Question for 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists

originally posted by: turbonium1
Terrorists set off bombs in the WTC basement in 1993.

Terrorists flew planes into the WTC, in 2001.

NIST does not even consider it possible for explosives to have been planted in the WTC.

Not by terrorists, anyway.


And that's who did it, those crazy Arab terrorists, okay??

Yes, the only question really is just who those terrorists were.

Were they Osama and his Merry Band of idiots, or those terrorists who wear business suits with US flag lapel pins?

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: Salander

Being smart by comparing a relatively small, very slow moving aircraft hitting a building with stonework and interior load bearing walls to a high speed widebody airliner slamming into a building with just steel and no load bearing walls? You call that being SMART??????

When a plane hits into the side of a building, through the exterior face, which doesn't support the structure, and cuts through into interior office walls, which don't support the structure, either.......the structure would have lost none of it's structural support, yes?

The exterior walls(columns) supported around half of the weight.

What makes you think they didn't?

originally posted by: micpsi
a reply to: cardinalfan0596
Frank A. deMartini, Manager of WTC Construction and Project management, said that the two towers were designed to withstand impact by a fully loaded Boeing 707 and NOT collapse

Maximum take-off weight for a Boeing 707: 151,381 kg
Maximum take-off weight for a Boeing 767: 181,437 kg

Guess which model of Boeing hit the WTC?

a reply to: audubon

If you can prove exactly which model struck the tower, I'll buy you a cup of coffee.

Boeing 767, Reg: N612UA (South Tower)
Boeing 767, Reg: N334AA (North Tower)

Make a little donation to Amnesty International on my behalf instead, please.

a reply to: Schmoe1223

One may better understand that before 9/11, months leading up to it, there are numerous back channel conversations between the administration, CIA, NSA, FBI, and other agencies, all working in an effort with Iraq's government to leverage access for inspections, intelligence sharing, and investigations in-country [Iraq] of radical extremists.

Bet you didn't know that.

Iraq agreed to everything, and more, to secure peace with the US. Unfortunately, or government needed a country to attack, to further our MIC (and other agendas) escalation.

During that period leading up to 2009, I was on an inspection team that could have been deployed within 72 hours, and we were "in the loop" that we might go to Iraq as soon as 2010.

originally posted by: audubon
Boeing 767, Reg: N612UA (South Tower)
Boeing 767, Reg: N334AA (North Tower)

Make a little donation to Amnesty International on my behalf instead, please.

Yes, that is the official story, the official talking points, but they cannot be proved.

We never had a good look at what struck the north tower, but the airplane that hit the south tower was NOT a stock 767, it was NOT flight 175

originally posted by: Salander
Yes, that is the official story, the official talking points, but they cannot be proved.

If one takes this attitude, the only acceptable proof would be to travel back in time with a team of aircraft experts, examine the plane on the tarmac, and then fly in it on the journey during which it was hijacked and hit the WTC.

But that's silly.

originally posted by: audubon

originally posted by: Salander
Yes, that is the official story, the official talking points, but they cannot be proved.

If one takes this attitude, the only acceptable proof would be to travel back in time with a team of aircraft experts, examine the plane on the tarmac, and then fly in it on the journey during which it was hijacked and hit the WTC.

But that's silly.

No, the proof would be to replicate it in real world, in an actual demonstration. Any structural collapses are proven with an actual, solid, physical replication of it - a smaller scale model version.

The collapse of the twin towers cannot be replicated. No example of it, ever before, or after, but it supposedly happens two times, on the same day!


You cannot replicate something impossible, in the first place...

a reply to: turbonium1

But when people produce evidence of crash-tests that support the official version of the collapse, you dismiss them by claiming it wasn't the same aircraft or the same structure. So I'm not sure why (read: I don't believe you when) you claim that you would be satisfied by a scale-model re-enactment.

It seems that nothing short of rebuilding the WTC towers and then crashing two 767s into them would fulfil the requirements you're setting out.

Also, if one were so inclined, one could point out that the collapse of the second tower provided a good demonstration of the cause of the collapse of the first. There, you have two more or less identical events with more or less identical results. But I imagine, correct me if I'm wrong, that the collapse of the second tower is read by you as confirmation that the collapse of the first was somehow impossible.

originally posted by: turbonium1

No, the proof would be to replicate it in real world, in an actual demonstration. Any structural collapses are proven with an actual, solid, physical replication of it - a smaller scale model version.

The collapse of the twin towers cannot be replicated. No example of it, ever before, or after, but it supposedly happens two times, on the same day!


You cannot replicate something impossible, in the first place...

Or the truth movement could prove their point by getting together and blowing up a deserted building using silent explosives.

originally posted by: audubon

originally posted by: Salander
Yes, that is the official story, the official talking points, but they cannot be proved.

If one takes this attitude, the only acceptable proof would be to travel back in time with a team of aircraft experts, examine the plane on the tarmac, and then fly in it on the journey during which it was hijacked and hit the WTC.

But that's silly.

No, there is another method which I like--reading and studying as much as possible, and then reaching one's own conclusion.

For me, the acceptable proof formed by the available facts is that as Hamilton, Kean and a few others noted, the 911 Commission was set up to fail. The material it did NOT cover reveals more than the material they did cover.

For example, taking the testimony of Rodriguez behind closed doors, and then not including his testimony in the final report reveals very much that something like his testimony is "too hot to handle", too close to the truth.

originally posted by: Salander
No, there is another method which I like--reading and studying as much as possible, and then reaching one's own conclusion.

If you're talking about rigorous and applied learning, similar to academic discipline, then that's all very well. But that's not what we are seeing on this thread, is it. It's certainly not what we're seeing from the person I was talking to in that post, whose reading appears to consist of talking points from conspiracy websites that have taken his fancy, along with a smattering of misunderstood quotes and misinterpreted photographs.

I think it is very telling that after nearly 16 years of people reading things and making up their own minds, the 9/11 theories proposed by Thierry Mayssen (and a few others) are still going round and round and up and down like carousel horses, more or less unchanged from their original form. This tends to suggest that although it's a noble sentiment, it's not necessarily a very practical one.

originally posted by: Salander

originally posted by: audubon

originally posted by: Salander
Yes, that is the official story, the official talking points, but they cannot be proved.

If one takes this attitude, the only acceptable proof would be to travel back in time with a team of aircraft experts, examine the plane on the tarmac, and then fly in it on the journey during which it was hijacked and hit the WTC.

But that's silly.

For example, taking the testimony of Rodriguez behind closed doors, and then not including his testimony in the final report reveals very much that something like his testimony is "too hot to handle", too close to the truth.

In your false narrative in that a government that masterminded 9/11, tipped of the owners of WTC 7 so they could comment insurance fraud, and murdered over a thousand people would let one person walk around to testify "too hot to handle" info?

It's more like, if the government is all powerful as you think, 9/11 conspiracies are allowed by the government as a distraction. And you buy in to it line, hook, and sinker.

a reply to: audubon

Yes, I'm talking about rigorous and applied learning, and applying such learning in a forensic sort of way. I'm talking about considering WTC, the pentagon, and the Pennsylvania field as crime scenes, and studying what facts and evidence can be discovered. Rather in the way any good police story does. Examine the facts and evidence, and see where they take you, what conclusions might be reached.

And if one does that, one quickly discovers that the official story is contradicted at almost every turn. No airliner in PA, no airliner at the pentagon. One discovers the NIST explanation at WTC is sprinkled with fairy dust, and the bulk of the casualties at the pentagon were those congressional auditors working on records related to very large accounting irregularities.

For those of us with aviation experience, examining the Flight Data Recordings offered up by the government, and applying a bit of aviation common sense regarding the magical flying skills claimed for Hanjour.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: audubon

Yes, I'm talking about rigorous and applied learning, and applying such learning in a forensic sort of way. I'm talking about considering WTC, the pentagon, and the Pennsylvania field as crime scenes, and studying what facts and evidence can be discovered. Rather in the way any good police story does. Examine the facts and evidence, and see where they take you, what conclusions might be reached.

And if one does that, one quickly discovers that the official story is contradicted at almost every turn. No airliner in PA, no airliner at the pentagon. One discovers the NIST explanation at WTC is sprinkled with fairy dust, and the bulk of the casualties at the pentagon were those congressional auditors working on records related to very large accounting irregularities.

For those of us with aviation experience, examining the Flight Data Recordings offered up by the government, and applying a bit of aviation common sense regarding the magical flying skills claimed for Hanjour.

Funny. Everyone that was in Pennsylvania and at the Pentagon saw airliner wreckage.

The only "fairy dust" is Stephen Jones "nanothermite".

And there were no Congressional Auditors killed at the Pentagon. There were plenty of DoD personnel killed though.

a reply to: cardinalfan0596

No not really. In fact the county coroner Mr. Miller told the journalists they found and saw nothing consistent with a wrecked airliner. Hate to tell you, but Miller's comments were recorded on TV, including German TV.

Yes, Miller changed his story in just days or hours, completely reversing his statement, so the curious mind wonders in which instance was Miller telling the truth. In which statement was he lying?

In about 2012 he explained what happened to journalist Christopher Bollyn. If you're really curious, read Bollyn's book or check his website.

The congressional auditor casualty list, especially KIA, was longer than any other class of victim. Your knowledge of details is nothing to brag about.

a reply to: Salander

In fact the county coroner Mr. Miller told the journalists they found and saw nothing consistent with a wrecked airliner. Hate to tell you, but Miller's comments were recorded on TV, including German TV.

Yes, they were. And they were then heavily edited into soundbites and taken completely out of context by the amateur sleuths of youtube. Here's a typical example of the version that gets passed around, complete with God-awful background muzak.


(Incidentally, you'll note that Mr Miller says he saw "nothing to indicate that there was anybody on the plane" and not - as you have misremembered - that he "saw nothing consistent with a wrecked airliner")

So let's look at what Mr Miller was saying about six months after 9/11.

Miller was among the very first to arrive after 10:06 on the magnificently sunny morning of September 11. He was stunned at how small the smoking crater looked, he says, "like someone took a scrap truck, dug a 10-foot ditch and dumped all this trash into it." Once he was able to absorb the scene, Miller says, "I stopped being coroner after about 20 minutes, because there were no bodies there. It became like a giant funeral service."

"Stunned at how small the smoking crater looked" is a perfectly natural reaction for someone who has never dealt with the aftermath of a plane crash. Nothing more significant than that.

On the other hand, he did say this: "It was as if the plane had stopped and let the passengers off before it crashed."

Before you get excited, look again. He is saying that he was dealing with a plane crash. So that nails that one. Wally Miller knew he was dealing with a plane crash, and he said so.

So let's move on to the dead people themselves.

See that bolded remark in the quoted paragraph above? It's kind of hard to imagine thinking of a funeral if you think that no-one has died, wouldn't you say?

And indeed, the same source goes on to say:

As coroner, responsible for returning human remains, Miller has been forced to share with the families information that is unimaginable. As he clinically recounts to them, holding back very few details, the 33 passengers, seven crew and four hijackers together weighed roughly 7,000 pounds. They were essentially cremated together upon impact. Hundreds of searchers who climbed the hemlocks and combed the woods for weeks were able to find about 1,500 mostly scorched samples of human tissue totaling less than 600 pounds, or about 8 percent of the total.

I'm not going to dwell on this quote, because the meaning should be instantly obvious to any reader. The reason Wally Miller didn't see any bodies is because everyone on the plane had been near-enough vaporised. The crash scene investigation thought itself very lucky if it found a finger intact enough to take a print from. Most people were identified by DNA traces from scraps of flesh that were scattered over a very wide area.

Wally Miller experienced a significant shock that day. First at the smallness of the impact crater, something he had never dealt with before, and then at the lack of visible remains.

But to pretend that he said there had been no plane crash and that no-one had been killed, is - to be charitable - a complete misunderstanding on your part, based on taking misquotes and factoids and copypasting them around so recklessly that they end up meaning the opposite of what they originally meant.

This is why I pointed out the lack of rigour and analysis in this thread. I'll leave that one there for you to think about.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: cardinalfan0596

No not really. In fact the county coroner Mr. Miller told the journalists they found and saw nothing consistent with a wrecked airliner. Hate to tell you, but Miller's comments were recorded on TV, including German TV.

Yes, Miller changed his story in just days or hours, completely reversing his statement, so the curious mind wonders in which instance was Miller telling the truth. In which statement was he lying?

In about 2012 he explained what happened to journalist Christopher Bollyn. If you're really curious, read Bollyn's book or check his website.

The congressional auditor casualty list, especially KIA, was longer than any other class of victim. Your knowledge of details is nothing to brag about.

The list of deaths at the Pentagon. Show me ONE that worked for Congress.

www.freedomfiles.org...

And Christopher Bollyn, is just a big a huckster as Richard Gage. Not to mention, it was the mayor of Shanksville who was misquoted by German TV, not Mr. Miller. So, before you chastise anyone for the "details" you might want to improve your knowledge of the facts. It is sorely lacking.

a reply to: audubon


Repeating government propaganda points is hardly "rigour and analysis".

Miller can't have it both ways, and what he said upon exiting the field was exactly consistent with overhead videos taken by news helicopters, video and audio since removed from the internet. I know that because I watched those videos and audios that showed nothing at all suggesting a wrecked airliner several times, and by about 6 years ago or so, those videos and audios are no longer on the internet. Hmmm, that seems like suppression of rigour and analysis, suppression of facts and evidence, in the same way all physical evidence of the airplanes involved are hidden away from public view, down under Iron Mountain, at least according to several TV stories I've seen.

No, I don't trust the mainstream media, but even a blind hog finds the random acorn of truth.

Miller's story to Christopher Bollyn explains how he ended up delivering two contradictory statements to the media, and that explanation came years later.

If you're really interested in "rigour and analysis", you should expose yourself to the story of Susan McIlwain, from that area of PA. Long story short, FBI agents wanted her to change her story to reflect an airliner instead of the much smaller airplane she saw.