You Know You Are A Conspiracy Theorist If...

[Brian GC]

Then, you question a search for debris while at the same time saying that you don't think thermite is important. Well then, if you aren't searching for molten metal or thermite residue, what among the debris adds to your case and in what manner? Besides, as already discussed, the debris was compromised by rescue workers from the word go, so a review of the debris would have been pointless.

As for the rest of your claims, you need to post evidence. You know, like the link about Israelis I asked for last week but still have not seen?

The presence of thermite or any explosive found in the debris is important, but it is too late for that recovery effort. As you know we determine the type and origin of explosives used by carefully examining the remains of a bomb blast. That type of analysis is too late. So when you and Liberty dwell on whether thermite explodes or burns like a torch it is unimportant in my opinion. To say the explosions in building 7 must have been from thermite is s stretch. Why couldn’t it have been from typical explosives?

Very high temps were reached and continued to burn in the debris field for days or weeks. Yet most experts say the bulk of the jet fuel was burnt upon the initial explosion. Was there really enough left to bring down a building that size in less than an hour? If so, it should be repeatable or predictable through testing. To date I have not seen that done.

As for the label “Truthers” you keep using shows you follow a group-think mindset. Anyone who uses a label like that does so to put all opposing views in one convenient box. But I would suggest that if you label people like that you should do your homework first. Never hearing about the “dancing Israelis” that were seen celebrating during the first attack shows deplorable interest in the topic. Not knowing pieces of the Pennsylvania flight were found miles away from the crash site is inexcusable. I suggest you know far less about what the “Truthers” are proposing than you let on. You have a few other guys on this site that support your ridiculing but seem to be just as ignorant about the “Truthers” position. You all come from a position that a conspiracy is so improbable that it shouldn’t even be looked into.

I could supply links but you would undoubtedly criticize those sources, so research it for yourself. Or you could just keep sweeping with your broad brush.

Btw – another curious event – the NTSB’s account of the flight path of Flight 77 that hit the Pentagon was a lie. It did not come from the angle they claim as witnessed by at least ten people on the ground that were directly flown over by that plane. Why the lie? Why the confiscation of video outside the pentagon?

Why is it that to some it stinks, and to others it smells like roses?

[scrogdog]

The presence of thermite or any explosive found in the debris is important, but it is too late for that recovery effort. As you know we determine the type and origin of explosives used by carefully examining the remains of a bomb blast. That type of analysis is too late. So when you and Liberty dwell on whether thermite explodes or burns like a torch it is unimportant in my opinion. To say the explosions in building 7 must have been from thermite is s stretch. Why couldn’t it have been from typical explosives?

Very high temps were reached and continued to burn in the debris field for days or weeks. Yet most experts say the bulk of the jet fuel was burnt upon the initial explosion. Was there really enough left to bring down a building that size in less than an hour? If so, it should be repeatable or predictable through testing. To date I have not seen that done.

As for the label “Truthers” you keep using shows you follow a group-think mindset. Anyone who uses a label like that does so to put all opposing views in one convenient box. But I would suggest that if you label people like that you should do your homework first. Never hearing about the “dancing Israelis” that were seen celebrating during the first attack shows deplorable interest in the topic. Not knowing pieces of the Pennsylvania flight were found miles away from the crash site is inexcusable. I suggest you know far less about what the “Truthers” are proposing than you let on. You have a few other guys on this site that support your ridiculing but seem to be just as ignorant about the “Truthers” position. You all come from a position that a conspiracy is so improbable that it shouldn’t even be looked into.

I could supply links but you would undoubtedly criticize those sources, so research it for yourself. Or you could just keep sweeping with your broad brush.

Btw – another curious event – the NTSB’s account of the flight path of Flight 77 that hit the Pentagon was a lie. It did not come from the angle they claim as witnessed by at least ten people on the ground that were directly flown over by that plane. Why the lie? Why the confiscation of video outside the pentagon?

Why is it that to some it stinks, and to others it smells like roses?

So, you don't provide links when asked, nor do you read links when provided.

There are your open minded invesigators in action folks.

[Brian GC]

So, you don't provide links when asked, nor do you read links when provided.

There are your open minded invesigators in action folks.

Google "Dancing Israelis". There is testimony from the lady who witnessed them dancing and high-fiving each other, testimony from the cop that arrested them and video of them on Israeli TV admitting they were “documenting the attack”.

The NTSB lie is uncovered here: http://www.youtube.com/results?searc....1.YCKmbzvuIks

[scrogdog]

I can't stream youtube at work, I'll have a look when I get home.

Just curious, Brian, do you plan on homeschooling your kids with youtube? Seems to be your sole source of just about everything.

[Gib's Son]

Truther response to such an endeavor can be accurately predicted, in my opinion.

They get a result they like? "See that all you kool aid drinkers? Told ya!"

They get an answer they don't like? "Mythbusters is unreliable as they are in the pockets of the US government. Plus they failed to describe the flying weight of an African Swallow."

I've taken no position on the matter. Too much so called "fact and science" being thrown about to which I do not understand enough about, and do not care to investigate and learn enough about become an expert on. To me, which ever side is right, two planes crashed into some buildings and they fell down and that travesty cannot be reversed.

Bye the way, my Mythbusters comment was tongue and cheek because everyone knows it would never happen and there would always be those that would find fault with their methodologies so the argument from both sides would continue.

[chaard]

Btw – another curious event – the NTSB’s account of the flight path of Flight 77 that hit the Pentagon was a lie. It did not come from the angle they claim as witnessed by at least ten people on the ground that were directly flown over by that plane. Why the lie? Why the confiscation of video outside the pentagon?

I looked into the Pentagon conspiracy you mention. I have never entertained the idea that a plane did not fly into the Pentagon. But your statement made me curious.

So I watched several videos on the matter.

Most of the videos I watched were copies of other videos. A lot of redundancy. Same eyewitness'. same disagreement over flight path. Same conclusion over debris.
The reason I say same, is that none of the videos i watched gave any other evidence of how the explosion at the Pentagon happened.

1.Most of the videos titled were "Plane did not hit Pentagon"
Yet they interview multiple eyewitness' that clearly see a plane low, heading and striking the Pentagon.

2. None of the eyewitness' discount the fact that it was a commercial airliner that they saw fly over.

3. Officer Lagasse clearly points out there was not a second plane. Second to that it was not a C130 that flew over. Officer Lagasse said it was an American Airlines plane.

4. The other officer, Brooks said he saw both engines and it was a large commercial passenger plane. He said he also saw the plane hit the building.

5. Neither officer said they saw a plane fly over the Pentagon. Nor did they say it was flying high enough to fly over the building. Neither officer saw an air to ground missile.

6. both officers said they saw the plane hit the building.

7. There are no eyewitness accounts to the east side of the Pentagon that say they saw a plane fly over the pentagon immediately after the explosion. You have numerous eyewitness' on the west side that saw the plane.

8. Plane fragments were found inside the Pentagon. If no plane hit the building, then how did fragments, pieces of the body and engine, end up in the building?

It all boils down to this. There were no eyewitness' to corroborate the Truthers claim. Period.

[corny]

"They".... must have gotten to those officers...".....lol

"They".... the top secret bilderburg illuminatti boule hidden in the popes basement group of superhumans who are really in control.
Bigfoot and the lochmess... monster are their mascots.

[corny]

the lochmess monster.... I found that typo funny so I left it.

[corny]

emerills cousin....

[glennac]

Glad to see your on the side of sanity here corny with some humor to boot. Good man. Thank you very much

[Brian GC]

I looked into the Pentagon conspiracy you mention. I have never entertained the idea that a plane did not fly into the Pentagon. But your statement made me curious.

So I watched several videos on the matter.

Most of the videos I watched were copies of other videos. A lot of redundancy. Same eyewitness'. same disagreement over flight path. Same conclusion over debris.
The reason I say same, is that none of the videos i watched gave any other evidence of how the explosion at the Pentagon happened.

1.Most of the videos titled were "Plane did not hit Pentagon"
Yet they interview multiple eyewitness' that clearly see a plane low, heading and striking the Pentagon.

2. None of the eyewitness' discount the fact that it was a commercial airliner that they saw fly over.

3. Officer Lagasse clearly points out there was not a second plane. Second to that it was not a C130 that flew over. Officer Lagasse said it was an American Airlines plane.

4. The other officer, Brooks said he saw both engines and it was a large commercial passenger plane. He said he also saw the plane hit the building.

5. Neither officer said they saw a plane fly over the Pentagon. Nor did they say it was flying high enough to fly over the building. Neither officer saw an air to ground missile.

6. both officers said they saw the plane hit the building.

7. There are no eyewitness accounts to the east side of the Pentagon that say they saw a plane fly over the pentagon immediately after the explosion. You have numerous eyewitness' on the west side that saw the plane.

8. Plane fragments were found inside the Pentagon. If no plane hit the building, then how did fragments, pieces of the body and engine, end up in the building?

It all boils down to this. There were no eyewitness' to corroborate the Truthers claim. Period.

You bring up very good points.

I have since read many accounts from other witnesses who say they witnessed the commercial airliner approach the Pentagon very low and fast. Many even said it throttled up just before hitting. In other words their description of the approach was also very detailed.

What is interesting with the report I linked is the many professional witnesses that were outside their cars and clearly saw the plane fly on a different path than the NTSB said it did. How can those cops and workers be so wrong? How do we determine who is telling the truth about its path. We cannot use their level of intellect, their proximity to the plane or their professional witness experience as cops. Do we just count the number of people who saw it take one path and compare it the number of people that saw it take the other path and determine the truth lies with the higher number of witnesses? We can’t use downed street poles because those could be staged. And we can’t demand to see the existing video of the flight or even ask as why it is not being released.

I think this is a lesson in not believing anybody, regardless of their professional status. Regardless of how close they claim they were or how sure they are of what they saw.

What the link proposed is that flight 77 synchronized its passing over the Pentagon with a cruise missile hitting at the instant the flight reached the Pentagon. And, it also claims Flight 77 flew away from the Pentagon using one hazy witness to validate that. Both being very improbable scenarios.

Many factors draw question to the plane hitting the Pentagon: skill level of the pilot, aerodynamic turbulent when flying so close to the ground, no scrape marks of the engines, the minimal damage to the building, the questionable debris found outside the Pentagon, the absence of plane and body remains, the confiscation of video and the questionable flight path.

One thing is for certain, something hit that building. Why, with all the video that exists, are we not allowed to see what it was? When our govt. says “trust me, it was a Flight 77” but we won’t release the video of it, red flags go up. But I contend there is a reason why they won’t release the videos.

One thing to keep in the back of our minds: The type of people that killed JFK got away with it and they are still out there. But now they are smarter, better funded and have better ties. That is a fact we should never forget.

[wherzamizat]

So, you don't provide links when asked, nor do you read links when provided.

There are your open minded invesigators in action folks.

kettle/black/invesigator

[Brian GC]

Back in the days of the JFK assignation the bad guys were not nearly a sophisticated as they are now. If anyone here thinks they can root out the capabilities of guys like that if they were involved in 911 are kidding themselves. You think you can make assessments of what is possible and what is impossible, but IMO you do not have a clue.