No I do not. The press gets things wrong even when it's not an unprecidented crisis. And they feed on each other - once an innaccuracy is out there, it travels all over the place. Real life isn’t a mystery novel where every coincidence means something important. If someone told me this was ‘proof’ that the building fell on its own rather than being pulled, I would be equally skeptical. How would it work, exactly, that this is some sort of smoking gun? Someone grabbed the reporter and said ‘We’re going to pull the building, but we’re not going to admit it. So please go on the air and say it already fell – make sure the building can be seen behind you while you say this – and it will be a nice little clue for those smart enough to follow it. I’d appreciate it if you didn’t mention this conversation to anyone, thanks.’

__________________
We are sorry, the mind you have reached is not a working mind.
Please hang up and die again.
Please hang up,
And die again.

lol, so true. this reminds me of the bits on the daily show where they show one reporter using a specific word/phrase to describe a situation, then they show about 20 other news stations/reporters doing the same thing.

edit to add: not the the descriptions are necessarily inaccurate, just that pretty much all media thinks as one.

You haven't?

Then who did it? If I'm not mistaken you've denied it was Islamic terrorists.

Oh wait, do you think Israel did it? Jewish reptilians?


You mean you want the science books changed so they will fit with your outrageous conspiracy claims?


Don't need to show you any paper trail about that. We know who built the statue, the same guy who made the Eiffel Tower and millions of people have seen it up close (including myself ) So I can tell you with 100% certainty that the Statue Of Liberty exists! You however can't prove your claims that the WTC weren't destroyed by Islamic terrorists crashing planes into them.

* sigh *

those that don't remember old threads are doomed to repeating them, eh?

Hmmm.

On the one hand we could assume google is correct. There is some vast conspiracy. I find it hard to believe such a conspiracy would risk itself being uncovered with some leak to even a portion of the media. Imagine, "hey!! we're imploding WTC in 20 minutes.. be sure and cover it". Why? To what end does pre-notifying any media fit in the greater scheme of things? As in the past, its not enough to keep throwing random, disconnected facts out. Fit them together.

Now, on the other hand, let's call the WTC on 9/11 a warzone. For practical purposes it was. Does "fog of war" explain reporting mistakes? Mostly, I'd say yes, it does.

By the way, wasnt the last supposition about some mythical pod under the wings?

No.

I have no idea who did it.




When you were a kid and you played baseball, did you run to second base before you went to first ?

Do you agree that it was a controlled demolishion ?

Focus on the event.

Doesn't it appear to be a controlled demolishion ?

Are you able to let even that amount of light into your mind ?




You see a building I see a controlled demolishion.
We both trust our eyes.
The difference is that trusting my eyes takes more integrity.

(I can't believe you just asked me to prove the negative. ... and you're the one who thinks that 'rational thought' should replace religion. I think we are safer with religion at the moment until people can process information correctly. haha Prove the negative. Although it has been proven conclusively that the WTC *was* a controlled demolishion. The math and physics bears it out. “The truth is not for all men, but only for those who seek it.”' Ayn Rand )


I wonder how brave you would be if you were in the minority ?

I think it boils down to this.

No matter how much distain you may have for my world view (stereotyped ) you shouldn't deny what you see and have the ability to understand.



peace.

Its only been proven conclusively by conspiracy theorists.

I'm already a minority. I defend evolution but most public opinions polls show most people in the US rather believe in creationism. I support Israel, and on this board that's not a popular thing to do. Your views about 9/11 are shared by many on this board. You're not alone.

My disdain for 9/11 conspiracy theories, or "9/11 Truth Movement" as its called in a recent issue of Skeptic magazine, is that it attempts to blame everyone except the people who planned, and carried out the attacks. Not even a confession by the leader of the group who planned the attacks is enough to convince conspiracy theorists that it wasn't an inside job.

That seems rather nutty to me.

I wouldn’t scoff at any theory just because it involved a conspiracy. Conspiracies do happen.

The thing about any conspiracy theory Kurt, WTC or whatever is. Are the conspirators able to carry out the conspiracy?

With Kurt, the key accused could never have done it. Is she a saint? Hardly. But just looking at her past actions makes the whole theory as explained by Tom Grant impossible.

Her thoughts are too disorganized, her drive for the spotlight too great, her tendency to just blurt things out without thinking is too great, she wasn’t that loved by the power people to cause a cover up.

With 9-11, I haven’t seen the type of evidence I need to convince me. First the unexplained happens all the time. But trying to tie the unexplained in a conspiracy theory doesn’t always get at the truth.

So you're saying that there is a paper trail and you just can't be bothered to look for one? Because there will be one for the Statue Of Liberty. You can see it from space if you squint*.


Re: the initial thread thing, I'm not watching the clip because I have a moral objection to YouTube, but can you confirm: are you saying that it was reported on before it happened, or just that one of the reports got the time wrong?

* i.e. use GoogleEarth, then squint.

Didn't look very controlled to me at the time. Looked more like everyone was terrified that it was going to be the end of the world. I guess I need my eyes adjusting, to let more light in.


I thought that at first, but she actually only ask you to prove "your theory that it wasn't" yadda yadda yadda. She didn't ask you to prove that it wasn't, just to back up your theory.

I'd start by not quoting Ayn Rand, particularly when she's talking about the same logic that proves 23 is a magic number (because it occasionally recurs within a non-preordained period of time).

...Can I see?

Sort-a Kind-a.

Yeah, this thread pops up every once in a while. I am quite sure you can find links to "white papers" that allegedly prove 'it had to be a controlled demolition'. Pay attention to the references & try to track them down. Then ask who's zoomin who with conspiracies and made up facts.

Beyond that I've said this before-- its insufficient to merely proove "it couldnt have been an airplane, it was a demolition". Demolition is a pretty exact science. Show me a paper outlining the physical weight and volume of the explosives used, along with placement. Then show me a plan for moving it in place with no one seeing explosives or the detonators. Then how explosives survive the airplane crashes and fire. Note, that in the past this is about where the mysterious pod under the wing of one of the airplanes appears..

Soooo... ask yourself, if there's "proof", is it enough? But hey, believe what you will, I just wish this'd be put to rest as well debated.

I just find the theorists lacking in credibility. The most obvious explanation, the one that screams at you from pretty much every angle, is "some Muslims were pissed off because the Western world has been fucking them over for the best part of a century". The other explanations just seem like desperate denial of that. Liberal America seems so willing to believe that their own government is all mean and evil and republicanny, to the extent that they'll believe they'd fake stuff like this, and I can't help but wonder if it's because they've spent their lives supporting all those poor defenseless minorities and undermined cultures, and they can't bear the thought that some of them might not be meek little weaklings for them to wear as political accessories. It amazes me that people are going to look for any explanation, no matter how convoluted and implausible, just so they get to go on believing. I can't think of any other explanation for all these conspiracy theories. It's just a desperate bid to carry on believing in a God substitute.

The first - they reported 7 WTC had fallen before it did.

__________________
We are sorry, the mind you have reached is not a working mind.
Please hang up and die again.
Please hang up,
And die again.

Odd.

Has anyone offered any kind of explanation as to why they'd go to such elaborate lengths to do a controlled demolition?

I really don't see what's odd about a mistake like that. It was mass chaos, the immediate area was closed off by the time of the report, and whether surrounding buildings would fall was an issue of concern immediately, so faulty information of that type making it on the air seems fairly inevitable. They even had to ad-hoc a crisis control center, since Rudy build a state-of-the-art one in, uh, the World Trade Center (over objections that the building itself was a likely target).

__________________
We are sorry, the mind you have reached is not a working mind.
Please hang up and die again.
Please hang up,
And die again.

I guess. I mean, there's that "Dewey Wins" headline as an example of erroneous pre-emptive journalism, and no-one reads too much into that.

WTF?