He has, your mind is shut to reason and incapable of digesting anything that could be considered realistic.



The only rants on this thread are yours.



Obviously not, because you never seem to be able to back up your hypotheses.





Business as usual then?




We noticed.



Oddly enough, that is all you've done since you attempted to hijack this thread.



Yes, we've all seen those and they're not big enough to cause structural damage. But, we've been through this repeatedly.



No, they're merely electrical flashes etc. It is your mind that is shut, for you will only entertain the fanciful and denigrate and mock those who posit the reasonable.



Good, please leave then. The choreography is quite apparent.

Ok, let's play with this one.

The twoofers believe that there is overwhelming evidence that 9/11 was 'an inside job' (to quote the bucolic rhetoric). If this evidence is so compelling, why was it not presented at the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, one of the masterminds behind the attacks?

According to less than reliable sources the movement is quite strong globally, therefore, it is strange that a fund wasn't set up by the movement to hire a good lawyer to defend this poor dupe (note: this is sarcasm) from the evil US legal system (again: sarcasm). After all, they claim to have evidence that 9/11 was an inside job etc., et al. ad nauseum.

What did KSM get instead from this movement that is so determined to find the truth and see justice served?



You guessed it! The sound of crickets!

No fund set up; No evidence presented to his counsel.

Nothing.

So, turning anonymous internet raving into some real action seems to be quite a difficult step to take for these guys.

As someone once noted on this issue:

"I can just imagine what a young lawyer would think about being given evidence that could get him the trial of the century. This would make the OJ trial seem like routine traffic court."

Conclusion:

Well that is obvious, the evidence isn't compelling or accurate and likely to be laughed out of any court for being nonsensical. If the movement had the courage of its convictions, it would've used this as an opportunity to crucify the gubbermint. It didn't even use the press to capitalise on this trial.

Opportunities missed *sigh*

There is great difficulty assigning a logical basis to Truther logic. They have to stick to a series of core beliefs or their whole argument falls apart quickly (as opposed to just falling apart as each "fact" is debunked). Consequently, there are a series of "truther factoids" that must be repeated to infinity in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. The one overriding commonality is that, no matter what, the truth doesn't matter!

Some examples: "An increasing number of engineers, architects, and scientists agree with the truther movement and demand a "real" investigation be done.

In reality, no legitimate structural engineer is going to spend five minutes in the truther movement because he/she is supposed to understand the math, physics, and material science well enough to know better. Other engineers don't matter because that is not their field of expertise but most know it well enough to know better anyway. Architects are not sufficiently trained in the science to fully understand but many know better. Being a "scientist" really doesn't mean much outside of their field. The professional organization that represents the overall field of structural engineering in the US is the ASCE Structural Branch, and they were the source of the failure mode analysis given to the US government about how the buildings fell. The truther statement that the report was the "Government's version" is just a stupid lie to use basic distrust of government as a "selling point" that the report was a fabrication by some dark government agency. The actual report was done by people like me.

Another big lie that is implied, but not stated outright by the truthers is that the analysis of the failure of the two towers is so highly complex as to require the brainpower of many experts for many days and this great effort has never been done to hide the real reasons for the buildings falling by ... (add explosives, aliens, secret weapons, etc.)

In reality, the failure mode can be modeled by a suitable engineer in about twenty minutes. Most of the time spent by the engineers on the report was spent looking at data and evidence to determine sequencing and progression factors. A high resolution video of a corner column gave important data to movement just before and during failure that provided key failure mode hard evidence. Once a mathematical model was made, many were surprised to learn that the building failed exactly as predicted by the math model and was not nearly as fire resistant as had been thought.

It all goes back to "agenda". Why do these clowns keep telling the same lies over and over. Are they just so stupid that no knowledge is capable of entering their skulls? Are they so inept at research that they only find bologna on the net and all real knowledge is hidden from them? Are they so gullible that they have joined a cult and are led by experts at brainwashing? Is it really possible to be that stupid?

I think not. I think the truth doesn't matter in the least and it is all about getting attention... and in some cases actually being crazy.

Seriously? They tortured that man to the point that he would probably have confessed to anything. You people can't be serious.

Not at all. Why would Hollywood produce an historical documentary about hurricane Sandy (almost immediately) and nothing about the 9-11 investigation that would include pictures and witnesses?

I suspect they were not allowed to do so.

Electrical flashes: precisely all in a line in precise places. Yeh right.

No explosions: Really? Contrary to many witness testimonies prior to the planes hitting the towers, yes there were explosions.

Gullible you are.

I don't have a scientific hypothesis on any of it. There have been many testimonies of firefighters and civilians alike that differ from each other. The 9-11 commission elected to suppress any testimony that did not support their hypothesis. That is a cover up.

Your only explanation of the strange damage to the cars is heat. Really? Where did this intense heat come from? Where was the fire?

I have seen intense heat without fire .... inside of my microwave oven. Other than that, I don't believe I know of any.

Another sound of silence is the Media coverage of this trial.

Chirp Chirp Chirp... where is the media? Why was this trial not on National television like the O.J. trial?

Oh that's right, O.J. was a football player..

And of course there is all this "classified" stuff they don't want anyone to know about.

Cover up. Chirp Chirp Chirp...

You forgot that he had previously confessed while at liberty to reporters from Al-Jazeera.

He was waterboarded to get more information on future attacks that were found on his computer. His confession wasn't necessary as the charge sheet evinces ample evidence to convict him without it.

Your assumption is baseless and the observation 'Argument from Incredulity' stands.

So, what does your source consider to be the 'right places'?



Please prove this as there were only a couple of witnesses attesting to this and there were many others who discredited it. You seem to be using an old source.



How about you save the time you spend on whining and insulting people and actually provide some documentary evidence for your claims. How hard is this for you?

Obviously. You appear to be reciting some of Wood's rants.



So? What does this prove to you?



That is just speculative opinion. Why is it that you never back up any of your outrageous claims and accusations (he asked, yet again).



It's not mine, but my sources. So, what is your explanation? I've been waiting for this for a while now (as usual).



Read the firefighters testimony, and offer up an alternative hypothesis if you don't agree. You can go on for pages ranting and insulting, without providing any evidence for your wild claims, wouldn't it be more constructive to just provide some credible evidence instead? I mean, it's rather tedious, but, that might be the point, after all.

"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution"

Jay Windley

Nonsense, the transcripts are available on the internet. Of course there would have been sensitive material in his trial, the search for Al-Qaeda operatives is ongoing.

http://counterterrorismblog.org/2007/03/transcripts_of_interviews_of_k.php

http://www.defense.gov/news/transcript_isn10024.pdf

These are just the hearings, there is much more available.

Well that is not really a trial, its a military tribunal. But I will read the transcripts and tell you what I make of them.

It will take some time.

What do yo think the action of a Military Tribunal is,if not a Trial?

You keep saying that. Did you post it in this thread? Please let me know where it is.

It is not a regular criminal trial. The rules are quite different.
What country did you say you were from?

Oh that's right, you are not an American.

Please refrain from attacking the nationality of posters. It is irrelevant and demeans your (ahem) credibility. It is still a trial no matter how you twist it.

The magic of Mingle and the brilliant subtleties of humor!