Page 5 of 35 FirstFirst 1234567891011121314151617181920212223242526272829 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 682

Thread: Discussion: Was 9/11 an inside job?

  1. #81
    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x View Post
    So what? Some people took some of the WTC dust with them, but you don't pay attention to that part.
    i would be more than glad to.
    the only problem would be to insure the "evidence" wasn't tainted.
    Wrong; FEMA controlled the investigation.
    are you tired scott?
    i specifically stated the rescue and cleanup was civilian directed.
    these civilians comprised firemen, cops, construction engineers, and workmen alike.
    contrary to what you have posted, and i have video evidence*, ground zero was not "roped off" by the military or any other agency during the early hours and days following the collapse.

    *excerpt from the video:
    http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.ph...postcount=1869
    Last edited by leopold; 02-23-09 at 09:13 AM.

  2. #82
    Quote Originally Posted by John99 View Post
    i am not implying that they were all govt. officials.
    Ok.


    Quote Originally Posted by John99
    i suppose they could have interviewed them but i really dont know what someone would expect to get and you cannot just force people to interview because a relative committed a crime or is a suspect.
    The former FBI agent seemed to think so. They could, ofcourse, have pleaded the 5th, but atleast they would be on record as doing so. As it is, they flew the coop, with the help of the government officials at the highest levels.

    Quote Originally Posted by John99
    most likely you would have to go to them but that is neither here no there.
    Yes, at this point, I think the U.S. would have to request interviews from them and conduct them over there, that is, Saudi Arabia, since they're now there and quite free from the U.S. government's laws.


    Quote Originally Posted by John99
    And of course you dont know when and if they were interviewed at a later time.
    I think we would have heard about it, don't you? Anyway, a little more background info on some select Saudis, from WorldnetDaily's Bin Ladens allowed out of U.S. after 9-11:
    WorldNetDaily has reported the Saudi envoy donated millions of dollars to bin Laden's favorite charity, the International Islamic Relief Organization, or IIRO. And tens of thousands of dollars in donations made by Princess Haifa bint Faisal, the daughter of the late King Faisal and wife of Bandar, wound up in the hands of two al-Qaida operatives who later became 9-11 hijackers.

    The recently released congressional report on the 9-11 attacks accused the Saudi government of financing al-Qaida operations through Saudi-based charities.

    Twenty-eight pages of the 800-page report the Bush administration refused to declassify is said to detail suspected ties between the hijackers and agents of the Saudi government. Congressional sources claim the report was delayed for months over arguments with the Bush administration on details of Saudi involvement with al-Qaida.

  3. #83
    Quote Originally Posted by John99 View Post
    who else would i be responding to?
    I'm just saying it'd be easier if you could include all the relevant information in a single post; not one post say some things, and another say others and expect me to respond to information from 2 different posts in one.

  4. #84
    all thread filler.

    I think we would have heard about it, don't you?
    obviously you assume too much.

  5. #85
    Quote Originally Posted by leopold99 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x
    So what? Some people took some of the WTC dust with them, but you don't pay attention to that part.
    i would be more than glad to.
    the only problem would be to ensure the "evidence" wasn't tainted.
    Even the USGS found evidence of sulfidation in metal from the WTC buildings. While testing for thermate requires electron microscopes, surely the government can afford it? Steven Jones wasn't even funded by the government and yet he still managed to test for it.


    Quote Originally Posted by leopold99
    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x
    Quote Originally Posted by leopold99
    like i stated before, the cleanup and the rescue effort was civilian (non government) directed. these civilians arrived from all parts of the US.
    Wrong; FEMA controlled the investigation.
    are you tired scott?
    i specifically stated the rescue and cleanup was civilian directed.
    From wikipedia:
    The Federal Emergency Management Agency, or FEMA, is an agency of the United States Department of Homeland Security, initially created by Presidential Order on April 1, 1979)[1][3].


    Quote Originally Posted by leopold99
    these civilians comprised firemen, cops, construction engineers, and workmen alike.
    They didn't control the investigation. Here's what Bill Manning, editor of Fire Engineering had to say in his article $elling Out the Investigation:
    Fire Engineering has good reason to believe that the "official investigation"... is a half-baked farce that may already have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure. Except for the marginal benefit obtained from a three-day, visual walk-through of evidence sites conducted by ASCE investigation committee members- described by one close source as a "tourist trip"-no one's checking the evidence for anything.


    Quote Originally Posted by leopold99
    contrary to what you have posted, and i have video evidence*, ground zero was not "roped off" by the military or any other agency during the early hours and days following the collapse.

    *excerpt from the video:
    http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.ph...postcount=1869
    So what? You need someone who can actually properly analyze the evidence in order for it to have much meaning. As it so happens, I think that a week or 2 in, there were actually some good pictures that had been taken; but this relative freedom didn't last long as the Boston Globe made clear in its article City: No more photographs of World Trade Center site - By Elisabetta Coletti, Associated Press, 09/26/01:
    NEW YORK -- Photography at the World Trade Center site, where thousands of curious New Yorkers and tourists have gathered with still and video cameras since the terrorist attacks, was banned by Mayor Rudolph Giuliani.

    "No photographic equipment or video equipment may be brought into the area or used, except with the approval of the Police Commissioner," said a statement issued by the mayor's office on Tuesday.

    The statement said that the ban was issued because the site is a crime scene and that cameras and video equipment could be seized. No one from the mayor's office was available early Wednesday to explain why the order wasn't issued earlier.

    Small signs were posted around the Trade Center site late Tuesday, warning passers-by that they risk prosecution for a Class B misdemeanor for taking pictures or violating any of the order's other provisions, including no pedestrian or vehicular traffic or occupancy of buildings within site boundaries.

  6. #86
    Quote Originally Posted by John99 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x
    Quote Originally Posted by John99
    And of course you dont know when and if they were interviewed at a later time.
    I think we would have heard about it, don't you?
    obviously you assume too much.
    I'm only assuming that it would be probable that we would have heard about it. Who knows, perhaps they -were- interviewed; over tea and crumpets, say.

    The Bush family enjoyed some close connections with the Bin Laden family. It's #4 in the Top 25 Censored Stories for 2003 over at project censored:
    4. Bush Administration Hampered FBI Investigation into Bin Laden Family Before 9/11

    An FBI file coded 199, which means a case involving national security, records that Abdullah bin Laden, who lived in Washington, originally had a file opened on him “because of his relationship with the Saudi-funded World Assembly of Muslim Youth - a suspected terrorist organization.” The BBC reiterated a well-known claim, made by one of George W. Bush’s former business partners, that Bush made his first million dollars 20 years ago from a company financed by Osama’s elder brother, Salem. It has also been revealed that both the Bushs and the bin Ladens had lucrative stakes in the Carlyle Group, a private investment firm that has grown to be one of the largest investors in US defense and communications contracts.

  7. #87
    ok...but in this case the parties involved can interact with one another or have business dealings from years ago due to their positions. Bush is one out of hundreds or thousands this person had dealings with, but of course this rationale does not FIT the conspiracy. There are many people who have relatives in mafia (as an example) or criminal behavior and are judges or law enforcement etc. One person cannot be held responsible for what a relative does if they, themselves, are not guilty of any crime.

  8. #88
    As a mother, I am telling you Syzygys's Avatar
    Posts
    12,642
    OK, call me stupid, but what was the point of having such a short Debate? Why the 2 parties couldn't go at least 2-3 rounds? Usually at least one respond to a respond is expected.

    And this thread should be closed down because it has nothing to do anymore with the debate's topic. If Scott wants to pursue his conspiracy thesis in other forum, so be it...

    I am generally not against a good discussion, but he is not answering questions but throwing out an incredible amount of data instead of explaining event WITH HIS OWN WORDS.

  9. #89
    Quote Originally Posted by Syzygys View Post
    OK, call me stupid, but what was the point of having such a short Debate? Why the 2 parties couldn't go at least 2-3 rounds? Usually at least one respond to a respond is expected.
    my guess?
    scott persuaded uno hoo to sign up here specifically for this very reason.
    scott, by his own admission, wasn't interested in a debate, he was only interested in getting this topic moved out of the pseudoscience forum.
    why else hasn't uno hoo made any remarks in this thread?

  10. #90
    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x View Post
    Even the USGS found evidence of sulfidation in metal from the WTC buildings.
    ever hear of acid rain?
    From wikipedia:
    The Federal Emergency Management Agency, or FEMA, is an agency of the United States Department of Homeland Security, initially created by Presidential Order on April 1, 1979)[1][3].
    the investigation is different than the rescue/ cleanup.
    the rescue/ cleanup was conducted and directed by civilians.
    some of the above civilians were professionals and nearly all of them heard the phrase on TV "it almost looks like one of those controlled demolitions".
    do i really need to spell this out to you like this scott?
    They didn't control the investigation. Here's what Bill Manning, editor of Fire Engineering had to say in his article $elling Out the Investigation:
    Fire Engineering has good reason to believe that the "official investigation"... is a half-baked farce that may already have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure. Except for the marginal benefit obtained from a three-day, visual walk-through of evidence sites conducted by ASCE investigation committee members- described by one close source as a "tourist trip"-no one's checking the evidence for anything.
    too bad he couldn't get any firemen to say the same thing on the record.
    i tried to search the above site but you must register to do so.
    So what? You need someone who can actually properly analyze the evidence in order for it to have much meaning. As it so happens, I think that a week or 2 in, there were actually some good pictures that had been taken; but this relative freedom didn't last long as the Boston Globe made clear in its article City: No more photographs of World Trade Center site - By Elisabetta Coletti, Associated Press, 09/26/01:
    [B]
    the fact of the matter is that cameras and videos WAS allowed immediately after the collapse.
    this disproves your assertion that federal employees "removed evidence" AKA unexploded bomb material, from the site.

  11. #91
    As a mother, I am telling you Syzygys's Avatar
    Posts
    12,642
    Quote Originally Posted by leopold99 View Post
    scott persuaded uno hoo to sign up here specifically for this very reason.
    scott, by his own admission, wasn't interested in a debate, he was only interested in getting this topic moved out of the pseudoscience forum.
    Hmmm, a conspiracy theory on a conspiracy theorist!!! I like it!!!

    He should be able to discuss this topic if there are any takers, just maybe in another forum. The problem is that most likely he won't convince anyone and he won't be convinced otherwise either, so the whole discussion is rather moot....

    Generally I have 2 problems with Scott:

    1. He doesn't explain things in simple sentences using his own words. Puring out too many links has an opposite effect.

    2. He doesn't seem to be able to acknowledge that knowing something and letting it happen doesn't equal actively helping it to happen. Once he is able to do so, there won't be any need for the explosives...

  12. #92
    Quote Originally Posted by Syzygys View Post
    OK, call me stupid, but what was the point of having such a short Debate? Why the 2 parties couldn't go at least 2-3 rounds? Usually at least one respond to a respond is expected.
    When dealing with a complex post, I have been known to expand my response to more then one post. As a matter of fact, I did just that in the previous debate concerning an issue of 9/11, the WTC collapses and got some complaints because of it. As a matter of fact, that may well have happened with the debate; I wanted to make it so that it would have been ok; but in order for the debate to not stretch on too long, I wanted to terminate the debate part after I finished my response to what I thought would have been Uno Hoo's original post. However, it didn't happen; I found out that Uno Hoo actually wanted -me- to go first and that changes things; while I can be fairly lengthy when responding to a post, I'm generally not so lengthy when starting a thread.


    Quote Originally Posted by Syzygys
    And this thread should be closed down because it has nothing to do anymore with the debate's topic.
    You're not serious are you?


    Quote Originally Posted by Syzygys
    If Scott wants to pursue his conspiracy thesis in other forum, so be it...
    Before this thread was opened, I knew of no other thread where all aspects of 9/11 could be discussed. Originally, this thread wasn't supposed to include the WTC collapses sub topic because it had its own discussion thread in this very forum, but that thread has now been closed, so I guess it now includes all aspects of 9/11. While there is another thread in the pseudoscience forum that deals with the WTC collapses, there are essentially no rules on the type of language that can be used there; I personally like a more civil approach.


    Quote Originally Posted by Syzygys
    I am generally not against a good discussion, but he is not answering questions
    I believe that I have done my best to answer a fair amount of questions. While there are actually some rules here as to the language that can be used, this doesn't mean that everyone's being incredibly amicable, however, and what this means is that at times I get a little tired of the at times toxic style of responses even here.

    Quote Originally Posted by Syzygys
    but throwing out an incredible amount of data instead of explaining event WITH HIS OWN WORDS.
    I have explained certain aspects of 9/11 in my own words; however, I feel that using my own words is frequently unnecessary- many things that I'd like to get across have been admirably explained by others in the past and I feel it makes far more sense to quote these people then the 'reinvent the wheel', so to speak.

  13. #93
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    383
    Quote Originally Posted by leopold99 View Post
    what about this scott?


    of course the witnesses that fall into this catagory are the ones that uphold the what really happened.
    i've also noticed that you haven't provided a list of witnesses.

    because you aren't interested in finding the truth.
    you have it in your mind that it was "a bomb".
    the size of the plane is most certainly relevant.

    again you have provided no witnesses to the actual "plant".
    who was it that saw theses pieces being "planted"?
    you do realize that the pentagon, AND washington DC, gets thousands of visitors each year right?

    who gives a ratsass about photos and articles?
    i want to see your list of WITNESSES, not some "he said, she said" crap.

    you need to produce witnesses scott.

    on what grounds? because someone in california says so?

    a plane could have done it as well too, it also has the added advantage of "disposing" of the passengers

    you haven't produced a single eye witness to airplane parts being planted but ask your opponent to produce proof of their assertions?

    you were asked by uno hoo to do this debate in your own words.
    so, in you own words what happened to the passengers scott?
    don't forget the proof part.

    Uno Hoo also thinks he remembers asking a condition to be that the Formal Debate and the subsequent Discussion Thread be conducted in a civil and respectful fashion. Admittedly, "civil" and "respectful" were not defined down to a gnat's nose hair, but it is my humble(?) opinion that a bit of dialog already gone over the spillway round here which is way too uncivil. And disrespectful too.

  14. #94
    Quote Originally Posted by Uno Hoo View Post
    Uno Hoo also thinks he remembers asking a condition to be that the Formal Debate and the subsequent Discussion Thread be conducted in a civil and respectful fashion. Admittedly, "civil" and "respectful" were not defined down to a gnat's nose hair, but it is my humble(?) opinion that a bit of dialog already gone over the spillway round here which is way too uncivil. And disrespectful too.
    Uno Hoo, I've gotten used to merely somewhat disrespectful. I'm simply trying to proscribe the seriously bad, such as descriptions of a person that include the f word, etc.

    He says crap, I've said shoddy to describe NIST's work. As long as no one uses the insults that I proscribed at the beginning of the thread and that isn't clearly over the top, I'll go with it; it doesn't mean that I will actually respond if I find it to be fairly offensive, but I can atleast content myself that everyone is following -some- rules in regards to offensive comments.

  15. #95
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    383
    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x View Post
    Well I reported you (Q), as you called me an idiot and I specifically said it shouldn't be allowed in this discussion. Now I don't know if I can actually have that enforced, but I figured it'd be worth the effort. Anyway, if you want to generally have your points ignored, using base insults is a generally surefire way of getting this accomplished with me.
    Uno Hoo did not "get persuaded" to take part in the Formal debate. Uno Hoo became interested in the 9/11 thing and especially wanted to participate in a Pentagon thread on the same day that JamesR Evil Administrator axed the ex-Pentagon thread. When Uno Hoo got wind of the possibility of a debate and then a polite and respectful thread discussion, the rest was history.

    If my Swiss Cheese memory might be right, JamesR Righteous Administrator was agreeable to the Uno Hoo condition that the Discussion Thread be "civil and respectful".

    Uno Hoo has a day job which is vexingly demanding on time and energy. Day job has even much more important consequence to nation and humanity than issue of 9/11 conspiracy or not. While wishing that it could be otherwise, my participation must be "hit and run", or, "hit and miss".

    It has seemed that every day of perusing information re 9/11 has given me more apprehension that the official explanation may be doubted. However, there are certainly elements of the official story which seem likely and verified. But there are also a growing number of loose ends that don't add up.

    And in recent days there was an unfortunate flap between myself and a participant in the World Trade Center thread which pissed me so much that I lost interest for a while.

    So this is my first real personal opportunity to dip my toe into this Pentagon thread.

    Having a strong personal history of experience in structural design allows me to notice that there was a huge seeming difference between the behavior of the structure of both airplane and the building in Pentagon versus WTC. The official story of the airplane crash behavior and building response behavior is remarkably different for Pentagon versus WTC. I personally think of this as my launching point for figuring out whether there was a conspiracy or simply a terrorist assault.

  16. #96
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    383
    Quote Originally Posted by Fraggle Rocker View Post
    * * * * NOTE FROM A MODERATOR * * * *

    * sigh* ... I have not seen this thread and in fact I resolutely stay away from this board because I don't find it the least bit interesting. But whenever anyone files a Report on a post in the Formal Debates subforum, it goes out to ALL THE MODERATORS. Apparently it's our job to moderate this little looney-tunes sandbox whether we have better things to do or not.

    Scott has reported TWO of the posts in this discussion so I finally came over here to see what the yelling was about, and discovered that none of the other Moderators have weighed in. * sigh *
    That's not a "formal debate" by the rules of any debating society. But I suppose you get to make your own rules here.Then you came to the wrong website. Those words are common currency here. Personal insults are a violation of the forum rules, but it's difficult to enforce. Especially if none of the Moderators read this stuff!Those are personal insults too. Apparently we all have our own ideas about what constitutes civil discourse. Do you see my problem?I don't see how what he's doing is a violation of our rule against trolling, much less spamming.Hey dude, this is a place of science so feel free to help us enforce the scientific method. If an extraordinary assertion is posted without extraordinary evidence to support it, invoke the Rule of Laplace and challenge it. If the evidence is not forthcoming then the poster must SHUT UP and never pursue that line of reasoning again. And BTW, calling someone a "pea brain" is a personal insult and therefore a violation of the forum rules. I've called you before on your hair trigger. It takes two to drag a discussion into the mud.I don't know what you mean by that but as an American I support free speech. We prohibit racism and personal insults and that's about it. Everything else, as far as I'm concerned, is governed by the scientific method. If a theory is simply crackpottery, then invoke the Rule of Laplace. A second posting of the same theory without substantiation is trolling and grounds for banning. It's as simple as that. The administrators are big on turning this website back into the place of science it was ten years ago, so let's help them out.Your report is duly noted and Q is hereby reprimanded. If he does it again, please PM the Moderator of the subforum on which this discussion would have to take place if it didn't fall into the bizarre, misnamed category of "Formal Debates."

    In closing, based on what I've gleaned from a quick review of this thread, I'd say it's not going anywhere and you're all wasting your time. You'd probably get more action and even some scholarship on the World Events or Engineering board.

    I currently live in the Washington metropolitan area and drive past the Pentagon routinely. It's in Arlington, a densely populated urban area with an enormous volume of foot and vehicle traffic. It's a couple of blocks from an elevated freeway, a shopping mall, and rows of high-rise hotels and government office buildings. It even has its own subway station. I wasn't here on 9/11, but there is no controversy among the local people about the events of that date.
    NOTE FROM A FORMAL DEBATER

    Prior to engaging in Formal Debate, I asked a small number of conditions be granted for both the Debate and the subsequent Thread (Unless my worn out old memory has finally croaked). I asked for civil and respectful. Is someone having a serious problem with meaning of the words "civil" and "respectful"?

  17. #97
    As a mother, I am telling you Syzygys's Avatar
    Posts
    12,642
    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x View Post
    I have explained certain aspects of 9/11 in my own words;
    OK, let's try one more times with the flyover plane:

    What is the point of overcomplicating an attack with this supposed flyover, when a flying away plane can be seen by 100s of people? Sometimes the simplest is the best solution.

    Also, even without the Pentagon attack the country would have been outraged anyway, so it wasn't really needed. There were 4 planes, just in case if 1-2 can't reach its destination. The whole flyover story just doesn't add up and unexplainable...

  18. #98
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    383
    Quote Originally Posted by James R View Post
    It sounds to me like you haven't read any of the sticky threads that head this subforum. If you're going to moderate the forum, you really should familiarise yourself with its special format and rules.

    While this particular debate may not follow the "rules of any debating society", that does not necessarily disqualify it from being a valid debate, especially according to the rules of the subforum.

    If you take a look at previous debates, you will in fact find that several of them do closely follow a traditional debate format similar to that of virtually any debating society you'd care to name.

    I don't mind criticism, but I'd prefer informed criticism rather than uninformed tangential sniping, thanks Fraggle.

    While my old man memory has been proving more suspicious all the time, I believe i asked for a condition that both the Debate and the Thread be civil and respectful. And I seem to remember that JamesR Righteous Administrator agreed, or, at least, did not disagree.

  19. #99
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    383
    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x View Post
    On second thought, I've come to think that you're right in regards to the size of the plane in one way; while I'm fine with the idea that the size of the plane flying over the pentagon was the same size as the flight 77, the size of the hole that the plane allegedly made is far too small for the plane to have actually made the impact.
    My present sentiment exactly. It seems to me that crash damage endemic to the moment of impact was that of something quite smaller than a jetliner. I have not seen 58 tons of Aluminum plus many more tons of Titanium, Steel, Stainless Steel, Tungsten, and such like.

  20. #100
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    383
    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x View Post
    I've now gotten an answer as to why they didn't simply crash flight 77 into the pentagon:
    Motive for flyover?




    I have never claimed to have any eye witnesses to airplane parts being planted. Uno -did- claim that an official report claimed that "DNA from everyone on the jetliner was found and identified". For this reason, I think it's a perfectly valid question.




    That was the rule for the debate part. We're now in the discussion part and no such rule was stipulated for that part of it.
    It is my memory that my condition(s) for the Debate were also to pertain to the Thread.

Similar Threads

  1. By Simon Anders in forum General Philosophy
    Last Post: 10-31-08, 10:28 PM
    Replies: 0
  2. By stretched in forum Pseudoscience Archive
    Last Post: 09-14-08, 10:31 PM
    Replies: 26
  3. By cosmictraveler in forum Free Thoughts
    Last Post: 09-13-08, 04:19 PM
    Replies: 9
  4. By Ganymede in forum Politics
    Last Post: 09-14-07, 11:44 PM
    Replies: 15
  5. By Brutus1964 in forum Politics
    Last Post: 10-15-05, 03:22 PM
    Replies: 6

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •