Quote:
|
Why do you not believe that terrorists were responsible or capable of carrying out the events of 9/11?
|
The flights would have been intercepted and four people armed with only box-cutters would be overpowered easily by a few hundred passengers.
Quote:
|
Please explain the mechanics and dynamics involved in a "planting operation" that plants evidence either immediately before or immediately after the crash, which takes into account the known laws of physics, lack of time-travel and personal invisibility, lack of witness accounts, and the fact that in your beloved video, there are no personnel on the lawn, nor are there any parts or body pieces on the lawn, ruling out pre-planting of any kind. Please also explain the dynamics of planting biological evidence inside the burning wreck of the Pentagon in the immediate seconds after the crash, using the above criteria and takes into account the heat and difficulty of navigating the wreckage. Stealthy extraction is also a necessity. Again, as usual, please apply Occam's Razor to your answer.
|
Stuff could have been planted inside the building very easily before the crash and anything could have been put into a robot plane such as bodies, 757 plane parts, etc.
Quote:
|
Please explain why scientifically peer-reviewed evidence is immediately and always unreliable, but anonymous you-tube and woo-woo videos are gospel truth.
|
Groups of people can be corrupt. What we have to look for is what makes the most sense--not the credentials of who says what.
When I was shown this "YouTube" video, I didn't reject it because it was from YouTube.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=YVDdjLQkUV8 I pointed out the the flaws in it.
Here's an example of what makes sense.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...81047&q=9%2F11
At the 48 min. 45 sec. mark thermite is demostrated. At the 54 minute 18 second mark some liquid metal is shown pouring out of one of the towers. At the 56 minute 35 second mark Steven Jones gives his opinion of the molten metal pouring out of the towers. He said the NIST report explained it as possibly molten aluminum from the plane. They melted some aluminum and it never changed color. Steven Jones refuted the NIST report.
http://wtc.nist.gov/ Steven Jones makes more sense than the official sources do.
Go to the 49 minute 35 second mark of this video. It shows some steel beams that look like they were cut by thermite.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...71955308136871
The steel beams have solidified molten metal on them. That's an impossibility if the only heat source was jet fuel.
Quote:
|
Please explain Steven Jones' continuing credibility in this area.
|
What he says makes sense. (See above)
Quote:
|
Demonstrate, in your opinion, why the structural damage to the Pentagon should be consistent with the structural damage to the Twin Towers.
|
There should at least be a wing mark on the side of the building. The damage on the building might have come from the inside.
http://0911.site.voila.fr/index2.htm
(fifth picture down)
Quote:
|
Demonstrate rumormill.coms credentials and why they are a valid source of evidence.
|
Honest people with common sense is nothing to sneeze at. Some of them have credentials and some of them don't. What they say adds up and the official story doesn't add up.
Quote:
|
You have stated the photo you use has been doctored. Please explain why it is still usable as evidence, when undoctored photos have been dismissed by you as "doctored" or "planted". Please explain why the standards of evidence should not work both ways.
|
What I said was that whether or not it had been doctored was open to debate. I distictly said I thought it most probably hadn't been doctored.
Here's my quote from post #1012.
You seemed to imply that these were difficult questions. There's nothing difficult about them. I don't have time to answer every question asked by twenty people as there is only one of me and I work. I try to concentrate on the most important ones if I don't have time to answer all of them.
Concerning the calculations.
I'm still trying to check that the angle is right in the third picture down here.
http://www.flugplatzsiedlung.de/Pent_gate.pdf
When I look at this picture, it seems that the angle on which he's basing all of his calculations goes too far toward the bottom of the picture. I can't figure out how to check it.
Also, this site shows the angle of the plane to be 40 degrees.
http://0911.site.voila.fr/index1.htm
(Fourth picture down)
I measured Laguna2's picture with a protractor and got 46 degrees. How did you get 46 degrees?
You guys seem to think that the idea of 9/11 being an inside job is ridiculous. If you've only been reading American newspapers all of your lives, that's understandable. On post #29 of this page I posted some articles and videos that explain what is generally known outside of the US.
Noam Chomsky Says...
I'd learned about a lot of this info just by living abroad before I ever read anything about it in English. The idea that 9/11 was an inside job makes a lot more sense if you look at the big picture.
If some of you guys who say you're non-Americans disagree with what that info says, I'm going to wonder if you're speaking your true thoughts. Almost all of the conversations about those subjects I've heard in my seventeen years of living outside of the US have been based on the info in those articles. I've spoken to people from the countries dealt with in the articles and they say the same things the articles say.