Yes it was a 757. (41.49%)
No it was something else like a rocket. (58.51%)
Also before you decide it was thermite would you care to reconsider? Thermite isn't an explosive technically. It burns through metal at a moderately slow speed. it requires a fuse of magnesium, which cannot be trigger by a standard charge used by demolition experts (electirical charge into something like C4 or dynamite) it needs a controlled heat source that (back to junior cert science) runs at 2500 kelvin. Oh and
So the standard ignition tool is only used by amatuers. And is unrelibly. Not really what you want when you're about to commit the greatest conspiracy on the history of the planet now is it?
Little better isn't it? Of course considering the incredible exact timing the "bombers" needed means that they were taking an awful gamble with termite weren't they?
Oh and theres more.
I hate to be pedantic but theres no mention of the word "demolition" in there. Never mind "demoliton grade"
As someone who aged 15 had access to the Anarchist cookbook and a docile chemistry teacher who gave me a set of keys to the lab one afternoon, I stole the ingredients to make thermite (and some kick ass smoke bombs). It isn't an explosive its a aluminothermic reaction, for a start. And a moderately slow moving one at that. To use that to make the quick "pancake fall" of the twin towers?. To quote Ricky Gervais, "you're having a laugh"
So does this mean you're retracting your earlier claim that there are other witnesses etc.
Or are you fallnig back on the "I know they exist and have seen their testimonies, but I've misplaced them and can't show them to you" line of reasoning?
Or...hey...I know...you could blame The Man for removing them
No, just Google.
So you think there are cooberating witnesses but Google is blocking the sites that prove this?
Hang on why stop there, why don't they just remove any mention of Scott Forbes? Or any 911 conspiracy? Why not silence the lot? Unless... Wait a minute... maybe there are a load of witness' to Scott Forbe's claim, but google, working for teh gubiment conspiracy, removed the witness's statements but not Scott Forbes to discredit Forbes. If it looks like Forbes is the only witness he comes off a delusional nut and we can disregard the whole claim. Damn you Larry Page and Sergey Brin!!! Damn you and your repitilian overlords straight to hell!!!
Oh and So Glad if you're going to claim Google is in on hiding the conspiracy, don't point us to a conspiracy video hosted on google video like you did a few days ago. It's confusing. And a bit silly.
Well there you go. Mystery solved.
Google blew up the WTC.
Conclusive proven by the lack of proof.
Phew. I'm glad we got to the bottom of that one.
For my next trick, I shall show that the Tellietubbies are, in fact, the secret power behing the throne of Kim Jong Il. Again, the lack of evidence shall be the decisive evidence in this case.
What are you talking about, you crazy skeptic you?
There's no evidence of alie.....
Ah!!!!! No evidence.....I see!!!!!
Those lizard overlords were too sneaky for me, but they didn't pull any wool over your eyes.
Its all clear now. Thank you for enlightening me.
Is my mind open enough yet?
I Just Said Google Turn Up Too Much Results, Not That They Were In A Conspiracy!
Couldn't be more open if you used a rusty tin opener on your cranium.
I honestly believe this is why when you go further up the conspiracy hierarchy, you meet people like Shayler the "no planers" types. Because after they've decided it's a conspiracy they realise that theres no way it could be demolition, and they start spouting guff about "holographic planes" and "hidden missiles" Because once you make your conspiracy theory so outlandish it's impossible dismiss it using rational arguments.
And again for the hard of thinking. There are loads of results for his story because it is his story and his alone. If there were cooberating witness it would cease to be his story, and it would be their story.
The fact that you cannot find anyone cooberating Scott Forbes doesn't mean what Scott Forbes claims what happened didn't happen, it just isn't likely.
The fact that you keep finding links to Scott Forbes and Scott Forbes alone making these claims, makes your claim that there are witnesses you just cannot find them, look unlikely.
And the fact that you're still scratching around trying to find these witnesses, makes you look like you're clutching at straws. And finally this all makes that claim of yours;
Look like hubris on your part.
No...sorry...thats not what you said. You responded to a comment suggesting that you blame the man, and you said no...just google. You blamed google.
Now, this may not be what you meant. Its almost certainly not what you intended to suggest. But it is the correct and logical interpretation of what you said based on what you were responding to.
If nothing else, this should serve as a perfect illustration as to how easy it is to take someone's quotes out of context, or to read too much into them...wouldn't you agree?
I could carry this a bit further, and start pointing out that where you clearly blamed google in the first comment, you've now backed away from that. In true CT fashion, I should be suspicious that you've been gotten to by Larry & Sergey's seekr1t flying monkey terror squad, and that your change in story only supports the theory of myself and Diogenes that google is behind it all. The more you protest, the more you'll prove our point.
Can you imagine? Now....imagine that we established this as a pattern. We got hundreds of people to never cease hounding you. No matter what you said, unless it was agreeing with our google conspiracy, we'd just insist that the seekr1t flying monkey terror squad had cowed you into changing your story, so that your disagreement was really proving our point as much as your agreement would
Tell me....in the face of such unrelenting attention, would you keep trying to correct your story, or would you walk away and refuse to return to banging your head off that particular wall?
If nothing else, it should show the folly of resorting to any argument where the lack of proof becomes proof, once you can add the tiniest bit of a connection to what happened (your original comment in this case).
>>Windows has stopped the use of this thread.
>>Windows will now remind you every 2 hours not to frequent this thread.
Looks like the seekr1t flying-monkey terror-squad got to him.
Hide Diogenes. The voices tell me Larry has it in for you next!
Not good enough. If you are going to pose an arguement, then you'd better back it up yourself. Telling people to Google it themselves is unacceptable.
Oh Hamburgers, I wanted to see Larry & Sergey's leet seekr1t flying monkey terror squad
Seeing as this is the 2nd time in as many pages that So Glad has threatened to quit this thread we'll never know what So Glad's reasoning was for running away.
Was he persuaded by the holes and inaccuracies in his argument and acknowledged the implausibilities in his position? We may never know. Perhaps he went off to lick his wounds and wander over to youtube or 911truth.org, and sympathise with those who gullibly swallow every shoddy conspiracy theory. Perhaps. But I think we know the truth. He's locked in a cage somewhere in a silicon valley as Larry and Sergey search out for other conspiracy theorists, and cry to their army of leet seekr1t flying monkey terror squads';
"FLY OUR PRETTIES! FLY! FLY! FLY!"
Does anyone (sane) seriously believe that anything other than a plane hit the Pentagon?
I'm presuming that people accept the video evidence from New York that planes hit the WTC, so airliners were crashing into buildings on that day.
So you're saying the neo-cons launch a cruise missile (from where?) in broad daylight against the Pentagon just hoping (and getting lucky) that no citizen or news crew had a video camera handy. I mean seriously that's a huge risk to take and for what?
George Bush didn't think that the WTC was enough in itself? Well Donald dropping two major buildings in NY (and killing thousands) is good, but I think that if we also attacked the Pentagon with a rocket only then would we have justification to invade Iraq!
Yes. I genuinely believe they do.
I do not believe that a single one of these people actually formulated the theory however. I believe that was done by people seeknig to cynically exploit the events of the day to their own benefit (fame...fortune...whatever).
There's been a couple of people who have argued otherwise, but yeah, I think that once you start postulating that the planes were either missiles with holographic cloaking technology, or that they never existed and were added by CNN and that every eyewitness account is a fake....once you get to that state I think its fair to question sanity.
Not to mention that the hundreds of eyewitnesses were all fooled, bought off, or, well, something.
Someone linked to a great cartoon once. Seekrit Service discussing the Kennedy Assasination. Went something like this:
MIB 1 : So, we want to make this look like he was shot once, from behind.
MIB 2 : Simple. We'll shoot him in the face.
MIB 1 : Twice.
Ultimately, all of these "wild" scenarios need similar logic. Whatever the reason for the government-did-it conspiracy, the reality is that the postulated events are an unbelievably complex and error-prone way of doing a set-up.
MIB 1 : Lets make it look like an aircrft smacked into the Pentagon.
MIB 2 : OK. Lets not use the aircraft we comandeer though. Lets use a cruise, buy off a few hundred people, corrupt the investigation. Oh, and make sure Rummy is in on it and does one of his Freudian Slip moments. That will really fool them.
MIB 1 : Sorted. What about the passengers of the aircraft we comandeer?
MIB 2 : Fancy a pint?
MIB 1 : We want to destroy secret evidence on computers in WTC 7 that no-one knows about.
MIB 2 : No worries. We'll blow up WTC 1 and 2, crashing planes into them first to make it seem like a terrorist attack. Then in the confusion, we'll set fires in WTC 7 to make it look like it was damaged, then we'll blow it up too.
MIB 1 : Why not just remove the disks as part of an upgrade and smelt them down in a furnace?
MIB 2 : Take off the suit. You're obviously not one of us.
Revisiting an old topic somewhat, see if you can tell me what the following quotes refer to.
I'm not going to ask that people don't use google or other search-engines, because I know some will do so anyway.
- "Explosions could be heard within the building"
- ... an explosion ... and that was the last thing that crossed my mind," a witness said
- "I heard a huge explosion"
In all these cases, I would like people to tell me if this is or is not evidence of foul play.
The first one, incidentally, is the most interesting. Its an entire conspiracy just waiting to be created. Bonus points for anyone who can tell me how.