PDA

View Full Version : 9/11 debate anyone?


that guy
12-09-2006, 01:57 AM
So the other day I mentioned the option of having a debate (preferably in the 'formal debates' section ;)) about 9/11. Koch said he would also like to be involved. Anybody else interested? Basically the idea would be for the vnner types to make a list (1, 2, 3, 4, 5..) of the strongest arguments that they have. The non-vnner types (that's me) will then reply to these arguments. I don't think it is reasonable to ask one person to reply to all the points, though, because it would simply take too much time. Numbering the arguments will enable the non-vnners to decide in advance what arguments each poster would handle. The next step would be for the vnners to reply, and they could also divide the labor.

BTW, I am not exactly a die-hard believer in the US government. However, after seeing a few videos of that Steven Jones character (a physicist that claims that the towers were demolished), I pretty much lost any respect I may have had for the "9/11 truth movement" as well. The guy just seems to be a poor excuse for a scientist. For example, he gave this lecture and at the end he let people ask questions. But instead of asking him pertinent questions (I personally had dozens of questions about his presentation!), all of the people that spoke just sucked up to him. It was quite nauseating. The organizers of the event (including Jones himself) should have made sure that at least a couple of people would GD ask a relevant question. :rolleyes:

Personally, I am not interested in "converting" anybody. I merely want to entertain myself by pointing out the flaws in many of the claims that the so-called "truth movement" mutters. Nevertheless, because this will basically be a waste of time, I am not going to push for this debate any more than I just did, and if it does eventually happen, I will try to keep it short......

Kriger
12-09-2006, 02:14 AM
Well, guy, the 911 thing is another one of those endless controversies. Debating the pros/cons does not ever seem to disclose the truth of the matter.

The official version of the incident is filled with absurd "facts". Due to the fact that no one can prove otherwise, it becomes a no win/no win heated discussion.

Myself personally does not buy the official story. What the real truth is I do not even pretend to know. There are some pretty wild theories running rampant about it, for sure. Aside from plausible theories, neither side can prove their points beyond a shadow of a doubt.

It very probably will go down in history as another one of those events that the masses will never know the complete truth.

that guy
12-09-2006, 02:20 AM
Well, guy, the 911 thing is another one of those endless controversies. Debating the pros/cons does not ever seem to disclose the truth of the matter.

The official version of the incident is filled with absurd "facts". Due to the fact that no one can prove otherwise, it becomes a no win/no win heated discussion.

Myself personally does not buy the official story. What the real truth is I do not even pretend to know. There are some pretty wild theories running rampant about it, for sure. Aside from plausible theories, neither side can prove their points beyond a shadow of a doubt.

It very probably will go down in history as another one of those events that the masses will never know the complete truth.
I agree, but I think that (1) it's still good to learn more about the subject, and (2) it is genuinely interesting at times (for example, the elevator shaft story..).

Kriger
12-09-2006, 02:36 AM
Yes, some of the proposed theories are certainly interesting at times, and amusing.

Well, perhaps the staunch VNN crowd will take you up on this. It certainly gets to be a rousing exchange. JP usually ends up losing his temper with it.

:rageagainstthepc:

Mike
12-09-2006, 03:32 AM
I can't contribute to this topic, as I am neither a 9/11-truther nor diehard believer, but I approve of your call for a formal debate. I would like to see where a formal debate on the phora might lead, so I hope that someone takes you up on your offer. As for my view, I have to admit that the surprisingly orthogonal free-fall collapse of WTC-7 is certainly a strange case for a steel structure - enough to give me pause. However, I don't think that many of the other Loose Change-type claims are able to hold water. At best, they cast vague doubt. As a side note, I wish the so-called "movement" would give up all the 9/11 speculation when we have real issues, like the Iraq war and the Mexican invasion, to work with.


So the other day I mentioned the option of having a debate (preferably in the 'formal debates' section ;)) about 9/11. Koch said he would also like to be involved. Anybody else interested? Basically the idea would be for the vnner types to make a list (1, 2, 3, 4, 5..) of the strongest arguments that they have. The non-vnner types (that's me) will then reply to these arguments. I don't think it is reasonable to ask one person to reply to all the points, though, because it would simply take too much time. Numbering the arguments will enable the non-vnners to decide in advance what arguments each poster would handle. The next step would be for the vnners to reply, and they could also divide the labor.

BTW, I am not exactly a die-hard believer in the US government. However, after seeing a few videos of that Steven Jones character (a physicist that claims that the towers were demolished), I pretty much lost any respect I may have had for the "9/11 truth movement" as well. The guy just seems to be a poor excuse for a scientist. For example, he gave this lecture and at the end he let people ask questions. But instead of asking him pertinent questions (I personally had dozens of questions about his presentation!), all of the people that spoke just sucked up to him. It was quite nauseating. The organizers of the event (including Jones himself) should have made sure that at least a couple of people would GD ask a relevant question. :rolleyes:

Personally, I am not interested in "converting" anybody. I merely want to entertain myself by pointing out the flaws in many of the claims that the so-called "truth movement" mutters. Nevertheless, because this will basically be a waste of time, I am not going to push for this debate any more than I just did, and if it does eventually happen, I will try to keep it short......

koch curve
12-09-2006, 03:47 AM
ive been debating this shit for as long as i can remember, count me in

Björn
12-09-2006, 03:52 AM
Yes a session of verbal wanking benefits all but those who partake in it.:rofl:

Captain Marinesko
12-09-2006, 06:51 AM
Yes, some of the proposed theories are certainly interesting at times, and amusing.

Well, perhaps the staunch VNN crowd will take you up on this. It certainly gets to be a rousing exchange. JP usually ends up losing his temper with it.

:rageagainstthepc:

People claim I am angry or "upset" because I often type certain things in caps. I have to do that to make sure the morons actually see the important points, such as THERMITE IS NOT, AND CANNOT BE USED IN CONTROLLED DEMOLITIONS.


I would be happy to take place in the debate IF, and ONLY IF(there's the emphasis again), the 9-11 troofers must present their own general theory, with a rought chronology of what happened and who did what. That means if they think the Pentagon was hit by a plane, they can only cite sources that agree with that, and so on. They must answer questions from our side as well.

Basically, I just want them to actually put out one coherent theory rather than a clusterfuck of "questions".

ivory bill
12-09-2006, 02:50 PM
Cui bono, JP, cui bono?

that guy
12-09-2006, 03:03 PM
Cui bono, JP, cui bono?
By that logic, German national socialism was also a jewish plot, as was pretty much everything else in history. Anything that was pro-jewish needs no explanation. Anything that was anti-jewish benefited the jews by (1) uniting them, and (2) for propaganda purposes. Anything that was neither good nor bad for the tribe benefits them because it enables them to point to those events and say: "see, not everything revolves around jews". :D

ivory bill
12-09-2006, 03:30 PM
Having seen the utter absurdity of a "9-11 debunker" site (see below), I want to offer a concept from it that you might adopt in your endless Holocaust obsessions:

Perhaps the Nazis were aware of the power of water and sheetrock to cause an intense thermal reaction when exposed to large kerosene-heated steel structures. Maybe they used that knowlege to efficiently toast all those jews with the limited time and facilities available to them.

You may use the idea if you like. Your associates are happy with it in "debunking" logical inquiry into the mysteries of 9-11.


I think iron and steam could have reacted in this way (at least for a while) and generated a lot of heat. What is more, the hydrogen released would have been converted back to water by reaction with oxygen, thereby generating even more heat. In this case spraying water on the rubble pile was like adding fuel to a fire!
Now add in gypsum reactions with H2 and CO and we have a great source of SO2 and/or H2S to sulfide the steel!

Perhaps the endless spraying of water on the rubble pile was not such a good idea!

http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm

http://www.debunking911.com/Molten.jpg

Kodos
12-09-2006, 06:08 PM
Ivory bill what is your technical background?

Burrhus
12-09-2006, 06:23 PM
By that logic, German national socialism was also a jewish plot, as was pretty much everything else in history. Anything that was pro-jewish needs no explanation. Anything that was anti-jewish benefited the jews by (1) uniting them, and (2) for propaganda purposes. Anything that was neither good nor bad for the tribe benefits them because it enables them to point to those events and say: "see, not everything revolves around jews". :D

Nice move, ex-lax, derailing your own thread.

So, is this the thread where 911 'debate' will occur or should I wait?

ivory bill
12-09-2006, 07:01 PM
Ivory bill what is your technical background?

As is obvious, a physicist isn't needed to recognize the absurdity of the "debunker" claim that water and sheetrock added to kerosene-heated steel beams can cause a thermal reaction that would increase the heat to anywhere near melting-point. A simple blacksmith or welder can tell you that.

As to my background; I've welded, I've forged steel, and I've cast steel, bronze, and aluminum.

I can tell you, as any honest metalworker would, that despite 'debunker' claims to the contrary, metal color does matter. Steel does not achieve plasticity or a bright cherry-red glow when heated with jet fuel.....no matter how much water and sheetrock you put upon it.

koch curve
12-09-2006, 07:05 PM
As is obvious, a physicist isn't needed to recognize the absurdity of the "debunker" claim that water and sheetrock added to kerosene-heated steel beams can cause a thermal reaction that would increase the heat to anywhere near melting-point. A simple blacksmith or welder can tell you that.

As to my background; I've welded, I've forged steel, and I've cast steel, bronze, and aluminum.

I can tell you, as any honest metalworker would, that despite 'debunker' claims to the contrary, metal color does matter. Steel does not achieve plasticity or a bright cherry-red glow when heated with jet fuel.....no matter how much water and sheetrock you put upon it.

ok so you took shop classes in high school great thanks for the lesson on physics that you actually know nothing about

Kodos
12-09-2006, 07:07 PM
metal color does matter. Steel does not achieve plasticity or a bright cherry-red glow when heated with jet fuel.....no matter how much water and sheetrock you put upon it.


So you've run empirical experiments that a fucking plane can't weaken the steel in a truss structure like the WTC enough that it can't support its weight.

Somehow I don't think you have the budget.

As for the burning stuff they are talking about iron. You won't find many engineers who believe that 9/11 was controlled demolition...

Kodos
12-09-2006, 07:09 PM
ok so you took shop classes in high school great thanks for the lesson on physics that you actually know nothing about

He misrepresents what the debunker says, which is that gypsum fused with molten iron and in liquid form they had an exothermic chemical reaction.

Kodos
12-09-2006, 07:14 PM
More debunking stuff

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html

ivory bill
12-09-2006, 07:15 PM
He misrepresents what the debunker says, which is that gypsum fused with molten iron and in liquid form they had an exothermic chemical reaction.

The beams are made of steel, which is largely composed of iron. That is moot. The question with which you must deal is WHAT MELTED THE STEEL?

Kodos
12-09-2006, 07:19 PM
The beams are made of steel, which is largely composed of iron. That is moot. The question with which you must deal is WHAT MELTED THE STEEL?

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=4

But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.

"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."

ivory bill
12-09-2006, 07:20 PM
ok so you took shop classes in high school great thanks for the lesson on physics that you actually know nothing about

Yes, I took shop classes and I also took a masters degree in sculpture. That makes me a welder. Any honest welder can tell you that kerosene won't come close to heating steel to a bright cherry-red nor will it make the steel plastic.

I'm not surprised that you resort to ad hominem so quickly.

koch curve
12-09-2006, 07:25 PM
Yes, I took shop classes and I also took a masters degree in sculpture. That makes me a welder. Any honest welder can tell you that kerosene won't come close to heating steel to a bright cherry-red nor will it make the steel plastic.

I'm not surprised that you resort to ad hominem so quickly.

LOL master sculptor here to explain the physics behind a plane impacting a building


and yeah any honest welder also doesnt know about the physics of the event either, ill trust actual structural engineers to make judgments on what happens when a plane hits a building and leave you guys to weld it back together afterwards thanks.

ivory bill
12-09-2006, 07:31 PM
LOL master sculptor here to explain the physics behind a plane impacting a building


and yeah any honest welder also doesnt know about the physics of the event either, ill trust actual structural engineers to make judgments on what happens when a plane hits a building and leave you guys to weld it back together afterwards thanks.

You're sputtering the same angry gibberish. Attack me all you like, it doesn't change the absurdity of the "debunker's" arguments.
Look at the picture:

http://www.debunking911.com/Molten.jpg

koch curve
12-09-2006, 07:33 PM
yeah, and the physics (which you dont have the ability to understand, and dont have the will to educate yourself on) has explained it.


either take that to a univeristy physicist and come back with an answer that refutes it, or just admit you dont actually have any knowledge about the physics involved.

please, if i want to know how to weld some sheet metal together into a beautiful sculpture ill ask you, but on important matters like the collapse of the building after a jet impact ill ask a professional.

ivory bill
12-09-2006, 07:39 PM
yeah, and the physics (which you dont have the ability to understand, and dont have the will to educate yourself on) has explained it.


either take that to a univeristy physicist and come back with an answer that refutes it, or just admit you dont actually have any knowledge about the physics involved.

please, if i want to know how to weld some sheet metal together into a beautiful sculpture ill ask you, but on important matters like the collapse of the building after a jet impact ill ask a professional.

We were speaking of the massive steel beams in what was once the tallest building in the world, not sheetmetal. Rather disengenuous of you, don't you think? How could those beams glow orange and bright cherry-red from being doused with jet fuel? Look at the picture:

http://www.debunking911.com/Molten.jpg

koch curve
12-09-2006, 07:40 PM
oh lord can you even read?


and stop spamming the picture, weve seen it all the 18 other times youve posted it

that guy
12-09-2006, 07:41 PM
Nice move, ex-lax, derailing your own thread.

So, is this the thread where 911 'debate' will occur or should I wait?
1) I derailed nothing. I explained to ivory bill why asking "who benefits" is insufficient. Or did you expect me to accept his claim?

2) Obviously this is not the 9/11 thread I was planning on. I want to have a real debate in the formal debates section. That means the vnners state their claims and we reply. This thread is for finding people to participate in that thread. Will you? What about you, ivory bill?

Winston
12-09-2006, 07:44 PM
Who on either side of the debate is qualified to argue the technical issues?

ivory bill
12-09-2006, 07:45 PM
oh lord can you even read?


and stop spamming the picture, weve seen it all the 18 other times youve posted it

Do you think your responses are putting you and your associates in a good light?

What do you think of the "debunker's" argument that water and sheetrock cause a thermal reaction when exposed to jetfuel-heated massive steel beams? Do you support it? Do you think there is a physicist who will agree?

koch curve
12-09-2006, 07:47 PM
Do you think your responses are putting you and your associates in a good light?

What do you think of the "debunker's" argument that water and sheetrock cause a thermal reaction when exposed to jetfuel-heated massive steel beams? Do you support it? Do you think there is a physicist who will agree?

yes, i believe that physicists will agree, please argue why you dont belive it will aside from "any honest welder will tell you etc. etc. etc."

that guy
12-09-2006, 07:47 PM
Do you think your responses are putting you and your associates in a good light?

What do you think of the "debunker's" argument that water and sheetrock cause a thermal reaction when exposed to jetfuel-heated massive steel beams? Do you support it? Do you think there is a physicist who will agree?
ivory bill, will you make an organized list of your strongest points and post them in the formal debates section?

ivory bill
12-09-2006, 07:48 PM
Who on either side of the debate is qualified to argue the technical issues?

The videos and photos taken in the immediate aftermath of the attack make an argument that the debunkers cannot truthfully and honestly respond to. Hence the volume of ad hominem coming from Koch curve.

Burrhus
12-09-2006, 07:53 PM
ok so you took shop classes in high school great thanks for the lesson on physics that you actually know nothing about

Based on close-reading text-analysis of the deep-structure in Koch's posts, I have come to the conclusion that Globus has had some kid of psychotic indentity crisis and now believes that he actually is a jew. Koch is just a sock puppet that Globus uses to express the 'jewish' element of his de-constructed 'self'.

Note the repeated chastisements by Koch, the privileged layer, of Globus the suppressed persona. TJB.

For confirmation, see Jacques Derrida's "The Self-Hating Philo-Semite: Privileging the Inner jew in Postmodern, De-Constructed Western Goyim".

that guy
12-09-2006, 07:54 PM
The videos and photos taken in the immediate aftermath of the attack make an argument that the debunkers cannot truthfully and honestly respond to. Hence the volume of ad hominem coming from Koch curve.
Actually, responding to them is easy.

See here:

http://www.vnnforum.com/showthread.php?t=31376

The real problem is to get you guys to organize your claims so that we could respond to them.

koch curve
12-09-2006, 08:04 PM
The videos and photos taken in the immediate aftermath of the attack make an argument that the debunkers cannot truthfully and honestly respond to. Hence the volume of ad hominem coming from Koch curve.

wait what every post in this thread just descends further and further into madness

that guy
12-09-2006, 08:06 PM
wait what every post in this thread just descends further and further into madness
Of course. That's why I want a formal debate. That's why I want them to make a list of all of their claims, and to have us respond to it.

Carlos Danger
12-09-2006, 08:15 PM
http://www.jewsdidwtc.com/proof.php?evidence=cubictime

Burrhus
12-09-2006, 08:26 PM
1) I derailed nothing. I explained to ivory bill why asking "who benefits" is insufficient. Or did you expect me to accept his claim?

2) Obviously this is not the 9/11 thread I was planning on. I want to have a real debate in the formal debates section. That means the vnners state their claims and we reply. This thread is for finding people to participate in that thread. Will you? What about you, ivory bill?

First, referencing national socialism in a 911 thread seems to me to be at least a threat to derail the topic. Yes?

Second, I will participate in a formal debate on 911 if Ivory Bill, who knows more about the details than I do, will serve as technical and resource expert. And, if you can keep Capt Marinesko/JPSlovajanski, Globus and Koch(?) 'in line'. If you know what I mean?

Third, given that you and I are both registered VNNers as are many here on the Phora from both sides of the debate, your implication that VNN=non-believers-of-the-official-story seems a bit disingenuous to me. Some people believe the Govt/MSM conspiracy theory and others believe various other conspiracy theories. Since everyone believes in some conspiracy theory or other, let us agree to ban the phrase "conspiracy theory" and its derivatives from the discussion as redundant.

Helios Panoptes
12-09-2006, 08:28 PM
If you put the thread in Formal Debates, the participants will be kept in line. You should establish beforehand how many responses will be allowed, who the participants are exactly and the order in which they will respond, the maximum length of the responses(probably none), and other such details.

that guy
12-09-2006, 08:31 PM
First, referencing national socialism in a 911 thread seems to me to be at least a threat to derail the topic. Yes?
It was an example that I used to strengthen my point, so, no.

Second, I will participate in a formal debate on 911 if Ivory Bill, who knows more about the details than I do, will serve as technical and resource expert. And, if you can keep Capt Marinesko/JPSlovajanski, Globus and Koch(?) 'in line'. If you know what I mean?
Globus might take a break that day, if you know what I mean. JP and koch are no worse than ivory bill, in my opinion.

Third, given that you and I are both registered VNNers as are many here on the Phora from both sides of the debate, your implication that VNN=non-believers-of-the-official-story seems a bit disingenuous to me. Some people believe the Govt/MSM conspiracy theory and others believe various other conspiracy theories. Since everyone believes in some conspiracy theory or other, let us agree to ban the phrase "conspiracy theory" and its derivatives from the discussion as redundant.
I didn't use that term. I did use the term vnn but that was kind of a joke.

koch curve
12-09-2006, 08:32 PM
id say top five points, listed numerically, sources required etc.

that guy
12-09-2006, 08:34 PM
If you put the thread in Formal Debates, the participants will be kept in line. You should establish beforehand how many responses will be allowed, who the participants are exactly and the order in which they will respond, the maximum length of the responses(probably none), and other such details.
Sounds good. Let's do it.

that guy
12-10-2006, 01:02 AM
id say top five points, listed numerically, sources required etc.
I'd say let's not put a limit on the number of points. Let them make as many points as they want, but the points have to be structured decently (i.e. non-redundantly). Also, the posters have to use their own words rather than copy the words of Steven Jones or someone else.

As for using sources – of course that is always good, but it is possible in my opinion to add some mild speculation so long as the poster makes it clear that he/she is speculating. You can't say "every physicist knows that xyz" without giving a source, but you can say that in your opinion xyz could explain phenomenon abc. I want to have the freedom to speculate, but when I speculate I make it clear that this is my personal opinion.

koch curve
12-10-2006, 01:11 AM
yeah, speculation would be allowed, but when challenged one must be able to back it up with evidence.

nothing breaks a formal debate down faster than quibbling over unsourced speculation

Vasily Zaitsev
12-10-2006, 04:17 AM
I'll be excited to read this if it goes forward in the Formal Debates section.

A word to the wise, though: don't put Globus on the 9/11 orthodoxy team. He'll ruin the thread. Koch, Guy, and Comrade Slovjanski should be an enjoyable team to watch.

Captain Marinesko
12-10-2006, 06:01 AM
Also I will agree if the conspiracy side will acknowledge when a claim is debunked. For example, no hijackers were ever found alive. If this is brought up, after the quick refutation I should not see it again a few pages on. Same deal with accepting the fact that thermite is not for controlled demolition.

Kodos
12-10-2006, 09:44 AM
Who on either side of the debate is qualified to argue the technical issues?

Popular Mechanics.

Ive taken a couple ME classes but Im an EE.

Kodos
12-10-2006, 09:46 AM
1) I derailed nothing. I explained to ivory bill why asking "who benefits" is insufficient. Or did you expect me to accept his claim?

But who benefits from going #2 in the urinal?

Captain Marinesko
12-10-2006, 09:48 AM
Well one can appeal to authority so long as the authority has expertise on that subject. Physics boy Stephen Jones never heard that thermite isn't used for demolitions. In fact I emailed him about this and he just started babbling about "nano-thermate" and such.

that guy
12-10-2006, 02:57 PM
I'll be excited to read this if it goes forward in the Formal Debates section.

A word to the wise, though: don't put Globus on the 9/11 orthodoxy team. He'll ruin the thread. Koch, Guy, and Comrade Slovjanski should be an enjoyable team to watch.
Sounds good to me. Anybody on the other side interested? I guess Burrhus is one...

BTW, we could use a physicist or an engineer. Kodus, do you know much about structural engineering? What about Der Sozialist?

Captain Marinesko
12-10-2006, 03:20 PM
The old 9-11 conspiracy debates went on for months, but under objective controlled conditions they could literally last only a few hours at the most, far less if the CTs are forced to put forth a coherent hypothesis.

WFHermans
03-12-2007, 07:41 PM
Marinesko is on my ignore list, so I wouldn't be able to respond to his arguments, which consist of namecalling anyway.

I like the idea, but it means that we would have to agree on 5 smoking guns. Here's one to consider for my fellow doubters. An experienced pilot points out inconsistencies in the government's story:

Ross Wittenberg minces no words about it. He says that 9/11 was part of the neo-cons “neat little contrived war package” to put us into a fear mode, a mind-set of war, and a set-up for the Patriot Act and eventual martial law.

And he knows of what he speaks. After personally going over the 9/11 commission’s report, he found a lot of half-truths and more than 110 outright lies. The hijackers, he avers, couldn’t handle a Piper Cub, much less the “big birds” that the government claims.

Putting the kibosh on that phony government claim came easy for Wittenberg. Being the first commercial airline pilot with experience at flying the jet used in the 9/11 attack, it would take more than a government-created, cock-and-bull story to fool this guy.

Wittenberg states, (1) jet fuel bringing down the towers makes no technological sense. Furthermore, (2) Flight 77 could not descend 7,000 in two minutes while performing a 270-degree banked turn before crashing into the Pentagon--- without touching the lawn. Moreover, (3) such high speed maneuvers would have stalled the jetliner, sending it into a nose dive. Finally, (4) an amateur who couldn’t even fly a Cessna, certainly couldn’t put a jetliner through sophisticated maneuvers that Wittenberg said he himself couldn’t do with 35 years of commercial jetliner experience.

Then, the “killer” moment.

It was the flight controller’s comments on a TV news show that, in Wittenberg’s opinion, was scripted for broadcast. What makes him think so? “Remember,” he says, “the transponder was turned off on Flight 77. When this occurs, all the flight data, like air speed and flight number goes with it. All that’s left on the controller’s screen is a green blip. So the whole story is pack of lies.”

LeoAlbus
03-12-2007, 07:52 PM
Here are my arguments lodged against those who purport various claims in-line/incommon with the truth-movement.

As to not clog up this thread, they are included as links below (some are taken from my posts at Stormfront this time);

Fire/collapse etc Part 1. (http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showpost.php?p=3913165&postcount=46)
Fire/collapse etc Part 2. (http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showpost.php?p=3913183&postcount=47)
Fire/collapse etc Part 3. (http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showpost.php?p=3913198&postcount=48)

ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE OF NORMAL FIRES MELTING OR BUCKLING STEEL, COPPER, ETC (http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showpost.php?p=3913203&postcount=49)
The "Why are 11 of the 19 alledged Hijackers still alive"-claim refuted. (http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showpost.php?p=3913264&postcount=52)
Debunking the "cut-column by thermite"-claim. (http://www.thephora.net/forum/showpost.php?p=290526&postcount=88)
"Pull it"-quote and context addressed and clarified. (http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showpost.php?p=3915421&postcount=60)

Recommended reading;

(on Norad)
NORAD's drills. (http://internetdetectives.biz/case/loose-change#norads-drills)
NORAD/FAA response. (http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/index.php?title=NORAD)
The NORAD 9/11 Response. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=61752)
NRO's excercise and NORAD's war games. (http://internetdetectives.biz/case/loose-change#nros-exercise)

(On Bin Laden)
Did the U.S. "Create" Osama bin Laden? (http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005/Jan/24-318760.html)
http://www.911myths.com/html/bin_ladin.html
Understanding America's enemies. (http://www.robert-fisk.com/understanding_enemy.htm)
Inside Al-Qaeda’s Hard Drive. (http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200409/cullison)
Tim Osman = Osama Bin Laden? (http://www.911myths.com/html/tim_osman_was_bin_ladin_.html)

(other links)
http://www.jod911.com/
THE ISRAELI ART STUDENT MYSTERY. (http://www.911myths.com/Israeli_Art_Students.pdf)
The Truth about the “9/11 Truth Movement (http://www.911myths.com/911TruthOrgCritiqueMay06.pdf)" (A necessary read)
Oh No Not Another Expert! (http://www.911myths.com/Another_Expert.pdf) (by Giulio Bernacchia ex pilote of the Italian airforce and commercial airlines, on the hijackers and how it is misleading to state that they required superior piloting skills to do what they did.)

Some information to clarify whatever curiosa you might have;

The Attack Looms. (http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch7.htm)
Flight Info and manifests. (http://www.911myths.com/html/official_manifests.html)

"Avery conducts an interview with Marcel Bernard, chief flight instructor at Freeway Airport in Maryland. Hani Hanjour came to Freeway a month before the attacks to rent a plane. During the interview, Bernard talks about his experience flying with Hanjour, stating that he had trouble with the landing and average or below-average skills. But before this, he states that Hanjour already had his private, instrument, and commercial licenses. I guess we're just supposed to ignore that. Another statement (http://web.archive.org/web/20040225213523/http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-usflight232380680sep23.story) by Bernard conflicts with Avery's implication that Hanjour couldn't have flown Flight 77:"

"Despite Hanjour's poor reviews, he did have some ability as a pilot, said Bernard of Freeway Airport. "There's no doubt in my mind that once that [hijacked jet] got going, he could have pointed that plane at a building and hit it," he said."

http://internetdetectives.biz/case/loose-change-2#hani-hanjour


Black boxes and passports. (http://internetdetectives.biz/case/loose-change-4#black-boxes-and-passports)

Videos;

The "Screw Loose Change" Video (http://stage6.divx.com/members/106205/videos/1010644)
Loose-C team hammered in debate;
Part A. (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=142975074341498508&hl=en)
Part B. (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4070898042073434589&hl=en)

Screw 9/11 Mysteries (Guide) (http://www.911mysteriesguide.com/)

There, I expect detailed refutations firstly of my formentioned posts first then preferbly of the rest.

Good day,

- Hans

Captain Marinesko
03-13-2007, 09:56 AM
The man's name is "RUSS Wittenburg". You couldn't even get THAT right.