Love it. This is hilarious, your posts are rapidly descending into sheer paranoid lunacy. This is why I love arguing about this stuff, it starts off almost reasonable with 'I'm not sure I totally buy the official story' and ends up with some utterly bonkers theories. Don't need to worry about logic or evidence, just let you dig your own hole.
Bigfoot73 said:
Hokum6:- In my last post I drew attention to the cores of the towers and how suspicious it was that they fell so completely and quickly.It isn't as simple as impact and heat.
Yes, it is as simple as that. What you're saying is 'I don't believe what hundreds, if not thousands, of engineers and demolition experts are saying because I've watched some YouTube videos and it seems improbable, they are either stupid or in on the conspiracy'. How much do you think they got paid to keep quiet?
And with all the videos showing how the towers collapsed you're also denying what you can see with your own eyes
Yes it does require a lot of explosives and a lot of people keeping quiet.It did and they have.
The demolition theory is, as has been pointed out many times, completely ludicrous for various reasons. So...your proof of this, please.
I could say the same thing about sceptic experts as tou say about conspiracist experts.To modify an old chestnut: there's lies, damned lies, and experts.
Eh? Makes no sense. The point is that what you and every other conspiracy nut does is completely disregard the testimony of people who know what they are talking about and refuse to believe what you can see with your own eyes, based on nothing but your paranoia and rejection of critical thinking. You also misinterpret or twist what people have said in order to fit your theories.
Reporters: Fox and CNN and more, and there were civilians who saw military-looking planes.
Evidence of this. What was it about them that made them 'military-looking'? You should be very careful when accepting what people said on the day, there has been an awful lot of confusion about what people said in the heat of the moment and it's left the conspiracy theorists looking very silly indeed when they misinterpret or twist a statement. For example, the air traffic controllers who stated that the planes 'moved like military aircraft'. Conspiracy nuts jumped on this straight away as evidence of government involvement, but forgot to mention one small detail: the controllers never stated the planes
could not manoeuvre like that, but that they typically only saw those kind of turns from military planes which don't need to worry about upsetting their passengers.
And...why would they cock-up their grand conspiracy by using planes that could be identified as military aircraft. They've got hijacked planes! Why not use them!?
I don't know where the planes are now but until recently 3 of them were listed as still in service, with spares being ordered for them. None of them were scheduled to fly on 9/11.
Really! We're going to need proof of this claim or I'm going to totally ignore it, as I fear we're rapidly descending into la-la land. Do you not question the competency of the conspirators, able to bring down a building but forget to dispose of the aircraft and just leave them flying around? How careless!
As I have said before I never said the terrorists didn't have militant backgrounds, just that it's odd they all didn't have impeccable Islamist pedigrees. Most of them seemed to have had lifestyles at odds with Islamic observance, and many of them seem to have had simultaneous parallel lives.
How is that odd? You are aware that they are human, and that humans often do this thing where they ignore what their religion says and just do what they want. I can't help but feel you're going off into a completely pointless tangent with this one, I fail to see how this has anything to do the discussion at hand except to point out the hypocrisy of some religious followers, which is hardly a great revelation.
He can't have boarded the plane because by taking that inexplicable first flight to Boston and coming straight back he fell under the security procedures for a passenger joining from a connecting flight. this meant his luggage would not be loaded until it was confirmed he was on board. His luggage was never loaded, and his name is absent from the passenger list, therefore he didn't get on the plane.
Yes, Atta made a mistake:
The connection between the two flights at Logan International Airport was within Terminal B, but the two gates were not connected within security. One must cross a parking garage before going through security once again. There are two separate concourses in Terminal B; the south concourse is mainly used by US Airways and the north one is mostly used by American Airlines. It was overlooked that there would still be security in Boston because of this distinct detail of the terminal's arrangement.
Because the flight from Portland to Boston had been delayed, his bags did not make it onto Flight 11. Atta's bags were later recovered in Logan International Airport
I'm quoting from the all-knowing Wikipedia, but you can see the original source
here.
And, er, he did get on the plane. He was sat in seat 8D. Where's your evidence he never boarded the plane?
So people saw 93 crash straight into the hole in the ground which was already there? Remarkable.
What are you talking about? Who is telling you this stuff? The plane smashed into land that was a reclaimed coal mine and left a ten foot deep crater.
As for debris.so they found a few other bits and bobs ... oh and there were all those pieces of paper blowing round a lake shore or something.STRANGE HOW THEY DIDN'T FIND A SINGLE BLOODY PIECE OF FLIGHT 93 !!!!! Never mind what do I think they did with it, what do you think they did with it exactly?Where's the oh-so-well-researched, chillingly rational geek-deflating explanation for Flight 93 completely burying itself in the ground leaving not so much as a fleck of paint on the surface?
You're losing it. There are pictures of the debris all over the place. How did you get the idea they never found a single piece of it?
How is it the sceptics can get so patronising and self-righteous about the alleged weakneses of the WTC demolition theory and then unquestioningly accept the official explanation for Flight 93?
Er...eh? How can we accept the facts for the WTC towers and then accept the facts for the flight 93 crash...nope, you've lost me now.
Do I think that's a missile flying inot the Pentagon? No, I think it's a pilotless drone. Do you think it's an airliner? In what way does that resemble an airliner?An airliner looks like an airliner.
It's a big plane with wings and an engine, that's how it resembles an airliner. People saw an airliner fly over and crash. An airliner was hijacked that day. The people who were on it died. A pilotless drone looks nothing like an airliner, they're much smaller. How did a pilotless drone leave behind the wreckage of a commercial airliner?
The photos of the Pentagon damege I saw show no damage to the inner rings and a very small hole on the outside of the innermost ring, without any holes or damage to the walls inbetween. My suggestion is it was a missile with explosives and a charge against the inner wall.I've seen accounts by people who saw a plane , but not people who saw it actually hit - if there was a plane it cloud have flown over the roof.
There was damage to the other rings, there are numerous photos showing this, but of course it wouldn't have been as severe since the reinforced outer ring took the brunt of the impact, not to mention the fact that the plane hit the ground first, sapping some of its potential energy.
Your idea is just plain silly. Not only are we now dealing with a missile that looks like an airliner and leaves behind airliner wreckage, but it was coupled with an explosive charge on the outside of the building? Never mind that this enormously complicated plot would have involved even more conspirators who have again managed to stay quiet, that would have been one hell of a bang. Remember that the interior walls were not reinforced, so if a missile had got through the exterior ring it would have made one a heck of a mess.
I guess it's too much to ask for some proof of this nonsense.
there are photos of crew-cut suited guys putting bits of wreckage on the grass( before you ask I can't remember the book title or the sites they were posted on.)
:lol: Fantastic. Not only can you not provide a source for this utterly mental story but I fail to see how you could discern the difference between
someone picking something up and putting something down from nothing but a still image. That's some CRAZY reasoning you've got going on there. Where did the wreckage of the real airliner come from? How did no one spot them leaving the wreckage on the grass? Why didn't the emergency services on the scene ask why they were dumping airplane wreckage all over the place? Why did the people who placed it there not say something afterwards? Why, in fact, bother at all with this complicated scenario? Every time you come up with a wild new story it opens up a whole load of questions you are completely unable to answer.
Stone the crows , I've just got to the comment about the B66 engine. The engine was just a piece of junk used as false evidence. It was planted there, there was no B66. Rationalism burgeons at the expense of imagination :- loosen up a bit Hokum, that's a very confined intellectual space you and the sceptics are in!
According to you they got this old engine from a mothballed military jet, forgot to remove the identifying markings, transported it over, left it lying there until someone saw it, then took it away again.
And I'M the one in the confined space.
Besides, still waiting for your evidence of this claim.
Burden of proof is a rather inconsistently observed notion in this debate, and I don't see anything ridiculous in my claims.
Really, you don't see anything ridiculous at all? :?
The burden of proof is being perfectly observed. You are the one making outlandish claims therefore you must provide the evidence to back it up. Is that unreasonable? Otherwise I could just claim any old rubbish. Like, it was invisible Godzilla. Invisible Godzilla swam from Japan, knocked down the towers, ate the planes and kicked a hole in the Pentagon. Now you prove I am wrong.
Where do the sceptics' apparent wealth of expert testimony and intellectual rigour go whenever the argument moves away from WTC 7?
Erm, we moved on from WTC 7 a long time ago and provided perfectly rational responses to every single ridiculous story you've spouted. You really are starting to go off the rails though, you're getting increasingly desperate and making less sense with every post.
The rationalism of the sceptics is the elephant in the room of 9/11.It stops people from seeing anything else.
Yeah, fuck logic! Let's just make shit up until it fits!
The funniest thing about these conspiracy theories is how they require the conspirators (lizard people/NWO/Bush government) to be both unbelievably smart, organised and dedicated but also completely incompetent at the same time. If Bigfoot's wonderful yarns are to be believed they are able to bring off the destruction of some of the tallest buildings in the world without leaving a trace and have thousands of people lie about what they saw without a single whistleblower, yet they forget minor details like not getting rid of the planes that were supposedly involved and letting them fly around as normal, or allowing the alleged terrorists to walk free.
It's a bizarre juxtaposition of belief in an omnipotent government and complete mistrust of those in charge. I do wonder how the conspiracy theorists make this work in their heads.
Timble2 said:
In short, the 911 Truth Movement is being used as disinformation, by co-opting the gullible and paranoid (without their knowledge), to divert attention from ineffectiveness of the security services and the failure of the administration to protect the US from attack.
I suspect you are closer to the real truth than the truthers will ever get. They spend their time debating increasingly nonsensical and complicated conspiracy plots and this not only diverts attention away from any real controversy but also means that if they ever did stumble upon something that happened to be embarrassing to the government it could very easily be dismissed as the ranting of lunatics.
A shame they don't direct their energy to examining the incompetency and failings of the intelligence agencies and the Bush government. It's not as sexy, but it might be real as opposed to some horrendously complicated imaginary plot.