Truthers' Trouble with Evidence

[A Sharp Major]

On a forum out of bounds to critics, a new post.

TOP Secret Government Facility (holds Flight 93 evidence)

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewt ... 992#116992

Therein is another example of truthers' inability to process information properly.

Top Secret? Hardly, it's on the television! Government Facility? No, it's owned and operated by a private company, with a website. Seldom out the news. The Government is just another customer.

How

Top Secret

?

Same film linked here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2aou6c2MOmg

[Stefan]

Umm.. Kind of clutching at straws there aren't you?

Yes it's badly worded, but it's pretty clear that the author meant the facility holds the government's top secret evidence.

But you are partly right - "truthers" do have trouble with evidence... or trouble finding any evidence to support the impossible official conspiracy theory. Hence us calling for the truth...

You don't have any problems with processing information though - you don't ask for any. Just accept what the government and media say, then get about attacking anyone who tries to shake your closed down inflexible world view.

[A Sharp Major]

Umm.. Kind of clutching at straws there aren't you?

I was thrown a hay stack by the poster.

It isn't as 'good' as my rubbishing of Robby's truther psuedo science notion of how cutting torches work. No ripostes to that post yet, nor the one asking how an independent investigation can have subpoena powers. Pikey never demonstrated how his 'Finnish Military Expert' is any of those things.

You don't have any problems with processing information though - you don't ask for any.

Oh, I ask, I just don't get any answers from truthers.

Just accept what the government and media say, then get about attacking anyone who tries to shake your closed down inflexible world view.

I've said before on these pages, I was a lot closer to New York's events of 9/11 than most if not all truther posters. So Truther X who was in his basement in Sheffield on 9/11 makes claims based on googling and Wikipedia, Hoffman, Hufschmid, Haupt etc and my first hand experience is otherwise, why would be all ears?

[Stefan]

I'm not really bothered how close to new york you were on 9/11. New York city is full of people who think 9/11 was an inside job, and who don't. What bit of difference it makes is in your mind alone.

As for getting answers from "truthers" - you should be asking the government for answers - asking them for the evidence behind their wild claims about what happened on 9/11. Claims which have been used as justification to destroy our civil liberties and kill hundreds of thousands of innocents overseas.

Your priorities are all wrong. You attack people asking questions as though asking questions does any harm, and merrily support a version of events for which no proof has been provided, while it tears our way of life to shreds.

Good luck with that.

[Wibble]

As for getting answers from "truthers" - you should be asking the government for answers - asking them for the evidence behind their wild claims about what happened on 9/11. C

The government has provided evidence. The fact you chose not to believe it your fault not theirs. Please show proof of wild claims?

[Stefan]

As for getting answers from "truthers" - you should be asking the government for answers - asking them for the evidence behind their wild claims about what happened on 9/11. C

The government has provided evidence. The fact you chose not to believe it your fault not theirs. Please show proof of wild claims?

Wibble,
If you think the official story is adequete you are guilty of not even knowing what it is.

They have offered so far three different stories regarding norads response, refuse to disclose details of the war games, cheney and minetta disagree on where cheney was at the time of the pentagon strike, they offer no analysis of the TT global collapses, no explanation of their speed, thus far (6 years later) no explanation of the WTC7 collapse, do not acknowledge let alone explain the temperatures which sustained at ground zero, the reports of molten metal, the pulverisation of materials, how bodies were disintegrated, how shards of bone were found blown onto the roofs of nearby buildings, of the endless reports of explosions before and after collapse (in a couple of reports before the impact of the plane). This is just the tip of the iceberg.

They ignore and deny all evidence which doesn't fit their story and then slap up a fable in it's place and hope no one ever describes it from beginning to end because it would sound like a ridiculous conspiracy theory if they did.

Well I did - here: http://twenty13.wordpress.com/2008/04/2 ... errorists/

You, and I mean all of you critics, need to start demanding evidence for the theory you have been given, not just accepting it on faith and then angrily attacking anyone who points out its faults.

They have started wars. They have taken our liberties. They are destroying our way of life. The burden of proof is on their version of events.

[Wibble]

They ignore and deny all evidence which doesn't fit their story and then slap up a fable in it's place and hope no one ever describes it from beginning to end because it would sound like a ridiculous conspiracy theory if they did.

What evidence? Where has this evidence been presented in a legal and open manner? Where is the court case challenging the official story?

Yes the burden of proof is on the government but they have presented it. If you dont believe it the burden of proof is now on you to prove it wrong. Where is your proof?

[Stefan]

They ignore and deny all evidence which doesn't fit their story and then slap up a fable in it's place and hope no one ever describes it from beginning to end because it would sound like a ridiculous conspiracy theory if they did.

What evidence? Where has this evidence been presented in a legal and open manner? Where is the court case challenging the official story?

Yes the burden of proof is on the government but they have presented it. If you dont believe it the burden of proof is now on you to prove it wrong. Where is your proof?

Wibble, you're clearly a time waster so this will be the last post in this exchange.

My proof of what? This is not my theory - it is theirs, what am I supposed to be proving?

I am asking for the evidence which has not been explained by the official story, some of which I listed above, to be explained or the theory dropped and a new investigation launched. As it stands the official story is palpably absurd, and yet has been used as a pretext to tear apart our way of life and main and kill millions over seas.

You singuarly fail to appreciate the gravity of this and accept nonsense flippantly.

Your position seems to be we believe whatever we are told by dafault, and then only proof of another version of events should shake our faith in it.

That's pretty warped in my view and I disagree. When the consequences are this grave we should ask for evidence, and when the consequences are this grave we should demand explanations for all the evidence which contradicts that story.

[Wibble]

My proof of what? This is not my theory - it is theirs, what am I supposed to be proving?

Where is your proof that the official story is wrong? Just saying it is wrong does not make it wrong. If you have proof showing other possibilities please present it.

Some loud bangs before the towers fell are not proof of CD. There were explosions as the Titanic sank. Is that CD to? If it was CD how do you explain the hundreds if not thousands of man hours needed to covertly plant the explosives?

Do you expect a building that has been hit by aircraft and is on fire to be quiet? Of course there were noises and loud bangs but that does not mean there was CD. People said they heard explosions but how else do you describe a loud bang? It is not proof of CD.

There is an explanation of the WTC7 collapse and the NIST are still working on it. They have explained why it is taking time and it is in their interest to get it published ASAP to stop all the conspiracies. The NIST have also been forced to waste further time proving the collapse wasn't from CD, Aliens, Nuclear weapons, thermobaric weapons and thermite etc just to satifisfy you lot.

What do you mean"how bodies were disintegrated"? Where? When?

Reports of molten metal does not mean there was molten metal. Anyway the NIST have explained this in their FAQ.

The reports of explosions before the impacts have been explained already. Watch this:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... &plindex=0

Do you have anything new or are you just time wasting?

[Alex_V]

They have offered so far three different stories regarding norads response,

NORAD didn't have any responsibility to react outside the ADIZ, but did so anyway on the day, despite the poor flow of information from the FAA. I've seen no genuine explanation of how they could be expected to respond and intercept those hijacked planes. I accept that things could have been organised far better between departments for a more effective response, and that NORAD's responses to the 9/11 commission are downright weird, but I don't accept that given the circumstances their response was in any way suspicious.

refuse to disclose details of the war games

This is pure hearsay - the truth movement has proven absolutely NOTHING about war games on the day either imparing or deliberately obstructing a proper response.

cheney and minetta disagree on where cheney was at the time of the pentagon strike

Mineta's testimony disagrees with every other witness to the events and all the logs. His testimony, for example, contradicts Bush's actions in staying in the school classroom, which he did on camera. Even if you take Mineta's testimony as the truth, there is no indication that what he saw or heard indicated a conspiracy anyway.

they offer no analysis of the TT global collapses, no explanation of their speed

Not really true - they offer analysis up to the point that they considered global collapse inevitable. Independent structural engineers have offered explanations to the scientific community for time and method of collapse, and these remain unchallenged.

thus far (6 years later) no explanation of the WTC7 collapse

An explanation is due, as you know. Is a delay evidence of a cover-up?

do not acknowledge let alone explain the temperatures which sustained at ground zero, the reports of molten metal

It's true that this was outside the remit of the NIST reports. The truth movement have offered no serious explanation of these temperatures either.

the pulverisation of materials, how bodies were disintegrated, how shards of bone were found blown onto the roofs of nearby buildings

Again, the truth movement offers no serious explanation as to why these would be either impossible for the OT, or why they definitely suggest a controlled demolition. Pulverisation is considered a natural result of such a collapse.

of the endless reports of explosions before and after collapse (in a couple of reports before the impact of the plane).

This point makes my blood boil, because it largely refers to the innocent explanations of many witnesses to the day, that have been twisted out of their own context by the truth movement for their own ends. 99% of these reports of explosions are of witnesses trying to offer comparisons for the sounds they heard. Barely any of these quotes come from witnesses who believe that the twin towers were destroyed by controlled demolition, and it is utterly reprehensible to suggest otherwise IMO.

They ignore and deny all evidence which doesn't fit their story and then slap up a fable in it's place and hope no one ever describes it from beginning to end because it would sound like a ridiculous conspiracy theory if they did.

That, in my opinion, is exactly what the truth movement has done. There is no coherent combination of events that has been put forward by the truth movement - no grand vision that would explain the impossibilities of this being an inside job. This is why the truth movement says they are 'asking questions' rather than be faced with the assignment of actually explaining their impossible theories.

The truth movement are peddling a fable. They have no serious scientific backing for their claims. The truth movement is riddled with inveterate bullshitters, free on the internet to pursue their beliefs, but of no serious standing in the real world. Outside of D-list celebrities, they have convinced nobody of any real influence or standing of their preposterous theories! THAT is the undeniable truth!

[Stefan]

Alex, alex, alex, where to start...

NORAD didn't have any responsibility to react outside the ADIZ, but did so anyway on the day, despite the poor flow of information from the FAA. I've seen no genuine explanation of how they could be expected to respond and intercept those hijacked planes. I accept that things could have been organised far better between departments for a more effective response, and that NORAD's responses to the 9/11 commission are downright weird, but I don't accept that given the circumstances their response was in any way suspicious.

As you should know, emmergency proceedure is to scramble to get a visual on any plane which looses transponder signal, radio contact, or changes course - you've heard the quoted figures time and time again - they did this many times as a routine in the year before 9/11 and every other year.

The 9/11 Commission focussed entirely on the highjack proceedure, which is more complicated, and did not mention the fact that before the first plane was even determined a hijacking a jet should have been along side it trying to figure out why it was causing massive danger to everything else in the sky by veering radically off course.

This did not happen.

Your problem, as ever, is you accept the answer given, without interrogation. They say "its all the FAAs fault" so you mimic it and take this as an answer. Norad have access to the FAAs radars, and it is their responsibility to protect air space. The idea that the entire defence of the US airsprace is the duty of civilian air traffic controllers is one of the many nonsenses you have to swallow in order to follow the official story. You eat it up and ask for more.

You should know, otherwise you shouldn't be here, that the first story Norad gave is they did not know about any plane off course until after the last one came down in shanksville. This caused even the MSM to ask serious questions, then they came out with a second story - a set of times the FAA informed them of the flights and said that they tragically couldn't get there in time. Then people looked at those figures and said "hold on a second - there is enough time there to stop at least some if not all of the flights" they then changed their story AGAIN - with the FAA giving them even later notice which they couldn't respond to.

The 9/11 Commissions absurd response, and yours, was to say "well I don't know why you lied to us about it being your fault, but we're glad you've come clean and admitted it was all someone elses fault and there's nothign you could have done".

This is pure hearsay - the truth movement has proven absolutely NOTHING about war games on the day either imparing or deliberately obstructing a proper response.

We have asked for disclosure.

Mineta's testimony disagrees with every other witness to the events and all the logs. His testimony, for example, contradicts Bush's actions in staying in the school classroom, which he did on camera. Even if you take Mineta's testimony as the truth, there is no indication that what he saw or heard indicated a conspiracy anyway.

No he didn't assert a conspiracy - he said he assumed but didn't know that the order was to shoot down the plane, not let it hit.

However it indicates a conspiracy in that it indicates a lie - cheney maintains he wasn't there, and as you indicate has found people to back him up. But the testimoney which is more salient is the one which refutes that story. Minetta has repeated on record he was there - why, in your mind, is he lying and the noble Cheny telling the truth.

And why, with the knowledge the plane was approaching, was the area it was heading towards not evactuated, or the whole upper levels of the pentagon not evactuated. This is gross negilence at the least, manslaughter or murder at the most.

Anyone with critical faculties could also make the reasonable assumption, since the plane was not shot down, that the order was to let it hit.

Not really true - they offer analysis up to the point that they considered global collapse inevitable.

It could only be demonstrated "inevitable" through analysis. Why do a NIST report at all? Their reasoning for not explaining the collapse is "well we all saw it collapse in TV - obviously the initiation led to collapse" when they could just write a single line "we all saw the planes hit, obviously they caused the collapse".

NO. Alex. Please engage the intellegence I credit you with. Almost every single claim of "conspiracy theorists" regarding the towers collapse happened within the period NIST refused to discuss - they side stepped explaining the speed, the squibs, the pulverisation, the symetry, the explosive effects and every thign else by saying "oh it was inevitable".

How the fuk is that going to help building standards?

Independent structural engineers have offered explanations to the scientific community for time and method of collapse, and these remain unchallenged.

I take it you are referring to the paper released two days after 9/11 by Bazant, which was torn apart and replaced by a new paper, which was torn apart and now we are on Bazants THIRD crack of the whip?

Yes it has been challenged - the entire scientifc, arhitectural and engineering factions of the truth movement challenge it.

It does not calculate a time of collapse - and that is the main bone of contention.

It in fact just says "take this weight and drop it onto this weight, can it resist". Ignoring the fact that Gordon Ross has shown their calculations to be wrong - it relies on the metal beams all hitting each other perfectly - it does not take account of or describe a collapse which resembles what we saw.

An explanation is due, as you know. Is a delay evidence of a cover-up?

No, simple logic is. It was due long ago, has been delayed and then contracted out - and they have no new evidence to work with which others have already used to conclude CD. We've gone through this before and it's getting boring...

It's true that this was outside the remit of the NIST reports. The truth movement have offered no serious explanation of these temperatures either.

Why should this have been outside the remit of the NIST report?

Alex, again, PLEASE USE YOUR BRAIN. The NIST report decided everythign which disproved gravitational collapse - incluidng the COLLAPSE OF THE TOWERS THEMSELVES and the temperatures afterwards was outside of their remit.

Why are you so pliant in letting them getting away with this. And why do you ignore it your self? WHY?

Such temperatures, the lengths they persisted, the reports of molten steel all REFUTE THE IDEA of gravitiational collapse. The only answer is "the truth movement" haven't explained it -

Why should they? Some theories have been put forward by Jones and the like - but that is not our job - it shows something other than GC happened.

Your response is to just ignore that? UNBELEIVABLE???

Again, the truth movement offers no serious explanation as to why these would be either impossible for the OT, or why they definitely suggest a controlled demolition. Pulverisation is considered a natural result of such a collapse.

IS IT? Then offer some examples? I state it is inhernetly not on this scale - absolutley not - now please prove me wrong.

Bodies disintegrated and tiny shards of bone blown hundreds of meters away natural for a collapse powered by gravity? Remember in your collapse scenario the speed means next to no energy was used in anythign but the fall of the top part of the building - yet all this explosive destruction is normal? Nonsense!

This point makes my blood boil, because it largely refers to the innocent explanations of many witnesses to the day, that have been twisted out of their own context by the truth movement for their own ends. 99% of these reports of explosions are of witnesses trying to offer comparisons for the sounds they heard. Barely any of these quotes come from witnesses who believe that the twin towers were destroyed by controlled demolition, and it is utterly reprehensible to suggest otherwise IMO.

Do your research. There are many, many reports of explosions where the people are adamant they were explosions and felt phsyical blast effects to go with them.

That, in my opinion, is exactly what the truth movement has done.

Yet then you go onto say....

There is no coherent combination of events that has been put forward by the truth movement - no grand vision that would explain the impossibilities of this being an inside job. This is why the truth movement says they are 'asking questions' rather than be faced with the assignment of actually explaining their impossible theories.

Which is the exact opposite.

What we are doing is bringing to light evidence which shows the official story to be wrong, and exposing clear deceptions in that story as well.

Why should we propose a "grand vision" or "theory" for what happened? We don't know.

If there were temperatures over 100degrees under ground zero for days and multiple credible people said there was molten metal flowing like lava down there, that suggests something capabale of generating EXTREME temperatures was active in the collapse.

If huge pieces of steel weighing tonnes are hurled like darts into neatby buildings, bodies are blown to tiny pieces, concrete turned to the texture of talcum powder and cars blown onto their backs at the base of the tower - that suggests some extreme force pushing outward and not just down.

At the same time - we are told, by you and the government - to accept that gravity acheived all of this - and that it took so little energy that the speed of collapse was only negliably slowed down from freefall speed -

Unless of course we can describe EXACTLY what did happen - we have to accept an account which is so clearly wrong it makes you brain blister and ignore anything which doesn't fit into as as "outside our remit"... Jesus!

The truth movement are peddling a fable. They have no serious scientific backing for their claims. The truth movement is riddled with inveterate bullshitters, free on the internet to pursue their beliefs, but of no serious standing in the real world. Outside of D-list celebrities, they have convinced nobody of any real influence or standing of their preposterous theories! THAT is the undeniable truth!

Well, here's the laws of physics being broken again - I deny it. Wow. I just deneid the undeniable.

The truth movement are simply the people brave enough to ask questions in the public arena about an issue we're supposed to just shut up and accept the official line on.

The official story is a myth, a fable, a conspiracy theory so absurd that to lay it out from beginning to end it sounds like a fairy tail.

But, to you, unless we can propose an alternate story - we should just keep on trucking along with the wrong one...

[Mark Gobell]

The official story is a myth, a fable, a conspiracy theory so absurd that to lay it out from beginning to end it sounds like a fairy tail.

Agreed.

So, Stefan, just for the record, do you think that NORAD were "stood down" then?

[Wibble]

As you should know, emmergency proceedure is to scramble to get a visual on any plane which looses transponder signal, radio contact, or changes course - you've heard the quoted figures time and time again - they did this many times as a routine in the year before 9/11 and every other year.

Your twisting stuff agian. They always allow some time to try and contact the aircraft in case it was an error. Transponder errors happen all the time and if they scrambled for everyone you would need the whole USAF on QRA.

Norad have access to the FAAs radars, and it is their responsibility to protect air space.

NORAD protect the US airspace from attack yes, but from attack from outside the US. Why would NORAD monitor airspace inside the US? That is the job of the covillain ATC agencies.

There was no threat to the US from outside air attack and that is why only 14 aircraft were on QRA. Please tell us the last time the US mainland was attakced by air and how? I will give you a clue it was a long time ago.

NORAD have released the tapes from 9/11 and it all makes sense. There is no cover up.

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/feat ... orad200608

And why, with the knowledge the plane was approaching, was the area it was heading towards not evactuated, or the whole upper levels of the pentagon not evactuated. This is gross negilence at the least, manslaughter or murder at the most.

What? Of course the people inside the Pentagon knew exactly where the aircraft crash into. How would they know they were even a target? Should they evacute every government building and high rise on the flight path? Woudl the people have been safer stood on the grass outside? If there was negligence prove it? If not stop slurring good people.

Bodies disintegrated and tiny shards of bone blown hundreds of meters away natural for a collapse powered by gravity?

Why not? Do you expect bodies to survive the collapse of skyscrappers? And then the boddies to sit nicely at the bottom of a pile of rubble? Please expalin?

There are many, many reports of explosions where the people are adamant they were explosions and felt phsyical blast effects to go with them.

See my previous post and video link. Loud bangs are not proof of CD.

What we are doing is bringing to light evidence which shows the official story to be wrong, and exposing clear deceptions in that story as well.

Where?

Why should we propose a "grand vision" or "theory" for what happened? We don't know.

You dont know. Yet as above you claim to be "bringing evidence etc etc". You have no evidence. You have no explanation of events. You have nothing.

If huge pieces of steel weighing tonnes are hurled like darts into neatby buildings, bodies are blown to tiny pieces, concrete turned to the texture of talcum powder and cars blown onto their backs at the base of the tower - that suggests some extreme force pushing outward and not just down.

Who said the only force was down? Are you suggesting CD again? With CD you use the force of the explosives to cut through key parts of the building. You do not use CD to throw debris everywhere and blow up bodies.

The official story is a myth, a fable, a conspiracy theory so absurd that to lay it out from beginning to end it sounds like a fairy tail.

But, to you, unless we can propose an alternate story - we should just keep on trucking along with the wrong one...

Prove the offical story wrong then? Or show in as much detail as the offical reports an alternatative version?

I dont know many fairy tails where terrorsits kill 3000 innovent people. What a sick thing to say.

[Stefan]

Mark,
I think that is the least likely of several options - as it requires a lot more people to be "in on it" than is sensible for a conspiracy.

There are other possibilities - such as systematically confusing the responding pilots through making them believe they were witnessing parts of a war game rather than real life events.

Who knows. The fact is Norad should have responded from the instant the first plane went off course - before a hijack was known to be taking place.

This did not happen and the 9/11 commission report ignored the emmergency proceedure altogether in order to avoid asking a question as to why...

[Stefan]

Yes wibble, if transponders go off, they'd contact the plane by radio, and if there was no answer - they'd scramble to get a visual.

If a plane went off course - of course they'd try to radio first, but the reflex to scramble would be even greater as that errant plane represented a very real threat to itself and every other plane in their air.

They did.... nothing.

Norad gave the 9/11 commission a series of recordings, whether or not these were complete or not is another matter. The easiest thing in the world to do, as anyone who has worked in the media will tell you, is to cherry pick bits and pieces of a much longer body of text/recording/audio visual - and through editing paint pretty much any picture you want to.

Norads ever changing story and deceptive manner generall even led the lackyish commission to complain they were clearly being dishonest in some way - although they decided all the versions which were more damning to norad were the lies and the version which lift them smelling of roses was them finally "coming clean".

Please, take my advice and do some research.

I gave you the sites. Come back when you have at least the barest understanding of the facts and we can have a discussion then.

[Mark Gobell]

Thanks Stefan.

So, do you think that the ever evolving lies of NORAD have been made simply to cover for the notion that they were confused or incompetent then?

[Alex_V]

As you should know, emmergency proceedure is to scramble to get a visual on any plane which looses transponder signal, radio contact, or changes course - you've heard the quoted figures time and time again - they did this many times as a routine in the year before 9/11 and every other year.

The 9/11 Commission focussed entirely on the highjack proceedure, which is more complicated, and did not mention the fact that before the first plane was even determined a hijacking a jet should have been along side it trying to figure out why it was causing massive danger to everything else in the sky by veering radically off course.

This did not happen.

Your problem, as ever, is you accept the answer given, without interrogation. They say "its all the FAAs fault" so you mimic it and take this as an answer. Norad have access to the FAAs radars, and it is their responsibility to protect air space. The idea that the entire defence of the US airsprace is the duty of civilian air traffic controllers is one of the many nonsenses you have to swallow in order to follow the official story. You eat it up and ask for more.

You should know, otherwise you shouldn't be here, that the first story Norad gave is they did not know about any plane off course until after the last one came down in shanksville. This caused even the MSM to ask serious questions, then they came out with a second story - a set of times the FAA informed them of the flights and said that they tragically couldn't get there in time. Then people looked at those figures and said "hold on a second - there is enough time there to stop at least some if not all of the flights" they then changed their story AGAIN - with the FAA giving them even later notice which they couldn't respond to.

The 9/11 Commissions absurd response, and yours, was to say "well I don't know why you lied to us about it being your fault, but we're glad you've come clean and admitted it was all someone elses fault and there's nothign you could have done".

Utter nonsense, Stefan. The 9/11 Commission's findings were based on the tapes. You can read intentions into what the 9/11 commission or FAA or NORAD did, but that is speculation - your opinion of events is relevant to you, but in itself proves nothing.

What needs to be proven is criminal negligence - the internal politics of the 9/11 commission is not really relevant in itself. Like it or not, NORAD relied on communication from the FAA for issues outside the ADIZ. There was 9 minutes between the first contact with NEADS and the first crash. 11 different hijacked planes were reported in total that morning. NEADS was first notified about Flight 77 3 minutes before it hit the pentagon.

If you can prove different, then you are welcome to do so. But I don't think the tapes support your case. I think the only place for suspicion to be placed is on the communications within the FAA, which were obviously too slow for effective action on the day. But again, the challenge is to prove that individuals within the FAA were criminals, rather than professionals facing a situation for which they were sadly unprepared.

[Wibble]

Yes wibble, if transponders go off, they'd contact the plane by radio, and if there was no answer - they'd scramble to get a visual.

If a plane went off course - of course they'd try to radio first, but the reflex to scramble would be even greater as that errant plane represented a very real threat to itself and every other plane in their air.

Your making stuff up again. They do not immediately scramble aircraft until they know there is a problem. An aircraft may go of course due to an inflight emergency. Are you saying that this deserves a QRA scramble? Just what the pilot needs when he is coping with an emergency is an F15 in the way.

And Where do the scamble to? They could not find the aircraft?

[Stefan]

Yes wibble, if transponders go off, they'd contact the plane by radio, and if there was no answer - they'd scramble to get a visual.

If a plane went off course - of course they'd try to radio first, but the reflex to scramble would be even greater as that errant plane represented a very real threat to itself and every other plane in their air.

Your making stuff up again. They do not immediately scramble aircraft until they know there is a problem. An aircraft may go of course due to an inflight emergency. Are you saying that this deserves a QRA scramble? Just what the pilot needs when he is coping with an emergency is an F15 in the way.

And Where do the scamble to? They could not find the aircraft?

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewt ... 158#117158

[Wibble]

What?

[Alex_V]

No he (Mineta) didn't assert a conspiracy - he said he assumed but didn't know that the order was to shoot down the plane, not let it hit.

However it indicates a conspiracy in that it indicates a lie - cheney maintains he wasn't there, and as you indicate has found people to back him up. But the testimoney which is more salient is the one which refutes that story. Minetta has repeated on record he was there - why, in your mind, is he lying and the noble Cheny telling the truth.

And why, with the knowledge the plane was approaching, was the area it was heading towards not evactuated, or the whole upper levels of the pentagon not evactuated. This is gross negilence at the least, manslaughter or murder at the most.

Anyone with critical faculties could also make the reasonable assumption, since the plane was not shot down, that the order was to let it hit.

Mineta's timings are not supported by any of the other evidence. I've mentioned the Bush anomaly. But Mineta's testimony also places this potential stand-down order at somewhere near the time of the pentagon crash (9.25-6) but NEADS didn't even know about the aircraft until 9:34.

And what aircraft were around to enact any order at that time? The aircraft sent towards Washington were 150 miles away when the plane hit the Pentagon (and it's only through sheer luck they were that near, because they were responding to a different hijack report).

So with critical faculties, I'm supposed to assume that a plane that couldn't have been shot down, that NORAD didn't even have any knowledge of at the time, was allowed to fly into the Pentagon because of a mysterious conversation between Cheney and another member of staff, that Mineta heard but assumed was something totally different?

I prefer to use my critical faculties to decide that, even before I consider the truth movement's mis-interpretation of Mineta's evidence, that all the other information indicates that he is wrong with his timeline. Hence no conspiracy.

[Alex_V]

This is pure hearsay - the truth movement has proven absolutely NOTHING about war games on the day either imparing or deliberately obstructing a proper response.

We have asked for disclosure.

And in the absence of whatever particular disclosure you are demanding, you have assumed a conspiracy. Based on thin air in this case. Exactly what can you prove about wargames being part of an inside job conspiracy? Admit it - ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!

[Alex_V]

Norad gave the 9/11 commission a series of recordings, whether or not these were complete or not is another matter. The easiest thing in the world to do, as anyone who has worked in the media will tell you, is to cherry pick bits and pieces of a much longer body of text/recording/audio visual - and through editing paint pretty much any picture you want to.

Another tacit admission from you Stefan - this time that the case against NORAD depends on their tapes being fakes. What evidence do you have that the tapes are fakes? ABSOLUTELY NONE!

I could claim that every piece of evidence convicting Fred West was faked based on nothing in particular. And hey presto he's innocent! But does it mean anything in the real world - not a thing!

If the truth movement cannot prove a point, it would be better off not making it. Then perhaps we might have a debate unmuddied by idle speculation based on no evidence whatsoever. Or perhaps there would be no debate left?

[pepik]

they side stepped explaining the... squibs

Hey everybody look! The squibs are back!

Hey Stefan, what's a squib?

(For the uninitiated - Stefan will, as a point of principle, refuse to explain what he meant by squib or why he thought there were squibs in the towers. He will hold out for weeks and weeks, refusing to back up what he says. However after its all died down, a few weeks later he'll start talking about squibs again. And here we are...)

[sam]

they side stepped explaining the... squibs

Hey everybody look! The squibs are back!

Hey Stefan, what's a squib?

(For the uninitiated - Stefan will, as a point of principle, refuse to explain what he meant by squib or why he thought there were squibs in the towers. He will hold out for weeks and weeks, refusing to back up what he says. However after its all died down, a few weeks later he'll start talking about squibs again. And here we are...)

I have 10 quid that says you're right. A small wager via PayPal anybody? pm me.

What odds thermite? Faster than freefall? Pyroclastic flow? It would at least show some respect for everyday good sense if 9/11 CTists could even keep up with developments in their own world.

[KP50]

do not acknowledge let alone explain the temperatures which sustained at ground zero, the reports of molten metal

It's true that this was outside the remit of the NIST reports. The truth movement have offered no serious explanation of these temperatures either.

Firstly, whose remit do you think it was to investigate this? Whose remit was it to investigate the many reports of explosions - especially in the basement where there were many witnesses telling the same story? I agree it wasn't the role of NIST, in the same way that it wasn't the role of NIST to investigate the massive number of reports of bombs planted in the Oklahoma City building. So whose job is it?

Maybe you can explain the massive temperatures underground? How hard can it be given there is "no proof of an inside job"? Or do you just put it down as "one of those things"?

[pepik]

I have 10 quid that says you're right. A small wager via PayPal anybody? pm me.

We could actually pass around some sort of truther bingo cards and if someone says "squibs" or "the speed of gravity" (etc) and you have that on a square you get to ink it in.

[pepik]

Obviously I killed this thread by pointing out the squib thing... as predicted.

But there was another funny one worth pointing out:

Unless of course we can describe EXACTLY what did happen - we have to accept an account which is so clearly wrong it makes you brain blister and ignore anything which doesn't fit into as as "outside our remit"... Jesus!

Exactly? Ho ho ho. Oh no Stefan, we'll settle for a lot less than exactly. How about "have any theory at all".

[sam]

Maybe you can explain the massive temperatures underground?

Nope. But neither can you. Exactly how high the temperatures were is, of course, unclear.

[Vlag]

Some loud bangs before the towers fell are not proof of CD. There were explosions as the Titanic sank. Is that CD to? If it was CD how do you explain the hundreds if not thousands of man hours needed to covertly plant the explosives?

Comparing Titanic and WTC?
In the preceding months and weeks before the terrorist attacks, several testimonies from WTC workers that are now deemed 'irrelevant' by the 9/11 Commission Report, reported of abnormal power outages, shut-down orders (where people could not go to work for several days each time these orders were carried out), security and evacuation drills that were not normal activities in terms of the WTC complex. Of course you could dispute this fact by suggesting that it is just truthers or some other wackjobs who started these rumours of suspicious activity but these are not rumours. If you look hard enough for them, news articles dealt with these witness statements but of course, with the passing of time and as the official 9/11 theory came to be accepted, these reports from the days after 9/11 and other such material would now be in the depths and deemed 'conspiratorial' and as the official story has clearly stamped out any 'seemingly outlandish claims', I suspect official story defenders would not care to budge and look up these witness testimonies. Perhaps you might have heard of Scott Forbes (probably the most famous of these power-down testimonies), a WTC worker who personally wrote to the 9/11 Commission pleading with them to consider the reports of WTC workers.

Do you expect a building that has been hit by aircraft and is on fire to be quiet? Of course there were noises and loud bangs but that does not mean there was CD. People said they heard explosions but how else do you describe a loud bang? It is not proof of CD.

The 9/11 Oral Histories released by the FDNY (after a year-long struggle in the courts against the city of New York to release them) which contains hundreds of testimonies of people hearing explosions in many different locations. Suggesting that people who witnessed explosions nowhere near the plane impact zones are delusional and that explosions not even remotely close to where the plane hit or implying that fuel leaked down the elevator shafts causing generators, elevators and the lobbies of the towers to be wrecked, is ludicrous. Either that or they were all not telling the truth on the day of the attack. Of course, I am pretty sure you will say, "where did you get this FDNY Oral Histories majigger" or "how sure are you that these alleged testimonies are just rumours started by 'conspiracy theorist' truther nuts to backup their wild claims that CD brought them down?" Yes the generators, maybe are pretty much debatable but suggesting that the destruction of the lobbies and the blowing up of elevators, were caused by the plane impacts over 900 feet up above is far-fetched. I once saw a Youtube comment in response to "How could lobbies have been destroyed as a result of plane impacts", which said that "The force of the planes slamming into the towers was so strong that the lobbies were wrecked.." That the "raging fiery infernos travelled down over 900 feet along the elevator shafts causing them to blow up".. Of course you would say "Well, where is this evidence that lobbies were destroyed and the situation with the elevators and so forth?" Well if you look hard enough for these videos on the internet, you will find them when the FDNY and emergency services entered the towers (of course you would enter thru the lobby like any normal person) and other such vids are only to be found on the net these days, since showing them on the news or TV would disrupt the logic of the official conspiracy theory.

There is an explanation of the WTC7 collapse and the NIST are still working on it. They have explained why it is taking time and it is in their interest to get it published ASAP to stop all the conspiracies. The NIST have also been forced to waste further time proving the collapse wasn't from CD, Aliens, Nuclear weapons, thermobaric weapons and thermite etc just to satifisfy you lot.

Aliens? Nukes? Of course these are outlandish claims. But you see, this is the sort of tactic that official conspiracy theory defenders do. The alternative theories are so many that is why it is not one united theory. And those alternate theories happen to include lazer beams from outer space and aliens, like you said. And of course, because the term 'conspiracy theory' has always been associated with negative connotations and that they are naturally irrational, that label is just branded on anyone who doubts the official story while forgetting and not knowing the fact that regarding 9/11, everyone is a conspiracy theorist. The only difference between the official and the alternative theories is that the former endorses the story of a conspiracy by suicidal Muslim fanatics while the other side (depending on which camp you go along) range from partial complicity by the US government, complicity or involvement by some figures high up in the ranks to the more daring claims of full US government involvement, foreign intel agency involvement, to the ridiculous ones such as aliens and lazer beams from outerspace..

Reports of molten metal does not mean there was molten metal. Anyway the NIST have explained this in their FAQ.

But the reports of molten metal are confirmed by the personnel of the FDNY, from the interviews , the videos of these firemen and the testimonies in the FDNY 9/11 Oral Histories. The people who were involved in the cleanup operation and others who were there reported molten steel as well. And you cannot really say that people have twisted the testimonies of witnesses because when firemen say 'molten metal, flowing like lava, like in a foundry' or 'your boots would stick and melt due to the intense heat being emitted from underneath the rubble', they mean what they have just said. You can see I have not twisted anything. In addition, there are many pictures of molten metal, in the rubble of the three towers concerned. The satellite images taken of the WTC site showed temperatures in excess of 1000 degrees weeks after the event. Subterannean fires (that could explain the molten metal) could not possibly result after the collapses of the three buildings, since these fires, if any resulted, would have been knocked out by the lack of oxygen, the amount of soot and pulverized dust abound, and especially weeks after 9/11 when there would not have been any fuel left for these 'subterranean fires' to be well and alive.