Your belief about September, 11th, 2001

[CaptainCrunch]

Look Mikey, I'm not going to change your mind, you certainly aren't going to change my mind, so I'm just going to stop.

Not because you've come up with anything that makes me think that your onto something, but because we're just going to go round and round on this.

So in closing, have a nice day.

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Ok, there's one tape that shows the plane hitting the building, but thats not good enough for you, so you speculate on the contents of the other tapes.

Maybe the other tapes have nothing on them so its pointless to show them because the truthers will point to the tapes with nothing showing and say that the government either erased the tapes or dummied them.

Show me some real evidence in a coherant chain that proves to me that there's an intriguing reason to belive that the government had anything to do with 9/11 besides a flawed intelligence service and an inherant lack of sense to listen to that intelligence picture and I might be intrigued.

A blurry peripheral image of an object impacting the Pentagon at an unbelievable speed is what I see in the tape.

Don't you notice there has been alot of "flawed" intellegence in regards to 9/11 and the Iraq war (WMD's)? Sounds like a convenient excuse.

[jar_e]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

The witnesses include security guards and Pentagon employees. If you are not going to find out for yourself.....don't bother arguing.

Watch the Pentagon film I posted.

Pretty condescending argument when the road goes both ways. Don't blame me for not "finding out for myself" when the majority of people in this thread are claiming you aren't. You're hell bent on your way is right and there's no reason to even debate this with you. Your entitled to your opinion, but don't go around on some holier than thou platform and say I'm wrong for not wasting my time on some silly video.

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by oilyfan

I am assuming a proper investigation is one which will support your arguments? You haven't responded to posts asking how this "conspiracy" has been kept secret, despite the thousands of people that would have been involved to make it happen.

Do you just want to believe and so discount overwhelming evidence that discredits the debunkers? And before you say, "what overwhelming evidence", there is tons of it look for it using the same fervour that you use to prove your delusions. I know this sounds harsh but I am sick of this schtick.

I posted a link with many credible skeptics a few posts back, have a look if you want.

So where did the thermite come from? You can debate how thermite was used, but you can't debate that it was not present.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

A blurry peripheral image of an object impacting the Pentagon at an unbelievable speed is what I see in the tape.

Don't you notice there has been alot of "flawed" intellegence in regards to 9/11 and the Iraq war (WMD's)? Sounds like a convenient excuse.

No, your seeing a aircraft traveling at a low rate of speed on a low framerate average definition security camera.

And where oh where do people ever get the idea that intelligence services are flawless in their tracking down on information and the analysis of this information.

Read up on the history of the CIA, its pretty rare that any of its operations went well, and the percentage of verified accurate data is fairly low.

The most competant intelligence gathering entity in the U.S. is the NSA, and realistically they were not prepared to deal with the way that Al Quaeda had set up their communication system because they had spent most of their mandate monitoring perceived enemy nations and the way that their military communicates.

Even the KGB at its height which was far more competant then the CIA and the British SIS which is the varsity of intelligence gathering and analysis are wrong far more often then their right.

Even Israel got attacked probably more then once because their failures in intelligence gathering and using that intelligence was improperly handled and it cost them tons of lives.

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by jar_e

Pretty condescending argument when the road goes both ways. Don't blame me for not "finding out for myself" when the majority of people in this thread are claiming you aren't. You're hell bent on your way is right and there's no reason to even debate this with you. Your entitled to your opinion, but don't go around on some holier than thou platform and say I'm wrong for not wasting my time on some silly video.

It is because I have seen the information on both sides. Like I said, I totally bought the story of 9/11 that day, but have since flipped.

It is full of holes like swiss cheese.

[Frank MetaMusil]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

It is because I have seen the information on both sides. Like I said, I totally bought the story of 9/11 that day, but have since flipped.

It is full of holes like swiss cheese.

So you think Bin Laden is completely innocent?

[troutman]

9-11 Loose Change Second Edition Viewer Guide

And debunking of various 9/11 conspiracy theories

Section II: AA Flight 77 and the Pentagon


http://www.loosechangeguide.com/lcg2.html

Vaporized on impact! I just showed you pictures of tons of debris. See all the people in the picture above? Did you attempt to talk to any of them?

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

So where did the thermite come from? You can debate how thermite was used, but you can't debate that it was not present.

What thermite was found? Wouldn't it all have burned? It's my understanding of the thermite argument that the 'smoking gun' is the presence of barium nitrate. Yes - this is a bi-product of burning thermite. It's also a bi-product of burning circuit boards, among other things. Could there have been burning circuit boards in an office building full of computers that's on fire? I think the chances are pretty good.

Please don't ignore this post - I'm actually curious what you have to say about it.

[SportsJunky]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

So where did the thermite come from? You can debate how thermite was used, but you can't debate that it was not present.

Didn't somebody post an answer to this earlier? Something about Thermite residue is left behind when you burn a computer? Any idea how many burned computers were in these office buildings?

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

My own research has led me to believe that it was shot down. There was very little debris at the Shanksville site....

Your own research is wrong. Deal with it.

[Weiser Wonder]

http://georgewashington2.blogspot.co...ry-of-911.html

The quotes show pretty decisively that the Bush Administration nor the Pentagon cooperated with the 9/11 commission. To the point of lying to questions posed.

It also has quotes from several former CIA agents calling for a new investigation of 9/11, some more credible than others.

It also has quotes of Congressmen seeking a new investigation into 9/11, including Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul. Two congressmen who people think are kooks, but are actually some of the only true representatives of the people in Congress.

I'm not a truther, but I see a trend in this thread to accept every tenet of the standard story as fact. Both positions are misguided in my mind. It's naive to think the government could perform a large scale conspiracy, as well as to think the government acted in good faith and didn't engage in some smaller conspiracies and cover ups.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

I posted a link with many credible skeptics a few posts back, have a look if you want.

So where did the thermite come from? You can debate how thermite was used, but you can't debate that it was not present.

Lets look at the thermite argument for a second, because you use infowar and claim its credible, I'm going to post this site which looks at every argument about Thermite use and fairly shatters it

http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm

and while we're at it lets go back to the building 7 stuff including the discussion around the pull argument

http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

This includes a letter from the fire chief in charge

Update:
Here is an e-mail from Chief Daniel Nigro

Regarding WTC 7: The long-awaited US Government NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) report on the collapse of WTC 7 is due to be published at the end of this year (although it has been delayed already a few times [ adding fuel to the conspiracy theorists fires!]). That report should explain the cause and mechanics of the collapse in great detail. Early on the afternoon of September 11th 2001, following the collapse of WTC 1 & 2, I feared a collapse of WTC 7 (as did many on my staff).

The reasons are as follows:

1 - Although prior to that day high-rise structures had never collapsed, The collapse of WTC 1 & 2 showed that certain high-rise structures subjected to damage from impact and from fire will collapse.

2. The collapse of WTC 1 damaged portions of the lower floors of WTC 7.

3. WTC 7, we knew, was built on a small number of large columns providing an open Atrium on the lower levels.

4. numerous fires on many floors of WTC 7 burned without sufficient water supply to attack them.

For these reasons I made the decision (without consulting the owner, the mayor or anyone else - as ranking fire officer, that decision was my responsibility) to clear a collapse zone surrounding the building and to stop all activity within that zone. Approximately three hours after that order was given, WTC 7 collapsed.

Conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of them are without merit.

Regards, Dan Nigro
Chief of Department FDNY (retired)
http://911guide.googlepages.com/danielnigro

Looking at the sounds of explosions that were heard

http://www.debunking911.com/explosions.htm

[Kybosh]

The truthers won't rest until the truthiness of 9/11 comes full circle.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by SportsJunky

Didn't somebody post an answer to this earlier? Something about Thermite residue is left behind when you burn a computer? Any idea how many burned computers were in these office buildings?

I reposted the thermite argument just above again, it also goes into the falicy of Thermite being used to cut horizontally again because Thermite burns chaotically. Includes videos debunking thermite.

[Thor]

I know most of the conspirists don't like to specifically say what they believe, but I'd love to hear the specifics from you guys on what you think DID happen.

1. Who were involved in the planning, what specific agencies and approximately how many people were in the loop, best guesses.

2. What are your beliefs about the planes, did they in fact hit the targets with the real people inside, or was there fake empty planes and the real people were taken elsewhere to be 'disposed' of. IF fake planes, please explain how this was accomplished.

3. What was the specific goals of those repsonsible, Iraq war, oil prices, control over oil, helping the Bush government, profits for the military industrial complex, etc?

4. If the Pentagon was hit with a missle, where was it launched from and where are the people who saw this missle, missles being hard to miss flying over populated areas.

5. Thermite. Since its been debunked a lot and people still believe in it, when and how did they manage to put the stuff into place without a single person being noticed. How many people in the Twin Towers had to be in on this in order for this plan to work, guesstimate on how many people.

6. Simple yes or no on these, do you believe that we went to the moon, that a lone gunman killed JFK?

[Flabbibulin]

So let's get this straight-

1/ the twin towers were hit by drone airplanes, possibly military airplanes. The real airplanes and passengers were taken to a secret location/current whereabouts and condition unknown

2/ the twin towers were rigged with thermite explosives because the planners of this attack weren't sure if the damage from the drones would be enough to bring the buildings down- not to mention they needed to hide evidence of the top secret military drone

3/ building 7 was also rigged with thermite explosives, because the entire attack was planned at this location and evidence needed to be destroyed

4/ the pentagon was struck by a missile, not one of the military drones or civilian airliner. The launch location of the missile is unkown, some suggest a park several miles away. The whereabouts of the actual plane and passengers that went missing is unknown.

5/ united 93 was either a/shot down by a missile or b/not a plane at all. Whereabouts of actual plane and passengers unknown.

6/ a/ actors where hired to call family members on 9/11, pretending to be on hijacked planes OR b/ Every 9/11 victim and victim family member was "in on it".

7/ this operation would undoubtedly have cost billions of dollars of taxpayers money, requiring the help of tens of thousands of people... No leaks have occurred and the finances needed to pay for the operation cannot be traced...

I have to say- if you believe this, You are a first class dumbass!!!!!!!!

[jammies]

I don't get why the "truthers" think the US government was willing to kill thousands of people in the WTC but balked at killing a few hundred more in some airplanes to do it, instead opting for some ridiculously complex and elaborate method of destruction.

All you'd need is some kind of cut-out remote control equipment and comm gear for the planes, and it wouldn't matter what the passengers and pilots might get up to. (Hint - the US has extensive experience in running drone aircraft). Heck, load the things with explosives if you felt the impact alone wouldn't be enough to destroy ground zero. Which is why these conspiracy theories are completely and utterly stupid, because they assume entirely incompetent conspirators on the level of execution who are entirely competent on the ensuing coverup. Which Is. Not. Possible.

[speede5]

Hey Mikey,

Could you please explain this picture to me?



I just want to know what kind of missile would be used to make a fireball of that magnitude? I have seen missiles explode before, and I have witnessed plane crashes and crash sites. Normal missiles and bombs do not, contrary to Hollywood, result in massive fireballs. The fireballs come when the target's fuel load ignites, or when it ignites in the collision, as this image shows. If a missle hit the pentagon, what was the fuel source for the fireball?

Hollywood makes grand explosions with det cord and diesel fuel, and it takes a lot of diesel to get a nice fireball. The image above is a few thousand pounds of jet fuel.

P.S. don't say napalm or something like that, the residue from that would be so easy to detect that even I would be converted.

P.P.S. There was a similar fireball at the WTC, so you could kill two birds with one stone here.

[CaptainCrunch]

Wow, look at the debris coming off of that explosion.