9/11: The September 11th Attacks

[Bigfoot73]

gncxx:- if anyone has posed any tricky questions or facts it certainly wasn't Timble!
If you would like to itemize which tricky questions or facts I have been ignoring I shall do my best to address them.
Maybe you could ask Ted why he hasn't looked at the 737 engine photos yet. Perhaps you would like to pass comment on them yourself. In fact I think you have to in order to avoid doing what you have just accused me of.I don't think it can be said that I'm alone in (allegedly) ignoring tricky questions or facts , not by a long way.

 

[Spookdaddy]

As for the Naudet brothers, yes , that smells a bit.You might think their footage would have earned them a minor place in history, and led to a glittering career. Yet they seem to have faded into obscurity.

Have they though? Their film of the events is undeniably iconic and they are inextricably linked to it, both as film-makers and participants - and they are still making films - so what makes you say that they have faded into obscurity?

(Rest of original post removed because I got my planes mixed up).

 

[Bigfoot73]

I can't find anything mentioning anything of their activities since 9/11 at all, just a lot of querying of whether they were actually twins and why it is that despite enjoying the sort of global publicity most young filmmakers just starting out can only dream of their careers don't seem to have grown.
I think your second point concerned the 2nd explosion films although your post has suddenly vanished from my screen: excerpts are all posted on youTube, I suggest that from the NBC helicopter camera which was featured in "9/11 Rare footage" by Educate yourself.org or "9.11 Stealth Fake Plane...etc"
For some reason Timble's last comment has shown up on my screen you had commented that you were going to report abusive language until you realised it was you that posted it. You then edited your comment . This implies you thought it was me who had been abusive . If I remember correctly the moderator hadn't backed up the previous days posts and lost them beyond recovery.
Being offensive towards me when I'm supposed to be unable to read your comments is just sad. B** of back to Narnia you obnoxious little hermaphrodite.

 

[MsPix]

I don't recall you ever, disproving anything about flight 93, you just kept saying, it's not flight 93, IT'S NOT FLIGHT 93.LA, LA, LA, I CAN'T HEAR YOU


That alleged 737 engine, the only people who think it's a 737 engine are people on conspiracy sites who keep reinforcing the story themselves by citing themselves!

 

[Bigfoot73]

Spookdaddy - just checked the new screen so I see why it wasn't all there now. You might find the films interesting nonetheless

 

[Bigfoot73]

Ms Pix:- the only comment I remember you posting here up to now was one where you claimed something I just aid was a lie, without substantiation.
I proved a lot more about 93 than Timble , for one!
Lalala ?Childish!!!
It wa a 737 engine and anyway, whatever sort of engine it was what do you think it was doing there? Go on , say something sensible for once! I am yet to come across asceptic who even addresss the point, since it is in fact a damning piece of evidence which completely undermines the official story.
As usual it's the sceptics who have to descend to abusive language and ad hominem attacks .Ted seems to be the only one who can remain civil. Ever ask yourselves how this would look to a disinterested observer? I await some5hing cogent about the 737 engine from both you and gncxx.
I would be truly surprised if you can manage it .

 

[Bigfoot73]

Mods:-I've just had an email re: a new private message , but there's nothing in the inbox.

 

[Timble2]

Mods:-I've just had an email re: a new private message , but there's nothing in the inbox.

That'll be the security services reading his mail because he's onto the TRUTH.... :shock:

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

We were both quoting from the same website, only you were quoting from the Associate members list , not the Full members list.

Actually I was quoting from both (as well as their other lists).

It shouldn't need to be said that it is the full members who wrote the content of the site. Obvious really.So why ignore that?

The fact that the site was written by the full members (including the theatre lecturer, presumably) is neither here nor there since all they've done is parrot Olmsted's work on this particular issue. They've added nothing new.

Your several statements of why the associate members don't deserve your attention are irrelevant , as it was the full members who wrote what you chose to ignore . I don't see why you brought the associates into it.

Quite. I don't know why Scholars For 9/11 Truth brings them into it except maybe to boost their numbers. They offer nothing of value. For what it's worth neither do many of the full members on the basis of their qualifications.

Then you go on to say Scholars For Truth are prepared to dupe those who don't check their bona fides - but their bona fides are just fine and it looks like you are trying to dupe people into thinking they aren't.

Some of them aren't even scholars. Claiming that you're a scholar or labelling others scholars in order to lend credibility to your argument is pretty devious to me. Even when they are scholars they're not neccessarily qualified to speak on the subject anymore than a non-scholar.

If you don't pretend to know whether a qualified expert's opinion is accurate how do you know the pro-official explanation experts are accurate?

I don't - I weigh the other pieces of information and arguments which I can understand in order to see which is most probable and then decide which I consider most likely. What do you do - accept the opinion of a handful of experts and ignore the many more who argue against them? Unless, of course, you have a wealth of expertise which puts you on the same level of expertise as the scholars and the pilots. I'd wager that you don't.

You claim so many more experts don't support the conspiracist view , just like you claim most people think the Pentagon film shows a plane.Perhaps you'd like to provide some evidence for either of those claims, especially as you seem to find numbers more important than anything else. I think you would be very lucky to find substantiation for either claim, particularly the Pentagon film.

The fact is that no comprehensive poll ever taken - either of laymen or expert - has produced a result which shows a majority believing in a pro-active government conspiracy. Yes, there is Scholars For 9/11 Truth but it's a small portion of the world's scholars (an even smaller portion of the world's experts ie those who're qualified in the relevant areas). Given the easy acces to the Pentagon crash footage one might expect expert and layperson alike to have had their mind changed. Where then are the polls reflecting this?

No, I'm afraid I can't find anything about why the autopsy report is so inaccessible. I suspect it's because public availability would reveal data which would lead to people questioning the official explanation for the events of 9/11 - such as the absence of the names of the hijackers.Perhaps you could suggest another possible reason.

I could but it would only reflect what I 'suspect' ie an opinion based on an absence of knowledge.

Likening Dr Olmsted to serial killers is not worthy of a response - in fact it wouldn't matter if an associate member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth had got their hands on the report provided they could read well enough to see that there WEREN'T ANY ARAB NAMES ON IT !

Evoking a doctor as some kind of authority provokes those kinds of repsonse. It's worth no more. Nonetheless you're ignoring the link you've already been given explaining the flaws in Olmsted's work - not to mention the implausibility of those spinning the tale neglecting to make up a few names.

Here is that link again. Do you still think Olmsted's work has anything valid to say?

http://www.911myths.com/html/missing_arabs.html

Has it not occurred to you that if there were, the government might just have come out and said so in protest at Crippen's, sorry, Olmsted's scandalous misrepresentation?Well, don't you ?

The government has many tasks to fulfil but rebutting claims which nobody takes seriously is not and should not be a priority. If you ask the average man and women if they believe the official version or not it's unlikely that too many will say no as a result of this apparent gaff. It's not a commonly discussed 'fact'.

Come to think of it why hasn't the US government clarified the issues around the other plane's passenger lists, or indeed anything at all that the sceptics seem to think needs just a few i, s dotting and t,s crossing?
Any opinion on that? Bit of expansive thinking for once maybe?

Because the sceptics, as you call them, will simply return with another series of unsubstantiated and illogical claims. Memetics might best explain this phenomenon.

There does indeed appear to be yet more confusion over the black box issue.I didn't say the voice recording stopped working 2 seconds before the supposed impact. I said that the government said the entire voice recording was unusable. The last data of any sort was from 2 seconds before the impact. I am not going to check how many times I have said anything about the black box data and I'm not saying it again - you're looking for inconsistencies in what I've said when there aren't any.

Nope. You quite clearly said that the cockpit voice recorder stopped working 2 seconds before the impact:

As for the black box/missile issue. It was 3 days before the black box was 'recovered' from the Pentagon. Apparently the cockpit voice recorder data was unusable, the first time that has ever occurred in the history of black boxes. It stopped recording 2 seconds before the alleged impact, again something without precedent or explanation.

You seem to be confusing a disparity in the data from the flight recorder with the lack of function from the cockpit voice recorder - it's 2 separate issues.

Priding yourself on your rationality is leading you into a formulaic and regimented mode of thought - no, actually you've always had that and it's no substitute for genuine intellectual bandwidth.

I wouldn't say I pride myself on my rationality but I do value it and I certainly don't feel ashamed of it. And nor should you.

Why, pray tell , are you so sure a missile would have taken up more of the frame than this incomplete object in it? What exactly is an incomplete object when it's at home?

It's an object which can not be viewed in its entirety. Whatever object appears in the gate footage is incomplete - the entire object is not in the frame. Therefore it must be part of a larger object. The footage shows nothing much bigger than a thin spear. This is apparent when cross-referenced with the Doubletree footage.

Can't be an airliner or you'd have said so.Why are you insisting that I claimed it was a missile when I said it could be a missile , drone or small plane?

I didn't insist you said it was an airliner. I said that on the basis of there being nothing visually comparable to a plane in the gate footage it would have to therefore be a missile. If this is not the case then you'd have to explain what kind of apparently tiny narrow plane - invisible to the camera - caused so much damage to the Pentagon when it crashed. That's expansive thinking - following a series of logical deductions to see where it
takes us, not just fantasising about things.

You're so good at nitpicking every detail of what i said how come you got that one wrong.Why does what I said about the black box keep eluding your cognitive faculties? How did you miss the scholars' full members' list?

It didn't, it hasn't and I didn't but it's not really about me. Let's just stick to the subject in hand.

So now you think it was an airliner? Really? You weren't convinced yesterday so perhaps it was me reminding you that as a sceptic you actually have to think it was that has convinced you? Perhaps you momentarily let your eyes get the better of your preconcieved ideas. Way to go Ted !!!

No, I was farily confident then that it was an airliner and I explained my reasons why. No change of mind required. It's fairly simple to follow, really.

Why is it larger than any small executive jet?

Look at the Doubletree footage again. It's evidently a large object. And why would they use a small executive jet anyway? It makes no sense. They already had to bust up an American Airlines flight to get debris from it. You've done the classic CT trick - take a few nebulous witness reports at odds with the official story and other witness reports and placed your faith in them as infallable testimony.

Whatever it is you are having a hell of a time convincing yourself it's a Boeing 757, aren't you?

No. I'm having a hell of a time convincing you that it is. There's none so blind as those etc etc. I believe it to be a big plane. It doesn't have to be a 757 - the fact that a plane hits the Pentagon (and a fairly large one at that) leads me to believe the official story to be correct. The alternative would be to say that AA77 never existed or has been disappeared, that the American government flew a plane into a building they didn't expect to be captured on film instead of hitting it with a missile or setting off a bomb and a whole load of people have turned a blind eye to it. All this with no coherent motive.

Actually the more I think of it the more I'm convinced. Thanks for helping me examine the unlikely alternatives.

The only reason you have to think it is one is that the US government said so when they released the security gate film, regardless of the fact that it isn't.

No. The Doubletree footage convinces me although the reasonable explanation of the limitations of the CCTV footage are not uncompelling in themself. That and all the other evidence and arguments eg debris, lack of motive, lack of an explanation as to what happened to the flight and its passengers and so on.

You say I haven't provideda coherent explanation of what it might be when I have , and i will spare you the capitals : missile or drone or small exexuctive jet. got that? I do believe I said as much before. Coherent enough I think , just like it was the first time

Coherence doesn't include three completely distinct and problematic explanations. The only thing that's coherent is your disbelief. The reasons behind that are not coherent, sadly.

Ah yes, Ms Keller. Five years after the event she suddenly comes out and says she was lying all along.What's more some nameless FBI agent is prepared to back her up .Says he's checked her phone records, she and Atta never spoke on the phone and so she must be telling the truth this time round.

Well, she has to be lying at least once. She's produced no evidence that she was telling the truth the first time around so why disbelieve her now?

Which raises a few questions. Why did the Feds not check the records of phone calls between her and a terrorist responsible for the deaths of thousands before, like the day they went looking for her ?

How do you know they didn't and just dismissed her as a result? They've got better things to do than worry about what a small army of believers in daft theories believe.

Why did she leave it so long if it was never true ?

Conversely why would the authorities take so long to force her to change her story, especially when she claimed she had pressure put on years before? It's idle speculation on the mind of a potentially unstable person. Pointless.

Why did she claim otherwise in the first place? Why dishonestly link herself with a mass murderer?

Attention? Selling her story? Who knows? I guess you figure Shannon Matthews is still out there somewhere in a basement desperately hoping to be reunited with her mother. No? Then why the difficulty in understanding a stripper's desire to make an exhibition of themself or get paid for something a little rum?

If the FBI knew, why not clear the poor woman's name in the first place?

It's not their job to guard the reputations of people inflicting ignominy on themselves. It's not a criminal matter, for a kick off.

Apparently Atta and Keller's neighbours Tony and Vonnie LaConca told the G-men that Atta stood bail for Keller,saying they could find his surname on the South County jail paperwork. I can't think of any reason at all why it shouldn't be there, or any reason why they wouldn't look.

Are your neighbours in the habit of showing you bail release forms?

Follow my drift?

No. Please continue...

apparently her 'real' boyfriend was one Mohamed Arajaki,

Although that's the name on the bail release form, oddly enough. Do go on...

who was 6 inches taller than Atta. A noticeable difference would you not think? Funny how nobody noticed it at the
time!

This statement makes no sense on any level. There's basically no way to respond to it.

Anyway here's a few more details you might find interesting:

Please click here - really, it will help

I wonder if I may crave a favour: it would be just triple organically grown peaches with double helping of cream from Jersey cows and extra 90% cocoa solids fairtrade chocolate vermicelli of you if you would indulge this pitiable old wingnut by having a gander at those piccies of the 737 engine.Of course I realise I probably haven't answered any of your points at all, but that could only mean I haven't got any answers and if so then pronouncing on them would make for a delightful coup de grace for you .
Wouldn't it?

One of the things I've noticed after another bout of 9/11 'research' (hell, truthers and their like honestly think that's what they're doing so I might as well commandeer the word for my own ends) is how frequently the claims made to support the conspiracy theory turn out to be absolute bunk - ill-researched, dishonest and distorted nonsense which discredits the beliefs of those unfortunate enough to find themselves repeating them. Conversely they simply reinforce belief in the other direction.

There's a whole lotta memeplex goin' on.

 

[stu neville]

Mods:-I've just had an email re: a new private message , but there's nothing in the inbox.

Does it say from whom?

In all probability someone PMd you and then deleted it.

Or the security services are spying on you.

 

[stu neville]

Anyway..

...who was 6 inches taller than Atta. A noticeable difference would you not think? Funny how nobody noticed it at the
time!

This statement makes no sense on any level. There's basically no way to respond to it.

I have to agree with ted, there - you seem to be just tossing random stuff in now in an apparent attempt to shore up your rapidly subsiding theory. I'm sorry to have to tell you this, but bearing in mind that about half the threads in Conspiracy relate to 9/11 in one way or another, and I'm one of the poor sods who has had to read them, you're only regurgitating stuff that keeps being recycled endlessly - and slight rephrasing and straight repetition doesn't make any of the assertions any truer. Just to be clear, that's an observation, not an attack on your integrity.

Now for a general point- if the typical arc of these threads kicks in, there will soon be accusations of sheeplism, counter accusations of CT delusion, and a general increase in temperature all round - and we're not playing that game again.

I trust I have made myself clear.

 

[Timble2]

Since he's emabarked on policy of putting everyone on ignore, the only person he'll have left to argue with is himself...

 

[stu neville]

He can't put me on ignore. But I can choose not to answer...

 

[Bigfoot73]

I don't see you quoting anything at all fom the Full members' list and I don't know what other lists you refer to.Now you're acknowledging that it was the full members who wrote the content, so why , if they're just parroting, did you not do so before?
Why dismiss the worth of the full members' qualifications so offhandedly when they seem seem to me to be as relevantly qualified as anyone?Degrees in Unravelling Conspiracies all you would regard as sufficient?

I'm not claiming to be a scholar, and the others that label themselves Scholars actually are : it's their jobs, it's what they do. I don't see anything devious here apart from you tyring to make out that scholars for 9.11 Truth was full of blue collar workers and students.
Now you're saying being scholars doesn't make them any more qualified to speak than anyone else ??? That's the exact opposite of what you have been claiming all along! You have been saying I'm not a scholar in a relevant field, even that you aren't either and as such we shouldn't be presuming to speak on such weighty matters. now you come out with this? Tsk tsk !
It gets worse. In the very next paragraph you're back to trying to undermine me by saying I don't have any relevant qualifications when you've just said it doesn't matter! What's all this blather about you weighing information and arguments, why think I'm not doing exactly the same? How is accepting the opinion of a handful of experts and ignoring those of the others substantively different from what you're doing ? And there you go again with your claims of majorities of others who argue against them, rather like the majority of people you claim think the Pentagon films show a plane. I have asked you for some evidence of these majorities before and you still haven't produced any . Commissioned surveys have you? Embarked on the gargantuan task of asking all of them yourself? I think not. Where are the polls reflecting your point of view?

So you don't want to suggest a reason for the absence of the hijackers' names from the autopsy report because you have no evidence to go on.So how about an opinion of why you have no evidence i.e. the suppression of the report? Both that and the absence of the names are highly suspicious to me. That is an opinion I have arrived at from the evidence - the only evidence present. So why not weigh it up , like you do, and reach what sems like the most probable conclusion possible here - that there is something highly suspicious about the report and the US government's suppression of it?
Again I have viewed the 9.11 Myths page .It is the authors of that page who add the hijackers' names , not Olmsted.The autopsy report only had 58 names on it That's why he said they were absent from it, because they are.Just because a site says it's a debunking site doesn't make it anything more than BS . Have another look yourself.

Now you're confusing sceptics and conpiracists. By sceptics I meant sceptics.Perhaps you could explain why you thought I meant conspiracists.

The black box .Again. Well, yes, I guess it would have stopped working 2 seconds before the impact. I don't think it wasn't functioning , I think the government are claiming as much because it holds data that incriminates them i.e. the idea that it wasn't working is a lie.

No you weren't insisting I said it was an airliner you insisted I said it was a missile. The relevant passage is the one you quote about an inch above the line where you deny insisting I said it was an airliner ! I then go on to say how I thought it might be a missile, drone or small plane . Logical deductions? Where? It's not a plane, therefore it's a missile .Why does it have to be a missile?Why is my speculation about 3 possible airborne objects have to be fantasising? You are not making logical deductions here you're just avoiding and ignoring anything that would undermine your case and having the cheek to question my thought processes as well !
The sceptics/ conspiracist misinterpretation was groundless, like the missile/plane where you just misread/ignored a passage you just quoted, the Scholars' membership list issue where you had the temerity to call me devious when it seems that's just what you were doing. You're completely reversing your view iof the validity of expert testimony when it suits you to do so.Now you're saying "it's not really about you" when it so very much is!

You are changing your view one paragraph to the next, reading things into my statements which weren't there, and trying to claim a mastery of logical thought that is far from evident from your utterances here. In fact you seem to be relying on the cheapest of tricks to carry on your side of this with a few references to a half - baked debiunkins site thrown in . Logic my ass!
"Nebulous reports"indeed- I'm past arguing this point ,a nd all you can do is slag off witnesses - that's people who were actually there for pity's sake, along with 2 films that no do not show a Boeing 757, and no matter how much you bang on about how it couldn't possibly be a drone or missile or small plane it still isn't going be a 757!

I clicked your link and found something where Keller says the FBI told her he had lots of false names and accounts. Well, what a surprise ! It was Keller who first claimed that herself, saying she searched his kit and found 6 passports all with his photo but all with different names!
So after getting me looking at all your links to 9.11 Myths you still won't look at the 737 engines. If it's all bunk there shouldn't be anything to worry about . Go on. No excuses .

 

[Timble2]

The whole basis of the 737 engine myth seems to be that someone's. guessed the size of a badly battered engine section from a photograph and then asserts that it's too small to be the engine from a 767. He's not measured it or examined it just guessed the size from a photograh.

As to why it ended up on the pavement several blocks away, it's a fairly substantial lump of metal that was travelling at 500mph when it hit the building. Something of that mass moving at that speed would be quite capable of punching right throught if it didn't hit major stuctural components, the other engine probably met more resistance and stayed inside the wreckage of the building.

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

I don't see you quoting anything at all fom the Full members' list and I don't know what other lists you refer to.Now you're acknowledging that it was the full members who wrote the content, so why , if they're just parroting, did you not do so before?

and on and on and on and on

Basically I've decided that there's no future in this debate. I've answered all your questions, again and again and again and quite simply you're incapable of understanding anything I or anyone not sharing your views could write. Interpret this anyway you wish - heck, you can even tell your friends you won an argument on the internet if that makes you feel good. I've given up worrying whether or not the world will give any credibility to any of the arguments you've put forward. I'm quite convinced now they won't.

Please feel free to put me on Ignore and thus rendering your complete failure to grasp any point I make a matter of profile choice.

 

[Timble2]

I doubt he has any actual friends....

 

[Bigfoot73]

Stuneville:OK about PM message.
I wasn't even thinking of putting you on ignore.I only do that with people who are abusive towards me.I don't see any justification for such conduct.

The point I was trying to make about the alleged Arajaki is that the man who was later claimed to be him , being substantially taller than Atta, could not have been mistaken for Atta, although everyone seemed happy enough with the identification of Atta at the time.
Ted and I have just discussed this further.It seems suspicious that the FBI didn't check the phone records then.Surely if they had , and found no link between Keller and Atta, they would have wanted her to explain why she was hampering their investigation with false claims.Either way Ms Keller is peripheral to either point of view. Perhaps she is lying now to help move on and get a new life. There is far more information about the alleged terorists which questions the official view of them .

If I am recycling the same old stuff again and again it is only because the sceptics' attempts at debunking it tend to get debunked themselves.
I have challenged Ted,gncxx and MsPix to peruse the 737 engine photos and got no response from any of them . The same has happened on other forums when I have introduced them.They are a damning piece of pro-conspiracy evidence and the sceptics refusal to consider them leaves them looking like they are losing the argument as much as they claim I am. As I said to gncxx earlier if there are any points they suspect me of ignoring they can raise them again and I shall do my best to answer.
I find it interesting that nobody has harangued me with any comprehensive debunking of the nanothermite discovery or had anything to say about the 6 out of 10 9.11 commissioners who have expressed misgivings about the testimony of government witnesses at the inquiry and the validity of the report.I may not be doing very well here (well I am badly outnumbered!)but in the wider world the 'truther' argument seems to be gaining momentum.
I don't think it unreasonable to suggest that those who ignore my points or resort to foul language or ad hominems have nothing worthwhile to say.

 

[Bigfoot73]

Ted, I was thinking about posting much the same comments myself.
You haven't said anything about my last respones to your previous entry.
I don't think you have answered my comments repeatedly, just evaded doing so or dismissed them, or strangely misunderstood them.
Granted Ms Keller may indeed have been lying in 2001.
Perhaps,even at this stage , you could clearly state your thoughts on the Flight77 black box and the 737 engine. It strikes me that you don't actually clearly state your thoughts on anything. I don't know what credibility your arguments are going to have with anybody,especially after what I have just said about them in my previous post.
I'm not putting you on my ignore list - as I've already said I only do that in response to abusive comments.

Timble, for some reason your comments still appear on my screen, so I may as well answer them.It actually is a 737 engine. I'm sure that if it wasn't the debunkers would have gleefully debunked it by now.If it did travel all the way through one of the towers and come out the other side it's the only piece of wreckage to do so. It's just standing there, without any sign of having damaged anything surrounding it.
I really don't see how you can claim it would have been capable of travelling through the tower, at ever-reducing speed, then through the steel columns of the opposite wall.

 

[stu neville]

If I am recycling the same old stuff again and again it is only because the sceptics' attempts at debunking it tend to get debunked themselves.

This is the crux of the problem with pretty much any conspiracy theory that deals with a static event, but 9/11 is the star example. The sceptics' counter arguments are almost invariably challenged by other debunked arguments, which in turn are challenged only to be countered yet again - the sands do shift, but it's still the same sand that's already been minutely and painstakingly sieved and analysed by both camps. To extend the metaphor, the major difference between the CTs and the sceptics is that the former believe there's a lot more sand that's been removed and wilfully hidden from view, whereas the sceptics tend to believe that whereas some may have blown away, the vast majority is still there.

We continue to prove, on this very forum, that the twain never shall meet. Converts are extremely rare (I don't think we've ever actually seen it happen on here, at least.) In the end, it boils down to the individual deciding which argument stream they find the most convincing - and failing any hard new evidence (as opposed to new opinion on existing evidence, particularly in excitable prose) time in general will reinforce that view.

Ted, Timble et al have been here for a long time, and as a result have patiently been having this particular discussion for several years. If their present responses seem a little world-weary perhaps this would serve to explain why. In the light of which:

I have challenged Ted,gncxx and MsPix to peruse the 737 engine photos and got no response from any of them .

Probably because we've seen it before in any number of the 9/11 threads.

...I find it interesting that nobody has harangued me with any comprehensive debunking of the nanothermite discovery..

Again, the potential contribution of thermite in all its glorious varieties has been discussed ad nauseum on other threads - with precisely the same results as on all other 9/11 threads, with non-meeting twains, etc.

...I may not be doing very well here (well I am badly outnumbered!)but in the wider world the 'truther' argument seems to be gaining momentum.
I don't think it unreasonable to suggest that those who ignore my points or resort to foul language or ad hominems have nothing worthwhile to say.

You are battling valiantly, yes, but I'm afraid in the real world the "truther" argument is only reaching higher because it has resorted to taking bricks from the bottom of its tower to add to the top - as I said earlier, in the absence of new evidence, the old stuff can only be raked over again and again, and each raking invariably erodes the original pattern all the more.

There are those that will believe any conspiracy theory, no matter how downright mad, simply because they believe the world is alive and crawling with conspiracies. Equally there are those that believe there's no such thing as conspiracies, and those that do subscribe are paranoiac (and often unpatriotic) dullards (99% of people on here fall somewhere between the two.) So please, try not to be completely influenced by one camp over the other. The truth, as ever, probably lies somewhere not too far from where the sensible concensus lies, which in this case is that the terrorists got lucky, the US intelligence and defence community screwed up royally, and the subsequent smoke, noise and misdirection is more due to frantic arse-covering and cack-handed attempts to make silk-purses from a sow's ear (justify some hitherto insane foreign policy, anyone?) than any labyrinthine plot to stage the whole thing.

 

[rynner2]

Stu wrote:

..where the sensible concensus lies

Yes, I've often thought that myself!

 

[Bigfoot73]

Stuneville :- how refreshing it was to open the page and find an impartial overview for once. As you say, the sceptics have been here a long time whereas the truthers seem to come and go.
I have been approaching this debate from the viewpoint that I would be able to gain the upper hand re: the evidence, but now I see how unlikely that is. If you're a sceptic conspiracism would involve some major thinking way outside a very big box and a major shift in worldview - where the world becomes a lot bleaker and meaner and the situation of the ordinary citizen a lot more uncertain.Truther evidence seems completely out-there and interpretation of it does have the annoying habit of changing.

As for the real answer? It's always puzzled me that there should have been so many deaths if it was just an orchestrated false flag incident to amnufacture a war-for-oil - a fraction as many would have sufficed. Were it a genuine terrorist act there should have been a lot more - had they waited an hour the WTC would have had thousands more occupants, and one of the planes flew over a nuclear power station on the way to the towers, surely a prime target for a bunch of nutjobs.
There is a new explanation, largely the work of forensic economists. this is that the whole thing was the work of corporations and financial institutions intent on perpetuating a multi trillion dollar tax evasion and money laundering operation involving private equity funds and Swiss banks.The conspirators hijacked the Global Guardian exercise, and some of it's operatives made a few bucks on the side through put options on the airline's shares (hitherto unexplained by anyone). A case of following the money.
Doubtless this theory will fall on stony ground here, but it's far more all-encompassing than the previous theories.
I will not be starting a thread about this !!!!!

 

[Spookdaddy]

...As for the real answer? It's always puzzled me that there should have been so many deaths if it was just an orchestrated false flag incident to amnufacture a war-for-oil - a fraction as many would have sufficed. Were it a genuine terrorist act there should have been a lot more...

But who says? I mean, where are the rules that say which bodycount you need for a false flag operation, and which for a genuine terrorist attack? This was the most spectacular terrorist attack in history (if, for a moment, you think of it being just that) - and, to be blunt, and cold-blooded, the lack of a couple of thousand potential extra victims was never going to reduce it's significance to either those who supported the act or those who suffered because of it. The IRA could have killed far more members of the public than they did - they could have planted bombs on tube-trains and planes and in schools or hospitals or at football matches. Does the fact that they didn't mean they weren't genuine terrorists?

There may be many questions to answer regarding the WTC attack, but creating absolutes out of opinions is not going to help your argument - it might also be an indicator that rather than 'thinking way outside a very big box' you've simply stepped inside another.

 

[Bigfoot73]

I didn't base my claim on any perceived hard-and- fast rules, I was speculating that since the alleged terrorists were suicidal fanatics with an indiscriminate hatred of America and it's citizens it seems strange they missed some outstanding opportuntities to kill more of them.The nuclear power station would have meant less time in the air and thus less chance of passengers fighting back or fighter interception.They waited until the planes were hundreds of miles frrom their inended targets when taking control of them sooner would have left them with still less chance of being thwarted, and more fuel to cause bigger blasts.
The IRA didn't want to alienate their supporters or provoke even gretaer reaction from the security services.
If this was these corporations and investment funds then they were targetting the employees of specific companies whose work was threatening to undermine their operations. As I've said I'm not going anywhere near starting another thread about this but HawksCAFE.com has the best version of this theory.

 

[stu neville]

...It's always puzzled me that there should have been so many deaths if it was just an orchestrated false flag incident to amnufacture a war-for-oil

Again, as I stated earlier, it's perfectly logical to conclude that an entirely genuine terrorist attack was subsequently capitalised upon by a highly opportunistic administration to further its own aims. No false flags needed, just a craven attempt to make lemonade from lemons by a government elected in the most dubious of circumstances.

 

[hokum6]

His tactic seems to be repeating the same silly ideas over and over until everyone either gives up in frustration or gets put on ignore. Just keep repeating 737 engine. 737 ENGINE 737 ENGINE 737 ENGINE 737 ENGINE!

Nothing he has said is new, it's the same old warmed-over pap that has been knocking around since 12th September 2001. Attempting to argue or reason with him is a lost cause.

This is amusing:

If you're a sceptic conspiracism would involve some major thinking way outside a very big box and a major shift in worldview - where the world becomes a lot bleaker and meaner and the situation of the ordinary citizen a lot more uncertain.

Translation: you are all sheep who believe anything you are told.

Was wondering how long it would be before he started accusing people of being narrow minded.

 

[Dr_Baltar]

As I've said I'm not going anywhere near starting another thread about this but HawksCAFE.com has the best version of this theory.

Aah, David Hawkins, a man so in touch with reality that even Scholars for 9/11 Truth kicked him out for being a paranoid nutjob.

 

[Bigfoot73]

First time I view the page today I find a comment from Hokum6 visible when he's supposed to be on my Ignore list; then I log in and it's gone ; now I come to enter a reply , it's back. I'm not responding to it beyond saying that I suspect the other sceptics find him something of an embarassment.
It is perfectly logical to conclude the Bush administration capitalised on the attack, I just don't think it was an entirely genuine terrorist attack.
The forensic economists I mentioned earlier produced a film, the 9.11 Resolution Trilogy, which is on YouTube (cue howls of derision from Timble!)
Even the most hardened sceptic could peruse it once without the febrile virus of trutherism eating away at their souls.

 

[hokum6]

Yup it sure is embarrassing when someone knocks down every single crazy story I come up with and I fail to provide any evidence for my insane theories apart from YouTube videos and truther web sites.

Oh wait, that's not me.

 

[stu neville]

First time I view the page today I find a comment from Hokum6 visible when he's supposed to be on my Ignore list; then I log in and it's gone...

There's yer problem. When you're not logged in the board doesn't know it's you, the chap that wants x, y & z ignored, so it generously offers you the whole smorgasbord instead.

...now I come to enter a reply, it's back.

Yes - the "post a reply" option automatically brings up the topic review, featuring all of the 15 or so previous posts, and apparently the code involved in integrating that with ignore lists would be way too complicated to justify - TBH I'd go along with that, particularly when we still have far more pressing glitches to be sorted.

I'm not responding to it beyond saying that I suspect the other sceptics find him something of an embarassment.

You could ask them - unless you've put them on ignore as well.

It is perfectly logical to conclude the Bush administration capitalised on the attack, I just don't think it was an entirely genuine terrorist attack.
The forensic economists I mentioned earlier produced a film, the 9.11 Resolution Trilogy, which is on YouTube (cue howls of derision from Timble!)
Even the most hardened sceptic could peruse it once without the febrile virus of trutherism eating away at their souls.

I've heard the economic one before (as I presume have many others) - the problem again is that the whole incident is kind of like a dot-to-dot picture without numbers, meaning that any given expert (or non-expert) will invariably spy patterns that are close to home. Simulacra usually present themselves in the most familiar form to the observer, so economists are bound to see economic patterns. An astronomer would probably spot a few constellations in there - which doesn't mean it was an attack orchestrated from Cassiopeia, either.