9/11 scientific proof that plane's didnt hit...WATCH THREE PARTS

For all you science geeks.
If you don't watch all three vids then don't bother commenting as I want to discuss them.

Made by scientists and comments by experts.

If you sont come away at the very least a little dubious or like this then you're lying.

And!
If you don't watch it perhaps you don't want to know. If that's the case, don't waste my time trying to debate.

Better to watch on a laptop or biggish screen.
PART ONE

PART TWO

PART THREE:

I'll have a watch.

You honestly think, after 14 years, that most politically interested people haven't watched many conspiracy videos- everytime you post these its the same thing. And all they do is raise questions without offering answers. Why not look at all theories (including the accepted one) and see which one actually has the most evidence for a change?

OFFS more mindless drivel and conjecture

Acums razor
terrorists hijacked 4 planes.flew two in to the world trade center .one in to the pentagon,one in to a field


the fucking end

For conspiracy theories ,this is pretty weak.
There are far more credible ones such as the murder of Princess Diana by our own security services because she was pregnant by a Muslim, and the murder of Dr David Kelly for the information he had on wmd.

Sadly some people are driven by a paranoid fear, which then makes them create irrational beliefs to a traumatic event. Everytime these stupid claims are debunked a new one arises, where are showing fundementally wrong all previous claism, the so called truthers never admit to the fact the other claims were in error. They want to believe there is something more sinister and powerful in control of the world to explain events like 9/11. Like I say its the worst form of paranoia built from a distrust of Governments.

Where their arguments really fall apart, is how many other attcks carried out by Al-Qaeda are all also conspiracies. I mean surely if we are led to believe there is this New World order, why is it they only once in a while target the west and cast blame onto a group that has alreayd carried out numerius suicide bombings that have left countless dead and injured?

So here is a list of attacks, please show which are also coverups?
If you do not think they are coverups, why only attcks in the US and Britain then brinbg about this paranoie to then think wrongly some imaginary behind the scenes evil Galactic Empire, led by Darth Corbyn?








1990s[edit]On December 29, 1992,[1] the first attack by Al-Qaeda was carried out in Aden, Yemen[2][3][4] known as the 1992 Yemen Hotel Bombings. That evening, a bomb went off at the Gold Mohur hotel, where U.S. troops had been staying while en route to Somalia, though the troops had already left when the bomb exploded. The bombers targeted a second hotel, the Aden Movenpick, where they believed American troops might also be staying. That bomb detonated prematurely in the hotel car park, around the same time as the other bomb explosion, killing two Australian tourists.[1][3] Bin Laden later claimed that he and Mohamed Khan were responsible for the 1992 Yemen attack.[2]
On February 26, 1993, a truck bomb was detonated below the North Tower of the World Trade Center in New York City. The 1,336 pounds (606 kg) urea nitrate–hydrogen gas enhanced device was intended to send the North Tower (Tower 1) crashing into the South Tower (Tower 2), bringing both towers down and killing tens of thousands of people. It failed to do so but killed six people and injured more than a thousand.
In August 1998, Al-Qaeda operatives carried out the bombings of the U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, killing more than 200 people and injuring more than 5,000 others.[5]
2000s[edit]
USS Cole after it was bombedAl-Qaeda planned to attack the USS The Sullivans on January 3, 2000, but the effort failed due to too much weight being put on the small boat meant to bomb the ship.
Despite the setback with the USS The Sullivans, al-Qaeda succeeded in bombing a U.S. Navy warship in October 2000 with the USS Cole bombing, killing 17 sailors. A day later, a grenade was thrown at the British embassy in Yemen, blowing up one of its electric generators.[6][7]
On September 9, 2001, two Tunisian members of al-Qaeda assassinated Ahmed Shah Massoud, the leader of the Northern Alliance. One of the suicide attackers was killed by the explosion, while the other was captured and shot while trying to escape. It is believed that Osama Bin Laden ordered Massoud's assassination to help his Taliban protectors and ensure he would have their co-operation in Afghanistan.[8]
The most destructive act ascribed to al-Qaeda was the series of attacks in the United States on September 11, 2001. Four commercial airliners were hijacked. Two of these were crashed into the Twin Towers which later collapsed, destroying the rest of the World Trade Center building complex. The third was crashed into the Pentagon and the fourth in a field during a struggle between passengers and hijackers to control the airplane. All together, 2,977 victims, including 2,504 civilians, 72 law enforcement officers, 343 firefighters, and 55 military personnel, perished in the attacks. An investigation conducted after the attacks concluded that members of al-Qaeda planned and orchestrated the attacks. Osama bin Laden initially denied his organization's involvement,[9] but later in 2004 admitted his organization was responsible[citation needed].
On December 22, 2001, al-Qaeda operative Richard Reid attempted to detonate explosives packed into the shoes he was wearing, while on American Airlines Flight 63 from Paris to Miami. In 2002, Reid pleaded guilty in U.S. federal court to eight criminal counts of terrorism, based on his attempt to destroy a commercial aircraft in-flight. He was sentenced to life in prison without parole and is held in a super maximum security prison in the United States.
The April 11, 2002 Ghriba synagogue bombing occurred when a natural gas truck fitted with explosives drove past security barriers at the ancient Ghriba Synagogue on the Tunisian island of Djerba. The truck detonated at the front of the synagogue, killing 14 German tourists, three Tunisians, and two French nationals. More than 30 others were wounded. Al Qaeda later claimed responsibility for the attack.[10]
The 2002 Limburg bombing occurred on 6 October 2002. The Limburg was carrying 397,000 barrels (63,100 m3) of crude oil from Iran to Malaysia, and was in the Gulf of Aden off Yemen to pick up another load of oil. It was registered under a French-flag and had been chartered by the Malaysian petrol firm Petronas. While it was some distance offshore, an explosives-laden dinghy rammed the starboard side of the tanker and detonated. The vessel caught on fire and approximately 90,000 barrels (14,000 m3) of oil leaked into the Gulf of Aden. Although Yemeni officials initially claimed that the explosion was caused by an accident, later investigations found traces of TNT on the damaged ship. One crew member, a 38-year-old Bulgarian named Atanas Atanasov, was killed, and 12 other crew members were injured.
On October 8, 2002 two Kuwaiti citizens with ties to jihadist in Afghanistan launched the Faylaka Island attack against United States Marines.[11][12][13] The Marines were on a training exercise on Failaka Island, an island off the coast of Kuwait. One Marine was killed, and another was seriously injured. The two Kuwaitis, Anas Al Kandari and Jassem al-Hajiri were also killed. They were reported to have served as volunteers with the Taliban, in Afghanistan, prior to the American response to the attacks of September 11, 2001.
The 2002 Bali bombings occurred on 12 October 2002 in the tourist district.[14]
The 2002 Mombasa attacks occurred on 28 November 2002 in Kenya. Al Qaeda later claimed responsibility for the attacks.[15]
The 2003 Riyadh compound bombings occurred on 12 May 2003, in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. 39 people were killed, and over 160 wounded.
On 8 November 2003, on the day the US State Department warned of further attacks in Saudi Arabia, a suicide truck bomb detonated outside the Al-Mohaya housing compound in Laban Valley, West of Riyadh, killing 18 people and wounding 122.[16]
The 2003 Casablanca bombings occurred on May 16, 2003 in Casablanca, Morocco. 45 people were killed as a result of these attacks (12 suicide-bombers and 33 victims).
The 2003 Marriott Hotel bombing occurred on August 5, 2003 in Jakarta, Indonesia. A suicide bomber detonated a car bomb outside the lobby of the JW Marriott Hotel, killing twelve people and injuring 150. Those killed were mostly Indonesian, with the exception of one Dutch.
The 2003 Istanbul bombings were four truck bomb attacks carried out on November 15, 2003 and November 20, 2003, in Istanbul, Turkey, leaving 57 people dead, and 700 wounded. Several men have been convicted for their involvement.
Al-Qaeda is believed to have been responsible for the 2004 Khobar massacre, carried out on May 29, 2004.[17]
Madrid Train Bombings on March 11, 2004 where 190 people died. This terrorist attack happened 3 days before the 2004 general election.
A suicide car bombing at the Doha Players theater in Qatar on March 19, 2005, which was the first attack of its kind in the nation, killed a British citizen and injured fifteen other people.[18]
The 2005 Bali bombings occurred on 1 October 2005 in Bali, Indonesia. 20 people were killed, and over 100 wounded.[16]
Al-Qaeda is believed to have been responsible for the failed assassination attempt on former Pakistani prime minister Benazir Bhutto on 7 October 2007.[19]
On 27 December 2007, al-Qaeda commander Mustafa Abu al-Yazid claimed responsibility for the assassination of Benazir Bhutto.[20]
Al-Qaeda claimed responsibility for the bombing of the Danish embassy in Pakistan on June 2, 2008. A car bomb killed six people and injured several.[21] Mustafa Abu al-Yazid, a high-ranking member of Al-Qaeda, issued a statement after the bombing, claiming that the attack was a response to the 2005 publication of the Muhammed Cartoons.[22]
The Battle of Wanat occurred on July 13, 2008, when forces including Al-Qaeda and Taliban guerrillas attacked NATO troops near the village of Wanat in the Waygal district in Afghanistan's far eastern province of Nuristan. The Battle of Wanat has been described as the "Black Hawk Down" of the War in Afghanistan, as one of the bloodiest attacks of the war and one of several attacks on remote outposts.[8] In contrast to previous roadside bombs and haphazard attacks and ambushes, this attack was well coordinated with fighters from many insurgent and terrorist groups with an effort that was disciplined and sustained which was able to target key assets such as the TOW launcher with precision.
Al-Qaeda is believed to have been responsible for the bombing of the Marriott Hotel in Pakistan on September 20, 2008. A truck bomb killed 54 people and injured 266 people.[23]
Shortly after the arrest of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab in the December 25, 2009 bombing attack on Northwest Airlines Flight 253, the suspect reportedly told officials he had traveled to Yemen for training by Al-Qaeda, although British counterterrorism officials dismissed the claims.[24] President Barack Obama's top security official Janet Napolitano on December 27 stated "Right now we have no indication it's part of anything larger", warning it would be "inappropriate to speculate" that Al-Qaeda had sent Abdulmutallab on a suicide mission. On December 28, President Obama called it an "attempted terrorist attack" and promised "to use every element of our national power to disrupt, to dismantle and defeat the violent extremists who threaten us, whether they are from Afghanistan or Pakistan...".[25] That same day, Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula claimed responsibility for the attack.[26] The group released photos of Nigerian Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab smiling in a white shirt and white Islamic skullcap with the Al Qaeda in Arabian Peninsula banner in the background. On January 8, 2010, President Barack Obama took responsibility for security lapses exposed by the attack, declaring in televised remarks "We are at war against Al-Qaeda", noting "our adversaries will seek new ways to evade them, as was shown by the Christmas attack"[27] By February 2010, the suspect told federal investigators that cleric Anwar al-Awlaki gave him orders to carry out the attack. Al-Jazeera reported that Awlaki issued a statement that "Brother mujahed Umar Farouk – may God relieve him – is one of my students, yes... We had kept in contact, but I didn't issue a fatwa to Umar Farouk for this operation,".[28]
An Al-Qaeda agent posing as a double agent killed 7 CIA officers in the Camp Chapman attack on December 30, 2009. The Jordanian man, thought to be an American asset penetrating Al-Qaeda was brought in the wire of the camp and detonated an explosive belt, killing 7 CIA, 1 Jordanian intelligence officer, and seriously wounding six others.[29]
Al-Qaeda commander Mustafa Abu al-Yazid claimed responsibility for the bombing of a German bakery in India in a posthumous audio tape released on June 15, 2010. The blast killed 17 people, and injured at least 60 more.[30]
In the Cargo planes bomb plot two packages, each containing a bomb consisting of 300 to 400 grams (11–14 oz) of plastic explosives and a detonating mechanism, were found on On October 29, 2010 on separate cargo planes. The bombs were discovered as a result of intelligence received from Saudi Arabia's security chief. They were bound from Yemen to the United States, and were discovered at en route stop-overs, in England and in Dubai in the United Arab Emirates.
One week later, al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) took responsibility for the plot.[31] U.S. and British authorities had believed that AQAP, and specifically Anwar al-Awlaki, were behind the bombing attempts. They also believed the bombs were most likely constructed by AQAP's main explosives expert, Ibrahim Hassan al-Asiri.[32][33]
The In Amenas hostage crisis began on 16 January 2013, when al-Qaeda-linked terrorists affiliated with a brigade led by Mokhtar Belmokhtar took over 800 people hostage at the Tigantourine gas facility near In Amenas, Algeria. At least 39 foreign hostages were killed along with an Algerian security guard, as were 29 militants.[citation needed]
Iraq attacks[edit]The Imam Ali Mosque bombing was the detonation of two car bombs outside of the Shia Imam Ali Mosque in Najaf on August 29, 2003.
The 2004 Irbil bombings was a double suicide attack on the offices of Kurdish political parties in Irbil, Iraq, north of Baghdad on February 2, 2004. The attackers detonated explosives strapped to their bodies as hundreds gathered to celebrate Eid Al-Adha in Irbil.
The 2 March 2004 Iraq Ashura bombings in Iraq was a series of planned terrorist explosions that killed at least 178 and injured at least 500 Iraqi Shi'a Muslims commemorating the Day of Ashura. The bombings brought one of the deadliest days in the Iraq occupation after the Iraq War to topple Saddam Hussein.
21 April 2004 Basra bombings were a series of large car bomb explosions which ripped through Basra, Iraq.
The 2005 Musayyib bombing was a suicide attack on a marketplace in Musayyib, Iraq, a town 35 miles south of Baghdad on July 16, 2005.
The 14 September 2005 Baghdad bombings were a series of more than a dozen terrorist attacks in the Iraqi capital of Baghdad.[34]
The November 2005 Khanaqin bombings were suicide attacks on two Shia mosques in Khanaqin, Iraq.
The Buratha Mosque bombing was a triple suicide bombing that occurred on April 7, 2006 in Baghdad.
The 23 November 2006 Sadr City bombings were a series of car bombs and mortar attacks in Iraq that began on 23 November at 15:10 Baghdad time (12:10 Greenwich Mean Time) and ended at 15:55 (12:55 GMT). Six car bombs and two mortar rounds were used in the attack on the Shi'ite Muslim slum in Sadr City.[35]
The 3 February 2007 Baghdad market bombing was the detonation of a large truck bomb in a busy market in the Iraqi capital of Baghdad on 3 February 2007. The suicide attack killed at least 135 people and injured 339 others.[36]
The 2007 Tal Afar bombings and massacre took place on March 27, 2007, when two truck bombs targeted Shia areas of the town of Tal Afar, Iraq, killing 152 and wounding 347 people.[37]
The 18 April 2007 Baghdad bombings were a series of attacks that occurred when five car bombs exploded across Baghdad, the capital city of Iraq, on 18 April 2007, killing nearly 200 people.[38]
The 2007 Yazidi communities bombings occurred at around 8pm local time on August 14, 2007, when four co-ordinated suicide bomb attacks detonated in the Kurdish towns of Kahtaniya and Jazeera (Siba Sheikh Khidir), near Mosul. Iraqi Red Crescent's estimates say the bombs killed 796 and wounded 1,562 people,[31][39] making this the Iraq War's most deadly car bomb attack during the period of major American combat operations.
The 19 August 2009 Baghdad bombings were three coordinated car bomb attacks and a number of mortar strikes in the Iraqi capital, Baghdad.
On 25 October 2009 Baghdad bombings there were attacks in Baghdad, Iraq which killed 155 people and injured at least 721 people.[40]
The April 2010 Baghdad bombings were a series of bomb attacks in Baghdad, Iraq that killed at least 85 people over two days.
The 10 May 2010 Iraq attacks were a series of bomb and shooting attacks that occurred in Iraq on 10 May 2010, killing over 100 people and injuring 350, the highest death toll for a single day in Iraq in 2010.[41]
The 2 November 2010 Baghdad bombings were a series of bomb attacks in Baghdad, Iraq, that killed more than 110 people.[42]
The January 2011 Iraq suicide attacks were a series of three consecutive suicide bombings in Iraq which left at least 133 dead.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_al-Qaeda_attacks

Eilzel wrote:You honestly think, after 14 years, that most politically interested people haven't watched many conspiracy videos- everytime you post these its the same thing. And all they do is raise questions without offering answers. Why not look at all theories (including the accepted one) and see which one actually has the most evidence for a change?

Did you watch them?

Handy Andy wrote:For conspiracy  theories ,this is pretty weak.
There are far more credible  ones such as the murder of Princess  Diana by our own security services because she was pregnant  by a Muslim, and the murder of Dr David  Kelly for the information he had on wmd.

Did you watch the videos, all three?
And don't mention lady Diana being killed - you will be hounded!!!

Most on this thread will not accept any other view but the official one

And didge didn't even watch them.

Oh well. That was my last effort to try and make you all see with the aid of a scientist and experts....
Never mind.

There's no fool like one who cannot see




Sassy, let me know when you've watched it

I watched all 3 Eddie.

Yes, there are many holes in the official version of 9/11 and more people like you are waking up to the truth that this vile attack has nothing to do with Islam.

But of course, you're being mocked in this forum and even trying to shut you up, lest you be seen as some sort of crazy person.

In fact, the Americans and the elite (like Rothschild's - see Niall Ferguson's work on this) used Islam to create a clash of civilisations in order to exert its power.

Many people forget the blueprint published in 2000 (before 11/09/2001) - in fact a few months befor GW Bush is elected.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/pdf/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

2 things to notice about this report -

1. The people who wrote the report played a key role in advising the administration of GW Bush, esp during his first term

2. Page 51 of report: "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor."

Let's also not forget that Robin Cook was also murderd for trying to reveal that bin Laden, Khalid SM were CIA agents and Al Qeada was an American creation. "Al Qaeda Mamalut" translates as "The Data Base" of mujahideen fighting for the US against the Russians in Afghanistan.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2005/jul/08/july7.development

I've also been trying to find Trevor McDonalds interview with Bush in 2000 (a year before 9/11) where he admits he has a strategy to convince the American people to attach Iraq - unfortunately you won't find this interview online anymore. It's been conveniently removed.

Lastly, analyse those who died (supposedly) on Flight 11 - and more importantly who "conviniently missed the flight". Those who missed the flight have been associated with certain groups of "elites".

Quite right about Robin Cook,

Again its very simple to present their findings to for example MIT for peer review and yet they have not done so.
I can tell you why, because the science behind many of their claims is fundementally poor.
Again many of these claims have been easily refuted and this is why you have not seen them present this for peer review.

Sadly, the regressive left, the Muslims who cannot admit failings in Islam and those who believe in some magical new world order all arfe driven by the same fundelental problem


An inability to except the truth, as the truth that we have a huge problem with Islamic extremism, means having to deal with problems within Islam

I mean do they miss the part that 9/11 and 7/7 are just two of thousands of terrorist attacks by islamic extremists?
All these claims seek to remove any blame from a fundemental problem that exist all over the world.
Are all the islamic terrorists attacks all conspiracies?

You see, its the worst form of apologist nonsense and even worse it seeks to deflect away from the know murderers and their ideology.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:I watched all 3 Eddie.

Yes, there are many holes in the official version of 9/11 and more people like you are waking up to the truth that this vile attack has nothing to do with Islam.

But of course, you're being mocked in this forum and even trying to shut you up, lest you be seen as some sort of crazy person.

In fact, the Americans and the elite (like Rothschild's - see Niall Ferguson's work on this) used Islam to create a clash of civilisations in order to exert its power.

Many people forget the blueprint published in 2000 (before 11/09/2001) - in fact a few months befor GW Bush is elected.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/pdf/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

2 things to notice about this report -

1. The people who wrote the report played a key role in advising the administration of GW Bush, esp during his first term

2. Page 51 of report: "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor."

Let's also not forget that Robin Cook was also murderd for trying to reveal that bin Laden, Khalid SM were CIA agents and Al Qeada was an American creation. "Al Qaeda Mamalut" translates as "The Data Base" of mujahideen fighting for the US against the Russians in Afghanistan.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2005/jul/08/july7.development

I've also been trying to find Trevor McDonalds interview with Bush in 2000 (a year before 9/11) where he admits he has a strategy to convince the American people to attach Iraq - unfortunately you won't find this interview online anymore. It's been conveniently removed.

Lastly, analyse those who died (supposedly) on Flight 11 - and more importantly who "conviniently missed the flight". Those who missed the flight have been associated with certain groups of "elites".

Yep, also amazing the man that owned the Tower used to lunch there, with his daughter, every day without fail.  On that day he told his daughter to stay away and he didn't go in either.

Lets use someone the regressives and Muslim apologists worship:



Noam Chomsky slaps down 9/11 truther: People spend an hour on the Internet and think they know physics:


MIT professor Noam Chomsky doesn’t know what happened to “Building 7” of the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.
But he is convinced that so-called “9/11 Truthers” don’t have the answer.
During a lecture on “Policy and the Media Prism” at the University of Florida a few weeks ago, 9/11 truth activist Bob Tuskin said the mainstream media had covered up evidence that Building 7 imploded in a controlled demolition. Tuskin asked Chomsky if he was finally ready to “jump on board with” 9/11 conspiracy theories.
“You’re right that there’s a consensus among a miniscule number of architects and engineers,” Chomsky replied. “They are not doing what scientists and engineers do when they think they’ve discovered something.”
“What you do when you think you’ve discovered something is write articles in scientific journals, give talks at the professional societies, go to the civil engineering department at MIT or Florida or wherever you are, and present your results, then proceed to try to convince the national academies, the professional society of physicists and civil engineers, the departments of the major universities, convince them that you’ve discovered something.”
“There happen to be a lot of people around who spend an hour on the Internet and think they know a lot physics, but it doesn’t work like that. There’s a reason there are graduate schools in these departments,” he continued.
Chomsky dismissed the claim that scientists and engineers hadn’t followed typical procedures because they felt intimidated by the government. He said publishing an article in an academic journal was virtually risk-free compared to other forms of political activism.
“There is just overwhelming evidence that the Bush administration wasn’t involved,” Chomsky added. “Very elementary evidence. You don’t have to be a physicist to understand it. You just have to think for a minute.”
He noted that the Bush administration blamed the 9/11 attacks on Saudi hijackers. If the U.S. government had staged the attacks as a pretense to invade Iraq, they could have just as easily blamed Iraqi hijackers and avoided the need to “concoct wild stories about weapons of mass destruction” as their justification.
Watch video, uploaded to YouTube by Bob Tuskin, below:


http://www.rawstory.com/2015/09/noam-chomsky-slaps-down-911-truther-people-spend-an-hour-on-the-internet-and-think-they-know-physics/



So Noam here is fundementally right and if they are not presenting their findings and even worse those buying into their claims do not even understand basic science. How on earth do the lies of Sassy and Eddie, who have very little understanding scientifically can even understand if the science is right or not?

There is nothing stoppint them presenting their findings, which begs the question very much so that is shockingly poor and politically motivated and not scientificaly motivated

Eddie, here's a "peer reviewed" paper that demonstrates the feasibility of the US planning the 911 attack.

http://japanfocus.org/-Peter_Dale-Scott/3723/article.html

Despite what people say to you Eddie, you will find many peer reviewed research online.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:Eddie, here's a "peer reviewed" paper that demonstrates the feasibility of the US planning the 911 attack.

http://japanfocus.org/-Peter_Dale-Scott/3723/article.html

Despite what people say to you Eddie, you will find many peer reviewed research online.

That is not peer reviewed

That is the worst dishonesty to claim that it is.

Encyclopedia of American Loons

#1125: Peter Dale Scott

Peter Dale Scott is a batshit insane conspiracy theorist; that is, he rejects the label “conspiracy theory”, of course, going instead for “deep politics”, a branch of pseudoscience for which he may claim to be the proud founder. Scott is also a former English professor at the University of California, Berkeley, and a former diplomat (he is Canadian, though his career in the US arguably qualifies him for inclusion in our Encyclopedia). That doesn’t confer much authority on the subject matter of deep politics, and it is telling that his “research” is published in book-length monologues from non-academic publishers rather than in peer-reviewed journals.



Though he avoids the standard references to organized shadow groups such as the Illuminati, Scott maintains that a large number of terrorist acts and assassinations (including JFK and Anders Breivik) are inside jobs; perhaps not fully, consciously and carefully planned and organized from the top – there is no unified group at said top – but inside jobs nonetheless (he has, though, thus far, as far as I can tell, refrained from proclaiming 9/11 an inside job, though it was, it seems, a result of deep politics – there are some comments on his book on the issue here). Despite the absence of a powerful, single, unified conspiracy, Scott’s theories nevertheless relies on “secret” decisions made by “small cabals” of persons within our (public) governmental institutions, for the deliberate purpose of replacing the “public” dimension. Evidence that these are inside jobs or that such evil, secret plots exist? Well, governments have been involved in lots of shit over the years, so it is not impossible that they could have organized these things as well. “But,” you might object, “could hypothetically have does not imply did.” Ah, yes, but you see, officially Scott is really Just Asking Questions (he just tends to forget sometimes). Besides, he can point to nefarious government schemes at some times in some places in the past (mostly Italian fascists, in fact) – so he has the resources to mingle his narratives with actually documented claims. And when you selectively look at the evidence gathered at various conspiracy sites and fail to distinguish an untested hypothesis from a fact, it all fits. It is worth pointing out that Scott has no background in critical thinking or scientific reasoning, nor does he display any interest in how psychological biases work.



I really don’t wish to link to much of Scott’s drivel, though as a typical example I can give you his “9/11, the JFK Assassination, and the Oklahoma City Bombing as a Strategy of Tension” (here). As usual, he mixes the reasonably well-documented claims about governments being involved in organized crime (and as usual, the examples are from Italy), to claim that at least the following were false flag operations by shady government cabals: JFK, the assassination of Robert Kennedy, the 1993 first World Trade Center bombing, the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, and 9/11 or at least “the subsequent false flag anthrax attacks of 2001”. Because these are structurally similar to the other examples and because governments used these events to implement new laws; no, the distinction between using an event for political gain – and it is in most cases pretty unclear what these gains might have been – and deliberately planning and carrying out that event, is not one Scott is overly concerned with. Nor is he very concerned with accuracy or avoiding question-begging (“all of these events were blamed on marginal left-wing elements, but in fact involved elements inside America’s covert intelligence agencies, along with their shadowy underworld connections”).



Diagnosis: Scott is, in fact, among the most influential conspiracy theorists out there, and by mixing his batshit, evidence-free musings with long, more or less accurate explanations of actual, historical events he manages sometimes to create an illusion of carefulness and sensitivity to evidence. But really, there is little to distinguish his claims from those made by your standard whale.to mainstay (and Scott is, in fact, one of those himself). 


http://americanloons.blogspot.ch/2014/07/1125-peter-dale-scott.html

Richard The Lionheart wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:Eddie, here's a "peer reviewed" paper that demonstrates the feasibility of the US planning the 911 attack.

http://japanfocus.org/-Peter_Dale-Scott/3723/article.html

Despite what people say to you Eddie, you will find many peer reviewed research online.

That is not peer reviewed

That is the worst dishonesty to claim that it is.

Do your research.

You either don't know what peered reviewed means or have resorted to lying. Take your pick.

Here's a peer reviewed paper which doubts the pankaking theory of the collapse

http://aneta.org/911Experiments_com/articles/IntlJStructuralEng_TemporalConsiderationsInCollapseOfWTCTowers.pdf

Again he presents a sham

That is not peer reviewed and proves you clearly do not know what is peer reviwed

You can read the other peer reviewed papers here, Eddie.

http://911inacademia.com/journal-papers/

Stick that in your pipe and smoke it - Didge. ;-)

Richard The Lionheart wrote:Again he presents a sham

That is not peer reviewed and proves you clearly do not know what is peer reviwed

Now you're just lying out of desperation and I just proved it by giving a whole list of peer reviewed papers. - published in Journals of various fields of expertise.

Scholarly peer review (also known as refereeing) is the process of subjecting an author's scholarly work, research, or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field, before a paper describing this work is published in a journal or as a book.


Now zack has not presented one expert on any of the links he has posted.

It shows he is the worst apologoist for islamism

So I will give him a chance to show the experts who he claims have reviewed these claims?

I mean surely he has many MIT expert he can show peer reviwed before they were published in low key magazines?

eddie wrote:And didge didn't even watch them.

Oh well. That was my last effort to try and make you all see with the aid of a scientist and experts....
Never mind.

There's no fool like one who cannot see




Sassy, let me know when you've watched it

So let's have your own ideas, not just an order to watch some videos. Put forward your own theories as to why you think no planes hit the WTC.

sassy wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:I watched all 3 Eddie.

Yes, there are many holes in the official version of 9/11 and more people like you are waking up to the truth that this vile attack has nothing to do with Islam.

But of course, you're being mocked in this forum and even trying to shut you up, lest you be seen as some sort of crazy person.

In fact, the Americans and the elite (like Rothschild's - see Niall Ferguson's work on this) used Islam to create a clash of civilisations in order to exert its power.

Many people forget the blueprint published in 2000 (before 11/09/2001) - in fact a few months befor GW Bush is elected.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/pdf/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

2 things to notice about this report -

1. The people who wrote the report played a key role in advising the administration of GW Bush, esp during his first term

2. Page 51 of report: "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor."

Let's also not forget that Robin Cook was also murderd for trying to reveal that bin Laden, Khalid SM were CIA agents and Al Qeada was an American creation. "Al Qaeda Mamalut" translates as "The Data Base" of mujahideen fighting for the US against the Russians in Afghanistan.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2005/jul/08/july7.development

I've also been trying to find Trevor McDonalds interview with Bush in 2000 (a year before 9/11) where he admits he has a strategy to convince the American people to attach Iraq - unfortunately you won't find this interview online anymore. It's been conveniently removed.

Lastly, analyse those who died (supposedly) on Flight 11 - and more importantly who "conviniently missed the flight". Those who missed the flight have been associated with certain groups of "elites".

Yep, also amazing the man that owned the Tower used to lunch there, with his daughter, every day without fail.  On that day he told his daughter to stay away and he didn't go in either.

Could you provide a link to back that up?

Lordy, I wish you would do your own research Rags, if you are interested in something.  It was breakfast, not lunch BTW, been a long time since I was reading up on 9/11




Will Larry Silverstein ever be brought to justice for 9/11 insurance fraud? by Dr Kevin Barrett

Admin July 18, 2013 Other Writers

Darkmoon?
Can we have something that is credible?
Or back the above with again factual evidence?

Larry Silverstein was not in the Twin Towers on 9-11Larry Silverstein (the new leaseholder for the WTC) had been going to the Twin Towers "Windows on the World" restaurant (there were no survivors on this level) to dine and meet with his new tenants; he had been doing this straight since July 26, 2001. But on 9-11 he didn't go because he claimed his wife made a dermatologist appointment for him.[6] Many truthers also point out that in the interview which he is asked where he was on 9-11 he appears to be showing signs of lying.[7]

Rebuttal: It is very likely he was indeed simply going to a dermatologist appointment. Out of the thousands of people who worked at the site during the day, many dozens at any one time would have been on holiday, off sick or simply slacking on September 11th (a good half dozen well-known celebrities were involved in and avoided a potential end in the attacks[8]). That one of these happened to be the owner isn't remarkable. There are plenty of important traders who did die in the attack — by the logic that one escaped suggests a conspiracy, the fact that many died should discredit it, right?

Also going against the idea of advanced-knowledge is that Neil D. Levin, the head of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (which presumably would be "in" on any conspiracy), was killed on 9-11-while dining in Windows on the World, no less.[9] If there was advance knowledge, why was Silverstein informed while Levin wasn't?

[edit] Silverstein's insurance "scam"It's been repeatedly reported that Larry Silverstein had insured the Twin Towers a year earlier, and it is more than "coincidental" that this insurance covered terrorist attacks. Further, Silverstein had numerous legal disputes that aimed to increase the payout by arguing that there were two separate attacks. To a first approximation, this was successful and Silverstein managed to claim approximately $4.6 billion.

Rebuttal: What conspiracy theorists don't mention about this is that the total cost of the towers was significantly in excess of this — the insurance value was way below what it should have been. Most of the legal wrangling after the fact was also due to the insurance contracts being incomplete. The total cost of the attack would be in the region of $7 billion or more, leaving a considerable loss once the relatively measly insurance payout was claimed. With too low an insurance value and less-than-solid contracts, literally none of the insurance-based activities seem to point to the actions of people who knew exactly what was going to happen in advance. If it was an insurance scam, it was the worst ever.[10]

We've already noted that the World Trade Center had already been bombed once before in 1993, and that several major terror plots against U.S. landmarks had been uncovered since then. In light of this, an anti-terrorism insurance policy would appear to be an entirely logical purchase.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/9-11



Here we see how the article Sassy posted was blatant telling prokies.
Here is another example of how something is twisted to make fit a made conspiracy

You want everything on a plate?  Even Wiki has it, do your own research.

lol see how angry teh loons get when you easily refutes their claims.
Mind you, I would also be verfy angry with myself if I fell for such bullsahit that sassy just did

sassy wrote:You want everything on a plate?  Even Wiki has it, do your own research.

You sit there saying you wish I did my own research. I'm not going to waste time researching something if you can't be bothered to back up what you're saying.

Right, in future everything to you say you research and back up with links

The trouble with some of these conspiracists is that they make a claim, and then when someone counters that claim with proper evidence, they suddenly go very quiet - like Sassy did on the thread about the San Bernardino shootings.

sassy wrote:Right, in future everything to you say you research and back up with links

I do back up what I'm saying with links, unless it's an opinion.

I wasn't particularly interested and was reading what Eddie and you were posting, didn't see the point in adding to it.  So what?

Well as I posted up what clearly refutes the poor assumptions made, Rags does not have to do anything. That is the reality here, most claims are based off to what seems odd to some people and then they create views off this, which is just assumptions.
There is no credability to these claims, they are poor and easily refuted.

Nope, you believed him when he said he had a convenient medical appointment that just happened to be on the day of 9/11.  Cos you're stupid like that.

These are some of the best rebuttals to the theories which make for very good reading





Miscellaneous

[edit] 4/29 Truth

On April 29, 2007, a gas truck exploded on a freeway overpass in the San Francisco Bay area. The overpass collapsed when fire melted the steel support structures.^[44]
Rebuttal: Someone made a joke blog about it being a government conspiracy and linked to a bunch of truther websites. Truthers fell for the bait. Some of them still haven't caught on.^[45]

[edit] It was a neoconservative plot

• George W. Bush did it
  
• Dick Cheney did it
  
• Donald Rumsfeld did it
  
• Richard Perle did it
  
• Paul Wolfowitz did it
  

The above five people were on record as wanting a "new Pearl Harbor" as a reason to mobilize the US Army into the Middle East in a new hot war.
Rebuttal: The "new Pearl Harbor" quote was in reference to modernizing the military and had nothing to do with declaring a war. It stated that progress with modernization would be slow barring an event causing a seismic political shift, it wasn't a statement of intention to create one.^[46]

• Elvis Presley pretending to be a janitor did it.
  
• Goats did it
  
• I didn't do it
  
• Anonymous readers of this site did it
  

As with any claim, the burden of proof lies upon the claimant. Apart from the one about me, because I definitely didn't do it.

[edit] Powerful money/Bush family/military-industrial conspirers did it, all of whom needed a new war in the Middle East for various commercial reasons (oil, arm sales, real estate, precious bodily fluids etc.)

Rebuttal: While it could easily be said that "they" used 9-11 to create an unrelated Iraq War, they did not blame the Iraqis, but al-Qaeda, which isn't really as convenient if you want to declare war with Iraq and not lose some friends. To quote Bill Maher, "[That Bush had prior knowledge of the 9-11 attacks] is an absurd statement, because it contains the words Bush and knowledge."

[edit] It was carried out by Mossad to galvanize US support for Israel and destroy their enemies

Rebuttal: The story of Mossad allegedly telling Jews to stay home the day of the attack, or that no Jews died in the attack, both of which are false, brought this one forward (the most common of these claims is that 4,000 Jews were warned to stay home).^[47] However, as Bush was already one of the strongest supporters Israel has ever had, it is questionable as to why they'd need more of his support.
The idea that the Jews were forewarned may originate in the fact that 9-11 happened to fall at the end of the month of Elul, during the days leading up to Rosh Hashanah, when observant Jews would have additional prayers at their morning prayer services and therefore would likely be late to work. However, given that there were several Orthodox minyanim (prayer groups) organized within the WTC, it is unclear how many, if any, Jews were away from the towers due to prayer services. Then again, if Mossad had wanted to destroy the towers when there were no Jews in them, they could simply have waited a few days until Rosh Hashanah or Yom Kippur, when practically no Jews would have been at work.
The other possible origin of this myth is anti-semitism. Oh! That's it! That's the one!

[edit] A former CIA operative confesses

In 2010, Susan Lindauer self-published a book titled Extreme Prejudice: The Terrifying Story of the Patriot Act and the Cover-Ups of 9-11 and Iraq. In this book, she claims to have been working with the CIA and DIA for years.
Rebuttal: Sources like Wikipedia do not make any mention of these claims outside of the section dedicated to the book. Lindauer may not be sane to begin with, as she was deemed "unfit to stand trial" after refusing to take medicine to aid with a mental illness. This position was reaffirmed two years later.^[48]

[edit] Bush allowed 9-11 to happen

Another version of the conspiracy theory is that although 9-11 wasn't planned or carried out by the US government, Bush was aware that 9-11 was going to happen and did nothing to prevent it.^[49] The most high profile proponent of this theory is former counter terrorism czar Richard Clarke, who says the Bush administration ignored warnings of a likely attack from Al-Qaeda. This was however to suggest (with considerable validity) that the Bush administration was incompetent in its pre-9-11 security preparations rather than to accuse them of intentionally letting the attack happen. ^[50]
Rebuttal: It is known that Condi received a memo entitled "Bin Ladin determined to attack inside the U.S." on August 6, 2001, but this memo discussed the threat in a general way and made no mention of the specific individuals who carried out the 9-11 attacks.^[51] Nevertheless, the existence of this memo, Bush's reported flippant response "you've covered your ass, now" and the fact that it was not declassified until years later have contributed to the aura of foreknowledge and coverup.

[edit] Freemasons/Knights Templar/Zionists/Skull and Bones/"insert secret fraternal society dedicated to world domination here" did it

A "not anti-Semitic" example of the "[Insert Secret Society Here] blew up the Twin Towers" argument claim. (Read: Satire)
This "argument" relies, primarily, on interpreting architecture and symbolism within US culture as indicating that a conspiracy was openly declared for decades and part of some unknown secret plot by an illustrious and secretive elite society that has been alleged to be anything from protean space lizards who have been ruling the world for centuries to a cadre of rich guys who hang out in the woods every summer.^[52] These often include references to the Twin Towers as being constructed as symbolic of Solomon's twin pillars, Boaz and Jachin (which is an important symbol in Freemasonry as well as other esoteric literature such as tarot cards^[53]). Various premonitory events such as The Simpsons featuring a picture of the twin towers with the number 9 next to it^[54] or The Dude in The Big Lebowski signing "September 11th" on a check^[55] are cited to "prove" that someone has been secretly dropping clues for decades that 9-11 was going to happen. Unlike other conspiracy theories, these theorists do not typically reference the actual events surrounding 9-11, but instead point out symbolic indications claiming that it was "foretold."
Rebuttal: As with all forms of pareidolia and confirmation bias pointing out examples where the Twin Towers show up is not evidence given that the Twin Towers were, in and of themselves, highly recognizable buildings, and, therefore likely to be included in multiple forms of literature, especially when referencing New York City. Additionally, it seems highly unlikely that anyone plotting mass murder on the scale witnessed during the WTC attacks is going to tell anyone about it in advance.

[edit] Building six is missing its interior

A claim made in 2013 is that building six is missing its interior, but its walls are intact. ^[56]

[edit] 28 classified pages

There are 28 pages of the Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities before and after the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001 that are still classified; it is said that among the information contained in the documents (by those who viewed them) is which country played a role in complicity to the attacks. A bi-partisan bill, House Resolution 428, proposes to declassify these documents.^[57] It would be overdue by President Obama who promised this to the victim's families back in 2008.
What's likely holding it up is the foreign policy repercussions. It should not be surprising to anyone which country it is.^[58]

[edit] A number of al-Qaeda members conspired to hijack some planes and attack some buildings

...okay, we'll give you that one.

[edit] 9-11 conspiracies are a conspiracy

All 9-11 conspiracies are an invention of the government to make people think they are capable of pulling off such a brilliant plan! MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Those sheeple ate it right up.

[edit] Loose Change

See the main article on this topic: Loose Change
An Internet phenomenon, Loose Change, an amateur documentary advocating 9-11 conspiracy theories, was a huge hit on Google Video and beyond, and is one of the rare examples of an amateur Internet film to have made the leap to the mainstream media, going on to be broadcast in the UK. It advances many of the most popular conspiracy theories about 9-11.

[edit] False false flag operations

Truthers like to cite false flag operations that never actually happened or weren't actually false flags as "precedent" for the 9-11 conspiracy, though even citing real false flag operations would not constitute evidence that 9-11 were a false flag:

• Hitler burned the Reichstag as a false flag operation to grab power!
  

Rebuttal: Historical consensus is that the communist dissident charged with setting the fire was the one who did it. There is some debate over whether he acted alone, but little evidence to show that the Nazis were involved in any way. Even if it were true, though, one guy setting an empty building on fire is hardly analagous to a 9-11 conspiracy.

• FDR did Pearl Harbor!
  

Rebuttal: Another conspiracy theory. See the Pearl Harbor conspiracy theory page for a full debunking.

• Operation Northwood was a plan for a false flag attack.
  

Rebuttal: This made it into the second cut of Loose Change, which alleges that a plan to blow up drone planes as part of a false flag operation to justify the invasion of Cuba is a precedent for a 9-11 false flag. This plan was proposed by a few members of JFK's Department of Defense. JFK and Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara dismissed it as batshit crazy. If anything, this is a precedent for the president discounting such false flags.

• LBJ did the Gulf of Tonkin!
  

Rebuttal: There were two Gulf of Tonkin incidents involving the USS Maddox in 1964. In the first, the Maddox did engage with North Vietnamese torpedo ships. In the second, the Maddox mistakenly reported itself as being under attack. This incident was massively exaggerated by LBJ to justify the escalation of the Vietnam War, but it wasn't a false flag operation.

[edit] Problems with the "Bush did it!" theory

[size=36]“[/size][size=36]”[/size]Within eight months of taking office, President Bush planned and executed the largest terrorist attack on U.S. soil with the full cooperation (and unbroken silence) of the U.S. military, intelligence community, and airline industry. Eight months.

[size=undefined]—Mike Sawyer on what 9-11 truthers actually believe[59][/size]

As aformentioned, the biggest problem is that for the Bush administration to enact such an abhorrent plot and keep it a secret would seem to require a level of competence they never displayed at anything else. While there is some evidence that intelligence regarding the attack was ignored, that does not mean it was a nefarious plot. As Heinlein said, "You have attributed conditions to villainy that simply result from stupidity."
The second problem is that if BushCo did stage the 9-11 attack, their failure to place the blame directly on Saddam Hussein's regime is rather baffling, since their alleged main "use" of 9-11 was to force the US into war with Iraq.

[edit] Why use explosives?

Apart from all the problems regarding means and opportunity to plant hidden explosives in the buildings, there's also the question of the motivation for those particular means. Presumably, a "hypothetical" situation in which jetliners hit the buildings and no bombs were involved (i.e., the real situation) would have caused quite a lot of damage, killing many people and searing into the minds of Americans an image of two buildings attacked by terrorists. So why would the conspirators bother with bombs in addition to jetliners? (Alternatively: why bother with jetliners in addition to bombs?)
Truther answers vary. Only a few of their arguments actually suggest any relevant differences between the known scenario and what they imply would have been observed in a bomb-free one. One difference is that the towers fell straight down into their own footprints (as opposed to sideways, or just the tops flying off by themselves). Another is that their speeds approached free-fall. In short, we are supposed to believe that the conspirators would not have accomplished their goals without the buildings falling quickly and straight down.^[60] (Stupid gravity.)
This point does not apply to non-controlled-demolition conspiracies, but the CD hypothesis has managed to dominate to the point of being synonymous with trutherdom. Why? Perhaps because controlled demolition offers more hope of an un-dismissible smoking gun than the mere LIHOP argument ever could. (Any scenario where the buildings came down per the mainstream view is one that could only be exposed by a paper trail, confessions, etc, but physical evidence like bombs would seal the deal.) Ironically, though, it is almost the least plausible of the theories (though space-beams and hologram-planes show us that one can always find a wealthier stash of crazy somewhere else).
Of course, the "Why?" problem is not an ironclad argument even if it has no answer, because (hypothetically) sufficient evidence in favor of bombs would confirm that bombs indeed had been planted. Say, if C-SPAN captured footage of a famously-sane Senator Jon Doe suddenly meowing like a cat, the fact that no one can provide a rational reason for his doing so would not somehow disprove the assertion that Smith meowed. Likewise, maybe the conspirators just like planting bombs.
In fact, maybe the purpose of the bombs was to draw in the conspiracy-theory crowd like moths to a flame: any subsequent "truth movement" would be unable to resist making themselves look ridiculous by constantly talking about something as absurd as redundant explosives! As phrased by a character in a truther-parodying dialogue in LessWrong which satirically suggests that controlled demolition ideas are in fact an instance of "disinformation" by the real conspiracy: "I don't suppose we actually planted some explosives, just to make sure...?"^[61]

[edit] Iran

23 Sep 2010: "Delegates from the US and European countries walked out of the UN's General Assembly hall during Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's speech when the Iranian president claimed 'most nations' believed the US government was behind the September 11 attacks."^[62]

[edit] Common themes in truther thinking

A freakishly large number of truthers are shamelessly anti-Semitic, blaming various US neoconservatives (come on, people), property owner Larry Silverstein, and the Mossad for planning/covering up the attack. Many truthers also seem to be of the opinion that a group of Ay-rabs couldn't have planned an operation this complex, a slightly (but only slightly) more subtly racist attitude reminiscent of Erich von Däniken, Orientalism and a host of other "[insert group here] couldn't possibly have done X (subtext: because they are too ignorant/uncivilized)"-claims.^[63]
Technological illiteracy is a frequent theme as well — the invention of fanciful devices such as "thermite straps" to cut vertical girders for example (thermite is very hard to direct and usually burns straight down), "quiet" explosives, very-low-yield nuclear weapons, and even undetectable holographic projectors (favored by some of the no-planers) all figure into theories put forth by truthers. Outright lying is not unusual as well; for example, claims of no plane parts on the lawn of the Pentagon were directly refuted by eyewitnesses.
Truthers also seem to have a thing for digging around in the statistical noise, misinterpreting photo artifacts and other random bits of data^[64] and even taking operational jargon (such as the infamous "pull it" command that was used to order the evacuation of WTC 7) out of context, while avoiding things like the fact that steel doesn't have to melt to bend, that office fires can be much hotter than just a kerosene fire, or the fact that there was a 20-story gash in the side of WTC 7 after the tower collapses that seriously compromised its structural integrity. In fact, the entire truther thought process is very much akin to quote mining. Who'da thunk.
At the conservative end of the truther spectrum are LIHOPers (short for "Let It Happen On Purpose," in contrast to MIHOPers for "Made It Happen On Purpose"^[65]) who believe US intelligence agencies had data on the coming attacks prior to September 11th, 2001, which the administration willfully ignored, but whose direct involvement was limited to (at very most) diverting defenses that might have interfered with the attack. Still dumb. The least indulgent of the truthers speculate that the 9-11 attacks were planned and carried out by Osama Bin Laden, disgruntled associate of the Saudi Royal family, and a cadre of veteran mujahideen, and not a lone, nondescript terrorist who single-handedly hijacked and piloted all four planes to their targets.
A small but prolific number of truthers even go so far as to claim the planes were holographic.^[66]

[edit] Painful irony department

In a 2011 survey of 15- to 30-year-old men in Afghanistan's Kandahar and Helmand provinces by the International Council on Security and Development, 92% of those interviewed said that they had never heard of "this event which the foreigners call 9/11."^[67]

[edit] Other events that happened on September 11

• The Battle of Vienna^[wp] was fought between 11-12 September 1683, between the Ottoman Empire and a Christian alliance led by the Holy Roman Empire. Andrew Schlafly of all people suggests that this is directly related to the events of September 2001, but fails to explain why the apparent Muslim conspiracy took 318 years to materialize. Also, why on earth would Muslims care for the Christian calendar (the same applies for most of these anniversaries listed below)
  
• The 2012 Benghazi attack, which left 4 Americans dead (including an ambassador) that day, and years of manufactroversy afterwards.
  
• 21st of Ramadan, a significant Muslim holy day in commemoration of the martyrdom of Imam Ali^[wp], happened to be on September 11th in the year 2009.
  

sassy wrote:I wasn't particularly interested and was reading what Eddie and you were posting, didn't see the point in adding to it.  So what?

Oh but you did add to it. You did a post about Chris Nwadike being a "witness" and receiving a sinister phone call, but then completely ignored the evidence which I posted that it didn't happen the way it was reported.

http://www.newsfixboard.com/t12572p200-california-shooting-warning-graphic-photo

sassy wrote:Nope, you believed him when he said he had a convenient medical appointment that just happened to be on the day of 9/11.  Cos you're stupid like that.

Can you prove that he didn't have a medical appointment?

And can you prove that even if he had one, he didn't make it on purpose to cover himself?

sassy wrote:And can you prove that even if he had one, he didn't make it on purpose to cover himself?

Why would he need to do that? He would only need to say that he overslept or that he had stuff to do at home.

I don't need to prove it anyway because you're the one claiming he lied without backing it up.

Have you posted anything to back up your claim that he told his daughter not to go to the WTC that day?

Richard The Lionheart wrote:Scholarly peer review (also known as refereeing) is the process of subjecting an author's scholarly work, research, or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field, before a paper describing this work is published in a journal or as a book.


Now zack has not presented one expert on any of the links he has posted.

It shows he is the worst apologoist for islamism

So I will give him a chance to show the experts who he claims have reviewed these claims?

I mean surely he has many MIT expert he can show peer reviwed before they were published in low key magazines?

Not published in magazines - published in "peer reviewed journals".

Bruv - I have immediate family members who have had their work peer reviewed in their fields. I come from a family of professors and PhD's, so pseudo intellectuals like you don't fool me. ;-)

But it's obviously you don't know zilch about the process.

For your education:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3474310/

Richard The Lionheart wrote:Well as I posted up what clearly refutes the poor assumptions made, Rags does not have to do anything. That is the reality here, most claims are based off to what seems odd to some people and then they create views off this, which is just assumptions.
There is no credability to these claims, they are poor and easily refuted.

Lol!

I've given you many examples of published, peer reviewed papers.

You haven't even rebutted one.

Your posts in this thread started so confidently but are now showing increasing signs of desperation by calling names. Classic Dick.

The onus is on sassy to prove there was no appointment which you think would be very easy to check, yet nothing has turned up.
If you make a claim, then you have to back it
Rags does not have to do your work

Richard The Lionheart wrote:The onus is on sassy to prove there was no appointment which you think would be very easy to check, yet nothing has turned up.
If you make a claim, then you have to back it
Rags does not have to do your work

Lordy, lordy you are as thick as two planks, even if there was an appointment he could have made it to cover himself, as he always had breakfast in the Tower with his daughter.  They BOTH made excuses that day.

Lol I asked for Zack to present the experts that have peer reviwed these so called papers that refute the 9/11 findings and he cannot present a single one from the same field the work has been presented off.

So again for your education, present your experts, because you have just proven how uneducated you are