Experts claim 911 an "inside job" - Page 5

Because everyone saw two gigantic airplanes hit the goddamn things.

What you're suggesting is like seeing a guy stabbed with a spear but checking for bullet holes.

Or more like seeing a guy stabbed with a spear and checking for Klingon bat'leth wounds...

The government hasn't checked for:

o Aliens shooting down the buildings with death rays
o Invisible Godzilla knocked them down
o The ghost of Timothy McVeigh
o North Korean terrorists
o Mole man
o Global warming melted the structure

So do you subscribe to the theory that the planes had the thermite charges?

You don't run a criminal investigation by determining beforehand if something was likely or not. You search down all possible avenues.

Richard, you make the point exactly.

Yeah from a distance we saw that guy impaled with a spear but it didn't immediately kill him, and when we examined what was left of the body we found that he had hundreds of fractures, and small circular holes, half an inch to an inch wide, throughout his toreso. But the guy WAS laying in that alley for several days, I suppose that since we never actually saw the gun, since we never saw anyone battering his body to oblivion, the holes are more likely accounted for by rats eating through his corpse. That makes a ton of sense, doesn't it? And as for the fractures? Well, obviously he had brittle bones.

Buuu--buut we saw the planes hit the buildings!

Does that HAVE to mean that the planes are the cause for bringing the buildings down?

Does that mean that we don't even bother to check and see if there were any other possiblities?

The possiblity of something happening is not elliminated by someone or a group of someone's saying it's unlikely. That doesn't fucking prove shit. The only thing it proves is that most people are fucking gullible, easily controlled and manipulated, and are likely to believe the official theory simply because you saw those planes hit the building.

What part of mathmatical precision do you not understand?

A simple yes or no will do, bombs in the planes or bombs in the buildings or both. Please be clear.

When are you going to apologize about the jet engine thing? When will you admit to any of the errors you made? Your case falls all around you and you ignore it, and you're finally left with "they shoudl have investigated something that makes no sense".

Holy crap, Cthulu, even if you could win arguing the possible or likely mechanics of the destruction of the towers (and you are getting asspounded on all three judges' scorecards at present, by the way), stop for a second and answer WHY your conspiracy required more than one plane into one building.

There is no logical explanation as to why someone would even WANT or NEED to orchestrate 9/11 on this scale, in the manner that you suggest.

That's the thing. If America had plunged into fascist martial law on 9/12, I could buy this. But if this was a conspiracy the guys in charge followed through on a BRILLIANT plan in the worst way possible. No matter how much we all hate what Bush has done to the constition and the nation, it's nothing compared with what he could have done in the weeks after 9/11 if he had wanted to and would have had the support of 80% of America.

Further, the invasion of Iraq proves you don't need any fucking proof to mount a war. The war in Afghanistan could have been easily argued for just on the grounds of bin Laden's previous attacks on America, including the USS Cole. But if they wanted to make the case airtight, they would have only had to fly one plane into the Pentagon. Hell, they could have just BLOWN UP one plane.

Beyond that, if this was a conspiracy, why wasn't Bush paying any attention to terrorist groups pre-9/11? (by the way, THAT'S the cover-up, the govt's shameful ignoring of real danger) If they planned this, why not punch up the evil image of these guys in advance? Instead the bad guys chose a plan that makes them look like they got caught with their pants down. I honestly don't think these guys are even capable of allowing that to happen, frankly. On a very deep psychological level.

Of course all of this is moot as all the science and facts refute everything that Cthulu says. It's been tough undermining his arguments - he's a demolitions expert and a structural engineer, a metallurgist and a physicist as well as a scissor-handed editor and ignorer of facts.

What the fuck do I owe an apology for?

I never said that didn't happen Devin, I asked you to provide a link or a picture. Which doesn't really prove anything other than that one of the engines from the planes landed near your office building.

I have admitted to some of these errors, such as my mistake on the elevators (you also made a mistake in saying they weren't working at all). I don't think I know everything, I definitely don't believe whatever I hear in regards to conspiracy theories (or any theories for that matter), and I appreciate when someone can step up to the plate with actual facts. How I do not believe you've actually provided many pieces of clear and definable evidence that actually disprove the claim that something other than those planes was responsible for the collapses of those buildings so much as you point out that those claims were never even investigated.

When will you admit that there are alot of unanswered questions as to what happened on 9/11, and these theories, which are supported by plenty of experts, are more than just psuedo science garbage concocted in someone whackos basement?

Oh really? Are you sure about that? Because I'm about 100% certain that if 9/11 did not happen the Bush Administration wouldn't have the ability to invade middle-east nations for hundreds of billions of dollars worth of oil under the guise of a global "war on terror". And invading Iraq and getting rid of Saddam Hussien was part of the Neo-Cons agenda long before Bush ever sat in office.

Arguing with Cthulhu is just like arguing with my 2nd ex-wife. No matter how many facts are shown or logical conclusions proven, there is no way the argument will end unless you just admit they are right. She at least gave a hell of a blow-job to make up for the agravation. With Cthlhu, It's not tonight, for you will have the headache.

"There is no logical explanation as to why someone would even WANT or NEED to orchestrate 9/11 on this scale, in the manner that you suggest.
Oh really? Are you sure about that? Because I'm about 100% certain that if 9/11 did not happen the Bush Administration wouldn't have the ability to invade middle-east nations for hundreds of billions of dolalrs worth of oil under the guise of a global "war on terror"."

You're frighteningly ignorant of history. Go look up "Gulf of Tonkin" - look how easy it is to start a war.

What do you think would've happened if Flight 93 had reached it's destination and hit the Capitol Building or the White House?

Regardless of outright Matrial Law, there's no denying that our civil liberties have been significantly encroached following 9/11.

Devin, are you aware of how long it's been since congress has actually declared war? Why do you think the Reagan Administration resorted to using mercenary armies to fight in our place? It hasn't been easy for any war to be fought by this country for a long fucking time. This problem of getting the people to back the war has not been eliminated. Thank fucking god (whover that is) for that.

Vietnam wasn't declared a war either.

I love that you think they would have needed to get Flight 93 into the Capitol to have a shot at declaring martial law. Also, you believe 93 was taken down by the passengers? What?!?!

How about Kossovo? Or the first Gulf war?

And let's all remember that the US didn't commit a lot of ground troops to Afghanistan but concnetrated on airstrike and left the dirty work to the Northern Alliance. Which is something that the public wouldn't mind even if there were no terrorist attacks. The admisitration could just show footage of abused Afghani women and the Taliban blowing up the Buddha statues and start the air campaign.

And if the plan was to blow up the Capitol and the failure of Flight 93 stopped that, why wasn't the Capitol blown up using explosives, like you claimed they did to the the WTC? In the chaos following the attacks, it would be believable that the terrorists also used a van filled with explosives. And if the conspiracy was so successful, no one would ever prove otherwise.

Devin, why do you even bother? Why do I even bother, for that matter? It's quite obvious historical precedent, forensic evidence and good old common sense do not register with Uncle Cthulhu.

These experts are not credible. None have created any work related to this that can withstand any type of academic review.

The main proponent, a professor from some University in Utah, has been pretty much discredited by his own engineering school and his paper has been not only heavily critized by his own faculty, but he even had to bring it down from their server (that's why I had to use the google cached version).

Other "experts" of this theory are Hugo Chavez, Charlie Sheen, and Uncle Cthulu. What other big names in science and engineering am I missing?

Check out uncle Cthulu and his buddies in this "Pen & Teller Bullshit!" video ...
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...iracy+bullshit


Uncle Chtulu

You don't think that one plane full of people slamming into the Pentagon would've been enough to support all that the administration has done since then? Honestly?

Ah! But they anticipaded people like you saying just that, so to play it safer, they concocted a plan of a bigger scale. They also shot down flight 93 to make up the story of the passengers flying back, just so you didn't think the plan was to perfect and also to make you think the president or congress were in danger (they never were).

Don't mess with the Illuminati, those guys think of everything!

Gosh...I...I...I never thought of it that way...hold me...

This thread is AMAZING.

Shouldn't the quotes be around the word "experts" (like so)?

Thanks for dredging it up. I wasn't around for the great Chewer conspiracy-off of 06.