned for about a half hour when in the experiment it took something like 3 minutes to destroy the beam. Also take into account the damage done from the impact and the damage done from initial fires. It wouldn't take a very hot fire to finish the job at that point.

To give you an idea of how much fuel is carried inside of an airliner, here is a video of a fuel dump. (Fuel is so heavy, they need to dump it before they can make an unscheduled landing.)



I've seen videos where they dumped for more than 20 minutes straight. In a 767 it can be more than 20,000 pounds.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Speaking of those core columns - what is being said by the official story is that these core columns - which you can also see in this awesome picture - were severed by the fuselage and fuel-filled wings and/or weakened by fire, at the point of impact. Then, at collapse, that compromised section of core column fell an awkwardly angled (diagonal, judging by the accounts of the entry of the first plane) one or two floors, and created a pile driver from the 20 floors above it. That pile driver was so heavy, and attained such velocity (again, at a "uniform" drop from maybe 2 stories) that it systematically pulverized the entire network of vertical columns beneath it - without resistance. It did not follow the path of least resistance, which would have likely shifted from center mass, from the tons upon tons of support columns - still holding at full strength - beneath it. I'm not a physics expert, so of course this is speculative, but I have a hard time believing that. Apparently, I'm not alone in my skepticism.

How do you know it didn't follow the path of least resistance? It had nowhere else to go but down, naturally it would destroy anything in it's path. It isn't a stream of water flowing down a street.

There is a very simple experiment you can do to illustrate the forces acting on this building. Take an empty pop can and put your foot on it. You should place about half of your body weight directly on top of it, then flick the side of the can. It will immediately collapse in on itslef and it will form, more or less, a cirlce. Your foot represents the millions of tons of concrete above the initial floor to collapse, and the flick of your finger represents the fire which compromised the structure to it's breaking point. When the building first collapsed, the "pile driver" had the weight of lets say 50 floors (I don't know the exact number.) The potential energy stored inside this pile driver is enormous. After it collapsed on the floor which was impacted by the airplane, it collects the weight of that floor as it continues to collapse. So now it is the weight of 51 floors falling, not 50. Then it's 52, then 53, etc. It can't slow down if it continues to gain momentum and force in that fashion. A single floor then, couldn't provide much reistance to such a powerful force. It seems counterintuitive at first, but with every floor it hits, it gains speed and momentum rather than the other way around.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

The second video is definitely something to be considered, but is in no way conclusive, most of all for the fact that they were using a completely different type of thermite. They actually concluded that, since that (normal) type of thermite couldn't melt steel, no form of thermite could melt steel - yet they offered nothing to back that up. That there were other, legitimate, unanswered questions at the end of the video shows that - while possibly the most likely answers - the explanations given were not conclusive.

What type of thermite was used in the world trade centers? Do you understand that a theoretical possibility isn't evidence? Unless you have evidence that this special kind of thermite was used, why are we talking about it? How does it even enter the discussion?

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

So, you've discredited the eye-witness accounts of all of those "stressed" witnesses, who allegedly saw something conspiratorial, and yet you debunk the thermite possibility because people didn't come out saying "Yeah, I saw thermite burning in a back hallway somewhere"?

I take any traumatic eyewitness account with a giant grain of salt, which is why I said it was only a personal musing. There were plenty of people who survived the collapse, is it not reasonable to assume they would have seen thermite burning? It is pretty easy to distinguish from a natural fire and it wouldn't take the building down instantly. That leaves a gap of time when thermite is burning and there are hundreds of people around to observe it. This fact coincidentally refutes your argument against the pile driver argument, since according to that argument the explosives would have to go off in rapid succession as the pile driver fell, reducing resistance as it fell. The timing would be impossible to coordinate with thermite.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

And I honestly don't know that using thermite to take down a building would be a "stupid" idea. I've never seen ones taken down with what I've known to be thermite. I have heard that thermite is used in such cutter charges, so I don't know that it would be such a stupid idea, if it's something that's already being done in other cases. You say you don't think thermite can be lit by remote? Where is this idea coming from? Do you have a source for the claim, or are you simply assuming?

My source is the expert from one of the videos who said "thermite is extremely difficult to light."

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

That's twice you've completely misrepresented my position. I've never once implied that I "know the government did it." What I have implied is that I believe there are things in the official story that I don't believe add up, and that it is logical - for many reasons - to question whether or the not the official story is the whole story. That's it. And to answer your question, the parallel I see with creationism is that you're essentially insulting my intelligence for not having faith in the 'official' story, based on what I perceive to be holes in it - which is precisely what the religious do to atheists. Works both ways.

There are a lot of parallels with religion here which should not be ignored. Conspiracies tend to take on a quasi-religious attitude, that is nothing new and it shouldn't be surprising that the 9/11 conspiracy has dutifully followed suit. I never said anything about having faith in the official story, I said you shouldn't claim the official story is wrong unless you can back yourself up. For me, it would have to be an incredibly convincing case for me to even take seriously, since the official story is factually and logically sound. I see nothing wrong with the official story and I don't just take it on faith. Thus far, there havn't been any claims which have satisfactorily stood up against the official story. That why there is no logical reason to say otherwise unless you identify with your beliefs and they take on a religious nature. There is more at stake for the conspiracy theorists than there should be. It's their lively hoods, their psychological well-being.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

You basically stated a bunch of variables and surmised that they couldn't be done, without giving any inclination as to why not. Upper eschelons of government are (conceivably) more than capable of coordinating such campaigns. Contractors can be paid to do any job, no matter how unethical (which is why the U.S. Government uses 'defense contractors' for specific jobs, instead of its own, commercial military. Blackwater, anyone?). And I'd hate for you to take me even less seriously by compounding conspiracy theory on top of conspiracy theory, but if one considers the possibility of a Freemason agenda (which is part of many of the over-arching accusations) - the organization being alleged at over six-million strong and sworn to secrecies which have lasted since around the 16th century - then it would be a lot less "impossible" to pul it off. Of course, I'm sure you'll ridicule the idea, with the same amount of "conclusiveness" as you've provided so far, but I just thought I'd throw it out there, because my argument is simply an exploration of the realm of possibilities and established motives.

"...I'm sure you'll ridicule the idea...."

Yes, yes I will. Honestly, if you are trying to add credibility to your argument, throwing the freemasons into the mix is incredibly counterproductive. Do you know anything about Blackwater? Do you know anything about private military contractors? I happen to know a lot about that industry, so I am confused as to why you are citing it as an example of how the government is capable of doing unethical things. There have been controversies at Blackwater, but they all deal with ill-advised, adrenaline-filled decisions made in the heat of the moment which ended up killing innocent people. Maybe they were accidents, maybe they weren't, only those involved can really know. The fact remains though, that their purpose is defense. Is there something unethcial about contracting out the defense of VIP's? Is it the mission of these contractors to do unethical things? Are these atrocities all premeditated?

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

You say it would be "impossible" to plant explosives in the building without people knowing that you're actually planting explosives in the building. I don't know how many times you've ever seen it attempted, but I'd say that assessment is pretty faith-based. How many demotion crews have you seen have to work within the guidelines of discretion? Must be a lot, to say that it can't be done. And you suggest it would be hard to hire Arabs to give up their lives for such a scheme? Well, according to the official story, Bin Laden didn't have too much trouble with it. Did he? I said nothing about the conspiracy theories that had anything to do with "planes that didn't crash," though your mentioning it is a great example of the straw man arguments you've tossed about, here and there.

If you know anything about demolishing buildings, you know that it can't be done. Not only because people would be suspicious, but because it takes more than a few people more than a few months to rig a building to explode. Watch the second half of the first video. (I would recommend watching the entire documentary, it's better than the National Geographic one and it covers every point you've brought up.) Pay close attention to the guy at the end named Brent Blanchard. You may have seen this guy on TV before because he runs the nations most successful demolition company and he has demolished more buildings than any other person alive. Obviously this guy is an expert on all types of explosives and he knows how much force and coordination it takes to demolish a building. This guy also happens to be one of the staunchest critics of the controlled demolition hypothesis.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

You also assume that the whole thing has to go "perfectly", so as to look like a genuine attack. That's not true at all, as any credible psychologist would tell you. All it has to do is look close enough, and be distorted by propaganda. People are more likely to perceive what they are conditioned to believe, rather than what they think they might have seen. And yes, before you bring it up, I know that that also works both ways. That is why I'm arguing for the realm of possibility - rather that certainty, which you are doing.

Things did go perfectly, according to the conspiracy. The whole premise of the conspiracy argument says everything that happened that day was planned, from the "fake" crash in Pennsylvania to the "fake" crash at the Pentagon to the destruction of all three world trade center buildings. I say again, a theoretical possibility is not evidence. It is utterly pointless to even hold a discussion over such possibilities if there is no evidence to support them. So please forgive me for not wanting to delve into "the realm of possibility."

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

I'm sorry, but that list is idiotic - and I mean that toward the author, not you. Most of that is a list of people who likely fell victim to the (alleged) deception - not people who were "in on" the conspiracy, as you suggested. When he starts going into "the liberals who don't believe they were brought down" and "every structural engineer in the world who didn't write..." as if their only reasons for doing so are because they are {i]"IN ON THE CONSPIRACY"[/i], I had to force myself to keep from refusing to even read the rest of it. Not going to waste much time on it.

It would be more than a little naive to think that a select few members of our government are capable of secretly weaving such an elaborate web of lies without getting caught. It's like when you lie to cover up another lie, everybody knows that eventually comes back to bite you in the ass. Unless Dick Cheney and George Bush personally planted those explosives in the buildings, they would need a team of professionals. This team would entail a large number of people. These people, assuming they were kept out of the loop as you suggest, would wonder why they were planting explosives in a building with people still working in it and why they had to hide that fact from everyone. They would become even more curious after they watched all three of the buildings destroyed in a single attack. The government is constantly under a microscope, it would be nearly impossible for such a plot to remain secret. Ask any reporter who has any experience with politics.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

There you go again; attacking "the movement," instead of individual points. You're constantly making the mistake of assuming that everyone who feels they have legitimate questions about the official story is a part of some politically-motivated "movement." Not sure how you can put other peoples biases on blast, while being so adherent to your own.

Your points are the "movement's" points. Does your information not come directly from the movement? Is is not fair to question the credibility of the sources behind this information? Maybe you have different standards, but when I see someone make a ridiculous claim such as "the calls from flight 93 were faked," that kind of sprays an infectious cloud over everything else they have said. You have to understand that these "legitimate" claims are coming from people who have also concocted an endless supply of illegitmate ones. That would really make me wonder whether these other claims are really legitimate and whether or not I should trust in their validity.

If you watch that History Channel documentary I recommended, you'll find out in part two that the entire movement started when an 18 year old high school senior watched a tape of the attack and thought to himself "hmmm, this doesn't feel right." What is that based off of exactly? Divine intuition? If we were to discover tomorrow that the conspiracy was right and the attack was perpetrated by the American government, the most amazing aspect wouldn't be the fact that such a complex and illogical attack was successfully carried out by our government, it would be that the conspiracy theorists accurately arrived at that conclusion without a shred of empirical evidence. Think of the implications to the psychic community!

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

There it is again. You keep making these assessments that have absolutely no backing. What amount of recon informed you that the mission was "almost sure to fail." That mere phrase sounds like nothing more than (as I said before) a priori assumption. But, just to offer something to your suggestion, I've already posted a quote which stated - rather consciously - that an event "Like Pearl Harbor" would (again) likely galvanize the country into war. You imply that no one could be so certain of its success as to try it. I submit that the chance of success has already been determined as significant.

My assessment that the plan was "almost sure to fail" was based off of my analysis of certain facts, not an assumption. Did you read my response at all? Or did you just skim it? I don't think I need to explain to you the complexity of such an attack, though I think I already have on more than one occasion. Surely they could have come up with something a little less risky, don't you think? Maybe just flying planes into the buildings and forgetting about the demolition aspect? Surely flying planes into important buildings would be enough to create the desirable political climate.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

"Building 7 and History"

The conspiracy argument also acknowledges that no steel-structured building has ever collapsed due to fire. Also, the fires were told to be scattered, and even if there was a natural collapse (despite your "explanation"), I don't see how it could be as uniform as it was. Every single strut and support column on an entire floor (or set of floors) doesn't fail at the exact time. Rather, if it does, I would be completely shocked. Have you seen the demolitions where the buildings are blown from center-mass, outward? The walls fall apart in sections. They are not connected so that a single section of wall will stay up, unless everything around it comes down at the same time. IF the building did collapse due to fire, I just have a hard time believe that compartmentalized fires could have caused such a uniform collapse.

I already explained this and it is explained in the videos above.

Read this: http://www.jod911.com/WTC%20COLLAPSE...d%208-8-06.pdf

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

And, to correct you, my viewpoint takes the Northwood situation and says "look, here is evidence that the government's being willing to commit such atrocious acts was within the realm of possibility - and should not be simply discarded as ridiculous, without genuine consideration. Period. Once again, you are trying to cast me as someone saying "the government did it!" My argument is simply against your stance that it is stupid to question the possibility, or to be skeptical of the official story. I am not saying that the government is willing to go through with it. I'm simply saying that the idea that it's ridiculous to think it possible is based on faith.

It can't be based on anything other than faith since there is no evidentiary basis. I am not saying it is ridiculous to assume the government is capable of doing bad things, it would be ridiculous to assume that it isn't. This is a whole nother level though, which as I have already said can't really be compared to past events. The issue here isn't just morality, but logistically the government just isn't capable of pulling this attack off.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

And the motion was stopped by the Secretary of Defense, Robert McNamara, which I said in my last post. Not Kennedy...
(Implying that, if 9/11 was a false flag operation, it would likely be motioned into action by Donald Rumsfeld, whose ethics - as I said before - I believe to be questionable.)

Does it really matter who rejected it? McNamara was considered by most to have low moral character, much more so than Donald Rumsfeld. And wikipedia says "Kennedy personally rejected the Northwoods proposal, and it would now be the Joint Chief's turn to incur his displeasure." Which implies that not only did he reject the plan, he was aggravated by it's very existence.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Not being a historian, myself (and, thus, familiar with the mechanics of every attack in the history of the Earth), I'm going to have to take your word for that, though I find myself instantly awed by your knowledge of every attack the world has ever seen. I'm joking, of course. But I couldn't resist, against such hyperbole.

You only have to be aware of modern attacks. Obviously such an attack wasn't possible a couple hundred years ago, and obviously you would learn in school about any attack which was large enough to be compared to this one.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Evidence (again), My Fault, and Where Are We Going With This?

There is a difference between evidence and proof. You say nothing is "acceptable", but on what grounds? Acceptable against your own biases, or whomever else disbelieves the theory? Evidence can be counter-argued. That is why it's evidence, and not proof. That evidence doesn't prove anything, beyond doubt, doesn't mean it's not evidence. And when you compile so many questionable factors (on top of a motive which is well-established), suspicion - and further inquiry - is reasonable; at least, in my opinion. (I feel like all of this has been said before. Is it me?)

You keep referencing my bias. What bias is that exactly? Do I have anything emotionally invested in the outcome of this conspiracy? Do I have anything to gain or lose? Have any of my arguments been less than reasonable? Obviously I am inclined to say my argument is right, but that doesn't mean I am biased.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Point taken, on that one.
However, why would he wait 5 years to release a statement (or, excuse me, his spokesman to release a statement) saying what he actually meant? I'm not saying that implies anything, but I'd like to know. Wouldn't you?

Because the conspiracy didn't exist when he said it. You don't need to release a statement of clarification unless a conspiracy theorist comes around and hilariously takes your statement out of context.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

I know what you will say now, though. You will say "but the conspiracy has an extremely large collection of individually weak pieces of evidence."

No. Actually, what I was going to say was: "What's good for the goose, is good for the gander," meaning that your "good evidence" for the official story's validity is - in fact - ambiguous. If it wasn't, I wouldn't have been able to present a counter-argument to nearly everything you've said. In essence; we wouldn't be having this conversation right now.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

One of the central fallacies employed by the conspiracy argument is that they only need one damning piece of evidence to destroy a solid foundation. That isn't how things work in the world of science.

If you are to even fix your mouth (figurative) to say how "things work in the realm of science," then I'd expect you to be well-versed in the tendency for Westernized, mainstream science (as with much of pop culture) to be politically slanted. If you know absolutely anything about fringe/alternative science, you know the countless stories of how "against the grain" theories and research are often shunned - regardless of their validity - in the over-arching scientific community - until they entire the realm of collective undeniability. The odds of getting something published in a "peer-reviewed" journal - which possibily jeopardizes years of that journal's validity on like topics - is slim to none. Scientists, in all fields, have openly expressed how doing so was gambling with their reputations. I have, in the past, posted quite a few links and articles which highlight this point, and I don't plan on doing all of that here. However, I feel it's important that you do at least understand that what is mainstream is not always representative of all that is factual.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

One example was when they were shown the very experiment I showed you about fuel fire weakening steel. They started grapsing at straws, talking about things like scale, completely ignoring the relevant fact that the fire did infact weaken the steel to the point where it gave way, directly refuting one of their arguments which states that this could not happen.

I believe that the most prominent arguments were that the conditions that were likely met inside the towers (temperature / duration of burn, etc) could not cause the steel structure to give; that a fire which would have occurred, within those conditions, was insufficient. And you're saying that this argument is flawed, because the NatGeo video produced a fire which was obviously not representative of the type of fire that was actually in the towers? Come again?

That being said, I do agree that they should have stayed on the issue, and that they flinched away from an initially convincing argument from the opposition, and looked for some solace. Unfortunately for their credibility, that solace came in the form of changing the subject.

The buildings did survive the impact, they would have otherwise collapsed immediately like a stack of cards hit by a tennis ball. It was fire, not the impact, which ultimately destroyed the buildings.

So you're saying that, in the initial assessment that multiple, fueled (which is the only logical way to presume the assessment was made) 707's could crash into the towers, and not cause collapse, was made with complete ignorance to the possibility that those planes' fuel reserves could catch fire? Really? Or were they just leaving that variable out, for some unknown reason?

Originally Posted by Caprisun

This has been exhastively investigated. What more could be done other than test the rubble for explosive residue? The findings were inconclusive, and that is that. This is not evidence for explosives since the situation would be exactly the same if explosives were not present. It is therefore not "another, very likely suggestion," it is an unsubstantiated claim with no deliberate reasoning behind it. It is plain and simply not evidence for anything.

Actually, I was saying that your (and the official) explanation was the "very likely suggestion." However, I'm glad that you agree that the official findings were inconclusive.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

I think you've pretty well missed the point here. The purpose of the experiment was not to exactly recreate the conditions inside the building, it was to prove that a fire from jet fuel could burn through a steel beam, and the results were a big affirmative. Not only did the beam give way, but it did so in a fraction of the time it was expected to.

See above.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

I've seen videos where they dumped for more than 20 minutes straight. In a 767 it can be more than 20,000 pounds.

Yes, I also know that the consensus is that the 767's that hit the towers were carrying a bit closer to 10,000 gallons. A lot of fuel. I know. This really means nothing, to either of us, unless we have some sort of quantifiable example of how much of that fuel was ignited upon impact. You say things like "there was still an astronomical amount of fuel inside that building, dousing every square inch of that floor" (which is called rhetoric). I say that you can look at a 767 - and compare it to the surface area of an entire floor of the WTC - and reasonably (if not most accurately) draw the conclusion that a plane, coming in at near 500mph and having a large portion of its fuel detonated upon impact, would not leave "an astronomical amount of fuel inside that building, dousing every square inch of that floor."

The Perdue simulation said that they 'launched' paint cans at beams to mock-up how the liquid would likely have reacted. I would have loved to have seen how accurate that was. I have a hard time believing that - considering how fast the planes and fuel were moving, and how large that second explosion was - there would have been very much left inside the building (unignited or otherwise), to douse the entire floor. But of course, I'm no expert, and I'm not concluding anything. I'm just amazed by it. I would like to see an experiment done, which shows that en entire grid of steel framework (service columns and all) would fail, simultaneously, because of stress in various hotspots across the area. It would be awesome if someone could do that to scale. Of course, you may say "well, no one is going to, because it's a ridiculous idea," but I say I'd like to see it, just the same.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

How do you know it didn't follow the path of least resistance? It had nowhere else to go but down, naturally it would destroy anything in it's path.

Insubstantial. Of course it was going to go "down." But when the entire framework of support was directly below, it would only take a slight deviation of path (which it would have met upon each and every floor, due to the support columns - which were box columns - beneath it) to cause those top 20 floors to tilt/roll/crumble away from center-mass. I would be more than welcome to entertain the idea that, if you immediately take 2% out of the top 20% of any structure, you would get complete and total - resistance-free - collapse, if there were some sort of precedence as to it having happened. But, as of now, I remain skeptical.

And PLEASE tell me you are not trying to equate the top 20 floors of the WTC coming down on the bottom 90 floors, to me (215lbs) coming down on the top of an empty soda can, after flicking the side. Seriously? I don't think I need to waste too much time on this one.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

What type of thermite was used in the world trade centers? Do you understand that a theoretical possibility isn't evidence? Unless you have evidence that this special kind of thermite was used, why are we talking about it? How does it even enter the discussion?

The videos I posted explicity called the type of thermite in question by name. It is alleged to be "super-thermite" or, more accurately "nano-thermite".

Originally Posted by Caprisun

I take any traumatic eyewitness account with a giant grain of salt, which is why I said it was only a personal musing. There were plenty of people who survived the collapse, is it not reasonable to assume they would have seen thermite burning? It is pretty easy to distinguish from a natural fire and it wouldn't take the building down instantly. That leaves a gap of time when thermite is burning and there are hundreds of people around to observe it. This fact coincidentally refutes your argument against the pile driver argument, since according to that argument the explosives would have to go off in rapid succession as the pile driver fell, reducing resistance as it fell. The timing would be impossible to coordinate with thermite.

Personally, if I was in a life or death situation, I might have a hard time distinguishing thermite (which I'd never even heard of, before 9/11) burning from 1000's of various other compounds burning. Again, you are taking the leap of concluding that "nano-thermite" would have been burning long enough for hundreds of people to see burning, and survive. A claim that, once again, is 100% insubstantial.

Also, I would think that any charges would only have to take out the service columns (or weaken them substantially), for the weight of the rest of the building to do the rest. But these lower columns were not damaged, at all, when the floors above them began coming down. They were allegedly at full strength.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

My source is the expert from one of the videos who said "thermite is extremely difficult to light."

That's it? No elaboration? No nothing? Just the one guy saying "it's extremely difficult to light," and now you know enough about it to say that using it would be a stupid idea, and conclude that it probably can't be lit by remote? You have quite a lot of faith in your random experts' testimonials.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

There are a lot of parallels with religion here which should not be ignored. Conspiracies tend to take on a quasi-religious attitude, that is nothing new and it shouldn't be surprising that the 9/11 conspiracy has dutifully followed suit. I never said anything about having faith in the official story, I said you shouldn't claim the official story is wrong unless you can back yourself up. For me, it would have to be an incredibly convincing case for me to even take seriously, since the official story is factually and logically sound. I see nothing wrong with the official story and I don't just take it on faith. Thus far, there havn't been any claims which have satisfactorily stood up against the official story. That why there is no logical reason to say otherwise unless you identify with your beliefs and they take on a religious nature. There is more at stake for the conspiracy theorists than there should be. It's their lively hoods, their psychological well-being.

Take this entire paragraph and reverse it to describe faith in mainstream authority, and you have my opinion. In the end, we are left with the most simple truth; that you are convinced the official story is factually sound; that I am, so far, not; and, in the end, there are quite a few points that we've both had to agree are inconclusive. I'll let that speak for itself.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

Yes, yes I will. Honestly, if you are trying to add credibility to your argument, throwing the freemasons into the mix is incredibly counterproductive. Do you know anything about Blackwater? Do you know anything about private military contractors? I happen to know a lot about that industry, so I am confused as to why you are citing it as an example of how the government is capable of doing unethical things. There have been controversies at Blackwater, but they all deal with ill-advised, adrenaline-filled decisions made in the heat of the moment which ended up killing innocent people. Maybe they were accidents, maybe they weren't, only those involved can really know. The fact remains though, that their purpose is defense. Is there something unethcial about contracting out the defense of VIP's? Is it the mission of these contractors to do unethical things? Are these atrocities all premeditated?

I'm sorry, but I've talked about, linked and quoted many things about ethic issues within the government's outsourcing of defense (some of which were confirmed by former military employees) in too many other, exhaustive debates to get drawn into defending the tangent. Yes. I know a little bit about Blackwater, and if you know anything about the industry, I'm surprised that you are the least bit confused on how soldiers of fortune can help to absolve a guilty client of responsibility, in the case of an "accident." Apparently, you have some significant level of intell into how "all" of the controversies dealt with 'ill-advised, adrenaline-filled decisions'. I wasn't even contesting that some of them did not. I was stating that those agents HAVE been used for such "pre-meditated" circumventions of international law - much like the rendition of "terrorists" to countries that will torture them for us, and the employment of banned weapons like white-phosphorous during the invasion of Iraq.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

Pay close attention to the guy at the end named Brent Blanchard. You may have seen this guy on TV before because he runs the nations most successful demolition company and he has demolished more buildings than any other person alive.

Reply to Brent Blanchard's 'A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE COLLAPSE OF WTC TOWERS 1, 2 & 7'

Originally Posted by Caprisun

Things did go perfectly, according to the conspiracy. The whole premise of the conspiracy argument says everything that happened that day was planned, from the "fake" crash in Pennsylvania to the "fake" crash at the Pentagon to the destruction of all three world trade center buildings. I say again, a theoretical possibility is not evidence. It is utterly pointless to even hold a discussion over such possibilities if there is no evidence to support them. So please forgive me for not wanting to delve into "the realm of possibility."

I don't care what your perception of "the conspiracy argument" (as if there was only one) entails. I have never made the argument that "everything that happened that day was planned." Let's not pretend that everybody is of One Mind about what happened that day. I should have packed a torch, for all of these straw men. Really.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

It would be more than a little naive to think that a select few members of our government are capable of secretly weaving such an elaborate web of lies without getting caught. It's like when you lie to cover up another lie, everybody knows that eventually comes back to bite you in the ass.

Again, if this were true, we wouldn't need a Freedom of Information Act - and, by definition, declassification would never be an issue, because the Government apparently can't keep a secret anyway, according to you.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

Your points are the "movement's" points.

Bullshit. "The movement" (simply entertaining your generalization of all those not convinced by the official story, with that term) are not some hive mind of people, who simply look to an authority and copy whatever they say. Well...not all of them, anyway. Lol. However, your attempt to paint it as such gives me interesting insight into how you might garner your "own" (taken from mainstream, ultimately government-controlled media outlets) perspective. LIke I said before; it works both ways.

But, while we're on the subject; What did you expect? Did you expect me to start quoting your own (again, mainstream) sources for such damning, "anti-governmental" theories? Do you know nothing about the hierarchy of corporate ties to the government and its interests, that most mainstream media outlets have? Do you have any idea how propaganda actually works? Case in point; I love how, in the History Channel vid, they count the "Conspiracy Argument" as such, but then offer the "Expert" explanation to the contrary - as if there are no demolitions experts who have been vocal about their disbelief of the official story (which, in fact, there have been). Also, the young-looking spokesperson who is doing most of the appealing to ridicule (excuse me...the "talking") in the first vid blatantly throws out the fallacious implication that "within the conspiracy realm there isn't any worry about factual accuracy for this stuff," as if all conspiracy theories are born of ignorance to any and all facts - which, while "sexy", in itself (to use his term against him), is propaganda.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

The government is constantly under a microscope, it would be nearly impossible for such a plot to remain secret. Ask any reporter who has any experience with politics.

Oh, please. What good is that microscope, if you can discredit anyone weilding it by calling them a "conspiracy theorist" or "nutjob?" All you have to do is present a case that seems believable, on the surface, and let appeal to authority/ridicule/etc. do the rest of the work, for you. The government is - in many cases - its own alibi.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

My assessment that the plan was "almost sure to fail" was based off of my analysis of certain facts, not an assumption. Did you read my response at all? Or did you just skim it? I don't think I need to explain to you the complexity of such an attack, though I think I already have on more than one occasion. Surely they could have come up with something a little less risky, don't you think? Maybe just flying planes into the buildings and forgetting about the demolition aspect? Surely flying planes into important buildings would be enough to create the desirable political climate.

Did you read my response at all? As I said, it has been long determined that an attack "like Pearl Harbor" (in which 2400 Americans; military and civilian, lost their lives) would likely galvanize the country into war. Not crashing a couple of planes into a building. If they were to do what you suggested, then yes, they would have been "almost sure to fail," but in fact, retaliation (if the attacks were planned or given the go-ahead) was made certain by an increase in body count.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

I already explained this and it is explained in the videos above.

Read this: http://www.jod911.com/WTC%20COLLAPSE...d%208-8-06.pdf

See above. And, once again, the source you link to attempts to garner appeal to authority by suggesting its findings represent "an explosives and demolition industry viewpoint," as if all of those in opposition do not. Does this not bother you at all, or do you simply overlook it, because you accept it as fact?

Originally Posted by Caprisun

It can't be based on anything other than faith since there is no evidentiary basis. I am not saying it is ridiculous to assume the government is capable of doing bad things, it would be ridiculous to assume that it isn't. This is a whole nother level though, which as I have already said can't really be compared to past events. The issue here isn't just morality, but logistically the government just isn't capable of pulling this attack off.

Once again, this is called rhetoric, and is insubstantial.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

Does it really matter who rejected it? McNamara was considered by most to have low moral character, much more so than Donald Rumsfeld. And wikipedia says "Kennedy personally rejected the Northwoods proposal, and it would now be the Joint Chief's turn to incur his displeasure." Which implies that not only did he reject the plan, he was aggravated by it's very existence.

Yes, it matters who actually rejected it. Because, before now, the picture being painted was that upper-echelons of government would never agree to such a thing - that the mere idea of it was ridiculous. In fact, it was one man (regardless of whether or not Kennedy approved. The important thing was that it wasn't his call) who stopped it from happening.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

Obviously such an attack wasn't possible a couple hundred years ago, and obviously you would learn in school about any attack which was large enough to be compared to this one.

We did. Pearl Harbor. Was it as large? No - not statistically. But, considering the times, the methods of attack, and the number of people killed, it's in the ballpark.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

You keep referencing my bias. What bias is that exactly? Do I have anything emotionally invested in the outcome of this conspiracy? Do I have anything to gain or lose? Have any of my arguments been less than reasonable? Obviously I am inclined to say my argument is right, but that doesn't mean I am biased.

Your bias is in that you've already signed off on what you think of "99.9% of the 'truther' population" and what they think (and I would assume that you threw the -.01% in there as a mere precaution). So, you have already surmised that whatever you hear from a 'truther' (.i.e.; someone who isn't convinced by the official story) is bullshit. This adequately explains all of the straw men you have thrown at me, during this conversation. You have been fighting off much-less myself than all of the 'other' 'truthers' you have heard before. Your bias is in that you seem to be more prepped to throw out conditioned responses than to see where I'm coming from. And yes, again, I'm only arguing the from the standpoint of what could still be a very possible (not actual) conspiracy - given the inconclusiveness that you agree is present upon both sides. Forget whether my points were conclusive. The only thing I have been doing here is trying to present counter-argument that the official story is not conclusive, and that genuine inquisitiveness and skepticism is neither stupid nor ridiculous - and neither are the people that experience them.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

No. Actually, what I was going to say was: "What's good for the goose, is good for the gander," meaning that your "good evidence" for the official story's validity is - in fact - ambiguous. If it wasn't, I wouldn't have been able to present a counter-argument to nearly everything you've said. In essence; we wouldn't be having this conversation right now.

That isn't true at all. I think we would be having this conversation no matter how convincing the evidence is. There is irrefutable proof that men have been on the moon, but people are still having that conversation to this day. I can't think of any pieces of evidence provided by the "official story" which could be considered ambiguous, so you are going to have to provide examples.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

If you are to even fix your mouth (figurative) to say how "things work in the realm of science," then I'd expect you to be well-versed in the tendency for Westernized, mainstream science (as with much of pop culture) to be politically slanted. If you know absolutely anything about fringe/alternative science, you know the countless stories of how "against the grain" theories and research are often shunned - regardless of their validity - in the over-arching scientific community - until they entire the realm of collective undeniability. The odds of getting something published in a "peer-reviewed" journal - which possibily jeopardizes years of that journal's validity on like topics - is slim to none. Scientists, in all fields, have openly expressed how doing so was gambling with their reputations. I have, in the past, posted quite a few links and articles which highlight this point, and I don't plan on doing all of that here. However, I feel it's important that you do at least understand that what is mainstream is not always representative of all that is factual.

This is all very convenient. Your evidence isn't considered valid because it is being oppressed by. . . . politics? You are deluding yourself if you think any government can play a role in oppressing real science. The science community is world-wide and relatively unaffected by politics. If an American publishes and "politically slanted" paper, it will be critiqued by a foreign scientist. That's how science works.

It isn't a matter that these individuals can't get any of their conspiracy papers through the peer-review process, it's that they haven't gotten any papers through the process, or even if they have, it is for the wrong field of research to be relevant to their argument. The system isn't so corrupt that an empirically based, logically sound, valid theory can't get published. There are many avenues to go through if it gets rejected. By telling yourself that it is the corruption of the system instead of the failure of the conspiracy to get papers published is only serving to reinforce your own bias. It's also a convenient excuse for conspiracy theorists to post their papers on the internet without any standards of scientific integrity.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

I believe that the most prominent arguments were that the conditions that were likely met inside the towers (temperature / duration of burn, etc) could not cause the steel structure to give; that a fire which would have occurred, within those conditions, was insufficient. And you're saying that this argument is flawed, because the NatGeo video produced a fire which was obviously not representative of the type of fire that was actually in the towers? Come again?

The conditions were recreated perfectly. Jet fuel fire is jet fuel fire. Adding more fuel to the fire won't make it burn hotter, it will make it burn longer. The towers burned for more than 30 minutes before they fell, there was jet fuel scattered all over the building. The experiment took less than five minutes to weaken the steal beem. If you take all of this in light of the fact that the building was severely damaged by the impact, the conditions were more than sufficient to bring down the building. This is a perfect example of a valid experiment and piece of unambiguous evidence to support the "official story." You are beginning to behave a lot like the conspiracy theorists from the documentary, making lame excuses to deny obvious pieces of evidence which contradict your view.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

So you're saying that, in the initial assessment that multiple, fueled (which is the only logical way to presume the assessment was made) 707's could crash into the towers, and not cause collapse, was made with complete ignorance to the possibility that those planes' fuel reserves could catch fire? Really? Or were they just leaving that variable out, for some unknown reason?

Do you know anything about this "assesment?" Or are you just speculating as to what it actually entails? I assume when they say it can withstand a plane impact, it means the building will not collapse from the impact of the plane, just as a hurricane proof building won't collapse from hurricane force winds. Fire is another story. I don't believe there is a building in existence which is completely fire proof. Take this in light of the fact that these are human beings, not Nostradamus reincarnate. They put fire proofing all over the building, so logically they would assume that such a fire would be extinguished before it could cause a structural failure. It is obvious that they overlooked the fact that fire proofing can be blown off by a powerful explosion.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Actually, I was saying that your (and the official) explanation was the "very likely suggestion." However, I'm glad that you agree that the official findings were inconclusive.

Fine, you worded that horribly and I am not saying official findings are inconclusive. I am saying the purposed evidence for explosives is not conclusive and the chemical makeup of the rubble would be exactly the same if no explosives were used. So this means we can stop talking about explosives, right? Since you don't have a foot to stand on with that argument?

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

See above.

You need to re-evalute your stance on that.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Yes, I also know that the consensus is that the 767's that hit the towers were carrying a bit closer to 10,000 gallons. A lot of fuel. I know. This really means nothing, to either of us, unless we have some sort of quantifiable example of how much of that fuel was ignited upon impact. You say things like "there was still an astronomical amount of fuel inside that building, dousing every square inch of that floor" (which is called rhetoric). I say that you can look at a 767 - and compare it to the surface area of an entire floor of the WTC - and reasonably (if not most accurately) draw the conclusion that a plane, coming in at near 500mph and having a large portion of its fuel detonated upon impact, would not leave "an astronomical amount of fuel inside that building, dousing every square inch of that floor."

How much of the fuel was ignited on impact? All of it. It couldn't possibly be any other way. Once the building catches fire, it's doomed unless you can extinguish the fire. It doesn't really matter how much fuel there was. It also burns relatively slow, so you don't need a "thick coat" of fuel on an object to completely incinerate it, or in the case of a steel beam with no fire proofing, weaken it. It just has to get wet, really. And you don't even need to weaken every steel beam on the floor, once a few give way, it puts stress on the rest.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

The Perdue simulation said that they 'launched' paint cans at beams to mock-up how the liquid would likely have reacted. I would have loved to have seen how accurate that was. I have a hard time believing that - considering how fast the planes and fuel were moving, and how large that second explosion was - there would have been very much left inside the building (unignited or otherwise), to douse the entire floor. But of course, I'm no expert, and I'm not concluding anything. I'm just amazed by it. I would like to see an experiment done, which shows that en entire grid of steel framework (service columns and all) would fail, simultaneously, because of stress in various hotspots across the area. It would be awesome if someone could do that to scale. Of course, you may say "well, no one is going to, because it's a ridiculous idea," but I say I'd like to see it, just the same.

I don't really see the point of this, but I would like to point out that the "entire grid of steel framework" didn't collapse simultaneously. I don't think anybody has made that claim.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Insubstantial. Of course it was going to go "down." But when the entire framework of support was directly below, it would only take a slight deviation of path (which it would have met upon each and every floor, due to the support columns - which were box columns - beneath it) to cause those top 20 floors to tilt/roll/crumble away from center-mass. I would be more than welcome to entertain the idea that, if you immediately take 2% out of the top 20% of any structure, you would get complete and total - resistance-free - collapse, if there were some sort of precedence as to it having happened. But, as of now, I remain skeptical.

It's not that there isn't any resistance, it's that the force from above is so great that it moves without any apparent resistance, and it gains magnitude as it falls. You don't have anything to back any of this up. Just like Jim Hoffman (the guy who wrote a reply to Brent Blanchard's paper,) you are using basic human intuition as the entire basis of your argument. I won't ever take that seriously. You should know that by now. Unless you can show me something real and tangible, or something which can be scientifically verified, just don't even bother. Not that thermite could take down a building, not that the government is capapble of bad things, not that a missle could have hit the pentagon, but evidence that it actually happened.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

And PLEASE tell me you are not trying to equate the top 20 floors of the WTC coming down on the bottom 90 floors, to me (215lbs) coming down on the top of an empty soda can, after flicking the side. Seriously? I don't think I need to waste too much time on this one.

You're right, a more valid analogy would be a two ton man on top of the can. I don't think you really comprehend how heavy those floors are. Whether you weigh 215 pounds or 50 pounds, it accurately demostrates the forces at work, so I think it would be wise to spend a little more time on it, mull it over some more. The can will support you weight if the structure remains intact, but as soon as you compromise it in any way, it can no longer support the weight from above. It isn't 20 floors acting on 90 floors, it is 20 floors acting on 1 floor. Then it is 21 floors acting on 1 floor, and so on and so forth. It collapses on floor at a time. Theoretically, the building could have started collapsing in this fashion from an even higher starting point, even up to the top few floors of the building.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

The videos I posted explicity called the type of thermite in question by name. It is alleged to be "super-thermite" or, more accurately "nano-thermite".

I asked you for evidence that this particular type of thermite was actually used, not what type they think was used, or what type could possibly do the job. That information is completely useless.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Personally, if I was in a life or death situation, I might have a hard time distinguishing thermite (which I'd never even heard of, before 9/11) burning from 1000's of various other compounds burning. Again, you are taking the leap of concluding that "nano-thermite" would have been burning long enough for hundreds of people to see burning, and survive. A claim that, once again, is 100% insubstantial.

Also, I would think that any charges would only have to take out the service columns (or weaken them substantially), for the weight of the rest of the building to do the rest. But these lower columns were not damaged, at all, when the floors above them began coming down. They were allegedly at full strength.

100% unsubstantial? It would theoretically only need to burn for a split second for a person to observe it. So the only unsubstantial claim is that "nano-thermite wouldn't have been burning long enough for hundreds of people to see it burning."

Wait a minute, first you denounce the pancake theory by claiming that fire could not have started the collapse without the help of explosives, but now here you completely contradict yourself by saying that it could happen that way as long as the lower floors were weakened by thermite. Or is it both thermite and explosives being used now? This is a pretty elaborate hypothesis for one which is comletely unfouned by any type of physical evidence whatsoever.

The lower portion of the building is completely irrelevant, not only because the collapse started from up high, but because by the time the collapse reached the lower floors, it would have the entire weight of the building falling on top of it. Whether the lower floors had been weakened by thermite or not, they would have been crushed by that force. This is just another irrlevant, intuition based hypothesis.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

That's it? No elaboration? No nothing? Just the one guy saying "it's extremely difficult to light," and now you know enough about it to say that using it would be a stupid idea, and conclude that it probably can't be lit by remote? You have quite a lot of faith in your random experts' testimonials.

Why would I need anything else? If a guy who works with thermite for a living says thermite is hard to light, Im gonna go ahead and take his word over that of John the accountant, Tim the lawyer, and Jim the software engineer, who probably didn't know what thermite was before 9/11. This is a very simple fact anyway, if it's hard to light then it hard to light, there is no use in arguing about that. It would be stupid to use because 1.) The experiment showed that it does a shitty job of cutting through steel 2.) It takes too long and would be impossible to coordinate a demolition with 3.) It is apparently hard to light and therefore unreliable. A smart criminal would employ the most reliable methods possible.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Take this entire paragraph and reverse it to describe faith in mainstream authority, and you have my opinion. In the end, we are left with the most simple truth; that you are convinced the official story is factually sound; that I am, so far, not; and, in the end, there are quite a few points that we've both had to agree are inconclusive. I'll let that speak for itself.

I wish you would stop telling me who I do and do not have faith in.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

I'm sorry, but I've talked about, linked and quoted many things about ethic issues within the government's outsourcing of defense (some of which were confirmed by former military employees) in too many other, exhaustive debates to get drawn into defending the tangent. Yes. I know a little bit about Blackwater, and if you know anything about the industry, I'm surprised that you are the least bit confused on how soldiers of fortune can help to absolve a guilty client of responsibility, in the case of an "accident." Apparently, you have some significant level of intell into how "all" of the controversies dealt with 'ill-advised, adrenaline-filled decisions'. I wasn't even contesting that some of them did not. I was stating that those agents HAVE been used for such "pre-meditated" circumventions of international law - much like the rendition of "terrorists" to countries that will torture them for us, and the employment of banned weapons like white-phosphorous during the invasion of Iraq.

This is ridiculous. Why is "accidents" in quotation marks? You don't have proof of anything, just an overly negative sentiment towards the government, which somehow makes you think you are justified in accusing it's members of murder without any evidence, only a paranoid, speculative interpretation. Why should I put up with this bullshit?

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Reply to Brent Blanchard's 'A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE COLLAPSE OF WTC TOWERS 1, 2 & 7'

Holy shit. I saw that article when I was posting the Brent Blanchard one. I thought, "God I hope he doesn't try to use this, but who am I kidding, it's bound to enter the conversation."

It actually physically hurt me to read this thing. Lets look at the introduction:

["Blanchard uses a dozen paragraphs to establish his expertise, touting Protec as "one of the world's most knowledgeable independent authorities on explosive demolition." Showcasing his specialized knowledge of demolition and repeatedly referring to evidence unavailable to the public, *Blanchard implies that his understanding about the destruction of the WTC towers outweighs that of non-experts.*

However, because these events display so many obvious characteristics of controlled demolitions, **many individuals reject the official story of gravity-driven collapses based on simple intuition.** Blanchard avoids discussing most of those features (the thorough pulverization, explosiveness, and rapidity of the Twin Towers' destruction) and instead appears to address two of the features (symmetry and jets of dust) but with only muddled and convoluted explanations.

Despite his self-proclaimed expertise, Blanchard fails to debunk any substantial arguments for controlled demolition of the WTC towers. His arguments amount to a series of fallacies wrapped in appeals to authority and reinforced with pretentious language."]

* He doesn't even need to imply it, it is just a given. Seriously, I can't believe someone would say something so stupid and expect to be taken seriously.

** This is rich. You may be asking yourself right now, "who is this crazy scientist who thinks 'simple human intuition' qualifies as a valid form of scientific evidence?" Well, he isn't a scientist at all, he is a software engineer. Go figure. His whole anlysis isn't based on anything empirically and he has no experience with demolition which would qualify him to make "logical assertions" about Blanchard's paper. The funniest part is how he repeatedly refers to Blanchard's methods as "unscientific." How ironic.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

I don't care what your perception of "the conspiracy argument" (as if there was only one) entails. I have never made the argument that "everything that happened that day was planned." Let's not pretend that everybody is of One Mind about what happened that day. I should have packed a torch, for all of these straw men. Really.

This isn't my "perception," this is what they explicitly state happened.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Again, if this were true, we wouldn't need a Freedom of Information Act - and, by definition, declassification would never be an issue, because the Government apparently can't keep a secret anyway, according to you.

Classified information is a completely different concept from covering up a major crime. Nixon couldn't even break into Watergate for Christ's sake. This isn't just my opinion, it is the collective sentiment of our own politicians. How often do political scandals show up on the news? A simple marital affair doesn't go unnoticed, but the largest and most elaborate murder plan, including hundreds of people, is executed without a single trace? What lengths are you willing to go to?

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Bullshit. "The movement" (simply entertaining your generalization of all those not convinced by the official story, with that term) are not some hive mind of people, who simply look to an authority and copy whatever they say. Well...not all of them, anyway. Lol. However, your attempt to paint it as such gives me interesting insight into how you might garner your "own" (taken from mainstream, ultimately government-controlled media outlets) perspective. LIke I said before; it works both ways.

Am I to believe you conduct all of your own research first hand? If not, you get it from the movement, and I have yet to find a single credible individual who falls under the umbrella of the movement. So both you and I being "layman" so to speak, can only appeal to authority for our information. The difference between you and I is that I appeal to the right authority. When I want to know how building seven collapsed, I look to Brent Blanchard, you look to Jim Hoffman. I think that sums things up well. And the quip about "government controlled media" is just more evidence of your overly anti-government views. Media in America is so obviously not controlled by the government. You try to paint a picture of yourself as a reasonable, unbiased individual, but with every unsubstatiated anti-government claim you make, you look more and more like a bona fide, tin foil hat wearing conspiracy theorist. You continually try to distance yourself from the movement by saying you merely "disagree with the official sotry," but your behavior and your line of reasoning seems to be very consistent with a "truther."

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

But, while we're on the subject; What did you expect? Did you expect me to start quoting your own (again, mainstream) sources for such damning, "anti-governmental" theories? Do you know nothing about the hierarchy of corporate ties to the government and its interests, that most mainstream media outlets have? Do you have any idea how propaganda actually works? Case in point; I love how, in the History Channel vid, they count the "Conspiracy Argument" as such, but then offer the "Expert" explanation to the contrary - as if there are no demolitions experts who have been vocal about their disbelief of the official story (which, in fact, there have been). Also, the young-looking spokesperson who is doing most of the appealing to ridicule (excuse me...the "talking") in the first vid blatantly throws out the fallacious implication that "within the conspiracy realm there isn't any worry about factual accuracy for this stuff," as if all conspiracy theories are born of ignorance to any and all facts - which, while "sexy", in itself (to use his term against him), is propaganda.

Conveniently, this fits in very nicely with my last point. There are no notable "experts" who have spoken out against the official story. There have been individuals with the proper credentials who have spoken out, but they have shamed themselves by demonstrating less than honest methods and a disregard for scientific ethics. (And that is putting it nicely.)

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Oh, please. What good is that microscope, if you can discredit anyone weilding it by calling them a "conspiracy theorist" or "nutjob?" All you have to do is present a case that seems believable, on the surface, and let appeal to authority/ridicule/etc. do the rest of the work, for you. The government is - in many cases - its own alibi.

More excuses. Who needs valid evidence when you can appeal to emotion and bitch about the government? That's how you gain a following.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Did you read my response at all? As I said, it has been long determined that an attack "like Pearl Harbor" (in which 2400 Americans; military and civilian, lost their lives) would likely galvanize the country into war. Not crashing a couple of planes into a building. If they were to do what you suggested, then yes, they would have been "almost sure to fail," but in fact, retaliation (if the attacks were planned or given the go-ahead) was made certain by an increase in body count.

I don't even know what you are trying to say. Are you trying to compare Pearl Harbor to 9/11?

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

See above. And, once again, the source you link to attempts to garner appeal to authority by suggesting its findings represent "an explosives and demolition industry viewpoint," as if all of those in opposition do not. Does this not bother you at all, or do you simply overlook it, because you accept it as fact?

Again, a proper appeal to authority is not a fallacy, appealing to the wrong authority is. There is a valid "explosives and demoliton industry viewpoint" because the individuals who have defected are outliers. If there are so many "experts" who agree with you, why don't you ever reference them? That was rhetorical, I already know the answer. It's because they take high ranking intellectuals, such as physicists and doctors, and appeal to their opinion of events which are way beyond their scope of expertise. And what about "pilots for 9/11 truth?" How does being a pilot make you any more qualified to speak out against the official story? I am an aviation major and I can tell you for a fact that nothing a pilots knows will be relevant to the conspiracy.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Once again, this is called rhetoric, and is insubstantial.

You like to throw that word out a lot, but Im not convinced you fully understand what it means. It's not rhetoric if it's true.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Yes, it matters who actually rejected it. Because, before now, the picture being painted was that upper-echelons of government would never agree to such a thing - that the mere idea of it was ridiculous. In fact, it was one man (regardless of whether or not Kennedy approved. The important thing was that it wasn't his call) who stopped it from happening.

How can you possibly know what is going on behind closed doors? How do you know only one person was responsible for rejecting it?

I don't even know what point you are making. Before now, upper-echelons of government would never agree to such a thing . . . and now . . . . what? What's the difference between then and now and why does it matter? Be frank.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

We did. Pearl Harbor. Was it as large? No - not statistically. But, considering the times, the methods of attack, and the number of people killed, it's in the ballpark.

I'm rubbing my eyes in disbelief right now. You aren't saying Pearl Harbor was also an inside job are you? If you aren't, I fail to see it's relevance. I could name dozens of battles which were larger than Pearl Harbor and 9/11 combined, but that isn't the point. The point is 9/11 was allegedly perpetrated by a small number of individuals in our own government. (which increases the scale of complexity a few orders of magnitude at least.)

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Your bias is in that you've already signed off on what you think of "99.9% of the 'truther' population" and what they think....

I'm going to stop you right there. What makes you think I don't have a legitimate reason for signing them off? Im not using basic intuition, that's for sure. There isn't a single claim that I haven't read into (as much of a waste of time as it has been.) So accusing me of "having faith in the official story" is an abhorrent misrepresentation of my stance, and plain and simply a shot in the dark. You have a history of taking unwarranted liberties, such as filling in blanks and making false judgments without so much as a deliberate reason for doing so.

The only real question that should be answered is, why did building 7 collapse from relatively minor fire damage, but 3,4,5, and 6 did not after sustaining much more damage?

It would be a good question if the fire in building 7 was minor. Fire is the only thing that matters. It doesn't really matter if the other buildings sustained more damage as long as they didn't catch fire and burn freely for hours on end.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

The only real question that should be answered is, why did building 7 collapse from relatively minor fire damage, but 3,4,5, and 6 did not after sustaining much more damage?

This is explained by popular mechanics; it was showered with enough debris to catch fire, which ignited large diesel tanks in the basement. I'll find that exact video.

Ok, I'm going to go ahead and bow out (as gracefully as possible. Haha). You've made some good points (that I will honestly consider), but have fallen, face-flat, on others. Personally, I don't think that there is any getting passed the speculative stalemate in our arguments (the simple fact that you think the official findings are conclusive and I don't), and I don't think there is much use in either of us wasting too much more energy on it. I think that anyone reading can draw their own conclusions on what we've both said so far. However, I will tie up one loose end, by saying that I was not implying at all that Pearl Harbor was an inside job. If there was anything left ambiguous, on my part, I don't want that to be it.

It's been interesting, though. I just know that I have neither the time nor conviction to keep this battle of arbitrary logic going. And I hate that nagging sensation that anytime I log in I have to battle toward something that neither of us can prove is correct.

Cheers, though.

Originally Posted by TheKing

This is explained by popular mechanics; it was showered with enough debris to catch fire, which ignited large diesel tanks in the basement. I'll find that exact video.

Still waiting on that video. Buildings 3,4,5,6 looked like they sustained some pretty massive fire damage as well.

The least conspiratory 9/11 conspiracy documentary, and yet seems highly conspiratory. No thermite or WTC7 or remote controlled aircraft, just the shady stuff around the event. Very interesting stuff.