it's another anti-semetic conspiracy theory. How novel.

It's another pro-Zionist Plant who can't address the subject, so he attempts to silence it by swinging that rather dull Sword about. How novel.

The fact that the spies were Israeli has little to do with the subject, except that Israel/Zionism is one of the only groups currently clamouring for war. Your insinnuendo, that people of Jewish descent aren't capable of criminal activity, is itself, an antisemitic generalization.

By blocking the case, the Bush/PNAC Regime is violating the rights of the families of 911 victims.

Professor Says ‘Cutter Charges’ Brought Down WTC Buildings

AFP contacted three scientists who support the official theory to ask if they would review Jones’s paper.

Thomas W. Eagar of MIT refused to even look at the paper and said there is no evidence of molten metal pouring from the WTC. Challenged with the
evidence, he hung up the phone.

 http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/cutter_charges_brought_down_wt.html

Once again, a Zionist (read that as "Jewish") conspiracy.

I think it's just great that a country the size of Wales is running the planet. Do you think they know it?

 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/04/338892.html?c=on#c147027

Totally trashed conspiracy tripe.

As usual, nothing but Disinfo from the pro-Bush/Bliar nutters.

The fact that the spies were Israeli has little to do with the subject, except that Israel/Zionism is one of the only groups currently clamouring for war. Your insinnuendo, that people of Jewish descent aren't capable of criminal activity, is itself, an antisemitic generalization.

By blocking the case, the Bush/PNAC Regime is violating the rights of the families of 911 victims.

Professor Says ‘Cutter Charges’ Brought Down WTC Buildings

AFP contacted three scientists who support the official theory to ask if they would review Jones’s paper.

Thomas W. Eagar of MIT refused to even look at the paper and said there is no evidence of molten metal pouring from the WTC. Challenged with the
evidence, he hung up the phone.

 http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/cutter_charges_brought_down_wt.html

......well, I will re-post the comments made re: thermite charges on another thread, maybe this time someone who supports this theory will make at least some effort to respond, rather than just simply ignore the issue and mutter something about 'ad hominum' attacks, despite the fact that these comments directly address the issues raised in Steve Jones's paper.

"But I believe the [thermite] hypothesis worthy of consideration."

Yes. And I have considered it at length. The hypothesis goes like this.

There are rumors of melted steel in the rubble. There are reports of sulfur and/or the effects of sulfidation. What's one possible explanation for this? Well, there's one formulation of thermite that uses sulfur, and we know that thermite can melt steel and is often used for it. So what about the idea that thermite was used to melt the steel?

Lots wrong with it. First, in commercial thermite sulfur is never used as a binder. The most common binder is a polyurethane compound. It's a lot easier to work with in a large-scale production process, and it doesn't stink. The recipe for diasite (sulfur-bound thermite) comes from The Anarchist's Cookbook. It's meant to be mixed in small amounts by clever malcontents in their basements, where heating sulfur is easier than obtaining and mixing urethane resins. And the sulfur dioxide by-product during combustion is meant to annoy firefighters and, frankly, stink like crazy. In other words, to announce itself.

Even better, you can sinter thermite. Sintering is where you take a powdered material and compress it while heating it to a plastic state -- not molten, just gushy. And when you compress it and let it cool, you get a brick of material. And in thermite's case, you get a brick of properly mixed reactants in solid form with no binder.

Why is that important? Because, according to the conspiracy theory, thermite was a "foreign" substance placed intentionally in order to wreak some sort of havoc with the WTC structure. That role creates the motive to keep the thermite and its effects undetectable. So if we rank the available thermite formulations in order of detectability, at the top you have diasite, part of whose purpose is to stink to high heaven. At any rate it will leave sulfur compounds in the air and on nearby materials. In the middle you have the commercial thermite. Polyurethane binder residue is harder to detect. And at the bottom of the list you have sintered thermite which would leave absolutely no foreign residue. It is composed of iron oxides and aluminum, both of which materials -- if discovered in the WTC debris -- would not be considered out of place.

So the first question is why the alleged conspirators used the most detectable form of thermite?

Second, thermite is not an explosive. It is an incendiary. It doesn't "blow up" stuff, it just burns or melts it. And it takes its time doing it too. Yes, thermite is completely capable of melting the steel used in the WTC structure, but it cannot "cut" it or displace it such as is usually desired in a controlled demolition.

Further, the estimates by conspiracy theorists of how much thermite would be required to, say, compromise the core columns are woefully naive. They ignore much of the gritty details of thermodynamics and heat transfer and come up with estimates that are off by orders of magnitude from those derived with proper methods. This is what happens when self-proclaimed "experts" try to meddle in sciences they don't really understand.

If you want to make a steel column fail, thermite is just not a very good way of doing it. And the massive steel construction of the base of the WTC core would require enormous amounts of thermite to melt it simultaneously to the point of failure.

And melted steel is, frankly, anomalous. If the alleged conspirators planned to fail the columns by melting them instead of buckling or fracturing them -- as would be expected in a strictly mechanical collapse -- why would they think that uninvolved forensic engineers coming later would simply overlook the "anomalously" melted steel?

The second question therefore is why the conspirators chose this particular substance and what effect it was intended to create that would be harmonious with the later official explanation?

Third, the thermite is alleged to have been placed in the basement, where the melted steel was supposed to have been seen. But the structure was not observed to fail in the basement, nor would any activity in the basement have led to the observed failure modes at the point of impact and subsequently below.

So the third question is why the allegations are inconsistent with the observations?

When you start adding stuff up like this, it becomes very unlikely that thermite had anything to do with the failure of WTC 1 or 2. The properties of thermite are incompatible with its claimed role, and the alleged scenario is incompatible with the observed sequence of events.

There is a methodological mistake being made as well. The conspiracy theorists presume a commonality between the sulfur and the melted steel. That is, they presume that a single explanation must account for both observations. In real investigations you never presume that two observations are connected. You consider the possibility that they are, but you don't follow only that possibility. You consider that the sulfur and the melting are not connected, and that possibly two independent chains of cause and effect are more probable than the one combined chain.

Now it would seem that the thermite theory is the most parsimonious theory because it explains the most observations. But that is not how parsimony works in real-world investigations. Simplicity of the theory is not measured by how many cause-effect chains you need, but rather whether the combination of chains is globally more or less plausible than another. And this must consider all the new questions that your hypothesis raises: the things that must be true (or testable) in order for your hypothesis to hold (or be tested).

If you have one theory that explains two observations, but it raises three or four new problematic questions (e.g., why did the conspirators choose the stupidest way of making thermite?), then it isn't necessarily more parsimonious than two theories -- one for each observation -- that don't raise any new questions. The "simplest" theory is often mischaracterized by people who don't have a lot of hands-on experience conducting investigations.

Now it turns out that this particular commonality is not thoroughly implausible, but the thermite explanation to account for both is clearly unparsimonious because it raises too many additional questions. There is another possible explanation involving the formation of eutectic mixtures of sulfur and steel. Sulfidation of steel occurs in urban environments, and where it occurs it would allow the melting of steel at lower temperatures, precluding the need for high-temperature incendiary.

The natural sulfidation theory is, of course, not perfect either. But it is more parsimonious in that it requires only materials and processes known or reasonably postulated to exist at the time: sulfur, steel, and temperatures on the order of 1,000 C. Those were known to exist. We don't have to postulate about how thermite got there. The problems with the theory include the exact method of sulfidation, which hasn't been substantiated. But it's a less egregious unknown than all those associated with thermite.

Remember, you don't choose the perfect theory; just the best.

If you want to look at theories that don't presume a commonality, then you can examine a hypothesis that the amount of melted steel was quite small and confined, and that it was simply melted by local hot spots. That theory has supposedly been rejected by conspiracists on the grounds that normal fires simply cannot generate enough heat to melt steel in any amount. But that's based solely on stoichiometrics -- the study of how concentrations of reactants affect reaction rates.

It is argued that because the fires underground would have been deprived of oxygen, they would not have been able to release heat at a rate compatible with the melting of steel. However, oxygen deprivation is only one factor that affects heating models. The form factors of the surrounding materials have just as great an effect. That is, if heat is not allowed to escape via convection, conduction, or radiation, then it is possible for an oxygen-starved fire actually to generate higher temperatures in an enclosed space than a stoichiometrically ideal combustion in a context where heat rejection is more vigorous.

Thus melted steel may not be the "anomaly" that has been claimed.

Why did it come down? FEMA could only come up with an unlikely hypothesis, by their own admission; NIST postpones and postpones...

That is the nature of investigation. By all accounts, WTC 7's collapse cause-effect chain was not straightforward. If NIST needs additional time to get the job done correctly, let them. On the one hand you seem to fault NIST for being too cursory when dealing with WTC 1 and 2, and now you seem to fault NIST for being too thorough on WTC 7. Why do I get the feeling that you're intent on villifying NIST no matter what they do?

I remember late last year being tasked with root-causing a particular failure. I gave an estimate of 0.25 man-months. It ended up 4 man-months. Why? Because I had to go through about 4 different hypotheses before I discovered the complex interaction between three different components (that worked fine individually and with other kinds of components) that led to failure.

Earlier you opined that we shouldn't leave a "shred of doubt". Doesn't that mean that the robustness of the final result is more important than finishing by some a deadline that's likely to have been a total guess? Or are you just setting up the argument that NIST is having trouble coming up with a plausible cover story? The delay is just as easily (and more parsimoniously) explained by the notion that NIST is having trouble with an investigation we in the profession suspected would be problematic.

I haven't insunated anything of the such. I am merely stating you have no material evidence to back up your anti-semetic conspiracy theories. Motive doesn't prove a case. Any old fool can posit a "theory" based on two points. The problem is that such theories are worth the time of day unless you can hang some evidence on them. You can't. You won't and you have no intention of doing so.

Thomas W. Eagar of MIT is undoubtedly a very busy man who probably tried to field off some loon like you that got hold of his office number and when they wouldn't shut up and go away so he hung up.

I know if I were presented by someone who clearly couldn't tell their evidential arse from their suppositional elbow, I'd give them short-shrift.

"But I believe the [thermite] hypothesis worthy of consideration."

"Yes. And I have considered it at length."

That's great. Did you uncover the fact that "workers", under the direction of Neil Bush, were allegedly replacing the heat shielding on all of the building's major support structures in the month leading up to the attacks? That little nugget came from viewing one of the many White House-funded programs airing of late which seek to reinforce the Official Conspiracy Theory.

But only a serious, independent investigation would be able to say for sure.

Too bad the physical evidence was shipped out of the country as fast as it could be loaded onto ships. It's now being used in the manufacture of things like bikes, over in India and China.

"I am merely stating you have no material evidence to back up your anti-semetic conspiracy theories."

They are not "antisemitic", but in waving the Antisemitic Sword about, you reveal your reason for being here.

A real investigation would probe the many arrests made on 911, of agents of the Mossad throughout the USA that terrible day, most notably, the five Israelis reported because they were dancing on top of their van, where they were celebrating and videotaping as the towers fell. This denotes foreknowledge, if nothing else, and deserves to be probed by people who don't begin their "investigation" with a conclusion.

What's more, I don't have to provide the material evidence, and Demanding Impossible Proofs is a Tactic of Disinformation. The point is that the LIARS and criminals who's Official Conspiracy Theory launched this pre-planned agenda of military aggression, haven't been able, in over four years, to provide us with the compelling evidence to support it.

We know that they LIE to get what they want, and that they have forged evidence over the past five years, so it is they who you should be directing your demands to, and supporting the call for a real investigation.

"Motive doesn't prove a case"

No, but it is a compelling piece of any investigation.

More bloody rumours:

"A real investigation would probe the many arrests made on 911, of agents of the Mossad throughout the USA that terrible day, most notably, the five Israelis reported because they were dancing on top of their van, where they were celebrating and videotaping as the towers fell. This denotes foreknowledge, if nothing else, and deserves to be probed by people who don't begin their "investigation" with a conclusion."

Provide evidence= original documents building an audit trail between arrested Mossad agents, identities of agents or at least confirming their alleged Mossad-ness, witness statements etc.

Or is all you have some single-sourced rumour?

"What's more, I don't have to provide the material evidence, and Demanding Impossible Proofs is a Tactic of Disinformation."

1. Yes, if you want to appear credible you need to be able to defend your theses. It's a universally accepted principal. You can't just go round making wild accusations with no back up and expect to be taken seriously.

1b. If just one of the people or organisations you defame on a regular business was bored enough to sue you, you'd quickly find out exactly how much material evidence a court of law requires to establish proof.

2. Again, the demands are only made impossible by the fact you have no evidence. So your stupid cut & paste assertion doesn't even support your context.


You have no evidence= you haveno case.

Yes, your line of reason is anti-semetic. You have previously accused even people with obviously Jewish surnames as being suspect merely on that basis alone. You accuse any institution with Israeli links as being suspect (Mossad). Your obsession with Israel and Mossad and the evils they allegedly regularly carry out in line with Zionist controlled PNAC is exactly the same bullshit that nutty US militias spread.

I can confidently say this because you constantly attack Israel with absolutely no proof at all. All you have is a load of bullshit opinion culled from dubious websites that pay no regard for fact checking.

If you want to criticise Israel, why not pick on some real issues like Paletine... and fucking do something about it!?

I'll wager everyone who visits IMC will be acutely aware of the reality of the Intafada and Israeli land grab and human rights abuses, murdering journalists etc. You want a REAL Mossad conspiracy: Vanunu. Which leads neatly on to their nuclear weapons... There's a whole wealth of *valid* reasons to attack the actions of the state of Israel.

Your reticence on those very real subjects in preference for your fantasy ZOG theories is what marks your intentions as highly dubious. You are desperate to link Mossad to anything that moves. This implies that they are everywhere and the ones really in control.

Why are you so obsessed with a Jewish conspiracy Jordan? What convinces you of it in the absence of any real evidence of it?

In fact, what makes you so damn sure of any the unfounded bullshit you spout? It's a genuine question. I'm still unable to get to grips with how the conspiracy theorist psyche functions.

Superstition in the context of 21st Century western culture fascinates me.Your beliefs are after all dejure superstition since they are clearly not grounded on any factual basis. You are constantly made aware of this, yet persist in those beliefs. Curious to say the least but ultimately harmless in the grand scheme of things.

"I don't have to provide the material evidence, and Demanding Impossible Proofs is a Tactic of Disinformation."

Translation:

1. I can't provide any evidence

2. There is no evidence.


Yawn. Conspiracy twaddle, unsubstantiated as ever

You DO acknowledge that no compelling evidence supports the Bush/PNAC Conspiracy Theory.

Right?

A real investigation would probe the many arrests made on 911, of agents of the Mossad throughout the USA that terrible day, most notably, the five Israelis reported because they were dancing on top of their van, where they were celebrating and videotaping as the towers fell. This denotes foreknowledge, if nothing else, and deserves to be probed by people who don't begin their "investigation" with a conclusion.

What's more, I don't have to provide the material evidence, and Demanding Impossible Proofs is a Tactic of Disinformation. The point is that the LIARS and criminals who's Official Conspiracy Theory launched this pre-planned agenda of military aggression, haven't been able, in over four years, to provide us with the compelling evidence to support it.

We know that they LIE to get what they want, and that they have forged evidence over the past five years, so it is they who you should be directing your demands to, and supporting the call for a real investigation.

It's YOUR evidence I am interested in. Don't try and duck out your obligation to present evidence to back up your claims by citing what other people have or haven't got. It's YOUR claims that are being challenged in this instance.

So cough up the evidence. I haven't seen a shred of any from you yet.

Authenticated documents linking the accused (with identities established) directly and irrefutably to the acts they are accused of. Verifiable witness statements. Verifiable corroborated confessions. Credible forensic data anaylsis supplied by relevent expert witness/subject matter experts.

What I am asking for is primary data and a solid analysis model that doesn't fall down if someone farts withing a mile of it. Not "Alex Jones says..." or "This single-sourced newspaper in Ulan Bator says.." or "This site full of UFO and everlasting lightbulb stories says..."

Without hard, verifiable, material evidence you have just idle speculation/rumour/unqualified opinion/drivel. Not facts. Facts are based on empirical analysis methods and theories which can are demonstrably repeatable. They are not based on some nutty game of joining the dots- no matter how clever you think the game is.

It seems pretty obvious you know nothing about empirical research, academic/scientific standards and the legal definition of evidence. You'd do well to read up on those topics and start digging in the right places and posing the right questions to whatevrer data you may unearth.

As it stands you are asking us to accept your case based purely on your say-so- perhaps more accurately, Alex Jones' say-so. In other words, you are looking merely for people with a natural pre-disposition (prejudice) to accept what you say, as opposed to presenting a credible case.

What exactly do you thinkyou are doing coming here and spreading this garbage anyway?
How would you describe your political orientation?
Do you believe in God?

'Did you uncover the fact that "workers", under the direction of Neil Bush, were allegedly replacing the heat shielding on all of the building's major support structures in the month leading up to the attacks?'

Not quite sure about this - are you, in fact, referring to Marvin Bush?

 http://www.911myths.com/html/stratesec.html

This little snippet of information does nothing really though to bolster the case for explosives being used in the WTC. It is just an inference, and seeing that the use of explosives seems to be based on little more than an unsubstantiated supposition, having an inference to support it does not add up to much at all in reality. No-one has yet to present a viable explanation as to why the CIA or whoever, would bother to blow up the WTC buildings, particularly if they had been allegedly actively involved in previously flying two friggin great feul laden aircraft into them? Did not the initial action result in enough deaths to 'justify' a war, why did subsequently blowing the buildings provide the 'magic number'. People go on about Occams Razor, yet when discussing the collapse of the WTC buildings, seem to want to ignore the very real destruction seen by millions of people across the world and focus instead on a lot of completely unsubstantiated speculation about hidden bombs? On a more practical note, would not the impact of two large aircraft have seriously disrupted these carefully wired explosives on the floors where they impacted? Yet the fact remains that the collapse of the buildings began in the regions where the planes hit. It seems rather obtuse to argue that this had nothing to do with the planes, but was related rather to hypothetical bombs.

'Too bad the physical evidence was shipped out of the country as fast as it could be loaded onto ships. It's now being used in the manufacture of things like bikes, over in India and China.'

Another issue dressed up as 'suspicious' by the conspiracy theorists, and not particularly accurate either:

 http://www.911myths.com/html/recycled_steel.html

The speed, or otherwise that the steel was removed is only suspicious if the already have a preconcieved notion that there is a cover-up and are searching for something to re-inforce your assumption (not really the way any research should be undertaken). If none of the experts involved saw anything suspicious about the collapse, they would not really see any need to keep the steel would they? It is also somewhat misleading to state that no examination of the material was carried out:

 http://www.house.gov/science/hearings/full02/mar06/corley.htm

So we are back again to all the experts being in on it. Providing a pat explanation that the funding of relevant academic experts all comes from the government so they are not going to 'rock the boat' does not really wash, does it. Not all experts work in academia, what about those who work for individual firms, were they all nobbled too, every single one of them? What about professional structural engineers in all the Universities and private firms around the globe, were they all bought off or silenced, every single one of them? The fact is, no professional structural engineers seem to have come forward stating that there are serious flaws in the official explanation. Conversely, none of the numerous, and, often contradictory, alternative explanations of the WTC collapse have attracted support from relevant experts. You may wish to interpret their silence as part of some labyrinthine global conspiracy, I, on the other hand, think there is a far more simplistic explanation.

You DO acknowledge that no compelling evidence supports the Bush/PNAC Conspiracy Theory.

Right?

A real investigation would probe the many arrests made on 911, of agents of the Mossad throughout the USA that terrible day, most notably, the five Israelis reported because they were dancing on top of their van, where they were celebrating and videotaping as the towers fell. This denotes foreknowledge, if nothing else, and deserves to be probed by people who don't begin their "investigation" with a conclusion.

What's more, I don't have to provide the material evidence, and Demanding Impossible Proofs is a Tactic of Disinformation.

The point is that the LIARS and criminals who's Official Conspiracy Theory launched this pre-planned agenda of military aggression, haven't been able, in over four years, to provide us with the compelling evidence to support it.

We know that they LIE to get what they want, and that they have forged evidence over the past five years, so it is they who you should be directing your demands to, and supporting the call for a real investigation.

finally a firm admission he has no evidence to offer whatsoever. Not a tiny scrap to wave in our faces and say "Hah!"

Stop wasting our time Jordan.

You DO acknowledge that no compelling evidence supports the Bush/PNAC Conspiracy Theory.

Right?

Why are you not demanding their missing evidence?

Asking someone to provide evidence to their claims is "sophistry"!???

Because you are the one spamming nutty theories here not them. It's YOUR evidence that is being sought here.

If I have a point to make about Blair's propaganda, I go to the 10 Downing Street site. If I have a problem with a local authority, I contact my local councillor or MP or seek legal advice. You know, I go to the horse's mouth.

That aside, I get the impression that Bush & Blair are totally oblivious to the existence of this place and even if they weren't I doubt they'd be avid visitors.

But feel free to pitch in Tony if you are out there quivering in fear at these shrewd "Truthseekers" and "Infowarriors".

I've already addressed all of your DISINFORMATION, which is all that it is.

Perhaps some Quid Pro Quo, or are you charged solely with providing White Noise?

You DO acknowledge that no compelling evidence supports the Bush/PNAC Conspiracy Theory.

Right?

Demanding Impossible Proofs is a Tactic of Disinformation.

The point is that the LIARS and criminals who's Official Conspiracy Theory launched this pre-planned agenda of military aggression, haven't been able, in over four years, to provide us with the compelling evidence to support it.

We know that they LIE and kill to get what they want, and that they have forged evidence several times over the past five years, so it is they who you should be directing your demands to, and supporting the call for a real investigation.

Why should we not believe they were responsible?

Convince us ...

Again you admit to have no evidence.

The sheer desperate stupidity of you trying to get out a corner by demanding that I make a case you have prepared for me speaks volumes.

I'm not the one making making the claims here. YOU defend your claims with evidence or shut up.

'You DO acknowledge that no compelling evidence supports the Bush/PNAC Conspiracy Theory. Right?'

Well, to be honest, that would largely be 'no, I do not acknowledge this' as far as I am concerned. I think the evidence supporting the fact that several hijacked planes clearly hit the WTC and Pentagon on September 11th is overwhelming, whereas the theories supporting missiles, holographic planes, mass hypnosis, media manipulation of images using blue screen technology have absolutely fuck all hard evidence to support them and are suggestions only seriously put forward by the delusional and deeply troubled. I am also satisfied from the opinions of professional experts (and their stony silence when it comes to the theories of the so called 'truth-seekers') that the collision of the planes into said WTC towers provides a 'sufficient' explanation for their subsequent collapse, without resorting to completely unsubstantiated theories about hidden explosives. As for WTC 7 I await the report from the experts before I make any comment, but suffice to say, I am inclined not to view this as being 'suspicious' either.

As for who hijacked the planes, I am willing to accept that Muslim extremists carried out the hijackings. I have no difficulty acknowedging their existence. It seems to me to be foolish to beleive that they could not possibly exist. The fact that I ackowledge this, does not mean I support the subsequent actions of Bush/Blair in Afghanistan/the Middle East. This is something that you seem to refuse to believe is possible. Just because Bush/Blair, used 9/11 as an excuse to go to war, does not mean that I accept this as a rationale for war. Ironically, it seems to be you who, deep down, seems to beleive that the two things are inextricably linked, much like Bush/Blair themselves. I can quite happily separate the two - there are Muslim extremists in the world who do have grievances against the West. I believe they are perfectly capable of occasionally pulling off terrorist attacks against the UK/US. No state in the world is so effectively policed as to make such attacks impossible. But the fact that they did successfully pull off these attacks, does not, in any way, persuade me that the appropriate response to such actions is to bomb the shit out of another country.

As for their exact relationship of these terrorists to Al Qaeda and Bin Laden, questions here still need to be asked, but just because the media wants to portray Al Qaeda as some sort of closely knit, well integrated, terrorist movement, does not mean that this is necessarily the case, they could be nothing more than a loose confederation of like minded Muslim ideologues.

If you are going to confine your suspicions about 9/11 to the extent of foreknowedge by western security services, then you will get no argument from me. Questions do need to be asked about this.

There, I have stated my position, would you care to state yours? It seems to me that many alternative explanations are mutually contradictory. I notice that many so called 'truth seekers' keep their own postions very nebulous and ill defined. This possibly explains why there are not more honest debates between them as to what is and what is not, feasible.

And Spook Plant is right, you cannot reasonably come on here supporting or puttting forward theories which run counter to the 'official explanation', yet when challenged to provide some evidence to support your claims, turn round stating 'to demand impossible proofs is disinformation' If you are conceding you do not have the proofs required then why on earth do you support these theories in the first place, based on what? Whatever you may think of so called 'objectivity', to come to a reasoned conclusion about any of this means examining all the evidence critically. Starting out with an instinctive distrust of the 'state's explanation' and dismissing all of their evidence as forged or fabricated is just not good enough for someone who claims to be a 'researcher', or at least it is not to me. What's more, you have a very elastic view of the 'state' in this context, as it now seems to include every single structural engineer on the planet. Rather than go back and challenge the premises of your original starting point/conclusion (ie., it must be an inside job) you just keep adding more and more people into your conspiracy. You say you want an independent enquiry, where the conclusion has not already been decided, but you seem to have made up your mind long ago. You may believe the same of me, but I do beleive I have reached these conclusions based on verifiable evidence, and, in that respect, the 'official' explanation has far more going for it than any of the numerous propsed alternatives.

'You DO acknowledge that no compelling evidence supports the Bush/PNAC Conspiracy Theory. Right?'

Well, to be honest, that would largely be 'no, I do not acknowledge this' as far as I am concerned. I think the evidence supporting the fact that several hijacked planes clearly hit the WTC and Pentagon on September 11th is overwhelming, whereas the theories supporting missiles, holographic planes, mass hypnosis, media manipulation of images using blue screen technology have absolutely fuck all hard evidence to support them and are suggestions only seriously put forward by the delusional and deeply troubled. I am also satisfied from the opinions of professional experts (and their stony silence when it comes to the theories of the so called 'truth-seekers') that the collision of the planes into said WTC towers provides a 'sufficient' explanation for their subsequent collapse, without resorting to completely unsubstantiated theories about hidden explosives. As for WTC 7 I await the report from the experts before I make any comment, but suffice to say, I am inclined not to view this as being 'suspicious' either.

As for who hijacked the planes, I am willing to accept that Muslim extremists carried out the hijackings. I have no difficulty acknowedging their existence. It seems to me to be foolish to beleive that they could not possibly exist. The fact that I ackowledge this, does not mean I support the subsequent actions of Bush/Blair in Afghanistan/the Middle East. This is something that you seem to refuse to believe is possible. Just because Bush/Blair, used 9/11 as an excuse to go to war, does not mean that I accept this as a rationale for war. Ironically, it seems to be you who, deep down, seems to beleive that the two things are inextricably linked, much like Bush/Blair themselves. I can quite happily separate the two - there are Muslim extremists in the world who do have grievances against the West. I believe they are perfectly capable of occasionally pulling off terrorist attacks against the UK/US. No state in the world is so effectively policed as to make such attacks impossible. But the fact that they did successfully pull off these attacks, does not, in any way, persuade me that the appropriate response to such actions is to bomb the shit out of another country.

As for their exact relationship of these terrorists to Al Qaeda and Bin Laden, questions here still need to be asked, but just because the media wants to portray Al Qaeda as some sort of closely knit, well integrated, terrorist movement, does not mean that this is necessarily the case, they could be nothing more than a loose confederation of like minded Muslim ideologues.

If you are going to confine your suspicions about 9/11 to the extent of foreknowedge by western security services, then you will get no argument from me. Questions do need to be asked about this.

There, I have stated my position, would you care to state yours? It seems to me that many alternative explanations are mutually contradictory. I notice that many so called 'truth seekers' keep their own postions very nebulous and ill defined. This possibly explains why there are not more honest debates between them as to what is and what is not, feasible.

And Spook Plant is right, you cannot reasonably come on here supporting or puttting forward theories which run counter to the 'official explanation', yet when challenged to provide some evidence to support your claims, turn round stating 'to demand impossible proofs is disinformation' If you are conceding you do not have the proofs required then why on earth do you support these theories in the first place, based on what? Whatever you may think of so called 'objectivity', to come to a reasoned conclusion about any of this means examining all the evidence critically. Starting out with an instinctive distrust of the 'state's explanation' and dismissing all of their evidence as forged or fabricated is just not good enough for someone who claims to be a 'researcher', or at least it is not to me. What's more, you have a very elastic view of the 'state' in this context, as it now seems to include every single structural engineer on the planet. Rather than go back and challenge the premises of your original starting point/conclusion (ie., it must be an inside job) you just keep adding more and more people into your conspiracy. You say you want an independent enquiry, where the conclusion has not already been decided, but you seem to have made up your mind long ago. You may believe the same of me, but I do beleive I have reached these conclusions based on verifiable evidence, and, in that respect, the 'official' explanation has far more going for it than any of the numerous propsed alternatives.

...for the double post, feel free to delete one.

I pretty much concur with Bacofoil.

To put it another way. (/11 Turth's lack of impact can be solely attributed to its inability to present a case.

You have no evidence, this isn't a lawyer worth having that'll give you the time of day.

The "evidence" isn't being ignored. It has no evidence. What these morons don't understand is that rumour & speculation doesn't qualify.

If they could provide solid evidence even in just 1 of their nutty claims, you'd have a million lawyers climbing over each other to get the names associated with the case.

This hasn't happnened because there is no case.

Just rumour.

The fact remains, as is the subject of this post, that this woman's rights have been violated. She has the right to have her case heard in a court of law.

Perhaps some Quid Pro Quo, or are you charged solely with providing White Noise?

You haven't answered the question:

You DO acknowledge that no compelling evidence supports the Bush/PNAC Conspiracy Theory.

Right?

Demanding Impossible Proofs is a Tactic of Disinformation.

The point is that the LIARS and criminals who's Official Conspiracy Theory launched this pre-planned agenda of military aggression, haven't been able, in over four years, to provide us with the compelling evidence to support it.

We know that they LIE and kill to get what they want, and that they have forged evidence several times over the past five years, so it is they who you should be directing your demands to, and supporting the call for a real investigation.

Why should we not believe they were responsible?

Convince us ...

can anyone show me live footage of a 767 that has impacted the east side of the pentagon......i cant see one ,damned if i can

can anyone show me footage of flight 93 after it hit the deck in shanksville.....icant ....i cant see a 767 anywhere



SHOW ME PLEASE ID LIKE TO SEE SOME

the footage of planes hitting the WTC = cover-up

the lack-footage of planes hitting the Pentagon/a field = cover-up

perhaps the Department for State Cover-Ups voted for a number of possible plans and were deadlocked on those two eh?

unless you just want some Ogrish style photos to stare at and have nothing to do with conspiracies one way or the other, in which case I apologise

"Why should we not believe they were responsible? "

Because you have no credible and compelling evidence?


Case in point:

I have an invisible elf in my garden.

I have no proof.

To ask for proof is anti-elf disinformation.

Now, why do you not believe I have an invisible elf in my garden?

"You DO acknowledge that no compelling evidence supports the Bush/PNAC Conspiracy Theory. "

No, I acknowledge tht youa nd Jack are a a pair of paranoid idiots with IQs smaller that you inside legs subtracted from one another.

In fact, that goes for anyone who is mental enough to accept the guff you post on face value.

You're a pair of loons.

That's why 9/11 Turth is a guaranteed failure, is based on unadultared keech.

To summarise...

ok so what do u fellas see when looking at the footage of those events?..........a plane ...bodies ...luggage.....seats......oh no thats right it was all vapourised

so where did they get the dna to identify all these people


ogrish footage and photos?....we see plenty of footage of the planes hittin the twins, nothin ogrish bout that apparently

the bush admin tells us it happened like this but i dont see it

the 911 commision report is a joke book......was anyone even fired ,demoted,reprimanded cant think of anyone

DID you buy that choclate bar mate cause i think you shoplifted it

no sir heres my reciept ......easy as that

Kiwi,

You're right. No-one can show you evidence of a 767 hitting the Pentagon.

That's because it was a 757, which shows the depth of your research on the issue. Take a look at:

 http://www.911myths.com/html/757_wreckage.html

Flight 93? Yup, bits of that found as well:

 http://www.911myths.com/html/there_was_no_plane.html

 http://www.911myths.com/html/flight_93_photos.html

I'm alos going to guess that you have little or no expertise in aircraft crashes; tell us, then, how you "know" what kind of debris we should find from high speed impacts like this?

Until then, stop spamming this site. Indymedia is NOT a 911 conspiracy site.

yeah ill have a gander at thos sites and any relevant links....see if they answer my questions fully ....ill be back some stage

those sites are bout as handy as an ashtray on a motormike mate... the whole things a bit vague and seems to be based alot on the 911 report


pretty flimsy evidense they convicted the 20th hijacker on....its what we call a kangaroo court bud or maybe he was one of those wannabe patsies

question....how were the hijacker able to gain access to the cockpits ?...were the doors left open?...whats the proceedure for attempted hijacks?

Oh, I agree totally about the trail. My suspicion is it was a bit of both. Bush wanted a showtrail and the guy is a nutcase.

Remember prior to 9/11 there had been no instnces of suicide attacks with passenger jets. All hijacks had been a seige/ransome scenario. (In fact, before 9/11 there had been no suicide bombings in the West at all.) In terms of hostage situations, most people are trained in terms of compliance to avoid killings and to wait till authorities can respond. US air security was very lax.

If you doubt a few people with craft knives can take control of an aircaft, arrange a few friends in disguise to burst into your family home and seize a member of your family with a knife to their throat. Now, how compliant wouldyou be? Would you be a hero and get someone's throat cut, or would you take them to where they wanted to go?

People have robbed banks with toys. It's the fear that's the weapon.

Let's be clear here. What Americans call a "box cutter" is what the rest of us call a Stanley Knife. Your average weapon of choice of the Glasgow ned and more than capable of serious injury/death.

"question....how were the hijacker able to gain access to the cockpits ?...were the doors left open?...whats the proceedure for attempted hijacks? "

I think the first part of that gives your age away. Until 911, aircraft doors were not secured in flight.

And Spook Plant is right. Compliance and calm are taught to aircrew. Fat lot of good it did the flight deck, however, who we now know were all disposed of in the first few minutes.

It's a bit off-topic, howver my last post sparked a thought (first time for everything, boom boom).

We all know what a common weapon a sharpened screwdriver is for your average thug, and there was yet another murder trial after such an attack in the NorthWest local news the other night. Not to be sniffed at.

If they had been the attackers' weapons of choice, do you think the conspiracy buffs would be saying "arabs armed with screwdrivers" in the same perjorative way they do "box cutters" instead of stanley knifes?

 http://www.secure-skies.org/crewtraining.php

Any piece of metal can have a cutting edge put on it. The harder the steel the sharper the edge and the less quickly it will blunt (roughly speaking). I'm not going to go into detail, but back then getting a blade into a cabin would have been no problem at all.

Fatally cutting someone's throat is also easy to achieve. The blood vessels are pretty accessible with even a little pen knife.

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exsanguination

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carotid_artery

Cutting the carotids is also pretty spectacular (arterial spray) and will also most likely induce physical convulsions much like an epeleptic fit as the brain is starved of blood. If done effectively the victim will be dead within minutes.

That aside, breaking someone's neck with your bare hands is pretty easy too. Though not as spectacular and not as psychologically intimidating as using a weapon.

Bear in mind also it's unlikely that the hostages knew that they were going to used as a suicide bomb.