I think it's time to retire the "September 11" forum

[snooper2]

or at least change the name to Conspiracy Central or something.

It's been almost 10 years, and nothing new.....

[zappaman]

1. Disagree

I think the truthers are getting ready for a massive presentation of solid evidence on the 10 year anniversary.
Everything you've read or heard was just the tip of the iceberg.
They are just waiting...

[snooper2]

2. no shit?

we shall keep this thread kicked just to find out...

and if nothing? ask the admin's about a name change :headbang:

[noise]

3. New name suggestion

The Lee Hamilton fan club.

[spooked911]

4. Seems fair to change this to a general conspiracy forum

since a large fraction of posts not related to 9/11 get thrown here.

I disagree that there is nothing new, though there has been a drop-off in new stuff. There is still plenty to talk about, nonetheless.

[spooked911]

5. it is a shame though

the case for 9/11 being an inside job of some manner is so overwhelming, yet that fact has been wonderfully obscured by the OCTists.

Strong evidence is ignored, other evidence is mocked, and everything gets thrown down the memory hole.

[SDuderstadt]

6. Dude...

your "evidence" routinely gets shredded when subjected to tough questions.

You would be better off to begin researching the origin of your cognitive biases.

[spooked911]

8. I have posted a lot of things here.

Some things I have been mistaken about, some things I have been flat-wrong about.

But there are many things I and others have posted that you and the OCTists have no answer for.

[SDuderstadt]

10. Bullshit, Spooked...

some of your nonsense is so out there that I think most rational people don't feel it's worth responding. The vast majority of the nonsense you post is roundly debunked; your response is to cling even more tenaciously to your personal incredulity.

I would love to see an example of anything you claim we "have no answer for".

[spooked911]

23. For instance--

no OCTist has been able to explain where any of the four large tail structures went for any of the planes that crashed. Why is there not one photo of one of these anywhere-- even a piece?

No OCTist has explained how a 757 made that odd hole, with the wing marks in the wrong place, in Shanksville.

No OCTist has explained the freefall collapse of WTC7.

No OCTist has explained the absence of a time stamp on the Dulles security footage showing two flight 77 hijackers.

No OCTist has explained how that massive light pole ended up in the cab and got pulled out, without scratching or denting the hood.

Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

[SDuderstadt]

25. More of your absolute bullshit...

Spooked.

For example, WTC 7 only "fell at freefall acceleration" (not "speed", which shows how much you don't know), IF one dishonestly starts the stopwatch AFTER the mechanical penthouse has already collapsed.

The problem here is not the lack of "answers", it's your penchant for asking stupid questions and not thinking things through.

[spooked911]

35. Like I said-- you have no answers.

Just more of your insults and bullshit.

[SDuderstadt]

36. Spooked...

I just GAVE you a fucking answer that you cannot debunk. Please don't say more stupid things.

[spooked911]

37. Dude--

1) that was not an answer, in the sense that you didn't explain anything

2) the key issue is the rate of fall of the top of the perimeter walls

3) even if you assume the penthouse going down took out the ENTIRE inside of the interior structure below it, there is still a lot of interior structure left that will impede the downward fall of the perimeter walls.

[SDuderstadt]

38. Spooked...

The issue is dishonestly starting the stopwatch AFTER the mechanical penthouse has already collapsed.

No amount of deflection from you is going to change that.

[zappaman]

39. Wrong dude!

What more proof do you need?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x56836

[SDuderstadt]

40. I had forgotten about that classic!

That one made Spooked famous across the internet! Spooked at his most brilliant!

[spooked911]

41. More bullshit--

the issue is the rate of fall of the perimeter walls. They went down at free-fall speed or acceleration. You have no answer for that. Or for anything else I mentioned above, not to mention dozens of other extreme improbabilities in the OCT.

[SDuderstadt]

42. Spooked...

How is it honest to omit the collapse of the mechanical penthouse from the overall collapse? Beyond that, since the bottom third of WTC 7 is obscured in the video, how did you or anyone calculate the collapse time?

You might as well face up to the fact that people aren't buying your bullshit, dude.

[spooked911]

60. I am not taking the penthouse out of the picture--

the fact remains that the top of the perimeter wall fell at free-fall speed; that you have no explanation for that; lots and lots of people question the fall of WTC7; that you are determined to quash any notion of an inside job; and that you can't seem to grasp the big picture at all.

[spooked911]

62. No answer?

What a surprise.

[SDuderstadt]

63. I'm on a business trip...

dude. That takes precedence over dealing with your nonsense.

[May Hamm]

27. I'm still looking for the damage from the wings at the Pentagon

Some stuff just doesn't add up. Unfortunately when the questions are asked, those wanting answers don't stick to the original subject. They interject other questions and start demanding answers to more and more and then totally foolish ideas until all they get is laughter because that's they deserve.

[SDuderstadt]

28. More bullshit...

http://www.google.com/m/search?q=composite+picture+of+airplane+damage+to+pentagon&pbx=1&aq=f&oq=&aqi=-k0d0t0&fkt=828&fsdt=34879&site=images&gl=us&source=mog&csll=&action=<oken=c5c5c56c#i=2

See the large rectangular hole BELOW the smaller rounded hole? The rounded hole corresponds to the fuselage and the wider rectangular hole corresponds to the wings.

[zappaman]

29. Maybe you should read instead of looking

You obviously have no looked into this since it has been explained for the last 9 years.
The wings most likely snapped upon impact and were pushed towards the fuselage. They were then carried into the building's interior.
By the way, you haven't looked very hard.
Here is what you are looking for...


See those black marks on either end?
That's where the wings were.
Now can I laugh at you?

[TatonkaJames]

44. I was just watching that hole in a video on TV

No marks from the wings at all. An eyewitness said he hit the ground because the plane was at full throttle,
was so loud and flying level he knew it was on purpose, so; where are the wing marks ? I saw not one hint of them
as well as anyone who looks at a picture or video right after the impact that is on video.

The one factor in common in all these 9/11 threads is this;

There are wives, daughters, sons and parents who no longer have the ones they lost that day with them.
Where are they ? Were they a part of this ? Highly unlikely, so to prove to me it was staged or
done by us in any way begins with the victims on the planes, they are not with us anymore so that we know
is evidence of OBL's doing.

I believe the question for those who want to bring this tragedy to an end as to whether it is/was a conspiracy
of the U.S. government allowing it "to happen" is the key question.

[May Hamm]

30. And nasty little posts by those who "know"

Aren't going to bother me. I replied to you, said what I wanted to say. I'm not going to get into a discussion with others who are angry from the get go.

[zappaman]

31. yes, the truth is nasty, isn't it?

Good idea to ignore it and live in your world of ignorance.

[SDuderstadt]

32. The funny thing is...

she replied to Spooked.

Maybe she saw his "meltdown".

[SDuderstadt]

33. Here's an idea...

why don't you ask Spooked about his theory that "no planes" were used in the 9/11 attacks or that the towers were brought down with "mini-nukes"?

[spooked911]

34. it's all at my blog, if anyone is willing to spend the time reading the material

thanks for asking

[William Seger]

43. What a pantload

> no OCTist has been able to explain where any of the four large tail structures went for any of the planes that crashed. Why is there not one photo of one of these anywhere-- even a piece?

False, it has been explained over and over: At those head-on collision speeds, there is no reason to expect the tails or any other part of the planes to remain intact.

> No OCTist has explained how a 757 made that odd hole, with the wing marks in the wrong place, in Shanksville.

False, it has been demonstrated to you over and over with accurate diagrams that the plane fits the crater exactly, and that your misconceptions are apparently based on an inability to visualize in three dimensions.

> No OCTist has explained the freefall collapse of WTC7.

False, it has been explained over and over that the period of free-fall came after the building was already irrevocably headed down, and that it agrees well with the NIST simulation showing about eight floors of columns buckling at the same time, because of a progressive collapse. (But that reminds me, I'm still waiting for the AE911truth clowns to explain why the free-fall didn't occur right at the beginning of the collapse, if the collapse was caused by blowing out those columns with magical silent explosives.)

> No OCTist has explained the absence of a time stamp on the Dulles security footage showing two flight 77 hijackers.

False, it has been explained over and over: Timestamps are not actually superimposed over the video; they are encoded in the "vertical refresh" space in the NTSC video format, so it's up to the display program to either show it or not. You can't conclude anything from not seeing it in one particular version.

> No OCTist has explained how that massive light pole ended up in the cab and got pulled out, without scratching or denting the hood.

False, it has been explained over and over: The cab was moving forward at 40 MPH when it hit the pole, and the end of the pole became lodged in the rear seat. It clearly did a lot of damage to the dashboard, but the end being trapped in the seat prevented if from falling on the hood. Ranke himself took photos proving that's what happened.

All you've shown by all those "no OCTist has explained" claims is that have a deaf ear for anything and everything that disproves your delusions. The TRUTH is that you have failed miserably to come up with a single "anomaly" that can't be explained without any "inside job" conspiracy theories, but you have an infinite capacity for ignoring those explanations.

[spooked911]

61. Oh boy. I always know I rankled some feathers when Seger gets involved.

In any case:

Tails-- are you saying they disintegrated into dust or larger pieces? Dust is ridiculous. Tail pieces should have been recovered and/or photographed.

The Shanksville hole-- the wing marks are in the wrong place, and the overall hole is ridiculous given the size of the plane and the supposed speed.

WTC7-- sorry, you still have not explained how the perimeter walls came down at free fall speed.

Dulles time stamp anomaly-- "explained over and over"? Where is that, pray tell? I can't find any such explanation online.

Light pole into cab-- puh-leeze. You're joking, right? I suppose the whole pole was flying end-up, through the air, right? And the cab miraculously drove right into it's end. Riiight....and the whole 9/11 OCT is oh so true. I *BELIEVE*.

[terrafirma]

7. Only in the mind of a truther

can "overwhelming evidence" be covered up by folks on the internet.

Either that, or the number of people involved in the cover up just grew to incomprehensible numbers.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[paulk]

11. no -

it's a great place to check out occasionally

it helps one determine who to take seriously or not in the other forums...


although a name change wouldn't hurt

[deconstruct911]

12. This is getting stupid.......

When Convar discovers encryption keys on a drive, indicating a financial record, it saves the information and hands it over to its U.S. clients, who are in turn cooperating with the FBI, he said.

http://articles.cnn.com/2001-12-20/tech/wtc.harddrives.idg_1_data-recovery-terrorist-plot-encryption-keys?_s=PM:TECH

The assembled agents
expressed no knowledge of the reported hard-drive recovery effort or the alleged scheme.
Moreover, one of the New York agents pointed out, from personal experience, that
everything at the WTC was pulverized to near power, making it extremely unlikely that
any hard-drives survived to the extent they data be recovered.

http://media.nara.gov/9-11/MFR/t-0148-911MFR-00269.pdf



Obviously the OCT isn't willing to even consider looking at anything with an open mind, that doesn't mean anyone is always right around here, it means stop fucking whining about no evidence of a cover up.

Simple question: Does any OCTer care to explain why the commission blatantly lied in an attempt to cover up the hard-drive restoration?

Hint: This whole time the data recovery process has been available on Convar's website.

[snooper2]

13. so that means you are up with a name change?

Once this thread gets enough posts we will ask in the admin forum

[deconstruct911]

14. Request whatever you want.

If the mods like it all power to them....

[greyl]

17. I am.

I've considered posting that question in ATA myself.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[snooper2]

16. that's a good name

bravo!

[defendandprotect]

18. We might have to add: "Believe it or Not ...."

:)

[SDuderstadt]

19. In honor of D&P...

I believe we should name it "put the idiots on ignore".

[greyl]

20. I like "Beliefs & Theories Which Are Highly Controversial and Outside of the Mainstream. nt

[Behind the Aegis]

21. or...Conspiracies: Real and Purported

;)

[greyl]

22. That's my new favorite!

It doesn't even hint at being insulting like my idea(taken from the sticky thread here, btw).

[spooked911]

24. How about you really do ignore the "idiots"?

That would be so cool.

[SDuderstadt]

26. How about you start making sense?

Of course, that would be near impossible.

[whatchamacallit]

45. I couldn't agree more

this forum is an abusive farce. The name should be changed from "September 11 Forum" to "Bean Clan Cave Forum" for the scottish coastal cave where Sawney Bean and his decedents lived. They survived by ambushing passersby, robbing, killing, and eating them. Poor wayward travelers coming to the 9/11 forum for information will suffer a similar fate at the hands of the OCT Clan. Beware!

[SDuderstadt]

46. I guess I might say the same thing...

if my "side" was losing the debate so badly.

[whatchamacallit]

47. Please, there is no "debate"

only a mindless food fight. No real exploration of issues, just "lunatics" and "seal clubbers"... You don't know it, but life without this forum would be the best thing that ever happened to you.

[SDuderstadt]

48. Don't presume to speak for me, dude...

beyond that, if you guys could develop some actual facts, rather than keep floating the same tired myths, there could be a debate.

[whatchamacallit]

50. You know I'm gonna ask

if there's nothing to discuss, what are you doing here?

[SDuderstadt]

52. Other people come here and...

believe some of the bullshit they hear.

It's called "false certainty". If only one less person embarrasses liberalism as a result, it's worth it.

Wouldn't your time be better spent marshalling convincing arguments?

[whatchamacallit]

54. Such crap

You're not here as a sentinel of the truth or any such self-important nonsense, you're here because you're addicted to conflict. Simply put, you get off on this shit. Get real for once.

[SDuderstadt]

56. Yes, Dr. Freud...

oh, wait...you're not accusing me of lying...are ya?

[whatchamacallit]

57. No, just of being

deluded.

[zappaman]

59. pot...meet kettle! n/t

[Old Troop]

49. NEVER! It's the most entertaining thing on the web.

[Iggo]

51. Conspiracy Central. I like it. (n/t)

[zappaman]

53. How about...?

TOPICS THAT ARE AS EMBARRASSING TO THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY AS BIRTHERS ARE TO THE REPUBLICAN PARTY?
Too long?

[whatchamacallit]

55. Too long

and stupid.

[SDuderstadt]

58. But so fitting...

I see you've stopped by for your semi-regular fight, dude.

[Stanchetalarooni]

64. How long did it take to learn the truth about the Gulf of Tonkin incident?

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/10/31/MNG99FGN521.DTL

National Security Agency has kept secret since 2001 a finding by an agency historian that NSA officers deliberately distorted critical intelligence during the Tonkin Gulf episode that helped precipitate the Vietnam War, according to two people familiar with the historian's work.

1964 was only a mere 47 years ago!