9/11?

#41
Well, I presume the answer will be "the CIA".

Whoever it is has to have access to missiles and missile crews, demolitions teams with tons of thermite, either has to have access to holograph machines of very advanced nature or has to be working closely with someone who can recruit suicidal hijackers. I guess that would be MK Ultra so more CIA. And mostly, they need to have access to the "flashy thing" from 'Men in Black' that erases the memories of the thousands of people who were involved with or knew something about the highly complex multipronged operation. That sounds like Area 51 people. So Military Industrial Complex + CIA + space aliens/lizard people?

Well Hurm and Star Monkey, who done it?
Hi man,
Am not going to pretend to have done a deep dive on 911.
If they they are going to bring the CIA into though i think they have to be a bit more specific than 'the CIA'.
Is like answering the question 'who were the hijackers?' answer 'Arabs'
Maybe they could start with a list of the names of the hijackers and we see how we go
 
#42
Hi man,
Am not going to pretend to have done a deep dive on 911.
If they they are going to bring the CIA into though i think they have to be a bit more specific than 'the CIA'.
Is like answering the question 'who were the hijackers?' answer 'Arabs'
Maybe they could start with a list of the names of the hijackers and we see how we go
Agree. "The CIA" is not a meaningful answer. Who? What department/compartment. I mean most of the CIA is analysts sitting in cubicles and officers out in the field (= foreign countries) doing what they do best, gathering intelligence. Those guys wouldn't know thermite from the salt and pepper on the dinner table. So if the CIA had some kind of kinetic operations team populated by pure cold blooded homicidal psychos, then that is a revelation in itself and it needs to be fleshed out in the explanation.

Likewise for the holographs of airplanes. What Hollywood studio? What specific tech? etc. Or if they believe in the overkill of real airplanes + thermite, then, yes, who were the hijackers?

My guess is that answers are not forthcoming beyond saying that if we're not willing to do "the work" and research this ourselves, they're not going to spoon feed us. Very facile, of course. It sounds to me like, "I dunno. Stop making me think". But what do I know?
 
#43
Molten steel molten steel? BS. That's like the "magic bullet" that isn't so magic. Did you personally observed a large quantity of molten steel? Nope. You have no idea if there was molten steel.
So only direct personal observations count as evidence? How do you live your life? You don't trust any testimony, any photographs, any video, any science, you don't trust anything unless you can put your hands on it? That IS the flat earth perspective.

Designed to survive airplanes? Nope. Not ones that big.
They were designed to withstand an impact from a 707 with max weight 330,000 lbs. ...the largest airliner flying at the time.
They were hit by a 767 200ER with empty weight of 181,610 lbs to max weight of 395,000 lbs. According to NIST it was approximately half full of fuel.

And guess what? Sometimes a builder claims something and it's not true. It's not as if the builder's claim was likely to be tested in the builder's life time. Sometimes builders don't take into account all of the variables, like melted aluminum from the airplane and how that could add to the fires.
I agree that you can't be 100% sure how the structures would respond to such an impact unless it actually happened; but there are many things you can be sure would not happen and one of those is the pools of molten steel as already discussed. It is the easiest thing to prove that existed and also the easiest to prove that it shouldn't have been there so that's why I start with it.

You remind me of Wesley on the flat earth thread. This site deserves Wesley. He's just out conspiracy theorizing you and you guys don't like it.
Ouch.
 
#44
I agree that you can't be 100% sure how the structures would respond to such an impact unless it actually happened; but there are many things you can be sure would not happen and one of those is the pools of molten steel as already discussed. It is the easiest thing to prove that existed and also the easiest to prove that it shouldn't have been there so that's why I start with it.
What pools of molten steel?

I use the standards of proof that would work in a fair court of law. I suspect you, like most of the conspiracy theorists I encounter, use something more akin to a journalistic standard. Hearsay and other points with dubious chain of custody are acceptable to concoct a story.
 
#45
What pools of molten steel?

I use the standards of proof that would work in a fair court of law. I suspect you, like most of the conspiracy theorists I encounter, use something more akin to a journalistic standard. Hearsay and other points with dubious chain of custody are acceptable to concoct a story.
I already went over it. You ignored it. AE911Truth has compiled it. I think it was also given in the video of John Gross linked earlier. The proof is more than sufficient in a court of law.
 
#46
I already went over it. You ignored it. AE911Truth has compiled it. I think it was also given in the video of John Gross linked earlier. The proof is more than sufficient in a court of law.
From the "truther" site; "The composition of the flowing material can only be the subject of speculation, but its behavior suggests it could have been molten aluminum."

Yeah, the airplanes were made of aluminum. Many things in the buildings were made of it or other alloys. No surprise that there was molten metal. You're implying that it was molten steel. No proof of that.

Also, in a court of law, one side presents its case and the other side presents its case and rebuttal. You're just taking one side and saying "case closed".
 
#47
From the "truther" site; "The composition of the flowing material can only be the subject of speculation, but its behavior suggests it could have been molten aluminum."

Yeah, the airplanes were made of aluminum. Many things in the buildings were made of it or other alloys. No surprise that there was molten metal. You're implying that it was molten steel. No proof of that.

Also, in a court of law, one side presents its case and the other side presents its case and rebuttal. You're just taking one side and saying "case closed".
You think molten steel looks like molten aluminum. Demonstrates complete ignorance basic physics and metallurgy.
 
#48
You think molten steel looks like molten aluminum. Demonstrates complete ignorance basic physics and metallurgy.
and you think you can tell which is which from the photos?

Do you have any idea how much thermite would be needed to melt enough steel to create what is in the photos? Dump trucks full. You demonstrate a complete lack of knowledge on that subject. You think someone - you refuse to say who - was able to place dump truck volumes of thermite in the buildings? You're out of your mind and that is what a jury would decide - we can't tell what type of metal was melted from the photos, but there is no evidence that anyone could - or did - pull off something as impossible as placing massive amounts of thermite in the buildings. No one noticed? Not inspectors? A large crew would be needed. None have talked? Come on, man. That's crazy. Why not just admit you're latching onto the the thinest of speculation based on the thinest evidence? Classic conspiracy theorist reasoning (if we can call that)
 
#49
and you think you can tell which is which from the photos?

Do you have any idea how much thermite would be needed to melt enough steel to create what is in the photos? Dump trucks full. You demonstrate a complete lack of knowledge on that subject. You think someone - you refuse to say who - was able to place dump truck volumes of thermite in the buildings? You're out of your mind and that is what a jury would decide - we can't tell what type of metal was melted from the photos, but there is no evidence that anyone could - or did - pull off something as impossible as placing massive amounts of thermite in the buildings. No one noticed? Not inspectors? A large crew would be needed. None have talked? Come on, man. That's crazy. Why not just admit you're latching onto the the thinest of speculation based on the thinest evidence? Classic conspiracy theorist reasoning (if we can call that)
Argument from incredulity.
 
Top