The attack on the Pentagon

Wokeman · Posted: Tue May 09, 2006 8:51 pm Post subject:

No, CTS the Administration did not wait for due consideration after the event because of legal wrangles over, as you have admitted, a growing disbelief of the official version and with an eagerness to see justice done in witholding CCTV footage. Federal agents arrived with minutes of whatever hitting the Pentagon and confiscated it. However, staff and guests in a nearby hotel did view the footage before that took place, and for reasons that have slipped my memory, have kept their mouths shut.

wakeupbomb · New Poster Joined: 09 May 2006 Posts: 3

I thought it would be worthwhile to draw your attention to comments attributed to a ‘conspiracy theorist’ in the German paper Tagesspiegel.

Pete J · Posted: Wed May 10, 2006 12:24 am Post subject: reply to CTS

rational explanations

Hi ConspiracytheorySkeptic

Perhaps in your last post (placing yourself in the 'governments' position 'for a moment') you give us an important insight as to why many people of your disposition remain so attatched to the prevailing public media account of 9/11 events.

Firstly, your scenario revolves around a suggested predicament whereby the government can't win one way or another over whether it releases the evidence into the public domain or not. Do you see things this way because you think the government has an inherent 'right' to withhold the evidence to back it's story ? It seems from your post that you do. If that is the case, you will appreciate that this point of view can be offensive to people who actually beleive they are living in a democracy. With respect, the right question to ask is 'what are they doing with the evidence in the first place' since most of the organisations best equipped to do the investigations are civilian ones (e.g. NTSB and Civilian Professional Institutions).

Secondly, I might point out to you that the reason that many people feel comfortable about casually dismissing so called 'conspiracy theories' is exactly because there is such a body of information in the public domain, that open debate has taken place between the interested parties and brought the matter to a conclusion. People assume this to be the case and intuitively feel protected by the whole process of public accountability which leads them to gove the benefit of the doubt to the government as you have done.

This is NOT the case here. The government account (of Bin Laden/Hijackers) was injected directly into the public domain without any supporting evidence, being subject to cross examination or technical accountability (Perhaps the NIST report into the tower collapses is your idea of accountability - it's not mine).

I don't object to people taking the point of view that there's nothing sinister to hide as long as they're honest about their reasons. In this case your reason seems to be that you think that so called 'conspiracy theorists' are simply questioning for questioning's sake and nothing more. If this is the case it begs the question of why your involving yourself in this discussion - are you just trying to irritate other posters ?

Thirdly, it's not necessarily a bad thing that such a sense of security prevails which allows the public to feel they can be dismissive of demands for more government accountability after an event like 9-11. Be advised, however, that the only reason you and others have this luxury is because most democracies depend on powerfull technical investigative bodies which represent the public's interest. In this case, they were prevented from doing so (in particular, no aeronautical investigation was made into ANY of the crash debris, no forensic investigation could be made into the tower debris since it was aggresively removed from ground zero and no evidence as to the identity of the hijackers has been available). Of all people, those taking your view of the 9-11 debate are therefore the very ones with most to loose in all of this.

You make the assertion that 'there are rational explanations for the collapse of the Twin Towers that do not postulate the use of explosives'. What does your use of the word 'rational' mean - that you understand them ? Or does it just mean that you appreciate the analogy with the way a house of cards would fall ? The only theory which has been proposed by the official investigations is the so called 'pancake thaeory' and if you really understood this theory you'd know that it's far from being a rational one, whichever side of the debate your on. A more correct wording of your statement is that it's the 'only' one which doesn't require the use of explosives.

I understand that many holding your view of events are motivated to 'challenge the challengers' often because you feel they are attacking the very social structures and processes which protect us.

Unfortunately your sense of protectionism is misplaced in this case and I hope you'll at least see fit to support the call for a more open, verifiable and thourough account of what happened on 9-11.

johnnyhotshots · Minor Poster Joined: 18 Apr 2006 Posts: 60

I like this CTS; he/she is funny Very Happy

I have a bridge in London for sale if you fancy it....You say that you haven't had time to study the facts? F**k off and do some research, then! Why is lawn outside of the Pentagon in a near-perfect state after a massive jetplane bounced off it? How did an aluminium plane manage to go through 3 rings of the pentagon oh, and its engines too. I am smiling sa I type this, so don't think that you have upset me.

George Bush is a nice guy? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Banish · Moderate Poster Joined: 18 Mar 2006 Posts: 250

The only 'conspiracy theory' in my mind is the rascist invention of 19 muslim hijackers. (7/7)

It's my personal opinion that Shanksville and the Pentagon are RED HERRINGS in this saga, nothing happened at either location, it was simply thrown in to take our eye of the ball, the destruction of the WTC's.

A man with a beard in a cave in Afghanistan with Fu-Manchu-like zombie suicdal hijackers. Now that's what I call a conspiracy theory.

Re Bush:

He is a criminal, a war criminal and murderer and a proven liar. He is the * moronic idiotic son of an *.

freddie · Posted: Wed May 10, 2006 6:10 pm Post subject:

Banish, I agree with what you're saying about the other two sites being a distraction from the WTC but I also think the Pentagon was key to the attacks -- This is the way I saw people's thinking go on the day and I wouldn't be surprised if this was the majority of people's thoughts:

1st Plane WTC: "Horrible accident or terrorist attack?" (after the 1st plane my dad instantly said it could be Libyans or Saudis and funnily enough a mate said it was probably Bin Laden)

2nd Plane WTC: "Oh,,,so it definately is a terrorist attack"

3rd Plane Pentagon: "Now this is war!"

4th Plane Shanksville: "Oh my god, it's a full on attack, what next?"

The Pentagon hit was the most important part in my mind because it was this that instilled (so early) the idea of the inevtiability of a military strike - because most people's rational is that an attack on civilians is 'an act terrorism' and an attack on a military instilation is an 'act of war'. It was also the pentagon that really propelled the thinking of "if they can get to the pentagon then they can hit anywhere, no where is safe from this amazing al-organisation".

Banish · Moderate Poster Joined: 18 Mar 2006 Posts: 250

ian neal · Posted: Wed May 10, 2006 11:54 pm Post subject:

Great first post wake up bomb

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_questioning_the_9/11_Commission_Re port

This list is a great start [/url]although I can think of many prominent and important names missing. We should all try and fill in the blanks to reflect the true diversity of people challenging the lies. Tthere are many many more

Pikey · Posted: Thu May 11, 2006 8:28 am Post subject:

Yep Ian, I concur with your view thats a top quality first post by Wake up bomb..............absolutely spot on if the truth matters to you, IMHO!

Great to have you on board WUB! Another asset gained for the 911 truth movement in the rapidly unfolding information war.

Maybe we are getting to that stage when we should be pasting the establishment propoganda type posters on the streets " The 911 truth campaign needs YOU!

Peace & truth

Newspeak International · Posted: Thu May 11, 2006 9:12 pm Post subject:

Where is CTS, he hasn't posted since the 24 of april?

ian neal · Posted: Thu May 11, 2006 11:42 pm Post subject:

We should be aware of this site

http://home.planet.nl/~reijd050/JoeR/pentahole_dimensions_est.htm

Linked from here

http://www.911myths.com/html/what_s_new_.html

The 9/11 truth community need to be aware of this site. It is a step up from previous debunking efforts and its evidence needs to be addressed.

ConspiracyTheorySceptic · Moderate Poster Joined: 24 Apr 2006 Posts: 144

Ian Neal writes:

ConspiracyTheorySceptic · Moderate Poster Joined: 24 Apr 2006 Posts: 144

Hello

I have been browsing one of the sites so kindly provided by Ian Neal ( http://www.911myths.com/html/what_s_new_.html ). In particular, I clicked on the some of the sites to be found, in small print, at the foot of the page. I came across this interesting paper (You'll need an Acrobat Reader to read it):

http://www.911myths.com/WTCTHERM.pdf

In this scientific paper, the author says that 2,000,000 kg of aluminium was used, in the form of panels on the facades, in the construction of each of the Twin Towers. Also, the fuselage and wings of each aircraft consisted of over 60,000 kg of aluminium. The aluminium would have melted and caused thermite reactions, both during the collapse of the towers and later, in the debris on the site. This would explain the molten steel found in the debris of the towers after they had collapsed.

This demolishes a major plank of Professor Stephen Jones's claim that the Twin Towers were brought down by explosives.

CTS

numeral · Posted: Sat May 13, 2006 4:22 pm Post subject:

First powder your aluminium:

"A thermite reaction (a type of aluminothermic reaction) is one in which aluminium metal is oxidized by the oxide of another metal, most commonly iron oxide. The name thermite is also used to refer to a mixture of two such chemicals. The products are aluminium oxide, free elemental iron, and a large amount of heat. The reactants are commonly powdered and mixed with a binder to keep the material solid and prevent separation."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermite

CTS, keep 'em coming. We need a bit of humour.

Banish · Moderate Poster Joined: 18 Mar 2006 Posts: 250

This is the most comprehensive Physics debate on the NET regarding the "collapse" of the WTC's. This is a monster thread, 810 pages so far.

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=3108

A question for CTS. How did the 47 storey WTC7 fall to earth in 6.2 seconds (faster than freefall in a vacuum) even though nothing hit it?

Presumed stock answer.

"There was 10,000 galoons of heating fuel in the basement."

There is 10,000 gallons of heating fuel in the college and school next door to me, hang on....................nope, it's still there. I don't sleep at nights worrying about it collapsing now.

ConspiracyTheorySceptic · Moderate Poster Joined: 24 Apr 2006 Posts: 144

numeral writes:

numeral · Posted: Sat May 13, 2006 6:37 pm Post subject:

Oh dear. The product of thermite reactions is elemental iron. There were pools of molten iron seven floors down in basements. These hots spots lasted for 100 days, well into December. There were no aluminium facades in the basements. That is where the core columns joined the bedrock.

You are ingenious, I'll give you that. Try it out at
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=3108

ConspiracyTheorySceptic · Moderate Poster Joined: 24 Apr 2006 Posts: 144

Banish writes:

Pikey · Posted: Sat May 13, 2006 7:25 pm Post subject:

To enable the chemical reaction to occur the alumium has to be in powdered form and there is no alumium in the basement of the towers where deposits were discovered.

I would rather put my trust in a qualified scientist than a blogger like you CTS. Whats your backgound/area of expertise? (you reveal nothing on your profile)

Spot on Numeral. Wrong again CTS!

CTS why dont you do adequate 911 research before you blog on this site?
Perhaps then you would not lose what little credibility you have left on this website.

The 911 websites you refer to do not appear to be independent websites (re: 911myths) nor to be open or accountable. They have no forums to enable people to debate and put across their points of view or offer information which does not conform to the official version.

Also these websites do not reveal those who are behind them and appear to have the single objective of debunking websites like this one, and protecting the official version of 911 as opposed to TRUTHSEEKING the events of 911.

Prior to 911 no steel frame high rise building had ever collapsed as a result of fire nor have any since 911. But on 911 three buildings collapsed into their footprints in a spectacular imploded fashion.

The truth conquers all CTS!

Andrew Johnson · Posted: Sat May 13, 2006 8:50 pm Post subject:

A note about "double-standards" when people mention Greenings paper. It has not been peer-reviewed, yet many wave it around as if it has. - and that it is authoritative. Steve Jones paper has been peer-reviewed (I even sent some small comments and he ammended the paper). Steve Jones paper is to appear in print soon, so I understand.

Steve Jones addresses the molten aluminium/thermite issues in later versions of his paper (i.e. the current version on the internet now, which did not reference Greenings paper)

ConspiracyTheorySceptic · Moderate Poster Joined: 24 Apr 2006 Posts: 144

numeral writes:

kbo234 · Posted: Sun May 14, 2006 9:34 am Post subject:

Read this demolition of F R Greening's narrative.

http://p216.ezboard.com/frigorousintuitionfrm40.showMessage?topicID=75 .topic

Quote: "Professor Steven E. Jones, et. al. have recently completed experiments in the lab, pouring liquid aluminum on top of rusty steel beams. No thermite reaction occurred. "

blackcat · Validated Poster Joined: 07 May 2006 Posts: 2376

xmasdale

is · Minor Poster Joined: 31 Mar 2006 Posts: 43

I question the point of debating with Conspiracy Theory Skeptic. He is obviously comitted to his conclusion and I doubt anything you say witll convince him otherwise. The same goes for 9/11 truthers.

But it seems that we waste energy debating the small details, when such debate shouldnt be necessary. The uncontravertable fact about 9/11 is that we have been kept in the dark. The relates to the pentagon in that the tapes have yet to be released. Why not? Allegedly because of moussaoui's trial. That being over, there is no reason for information to not be freed and these pointless debates can cease.

I for one am far more persuaded by the inside job theory, if only for the complete and total collapse of wtc 1, 2 and 7. I have had many arguments online about it (most recently on the United 93 forums), and I always felt that no answer apart form controlled demolition was plausable.

But there is a reason that this site is called the 9/11 truth campaign, and not the 9/11 inside job/OV debating society. I feel we should be expending energy only on action that will help bring about an independent re-investigation. Arguing with OV'er like CTS accomplishes little, because, he is not going to be persuaded.

Many senior members of the 9/11 truth movement now consider the pentagon to be a red herring, while for others its the crux of their case. My view is, we cannot answer the question, because the information remains secret. energy should be spent on changing that rather than trying to change the opinions of single, stubborn individuals.

And CTS, before you jump to the conclusion that this means you have 'won the argument', you havnt. The amount of evidence that points to 9/11 being an inside job far exceeds controlled demolition and pentagon theories. Watch the documentary 'Everybody's Gotta Learn Sometime' ( http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6757267008400743688&q=everybod y%27s+gotta ), as this builds a very good case for government complicity in 9/11 that doesnt reference the events of the day itself - it is more clear from the build up of unusual activity between the government and the 'terrorists' before 9/11 happened that something is definitely amiss with the OV.

Yeah, to sum up: Don't feed the troll.

PS. Why does your beloved 9/11 myths not cover the 5 frames of pentagon footage released, that (blurrily) show an object that cannot be a commercial airliner. 9/11 myths contributes to the truth movement by way of omission, and distortion (their 'analysis' of the PNAC doc 'rebuilding America's Defenses' is very weak; the author tries to dress it up as an innoculous military plan, and doesnt acknowlage passages like that on p14

"The need for substantial miltary force [in the middle east] trancendes the issue of the regime of saddam hussein"

This was written in 2000, And yet people in this country still argue over why we went to war with Iraq? This is the ignorence we should be eroding, not quarraling over details of the attacks that cannot be proven and are largely speculative.

ConspiracyTheorySceptic · Moderate Poster Joined: 24 Apr 2006 Posts: 144

I wish to state the basis of my scepticism.

Until about March or April 2004, I had no idea of the existence of the 9/11 conspiracy theories. There had been absolutely no public debate in the British press. Then I met a man who tried to persuade me that 9/11 was probably an inside job, planned and carried out by the CIA.

My instant reaction was to say to this man that everyone knows that the CIA is an amoral organisation and capable of almost anything, but that not even the CIA is so depraved that it could wantonly contrive to kill - or knowingly allow to be killed - thousands of fellow Americans, many of whom could be their own friends and relatives. I find it infinitely more credible that the 9/11 attacks were carried out by Islamic fundamentalist terrorists.

I have already drawn your attention to various sites that counter the arguments put forward by the conspiracy theorists and that debate the various accusations point by point. If you read them, you will see that there are powerful counter arguments against the propositions that the Twin Towers were brought down by explosives or that a large airliner did not crash into the Pentagon.

Here are the sites again:

http://home.planet.nl/~reijd050/JoeR/pentahole_dimensions_est.htm

http://www.911myths.com/html/what_s_new_.html

http://www.911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagontrap.html#unexamined

http://www.911myths.com/WTCTHERM.pdf

Please read these sites and study them with an open mind.

One final point. I think there are many people who believe that the CIA are capable of being utterly depraved and of wantonly killing fellow Americans. Such people, in my opinion, have a totally cynical view of human nature that I do not share, and I think it would impossible to debate with such people. They have made up their minds that 9/11 was an inside job because, I believe, they actually want to believe it. The man who introduced me to the 9/11 debate, though, actually, a very nice man, is someone who believes avidly in a whole range of conspiracy theories and who actually said that he would never, for an instant, believe in any official government version. Debating with him is impossible, just as it seems to be impossible with the 9/11 truthers.

CTS

Martin Conner · Posted: Sun May 14, 2006 2:57 pm Post subject:

For anyone who is uncertain about the ponerology of which government is capable.
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=operation+northwoods&btnG=Googl e+Search&meta=

andrewwatson · Posted: Sun May 14, 2006 3:26 pm Post subject: Re: Basis of my scepticism.

kbo234 · Posted: Sun May 14, 2006 3:45 pm Post subject: Re: Basis of my scepticism.

Banish · Moderate Poster Joined: 18 Mar 2006 Posts: 250

	9/11, 7/7, Covid-1984 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> General	All times are GMT Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 Next
Page 3 of 10