JamesThomas
You can call it "nice and vague", however it was in reality an honest statement of my being puzzled and not as yet listed all my concerns. Being puzzled and asking questions is not a bad thing. Why does it irritate you?
It doesn't irritate me James. Don't faltter yourself. I just think it is lame to be certain enough to doubt well-established fact, but not certain enough to defend Conspiracist theories you've presented.
Does it some how threaten the 100% rigidity of your conclusions?
As you have a 100% lack of firm evidence for your claims I'll ignore that as sour grapes... although you falsely characterise my position...
This not a black and white world Abaddon, and certainly most often the truth is somewhere in-between two seriously divided claims.
Ah, more vaugeness. Either two passenger planes hit the WTC and triggered their collapse, and one passenger plane hit the Pentagon, just like the official story says, or something else happened. This IS black and white.
The paper I originally presented has thirteen clearly stated challenges to the official report. I haven't seen any solid proof to refute them.
Well you are making the mistake AGAIN of assuming the presense of a question or challange MEANS something. For example; I assert aliens did it, as only they could have remote controlled the planes like that. Prove me wrong. This is exactly the same form of argument Conspiracists use; they planted thermite charges - prove me wrong.
Note I haven't proved aliens did it, nor have the thermite-lobby proved thermite was used, but just because they say it was you are assuming a challange is actually meaningful, despite the presense of alternative explanations that fit the official story.
But anyways, mistakes in your assesment of whether a challange means a damn or not aside, please LIST what you still believe to be unrefuted challenges made by Jones; I'll point out which ones have no proof and are merely empty claims (like my alien remote control one), and which ones the evidence refutes or provides alternate explanations for, challenge by challenge.
How so many people can label it a "Conspiracy Theory" and so then discount everything, seems frighteningly unwise.
Come off it James T, how can showing the are faults in the Conspiracists claims and alternative explanations be unwise? Believing in credulous nonsense is unwise. All I've discounted is some stupid Conspiracist claims.
So many occurrences on and around 9/11 need to be looked at and be found to be 100% clear of doubt for such complacency to be genuinely valid.
Ah, so your PRESUPPOSTION is there is a Conspiray. Nice to know you're not biased to one conclusion or the other, LOL.
How can this be? If we take just one aspect of this case, for example the higher ups in the FBI ignoring valid data that concerned the very likely culmination of these attacks; and not only ignore but to fire or put on leave people closing in on the plan.
If you'd read what I write I conceed there may be some weight in hypotheses about the build-up to the attack. But why don't we deal with the initial claims you've spread regarding the demolition of the towers?
Standing alone this one aspect is enough to warrant question and further investigation of conspiracy. There is so much more. Professor Jones presents thirteen challenges of the official report, just concerning the physics involved in the collapse of the buildings. Indeed some may be incorrect, but so far all I see is someone else's theories opposing his theories.
God you're getting confused; earlier you admitted that they were hypotheses. The offical story is a theory.
Why not read this; http://www.firehouse.com/911/magazine/towers.html. It's actually written by an expert (BYU's own Engineering department doesn't support Jone's claims, LOL) so might put some of the misconceptions unqualified whack-jobs have fostered in you. It will for example correct the ideas about WTC 7 being demolished; it was so badly damaged they detected movement in the structure 1 1/2 hours before it collapsed and cleared the area. Wow. What clever demoliton devices; to make the building move over a hour before it collapses... of course, Jones et. al ommit this data even though I can find it on my lunch break... pffff... wake up and smell the Charalatans man...
There needs to be further hands on investigation. Which is probably why the debate is growing hotter and not cooling off?
No, the JFK assasination debate continued for decades; it's no indication of the official story regarding the mechanics of the day being untrue, just an indication people are happy to believe nonsense, especially if it makes them feel clever and in possesion of special knowledge the 'sheep' don't believe.
Questions, so many questions. Like: The failure of standard operating procedures (SOP) to intercept Flight 11. The failure of SOP to intercept Flight 175. The failure of SOP to intercept Flight 77. The official story as to these failures changed a few days after 9/11. According to the second version of the official story, the order to scramble jet fighters to intercept Flights 11 and 175 went to Otis Air Force base instead of the nearer base, McGuire. According to this second version, the order to scramble jet fighters to protect Washington went to Langley Air Force base instead of the nearer base, Andrews.
Even given NORAD’S time-line and the greater distances the pilots had to cover from Otis and Langley, their fighter jets, flying at full speed, should have reached New York and Washington in time to prevent the attacks on the South Tower and the Pentagon. According to this second version, the fighter jets that were too late to intercept Flights 11 and 175 were not ordered to continue on to Washington, even though it was then known that Flight 77 had been hijacked and, according to the official story, was headed back toward Washington.
Consider the FACT the planes scrambled were from Otis; wow, the USAF is clever, orders given to one airbase are carried out in another - or is this another case of you being wrong?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11,_2001_attacks_timeline_for_the_day_of_the_attacks
Add to this timeline simple pieces of knowledge; like a plane without its transponder on rather hard to track in high-traffic environments - and most claims I've seen melt away into wild speculation or gross error...
Secretary of Transportation Mineta’s report of a conversation that may -- and I repeat may, but it does put things into question -- have reflected a stand-down order by Vice President Cheney.
'May' is not proof.
The quick removal of the steel from all three buildings-especially Building 7, where there would have been no victims-before it could be examined.
This is a pure and simple falsehood; check your facts, I know you're not intentionally repeating lies, but you haven't done enough research to even know how long clearing the site took; you just repeat false Conspiracist claims. It took 8 1/2 months to clear the site.
The extreme unlikelihood that a hijacked 757 could have flown undetected through American airspace, especially toward the Pentagon, for some 40 minutes and that this non-military plane, not having a transponder sending out a”friendly” signal, was not automatically shot down by the Pentagon’s battery of missiles.
And now we see how many falsehoods you have swallowed because you WANT to believe the conspiracy theories; you could have found the evidence showing these things to be false vert easily but simply didn't bother;
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/09/16/wcia16.xml
If the airliner had approached much nearer to the White House it might have been shot down by the Secret Service, who are believed to have a battery of ground-to-air Stinger missiles ready to defend the president's home.
The Pentagon is not similarly defended. "We are an open society," said a military official. "We don't have soldiers positioned on the White House lawn and we don't have the Pentagon ringed with bunkers and tanks."
This shows you believe in an imaginary Pentagon missile battery. Nice to know you check your facts before repeating wild claims... Meyssan is such a whack job even other Conspiraacists disassociate themselves from him; indeed the 9/11 Truth Movement and Jim Hoffman believe his theories are a distraction functioning to discredit other 9/11 conspiracy theories. LOL. Conspiracy Theorists accusing Conspiracy Theorists of Conspiracy - does it get any better?
President Bush gave the impression upon his arrival at the Sarasota school, even after a telephone conversation with Condoleezza Rice, that he was unaware that two more airliners, beyond the one that had crashed into the North Tower of the WTC, had been hijacked;
Ah, so he should of just briefed the press on a rapidly unfloding situation there and then before he's even fully briefed himself. Yeah, of course he would...
and after being told about the attack on the South Tower, did not act like a commander in chief who was surprised to learn that the United States was suffering the greatest terrorist attack in its history.
See above comment about him being a gibbon. Your observation proves NOTHING. But this is dull; your claims are full of obvious and easily detected errors as you've simply not researched the 'official story' with the vigour you've browsed Conspiracist websites, and thus are making mistakes.
Abaddon, I am not like you, who knows all there is to know about 9/11, and I seriously doubt that regards this complex and complicated issue I ever will know all the facts.
Please don't make false allegations about me; I've never said or implied I "knows all there is to know about 9/11". You have one hell of a chip on your shoulder when someone disagrees with you... I'm just asking you for ONE fact which proves the official version of the mechanics of the day is untrue and I have to wade through false information and someone who thinks a claim actually means something when it has no firm evidence.
This isn't about what I know, it's about you repeating unprovable or false claims that form part of 9/11 Conspiracy claim. This is about YOUR level of knowledge and credulity.
LittleToe
Just as people make money of Nessie, many Conspiracist Theorists have their own money making schemes associated with their 9/11 Revisonism....
