Thread: 9/11 was an inside job

Originally Posted by Cthulhu

Originally Posted by HansuMan

Most of the evidence was guarded and then whisked away & destroyed by THE 9/11 PERPS. As I said already, take said questions to them...

So, you are saying, then, that the government (uh, sorry, "Israel" - different govt) destroyed the planes, and killed the crew and passengers? Really? That's what you're going with?

no that's what YOU'RE going with. "Straw Man Fallacy" it's called; attempting to fraudulently put words/opinions into your opponent's mouth.

I'm sticking with what I DID say,

It's not 9/11 researchers' "job" to fully solve the crime; only to prove the impossibility of the "Official 9/11 Conspiracy Theory", and to prompt a new independent investigation with subpoena-power to find out what happened and bring THE 9/11 PERPS to justice.

Architects & Engineers:

Solving the Mystery of
World Trade Center Building 7

^^^ & ^^^^

both posts ad-hominem attacks against AE911Truth.org. Every A & E on their petition was verified.

"Regardless of the hundreds of architects and engineers
who have signed the AE911Truth petition demanding a
new investigation, the evidence for the WTC controlled
demolition stands on its own "

the rest of your spew is more thoroughly addressed at

FAQ #6: Why does AE911Truth Represent Only a Small Percentage of Architects and Engineers?


Say, where's YOUR list of licenced, verified As & Es who SUPPORT THE USRAELI GOV's nutjob WTC collapse theory??? "I think it's safe to say that the other 100s of thousands [who AREN'T ON YOUR LIST] understand what happened"

Architects & Engineers:

Solving the Mystery of
World Trade Center Building 7

Originally Posted by HansuMan

Originally Posted by Cthulhu

Originally Posted by HansuMan

Most of the evidence was guarded and then whisked away & destroyed by THE 9/11 PERPS. As I said already, take said questions to them...

So, you are saying, then, that the government (uh, sorry, "Israel" - different govt) destroyed the planes, and killed the crew and passengers? Really? That's what you're going with?

no that's what YOU'RE going with. "Straw Man Fallacy" it's called; attempting to fraudulently put words/opinions into your opponent's mouth.

I'm sticking with what I DID say

You *did* say, by implication, that the planes, crews and passengers were destroyed and killed by your "9/11 perps" - if I ask "what happened to them" and you answer that these items were "whisked away & destroyed by THE 9/11 PERPS" then you are clearly stating support for the destruction and killing of planes and people by "9/11 perps".

All you are doing now is back pedaling from a clear and endorsing statement of yours - basically claiming you didn't say what you in fact said. Highly disingenuous, at the very least. Why the dishonesty?

Originally Posted by HansuMan

Say, where's YOUR list of licenced, verified As & Es who SUPPORT THE USRAELI GOV's nutjob WTC collapse theory??? "I think it's safe to say that the other 100s of thousands [who AREN'T ON YOUR LIST] understand what happened

So, you deny now that there are 270,000+ architects and engineers in the USA that haven't joined or endorsed your movement? That's precious.

Originally Posted by Cthulhu

So, you're going with option B then - "it's not my problem, and I refuse to answer your IMPOSSIBLE PROOF DISINFO GAMBIT [Rule 19] question". No news, there.
[...]
Funny how that one single IMPOSSIBLE PROOF DISINFO GAMBIT [Rule 19] question just has you guys on the ropes.

^ fixed for you

I know I know, won't stop you from deploying your favorite IMPOSSIBLE PROOF DISINFO GAMBIT [Rule 19], but it is instructive for honest readers to see your basic disingenuousness in action. Par for the course with determined defenders of the Official 9/11 Conspiracy Theory, in my experience.

HASBARA much?

Architects & Engineers:

Solving the Mystery of
World Trade Center Building 7

Originally Posted by Cthulhu

You *did* say, by implication, that the planes, crews and passengers were destroyed and killed by your "9/11 perps" - if I ask "what happened to them" and you answer that these items were "whisked away & destroyed by THE 9/11 PERPS" then you are clearly stating support for the destruction and killing of planes and people by "9/11 perps".

All you are doing now is back pedaling from a clear and endorsing statement of yours - basically claiming you didn't say what you in fact said. Highly disingenuous, at the very least. Why the dishonesty?

Getting fancy with the Straw Man Fallacy attempts now I see- trying to leave yourself an out with your "by implication" gambit... ...then seeking to fraudulently characterize your word-twisting attempt as a clear and endorsing statement

I haven't speculated on your "planes, passengers & crew" fixation whatsoever, hasbara boy.

But your latest, buffoonish manipulation attempt is...

instructive for honest readers to see your basic disingenuousness in action. Par for the course with determined defenders of the Official 9/11 Conspiracy Theory, in my experience.

Architects & Engineers:

Solving the Mystery of
World Trade Center Building 7

What is it that scares you about that question so much?

- Is it because you yourself have never thought about it, until you were confronted with it?

- Is it because it is the one single point that none of you can answer without bringing your whole house of cards to fall?

As for your claims that the plane and crews were whisked away and then destroyed - I am merely quoting your own words. You wrote them - if you need to backpedal from them, you shouldn't have said them.

Why do you constitute a question as to the fate of planes, crews and passengers to be "impossible proof"? Far from it - especially if you are the one advancing initial theories that include them. The planes were real pre-9/11; the people existed and had lives pre-9/11.

What happened to them?

they were turned into L'il Lisa slurry

So, I was curious about these 25 rules of Disinformation that you are so fond of, just to see how many of them you yourself and your cohorts are in violation of.

Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation - 911truth.org

Oh boy!

4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.

This seems to be a favorite of yours, albeit it seems you have not entirely grasped the actual meaning and appropriate use of the strawman argument. I would refer you, again, to my "termites" post, or you could consult with Ant - I hear he is a specialist on the matter.

5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary attack the messenger ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as "kooks", "right-wing", "liberal", "left-wing", "terrorists", "conspiracy buffs", "radicals", "militia", "racists", "religious fanatics", "sexual deviates", and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.

Oddly enough, you and ENT appear to favor this one as well, with ENT even boasting and claiming to intensify ad hominems and insults.

6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism reasoning -- simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent's viewpoint.

Lookit what we have here - westozguy and ENT seem to favor this one as well. Instead of answering a simple question, they just throw up completely unrelated materials, and run off.

8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough "jargon" and "minutiae" to illustrate you are "one who knows", and simply say it isn't so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.

Architects; Engineers; Pilots; yep, these are all "authorities" that you invoke... You're certainly following the script well.

12. Enigmas have no solution. Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players and events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to loose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues.

What do we have here? I believe it is Number 12 that you are using to hide from having to answer the plane/crews/passenger question. Sounds a lot like your earlier "reply".

14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best for items qualifying for rule 10.

Another favorite of yours - claiming we demand "complete" solutions, and then stating this to be "impossible proof". (no such thing, I'm just asking for one question to be answered). Seems a good companion to your other friend, the Strawman.

15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions in place.

You're all certainly big on that one, sometimes even completely foregoing facts altogether.

16. Vanishing evidence and witnesses. If it does not exist, it is not fact, and you won't have to address the issue.

Wow, a veritable cornucopia here - there's your "9/11 perps", eh? They just vanish, and so you don't have to answer the question.

17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can "argue" with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.

Holy cow - another favorite. I ask a simple question, and in reply, you guys throw up a bunch of completely unrelated issues and statements.

20. False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed with contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications.

Another favorite of your group - from thermite charges that didn't exist, to claiming thermite being capable of feats that it can't do, to claiming clear fuselage wreckage is "no debris", and so on....

21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, or other empowered investigative body. Subvert the (process) to your benefit and effectively neutralize all sensitive issues without open discussion. Once convened, the evidence and testimony are required to be secret when properly handled. For instance, if you own the prosecuting attorney, it can insure a Grand Jury hears no useful evidence and that the evidence is sealed an unavailable to subsequent investigators. Once a favorable verdict (usually, this technique is applied to find the guilty innocent, but it can also be used to obtain charges when seeking to frame a victim) is achieved, the matter can be considered officially closed.

"WE DEMAND THAT 9/11 BE INVESTIGATED BY THE COURTS AND THE CASE BE RE-OPENED"

(sound familiar?)

22. Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively.

Richard Gage; Jeff Rense; etc... all created "experts"

25. Vanish. If you are a key holder of secrets or otherwise overly illuminated and you think the heat is getting too hot, to avoid the issues, vacate the kitchen.

I'm waiting for that one.

^ Bear in mind, the above are:

Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation

So, since you are following nearly every single one of them, what does that tell everyone else about your legitimacy, credibility and true motivations!?

Face it, we're on to you, HansuMan - you're a gov't plant!

what about all the metal being shipped off to guangshou to make B&Qs?

Great post # 185, Cthulhu ! And I mean for content, not length.

More stupidity from ENT.
It is a well-known fact that peoples' concept of time is skewed in accidents. And eyewitness accounts in general cannot be relied on for certain things.

Missing Pentagon Jet Engine

Identified? - A 727 JT8D


Chicago's Museum of Science and Industry displays the Pratt & Whitney JT8D. These photos show that JT8D matches the Pentagon engine photographed at the crash site. Note the outlined bolt flanges for comparison purposes. The bolt flanges hold the sections of the engine together. Both engines have portions of the outer cover removed so the inner engine is clearly visible.

Measurements:
Fan tip diameter: 39.9 - 49.2 in
Length, flange to flange: 120.0 - 154.1 in
From: Oops! 404 Error

Make That A 737Jet Engine...

Online Journal | Daily News Source (pdf)

They are all jet engine components (past and present) on the A-3 Skywarrior twin-turbojet airplane and on older versions of the 737. The USAF only has a few of the A-3s left in operation and what was formerly Hughes Aircraft, now Raytheon, has a fleet of them at Van Nuys, Calif. This type of turbojet engine has never been used on a Boeing 757, so the debate on "type of plane" can end there.
This is a jet engine component with fan, not an auxiliary power unit (APU) as some have speculated or dropped into the conversation as disinformation.
Missing Pentagon Jet Engine Identified? - A 727 JT8D



"But as for the simple mechanics of building collapse, it really _IS_ Popular Mechanics stuff" latindancer re. WTC 911.

Originally Posted by Latindancer

Great post # 185, Cthulhu ! And I mean for content, not length.


It is a well-known fact that peoples' concept of time is skewed in accidents. And eyewitness accounts in general cannot be relied on for certain things.

Therefore, according to you, all eyewitness reports of 9/11 are unreliable.

Originally Posted by Latindancer

Great post # 185, Cthulhu ! And I mean for content, not length.

Thanks - I had absolutely no idea what a gold-mine that source link of Nutter#3 would end up being, until I went and read it. It was like my eyes went wide, and I kept exclaiming "OMG! OMFG!" as it became obvious that all three of them religiously follow the rules of Disinformation -- and I bet you that neither of them are even remotely aware.

We should just, moving forward, highly which rule they are complying with, when replying to anything they post.

^ LD and Daffy Duck - now that is not good for the board. It's a grim grim day.

Dog, bomb these fuckers.

Originally Posted by ENT

Originally Posted by Latindancer

It is a well-known fact that peoples' concept of time is skewed in accidents. And eyewitness accounts in general cannot be relied on for certain things.

Therefore, according to you, all eyewitness reports of 9/11 are unreliable.

Oh look - it's ENT's old friend, Khun Strawman.

You know very well (those with the ability to understand "context" at least) that LD was referring to the perception of time, as well as chronology of events, as perceived in traumatic situations. It's very conceivable that Loyd was removing the lamp post from his taxi after the explosions were heard, but he recalled the chronology of time incorrectly.

He did clearly confirm a big, giant, 300,000 ton plane flying over his cab in direction of the Pentagon. A steel lamp post smashing his windshield and distracting his attention to "immediate survival" is a very justifiable reason to lose track of timed events.

Originally Posted by Albert Shagnastier

^ LD and Daffy Duck - now that is not good for the board. It's a grim grim day.

Dog, bomb these fuckers.

Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation - 911truth.org

24. Silence critics. If the above methods do not prevail, consider removing opponents from circulation by some definitive solution so that the need to address issues is removed entirely. This can be by their death, arrest and detention, blackmail or destruction of their character by release of blackmail information, or merely by proper intimidation with blackmail or other threats.

Originally Posted by ENT

They are all jet engine components (past and present) on the A-3 Skywarrior twin-turbojet airplane and on older versions of the 737. The USAF only has a few of the A-3s left in operation and what was formerly Hughes Aircraft, now Raytheon, has a fleet of them at Van Nuys, Calif. This type of turbojet engine has never been used on a Boeing 757, so the debate on "type of plane" can end there.
This is a jet engine component with fan, not an auxiliary power unit (APU) as some have speculated or dropped into the conversation as disinformation.
Missing Pentagon Jet Engine Identified? - A 727 JT8D

Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation - 911truth.org

20. False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed with contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications.

Do you guys go to a course, and does it require you to FOLLOW all the classic disinformation guidelines? You're not doing your credibility any favors, you know?

As for the alleged "wrong" engine:

9-11 Review: ERROR: 'Engine Parts From the Pentagon Crash Don't Match a 757'

The idea that the engine parts photographed at the crash site were too small to be from an engine found on a 757 is based on a failure to appreciate that different parts of a modern high-bypass turbofan engine differ dramatically in diameter. The fallacy is illustrated by a passage in one of the more popular articles purporting to prove that no 757 crashed into the Pentagon.
(...)
Contrary to the article's implication, the high-pressure rotor in the upper right photograph is in fact the diameter of such parts from a 757 engine. The following cut-away view of a turbofan engine similar to the ones used on 757s shows how much the diameters of the various parts differ. The high-pressure compressor and turbine rotors are only about one-third the approximately 8-foot diameter of the fan.

Originally Posted by Latindancer

Cthulhu, we really are dealing with grossly stupid people here.

We sure are -- though honestly, admit it, it's kinda fun how they keep shooting self-goals with their links?

It's kinda saddening to see people so opposed to educating themselves, but what can you do - there's a reason they are where they are. I mean, consider Butterfly...