Bigfoot73 said:
Sceptics can't believe that the conspiracy would have relied on thousands of participants all keeping quiet but somehow believe 9/11 was due to thousands of government agents of all descriptions being crap at their jobs.So why not drag out all the evidence for all to see, prove it and sack/jail them? Because the official theory IS the coverup, as investigations would reveal.Haven't you ever asked yourselves about this before now? Talk about utterly bonkers theories!Where's your insatiable demand for proof now?
Don't be so silly.
If there were any failings in intelligence then I would doubt very much it was wilful incompetence, so no one to prosecute. Customs officials that had not been trained to look for indicators that would have shown that some of the hijackers had links to al-Qaeda, the US military more focused on external rather than the internal threats and the FBI and other agencies
may have ignored or not prioritised intelligence information that could have given them prior warning. It's not about people being crap at their jobs, and nobody is even saying it has definitely happened so stop getting all worked up.
I have no evidence that conspiracy theories are being used to cover-up security failings, it was merely an interesting idea, albeit one that is more plausible than your laughable stories. Unlike you, though, I am able to distinguish between fact and idle speculation.
Back to the ludicrous and disproved demolition theories, by which I assume you refer to the NIST/Popular Mechanics stuff. This has itself been debunked , see the atrociously titled "Debunking 9/11 Debunking", the latest from DR Griffin. When I said "lies, damned lies and experts" I was alluding in a rather conciliatory way to the fact that the sceptic experts have all been debunked themselves.Who is disregarding the testimony of expert people now?
Oh yes, Dr Griffin, wondered how long it would take for him to pop up. If I was looking for an expert on structural engineering and demolitions I would definitely turn to a man with a degree in theology. If Griffin had so much evidence that proved 9/11 was an inside job why hasn't he published a peer reviewed paper and shown all those nasty skeptics what-for? The answer is that he doesn't have any evidence and he's simply repeating the same old conspiracy theories. There's a comprehensive critical analysis of his book
here. All Griffin is doing with his fairytale book is preaching to the converted.
The military looking planes are featured on various on YouTube but if you can still see an airliner in the Pentagon films you won't be able to see the jets themselves so check out the clips of the reporters and leave it at that.
What clips? Where are the links? All I can see in the videos are planes that look like airliners, but maybe that is just my blind skeptical eyes. It's a funny idea anyway. If your story was true then we'd be faced with a situation where the planes had been hijacked, then somehow landed somewhere without anyone noticing (no radar traces either) and then some unknown military planes (that oddly look just like airliners, but without windows) had been loaded up with the bodies of the passengers and their luggage and THEN crashed into the towers. It's the kind of ridiculous plot that even the writers of 24 would have trouble finding plausible.
How do people go through their lives being being evryday religious hypocrites and then go kill themselves and thousands of others for God?
Are we going to turn this into a discussion on the psychology of religious believers? Because that could go on for a while. You haven't even proven that what you're saying about their debauchery is true! Where's your proof of that first?
Where does it say Atta sat in 8D/
Here, page 6.
Notice this thing I'm doing where I can back up what I'm saying with evidence? Clever innit!
If so, why was his case left off the plane?
If you had read my previous post properly then you would know. It was a cock-up due to the delay of transfering flights and the unexpected security checks.
Have you actually taken any of my Flight 93 comments on board yet?You see fit to accuse me of twisting people's comments to fit my theories when you never seem to have read my stuff very closely . The hole was already there in a 1994 USGS satellite photo.You keep asking for evidence etc then forget all about it.
My God! The HOLE WAS ALREADY THERE. You're right! But what's this...it crashed in a reclaimed strip mine? My word, that couldn't explain the hole that shows up on old satellite pictures, could it?
I'm gonna go with your story though. The eye witnesses that saw a plane fly over and then explode into the ground were obviously lying, and the government was waiting there with trucks full of plane bits. And they made a hijacked aircraft disappear. Oh, and they faked the cell phone calls from passengers who said they were on the hijacked plane. I bet those passengers were in on it too and are now living it up in Barbados on their conspiracy pay-off.
The debris at the site didn't include anything specific to 93, I thought I'd made that clear.
You haven't made a single thing clear. Where is your evidence for this claim?
The engine was found miles away and the fuselage segment came out of a lake. i haven't heard back from the sceptics who so obligingly drew my attention to them and I doubt that you've got anything to say about them either.go check their sources why don't you?
This has been answered by others. Internet detectives have done a bang-up job of making themselves look foolish by using the estimated journey time
by road between the two locations. Gotta love that.
My point was that sceptics produce a wealth of evidence in support of the official explanation for the towers' collapse yet are strangely content to do without it vis-a-vis the Pentagon and 93.Selective application of academic rigour.
I really don't get how you're coming up with this. All you have done is make loads of claims without a single shred of proof, whether you're claiming that they blew up WTC7 with magical disappearing explosives or that they magicked away hijacked planes and dumped some debris in the ground. I haven't ignored the rubbish you're saying about Flight 93 and the Pentagon, I've gleefully pointed out all the ways in which you're wrong about that too.
I'm actually a bit confused, are you reading another forum entirely?
Yes, a pilotless drone is nothing like an airliner. that's why the Pentagon film so incontroveribly shows a pilotless drone.
Does it? You can tell all that from a blurry, low resolution video with a terrible frame rate. THAT is your idea of incontrovertible? If this is true, then why did they even release the video at all? Just another careless mistake I guess.
It's impossible to make out anything clearly from that crap video other than some kind of aircraft moving very low and fast hit the Pentagon. Really wouldn't recommend hinging your entire story around it.
If the plane hit the ground outside the Pentagon with sufficient force to dissipate much of it's kinetic energy then where's the crater?
It was flying low to the ground and clipped the grass before hitting the building, unlike flight 93 which came in at an estimated 40 degree angle and left a 10 foot crater. That's why there's no crater. You can see this yourself in the same video that you believe 'incontroverbly' shows a drone. It came in low and fast and the reinforced outer wall took the brunt of the blow.
Need I say this again,the wreckage was planted. The drone didn't look like an airliner and the explosives weren't on the outside of the building.
Still waiting for your proof that the debris was planted. And your explanation as to why nobody reported seeing trucks dumping airplane wreckage all over the Pentagon's lawn. And, y'know, proof of every other absurd story you've come up with.
As for my ideas being just plain silly. they're not my ideas they are your shadow version of my ideas based on your entrenched and indefensible perspective.You claim to have provided perfectly rational responses to every point I've raised, so why not provide some for the perfectly rational responses I've responded with.
They are your ideas! Or is someone else posting this garbage under your name? And there's nothing rational about anything you've said, your theories are an absolute joke and you're a clown. You keep saying these things without a single shred of evidence and then expect us to just accept that as though it proves what you're saying is true.
I still find it hard to understand how you can even say this stuff and keep a straight face.
:yeay: