To GoodOl'Dave:

Maybe we've reached an impasse on the details of that tragic day, so allow me to ask your evaluation of A) the 9/11 Commission's handling of the evidence, and B) your govt's political response to 9/11.

A) i) Why was there no proper investigation until a year after 9/11, 2001, and even then only by handful of selected NIST people?

ii) Why was the steel shipped off for scrap so quickly? Why was the steel removed to China and India at all? Wouldn't it be more important to allow several years to study this very important structural and criminal evidence? Wouldn't it more be important to retain that evidence for years to investigate the murder of 2,800 people rather than to make a few bucks selling it as scrap? Wouldn't it be important for many different engineers, not just a handful of govt approved ones from NIST, to study the structural events so that future buildings won't fall from fire?

iii) Why wasn't the testimony of any person describing explosions from low down in the buildings before the collapse included?

iv) Why was Rudy Giuliani's testimony, the very testimony regarding FEMA's presence I posted above, scrubbed from the Commission/Omission's website?

v) Why weren't all of the dozens of surveillance videos from the Pentagon included?

vi) Why didn't the media challenge Cheney on his timeline of that morning? He said that he got to the Presidential Emergency Operations Center some time after the plane impacts. But this was contradicted by Norman Minetta's testimony who said Cheney was already there when the planes hit.

vii) Why was Kevin Ryan fired from Underwriter's Laboratories after he said that the steel was tested structurally and couldn't have weakened?

viii) Why the 9/11 Commission/Omission halve the strength of steel, and double the load to make their computer models work?


B) i) Why was the political response from your govt from these 19, mostly Saudi, individuals to start military wars?

ii) Why has your Constitution been suspended by executive order, the bill of rights trampled, and wiretaps put on your citizens whom have nothing to do with terrorism or even any crime? Why has your govt and media chosen to maximise the psychological effect of the terrible events of 9/11?

iii) Why are 9/11 truthers considered terrorists?

iv) Why were your military forces assembled and ready to invade Afghanistan 1 month after Sept 11 - a build up which started many months before 9/11?

Originally posted by CarbonFooledYa
To GoodOl'Dave:

Maybe we've reached an impasse on the details of that tragic day, so allow me to ask your evaluation of A) the 9/11 Commission's handling of the evidence, and B) your govt's political response to 9/11.

A) i) Why was there no proper investigation until a year after 9/11, 2001, and even then only by handful of selected NIST people?

Let me answer your question with a question- if there really WAS a coverup, why would there have been any investigation *at all*?

An educated guess would be becuase of typical beaurocratic red tape. Congress is so goofy, they have to get together to vote on what they're going to get together to vote on. Oh, and if you want a laugh, look up what a "filibuster" is.

ii) Why was the steel shipped off for scrap so quickly? Why was the steel removed to China and India at all?

The only steel removed/recycled was from areas that wasn't in any pertinent locations. The steel from the area of the impact areas are still in a hanger at La Guardia airport even now.

iii) Why wasn't the testimony of any person describing explosions from low down in the buildings before the collapse included?

Becuase noone is refuting there were explosions in the building.

iv) Why was Rudy Giuliani's testimony, the very testimony regarding FEMA's presence I posted above, scrubbed from the Commission/Omission's website?

How is that relevent to anything?

v) Why weren't all of the dozens of surveillance videos from the Pentagon included?

The only ones who insist there are even any relevent surveillance videos are the conspiracy people themselves., who base it upon absolutely nothing. If you eant me to speculate upon an unprovable statement then I'd guess that the cameras are trained upon high traffic areas like the entrance and parking lot, not bare walls like where the plane hit.

vi) Why didn't the media challenge Cheney on his timeline of that morning? He said that he got to the Presidential Emergency Operations Center some time after the plane impacts. But this was contradicted by Norman Minetta's testimony who said Cheney was already there when the planes hit.

How is that relevent to anything?

vii) Why was Kevin Ryan fired from Underwriter's Laboratories after he said that the steel was tested structurally and couldn't have weakened?

According to UL Ryan was fired becuase he wrote out letters pretending to represent UL when he really didn't. He also claimed UL certifird the steel when it really didn't. The guy wasn't even involved with the NIST testing of the steel.

FYI I lookd up the actual UL test. All they did was test the steel. They didn't try to simulate damage from the aircraft or analyse the designs of the towers, so the tests don't prove a whole lot one way or the other.

viii) Why the 9/11 Commission/Omission halve the strength of steel, and double the load to make their computer models work?

Would you mind posting the page of the 9/11 report where it supposedly says that? I don't recall the report discussing actual structural issues of the WTC.

B) i) Why was the political response from your govt from these 19, mostly Saudi, individuals to start military wars?

Because the Taliban was giving sanctuary to Bin Laden and they refused to hand him over for trial. Even Saudi Arabia went there and tried to get them to give him up and they still refused. After the attacks, the gov't wasn't in any mood to say "pretty please".

ii) Why has your Constitution been suspended by executive order, the bill of rights trampled, and wiretaps put on your citizens whom have nothing to do with terrorism or even any crime? Why has your govt and media chosen to maximise the psychological effect of the terrible events of 9/11?

Reactionary drivel. Seeing people have been calling Bush an idiot, a dictator, a monkey, a drug addict, etc etc etc...I know becuase I was one of them...the constitution has most definitely NOT been suspended.

iii) Why are 9/11 truthers considered terrorists?

By who?

Originally posted by tezzajw
Dave has not been able to do so. Therefore, what is Dave's only option that he can take to try and save his credibility? He typed about a completely different set of photographs and avoids the question about his original image of scrap metal!!!

All right then, I'll play you're game. I myself believe it to be legitimate, but since the Pentagon power supply photo doesn't meet your "established chain of custody" criteria I will withdraw it as evidence...mainly becuase I don't need it.

NOW, will you address the fact that the Mark Faram photos of the wreckage with AA markings found at the Pentagon, and the Joel Meyerowitz photos of the WTC wreckage that show no signs of sabotage, ARE legitimate evidence becuase the photographers ARE identified and thus DO meet your "established chain of custody" criteria? Now that it's been established by legitimate chain-of-custody evidence...a criteria which YOU AGREE on...that there was no sabotage at the WTC and that an AA aircraft did hit the Pentagon, it still proves these conspiracy stories are wholly absurd.

I can live with the trade-off.

[Dave, when you completely avoid trying to verify that image of scrap metal and then deflect the argument to something irrelevant, it is you who is painting yourself into a corner. And that corner lacks credibility.

The photos taken by Mark Faram of the fuselage wreckage on the Pentagon lawn with AA colors is hardly irrelevent. It shows that OTHER AA wreckage was certified to be on the lawn becuase it meets *your* chain of custody criteria as being legitimate. Becuase one piece of AA wreckage was shown to be present, it means that other pieces of AA wreckage would likewise be present becuase plane crashes never leave just one piece of wreckage lying around.

This is neither here nor there, since I've withdrawn the aforementioned photo of the power supply, so you'll now have to come up with some other reason that lets you dismiss the fuselage photos out of hand. Let's face it, we both know you're not going to accept any evidence whatsoever which refutes your conspiracy stories, established chain of custory or otherwise.

I invite you to prove me wrong on this.

Firstly, Dave, in many threads I have stated that I only support the null hypothesis. I do not have an alternate hypothesis, as I don't know what happened.

In that case, you have chosen your words poorly. I go by the definition of "alternate hypothesis" as being a secondary theory to some other, primary theory. Accepting for the sake of argument that flight 77 hitting the Pentagon is a theory rather than established fact, it goes without saying being the first to be submitted it is the primary theory and all other scenarios are secondary theories. It should be obvious that I support the primary theory.

Oh, and if I may ask, just *why* are you fighting so strongly against the possibility that the primary theory is correct when you just admitted now that you don't even know what happened?

I won't call you a liar, because last time I called someone a liar I was warned by a Moderator and fined 500 points. Please, search my nearly 3500 posts and quote where I have provided an alternate hypothesis at the Pentagon, with proof. It would be wise of you not to make up stories about what I have previously stated.

Of course you're going to call me a liar. I knew right away you were of a mind to declare everything I post as a lie, and I daresay there isn't a single member of your opposition you've ever encountered that you didn't think was lying. This is the difference betweeen you and I, and *that* is why you keep ketting socked by the moderators- when *I* discover *you* spreading a falsehood, I know it isn't you lying, but the conspriacy websites you're getting your material from. When *you* accuse *me* of lying, you accuse me, personally, as if you think I supposedly made up some fake piece of wreckage and took a photo of it in my own back yard.

In a previous thread, I used the term "religious fanatic" to describe certain conspriacy people here in the context that they identify with their conspiracy theories so intimately that any attack on their theories is perceived as a personal attack on themselves, and they launch personal attacks against their opposition in turn. Does this fit you, too?

But now, with the statement above, Dave has decided that it was an aircraft that hit the Pentagon. Note how he has taken a step back from his claim that the aircraft was the alleged Flight AA77. Perhaps Dave has realised that he is finding it a little more difficult to prove that the alleged Flight AA77 hit the Pentagon than he was hoping it would be?

Saying that an aircraft hit the Pentagon and saying flight 77 hit the Pentagon is the exact same thing becuase flight 77 was in fact an aircraft. You are certainly not stupid so I know full well you knew this already, so either you are attempting to manipulate my words in some juvenile spite game here or you're not paying attention to my statements, and I shouldn't have to tell you that neither of these are behaviors that a self declared "researcher of the truth" ought to be displaying.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
All right then, I'll play you're game. I myself believe it to be legitimate, but since the Pentagon power supply photo doesn't meet your "established chain of custody" criteria I will withdraw it as evidence...mainly becuase I don't need it.

Neutral readers to this thread will note that Dave has admitted that he could not prove that alleged part was from the alleged Flight AA77 and he has withdrawn his claim.

Thanks for that, Dave. It wasn't so hard, was it?

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
NOW, will you address the fact that the Mark Faram photos of the wreckage with AA markings found at the Pentagon

Which alleged plane did that alleged piece of wreckage come from, Dave?

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Becuase one piece of AA wreckage was shown to be present, it means that other pieces of AA wreckage would likewise be present becuase plane crashes never leave just one piece of wreckage lying around.

Faulty logic, Dave.

Here's what you should claim to satisfy logic: Because one piece of wreckage, painted in what might be AA colours was shown to be present, it means that one piece of wreckage, painted in what could be AA colours, was shown to be present.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by tezzajw
Firstly, Dave, in many threads I have stated that I only support the null hypothesis. I do not have an alternate hypothesis, as I don't know what happened.

In that case, you have chosen your words poorly. I go by the definition of "alternate hypothesis" as being a secondary theory to some other, primary theory. Accepting for the sake of argument that flight 77 hitting the Pentagon is a theory rather than established fact, it goes without saying being the first to be submitted it is the primary theory and all other scenarios are secondary theories. It should be obvious that I support the primary theory.

Dave, you don't know much about logic. That's not an insult, it's a statement of observation.

A null hypothesis states only the observed facts. Any attempt to explain the observed facts becomes an alternate hypothesis.

Null hypothesis: An event caused an explosion at the Pentagon.
Your alternate hypothesis: Flight AA77 crashed into the Pentagon.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Oh, and if I may ask, just *why* are you fighting so strongly against the possibility that the primary theory is correct when you just admitted now that you don't even know what happened?

Because I support the null hypothesis where some kind of event caused an explosion at the Pentagon.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Of course you're going to call me a liar. I knew right away you were of a mind to declare everything I post as a lie,

Dave, I did not call you a liar. Why are you entering this off topic rant?

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
This is the difference betweeen you and I, and *that* is why you keep ketting socked by the moderators- when *I* discover *you* spreading a falsehood,

Way out of line, Dave. You're very far from the topic and drifting...

I've never been warned once by the Moderators in a 9/11 thread - ever. I've been warned twice in the UFO threads and twice in the Alternative Breaking News threads. You are wrong when you state that Moderators 'sock' me.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
I know it isn't you lying, but the conspriacy websites you're getting your material from. When *you* accuse *me* of lying, you accuse me, personally, as if you think I supposedly made up some fake piece of wreckage and took a photo of it in my own back yard.

Dave, I did not accuse you of lying. Please, check your facts and stop spreading these claims about me. If I had accused you of lying, then I would have been duly warned by a Moderator.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
In a previous thread, I used the term "religious fanatic" to describe certain conspriacy people here in the context that they identify with their conspiracy theories so intimately that any attack on their theories is perceived as a personal attack on themselves, and they launch personal attacks against their opposition in turn. Does this fit you, too?

Dave, your insinuation is way off topic and probably close to breaching the terms and conditions of this website.

You're attacking me, not my post. Why are you appearing to resort to personal attacks, Dave?

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Saying that an aircraft hit the Pentagon and saying flight 77 hit the Pentagon is the exact same thing becuase flight 77 was in fact an aircraft.

No, Dave. This is incorrect. Stating that an aircraft hit the Pentagon is not the same as stating that the alleged Flight AA77 hit the Pentagon.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
You are certainly not stupid so I know full well you knew this already, so either you are attempting to manipulate my words in some juvenile spite game here or you're not paying attention to my statements, and I shouldn't have to tell you that neither of these are behaviors that a self declared "researcher of the truth" ought to be displaying.

Dave, it is you who is not paying attention to your own statements.

You need to be very specific if you wish to claim that the alleged Flight AA77 hit the Pentagon. You need to be able to prove this.

Anyway, after your long post that drifted off topic and started to attack me, I can sum up by thanking you for withdrawing that image.

You full well realise that you can't prove that it was a part of the alleged Flight AA77.

Originally posted by impressme

Well, I can understand you argument, however, it dose not explain why there were explosions going off in the basement of the WTC when the airplanes hit between the 78 floors way to high up. No airplane hit the bottom floors.

You're asking me to document the procession of the damages of the towers, which noone will ever be able to know. If you wanted an educated guess based upon what we do know, it was probably either due to objects below being ignited by the burning fuel being poured down the central shaft (The Naudet brothers filmed eyewitness reports of flames being seen all the way down at the lobby level), or, they really heard wreckage breaking off from above and falling down the central shaft (the planed destroyed the emergency stairwells so we know the impact reached the central core).

Regardless, there are still many more realistic non-conspiracy explanations than there are conspiracy explanations.

Wrong, Silverstein’s said “pull it” live on television for the world to see and hear. You can “assume” he was talking about pulling the firemen out of WTC 7, however it is a fact that demolition experts use's the same terms to bring down a building “ pull it. “

I don't have to assume anything. We can see right away what he meant from the context. Silverstein essentially said, "becuase there was already such a great loss of life the decision was made to pull it." SO, he either meant..

"Becuase there was already such a great loss of life the decision was made to get the firefighters out of there"

...OR...

"Becuase there was already such a great loss of life the decision was made to blow the building up and then conceal it from everyone except for you people interviewing me now

When I say the conspiracy people are deliberately taking people's quotes out of context, you're not really proving me wrong here.

How can you go by a report that contradicts itself repeatedly?

Becuase if you're going to discuss the supposed flaws in the OS then it's your responsibility to read it in order to know what the flaws are in the first place. This is exactly why I read the conspiracy websites. People who have the truth on their side don't need to run and hide from anything, and even you will have to agree on that.

You claim it "contradicts itself repeatedly". Can you mention even ONE contradiction it actually has? If not, you're only proving my point.

Yes, those are our military jets, however, watching the video you have presented from CNN, shows both towers have already been stuck, so thank you for proving my facts. You are only showing after the fact. I wanted to know if there was any proof of our military being in the skies over NYC moments before that attacks, or during the attacks, however, you have failed to prove this.

No you didn't! You asked me, and I quote-

"Really, can you supply a link for this information besides your opinions show us some sources that it was only *minutes after the attack* because I don’t recall see any F16, or F18 flying over NYC in any of the News videos. "

-and I showed it to you. I never said the planes were over NYC before the attack and neither did you. I don't know what your goal was for trying to pull this stunt, but you're only making your own credibility suffer from it, not mine.

What base was that? I am sure you have sources where this F-15 came from?

I already gave you a link to where you can download the 9/11 commission report for free, so YOU have sources what base this F-15 came from too.

What do you want me to do, post the page number? All right, fine, it's on page twenty, seventeen lines down from the top. If, at this point, you're *still* too afraid to go into into the report and look it up, it will be a blatant sign of intentional evasion you will not be able to conceal.

But, but, Dave, you have insulted everyone else’s intelligences on this thread with your opinions, and assumptions, And no sources.

Are you for real?!? You keep asking me questions that you should have already known the answers to, if you had only read the 9/11 commission report like I told you six times already and which you admit you refuse to do. What bothers me is that you're NOT saying "my sources are untrustworthy". You're saying I have no sources AT ALL, which is blatantly a false accusation.

If this is the type of behavior I can expect from you from now on, please, let me know now.

Furthmore why don’t you tell that to the Jersey Girls who lost their husbands in the WTC and demanded an investigation into the events of 911. After 18 long months after 911 our government still didn’t give the American people any answers to what happened on 911.

Bait and switch. The Jersey girls aren't demanding to know how the towers collapsed like you are, and they certainly don't subscribe to the ridiculous "remote controlled planes used as a cover story to conceal controlled demolitions" conspiracy either. They're demanding to know how the gov't responded during the attack, specifically on the foul ups that prevented the gov't from stopping the attack. Heck, *I* want to know what the foul ups were that prevented the gov't from preventing the attack.

Besides, how is the gov't not wanting to admit its foul ups during the attack any proof someone was able to sneak into the WTC and plant bombs all over the place without anyone noticing? You're grasping at straws and you know it.

The only way I can feel better is by reasurching the truth, and avoiding all those disninfo web sites that you keep quoting from.

Dude, the moment you set yourself up with a filter that only allows some information in while keeping all other information out, you've admitted you aren't even remotely interested in researching the truth. You're only interested in learning more about your conspiracy stories.

Censorship is still censorship, regardless of why you're doing it.

Yes they are truly evil....

What if..?

From an observers point of view. Real-life.
Starts the day, stopping by at Starbucks before hitting his way to work.
Suddenly sees a plane hovering over the city for a long time.
Shortly after looks up to the skies to see a plane-look-alike-missile hitting the north tower of World Trade Center. Then gets "deported". being told to get off from the streets by a policeman who sends everybody he meets in one particular direction. Emptying the streets you know... though he was not very close to the towers anyway...

Suddenly he feels that the ground is shaking. A phone call is received by a friend who works in the north tower. "The lobby just exploded! The #ing lobby exploded!" The poor man is trying to get in contact with friends, but nobody answer their phones...

Suddenly, another missile hits the south tower.
More explosions. Towers crumbling to earth after a series of these.

Thousands of observators... filming the whole event as it unfolds... handy cameras... mobile phones, taking some pictures... all confiscated... and no one ever hear a reaction on this?! Come on, people?

WHAT? It was 2001 - the technology was available and affortable!

So... ask yourselves: do you know what happened this day?
A lot of people were taken away in big black vans, a lot of people just disappeared - and... you guys show them the "Internet TV Archive" and searches false-flagged internet-sites which just disinforms you gradually...

Originally posted by tezzajw

Neutral readers to this thread will note that Dave has admitted that he could not prove that alleged part was from the alleged Flight AA77 and he has withdrawn his claim.

And of course, it is noted that TezzaJW couldn't DISPROVE it, either. His entire basis for dismissing it was...that I didn't know the name of the photographer. A rather flimsy reason for dismissing blatantly obvious evidence, seeing that photos whose photographers actually were identified (I.E. Joel Meyerowitz) are still meaningless to him.

Who are you talking to, here, anyway? The only ones who care about this conversation between you and me are you and me.

Which alleged plane did that alleged piece of wreckage come from, Dave?

Seeing that the wreckage was distinctly marked in AA colors, and that there were two known AA planes missing on 9/11 (flight 11 and flight 77), logic dictates that it had to be one or the other. If you have evidence that it was in fact flight 11, please post it..with a chain of custody, of course. I know how fond you are of establishing pedigree.

[Faulty logic, Dave.

Oh, good grief, NOW you're bickering over whether or not plane crashes would leave more than one piece of wreckage on the ground? Do I really have to tell you that when your arguments have to descent to such absurd obtuse levels in order to keep them going, it's a mark of desperation, more than it is anything else?

A null hypothesis states only the observed facts. Any attempt to explain the observed facts becomes an alternate hypothesis.

I think you should look up the definition of "null hypothesis" if I were you. According to Wikipedia, Null Hypothesis "formally describes some aspect of the statistical behaviour of a set of data; this description is treated as valid unless the actual behaviour of the data contradicts this assumption."

The wreckage recovered (I.E.flight recorders) as well as the photographs (I.E. Mark Faram) as well as eyewitness accounts (I.E. Joel Sucherman) supports the hypothesis that an AA plane hit the Pentagon and that the plane was in fact flight 77, and the wreckage on the lawn as well as the gaping hole and the explosion only continues to support the hypothesis. Your job is to refute the hypothesis that it was flight 77, not bicker over frivolous dead ends like whether or not plane crashes would leave more than one piece of wreckage on the ground.

Because I support the null hypothesis where some kind of event caused an explosion at the Pentagon.

So do I. The event was known as, "flight 77 hit it".

You're attacking me, not my post. Why are you appearing to resort to personal attacks, Dave?

AsI said, I am not attacking you personally. I posted a description of an attitude of a fixed mindset of zealotry resembling religious fanaticism among the truther community, and this cannot be debated. I asked you if this described you. The reason I asked should be obvious- if you are, then I am clearly wasting my time providing you with the details of the 9/11 attack, and you are clearly wasting your time asking for them, becuase such a mentality will NEVER abandon the core principles of zealotry that drive it regardless of the information being presented.

No, Dave. This is incorrect. Stating that an aircraft hit the Pentagon is not the same as stating that the alleged Flight AA77 hit the Pentagon.

Yes it is the same whether you want to admit it or not. The only difference is that one group (an aircraft hit the Pentagon) has a larger population than the other group (flight 77 hit the Pentagon) becuase the first group ALSO contains "cruise missiles" and "Predator drones" in addition to "flight 77"

You really are scraping the bottom of the barrel with this particular methodology of debate, you know.

You need to be very specific if you wish to claim that the alleged Flight AA77 hit the Pentagon. You need to be able to prove this.

No, actually, YOU need to DISPROVE it was flight 77. That is the accepted explanation, so if you wish to discount it you need to show why it is invalid. I already told you that. Thus, you need to show at least ONE item that contradicts the claim that it was flight 77, otherwise you really ARE wasting my time and yours arguing over this.

Originally posted by impressme
A week to respond to me, yet you have failed to prove your side of the OS.

A rather absurd statement, seeing that you demanded I post evidence that jet fighters were seen over NYC, which I did, and I even posted the exact page and line number in the commission report where it explained what base the fighters came from. PLUS, I even gave you a link to where you can get the 9/11 commission report for free. All this was to answer questions YOU asked, as you recall. If you didn't want to know then why did you ask for it?

I said in my last post that if you're STILL avoiding having to look into the 9/11 commission report...particularly to find an answer to a question YOU YOURSELF asked...it will be a blatant sign of intentional evasion you will not be able to conceal. As far as I'm concerned, you can now no longer conceal the blatant signs that you're intentionally evading everything which refutes your conspiracy stories. I shouldn't have to tell you that the truth never has to run and hide from falsehoods. It's falsehoods that have to hide from the truth.

Besides, why are you even asking such question, anyway? In YOUR OWN WORDS you said, and I quote...

"I don’t care what anyone thinks and I don’t even care to prove what I have to say either. In my opinion this was the work of the Bush administration, not the work of 19 phantom hijackers. In my opinion there were bombs planted in all the WTC. "

...so whatever your actual agenda is, finding out and learning the truth of what happened on 9/11 isn't it. You have no credibility whatsoever.

Originally posted by CarbonFooledYa
But Dave, the reason a limited sample set of dust was available is because the evidence was removed.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but according to Jones' report, this supposed evidence was found in four areas- north, south, east, and west- around ground zero. I do not agree with Jones' findings, but I do agree with his collecting enough randomized samples to perform his tests.

This is actually the problem- he found it in EVERY sample he took, from completely separate locations. This says right there that this material necessarily had to have come from a very large source of the stuff, and the largest known source of the stuff was the towers themselves. He does not show his material to have any significant difference from what the towers were constructed from.

The artifacts include the last steel column removed from the site, other large pieces of steel, emergency vehicles, 18 sections of the World Trade Center antenna and two PATH cars. They are stored at John F. Kennedy International Airport’s Hangar 17.

Ah, I stand corrected. It's being stored in a hanger at JFK, not LaGuardia. The mistake in hanger locations is mine...but is STILL refutes your claims that "all the evidence was immediately whisked away to China", so in the end my original point is still valid.

So, depending on how many other sites there are, we can estimate they destroyed about 99% of the evidence. Also, did you know that 100% of 7 World Trade was removed for scrap before the reasons behind the collapse were investigated at all? This contravenes the law governing the evidence of a crime scene.

...but you've failed to prove that WTC7 was in fact a crime scene. When one house catches on fire and sets the neighboring house on fire, it's pretty well established it was the fire from the first house that cuased the second house to burn down. It's the causes of the fires of the first house which need to be investigated, and sinc eyou agree that they kept large amounts of WTC wreckage at JFK it's obvious that they did.

Moreover, as the first modern steel structured building to fall from fire that wasn't hit by a plane it would be essential to fully investigate the structural reasons for the collapse so that future such events could be avoided.

I suppose I can agree with you on this, but the 9/11 attack was a freak occurrence even among freak occurences. I really dont know what you can do to protect a building against another building falling on it.

Steel from locations not in the impact zone. This is not how an investigation is done. You don't say here's how I think it went and proceed to investigate all the evidence you think fits this theory and ignore all else...unless you're NIST.

You forget that the idea of "controlled demolitions"...presuming this is how you thinm it went...is an unrealistic explanation which they're not goign to waste much time on. The WTC wasn't just some cardboard box in your backyeard, it was a HUGE OCCUPIED skyscraper, in the middle of Manhatten, and there's no way controlled demolitions could have been smuggled in without anyone whatsoever noticing them. Claiming that the hijacked aircraft was really part of some plot to conceal the controlled demolitions only makes it even more unrealistic.

The fact of the matter is, an aircraft hit the WTC and the building began collapsing at the point of impact. Everything, including the controlled demolitions hypothesis, must take that fact into account.

The exact same rationale was applied to the investigation of the put options on American and United airlines which were way higher than normal just prior to 9/11. NIST said that because none of those involved were associated with Al Qaeda it was not relevant. That is not how to conduct a proper investigation. It is why the families of the 9/11 victims are still asking for a proper investigation even up to this day.

To my knowledge, the families of 9/11 are asking what the gov'ts behind the scenes knowledge really is, and whether there were any missed opportunities to stop it. Essentially they're looking for negligence and incompetency. I don't believe they're demanding to know how WTC 7 fell like you do.

Do you have anythign which shows the contrary?

The pattern is now evident that you're actually making stuff up. All of your props for the official story come from the skin-deep analysis of the 9/11 Omission and mainstream media.

Name ONE thing I'm making up. ONE. I've asked this at least FOUR TIMES here and not one person can give me an example. All they ever do is simply change the subject quickly. Perhaps you can be the first to give me an example.

This false accusation is getting tiring, and only serves to deteriorate your credibility, not mine.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
And of course, it is noted that TezzaJW couldn't DISPROVE it, either.

Remember, neutral readers of this thread, that Dave made a claim about an alleged piece of wreckage. He could not prove it and he withdrew his wreckage as evidence.

Clearly, Dave displays his logical flaws and outlines to us all why he has failed Logic 101. I don't need to disprove your assumption. You need to prove it. You couldn't and you withdrew it.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
I think you should look up the definition of "null hypothesis" if I were you. According to Wikipedia, Null Hypothesis "formally describes some aspect of the statistical behaviour of a set of data; this description is treated as valid unless the actual behaviour of the data contradicts this assumption."

The null hypothesis is that there was some kind of explosion at the Pentagon. If you wish to present an alternative hypothesis, then you also need to prove that it is true. Of course, this is staple material for the Logic 101 course that you so evidently failed.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Yes it is the same whether you want to admit it or not. The only difference is that one group (an aircraft hit the Pentagon) has a larger population than the other group (flight 77 hit the Pentagon) becuase the first group ALSO contains "cruise missiles" and "Predator drones" in addition to "flight 77"

It is with this quote that Dave shows his truly absurd notions about set theory and logic, another indicator of his failure at Logic 101.

Dave claims that stating an aircraft hit the Pentagon is equivalent to stating that Flight AA77 hit the Pentagon.

Basic set theory, let's define two sets for objetcs that could have hit the Pentagon:
A = {all possible aircraft}
B = {Flight AA77}

Clearly, B is a subset of A. Clearly, A is not a subset of B.

Dave claims that A is a subset of B. Dave, you are wrong. Plain and simple.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
You really are scraping the bottom of the barrel with this particular methodology of debate, you know.

I'm scraping the remains of your logic from the bottom of the barrel.

You entirely fail with all aspects of your logic, Dave.

Please, continue to bump the thread, as it's great when other people read the mess that you get yourself into. I quite enjoy it.