Scientists find Active thermite residue in WTC dust

[rocketeer]

*edited*

i asked an honest question. what about these "findings" exposes that it was an inside job? surely you can give me an answer to that question.

 

[Minstrel]

So can you explain why after a 9/11 attack the government convinces it's people that we need to occupy Iraq when Iraq had no connections to 9/11.

There are two schools of thought. One is that Bush wanted to go to war and needed a justification. The other is that, following a terrorist attack in the US, he truly believed there was a national security risk from Hussein and WMD.

The second one doesn't imply 9/11 was a deception. The first one might but, if so, leaves one wondering why he didn't finish the deception job and plant the WMD in Iraq. Had he done so, had WMD turned up, he probably would have had much more political will from the people to conduct the war as he saw fit. It really doesn't make a lot of sense that he'd do a huge, criminally murderous deception and then fail to do the minor deception that would have made his war much more popular and allowed him more latitude.

 

[Idog1976]

I don't think there's disbelief that the government is capable of misleading or deceiving its people. I think the disbelief is that they can pull off a deception this enormous with no one the wiser, especially in an age with so much media scrutiny.

And I think the point others have made, that you dismissed rather oddly, is valid. Why would they go to all that effort of perpetrating a crime as large as 9/11 and then forget or fail to pull off the much more minor deception of planting the evidence in Iraq that would have validated the largest justification for prosecuting that war?

Gonna play Devil's advocate here:

I think the difference between 9/11 and Iraq invasion is that after 9/11 there was tremendous sympathy among the international community and media. Whereas with Iraq the international community was by and large against the invasion. Again playing Devil's Advocate I suppose someone could say that there was a far larger degree of scrutiny when we went to war with Iraq and it was in a foreign country with troops of other nationalities that the WMD's being planted might be more likely to be shown to be a conspiracy. I often wondered why they didn't do exactly that, plant WMD's and that was the conclusion I came to. Simply too difficult to pull off a deception (WMD's planted) when people were looking for us to do something exactly like that. It could be argued that 9/11 was a sympathy causing event that it seems rude (even now as shown by this thread) to suggest might be a false flag event. Like I have said I'm undecided I have turned this over in my head MANY times since the event.

The Anthrax attacks being linked to American Millitary bases (Ames strain is only found in US Bio-Weapons labs) was what really got me thinking the whole 9/11 truth movement might have some merit. I notice that the Anthrax on the democratic side of the building helped get the Patriot Act passed and was never really adequately solved. Also the Bush Admin started taking Cipro PRIOR to the Anthrax attacks per a right wing judicial watchdog group called appropriately enough Judicial Watch.

So while I think I will never be completely satisfied with either explaination of the events of that day. I don't dismiss either possibility and keep an open mind until such time as I feel either side has brought forth conclusive proof of either theory. Now IIRC Osama Bin Laden has never been charged with 9/11 on the FBI's website due to lack of evidence. Can someone tell me if that is correct or an Urban Legend?

 

[Draco]

I wonder why the Government won't release detailed video of how to successfully attack our military headquarters...

 

[Haakzilla]

I wonder why the Government won't release detailed video of how to successfully attack our military headquarters...

..because they are the only ones that know how to do that

 

[barfo]

You did not. Inertia cannot account for a falling object picking up speed (accelerating) while going through dozens of floors of the building.

Gravity can, though.

2 seconds is not a big difference when we're talking about 8 or 10 seconds of a building falling. The twin towers were 110 floors. Building 7 was 47 floors. The floors below were not damaged by fire but they all came down to ground floor.

And you would too, if something big and heavy like the top of a building fell on you.

barfo

 

[barfo]

OK so if you still don't believe that explosives were used on the WTC buildings listen to Larry Silverstein (the owner of building 7) on PBS explain that they used a controlled demolition on it (ie: pulled it).

Now the question you should ask is how, when did they put the explosives in the building cause they sure as hell aren't going to run into a burning building to place it. Months of planning and preparation need to be put in to ensure it doesn't cause damage to the surrounding buildings.

No, the next question I should ask is how anyone can take that rather ambiguous statement and think that it proves something.

And if there was some sort of giant conspiracy, why would Silverstein admit to it on TV?

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

You did not. Inertia cannot account for a falling object picking up speed (accelerating) while going through dozens of floors of the building. 2 seconds is not a big difference when we're talking about 8 or 10 seconds of a building falling. The twin towers were 110 floors. Building 7 was 47 floors. The floors below were not damaged by fire but they all came down to ground floor.

He did.

Each floor was capable of supporting so much weight.

As the first 20 floors fell on the floor below, that floor couldn't hold the weight and collapsed to the floor below. 21 floors fell on that one, it couldn't hold the weight, 22 floors fell on the next one, etc. The more floors above falling to a floor, the heavier, thus the faster it'd collapse. Maybe the top floor took a second to collapse, but as the mass hitting the floors below got heavier, the floors below collapsed instantaneously.

 

[MrJayremmie]

In retrospect, I thought Reagan and Clinton were the best two presidents in my lifetime.

+ fifty million

 

[BlazerWookee]

Here is an interview with one of the scientists.

"Scientists," lol...

 

[BlazerWookee]

The weight of the building didn't change. The building can't get any heavier than it already is.

Three words: Mo, men, tum.

 

[Idog1976]

There are two schools of thought. One is that Bush wanted to go to war and needed a justification. The other is that, following a terrorist attack in the US, he truly believed there was a national security risk from Hussein and WMD.

The second one doesn't imply 9/11 was a deception. The first one might but, if so, leaves one wondering why he didn't finish the deception job and plant the WMD in Iraq. Had he done so, had WMD turned up, he probably would have had much more political will from the people to conduct the war as he saw fit. It really doesn't make a lot of sense that he'd do a huge, criminally murderous deception and then fail to do the minor deception that would have made his war much more popular and allowed him more latitude.

I notice you didn't respond to my other post.

Let me add a couple of more reasons why the arguments "They would have planted WMD's in Iraq and a conspiracy so large can't be successful" don't hold water.

The number one reason why - assuming for a minute that 9/11 was an inside job - the conspirators wouldn't have conspired to plant WMD's is....(drum roll)...they didn't need to. What's that you say? "They absolutely would have had to plant WMD's if it was 9/11 was an inside job" Oh yeah and why is that? We did NOT find WMD's and....oh that's right we are still in Iraq 6 years later under a democratic administration. What's more, even without finding WMD's, supposed liberals like Thomas Friedman are now lauding Bush's choice to invade Iraq. Ok so explain to me again why they so desperately needed to plant the WMD's? They clearly did not, they just changed the reasons why they needed to invade and more importantly why they needed to stay. With arguments like leaving would create a power vacuum in the Middle East, Israel wouldnt' be safe etc. Reasons I might add, that are apparently compelling enough that people accept the continued occupation of Iraq 6 years later. So clearly there is no necessary reason why WMD's MUST be planted if 9/11 was an inside job. I would argue it was an unnecessary risk to double down on your conspiracies and run the risk of being caught in the second (WMD's) especially with an non-compliant international media including Al-Jazeera, leading to closer examination by the folks in this thread for instance of conspiracy one (9/11). Supposedly for folks in this thread believe the lack of conspiracy in planting WMD's is De Facto proof that 9/11 wasn't an inside job. This is a spurious claim in my mind and is frankly illogical.

The second point that has been frustrating me is the idea that a large conspiracy cannot and does not exist. This is categorically false. Al Capone ran a criminal empire that extended internationally to Canada. Everyone litterally everyone in Chicago knew that he was ordering hits on his enemies and was running protection rackets etc. and yet the Federal Government spending vast amounts of money and lives was completely unable to prove that this man was ordering these kinds of criminal activities. The crimes would happen everyone would know the mafia was involved and in many cases, because the mafia had done a good job of covering their trail, they were never able to pin specific crimes on anyone. They certainly were never able to pin the numerous crimes Al Capone had ordered on him. Thus we have a guy that was in NO WAY given the benefit of the doubt by the public, Al Capone, whose criminal activities were obvious to EVERYONE and yet there was never enough proof to prosecute him for these crimes.

So much for the large conspiracies can't exist theory. They can and DO exist and the Mafia isn't the only example, the Triad and the Yakuza in the far East along with the Russian Mafia and many other large criminal conspiracies - that's a legal term by the way conspiracy to commit fraud, murder etc. so conspiracies DO exist in case you didn't know that - happen all the time and are in fact banal and a day to day occurrence. Many many crimes are never solved many of them involve large criminal conspiracies in fact the large criminal conspiracies tend to have a much higher likelihood of getting away with their crimes then individuals who say kill their wife or try to commit fraud. Sorry everyone, turns out smart humans can do nasty evil things even in broad daylight and get away with them. If criminal organizations who get ZERO benefit of the doubt from the public can get away with crimes then why can't say the Nazi party or the Communist Party in China or Vladimir Putin get away with huge large scale crimes when they do get the benefit of the doubt from the public, have a compliant media, and of course have control over the investigative branches of the government? You see what I'm saying here?

I would LOVE to hear a rebuttal of these points. Sadly, I think most people don't want to live in a world where a conspiracy inovling THEIR government can exist. People in Russia for that reason believe Putin, people in China believe Hu Jintao and of course many people in America are too frightened to consider that OUR elites might operate like THEIR elites. Unfortunately, until very recently like as in post World War II recently, there has been zero evidence that political and economic elites operate differently then they have for thousands of years. Since WWII the media barons, historians and propagandists have succeeded in creating the illusion within a country's borders that it is only elites of other nations who behave in such a manner.

Please if you rebut this explain why my reasoning please explain why I'm wrong and that if 9/11 was an inside job therefore they MUST plant WMD's to justify Iraq and please rebut how large criminal conspiracies do not exist. That is what people in this thread have said. I have proven they were wrong on both counts. There was no necessity to plant WMD's we were already there and heck we still are. Also vast conspiracies exist and are in fact common.

 

[maxiep]

The weight of the building didn't change. The building can't get any heavier than it already is.

Did you ever take HS Physics? Force = Mass * Acceleration.

 

[Minstrel]

I notice you didn't respond to my other post.

Your "devil's advocate" post? Because it wasn't particularly interesting...some random speculation. I didn't think you, yourself, thought it was all that compelling considering how carefully you qualified it as mere "devil's advocacy."

I think the scrutiny of one of the greatest disasters in US history, and one of biggest terrorist attacks ever, would be as or more intense than the scrutiny on the deserts of Iraq prior to the US deciding to go to the war. It's also a far bigger conspiracy, more people would need to be involved. Keeping many people quiet and complicit is a lot harder than keeping a few people quiet and complicit.

The number one reason why - assuming for a minute that 9/11 was an inside job - the conspirators wouldn't have conspired to plant WMD's is....(drum roll)...they didn't need to. What's that you say? "They absolutely would have had to plant WMD's if it was 9/11 was an inside job" Oh yeah and why is that? We did NOT find WMD's and....oh that's right we are still in Iraq 6 years later under a democratic administration.

It's not just a question of "being in Iraq." Greater political will from the people would have meant a freer hand in prosecuting the war. It became harder and harder for Bush to commit more troops, he had fewer other nations ally with him and thus fewer troops from other nations, etc.

The second point that has been frustrating me is the idea that a large conspiracy cannot and does not exist.

I don't think anyone has said that. People have said this conspiracy probably doesn't exist, because there's no compelling evidence for it. The burden is on the people alleging the conspiracy to show that it did happen, not on everyone else to show that it didn't. "Large conspiracies are possible" isn't evidence that 9/11 was a government conspiracy.

 

[Idog1976]

Your "devil's advocate" post? Because it wasn't particularly interesting...some random speculation. I didn't think you, yourself, thought it was all that compelling considering how carefully you qualified it as mere "devil's advocacy."

I think the scrutiny of one of the greatest disasters in US history, and one of biggest terrorist attacks ever, would be as or more intense than the scrutiny on the deserts of Iraq prior to the US deciding to go to the war. It's also a far bigger conspiracy, more people would need to be involved. Keeping many people quiet and complicit is a lot harder than keeping a few people quiet and complicit.



It's not just a question of "being in Iraq." Greater political will from the people would have meant a freer hand in prosecuting the war. It became harder and harder for Bush to commit more troops, he had fewer other nations ally with him and thus fewer troops from other nations, etc.


post edit:

Also it's not that hard to keep people quiet. That's how the mafia operates after all. You bribe them, threaten them or kill them "dead men don't talk". Works for the mafia and I assume it would work for conspirators in other situations.


I don't think anyone has said that. People have said this conspiracy probably doesn't exist, because there's no compelling evidence for it. The burden is on the people alleging the conspiracy to show that it did happen, not on everyone else to show that it didn't. "Large conspiracies are possible" isn't evidence that 9/11 was a government conspiracy.

What freer hand? We are STILL in Iraq? Does it matter how it happens as long as we continue to sit on the Oil and Saddam who was selling oil for Euro's continues to be dead?

I was wanting to debunk the two common cope out answers (large conspiracies don't exist) and (WMD's HAD to be planted) not prove that 9/11 was an inside job. I personally am not convinced of either conspiracy theory. Frankly an elite shadow government team at small choke points (that guy in the FBI who squelched three seperate pre-9/11 investigations, Cheney, Rumsfeld, a guy or two in the airforce and the security team at WTC which was controlled by a bush family member actually) is more reasonable then the utter collapse of our defense/intel network by guys with box cutters. That one seems absurd to me the governments version. So too do many of the 9/11 truthers arguments. I'm not satisfied with either side's claim. I think I did debunk those two arguments re: WMD's being planted are a necessary follow up and large conspiracies are impossible to prosecute and then keep under wraps.

By the way are you saying that the other posts you responded to WERE compelling? Or easier arguments to knock down?

Post edit:

By the way the Mafia routinely keeps things under wraps by bribing (say an insurance claim worth billions on the two towers), threatening and killing "dead men don't talk". If it works for the mafia in their machinations I assume those methods would work elsewhere.

 

[Minstrel]

What freer hand? We are STILL in Iraq? Does it matter how it happens as long as we continue to sit on the Oil and Saddam who was selling oil for Euro's continues to be dead?

If that's all Bush wanted, he wouldn't have fought for torture, secret prisons and a troop surge. He clearly wanted more out of the war than to merely "sit on the oil and kill Hussein."

I was wanting to debunk the two common cope out answers (large conspiracies don't exist) and (WMD's HAD to be planted) not prove that 9/11 was an inside job.

The first one is a straw man. I haven't seen anyone in the thread claim that large conspiracies don't exist.

The second one doesn't prove anything. It's simply an inconsistency, the type which crops up in poorly illustrated conspiracy theories.

It's not a "cop-out" because, frankly, there's nothing to cop out of. Again you're confusing who has burden of proof. We're arguing about it "for fun," but basically there's nothing but speculation on either side. For people outside of conspiracy-theory adherents to take it seriously, real evidence needs to be shown, not "You know, conspiracies CAN happen...what if this and what if that and don't you think such-and-such?"

By the way are you saying that the other posts you responded to WERE compelling? Or easier arguments to knock down?

Neither. My involvement in this thread is pretty arbitrary. I think the "US government masterminded 9/11" conspiracy theory is fairly silly, but somewhat entertaining to read being "debated." Occasionally I throw in an observation, but I can't say that I care enough, in the absence of any real evidence, to be a consistent respondent.

By the way the Mafia routinely keeps things under wraps by bribing (say an insurance claim worth billions on the two towers), threatening and killing "dead men don't talk". If it works for the mafia in their machinations I assume those methods would work elsewhere.

It works well in the world of organized crime, since gangsters have a tough time appealing to the police or FBI for help, for obvious reason. I don't think it works as well in government offices in a pretty stable democracy. Unless you want to posit even more vast conspiracy where the executive branch actually wields dictatorial powers and can murder anyone who's inconvenient with no fear of intervention

.

 

[Idog1976]

"Scientists," lol...

Weren't Penn and Teller (Comedians) used as debunkers for the pro-mainstream line in this thread? Just saying if you mock this guy then uh...how are Penn and Teller (who are extremely political I might add) credible again?

 

[Minstrel]

Weren't Penn and Teller (Comedians) used as debunkers for the pro-mainstream line in this thread? Just saying if you mock this guy then uh...how are Penn and Teller (who are extremely political I might add) credible again?

You don't need "credibility" if you actually provide the goods...hard evidence. Then the evidence speaks for itself. Penn & Teller offer evidence when they debunk something. They aren't saying "Trust us."

You do need credibility when you're simply asserting something and want people to believe you.

 

[Ed O]

Did you ever take HS Physics? Force = Mass * Acceleration.

You beat me to it, maxiep.

While I don't claim to be an expert on anything being discussed in this thread, I think that some basic physics is being misunderstood here.

Ed O.

 

[BlazerWookee]

Weren't Penn and Teller (Comedians) used as debunkers for the pro-mainstream line in this thread? Just saying if you mock this guy then uh...how are Penn and Teller (who are extremely political I might add) credible again?

I don't need Penn and Teller to debunk this stuff. I can see right through these insane theories all by myself.

 

[Idog1976]

If that's all Bush wanted, he wouldn't have fought for torture, secret prisons and a troop surge. He clearly wanted more out of the war than to merely "sit on the oil and kill Hussein."



The first one is a straw man. I haven't seen anyone in the thread claim that large conspiracies don't exist.

The second one doesn't prove anything. It's simply an inconsistency, the type which crops up in poorly illustrated conspiracy theories.

It's not a "cop-out" because, frankly, there's nothing to cop out of. Again you're confusing who has burden of proof. We're arguing about it "for fun," but basically there's nothing but speculation on either side. For people outside of conspiracy-theory adherents to take it seriously, real evidence needs to be shown, not "You know, conspiracies CAN happen...what if this and what if that and don't you think such-and-such?"



Neither. My involvement in this thread is pretty arbitrary. I think the "US government masterminded 9/11" conspiracy theory is fairly silly, but somewhat entertaining to read being "debated." Occasionally I throw in an observation, but I can't say that I care enough, in the absence of any real evidence, to be a consistent respondent.



It works well in the world of organized crime, since gangsters have a tough time appealing to the police or FBI for help, for obvious reason. I don't think it works as well in government offices in a pretty stable democracy. Unless you want to posit even more vast conspiracy where the executive branch actually wields dictatorial powers and can murder anyone who's inconvenient with no fear of intervention

.

I agree with this and where the burden of proof lies:

For people outside of conspiracy-theory adherents to take it seriously, real evidence needs to be shown, not "You know, conspiracies CAN happen...what if this and what if that and don't you think such-and-such?"

However, I have seen people in this thread including you say that you felt it was impossible that a large conspiracy like this could be kept under wraps I wanted to show you some examples of how it would work. By the way the Nazi's keeping the holocaust secret from large numbers of Germans is a better example of how a dictatorial regime can keep things secret. The police aren't your friends if the chief of police is paid off by the mafia or is part of the system of corruption as would be the case with the Nazi's. So I don't think it was a strawman at all but responding to what you and others have claimed. By the way there have been whistleblowers such as Coleen Rolwey who tried to warn of the attacks BEFORE they happened but subsequently had their investigations stymied. The same happened with two other law enforcement agents who saw strange things in Phoenix and also at the notorious flight school in Florida. In all three cases the same guy in the FBI squashed the investigation. Also we are assuming here that if you are IN on the conspiracy you are pretty far gone as you have signed off on murdering american citizens. Let me give you a few things I find fascinating:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

still think our own government wouldn't murder our citizens to advance a war effort?

Don't you think these polls show that there is a desire, especially in NYC to open a new investigation of 9/11?

http://www.zogby.com/news/readnews.cfm?ID=1354

http://www.zogby.com/news/readnews.cfm?ID=855

Do these people's opinion not matter? That's what has baffled me for so long. If it's so iron-clad that it was done by guys with box cutters why so many doubters in the VERY PLACE IT HAPPENED?

Maybe it's because we were offered Bin Laden and turned it down. He's the mastermind right? Dead or Alive right?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2003/nov/11/afghanistan.iraq

The same thing happened before the war with Afghanistan. On September 20 2001, the Taliban offered to hand Osama bin Laden to a neutral Islamic country for trial if the US presented them with evidence that he was responsible for the attacks on New York and Washington. The US rejected the offer. On October 1, six days before the bombing began, they repeated it, and their representative in Pakistan told reporters: "We are ready for negotiations. It is up to the other side to agree or not. Only negotiation will solve our problems." Bush was asked about this offer at a press conference the following day. He replied: "There's no negotiations. There's no calendar. We'll act on [sic] our time."

If Bush was so big on security and Cheney cared so much about fighting the threat of terrorism why not complete a deal for Osama that the Clinton regime had set up? I mean really why WOULD you let the man who blew up the USS Cole slip out of your grip?

http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn11012004.html

On the morning of October 12, 2000, Mohabbat was in Washington DC, preparing for an 11am meeting at the State Department , when he got a call from State, telling him to turn on the tv and then come right over. The USS Cole had just been bombed. Mohabbat had a session with the head of State's South East Asia desk and with officials from the NSC. They told him the US was going to "bomb the hell out of Afghanistan". "Give me three weeks," Mohabbat answered, "and I will deliver Osama to your doorstep." They gave him a month.

Mohabbat went to Kandahar and communicated the news of imminent bombing to the Taliban. They asked him to set up a meeting with US officials to arrange the circumstances of their handover of Osama. On November 2, 2000, less than a week before the US election, Mohabbat arranged a face-to-face meeting, in that same Sheraton hotel in Frankfurt, between Taliban leaders and a US government team.

After a rocky start on the first day of the Frankfurt session, Mohabbat says the Taliban realized the gravity of US threats and outlined various ways bin Laden could be dealt with. He could be turned over to the EU, killed by the Taliban, or made available as a target for Cruise missiles. In the end, Mohabbat says, the Taliban promised the "unconditional surrender of bin Laden" . "We all agreed," Mohabbat tells CounterPunch, "the best way was to gather Osama and all his lieutenants in one location and the US would send one or two Cruise missiles."

Up to that time Osama had been living on the outskirts of Kandahar. At some time shortly after the Frankfurt meeting, the Taliban moved Osama and placed him and his retinue under house arrest at Daronta, thirty miles from Kabul.

In the wake of the 2000 election Mohabbat traveled to Islamabad and met with William Milam, US ambassador to Pakistan and the person designated by the Clinton administration to deal with the Taliban on the fate of bin Laden. Milam told Mohabbat that it was a done deal but that the actual handover of bin Laden would have to be handled by the incoming Bush administration.

emphasis mine on that final quote.

Why did Richard Clarke say Rumsfeld was immediately wanting to tie 9/11 to Saddam? Richard Clarke mind you had served for MULTIPLE Republican regimes. He wanted to follow in Clinton's footsteps and nail Osama and yet Bush/Cheney got rid of investigations into Osama and the Bin Laden family at large.

Clinton was no saint either. But heres what is said about the Bush Admin's attitude towards investigating the Saudi's and the Bin Laden family sans Osama (I recommend reading this whole article):

http://www.nthposition.com/didthepresidentspike.php

The "back-off" directive and the Islamic bomb
Despite these tantalizing facts, Abdullah and his operations were A-OK with the FBI chiefs, if not their working agents. Just a dumb SNAFU? Not according to a top-level CIA operative who spoke with us on condition of strictest anonymity. After Bush took office, he said, "there was a major policy shift" at the National Security Agency. Investigators were ordered to "back off" from any inquiries into Saudi Arabian financing of terror networks, especially if they touched on Saudi royals and their retainers. That put the bin Ladens, a family worth a reported $12 billion and a virtual arm of the Saudi royal household, off-limits for investigation. Osama was the exception; he remained a wanted man, but agents could not look too closely at how he filled his piggy bank. The key rule of any investigation, "follow the money," was now violated, and investigations - at least before 9/11 - began to die.

Here is his lead in which answers your questions about why people were afraid to look into matters more closely:

On the BBC television show, 'Newsnight', an American journalist confessed that since the 9/11 attacks, US reporters are simply too afraid to ask the uncomfortable questions that could kill careers: "It's an obscene comparison, but there was a time in South Africa when people would put flaming tires around people's necks if they dissented. In some ways, the fear is that you will be necklaced here, you will have a flaming tire of lack of patriotism put around your neck," Dan Rather said. Without his makeup, Rather looked drawn, old and defeated in confessing that he too had given in. "It's that fear that keeps journalists from asking the toughest of the tough questions and to continue to bore in on the tough questions so often."

My point is there is more then enough oddities and inconsistencies to warrant another investigation. This time we can pull together engineers and scientists and they can explain why things happened the way they have. This shouldn't have to be up to Debunkers and 9/11 truther to duke out. Not if more then half of America and two thirds of NYC want another investigation.


Ok waiting for your rebuttal. I imagine you "won't have time to read that" which is the usual case with people who for whatever reason think this is such an open shut case.

 

[Idog1976]

I don't need Penn and Teller to debunk this stuff. I can see right through these insane theories all by myself.

really? read my post below yours. Explain it away please.

 

[PapaG]

That "debunking" article was actually written before this new evidence came out. So it is not a rebuttal to that.

Highly trained scientists published did a through analysis and published the findings in a peer reviewed journal.

But in regards to 1,3-DPP, why do you say that is a "likely conclusion"?

That chemical had never previously been detected in ambient air sampling. EPA's Eric Swartz said it's presense , "dwarfed all others". The EPA had sampled the air of many different sites which also had computers, and had never sampled anything like that before.

Um, no it wasn't, and your "proof" is manufactured by crackpots. Out of curiosity, how old are you?

 

[Minstrel]

However, I have seen people in this thread including you say that you felt it was impossible that a large conspiracy like this could be kept under wraps

I didn't say impossible, I said implausible. Big difference. Implausible things can happen, but please present evidence that it did.

I wanted to show you some examples of how it would work. By the way the Nazi's keeping the holocaust secret from large numbers of Germans is a better example of how a dictatorial regime can keep things secret.

And we live in a dictatorial regime?

Ok waiting for your rebuttal. I imagine you "won't have time to read that" which is the usual case with people who for whatever reason think this is such an open shut case.

You've got my "rebuttal." You're arguing a straw man. I don't need convincing that bad things can happen or that vast conspiracies are possible. I need convincing that this particular conspiracy happened.

 

[Ed O]

However, I have seen people in this thread including you say that you felt it was impossible that a large conspiracy like this could be kept under wraps I wanted to show you some examples of how it would work. By the way the Nazi's keeping the holocaust secret from large numbers of Germans is a better example of how a dictatorial regime can keep things secret.

In the times of the pharoahs, slaves were used to build the pyramids.

Does that prove that our government built the Hoover dam using forced labor?

Comparing Nazi Germany, where the country was at war (both being invaded and taking over countries) and mass media was very limited is silly in this case, IMO.

Ed O.

 

[barfo]

Does that prove that our government built the Hoover dam using forced labor?

Consider this quote from Herbert Anderson, a crane operator at the dam: "These fellas are slavedrivers!".

That's about as plain as it could possibly be. What more proof do you need? And remember, he was on a crane, so he could see everything that was going on.

Now you have to ask yourself the question, why is the government unwilling to investigate this?

barfo

 

[BlazerWookee]

really? read my post below yours. Explain it away please.

Simple. The buildings fell because planes crashed into them.

 

[Idog1976]

I didn't say impossible, I said implausible. Big difference. Implausible things can happen, but please present evidence that it did.



And we live in a dictatorial regime?



You've got my "rebuttal." You're arguing a straw man. I don't need convincing that bad things can happen or that vast conspiracies are possible. I need convincing that this particular conspiracy happened.

Ok so wait a minute you don't think it warrants another investigation when there is plenty of evidence that the Bush Administration did not capture Osama when given the chance and killed investigations both of the Bin Laden family and also the FBI killed Colleen Rowley and other agents investigations of the actual hijackers prior to 9/11?

Please explain that.

My argument is NOT a strawman I'm saying there are tons and tons of reasons why there should be another investigation. I am in no way saying I know what happened on 9/11 you however ARE. Actually it's on you to provide evidence, as it is the government's and your assertion that men with box cutters did the deed. You are saying it's absolutely ironclad that X happened (terrorists with box cutters beat the system). I'm saying it's not and that the first investigation was faulty enough that there are 1,000's of sites that question it many by scholars, journalists, scientists and engineers. 51% of Americans want another investigation 66% of NYC residents do, some 9/11 family members do. So actually since you are ALSO putting forth an assertion your claim is also one that needs to be backed up. Clearly many, MANY people still have doubts. Your theory is an conspiracy theory riddled with holes and based on a very weak argument that a few dozen fairly uneducated men on a very limited budget defeated the most sophisticated military and intelligence apparatus the world has ever seen.

 

[Idog1976]

In the times of the pharoahs, slaves were used to build the pyramids.

Does that prove that our government built the Hoover dam using forced labor?

Comparing Nazi Germany, where the country was at war (both being invaded and taking over countries) and mass media was very limited is silly in this case, IMO.

Ed O.

No what I was saying proves that the potential is there e.g. operation Northwoods. I'm also saying that the theory the government provides requires a real suspension of disbelief see my response to ministrel above. I"m NOT I repeat NOT saying I know what happened on 9/11 I want to see a much MUCH more thorough investigation including UNDER OATH testimony from the ex-president and vice president. At the very least there was criminal negligence that day.

 

[Idog1976]

I didn't say impossible, I said implausible. Big difference. Implausible things can happen, but please present evidence that it did.



And we live in a dictatorial regime?



You've got my "rebuttal." You're arguing a straw man. I don't need convincing that bad things can happen or that vast conspiracies are possible. I need convincing that this particular conspiracy happened.

Why doesn't the FBI want Osama Bin Laden in connection with 9/11?

http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm

surely with all the HARD EVIDENCE the government has they would include that wouldn't they?

I DARE ANYONE to rebut that!