MOST Americans open to alternative explanations to 9/11

Your first problem is that they weren't cavemen. But since you are ignorant of who these people were nothing you say after that has any meaning. And if you think Lower Manhattan is the most protected airspace in the world than you are simply ignorant of reality and should get help.

 

You don't know who they were either. BBC Reports Some 9/11 Hijackers Alive
[video=youtube;lgPbvRxOwTs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgPbvRxOwTs[/video]

 

Cavemen didn't.
Educated, trained, religious fanatics took advantage of lapses in our defensive posture.

 

That report was incorrect, according to the hijacker's own families:

There were key differences between the alleged hijackers and the individuals who came forward after 9/11. The pilot Waleed al-Shehri who came forward after 9/11 has a different name to the hijacker, for instance. The Salem al-Hazmi who appeared in the press post the attacks is 26, the hijacker was 21.

You're most unlikely to be told about all the evidence that indicates the FBI identifications are correct. The Saudi press reports from family members saying their sons have gone missing, for example. The inclusion of all 19 men in an al-Qaeda video, The Nineteen Martyrs. And the fact that Saudi Arabia have accepted all their citizens, as named by the FBI, were involved since February of 2002.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/world/2002/02/06/saudi.htm

- - - Updated - - -

Will you support your claim, or will you continue to change the subject?

 

I guess you missed where Bob Kerrey said he is 100% convinced it was Al Queda terrorists. The video of the 30 conspiracy quote is clearly edited between the comment and the "talking about 9-11" line.

I have seen nothing to make me question the simple story as follows:
1. Islamist terrorists hijacked planes and flew them into buildings. With one failure due to passengers overrunning the cockpit
2. The Twin towers collapsed due to structural failure that is visible on all videos of the collapse.
3. The scientific explanation makes sense and unless someone has an alternative explanation of the collapse with proof why shouldn't I believe it?
4. Truthers always use deception with edited videos, partial quotes, and straw men like "cavemen with box cutters".
So if you have a good piece of evidence I am open to examine it. Go ahead and show me.

 

I provided that link back in post 18. "The NIST Investigation"

http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=332621&page=2&p=1063322436#post1063322436

 

simple solution would be for the people who have become millionaires in the truther industry to fly one of them to New York and introduce him to the country. Funny that hasn't happened.

 

The link does not support your claim. It does offer speculations, but no evidence.

 

1. I am skeptical about Islamist terrorists who learned how to fly Cessna 72s ability to fly jet airliners in those precise patterns.
2. Buildings do not fall down due to fire otherwise no fireman would ever go into a burning building.
3. Building 7. Every column in the entire building had to fail simultaneously in order to go into freefall and collapse. It is impossible for fire to cause that. The lower floors were not even on fire and those columns had to fail at precisely the same as the upper floors.
4. Liars always use deception and arrogance to try and discredit the truth.

 

I read it a long time ago. NIST investigators were the ones complaining that they had to do their investigation after the evidence had been removed. It might be in the NIST report itself. The link I provided was sharing NIST's frustration. Here is the link they provided to back up their claim.

It is a dead link. I'll look through the NIST report. It is common knowledge.

 

1) They were accredited on jets, not just Cessna aircraft.
2) Better check those facts: buildings do indeed collapse due to fire. See The McCormick Center in Chicago.
3) False. Building 7 seven did not collapse at 'free fall', so the rest of your premise is faulty.
4) The facts speak for themselves.

- - - Updated - - -

1) They were accredited on jets, not just Cessna aircraft.
2) Better check those facts: buildings do indeed collapse due to fire. See The McCormick Center in Chicago.
3) False. Building 7 seven did not collapse at 'free fall', so the rest of your premise is faulty.
4) The facts speak for themselves.

- - - Updated - - -

I'll await your link.

 

Most of the physical evidence had already been removed before NIST started their investigation.

I did not say Building 7 collapsed in free fall. I said it went into freefall as NIST claims.

NIST Building 7 Free Fall
[video=youtube;RXZnvn7O2NY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXZnvn7O2NY[/video]

Shyam Sunder NIST WTC Lead Investigator,

@ 1:05:00 in this video
[video=youtube;X-V1CiuGMJo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-V1CiuGMJo&feature=relmfu[/video]

The McCormick Building did not collapse in near free fall. It burned down over time.

 

Excellent point, and accurate.

If the very people who conducted the 'report', have problems with it, why would anybody consider it the truth? It isn't, and that's the point. Walks like a duck? Well....

 

Ding! Ding! Ding!

We know the BS presented wasn't the truth, because it unravels quickly when you get into specifics. That kind of dissection isn't tolerated very well though, and is always squashed in a barrage of insults, group attacks and distortion whenever anything gets too specific.
I admire your tenacity here but, good luck trying to have an actual debate on specifics, or an honest discussion of the facts. It won't happen.

 

The passage you quote does not state that the physical evidence had been removed. In fact, it states that NIST was able to photograph and video the evidence before it was removed to Fresh Kills.

Building 7 had one corner of the roofline achieve an acceleration equivalent to free fall for a few seconds. Explain why "Every column in the entire building had to fail simultaneously" for this one corner to reach that acceleration.

The entire roof of the Steel structured McCormick building collapsed in, due to steel structural failure, much the same as WTC7.

- - - Updated - - -

Per my link: they don't have problems with it. They were frustrated by CYA during the investigation, but feel their final report is accurate.

 

CYA equates to not presenting the truth. If one part of it is false, why shouldn't the whole thing be questioned?

 

Read Hamilton's interview: they saw through the falsehoods and CYA and got to the truth. They held the various agencies accountable.
The point is: They DID question the stories they got and kept questioning until they got to the heart of it.

 

Except they also learned to fly on commercial jetliner flight simulators....most of the flying part is easy with computer controls. Landing and take off are difficult. They did neither.

Actually many buildings have fallen down because of fire. But if you are talking about steel framed buildings then no you are right most haven't but some have. (we saw it on TV remember). But is wasn't just fire.

There are so many things wrong with this sentence I don't know where to begin. There was no free fall speed, the supports had collapsed on the inside before the facade collapsed (you would see that in the unedited video) and whole chunks of the lower floors were destroyed when parts of the WTC 1 you know fell on it.

Are you calling me a liar......really? Post one piece of real evidence for any of your claims any?
I am not being arrogant I am being factual....you are the one not.

 

Why did Zelikow have to review and edit it all? (It's rhetorical....I don't expect honesty). CYA, edit, change, misrepresent. That all sounds very much like ummm...a LIE! (probably because it IS).

 

They dug through the evidence to get to the truth. Reviewing and editing is what real scientists and investigators do.

What they don't do is watch an Alex Jones video or buy David Ray's latest money maker and decide to buy the falsehoods generated by them.
They also didn't link to 'no-planes' websites like the mentally challenged do regularly.

 

If inaccuracies can be found in this 'presentation', how is that the truth?

 

Like claiming the hijackers were not trained on passenger jets? How many inaccuracies have you been shown in your own 'no-planes' links, yet you still link to them over and over.

Indeed - in the very OP of this thread, you link to a flawed poll and crow about how accurate it is.

 

So, inaccuracies aren't the truth. That what you're saying?

 

No - you said: "If inaccuracies can be found in this 'presentation', how is that the truth? "

I simply disputed the claim that the commissioners disagreed with the report they published, and provided links. Stop trying to change the subject.

 

Is the report the whole truth, or isn't it? That's fairly simple, no?