ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 14th January 2017, 09:46 PM   #1
MrFliop
Scholar
 
MrFliop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 94
200 Questions For 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists

Some of these questions are not mine originally. Some were questions that I heard other people ask. Some of the other questions were taken off of other websites.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


Notice: Any answer that uses some variation of the claim "they couldn't do that, it would be too obvious" is automatically wrong, since conspiracy theorists claim 911 was so obviously an inside job. By claiming 911 was so obviously an inside job, you prove in advance they wouldn't care if what they did was so obvious.

Notice: Answering any question with another question is automatically wrong.

Notice: Provide credible sourcing for claims of fact. For example, if you answer a question "because everyone was bribed." You'll need to show facts to back up the bribes.
MrFliop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th January 2017, 09:48 PM   #2
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
 
Horatius's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 25,697
I clicked on this expecting to have to scroll through 200 questions.


Disappoint.
__________________
Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd
Horatius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th January 2017, 10:44 PM   #3
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,671
Originally Posted by MrFliop View Post
Some of these questions are not mine ...
Does this mean you are at 100 percent now? or still fooled by the 2 percent of woo...
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
https://folding.stanford.edu/ fold with your computer - join team 13232
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th January 2017, 11:20 PM   #4
Shiner
Motor Mouth
 
Shiner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,796
I lasted 55 seconds. I'm not a CTist, so I don't need to answer your questions. But I have a few.

Does that soundtrack go for the whole 47 minutes?

How much time did you spend making that video?

Why not just write it on a webpage?

Lastly ...... wtf, man?
Shiner is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th January 2017, 12:08 AM   #5
Manger Douse
Thinker
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 197
Troll harder
Manger Douse is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th January 2017, 12:08 AM   #6
cjnewson88
Graduate Poster
 
cjnewson88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,674
Question 11. Good point, I never thought of that one.
__________________
Common sense has clearly been snuck up on from behind beaten several times on the head and left to bleed.
Over 140 pieces of evidence showing American 77 hit the Pentagon http://therightbloggerbastard.blogspot.co.nz/
http://www.youtube.com/user/cjnewson88
cjnewson88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th January 2017, 12:32 AM   #7
Cosmic Yak
Graduate Poster
 
Cosmic Yak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 1,480
A Gish Gallop is still a Gish Gallop, regardless of which side of the debate it supports.
__________________
Fortuna Faveat Fatuis
Cosmic Yak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th January 2017, 05:04 AM   #8
Mark F
Graduate Poster
 
Mark F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,024
Originally Posted by MrFliop View Post
Some of these questions are not mine originally. Some were questions that I heard other people ask. Some of the other questions were taken off of other websites.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


Notice: Any answer that uses some variation of the claim "they couldn't do that, it would be too obvious" is automatically wrong, since conspiracy theorists claim 911 was so obviously an inside job. By claiming 911 was so obviously an inside job, you prove in advance they wouldn't care if what they did was so obvious.

Notice: Answering any question with another question is automatically wrong.

Notice: Provide credible sourcing for claims of fact. For example, if you answer a question "because everyone was bribed." You'll need to show facts to back up the bribes.
I thought you were at 98% convinced (well beyond the requirements for eliminating reasonable doubt) already with just 18 unanswered questions remaining from the last thread. Now that those have been answered to apparent satisfaction and you should be at effectively 100% convinced, what gives here
__________________
So I'm going to tell you what the facts are, and the facts are the facts, but then we know the truth. That always overcomes facts.
Mark F is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th January 2017, 05:08 AM   #9
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 13,870
Originally Posted by MrFliop View Post
...By claiming 911 was so obviously an inside job, you prove imagine in advance they wouldn't care if what they did was so obvious.
I fixed that for you.

Originally Posted by MrFliop View Post
Notice: Answering any question with another question is automatically wrong.
I have 400 questions for truthers. Does that mean I am twice as wrong as they? Or twice as right? This JAQing is very confusing.

Originally Posted by MrFliop View Post
Notice: Provide credible sourcing for claims of fact. For example, if you answer a question "because everyone was bribed." You'll need to show facts to back up the bribes.
Truthers vaguely claim everyone was bribed or coerced. Did you ask them for facts to baqck up each bribe? Did they come up with any?
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th January 2017, 06:43 AM   #10
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,689
The only question worth asking now is why should any sane person care?
Crazy Chainsaw is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th January 2017, 08:22 AM   #11
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,204
Expect a "200 answers" webpage or video any time now.

I like it, good job.
__________________
Ask questions. Demand answers. But be prepared to accept the answers, or don't ask questions in the first place.
pgimeno is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th January 2017, 11:11 PM   #12
MrFliop
Scholar
 
MrFliop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 94
In case anyone is interested, the correct answer to question 186 Is 6 floors
MrFliop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th January 2017, 05:31 AM   #13
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 23,439
For those of us who don't want to sit through a YouTube video and like reading things, could you post the list of questions please?

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th January 2017, 06:57 AM   #14
BStrong
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 9,270
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
For those of us who don't want to sit through a YouTube video and like reading things, could you post the list of questions please?

Dave
Don't be silly.

YT clicks means "I win!"

Posting it here to be debated is a no-win
__________________
"On the issue of immigration, our policy should not be informed by our collective outrage about one man's conduct." - California Attorney General Kamala Harris.

"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." - Col. Jeff Cooper, U.S.M.C.
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th January 2017, 11:30 AM   #15
MrFliop
Scholar
 
MrFliop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 94
Well since so many of you asked...

1. On 9th September 2001 Ahmed Shah Massoud, the most effective military commander of the anti-Taliban coalition (the Northern Alliance, or NA) was killed by two Arab suicide bombers posing as journalists. The assassination of Massoud had taken months to plan, and the latter had received the bogus request for an interview in May 2001 (See Steve Coll, Ghost Wars, pp.574-576; Jason Burke, Al Qaeda, p.197; Daniel Byman, Deadly Connections, p.210). Two days before 9/11, Al Qaeda killed the Taliban's main enemy, who had also played a pivotal role in keeping the NA factions together, and who would have been the obvious figure to liase with if the Americans had decided to effect regime change in Afghanistan. If Al Qaeda were not responsible for 9/11, then why was Ahmed Shah Massouds assassination so well co-ordinated with the attacks on New York and Washington?
2. Conversely, prior to 9/11, the US government had minimal contacts with Massoud and other Northern Alliance figures, much to the latters frustration (See Coll, passim). If 9/11 was a false flag operation intended to justify a pre-determined plan to invade Afghanistan, then why didnt the CIA and other US government agencies do more to facilitate ties with the NA prior to 911, knowing they would need the NA later?
3. Just before 9/11, Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri and other key Al Qaeda personnel left their quarters in Kandahar to hide in Tora Bora (Lawrence Wright, The Looming Tower, pp.356-358). Why did bin Laden and al-Zawahiri suddenly, magically know to leave their known locations and go to ground, if they were not anticipating imminent military action and pursuit by the USA?
4. In the days following 9/11, the Bush administration asked the Joint Chiefs of Staff for a plan to invade Afghanistan. The JCS had to admit that they had no contingency plan for such an invasion, and in the weeks preceding Operation Enduring Freedom the CIA and the Department of Defense were obliged to improvise a plan of attack against the Taliban and its Al Qaeda allies (Benjamin Lambeth, Air Power Against Terror; Bob Woodward, Bush At War). If 9/11 had been an inside job, and if there was a long-standing intention by Bush and his advisors to invade Afghanistan and overthrow the Taliban, then why did they have to scrabble around for a workable plan? Why was one not prepared beforehand?
5. We are being asked by the truthers to believe that the 19 hijackers were patsies, or non-existent (They were 15 Sauds, 1 Egyptian, 1 Lebanese, and 2 from the UAE). If it was the intention of the US government to justify military interventions to overthrow hostile regimes in the Middle East, why did they make the fake-hijackers citizens of allied countries? Why were they not given Iraqi, Iranian or Syrian identity?
6. Why not make the fake hijackers part of terrorist groups (such as the Abu Nidal Organisation, the PLFP-GC or Hizbollah) with closer links to Tehran, Damascus and above all Baghdad?
7. We are supposed to believe that Israel had a hand in 9/11. If so, then why were none of the fake hijackers Palestinians linked to Fatah or Hamas?
8. How is it possible for a group of conspirators to be so brilliant that they can pull off 911 as a plot to frame an innocent party, then forget to frame the innocent party?
9. Following on from this point, if the identities and the nationalities of the hijackers were faked, then why did the Saudi, Egyptian, Lebanese and UAE governments all admit that citizens from their own countries were involved? What incentive did Saudi Arabia have for admitting that 15 of its own people had committed mass murder on US soil?
10. Why would the Saudis co-operate in a plot which would blacken their country's name, benefit Israeli interests in the Middle East, provide the pretext for the overthrow of one fundamentalist Sunni regime in Afghanistan, and contribute to the destruction of a Sunni Arab dictatorship in Iraq long seen by the Saudi royal family as a needed bulwark against Iran?
11. Afghanistan is a landlocked country (truthers may need to be reminded of this fact), and any invasion is logistically impossible without the support of its neighbors. Prior to 9/11, Pakistan was a staunch ally of Taliban-ruled Afghanistan (see Ahmed Rashid, Taliban, passim). The former Soviet Central Asian states of Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan backed the Northern Alliance, but were also wary of antagonizing their former master, Russia. Prior to September 2001 these states would not have contemplated admitting any US or Western military presence on their soil. Although Russian President Vladimir Putin backed the USAs invasion of Afghanistan in October 2001, it took the Americans considerable effort to persuade him to permit the US and NATO forces to use bases on Uzbek and Tajik territory as part of Operation Enduring Freedom. It also took time and considerable pressure to force General Pervez Musharraf to abandon the Taliban - despite resistance from the military and ISI. Given the geo-political realities of Central Asia in mid-2001, there were no guarantees of any host nation support for any attack on Afghanistan. Assuming again that 9/11 was an inside job, how could the US government realistically presume that the Russians and Pakistanis would actually permit the USA to effect regime change against the Taliban?
12. Assuming that claims of Mossad complicity in 9/11 (dancing Israelis, etc.) are correct, can the truthers suggest a feasible motive for the Israeli government conniving in an act of mass murder on US soil? Since 1967, the mainstay of Israel's security and survival has been its alignment with the USA, and the military assistance it has received as a result. This relationship is based on a bipartisan political consensus (both the Republican and Democratic parties are predominantly pro-Israeli) and considerable public support in the USA. Why engage in a false flag attack against the civilian population of an ally, when you have so little to gain and so much to lose if your responsibility is ever disclosed?
13. Following on from this, assuming that the five dancing Israelis story isn't a complete fabrication, do you honestly believe the Mossad (arguably one of the best-trained spy agencies in the world) trains its undercover agents to compromise themselves by acting so ostentatiously in public?
14. If the five arrested Israelis were part of a conspiracy organized with the US government, then why did the FBI hold them in custody for over two months, instead of releasing them on the quiet a matter of hours or days after their apprehension?
15. If the WTC towers in New York City were destroyed by controlled demolitions rigged by US government agencies, then why use such an insanely convoluted and unwieldy cover story? Why concoct a scenario involving the hijacking of planes which are then crashed into tower blocks (involving complicated planning involving remote controlled flights timed with explosives detonated in the towers, which allow plenty of opportunities for gliches and technical errors)? Why not use simpler means, such as a truck bomb?
16. Assuming that Niaz Naiks account of his alleged meeting with retired US officials in July 2001 is true, then where were the 17,000 Russian troops who were supposedly ready to invade Afghanistan when it came to the commencement of military operations in October 2001?
17. Reference above question: If the main motive behind the invasion was to build a natural gas pipe-line which would be under US control, then why was no attempt ever made to build one once the Taliban were overthrown?
18. We are being asked by the conspiracy theorists to assume that NORAD was stood down on the morning of 11th September 2001 so as to enable the success of the attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon. NORAD is a combined command--it has a bi-national staff drawn from the US military and the Canadian Forces (CF). We are either supposed to believe that either a) The CF personnel assigned to NORAD were too stupid to notice anything amiss in their headquarters - and query it - or b) that the Canadian government and the CF were complicit in 9/11. Which of these scenarios is true?
19. If Al Qaeda were merely framed for the 11th September attacks, then why have its leaders and spokesmen repeatedly affirmed their responsibility for - and pride in - these attacks? Why are we supposed to believe that repeated video pronouncements by bin Laden and Zawahiri are fake, while just one written statement (allegedly from bin Laden denying responsibility - which was handed by courier to al-Jazeera without any confirmation of its origins) was genuine?
20. If the hijacking and crashing of four passenger planes was engineered by the US government, then why did UA93 crash into an empty field in Pennsylvania? Why not crash it into a target which would add to the death toll on 9/11, and further inflame US public attitudes and popular demands for revenge against the supposed perpetrators?
21. If the US government is institutionally ruthless enough to organize the massacre of thousands of its own citizens in a series of false flag attacks, then why is it too squeamish to arrange for the deaths of the supposed truth-seekers (David Griffin, Kevin Barrett, Steven Jones, Richard Gage, the Loose Change bitches, Alex Jones, etc.) who have exposed their complicity in one of the most heinous crimes a government can commit against its own people? Why are these people still alive and well, and in a position to publicize their theories on radio, television, in print and online?
22. Adding on to the above question, take you answer to that question and explain why it doesn't apply to Bill Cooper.
23. Ostensibly, we are told the purpose of the False Flag attack on 911 was to get us to go to war in Iraq. The cover story for attacking Iraq was "Saddam had WMDs." If this is true, then why weren't WMDs planted in Iraq? We are told the "lies about WMD's" is one of the smoking guns. Why wouldn't the conspirators make the Iraq war look as legitimate as possible? Even if they had somehow forgotten to plant the wmds to begin with, for 18 months people screamed "Where are the WMD's?" Certainly in 18 months they would have figured out their omission and planted wmds. Why leave open such a huge clue to your hidden plan, when it would be so easily avoided?
24. Building on the above question: If 911 was an inside job for the purpose of going to Iraq, why did we blame OBL at all? Why not just make the fake hijackers Iraqi agents, and attack Iraq on 9/12/01? We are constantly reminded that they had a battle plan already drawn-up (to go to war with Iraq) before even taking office (unlike Afghanistan, where they had to scramble to cobble together a plan ad-hoc). If you're already primed and ready to go to Iraq, why waste time blaming Afghanistan where you are completely un-prepared?
25. If, as twoofers claim, 911 was a false flag for the purpose of going to Iraq, why send Colin Powell to the UN with (ostensibly known, faked) intel about WMDS in Iraq when we could have just as easily sent him with fake intel claiming Iraq did 911?
26. 1100 people worked the Shanksville site doing various reclamation duties. Some were feds. Some local, some volunteers, and some United Airlines people. Provide evidence that specifically shows how they got all of those 1100 people to lie, and say 93 crashed there if it was diverted to Cleveland instead.
27. Some say a missile hit the pentagon, and not AA77. Assuming it was an inside job, and the govt wanted to fake flight 77 hitting the pentagon, why the **** would the govt even NEED or even WANT to use a missile? Air Force has dozens of 757's. A govt capable of orchestrating such a ridiculously overly-complicated plot that we (supposedly) saw on 911 certainly would have no problem secretly obtaining a 757, and repainting it with AA's livery. So, after all the trouble of diverting 77 to some secret location, why even use a missile when it's equally as easy to use a real, repainted, remote controlled 757?
28. Truthers claim the planes were remotely flow into the buildings. This allows the (supposed) expert precision needed. If so, why did they hit the top 20% of the building? Tactically, it makes more sense to hit the buildings as low as you can (traps more people above the fires, and increases the likelihood of toppling the building--more collateral damage). They could have just as easily hit the 30th or 20th floor, as they did the 80th. Yet they didn't. Why?
29. Regarding the pentagon "missile:" there is no missile in the world that flies over the target at 8k feet, then make a 330 degree descending turn to come back to the target. Any remotely flown, or computer controlled guidance would not need the descending turn. It would easily be able to just fly straight in. It's what missiles do—fly straight in. Exactly which missile in the Nato Inventory requires the missile to first miss its target by 8000 feet, then circle around and hit it on a second pass?
30. We are told the phone calls from passengers were faked. How did they fake the personal information in the phone calls, such as combinations to a wall safe, or specific locations of personal items, such as wills, et cetera?
31. Adding onto the above question: where did they get the voice samples in order to program the voice synthesizers? Especially given that some of the calls were made by last-minute additions to the flight? Not speculation how they could do it. Specifically how did they do it?
32. As an add-on to the previous question: We were told the phone calls from the passengers were faked, using real-time voice morphing technology. This allowed "actors" to perfectly imitate passenger voices so well that even loved ones didn't know they were being fooled. Assuming this is possible, why not have the experts who were remote-flying the hijacked planes simply imitate the pilot's voices? Being expert pilots (the "truthers" claim they were) they easily would be able to fool ATC into thinking it was a normal flight. The fake-pilots could claim a mechanical issue with their planes, and request diversion to LaGuardia or Kennedy Airport. Not only would this allow for simultaneous hits to the towers—many more deaths—but this would eliminate the need for the supposed NORAD stand down, since the flights would appear 100% normal to ATC up until the last few seconds. Plus, such a technique could also be used inside the aircraft cabin's PA system. Therefore, to the passengers and flight attendants, the fake-Captain would simply advise the plane of the diversion to NYC, but everything is normal. This eliminates the need to fake the passenger phone calls. So, why not use that voice morph technology to have the fake-hijackers imitate the real pilots, and eliminate the need for a stand down, and passenger calls?
33. Why would Cheney need to give a stand-down order to prevent fighters from intercepting flight 77, if the pentagon was going to be hit by a missile, and 77 had been diverted to a secret location far away?
34. Why would Cheney need to give a stand down order to prevent fighters from intercepting flight 77 if, as truthers say, no fighters were even scrambled?
35. In the decade preceding 9/11 how many civilian airline intercepts where there in the continental US? How long did it take?
36. What were the 2 drills taking place at NORAD on 9/11(Vigilant Guardian and Global Guardian) about? What effects did military commanders say these drills had on their response to the attacks?
37. What was the plan if either 175 or 11 somehow failed to hit their targets? Would they just blow up the remaining twin tower? Or just leave all the evidence of the controlled demolition in the towers to be found later?
38. If it was flight 175 that failed to hit its tgt, would they (like truthers claim of the pentagon) just shoot a missile at the B2 and hope all the worldwide audience watching live and on TV just mistook it for a Jetliner? Or just leave all the evidence of the controlled demolition in the towers to be found later?
39. Truthers claim that the black boxes from ground zero were found and taken by the FBI. This all based on the testimony of someone who claimed that he worked at Ground Zero during cleanup and saw FBI agents recover 3 of the 4 black boxes on one trip to the site (an amazing story to begin with.....on just one trip through the huge debris pile they found 3 of 4???with no locators or anything like that??? wow!). If that didn't seem implausible enough, it was revealed that that this same person was running a scam where he ran a travelling exhibit of debris from Ground Zero and wore an FDNY uniform claiming to be a firefighter, and claimed that the proceeds he made were going to charity. However, in 2005 he was arrested for being in possession of stolen property from Ground Zero and the FDNY stated that this guy is not and never was a firefighter. He was also in deep financial trouble,which is probably where his "charity" money went. Is it really wise to believe such a thing from an obvious fraud?
40. If no fighters were scrambled, how was 93 shot down?
41. If Cheney really gave a stand down order, how was 93 shot down?
42. If Flight 93 was shot down, how can it be diverted to Cleveland?
43. Truthers claim there was no crash in Shanksville, because there was no trace of a plane. But also tell us that the wide spread debris from 93 proves 93 was obviously shot down. How can there be enough debris to prove the plane was shot down if there was no trace of a plane?
152. If Flight 93 was indeed shot down then why wasn’t there any debris found along its north west flight path?
44. Many people escaped from offices above the impact zone on B2, because they decided on their own to leave the building immediately after B1 was hit. So they were able to get below the impact zone, before the 2nd plane actually hit. Consequently, if both planes hit near simultaneously, many more people would have been killed. So, if the planes were expertly flown (or remotely flown), why not time the hits much more closely together thereby trapping more people above the impacts?
46. If a spouse, child, or parent called you on the phone, do you honestly think you wouldn't notice if it were an actor? Even if the actor sounded like the child, spouse, or parent?
47. If it really was flight 77 that hit the pentagon, but the flight was being controlled remotely by some expert pilot, why would that expert pilot, make the mistake of overflying at 8000 feet, then having to circle back for a 2nd try?
48. If the pentagon was hit by a missile, then that missile would have needed to make cartoonish, greater-than-90 degree turns at 600 mph, pin-balling back and forth to knock down all the light-poles, hitting the generator, then scraping along the first floor of the pentagon to cause all the damage to the façade, then make a 270 degree circle back to the impact point. Please list the missiles in the current NATO inventory that can fly that profile.
49.Over both New York and Washington DC videos captured a doomsday plane flying over the crash sites on 9/11. Conspiracy theorist say this is evidence of an Inside Job. A doomsday plane is put up in the air whenever the country comes under attack. Therefore,the plane over D.C. PROVES that 9/11 was NOT an inside job, otherwise why put up doomsday planes if the country was not really under attack by an outsider?
50. Truthers say that a passport surviving the plane crash into the WTC and being is proof of planted evidence and an inside job. But mail aboard the Hindenburg survived that explosion. Also, after the Space Shuttle Columbia exploded on re-entry, the diary of one of the astronauts was found on the ground having survived the explosion. Please explain why the Hindenburg and Columbia Disasters were inside jobs?
51. Adding on the previous question. Truthers say its suspicious that no other Passenger's passport was discovered at ground zero(although many of their drivers licenses and IDs were.) What exactly is a passport used for? What type of flights do youneed to bring it on?
52. Adding on the previous question. What would even be the purpose of planting the passports of one the hijackers at the WTC? All it does is prove they were on the plane. Well, we already knew they were on the plane because of the flight manifest. In fact, we know exactly every passenger who was on every plane because of the flight manifest, whether or not their ID's were recovered at the crash sites.So why plant it if everyone was going to find out who hijackers were anyway?
53. We are told that John Ashcroft stopped flying commercial carriers prior to 911 is proof of foreknowledge of the inside job. Despite the fact that his family was still flying commercial for personal travel (the restriction on commercial travel was for his govt related travel, not personal travel). If it was an inside job, and Ashcroft was warned, why wouldn't he simply continue to fly commercial as normal, since he would know to stay away from AA11, AA77, UA 93, and UA 175 on September 11th? If he knew in advance what was planned, he'd know which flights to stay away from. So why would he have to stop flying commercial, if he already knew which flights were doomed?
54. Add on to the previous question. Why would the conspirators give a fux about John Ashcroft? If they are willing to kill (potential in the towers was 50k) all those people on 911, plus the war on terror (death toll estimates between 10s of thousands and a million) why would they care about John Ashcroft? Are we expected to believe that such heartless, ruthless conspirators capable of such enormous death and destruction got squimish over Ashcroft?
55. Add on to the previous question. If Ashcroft stopped flying commercial because of warnings of a terrorist attack, doesn't that really prove it was a terrorist attack? Why would the fact that John Ashcroft stopped flying due to a terrorist attack threat MATTER if terrorists weren't responsible for 911.
56. Wouldn't it be a much better cover-up (in the question above) to have several very high ranking cabinet members on commercial flights that day (who just luckily avoided the ill-fated flights)? If it was an inside job, and they all knew what was coming, they would have no problem avoiding the doomed flights.
57. Truthers claim that SFO Mayor Willie Brown was "warned not to fly" that day. Truthers claim this indicates foreknowledge. Brown was booked on an 8:00am flight from SFO to NYC. Why would someone have to call Willie Brown to warn him to not fly, when the caller (who supposedly has foreknowledge) would know that Browns flight was not one of the planned hijackings?
58. Adding onto the previous question. Why would someone with foreknowledge need to warn Brown at all? The 1st 2 planes would have crashed into the WTC, 2 hours before Brown's departure time. Obviously word would have gotten to Brown (long before his departure time) of the hijackings and crashes. Why warn Brown, when he would obviously KNOW long before his departure time what was happening?
59. Add on to the previous question. Same question as was about Ashcroft earlier. Why would the conspirators give a fux about Willie Brown? Are we expected to believe that such heartless, ruthless conspirators capable of such enormous death and destruction got squimish over Brown?
60. "Truthers" point to the FBI website, noting that OBL is not wanted for the 911 attacks. Presumably, this is proof that OBL is not really guilty. Please explain how it is possible that the most brilliant, diabolical criminal minds in history capable of pulling of the 911 "inside job" are, at the same time, too stupid to figure out how to update an FBI website in 9 years? Please tell me on what planet this makes sense.
61. Truthers say the fact that the FBI website does not list OBL as wanted for the 911 attacks proves he was not involved in the attacks. By this logic, doesn't this mean that the fact no one is wanted on the FBI list for an inside job also prove there was no inside job?
62. Truthers say the fact that the FBI website does not list him as wanted for the 911 attacks proves he was not involved in the attacks. However, there is NO ONE wanted (on the FBI 10-list) for the attacks. Does this mean a) the attacks never happened, or b) someone can be involved in the attacks, though not listed for it on the 10-list. Which is true?
63.. The FBI investigates terrorism and violations of US Criminal law. Their top-10 list is based on people who violated US criminal law, or committed acts of terrorism. Please explain how OBL violated US criminal (or made an act of terrorism) law by sitting in a cave in Afghansitan while someone else hijacked an airplane half a world away.
Adding on. The claim that there is no "hard evidence linking Bin Laden to 9/11"" was made by one person in 2006 named Rex Tomb, who did (at the time) work for the FBI. Was Tomb ever a counter-terrorism expert or even an agent?
64. On the FBI website, under OBLs profile, it states that in addition to the US Govt offering a $25 million reward, the Air Line Pilots Association and the Air Transport Association are offering an additional $2 million. These organizations represent airline pilots and airlines. Obviously, this would be related to 911, since that is OBL's only connection to these organizations. Now, if 911 was so obviously impossible (there is no way the planes could be flown the way they were, and there is no way "amateurs" could even come close to performing those maneuvers, etc etc) then it would be obvious to ATA and especially to ALPA as well. So if ALPA is aware of the obvious fraud of 911, why are they offering a $2 million reward to help cover the murder of their fellow pilots? Why are the airlines all contributing to the cover-up of the murder of their fellow employees.
65. Building on the last point: If it was so obviously impossible for hijackers to take over and fly the planes, why did ALPA and other pilots unions immediately lobby congress for guns in the cockpit, and re-enforced cockpit doors to defend the cockpit from terrorists? Why would airline pilots suddenly all want to defend themselves from cockpit intrusions, when they all know that whole story is (according to the truthers) so obviously false?
66. If 911 was really an inside job, pilots obviously would know it. Consequentially, pilots would know that if the conspirators got away with it, this would mean that they (conspirators) would be free to kill pilots at will, any time, for any reason, with no consequence. Why would pilots be so willing to cover up for the conspirators and volunteer to be killed in the next "fake hijacking."
67. "Truthers" point to the numbers of various federal offices located in Building 7, claiming that the evidence for Enron case was kept there. Further, that was the reason Building 7 had to be destroyed (to destroy all that Enron evidence). If that's true, please explain how the Enron guys got convicted anyway, with no evidence against them, since it was all destroyed in B7.
68. In addition to the above question: Please explain how it is possible that the most brilliant, diabolical criminal minds in history capable of pulling of the 911 "inside job" are, at the same time, too stupid to figure out how to use a paper shredder to destroy the Enron evidence. Please tell me on what planet this makes sense.
69. We are told that Larry Silverstein had just insured the building against terrorism just before the attacks. The presumption is that he knew of the coming attacks, and 911was a great big insurance scam. After the attacks, LS went to court against his insurance company. His policy was valued at $3.5 billion payout for a terrorist attack. He claimed 2 planes meant there were 2 attacks, not one, so that he should receive compensation based on being attacked twice (i.e., $7B, not $3.5). So, we can confirm Larry was angling to get the most money he could out of the attacks. However, during the trial the court records show that originally the lender who loaned LS the money for the lease (LS had just leased the building approx 6 weeks earlier) was dis-satisfied with LS. He was only carrying $1B of insurance. The lender felt that did not protect their loan effectively, and they demanded LS purchase a larger policy valued at $5B. LS eventually negotiated it down to a $3.5B policy (LS wanted lower premiums). Had LS known the attacks were coming, he had the perfect excuse for a 5B policy—lender requirement. And based on his post-911 lawsuit, that $5B policy would have paid twice—total $10B. Instead, because he underinsured, he only got $7B. Forget for a minute the actual purpose of insurance, and answer this question: If he knew the attacks were coming, why did he intentionally screw himself out of a slam-dunk, additional $3 Billion dollars?
70. The insurance policy at the time was still being negotiated in its specifics. The policy at the time was based on a temporary insurance "binder." When the policy was set up, it was SILVERSTEIN who suggested the language to define the term "occurrence" to include a "series of similar causes." It takes NO brains (ie, even truthers should be able to understand this) to see that the 2 planes hitting within half an hour of each other in an intentionally coordinated attack can very easily be considered "a series of similar causes." So, why—if he had foreknowledge (and considering the above example where he intentionally underinsured) would he be trying so hard before the attacks to make his payout a SMALL as possible?
71. Furthermore,Silverstein was taking his time with the policy negotiations and the signing of all the paperwork, and hadn't yet finished it when the attacks happened, which ultimately cost him $2.6 billion. If he knew the date of the attacks why wouldn't he have made sure to sign all of the papers before then?
72. Truthers claim the buildings collapsed at free fall speed, and inside their own footprint. How can the towers have collapsed at free fall speed, if the debris (falling at free-fall speed) was falling twice as fast as the collapse?
73. In Addition, Truthers claim debris was "ejected" and was found over 400 feet away. How can debris from the buildings be "400 feet away" and "inside the footprint" at the same time?"
74. Truthers claim that the steel beams were "ejected" with some landing 400 feet away. They cite this as evidence of a controlled demolition. Please list all controlled demolitions in history where the cutting charges have launched 160ton massive steel beams 400 feet away from the building.
75.How does the WTC core collapsing 15-20 seconds AFTER the rest of the building due to being unstable indicate controlled demolition? When do demolitions ever demolish the rest of the building, and then wait 15-20 seconds to take down the core?
76. Truthers claim that molten metal was found underneath the debris piles many weeks after the attacks. They cite this as proof of a controlled demolition. List all of the controlled demolitions in history that resulted in flowing rivers of molten steel 6 weeks after the demolition.
77. Truthers claim that there were hot spots of "thousands of degrees" found many weeks after the attacks. They cite this as proof of a controlled demolition. List all of the controlled demolitions in history that resulted in hot-spots of thousands of degrees 6 weeks after the demolition.
78. Truthers claim that molten metal was found underneath the debris piles many weeks after the attacks. They cite this as proof of a controlled demolition. However, molten metal was seen flowing out of building 6. Yet Building 6 was not a controlled demolition. In fact, truthers point out how well B6 "survived" given the amount of damage it took. Please explain how molten metals can occur in B6, even though it was not a CD, when you tell us molten metal can only come from a CD?
79. Truthers claim that molten metal was found underneath the debris piles many weeks after the attacks. They cite this as proof of a controlled demolition. However, during the clean up, many vehicles (that were covered by the debris in the intial collapse) were found to have had their wheels melted. Please explain the tactical necessity of placing thermite into, and thereby melting the wheels of vehicles on the street as part of the inside job. Try to do so without laughing.
80. Even if Thermate were used what kept the molten steel/iron from solidifying within seconds and kept it molten for over 6 weeks?
81. The next 6 questions are related to the molten metal dripping from the South Tower: If the molten metal were indeed a byproduct of a thermite reaction, then the amount of molten metal observed would require 10 full dump truck loads of thermite. How did they get all of this into the building past security and why did no office workers notice 10 *********** dump truck loads of thermite in that corner?
82. Is it really just coincidence that the molten metal is dripping from the EXACT floor and the EXACT corner where tons of aluminum from the plane are known to have piled against and can be seen in photos?
83. The collapse of 2WTC began with the buckling of the columns on the east side of the building, not the north side (we usually say the NE corner for simplicity but it's really entirely on the north).Why the inconsistency?
84. How come the photos and videos of that corner (many of which are in excellent resolution) show the molten metal dripping out through the spaces between columns whereas there isn't a single cut through even one of the columns? (And mind you, causing a collapse via severing through enough perimeter columns would require probably about 50% of them to be cut through, not just one or two, so we would have to see huge amounts of perimeter columns being severed through. Even if you think that one or two WERE cut through and that the photos don't show it, then you still can't deny that the flow never leaves that one corner!Even severing, say, 5 or 6 columns would do nothing.)
85. Why is the same phenomena not observed in the North Tower? Or WTC7?
86. Thermite can only be ignited at temperatures hundreds of degrees higher than the hottest temp that jet fuel can burn. What exactly set off that charge?
87. Thisis basically Steven Jones' history of his theory... "It was thermite. No wait, I mean it was thermate. No wait, I mean it was nano-thermite. No wait, I mean it was actually just traditional explosives all along, nanothermite was just used to ignite the explosives." That's right, Steven Jones himself doesn't even support the thermite/thermate/nanothermite theory anymore. He now claims it was traditional explosives and nanothermite was just used to ignite the explosives... which makes absolutely zero sense. Why would they use some superhigh-tech theoretical "nanothermite" when there are already existing ignitions for demolition explosives which work perfectly well and have been around for decades and proven effective?
88.According to Professor Jones's analysis of World Trade Center steel and dust samples, high traces of sulfur and iron were found. Also found were traces of zinc, manganese, and titanium. Since most of these are ingredients for thermite truthers say that its evidence that thermite was used. But these same chemical signatures are also found in cheerios. Please explain what role these boxes of cheerios had with the WTC demolition?
89. The claim that there was power down in the weekend before 9/11 is based E-N-T-I-R-E-L-Y on an email by a man named Scott Forbes to 911review.com. However, Scott Forbes could not even prove that he had ever even worked at the World Trade Center. Even 911Review.com said that Scott Forbes had no evidence of anything and even THEY said they didn't believe his story. Its imply didn't happen, and that's a fact. If you still believe it after all these years please explain you cling desperately to anything that any person says in an email to a conspiracy theory website?
90. How many times did Willie Rodriguez change his story?
91. Why is it that eyewitness testimony is only irrelevant when it goes against your theories?
92.What is the difference between the pancake theory and a pancake collapse?
93. Truthers say the collapse of WTC 7 is impossible by fire. Which part is impossible? That fire can weaken unprotected floor trusses? That dislodging of floor trusses can cause an unstable column to give way? That progressive collapses can happen?
94. During its collapse WTC 7 experienced 2.25 seconds of freefall. From the instant of collapse initiation, it took 3 seconds for the collapse to spread from the 7th floor all the way to the roof. Then it takes another 8 seconds for the collapse to progress throughout the entire core. Once the core is completely gone, there's no lateral support for the perimeter columns. Also,the collapsing core pulls in on the floor beams, which pulls in on the perimeter columns. The collapse simulation predicted a bowing inward of the perimeter columns between the 8th and 14th floor (7 floors) when the shell began to collapse.Once they bowed inward enough, they just snapped at both ends and the 14th floor was free to fall onto the 8th floor with no resistance. Once the top hit other debris, it began slowing down again. Also, we can do a simply calculation to see if the collapse prediction matches with the observation. The loss of perimeter columns between the 8th and 14th floorsmeans a 7 floor drop. Each office floor was 12.5 feet in height (3.8 meters).3.8x7=(1/2)9.8t^2 calculates out to a free-fall time of 2.33 seconds. This prediction is nearly identical to what it observed, further verifying the computer simulation and the NIST report. If WTC 7 really was a controlled demolition how did the conspirators make sure that the building fell in a way that would support a (supposedly made up) conclusion made 7 years later?
95. We are told that Barry Jennings heard explosions in B7, and that these explosions were the explosions of a controlled demolition. However, Barry heard the "explosions" from inside the building very early in the morning. Truthers also claim the explosions Barry heard were before either tower fell, so therefore could not have been the sounds of impacting debris being mistaken for an explosion. This means that (if truthers are correct) the demolitionists blew up the building before 10:00, and the building magically hovered in the air (even though all its resistance had been removed) until 5:20 p.m.. Please list all controlled demolitions in history where the building was detonated, then the building hovered in mid-air, with all its resistance removed for at least 7:20 before collapsing.
96. Adding on to the previous question. If truthers are right about Barry, then it took 7:20 from the detonation of the CD charges to the end of the collapse. So, are truthers a) wrong about Barry hearing explosions from the a controlled demolition, or b) wrong in pretending a collapse that took 7:20 to complete is a free-fall collapse?
97. We are told that Larry Silverstein, owner of B7 ordered the building demolished in a phone call with FDNY commander. This phone call came after the 2 towers had collapsed. How is it possible for Barry Jennings to have heard the detonations for a controlled demolition before the first tower fell, if the controlled demolition was not even (supposedly) ordered by LS until hours later?
98. Add on to the previous question: Please list all the controlled demolitions in history that have been performed by a local fire department.
99. If Larry Silvestein had "really" ordered 7 demolished, then the 47 story building would have to have been wired within hours, while the building was engulfed in flames. Please list all previous controlled demolitions of high rise buildings (47 stories or taller), where the entire demolition job was done in a few hours with the building on fire.
100. We are told that Larry Silvertein couldn't have been talking about pulling the firefighting operation in WTC 7 because there were no Firefighters in building 7 by thetime he got that call. But truthers are also saying Barry Jennings was rescued by FIGHTER FIGHTERS in WTC7 on the afternoon of 9/11? How could Barry have been rescued by firefighters in WTC7 if as truthers say there were no Firefighters in the building?
101. We are told that Norman Mineta testified that he heard Dick Cheney order the fighters to stand down. This is represented by a conversation between Cheney and an aide where Cheney is asked "Do the orders still stand?" However, Mineta tells that story when asked by Lee Hamilton if he (Mineta) was present when the president's shoot-down order was given. Mineta replies to the question "No I was not. I became aware of it (shootdown order) when..." and then tells the "Does the order still stand?" story. On what planet does "I became aware of the shootdown order when..." mean "I heard Cheney order the fighters to stand down?"
102.Reference previous question: If Mineta really was talking about Flight 77 approaching DC then why did he report that when he arrived at the white house people were “pouring out of the Executive Office building, running out of the White House and running over towards Lafayette Park.” Something only known as happening AFTER the Pentagon was hit?
103. Truthers claim that the "Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction CJCSI 3610.01A" demonstrates that Cheney took away shootdown authority from the commanders in the field, and took it solely for himself. However, the JCS instruction was issued by Admiral S.A. Fry, and placed the authority for a shootdown with SecDef Rumsfield. If Dick Cheney is neither the Admiral who issued the order, nor the SecDef who was given the shootdown authority, how is it possible that Cheney "took away shootdown authority for himself" to be true?
104. Adding onto the above question, under the headline of "Aircraft Piracy (Hijacking) of Civil and Military Aircraft," the memo requires SecDef Approval "with the exception of Immediate responses as authorized by reference D." Meaning SecDef approval is NOT required in situations that require a defined "immediate" response." Please explain why you think the 911 flights failed the criteria of deserving "immediate response."
105. In the above-referenced JCS memo, they (as all such documents do) list the summary of changes made to the policy. This assures that there are no misunderstanding by the reader what the changes within the document were. The list of 4 changes is a: UAV, ROV are added to the list of possible derelict, airborne aircraft, b: Statutory Authority for responding to aircraft piracy removed and added to reference list, c: in various places throughout the document "USELEMNORAD" was replaced with "NORAD," and d: FAA order 7610.4j 3 November 1998 "special military operations" was added as a reference." Exactly where do you see "Generals always had the authority before to shoot down airplanes, but now only Cheney has it?"
106. Add on to the previous question. If Truthers are correct, and Cheney was the only person who could order a shootdown, why would Cheney have to issue a stand down order if (according to truthers) he would already KNOW that no shootdowns were possible?
107. If tossing a coin gives you a 50/50 chance of getting heads or tails, and your first toss is "heads," what are the odds of getting "tails" on the second toss?
108. Truthers claim (incorrectly) that MASCAL exercises included a drill where a hijacked plane is flown into the pentagon. Yet, they also claim the Pentagon (also incorrectly) is the most well-defended building in the Universe, and it's impossible for anything to have hit it. But if they honestly believe that the Pentagon was so well defended, and it was so impossible for a hijacked airplane to be crashed into it (due to interceptors, or a supposed missile system), why would the Pentagon ever run drills where a hijacked plane is flown into the Pentagon? If it was such an obvious fact that the Pentagon airspace is impenetrable, why would the Pentagon train for such an impossible scenario?
109. If the Pentagon supposedly has a missile system, why can't anyone find any evidence of it? Why does every photo show neither missiles, nor any tactical radar apparatus that would be required to guide a missile? If the Pentagon has such a missile system, why can't anyone find any evidence of it?
110. If the Pentagon had a missile system, why did they need to—after 911--move portable missile trailers into position near the pentagon as a defensive measure in case of a future repeat?
105. If the Pentagon really had a missile system, the conspirators would know it. Obviously, since truthers say the system had to be turned off or stood down. Consequently, the would-be conspirators would KNOW it would be an obvious inside job to hit the pentagon. So, then why hit the pentagon at all? Why choose a target that you know will easily be exposed as an inside job? Why not just hit the WH, the Capital, any of the other highly symbolic landmarks instead?
106. How far away is the Pentagon from the nearest airport?
107. What is the Runway configuration of that airport.
108. Who is Frank Eugene Corder?
109.What do you 9/11 truthers have to say about the guy who flew his plane into the IRS building in Austin, Texas in 2010? How did he manage to "outfox" the FAA and NORAD and penetrate the perimeter defenses of this government building? Why the shortage of video footage showing the crash? How was he able to fly so low to the ground in order to hit the building on the 2nd floor? After all, we all know it's impossible for a pilot to fly that low.Or was this an inside job too?
110. Truthers say OBL was a CIA asset. If true, why would this be relevant? If, as truthers claim, Alqaeda and Osama were not involved in the attacks, then why would I care if he was a CIA asset or not?
111. Truthers claim B7 was brought down in a controlled demolition, for various reasons. But why not just have a 3rd airplane crash into it? If you're going through the trouble of having planes hit B1 and B2, why not have a third plane hit B7? There were several federal offices there (CIA, for example) that would make very legitimate and believable terrorist targets. There is every good excuse in the world for a terrorist to want to attack B7, based on its tenants. Why plan such an insanely risky ("Lets hijack airplanes, and remote control fly them into the twin towers, hoping that when they collapse their debris will strike building 7 enough to severely damage it and start fires—but not enough to make it collapse on its own--so we can go into building 7 hours later, while its engulfed in flames and wire it to explode and then try and hide a controlled demolition in broad daylight when the whole world is watching, after also telling the BBC to report on the collapse 20 minutes early to be sure to draw as much attention to it as possible") plot when you could very easily take B7 down with a 3rd airplane?
112. Add on. Reference the previous question: Or, if a 3rd plane was too complicated, why not just shoot a missile at B7? According to kookspiracy "pentagon logic" it is very normal and natural to expect that when people see a missile fly over the city they will always all mistake it for an AA 757. So why the overly and insanely risky plot (outlined in the question above) when simply shooting a missile is a much easier and simpler way to accomplish the mission?
113. Truthers claim B7 was brought down for various reasons (destroy Enron evidence, destroy evidence of the inside job that was contained there, et cetera). If that is true, then bringing down building 7 would have been planned well in advance, AND would be a required mission objective. If it was the plan all along, why would they leave it up to Larry Silverstein to decide, on the day itself, whether or not to blow the building if this stuff so desperately had to be destroyed?
114. The CIA's NY station was located in B7. On Nov 4th, 2001 it was reported that on Sept 12th, 2001, the CIA dispatched a special team to scour the rubble looking for any intelligence documents, reports, or CIA computers in order to try and recover any classified intel. If 911 was a false flag attack, planned by the govt, why didn't the CIA take all of their important stuff off site the day before? If they knew 7 was going to be CD'd, then why didn't they assure that nothing critical was left behind the day before?
115. Truthers tell us that some of the hijackers are still alive. The origins of that claim traces back to a BBC story. Yet a few days after the story, the BBC retracted the claim, citing mistaken identities. Why do truthers insist "BBC said so, so it must be true!" when the hijackers were reported alive, but insist the BBC can't be trusted if it prints a retraction?
116. Following that question: Why is it no one has ever actually produced the "alive" hijackers over the last 15 years? If any of these guys were alive, why haven't they been on Alex Jones? Why haven't any of them been photographed over the last 15 years living it up somewhere? If they are so obviously alive, why can't anyone find them?
117. We are told the story of Barry Jennings who (ostensibly, long story short) stepped over dead bodies in the lobby of B7. If that's true, then these would be B7 employees. But, reportedly, everyone who worked in B7 got out alive. So, where is the official list of B7 employees who didn't come home that night? Obviously (since no B7 families got any of the money for victims families-because according to the official story, no one in 7 was killed) we can't pretend they are getting paid. So, who are these supposed dead people killed in B7?
118. If construction steel is the miracle that is so impervious to fire, why do building codes worldwide demand that exposed steel be fireproofed?
119. Truthers refer often to Operations Northwoods as proof that Govt conducts false flag operations against its own citizens. A wacky plan to shoot down our own airliner over the water and blame Cuba for it. Lyman Lemnezter was fired as JFK's JCS for even suggesting it. Northwoods was summarily rejected. How does citing a case where the govt REFUSED to false flag its own people prove govt false flags its own people?
120. Following up the previous question: How did the conspirators in Operation Northwoods plan to get Castro to repeatedly take responsibility for the downed airliner, the way OBL had repeatedly taken responsibility for 911?
121. Further, none of the Northwoods scenarios involved actually killing innocent Americans. Examples they would use would be shooting down empty drone aircraft, sabotaging aircraft on the Gitmo airfield. Faked riots at the gates, non-lethal bombings of base facilities. So, how does this in any way equate to proof of 911?
122. Truthers claim it was impossible for flight 77 to make the 330 degree turn it made before hitting the pentagon (the plane would fall out of the sky!). Apparently, in Kookworld, airplanes are like bullets shot out of a gun and never turn. They also claim flight 77 flew over the pentagon, not into it. If it was impossible for flight 77 to make that 330 degree turn before crashing into the pentagon, how is it suddenly possible for flight 77 to make that same 330 degree turn before flying over the pentagon? Why is the exact same 330 degree turn impossible if the plane crashes, yet suddenly possible if it's a flyover?
123. Truthers claim that the speeds of the planes was impossible at 800 feet. Air is too thick. Yet they also claim flight 77 flew at high speed over the pentagon. How is it that the speeds are impossible in thinner air, yet completely possible in thicker air, but ONLY possible if it's a flyover? Truthers please explain how the laws of physics changed at the pentagon that day!
Describe the geography of the area around the Pentagon? No seriously look it look up it might answer some questions you have about "Flyover" evidence.
124. Truthers claim the govt immediately blamed Alqaeda terrorist for the attacks—even before the buildings fell. Then they point to FBI director Mueller stating (in October) they were not completely sure of the hijackers identities. If the FBI was not sure in Oct 2001 who the hijackers were, how can they have been "Immediately blaming" Alqaeda "before the towers even fell?"
125. If the terrorists attacks were so obviously false, why hasn't any country (even the countries that hate the US) gone to the UN and demand sanction against the US, or demand US troops leave Iraq and Afghanistan? We know, for example, when Iraq invaded Kuwait, there was instant outcry worldwide. UN demanded immediate and unconditional withdrawal. Obviously (since the UN opposed the US in iraq, and didn't support the iraq war, there is NO logic in assuming the UN will just "go along with what the US wants") the iraq and afghanistan wars would be treated the same. If the UN actually believe the US was in the wrong, why has not ONE country (not even the countries that hate the US and would love to humiliate us in any way) come forward and claim it was an inside job?
126. Journalists worldwide, especially in much of Europe despised the US and Bush viscerally. No end to the critical stories. So (even if one could pretend the domestic media would never print anything critical of the govt—LOL) there is no valid pretense that the international media is somehow controlled by US govt. So, why hasn't ONE serious reporter ever published the inside job claims? Many countries hate the US, they certainly would never object or pressure a reporter from bashing the US. Yet NO serious reporter, journalist, of investigative reporter touches the conspiracy. Why?
127. Do you honestly believe that a media that so gleefully and eagerly reported on Abu grahib, Lyndie England, Val Plame, Downing street memo, Aug 6 pdb, waterboarding, torture memos, Rendition, secret prisons, warrantless wiretaps, Yellowcake Uranium, "45 mins to launch wmds," Joe Wilson, no wmds in iraq, no bid contracts, political firing of US States Attys, and about a thousand other scandals is "in the pocket" of the Cheney-lead conspirators? Do you honestly believe that a media that so gleefully and eagerly reported on all that is somehow "afraid" to speak out against US govt, so that's why it wont publish any inside job "evidence?"
128. The leading voices in the "truth" movement are talk radio hosts, philosophers, theologians, family practice physicians, software engineers, and architects. With (conservative estimate) over 10 million Architectural Engineers, Structural Engineers, and Civil Engineers worldwide, why is it left to talk radio hosts, philosophers, theologians, family practice physicians, software engineers, and architects to make the claim? If the collapses so obviously violated the laws of physics and engineering, then there would be nearly worldwide consensus among the international engineering community. Yet not a peep. Instead of a scant few hundred people who are uneducated in the related sciences, why aren't there millions of people who actually know what the fux they are talking about leading the "truth" movement?
129. Truthers call the terrorist attack an unbelievable Fairy Tale. Exactly which part do they find unbelievable: a) that terrorists hijack airplanes, or b) that America is hated and despised in much of the Middle East for our support of Israel, or c) both?
130. Which scenario is more realistic to you and why? A) the same idiots who couldn't cover up abu grhaib, Lyndie England, Val Plame, Downing street memo, Aug 6 pdb, waterboarding, torture memos, Rendition, secret prisons, warrantless wiretaps, Yellowcake Uranium, "45 mins to launch wmds," Joe Wilson, no wmds in iraq, no bid contracts, political firing of US States Attys, and about a thousand other scandals somehow managed to figure out a way to coordinate dozens of smaller conspiracies that all overlapped perfectly in the 911 attacks. And these same idiots did is sooooo perfectly, and the cover-up was sooooo well done that 99.99% of the relevant experts, investigative reports, other intel agencies world wide were all (and remain to this day) completely fooled. And it's done with airtight secrecy before and 15years after—not one leak. Or b) terrorists hijack airplanes? Which makes more sense to you (a or b) and why?
131. Truthers claim over and over that "Bush was warned about the attacks!!!" OK, If true, then that means 911 really was an outside job, a very real terrorist attack that was carried out by Alqaeda. So, why do the same truthers lie and pretend Alqaeda wasn't responsible? Why do they lie and pretend it was a False Flag op if they know it was a real terrorist attack about which Bush was warned?
132. Truthers say that 911 was so obviously an inside job. If it is so obvious, why cant truthers even decide what hit the pentagon? Why can't they decided if the planes were real, or holograms?
133. Adding on to the previous question, consider: If I write 2+2=x, on a piece of paper, I can take that to anyone in the world. They all give the same answer. The answer is obvious: x=4. If 911 was so obviously an inside job, why can# 9/11 truthers come up with any coherent, beginning-to-end narrative that (supported by fact and evidence) that shows exactly the "who what when where and how" each step of the "inside job" occurred? That's what OBVIOUS IS! Everyone who looks at it can tell you exactly what it is. So if 911 was so obviously an inside job, why shouldn't they be able to state, not question, but STATE exactly what happened, how it happened, and who specifically made it happen?
134. Truthers claim that a missile hit the pentagon, flying over downtown Washington DC during rush hour traffic. How did the govt assure that no one would ever say "Hey! WTF is that missile doing flying over Washington DC?"
135. After the supposed missile hits the pentagon, trutherd claim FBI agents would have needed to plant evidence and knock down all the light poles to make it look like a plane. But, AFTER the "missile" hits the pentagon, lots of people would be watching. On the road, in nearby buildings, anyone who can get a good look at the crash site would be watching. How were the conspirators able to secret away all the missile debris, drive a big old truck up the pentagon, unload all of the "fake airplane debris" have people scatter it around, and knock down light poles without any of the hundreds or thousands of people watching, saying "holy ****! Look at them taking away that missile, look at that truck dropping off airplane parts that they are now scattering around the site! Look at that guy knocking over light poles?"
136.How many cameras captured the Pentagon strike? A) 85 B) 55 C)4 D) 25 (Hint: The correct answer doesn’t have a 5 in it.)
137. Ostensibly, a missile was shot at the pentagon. Truthers expect us to believe, ridiculously, that all those people who saw the missile just mistook it for an AA Jet. So, for truthers to be right, it must be a common, consistent phenomenon for people who see missiles flying through the air to mistake them for AA Jets. Consider: ever since the first Gulf War ended, there have been several occasions under both the Bush43 and Clinton administrations where cruise missiles were launched into Iraq, or into Afghanistan (presumably to tgt OBL). Thousands upon thousands of cruise missiles expended. Please list (with credible citation for verification) all the thousands and thousands of Iraqis and Afghanis who saw US cruise missiles slam into their buildings, fly over their cities, and mistook it for an American Airlines 757.
138. Truthers will use the flight data recorder from AA77 to show as proof that AA77 was too high to have hit the pentagon. Please explain how it makes sense to use a flight data recorder from the plane that crashed at the pentagon to prove no plane crashed at the pentagon?
139. What was the Altimeter Calibration setting on AA77s altimeters when it crashed, and where is this information found within the flight data recorder data?
140. Truthers point out the "Phoenix memo" and other various documentation that ostensibly shows the govt knew terrorists were taking flying lessons, et cetera. But if 911 was a false flag attack and not a terrorist attack, then why do I care who took flying lessons?
141. We are told that the planes that hit the towers were really not planes. But in fact were holograms. We are also told that UA 175 was carrying, and shot, a missile at the towers just before impact. Please explain how a hologram airplane can shoot a real missile.
142. We are told that the plane that hit the WTC2 was carrying a missile. Only one of 2 possibilities exist. 1) it was the real UA 175 that hit the building, or 2) it was a substitute airplane that hit the building. If it is a substitute airplane, you would not need to hang anything on the outside (and risk giving away the fraud) when you could simply load up the (otherwise empty) substitute airplane with enough C4 to orbit Rosie O'Donnell. So if it was a substitute airplane, why risk hanging a missile on the outside—giving away the plot when there is more than enough room on the inside to load up as much explosives as you can?
143. If it IS a substitute plane, provide evidence that demonstrates where Flight 175 was diverted to, how it was disposed of, and specifically who took those actions?
144. Follow-up to the previous questions. If it was the real flight 175 that hit B2, then the missile would have been on the airplane when it took off. This means that the First Officer, while doing his walk-around, pre-flight inspection, would have seen the missile hanging off his airplane. The First Officer was a Marine Corps Aviator. As such, it is 100% impossible that he would have failed to instantly recognize a missile when he saw it. Presumably Truthers would have us believe the First Officer said to himself "What the fux is that missile doing hanging off my airplane? Oh well. It's probably nothing. Best to just ignore it," and then went about his duties as co-pilot as though it were perfectly normal for his civilian jetliner to have a missile slung under the starboard wing. On which planet does that make sense?
145. Following the previous questions. Why the fux would you need a missile at ALL? What practical purpose could be served?
146. Why do truthers insist that it takes an expert, veteran pilot to crash an airplane?
147. To all theno-planers out there: What is f=ma
148. If no planes crashed into the WTC then why was the damage to the buildings completely consistent with a 767?
149. If no plane crashed into the Pentagon then why is the damage to the Pentagon completely consistent with a 757?
150. If the WTC was destroyed by mini-nukes then why then why didn't anyone in Manhattan report having radioactive mutations after the event?
151. On what universe does “I can’t understand how something happened”= “proof that it didn’t happen”?
153. What is the difference between something being tracked on radar and something being displayed on radar?
154. Truthers claim WTC 1, 2, and 7 were all controlled demolitions. If so, what is the reason for waiting 7 hours to demolish B7? Why not just demo it right after the WTC tower was dropped on it and was hidden by the dust? Why wait 7 hours and make it all the more obvious?
155. Follow up to the above question. Why would the conspirators allow the FDNY to warn its men to pull back from building 7 before its (supposed) demolition? We know from the claims of demolitions in B1 B2 that the conspirators would have no problem killing hundreds of firemen and thousands of civilians. So why would the conspirators warn FDNY to pull back out of the B7 collapse zone?
156. Truthers claim that the towers were brought down in a super-secret technique that only the military uses. That's why it doesn't look or sound like a normal demolition. In contrast, B7, they say was a conventional demolition. So, why the 2 different types? If you decided to use the super secret ("it doesn't look like a real demolition, so its easier to fool people if we do it that way") military demolition, why wouldn't you use the same super secret ("it doesn't look like a real demolition, so its easier to fool people if we do it that way") military demolition with building 7? Especially since (for some unexplained reason) you're planning to wait 7 hours to bring it down, and ONLY bring it down after having he BBC call attention to it, making a "normal" demolition painfully obvious.
157. Truthers claim that the cell phone calls were impossible from the airplanes. If the cell phones couldn't work on airplanes, why would the federal law prohibit their use? If it's impossible for you to make calls, then the Flight Attendants would not have to tell you anything. You just wouldn't make any calls, because it wouldn't work. The only reason to go through the trouble of saying "hey don't do that" is because you could really do it. Otherwise they wouldn't have to tell you anything. So, if it was impossible for people to make cell calls from airplanes, then why does the FAA go through the trouble of outlawing something they "knew" you could never do?
158. Why do truthers complain about Zelikow's role in the 911 commission, yet have no problem with Jaime Gorelick being a commissioner?
159. Controlled demolitions require materials to perform. Many of these materials are present after the collapse. Specifically detonation cords, partially detonated caps, shock tubes, et cetera, all litter the demolition site after any CD. Given the towers size, clearly, there would also be record setting volumes of the evidence (cords, caps, etc) left behind. Consider that FDNY volunteers were on the site every day, sifting through all the debris looking for any personal effects, remains, or their items from one of their fallen brothers. As such it was 100% impossible for there to have been a CD without FDNY rank-and-file firefighters discovering mountains of evidence of it. Provide proof (not theory, not a guess, but proof) of the means and method used to coerce all the rank-and-file firefighters to lie and cover up the evidence of the murder of 300+ of their brothers.
160. Adding onto the previous question: Would you take money or some other type of bribe to lie about the murder of 3k people? Yes or no?
161. If the answer to the above questions is "Yes" please declare how much you are getting paid to peddle your "inside job" ********. If the answer is "No" please explain why you think you are so much more noble and virtuous than the rank-and-file FDNY firefighters, since you believe they are all low-lifes who would take bribes to cover up the murder of 3000 people, including 340 of their brothers (by hiding the demolition debris they surely would have found).
162. We can all agree that we shouldn't believe everything we hear from govt, or from the media. But why do truthers believe its ok to blindly believe everything they hear from a talk radio host who believes in goblin-people?
163. Adding onto the previous question: Why do truthers believe its ok to blindly believe everything they see on a website, just because the website as the word "truth" in the title?
164. Adding onto the previous question. Why do truthers believe its OK to blindly believe everything they see on Youtube or other internet based videos?
165. Truthers point out that John O'Neill, former FBI agent was killed on 911. He had recently (within days) taken a job working in the complex. John O'Neill was ostensibly blocked (as an FBI agent) by his superiors from pursuing leads and investigations regarding middle eastern terrorism. But, truthers claim 911 was a false flag attack. So if we attacked ourselves on 911, and it was not Middle-Eastern terrorists, why does it matter if O'Neill was blocked or not, since truthers claim that O'Neill's work had nothing to do with 911 anyway (the terrorists were innocent on 911)?
166. We are told that a security company that was headed by Marvin Bush (president's brother) had a contract that was set to expire on Sept 11th. If this is true, we are expected to believe that the entire 911 attacks were an act of spite over an expiring contract. Please list all the times in history where a security company, at the expiration of a contract, faked a terrorist attack that hijacked 4 planes, and flew 3 of them into buildings as revenge.
167. Who REALLY ran security at the World Trade Center? A) EJ Electric B) The Port Authority C) Securacom D) Kroll?
168 . Truthers claim flight 93 landed in Cleveland, based on a (retracted) WCPO story where a flight out of Boston had landed in Cleveland, and a bomb was feared aboard. However, UA93 had originated from Newark. Not Boston. Also, roughly 30 minutes before the WCPO website posted the story, United had already confirmed that flight 93 had crashed in PA 17 minutes earlier. As such, the WCPO story was objectively, provably false in identifying the flight that landed in CLE as UA 93. Further, as UA 93 didn't depart BOS, it could not have been the diverted flight regardless the timing. Why does the truth movement rely so heavily on a document that is so obviously in error?
169. If the Truthers still insist the WCPO story is "really true" then United Airlines is complicit in the coverup. Please show (not guess, show) the type of coercion used to get all (at the time) 100k employees to lie.
170. Truthers tell us the planes were remotely flown, because the hijackers were incapable of flying the planes. Further, we are told they are all still alive and weren't involved with 911 at all. Yet truthers also claim the hijackers trained on US military bases on how to fly airplanes. Why would the govt train the hijackers how to fly airplanes, if the hijackers weren't going to fly the airplanes? Why train them to fly airplanes if they were just going to go back to being random, normal lives?
171. Many conspiracies have been exposed over time. Watergate, Gulf of Tonkin coverup, Northwoods propsal, Tukseegee experiment, etc. These were conspiracies that were completely covered up, completely unknown until they were busted open. In contrast, there are the popular "widely believed" conspiracies like the "faked" moon landing, JFK, et cetera. Yet those were never busted open. List all of the conspiracies, with coverups that were actually exposed AFTER kookspiracy movement retards "demanded the truth" for years?
172. Northwoods proposal was released via a routine declassification of Kennedy Administration era documents. Meaning specifically, the same individuals truthers claimed committed a false flag attack on the US voluntarily provided the proof that govt commits false flag attacks. On what planet does it make sense for people plotting a false flag attack to voluntarily make sure the whole world knows they were planning false flag attacks?
173. Truthers claim that Bush has "admitted" to seeing the first plane hit on TV before going into the classroom. They also point out how dazed, confused, etc he looked after Andrew Card told him while in the classroom about the attacks. If it was an inside job and Bush 1) had prior knowledge, and 2) had really seen the first plane hit earlier in the day, why didn't he respond better? Why would he be so "dazed and confused" if he had prior knowledge, and had even seen the first plane earlier?
174. Do you kooks really think "Bush said so, and you know he would never lie!" is a good basis to prove your point?
175. What is the difference, if any, between heat and temperature?
176. What is the difference between iron microspheres and iron-rich microspheres?
177. How hot does Jet fuel and hydrocarbon office contents in an open air environment? Now how hot would it burn given the estimated amount of oxygen inside the WTC?
178. If a 100k ton mass is descending straight down, what does Newton's 1st law of motion and Inertia say about the path of that object?
179. How much weight could one floor slab of the World Trade Center Hold?
180. Truthers claim the planes were flying around for over 2 hours after the first sign of trouble. "From the first signs of trouble" would be when the transponder was turned off. So, even if there was an instant realization of a hijack, the earliest response time would still be based on the amount of time from the transponder being turned off, to the crash. Based on this measure, AA11 was in the air 26 mins, UA 175 was in the air 17 mins. AA77 was in the air 40 mins, and UA 93 was in the air 35 mins. On what planet are any of these times longer than 2 hours?
181. Refer to the Aug 6, PDB. It ostensibly warns of a pending bin laden terrorist attack. If there was an inside job of ANY level (ie, LIHOP or MIHOP of any degree) there has to be some coordination with the govt. Unless it is a 100% outside job, then there has to be some coordination within the administration. So, if the administration was involved with a coordinated effort with OBL, why the fux would the president have to brief himself about a "fake" terrorist attack about which he already knew from being part of the plan?
182. Truthers tell us that the ISI wired $100k to Mohammed Atta the day before the attacks. This represents about half of the estimated cost of the entire 2 year operation. If so, why would Atta need 100k the day before the attacks? At that point, what is left to pay for? Incidental expenses would be on charge cards, and certainly couldn't add up for that. So, why should we believe the "ISI paid Atta" story when it makes no sense for Atta to need 100k just for 1 day's incidental expenses?
183. Add on to the previous question: If Alqaeda was innocent, and the planes were all flown by remote, and therefore the hijackers are not guilty of anything, then why would I care if the ISI paid Atta if Atta is 100% innocent?
184. The ISI story comes from a Times of India story, which sources India Intelligence as the source. Given India's history with Pakistan, is it really wise to take a single-source, uncorroborated claim from someone with an axe to grind? If so, why?
185. Supposedly Larry Silverstein "admitted" to demolishing his own building on 911. If so, why did the insurance company just pay up? Why isn't he in jail for admitted insurance fraud?
186. Regarding the pentagon, Truthers point to windows near the impact that were unbroken (apparently the concept of "blast proof windows" eludes the super-geniuses in the truth movement). Truthers claim this is proof that 77 couldn't have hit the pentagon. Thereby, this supports (in their "minds") proof that a missile hit the pentagon instead. But a missile would have an explosive warhead. Thereby doing more damage locally to the impact point than the plane crash would. Please then explain why the same windows you believe are strong enough to survive nearby to a missile strike couldn't survived a nearby to a plane impact.
187. Regarding the pentagon, Truthers point to Cable Spools near the impact that were "nearly undamaged". Truthers claim this is proof that 77 couldn't have hit the pentagon. Thereby, this supports (in their "minds") proof that a missile hit the pentagon instead. But a missile would have an explosive warhead. Thereby doing more damage locally to the impact point than the plane crash would. Please then explain why the same cable spools you believe are strong enough to survive nearby to a missile strike couldn't survive a nearby to a plane impact.
188. Les Robertson designed the WTC towers, and has stated repeatedly that the buildings were capable of sustaining only ONE hit from a slow speed, low on fuel aircraft. A repeat of the Empire State Crash. As such, he has also stated that the design never contemplated the fuel fires, since it was assumed the low fuel load (and due to less momentum, almost all the fuel would explode outside). He has also stated that he knew that if a collapse like we saw on 911 ever started, there would be no stopping it. Please provide proof that he was coerced to lie about his design.
189. 9/11 truthers say that the Family members who helped form the 9/11 Commission still have questions about the attacks that they want answers to. What EXACTLY are those questions? (Hint: They are posted on the Family Steering committee website)
190. If "the families" believe 911 the inside job lie, then why did families NOT want KSM to be given a trial in NY? Such an opportunity would surely afford the innocent party a worldwide platform for KSM to prove the inside job—and his innocence. So why would the families NOT want KSM tried in NY?
191. If the "families" thought 911 was an inside job, why would they object to a (supposed) business partner of the bin Laden Family being on the 911 commission. Please explain why people who (ostensibly) believe OBL is innocent would object to the innocent OBL having someone on the commission who would be working to PREVENT OBL from being falsely blamed with the attacks.
192. Why do we still have all those expensive, schools of engineering all over the world since the kook movement has proved that any 80 IQ moron can become a world-leading expert in structural engineering by just watching a 6 minute YouTube video?
193. When the Messianic Hero of the Truth Movement, Osama bin Laden was killed, there were thousands upon thousands who poured into the streets of NY, DC, and other places to all cheer the death of OBL. Why were there no family members out demanding accountability for the USG murdering (who the kook movement claims is) an innocent person?
MrFliop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th January 2017, 03:11 PM   #16
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,204
Thanks!

Couple details:

Quote:
93. Truthers say the collapse of WTC 7 is impossible by fire. Which part is impossible? That fire can weaken unprotected floor trusses? That dislodging of floor trusses can cause an unstable column to give way? That progressive collapses can happen?
WTC7 didn't use trusses. It used beams and girders.


Quote:
100. We are told that Larry Silvertein couldn't have been talking about pulling the firefighting operation in WTC 7 because there were no Firefighters in building 7 by thetime he got that call. But truthers are also saying Barry Jennings was rescued by FIGHTER FIGHTERS in WTC7 on the afternoon of 9/11? How could Barry have been rescued by firefighters in WTC7 if as truthers say there were no Firefighters in the building?
I guess you mean firefighters.
__________________
Ask questions. Demand answers. But be prepared to accept the answers, or don't ask questions in the first place.
pgimeno is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th January 2017, 12:43 AM   #17
Cosmic Yak
Graduate Poster
 
Cosmic Yak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 1,480
Originally Posted by MrFliop View Post
In case anyone is interested, the correct answer to question 186 Is 6 floors
Quote:
186. Regarding the pentagon, Truthers point to windows near the impact that were unbroken (apparently the concept of "blast proof windows" eludes the super-geniuses in the truth movement). Truthers claim this is proof that 77 couldn't have hit the pentagon. Thereby, this supports (in their "minds") proof that a missile hit the pentagon instead. But a missile would have an explosive warhead. Thereby doing more damage locally to the impact point than the plane crash would. Please then explain why the same windows you believe are strong enough to survive nearby to a missile strike couldn't survived a nearby to a plane impact.
Umm?
__________________
Fortuna Faveat Fatuis
Cosmic Yak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th January 2017, 05:24 AM   #18
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,204
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
Umm?
They are wrongly numbered. I've renumbered them in the same order as the video.

1. On 9th September 2001 Ahmed Shah Massoud, the most effective military commander of the anti-Taliban coalition (the Northern Alliance, or NA) was killed by two Arab suicide bombers posing as journalists. The assassination of Massoud had taken months to plan, and the latter had received the bogus request for an interview in May 2001 (See Steve Coll, Ghost Wars, pp.574-576; Jason Burke, Al Qaeda, p.197; Daniel Byman, Deadly Connections, p.210). Two days before 9/11, Al Qaeda killed the Taliban's main enemy, who had also played a pivotal role in keeping the NA factions together, and who would have been the obvious figure to liase with if the Americans had decided to effect regime change in Afghanistan. If Al Qaeda were not responsible for 9/11, then why was Ahmed Shah Massouds assassination so well co-ordinated with the attacks on New York and Washington?
2. Conversely, prior to 9/11, the US government had minimal contacts with Massoud and other Northern Alliance figures, much to the latters frustration (See Coll, passim). If 9/11 was a false flag operation intended to justify a pre-determined plan to invade Afghanistan, then why didnt the CIA and other US government agencies do more to facilitate ties with the NA prior to 911, knowing they would need the NA later?
3. Just before 9/11, Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri and other key Al Qaeda personnel left their quarters in Kandahar to hide in Tora Bora (Lawrence Wright, The Looming Tower, pp.356-358). Why did bin Laden and al-Zawahiri suddenly, magically know to leave their known locations and go to ground, if they were not anticipating imminent military action and pursuit by the USA?
4. In the days following 9/11, the Bush administration asked the Joint Chiefs of Staff for a plan to invade Afghanistan. The JCS had to admit that they had no contingency plan for such an invasion, and in the weeks preceding Operation Enduring Freedom the CIA and the Department of Defense were obliged to improvise a plan of attack against the Taliban and its Al Qaeda allies (Benjamin Lambeth, Air Power Against Terror; Bob Woodward, Bush At War). If 9/11 had been an inside job, and if there was a long-standing intention by Bush and his advisors to invade Afghanistan and overthrow the Taliban, then why did they have to scrabble around for a workable plan? Why was one not prepared beforehand?
5. We are being asked by the truthers to believe that the 19 hijackers were patsies, or non-existent (They were 15 Sauds, 1 Egyptian, 1 Lebanese, and 2 from the UAE). If it was the intention of the US government to justify military interventions to overthrow hostile regimes in the Middle East, why did they make the fake-hijackers citizens of allied countries? Why were they not given Iraqi, Iranian or Syrian identity?
6. Why not make the fake hijackers part of terrorist groups (such as the Abu Nidal Organisation, the PLFP-GC or Hizbollah) with closer links to Tehran, Damascus and above all Baghdad?
7. We are supposed to believe that Israel had a hand in 9/11. If so, then why were none of the fake hijackers Palestinians linked to Fatah or Hamas?
8. How is it possible for a group of conspirators to be so brilliant that they can pull off 9/11 as a plot to frame an innocent party, then forget to frame the innocent party?
9. Following on from this point, if the identities and the nationalities of the hijackers were faked, then why did the Saudi, Egyptian, Lebanese and UAE governments all admit that citizens from their own countries were involved? What incentive did Saudi Arabia have for admitting that 15 of its own people had committed mass murder on US soil?
10. Why would the Saudis co-operate in a plot which would blacken their country's name, benefit Israeli interests in the Middle East, provide the pretext for the overthrow of one fundamentalist Sunni regime in Afghanistan, and contribute to the destruction of a Sunni Arab dictatorship in Iraq long seen by the Saudi royal family as a needed bulwark against Iran?
11. Afghanistan is a landlocked country (truthers may need to be reminded of this fact), and any invasion is logistically impossible without the support of its neighbors. Prior to 9/11, Pakistan was a staunch ally of Taliban-ruled Afghanistan (see Ahmed Rashid, Taliban, passim). The former Soviet Central Asian states of Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan backed the Northern Alliance, but were also wary of antagonizing their former master, Russia. Prior to September 2001 these states would not have contemplated admitting any US or Western military presence on their soil. Although Russian President Vladimir Putin backed the USAs invasion of Afghanistan in October 2001, it took the Americans considerable effort to persuade him to permit the US and NATO forces to use bases on Uzbek and Tajik territory as part of Operation Enduring Freedom. It also took time and considerable pressure to force General Pervez Musharraf to abandon the Taliban - despite resistance from the military and ISI. Given the geo-political realities of Central Asia in mid-2001, there were no guarantees of any host nation support for any attack on Afghanistan. Assuming again that 9/11 was an inside job, how could the US government realistically presume that the Russians and Pakistanis would actually permit the USA to effect regime change against the Taliban?
12. Assuming that claims of Mossad complicity in 9/11 (dancing Israelis, etc.) are correct, can the truthers suggest a feasible motive for the Israeli government conniving in an act of mass murder on US soil? Since 1967, the mainstay of Israel's security and survival has been its alignment with the USA, and the military assistance it has received as a result. This relationship is based on a bipartisan political consensus (both the Republican and Democratic parties are predominantly pro-Israeli) and considerable public support in the USA. Why engage in a false flag attack against the civilian population of an ally, when you have so little to gain and so much to lose if your responsibility is ever disclosed?
13. Following on from this, assuming that the five dancing Israelis story isn't a complete fabrication, do you honestly believe the Mossad (arguably one of the best-trained spy agencies in the world) trains its undercover agents to compromise themselves by acting so ostentatiously in public?
14. If the five arrested Israelis were part of a conspiracy organized with the US government, then why did the FBI hold them in custody for over two months, instead of releasing them on the quiet a matter of hours or days after their apprehension?
15. If the WTC towers in New York City were destroyed by controlled demolitions rigged by US government agencies, then why use such an insanely convoluted and unwieldy cover story? Why concoct a scenario involving the hijacking of planes which are then crashed into tower blocks (involving complicated planning involving remote controlled flights timed with explosives detonated in the towers, which allow plenty of opportunities for gliches and technical errors)? Why not use simpler means, such as a truck bomb?
16. Assuming that Niaz Naiks account of his alleged meeting with retired US officials in July 2001 is true, then where were the 17,000 Russian troops who were supposedly ready to invade Afghanistan when it came to the commencement of military operations in October 2001?
17. Reference above question: If the main motive behind the invasion was to build a natural gas pipe-line which would be under US control, then why was no attempt ever made to build one once the Taliban were overthrown?
18. We are being asked by the conspiracy theorists to assume that NORAD was stood down on the morning of 11th September 2001 so as to enable the success of the attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon. NORAD is a combined command--it has a bi-national staff drawn from the US military and the Canadian Forces (CF). We are either supposed to believe that either a) The CF personnel assigned to NORAD were too stupid to notice anything amiss in their headquarters - and query it - or b) that the Canadian government and the CF were complicit in 9/11. Which of these scenarios is true?
19. If Al Qaeda were merely framed for the 11th September attacks, then why have its leaders and spokesmen repeatedly affirmed their responsibility for - and pride in - these attacks? Why are we supposed to believe that repeated video pronouncements by bin Laden and Zawahiri are fake, while just one written statement (allegedly from bin Laden denying responsibility - which was handed by courier to al-Jazeera without any confirmation of its origins) was genuine?
20. If the hijacking and crashing of four passenger planes was engineered by the US government, then why did UA93 crash into an empty field in Pennsylvania? Why not crash it into a target which would add to the death toll on 9/11, and further inflame US public attitudes and popular demands for revenge against the supposed perpetrators?
21. If the US government is institutionally ruthless enough to organize the massacre of thousands of its own citizens in a series of false flag attacks, then why is it too squeamish to arrange for the deaths of the supposed truth-seekers (David Griffin, Kevin Barrett, Steven Jones, Richard Gage, the Loose Change bitches, Alex Jones, etc.) who have exposed their complicity in one of the most heinous crimes a government can commit against its own people? Why are these people still alive and well, and in a position to publicize their theories on radio, television, in print and online?
22. Adding on to the above question, take you answer to that question and explain why it doesn't apply to Bill Cooper.
23. Ostensibly, we are told the purpose of the False Flag attack on 911 was to get us to go to war in Iraq. The cover story for attacking Iraq was "Saddam had WMDs." If this is true, then why weren't WMDs planted in Iraq? We are told the "lies about WMD's" is one of the smoking guns. Why wouldn't the conspirators make the Iraq war look as legitimate as possible? Even if they had somehow forgotten to plant the wmds to begin with, for 18 months people screamed "Where are the WMD's?" Certainly in 18 months they would have figured out their omission and planted wmds. Why leave open such a huge clue to your hidden plan, when it would be so easily avoided?
24. Building on the above question: If 911 was an inside job for the purpose of going to Iraq, why did we blame OBL at all? Why not just make the fake hijackers Iraqi agents, and attack Iraq on 9/12/01? We are constantly reminded that they had a battle plan already drawn-up (to go to war with Iraq) before even taking office (unlike Afghanistan, where they had to scramble to cobble together a plan ad-hoc). If you're already primed and ready to go to Iraq, why waste time blaming Afghanistan where you are completely un-prepared?
25. If, as twoofers claim, 911 was a false flag for the purpose of going to Iraq, why send Colin Powell to the UN with (ostensibly known, faked) intel about WMDS in Iraq when we could have just as easily sent him with fake intel claiming Iraq did 911?
26. 1100 people worked the Shanksville site doing various reclamation duties. Some were feds. Some local, some volunteers, and some United Airlines people. Provide evidence that specifically shows how they got all of those 1100 people to lie, and say 93 crashed there if it was diverted to Cleveland instead.
27. Some say a missile hit the pentagon, and not AA77. Assuming it was an inside job, and the govt wanted to fake flight 77 hitting the pentagon, why the **** would the govt even NEED or even WANT to use a missile? Air Force has dozens of 757's. A govt capable of orchestrating such a ridiculously overly-complicated plot that we (supposedly) saw on 911 certainly would have no problem secretly obtaining a 757, and repainting it with AA's livery. So, after all the trouble of diverting 77 to some secret location, why even use a missile when it's equally as easy to use a real, repainted, remote controlled 757?
28. Truthers claim the planes were remotely flow into the buildings. This allows the (supposed) expert precision needed. If so, why did they hit the top 20% of the building? Tactically, it makes more sense to hit the buildings as low as you can (traps more people above the fires, and increases the likelihood of toppling the building--more collateral damage). They could have just as easily hit the 30th or 20th floor, as they did the 80th. Yet they didn't. Why?
29. Regarding the pentagon "missile:" there is no missile in the world that flies over the target at 8k feet, then make a 330 degree descending turn to come back to the target. Any remotely flown, or computer controlled guidance would not need the descending turn. It would easily be able to just fly straight in. It's what missiles do—fly straight in. Exactly which missile in the Nato Inventory requires the missile to first miss its target by 8000 feet, then circle around and hit it on a second pass?
30. We are told the phone calls from passengers were faked. How did they fake the personal information in the phone calls, such as combinations to a wall safe, or specific locations of personal items, such as wills, et cetera?
31. Adding onto the above question: where did they get the voice samples in order to program the voice synthesizers? Especially given that some of the calls were made by last-minute additions to the flight? Not speculation how they could do it. Specifically how did they do it?
32. As an add-on to the previous question: We were told the phone calls from the passengers were faked, using real-time voice morphing technology. This allowed "actors" to perfectly imitate passenger voices so well that even loved ones didn't know they were being fooled. Assuming this is possible, why not have the experts who were remote-flying the hijacked planes simply imitate the pilot's voices? Being expert pilots (the "truthers" claim they were) they easily would be able to fool ATC into thinking it was a normal flight. The fake-pilots could claim a mechanical issue with their planes, and request diversion to LaGuardia or Kennedy Airport. Not only would this allow for simultaneous hits to the towers—many more deaths—but this would eliminate the need for the supposed NORAD stand down, since the flights would appear 100% normal to ATC up until the last few seconds. Plus, such a technique could also be used inside the aircraft cabin's PA system. Therefore, to the passengers and flight attendants, the fake-Captain would simply advise the plane of the diversion to NYC, but everything is normal. This eliminates the need to fake the passenger phone calls. So, why not use that voice morph technology to have the fake-hijackers imitate the real pilots, and eliminate the need for a stand down, and passenger calls?
33. Why would Cheney need to give a stand-down order to prevent fighters from intercepting flight 77, if the pentagon was going to be hit by a missile, and 77 had been diverted to a secret location far away?
34. Why would Cheney need to give a stand down order to prevent fighters from intercepting flight 77 if, as truthers say, no fighters were even scrambled?
35. In the decade preceding 9/11 how many civilian airline intercepts where there in the continental US? How long did it take?
36. What were the 2 drills taking place at NORAD on 9/11(Vigilant Guardian and Global Guardian) about? What effects did military commanders say these drills had on their response to the attacks?
37. What was the plan if either 175 or 11 somehow failed to hit their targets? Would they just blow up the remaining twin tower? Or just leave all the evidence of the controlled demolition in the towers to be found later?
38. If it was flight 175 that failed to hit its tgt, would they (like truthers claim of the pentagon) just shoot a missile at the B2 and hope all the worldwide audience watching live and on TV just mistook it for a Jetliner? Or just leave all the evidence of the controlled demolition in the towers to be found later?
39. Truthers claim that the black boxes from ground zero were found and taken by the FBI. This all based on the testimony of someone who claimed that he worked at Ground Zero during cleanup and saw FBI agents recover 3 of the 4 black boxes on one trip to the site (an amazing story to begin with.....on just one trip through the huge debris pile they found 3 of 4???with no locators or anything like that??? wow!). If that didn't seem implausible enough, it was revealed that that this same person was running a scam where he ran a travelling exhibit of debris from Ground Zero and wore an FDNY uniform claiming to be a firefighter, and claimed that the proceeds he made were going to charity. However, in 2005 he was arrested for being in possession of stolen property from Ground Zero and the FDNY stated that this guy is not and never was a firefighter. He was also in deep financial trouble,which is probably where his "charity" money went. Is it really wise to believe such a thing from an obvious fraud?
40. If no fighters were scrambled, how was 93 shot down?
41. If Cheney really gave a stand down order, how was 93 shot down?
42. If Flight 93 was shot down, how can it be diverted to Cleveland?
43. Truthers claim there was no crash in Shanksville, because there was no trace of a plane. But also tell us that the wide spread debris from 93 proves 93 was obviously shot down. How can there be enough debris to prove the plane was shot down if there was no trace of a plane?
152. If Flight 93 was indeed shot down then why wasn’t there any debris found along its north west flight path?
44. Many people escaped from offices above the impact zone on B2, because they decided on their own to leave the building immediately after B1 was hit. So they were able to get below the impact zone, before the 2nd plane actually hit. Consequently, if both planes hit near simultaneously, many more people would have been killed. So, if the planes were expertly flown (or remotely flown), why not time the hits much more closely together thereby trapping more people above the impacts?
46. If a spouse, child, or parent called you on the phone, do you honestly think you wouldn't notice if it were an actor? Even if the actor sounded like the child, spouse, or parent?
47. If it really was flight 77 that hit the pentagon, but the flight was being controlled remotely by some expert pilot, why would that expert pilot, make the mistake of overflying at 8000 feet, then having to circle back for a 2nd try?
48. If the pentagon was hit by a missile, then that missile would have needed to make cartoonish, greater-than-90 degree turns at 600 mph, pin-balling back and forth to knock down all the light-poles, hitting the generator, then scraping along the first floor of the pentagon to cause all the damage to the façade, then make a 270 degree circle back to the impact point. Please list the missiles in the current NATO inventory that can fly that profile.
49.Over both New York and Washington DC videos captured a doomsday plane flying over the crash sites on 9/11. Conspiracy theorist say this is evidence of an Inside Job. A doomsday plane is put up in the air whenever the country comes under attack. Therefore,the plane over D.C. PROVES that 9/11 was NOT an inside job, otherwise why put up doomsday planes if the country was not really under attack by an outsider?
50. Truthers say that a passport surviving the plane crash into the WTC and being is proof of planted evidence and an inside job. But mail aboard the Hindenburg survived that explosion. Also, after the Space Shuttle Columbia exploded on re-entry, the diary of one of the astronauts was found on the ground having survived the explosion. Please explain why the Hindenburg and Columbia Disasters were inside jobs?
51. Adding on the previous question. Truthers say its suspicious that no other Passenger's passport was discovered at ground zero(although many of their drivers licenses and IDs were.) What exactly is a passport used for? What type of flights do youneed to bring it on?
52. Adding on the previous question. What would even be the purpose of planting the passports of one the hijackers at the WTC? All it does is prove they were on the plane. Well, we already knew they were on the plane because of the flight manifest. In fact, we know exactly every passenger who was on every plane because of the flight manifest, whether or not their ID's were recovered at the crash sites.So why plant it if everyone was going to find out who hijackers were anyway?
53. We are told that John Ashcroft stopped flying commercial carriers prior to 911 is proof of foreknowledge of the inside job. Despite the fact that his family was still flying commercial for personal travel (the restriction on commercial travel was for his govt related travel, not personal travel). If it was an inside job, and Ashcroft was warned, why wouldn't he simply continue to fly commercial as normal, since he would know to stay away from AA11, AA77, UA 93, and UA 175 on September 11th? If he knew in advance what was planned, he'd know which flights to stay away from. So why would he have to stop flying commercial, if he already knew which flights were doomed?
54. Add on to the previous question. Why would the conspirators give a fux about John Ashcroft? If they are willing to kill (potential in the towers was 50k) all those people on 911, plus the war on terror (death toll estimates between 10s of thousands and a million) why would they care about John Ashcroft? Are we expected to believe that such heartless, ruthless conspirators capable of such enormous death and destruction got squimish over Ashcroft?
55. Add on to the previous question. If Ashcroft stopped flying commercial because of warnings of a terrorist attack, doesn't that really prove it was a terrorist attack? Why would the fact that John Ashcroft stopped flying due to a terrorist attack threat MATTER if terrorists weren't responsible for 911.
56. Wouldn't it be a much better cover-up (in the question above) to have several very high ranking cabinet members on commercial flights that day (who just luckily avoided the ill-fated flights)? If it was an inside job, and they all knew what was coming, they would have no problem avoiding the doomed flights.
57. Truthers claim that SFO Mayor Willie Brown was "warned not to fly" that day. Truthers claim this indicates foreknowledge. Brown was booked on an 8:00am flight from SFO to NYC. Why would someone have to call Willie Brown to warn him to not fly, when the caller (who supposedly has foreknowledge) would know that Browns flight was not one of the planned hijackings?
58. Adding onto the previous question. Why would someone with foreknowledge need to warn Brown at all? The 1st 2 planes would have crashed into the WTC, 2 hours before Brown's departure time. Obviously word would have gotten to Brown (long before his departure time) of the hijackings and crashes. Why warn Brown, when he would obviously KNOW long before his departure time what was happening?
59. Add on to the previous question. Same question as was about Ashcroft earlier. Why would the conspirators give a fux about Willie Brown? Are we expected to believe that such heartless, ruthless conspirators capable of such enormous death and destruction got squimish over Brown?
60. "Truthers" point to the FBI website, noting that OBL is not wanted for the 911 attacks. Presumably, this is proof that OBL is not really guilty. Please explain how it is possible that the most brilliant, diabolical criminal minds in history capable of pulling of the 911 "inside job" are, at the same time, too stupid to figure out how to update an FBI website in 9 years? Please tell me on what planet this makes sense.
61. Truthers say the fact that the FBI website does not list OBL as wanted for the 911 attacks proves he was not involved in the attacks. By this logic, doesn't this mean that the fact no one is wanted on the FBI list for an inside job also prove there was no inside job?
62. Truthers say the fact that the FBI website does not list him as wanted for the 911 attacks proves he was not involved in the attacks. However, there is NO ONE wanted (on the FBI 10-list) for the attacks. Does this mean a) the attacks never happened, or b) someone can be involved in the attacks, though not listed for it on the 10-list. Which is true?
63. The FBI investigates terrorism and violations of US Criminal law. Their top-10 list is based on people who violated US criminal law, or committed acts of terrorism. Please explain how OBL violated US criminal (or made an act of terrorism) law by sitting in a cave in Afghansitan while someone else hijacked an airplane half a world away.
64. Adding on. The claim that there is no "hard evidence linking Bin Laden to 9/11"" was made by one person in 2006 named Rex Tomb, who did (at the time) work for the FBI. Was Tomb ever a counter-terrorism expert or even an agent?
65. On the FBI website, under OBLs profile, it states that in addition to the US Govt offering a $25 million reward, the Air Line Pilots Association and the Air Transport Association are offering an additional $2 million. These organizations represent airline pilots and airlines. Obviously, this would be related to 911, since that is OBL's only connection to these organizations. Now, if 911 was so obviously impossible (there is no way the planes could be flown the way they were, and there is no way "amateurs" could even come close to performing those maneuvers, etc etc) then it would be obvious to ATA and especially to ALPA as well. So if ALPA is aware of the obvious fraud of 911, why are they offering a $2 million reward to help cover the murder of their fellow pilots? Why are the airlines all contributing to the cover-up of the murder of their fellow employees.
66. Building on the last point: If it was so obviously impossible for hijackers to take over and fly the planes, why did ALPA and other pilots unions immediately lobby congress for guns in the cockpit, and re-enforced cockpit doors to defend the cockpit from terrorists? Why would airline pilots suddenly all want to defend themselves from cockpit intrusions, when they all know that whole story is (according to the truthers) so obviously false?
67. If 911 was really an inside job, pilots obviously would know it. Consequentially, pilots would know that if the conspirators got away with it, this would mean that they (conspirators) would be free to kill pilots at will, any time, for any reason, with no consequence. Why would pilots be so willing to cover up for the conspirators and volunteer to be killed in the next "fake hijacking."
68. "Truthers" point to the numbers of various federal offices located in Building 7, claiming that the evidence for Enron case was kept there. Further, that was the reason Building 7 had to be destroyed (to destroy all that Enron evidence). If that's true, please explain how the Enron guys got convicted anyway, with no evidence against them, since it was all destroyed in B7?
69. In addition to the previous question: Please explain how it is possible that the most brilliant, diabolical criminal minds in history capable of pulling of the 911 "inside job" are, at the same time, too stupid to figure out how to use a paper shredder to destroy the Enron evidence. Please tell me on what planet this makes sense.
70. We are told that Larry Silverstein had just insured the building against terrorism just before the attacks. The presumption is that he knew of the coming attacks, and 911was a great big insurance scam. After the attacks, LS went to court against his insurance company. His policy was valued at $3.5 billion payout for a terrorist attack. He claimed 2 planes meant there were 2 attacks, not one, so that he should receive compensation based on being attacked twice (i.e., $7B, not $3.5). So, we can confirm Larry was angling to get the most money he could out of the attacks. However, during the trial the court records show that originally the lender who loaned LS the money for the lease (LS had just leased the building approx 6 weeks earlier) was dis-satisfied with LS. He was only carrying $1B of insurance. The lender felt that did not protect their loan effectively, and they demanded LS purchase a larger policy valued at $5B. LS eventually negotiated it down to a $3.5B policy (LS wanted lower premiums). Had LS known the attacks were coming, he had the perfect excuse for a 5B policy—lender requirement. And based on his post-911 lawsuit, that $5B policy would have paid twice—total $10B. Instead, because he underinsured, he only got $7B. Forget for a minute the actual purpose of insurance, and answer this question: If he knew the attacks were coming, why did he intentionally screw himself out of a slam-dunk, additional $3 Billion dollars?
71. The insurance policy at the time was still being negotiated in its specifics. The policy at the time was based on a temporary insurance "binder." When the policy was set up, it was SILVERSTEIN who suggested the language to define the term "occurrence" to include a "series of similar causes." It takes NO brains (ie, even truthers should be able to understand this) to see that the 2 planes hitting within half an hour of each other in an intentionally coordinated attack can very easily be considered "a series of similar causes." So, why—if he had foreknowledge (and considering the above example where he intentionally underinsured) would he be trying so hard before the attacks to make his payout a SMALL as possible?
72. Furthermore,Silverstein was taking his time with the policy negotiations and the signing of all the paperwork, and hadn't yet finished it when the attacks happened, which ultimately cost him $2.6 billion. If he knew the date of the attacks why wouldn't he have made sure to sign all of the papers before then?
73. Truthers claim the buildings collapsed at free fall speed, and inside their own footprint. How can the towers have collapsed at free fall speed, if the debris (falling at free-fall speed) was falling twice as fast as the collapse?
74. In Addition, Truthers claim debris was "ejected" and was found over 400 feet away. How can debris from the buildings be "400 feet away" and "inside the footprint" at the same time?"
75. Truthers claim that the steel beams were "ejected" with some landing 400 feet away. They cite this as evidence of a controlled demolition. Please list all controlled demolitions in history where the cutting charges have launched 160ton massive steel beams 400 feet away from the building.
76.How does the WTC core collapsing 15-20 seconds AFTER the rest of the building due to being unstable indicate controlled demolition? When do demolitions ever demolish the rest of the building, and then wait 15-20 seconds to take down the core?
77. Truthers claim that molten metal was found underneath the debris piles many weeks after the attacks. They cite this as proof of a controlled demolition. List all of the controlled demolitions in history that resulted in flowing rivers of molten steel 6 weeks after the demolition.
78. Truthers claim that there were hot spots of "thousands of degrees" found many weeks after the attacks. They cite this as proof of a controlled demolition. List all of the controlled demolitions in history that resulted in hot-spots of thousands of degrees 6 weeks after the demolition.
79. Truthers claim that molten metal was found underneath the debris piles many weeks after the attacks. They cite this as proof of a controlled demolition. However, molten metal was seen flowing out of building 6. Yet Building 6 was not a controlled demolition. In fact, truthers point out how well B6 "survived" given the amount of damage it took. Please explain how molten metals can occur in B6, even though it was not a CD, when you tell us molten metal can only come from a CD?
80. Truthers claim that molten metal was found underneath the debris piles many weeks after the attacks. They cite this as proof of a controlled demolition. However, during the clean up, many vehicles (that were covered by the debris in the intial collapse) were found to have had their wheels melted. Please explain the tactical necessity of placing thermite into, and thereby melting the wheels of vehicles on the street as part of the inside job? Try to do so without laughing.
81. Even if Thermate were used what kept the molten steel/iron from solidifying within seconds and kept it molten for over 6 weeks?
82. The next 6 questions are related to the molten metal dripping from the South Tower: If the molten metal were indeed a byproduct of a thermite reaction, then the amount of molten metal observed would require 10 full dump truck loads of thermite. How did they get all of this into the building past security and why did no office workers notice 10 fuxing dump truck loads of thermite in that corner?
83. Is it really just coincidence that the molten metal is dripping from the EXACT floor and the EXACT corner where tons of aluminum from the plane are known to have piled against and can be seen in photos?
84. The collapse of 2WTC began with the buckling of the columns on the east side of the building, not the north side (we usually say the NE corner for simplicity but it's really entirely on the north).Why the inconsistency?
85. How come the photos and videos of that corner (many of which are in excellent resolution) show the molten metal dripping out through the spaces between columns whereas there isn't a single cut through even one of the columns? (And mind you, causing a collapse via severing through enough perimeter columns would require probably about 50% of them to be cut through, not just one or two, so we would have to see huge amounts of perimeter columns being severed through. Even if you think that one or two WERE cut through and that the photos don't show it, then you still can't deny that the flow never leaves that one corner!Even severing, say, 5 or 6 columns would do nothing.)
86. Why is the same phenomena not observed in the North Tower? Or WTC7?
87. Thermite can only be ignited at temperatures hundreds of degrees higher than the hottest temp that jet fuel can burn. What exactly set off that charge?
88. Thisis basically Steven Jones' history of his theory... "It was thermite. No wait, I mean it was thermate. No wait, I mean it was nano-thermite. No wait, I mean it was actually just traditional explosives all along, nanothermite was just used to ignite the explosives." That's right, Steven Jones himself doesn't even support the thermite/thermate/nanothermite theory anymore. He now claims it was traditional explosives and nanothermite was just used to ignite the explosives... which makes absolutely zero sense. Why would they use some superhigh-tech theoretical "nanothermite" when there are already existing ignitions for demolition explosives which work perfectly well and have been around for decades and proven effective?
89.According to Professor Jones's analysis of World Trade Center steel and dust samples, high traces of sulfur and iron were found. Also found were traces of zinc, manganese, and titanium. Since most of these are ingredients for thermite truthers say that its evidence that thermite was used. But these same chemical signatures are also found in cheerios. Please explain what role these boxes of cheerios had with the WTC demolition?
90. The claim that there was power down in the weekend before 9/11 is based E-N-T-I-R-E-L-Y on an email by a man named Scott Forbes to 911review.com. However, Scott Forbes could not even prove that he had ever even worked at the World Trade Center. Even 911Review.com said that Scott Forbes had no evidence of anything and even THEY said they didn't believe his story. Its imply didn't happen, and that's a fact. If you still believe it after all these years please explain you cling desperately to anything that any person says in an email to a conspiracy theory website?
91. How many times did Willie Rodriguez change his story?
92. Why is it that eyewitness testimony is only irrelevant when it goes against your theories?
93. What is the difference between the pancake theory and a pancake collapse?
94. Truthers say the collapse of WTC 7 is impossible by fire. Which part is impossible? That fire can weaken unprotected floor trusses? That dislodging of floor trusses can cause an unstable column to give way? That progressive collapses can happen?
95. During its collapse WTC 7 experienced 2.25 seconds of freefall. From the instant of collapse initiation, it took 3 seconds for the collapse to spread from the 7th floor all the way to the roof. Then it takes another 8 seconds for the collapse to progress throughout the entire core. Once the core is completely gone, there's no lateral support for the perimeter columns. Also,the collapsing core pulls in on the floor beams, which pulls in on the perimeter columns. The collapse simulation predicted a bowing inward of the perimeter columns between the 8th and 14th floor (7 floors) when the shell began to collapse.Once they bowed inward enough, they just snapped at both ends and the 14th floor was free to fall onto the 8th floor with no resistance. Once the top hit other debris, it began slowing down again. Also, we can do a simply calculation to see if the collapse prediction matches with the observation. The loss of perimeter columns between the 8th and 14th floorsmeans a 7 floor drop. Each office floor was 12.5 feet in height (3.8 meters).3.8x7=(1/2)9.8t^2 calculates out to a free-fall time of 2.33 seconds. This prediction is nearly identical to what it observed, further verifying the computer simulation and the NIST report. If WTC 7 really was a controlled demolition how did the conspirators make sure that the building fell in a way that would support a (supposedly made up) conclusion made 7 years later?
96. We are told that Barry Jennings heard explosions in B7, and that these explosions were the explosions of a controlled demolition. However, Barry heard the "explosions" from inside the building very early in the morning. Truthers also claim the explosions Barry heard were before either tower fell, so therefore could not have been the sounds of impacting debris being mistaken for an explosion. This means that (if truthers are correct) the demolitionists blew up the building before 10:00, and the building magically hovered in the air (even though all its resistance had been removed) until 5:20 p.m.. Please list all controlled demolitions in history where the building was detonated, then the building hovered in mid-air, with all its resistance removed for at least 7:20 before collapsing.
97. Adding on to the previous question. If truthers are right about Barry, then it took 7:20 from the detonation of the CD charges to the end of the collapse. So, are truthers a) wrong about Barry hearing explosions from the a controlled demolition, or b) wrong in pretending a collapse that took 7:20 to complete is a free-fall collapse?
98. We are told that Larry Silverstein, owner of B7 ordered the building demolished in a phone call with FDNY commander. This phone call came after the 2 towers had collapsed. How is it possible for Barry Jennings to have heard the detonations for a controlled demolition before the first tower fell, if the controlled demolition was not even (supposedly) ordered by LS until hours later?
99. Add on to the previous question: Please list all the controlled demolitions in history that have been performed by a local fire department.
100. If Larry Silvestein had "really" ordered 7 demolished, then the 47 story building would have to have been wired within hours, while the building was engulfed in flames. Please list all previous controlled demolitions of high rise buildings (47 stories or taller), where the entire demolition job was done in a few hours with the building on fire.
101. If tossing a coin gives you a 50/50 chance of getting heads or tails, and your first toss is "heads," what are the odds of getting "tails" on the second toss?
102. We are told that Larry Silvertein couldn't have been talking about pulling the firefighting operation in WTC 7 because there were no Firefighters in building 7 by thetime he got that call. But truthers are also saying Barry Jennings was rescued by FIGHTER FIGHTERS in WTC7 on the afternoon of 9/11? How could Barry have been rescued by firefighters in WTC7 if as truthers say there were no Firefighters in the building?
103. We are told that Norman Mineta testified that he heard Dick Cheney order the fighters to stand down. This is represented by a conversation between Cheney and an aide where Cheney is asked "Do the orders still stand?" However, Mineta tells that story when asked by Lee Hamilton if he (Mineta) was present when the president's shoot-down order was given. Mineta replies to the question "No I was not. I became aware of it (shootdown order) when..." and then tells the "Does the order still stand?" story. On what planet does "I became aware of the shootdown order when..." mean "I heard Cheney order the fighters to stand down?"
104.Reference previous question: If Mineta really was talking about Flight 77 approaching DC then why did he report that when he arrived at the white house people were “pouring out of the Executive Office building, running out of the White House and running over towards Lafayette Park.” Something only known as happening AFTER the Pentagon was hit?
105. Truthers claim that the "Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction CJCSI 3610.01A" demonstrates that Cheney took away shootdown authority from the commanders in the field, and took it solely for himself. However, the JCS instruction was issued by Admiral S.A. Fry, and placed the authority for a shootdown with SecDef Rumsfield. If Dick Cheney is neither the Admiral who issued the order, nor the SecDef who was given the shootdown authority, how is it possible that Cheney "took away shootdown authority for himself" to be true?
106. Adding onto the previous question, under the headline of "Aircraft Piracy (Hijacking) of Civil and Military Aircraft," the memo requires SecDef Approval "with the exception of Immediate responses as authorized by reference D." Meaning SecDef approval is NOT required in situations that require a defined "immediate" response." Please explain why you think the 911 flights failed the criteria of deserving "immediate response."
107. In the above-referenced JCS memo, they (as all such documents do) list the summary of changes made to the policy. This assures that there are no misunderstanding by the reader what the changes within the document were. The list of 4 changes is a: UAV, ROV are added to the list of possible derelict, airborne aircraft, b: Statutory Authority for responding to aircraft piracy removed and added to reference list, c: in various places throughout the document "USELEMNORAD" was replaced with "NORAD," and d: FAA order 7610.4j 3 November 1998 "special military operations" was added as a reference." Exactly where do you see "Generals always had the authority before to shoot down airplanes, but now only Cheney has it?"
108. Add on to the previous question. If Truthers are correct, and Cheney was the only person who could order a shootdown, why would Cheney have to issue a stand down order if (according to truthers) he would already KNOW that no shootdowns were possible?
109. Truthers claim (incorrectly) that MASCAL exercises included a drill where a hijacked plane is flown into the pentagon. Yet, they also claim the Pentagon (also incorrectly) is the most well-defended building in the Universe, and it's impossible for anything to have hit it. But if they honestly believe that the Pentagon was so well defended, and it was so impossible for a hijacked airplane to be crashed into it (due to interceptors, or a supposed missile system), why would the Pentagon ever run drills where a hijacked plane is flown into the Pentagon? If it was such an obvious fact that the Pentagon airspace is impenetrable, why would the Pentagon train for such an impossible scenario?
110. If the Pentagon supposedly has a missile system, why can't anyone find any evidence of it? Why does every photo show neither missiles, nor any tactical radar apparatus that would be required to guide a missile? If the Pentagon has such a missile system, why can't anyone find any evidence of it?
111. If the Pentagon had a missile system, why did they need to—after 911--move portable missile trailers into position near the pentagon as a defensive measure in case of a future repeat?
112. If the Pentagon really had a missile system, the conspirators would know it. Obviously, since truthers say the system had to be turned off or stood down. Consequently, the would-be conspirators would KNOW it would be an obvious inside job to hit the pentagon. So, then why hit the pentagon at all? Why choose a target that you know will easily be exposed as an inside job? Why not just hit the WH, the Capital, any of the other highly symbolic landmarks instead?
113. How far away is the Pentagon from the nearest airport?
114. What is the Runway configuration of that airport.
115. Who is Frank Eugene Corder?
116.What do you 9/11 truthers have to say about the guy who flew his plane into the IRS building in Austin, Texas in 2010? How did he manage to "outfox" the FAA and NORAD and penetrate the perimeter defenses of this government building? Why the shortage of video footage showing the crash? How was he able to fly so low to the ground in order to hit the building on the 2nd floor? After all, we all know it's impossible for a pilot to fly that low.Or was this an inside job too?
117. Truthers say OBL was a CIA asset. If true, why would this be relevant? If, as truthers claim, Alqaeda and Osama were not involved in the attacks, then why would I care if he was a CIA asset or not?
118. Truthers claim B7 was brought down in a controlled demolition, for various reasons. But why not just have a 3rd airplane crash into it? If you're going through the trouble of having planes hit B1 and B2, why not have a third plane hit B7? There were several federal offices there (CIA, for example) that would make very legitimate and believable terrorist targets. There is every good excuse in the world for a terrorist to want to attack B7, based on its tenants. Why plan such an insanely risky ("Lets hijack airplanes, and remote control fly them into the twin towers, hoping that when they collapse their debris will strike building 7 enough to severely damage it and start fires—but not enough to make it collapse on its own--so we can go into building 7 hours later, while its engulfed in flames and wire it to explode and then try and hide a controlled demolition in broad daylight when the whole world is watching, after also telling the BBC to report on the collapse 20 minutes early to be sure to draw as much attention to it as possible") plot when you could very easily take B7 down with a 3rd airplane?
119. Add on. Reference the previous question: Or, if a 3rd plane was too complicated, why not just shoot a missile at B7? According to kookspiracy "pentagon logic" it is very normal and natural to expect that when people see a missile fly over the city they will always all mistake it for an AA 757. So why the overly and insanely risky plot (outlined in the question above) when simply shooting a missile is a much easier and simpler way to accomplish the mission?
120. Truthers claim B7 was brought down for various reasons (destroy Enron evidence, destroy evidence of the inside job that was contained there, et cetera). If that is true, then bringing down building 7 would have been planned well in advance, AND would be a required mission objective. If it was the plan all along, why would they leave it up to Larry Silverstein to decide, on the day itself, whether or not to blow the building if this stuff so desperately had to be destroyed?
121. The CIA's NY station was located in B7. On Nov 4th, 2001 it was reported that on Sept 12th, 2001, the CIA dispatched a special team to scour the rubble looking for any intelligence documents, reports, or CIA computers in order to try and recover any classified intel. If 911 was a false flag attack, planned by the govt, why didn't the CIA take all of their important stuff off site the day before? If they knew 7 was going to be CD'd, then why didn't they assure that nothing critical was left behind the day before?
122. Truthers tell us that some of the hijackers are still alive. The origins of that claim traces back to a BBC story. Yet a few days after the story, the BBC retracted the claim, citing mistaken identities. Why do truthers insist "BBC said so, so it must be true!" when the hijackers were reported alive, but insist the BBC can't be trusted if it prints a retraction?
123. Following that question: Why is it no one has ever actually produced the "alive" hijackers over the last 15 years? If any of these guys were alive, why haven't they been on Alex Jones? Why haven't any of them been photographed over the last 15 years living it up somewhere? If they are so obviously alive, why can't anyone find them?
124. We are told the story of Barry Jennings who (ostensibly, long story short) stepped over dead bodies in the lobby of B7. If that's true, then these would be B7 employees. But, reportedly, everyone who worked in B7 got out alive. So, where is the official list of B7 employees who didn't come home that night? Obviously (since no B7 families got any of the money for victims families-because according to the official story, no one in 7 was killed) we can't pretend they are getting paid. So, who are these supposed dead people killed in B7?
125. If construction steel is the miracle that is so impervious to fire, why do building codes worldwide demand that exposed steel be fireproofed?
126. Truthers refer often to Operations Northwoods as proof that Govt conducts false flag operations against its own citizens. A wacky plan to shoot down our own airliner over the water and blame Cuba for it. Lyman Lemnezter was fired as JFK's JCS for even suggesting it. Northwoods was summarily rejected. How does citing a case where the govt REFUSED to false flag its own people prove govt false flags its own people?
127. Following up the previous question: How did the conspirators in Operation Northwoods plan to get Castro to repeatedly take responsibility for the downed airliner, the way OBL had repeatedly taken responsibility for 911?
128. Further, none of the Northwoods scenarios involved actually killing innocent Americans. Examples they would use would be shooting down empty drone aircraft, sabotaging aircraft on the Gitmo airfield. Faked riots at the gates, non-lethal bombings of base facilities. So, how does this in any way equate to proof of 911?
129. Truthers claim it was impossible for flight 77 to make the 330 degree turn it made before hitting the pentagon (the plane would fall out of the sky!). Apparently, in Kookworld, airplanes are like bullets shot out of a gun and never turn. They also claim flight 77 flew over the pentagon, not into it. If it was impossible for flight 77 to make that 330 degree turn before crashing into the pentagon, how is it suddenly possible for flight 77 to make that same 330 degree turn before flying over the pentagon? Why is the exact same 330 degree turn impossible if the plane crashes, yet suddenly possible if it's a flyover?
130. Truthers claim that the speeds of the planes was impossible at 800 feet. Air is too thick. Yet they also claim flight 77 flew at high speed over the pentagon. How is it that the speeds are impossible in thinner air, yet completely possible in thicker air, but ONLY possible if it's a flyover? Truthers please explain how the laws of physics changed at the pentagon that day!
131. Describe the geography of the area around the Pentagon? No seriously look it look up it might answer some questions you have about "Flyover" evidence.
132. Truthers claim the govt immediately blamed Alqaeda terrorist for the attacks—even before the buildings fell. Then they point to FBI director Mueller stating (in October) they were not completely sure of the hijackers identities. If the FBI was not sure in Oct 2001 who the hijackers were, how can they have been "Immediately blaming" Alqaeda "before the towers even fell?"
133. If the terrorists attacks were so obviously false, why hasn't any country (even the countries that hate the US) gone to the UN and demand sanction against the US, or demand US troops leave Iraq and Afghanistan? We know, for example, when Iraq invaded Kuwait, there was instant outcry worldwide. UN demanded immediate and unconditional withdrawal. Obviously (since the UN opposed the US in iraq, and didn't support the iraq war, there is NO logic in assuming the UN will just "go along with what the US wants") the iraq and afghanistan wars would be treated the same. If the UN actually believe the US was in the wrong, why has not ONE country (not even the countries that hate the US and would love to humiliate us in any way) come forward and claim it was an inside job?
134. Journalists worldwide, especially in much of Europe despised the US and Bush viscerally. No end to the critical stories. So (even if one could pretend the domestic media would never print anything critical of the govt—LOL) there is no valid pretense that the international media is somehow controlled by US govt. So, why hasn't ONE serious reporter ever published the inside job claims? Many countries hate the US, they certainly would never object or pressure a reporter from bashing the US. Yet NO serious reporter, journalist, of investigative reporter touches the conspiracy. Why?
135. Do you honestly believe that a media that so gleefully and eagerly reported on Abu grahib, Lyndie England, Val Plame, Downing street memo, Aug 6 pdb, waterboarding, torture memos, Rendition, secret prisons, warrantless wiretaps, Yellowcake Uranium, "45 mins to launch wmds," Joe Wilson, no wmds in iraq, no bid contracts, political firing of US States Attys, and about a thousand other scandals is "in the pocket" of the Cheney-lead conspirators? Do you honestly believe that a media that so gleefully and eagerly reported on all that is somehow "afraid" to speak out against US govt, so that's why it wont publish any inside job "evidence?"
136. The leading voices in the "truth" movement are talk radio hosts, philosophers, theologians, family practice physicians, software engineers, and architects. With (conservative estimate) over 10 million Architectural Engineers, Structural Engineers, and Civil Engineers worldwide, why is it left to talk radio hosts, philosophers, theologians, family practice physicians, software engineers, and architects to make the claim? If the collapses so obviously violated the laws of physics and engineering, then there would be nearly worldwide consensus among the international engineering community. Yet not a peep. Instead of a scant few hundred people who are uneducated in the related sciences, why aren't there millions of people who actually know what the fux they are talking about leading the "truth" movement?
137. Truthers call the terrorist attack an unbelievable Fairy Tale. Exactly which part do they find unbelievable: a) that terrorists hijack airplanes, or b) that America is hated and despised in much of the Middle East for our support of Israel, or c) both?
138. Which scenario is more realistic to you and why? A) the same idiots who couldn't cover up abu grhaib, Lyndie England, Val Plame, Downing street memo, Aug 6 pdb, waterboarding, torture memos, Rendition, secret prisons, warrantless wiretaps, Yellowcake Uranium, "45 mins to launch wmds," Joe Wilson, no wmds in iraq, no bid contracts, political firing of US States Attys, and about a thousand other scandals somehow managed to figure out a way to coordinate dozens of smaller conspiracies that all overlapped perfectly in the 911 attacks. And these same idiots did is sooooo perfectly, and the cover-up was sooooo well done that 99.99% of the relevant experts, investigative reports, other intel agencies world wide were all (and remain to this day) completely fooled. And it's done with airtight secrecy before and 15years after—not one leak. Or b) terrorists hijack airplanes? Which makes more sense to you (a or b) and why?
139. Truthers claim over and over that "Bush was warned about the attacks!!!" OK, If true, then that means 911 really was an outside job, a very real terrorist attack that was carried out by Alqaeda. So, why do the same truthers lie and pretend Alqaeda wasn't responsible? Why do they lie and pretend it was a False Flag op if they know it was a real terrorist attack about which Bush was warned?
140. Truthers say that 911 was so obviously an inside job. If it is so obvious, why cant truthers even decide what hit the pentagon? Why can't they decided if the planes were real, or holograms?
141. Adding on to the previous question, consider: If I write 2+2=x, on a piece of paper, I can take that to anyone in the world. They all give the same answer. The answer is obvious: x=4. If 911 was so obviously an inside job, why can# 9/11 truthers come up with any coherent, beginning-to-end narrative that (supported by fact and evidence) that shows exactly the "who what when where and how" each step of the "inside job" occurred? That's what OBVIOUS IS! Everyone who looks at it can tell you exactly what it is. So if 911 was so obviously an inside job, why shouldn't they be able to state, not question, but STATE exactly what happened, how it happened, and who specifically made it happen?
142. Truthers claim that a missile hit the pentagon, flying over downtown Washington DC during rush hour traffic. How did the govt assure that no one would ever say "Hey! WTF is that missile doing flying over Washington DC?"
143. After the supposed missile hits the pentagon, trutherd claim FBI agents would have needed to plant evidence and knock down all the light poles to make it look like a plane. But, AFTER the "missile" hits the pentagon, lots of people would be watching. On the road, in nearby buildings, anyone who can get a good look at the crash site would be watching. How were the conspirators able to secret away all the missile debris, drive a big old truck up the pentagon, unload all of the "fake airplane debris" have people scatter it around, and knock down light poles without any of the hundreds or thousands of people watching, saying "holy ****! Look at them taking away that missile, look at that truck dropping off airplane parts that they are now scattering around the site! Look at that guy knocking over light poles?"
144.How many cameras captured the Pentagon strike? A) 85 B) 55 C)4 D) 25 (Hint: The correct answer doesn’t have a 5 in it.)
145. Ostensibly, a missile was shot at the pentagon. Truthers expect us to believe, ridiculously, that all those people who saw the missile just mistook it for an AA Jet. So, for truthers to be right, it must be a common, consistent phenomenon for people who see missiles flying through the air to mistake them for AA Jets. Consider: ever since the first Gulf War ended, there have been several occasions under both the Bush43 and Clinton administrations where cruise missiles were launched into Iraq, or into Afghanistan (presumably to tgt OBL). Thousands upon thousands of cruise missiles expended. Please list (with credible citation for verification) all the thousands and thousands of Iraqis and Afghanis who saw US cruise missiles slam into their buildings, fly over their cities, and mistook it for an American Airlines 757.
146. Truthers will use the flight data recorder from AA77 to show as proof that AA77 was too high to have hit the pentagon. Please explain how it makes sense to use a flight data recorder from the plane that crashed at the pentagon to prove no plane crashed at the pentagon?
147. What was the Altimeter Calibration setting on AA77s altimeters when it crashed, and where is this information found within the flight data recorder data?
148. Truthers point out the "Phoenix memo" and other various documentation that ostensibly shows the govt knew terrorists were taking flying lessons, et cetera. But if 911 was a false flag attack and not a terrorist attack, then why do I care who took flying lessons?
149. We are told that the planes that hit the towers were really not planes. But in fact were holograms. We are also told that UA 175 was carrying, and shot, a missile at the towers just before impact. Please explain how a hologram airplane can shoot a real missile.
150. We are told that the plane that hit the WTC2 was carrying a missile. Only one of 2 possibilities exist. 1) it was the real UA 175 that hit the building, or 2) it was a substitute airplane that hit the building. If it is a substitute airplane, you would not need to hang anything on the outside (and risk giving away the fraud) when you could simply load up the (otherwise empty) substitute airplane with enough C4 to orbit Rosie O'Donnell. So if it was a substitute airplane, why risk hanging a missile on the outside—giving away the plot when there is more than enough room on the inside to load up as much explosives as you can?
151. If it IS a substitute plane, provide evidence that demonstrates where Flight 175 was diverted to, how it was disposed of, and specifically who took those actions?
152. Follow-up to the previous questions. If it was the real flight 175 that hit B2, then the missile would have been on the airplane when it took off. This means that the First Officer, while doing his walk-around, pre-flight inspection, would have seen the missile hanging off his airplane. The First Officer was a Marine Corps Aviator. As such, it is 100% impossible that he would have failed to instantly recognize a missile when he saw it. Presumably Truthers would have us believe the First Officer said to himself "What the fux is that missile doing hanging off my airplane? Oh well. It's probably nothing. Best to just ignore it," and then went about his duties as co-pilot as though it were perfectly normal for his civilian jetliner to have a missile slung under the starboard wing. On which planet does that make sense?
153. Following the previous questions. Why the fux would you need a missile at ALL? What practical purpose could be served?
154. Why do truthers insist that it takes an expert, veteran pilot to crash an airplane?
155. To all theno-planers out there: What is f=ma
156. If no planes crashed into the WTC then why was the damage to the buildings completely consistent with a 767?
157. If no plane crashed into the Pentagon then why is the damage to the Pentagon completely consistent with a 757?
158. If the WTC was destroyed by mini-nukes then why then why didn't anyone in Manhattan report having radioactive mutations after the event?
159. On what universe does “I can’t understand how something happened”= “proof that it didn’t happen”?
160. What is the difference between something being tracked on radar and something being displayed on radar?
161. Truthers claim WTC 1, 2, and 7 were all controlled demolitions. If so, what is the reason for waiting 7 hours to demolish B7? Why not just demo it right after the WTC tower was dropped on it and was hidden by the dust? Why wait 7 hours and make it all the more obvious?
162. Follow up to the above question. Why would the conspirators allow the FDNY to warn its men to pull back from building 7 before its (supposed) demolition? We know from the claims of demolitions in B1 B2 that the conspirators would have no problem killing hundreds of firemen and thousands of civilians. So why would the conspirators warn FDNY to pull back out of the B7 collapse zone?
163. Truthers claim that the towers were brought down in a super-secret technique that only the military uses. That's why it doesn't look or sound like a normal demolition. In contrast, B7, they say was a conventional demolition. So, why the 2 different types? If you decided to use the super secret ("it doesn't look like a real demolition, so its easier to fool people if we do it that way") military demolition, why wouldn't you use the same super secret ("it doesn't look like a real demolition, so its easier to fool people if we do it that way") military demolition with building 7? Especially since (for some unexplained reason) you're planning to wait 7 hours to bring it down, and ONLY bring it down after having he BBC call attention to it, making a "normal" demolition painfully obvious.
164. Truthers claim that the cell phone calls were impossible from the airplanes. If the cell phones couldn't work on airplanes, why would the federal law prohibit their use? If it's impossible for you to make calls, then the Flight Attendants would not have to tell you anything. You just wouldn't make any calls, because it wouldn't work. The only reason to go through the trouble of saying "hey don't do that" is because you could really do it. Otherwise they wouldn't have to tell you anything. So, if it was impossible for people to make cell calls from airplanes, then why does the FAA go through the trouble of outlawing something they "knew" you could never do?
165. Why do truthers complain about Zelikow's role in the 911 commission, yet have no problem with Jaime Gorelick being a commissioner?
166. Controlled demolitions require materials to perform. Many of these materials are present after the collapse. Specifically detonation cords, partially detonated caps, shock tubes, et cetera, all litter the demolition site after any CD. Given the towers size, clearly, there would also be record setting volumes of the evidence (cords, caps, etc) left behind. Consider that FDNY volunteers were on the site every day, sifting through all the debris looking for any personal effects, remains, or their items from one of their fallen brothers. As such it was 100% impossible for there to have been a CD without FDNY rank-and-file firefighters discovering mountains of evidence of it. Provide proof (not theory, not a guess, but proof) of the means and method used to coerce all the rank-and-file firefighters to lie and cover up the evidence of the murder of 300+ of their brothers.
167. Adding onto the previous question: Would you take money or some other type of bribe to lie about the murder of 3k people? Yes or no?
168. If the answer to the above questions is "Yes" please declare how much you are getting paid to peddle your "inside job" ********. If the answer is "No" please explain why you think you are so much more noble and virtuous than the rank-and-file FDNY firefighters, since you believe they are all low-lifes who would take bribes to cover up the murder of 3000 people, including 340 of their brothers (by hiding the demolition debris they surely would have found).
169. We can all agree that we shouldn't believe everything we hear from govt, or from the media. But why do truthers believe its ok to blindly believe everything they hear from a talk radio host who believes in goblin-people?
170. Adding onto the previous question: Why do truthers believe its ok to blindly believe everything they see on a website, just because the website as the word "truth" in the title?
171. Adding onto the previous question. Why do truthers believe its OK to blindly believe everything they see on Youtube or other internet based videos?
172. Truthers point out that John O'Neill, former FBI agent was killed on 911. He had recently (within days) taken a job working in the complex. John O'Neill was ostensibly blocked (as an FBI agent) by his superiors from pursuing leads and investigations regarding middle eastern terrorism. But, truthers claim 911 was a false flag attack. So if we attacked ourselves on 911, and it was not Middle-Eastern terrorists, why does it matter if O'Neill was blocked or not, since truthers claim that O'Neill's work had nothing to do with 911 anyway (the terrorists were innocent on 911)?
173. We are told that a security company that was headed by Marvin Bush (president's brother) had a contract that was set to expire on Sept 11th. If this is true, we are expected to believe that the entire 911 attacks were an act of spite over an expiring contract. Please list all the times in history where a security company, at the expiration of a contract, faked a terrorist attack that hijacked 4 planes, and flew 3 of them into buildings as revenge.
174. Who REALLY ran security at the World Trade Center? A) EJ Electric B) The Port Authority C) Securacom D) Kroll?
175 . Truthers claim flight 93 landed in Cleveland, based on a (retracted) WCPO story where a flight out of Boston had landed in Cleveland, and a bomb was feared aboard. However, UA93 had originated from Newark. Not Boston. Also, roughly 30 minutes before the WCPO website posted the story, United had already confirmed that flight 93 had crashed in PA 17 minutes earlier. As such, the WCPO story was objectively, provably false in identifying the flight that landed in CLE as UA 93. Further, as UA 93 didn't depart BOS, it could not have been the diverted flight regardless the timing. Why does the truth movement rely so heavily on a document that is so obviously in error?
176. If the Truthers still insist the WCPO story is "really true" then United Airlines is complicit in the coverup. Please show (not guess, show) the type of coercion used to get all (at the time) 100k employees to lie.
177. Truthers tell us the planes were remotely flown, because the hijackers were incapable of flying the planes. Further, we are told they are all still alive and weren't involved with 911 at all. Yet truthers also claim the hijackers trained on US military bases on how to fly airplanes. Why would the govt train the hijackers how to fly airplanes, if the hijackers weren't going to fly the airplanes? Why train them to fly airplanes if they were just going to go back to being random, normal lives?
178. Many conspiracies have been exposed over time. Watergate, Gulf of Tonkin coverup, Northwoods propsal, Tukseegee experiment, etc. These were conspiracies that were completely covered up, completely unknown until they were busted open. In contrast, there are the popular "widely believed" conspiracies like the "faked" moon landing, JFK, et cetera. Yet those were never busted open. List all of the conspiracies, with coverups that were actually exposed AFTER kookspiracy movement retards "demanded the truth" for years?
179. Northwoods proposal was released via a routine declassification of Kennedy Administration era documents. Meaning specifically, the same individuals truthers claimed committed a false flag attack on the US voluntarily provided the proof that govt commits false flag attacks. On what planet does it make sense for people plotting a false flag attack to voluntarily make sure the whole world knows they were planning false flag attacks?
180. Truthers claim that Bush has "admitted" to seeing the first plane hit on TV before going into the classroom. They also point out how dazed, confused, etc he looked after Andrew Card told him while in the classroom about the attacks. If it was an inside job and Bush 1) had prior knowledge, and 2) had really seen the first plane hit earlier in the day, why didn't he respond better? Why would he be so "dazed and confused" if he had prior knowledge, and had even seen the first plane earlier?
181. Do you kooks really think "Bush said so, and you know he would never lie!" is a good basis to prove your point?
182. What is the difference, if any, between heat and temperature?
183. What is the difference between iron microspheres and iron-rich microspheres?
184. How hot does Jet fuel and hydrocarbon office contents in an open air environment? Now how hot would it burn given the estimated amount of oxygen inside the WTC?
185. If a 100k ton mass is descending straight down, what does Newton's 1st law of motion and Inertia say about the path of that object?
186. How much weight could one floor slab of the World Trade Center Hold?
187. Truthers claim the planes were flying around for over 2 hours after the first sign of trouble. "From the first signs of trouble" would be when the transponder was turned off. So, even if there was an instant realization of a hijack, the earliest response time would still be based on the amount of time from the transponder being turned off, to the crash. Based on this measure, AA11 was in the air 26 mins, UA 175 was in the air 17 mins. AA77 was in the air 40 mins, and UA 93 was in the air 35 mins. On what planet are any of these times longer than 2 hours?
188. Refer to the Aug 6, PDB. It ostensibly warns of a pending bin laden terrorist attack. If there was an inside job of ANY level (ie, LIHOP or MIHOP of any degree) there has to be some coordination with the govt. Unless it is a 100% outside job, then there has to be some coordination within the administration. So, if the administration was involved with a coordinated effort with OBL, why the fux would the president have to brief himself about a "fake" terrorist attack about which he already knew from being part of the plan?
189. Truthers tell us that the ISI wired $100k to Mohammed Atta the day before the attacks. This represents about half of the estimated cost of the entire 2 year operation. If so, why would Atta need 100k the day before the attacks? At that point, what is left to pay for? Incidental expenses would be on charge cards, and certainly couldn't add up for that. So, why should we believe the "ISI paid Atta" story when it makes no sense for Atta to need 100k just for 1 day's incidental expenses?
190. Add on to the previous question: If Alqaeda was innocent, and the planes were all flown by remote, and therefore the hijackers are not guilty of anything, then why would I care if the ISI paid Atta if Atta is 100% innocent?
191. The ISI story comes from a Times of India story, which sources India Intelligence as the source. Given India's history with Pakistan, is it really wise to take a single-source, uncorroborated claim from someone with an axe to grind? If so, why?
192. Supposedly Larry Silverstein "admitted" to demolishing his own building on 911. If so, why did the insurance company just pay up? Why isn't he in jail for admitted insurance fraud?
193. Regarding the pentagon, Truthers point to windows near the impact that were unbroken (apparently the concept of "blast proof windows" eludes the super-geniuses in the truth movement). Truthers claim this is proof that 77 couldn't have hit the pentagon. Thereby, this supports (in their "minds") proof that a missile hit the pentagon instead. But a missile would have an explosive warhead. Thereby doing more damage locally to the impact point than the plane crash would. Please then explain why the same windows you believe are strong enough to survive nearby to a missile strike couldn't survived a nearby to a plane impact.
194. Regarding the pentagon, Truthers point to Cable Spools near the impact that were "nearly undamaged". Truthers claim this is proof that 77 couldn't have hit the pentagon. Thereby, this supports (in their "minds") proof that a missile hit the pentagon instead. But a missile would have an explosive warhead. Thereby doing more damage locally to the impact point than the plane crash would. Please then explain why the same cable spools you believe are strong enough to survive nearby to a missile strike couldn't survive a nearby to a plane impact.
195. Les Robertson designed the WTC towers, and has stated repeatedly that the buildings were capable of sustaining only ONE hit from a slow speed, low on fuel aircraft. A repeat of the Empire State Crash. As such, he has also stated that the design never contemplated the fuel fires, since it was assumed the low fuel load (and due to less momentum, almost all the fuel would explode outside). He has also stated that he knew that if a collapse like we saw on 911 ever started, there would be no stopping it. Please provide proof that he was coerced to lie about his design.
196. 9/11 truthers say that the Family members who helped form the 9/11 Commission still have questions about the attacks that they want answers to. What EXACTLY are those questions? (Hint: They are posted on the Family Steering committee website)
197. If "the families" believe 911 the inside job lie, then why did families NOT want KSM to be given a trial in NY? Such an opportunity would surely afford the innocent party a worldwide platform for KSM to prove the inside job—and his innocence. So why would the families NOT want KSM tried in NY?
198. If the "families" thought 911 was an inside job, why would they object to a (supposed) business partner of the bin Laden Family being on the 911 commission. Please explain why people who (ostensibly) believe OBL is innocent would object to the innocent OBL having someone on the commission who would be working to PREVENT OBL from being falsely blamed with the attacks.
199. Why do we still have all those expensive, schools of engineering all over the world since the kook movement has proved that any 80 IQ moron can become a world-leading expert in structural engineering by just watching a 6 minute YouTube video?
200. When the Messianic Hero of the Truth Movement, Osama bin Laden was killed, there were thousands upon thousands who poured into the streets of NY, DC, and other places to all cheer the death of OBL. Why were there no family members out demanding accountability for the USG murdering (who the kook movement claims is) an innocent person?
__________________
Ask questions. Demand answers. But be prepared to accept the answers, or don't ask questions in the first place.
pgimeno is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:14 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.