Whenever I think of my past, it brings back so many memories. O WHAT IF YOU ARE ALIEN HYBRID? THAT DOESN’T MEAN YOU OWN US! YOU KNOW DAMN WELL THERE ARE ABOUT AT LEAST 100 DIFFERENT TYPES OF ALIEN HYBRIDS ON PLANET EARTH RIGHT NOW AND WE ARE ALL WAKING UP HONEY! PREPARE FOR WAR! SHALL I TELL PEOPLE ABOUT THE ENTIRE CITY INSIDE THE HOLLOW EARTH? SHALL I TELL PEOPLE THAT YOU CAME HERE AND LEFT YOUR OWN PLANET TO INFILTRATE OURS AND NOW SOME OF YOU STILL CURRENTLY RESIDE ON THE MOON!
It's a pretty clever tactic to put wacky theories out there such as the aliens did it, or the ufo's did it so people like greg will naturally conflate those ludicrous people with people who are suspicious of the Bush administration's conspiracy theory. If you think a theory is whacky then move on. Don't conflate it with anyone else's ideas. If you look at the government's theory also it is whacky. But they have the authoritative media which is compliant. Just like in the central park five case where gregcrow would have wrongly convicted the kids if he was on the jury because he saw it on tv that they were guilty. He can't think for himself. He can't even answer one of the questions like how could you fly a 757 600 mph at sea level and land on a dime when the flight instructor said Hani Hanjour couldn't even fly a Cesna. Does that sound plausible? This is the Government's story. Why don't they release the videos of the accused getting on the planes?
It's a cumulative argument rather then a deductive argument. In a deductive argument the chain is only as strong as the weakest link so if you cast doubt on one point, you cast doubt on the entire argument. This is a cumulative argument which would be analogous to a strong rope with hundreds of strong strands. You might be able to nick up a strand or two but the whole rope is still extremely strong. Why are people here so frightened to answer or speculate about even one of the questions which have been posed?
False flag operations aren't anything new in history; this isn't new. They have occurred all throughout history, something the victims families pointed out when they were finally able to force an overdue commission over a year later. After the steel was illegally melted down. (They gave them 15 million dollars for it, an absurdly low figure considering the Monica Lewinsky scandal got 30 million. Which was more important? Cheney was outspokenly against the commission's formation saying "it will take away needed manpower from the wars. Thomas Kean was in no way connected to the military effort. An absurd statement from Cheney; what was he so scared of?)
I'm a little surprised that a learned war veteran like OT has not posted about past false flag operations. Here are just a few false flags from history. This is not a new idea.
Nero's burning of Rome
The United States USS Main incident which started the Mexican American War
Operation Gleiweitz in the polish corridor which the Nazis used as their reason for invading Poland
Operation Himmler which was a whole series of false flags after the success of Gleiweitz in the media. (Hitler would later say the credibility of these claims does not matter since we control the media)
The Japanese invaded Manchuria prior to WWII after blowing up their own railroad tracks. It was a well documented false flag.
The United States started the aggressive phase of the Vietnam war after the Gulf of Tonkin false flag and McNamara even admittedit
Operation Northwoods, which JFK luckily dismissed as lunacy, was to be a false flag justifying an invasion of Cuba. They were to hijack aircraft.
Also, the U.S.'s story of the WMD in Iraq could have easily been a false flag operation.
So you see Gregcrow, it has been happening for at least two millennia. It is not a new phenomenon. Please open your mind and offer something thoughtful. I know you are capable of it. Explain why you believe the Government's conspiracy theory is true. I don't see how it could possibly be true. There are far too many gaping holes in it. Most of which I don't have the time to post. Now I don't know what happened but you purport to know. So enlighten me. And please no more sarcasm, stick to the topic and post something meaningful like why you believe the story. I know you're capable.
911 will get the blame for the close of welfare reform, not the republican and Clinton laws. The newly homeless will not get any United Way money for their troubles. Me, I am waiting for the fools of peg leg they stand to fall over. I'm staying out of their lives. Private $$ now has a communist mother to help with their one way wealth. You know they live on their oral sex to avoid their gay unconscious condition. And their money helps the one-sidedness.
911 will get the blame for the close of welfare reform, not the republican and Clinton laws. The newly homeless will not get any United Way money for their troubles. Me, I am waiting for the fools of peg leg they stand to fall over. I'm staying out of their lives. Private $$ now has a communist mother to help with their one way wealth. You know they live on their oral sex to avoid their gay unconscious condition. And their money helps the one-sidedness.
What in the world does this post mean?
I guess he's trying to show how smart and well reasoned he is. He doesn't convince me of his conspiracy theory to well though. Not to convincing is it? Go to youtube and watch firefighter Eric Lawyer explain how the government must not be telling the truth and how he, like me, thought people that did not believe the Government's conspiracy theory were crazy too. But unlike Gregcrow was willing to listen to the facts and logic and suddenly realized that the Governments story was nuts. Watch his videos and see if Gregcrow makes more sense then Eric Lawyer. Or any of the other Phd's or experts that have had the guts to come out publicly and say the official account is nonsense. They have to endure the derision of people like Gregcrow even though they are way smarter and more qualified then Gregcrow. All I'm asking for is a well reasoned response.
We live in a universe of patterns. Once a pattern is established, the burden of proof is on people who claim the pattern does not hold. When some philosopher of science points out that we cannot prove that the sun will rise tomorrow, I say he's absolutely right. There is no way to prove axiomatically that the sun will rise tomorrow, and nobody in science cares in the slightest. When the sun doesn't rise as scheduled, call me. Until then I absolutely refuse to waste time worrying about it. When Immanuel Velikovsky claimed the planets underwent wild disturbances in their orbits, the burden of proof was on him to show that it happened. The burden was not on scientists to show it didn't.
In the case of 9-11, we have planes hitting the World Trade Center and the buildings failing at precisely the level of impact. The observational evidence clearly shows a cause and effect relationship.
We live in a universe of patterns. Once a pattern is established, the burden of proof is on people who claim the pattern does not hold. When some philosopher of science points out that we cannot prove that the sun will rise tomorrow, I say he's absolutely right. There is no way to prove axiomatically that the sun will rise tomorrow, and nobody in science cares in the slightest. When the sun doesn't rise as scheduled, call me. Until then I absolutely refuse to waste time worrying about it. When Immanuel Velikovsky claimed the planets underwent wild disturbances in their orbits, the burden of proof was on him to show that it happened. The burden was not on scientists to show it didn't.
In the case of 9-11, we have planes hitting the World Trade Center and the buildings failing at precisely the level of impact. The observational evidence clearly shows a cause and effect relationship.
We live in a universe of patterns. Once a pattern is established, the burden of proof is on people who claim the pattern does not hold. When some philosopher of science points out that we cannot prove that the sun will rise tomorrow, I say he's absolutely right. There is no way to prove axiomatically that the sun will rise tomorrow, and nobody in science cares in the slightest. When the sun doesn't rise as scheduled, call me. Until then I absolutely refuse to waste time worrying about it. When Immanuel Velikovsky claimed the planets underwent wild disturbances in their orbits, the burden of proof was on him to show that it happened. The burden was not on scientists to show it didn't.
In the case of 9-11, we have planes hitting the World Trade Center and the buildings failing at precisely the level of impact. The observational evidence clearly shows a cause and effect relationship.
What else is a large building collapse going to look like?
Until 9-11, our only experience in bringing down very large buildings was controlled demolition. The highest buildings (apart from broadcast towers) brought down were in the 30 story range. Once the building starts to fall, the physics is going to be the same regardless of the initial cause. So alleged similarities between 9-11 and controlled demolitions prove nothing. You might as well argue that the collapse of Mount St. Helens in 1980 was set off by explosives because it looked just like a landslide caused by explosives.
One thing radically different about 9-11 is that controlled demolitions always set off charges low in the structure and let the weight of the building do the rest. Nobody ever set off charges high in a building to pancake the stories beneath. So why resort to a radical and unproven method if you want to bring down the World Trade Center?
Probably the most revealing commentary on the controlled demolition theory is Bringing Down The House by Michael Satchell in US News and World Report (June 30, 2003). This article describes the work of Controlled Demolition Inc., far and away the world leaders in controlled demolition, and Mark and Doug Loizeaux, who run it.
Like most Americans, the Loizeauxs were transfixed by the televised scenes of destruction shortly after the first jet struck. But as experts in buildings' vulnerabilities, they knew right away what few Americans realized. "I told Doug immediately that the tower was coming down, and when the second tower was hit, that it would follow," remembers Mark. Horrified, the Loizeaux brothers watched first responders streaming into the doomed towers and tried frantically, and unsuccessfully, to phone in warnings. In the following days, CDI was called to ground zero to consult on safety and develop plans for demolition and debris removal. What if the twin towers, though badly damaged, had somehow remained standing? Without doubt, the Loizeaux family would have been called upon to bring them down. "Quite simply," says Mark in a rare moment of introspective uncertainty, "I don't know how we would have done it."
So according to the world experts on building demolition:
It was immediately obvious that the towers were going to fall They have no idea how they would have brought down the towers in a controlled demolition. Of course, you can always claim the Loizeaux brothers were in on the plot. Some sites link to a story about Controlled Demolition later being charged with illegal campaign contributions, which certainly proves something. Or other.
Actually, the collapse doesn't look like a controlled demolition. Real controlled demolitions try very hard to avoid flinging debris far beyond the building itself. They blow the lower stories and the center of the building to cause the building to collapse in on itself. The collapse of the World Trade Center doesn't look remotely like a controlled collapse, apart from stuff falling down.
OK good, you've ventured a response to one of the hundreds of serious problems with the Government's conspiracy theory. Right off the bat, Tom Sullivan, WHO USED TO WORK FOR THE AFOREMENTIONED CDI, (operative words USED TO) has said just the opposite. "As soon as I saw it, I knew it was controlled demolition." And yes the Loizeau's of CDI ARE being accused of engineering the collapses. Controlled demos are so difficult and expensive that they are illegal in NYC. That's how hard they are to achieve. And you say it could have been a coincidence? The building designs have to be studied very carefully. Extremely expensive timers need to be placed in exact places. For a building to fall through the path of MOST resistance instead of least resistance, the natural way, the center columns have to collapse first, and in 1/10th second intervals, they have to collapse outward from the center. It is extremely high tech and is not even legal in NYC because it is so hard to do. The odds are infinitesimally small that this was just a coincidence.There are only three or four companies in the world that have the technical know how to do it and it took decades to develop this technology. Also, you have to have special cutter charges to cut the steel at exactly the right angles needed for the steel to collapse inward on itself through the path of most resistance.
Which brings us to another problem with the Governments' conspiracy theory. If the girders were cut with these angular cutter charges, then it would be a very simple to task to check the bottom girders for the special angular cuts. There would be several hundreds of these cuts. Here's a chance for them to exculpate themselves on this question. No problem, right? Wrong! The government broke there own federal crime scene laws and removed them before anyone could look at them. They then illegally shipped them to China as fast as they could and had them melted down and the steel recycled. Someone has to answer this one. Why would would they blatantly break their own laws and and destroy the evidence that would support their own conspiracy theory. To me, this seems suspicious. Like it just screams cover up. Anyone else?
The thing to remember about the issue of the conspiracy theory being suspect is that it is based on a cumulative argument, not a deductive one. In a deductive argument, the chain is only as strong as the weakest link. So if you can cast some doubt on one of the many points in the argument, it is only that strong. As strong as the weakest point. This is not that kind of argument. This is a cumulative argument. So the metaphor could be a rope with hundreds of very strong strands. Nick up a couple of the strands and you don't really weaken the argument in any significant way. That's how strong and overwhelming the evidence is in this case. I urge you to study the sites AE/911truth.com, 9/11blogger, and 9/11 research .org.
As far as the questions go, just take one at a time. How about reading the wikipedia article on Operation Northwoods. This document was declassified by the Clinton Administration in 1993, some say mistakenly. It was a false flag operation that would be used to justify an invasion of Castro's Cuba, but luckily JFK disapproved it, calling it lunacy. They were supposed to, among many other things, hijack U.S. aircraft and fly them into buildings, and then blame it on Cuba. That would make U.S. citizens supportive of the invasion alright. Read this and compare to 9/11. Are they really that much different? It should not seem as far fetched now, because we now know that the CIA/military could plan such things. Try reading the wikipedia article first then if you want to, you can proceed to the original document.
P.S. To say that "before 9/11 our only experience with bringing down buildings was controlled demolition", is another way of saying that in the history of the world no steel framed building, or high rise of any construction, had ever collapsed due to fire or any other reason. The Government has said that building 7 "collapsed primarily due to normal office fires". What are the odds that it would happen on 9/11? There have been literally hundreds of high rise fires in world history that burned much worse then wtc7. (for example wtc 3, 4,, and 6. How come they seemed to know they were not going to collapse?) None in world history have ever collapsed. Remember the Grenfell towers in London a couple of months ago? How did they know that thing was not coming down? It was completely gutted by fire. If you look at the collapse of wtc 7, it looks pristine by comparison. And the Grenfell Tower was built before building 7.
We live in a universe of patterns. Once a pattern is established, the burden of proof is on people who claim the pattern does not hold. When some philosopher of science points out that we cannot prove that the sun will rise tomorrow, I say he's absolutely right. There is no way to prove axiomatically that the sun will rise tomorrow, and nobody in science cares in the slightest. When the sun doesn't rise as scheduled, call me. Until then I absolutely refuse to waste time worrying about it. When Immanuel Velikovsky claimed the planets underwent wild disturbances in their orbits, the burden of proof was on him to show that it happened. The burden was not on scientists to show it didn't.
In the case of 9-11, we have planes hitting the World Trade Center and the buildings failing at precisely the level of impact. The observational evidence clearly shows a cause and effect relationship.
Greg, there is no previously established pattern. That's the whole point. It has never before happened in world history. Just like the sun has never not risen before in world history. So by your own logic the burden of proof would be on you, the conspiracy theorist, to explain how and why something happened for the first time in world history.
And in fact the evidence clearly points in the direction of the Government lying. I've outlined just a small handful of the problems with the government's story. I've already done this. Now how about responding to some more of them. I give you credit though for being the only one to address at least one of them. I don't believe it was one of mine though. But still it was better then nothing. How about another one?
Why would the FBI, after being informed by the flight school that they had Arabian men taking commercial flight lessons, and not wanting to know takeoffs and landings, and after the flight instructors telling them of their fears that they might be planning to hijack and crash the planes into the wtc, not take any action. These men WERE ALREADY ON THE TERROR WATCHLIST!!! No action? Why not ask the airlines for notification if they buy tickets on their ailines? What is the terror watch list for? These guys used there own identities they say. Does this make sense? They used their own credit cards. It just does not make any sense to me. Take a crack at one of them.
Hey Greg I give you credit for being the only one to attempt to back up their conspiracy theory or answer one of the many questions, but you never responded to the fact that there in fact WAS NO PATTERN, and the fact that the burden of proof is on you, the conspiracy theorist, to explain why something happened for the first time in world history. This was four months ago and still no reply?
What else is a large building collapse going to look like?
Until 9-11, our only experience in bringing down very large buildings was controlled demolition. The highest buildings (apart from broadcast towers) brought down were in the 30 story range. Once the building starts to fall, the physics is going to be the same regardless of the initial cause. So alleged similarities between 9-11 and controlled demolitions prove nothing. You might as well argue that the collapse of Mount St. Helens in 1980 was set off by explosives because it looked just like a landslide caused by explosives.
One thing radically different about 9-11 is that controlled demolitions always set off charges low in the structure and let the weight of the building do the rest. Nobody ever set off charges high in a building to pancake the stories beneath. So why resort to a radical and unproven method if you want to bring down the World Trade Center?
Probably the most revealing commentary on the controlled demolition theory is Bringing Down The House by Michael Satchell in US News and World Report (June 30, 2003). This article describes the work of Controlled Demolition Inc., far and away the world leaders in controlled demolition, and Mark and Doug Loizeaux, who run it.
Like most Americans, the Loizeauxs were transfixed by the televised scenes of destruction shortly after the first jet struck. But as experts in buildings' vulnerabilities, they knew right away what few Americans realized. "I told Doug immediately that the tower was coming down, and when the second tower was hit, that it would follow," remembers Mark. Horrified, the Loizeaux brothers watched first responders streaming into the doomed towers and tried frantically, and unsuccessfully, to phone in warnings. In the following days, CDI was called to ground zero to consult on safety and develop plans for demolition and debris removal. What if the twin towers, though badly damaged, had somehow remained standing? Without doubt, the Loizeaux family would have been called upon to bring them down. "Quite simply," says Mark in a rare moment of introspective uncertainty, "I don't know how we would have done it."
So according to the world experts on building demolition:
It was immediately obvious that the towers were going to fall They have no idea how they would have brought down the towers in a controlled demolition. Of course, you can always claim the Loizeaux brothers were in on the plot. Some sites link to a story about Controlled Demolition later being charged with illegal campaign contributions, which certainly proves something. Or other.
Actually, the collapse doesn't look like a controlled demolition. Real controlled demolitions try very hard to avoid flinging debris far beyond the building itself. They blow the lower stories and the center of the building to cause the building to collapse in on itself. The collapse of the World Trade Center doesn't look remotely like a controlled collapse, apart from stuff falling down.
The towers, 1 and 2, were top down demolitions. There are many types. (top down, bottom up, side to side) They had to be as a 1400 hundred ft tall building. You say that they blow the lower stories and center first so that the building collapses in on itself. Exactly right! Now go look at the collapse of wtc7. This is exactly what happens. No Way this happens by accident. It took decades to develop this technology and it would cost hundreds of millions of dollars to get a building to fall like this. No way it happens by accident. And it is so difficult to get a building to fall in this manner it is even illegal in NYC. So you answer your own question.