Humour Video : 9/11 conspiracy theories ridiculous. Al qaeda says.

When you mean a proper investigation you mean an investigation that suits it findings to the "truth movement"

 

Soros is a statist. It's sad when you try to conflate one group with another, and can't even matchup ideologies. It's like being on the Hannity forum. A bunch of posters with tourettes posting,

"LIBERAL! SOROS! MOVEON! LIBTARD! APPEASER! ISLAMIST!"

To the point that people can't even discuss issues anymore, it's just an endless stream of character assassination and insults.

How about you quit clowning, and explain a couple things to me.

1. How did the hijackers get on all 4 planes without being on the passenger manifests?

2. Why was there insufficient wreckage at both the Pentagon and in Pennsylvania to constitute an airplane?

3. How does Kerosene based fuel melt steel?

No. That is not what I mean. I mean an investigation that answers the hundreds of outstanding questions.

Why is everyone so concerned about a legit investigation that includes the new evidence and scientific research into this from the last several years?

I mean, if you really believe Al Queda did it, then this should help us find out even more to keep America safe. Yes?

 

Why do you think that I am hinting to something ? Do you know something that I should hint to ?

 

We're not concerned -- we just want to make sure that the truth about Heath Ledger's death becomes known!

 

More flippant dodging.

The reality is, you probably don't know much more than the official story, you probably aren't aware of the research that has been done, and likely haven't even read the commission report.

What is surprising, is that I thought you were a lot more conservative and intellectually curious than you really are.

Again, the truth movement is starting to explode in size. At one point, the real events of that day are going to see sunlight.

 

Does the truth movement still believe:
1. the building fell at free-fall speed?
2. steel doesn't lose strength unless completely melted?
3. the towers were built to take the hit of the size aircrafts that did hit them?
4. that plane pieces just happened to appear where a missile struck?
5. people can disappear in thin air?
6. that no one that took part of the plan has spilled the beans yet?
......

 

It's not a collective consciousness afaik, except with regards to a new investigation.

Personally,

1. This is interesting, but not as interesting as the probability that 3 buildings fall into their footprint on the same day, without controlled demolitions.

2. I'm no engineer, and so I don't really have a lot to say on it. Apparently the fuel was 4/5ths kerosene which isn't hot burning.

3. I was reading recently that a designer of the WTC was bragging in the early 90s about how it's spider or lattice steel design was specifically intended to deal with aerial attacks such as the 9/11 ones. I'll see if I can dig that up.

4. I'm not sure what this is referring to.

5. The cover up of the RFK assassination and the Bay of Tonkin (which started the Vietnam war) have taken 40+ years to come out, and only through declassified documents, and re-analyzed video evidence. Just because the NYT leak some stuff, they certainly don't leak everything that is top secret or of (sic) national security importance.

 

hahahah - hysterical. I love the Onion.

From all I can tell, Al-Qaeda wasn't born in the CIA cloakroom, and 9/11 didn't happen at the behest of the U.S. government.

Here

and

Here

For starters. Lightless, on another thread, you mentioned:

I'm thinking of (1) circular reasoning, or its close (but not exact) kin, (2) tautology.

Sounds good, until we question the premises. If there isn't an elite conspiracy, or the elite conspiracy doesn't involve itself in stuff like 9/11, or it simply wasn't involved in this event (more, I am positive, it is responsible for reality TV), then the causative reasoning is out the door.

Or, (3) as a potential flaw in research, allowing one's theory to guide what facts one uncovers, a flawed kind of "data mining": having a theory in place that guides the data selected, rather than going from the data selected to deriving a theory.

Conspiracy theory routinely suffers from all 3 flaws. The John Birch Society, for example, is rife with such flaws:

Conspiracy Rhetoric at the Dawn of the Millenium

 

Hey NPT, why was the Muslim Brotherhood formed? Need of the hour, to fight against Imperialism and Occupation?

OK, I'm not really sure. You tell me... The Arab world was transferred for the Ottomans to the British and French, as colonies, as spoils of war. Wasn't the group a Nationalist, Pan-Nationalist group, formed to fight for freedom against occupation?

Didn't the Lawrence of Arabia, and the British government lie to the Arabs, in order to gain their support during the First World War?

Why would Muslim Brotherhood be wrong in such case?

 

Staying on topic, what can you tell?

Are you reasonably confident in the explanations or lack of explanation for...

1) A 51 story building (WTC 7) that was not hit by a plane collapsing 5 hours later, collapses. Like the other 2 buildings, fire is blamed. But again, no plane hit the building. Also, the 3 WTC buildings are the first 3 steel skyscrapers to fall from fire. And not just fall, but completely collapse and vaporize in under 15 seconds each into very tidy footprints.

2) Three buildings collapsing top down (above the impacts) into their own footprint, on the same day, in the same area?

3) The lack of wreckage from the PA plane which was supposedly crashed?

4) The lack of wreckage at the Pentagon?

I'm not saying the government planned it, I don't know that. I doubt anyone outside the highest levels of government can conclusively say that, present company included.

But I do know that the official story has way too many holes in it, and the video evidence from the day prompts a lot of unanswered questions.

Oh, and after reading up on Operation Northwoods, how can anyone say that the government is not capable of planning such a thing? They already have!

 

Gauharjk, if you'll read the posts, I am speaking of of Sayyid Qutb, his brother, their specific ideology and platform, and the relation of all these to Bin Laden, Zawahiri and Al Qaeda.

That said, from my read, Hasan Al-Banna founded the Muslim Brother in response to a perceived dilution of Islam, a secularization of society, and a westernization of the cultural and economic life (i.e., foreign money, domestic servitude) in 1920's Egypt; many of the things you mention in your post above.

It is important to understand I am talking about the views of Sayyid Qutb and his brother, and the direct influence both had on the founders of Al Qaeda.

To the questions raised re: physical evidence. I am not an engineer, so do have to rely on studies by others. I believe this has been covered before on the forum, in spades, but it has been some time now. Popular Mechanics, for one, did an exhaustive study to address the points raised by conspiracy theorists. Space limitations will have to allow only a couple of examples - the study itself is available here:

So, in other words, I see "data mining" and circular reasoning in most of what I have read regarding a 9/11 conspiracy.

One does have evidence of a direct ideological underpinning, and personal relationships, between the Founders of Al Qaeda and individuals and ideologies that have nothing to do with the CIA or the U.S. government.

One does not have evidence to support the conspiracy theory.

Consistently "mining" for evidence to prove the pre-existing theory is data mining, and insisting the evidence that exists is either malarkey, or engineered by the very elites "named" in the conspiracy theory, is circular reasoning. Both are flawed.

 

1. 3 fell in on the same day? -- also, if any demolition team did that bad of a job dropping into a "footprint" they would be out of business. They do plan for a possible mess, but that would have been a failure. Especially building #7
2. airplane fuel burns hot enough to weaken steal beems, slow enough to take some time
3. The designer of the WTC did brag about being able to withstand the impact of a ...... small plane! if you can't see the differences in sized then there is no point to have a discussion about this - this takes me back to the cartoon physics of the CT's in question.
4. the CT is that a missle hit the pentagon. missles don't have the same parts as that were scattered around.
5. Again, are you talking about more info from alex jones?

 

Yes. You knew this, did you not?

That's totally unproven.

Flight 93 had almost no debris, after it apparently crashed. If you've seen photos of plane crashes, there are hundreds of times more wreckage.

I think the best question to ask though, is why was all of the wreckage and evidence destroyed? This stuff should have been kept for forensic purposes.

Uhm, no...

RFK assassination has been all over the BBC.

Bay of Tonkin as been declassified by the government. The attack was staged or fake, and we had no reason to go into Vietnam hot.

 

1. woops sorry, I had it in my memory that #7 fell the next day. Not sure why.
2. huh? They have been using this type of jet fuel for how long? It's chemical properties are not unknown.
3. hmmm I see you learned something new. The towers were built in what year?
4. big difference from an aiplane crashing off the runway or one hitting a concrete reinforced building. Did you see the video of a fighter jet (I think) hitting a cement wall? nothing was left of it. Again some basic physics knowledge would give some understanding of what happened to the jet.
5. Don't get your CT's mixed up with the facts. I haven't been researching these items, so I won't argue them either. I know many of those who believe alex jones seem to be talking about the same things.

 

So there is an argument for the heat melting the buildings? That's news to me.

Should be reproducible for study, don't you think?

No, I missed this one. Too many quotes, too much posting. I will dig it up shortly. Btw, if you could post your source that the towers were only built to withstand a small plane, that would be good info to have.

Flight 93 was the one that crashed into the earth in Pennylvania. I don't see any reason why there would be significantly less wreckage than any other land based crash. And we're talking so significant, that the reporters on the scene were baffled by it.

Just go to the RFK page and the Bay of Tonkin pages on Wikipedia. The RFK page probably has a link to the BBC investigation, and the Bay of Tonkin page I know links to the declassified documents. These are not conspiracy theories. These are released official documents and investigations by very credible news agencies. It has nothing to do with Alex Jones.

 

guerilla:

This is all covered elsewhere.

Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report

Popular Mechanics examines the evidence and consults the experts to refute the most persistent conspiracy theories of September 11.

911 Myths

The web is full of sites covering various conspiracy theories. Many seem well-researched, and appear to have plenty of detailed documentation to prove their claims. But are they really true?

Debunking 911

Debunking 9/11 conspiracy theories and controlled demolition myths.

Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth

This site is exposing the extreme mistakes of the 9/11 Truth Movement group, Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.

Civil and Structural Engineers on WTC Collapse

Dedicated to all the engineers that have spoken out about what happend on 9/11 but were quotemined by the "truthmovement".

Screw Loose Change Forums

Dedicated to exposing the lies, distortions, and myths in the movie Loose Change.
​

None of the insipid questions you have pasted have any more intellectual content than the Heath Ledger theory -- which you still discount without a proper investigation!

 

I reference the Popular Mechanics report in post 31. Please see the excerpt containing the PM discussion of WTC7 and the Pentagon.

 

I am sure yu'd like to hear this audio interview, with Popular Mechanics...
http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?p=6562769

Part One

Part Two

 

Thanks - when I have time, I'll take a listen.

 

How dare you question the cia's intentions.