---

Originally posted by AlexAmore

---

If you think there is no empirical in those documentaries then there is certainly no evidence Osama Bin Laden was the head honcho of the operations either if at all involved.

---

I didn't watch the video again but I saw it some weeks ago. Doesn't he make some weak argument about how the terrorists couldn't fly the plane? It was already in flight, they would only have to steer with the stick and maybe slow down. They didn't have to deal with any of the other controls. I think all of us could have steered the plane once it was in flight.

You can make just as strong counter points to all his. He just selects the quotes and "facts" that work best for the conspiracy. You could easily find ones that show it was a terrorist plot. Hating the government is like hating Microsoft, it's just the cool thing to do even though they aren't THAT bad.

---

Originally posted by AlexAmore

---

Originally posted by daeandor

Since I have discussed some of my reasoning before about why I think there is a 3rd explaination for 9/11, and don't feel like arguing again, I am going to pose a few tidbits:

• Did the flight recorders actually disappear? (Flt 93's voice recorder exists, the others really destroyed, unrecoverable, or missing?)
• Are other terrorist cells capable of planting evidence at the scene of the crimes?
• Are the terrorists capable of using remotely piloted vehicles (planes)?
• Do terrorist cells have the capability to wage an information war against American citizens in order to turn them against their government?
• If there were explosives in the 3 buildings at WTC, did the government have to plant them?  If not, did the terrorists have the capability?
• Could the owner of WTC been warned by the terrorists and not the government?
• Do terrorists have the capability to pose as, or have they infiltrated as, government officials?
• Are the true architects of 9/11 foriegn born or are they home grown using foreign terrorists as their "active" arm?

Now that sounds like you're looking at things in a different light set apart from both the mass media and the anti-bush. This quote is a prime example of how there are other possibilities available and given the right facts- each one of them could make a lot of sense. But that is true for every story. Which possibility makes the most sense when you look at all of the facts, including both those that are in favor and against it?
Personally I'm sticking with the "anti-bush" possibility, but my perspective isn't written in stone. Nice questions you have there Deandor, they do offer a different way of looking at things.

---

Even if the terrorists did carry out the bombings, it would only mean the government were extremely incompetent if not criminally negligent. As far as I know, nobody has been fired.

That's a very good point AlexAmore, if you were to take a look at it from the standpoint that it was masterminded by Terrorists, you'd need to take this point into consideration. Just how far would they have climbed the gov't ladder in order to execute this operation? Are they still seeded there? These are questions for those that may believe that terrorists were responsible for the attacks.

---

The Judicial Branch does not like to be left out of the loop in law, and in due time they will bring the act into line.

---

---

Originally posted by ViolentY

He actually backed up some things I thought were ridiculous from his first video... an example being, he kept throwing out the whole "fires don't melt steel, therefore don't make buildings fall, therefore this was a demolition" theory. However, he never incorporates the speed and force with which the planes hit the building. In fact, he also tried to prove that not only were the buildings hit by airplanes, but also hit with missles on the planes. Sort of contradictory... his one bogus theory explains the other. This isn't the only "mistake" he made. Keep your eyes (and your minds) open.The biggest thing I really have against this video, though, is that he relies SO heavily on eye-witness reports. If you've taken ANY basic criminal justice classes, you'd know how unreliable and utterly useless eye-witness accounts are.

---

Nova actually directly disputes his entire claim in that area with physics. Unless the laws of physics changed for just the crash fire did melt steel. What he didn't consider is not only do different fires fueled from different sources burn at different temperatures, but also the materials of the building directly on the steel to have continous heat on the steel.

I just watched it again with a roommate of mine, and he summed the movie up pretty well. "In layman's terms his theories make sense, but anyone with any higher education in field that the theories are actually in notice the holes immediately." he is a metalurgist, so I believe him.

BTW the technology to use mobile phones on airplanes has existed on the consumer market since ~1998, but not cellular phones. THank goodness we don't use cellular anymopre since it doesn't have the battery life nor sound quality of modern mobile phone technologies. So while we didn't have the technology to use cellualr on a plane, there were infact mobile phones that functioned at that time. FUnny, using specific words to misslead like alot of poloticians...

---

Originally posted by Boozbaz

---

The Judicial Branch does not like to be left out of the loop in law, and in due time they will bring the act into line.

---

That last sentence I'm not so sure of, because we can't assume that "they" are not not already in the Judicial Branch.

---

Well, the one thing about the Judicial Branch is that it has a higher standard of "admittance" than the other branches of government.  When I am referring to the Judicial, I am primarily looking at the higher federal courts which carry a fairly heavy burden on their judges.  Although I would not put it past Islamic extremists to attempt infiltrating any area of our government, there are a ton of other less rigorous positions available to someone inclined to influence American policy and / or opinion negatively.

Secondly, thank you for grasping my points.  They were designed merely to provoke thought in directions that the "two sides" of the debate are not looking.  My personal opinion is that even after 9/11, we as a nation have severely misjudged the capabilites and intent of the extreme Muhammaden. 

The fact that 19 men did the same kind of damage to our nation that had not been seen since an entire Japanese fleet with 6 aircraft carriers and over 420 planes attacked Pearl Harbor leads many to believe that our own government had to be co-conspirators.  However, my purpose is merely to point out that even this view can be seen as shortsighted, as much so, or even more than the "official" reports.  In our own failure to recognize the deep-seeded hatred of the extreme factions within Islam toward Christains and Jews, and America's symbolic representation of the purest evil, we don't even give them the credit of having the capability to be solely responsible for this act [9/11].  In all reality, both sides of the argument fall within the arrogance that the extremists so emphatically hate.  The Federal "official" response is:  You barbaric evil doers, you killed our citizens, so now we will kill you and all yours.  The conspiracy theory is:  The barbaric evil doers are too bass ackwards to have done this themselves, so our own government must have done it.

In the end, I don't think either side adds up, so I am searching for the answers that do.  The questions I posted before are merely a reflection of that thought process.  And for the record AlexAmore, if you recall, I do believe that the Federal Government was incompetent on that day.  So much so, that I feel it provides (very) minor support toward the theory that the Feds were incapable of carrying out such a devious plan.

---

Originally posted by weeblewo
All men are mortal
Socrates is a man
Therefore Socrates is mortal

Johnny like apples
Johnny is Human
Therefore all humans like apples

---

Affirming the consequent.  A classic fallacy.

---

Originally posted by ViolentY
He actually backed up some things I thought were ridiculous from his first video... an example being, he kept throwing out the whole "fires don't melt steel, therefore don't make buildings fall, therefore this was a demolition" theory. However, he never incorporates the speed and force with which the planes hit the building. In fact, he also tried to prove that not only were the buildings hit by airplanes, but also hit with missles on the planes. Sort of contradictory... his one bogus theory explains the other. This isn't the only "mistake" he made. Keep your eyes (and your minds) open.

The biggest thing I really have against this video, though, is that he relies SO heavily on eye-witness reports. If you've taken ANY basic criminal justice classes, you'd know how unreliable and utterly useless eye-witness accounts are.

---

the twin towers were built to withstand planes hitting them, they're so tall they simply had to. as stated in the documentary, the towers only burned for like 10 minutes before collapsing, whereas other buildings have burnt continuously for over 48 hours and not even come close to collapse (and i'd like to bet these buildings were a hell of alot less stable and well built than the trade centers).

it's funny, what you have against the documentary is exactly what i think is so great about it. sure, if one eye witness were to say "i heard multiple explosions" you could quite happily write it off as his or her imagination. however when you are shown video evidence of a huge number of eye witness accounts ALL saying the exact same things, SOME of these eye witnesses being people specially trained to deal with such eventualities (fire fighters, policemen etc), i think it starts to become slightly more likely that they were'nt all experiencing mass group hysteria :P.

i think some people just want to disagree as much as they can with this documentary in an attempt to look more intelligent and less gullable than the people that do (however they fail miserably). i cant see how people can completely write off some of the facts in this documentary...... tell me how you could explain the following for example.

why did the owner of the towers sign a multi billion dollar insurance policy covering acts of terrorism 2 weeks before 9/11?

why were bomb sniffing dogs removed from the buildings a couple of weeks before?

why did osama bin laden claim immediately after the attacks that al-qauida had nothing to do with them?

why were firefighters, that were at the pentagon durin the aftermath of the attacks, disqualified from their positions and not allowed to talk publically about what they saw?

where did the plane that hit the pentagon/crashed into the ground near pensillvania go?

heres one of my favourites..........

the pentagon is one of the most secure buildings on the planet, with advanced CCTV systems surrounding the entire building. why then, will the US government not release footage of the 757 hitting the pentagon? and instead release 5 frames from a nearby CCTV camera that shows no plane atall? the government could quite easily write off this entire theory by simply releasing the CCTV footage.

on the same subject, why did federal agents confescate all video footage of the pentagon attacks from a nearby hotel just hours after it took place?

how could several eye witnesses at the pentagon mistake an enourmous 757 jumbo jet for a small, unmarked commercial aircraft with no windows?

the list goes on and on. if you can answer these questions beyond shadow of a doubt, then you are entitled to your opinion that the documentary is a bunch of bollocks. but until then, you cannot write it off as nonsense:P

---

Originally posted by weeblewo

Johnny like apples
Johnny is Human
Therefore all humans like apples

---

Not all Johnnys like apples
Not all Johnnys are human
Not all humans like apples

In the words of Sherlock Holmes/Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, or close at least.

"When we have eliminated everything that is impossible, whatever remains, regardless of how improbable, must be the truth"

It is impossible for two jet planes, regardless of size, to take down thoose two buildings within an hours time.

All other things aside, the planes crashing in to them was not the sole reason they collapsed.

Listen to this story, it is fictional, but it is a very solid example of some of the people in this world, and in this forum too.

I was walking oneday near a train station, I was walking next to the raid road, where i enjoyed the views of the nature, and the birds and animals singing and running here and there.

suddenly i see a guy setting up a tent on top of the rail road, i observed as the guy was realy serious about living on top of the raid road, now i went to him, asked him nicely, Sir are you from around here? i asked, he replied, no i'm totally new to this place, i said, sir, you're sitting on a rail track, he said, rail what?, i replied, a Rail Track, Rail road, you know where trains move on?

he said, what's a train? i told him all about the train, how it makes the sounds, and shakes the ground when it gets close, and how big and strong it is, but he totally refused to believe the idea of that this is a rail road, and said, listen, you can't get me off this lovely place ok ? this place is helping me alot, just look at these 2 pieces of iron here? i can put my stuff on it, and this wood here, i can place my bed on it, now go off and find another place, this place is very long, you can set your tent anywhere you like, buzz off.

it didn't amaze me, since the man surely never saw or heared of any advanced life? well it didn't matter if he did or not, i have to explain to this man that it is way too dangerous if he stayed there, he might even die.

i told him, listen, if i showed you the signs of a train, would you believe and get off the rail road? he said yeah well maybe.

then a minute later i heared the sound of the train, tooooooot toooooooooooooot, i told him, SIR LISTEN, a train is coming, we gotta move NOW, he said, oh you mean that sound? bah i think it's the blow of the wind, nothing to worry about.

then the ground started to shake, as the train gets closer, and the rail road was also shaking alot, then i told him, sir please, look, the ground is shaking, the train is very close, he replied, oh it's an earthquake happening somewhere, nothing to worry about, i get alot of them where i used to live.

well, this guy seemed to be hopeless, whatever the signs i show him, he still disbelief, i had to move away from his tent, since the train was very close, but before i left, i pulled him out and showed him the big train that's coming towards his little tent, but it was too late, the train was only meters away, as i ran away, the man train to pack his tent as quickly as possible, but WHOOPS, the train destroyed his tent, and killed the man.

Moral of the story: you cannot change someone's mind unless they want to take the truth. the ignorant and disbelievers will only realize their mistakes when it's way too late, when there's no going back.

basically, if somebody insists on not knowing the truth, not caring to know, then he or she is hopeless, whatever signs you show to them, it will still not change their views, because they have an ego problem, they think that they're the right ones, ignoring every solid evidence shown to them.

---

Originally posted by Umbrood

In the words of Sherlock Holmes/Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, or close at least.

"When we have eliminated everything that is impossible, whatever remains, regardless of how improbable, must be the truth"

It is impossible for two jet planes, regardless of size, to take down thoose two buildings within an hours time.

All other things aside, the planes crashing in to them was not the sole reason they collapsed.

---

Although the statement above is logically correct, it is based on supposition.  There is no grounds to base the first statement, "it is impossible for 2 jet planes... to take down those 2 buildings.."  Impossible is too strong, you should have used unlikely.  Impossible implies that under no set of circumstances could a plane destroy the WTC buildings.  I suggest you look toward circumstances where a plane could take down a building to balance your argument.

And by the way, the Sherlock Holmes quotes similar to yours are:

• Eliminate all other factors, and the one which remains must be the truth.
• How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?
• It is an old maxim of mine that when you have excluded the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.
• When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.
• We must fall back upon the old axiom that when all other contingencies fail, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.
• Improbable as it is, all other explanations are more improbable still.

And since you are in the Holmes quoting mood, I'll add:

• It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.
• It is a capital mistake to theorize in advance of the facts.
• It is a capital mistake to theorize before you have all the evidence. It biases the judgment.
• One should always look for a possible alternative and provide against it. It is the first rule of criminal investigation.
• Circumstantial evidence is occassionally very convincing, as when you find a trout in the milk, to quote Thoreau's example.
• When a fact appears to be opposed to a long train of deductions, it invariably proves to be capable of bearing some other interpretation.
• There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact.

And for the storyteller previously:  One the contrary, Watson, you can see everything. You fail, however, to reason from what you see. You are too timid in drawing your inferences.

---

Originally posted by Dekron

---

Originally posted by weeblewo

Johnny like apples
Johnny is Human
Therefore all humans like apples

---

Not all Johnnys like apples
Not all Johnnys are human
Not all humans like apples

---

---

Originally posted by weeblewo
All men are mortal
Socrates is a man
Therefore Socrates is mortal

More appropriately written:
If all men are mortal, and Socrates is a man, then Socrates is mortal.

Let;   A=Man
          B=Mortal
          C=Socrates

A=>B
C=>A
Therefore C=>B

Johnny like apples
Johnny is Human
Therefore all humans like apples

More appropriately written:
If Johnny likes apples, and Johnny is a human, then humans like apples.

Let;   A=Johnny
          B=A love for apples
          C=Human

A=>B
A=>C
Therefore C=>B

---