3292 replies to this topic

[Q24]

Kludge808, on 09 January 2013 - 06:23 AM, said:

Yep, there you are, just another conspiracy theorist.  It doesn't matter that you don't care about the others, you're still a CT.  Bottom line.

Though apparently no more so than your good self, if you follow my previous posts.  The only difference between us is that my theory is most fitting of the entire body of evidence, whereas others are somewhat fitting of selective evidence only so far to tow the official line.

skyeagle409, on 07 January 2013 - 08:59 PM, said:

But, al-Qaeda has already issued admissions, and nothing there that implicates the United States.

Oh, you were duped by those tape recordings.  The best of which, as evidence of culpability, is the 5 minute audio recording which has bin Laden declaring he alone was in charge of the 19 brothers.  Yes, I can see it now...

Prosecution:  May I present to the court Exhibit A; a 5 minute audio record of bin Laden accepting responsibility for the hijackers’ actions.
Defence:  Can you tell us when this tape was recorded?
Prosecution:  No, we aren’t sure.
Defence:  Can you tell us where this tape was recorded?
Prosecution:  Er, no, we cannot.
Defence:  Can you tell us who recorded or delivered the tape?
Prosecution:  Objection, your honour!  What relevance are these questions?
Judge:  Overruled.  Please continue...
Defence:  Can you tell us who recorded or delivered the tape?
Prosecution:  No.
Defence:  Can you tell us where this tape was discovered?
Prosecution:  Well... it was found... online.
Jury:  HAHAHA!!!
Judge:  Order in the court!
Defence:  Can you tell us how the voice was verified to be that of bin Laden?
Prosecution:  Verified?! You gotta be kiddin me!
Defence:  Bearing in mind all of the timing, location, audit trail and verification of the speaker are non-existent, we suggest that the tape is rather a joke and request that it be discarded as evidence.

That is how it would go down in a real court case (or thereabouts) – there is nothing which could be legally admissible as an ‘admission’ of bin Laden’s responsibility.

And that’s not even the half of it.  When we look in more detail at the complete audio, video and texts said to be from bin Laden since 9/11 and wider evidence, a rather different story is revealed to that pushed by propaganda masters in the U.S. government and media.

skyeagle409, on 07 January 2013 - 08:59 PM, said:

With tens of thousands of pounds of aluminum piled up in that corner of WTC2 from the aircraft, not to mention the facade of WTC2 which consisted of aluminum as well, it should be of no surprise what the flowing metal was...

Yes, some of you OCTs say it was aluminium raised far above its melting point in the fire, some say it was aluminium mixed with red/orange debris, some say it was the result of super-heated batteries, some say it was a naturally occurring thermite reaction due to the aircraft aluminium and rust in the tower.  These theories are all rather divided due to lack of guidance and investigation from the ‘official story’ on this one.  It’s one example of many.  And we won’t mention that OCTs like to avoid consideration of the most fitting answer – thermite placed within the towers to initiate the collapses (an ideal fit to the timing and all physical characteristics of the WTC2 flow).

All of which goes to demonstrate the point I was making:  that in areas, OCTs cannot quite agree.  Which I’m sure Kludge must find amusing, given that he wants to be consistent and all.

[skyeagle409]

Q24, on 09 January 2013 - 06:38 PM, said:

Though apparently no more so than your good self, if you follow my previous posts.  The only difference between us is that my theory is most fitting of the entire body of evidence, whereas others are somewhat fitting of selective evidence only so far to tow the official line.

The evidence supports the official line.

Quote

Oh, you were duped by those tape recordings.  The best of which, as evidence of culpability, is the 5 minute audio recording which has bin Laden declaring he alone was in charge of the 19 brothers.  Yes, I can see it now..

You must remember that station is not pro-American.

Quote

Prosecution:  May I present to the court Exhibit A; a 5 minute audio record of bin Laden accepting responsibility for the hijackers’ actions.
Defence:  Can you tell us when this tape was recorded?
Prosecution:  No, we aren’t sure.
Defence:  Can you tell us where this tape was recorded?
Prosecution:  Er, no, we cannot.
Defence:  Can you tell us who recorded or delivered the tape?
Prosecution:  Objection, your honour!  What relevance are these questions?
Judge:  Overruled.  Please continue...
Defence:  Can you tell us who recorded or delivered the tape?
Prosecution:  No.
Defence:  Can you tell us where this tape was discovered?
Prosecution:  Well... it was found... online.
Jury:  HAHAHA!!!
Judge:  Order in the court!
Defence:  Can you tell us how the voice was verified to be that of bin Laden?
Prosecution:  Verified?! You gotta be kiddin me!
Defence:  Bearing in mind all of the timing, location, audit trail and verification of the speaker are non-existent, we suggest that the tape is rather a joke and request that it be discarded as evidence.

Judge: Where did you acquire your evidence?

Defense: From Internet conspiracy websites.

Court room:

Judge: Case dismissed due to lack of evidence and non-credibility of defense sources!!

May I add that evidence presented by the CT websites have been demolished by facts and evidence?!

Quote

Yes, some of you OCTs say it was aluminium raised far above its melting point in the fire, some say it was aluminium mixed with red/orange debris, some say it was the result of super-heated batteries, some say it was a naturally occurring thermite reaction due to the aircraft aluminium and rust in the tower.

We already know the temperatures were high enough to melt aluminum, but too low to melt steel. Additionally, the cooled silvery droplets forming below the molten metal flow are not indicative of steel. Since no evidence of thermite was found in the WTC buildings simply underlines the point that thermite was not used nor capable of bringing down the WTC buildings without explosives nor is thermite an explosive nor even widely used by demolition companies.

There was  no evidence of thermite cutting found on the structures and demolition companies and experts have ruled out the use of thermite as well. There were no sound of explosives nor were explosions evident in the videos, nor on audio nor even detected by seismic detectors.

Question is: Without a shred of evidence that explosives were used, why did the 9/11 CT websites continue to push such disinformation and lies?

Quote

These theories are all rather divided due to lack of guidance and investigation from the ‘official story’ on this one.  It’s one example of many.  And we won’t mention that OCTs like to avoid consideration of the most fitting answer – thermite placed within the towers to initiate the collapses...

That doesn't work and another reason is, it would have taken thousands and thousands of pounds of explosives, not thermite, to bring down the WTC buildings in addition to many months of preparation and structural  pre-weakening, which could not have been done without attracting a lot of attention. Furthermore, we know there was not large amount of planted explosives because there were no secondaries visible anywhere in the videos, which once again, explains why demolition experts, investigators and recovery crews found no evidence of explosives within the rubble of the WTC buildings.

Quote

...(an ideal fit to the timing and all physical characteristics of the WTC2 flow).

Only metal with melting points below the melting point of steel explains the molten metal flow from WTC2. To add to that, firefighters and police officials noted that the buildings were buckling prior to their collapse which proved the structures of the WTC buildings were buckling due to heat levels from the fires, which were high enough to weaken steel, but not high enough to melt the steel structures.

Edited by skyeagle409, 09 January 2013 - 07:42 PM.

[DONTEATUS]

ITs so strange that so few really believe in this CT `s of the Towers,I feel ITs time to move on . Bye Y`all. THis thread is now part of my past.

[skyeagle409]

DONTEATUS, on 10 January 2013 - 04:21 AM, said:

ITs so strange that so few really believe in this CT `s of the Towers,I feel ITs time to move on . Bye Y`all. THis thread is now part of my past.

It is amazing that there are those who have watched so many Hollywood movies and think they can apply fiction into reality, and what is their evidence that explosives were used? Thermite, which is not an explosive. Why would anyone use thermite when many companies use RDX, which is much more effective then thermite? They do not understand the demolition process, otherwise they would have known why thermite is not widely used by demolition companies.

They do not understand the reasoning as to why buildings must be pre-weaken before they can be demolished and they do not understand why explosives are used in conjunction with RDX, which would have told them why thermite is not a very good candidate for building implosions. They claim that explosives were used yet they cannot provide a single shred of evidence to support their claim.

To sum it up, they haven't a clue as to what they are talking about.

[skyeagle409]

Q24, on 09 January 2013 - 06:38 PM, said:

The only difference between us is that my theory is most fitting of the entire body of evidence, whereas others are somewhat fitting of selective evidence only so far to tow the official line.

Selective evidence?! Let's review the real facts.

*   How many Americans, including government and non-government employees and their companies, have been arrested, convicted and found guilty in the 9/11 attacks?

Answer: None  


*   Did police find explosives in the white van of the Israelis who were taken into custody?

Answer: No


*   Were the Israelis eventually released due to lack of evidence?

Answer: Yes


*   Did investigators and demolition experts find evidence that explosives were used to bring down the WTC buildings?

Answer: No


* Were bomb explosions heard?

Answer: No


*   Were bomb explosions detected by seismic detectors in the general area:

Answer: No


*   Are secondary explosions evident where American 11 struck WTC 1 and United 175 struck WTC2?

Answer: No

Fact: There were no planted explosives within WTC1 and WTC2 at the point of impacts.


*   Did demolition experts and investigators reveal that they found no evidence of explosives?

Answer: Yes


*   Was United 93 shot down?

Answer: No

Fact: There were no standing orders issued to shoot down airliners prior to the crash of United 93.

[Kludge808]

Q24, on 09 January 2013 - 06:38 PM, said:

Though apparently no more so than your good self, if you follow my previous posts.  The only difference between us is that my theory is most fitting of the entire body of evidence, whereas others are somewhat fitting of selective evidence only so far to tow the official line.

Then we are at a stalemate since we both claim the body of evidence supports our particular versions and neither of us will yield.

[Q24]

Kludge808, on 10 January 2013 - 06:57 AM, said:

Then we are at a stalemate since we both claim the body of evidence supports our particular versions and neither of us will yield.

Aw, and I was hoping you would defend your initial argument that OCTs were somehow better than CTs.

skyeagle409, on 09 January 2013 - 07:33 PM, said:

The evidence supports the official line.

Only with an incomplete viewing and/or biased interpretation.  Only a fool in possession of the full facts would declare the ‘official line’ the only line.  This is not an opinion unique to myself or CTs...

• “The [9/11 Commission's] investigation was not what we call an investigation. It was to develop a storyline of what happened to be fed to the American people and to receive their acquiescence.”

~Mike Gravel, U.S. Senator

• "As each day goes by, we learn that this government knew a whole lot more about these terrorists before Sept. 11 than it has ever admitted." / "One of these days we will have to get the full story because the 9/11 issue is so important to America. But this White House wants to cover it up."

~Max Cleland, U.S. Senator

• And, of course, the two questions that the Congress would not ask, because the Republicans won't allow it, is, why did 9/11 happen on George Bush's watch when he had clear warnings that it was going to happen? Why did they allow it to happen? And secondly, when they had Osama bin Laden cornered, why didn't they get him? Had there been an independent congress, one that could ask questions, these questions would have been asked years ago.

~Patrick Leahy, U.S. Senator

http://patriotsquestion911.com/

skyeagle409, on 09 January 2013 - 07:33 PM, said:

Judge: Where did you acquire your evidence?

Defense: From Internet conspiracy websites.

Court room:  

Judge: Case dismissed due to lack of evidence and non-credibility of defense sources!!

May I add that evidence presented by the CT websites have been demolished by facts and evidence?!

1.  We were discussing the case against bin Laden and Al Qaeda, not anyone else.

2.  You perform a side-step and switch of the argument, in typical OCT fashion, making no attempt to defend your own initial allegation that there is evidence of bin Laden admitting responsibility, which since there is barely any information on the tape at all, now looks rather naive.

3.  Addressing your reversal, evidence is not acquired from ‘conspiracy websites’ (I very rarely link such websites and where I might do for summary of information, you can be sure I’ve verified the accuracy through official, media and/or other reports which, it will gall you to know, are actually the core source of the 9/11 false flag theory).

skyeagle409, on 09 January 2013 - 07:33 PM, said:

We already know the temperatures were high enough to melt aluminium...

I’m not getting into a whole discussion of the WTC2 molten flow on this thread, only to say that any intelligent person will discover your understanding and logic to be appalling as always.  I was simply making a point to Kludge that OCTs are hardly unified in their interpretation of evidence in many areas.

DONTEATUS, on 10 January 2013 - 04:21 AM, said:

ITs so strange that so few really believe in this CT `s of the Towers,I feel ITs time to move on . Bye Y`all. THis thread is now part of my past.

You say that all the time... then continue trolling the thread.  Well, goodbye again.

For everyone else, the latest poll I know of shows that 26% of American adults surveyed, believe a possibility that the WTC tower collapses were the result of pre-planted demolition charges (scroll to pg. 4 here).  When extrapolated across the population this indicates approximately 59 million adults in America alone who are open to the possibility.

That is a huge number, dwarfing other American minority groups such as, for instance, Catholics, African, Asian or native Americans, or gay/lesbians.  Perhaps then if we are to ‘move on’ from 9/11 theories then we should do so from racial, religious and sexual equality too.  The figure also dwarfs the population of any individual state in America or many combinations of states, which might put it in perspective.

Of course, that’s just American adults alone who accept possibility of the WTC demolition – once we get onto the rest of the world and wider aspects of 9/11, we are dealing in the billions who believe in an alternative to the official line.  So much for ‘so few’.

Edited by Q24, 10 January 2013 - 11:48 AM.

[Kludge808]

Q24, on 10 January 2013 - 11:46 AM, said:

Aw, and I was hoping you would defend your initial argument that OCTs were somehow better than CTs.

This is post #3233.  Neither side has advanced one nanometer since the OP.  I'm tired and getting really, really cranky.  My getting cranky on the forum would make the Sweet Beloved Goddess of All Things, DotNM, furrow her precious brow which would be a Really Bad Thing.

Sky, let the CTists have their versions.  Yep, plural since they can't decide which Truth is the Real Truth but whatever it is, it isn't the Official Version.  They can discuss that little detail amongst themselves.

[Babe Ruth]

Q

Thanks for those words from Mike Gravel regarding the Commission report.  I had not heard them before.

Back in the 70's, Congressman Gravel described the findings of the Congressional Committee regarding the Pentagon Papers thusly: it showed a "purposeful witholding and distortion of facts" by the Pentagon.

My, my, how things HAVE NOT CHANGED regarding the government practice of deception.

[Liquid Gardens]

Q24, on 10 January 2013 - 11:46 AM, said:

Aw, and I was hoping you would defend your initial argument that OCTs were somehow better than CTs.

I think kludge's point is about the degree of relative consistency, not that no OCTs differ on specifics.  Here's how you put it earlier, "But you do realise we could replace "CTs" with "OCTs" in your observation, or simply "theories" to cover it all, and be just as accurate?  The OCT itself has changed notably over time and there are still significant areas which cannot be agreed upon and/or remain speculation. "  I disagree on the 'just as accurate' part, that's acting like there is no basis at all by which to determine whether the OCTs are more consistent with each other than the CTs.  

In your opinion, what specifically do OCTs differ on that is of the magnitude and significance of whether a plane hit the Pentagon, whether there are passengers are in witness protection, that the WTC was or was not brought down by demolitions?  These types of things are of more significance I'd argue to the CTs, it is what leads the CTists to suspect a CT in the first place.  I don't think the absolute specifics of Osama's involvement vs other Al Qaeda leaders has the same relevant significance to the OCT; if we are mistaken about whom in Al Qaeda has the most responsibility of the attack, that doesn't suggest that someone from the govt was involved for instance.  If you are mistaken that there was a demolition, that is a huge data point to lose in the argument for a CT.

[skyeagle409]

Q24, on 10 January 2013 - 11:46 AM, said:

Only with an incomplete viewing and/or biased interpretation.  Only a fool in possession of the full facts would declare the ‘official line’ the only line.  This is not an opinion unique to myself or CTs...

The evidence supports the official line, not the 9/11 folks. You must remember these facts.

*   The 9/11 CT folks had mistaken Delta 1989 as United 93 in Cleveland, and scientist from a KC-135 as passengers of United 93.

*   The 9/11 CT folks were those who've claimed that turning off an aircraft transponder makes an aircraft invisible to radar, and remember, the airliners were not stealth aircraft. Even the F-117 stealth fighter was not totally invisible to radar.

*   The 9/11 folks made the claim that cell phones use on United 93 were impossible without knowing that the majority of calls were from Airfones, not cell phones, and that the two cell phone calls were made at and below 5000 feet, which records show.

*   The 9/11 folks made the claim that WTC7 was not struck by the aircraft, but collapsed anyway. Had they followed up on the facts, they would have discovered that WTC7 did in fact, suffer from serious impact damage, which the firefighters noted.

Those are just a few examples why it is not prudent to depend on those 9/11 CT websites.

Quote

• “The [9/11 Commission's] investigation was not what we call an investigation. It was to develop a storyline of what happened to be fed to the American people and to receive their acquiescence.”

~Mike Gravel, U.S. Senator

• "As each day goes by, we learn that this government knew a whole lot more about these terrorists before Sept. 11 than it has ever admitted." / "One of these days we will have to get the full story because the 9/11 issue is so important to America. But this White House wants to cover it up."

~Max Cleland, U.S. Senator

• And, of course, the two questions that the Congress would not ask, because the Republicans won't allow it, is, why did 9/11 happen on George Bush's watch when he had clear warnings that it was going to happen? Why did they allow it to happen? And secondly, when they had Osama bin Laden cornered, why didn't they get him? Had there been an independent congress, one that could ask questions, these questions would have been asked years ago.

~Patrick Leahy, U.S. Senator

http://patriotsquestion911.com/

President Clinton tried and failed, to get bin Laden and  President Bush was no exception. Furthermore, there was no evidence of a government conspiracy and no evidence of explosives were ever found and you have to understand that the official line was also supported by the Air Line Pilots Association, Allied Pilots Association, Protec, Inc., a company of demolition experts and engineers, and even the American Institute of Architects and the American Society of Civil Engineers have trashed claims of the 9/11 CT folks. Check it out if you missed it before.

Quote

ARCHITECT Magazine
The Magzine of the American Institute of Architects

The boardroom at the Washington, D.C., headquarters of the American Institute of Architects is an impressive place: Beautiful concentric wooden desks, with microphones in front of every seat, encircle a small central dais, offering the impression that important discussions are had here. “It feels like the United Nations,” a guest recently commented.

This room recently served as a peculiar venue for the 23rd stop on the 30-city “world premiere tour” of AIA member Richard Gage’s new film 9/11: Explosive Evidence—Experts Speak Out: Final Edition. Since 2006, Gage has been traveling all over the world under the banner of his organization, Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth—an organization that has no affiliation with the AIA, express or otherwise—to preach the theory that the Twin Towers and 7 World Trade Center were actually brought down by explosives on September 11, 2001, and not the impact of two hijacked jetliners and the resulting fires and debris.

“I had to be dragged kicking and screaming into believing that our government and the Israeli government, the Israeli Mossad, could be responsible for the Twin Towers demolition,” one member of the DC chapter of 911truth.org declared from the AIA-emblazoned podium.

The accusations of Gage’s organization are the typical hodgepodge of pseudo-scientific claims. Along with other esoteric and debunked technical arguments, he says that melted steel was visible at the Ground Zero site proving that the fires burned too hot to have been caused by jet fuel; that because the buildings collapsed at “near free fall speed” there must have been a controlled demolition; and that traces of athermitereaction found in the World Trade Center debris proves that explosives were used.

All of Gage’s so-called evidence has been rebutted in peer-reviewed papers, by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, by the National Institute for Standards and Technology, by the American Society of Civil Engineers, by the 9/11 Commission Report, and, perhaps most memorably, by the 110-year-old engineering journal Popular Mechanics.

What is more interesting than these bizarre and debunked conspiracy theories is the way that Gage places his AIA membership front and center in his presentations. He seems to be attempting to cloak his organization in the officialdom of the venerable 155-year-old professional institution, even as AIA wants nothing to do with his organization. At the start of his latest film, he explains that he is “a licensed architect of over 20 years and member of the American Institute of Architects.”

Gage often seems to wield his AIA status in promoting his conspiracy theories. In making his case, he also regularly cites that more than 100 AIA members and at least six AIA Fellows have signed his petition calling for a new investigation. In total, Gage says that more than 1,700 of the petition’s roughly 16,000 signatures are from architects and engineers.

During the screening, Gage was at the very least intimating that his organization had been invited to AIA officially. “I can’t tell you how grateful we were to have been accepted to be here in the boardroom at the national headquarters,” Gage said. “We hope this is the beginning of a very productive relationship.”

Aside from Gage, though, there was not a single other architect in the room, much less an official from AIA, or even another member. The 80-strong crowd was made up largely of members of the local 9/11 Truth movement and other political activists.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





Towers Weakened by Planes; Brought Down by Fire

WASHINGTON, D.C., MAY 1, 2002
Analysis by a team of 25 of the nation's leading structural and fire protection engineers suggests that the World Trade Center Towers could have remained standing indefinitely if fire had not overwhelmed the weakened structures, according to a report presented today at a hearing of the House Science Committee. That finding is significant, said W. Gene Corley, Ph.D., team lead for the ASCE/FEMA Building Performance Study Team, because extreme events of this type, resulting in such substantial damage, are generally not considered in building design, and the fact that these structures were able to successfully withstand such damage is noteworthy.

Only a handful of architects and engineers question the NIST Report, but they have never come up with an alternative. Although at first blush it may seem impressive that these people don't believe the NIST Report, remember that there are 123,000 members of ASCE(American Society of Civil Engineers) who do not question the NIST Report. There are also 80,000 members of AIA(American Institute of Architects) who do not question the NIST Report.

http://911-engineers.blogspot.com/

Quote

1.  We were discussing the case against bin Laden and Al Qaeda, not anyone else.

Considering that it is well known that Osama bin Laden declared war on the United States and has admitted to his involvement in the 9/11 attacks, what more is there for you to say?! Despite his admissions of involvement, are you claiming that al-Qaeda and  bin Laden were innocent? You seem to have forgotten that nations around the globe had sent warnings to the United States that those terrorist were planning an attack on the United States.

Quote

2.  You perform a side-step and switch of the argument, in typical OCT fashion, making no attempt to defend your own initial allegation that there is evidence of bin Laden admitting responsibility, which since there is barely any information on the tape at all, now looks rather naive.

Let's take another look to see who is truly naive.

Quote

The Text of Osama bin Laden's Speech

It is the American people and their economy. And for the record, we had agreed with the Commander-General Muhammad Ataa, Allah have mercy on him, that all the operations should be carried out within 20 minutes, before Bush and his administration notice.

So we are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy. Allah willing, and nothing is too great for Allah.

http://web.archive.o...?ArchiveId=7403

For the record, are you denying bin Laden made such a speech?

Quote

3.  Addressing your reversal, evidence is not acquired from ‘conspiracy websites’...

Reversal on my  part?! You have just derailed yourself because I have said all along that it is not prudent to use those 9/11 CT websites as references.

Quote

...(I very rarely link such websites and where I might do for summary of information, you can be sure I’ve verified the accuracy through official, media and/or other reports which, it will gall you to know, are actually the core source of the 9/11 false flag theory).

Where did you get the idea that molten steel was seen flowing from WTC2?

You also misinterpreted and failed to understand the details of those reports, which is clearly evident when facts and evidence are examined in detail. Remember, the 9/11 CT folks misunderstood the text of AP news in regards to their claim that United 93 landed at Cleveland airport, and this is just one example.

Quote

United 93 and Cleveland Airport

A Boeing 767 out of Boston made an emergency landing Tuesday at Cleveland Hopkins International Airport due to concerns that it may have a bomb aboard, said Mayor Michael R. White. White said the plane had been moved to a secure area of the airport, and was evacuated.

United identified the plane as Flight 93. The airline did not say how many people were aboard the flight.

http://www.911myths...._cleveland.html

Now, the correction.

Quote

Correction on United 93

I thought it was time to set the record straight on a website error that's gotten out of hand.

I've been getting calls and e-mails for several years, all from folks who have seen my byline on a story (Plane Lands In Cleveland; Bomb Feared Aboard) about Flight 93, the plane that crashed in a Pennsylvania field on September 11, 2001.

The story in question, an Associated Press bulletin, was posted on WCPO.com during the morning of September 11, 2001. The story stated that Flight 93 landed in Cleveland. This was not true.

http://www.911myths...._cleveland.html

But, the 9/11 CT folks had claimed that United 93 landed at Cleveland airport, which is just another example why they cannot be taken seriously because it has been shown and proven, they are not interested in facts and evidence.

Quote

I’m not getting into a whole discussion of the WTC2 molten flow on this thread, only to say that any intelligent person will discover your understanding and logic to be appalling as always.

You know that I was right on the molten metal issue and furthermore, I have seen molten aluminum at aircraft accidents to understand that the molten metal in the WTC2 photos is not molten steel..

Quote

For everyone else, the latest poll I know of shows that 26% of American adults surveyed, believe a possibility that the WTC tower collapses were the result of pre-planted demolition charges (scroll to pg. 4 here).  When extrapolated across the population this indicates approximately 59 million adults in America alone who are open to the possibility.

A look at this poll paints a different story.





In addition:

Quote

American 9/11 Poll

In 2001, 73 percent of voters believed bin Laden was responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Today 80 percent does.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.c.../#ixzz2HbCxO87u

Quote

Of course, that’s just American adults alone who accept possibility of the WTC demolition – once we get onto the rest of the world and wider aspects of 9/11, we are dealing in the billions who believe in an alternative to the official line.  So much for ‘so few’.

Looking at the official polls, your group is the minority.

Edited by skyeagle409, 10 January 2013 - 07:22 PM.

[skyeagle409]

Q24, on 10 January 2013 - 11:46 AM, said:

Aw, and I was hoping you would defend your initial argument that OCTs were somehow better than CTs.

It is just a matter of which side the evidence supports and as we have seen, the evidence definitely doesn't support the 9/11 CT folks. Another example; you've threw in a false flag conspiracy yet you posted no evidence to support your case.

You have said that the collapse of the WTC buildings was an example of controlled demolition yet you posted no evidence. There was no  evidence of the required pre-weakening on the steel structures nor evidence that explosives were used.

It was very clear that fires had weaken the steel structures, which was evident when police and fire officials reported the WTC  buildings were buckling minutes before they collapsed. The buckling was  evidence that high temperatures generated by the fires were responsible for the collapse of the WTC buildings, not thermite nor explosives.

[Q24]

Liquid Gardens, on 10 January 2013 - 06:20 PM, said:

I think kludge's point is about the degree of relative consistency, not that no OCTs differ on specifics.  Here's how you put it earlier, "But you do realise we could replace "CTs" with "OCTs" in your observation, or simply "theories" to cover it all, and be just as accurate?  The OCT itself has changed notably over time and there are still significant areas which cannot be agreed upon and/or remain speculation. "  I disagree on the 'just as accurate' part, that's acting like there is no basis at all by which to determine whether the OCTs are more consistent with each other than the CTs.  

In your opinion, what specifically do OCTs differ on that is of the magnitude and significance of whether a plane hit the Pentagon, whether there are passengers are in witness protection, that the WTC was or was not brought down by demolitions?  These types of things are of more significance I'd argue to the CTs, it is what leads the CTists to suspect a CT in the first place.  I don't think the absolute specifics of Osama's involvement vs other Al Qaeda leaders has the same relevant significance to the OCT; if we are mistaken about whom in Al Qaeda has the most responsibility of the attack, that doesn't suggest that someone from the govt was involved for instance.  If you are mistaken that there was a demolition, that is a huge data point to lose in the argument for a CT.

Thank heavens for someone who knows how to debate.  I was holding off on berating Kludge – “it seems you only come to this conspiracies board to take swats at ‘CTs’ and then get cranky when challenged.” – and a lot more, but you’ve dug him out of a hole and given me something better to respond to.  Your last sentence of the first paragraph nails exactly part of what I was hoping to discuss.

Ok, you talk about the “magnitude and significance” of differences within overall theories.  I will need to set out those theories at the broadest level with their brief conclusions/definitions: -

• Make It Happen On Purpose (MIHOP):  the operation is driven and enacted by elements within the U.S. – this is a true ‘inside job’ or false flag operation.  This is by far the largest group who argue against the OCT, such as the 26% noted in my last post.
  
• Let I Happen On Purpose (LIHOP):  the operation is driven and enacted by bin Laden/Al Qaeda but allowed to occur with the foreknowledge, and to the benefit, of elements within the U.S. – this differs from MIHOP in that it does not so necessarily involve the WTC demolitions/drone flights, etc.  Of the three categories, it is most rare to find those who fit best into this group.
  
• Official Conspiracy Theory (OCT):  the operation is driven and enacted by bin Laden/Al Qaeda who overcame the U.S. intelligence and defense system.

We can break all of these down into further categories and not everyone falls squarely into one of the above (I would fit into MIHOP but with a few elements of LIHOP).  But still, everyone within those groups can agree to the broad level of definitions above.  So let’s go through your examples and take a look at what is their “magnitude and significance”...

Whether a plane hit the Pentagon.  This is a belief that can only be a result of MIHOP.  Hey that’s my category, and I disagree with any suggestion there was no airliner crash.  Some people believe there is not enough evidence available to prove the existence of an airliner crash at the Pentagon (which until some years after 9/11 was quite true – but by then the theory had widely taken a grip that could not be put down – though I do see most present first-timers to the topic quickly disavow the theory).  Anyhow, despite disagreeing with ‘no plane’ theories, I do however believe there is no incontrovertible evidence of the aircraft origin, flight path or identity.  Each of those differing beliefs came from a lack of available evidence along with a great deal more common background evidence.  What is the “magnitude and significance” in the end?  All MIHOPers are unified in the belief that the evidence, and/or lack of, indicates the attack was not carried out by bin Laden/Al Qaeda but elements within the U.S.  We all are unified in the end that evidence of the OCT is lacking.  And that’s the main point – so really how significant are disagreements in the detail?  Heh, you can be sure that all MIHOPers are politically aiming the same way.

Whether there are passengers in witness protection.  Again a belief of MIHOP, as above, due to the available evidence, and/or lack of, surrounding the aircraft.  And again we share the belief that the evidence, and/or lack of, indicates the attack was not carried out by bin Laden/Al Qaeda but elements within the U.S.  It’s hardly of much “magnitude and significance” in the end.  Also, this type of thing is not evidence of our conclusion, or “what leads the CTists to suspect a CT in the first place” as you said, it is speculation of the detail that allows the conclusion to exist.  It is not so important as the conclusion itself, which is actually formed through far wider bodies of evidence.  That is to say, I don’t believe there was a false flag due to evidence of drone aircraft for example, I believe there were drone aircraft due to evidence of a false flag!  The point is, even whilst I personally (and I think most) see a ‘passenger witness protection’ scheme to be unrealistic speculation, it doesn’t make a difference to the evidence on record and conclusion in the end.

That the WTC was or was not brought down by demolitions.  Here there is more a real divide between MIHOP and LIHOP, usually the former believing demolition and the latter not.  But hey, so what if pure LIHOPers want to side with the OCT on this one?  They don’t share the broad conclusion of MIHOPers that an ‘inside job’ or false flag operation took place anyway, they were never a real part of ‘our’ group in the first place to cause a notable internal divide, except to say that the OCT is not the full story.  The “magnitude and significance” here is no different to the divide between MIHOP and the OCT.

Which brings us to...

The absolute specifics of Osama's involvement vs other Al Qaeda leaders.  This is a divide primarily within the OCT group.  It is easily equal to the “magnitude and significance” of the above examples, if not more so.  I say 'equal' because, like the above, it is a split of opinion in the detail though does not affect the broad conclusion.  I say 'more so' because, I’ve mentioned it before, didn’t we invade a country and set out on a decade long war resulting in hundreds of thousands dead, specifically to remove those responsible?  And yet there is no conclusive evidence of who exactly was responsible.  I’m sure that OCT’s would like to say, “all of them; bin Laden, KSM, Atta and more, were responsible!” to differing degree, yet the evidence is terribly weak and even contradictory (thus leading to the divide mentioned).  How can we know, based on this evidence, who was primarily responsible, if any of them?  And to many that is a question of real “magnitude and significance” which cannot be agreed upon.  I should also add here, in reverse of your own comment, if we MIHOPers are mistaken about whom in the U.S. system has the most responsibility of the attack, that doesn't suggest that someone from Al Qaeda was involved - see, it works both ways.

My point is that the internal divides within each of the MIHOP and OCT groups are not so one-sided as some like Kludge would like to believe.  To pick on one but not the other shows lack of consideration, objectivity or understanding of what is of real “magnitude and significance”.

It really comes back to that we discussed before.  As we are calling for vigilance and further investigation, I feel MIHOPers are at least a little justified to be unsure and disagree on specifics right now.  After all, it’s difficult to pinpoint the ways and means of an operation before the investigation takes place.  I really don’t believe, due to the horrific consequences of war we have seen, that OCTs can justifiably afford the same luxury.  Though again, when we take out the fact that we went to war based upon one theory (which is a pretty big thing to disregard in my opinion), there is really not so much between the groups.

[Q24]

skyeagle409, on 10 January 2013 - 06:39 PM, said:

President Clinton tried and failed, to get bin Laden and  President Bush was no exception.

What a bizarre and misguided thing to say.

Everyone, stand back.

I’m going to attempt asking direct questions to skyeagle.

Skyeagle, when in December 2001 CIA forces on the ground had hard intel of bin Laden’s presence in the Tora Bora mountains, and believed they could have captured him right there if U.S. Central Command had sent reinforcement as agents on the ground requested, why did the U.S. Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, make the decision >>>not<<< to deploy American forces to go after bin Laden or block his escape?  And, is this the action of an administration interested in getting bin Laden?

Additional sources for the above available upon request if needed, but here is the Congressional report: “TORA BORA REVISITED: HOW WE FAILED TO GET BIN LADEN AND WHY IT MATTERS TODAY”.  Please do read onward from pg.2, “The decision not to deploy American forces to go after bin Laden or block his escape was made by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld” – most interesting.

I’m just going to repeat the official answer to the above question, because I find it hilarious, or maybe just ridiculous.  When Rumsfeld was asked why he took the above decision, his response was that, “too many U.S. troops in Afghanistan would create an anti-American backlash and fuel a widespread insurgency”.  Yeah you really wanted to avoid that Rummy.  Clearly, high in your priorities.  Good lord.

Now I doubt that skyeagle has read down this far, but for anyone else: consider also why the Bush administration turned down the Taliban’s offer to hand over bin Laden for trial in a neutral venue, or free of that stipulation provided first evidence of his guilt?  Does it appear they were interested in getting bin Laden, or were they interested in getting a war?

What the hell effort did the Bush administration make to get bin Laden?

No, there was no real attempt to get bin Laden after 9/11.  Not until Obama came to office and did the job.  Bin Laden was of most use to the Neocon ideology alive.  It was under agreement that he came to be placed under house-arrest in Pakistan – that was no hideout, it was a prison, as the evidence and security commentators, albeit in lieu of an investigation, agree.

Edited by Q24, 11 January 2013 - 02:08 PM.

[Babe Ruth]

Very good analysis Q, as usual.  Because of so many variations in what and how people think about the events of the day, strict categorization is difficult.

As far as your apparently unquestioning acceptance of the Myth Of Abbottabad (unless I'm misreading you), not so much.

As for the question of whether passengers were placed into Witness Protection, I have long noted that it IS pure speculation on my part, but I still consider it plausible.  Some within the truther movement claim that Facial Recognition Software can be used in at least one case--that of the new wife of the former solicitor general, which apparently somehow matches the facial characteristics of his former wife who was supposedly killed on 77.  I don't know enough about such processes to make an informed decision, but it is interesting to consider.

However, I have recently encoutered some new information that makes me reconsider my speculation about the Witness Protection Program angle.

I had previously known that some number of surviving family members had attempted tort suits, but I really did not examine it closely.  It turns out that 90+ lawsuits were brought against a variety of defendants.  I think most were by people who lost loved ones at WTC, but there are also a few by surviving family members of airline passengers.

By way of certain legislative action by Congress early on giving immunity to certain entities, and by way of suppression and manipulation by the chief judge Alvin Hellerstein, all those cases were essentially forced to settle out of court, with the exception of one, Ellen Mariani, whose husband was killed on one of the airplanes, I don't know which.

I doubt very much that Mr. Mariani is living somewhere under a new identity, but I don't know anything about him.  I do not doubt for a moment the sincerity of Mrs. Mariani, and clearly she has been wronged by Judge Hellerstein, as have all the others.  So, there are issues to be resolved for my speculative theory.