Hooray!

Another skeptic to the wild theories.... :)

I have watched all the youtube videos, and both Loose Change vids, but I'm still not convinced the tehories presented to me.

Is it hope for me, or will I continue to be a skeptic.

I really wan't to belive, but its too far out for me

Well, we're not going to present you with all the evidence. How about you present us with reasons why you don't agree with the truthers.

How about this?

Are there any architects who design/build skyscrapers that think CD was the cause of the collapse? Are there any experienced working CD experts who think CD was the cause of the collapse? Why not?

This is like the complete lack of trained geologists who believe in young Earth creationism.

Ranb

www.ae911truth.org/

Which is to say that they're not going to present you ANY evidence...because there is none except wild suspositions and conclusions drawn from zero investigative technique.

There is a mountain of evidence that proves the facts that 19 hijackers took over four aircraft and piloted them into three buildings as well as a patch of ground in Western Pennsylvania.

Lets look at the proof I am WILLING TO PRESENT:

We know through video evidence that three planes hit the buildings. We know there were three massive explosions--nearly all identical which means that the Pentagon was not hit by a missile but by an aircraft. Wreckage was found at the scene that proves it as well So there are three planes accounted for as hitting buildings.

A fourth plane, we know, went down in Pennsylvania from the phone calls from the planes. This is well documented as well.

We know that Mohammed Atta was at the controls of AA 11 through released audio transmissions.

We know that Flight 93 was hi jacked through the telephone conversations from the planes

Unless you believe in unabashed coincidences that would never ever happen, the two other aircraft had to have been hi-jacked as well unless you have two other bodies acting independently on the same day utilizing the same techniques to take over Flight 77 and 175. This is proof guys.

We can further conclude beyond reasonable doubt that the Bush administration did not orchestrate the hi-jackings (but they sure did take advantage of them). We can conclude this because of elementary logic of the first degree. Say, for the sake of argument, you wanted to invade Mexico. Who would you get to stage a hi-jacking? Argentinans? No, you'd get Mexicans or Argentinans posing as Mexicans at the very least. The group know quite euphamistically as "truth seekers" would have you believe any number of the following things:

• That the Bush Administration would go through the trouble of blowing up buildings
• That the Bush Administration would fire a missile at the Pentagon--the same building that housed it's own Secretary of Defense
• That the Bush Administration would have NORAD stand down (not likely in the least)
• That the Bush Administration would murder 3,000 citizens

That they would do all of this but not have the forethought to have the arabs they are getting to "masquerade" as hijackers be from Iraq...the country they invaded 18 months later due directly to the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The same people who orchestrated such an elaborate plot didn't handle that one detail? You'd have to be a total moron to believe any of that. Now these "truth seekers" will happily point out at this point that the Bush Administration may have not been behind it..that highly skilled Army/Military operatives were behind it. The desperate ploy is amusing but totally unfathomable since it would also mean that there would have had to have been Administration approval, not to approve accounting for a spent missile; they keep a pretty close watch on those things boo.

There is so much other evidence that LC911 is way off base that it barely warrants being brought up:

• The phone calls from the other flights that day which all reported hi-jackings
• The downed light poles (no missile did that)
• The air traffic controllers who watched the planes veer way off course (no missiles there).
• No evidence of a missile hitting the Pentagon at all.
• No credible body endorsing anything LC911 has brought up: principally but not limited to the phone calls not being able to be made from the air. Cell phones do work sometimes from airplanes and air phones work all of the time.
• The free-fall fallacy that brought down the towers. All controlled implosions operate from the ground up. That didn't happen here, not even close.
• The explosives necessary to level the twin towers would have been able to have been seen by any visitor to any floor.
• That Larry Silverstien did NOT want to purchase as much insurance as he had purchased on the WTC site; the PA made him do it.

That is the physical evidence. The common sense (although common is being used in it's broadest possible meaning here I guess) aspect is much more damning.

LC911 (and the "truth seekers) would have you believe:

• That planes were painted to be flown by remote control into buildings
• That Al Qadea would not be able to orchestrate 4 hi-jackings on a single morning
• That somehow cargo planes took the place of commercial planes even though footage clearly shows windows on the plane hit WTC South
• That they have good motives yet there are no posts on this forum to raise money to pay for a new, independent investigation

I'd love to hear this "evidence" that they supposedly have. At it's core, it is really just a bunch of people who have watched too much CSI and have access to the 'net. That is the long and short of the "truth movement"

I stand to be corrected and would welcome any serious debate point by point. Referring to a website is not debate, by the way.

I doubt there will be any response; which speaks more loudly than I ever could.

What does this mean? I clicked on various names and most had no meaningful info other than the person's name. None I looked at had experience designing skyscrapers.

Ranb

Sure there are a whole bunch of them right here, sure enough to bravely stick their necks out publicly. B)

Welcome to Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth!
139+ architectural and engineering professionals
http://www.ae911truth.org/

Here are some more...

180+ Engineers and Architects
Question the 9/11 Commission Report
http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/engineers.html

And a few more...

Journal of 9/11 Studies
http://www.journalof911studies.com/

I'm sure if you look around, you'll find even more...

Like I said above, the lists of engineers and architects who question the official version of events does not seem to contain anyone with skyscraper experience. You just gave me two more lists full of fluff.

Can you give me just one ACTUAL NAME of an architect who builds skyscrapers? Thanks.

Ranb

Danny Jowenko

Thanks, but he is not an architect.

Ranb

He also thinks that WTC 1 and 2 were not demolitions, rather inconveniently.

All these architects and engineers and pilots for 911 truth sites are for anyone that wants to pretend to be a an architect, engineer or pilot. Read their forums, they're full of exactly the same arguments you can see here, not high level technical discussions. Plenty of people have spoofed membership under ridiculous names.

I'd be interested in his views say a year from now when his curiosity gets the better of him. ;)

So these 19 hijackers shall be all dead then, right? ...so how do you explain that it has been proved that some of them are alive&healthy...?

-m

Proof please, NO youtube if you please :)

Well, for one thing "truthers" have many questions but no answers.
Whenever presented with a question, one is almost allways offered something like "think for yourself", if an answer at all.

I have many, many questions myself about the 9/11-theories, but no one will answer them. So when i finally found televised interviews of Dylan Avery and his wordsmith i finally hoped some of my questions would be answered. But insted of answering, the just laughed disgustingly whenever opposed with, or failed to say anything at all.

We did however hear them admit to the first version of Loose Change to have flaws, and things that are completely made up and not true.

I know of another great movement that changes their framework whenever proved wrong og false, but I'm not going in to that now

That is a given. Most people aren't in a position to know many of the answers, hence why they press THOSE THAT ARE IN A POSITION for answers.

Do you have an actual example? Most of the questions I get asked by "skeptics" are irrelevent...

So ask them.

What does a TV show have to do with all the questions you have? Ask them. Your description of Dylan's interviews is disingenuous at best...

True.

False.

Why not?

I'll put up 7 numbers here representing the quotes:

1. Maybe there are no answers for the questions... If someone is convinced that I am wearing red socks and ask me if I am, and I reply to them "No". They will not be happy with the answer because it so strongly opposes the answer they had thought out in advance. So the one asking the question will not feel that the question has been answered, and might even ask again....

2. If questions regarding 9/11 are irrelevant, how come this site be up and running then... That's just nonsense saying that questions are irrelevant and therefore not need answering. If I ask if you've been to the toilet today, that is irrelevant. But if I ask questions regardig 9/11 (as comming in number 3.), then please be clever enough to answer them, or else I'm forced to think that som wheel is spinning and one certain hamster is no where to be seen ;) (Extreme example, I take it back... sorry)

3.

A- If the government is powerfull enough to crash 2 planes into WTC, control demolish them (including one more building) later. Shot one missile into the pentagon, and one in some wasteland, then do some huge coverups later and pay up entire staffs to shut up... And here comes my question: If I held this kind of power and wanted something done (i.e Oil), I would just go ahead and do it without one single person being hurt. I'm absolutely convinced that any government holding this kind of power could invade another country, kill every one in sight, take all the gold and be out by wednesday, and no one would have to know about it. It just doesn't add up for my sake, so please explain to me why 3000 people needed to die, and is it impossible that the government could achieve their goal without doing all this?

B- For the moment I'm a skeptic, but I cannot say with 100% certainty that the official story is true, I would be deeply amazed and surprised if it tured out to be true, but i strongly doesnt feel that will happen. But whenever I talk to truthers I get the feeling that is THIS or nothing... How can you be absolutely 100% sure that this cheese has some mold on it? Because it stinks? Have you taken it to the laboratory to have it chekced out? (the cheese here is ofcourse representing 9/11) When expert after expert tells you that this cheese is mold-free, you still persue the thought of maybe one veterinarian can prove you right, except that veterinarians are not educated in checking cheese-mold

There are more questions, and I'm sure I'll get my chance to ask them here later :)

4. Here we go again... I bet you have seen the interviews for yourselves? Are you proud of how Dylan and Jason presented the case?

5. True? Nothing more? So you admit to have been overexcited about speculations that did not hold roots in reality? I would have been embarassed... just as embarassed as I'll be if the whole 9/11 Cover up turns out to be true

6. B52/B25? 30 feet diameter? Rolls Royce?

7. Ok, you asked it, I'll answer it... It seems that Christianity (probbably other religions as well, but I have studied Christianity and not other religions) re-writes their book of guidance to fit the time they are presented in. Here in cold Northern Europe about the start of 1800 was the last time. Things have been taken out, and made up and put in so that it would fit at any given time... Dinasaurs etc... I'll leave it there, because this is not the issue here. I merely wanted to point out that this is no new phenomenon.

Bump. :)

It's good to see that nothing has changed over the past year...
Truthers are still as predictable as ever. It's like a trained dog

I post two questions that NOT ONE truther ever has put up an answer for. At least make up something to make me feel happy! Instead we that try you for answers are run over by even more things that we need to debunk... We do one thing at a time my friend... please.

And If you remember as far back as when I started this tread, I asked YOU GUYS to explain things to me, not the other way round


PS! I'm from Norway so my English might not be 100%, but we can do this in norwegian if it makes you feel better

No, you missed my point. I and most others on this forum aren't in a position to know most of what you expect us to know. BUT, we are able to take the answers to questions posed to those in a position to know and weigh them against REALITY to see if they add up. Understand now?

Never said what you are asserting. I said MOST of what "skeptics" come up with is irrelevent. Way to pay attention.

19 cavemen are capable but not a multi trillion dollar military machine? Interesting theory you got there. What you would do and what can be done in reailty are not one and the same. Just because you can't fathom a motive doesn't mean it doesn't exist. More peope have been murdered to achieve much less...

Huh?

What interviews?

No, I admit they made mistake in the first film. Nothing more. Please don't put words in my mouth.

All been addressed a million times before you came here....newbie.

Ahhh, but the same can be applied to you and your ilk, my friend. But in any case, your example is pretty silly seeing as we are talking about real things that can be confirmed or disputed....apples and oranges....

You came here to be condescending and to throw out dumb hypotheticals with no relation to any real issues. Nothing more. You're an idiot. Just like all the rest. Blowhard. :)

We'll... can you atleast point me in the direction of a truther that actually is interested in discussing the matter at hand without panicing?

Believe you me, it is the same all over the globe; Truthers become very agressive when talked back at. We actually had one guy here in Norway that was so angry about the debunking we showed him that he actually started crying. He is 32 years old...

I can discuss this for hours, but it would be nice to have a two-way communication then, and NOT to be called an idiot whenever things get hard to talk about.

I have higher education, a well payed high postition at Norway's largest company within Financial solutions, I write music and play various instruments in three bands and have sold many many albums and toured alot and met people from all over the world. I can guarantee you I'm not the village idiot

Sounds to me like you should speak to Painter.... I'm serious. ;)

I'm willing to discuss just about anything. Its just, you don't raise anything bu hypotheticals. Bring up an actual issue and maybe Ill bite...

Sounds like you hang out with some real interesting people. YOu are the one that came here with a condescending tone. Perhaps you being an @sshole doesn't make them want to talk to you, yeah?

They aren't hard to talk about, just stupid.

It doesn't show.

Woop dee doo, good for you...

Prove it. Ask a question that isn't completely retarded....

I think we are all skeptics. And I think being skeptical is healthy, it means we don't swallow whatever is put on our plate. In the world of nutrition, it is very wise to have some idea where the food you eat comes from, eh?

So, goblin, I hope you continue to be skeptical. But something more than that is needed. I think we also have to be curious, to the point of being hungry for answers to riddles.

(Sorry for all the food analogies, I must need some lunch.. :) )

Maybe if you start out with ONE question or ONE thing that puzzles you, one claim made by people who are searching for answers, one thing that doesn't sit right with you... and we can discuss it.

A lot of what you read may well be crap. I've heard some pretty far-out theories too. But that doesn't take anything away from my conviction that the story about what happened on 9-11-2001, as we've been told it by "official sources," simply cannot be true.

If the "official story" cannot be true, then something else must be true, eh? We can discuss or even argue what that "else" may be. But just start with that, and if your hunger, your curiosity, even your conscience stirs a little bit, maybe you'll be able to formulate some theories of your own.

By the way, I don't know anyone who didn't go through a period of staring the evidence in the face and denying it, or ignoring it for a time. You aren't alone in that.

Good man, elder :D

I will then use this place to formulate the questions I have separatly and we can discuss these one by one. That sounds perfect for me

Thank you for proving me wrong, I feel so relieved... I am a new person now. Glad I came here to get some answers


Yup, thats me... did the old internet-wrong; I used irony

Again, sorry

I agreed with that clever(er) person earlier here to do singleposts with my questions instead, that way we can do one issue at a time

So I ask for the name of one architect with skyscraper experience who thinks the WTC fell because of CD. I think the reason I can not find one name myself is because they do not exist.

I ask here and all I get is lists of dipsticks who cut and paste opinions from a common source and pass them off as their own. A real architect would be smart enough to have an opinion of their own.

So can anyone drop me one name? Thanks.

Ranb

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2007/06/360699.shtml

:)

Take the blue pill then.

Oh My God!!

Are you for real??

Can you give us someone who builds skyscrapers who worked on the nist report?

What exacty are Gage's qualifications? What does he do for a living?

He's an architect. You guys asked for an architect. You got one. Go do your own homework. His info is all over his site...

Oh that Richard Gage. The moron.

So, when you can't deal with the facts, you resort to name-calling.

That's the last resort of coward trolls, you know. How about providing proof that thermite doesn't cut through (aka melt) iron or steel?

Man, that is one fantastic argument you've formulated. You're definitely not a total f^cking hypocrite... :lol:

Wow...

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_F...showtopic=14253

Why would I need to? The point is that thermite is not a cutter charge used in many controlled demolitions. That is Richard Gage talking out of his ass.

You're the dumbass that produces Richard Gage as as expert. Tell us all about how thermite is used in many controlled demolitions then Roxdog.

I asked for "architects who design/build skyscrapers" and I get a bunch of names that are anything but. I am saying there are no architects who design/build skyscrapers that think the WTC came down by CD. I have looked, and yoiu guys have provided names and links that are not what I am looking for.

So, do you agree that there are no architects who design/build skyscrapers that think the WTC came down by CD?

Ranb

Why are people here so thermite happy? Last time I looked, CD depended upon accurate timing of the explosives. How does thermite ( a burning metal and not usually used as an explosive) aid in the precise timing of a controlled demolition more than other high explosives will?

Ranb