What would prove to you that 9/11 was not a conspiracy?

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
2. Then tell me what happened then? You said you don't believe those plane parts came from the planes that thousands of people saw crash into the buildings, so where did they come from?

Unless the parts have been traced with serial numbers to verify that they were from the alleged planes, then we don't know where the parts came from. Show me a report that clearly states where every piece of airplane wreckage is forensically examined and traced to the alleged planes being used.

Have you ever watched "Air Crash Investigations"? Look at the work that is put into determining the cause of some minor incidents, where perhaps only one life is lost. Why was this effort to examine the alleged wreckage of the alleged 911 planes completely absent?

And what happened to the planes that people thought they saw crash?

You have to prove that the alleged planes crashed. Without any identified parts, matched by serial numbers, you can't even prove that planes were even used. There's a few interesting theories about holographs and TV fakery that seem to have supporting evidence which conflicts with some eyewitness accounts.

Any competent or responsible leader would have attacked them just as we did. There is no disputing that (which is why we had full international support.)

ANY competent and good leader would avoid war, as much as possible.

Any hell-bent, evil, destructive government, bent on controlling oil and opium would attack Afghanistan, the way the USA did.

Answer this for me: Who exactly are the 'them' (from your quote) that the USA was attacking in Afghanistan? If the official story is to be believed, then the 19 hijackers already died. So, if the USA KNEW who to attack in Afghanistan, then why does the official report mention that it is of no concern who financed the operation?

If the USA knew who was behind the organising and financing of the attacks, then why was this brushed aside in the official report?

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
You can find some (from the trial) here

Still no evidence that any of the bodies in the Pentagon were from Flight 77.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Still no evidence that any of the bodies in the Pentagon were from Flight 77.

I know you're going to say "blah blah blah the DNA was forged blah blah blah" if I mention that...so, I'm not sure what exactly to tell you. You're probably more of DNA expert than me, so I'll await the proof the DNA evidence was falsified (which means the ones who did the DNA analysis and the victims families were all in on it too right?)
Along with the other processes used to ID the bodies
radiology.rsnajnls.org...

I'm sure though that you're going to believe whatever you want to, regardless of any evidence showing otherwise.

tezza:

Unless the parts have been traced with serial numbers to verify that they were from the alleged planes, then we don't know where the parts came from. Show me a report that clearly states where every piece of airplane wreckage is forensically examined and traced to the alleged planes being used.

Alright so, we have confirmation every which way that certain airplanes were hijacked. We watched live as these airplanes crashed into buildings. So in order for the plane wreckage not to have been from the hijacked flights, that would mean that while we were watching these planes, they were somehow switched at the blink of an eye without anyone noticing. Umm....what would be the point in hijacking the planes in the first place?

You have to prove that the alleged planes crashed. Without any identified parts, matched by serial numbers, you can't even prove that planes were even used. There's a few interesting theories about holographs and TV fakery that seem to have supporting evidence which conflicts with some eyewitness accounts.

BS
There's no conflicts. There was no TV fakery and I can guarentee you there were no holographs
It's theories like this that make people mock the "truthers"

Amazing how many people think the U.S. is the most highly advance civilization to ever walk the earth with all the stuff they keep coming up with. Why use and waste all that technology to fake stuff when doing the real thing would have produced the same results and at a much lower cost?

Anyway, people on here have apparently had the opportunity to analyze the FDRs of at least one of the flights. Ask them if those came from a different plane...
We have videos of the WTC planes, comfirming the planes were of the same airlines that reported hijackings, and at the pentagon pieces of the hull (and other parts of the plane) remained intact enough to show it was from AA.
(ex:
)
So why didn't these airlines report any other planes missing? And where did the other planes go?

ANY competent and good leader would avoid war, as much as possible.

BS. Period.
There is no other country in the world that wouldn't have done what we did in Afghanistan. Again, we had FULL international support and MANY countries went in right there with us.
This was no ordinary war in the classic sense. We didn't even send in an invasion force. This was a response to an attack on our homeland.

Answer this for me: Who exactly are the 'them' (from your quote) that the USA was attacking in Afghanistan? If the official story is to be believed, then the 19 hijackers already died. So, if the USA KNEW who to attack in Afghanistan, then why does the official report mention that it is of no concern who financed the operation?

If the USA knew who was behind the organising and financing of the attacks, then why was this brushed aside in the official report?

The "them" would be Khalid and gang. Along with OBL and gang.
As I stated before, the terrorists in Afghanistan and the training camps there are well known. We've attacked them before (in another response to an attack on U.S. grounds - our embassies). After 9/11 we could have just sat on our hands as before which means a couple years later there likely would have been another major terrorist attack (as seemed the pattern back then) or we could have taken the fight to them.
I haven't read that part of the commision report about whoever financing the operations being of no concern, but then why did we immediately freeze all assets of those associated with the terrorists if they weren't worried about it?

Jack:

I genuinely thank you for posting the link. It is a valid research resource, but the exhibits do not meet the burden of proof.

Which is what exactly?
These exhibits were able to stand up in court. Other theories can't even come close.

Second, we have no way of knowing if the vicitms pictured were indeed passengers on the planes, or victims who were in the buildings when they were struck.

Without the DNA and other ID analysis, just looking at the pics you can get an idea of which were on the plane and which were in the Pentagon. I think a couple of those show bodies intact, those were likely in the Pentagon. I had a link showing where the remains of the of the plane victims and the pentagon victims were found, but can't find it.

I am no longer willing to accept that as fact however, based on the say so of a government whose credibility has been impeached.

The government?
Dozens of forensic experts were brought in from all over to help ID the bodies. This was the largest undertaking ever if I'm not mistaken. Is there any evidence at all they were working for the government or had something to gain by lying for the government?

Furthermore, there is no proof that the parts were actually from the specific planes in question either.

No proof beside the FDRs and CVRs that have been recovered, the thousands of witnesses, the bodies of the victims on the planes in question, etc. you mean?
Speficically what "proof" are you looking for?

You are claiming that such proof exists, which it does not. I have done plenty of research on the subject, and have never found the proof that I stated would be necessary.

I have claimed that there is evidence out there and that it is the interpretation of that evidence that differs. Is your research from places that at least try to be unbias?

What evidence do you have to support this? If you can't make the tie to OBL, you can't tie Afghanistan to 9/11.

What? OBL is the only terrorist in Afghanistan?
As I stated several times now, the terrorists operating in Afghanistan were well known. Mohammed tried this stuff before with Project Bojinka. Do you think he just abandoned his plans?
I'll post more later I guess...

No, any responsible leader would have tracked down and neutralized those who were responsible for the attacks.

Which is what we and everyone else in the world set out to do....

What our leader has done, has started an American Empire

With Iraq...

Who runs the office of government information on 911.

It is sure to be a central clearing house to fit the story.

Men In Black arm twisters come in with the checks and out
with the DNA story they want.

How did towers go down without thermate.
It was even pointed out on FOX NEWS

You know how towers go down without thermate.. the CIA.
They railroad UFO witnesses and 911 all the same to them.

I can't prove a thing where the CIA is concerned and neither can anyone else.
It is just age old CT.

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
I'm sure though that you're going to believe whatever you want to, regardless of any evidence showing otherwise.

Alright so, we have confirmation every which way that certain airplanes were hijacked. We watched live as these airplanes crashed into buildings. So in order for the plane wreckage not to have been from the hijacked flights, that would mean that while we were watching these planes, they were somehow switched at the blink of an eye without anyone noticing.

1. I am going by facts and evidence, what are you going by besides what you saw on TV or have been told?

2. Oh so you know what the Flight numbers were on the planes you saw on TV ?

Witnesse at the Pentagon could not agree on what type of plane hit the Pentagon, 1 witness even stated they did not know what hit the Pentagon they were told later it was a 757. These witness statements would not hold up in court.

I am still waiting for any official report that matches any of the parts found to any of the 9/11 planes.

[edit on 18-3-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
We have videos of the WTC planes, comfirming the planes were of the same airlines that reported hijackings

Show me one video that clearly identifies the alleged planes by showing their serial numbers on the fuselages.

Show me one video that clearly identifies the alleged planes even belonging to either AA or UA by full colour scheme.

Explain to me why there were eyewitnesses who stated at the scene: "That was not an American airliner."

You can not confirm that the alleged planes that allegedly crashed into the WTC were the ones that were allegedly hijacked.

and at the pentagon pieces of the hull (and other parts of the plane) remained intact enough to show it was from AA.

Prove that piece of wreckage was from the alleged plane, that was allegedly used to strike the Pentagon.

So why didn't these airlines report any other planes missing? And where did the other planes go?

Good question. If we had the answer, then we would be well on our way to solving the mystery. There are reports of false radar blips being inserted due to the wargames that were being played out that very same morning (coincidence, huh?). There are reports of some planes flying away, over the Atlantic and then disappearing from radar.

There is no other country in the world that wouldn't have done what we did in Afghanistan. Again, we had FULL international support and MANY countries went in right there with us.

Wars do not make one great. Every country that went to war with Afghanistan was wrong. The USA had support from other poor world leaders, all militant thugs who want to perpetuate suffering and misery. Remember, the USA has chief politicians and past politicians with financial interests in the manufacturing of weapons. Their business will not be profitable, unless there is war.

This was no ordinary war in the classic sense. We didn't even send in an invasion force. This was a response to an attack on our homeland.

Huh? What did the USA send, if it was not an invasion force?

If all that the USA wanted to do was to retaliate against the 911 attacks, then they could have done so with smart bombs and missiles. No... the USA sent an occupation force to make sure that the oil and opium were firmly under its control.

The "them" would be Khalid and gang. Along with OBL and gang.
As I stated before, the terrorists in Afghanistan and the training camps there are well known.

So the USA went to war to chase a couple of gangs in the desert and caves? The USA never thought that bombing the camps would be sufficient disruption and payback? Remember, the official 911 report stated that it was of no consequence who financed the attacks, so why should it be of consequence to go chasing them in the desert and caves?

It's kind of hard to gain oil supplies and harvest the opium, unless you have ground forces doing the dirty work by controlling the perimeter.

Why were US intelligence agencies warned by Bush not to interfere with OBL, if he was supposed to have been the number one terrorist?

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
I am still waiting for any official report that matches any of the parts found to any of the 9/11 planes.

Like the 2 FDR's?

Or are we ignoring this inconvenient fact again?

Originally posted by tezzajw
Show me one video that clearly identifies the alleged planes by showing their serial numbers on the fuselages.

Serial number? On a fuselage?
You mean the registration number? Well seeing as the planes were several hundred feet up from most cameras and traveling several hundred mph, finding clear video will be difficult. But really unnecessary. The planes took off from Boston. The distance between Boston and New York on a plane is extremely small. Radar never lost sight of the planes and with air control never lost the ability to track 175 (transponder was never turned off - meaning they had altitudes, speed, etc.).
With 11, flight controllers were able to hear a little of what was going on.
(Transcript on here:
www.ntsb.gov...

175 saw and was able to confirm the plane
www.gwu.edu...)


Tell me when was there ever an opportunity for the planes to switch. Tell me where the planes went.

Plus there's other debris that can identify the planes.
*ugh, hot link error. I'll find another link*

Show me one video that clearly identifies the alleged planes even belonging to either AA or UA by full colour scheme.

??
Show me one video that shows they were any other plane.

Explain to me why there were eyewitnesses who stated at the scene: "That was not an American airliner."

Because he saw United...

You can not confirm that the alleged planes that allegedly crashed into the WTC were the ones that were allegedly hijacked.

Sure we can. They were tracking them. Again, tell me when they had time to switch the planes.

Prove that piece of wreckage was from the alleged plane, that was allegedly used to strike the Pentagon.

I see you're just joking now with all of this.....

Good question. If we had the answer, then we would be well on our way to solving the mystery. There are reports of false radar blips being inserted due to the wargames that were being played out that very same morning (coincidence, huh?). There are reports of some planes flying away, over the Atlantic and then disappearing from radar.

Show me one credible report of any of that....

Wars do not make one great. Every country that went to war with Afghanistan was wrong. The USA had support from other poor world leaders, all militant thugs who want to perpetuate suffering and misery.

Ok, name one country who's support we didn't have?
We had the UN's support.
Again, it was a response, not a random starting of a war.

Huh? What did the USA send, if it was not an invasion force?

We send a force strong enough to respond to the attacks.
What we sent into Iraq was an invasion force. Afghanistan was well less than half of that.

If all that the USA wanted to do was to retaliate against the 911 attacks, then they could have done so with smart bombs and missiles.

BS and you know it.
We did that in the past. It doesn't work.
Name one country who wouldn't have responded the way we did. Just one country.

So the USA went to war to chase a couple of gangs in the desert and caves? The USA never thought that bombing the camps would be sufficient disruption and payback?

We did that in the past. Did it work? Obviously not.

Remember, the official 911 report stated that it was of no consequence who financed the attacks, so why should it be of consequence to go chasing them in the desert and caves?

What are you talking about?
They went after the people who have been carrying out these attacks. 9/11 wasn't the first terrorist attack. And it sure wasn't going to be the last one.

It's kind of hard to gain oil supplies and harvest the opium, unless you have ground forces doing the dirty work by controlling the perimeter.

We got little if any oil from Afghanistan before and we're getting little if any now.
I take it you have some proof to back up your claims?

Why were US intelligence agencies warned by Bush not to interfere with OBL, if he was supposed to have been the number one terrorist?

Again, do you have any proof of this stuff at all?



(more in a bit)

[edit on 18-3-2008 by ThatsJustWeird]

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
Serial number? On a fuselage?
You mean the registration number? Well seeing as the planes were several hundred feet up from most cameras and traveling several hundred mph, finding clear video will be difficult.

We have videos of the WTC planes, comfirming the planes were of the same airlines that reported hijackings

You stated there was video evidence that confirmed the alleged planes were from the same airlines.

Now, you retract that, to state that it will be difficult to find video evidence that shows the registration numbers of the alleged plane? How can you confirm what airlines the alleged planes were from, if you can't confirm the identity of the alleged planes from your video evidence?

You have no video evidence that shows the alleged planes were the ones that allegedly struck the towers. You have video evidence that shows what looks like planes gliding into the towers, nothing more.

reply to post by ThatsJustWeird

Which is what exactly? These exhibits were able to stand up in court. Other theories can't even come close.

As I said, your source shows valid material, but the information gleaned is incomplete and biased in interpretations at trial.

Without the DNA and other ID analysis, just looking at the pics you can get an idea of which were on the plane and which were in the Pentagon.

That is just a plainly foolish statement. There is no way to know, just by looking at them, if the victims pictured were on-board an aircraft.

Dozens of forensic experts were brought in from all over to help ID the bodies. This was the largest undertaking ever if I'm not mistaken. Is there any evidence at all they were working for the government or had something to gain by lying for the government?

All of that work and no one bothered to verify the identity of the airplanes?

No proof beside the FDRs and CVRs that have been recovered, the thousands of witnesses, the bodies of the victims on the planes in question, etc. you mean?

Witness statements are relatively useless without corroborating physical evidence. Especially at this point, when witnesses have been proven to be lieing.

The data recovered from on-board recording is anamalous to the point of suspiscious, and requires further analyses.

There is NO PROOF that bodies recovered from the scenes were those reported to be on-board the planes in question.

I have claimed that there is evidence out there and that it is the interpretation of that evidence that differs. Is your research from places that at least try to be unbias?

I agree, there is much evidence out there. But as long as it can be interpreted differently, none of the evidence constitutes proof. The only proof that exists, is that the government version has been proven incorrect, and even deliberately false. Therefore, all alternate scenarios must be considered so long as they are based on factual evidence.

Every source has a bias. The only way to find the truth is to superimpose information from various sources, so that the bias is highlighted and you are left with raw data.

As I stated several times now, the terrorists operating in Afghanistan were well known. Mohammed tried this stuff before with Project Bojinka. Do you think he just abandoned his plans?

This does not prove they had anything to do with the 9/11 attacks, and certainly does not prove that there was not domestic complicity in the operation.

Originally posted by tezzajw
You stated there was video evidence that confirmed the alleged planes were from the same airlines.

Now, you retract that, to state that it will be difficult to find video evidence that shows the registration numbers of the alleged plane? How can you confirm what airlines the alleged planes were from, if you can't confirm the identity of the alleged planes from your video evidence?

You have no video evidence that shows the alleged planes were the ones that allegedly struck the towers. You have video evidence that shows what looks like planes gliding into the towers, nothing more.

I'm having difficulty in figuring out if you're joking or not.
Are you seriously this dense?
You think amateur videos is the only way to identify a plane? Are you being serious?
Again, flight controllers never lost sight of the planes. We knew their speed, we knew their altitudes, we heard what was going on in the cockpit.
If you have ANY evidence whatsoever that the planes and all the occupants were magically switched in midair to another plane that magically appeared in midair but disappeared before anyone can see it, just before the planes hit the towers, then please present that evidence.


Jack

That is just a plainly foolish statement. There is no way to know, just by looking at them, if the victims pictured were on-board an aircraft.

I said you can get an idea.
This wasn't the first crash in history. You can do a comparative analysis. I never said you can confirm.

All of that work and no one bothered to verify the identity of the airplanes?

What?
I'm talking about people who worked the bodies.
And who said the planes weren't identified?

Also, seeing as those live bodies boarded specific planes an hour or so earlier in completely different cities, how do you explain those bodies ending up at the crash sites?

The data recovered from on-board recording is anamalous to the point of suspiscious, and requires further analyses.

Example?

There is NO PROOF that bodies recovered from the scenes were those reported to be on-board the planes in question

You mean besides DNA evidence? Still waiting for your evidence the all the DNA and other ID analysis of the bodies were forged.

Also, then....we're did the people who boarded those planes go? They also disappear into thin air? And where did the bodies that were at the sites come from? Does the government have chopped up and burned bodies lying around waiting to be used?
There were a bunch of school kids on the Pentagon flight. Were their families in on the whole thing and allowed their kids to be killed or disappear so they'll never see them again?

The only proof that exists, is that the government version has been proven incorrect, and even deliberately false.

As I stated before, if I try to tell you what I had for breakfast a couple days ago, I'll get something wrong. Something on this magnitude, it is impossible to not have any errors.
I'm still waiting for that evidence that it (the 9/11 Report which is what I'm assuming you're talking about. I'm basing what I'm saying on my own research, and being pretty close to the action - hearing the Pentagon explosion, seeing the C130, seeing the jets come in to late to save the Pentagon, but streak to Pennsylvania) is deliberately false. Any "evidence" I'm seen so far suggesting that has been circumstantial at best. Wouldn't be able to stand up in court if it tried.

Therefore, all alternate scenarios must be considered so long as they are based on factual evidence.

Completely agree.

Every source has a bias. The only way to find the truth is to superimpose information from various sources, so that the bias is highlighted and you are left with raw data.

Agree again. Problem is, a lot of the time those various sources are one sided.
Instead of:
bunny, cat, dog, shark, penguin = truth
You have:
bunny, bunny, bunny, bunny, bunny = bunny
So people think bunny = truth. No, it equals bunny.

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
If you have ANY evidence whatsoever that the planes and all the occupants were magically switched in midair to another plane that magically appeared in midair but disappeared before anyone can see it, just before the planes hit the towers, then please present that evidence.

Please present me with the evidence that the planes that allegedly hit the towers were identified to be the same ones that were the alleged flights of AA11 and UA175.

Thanks.

(Video evidence doesn't show the identity of those planes, so you have to keep looking.)

[edit on 18-3-2008 by tezzajw]

reply to post by ThatsJustWeird

I said you can get an idea.

From the pictures you sourced, please tell me how you get the idea that those victims were or were not on board an aircraft when they died?

And who said the planes weren't identified?

The FBI.

I have already linked that. They made no formal I.D. of the vehicles involved in the largest terror attack in history, yet when I fill out a traffic accident report, I am sure to include the VIN numbers of the vehicles involved. In a fatal wreck, I have to verify the VIN numbers from several point on the vehicles, including the engine block, frame, firewall, etc.

Also, seeing as those live bodies boarded specific planes an hour or so earlier in completely different cities, how do you explain those bodies ending up at the crash sites?

Prove to me that those people ever got on the planes. Do you have a video seeing them actually getting on the plane?

And again you assume that the bodies of airline passengers were recovered from any crash site.

Example?

For one, the FDR's do not concur with the official version. Second, the data does not explain impossible maneuvers by the planes.

Another example that I know you have already seen.

You mean besides DNA evidence? Still waiting for your evidence the all the DNA and other ID analysis of the bodies were forged.

It didn't have to be "forged" to if it was recovered elsewhere, and by other possible means.

Also, then....we're did the people who boarded those planes go?

Wouldn't we all like to know. But again I have to point out that there is no proof that they ever got on a plane. Just because there is not proof of an alternative, does not prove that they died where and how the official version states.

I'm still waiting for that evidence that it...is deliberately false.

Here is the big lie...
















[edit on 3/18/0808 by jackinthebox]

[edit on 3/18/0808 by jackinthebox]

This is exactly what I'm talking about....
My first post in this thread continues to be proven correct

Threads like this only prove people are NOT searching for the truth. They've already made up their mind the government was fully responsible and ignore any evidence even slightly hinting otherwise. They only go about searching for evidence to fit their predisposed positions. Funny stuff.

As I said, that is based on years of observation.

You guys are not being realistic. At all. I'll wait until you all want to have serious discussion.

All this stuff about planes magically appearing and disappearing as thousands of people are watching and as the planes were being tracked is absolutely ridiculous and proof either you guys are not being serious or more than likely ^^ my statement above.

To answer one of the questions...YES there are videos of the passengers boarding the planes. The FACT that people boarded those planes and the planes took off is NOT in question by any one who is being realistic.


I'll wait....

I'll also wait for you all to start backing up your statements. Statements like the FDR data does not correlate to the official story (what exactly is the official story btw? Commission report? FEMA report? NIST report? Popular Mech.?) require backing up.

And youtube videos that prove absolutely NOTHING? What was the point? I asked for evidence it's deliberately false. Trying going a little deeper.



Horrible

reply to post by ThatsJustWeird

All this stuff about planes magically appearing and disappearing...

The official version is the one that has planes magically disappearing. Have you bothered to investigate the Flight 93 crash? I don't see a plane there. I am not going to magically see something that is not there just because the government tells me not to believe my own eyes.

YES there are videos of the passengers boarding the planes. The FACT that people boarded those planes and the planes took off is NOT in question by any one who is being realistic.

I have never seen a video of all those passengers actually stepping onto a plane, much less a clearly identified plane. And just because a plane took off, does not mean it crashed.

I'll also wait for you all to start backing up your statements. Statements like the FDR data does not correlate to the official story (what exactly is the official story btw? Commission report? FEMA report? NIST report? Popular Mech.?) require backing up.

You bring up a good point. Even the "official" version can't get their story straight. So why are you so adamant about defending it?

Aside from that, I just did back up my statements by providing evidence. So I wouldn't bother holding my breath if I were you.

And youtube videos that prove absolutely NOTHING? What was the point? I asked for evidence it's deliberately false.

So, video documentation of the lead NIST engineer lieing is proof of nothing? Yet I am supposed to still believe that version?

Talk about having your mind mind up and ignoring evidence. :shk:

I think you should wait. Wait until you have some common sense and some facts to back your attack on the Jack.

[edit on 3/18/0808 by jackinthebox]

Reading through this thread I find it very interesting. I am also of the opinion that the Planes should have been identified. The Gov should get no easy pass by us on this, if anyone knows anything about the Gov, is that they are always doing things in a redundant fashion. So am I to believe for once they decided not to?

Also, I am of the opinion that the planes that hit those Towers were not the planes we were lead to believe. I do believe they were JET PLANES, but I believe they were disguised as civilian.

All this talk about them switching in mid air is strange, since if Air Traffic knew exactly what was going on then why on earth were there never any meaningful intercepts?

Originally posted by jackinthebox
And just because a plane took off, does not mean it crashed.

Sure, so prove the planes didn't crash.
Seeing as we were tracking all the way and watching as the planes crashed, prove what we were tracking since take off and what we were watching (in person, on radar, from other planes, etc.) were not the planes.

You bring up a good point. Even the "official" version can't get their story straight. So why are you so adamant about defending it?

What? I'm ASKING you what the official story is. What is it???

I'm defending my research.

Aside from that, I just did back up my statements by providing evidence.

wtf?
Evidence of what?

So, video documentation of the lead NIST engineer lieing is proof of nothing?

Couple things:
1. Lying about what? He said he didn't see those pictures and videos and asked the person to send them to him (that stuff has been talked about extensively here and elsewhere btw. If you want more info on what was being stated, you can look up that stuff for yourself. Or are you just going to take their word for it that what they were stating was 100% correct? And remember your statement about eyewitnesses being unreliable. Is this case an exemption?)
He also stated they weren't finished with their WTC 7 investigation.

2. Is the NIST the official story? If not, who cares what he says.

Talk about having your mind mind up and ignoring evidence. :shk:

What evidence am I ignoring?
That the lead engineer doesn't look at all the sites we do?

And again, I asked for evidence they (whoever) is lying deliberately. That requires reasons and more evidence then youtube videos
You going to take a youtube video to court?

Wait until you have some common sense

Hey, I'm not the one believing planes and appear and disappear at the blink of an eye and that bodies magically appear at random places.

and some facts to back your attack on the Jack.

Just attacking your lack of seriousness.

[edit on 18-3-2008 by ThatsJustWeird]

reply to post by ThatsJustWeird

Sure, so prove the planes didn't crash.

I don't have to. If a plane did in fact crash, there would be evidence. Solid and detailed evidence. I am not about to say that these planes crashed as reported, any more than I will say that aliens are visiting from us from Mars.

Seeing as we were tracking all the way and watching as the planes crashed, prove what we were tracking since take off and what we were watching (in person, on radar, from other planes, etc.) were not the planes.

Again, the onus is on you to prove that they were in fact the exact commercial airlines that were reported. A blip on a radar screen does not specifically identify any particular aircraft, nor does it even identify the type of craft.

What? I'm ASKING you what the official story is. What is it???

You tell me, since you are so adamant about defending it.

I'm defending my research.

Which is fine. But the evidence that is available shows that official data is incomplete. My argument is that there is no reason for me to believe what the government has told me, any more than any other theory out there. In fact, there is evidence to suggest that the government is hiding and manipulating facts to fit an agenda, making me even more skeptical of their version of events. So if the government is to be believed, they are going to have to release more evidence, and make a much more thorough investigation.

1. Lying about what? He said he didn't see those pictures and videos and asked the person to send them to him (that stuff has been talked about extensively here and elsewhere btw. If you want more info on what was being stated, you can look up that stuff for yourself. Or are you just going to take their word for it that what they were stating was 100% correct? And remember your statement about eyewitnesses being unreliable. Is this case an exemption?)

Lieing about physical evidence at WTC! Either he knows there was molten steel there and is lieing about it, or he is lieing about being there in the first place.

This is not about the reliability of witnesses. This is about lieing about scientific findings that were crucial to explaining the collapse of the Twin Towers, and getting caught in that lie on video tape.

BTW, I have done plenty of "looking up" on that specific topic. Why don't you tell me what temperature steel melts at? What temperature jet fuel burns at? What it takes to bring down a building in its own footprint? Etc, etc...

2. Is the NIST the official story? If not, who cares what he says.

Are you kidding me? The NIST reports are the official version of why the Towers collapsed. No wonder you can't recognize the evidence. You don't even know what you're looking at.

What evidence am I ignoring?

Gee, only the most crucial piece of evidence explaining the collapse of the Twin Towers, and how the lead engineer is lieing about it.

And again, I asked for evidence they (whoever) is lying deliberately. That requires reasons and more evidence then youtube videos

I showed you a video of the lead engineer lieing about scientific data at Ground Zero. If you think that is somehow unimportant because it was hosted on the internet, then you have descended to a realm of idiocy that is beyond my even bothering to discuss anything further with you.

Hey, I'm not the one believing planes and appear and disappear at the blink of an eye and that bodies magically appear at random places.

No, your're the one who believes that a passenger airliner, and all the fuel along with it, disappeared when it crashed in Shanksville I suppose. And that the other one vanished at the Pentagon.

Just attacking your lack of seriousness.

Don't even bother talking to me anymore. If you were serious, you would look at the evidence, or at least admit that you hadn't gotten to a certain point in your investigation. I can understand if you really don't know some of the details about 9/11, that I happen to have learned recently, but don't sit there and try to argue something when you clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

Originally posted by jfj123
reply to post by Dmantex

 

Well it wasn't a conspiracy. So I'm good. There has never been solid evidence presenting showing a conspiracy. The "believers" typically rely on lack of evidence or imaginary scenerios such as holographic planes or anti-matter bombs as evidence. Sorry but a lack of evidence is not evidence in and of itself.

you know, the 19 hijackers conspired, if you believe in the hijackers.

the evidence pointing to this particular conspiracy theory seems to have all been PLANTED. (at least to a good critical thinker who looks beyonds the MSM veil)

reply to post by CaptainObvious


i hate your avatar. so aggressive. all mouth and action.
if you don't like the title, start a new thread with the 'better' title.

i like the title and think it is quite precise.