50 Facts Concerning 9/11 that Point Away from the OS (The Facts Speak For Themselves)

reply to post by XxiTzYoMasterxX


Well i didnt mean you personally.

while I agree the liberty isa VERY important incident, I was hoping to see people argue the article, not the liberty.
I thought the disinfo people were arguing it extremely to take attention off the OP

reply to post by GoodOlDave

I'm not going to follow you down this conspiracy rat hole.

Call what you will, but it is reality.

Why these Israeli conspirators would give a flip about whether a Soviet ship showed up is beyond me since if they're so mad dog trigger happy that they'll want to sink a US ship to frame the Arabs they're certainly not going to be scared of a Soviet ship;

I like how you use those words, such as "conspirators", as if to dismiss it off-hand. The fact is, it was the Israeli government, not really a secret cabal of shady men in Israel. Did they conspire? Absolutely, though is it anything out of the ordinary? Apparently not.

As far as the soviet vessel, nobody really expected you to understand. First of all and foremost, a Soviet warship would have been a witness. The Soviets would have been able to say, "no, those were Israeli jets and gun-boats that sunk the Liberty, not Egyptian."

A little background on the situation:

The Soviets were allied with Egypt (relatively speaking) and this was one of the worries that Israel had, thus Israel needed our protection from a possible full soviet backing of Egypt and the other Arabs. American officials tried to tell Israel that that an aggressive first strike on Egypt would pretty much count the US out of the war, as we wouldn't then be able to back Israel in their war. Low and behold, Israel aggressively attacks Egypt first on June 5, 1967 in what is called Operation Focus (a massive surprise air strike or sucker punch), kicking off the six-day war.

So again, why would it matter that a Soviet ship witnessed the attack? Well, it wouldn't really matter if it was just a case of mistaken identity, though that it certainly wasn't. Because the Soviets are now a witness to the attack, the Israelis couldn't then blame it on the Arabs. The USSR would have surely said something, as they too didn't want to have to enter the war.

Common sense. When you are committing a crime or something you shouldn't be doing and that crime or action depends on the criteria of not having witnesses, your action is then foiled when there are witnesses. It's not rocket-science, here.

I asked how it was a conspiracy and true to form, the answer includes yet another conspiracy, so I think I know how the rest of the conversation is going to go down.

Dave, do you know what a conspiracy is?

con·spir·a·cy[ kən spírrəssee ]con·spir·a·cies Plural

NOUN
1. plan to commit illegal act together: a secret plan or agreement between two or more people to commit an illegal or subversive act
2. making of agreement by conspirators: the making of a secret plan or agreement to commit an illegal or subversive act
3. group of conspirators: a group of people planning or agreeing in secret to commit an illegal or subversive act

Purposefully and clandestinely attacking an American vessel when you are supposed to be an ally to the US, is certainly a subversive act and any planning of this act by two or more people, in this case the Israeli government or elements therein, is certainly a conspiracy.

Lets list the reasons why this points away from simple mistaken identity:

The Israelis were jamming American frequencies, according to survivors, one of which was a radio operator.

The survivors make it clear that there is no way that this was a simple case of mistaken identity.

The attack lasted over 1 - 2 hours of sustained bombardments (from the air and sea) and strafing by an array of Israel aircraft and and navy vessels.

Unmarked Israeli jets.

A huge American flag waving over the USS Liberty on a bright and clear day, which was also one of the only defenses that ship had, seeing how America had declared itself nuetral in the conflict. Not to mention that the USS Liberty was clearly a modern American Navy vessel with clear American Navy markings.

Israel apparently tried to leave no witnesses by straifing the deck with machine gun fire and napalm, eventhough no AAA fire was coming at aircraft. Israel also machine gunned the life-boats, in an apparent effort to leave no witnesses. The only reason why you would napalm the deck of a vessel, even if it is your truly defined enemy, is to suppress AAA fire, something that Liberty didn't even have.

When the hi-tech vessel managed to squeeze off a mayday call, fighter jets were then launched from a fleet aircraft carrier to assist the USS Liberty. These fighters were then called off in mid-flight by officials in Washington, an unprecedented move that apparently angered the fleet command. Never before in history has an American Navy vessel been under attack and a rescue mission was called off.

An investigation or official public inquiry was never conducted, though a plethora of witnesses and evidence abound. Instead, Israel quickly moved to pay for damages after the attack on the word that the US Senate was considering an inquiry. While the US President and US Congress was on Christmas vacation. Sadly, most Americans have never even heard of the USS Liberty, even though it is one of the worst attacks on an American Navy vessel since World War II.

The USS LIberty survivors have never waivered from their side of the story, even after 40+ years, nor have they backed down and still, the majority of Americans are completely ignorant to the fact that Israel killed, maimed and wounded a large number of American service-members and young heroes, through a sustained and prolonged deliberate attack on a clearly marked and identified American Navy vessel.

This was a coordinated attack by both sea and air, thus planning was involved, thus a conspiracy, technically speaking.

The only thing I will say before moving on is that a pattern is emerging that the people who subscribe to these "9/11 is an inside job" claims seem to subscribe to a blizzard of other conspiracies.

Well, considering that almost everyone believes in a conspiracy regarding the attacks on 9/11 (except for many truthers), this statement is non-seneschal, unfounded and completely false. Many people seeking the truth regarding 9/11, including myself, don't deduce any particular theory about the attacks, thus we don't conclude with a conspiracy theory. Trusters and people who accept the OS on the other hand, do believe in a conspiracy theory and they do so by default even. Whether you believe that 19 Arabs with box-cutters committed the attack or the government committed the attack, you believe in a conspiracy theory. If you don't believe in the OS and you haven't yet deduced responsibility, then you don't believe in a conspiracy theory regarding the attacks.

It has become painfully obvious that you try to skirt the issues and stifle intellectual debate by dishonest and disingenuous tactics, such as trying to dismiss valid points by grouping and associating them with other notions or ideas. One can clearly see why you have to do that, and that is because you don't have legs to stand on by honestly and viably engaging in intellectual debate on the subject matter at hand. When your whole argument is based on hearsay, unfounded claims, improbabilities and flawed logic, you can only resort to such dirty and disingenuous tactics, I understand.

It's as if once someone is able to accept a runaway train of circular logic as legitimate evidence, then they'll accept runaway circular logic for pretty much any anythign else.

Actually, that is relevant to the truster side. Many people seeking the truth, simply aren't able to conclude on the illogical and improbably word of government officials who have not only lied to us countless times before, but are also asking us to "trust them" on things that simply don't make sense or have such a high improbability, that they are absurd. Official conspiracy theorists are basically buying this wild and out there theory from a body of people who admittedly refuse to weigh or consider a plethora of evidence.

Many so-called "truthers" on the other-hand, aren't concluding on anything without sound and factual evidence. It is the official conspiracy theorists accepting "a runaway train of circular evidence, as legitimate evidence". You clearly can't even define what exactly a conspiracy is, nor can you apparently even see how your argument pertains to yourself and like-minded people who can ignore evidence and come to a conclusion based on faith, as opposed to those who require sound and factual evidence before coming to a conclusion, such as those who don't simply buy into the official conspiracy theory, which does require faith.

Then you are either lying through your teeth, or you haven't thought your own conspiracy claims all the way through as you should have. For even a smidgeon of your conspiracies to be true, it would take a hell of a lot more support infrastructure than just the actual bomb planters to pull it off.

Again, wild assumptions based on illogical and dishonest reasoning. Nobody that I have heard yet, besides you in an indirect way, has ever suggested that 10,000 people planted bombs in the WTC complex. As far as the large number of people and amount of resources required to pull of such an attack, the government works classified projects through a system called compartmentalization, a process that would in theory, only require one person to have the complete picture, though realistically, we could assume that it would be pulled off with a very small number of people, more like in the neighborhood of less than 100. Everyone else who may or may not have been a part of the planning, wouldn't know what they are working on, as they would only have a very smal piece of the puzzle and be completely unaware that a puzzle exists, much less other pieces of that puzzle and the people who may or may not be working on it.

Definition of compartmentalization:

In matters concerning intelligence, whether public or private sector, compartmentalization is the limiting of access to information to persons who have a need to know it in order to perform certain tasks.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compartmentalization_(intelligence)

The basis for compartmentalization is the idea that, if fewer people know the details of a mission or task, the risk or likelihood that such information could be compromised or fall into the hands of the opposition is decreased. Hence, varying levels of clearance within organizations exist. Yet, even if someone has the highest clearance, certain "eyes only" information may still be restricted to certain operators, even of lower rank. In intelligence administration, officials believe that it is useful to keep a close watch on "sources and methods" information[1] to prevent disclosure of the activities and people whose lives they believe to be at risk if such information were to be publicly disclosed or fall into the hands of the opposition.

Source: en.wikipedia.org...(intelligence)

Compartmentalizing is the act of splitting an idea or concept up into (sometimes more or less arbitrary) parts, and trying to enforce thought processes which are inhibiting attempts to allow these parts to mix together again.

Come on Dave, you know better than that.

Furthermore, many so-called "truthers" or people who require evidence to come to a conclusion, such as myself, don't claim that the government did do 9/11, only that it is a possibility and such a notion should be considered and investigated. We may believe that evidence surely points that way, but unlike official conspiracy theorists, we need a basis of factual evidence to come to a conclusion.

For even a smidgeon of your conspiracies to be true, it would take a hell of a lot more support infrastructure than just the actual bomb planters to pull it off.

Actually, that logic applies to the official conspiracy theory. It would take a lot more than just 19 Arab hijackers to knock three buildings down with two aircraft, one building that wasn't even hit by an aircraft and was instead across the street and a building over from the towers that were. It would also take a lot more that a band of al Qaeda misfits to successfully enter the country, shake off their surveillance, take flight lessons here in the states and hijack multiple aircraft over a span of hours without being intercepted. Even if that is the case, then they would have to have known that their likelihood of success was extremely improbable, yet they went for it anyway?

In order for their attack to work, their would have to be multiple errors and failures in our security infrastructure, to a point that would make them the luckiest people to ever grace the face of the planet, yet in spite of those improbable odds, they carried on and successfully beat those odds.

According to Carl Sagan, with whom I completely agree (according to the following sentiments), extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and the official conspiracy theory is an extraordinary claim, yet it hasn't even been proven. Instead, we are asked to basically trust the word of government that it didn't happen in that way, even in spite of the fact that they admittedly won't consider any other possibility than their already pre-conceived theory.

So, it all boils down to an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence or at the very least, any evidence at all, as opposed to their word, making such an extraordinary claim, a faith-based one. Before you make the other wild and unfounded claims that I believe in an extraordinary claim concerning 9/11, such as alien death-rays or no-planes, I'll just remind you that I have never got behind such an argument, ever and I dare to you to cite anywhere where that you think I have.

Claiming that the official conspiracy theory isn't proven or even improbable, is hardly extraordinary, as is stating that their is evidence against the OS, such as forensic and eye-witness. You may not agree with this evidence, as is your opinion, but you can't deny that it exists.

The official conspiracy theory is however an extraordinary claim and most of it is based on the faith of the people to accept it, considering that they claim most or the majority of the evidence to either be secret or lost, or they simply ignore it, such as the case with the forensic and eye-witness testimony.

When making your illogical claims, you should probably check to make sure that it doesn't apply or is more relevant to your own side of the argument. The point here is that it isn't me making these wild claims, it is the official conspiracy theory. My simple and ordinary claims are that the official conspiracy theory is contrived based on faith, ignorance and improbabilities.

Eye-witnesses, whether you agree with their testimony or not, have been ignored and their testimony not even considered, thus ignorance. Redacted claims in the commission report and secret testimony (such as the case with Bush and Cheney, though certainly not limited there), equals faith on the part of trusters. Unprecedented phenomenon, regardless of the environment variables, equals extraordinary claims. These are just but a few and in order for me to list everything, this thread simply doesn't have the room, nor does my time.

It's one thing to conjure up these make believe comic book plots as a mental exercise, but it's another thing entirely to drag your fantasia kicking and screaming into the real word.

See above. The only claims made by me and other like me, is that the official conspiracy is lacking proof and probability, while the comic book plots -or any plots at all- are brought forth by official conspiracy theorists such as yourself. Between the two of us, you are the only one claiming that you know what happened and you are the only one putting forth an unfounded plot.

Your credibility is sinking further and further the more you need to rely on hyperbole to keep your conspiracy claims alive.

Actually, my credibility is intact, while I don't believe you have even earned any at all. The only one making conspiracy claims here is you, though I do consider a conspiracy. You however, are claiming the conspiracy, not me.

The war in Iraq was over WMD, not over 9/11, while the Islamic fundamentalists and their backers were all from midldle class and wealthy families and who were all highly educated.

Well considering that the Bush administration claimed a connection between the two, we can at least say in part, that the Iraq war was due to 9/11. This is in spite of the fact that the WMD claim also turned out to be false.

At what point will it finally dawn on you trusters that those damned fool conspiracy web sites you're getting all this drivel from are pulling your leg?

Considering that you are the truster and we are the ones that don't trust the official conspiracy theory, this statement is false and dishonest like most of your post. It is you believing those "conspiracy websites", not me. I'm only demanding proof and seeking answers to the many loose ends that in which the official conspiracy theorists ignore in order to fit their pre-conceived theory. Unlike the trusters who are basing their beliefs on faith, I [we] am [are] not. While I don't trust anyone's "word" on the events of 9/11, the trusters require such faith.

It is clear that you are trying to avoid or stifle intellectual debate by dishonest and disingenuous tactics, such as associating wild and unfounded claims to anyone who demands proof, evidence or answers to many of the questions concerning 9/11. Just because someone requires a level of proof before deducing a conclusion or just because people aren't willing to ignore a mountain of evidence that may or may not point to another outcome, it doesn't mean that they believe in alien death-rays, no-planes or anything else your imagination can conjure up. It is clear that between the two of us, you are the only one who believes in an extraordinary conspiracy theory concerning the actual attacks on 9/11. Maybe you should stop blindly believing those darned websites and embracing or propagating ignorance. You then might be able to conjure up even a slight amount of credibility.

Dave, you are making extraordinary claims and expecting people to believe those extraordinary conspiracy theories without the evidence to back it up or with a mountain of evidence that is just lingering there, basically giving the bird to your wild conspiracy theories. Evidence that you don't even consider and instead, try to dismiss by citing irrelevant disinformation or other wild claims. You are basically pushing forward wild, unfounded and outlandish claims (such as the official conspiracy theory), then citing other wild, unfounded and outlandish claims (such as the "no-planes", "alien death-rays" and other like minded) in an effort to back up your original absurd conspiracy theory and to suggest that your outlandish conspiracy theory is correct. Do you really not see the absurdity in this?



--airspoon

airspoon thank you very much for you interesting replies to good ol dave about the off topic subject USS Liberty.

Dave if you are not satisfied with the answers about the USS Liberty then I suggest you open a thread about that subject or do an ATS search on the topic.

Now lets get back to the topic of this thread
50 Facts Concerning 9/11 that Point Away from the OS (The Facts Speak For Themselves)

Any further off topic posts will be removed.




Do not reply to this Post

Sauron
Moderator

Click here to learn more about this warning.

EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY... ALL MEMBERS PLEASE READ

This forum is on "Strict Terms and Conditions of Use ENFORCEMENT" until further notice.

"Strict Enforcement" means:
Any Member lowering themselves to name calling, no matter how innocuous, will be red tag warned on the spot, no questions asked.

Any Member who, after receiving a red tag warn in this forum, commits another breach of the TAC will be post banned on the spot, no questions asked.

One warning is all you get before being post banned.

Any posts, replies or new threads, that are about Member personalities instead of the issues will be red tag warned and deleted.


Sauron
Moderator

Well done sir. Now I can completely stomp anybody who tells me that I'm crazy for not believing the OS. Even when I give them nice little facts, they act stupid, as if it doesn't matter in the grand scope of things. How can they deny all this though?

airspoon for president!

Purely speculation here, but given that Wikileaks is ultimately going to release new files, seemingly about embassy to embassy communications it is possible they could contain info on 9/11, or even that those communications in themselves are speculative discussion of events that could include 9/11 from a biased or knowledged point of view. No coincidence either that on the same day, (yesterday) that the Wikileaks announcement was on MSM alongside another item that MI6 had paid a "bogus" Taliban informer/negotiator of Pakistani origin "Loads 'a' money", Sounds just like the American " WMD informer" Rafid Ahmed Alwan doesn't it? this is how you disappear shedloads of money on the lower scale, and disappear vast loads of money on a much higher scale. It's also called "invention".

reply to post by smurfy


To be completely honest here, I wouldn't hold my breath. I'm leaning towards Wikileaks being a disinformation campaign, though I'm not certain.

Furthermore, it is not entirely out of the realm to think that all incriminating evidence, as far as logisitics reports or anything of that nature, would all be in the hands of private business or private think-tank, possibly even those in other countries. There is a very fine line between the corporate world (at least some of it) and the intelligence infrastructure.

If a certain faction within the government is responsible for 9/11, then I would think that the information would be burried outside of the hands of official government record keeping. Where does the intelligence infrastructure end and the corporate world begin?



--airspoon

--airspoon

Originally posted by airspoon
reply to post by smurfy

 

To be completely honest here, I wouldn't hold my breath. I'm leaning towards Wikileaks being a disinformation campaign, though I'm not certain.

Furthermore, it is not entirely out of the realm to think that all incriminating evidence, as far as logisitics reports or anything of that nature, would all be in the hands of private business or private think-tank, possibly even those in other countries. There is a very fine line between the corporate world (at least some of it) and the intelligence infrastructure.

If a certain faction within the government is responsible for 9/11, then I would think that the information would be burried outside of the hands of official government record keeping. Where does the intelligence infrastructure end and the corporate world begin?



--airspoon

--airspoon

Agree. I think WikiLeaks IS a Front for something, and Assange is being Paid to post things. In Truth, the US could have shut down/attacked WikiLeaks, or any other country could have done so, but no-one has, which only leaves more Credit to what you stated -- Dis-Information.

Nice Call.

Originally posted by mw451

Click here to learn more about this warning.

I Apologize. I don't understand. I spoke Truth.

You let someone Post 50 Paragraphs of Drivel, but won't let anyone contest it? Ask for Facts?

I suppose the WTC is still there and hidden with mirrors...

If this Forum can't be Equal, then What IS IT?

Originally posted by airspoon
reply to post by smurfy

 

To be completely honest here, I wouldn't hold my breath. I'm leaning towards Wikileaks being a disinformation campaign, though I'm not certain.

Furthermore, it is not entirely out of the realm to think that all incriminating evidence, as far as logisitics reports or anything of that nature, would all be in the hands of private business or private think-tank, possibly even those in other countries. There is a very fine line between the corporate world (at least some of it) and the intelligence infrastructure.

If a certain faction within the government is responsible for 9/11, then I would think that the information would be burried outside of the hands of official government record keeping. Where does the intelligence infrastructure end and the corporate world begin?



--airspoon

--airspoon

If what is coming out of Wiki is disinfo, what is the purpose? The Iraqi video is factual. On the contrary, I think the corporate world is intertwined with our intelligence structures. Wiki is giving us thus far, an insight into how and what is being done in our name, and just how the doers are handling their responsibilties. On the other hand we could just ignore what Wiki puts out and be happy that our governments are doing what is best for us. I would not go along with that scenario, when we can talk about it when others are dying in their thousands in power wars, and much of the world is in tatters.

Originally posted by mw451

You let someone Post 50 Paragraphs of Drivel

In your own ever so humble opinion.

Originally posted by mw451

Originally posted by airspoon
reply to post by smurfy

 

To be completely honest here, I wouldn't hold my breath. I'm leaning towards Wikileaks being a disinformation campaign, though I'm not certain.

Furthermore, it is not entirely out of the realm to think that all incriminating evidence, as far as logisitics reports or anything of that nature, would all be in the hands of private business or private think-tank, possibly even those in other countries. There is a very fine line between the corporate world (at least some of it) and the intelligence infrastructure.

If a certain faction within the government is responsible for 9/11, then I would think that the information would be burried outside of the hands of official government record keeping. Where does the intelligence infrastructure end and the corporate world begin?



--airspoon

--airspoon

Agree. I think WikiLeaks IS a Front for something, and Assange is being Paid to post things. In Truth, the US could have shut down/attacked WikiLeaks, or any other country could have done so, but no-one has, which only leaves more Credit to what you stated -- Dis-Information.

Nice Call.

edit on 27-11-2010 by mw451 because: (no reason given)

How could they shut down Wikileaks? shutting down Wikileaks would mean shutting down the entire internet. It is possible that Assange is getting paid by someone to make posts, but what he is posting is not disinfo and is not propaganda, but it is both damning and damaging, and real. So you have to ask who would pay him to do this? maybe these embassy cables could narrow things down a bit, but possibly they might reveal the "insider trading" of war throughout the globe. The OP's post has brought together a lot of info that many of us have already have read, plus his own sources. If there is any drivel, (btw, I'm not sure if you can use the word drivel on its own) you should address it in a matter of fact way.

Wait... so 50 "facts" backed up by other websites is now concidered "truths"?

First things first , i made it to "fact 23" and thats about it. Wouldnt make more sense to post them all chronologically? They jump all over the map and its extremely hard to follow along.

Even if all 50 "facts" where true, so what? What are you gonna do about it? Get a gun and polish it quietly by the window? no. You are gonna go about your life without anything changed or effected. Drop the radical extremist love affair with "one guy said that this other guy said that this one line on a certain website is true! so it has to be!"

Cut and paste + google DOES NOT = research.

Internet BB DOES NOT = "the truth"

reply to post by smurfy


Almost everything coming out of wikileaks is ineffective. If it was a disinfo campaign, they would be wise to let things slip, that way they garner some street cred. We all saw how effective that Iraq video was, as it did absolutely nothing, other than to give WL some "street-cred".

The purpose? So that they can then slip pieces of disinfo in there, throwing people off the trail of whatever, to include foreign governments.

There are just some major red-flags going up with WL, such as the time when Pentagon officials were looking for Assange, though he was in and out of various countries and they couldn't find him? Furthermore, they build up the suspense with all of their releases, and none of them are that big of a deal at all. They basically serve no purpose at all, at least that I could see.

Also, if the government wanted to shut WL down, they could easily. They could either kill the guy or arrest him on child-porn charges. They could also mount an effectice character assassination campaign on him, Also, I find it a little funny how the MSM seems to be paying attention to Assange and Wikileaks, which is one of the biggest red-flags to me.

We have a consensus of scientists who have found evidence of thermitic particulates in the WTC dust, then published a peer-reviewed report on the findings, yet no MSM outlet even so much as mentions it. However, they seem to have no problems at all with worshipping Assange.


--airspoon

ofcourse there is "thermite particles" in the dust...

iron oxide (rust) + aluminum (shavings or grindings) = Homemade Thermite.

You dont think, that with all the tons of materials... this couldnt have occured?

People SERIOUSLY think that Thermite was used to take down the WTC? Cmon, seriously? If you looked hard enough you probably could find weak radiation readings also. Actually i would bet on it. SO does that mean a nuke took down the buildings too? Or maybe it was just a broken microwave... no no... A NUKE!

Keep jumping to whatever you can dream up.

reply to post by Velocismo


Well considering that there was a peer-reviewed scientific study done on those particulates, proving (according to a consensus of scientists) that it couldn't have been anything other than advanced engineered nano-thermitic particulates, so no I don't think that it could have just been random particles.

If that is the case, then why has there been absolutely no science or viable scientific studies (the findings) disproving that research?

So far, every scientists who has looked for or tested the dust for explosive or demolitions material, has found said materials. The only scientists who seem to disagree, are the ones who admit that they refuse to even so much as consider such a scenario.

The fact remains that an overwhelming consensus of scientists (as in 100%) who have considered and tested for demolitions evidence (and went public with their findings), have found evidence of demolitions. So far there has not been a single scientists (to my knowledge), who has actually considered demolitions and looked for evidence of such, and not found any, at least from the scientists who have made their findings known. Furthermore, there hasn't been one single scientist who has viably disproven the evidence of thermitic materials, such as a peer-reviewed finding. There are however countless scientists who have actually looked at that research and peer-reviewed paper... and agreed that it is completely sound.


--airspoon

Alright ill play along...

So its all true. You are right. Now what? ... You truly think spouting the same thing over and over on some fringe websites will ever make anything happen?

If you were to invest as much effort and time into making your country a better place (such as running for public office or volunteering your time to help the needy) then you could make an argument for a better America.

I assume you were/ are a soldier? truly brave and noble. Honestly.
But the only war that will help America is an internal one.... again. The wrong side won that war i guess.

reply to post by airspoon


I have looked at that paper, and also read the reactions of some experts in that field. What I read is that the test results are not consistent with thermite at all. For starters, the measured energy density is totally off. So even the paper itself disproves it is thermite. I guess it is just about which web sites your read. If you only read web sites with people agreeing, you may get the image you have. But fact is, there is no scientific consensus at all.

Its taken me about two days to read all that some of the links in the OP are down the only one I can recollect at the moment is your link to the delta interview and a few others linking to rawstory. Anyways this post is epic because it puts alot of pieces together and like it says in the title the facts speak for themselves, I cannot purport that I now know for a certainty who commited 9-11 but I can say that this list of facts was very informative.