9/11 loose change.

polaris_x

rebornFixer wrote:

he still stands wrote:

ryanevolution wrote:

9 11 was an inside job. Period.

Problem solved. The thread can be closed.

Indeed ... Let's just all assume that the most paranoid account is the correct one.

it's only the most paranoid account in your perspective

rebornFixer

polaris_x wrote:

it's only the most paranoid account in your perspective

If believing the inside job stories (which are just as circumstantial as the "official" account, if not more so) helps you to sleep easier, power to you.

polaris_x

rebornFixer wrote:

polaris_x wrote:

it's only the most paranoid account in your perspective

If believing the inside job stories (which are just as circumstantial as the "official" account, if not more so) helps you to sleep easier, power to you.

my only point in the matter is that you don't know the truth as much as the next guy ... calling his opinion a paranoid account is only meant to ostracize him ... a tactic that is used by many PR firms and political pundits ...

ryanevolution

And the "inside job theories" are not "circumstantial" they are based on factual first person accounts. From the people who worked in the building for 30 years, the first responders (firemen and cops), eyewitnesses of the bombs going off in the building, the air traffic controllers, the military involved in the misinfornation tests that day, is that enough yet?

Not one black box recovered (1st in history), complete military stand down during the incident itself, third building detonated that wasn't hit by planes, no plane wreckage in pa or dc, unprecedented number of stock put options put on wtc related businesses that day, and only like another 4 to 500 things.

Cliffy6745

This conversation has taken place on this board too many times. Most of your first person factual accounts have been answered and explained. In my opinion anyone who suscribes to this bullshit consipracy theroy can go to fucking hell.

That's all from me on this topic.

ryanevolution

Cliffy6745 wrote:

Most of your first person factual accounts have been answered and explained.

ok, so explain the non-recovery of four black boxes. Explain the unprecedented amount of put options. Explain the military stand down, and the confusion testing of running the exact same scenario at the same time, explain the fireman accounts of a bomb had gone off in the basement and first floor before they got there (before the buildings fell).

AND ABOVE ALL, explain to me, or show me where, someone has disproven the PHYSICS that it was IMPOSSIBLE for the building to fall at that rate of speed if the floors did indeed "pancake" as is the official story/myth. IF the floors pancaked it would have taken over 90 seconds for the tower to fall. It dropped in 9 seconds, the rate of free fall. This means, by physical PROVEN SCIENCE, that there MUST have been a controlled demolition of the tower.

Now what?

FiveB247x

Why don't you just do a search on this site and you'll see it all discussed already? No need to rehash the same exact questions and answers, you know?

ryanevolution wrote:

ok, so explain the non-recovery of four black boxes. Explain the unprecedented amount of put options. Explain the military stand down, and the confusion testing of running the exact same scenario at the same time, explain the fireman accounts of a bomb had gone off in the basement and first floor before they got there (before the buildings fell).

AND ABOVE ALL, explain to me, or show me where, someone has disproven the PHYSICS that it was IMPOSSIBLE for the building to fall at that rate of speed if the floors did indeed "pancake" as is the official story/myth. IF the floors pancaked it would have taken over 90 seconds for the tower to fall. It dropped in 9 seconds, the rate of free fall. This means, by physical PROVEN SCIENCE, that there MUST have been a controlled demolition of the tower.

Now what?

ryanevolution

search what? All this proves its an inside job. Not one thing has been debunked.

FiveB247x

I'm not trying to change your opinion on the subject, just merely saying it's been discussed to death on this forum and if you do a simple search in this site for it, you could read it and discuss it there.

ryanevolution wrote:

search what? All this proves its an inside job. Not one thing has been debunked.

rebornFixer

polaris_x wrote:

my only point in the matter is that you don't know the truth as much as the next guy ... calling his opinion a paranoid account is only meant to ostracize him ... a tactic that is used by many PR firms and political pundits ...

That's your response to any point that you don't agree with, though ... "That's a common technique used to .... (insert term like ostracize, marginalize, etc.)". So, the basic notion is that using a descriptor is a way to foreclose discussion? Assuming this is true, how exactly does one criticize or take issue with someone's view of the facts, then? Taken to the extreme, no debate is possible for fear that someone is being excluded or marginalized. Might as well shut down the board.

rebornFixer

Cliffy6745 wrote:

This conversation has taken place on this board too many times. Most of your first person factual accounts have been answered and explained.

+1

ryanevolution

FiveB247x wrote:

I'm not trying to change your opinion on the subject, just merely saying it's been discussed to death on this forum and if you do a simple search in this site for it, you could read it and discuss it there.

ryanevolution wrote:

search what? All this proves its an inside job. Not one thing has been debunked.

Ok Mr.Thread Police officer sir. Will u now go around telling all to stop talking about tour dates and boots as well. This thread was started, I jumped in, got an ignorant response, and came back with facts. Whats the problem?

It seems anyone who accepts the "official" story. "Doesn't want to hear it" or "we've talked about this enough". And more importantly, the "official" story peddlers do not offer any evidence that supports their claims. Again I challenge anyone who supports the "official" story/myth to back it up.

FiveB247x

Silly board rules...
6. Please do a search first for a topic that interests you instead of creating a new thread. That'll help prevent 10-20 threads on the same subject and you'll catch the discussion you may have missed. We'll be merging duplicate threads as we find them.
http://forums.pearljam.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=91525

Also, I already stated I do not care to discuss the topic..it's got nothing to do with "denial" or similar.

ryanevolution wrote:

Ok Mr.Thread Police officer sir. Will u now go around telling all to stop talking about tour dates and boots as well. This thread was started, I jumped in, got an ignorant response, and came back with facts. Whats the problem?

It seems anyone who accepts the "official" story. "Doesn't want to hear it" or "we've talked about this enough". And more importantly, the "official" story peddlers do not offer any evidence that supports their claims. Again I challenge anyone who supports the "official" story/myth to back it up.

rebornFixer

ryanevolution wrote:

It seems anyone who accepts the "official" story. "Doesn't want to hear it" or "we've talked about this enough". And more importantly, the "official" story peddlers do not offer any evidence that supports their claims. Again I challenge anyone who supports the "official" story/myth to back it up.

To use just one example, firefighters saying that a bomb went off in the basement does not make it so, because presumably anyone in a position to truly know this for certain would have had to have been in the basement itself. Circumstantial evidence (e.g., (the example from wikipedia) a witness who testifies that she watched the defendant stab the victim gives direct evidence. A witness who says that she saw the defendant enter a house, that she heard screaming, and that she saw the defendant leave with a bloody knife gives circumstantial evidence). Direct evidence = a fireman sees a bomb in the basement. Circumstantial evidence = a fireman hears a loud explosion in the basement and infers that a bomb was present. Same thing with the alledged non-recovery of black boxes. How on earth is that good evidence of the inside job theory? There are MANY possible explanations for how or why black boxes haven't turned up. Heck, its entirely possible that the government DID recover the black boxes and has lied about that, but was still not responsible for the attacks themselves! As for the physics ... I saw a TV program (I think it was on the Discovery channel) that included an interview with a structural engineer who DID support the pancaking account. So, we have some "experts" saying one thing and other "experts" saying something else, which is altogether too common.

If all the evidence for the official account is circumstantial, and all the evidence for the other accounts is similarly circumstantial, why take the conspiracy account to be the truth? Might as well flip a coin. Ultimately, its going to come down to your views of the government, IMO.

ryanevolution

rebornFixer wrote:

ryanevolution wrote:

It seems anyone who accepts the "official" story. "Doesn't want to hear it" or "we've talked about this enough". And more importantly, the "official" story peddlers do not offer any evidence that supports their claims. Again I challenge anyone who supports the "official" story/myth to back it up.

To use just one example, firefighters saying that a bomb went off in the basement does not make it so, because presumably anyone in a position to truly know this for certain would have had to have been in the basement itself. Circumstantial evidence (e.g., (the example from wikipedia) a witness who testifies that she watched the defendant stab the victim gives direct evidence. A witness who says that she saw the defendant enter a house, that she heard screaming, and that she saw the defendant leave with a bloody knife gives circumstantial evidence). Direct evidence = a fireman sees a bomb in the basement. Circumstantial evidence = a fireman hears a loud explosion in the basement and infers that a bomb was present. Same thing with the alledged non-recovery of black boxes. How on earth is that good evidence of the inside job theory? There are MANY possible explanations for how or why black boxes haven't turned up. Heck, its entirely possible that the government DID recover the black boxes and has lied about that, but was still not responsible for the attacks themselves! As for the physics ... I saw a TV program (I think it was on the Discovery channel) that included an interview with a structural engineer who DID support the pancaking account. So, we have some "experts" saying one thing and other "experts" saying something else, which is altogether too common.

If all the evidence for the official account is circumstantial, and all the evidence for the other accounts is similarly circumstantial, why take the conspiracy account to be the truth? Might as well flip a coin. Ultimately, its going to come down to your views of the government, IMO.

Thank you for the reply. It was a good attempt.

1st. There is video footage when the first responders arrive at the trade center. The entire first floor is blown out. Walls are blown out, glass is shattered, in all appearances, something explosive went off. This is on video. The first step in controlled demolition is to blow out the basement and first floor.

2nd. No black boxes recovered. Even YOU had to admit this is way beyond the norm and that the govt may have indeed found them and is lying about. And honestly, what other conclusion can anyone make anout that. One perhaps. ALL 4, imfuckngpossible.

3rd. The rate of speed of the building falling really cannot be disputed. There is NO POSSIBLE WAY in KNOWN PHYSICS that all those floors hitting each other and pancaking could happen THAT QUICKLY. They used that theory to explain how the tower fell STRAIGHT DOWN, and didn't tip. Because at that point people were skeptical of simply HOW it fell.

I am talking about the rate of speed. It dropped in 9 seconds or less. The rate of FREE FALL, moving with NO resistance (this means no pancaking) This PROVES it was a controlled demolition at THE LEAST. It means the core of the building was entirely laced with demo explosives. Like the most in history. Do you get it yet?

he still stands

ryanevolution wrote:

Thank you for the reply. It was a good attempt.

1st. There is video footage when the first responders arrive at the trade center. The entire first floor is blown out. Walls are blown out, glass is shattered, in all appearances, something explosive went off. This is on video. The first step in controlled demolition is to blow out the basement and first floor.

2nd. No black boxes recovered. Even YOU had to admit this is way beyond the norm and that the govt may have indeed found them and is lying about. And honestly, what other conclusion can anyone make anout that. One perhaps. ALL 4, imfuckngpossible.

3rd. The rate of speed of the building falling really cannot be disputed. There is NO POSSIBLE WAY in KNOWN PHYSICS that all those floors hitting each other and pancaking could happen THAT QUICKLY. They used that theory to explain how the tower fell STRAIGHT DOWN, and didn't tip. Because at that point people were skeptical of simply HOW it fell.

I am talking about the rate of speed. It dropped in 9 seconds or less. The rate of FREE FALL, moving with NO resistance (this means no pancaking) This PROVES it was a controlled demolition at THE LEAST. It means the core of the building was entirely laced with demo explosives. Like the most in history. Do you get it yet?

All easily disproved by numerous scientific journals and independent (unbiased) studies... so no need to rehash.

But... WHY? This would be by far the most sophisticated cover up of all time by ANY government or organization. What is the payoff? A war? Destroying information? Come on... this is just ridiculous.

I can't understand the truthers who think "we did it." The truthers who think we knew it was going to happen and allowed it to happen... that is only mildly less confusing to me.

The easiest answer is usually the right one... a bunch of crazy dudes sacrificed themselves to fly planes into buildings in an attempt to destroy the capitalist and deplorable western culture.

polaris_x

rebornFixer wrote:

That's your response to any point that you don't agree with, though ... "That's a common technique used to .... (insert term like ostracize, marginalize, etc.)". So, the basic notion is that using a descriptor is a way to foreclose discussion? Assuming this is true, how exactly does one criticize or take issue with someone's view of the facts, then? Taken to the extreme, no debate is possible for fear that someone is being excluded or marginalized. Might as well shut down the board.

i have said this before because it's a problem ... there are a gazillion ways of disagreeing with someone ... similar to not having to resort to calling someone an idiot - i'm sure you are capable of figuring out a way of voicing an alternative opinion without using marginalizing terms ...

Pepe Silvia

http://www.calstatela.edu/dept/geology/ ... Damage.jpg

rebornFixer

he still stands wrote:

The easiest answer is usually the right one... a bunch of crazy dudes sacrificed themselves to fly planes into buildings in an attempt to destroy the capitalist and deplorable western culture.

Indeed. Occam's razor. Is the government entirely blameless in all this? I'd argue no, but that is a complex topic that would require its own thread. All kinds of issues pertain to government responsibility (state of awareness, poor responding at the higher-up government levels, post-attack secrecy), but at the end of the day, how do you have an attack like this without guys whose ideology supports this kind of behavior? It wasn't a bunch of white dudes in business suits flying those planes.

rebornFixer

polaris_x wrote:

i have said this before because it's a problem ... there are a gazillion ways of disagreeing with someone ... similar to not having to resort to calling someone an idiot - i'm sure you are capable of figuring out a way of voicing an alternative opinion without using marginalizing terms ...

Paranoid is a thinking style, and while I would not say that "truthers" are idiots, I would question/highlight the lack of critical thinking skills that can go into these ideas. Not a personal shot at ryan, whom I don't know from Adam. Just saying that it makes no sense to accept an account that is based on purely circumstantial evidence and that (in addition!) evokes complex notions of government conspiracies. All this to justify a war that could have been justified in myriad other ways seems far-fetched to me, sorry. Show me direct evidence and I'll revise my view.