Generally, I'm not bothered when people tell me that the attacks on September 11th, 2001 were orchestrated by the federal government as part of a false flag operation to give the federal government an excuse to attack Afghanistan and Iraq.

"It's a conspiracy, man, the government is out to get us. You should see Loose Change, it'll change the way you think, man!" They say.

"You're an ill-informed, easily-manipulated patsy who will believe anything said to him as long as it's contained in a video with sinister music and disingenuous research tactics," I am tempted to respond. (But I don't because it is against the rules of the forum)

This type of stupidity and blatant distortion of the facts needs to be met with cold rationalism. Name calling, though entirely warranted when speaking to conspiracy theorists, really does nothing to correct their distorted world views in the same sense that urinating on a wall does nothing to change its position, either. For most people, the big picture argument is enough to discount any conspiracy theory. After all, why would the government stage the most elaborate, perfectly executed hoax as a means for attacking Iraq by using invented Saudi hijackers? Wouldn't a smattering of Iraqi, Iranian and North Korean hijackers have served our purposes better? Why hasn't anyone come forward about the cover-up? And just how did they get explosives in the towers without anyone noticing? These are the questions critical thinkers ask, and that's what naturally precludes them from the conspiracy theory community......*snip*

Source: CLICK HERE

your a busy beaver this morning...did your boss tell you to turn it up?...

I wonder if the conspiracy theorists of the JFK assassination were put under such scrutiny as 9/11 theorists are today.

That's good. A little loose with the ad homs, but who doesn't get frustrated when some people refuse to accept that maybe the government isn't responsible for everything that goes wrong in the world.

Well done.

The question begs, who do you think he works for ??

he claims his employer is the US govt......

That is true, but my job has nothing to do with debunking ufo/conspiracy material...this just passes the time.

ok....*wink*

I just noticed you quoted me in your signature...

such logic needs to be promoted...I think your a riot..

limited, instead of attacking Colbert, how about you tell us what you disagree with about his article.

This is the frustrating part of the argument - people who, faced with a solid, well thought out argument, choose to dismiss the entire point with one swoop of their hand by accusing the author of being a disinfo agent.

That's weak beyond words.

I didnt even read it...If it's coming off colberts keyboard it's propoganda....I have personal knowledge of the 9/11 terrorists activities while in palm beach county...I reside here....they were working for the US govt on a job....so i know anything colbert has to say is just bunk...the FBI wont even talk to me. I know too much...am I in danger ..yes i feel i am; for having this knowledge and the secrecy surrounding it....will it ever come to light?...I think so....

It's also fallacious and unreasonable.

This works both ways.

Show me the evidence that bin Laden was responsible. Show me the evidence that the 19 hijackers were who we're told they were. These two fundamental aspects of the official version were revealed within hours of the attacks and have stood since. Now prove both.

If you rely on the 'fat' bin Laden video (in which I accept bin Laden does probably appear), please prove how this is more relieable that the two previous denials he issued. Further, please provide an independently verified transcript of the audio - one which not only includes an unequivocal admission of guilt, but one that also can be shown to be associated with the video.

In the case of the hijackers' identities, if you rely on the 9/11 Commission Report, please explain how you account for the fact that the Commission was lied to and that 14 of the 19 passports were found to have been fraudulently manipulated.

Absolutely BRILLIANT

Bin laden was working with the CIA at the time. so why would they even wanna blame him?....he had a kidney transplant at a US hospital and had daily CIA visits....binladens just a bogeyman....the hamburg cell trained in the country; but Im not sure binladen had heard of atta prior to the attacks...

DOH....slaps head.

How extremely "open minded" of you.

I did go back and read it...it's the same drivel he's spouting in the ufo section...

Since when did they invade Iraq because of 911?

And if you were going to make up a large scale lie, scattering claims of where the highjackers originated is going to work against your deception. The purpose was served when the lie was sold.

Why hasnt anyone came forward, Well it will only take time - Anyone with such knowledge will get double tapped pretty darn quickly if they were considering / attempting to come clean.

Umm, the Majority of buildings have 'Maintanence' lifts / shafts / stairs that connect to Most Interior, Structual and other areas.
Im sure if the Building workers seen workmen - dressed appropriately, in the building they would not think twice about it.

Are you serious?



Please explain further, if you will. I don't follow.



I read this to say people want to come forward, but they're getting killed by the government before they get the chance. Is that correct?



And bomb-sniffing dogs? What about them?

do you believe the US govt would not kill to keep their secrets?...

I agree - if we finally have an originalist who attaches as much importance to the pursuit of evidence that supports the original version as he does to the pursuit of evidence against it, I'll be delighted.

If you are an originalist, perhaps you can contribute. I've been discussing the collapses of WTC-1 and 2 recently. In order to help me understand the originalist's arguments, could you let me know, in the case of WTC-1, how many of the core columns were severed during the initial impact? Please let me know your source and also the evidence upon which their findings were based.

Straw Man much?

I'm asking him to clarify his point.

As requested :-

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/...Eagar-0112.html

MIT cant be trusted as a source...Im pretty sure they are involved with the us govt in a nefarious way....the faked binladen tapes are rumoured to be made there...can i prove it no...

Of course they can't.

limited, would you contend that 1 + 1 doesn't = 2 if someone from the government said it?

I probably didn't make request clear.

Please provide details of the number of WTC-1 core columns severed by the aircraft during impact (your article doesn't give a number). Once you do locate a source with a number, please point to that source's evidence.

He would accept anything the government said if it were verifiable, I'm sure.

Why are you asking me?

Well, the acronym MIT is only one letter removed from MIB after all!

BTW, my nephew graduated from MIT...no, he's not an MIB.

p.s.

Does anybody know the exact number...shrug?

Because you were so enthusiastic about the OP's call for an evidence-based discussion; I figured you were happy to have one. If not, no problem. But if, in future, you ask me for evidence for my views, be aware that I expect the same standard of proof for any views that you might express.

NIST gives a number in its report, NISTAR1, but where this number comes from is anybody's guess.

I believe in my state and local government....theres something wrong at the top though..

I highly doubt that, but agree to disagree.

Ahh i see, this was a device to enable you to dismiss anything i had to say on the subject because on the basis i couldn't answer your question...very clever.
At what point did i ask you to produce anything?

p.s. & you also chose a question with no definative answer...yes clever.

Like he'd ever tell you.

To answer this and your subsequent post...

No, I wouldn't automatically dismiss anything anyone says. If they have evidence, then so long as I agree that its is solid, I will accept it.

The question I asked you has, to my knowledge, an answer in theory only. No one can possibly know how many columns were severed, yet the originalist's collapse theory is contingent upon the number stated in the NIST report. In other words, there is a suspicion that the number has been reverse engineered to fit the observed events.

The real point in asking you, or anybody else for that matter, to produce evidence to support the originalist view, is to show that it has no firmer basis in fact than many of the the alternative views that are floating around.

Then again, he does drive a black Mitsubishi!

LOL...

But do you accept that as a consequence of the aircraft impact, a number of columns would have been severed?

P.S.
And do you accept any of the conclusions on the web page i posted?

i noticed they didnt mention wtc 7...shhhhhhhhh noone will remember it just fell....

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology...842.html?page=5

so now were trusting FEMA?..lmao...wasnt the horse show guy running the agency..you know gw's buddy from katrina?...attention FEMA came clean case closed!...

Yes, I accept that is very likely.

I didn't read that much for three reasons:

• I was looking specifically for a figure for the number of columns
• It was written in 2001 and therefore pure supposition
• It used a figure of 90,000 litres of aviation fuel (i.e. a full load) when in fact it was only about a quarter of that at impact.

Who is a trusted source, in your mind? Alex Jones?