The Scientific evidence is in: 9/11 was an inside job

[Flashpoint]

If the original post in this thread had capital letters, I might pay it some heed. You know, read it and stuff. It smacks of being lazy as is, or perhaps written by a impressionable youth who simply doesn't know any better.

Either way, not worth the bother.

[Looger]

what?

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by Looger

i've aready provided the links, i'm not a scientist, if anyone wants copies of the hard-hitting evidence, let me know.

ha, so you're not anybody who has the educational background, or is in a position to verify these claims, yet you are absolutely sure that they are hard-hitting.

genius.

[Looger]

Originally Posted by Table 5

ha, so you're not anybody who has the educational background, or is in a position to verify these claims, yet you are absolutely sure that they are hard-hitting.

genius.

i didn't peer review steven jone's work, his contemporaries, other Ph.D's, did.

unreal.

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

I'm guessing the talk went something like this.

Crackpot on stage: "We found traces of thermite"
Cracpots in audience: "What's thermite?"
CoS: "It's used by the military for demolitions purposes"
conveniently leaves out that:
a: it's encredibly hard to get going, so it ins't the most practical demolion method
b: the products of a thermite reaction are iron and aluminum oxide, which could reasonable be expected when an aluminum plain crashes into an iron building thermite reaction or not.
c: it's entirely possible that a thermite reaction could occure spontaneously, especially considering all of the required elements were present in an environment that would have been condusive to such a reaction.
CiA: "Oh my god. We'll that's scientific proof. I better go tell everyone back home."

You forgot to add (d) .... "and here's my CD you can buy with all that proof to show your friends."

Looks like you bought a lot of stuff Looger.

I love it when people of a like mind can get together so they can agree with themselves and sell each other products.

Sounds like the same business that Ann Coulter is in.

Cowperson

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Looger

i keep hearing this 'word would get out' argument.

it has!

Bring_Back_Shantz,

i've aready provided the links, i'm not a scientist, if anyone wants copies of the hard-hitting evidence, let me know.

Yes please,
I've already said I'd love to see independantly verified tests proving that the "thermite" found on the monument was the result of demolitions explosives, and one of the many other explinations that are probalby a lot more plausible, such as:

1) Thermite welding was used to repair parts of the building at some point or another
2) A thermite reaction occured naturally durring the destruction of the building
3) A thermite reaction was not used to cut or weld the parts of the memorial. I assume the pieces of this memorial were taken from the wreckage, and thermite reactions will occur when devices such as thermal lances (magnesium rods in an aluminum tube) are used. Thermal lances are often times used in salvage and rescue operations when large pieces of steel, such as building girders, need to be cut quickly, and making a nice clean cut is not necessary.

So go ahead, if you can send me that hard hitting proof please PM me and i'll send you my email address. But if you're just gonne gime me more arguements such as "They found thermite" and "They saw molten steel" then don't bother.

[peter12]

I've heard of this 9/11 symposium. I know a girl who has a friend that went down to it. He's also high 24 hours a day and is absolutely sure the FBI has a file on him for his interest in 9/11 conspiracy theories.

Pretty sweet actually.

[Looger]

Bring_Back_Shantz,

the links are above with the interviews and the Scholars for 9/11 Truth and their backups.

I'm not going to PM you. You can go ahead and make that step.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Table 5

well, atleast now there's one less CP forumer who's opinion i can stop reading....

Ain't that the truth.

Not that I needed any convincing that Looger was wrong, again, but BBS has done a good job for those that are un-sure.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Looger

Bring_Back_Shantz,

the links are above with the interviews and the Scholars for 9/11 Truth and their backups.

I'm not going to PM you. You can go ahead and make that step.

In other words you admit that you're wrong?

Nice.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by Looger

i keep hearing this 'word would get out' argument.

it has!

Really? So in your links they talk to somebody who was on the plane that "supposedly" hit the Pentagon, but was diverted so a missle could hit it instead? Or do they speak to one of the people who was on one of the demolition teams that planted explosives to bring down the 3 WTC buildings? Or is it an interview with somebody high up in the Bush administration who talks about how they planned this thing?

[/sarcasm]

My point is this. Conspiracy theorists say that no plane stuck the Pentagon. That means 70 odd passengers and all of their family members would have to remain quiet. Were these all people trying to get into the witness relocation program?

[Looger]

oh yeah. that's right.

if you believe one theory on what happened that day, you AUTOMATICALLY believe all the half-baked theories too.

unreal.

like i said, i'm here to say i have some compelling evidence, for people who want to see it. if you don't want to see it, SKIP THIS THREAD AND GO BACK TO SLEEP.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by Looger

oh yeah. that's right.

if you believe one theory on what happened that day, you AUTOMATICALLY believe all the half-baked theories too.

So you are saying that terrorists did attack the Pentagon, and happened to do it on the exact same day that the US Gov't tried to blow up 2 other building?

Yes, I know I am being a little silly. But that's what happens when you string two items together and present a slight corelation between them. You end up with an anti-conspiracy theory that makes as little sense as your conspiracy theory.

[Looger]

no one will ever have the whole story.

i'm not denying that planes were hijacked, or that they hit buildings.

did al-quaeda schedule 15 military exercises and get norad to stand down?

did al-quaeda plant explosive devices?

how and why did building seven come down, larry silverstein is on tape saying they made a decision to 'pull' the building. it came down with a kink in the centre, just like controlled demolitions.

when the towers were coming down you can see the 'squibs' - explosions thirty floors below the collapse.

this is all on video, all documented.

for anyone with the balls to actually watch it.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

What I don't understand is why there's a need for a conspiracy theory here. After all, 9/11 WAS a bonafide conspiracy by a group of wealthy men who wrought death and destruction for selfish purposes. They're called Al-Qaeda.

I'm no fan of the Bush administration, but to say that he pulled off a conspiracy in which he essentially murdered 3000 people just to solidify his grip on power would mean that he's both smart and evil.

Let's face it, folks. He's neither of those things.

[peter12]

Having been to a few policy conventions involving conservative thinkers and scholars, I have seen what happens when a few ideological nutcases get together and take over a whole meeting with their own crazy brand of the truth.

Your little symposium is a classic example of GroupThink.

[photon]

Wow I had no idea that a whole industry has developed over this stuff!

This is just like the UFO or crop circle conventions. Amazing.

My favorite is how these videos always have guys saying "the only reasonable explination" or "common sense tells us" and think that's proof.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

^^good post photon---and it points to one of the major problems with this conspiracy theory. If the Bushies planned it all along, why is it such a cluster%$^&?!?

[Looger]

why does everyone think bush was the main man in these 9/11 government involvement theories?

plenty of mainstream press reported the code words that circulated that day - "the angel is next" - they said that since 'angel' means air force one, that there was a threat or a fear of the terrorists hitting the president's plane.

for once the mainstream media got it right.

bush was threatened, webster tarpley wrote a book called '9/11: synthetic terror made in the usa' that details this very probable development, take a look at dubya sitting stunned in that classroom.

he had been threatened with his life - go along and be our puppet, and we won't shoot down your plane.

just a blip on the radar screen. fox two!

the neo cons running the white house and pentagon and their backers are some sick sick *******s, the same bunch that was running wild in central america 20 years ago. college of the americas, deathsquads, assassinations, torture, drugs, you name it.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by Looger

when the towers were coming down you can see the 'squibs' - explosions thirty floors below the collapse.

this is all on video, all documented.

for anyone with the balls to actually watch it.

So you take 10 stories worth of air filled with concrete dust and compress it. What happens? Hey, the windows blow out! Neat.

Last 911 conspiracy thread we had here had a pdf where a guy went through scene by scene and showed that there were better explanations for most things. It then becomes a "zebras or horses" type of question.

For those of you not familliar, there's a common expression in medical school to teach young doctors to think horses and not zebras. The question goes like this: you are hiking along a commonly used trail in the Kananaskis and come upon hoove prints. Is it more likely that a horse made those prints, or a zebra?

Yes, a zebra could have escaped from the Calgary zoo, navigated its way across major city streets and then out into the mountains and then walked across that trail. Or it could have been one of the 100's of horses that actually are there.

The other common theme with conspiracy theorists is there is no middle ground. I either believe you 100%, or am told I am an idiot, or have my eyes closed. (ie, "GO BACK TO SLEEP")

What is wrong with approaching this with an open mind. If the arguement is that compelling, let me see it for myself.