Skeptic Project

Do Truthers really believe that asking the same questions and pointing out the same anomalies accomplishes anything?

I swear, each one is convinced that they have uncovered secret information that no one else with the ability to Google can.

really believe that asking the same questions and pointing out the same anomalies accomplishes anything?

See, the thing is, all these "anomalies" are not anomalous unless you are trying to defend the FBI's outlandish conspiracy theory about a dying man in a cave in Afghanistan demolishing the World Trade Center with box cutters. If you abandon that fable, suddenly all these "anomalies" become "evidence".

lol you got kicked out of zeitgeist

Again, I'll explain to you, I haven't been "kicked out of" anything. I can use all of the movement's forums at will, and I decide if I'm a member of the movement, not other members. The burdens the moderators put on users of the forums apply to everyone, not just to me.

even other truthers don't like you

There's that word "truthers" again, I'm not even entirely sure what you mean by that, maybe you could explain it. Do you mean somebody who compulsively corrects errors? That's all I've done here, I don't have any special access to "truth" to which you all are denied, all this information is in the public domain, I'm just compulsively correcting errors. It's what I do.

"Later, his wife was arrested on the Austria-Germany border for immigration violations and counterfeiting charges"

Orly owl says Orly

From page 2:

"I REALLY am going to stop responding to World Trade Center demolition issues in this thread. "

Carry on.

I like Sil therefore his inconsistencies are not note worthy.

Yours on the other hand are.

And you got kicked out of Zeitgeist lol.

First of all, he is still paying the Port Authority a yearly sum of $120 million for property that isn't generating one penny of income. For those of you that are mathematically challenged that's $960 million dollars to date. Wow he must be the worst businessman ever because his evil plan has cost him $760 million so far (after you subtract the $200 million needed for the work to be done).

Silverstein was forgiven the 99 year lease by the New York Port Authority. The new deal with Silverstein to redevelop the property is still tentative.

The Port Authority, government officials and the developer Larry A. Silverstein reached a tentative agreement Thursday that would allow for the construction of two new skyscrapers at ground zero with up to $1.6 billion in public financing and subsidies.

...

Under the deal, which would end a 16-month stalemate, the Port Authority would provide about $1 billion in financing for the first tower — a 64-story building constructed by Mr. Silverstein on Church Street with as much office space as the Empire State Building. It is expected to be completed in 2013.

If Mr. Silverstein was able to raise $300 million in cash and secure leases from corporate tenants for about 400,000 square feet of space for a larger second tower, the city, the state and the authority would provide up to $600 million in financial assistance for that building, also on Church Street. If he could not get the financing and leases, he would build a five-story structure there by 2013 for shops and mechanical elements and leave the tower, to be built above it, for later.

So again what we have here is a case of public funds being used to line Silverstein's pockets. If he comes up with $300 million and secures leases from tenants, he gets six hundred million to play with out of the public coffers.

Where else but Jew York could the richest australian jew on the planet get even richer by the handfuls. :D

"Where else but Jew York could the richest australian jew on the planet get even richer by the handfuls. :D"

I don't like anti-semitism.

"Where else but Jew York could the richest australian jew on the planet get even richer by the handfuls. :D"

I don't like anti-semitism.

Maybe you could explain why my remarks are "anti-semitism"?

This wikipedia article you cite only confirms what I said. In the twenty years preceding the World Trade Center demolition there were exactly zero successful hijackings in the United States. Check the information in that article, you'll see it agrees precisely with exactly what I said. EXACTLY ZERO SUCCESSFUL HIJACKINGS IN THE UNITES STATES

You claiming there were no successful hijackings is meaningless unless you provide a definition of "successful".

That was my question, you ignored it. Try again...

Whether or not people think it's absurd, it's a fact. All civilian passenger jets in the United States are equipped with this system, it was integrated into their designs on the drawing board, and it was a sensible move, to be honest. You don't want passengers to have the capacity to take over and fly the plane. Not to put this system in place would have been negligence of the highest order. Remote control technology existed in the forties, it's not magical, it's not mystical, it's not science fiction, it't science fact. I, myself, owned a remotely controlled airplane in the seventies. This technology was mature enough then to operate in miniature inside a toy plane so clearly it would have been possible and desirable to install such systems in passenger jets. As I stated, it would be supremely negligent NOT to do so. Is your government supremely negligent? This is the other side of the coincidence theorists' coins, they'd have you believe everything is due to coincidence and incompetence, that nineteen "terrorists" are able to outwit the entire United States military and state department. It's absurd on its face, and quite frankly I'm amazed you would put yourself in such a position of intellectual weakness by arguing in favor of it.

You are basically putting all your faith in one guy that makes claims that make so little sense even other truther's think he's not just wrong but INSANE. That guy on 911-strike even suggests he might be a paid shill by the government.

Have you even read what their criticisms are or do you just not care why they would think that? Why would truther's think someone like him is so disreputable that they can't support him?

You know truthers have said for years that the hijackings on 911 shouldn't have been possible because NORAD would have scrambled jets to intercept them long before they hit any targets. So why would that even be an argument if the government could just manually take over and fly the plane from the ground? Why are there any hijackings at all? And please tell me in any of those cases of what you call "unsuccessful hijackings", when they "foiled" their attempt, did they use any of this technology? If you think they did please provide evidence. Thanks.

And just to make the point that I said before, you are trying to convince us now that the conspirators are absolutely the dumbest idiots imaginable!

If such technology exists that no hijackings would ever be an issue and are "literally impossible", then stupidity is the only excuse for constructing a plan BASED around plane hijackings!

Could it be that maybe you don't know as much as you think you do? Could it be that maybe you should try and be a bit more critical of a claim and not just believe it because it sounds good? Even those other truthers have been critical enough of this to see its nonsense, why can't you?

Below is some official hijacking procedure in June 2001.
http://tinyurl.com/ycptyor</p>

Cant see any mentions of what you're talking about, maybe you can find an older guide maybe one from an airline that can say something different. Maybe you can find ANYTHING ANYWHERE that says hijackings need not be a problem because they can just control the plane from the ground. Why would anyone even ATTEMPT a hijacking if it were the case that as soon as you were found out you would fail?... Or maybe, you have no evidence and this just tells you what you want to hear.

Look, we all saw it happen, we all saw those buildings stand in the face of the impacts and the fires. When the buildings did collapse, they did so at slightly slower than freefall speed. period

So you don't need scientific analysis, you just use your own eyes even though you're only qualified to chop down trees!

Everyone can be an expert in the Truth Movement!

Sorry, but they were not near free fall and yes they did survive the fires FOR A WHILE then they collapsed. Your argument makes just as much sense as saying that shooting someone in the stomach didn't really kill them if they didn't die straight away.

This is partly wrong and partly right. The buildings were designed to withstand both the impacts and subsequent fires. It's true that the 707 was used for the model. It's also true that the impacts of the actual planes was comparable to the impacts the buildings were designed to withstand. One plane was heavier and slower, the other was lighter and faster, the physics tells us the impacts and fuel load fires would be nearly identical.

Wrong.
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_707_impact.html</p>

Is Leslie Robertson in on it along with the thousands and thousands of others you've implicated?

And where are you getting all this nonsense from? We know its been Judy Wood at least and that remote control plane lunatic, Judy Wood even proved you wrong in another claim you were making about the colour of molten aluminium, remember that? I do.

All a conspiracy right?

All a coincidence and incompetence on the part of the authorities, right?

You didn't answer my question.

And you keep talking about coincidences that aren't, based on lies fed to you by the Truth Movement.

Why did you ignore my question about peer reviewed journals? You are the one claiming this is all so obvious, you need to explain why the rest of the scientific community don't get it... but you do... a lumberjack skilled in chopping wood can see something they can't.

Hint: Here is your cue to tell me they are all stupid because of their fluoridated water and chemtrail poisoning and/or they are being controlled by HAARP.

None of these buildings you mention in the quotation above collapsed due to damage,

You don't consider these buildings destroyed?

http://img197.imageshack.us/img197/8325/wtc6.png</p>

Wow.

They fell in their own footprint right? These buildings didn't really get that destroyed, just wipe the dust off stop complaining and get back to work! hahaha!

of the ones that aren't still standing and being used, without exception they were demolished by demolition teams, not demolished by falling debris from the World Trade Center towers or from Seven World Trade Center.

You see how you move the goal posts?

First you claimed no other buildings were destroyed, in order to claim that the terrorists got really lucky they got to destroy WTC7 as well! But WTC1 and 2 destroyed plenty of other buildings. Now here you changed your claim after I proved you wrong, now you say that they to have collapsed but not just collapsed since WTC6 collapsed it had to collapse in exactly the way you want.

Just because a building has to be demolished doesn't mean its not still destroyed. In fact when they demolished the other WTC buildings they didn't use explosives because they feared workers going in and planting explosives would be in danger in such unstable structures

The buildings collapsed almost entirely into their own footprints.

Then how did all those buildings get so damaged then?

You see this picture?
http://www.ae911truth.org/images/fema_debris_distribution.jpg</p>

Its from FEMA and details the range of destruction from the collapses of tower 1+2.

AE911 actually use this as evidence that explosives BLASTED out material from the towers during the collapse, which is why Gage talks about heavy pieces of steel being flung around in the collapse. This is the exact opposite of the "fell in its own footprint" claim.

You sure have some sloppy definitions...

What if you worked for a demolition company and buildings surrounding one of the ones you were working on were worried about debris damaging there offices. Would you use these words...."oh dont worry, it will fall almost entirely into its own footprint"... because if you use those words the same way you do here I think they'd be rather pissed at you when buildings in your collapse zone 3 times the size of your "footprint" get destroyed.

Actually Usama bin Laden denied any involvement on three separate occasions. The fact that you think he boasted about his supposed involvement shows to me just how delusional you are. You fell for the movie, you took your eye off the ball and now you have a head full of bad wiring. Sorry about your bad luck.

Actually that's a load of crap.
http://www.911myths.com/html/responsibility.html</p>

Maybe you can explain how that fits your conspiracy anyway when you claim Al-Qaeda dont exist and Al-Qaeda manufactured by the CIA and they are just invented boogie men to blame stuff on.

Anwyay, there was some reports early on that said that he wasn't responsible, but he never denied he had anything to do with it, he has was initially quoted in some news report saying that, but comments that dont make any sense and CONTRADICT everything he has said BEFORE. See the page above.

Could it be that there was a political reason for initially denying responsibility? Because if we try and make this make sense with your conspiracy theory it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

But more to the point, why do you ignore all evidence that doesn't fit your conspiracy theory? Bin Laden and other Al-Qaeda members came out many times personally on videos admitting he was involved with 911 and was happy about it. Not hearsay, not someone telling you what someone said they heard him say, but actually saying it himself.

How do truthers get around that?

They usually say its faked for stupid reasons of course, and I guess we'll get to that but I find it interesting that you acted as if this wasn't the case and that none of that exists. A second hand report that doesn't match anything Bin Laden has said before contradicted by all the other evidence is good enough for you.

The israelis arrested from the top of an Urban Moving Systems van had video of the World Trade Center covering some time span leading up the the plane impacts, the subsequent impacts, and the immediate aftermath. They were turned in by a concerned citizen who noticed them all laughing, cavorting and high-fiving each other after the planes hit. The video of the Sears tower was taken at the same time, and recovered much later, in the possession of one Moshe "Moses" Elmakias, an israeli who was arrested and deported for treason along with dozens of other israelis who were usually (but not always) identified in the media as being from an "arab nation", which Israel is, it's teeming with arabs.

Prove it.

I gave you links to refutations of that claim, prove it wrong don't just keep asserting the same thing as if no one said anything.

Prove you haven't just been reading this off InfoWars or We are Change and repeating it without question.

Daniel Lewin, former israeli special forces and founder of Akamai, was in a perfect position to interrupt any hijackings that might have been taking place, yet he did nothing. We were first told that he was shot in the head, to explain his inaction, then we were told he was stabbed to death. Stabbed to death, with box cutters, by two scared arab kids, and he's former israeli special forces...um...

This isn't a bloody movie!

I realise you must have seen Air Force One with Harrison Ford or Con Air or something Dozens of times and cant understand why someone didn't go all Rambo in the planes but this is real life.

Maybe after a while he might have tried something but he didn't know they were going to fly the plane into the WTC. With United 93 they knew what they were doing so they DID flight back. The common assumption was that the hijackers wanted to see tomorrow and if he thought they had more than box cutters he might have wanted to wait so as to not put the lives of the other passengers at risk. If he had know what they were up to, maybe he would have decided it was worth the risk but back then he didn't think their number 1 goal was to slam the whole plane into a building and kill everyone on board including themselves.

The very wikipedia article you cited that proved my claims about the utter lack of successful hijackings does mention one attempt where the flight crew supposedly subdued the hijacker.

Still waiting for how you're defining successful.

I'll leave it to you to decide if the hijacking was stopped by the flight crew, or if you think the flight crew followed procedure and the hijacking was interrupted in some other way (like remote control of the plane by NORAD, maybe Santa Claus or the easter bunny did it, who knows, maybe somebody prayed and god miracled the plane to the ground). :|

The flight crew, since all others are stupid, yes even the remote control claim.

You have absolutely no evidence whatsoever for it, you even talked about these "no successful hijackings" yet didn't explain how this remote control system you claim exists was used in any of them. That's because they weren't used and that's because it doesn't exist.

This is another lie, the Todd Beamer "let's roll" part of the movie. Most people can't even remember the official lie, which is that Todd Beamer called (somehow) an operator and told her what was going on, then the operator later called Todd Beamer's wife and told her how it all went down.

[snipped stuipid story-Ed]

I'm weeping as I write this, because I have absolute certainty that something exactly like this happened, and that this poor dazed widow was given a fool's conundrum, to tell the lie, to be the widow of a hero, instead of just some poor bitch who lost her husband at the business end of an air to air missile.

All that writing and no evidence or reason as to why you claim its a lie.

Since you didn't provide any argument here, I'll refute one common related one made by a truther favourite, David Ray Griffin, who apparently just loves being wrong:

"On many aircraft you can talk from one seat to another in the aircraft free of charge, but if you wish to access the outside world you must first swipe your credit card through the telephone. By Ted Olson’s own admission, Barbara did not have a credit card with her.

It gets worse. On American Airlines there is a telephone "setup" charge of US$2.50 which can only be paid by credit card, then a US$2.50 (sometimes US$5.00) charge per minute of speech thereafter.
- David Ray Griffin"

Shame thats a load of nonsense:

http://web.archive.org/web/19980415061619/www.gteairfone.com/place.html</p>

"If you are still experiencing difficulty with your credit card, just dial "0" while inflight and an operator will assist you. - GTE Airphone Instructions

So contrary to Griffin, you just press a number and you can connect to an operator, just like they said happened.

"If you are still experiencing difficulty with your credit card, just dial "0" while inflight and an operator will assist you. - GTE Airphone Instructions

Yeah, you can contact an operator who will help you use your credit card to pay for the flight. If you could really get an operator, and you told them your plane was hijacked, they certainly would not force you to make a collect call (to the Pentagon!) absent a credit card. Seriously? Do you even think about this shit before you type it?

With United 93 they knew what they were doing so they DID flight back.

This is just another media fable, there was no "let's roll" on that flight, all that happened was a bunch of people died to further the plans of a few psychotic people who are ruling us all. Maybe that's why people are in such massive denial about this, they don't want to believe that the people ruling them are psychotic and don't care if any or all of us live or die. They'd prefer to think the enemy is tiny, frightened and living in a cave on the other side of the planet that's long overdue for some daisy cutter bombs.

Yeah, you can contact an operator who will help you use your credit card to pay for the flight. If you could really get an operator, and you told them your plane was hijacked, they certainly would not force you to make a collect call (to the Pentagon!) absent a credit card. Seriously? Do you even think about this shit before you type it?

Pressing "0" will connect you to an operator. It's just that under normal flight conditions, a problem with your credit card would probably be the only reason to press "0". It's like if you ever call someplace up for Tech Support, you can press 1,2,3 depending on what your problem is... or you could just press zero and they'll connect you directly to an operator. Your delusions are annoyingly amplified by your superiority complex.

Pressing "0" will connect you to an operator. It's just that under normal flight conditions, a problem with your credit card would probably be the only reason to press "0". It's like if you ever call someplace up for Tech Support, you can press 1,2,3 depending on what your problem is... or you could just press zero and they'll connect you directly to an operator.

um...okay, and an operator is going to tell you, upon hearing that your plane is hijacked, that you need to make a collect call (!) to get in touch with the Pentagon (!)? eh-hem

First you claimed no other buildings were destroyed, in order to claim that the terrorists got really lucky they got to destroy WTC7 as well! But WTC1 and 2 destroyed plenty of other buildings.

No, they damaged a few other buildings, some of which remain standing and are in use, some of which were subsequently demolished by controlled demolition methods. Seven World Trade Center was demolished that day, by controlled demolition, it collapsed at nearly free fall speed into its own footprint.