PDA

View Full Version : The reality of me !



Resistance
20th Jan 2011, 19:44
The reality of me !

http://www.tromsite.com

The TROM documentary is trying to present, in a simplistic way, the world in which we, human beings, live. The world discovered so far, not some idea or personal choice. Moreover we tried to present alternative solutions to current problems and took into account the future, which promises to be more than interesting.
An informative documentary, perhaps shocking and disturbing to many, depending on how you digest the information.


Open your mind !

JCpies
20th Jan 2011, 20:18
Thanks, this thread reminded me of a TV program I wanted to watch, I missed the first 17 minutes, oh well.

It's called Human Planet, a documentary about humans.

El_Bel
20th Jan 2011, 20:49
I disagree with most things i heard at anything i opened. I have not watched all of them, but from what i have heard i don't think that this movie is for me. Also documentaries most of the time, don't have an agenda, and even if they have, they are not so bland about it.

Oh and i don't claim that my mind is completely open or that i know everything. Do they claim that their is and that if you don't agree with their views you are wrong?

Edx
20th Jan 2011, 20:58
The reality of me !

http://www.tromsite.com

The TROM documentary is trying to present, in a simplistic way, the world in which we, human beings, live. The world discovered so far, not some idea or personal choice. Moreover we tried to present alternative solutions to current problems and took into account the future, which promises to be more than interesting.
An informative documentary, perhaps shocking and disturbing to many, depending on how you digest the information.


Open your mind !

Its full of New Age conspiracy theory crap.

Yawn.

Do they also say 911 was an inside job? I mean they seem to have quite a large amount of material so I might have missed it. That's my speciality in terms of debunking crazy stuff.

El_Bel
20th Jan 2011, 21:03
I didn't find any nwo stuff. I just found it full of communist and utopia stuff or other fantasies .

badhabitz
20th Jan 2011, 21:57
Do they also say 911 was an inside job? I mean they seem to have quite a large amount of material so I might have missed it. That's my speciality in terms of debunking crazy stuff.

You can start here or are you just good at copy/pasting from disinfo/debunking sites?
It is you friend who believes in crazy stuff. Cave dwelling farmers in Afghanistan did not do it...You believe in the impossible. The fear of the truth is stopping you...

I bet you have spent much time looking at the debunking material and not given the other side a chance.


OK i am gonna copy paste now :whistle:

Do you think you know better than these people? You know something they don't?


Senior intelligence officers:

Former military analyst and famed whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg said that the case of a certain 9/11 whistleblower is "far more explosive than the Pentagon Papers". He also said that the government is ordering the media to cover up her allegations about 9/11. And he said that some of the claims concerning government involvement in 9/11 are credible, that "very serious questions have been raised about what they [U.S. government officials] knew beforehand and how much involvement there might have been", that engineering 9/11 would not be humanly or psychologically beyond the scope of the current administration, and that there's enough evidence to justify a new, "hard-hitting" investigation into 9/11 with subpoenas and testimony taken under oath (see this and this).

A 27-year CIA veteran, who chaired National Intelligence Estimates and personally delivered intelligence briefings to Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, their Vice Presidents, Secretaries of State, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and many other senior government officials (Raymond McGovern) said “I think at simplest terms, there’s a cover-up. The 9/11 Report is a joke”, and is open to the possibility that 9/11 was an inside job.

A 29-year CIA veteran, former National Intelligence Officer (NIO) and former Director of the CIA's Office of Regional and Political Analysis (William Bill Christison) said “I now think there is persuasive evidence that the events of September did not unfold as the Bush administration and the 9/11 Commission would have us believe. ... All three [buildings that were destroyed in the World Trade Center] were most probably destroyed by controlled demolition charges placed in the buildings before 9/11." (and seethis).

A number of intelligence officials, including a CIA Operations Officer who co-chaired a CIA multi-agency task force coordinating intelligence efforts among many intelligence and law enforcement agencies (Lynne Larkin) sent a joint letter to Congress expressing their concerns about “serious shortcomings,” “omissions,” and “major flaws” in the 9/11 Commission Report and offering their services for a new investigation (they were ignored)

20-year Marine Corps infantry and intelligence officer, the second-ranking civilian in U.S. Marine Corps Intelligence, and former CIA clandestine services case officer (David Steele) stated that "9/11 was at a minimum allowed to happen as a pretext for war", and it was probably an inside job (scroll down to Customer Review dated October 7, 2006).

A decorated 20-year CIA veteran, who Pulitzer-Prize winning investigative reporter Seymour Hersh called "perhaps the best on-the-ground field officer in the Middle East”, and whose astounding career formed the script for the Academy Award winning motion picture Syriana (Robert Baer) said that "the evidence points at" 9/11 having had aspects of being an inside job

The Division Chief of the CIA’s Office of Soviet Affairs, who served as Senior Analyst from 1966 - 1990. He also served as Professor of International Security at the National War College from 1986 - 2004 (Melvin Goodman) said "The final [9/11 Commission] report is ultimately a coverup."

Professor of History and International Relations, University of Maryland. Former Executive Assistant to the Director of the National Security Agency, former military attaché in China, with a 21-year career in U.S. Army Intelligence (Major John M. Newman, PhD, U.S. Army) questions the government's version of the events of 9/11.

Congressmen:

According to the Co-Chair of the Congressional Inquiry into 9/11 and former Head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Bob Graham, an FBI informant had hosted and rented a room to two hijackers in 2000 and that, when the Inquiry sought to interview the informant, the FBI refused outright, and then hid him in an unknown location, and that a high-level FBI official stated these blocking maneuvers were undertaken under orders from the White House(confirmed here)

Current Democratic U.S. Senator Patrick Leahy said "The two questions that the congress will not ask . . . is why did 9/11 happen on George Bush's watch when he had clear warnings that it was going to happen? Why did they allow it to happen?"

Current Republican Congressman Ron Paul calls for a new 9/11 investigationand states that "we see the [9/11] investigations that have been done so far as more or less cover-up and no real explanation of what went on"

Current Democratic Congressman Dennis Kucinich hints that we aren't being told the truth about 9/11

Current Republican Congressman Jason Chafetz says that we need to be vigilant and continue to investigate 9/11

Former Democratic Senator Mike Gravel states that he supports a new 9/11 investigation and that we don't know the truth about 9/11


Former Republican Senator Lincoln Chaffee endorses a new 9/11 investigation

Former U.S. Democratic Congressman Dan Hamburg says that the U.S. government "assisted" in the 9/11 attacks, stating that "I think there was a lot of help from the inside"

Former U.S. Republican Congressman and senior member of the House Armed Services Committee, and who served six years as the Chairman of the Military Research and Development Subcommittee Curt Weldon has shown that the U.S. tracked hijackers before 9/11, is open to hearing information about explosives in the Twin Towers, and is open to the possibility that 9/11 was an inside job

9/11 Commissioners:

The Commission's co-chairs said that the 9/11 Commissioners knew that military officials misrepresented the facts to the Commission, and the Commission considered recommending criminal charges for such false statements (free subscription required)



9/11 Commission co-chair Lee Hamilton says "I don't believe for a minute we got everything right", that the Commission was set up to fail, that people should keep asking questions about 9/11, and that the 9/11 debate should continue



9/11 Commissioner Timothy Roemer said "We were extremely frustrated with the false statements we were getting"



9/11 Commissioner Max Cleland resigned from the Commission, stating: "It is a national scandal"; "This investigation is now compromised"; and "One of these days we will have to get the full story because the 9-11 issue is so important to America. But this White House wants to cover it up"



9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey said that "There are ample reasons to suspect that there may be some alternative to what we outlined in our version . . . We didn't have access . . . ."



And the Senior Counsel to the 9/11 Commission (John Farmer) - who led the 9/11 staff's inquiry - recently said "At some level of the government, at some point in time...there was an agreement not to tell the truth about what happened". He also said "I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described .... The tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years.... This is not spin. This is not true."

Other government officials:

U.S. General, Commanding General of U.S. European Command and Supreme Allied Commander Europe, decorated with the Bronze Star, Silver Star, and Purple Heart (General Wesley Clark) said "We've never finished the investigation of 9/11 and whether the administration actually misused the intelligence information it had. The evidence seems pretty clear to me. I've seen that for a long time."



Former Deputy Secretary for Intelligence and Warning under Nixon, Ford, and Carter (Morton Goulder), former Deputy Director to the White House Task Force on Terrorism (Edward L. Peck), and former US Department of State Foreign Service Officer (J. Michael Springmann), as well as a who's who of liberals and independents) jointly call for a new investigation into 9/11



Former Federal Prosecutor, Office of Special Investigations, U.S. Department of Justice under Presidents Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan; former U.S. Army Intelligence officer, and currently a widely-sought media commentator on terrorism and intelligence services (John Loftus) says "The information provided by European intelligence services prior to 9/11 was so extensive that it is no longer possible for either the CIA or FBI to assert a defense of incompetence."



The Group Director on matters of national security in the U.S. Government Accountability Office said that President Bush did not respond to unprecedented warnings of the 9/11 disaster and conducted a massive cover-up instead of accepting responsibility



President of the U.S. Air Force Accident Investigation Board, who also served as Pentagon Weapons Requirement Officer and as a member of the Pentagon's Quadrennial Defense Review, and who was awarded Distinguished Flying Crosses for Heroism, four Air Medals, four Meritorious Service Medals, and nine Aerial Achievement Medals (Lt. Col. Jeff Latas) is a member of a group which doubts the government's version of 9/11



Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense under President Ronald Reagan (Col. Ronald D. Ray) said that the official story of 9/11 is "the dog that doesn't hunt"



The former director of the FBI (Louis Freeh) says there was a cover up by the 9/11 Commission



Director of the U.S. "Star Wars" space defense program in both Republican and Democratic administrations, who was a senior air force colonel who flew 101 combat missions (Col. Robert Bowman) stated: "If our government had merely [done] nothing, and I say that as an old interceptor pilot—I know the drill, I know what it takes, I know how long it takes, I know what the procedures are, I know what they were, and I know what they’ve changed them to—if our government had merely done nothing, and allowed normal procedures to happen on that morning of 9/11, the Twin Towers would still be standing and thousands of dead Americans would still be alive. [T]hat is treason!"

Numerous other politicians, judges, legal scholars, and attorneys also question at least some aspects of the government's version of 9/11.

AlexOfSpades
20th Jan 2011, 23:03
So, Badhabitz, you're saying that USA blew up his own towers, put the blame in Al Qaeda just to attack'em?

K^2
20th Jan 2011, 23:24
You cannot deny the fact that US government made the most out of 9/11 attack. Many branches of government would benefit from setting up 9/11. The main reason I don't think they did is because it would be a lot easier to just let something like that happen. To put your own agents onto planes or especially to mine the buildings, as some conspiracists claim, that would take a lot of people working together and staying very quiet. To know about the attack in advance and do nothing would only require a few people at the top to give the right orders and to place a few files in a different place than they'd normally go. This scenario is actually plausible.

There are also major problems with official version of Pentagon hit. Official report is inconsistent with a 757 strike. Photos from the location are consistent with the report on the other hand, which means my money is on 757 never making it to Washington, and getting shot down elsewhere like it was supposed to. But this could be a very benign cover-up. After the attack, having people blame US military for doing their job and shooting the flight down would not be a good thing.

badhabitz
20th Jan 2011, 23:31
double post

badhabitz
20th Jan 2011, 23:41
"So, Badhabitz, you're saying that USA blew up his own towers, put the blame in Al Qaeda just to attack'em?"


The USA is not one living entity (if it were, maybe it would be a she?). Like every country, I like to think the large majority are not rapists/murderers/kidnappers etc... but these types of people exist in EVERY country. I love the people of the USA but like my country the UK - has some very very bad people in charge and running things behind the scenes that is not good for any normal person.

The theory is 9/11 has made many things happen. many horrible things and many horrible things maybe still to come because of it.

Think about it really, what makes more sense... It was poor people in the middle east jealous of our "freedom" OR it was a collection of very powerful, wealthy people/groups from many places controlling many sectors of our society (government, media, military) in an effort to control the population with more laws and security, to create more wars they can get more wealth and power in which more poor innocent people from all countries die. they are rich and powerful and don't give a damn about the normal human being.

3RhIxxvYtRE

These people gain money and power from these wars and new laws since 9/11 - like they benefit from 9/11 and the wars. who loses the most? innocent people... innocent people all over the world dying, while governments get more power and large organisations get bigger and bigger. there is a plot to cut human population and they are doing it with many means... wars/disease/famine/man made disasters
there is evidence to back all of this up on the internet.

It is not accusing the whole of America ofcourse not. Just some very bad people though along with bad people from many other countries. Ok? an inside and outside job... not a poor small afghanistan and iraq job.

When you look at someone you should see a human being... not a flag or a place on the map. you are a good guy or you're not. you can live in peace with people or you need help in some form or other.

PEACE

El_Bel
21st Jan 2011, 00:55
Poor arab people are just as smart as you are. Maybe more. And they didn't do it because you are free and they are jealous. You haven't even read what Bin Laden said. They did it because you support Israel, because US troops were on the Gulf.


I say to you, Allah knows that it had never occurred to us to strike the towers. But after it became unbearable and we witnessed the oppression and tyranny of the American/Israeli coalition against our people in Palestine and Lebanon, it came to my mind.

Oh my god. I just read the rest of your post. So they want to cut down human population. Why not plant nukes in cities and blame it on terrorists? I mean, those guys made all those things and they cant find 10 nukes? Why bother with just a tower? I'll tell you. If the conspiracy nuts are correct about their theories, THESE ARE THE DUMBEST VILLAINS SINCE GARGAMEL!

badhabitz
21st Jan 2011, 01:01
Well I guess they like the cities and want them intact. Plus they can kill us slowly with diseases. they keep warning us there is terrorists attack imment and always say a nuke or dirty bomb. So if one goes off, ofcourse it will be a Muslim from somewhere or someone who is anti government. They will have all the clues and know who did it the next day. Suicide bombers leaving suicide notes to be conveniently found... like a terrorist passport that somehow was found on 9/11 then they lost it and it didnt exist.

hey shall we try and find all the EVIDENCE LINKING OSAMA BIN LADEN TO 9/11 <<--------- ANYONE IS TO BE CONSIDERED INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY HE HAS NOT HAD TRIAL AND WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE

the evidence is bad quality film with bad sound (dubbed) and it all could be manipulated/created using CGI

Edx
21st Jan 2011, 01:42
You can start here or are you just good at copy/pasting from disinfo/debunking sites?
It is you friend who believes in crazy stuff. ...

...I bet you have spent much time looking at the debunking material and not given the other side a chance.

I been arguing with truthers for years, I've given them plenty of chances.


Cave dwelling farmers in Afghanistan did not do it...You believe in the impossible. The fear of the truth is stopping you...


No one said the hijackers were, "cave dwelling farmers in Afghanistan". :rolleyes:


OK i am gonna copy paste now :whistle:

Do you think you know better than these people? You know something they don't?

If you have a specific point please do post it, I'm not going to respond to drive by lazy copy and paste truthers. :rolleyes:

edit: The fact you posted those out of context quotes by the 911 Commissioners is not a good sign of your competency.

Edx
21st Jan 2011, 01:43
Suicide bombers leaving suicide notes to be conveniently found...

Was this an inside job as well then?

http://articles.latimes.com/1987-12-11/news/mn-18992_1

badhabitz
21st Jan 2011, 01:48
edit: The fact you posted those out of context quotes by the 911 Commissioners is not a good sign of your competency.

??:confused:?? how is 9/11 Inquiry members talking about 9/11 out of context??

the context here is - is there a cover up - their voices generally say yes there is atleast to some degree.

You mean you have been on that side of the fence for years and have no intention of listening to the other side.

You expect me to write out the many documents needed to make this case for you here without copy/pasting??

How about I let you copy paste, if you let me? with that in mind, can you answer my question.

why and how do you know more about 9/11 than those names I listed?

Thank you.

Edx
21st Jan 2011, 02:13
You mean you have been on that side of the fence for years and have no intention of listening to the other side.

No, I was once a "truther" after I watched Zeitgeist. Watched all of Alex Jones' films, read InfoWars and listened to his show every day. Then eventually I wanted to know what the arguments against this stuff was so I could know what the best criticisms were that would come up when I talked to people about it. Turns out, I was very very wrong.


You expect me to write out the millions of documents needed to make this case for you here without copy/pasting??

I'm not saying you can't copy and paste anything, but you just copy and pasted a large chunk of text and basically said debunk that. Sorry, that's lazy.


why do you know more about 9/11 than those names I listed?

Well lets start with the 911 Commissioners.

Do you know why none of them believe 911 was an inside job? Even John Farmer is very proud of the report. How could that be? Don't your quotes seem to suggest the opposite? Its because your sources you rely on for information are lying to you and taking their words out of context to make it seem like they are saying something they aren't.

For example...


"I don't believe for a minute we got everything right", that the Commission was set up to fail, that people should keep asking questions about 9/11, that the 9/11 debate should continue, and that the 9/11 Commission report was only "the first draft" of history. - Lee Hamilton

"Set up to fail?"

What Hamilton was actually saying is that it was underfunded and they didn't have enough time, not that there was some nefarious plot. They said they needed more and they got more but it took a while to get it.


Solomon: You write.. the first chapter of the book is 'the Commission was set up to fail.' - my goodness, for the critics - who suggest that it was indeed set up to fail as some kind of obfuscation - you certainly dangled a juicy piece of bait out there in the river. Why do you think you were set up to fail?

Hamilton: Well, for a number of reasons: Tom Kean and I were substitutes - Henry Kissinger and George Mitchell were the first choices; we got started late; we had a very short time frame - indeed, we had to get it extended; we did not have enough money - 3 million dollars to conduct an extensive investigation. We needed more, we got more, but it took us a while to get it.


What about the "didn't get everything right" part?

In context he was just being honest in saying that there will be bound to be things they missed, but feels so far their report is accurate.


Now, it would be really rather remarkable if we got everything right. So far, of the things that have been brought up challenging the report, to my knowledge, we have more credibility than the challenger.

How does any of this support you again?


We were extremely frustrated with the false statements we were getting - Timothy Roemer

Do you care what Roemer is referring to here? I do.

Lets see, shall we?


Authorities suggested that U.S. air defenses had reacted quickly, that jets had been scrambled in response to the last two hijackings and that fighters were prepared to shoot down United Airlines Flight 93 if it threatened Washington.

"In fact, the commission reported a year later, audiotapes from NORAD's Northeast headquarters and other evidence showed clearly that the military never had any of the hijacked airliners in its sights and at one point chased a phantom aircraft -- American Airlines Flight 11 -- long after it had crashed into the World Trade Center

He was clearly referring to a coverup of possible incompetence and exaggerated performance that day, nothing about any conspiracy. No one denies that people were worried about being accused of incompetence, but if you're going to use a quote from someone to help prove a conspiracy you better made damn sure they're actually referring to a conspiracy when you quote them.


9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey said that "There are ample reasons to suspect that there may be some alternative to what we outlined in our version . . . We didn't have access . . . ." - Bob Kerry

See those little dots there? They indicate something was snipped out of the quote! Lets see what Bob was really saying, shall we?


Kerrey was dismissive of the conspiracy theories as well. Asked about the possibility of a controlled demolition at the World Trade Center, he scoffed, "There's no evidence for that." But he also noted that, quite apart from what Avery and others in the "truth movement" have proposed, many legitimate mysteries still surround the events of that day. "There are ample reasons to suspect that there may be some alternative to what we outlined in our version," Kerrey said. The commission had limited time and limited resources to pursue its investigation, and its access to key documents and witnesses was fettered by the administration. "I didn't read a single PDB," Kerrey said, referring to the president's daily intelligence briefing reports. "We didn't have access to Khalid Shaikh Mohammed," the mastermind of the plot. "We accepted a compromise, submitting our questions to him through the CIA. Now, that's not the best way to go about getting your questions answered. So I'm 100 percent certain that [bin Laden] directed that attack, but am I completely comfortable saying there was no direct Saudi involvement, or that Saddam Hussein wasn't involved in some fashion, or that the Iranians weren't involved? I'm pretty close to 100 percent certain, but I'd be more comfortable if we'd interviewed Khalid Shaikh Mohammed."

According to Bob, he thinks the conspiracy theories you believe in have "no evidence" to support them and is "100% certain" that it was Bin Laden.

The reason why truthers have to chop out the context is because they don't want you to know what he really thinks, since if you knew, the quote becomes useless in trying to prove whatever it is you think it proves.

Of course now you'll likely ignore all that and instead jump onto some other quote by someone else, and thus will be revealed how little the self styled "Truth" Movement really cares about truth.

badhabitz
21st Jan 2011, 02:23
wow well you know that list was old and did not include the hundreds of thousands of other professionals (architechs, engineers, demolitions experts) who claim cover up.

funny how the 9/11 comission took 2 years to start, was blocked at every point by the Whitehouse until the victims families demanded it. Bush and Cheney gave evidence in secret... ahhh so many coincidences hey!! thats life.

I wish i could live in your fairytale land sometimes. Hey why do we have demolition teams when you only need to start a fire for a building to collapse?? and how you can hijack a plane with boxcutters? the 200+ passengers cannot over power boxcutters... people believe anything the tv news will tell them...

Edx
21st Jan 2011, 02:31
wow well you know that list was old and did not include the hundreds of thousands of other professionals (architechs, engineers, demolitions experts) who claim cover up.

Why don't you care that truthers lied to you? Those quotes in your list are knowingly out of context, in that the person that first collected them would have had to read the whole context to see it.

Why don't you seem to have a problem with your sources lying to you? What about the truth movement is interested in truth? Don't you want to be held to a higher standard than those you attack?


funny how the 9/11 comission took 2 years to start, was blocked at every point by the Whitehouse until the victims families demanded it. Bush and Cheney gave evidence in secret... ahhh so many coincidences hey!! thats life.

Of course you probably believe 911 Commission was the first investigation into 911, right?



I wish i could live in your fairytale land sometimes. Hey why do we have demolition teams when you only need to start a fire for a building to collapse??

Are you suggesting fire doesn't cause buildings to collapse?

See, you've almost got the truther rhetoric down, but you've got the script wrong.


and how you can hijack a plane with boxcutters? the 200+ passengers cannot over power boxcutters... people believe anything the tv news will tell them...

Because at the time it wasn't usual for hijackers to want to slam planes into buildings. Its like when someone gets robbed in a store, you just give them what they want so they can leave. If you know they'll kill you or stab you at the end, you might try and fight back. Before 911, you do what they tell you to do and when the plane lands hope the SWAT team can sort it out.

That's why U93 heard what had been going on and DID overpower the hiajckers, but you claim thats a lie too presumably. No pleasing you.

badhabitz
21st Jan 2011, 02:38
I am tired and sleeping soon. You believe the official lie so can you please prove to me flight 93 crashed where it did and that an actual aircraft hit the pentagon.

You will tell me a plane can vaporise into thin air.

99rcYiG_Syw

now you will tell me my eyes do actually see plane wreckage, seats with bodies in, wings, a tail section, 2 engines weighing... how many tons?? vanish into thin air... oh but ofcourse just another of the many mysteries, unanswered questions, strange happenings and anomolies of that day.

Edx
21st Jan 2011, 02:40
Why have you ignored all my points?

Typical. Why should I keep wasting my time responding to your claims, when you just ignore the response?

This is why debating you guys is so pointless besides showing the lack of credibility you have to others. I think you've done that so I don't think I need to reply any longer.

OTOH if you reply to my points maybe we can move forward, until then...

Deus_Ex_Machina
21st Jan 2011, 03:15
I'm going to post this because I think it's EXTREMELY relevant. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=saHs6J0OXVI)

Edx
21st Jan 2011, 04:10
I'm going to post this because I think it's EXTREMELY relevant. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=saHs6J0OXVI)

hehe, yes that one is a classic :D

The funny thing is that you could easily convince a bunch of people its correct.

K^2
21st Jan 2011, 05:50
You will tell me a plane can vaporise into thin air.
I haven't really looked at U93 too much. But suppose the crash site was faked. Where did the real U93 go? There were way too many people on board for them to try and land it somewhere quietly. It would have to be shot down. If it was shot down, it explains the fake crash site, because it's often possible to see damage done by missile on the crash debris.

So lets say US military shot down the U93 and then created a fake crash site. What does that prove? That US military actually did their job on 9/11 and shot down hijacked plane like they were supposed to, potentially saving hundreds of lives. Also, that US government considers their population emotional half-wits who do not understand the necessity of shooting down a hijacked plane. Can you really find any fault in either of these actions? Because I can't.

So even assuming the U93 crash site was faked, it does not prove any connection between persons who organized 9/11 attacks and the government.

Rheinhold
21st Jan 2011, 12:37
I am tired and sleeping soon. You believe the official lie so can you please prove to me flight 93 crashed where it did and that an actual aircraft hit the pentagon.

You will tell me a plane can vaporise into thin air.

now you will tell me my eyes do actually see plane wreckage, seats with bodies in, wings, a tail section, 2 engines weighing... how many tons?? vanish into thin air... oh but ofcourse just another of the many mysteries, unanswered questions, strange happenings and anomolies of that day.

Look at this one:
F4 Phantom Crash (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--_RGM4Abv8)

That was not a realy F4 Phatom jet fighter! Look: where is its seat when it hit the wall? Where are its motors??? :mad2:

As with nearly all of your 'facts', they are flawed. I took this one for an example. If that plane crashed with a speed high enough, you would not find a whole lot of seats and bodies on the crash site...

Now, that plain woulda gone rather 600 instead of 800, and the Pentagon is not constructed from that type of hard concrete (I think), and there are crash sites of airplanes where you do find the seats and engines.
I just point out you do not necessarily need to.

Is this thread not REALLY, REALLY related to some other threads that ended up with alien sightings, the illuminati and all that jazz??? :scratch:

Resistance
21st Jan 2011, 12:38
Instead of arguing about things that happened in the past decade, you guys should look at the present and the future.
A secret organization whatever you call it (illuminati, nwo, elites, babylon system etc) actually exists.

Proofs are everywhere.

VectorM
21st Jan 2011, 12:50
Cave dwelling farmers in Afghanistan did not do it...You believe in the impossible. The fear of the truth is stopping you...

Only that Osama was from a wealthy family and was way more educated than you ever will be.

badhabitz
21st Jan 2011, 12:59
Instead of arguing about things that happened in the past decade, you guys should look at the present and the future.
A secret organization whatever you call it (illuminati, nwo, elites, babylon system etc) actually exists.

Proofs are everywhere.

I beleive they exist. Everyone else here really thinks George W Bush had the final say and Obama really is the man at the top.

79o9fFwTStc

no matter what evidence is presented most people just can't comprehend where things really are.

El_Bel
21st Jan 2011, 14:24
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons

There. Madox says you're stupid.

badhabitz
21st Jan 2011, 14:31
meh dude I have not even seen Loose Change...

:hmm:

like I said, they can't go around killing every whistleblower and truther because it might become a little too obvious. They leave clues and messages because they use black magic. They gain our acceptance as slaves by showing us in the media what they really get up to. They have power already and obviously they can accept a % of the population aware and most totally unaware.

El_Bel
21st Jan 2011, 14:41
You haven't answered sht. This page made you look stupid and your only answer is that you didn't watch Loose Change. Not good enough, try harder.

badhabitz
21st Jan 2011, 14:59
I already said how the whole government and military did not know it was happening. it would not take so many people to pull it off.

It only takes very few people in CRITICAL command areas to know what is really going on. Generally in the military no one really knows what the next ranking official knows, and he takes his orders from someone else who knows a little more than him... up up the chain of command. There is like 20 levels of top secret clearance ABOVE what the President is shown. Compartmentalisation

Compartmentalization (information security)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In matters concerning information security, whether public or private sector, compartmentalization is the limiting of access to information to persons or other entities who have a need to know it in order to perform certain tasks.

The concept originated in the handling of classified information in military and intelligence applications.

The basis for compartmentalization was 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 "compartmentalized" information, identified by codewords referring to particular types of secret information, may still be restricted to certain operators, even with a lower overall security clearance. Information marked this way is said to be codeword–classified. One famous example of this was the ULTRA secret, where documents were marked "Top Secret Ultra": "Top Secret" marked its security level, and the "Ultra" keyword further restricted its readership to only those cleared to read "Ultra" documents.[1]

AlexOfSpades
21st Jan 2011, 15:13
meh dude I have not even seen Loose Change...

:hmm:

like I said, they can't go around killing every whistleblower and truther because it might become a little too obvious. They leave clues and messages because they use black magic. They gain our acceptance as slaves by showing us in the media what they really get up to. They have power already and obviously they can accept a % of the population aware and most totally unaware.

LMAO

The American Government uses black magic?

Dude, you're almost as good as Seinfeld.

badhabitz
21st Jan 2011, 15:21
LMAO

The American Government uses black magic?

Dude, you're almost as good as Seinfeld.



stop generalising... the government is made up of MANY people... countries have MANY people in them with MANY views and ways of thinking. Not everyone is like you and thinks like you do. Some people believe in some pretty fudged up shiz ye get me? You don't have to believe in this stuff but they do!

I am not saying the whole American Government is bad... some people in it tho... just like all governments...:(

just cos I like this film... don't know why - hey at least we not talking about 3rd person and health regen hey? something to kill the time until DX HR

7Lwlx3GnLGs

Peace

Saerain
21st Jan 2011, 16:23
You say that they use black magic, implying not a belief in magic, but the existence and usefulness of magic. Do tell us more, for science's sake.

Edx
21st Jan 2011, 16:41
Hey badhabitz,

Still waiting for you to explain why you don't care that your truther sources lied to you. (http://forums.eidosgames.com/showpost.php?p=1556432&postcount=16)

badhabitz
21st Jan 2011, 16:47
Edx,

If you insist I honestly just grabbed the first list I could find of officials who question the 9/11 story from the globalisation reserach group site. Their accounts of 9/11 I am sure were taken left right and center from all angles. No I did not take the time to verify, where, when and how these statements were said. Let me put this clearly.

High ranking officials from Governments, Militaries and other Sectors, Engineers, Architechs, Explosives experts and Pilots from all across the world question at least some part of the official story. They don't claim to know how it all went down. But they claim we are not being told ALL the facts.

Which part do you not understand?

Edx
21st Jan 2011, 17:09
Edx,

If you insist I honestly just grabbed the first list I could find of officials who question the 9/11 story from the global reserachgroup site. Their accounts of 9/11 I am sure were taken left right and center from all angles. No I did not take the time to verify, where, when and how these statements were said. Let me put this clearly.

High ranking officials from Governments, Militaries and other Sectors, Engineers, Architechs, Explosives experts and Pilots from all across the world question at least some part of the official story. They don't claim to know how it all went down. But they claim we are not being told ALL the facts.

Which part do you not understand?

Which part do YOU not understand?

Truthers everywhere use these quotes and they are complete lies as I have shown you, why do you trust people that lie to you? Why do you pretend to care about what is true, when you care so little when you are wrong?

badhabitz
21st Jan 2011, 17:16
If you had done your own research you would not need me to spell it all out for you. You did not debunk all the people so I am waiting for you to do that by the way. Yes there is lies everywhere thats why we try to find truth.

El_Bel
21st Jan 2011, 17:20
Die in hellfire troll.

Saerain
21st Jan 2011, 17:21
High ranking officials from Governments, Militaries and other Sectors, Engineers, Architechs, Explosives experts and Pilots from all across the world question at least some part of the official story. They don't claim to know how it all went down. But they claim we are not being told ALL the facts.

Which part do you not understand? Not to speak for Edx, but I don't understand how you jump from the facts we do have—even if you exclude anything that could have been tampered with by the government or Illuminati-aligned super hackers or whatever you want—to the Truther stuff.

It seems to involve a lot of this:

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/5730951/science-vs-faith-ondark.png
(Sorry about the JPEG artifacts.)

When there's a lack of evidence, or there's evidence in question, the logical response is not to lean back and dismiss a thing, but first to see what evidence there is and work from there find more evidence to complete the picture objectively.

Analogy: We don't have all the facts on black holes, but we have enough to rule out claims that black holes don't exist or that they are just stars we can't see, and enough to put serious doubt on a claim that they're the holes of God's pet rabbit or something. They could be, sure, but you don't act under the assumption that they are until you have a working theory that can top the most successful theory in experiment.

El_Bel
21st Jan 2011, 17:23
Ok he either is very very very very very stupid or he is trolling. Either way, no point in replying to him.

Saerain
21st Jan 2011, 17:28
Unfortunately, I used to be like him to some degree (in a matter concerning biology), so maybe I'm a little more sympathetic. But you're probably right.

Edx
21st Jan 2011, 18:02
If you had done your own research you would not need me to spell it all out for you. You did not debunk all the people so I am waiting for you to do that by the way. Yes there is lies everywhere thats why we try to find truth.

Its very simple. .... Why do you not care that people you rely on for information LIED to you?

You people go on and on about the "TRUTH" and are constantly calling this and that "lies", but seem completely unconcerned when you're own experts are lying to you. When proven wrong you just move swiftly onto to another claim or another quote without accepting and dealing with your errors, presumably in some vain hope that eventually the person you're talking to will either give up or not know enough about whatever it is to solidly debunk it and then you decide you won.

The reason why I realised the truth movement wasn't remotely interested in truth is when people like you didn't care about correcting your errors or stand up against those who lie through their teeth. People like Alex Jones, David Ray Griffin, Richard Gage and whoever it was you decided to copy and paste that list from.

You didn't check the quotes, of course I know that, yet you still decided the people you got it from were credible enough to believe without question and post it on internet forums as if it was 100% fact. Are you not in the least bit embarrassed that you were conned? You should feel as stupid as I did for believing these idiots, but apparently you don't.

You claim you're interested in honest investigation, yet when I show you that many of the quotes are completely out of context and deliberately intended to mislead, you act like its no problem at all. Why do you still trust such people for information and why aren't you more skeptical of their claims?

If you ever wonder why people make fun of truthers YOU are a great example of why.

badhabitz
21st Jan 2011, 18:10
Evidence? Do you want me to pull out a confession from George W Bush? or pull out an evil plan to control the world written by the george bush and tony blair? nope but you accept a confession letter from a suicide bomber who took luggage with him but left it in his car.

From Wikipedia

A cover-up is an attempt, whether successful or not, to conceal evidence of wrong-doing, error, incompetence or other embarrassing information. The expression is usually applied to people in positions of authority who abuse their power to avoid or silence criticism or to deflect guilt of wrongdoing. Those who initiate a cover up (or their allies) may be responsible for a misdeed, a breach of trust or duty or a crime.

While the terms are often used interchangeably, cover-up involves withholding incriminatory evidence, while whitewash involves releasing misleading evidence.

All the real evidence has been hidden or destroyed! They cover their tracks.

If you cannot accept experts in all these fields claiming something fishy is going on... well what is there to say. You trust the news media more than experts in the field because? How did they earn your unquestioning loyalty?

Edx
21st Jan 2011, 18:16
Evidence? Do you want me to pull out a confession from George W Bush? or pull out an evil plan to control the world written by the george bush and tony blair? nope but you accept a confession letter from a suicide bomber who took luggage with him.



<snip>

Why do you continue to ignore all my questions? :rolleyes:

What has any of that got to do with what I wrote?

Go back to youtube where its easier to bull***** your way through arguments, no one is falling for it.

badhabitz
21st Jan 2011, 18:25
Hey you call me mentally ill for questioning history? No wonder the world is in a mess. I did not realise it was a crime to debate history. Everyone thought the earth was flat remember. Group mentality. Follow the pack.

You remind me of Lieutenant Frank Drebin

5NNOrp_83RU


Keep telling yourself there is nothing to see here...

Edx
21st Jan 2011, 18:28
Hey you call me mentally ill for questioning history? No wonder the world is in a mess. I did not realise it was a crime to debate history. Everyone thought the earth was flat remember. Group mentality. Follow the pack.


Let me try one more time...

Lets say you're trying to give me a reason to take your position seriously and the first thing I see is you posting a bunch of lies. When confronted on them you completely ignore it and act like you don't care. How do you think that is really going to make me feel about the rest of your claims?

badhabitz
21st Jan 2011, 18:37
Let me try one more time...

Lets say you're trying to give me a reason to take your position seriously and the first thing I see is you posting a bunch of lies. When confronted on them you completely ignore it and act like you don't care. How do you think that is really going to make me feel about the rest of your claims?

how were those claims lies? you did not debunk each and every single name so why say it is lies? (you did not debunk anything) and you are nicely avoiding everything I have put down since.

Ofcourse but you know better than the experts (you cannot be bothered to see/look for/listen to)

Edx
21st Jan 2011, 18:49
how were those claims lies? you did not debunk each and every single name so why say it is lies? (you did not debunk anything) and you are nicely avoiding everything I have put down since.

Ofcourse but you know better than the experts (you cannot be bothered to see/look for/listen to)


So if you show me 10 points but 5 of then are easily demonstrable lies, I'm supposed to take the rest seriously? Especially when I point out those lies and you completely ignore it and act like you don't even care. What impression of you do you think I will get?

badhabitz
21st Jan 2011, 18:55
how did you prove my information is false? please share


lets go through it from the top shall we? How about, you take the first name and I shall take second? We study the list we have. All the names. Get their view is that what you want?

Because you sure as hell did not just do that to prove that statement was false! You keep kidding yourself that "truthers" are just some obsene internet group made up of weirdos with no knowledge that have no credibility.

[FGS]Shadowrunner
21st Jan 2011, 18:56
I don't like to get involved about 9/11, one thing happened for sure, 3 airliners took out some important buildings and fourth disappeared. I watched the news live, because I had a day off work, I was following news reports about the fourth plane, the newsreader clearly said " US fighters have been scrambled and are chasing the fourth plane...we'll bring you the latest on this story in a moment"... That next news report never occured. In the aftermarth clearly both government and conspiracy theorists have not told the whole truth. What amazes me though, instead of heeding 9/11 as a warning to stop bloodshed in other countries, it unleashed even more.

Edx
21st Jan 2011, 19:03
@[FGS]Shadowrunner:

So you're saying the US lied, despite the fact that there was plenty confusion in the media that day? Are you going to blame every inaccurate news report on government lies?

And truthers love being wrong about just about everything.

badhabitz
21st Jan 2011, 19:06
Edx,

This is the 2nd person in that original list

Raymond L. McGovern – Former Chairman, National Intelligence Estimates, CIA. Responsible for President’s Daily Brief (PDB) for Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. 27-year CIA veteran. Former U.S. Army Intelligence Officer.

* Video: "I think at simplest terms, there’s a cover-up. The 9/11 report is a joke. The question is: What’s being covered up? Is it gross malfeasance, gross negligence? Now there are a whole bunch of unanswered questions. And the reason they’re unanswered is because this administration will not answer the questions. This is the bottom line for me; just as Hitler in 1933 cynically exploited the burning of the parliament building, the Reichstag, this is exactly what our President did in exploiting 9/11. The cynical way in which he played on our trauma, used it to justify attacking, making a war of aggression on a country that he knew had nothing to do with 9/11. That suffices for me. That’s certainly an impeachable offense."

he is last guy to speak on this video

Uwu0bNaUcOU

So why do you know more than this guy?

Edx
21st Jan 2011, 19:06
how did you prove my information is false? please share

I already did back on page 1. (http://forums.eidosgames.com/showpost.php?p=1556432&postcount=16)

You posted quotes by 911 Commissioners that were deliberately taken out of context intended to deceive people into thinking they meant something they didn't and believe something they don't.



lets go through it from the top shall we? How about, you take the first name and I shall take second? We study the list we have. All the names. Get their view is that what you want?

So if you post 10 things I have to show all 10 things are lies in order for you to accept that your list is dishonest?

Do you know what hypocrisy is?


You keep kidding yourself that "truthers" are just some obsene internet group made up of weirdos with no knowledge that have no credibility.

If they have any credibility why did they have to make up lies about what 911 Commissioners believe?

badhabitz
21st Jan 2011, 19:09
how are you going to debunk this last video? say that man does not exist? we imagined Raymond L McGovern... ok bro

Edx
21st Jan 2011, 19:13
how are you going to debunk this last video? say that man does not exist? we imagined Raymond L McGovern... ok bro

And some people believe the holocaust never happened and that Evolution doesn't happen.

I'm grilling you on your dishonest selection of quotes, but the main reason your list is fallacious is that its argument from authority. In this case I can name far more and far more educated authorities than you can ever do, so you loose there as well.

My question is why should anyone take you seriously when you clearly have so little regard for when your sources lie to you. Please answer that point for once.

badhabitz
21st Jan 2011, 19:19
now you are borderline trolling. I am done here. The sources I have used were not lies. They were taken at a particular date. People change their opinions. People switch from side to side. I proved the second guy in the list thinks its a coverup... you are meant to do number 1 and 3... are you going to? i get on to number 4 then... btw. some people believe in evolution AND creation

yeah you gonna find me someone who has better credentials...

Raymond L. McGovern – Former Chairman, National Intelligence Estimates, CIA. Responsible for President’s Daily Brief (PDB) for Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. 27-year CIA veteran. Former U.S. Army Intelligence Officer

Edx
21st Jan 2011, 19:26
now you are borderline trolling.

Irony much? :rolleyes:


I am done here. The sources I have used were not lies. They were taken at a particular date. People change their opinions. People switch from side to side.

Wrong, the 911 Commissioners you quoted NEVER believed what truthers claim they believe.

They didn't "change their minds" later, the quotes you posted from the 911 Commissioners were always dishonest since whoever collected them had to read the quote in context in order to find the quote in the first place.


I proved the second guy in the list thinks its a coverup... you are meant to do number 1 and 3... are you going to? i get on to number 4 then...

Why do you keep ignoring me?

1. You are making an argument from authority - a fallacy. I can show you far more "authorities" with far more credentials than anyone you can. We could start with the same people you tried to quote supporting you - the 911 Commissioners.

2. You posted out of context quotes to imply people believe things they never did and you just don't care that you posted those lies.

If someone deliberately quoted your words out of context to pretend you said something you didn't, what would you think of that person? And what would you think of them if they didn't care when you showed them?

badhabitz
21st Jan 2011, 19:41
you are avoiding the real issues. I have explained myself compeltely. I just wanted a list of names to show you. The list may be PARTIALLY inaccurate yes, that does not mean there is not truth to part of it. Like I have proven to you. 2nd Name on the list thinks coverup? Ok? see how that worked? I backed up the information with a video OF THE GUY saying cover up. Is that acceptable at me trying to prove there are experts in the field who believe cover up?? Do you believe that is real? can we establish the youtube video with a man in it is real? do you even accept he exists?

I am trying to prove that there are real people with real credentials who believe this stuff. Not just whacky "conspiracy nuts" and people with nothing better to do. Experts in their field just giving their views.
I think I have proven that.

Edx
21st Jan 2011, 19:48
In this case inaccurate = lies.

I have already said that an argument from authority is wrong, but that I can name far more credentialed experts than you can, including the people you originally tried to use to support your case - the 911 Commissioners. I could quote top structural engineers and explosive experts, but that wouldn't matter to you. I could quote the hundreds of peer reviewed papers published in legitimate respected mainstream journals where none support your position, but none of that will matter.

So, you want to argue from authority? You will loose. You're a small fringe group.

The point I am making to you however is that the truth movement don't care when they are lied to so long as it supports their beliefs, which is why you don't care that you posted a bunch of out of context LIES about what the 911 Commissioners said and believe. And I know you'll continue to ignore the fact that they were intentionally taken out of context because you don't really care about truth.

badhabitz
21st Jan 2011, 20:02
The info is good but just so we can move on

Ok dude just for you. I expect somewhere out there in the world a so called "truther" MAY have exaggerated something, or cut corners to fit their claims. Hell, you know what, maybe they made a MISTAKE? accidents happen and who is perfect? But I will also say that many experts shift backward and forward on the matter. You can be certain that many fear for their lives if they speak out.
so not one government or mainstream media outlet ever lied or twisted the truth in any way? you have a lot of faith in people and groups you don't know.

But I forget in your world, there is never secrecy and you know everything everyone could possibly know in the world ever yeah?

ps. If I am a "truther" what does that make you? a falser? Everyone should search for truth.

oscarMike
21st Jan 2011, 21:08
Only that Osama was from a wealthy family and was way more educated than you ever will be.

During Russian intervention in Afghanistan against Mujahideen, there were non stopable American propaganda about Russians being "nazis" and terrorist and there were also involved some serious financing of mujahideen by American government, arming and training also! The arms included Stinger missiles, shoulder-fired, antiaircraft weapons that they used against Soviet helicopters and that later were in circulation among terrorists who have fired such weapons at commercial airliners. Between $3–$20 billion in U.S. funds were funneled into the country to train and equip troops with weapons.. During that time Osama attended U.S. grounds for specialization and further training!
25 years later those same mujahideens with Osama in charge, allegedly created 911 massacre..
Talking about irony...

Considering discussion about 911 and two sides that are arguing (specifically badhabitz and everyone else):)

badhabitz has his own opinion which he backed with some info that indicate possible inconsistencies that might or might not happen. The other side also showed some credible info!
Mujahideens could have hijacked those plains and smashed it into Trade Center buildings(it wouldn't be first time that radical islamist do some crazy sht) The fact is also that A LOT of inconsistencies and illogical things occurred during that terrorist attack! And we will never know for sure what actually happen. Fact is that in years to come, American Government become a lot richer on oil, narcotics and other resources.
Also saying that badhabitz is speaking naive and stupid thing is same as believing in official statements and everything that YOUR government serves you!

All points aside, bottom line is that a lot of innocent people lost their lives on that dreadful day! Who did what?.. Government or military, terrorist or no terrorist, all that sht is now pointless and irrelevant...

badhabitz
21st Jan 2011, 21:41
You say that they use black magic, implying not a belief in magic, but the existence and usefulness of magic. Do tell us more, for science's sake.

Well after your hidden message yesterday I was maybe hoping you could tell me.

The rabbit hole gets deeper and darker so be warned guys...

This is very disturbing information. Be warned. Not pleasant. This guy is ex FBI.
NZU8o2aoNUA

also

VW6zjNDt8HQ

St. Mellow
21st Jan 2011, 21:58
This guy is ex FBI. (which gives him no credibility I suppose?)

Fallacy. Appeal to accomplishment.

Edx
21st Jan 2011, 23:44
Ok dude just for you. I expect somewhere out there in the world a so called "truther" MAY have exaggerated something, or cut corners to fit their claims.

How about all of them? :rolleyes:



Hell, you know what, maybe they made a MISTAKE? accidents happen and who is perfect?

Sure, some are likely mistakes based on their own incompetence.

But IN THIS CASE it is deliberate deception, since whoever cut those quotes out had to have read the quotes in context first. So they will have known in advance that the 911 Commissioners didn't mean what they were making them out to mean.


But I will also say that many experts shift backward and forward on the matter. You can be certain that many fear for their lives if they speak out.

Once again, no one changed their minds. The quotes from the 911 Commissioners never believed what your source that quoted them imply they believe.

There's no getting around it, you posted a bunch of lies. Now are you going to be a bit more skeptical about that same source and others that use the same quotes?


so not one government or mainstream media outlet ever lied or twisted the truth in any way? you have a lot of faith in people and groups you don't know.

Never said I believe everything the government say, I'm very critical of the government. The question is whether truthers claims against the government stand up to facts and logic and they do not.


But I forget in your world, there is never secrecy and you know everything everyone could possibly know in the world ever yeah?

You know what a strawman is? :rolleyes:


ps. If I am a "truther" what does that make you? a falser? Everyone should search for truth.

Truthers only CLAIM to be interested in truth. Its a joke that they call themselves truthers.

Edx
21st Jan 2011, 23:48
Between $3–$20 billion in U.S. funds were funneled into the country to train and equip troops with weapons.. During that time Osama attended U.S. grounds for specialization and further training!

As far as I'm aware Osama did not work with the mujahideen backed US and resented the whole thing,


Also saying that badhabitz is speaking naive and stupid thing is same as believing in official statements and everything that YOUR government serves you!

Strawman. I don't know anyone that does that except dumb republicans like these guys (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/sarah-palin/8267035/Sarah-Palin-folk-tribute-song-is-internet-hit.html)

Saerain
22nd Jan 2011, 00:37
Truthers only CLAIM to be interested in truth. Its a joke that they call themselves truthers. Indeed. 'Scientology' comes to mind as a similar case. That's a hell of a funny misnomer. Locunomer?

oscarMike
22nd Jan 2011, 01:00
As far as I'm aware Osama did not work with the mujahideen backed US and resented the whole thing

Quote from BBC, Wiki and several other sources:

"In mid-1979, about the same time as the Soviet Union deployed troops into Afghanistan, the United States began giving several hundred million dollars a year in aid to the Afghan Mujahideen insurgents fighting the Afghan Marxist government and the Soviet Army in Operation Cyclone. Along with native Afghan mujahideen were Muslim volunteers from other countries, popularly known as Afghan Arabs. After leaving college in 1979 Bin Laden joined Abdullah Azzam to fight the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan and lived for a time in Peshawar. Bin Laden's wealth and connections assisted his interest in supporting the mujahideen. After the Soviet deployment, Pakistan's military ruler General Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq started accepting financial aid from the Western powers to aid the mujahideen. US "Paramilitary Officers" from the CIA's Special Activities Division were instrumental in training, equipping and sometimes leading Mujihadeen forces against the Soviet Army.
The BBC, in an article published shortly after the 9/11 attacks, stated that bin Laden "received security training from the CIA itself, according to Middle Eastern analyst Hazhir Teimourian."

I know, it was a "cold war"! At that time Americans would finance nazis just to fight Communist regime.. but as you can see, american government and mujahideen used to be one happy family.

El_Bel
22nd Jan 2011, 01:09
Quote from BBC, Wiki and several other sources:

"In mid-1979, about the same time as the Soviet Union deployed troops into Afghanistan, the United States began giving several hundred million dollars a year in aid to the Afghan Mujahideen insurgents fighting the Afghan Marxist government and the Soviet Army in Operation Cyclone. Along with native Afghan mujahideen were Muslim volunteers from other countries, popularly known as Afghan Arabs. After leaving college in 1979 Bin Laden joined Abdullah Azzam to fight the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan and lived for a time in Peshawar. Bin Laden's wealth and connections assisted his interest in supporting the mujahideen. After the Soviet deployment, Pakistan's military ruler General Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq started accepting financial aid from the Western powers to aid the mujahideen. US "Paramilitary Officers" from the CIA's Special Activities Division were instrumental in training, equipping and sometimes leading Mujihadeen forces against the Soviet Army.
The BBC, in an article published shortly after the 9/11 attacks, stated that bin Laden "received security training from the CIA itself, according to Middle Eastern analyst Hazhir Teimourian."

I know, it was a "cold war"! At that time Americans would finance nazis just to fight Communist regime.. but as you can see, american government and mujahideen used to be one happy family.

Just because Edx didn't know it, doesnt make it a secret. This is a known fact and in no way, something that the truthers discovered. Also it doesn't support the conspiracy theories. Alliances are always temporary. Osama got pissed with the US and he was threatening them for decade(s?) before the strike.

badhabitz
22nd Jan 2011, 01:16
The Boogeyman Bin Laden

Evidence of his involvement in 9/11 attacks?

Fake confession tapes?

41UAnkQARFs

and

19eVwHAbmRI

oscarMike
22nd Jan 2011, 01:57
Just because Edx didn't know it, doesnt make it a secret. This is a known fact and in no way, something that the truthers discovered. Also it doesn't support the conspiracy theories. Alliances are always temporary. Osama got pissed with the US and he was threatening them for decade(s?) before the strike.

I know it's a known fact! Of course it is!! I never said it was a secret or something that i found or realized! It's just that Edx said that he wasnt aware of Bin Laden involvement in Afghan wars so I just put some quotes for him! And I wasn't implying no conspiracy theory of any kind! The whole point was that American government fund and invested billions of $ in mujahideens during the war against soviets, and two decades later those mujahideen terrorized their country in most gruesome manner!

El_Bel
22nd Jan 2011, 02:03
I know it's a known fact! Of course it is!! I never said it was a secret or something that i found or realized! It's just that Edx said that he wasnt aware of Bin Laden involvement in Afghan wars so I just put some quotes for him! And I wasn't implying no conspiracy theory of any kind! The whole point was that American government fund and invested billions of $ in mujahideens during the war against soviets, and two decades later those mujahideen terrorized their country in most gruesome manner!

Sorry mate, with so many conspiracy theorists in this forum, i got a bit confused. Sorry again.. :o

badhabitz
22nd Jan 2011, 02:06
Let us never tolerate these theories...?? why can we not discuss the biggest most horrible crime in our history??

zOMKdILRM5I


Lying Politicians

OgfzqulvhlQ

K^2
22nd Jan 2011, 08:51
Edx,

This is the 2nd person in that original list

Raymond L. McGovern – Former Chairman, National Intelligence Estimates, CIA. Responsible for President’s Daily Brief (PDB) for Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. 27-year CIA veteran. Former U.S. Army Intelligence Officer.

* Video: "I think at simplest terms, there’s a cover-up. The 9/11 report is a joke. The question is: What’s being covered up? Is it gross malfeasance, gross negligence? Now there are a whole bunch of unanswered questions. And the reason they’re unanswered is because this administration will not answer the questions. This is the bottom line for me; just as Hitler in 1933 cynically exploited the burning of the parliament building, the Reichstag, this is exactly what our President did in exploiting 9/11. The cynical way in which he played on our trauma, used it to justify attacking, making a war of aggression on a country that he knew had nothing to do with 9/11. That suffices for me. That’s certainly an impeachable offense."

Now, this guy is talking sense. He doesn't jump to ridiculous conclusions, like 9/11 was inside job. Only points out that the reports are terrible, and that it implies a cover-up on some level, which is obviously in place. We don't know why that cover-up is in place, but the fact that a tragedy is being exploited with some information still being kept secret from the public is bad enough.

Romeo
22nd Jan 2011, 10:12
now you are borderline trolling.
If I ever see you, of all people, write that again, I will ban you on the spot.

For a full page and a half people were pointing out the glaringly obvious problem in your post: MOST OF IT'S INFORMATION WAS INCORRECT, DELIBERATELY USED OUT OF CONTEXT TO TRICK ANYONE WHO WANTS TO BELIEVE THERE'S A CONSPIRACY.

As K^2 has already mentioned, common sense is about the only tool needed to debunk this whole conspiracy: The US would be better served by not committing such a large and consequential attact against itself, as this causes intense scrutiny and thousands of people being involved. You list compartmentalisation as a reason no grunt could be in the know... What do you suppose happens when one of those grunts finds basic information that they would still need to know in order to perform their job. "Jeez, these airplane bits sure look like controlled demolition charges. Must be a new model of plane, oh well." Seems somewhat unlikely. The US could have simply car bombed less expensive areas, with a smaller population, under the promise more attacks would happen unless they took the fight the terrorists. But no. Clearly it was far more fiscally responsible to damage their centre of defense and completely annihilate their economic core. Silly me.

Also on the page of common sense is that, once again, even with the ideal of compartmentalization, you still have the logistics issue of shipping in controlled explosives, and having someone detonate those. The inexplicable camera footage of planes flying into the buildings. Eye witnesses claiming planes flied into the buildings. Making sure on of the hundreds/thousands of people involved knew nothing (And never thought to ask) and that they're so incompetent at their job they wouldn't have noticed irregularities.

If you want to make a point that betreys the memories of tens of thousands of victims you make DAMN SURE you have a case, supported by non-contradictory evidence, and one that can stand up to the concept of common sense. Incompatency being at fault for 9/11? Sure, I could believe that, if the evidence was there. Staged attack by the US government? You sound like an idiot, and one who couldn't care less about something like the truth get in the way of a story with so many bodies in it.

Edx
22nd Jan 2011, 12:53
Quote from BBC, Wiki and several other sources:

"In mid-1979, about the same time as the Soviet Union deployed troops into Afghanistan, the United States began giving several hundred million dollars a year in aid to the Afghan Mujahideen insurgents fighting the Afghan Marxist government and the Soviet Army in Operation Cyclone. Along with native Afghan mujahideen were Muslim volunteers from other countries, popularly known as Afghan Arabs. After leaving college in 1979 Bin Laden joined Abdullah Azzam to fight the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan and lived for a time in Peshawar. Bin Laden's wealth and connections assisted his interest in supporting the mujahideen. After the Soviet deployment, Pakistan's military ruler General Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq started accepting financial aid from the Western powers to aid the mujahideen. US "Paramilitary Officers" from the CIA's Special Activities Division were instrumental in training, equipping and sometimes leading Mujihadeen forces against the Soviet Army.
The BBC, in an article published shortly after the 9/11 attacks, stated that bin Laden "received security training from the CIA itself, according to Middle Eastern analyst Hazhir Teimourian."


My knowledge of the history of Bin Laden is admittedly a little rusty, however the fact is that he resented US involvement and the link between "the CIA and Bin Laden" is wildly exaggerated by conspiracy theorists. There was a difference between the Afgan volunteers (known as the "Arab Afghans") which were Bin Laden's followers and the US backed mujahideen even though they fought alongside each other. Most people don't know that there is a difference.

http://www.911myths.com/html/bin_ladin_links_to_the_cia.html

Lots of to read through there.

EDIT:


I know, it was a "cold war"! At that time Americans would finance nazis just to fight Communist regime.. but as you can see, american government and mujahideen used to be one happy family.

The mujahideen were not terrorists. You are acting like the mujahideen and Bin Laden's followers were the same. That is not true.

badhabitz
22nd Jan 2011, 13:42
You guys are amazing. Can we please drop the Nationalism for a second. When you talk about Countries, USA did this, JAPAN and UK did that... do you think all Germans were like Hitler? Were all Germans Nazis during World War II???? NO... Hitler fooled the good people of Germany like Bush fooled the USA. how hard is it for you guys to realise, YOUR OWN countries have BAD people running them. I am British but that does not mean I am going to stand up for any British person BEFORE a NON British person?? should i defend murderers in my country over innocent civilians from the next?? Drop the nationalism it gets you no where. I love the UK, I hate wickedness and corruption? Ok? who doesn't..? I am not out to hurt or troll anyone. It is very important info. Now please, back to the debate.


I have stated that it would not take thousands of government and military personel. we have THOUSANDS of people coming out saying coverup.


Anyone gonna try and debunk the Osama Confession tapes?? found in a house in Kandahar...

Illuminati exists outside of Deus Ex, wake up people...

VectorM
22nd Jan 2011, 13:52
You are completely incapable of arguing with anyone, without strawmaning them, aren't you?

badhabitz
22nd Jan 2011, 14:02
I don't like arguing.

More Illuminati info. This guy has not been seen or heard from in years. John Todd.

DerUFYMExS8


THE 9/11 COVER UP - If this guy is lying... WHY IS HE LYING... WHO TOLD HIM TO?? oh yeah, he is also dead... not too long after this interview.

7nD7dbkkBIA

Edx
22nd Jan 2011, 14:31
I haven't really looked at U93 too much. But suppose the crash site was faked. Where did the real U93 go? There were way too many people on board for them to try and land it somewhere quietly. It would have to be shot down. If it was shot down, it explains the fake crash site, because it's often possible to see damage done by missile on the crash debris.
.

Since I'm bored I might as well quickly reply to the U93 thing as well.

badhabitz posted a video that we can't watch because its been taken down, but he writes:


now you will tell me my eyes do actually see plane wreckage, seats with bodies in, wings, a tail section, 2 engines weighing... how many tons?? vanish into thin air... oh but ofcourse just another of the many mysteries, unanswered questions, strange happenings and anomolies of that day.

So lets start with 1. Plane wreckage.

There is no reason to think that the wreckage looks suspicious. The quotes truthers always use refer to it like it was errie or that it was LIKE someone just dumped some trash in a hole. They don't actually mean that literally.

ff7h7Ll8Dl4

The video above is regarding Pacific Southwest Airlines Flight 1771 which crashed on December 7, 1987. everyone on board died. Like United 93 it crashed at high speeds, left an impact crater and scattered small pieces of light weight debris 7-8 miles away from the crash site.

Detective Bill Wammock of the San Luis Obispo County Sheriff’s Office from the video:

“[We saw] nothing that resembled an airliner... we went on for hours, before we heard the news reports of a missing airliner, believing that we were dealing with a small airplane full of newspapers that had crashed. We saw no pieces of the aircraft that were larger than, maybe, a human hand. It did not look like a passenger aircraft.”

Do you think that he believes PSA Flight 1771 didn't crash there? Of course not but you know that if this was a quote from 9/11, truthers would quote him out of context to claim that's what he meant.

Look how easy it would be... "[We saw] nothing that resembled an airliner...We saw no pieces of the aircraft.... It did not look like a passenger aircraft.”. Yet that is exactly how truther's quote people.

Lets see what other similar crashes looked like and their debris:

1991 UA 585 crash scene (http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/ua585.jpg)
Remains of an RAF Canberra bomber (http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/Canberra.jpg)
Remains of Swissair flight 111 (http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/SwissAirFlight111a-large.jpg)
Remains of Swissair flight 111 - 2 (http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/SwissAirFlight111b-large.jpg)
Remains of Swissair flight 111 - 3 - cockpit reconstruction (http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/SwissAirFlight111c-large.jpg)

Compare the remains of Swissair Flight 11 with the remains of United 93:
Remains of United 93 - 1 Container filled with debris (http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/Shanksvillefinalsweep2-large.jpg)
Remains of United 93 - 2 Large piece of aircraft fuselage (http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/P200061-1.jpg)
Remains of flight 93 - 3 (http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/P200062-1.jpg)
GTE Airfone from Flight 93 (http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/Flight93Airphonephotocopy.jpg)
United 93's Engine (http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/Flight93engine.jpg)

There's plenty more picture to look at but I think I should move on.

Another major claim truthers make about United 93 is that there were no body parts or human remains. To prove this they often quote Wally Miller, most notably in Loose Change which uses the following quotes:


"It looked like somebody just dropped a bunch of metal out of the sky"
...
"It looked like someone took a scrap truck, dug a 10-foot ditch and dumped all this trash into it"
...
"I stopped being coroner after about 20 minutes, because there were no bodies there"
...
"I have not, to this day, seen a single drop of blood. Not a drop"

The implication therefore is that Wally Miller thought it didn't look like an plane crash and he had no work to do because there was no body parts/remains to work with.

This however is a complete lie and like the 911 Commissioners badhabitz quoted out of context earlier they would have had to read these quotes in context to get these quotes in the first place

For a start, we already know what Miller meant when he said "it was LIKE" someone dropped a bunch of metal out the sky. He wasn't being literal, he doesn't and never did believe that no plane crashed there. The crash of PSA Flight 1771 as I mentioned earlier also had similar descriptions from people.

But what about those body parts/human remains?

Well lets put one of those quotes in context. In orange is the quote Loose Change snipped out and in green is the relevant part they ignored.


...Miller was familiar with scenes of sudden and violent death, although none quite like this. Walking in his gumboots, the only recognisable body part he saw was a piece of spinal cord, with five vertebrae attached. 'I've seen a lot of highway fatalities where there's fragmentation,' Miller said. 'The interesting thing about this particular case is that I haven't, to this day, 11 months later, seen any single drop of blood. Not a drop. The only thing I can deduce is that the crash was over in half a second. There was a fireball 15-20 metres high, so all of that material just got vaporised.'"

- [source (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/09/09/1031115990570.html)]

So Miller didn't say there were no body parts or human remains he said there were no intact bodies. There is simply no honest way you could ever glean what truthers claim he meant that from the article.

Here's another:


As coroner, responsible for returning human remains, Miller has been forced to share with the families information that is unimaginable. As he clinically recounts to them, holding back very few details, the 33 passengers, seven crew and four hijackers together weighed roughly 7,000 pounds. They were essentially cremated together upon impact. Hundreds of searchers who climbed the hemlocks and combed the woods for weeks were able to find about 1,500 mostly scorched samples of human tissue totalling less than 600 pounds, or about 8 percent of the total.

Miller was among the very first to arrive after 10:06 on the magnificently sunny morning of September 11. He was stunned at how small the smoking crater looked, he says, "like someone took a scrap truck, dug a 10-foot ditch and dumped all this trash into it." Once he was able to absorb the scene, Miller says, "I stopped being coroner after about 20 minutes, because there were no bodies there. It became like a giant funeral service." As a funeral director, Miller says, he is honoured and humbled to preside over what has become essentially an immense cemetery stretching far into the scenic wooded mountain ridge. He considers it the final resting place of 40 national heroes.
- [source (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A56110-2002May8&notFound=true)]

So in context he was actually saying that he stopped being a typical coroner because there were no intact bodies only mostly small cremated body parts.

How can someone honestly read that article and get the impression that Wally Miller didn't find any body parts or human remains? It clearly says in the same article that hundreds of searchers found 1,500 pieces of human remains totalling around 600 pounds. Miller also said he identified at least 12 (http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010929somerset0929p3.asp) of the victims through their dental records and fingerprints. Yet truthers are such shameless liars that they try and use quotes from Miller to suggest that he believes no human remains were found and that he believes or believed no plane crashed there. Is it any wonder that Wally Miller is always so frustrated by truthers (http://www.archive.org/details/interview-miller) who try and question him on these quotes?

That should do... one last thing, according to truthers that say United 93 didn't crash in Shanksville they claim its so obvious that it was all faked. My response is always, if its so obvious why not even one of the hundreds of people involved in the cleanup and no experts investigating these things think so? Unless the claim is that they are all lying. Or why, if the crash site could have looked less suspicious why they apparently intentionally made it look like no plane crashed there and presumably just got lucky enough that no one apart from a bunch of fringe incompetent conspiracy theorists think there's anything wrong with it.

Another interesting point is that truthers will say its suspicious we don't have black boxes from the planes that hit the WTC, even if they are not claiming that no planes hit the WTC. Yet, these same truthers will say that Flight 77 that hit the Pentagon and United 93's crash's were staged, even though we have the black boxes for those crashes! If it was so easy to fake a black box for the faked crashes, why didn't they do that for the other two planes if not having them looks suspicious?

The bottom line is that if a truther tells you something its probably wrong about damn near everything back to front, I can't recall a claim from truthers where the truth wasn't twisted beyond belief. The reason conspiracy theorists claims like this can be convincing to us is because people who don't know any better assume that surely these people couldn't possibly be such compulsive liars or so completely incompetent that they could be so utterly wrong about everything.

El_Bel
22nd Jan 2011, 15:26
He doesn't like arguing. People stop feeding him. He doesn't listen. He is incapable of reading and comming up with an answer. You are losing your time with him.

(Btw from my experience most people who believe in conspiracy theories, are uneducated people who tend to believe what others tell them anyway. You have to appeal to their emotion to make them believe something. And counter arguments with no spooky music are not sexy and cooooool.)

badhabitz
22nd Jan 2011, 16:21
i like your tactics of avoiding my claims and info and you spamming irrelevant info about other crashes.

Actually it is the conspriacy theorists who usually let their own eyes do the talking. You can bring up irrelevant info about all these other crashes in history all day long, we are not talking about those crashes. When we look at the footage on the day of Pentagon strike and Flight 93 it just does not ADD UP. Where is the tail section?

Why would these witnesses and people come forward? Why would they suddenly do this?

Sorry to those who might be offended and distressed by all of this. It is a crime still unsolved.

TTzByLM1TTw#t=235s

CHECK 3:55 (and watch whole vid)

just after attack, no plane seen anywhere, floors still standing upright, where is the massive tail section?? the building swallowed the plane up whole, engines,wings, tail everything?? and this pilot could barely fly a light aircraft??

you look at this video I just posted. now open your real eyes and shut everything else out and tell me a Boeing 757 just crashed into that building

K^2
22nd Jan 2011, 17:21
Since I'm bored I might as well quickly reply to the U93 thing as well.
Meh. I never looked at U93 crash in detail. The only reason it is of interest to me is because it's another flight that could have been shot down. Whether or not it was, I don't particularly care. The flights that hit WTC towers obviously hit the WTC towers. What happened there I don't particularly care about either.

The only one I've looked at in depth is the AA 77 and Pentagon. The only claim I'm making is that official report is inconsistent with B757 hit. A Boeing 757 could not have hit Pentagon at angle described and done damage described in the report. It should have completely knocked out a wider section of support beams than the report suggests. The only 3rd party simulation I'm aware of supports that claim. Photographic evidence from Pentagon, on the other hand, is consistent with damage in the report, which makes scenario where AA 77 hit Pentagon rather implausible. There are a bunch of smaller issues, like, I couldn't have hit that wall flying 757, and I have actual flight training. Damage pattern looks suspicious. There should have been more debris outside, and so on. But these I can look at and call them a convergence of random factors. On the other hand, there is absolutely no way that 757 could do what the report claims it did. It's not the matter of odds, but rather of simple physics.

The rest is speculation. Flight had to end up somewhere. The plane that hit Pentagon had to come from somewhere as well. Military shooting down AA 77 just makes sense. A lot more then them letting a plane fly into a restricted flight area without a challenge. Pentagon is located in 30 seconds of flight from Capitol building. Less than 20s from the strict no-fly zone over the Mall. Again, that's circumstantial, but just being told that a known hijacked flight penetrates 12 nautical miles into a restricted flight zone which itself is located within a must-check-in zone that spreads over 30 nautical miles around Washington and then hits the center of all military operations in US, should raise a few eyebrows. You add to that an impact at 460 knots at an incredibly shallow angle, just happening to hit an almost unoccupied section of Pentagon.

You may think that US air force is that incompetent. But if that's true, terrorists are the least of your worries. A military invasion from Cuba starts to sound like a legitimate threat.

Edx
22nd Jan 2011, 17:36
And look now we move swiftly onto the Pentagon.:rolleyes::lmao:

Just like a typical conspiracy theorist badhabitz gets disproved and doesn't acknowledge any errors just moves to the next argument with ease while not dealing with anything he has been shown.

No one here really wants an entire thread that goes on for a hundred pages where you just keep going through every claim conspiracy theorists have ever made.



i like your tactics of avoiding my claims and info and you spamming irrelevant info about other crashes.

Whats irrelevant about them? What exactly did I ignore?

The other crashes had debris just like U93
Other crashes looked like U93's crash
People described it in the same ways people described U93's crash.

What left?

I also showed that you that when you claimed they didn't find human remains it was a complete lie and the evidence truthers use to support it are once again out of context quotes.

So now you've posted the 911 Commission lies and you were completely wrong about U93. Why do you insist on now posting more lies about the Pentagon yet still claim you're seeking truth? You don't even seem at all concerned that the same people you still trust for this information outright lied to you.

Edx
22nd Jan 2011, 17:51
Meh. I never looked at U93 crash in detail. The only reason it is of interest to me is because it's another flight that could have been shot down.

I don't even know how to respond to this.


The only claim I'm making is that official report is inconsistent with B757 hit. A Boeing 757 could not have hit Pentagon at angle described and done damage described in the report.

No that is not correct, you are falling for lies by the same people who lie through their teeth about United 93. There's even plenty of other truthers think the "no plane at the pentagon" claims are nonsense, but not just nonsense they claim its "disinformation" intended to make the truth movement look bad! That's how wrong they think it is!


Photographic evidence from Pentagon, on the other hand, is consistent with damage in the report, which makes scenario where AA 77 hit Pentagon rather implausible. There are a bunch of smaller issues, like, I couldn't have hit that wall flying 757, and I have actual flight training.

If its so freakin obvious why is it only a small bunch of lunatics believe it?


On the other hand, there is absolutely no way that 757 could do what the report claims it did. It's not the matter of odds, but rather of simple physics.

I would ask you for evidence but debating no planers and the Pentagon is a long road of pedantic crazy I'm not sure this forum really needs or wants.


Military shooting down AA 77 just makes sense.

No it does not, it makes no sense at all. Why not just allow the plane to hit the Pentagon rather than creating hundreds of fake witness' that all said they saw a plane hit the Pentagon? Why would they want to go to all that trouble of faking witness', faking an investigation, faking damage to Pentagon (incompetently but no one notices apart from truthers),faking human remains, faking DNA evidence, where hundreds of people involved in the clean up don't notice or are paid off rather than just having the plane hit the building? I have no idea why you think making such a convoluted plot for no practical reason "just makes sense". Your conspiracy requires that these conspirators be complete morons while also being the luckiest people ever and at the same time being complete genius' for pulling it off. Idiot genius'. That's what these conspiracy theories always seem to boil down to.


A lot more then them letting a plane fly into a restricted flight area without a challenge.

Except planes fly near the Pentagon (http://www.911myths.com/assets/images/Pentagn_Approach.jpg) all the time to get to Ronald Regain airport.

I don't understand why people trust truthers for information when they are consistently proven to be liars or so incompetent its impossible to tell the difference.

Fox89
22nd Jan 2011, 18:02
LOL.

Badhabitz, I was about to ask you in your other conspiracy thread what you thought happened on 9/11. It's a simple test you see, helps weed out the radicals from people with interesting ideas. Basically "9/11 WAS A COVER UP" people are the ones you completely ignore because they are so obsessed with 'truth' that they ignore it. It seems you fall into this category so, bad luck.

The problem is, most 9/11 doubters will cling to the smallest irregularity in reports and footage, and cling to facts that either make no sense or are outright lies. Somebody already linked 911myths.com above so that pretty much covers a lot of the specifics.

Also, their attitude is incredible. Three aeroplanes were flown into buildings. Three planes filled with explosive jet fuel. And yet when asked what brought the towers down, they say 'controlled explosives'! A PLANE flew into the building. Well, somebody was at the controls of that plane and the fuel did ignite, so I suppose in that sense it was a controlled explosive.

The same with the JFK assassination. "He was shot by a man with a gun" is, for some reason, too simple an explanation. No no, "he was shot by a DIFFERENT man with a DIFFERENT gun employed by the CIA" makes much more sense! I guarantee you, that if some questionable piece of 'evidence' came to light that Lee Harvey Oswald was a CIA agent, ALL the JFK conspiracy theorists would completely forget about all the so called "indisputable evidence" that "proves" a second gunman. Because to them, the important thing is that it's a conspiracy, and as long as they have that the facts can go screw themselves. To take this ludicrousness to a new level, I came across somebody a few weeks ago suggesting Ayrton Senna had been killed by a sniper as well! A sniper from the forest shot him whilst he was doing 190 mph around a corner in an F1 car. How does that make more sense than "His steering broke and he crashed"!?

You're so desperate to find a sinister truth that you ignore the simple one, no matter what evidence is presented before you. And just so you know, this is an opinion I formed after looking at all the various videos and pseudo-science documentaries the conspiracy theorists show you as well.

Dead-Eye
22nd Jan 2011, 18:58
Is this thread not REALLY, REALLY related to some other threads that ended up with alien sightings, the illuminati and all that jazz??? :scratch:

That's the greatest conspiracy of all!


You say that they use black magic, implying not a belief in magic, but the existence and usefulness of magic. Do tell us more, for science's sake.

Black Magick is totally real. Just because you have never observed it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Magick has a way of insuring that anyone observing it can't actually prove that they observed it, same goes for paranormal events. It's almost like they happen in a way that would make anyone seeing the event sound crazy, so generally they don't talk about it, and sometimes forget it ever happed. This is where I believe the term "group hallucination" came from in psychology, a totally BS concept created to discredit groups that have seen a paranormal event. Or to rationalize the unexplainable to know-it-all scientific types in the same scenario. :wave:


I don't know anyone that does that except dumb republicans like these guys (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/sarah-palin/8267035/Sarah-Palin-folk-tribute-song-is-internet-hit.html) Oh dear, GOD!


Just because Edx didn't know it, doesnt make it a secret. This is a known fact and in no way, something that the truthers discovered. Also it doesn't support the conspiracy theories. Alliances are always temporary. Osama got pissed with the US and he was threatening them for decade(s?) before the strike.
Your own statements are just as much theory as ours. From you're own statement, I could say that alliances are only so temporary because everyone has a hidden objective. And when allies found out about these hidden objective they betray the conspirators behind said objectives. In reality, only the people in Afghanistan know whats going on in Afghanistan, Facts are vary subjective in this world.




As K^2 has already mentioned, common sense is about the only tool needed to debunk this whole conspiracy: The US would be better served by not committing such a large and consequential attact against itself, as this causes intense scrutiny and thousands of people being involved.

Thing is, the Illuminati has imposed such prem da la crop mind control methods, they feel they can get away with being cocky. If anything, from my prospective, 9-11 is just proof they can do this and get away with it.

Remember Bill Cooper predicted 9-11:
http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/7777/William_Cooper_predicts_9_11_ten_weeks_beforehand/
10 weeks before it happened.

So for the people already in the know at the time, 9-11 is the greatest American tragedy ever. Not because so many died, and are still dying, but because they got away with it.

Also from my prospective, common sense tells me that if the Bush Administration had or hadn't planned 9-11, their actions where the same as if they had planned 9-11. Eather way you look at it, their war criminals, and everyone agrees on that much.



If you want to make a point that betreys the memories of tens of thousands of victims you make DAMN SURE you have a case, supported by non-contradictory evidence, and one that can stand up to the concept of common sense. Incompatency being at fault for 9/11? Sure, I could believe that, if the evidence was there. Staged attack by the US government? You sound like an idiot, and one who couldn't care less about something like the truth get in the way of a story with so many bodies in it.
This is obviously a contraversal Issue, it's sort of the at the pencil of if you believe in a New World Order conspiracy or not. If you do, then duh the goverment planned 9-11, if you don't then you don't. Maybe we should define a few rules for these types of topics, like for example:

1:minority-group cannot clam majority-group is tor0llzing.

...work for everyone?

badhabitz
22nd Jan 2011, 18:59
Fox89

You must also be a friend of Lt. Drebins.

5NNOrp_83RU&

I agree the mainstream accepted status quo is at first thought a much nicer way to think about the world we live in, even if it is not real.

Fox89
22nd Jan 2011, 19:09
I agree the mainstream accepted status quo is at first thought a much nicer way to think about the world we live in, even if it is not real.

There's a reason the mainstream accepted status quo is the mainstream accepted status quo. It's because, for the most part, things are actually what they seem. When a woman gets mugged in the street, there was probably no 'reason' other than one man's greed. You think you're part of a special group, one of the few who aren't blind and can see the world for what it is!

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/sheeple.png

Of course there are cover ups and conspiracies and other things. I'm not naive enough to think otherwise, I know the way the world works. But just because they exist that doesn't mean they are everywhere. The simplest explanation is usually the correct one. And the explanation backed up by all the facts is ALWAYS the correct one.

El_Bel
22nd Jan 2011, 19:14
So let me get this straight. They have black magic, they control the president of the US and of other powerful countries, they control the economy, they have all the nukes, they can vote any law they want, but somehow they dont make a move. What are they waiting for exactly?

Fox89
22nd Jan 2011, 19:22
So let me get this straight. They have black magic, they control the president of the US and of other powerful countries, they control the economy, they have all the nukes, they can vote any law they want, but somehow they dont make a move. What are they waiting for exactly?

Dead-Eye is joking though... right? I mean I didn't see some of the earlier posts in your discussion but when I was reading the stuff about black magic it sounded really ironic, so I just thought it was a joke.

...was it not? :scratch:

Dead-Eye
22nd Jan 2011, 19:32
In case this thread has somehow awaken someone, and you're suddenly living in fear, I say fred not!

They are losing, we are winning. Let the Bells of liberty RING!!!


IHsSza46pnE
bZzy76t_OcE

Edx
22nd Jan 2011, 19:37
Thing is, the Illuminati has imposed such prem da la crop mind control methods, they feel they can get away with being cocky. If anything, from my prospective, 9-11 is just proof they can do this and get away with it.

Remember Bill Cooper predicted 9-11:
http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/7777/William_Cooper_predicts_9_11_ten_weeks_beforehand/
10 weeks before it happened.

So for the people already in the know at the time, 9-11 is the greatest American tragedy ever. Not because so many died, and are still dying, but because they got away with it.

Also from my prospective, common sense tells me that if the Bush Administration had or hadn't planned 9-11, their actions where the same as if they had planned 9-11. Eather way you look at it, their war criminals, and everyone agrees on that much.

hahaha, its a good thing you're joking!

El_Bel
22nd Jan 2011, 19:39
You still didn't answer. What are they waiting for if they can do all this things.

K^2
22nd Jan 2011, 19:46
No that is not correct, you are falling for lies by the same people who lie through their teeth about United 93. There's even plenty of other truthers think the "no plane at the pentagon" claims are nonsense, but not just nonsense they claim its "disinformation" intended to make the truth movement look bad! That's how wrong they think it is!
The only thing I'm going off of is the official report. If you are calling people who wrote the official report liars, then yes, we have no disagreement on this.


If its so freakin obvious why is it only a small bunch of lunatics believe it?
I am a particle physicist with proper education in material resistances. I've taken courses at an FAA-certified school, and I've read plenty about aerodynamics and aeronautical engineering in my own time.

What is obvious to me is not so obvious to most other people.


I would ask you for evidence but debating no planers and the Pentagon is a long road of pedantic crazy I'm not sure this forum really needs or wants.
I never said Pentagon was not hit by a plane. In fact, that's pretty much the only thing that could have done the damage. It wasn't hit by a B757, though.

But here, take a look at the simulation. Count the columns knocked out. Then look at the diagram in the official report and note that whatever you do, you come up AT LEAST one short.

Pentagon 9/11 Attack Simulation From Perdue University (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0zLBxvi9NM)


No it does not, it makes no sense at all. Why not just allow the plane to hit the Pentagon rather than creating hundreds of fake witness' that all said they saw a plane hit the Pentagon?
Why not simply hit Pentagon with a plane that's not a B757. You know a lot of people who can tell what buzzed them just overhead, at altitude where it clips light poles, going 460 knots?

Now, if somebody caught it on video, that would be convenient. Too bad there are no cameras that ever point at Pentagon. Like, from every hotel in the area, taping 24/7. Then maybe somebody could go, cease the videos, and never release them to the public. But no, that couldn't happen.


Except planes fly near the Pentagon (http://www.911myths.com/assets/images/Pentagn_Approach.jpg) all the time to get to Ronald Regain airport.
Only somebody who knows nothing about aviation could come up with this defense. When you fly into restricted zone, you are flying an IFR-plan. You are in constant communication with a traffic controller, who assigns you a unique squak code when you first enter the area. A hijacked airplane without a proper squak code is going to light up the ATCs and AFs radar screens the moment it enters the 30 nautical mile radius of the Washington DC. That's kind of there to prevent just this sort of thing from happening.


I don't understand why people trust truthers for information when they are consistently proven to be liars or so incompetent its impossible to tell the difference.
Give it your best shot.

El_Bel
22nd Jan 2011, 20:09
K^2 i don't know anything about columns or anything. I could try, and if you insist i will (as long as you can point me somewhere were it says it clearly so i can understand it) but here are some bits about the Airforce issue that you braught up. I would like to hear your view.


On 9/11 there were only 14 fighter jets on alert in the contiguous 48 states. No computer network or alarm automatically alerted the North American Air Defense Command (NORAD) of missing planes. "They [civilian Air Traffic Control, or ATC] had to pick up the phone and literally dial us," says Maj. Douglas Martin, public affairs officer for NORAD. Boston Center, one of 22 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regional ATC facilities, called NORAD's Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS) three times: at 8:37 am EST to inform NEADS that Flight 11 was hijacked; at 9:21 am to inform the agency, mistakenly, that Flight 11 was headed for Washington (the plane had hit the North Tower 35 minutes earlier); and at 9:41 am to (erroneously) identify Delta Air Lines Flight 1989 from Boston as a possible hijacking. The New York ATC called NEADS at 9:03 am to report that United Flight 175 had been hijacked—the same time the plane slammed into the South Tower. Within minutes of that first call from Boston Center, NEADS scrambled two F-15s from Otis Air Force Base in Falmouth, Mass., and three F-16s from Langley Air National Guard Base in Hampton, Va. None of the fighters got anywhere near the pirated planes.

Why couldn't ATC find the hijacked flights? When the hijackers turned off the planes' transponders, which broadcast identifying signals, ATC had to search 4500 identical radar blips crisscrossing some of the country's busiest air corridors. And NORAD's sophisticated radar? It ringed the continent, looking outward for threats, not inward. "It was like a doughnut," Martin says. "There was no coverage in the middle." Pre-9/11, flights originating in the States were not seen as threats and NORAD wasn't prepared to track them.



In the decade before 9/11, NORAD intercepted only one civilian plane over North America: golfer Payne Stewart's Learjet, in October 1999. With passengers and crew unconscious from cabin decompression, the plane lost radio contact but remained in transponder contact until it crashed. Even so, it took an F-16 1 hour and 22 minutes to reach the stricken jet. Rules in effect back then, and on 9/11, prohibited supersonic flight on intercepts. Prior to 9/11, all other NORAD interceptions were limited to offshore Air Defense Identification Zones (ADIZ). "Until 9/11 there was no domestic ADIZ," FAA spokesman Bill Schumann tells PM. After 9/11, NORAD and the FAA increased cooperation, setting up hotlines between ATCs and NORAD command centers, according to officials from both agencies. NORAD has also increased its fighter coverage and has installed radar to monitor airspace over the continent.

Dead-Eye
22nd Jan 2011, 20:09
You still didn't answer. What are they waiting for if they can do all this things.

Planet X? I don't know, your not going to get all the answers you want, only you can find the answers by looking within yourself. Lesion to your heart, not you're head; it's oldest rule in the book, just everyone forgot what the hell the book even is (No, I'm not talking about the bible).

Edx
22nd Jan 2011, 20:15
The only thing I'm going off of is the official report. If you are calling people who wrote the official report liars, then yes, we have no disagreement on this.

No, I'm saying you're incompetent and don't know what the official reports say.



I am a particle physicist with proper education in material resistances. I've taken courses at an FAA-certified school, and I've read plenty about aerodynamics and aeronautical engineering in my own time.

Ah right so you're a particle physicist now as well! Don't tell me, you believe the thermite claims have validity too right?


I never said Pentagon was not hit by a plane. In fact, that's pretty much the only thing that could have done the damage. It wasn't hit by a B757, though.

Good to know you're not in exactly the same nut house as I thought.


But here, take a look at the simulation. Count the columns knocked out. Then look at the diagram in the official report and note that whatever you do, you come up AT LEAST one short.

Pentagon 9/11 Attack Simulation From Perdue University (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0zLBxvi9NM)

So why didn't any one else notice this glaring discrepancy except a few fringe conspiracy theorists? Computer models are never going to be 100% accurate because there's so many variables, if you're complaining because it wasn't 100% identical I am afraid I'm underwhelmed.



Why not simply hit Pentagon with a plane that's not a B757.

:hmm:

Uuh... because then you need to fake or convince eye witness' that said they saw a large AA jet hit the Pentagon when they didn't? Because you need to fake an investigation to convince people a plane other than a B757 hit it? Because you need to fake radar data and black box data? Because you need to fake human remains and DNA evidence? Because you need to dispose of the original plane somehow with no one noticing by people that are paid to shut up about it? In other words you just introduced a massive conspiracy instead of just having the plane crash into the building like they did with the WTC.

Imagine you're planning the conspiracy, why would it make more sense to do all of that rather than just have a plane hit the Pentagon the same way you have planes hit the WTC? Why would you make a plot more risky for no reason at all?



You know a lot of people who can tell what buzzed them just overhead, at altitude where it clips light poles, going 460 knots?

You're looking at this backwards again, if you're the conspirators why would you risk hundreds of people seeing and possibly even filming (there was gridlocked traffic with views all around the Pentagon) your plot to crash a plane that isn't a B757 into the Pentagon rather than just actually flying the real plane into the building?

Hundreds of witness', why risk it? You saying that all the witness' are mistaken is very lazy, the question is why don't any support your theory and how did the conspirators know that in advance?


Now, if somebody caught it on video, that would be convenient. Too bad there are no cameras that ever point at Pentagon.

It is far more likely that there was no tape of it than you claiming that conspirators knew in advance that hundreds of people would be fooled, no one would video tape it and that thousands of investigators wouldn't notice Flight 77 didn't crash there and no one would speak out about it

Also, the seized videos seem to be of even worse quality than the security camera at the Pentagon. The video at the hotel (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQeTdrQhqyc) you mentioned for example was in fact released.


Only somebody who knows nothing about aviation could come up with this defense. When you fly into restricted zone, you are flying an IFR-plan. You are in constant communication with a traffic controller, who assigns you a unique squak code when you first enter the area. A hijacked airplane without a proper squak code is going to light up the ATCs and AFs radar screens the moment it enters the 30 nautical mile radius of the Washington DC. That's kind of there to prevent just this sort of thing from happening.

Yet you still think that they can dispatch fighters that quickly to deal with it, sorry, you are ignorant. You know nothing of the situation on 911 regarding the NORAD response, yet you proudly assert that it would be impossible for a plane to fly into that airspace just as you arrogantly assert that it "just makes sense" that all the witness' are mistaken and all evidence of Flight 77 is faked, that none of the thousands of people involved in the clean up and investigation noticed or are all paid off somehow and/or have never spoken out about it and that the original plane was destroyed and passengers murdered as if all that's easier and makes more sense than just having the real plane fly into the building.

K^2
22nd Jan 2011, 20:30
Why couldn't ATC find the hijacked flights? When the hijackers turned off the planes' transponders, which broadcast identifying signals, ATC had to search 4500 identical radar blips crisscrossing some of the country's busiest air corridors.
Ok, that's total nonsense. Lets skip everything air defense related, and just focus on civilian aviation for a moment, because I know how that stuff works. AA 77 had to fly practically over Washington Dulles Itl. That's a Class B airport. FAA requires a transponder on any aircraft within 30 nautical miles of a Class B airport. That's not a post 9/11 reg either. It's been in place for a while. My uni's airport is located within 30 nm of a Class B, so I'm familiar with what happens. If I fly an airplane without a transponder into that 30nm radius, ATC will immediately try to contact me. If I don't reply, I'm going to have a date with a couple of F-16s. And that's a regular international airport with no strategic significance beyond that.

In the decade before 9/11, NORAD intercepted only one civilian plane over North America: golfer Payne Stewart's Learjet, in October 1999. With passengers and crew unconscious from cabin decompression, the plane lost radio contact but remained in transponder contact until it crashed. Even so, it took an F-16 1 hour and 22 minutes to reach the stricken jet.
See, it's not just the truthers who misrepresent the facts. Our CFI was Human Factors, so this incident came up. It wasn't until an hour and change later that the fighter was dispatched to check out the plane. I don't know where an idea that it took a fighter an hour to reach it came from. (Quick look at Wikipedia confirms this.)

Dead-Eye
22nd Jan 2011, 20:37
:hmm:

Uuh... because then you need to fake or convince eye witness' that said they saw a large AA jet hit the Pentagon when they didn't? Because you need to fake an investigation to convince people a plane other than a B757 hit it? Because you need to fake radar data and black box data? Because you need to fake human remains and DNA evidence? Because you need to dispose of the original plane somehow with no one noticing by people that are paid to shut up about it? In other words you just introduced a massive conspiracy instead of just having the plane crash into the building like they did with the WTC.

Imagine you're planning the conspiracy, why would it make more sense to do all of that rather than just have a plane hit the Pentagon the same way you have planes hit the WTC? Why would you make a plot more risky for no reason at all?

Hay, I just recognized my first straw man argument:

You can't say that adding seemingly needless complication to a conspiracy is proof of no conspiracy. The complications to their logic might not make sense to you, but it makes sense to them.

But to answer your question, to the best of my knowledge the military is completely under their control. Solders aren't allowed to say what they think to the press, solders are trained to fallow orders (obvious institutionalization), Solders where kind dumb for joining the military in the first place (Sorry to brake it to our boys). Soldiers are inherently raciest because their job is to kill people "we" don't like. Racism is a method of control.

Given these factors, I would not see it as hard for solders to carry out completely illegal orders without much thought into their actions or the actions of their government and how it's justifiable under the constitution. They are zombies, plain and simple.

Edx
22nd Jan 2011, 20:45
Ok, that's total nonsense. Lets skip everything air defense related, and just focus on civilian aviation for a moment, because I know how that stuff works. AA 77 had to fly practically over Washington Dulles Itl. That's a Class B airport. FAA requires a transponder on any aircraft within 30 nautical miles of a Class B airport. That's not a post 9/11 reg either. It's been in place for a while. My uni's airport is located within 30 nm of a Class B, so I'm familiar with what happens. If I fly an airplane without a transponder into that 30nm radius, ATC will immediately try to contact me. If I don't reply, I'm going to have a date with a couple of F-16s. And that's a regular international airport with no strategic significance beyond that.

You're either not being honest or you're incompetent.


Without transponder information, aircraft had to be located on the primary radar screen which shows a radar signal from every single aircraft in the air – none of them labelled. In order to identify the hijacked aircraft, Air Traffic Controllers had to first cross-reference all of the aircraft appearing on the secondary radar screen with their correlating reading on the primary screen. AA 77, for example, was only located on the primary radar screen five minutes before it crashed into The Pentagon.
- user gumboot on the JREF (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=70300)


See, it's not just the truthers who misrepresent the facts. Our CFI was Human Factors, so this incident came up. It wasn't until an hour and change later that the fighter was dispatched to check out the plane. I don't know where an idea that it took a fighter an hour to reach it came from. (Quick look at Wikipedia confirms this.)

No, it did take that long, how long do you think it took? There are ridiculously low numbers some truthers quote, which ended up being a complete fail because they didnt factor in the time zone change.

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Payne_Stewart

K^2
22nd Jan 2011, 20:55
Ah right so you're a particle physicist now as well!
Have been for some time. Need my credentials?


So why didn't any one else notice this glaring discrepancy except a few fringe conspiracy theorists? Computer models are never going to be 100% accurate because there's so many variables, if you're complaining because it wasn't 100% identical I am afraid I'm underwhelmed.
Let me put it into the simple words you'll understand. The span which carries the main impact mass is wider than the hole. When you figure out how an object that's 9 column spans wide knocks down 8 columns, let me know.


Uuh... because then you need to fake or convince eye witness' that said they saw a large AA jet hit the Pentagon when they didn't?
A jet that was flying a few yards off the ground? Going 460 knots? Do you have ANY idea how fast that is? You ever seen a plane take off right next to you? Well, this is 5 times faster.

Anyone who claims they saw AA logo is a liar. Anyone who claims they know it was a large commercial jet is a liar. Have you seen the official tape of the strike? That's pretty close to what all the eye witnesses saw. Can you positively identify an AA jet liner there? Moving on.


Because you need to fake an investigation to convince people a plane other than a B757 hit it? Because you need to fake radar data and black box data? Because you need to fake human remains and DNA evidence? Because you need to dispose of the original plane somehow with no one noticing by people that are paid to shut up about it? In other words you just introduced a massive conspiracy instead of just having the plane crash into the building like they did with the WTC.
See, that's the problem. With WTC you just need a plane to hit a tower. Easy. With Pentagon... That's a thread through a needle kind of trick. At the aforementioned 460 knots. By somebody who reportedly had trouble with a Cessna. Now, I never have flown a 757, but I have flown a Cessna. In fact, I brought one to a landing. Not that hard. A 757, I have trouble with on a flight sim.

As far as bodies, etc, like I said. I don't think of it as something that was planned long in advance. They shot down AA 77. They needed a crash site. They had a spare drone at Andrews, or wherever. They decided to crash it into a wing of Pentagon. All they needed to do is retrieve bodies from real crash site.

Does that make a whole lot of sense? Not really. But neither does the official version. Heck, it could be something else entirely. All I know is that a 757 could not have done the damage reported, and this is the best I've got with that in mind.


You're looking at this backwards again, if you're the conspirators why would you risk hundreds of people seeing and possibly even filming (there was gridlocked traffic with views all around the Pentagon) your plot to crash a plane that isn't a B757 into the Pentagon rather than just actually flying the real plane into the building?

Hundreds of witness', why risk it? You saying that all the witness' are mistaken is very lazy, the question is why don't any support your theory and how did the conspirators know that in advance?
You answer your own question. Tapes they've released are done at close range. Witnesses would see even less than that. The only dangers are cameras located high up off the ground at fixed positions. There are several hotel cameras positioned like that. These tapes have never been released. It's claimed they show nothing. It's entirely possible, but I've always wondered why they didn't just release footage from all of the ceased tapes. Seems like there'd be no downside to that.


Yet you still think that they can dispatch fighters that quickly to deal with it, sorry, you are ignorant. You know nothing of the situation on 911 regarding the NORAD response, yet you proudly assert that it would be impossible for a plane to fly into that airspace just as you arrogantly assert that it "just makes sense" that all the witness' are mistaken and all evidence of Flight 77 is faked, that none of the thousands of people involved in the clean up and investigation noticed or are all paid off somehow and/or have never spoken out about it and that the original plane was destroyed and passengers murdered as if all that's easier and makes more sense than just having the real plane fly into the building.
Again. AA 77 should have been shot down. All I'm saying is that it likely was. No getting rid of the plane. No getting rid of passengers. All persons involved with shooting it down interested in keeping it quiet.

And yes, they can dispatch fighters that quickly. Again, I've had flight training. I've heard stories of people getting landed by F-16s. Andrews AFB located in DC is pretty much there just to make sure that fighters can be over Capitol in minutes. It would take 757 approximately 10 minutes from time it entered restricted space to impact with Pentagon. It would take Andrews about 5 to scramble jets. That's assuming they didn't get any in the air as soon as the attacks started, like they were supposed to.

K^2
22nd Jan 2011, 21:02
No, it did take that long, how long do you think it took? There are ridiculously low numbers some truthers quote, which ended up being a complete fail because they didnt factor in the time zone change.

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Payne_Stewart
Last contact: 1327z
F-16 dispatched: 1454z
F-16 completes inspection: 1512z

Note that all times are Zulu times. No time zones. See the time between F-16 being dispatched and it COMPLETING investigation is less than 30 minutes? And how did it take the fighter 1:22 to get there? Right...


You're either not being honest or you're incompetent.
Well, so far I've been pointing out your incompetence. It'd be nice to see you try that for a change.

Transponder system exists specifically to prevent these kinds of things from happening. Now, if I really wanted to hide from ATC, I'd squak VFR. That'd buy me some time when I entered Washington Dulles 30nm radius. But it won't get you into restricted space.

Edx
22nd Jan 2011, 21:02
Hay, I just recognized my first straw man argument:

Apparently you need to lean what a strawman is then.


You can't say that adding seemingly needless complication to a conspiracy is proof of no conspiracy. The complications to their logic might not make sense to you, but it makes sense to them.

If someone going to claim "it makes sense that..." and then follow this with a ridiculously convoluted plot that requires the conspirators to be complete genius, completely incompetent and also the luckiest people alive then its not a fallacy to point out that it actually makes more sense for them to, for example, just crash the plane into the building.

I don't see how its a fallacy to point out how unlikely the conspiracy theory is. Such as when truthers try and give a motive for 911, like when truthers say the government did it to give them reason to attack Iraq and you point out that if they were to do that it means they're idiots because they created absolutely no links to Iraq with their plot and none of the hijackers were even Iraqi but most were Saudi's a state that the US are allies with, they had to make up connection and get caught lying and their own 911 Commissioners were against the connection they drew. Or when truthers claim they did it to get an oil pipline through Afganistan but are reminded that if they did they went to all that trouble you'd have thought that 10 years later they'd have done it by now.

It is not a fallacy to point out someone suggesting a plot that requires absurd inhuman luck, advanced knowledge that everyone was going to go fine and that they decided to do things that were inordinately more risky for no benefit at all.

When Creationists suggest a massive conspiracy in science to keep Creationism out of mainstream science, its also not a fallacy to point out how ridiculously unlikely that is.


But to answer your question, to the best of my knowledge the military is completely under their control. Solders aren't allowed to say what they think to the press, solders are trained to fallow orders (obvious institutionalization), Solders where kind dumb for joining the military in the first place (Sorry to brake it to our boys). Soldiers are inherently raciest because their job is to kill people "we" don't like. Racism is a method of control.

Its almost as if we didn't have anything called wikileaks. :rolleyes:

But you seem to think that not only did all the military personnel have such little problem killing thousands of their own citizens that they wouldn't say anything but you ignore the fact that its not just the military that were involved in the investigations and cleanup.


They are zombies, plain and simple.

I dare you to go tell some people in the military that if the government told them to keep quiet about them murdering thousands of their own citizens on 911 that they would keep quiet about it. Might want to have 911 on speed dial when you get punched in the face.

Edx
22nd Jan 2011, 21:13
Last contact: 1327z
F-16 dispatched: 1454z
F-16 completes inspection: 1512z

Note that all times are Zulu times. No time zones. See the time between F-16 being dispatched and it COMPLETING investigation is less than 30 minutes? And how did it take the fighter 1:22 to get there? Right...


"At 0933:38 EDT (6 minutes and 20 seconds after N47BA acknowledged the previous clearance), the controller instructed N47BA to change radio frequencies and contact another Jacksonville ARTCC controller. The controller received no response from N47BA. The controller called the flight five more times over the next 4 1/2 minutes but received no response.

About 0952 CDT,7 a USAF F-16 test pilot from the 40th Flight Test Squadron at Eglin Air Force Base (AFB), Florida, was vectored to within 8 nm of N47BA. About 0954 CDT, at a range of 2,000 feet from the accident airplane and an altitude of about 46,400 feet, the test pilot made two radio calls to N47BA but did not receive a response".
- NTSB report (http://www.ntsb.gov/Publictn/2000/AAB0001.htm)

So you disagree with the NTSB, do you? It clearly shows there's a time zone change, I gave you the link to all the information yet you ignored it.



Well, so far I've been pointing out your incompetence. It'd be nice to see you try that for a change.

So why did you ignore the information about the fact that Flight 77 was only found 5 minutes before impact? Why did you leave out the fact that without transponder information they have to switch to the primary radar screen which shows very little information about the aircraft? You leave it out, because otherwise people might doubt how simple you make it out to be to have found Flight 77 and how fast the response should have been.

K^2
22nd Jan 2011, 21:22
About 0952 CDT,7 a USAF F-16 test pilot from the 40th Flight Test Squadron at Eglin Air Force Base (AFB), Florida, was vectored to within 8 nm of N47BA. About 0954 CDT, at a range of 2,000 feet from the accident airplane and an altitude of about 46,400 feet, the test pilot made two radio calls to N47BA but did not receive a response".
Erm... That's 2 minutes between it was vectored to the target and it reached the target... Again, how did it take a fighter an hour 1:22 to get to the plane? They took their sweet time to send one over, but once it was sent, it got there fast.

So why did you ignore the information about the fact that Flight 77 was only found 5 minutes before impact? Why did you leave out the fact that without transponder information they have to switch to the primary radar screen which shows very little information about the aircraft? You leave it out, because otherwise people might doubt how simple you make it out to be to have found Flight 77 and how fast the response should have been.
As I said, it's absurd. If they don't have a way to immediately see which aircraft has no transponder, the whole system is a joke. I know FAA doesn't work like that. I'm not familiar with the actual ATC equipment, so I can't point you to a specific knob they'd have to twist. I know that when people flew their Cessnas into places they weren't supposed to, that resulted in a prompt response with or without the transponder.

I'll certainly check it out. But this sounds like a bunch of ass-covering to me. Blame it on equipment.

Besides, if you have a better explanation for what actually happened to AA 77, I'd like to hear it. All I know for certain is that it did not impact Pentagon.

Dead-Eye
22nd Jan 2011, 21:27
I dare you to go tell some people in the military that if the government told them to keep quiet about them murdering thousands of their own citizens on 911 that they would keep quiet about it. Might want to have 911 on speed dial when you get punched in the face.
Have you talked to the grunts in the military? The conversation goes something like this:
_krSHP3h8kc
Or they don't say anything, and keep their mouth shut.

They probably believe the official story because they never thought to think about looking into it. Even when they may have taken part in the conspiracy. Let me ask you, do you think the military promotes solders to think for themselves, and question weather orders are constitutional or not?

Apparently you need to lean what a strawman is then.
I didn't lean anything!



If someone going to claim "it makes sense that..." and then follow this with a ridiculously convoluted plot that requires the conspirators to be complete genius, completely incompetent and also the luckiest people alive then its not a fallacy to point out that it actually makes more sense for them to, for example, just crash the plane into the building.

I haven't made clams on this thread yet. I'm just saying the Razor is a lie. I'm also saying that you cannot underestimate the intelligence of the Illuminati, they are the most intelligent people on the face of the planet.

Edit: Thinking about it now, Alex Jones is like Cartman, if Cartman was a conspiracy theorist.

badhabitz
22nd Jan 2011, 21:40
I haven't made clams on this thread yet. I'm just saying the Razor is a lie. I'm also saying that you cannot underestimate the intelligence of the Illuminati, they are the most intelligent people on the face of the planet.

Thats if they are human beings and not something else... :eek:

I love Alex Jones for his straight talking.

ChrisVCB
22nd Jan 2011, 21:43
I love Alex Jones for his straight talking.

I lol'd.

Fox89
22nd Jan 2011, 21:57
I haven't made claims on this thread yet. I'm just saying the Razor is a lie

Which doesn't count as a claim?

[FGS]Shadowrunner
22nd Jan 2011, 22:43
It was either crashed by terrorists, under attack from passengers, or it was downed by the air force to prevent it hitting a city. Possibly might have been accidentally crashed by passengers who never fully regained control, dying terrorists perhaps made sure of that. If U93 passengers did overpower the terrorists and take control of the plane, but then subsequently crashed it, then why did no relatives or authorities get a mobile phone call, or even a dial on their phone. The news blackout and the lack of bodies and plane interior do suggest it is not the crash site, but a HARM crater or similar, but then in the panic and few minutes the air force had, I don't think they would have been able to crash the airliner with certainty that the location was remote enough to be undetected. Perhaps it's the real site and just an extreme impact? The last thing we know for sure, is that passengers were going to fight in a cockpit, most likely the cause of the crash.

Isn't there a slomo vid of 77 definitely hitting the whitehouse?

Edx
22nd Jan 2011, 22:55
Have been for some time. Need my credentials?

You ignored my question...

Do you believe the thermite claims have validity too?



Let me put it into the simple words you'll understand. The span which carries the main impact mass is wider than the hole. When you figure out how an object that's 9 column spans wide knocks down 8 columns, let me know.

I'm sorry you're simply making things up. Here's a fellow truther (http://www.oilempire.us/pentagon-hole.html)to tell you why you're wrong. And here's (http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/analysis/index.html) another. I have never heard anyone present the "the hole isn't big enough" argument as you have done, so if you still disagree present some evidence with sources that back up your statements.



Anyone who claims they saw AA logo is a liar. Anyone who claims they know it was a large commercial jet is a liar. Have you seen the official tape of the strike? That's pretty close to what all the eye witnesses saw. Can you positively identify an AA jet liner there? Moving on.

I'm asking you why they would decided to risk people seeing or people video taping something other than a B757 hit the building when they could just crash the plane into the building. You provide no motive for such a risky conspiracy.


See, that's the problem. With WTC you just need a plane to hit a tower. Easy. With Pentagon... That's a thread through a needle kind of trick. At the aforementioned 460 knots. By somebody who reportedly had trouble with a Cessna. Now, I never have flown a 757, but I have flown a Cessna. In fact, I brought one to a landing. Not that hard. A 757, I have trouble with on a flight sim.

Good lord, the he had trouble flying a Cessna claim, really? REALLY? :rolleyes: Why don't you just admit you're regurgitating Loose Change?

Don't tell me, you think you have a quote from his flight instructor that says he was a bad pilot, right?

Well I'll point out that if you read these quotes in context they were referring to his bad English and his poor landing skills. Somehow he still managed to get his private and commercial pilots licence, so how bad could he really have been? Chief flight instructor Marcel Bernard at Freeway Airport where he trained also said (http://web.archive.org/web/20080507120530/http://www.pentagonresearch.com/Newsday_com.htm) "There's no doubt in my mind that once that [hijacked jet] got going, he could have pointed that plane at a building and hit it". Why is he lying? Is he in on it as well? Maybe you and few fringe others know best.

Here's a few more though...



...they were not setting out to perform single-engine missed approaches or Category 3 instrument landings with a failed hydraulic system. For good measure, at least two of the terrorist pilots had rented simulator time in jet aircraft, but striking the Pentagon, or navigating along the Hudson River to Manhattan on a cloudless morning, with the sole intention of steering head-on into a building, did not require a mastery of airmanship. .

Pilot Patrick Smith (http://www.salon.com/technology/ask_the_pilot/2006/05/19/askthepilot186/)

Here's experienced pilot Giulio Bernacchia explaining (http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:3auB_6zW9WMJ:www.911myths.com/Another_Expert.pdf+http://www.911myths.com/Another_Expert.pdf&hl=en&gl=uk&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESh00PP9yolj6OEQXevUZTHJ_bOd-9gujKZcUQ3_arn2fuFdC4PyXQ93lnhU0k_JyT9l3BfbMyw7NGFpNDfiPvx2RVmeg2HZTqtLGu6XTzx2ExqfVlEO-U6-brJyt-S_djy89UGk&sig=AHIEtbSOgTXqr-iS-RKCu7UBPZ0GBC0-Cw&pli=1)why the conspiracy theorists claims surrounding the piloting skills of Hanjour is nonsense.


The hijackers knew in advance that the take off would be performed by a real
pilot, and there would not be need to worry about landing.

...

Mr. Hanjour, having picked, months in advance, during the planning phase, a
suitable waypoint, knows were he is going, and where to start the descent.
By now he is probably starting to look out trying to acquire his target
visually. A likely point could be Ronald Reagan Airport, easy to see from a
distance and very near to the Pentagon. The flight path, from the moment the
hijackers take control, points directly to the airport area. So, no need to
know much about navigation, no need to look outside, just few sequences of
button pushing.

...

... the official version says: ” American 77 was then 5 miles west-
southwest of the Pentagon and began a 330-degree turn. At the end of the
turn, it was descending through 2,200 feet, pointed toward the Pentagon and
downtown Washington. The hijacker pilot then advanced the throttles to
maximum power and dove toward the Pentagon”. The plane flew a 330
degree turn, that is a circle less 30 degrees… It was a left turn, which is
what someone sitting on the left seat (captain’s seat) would do to keep a
target to his left in sight. All this would require a bank angle of between 32
and 45 degrees, and a moderate rate of descent. Nothing that requires
Iceman (remember Top Gun?) to do. Again, the hijacker decided to err on the
undershoot side, and descended a lot more than what a good pilot would
have done. Almost too much, since he had to fly the last seconds level at a
very low altitude, clipping the lampposts along his way.

...

Secondly, the transponder had been off since 08:56 and was never switched
on again by the hijackers. So mr. Sagadevan is probably a little confused on
this. Maybe he thinks that the “primary” the controllers at Dulles TRAC
noticed at 09:32 is controllerspeak for transponder return. It’s not. A
“primary” is the “blip” caused by radar energy reflection off the plane’s
metal structure. It gives no indication whatsoever about the airplane
identity.



As far as bodies, etc, like I said. I don't think of it as something that was planned long in advance. They shot down AA 77. They needed a crash site. They had a spare drone at Andrews, or wherever. They decided to crash it into a wing of Pentagon. All they needed to do is retrieve bodies from real crash site.

:eek: This just gets more and more incredible....

So you're proposing this makes more sense: A conspiracy where they didn't plan it in advance, that fighters did in fact catch up and shoot down Flight 77 but instead of saying it was shot down, which is something truthers insist should have happened, they decided its better for the public to think it flew into the Pentagon instead so they flew another plane into the Pentagon killing 125 people. Wow. Just wow.

Bravo, you actually came up with a crazy conspiracy theory I haven't heard before! I'm not really sure why I should even bother debating such a ridiculous theory seeing as how I can't think of anyone has ever suggested something like that.



Does that make a whole lot of sense? Not really. But neither does the official version.

How does another plane flying into the Pentagon like the planes that flew into WTC 1 and 2 not make more sense than that absurd scenario you just said you believe is more likely?



You answer your own question. Tapes they've released are done at close range. Witnesses would see even less than that. The only dangers are cameras located high up off the ground at fixed positions. There are several hotel cameras positioned like that. These tapes have never been released. It's claimed they show nothing. It's entirely possible, but I've always wondered why they didn't just release footage from all of the ceased tapes. Seems like there'd be no downside to that.

Did you even read my question? Because I asked you why they would risk faking what you said they faked, when people could easily have identified the plane as not a B757? It wasn't just the hundreds of witness' around the Pentagon who could have potentially have unmasked the whole thing, but the first response on the scene, all the investigators, all of them have to be fooled into thinking it was a B757 or they are paid off and none of them have ever come forward. And that's just for starters.

How did they know they would get away with that and what possible motive would they have for risking that? Why would they go to all that trouble rather than just crashing the plane into the building? None of you guys can ever come up with a reason for doing all of this.




Again. AA 77 should have been shot down. All I'm saying is that it likely was. No getting rid of the plane. No getting rid of passengers. All persons involved with shooting it down interested in keeping it quiet.

This is mind boggling! What "interest" do thousands of first responders, FBI investigators, crash investigators, scientists, engineers and so on have to keep this quiet and make up lies to defend it? And what possible motive did they have to do it in the first place? You claim it should have been shot down, so do other truthers, they say that NORAD performed so badly it must be intentional. But according to you they were competent enough to shoot down Flight 77, but then decide to cover it up to make themselves look more guilty by constructing a absurdly risky conspiracy where they fly a drone into the Pentagon killing over a hundred people and where knew that all of the thousands of people that investigated it would be so incompetent they wouldn't notice it wasn't Flight 77 or could be paid off and somehow are lucky enough that no one blabbed about it. You know wikileaks? Isn't it strange how nothing has ever come out about such a massive conspiracy? No, I doubt you think so, because you like to believe the most unlikely scenarios for some reason.



And yes, they can dispatch fighters that quickly. Again, I've had flight training. I've heard stories of people getting landed by F-16s. Andrews AFB located in DC is pretty much there just to make sure that fighters can be over Capitol in minutes. It would take 757 approximately 10 minutes from time it entered restricted space to impact with Pentagon. It would take Andrews about 5 to scramble jets. That's assuming they didn't get any in the air as soon as the attacks started, like they were supposed to.

10 minutes???? That's even more ridiculous! I've run out of words to describe how unbelievably wrong and absurd your claims are. You're either a compulsive liar about your flight training or you're an extremely ignorant pilot. You'll never be able to support such rubbish claims. You also ignore the fact that the transponder was off anyway and are ignorant of how the systems work.

Edx
22nd Jan 2011, 22:56
Erm... That's 2 minutes between it was vectored to the target and it reached the target... Again, how did it take a fighter an hour 1:22 to get to the plane? They took their sweet time to send one over, but once it was sent, it got there fast.

Go read the reports on it, (http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Payne_Stewart) instead of asking stupid questions.

The NTSB said (http://www.911myths.com/images/4/46/Payne_Stewart_Accident_Report.pdf)...

1333Z - flight fails to respond to radar contact
1336Z - aircraft considered to be an emergency. Controllers continue to try and contact the plane for another 20 minutes.
1345Z - ZJX Watch Manager informs the FAA Southern Regional Office and the US Air Force Rescue Coordination Centre of the situation.
1400Z - ZJX Mission Coordinator contacts US Air Force Southest Air Defence to request an intercept.
1425Z - ZTL begins providing radar vectors to F16 to aid in the intercept
1444Z - ZTL transfers radar identification to Memphis ARTCC (ZME)
1452Z - F16 reports visual contact with aircraft


This is 1 hour, 19 minutes difference.

Edit: And btw, the Lear jet still had its transponder on.


As I said, it's absurd. If they don't have a way to immediately see which aircraft has no transponder, the whole system is a joke. I know FAA doesn't work like that. I'm not familiar with the actual ATC equipment, so I can't point you to a specific knob they'd have to twist. I know that when people flew their Cessnas into places they weren't supposed to, that resulted in a prompt response with or without the transponder.

I'll certainly check it out. But this sounds like a bunch of ass-covering to me. Blame it on equipment.

Go check it out then because the fact is that is how the system works. You're totally wrong. if you'd bothered to check after all these years you'd know that already and why no one relevant takes these claims of yours seriously.

badhabitz
22nd Jan 2011, 23:04
Edx it must be hard work, copy and pasting from your 2 main debunking sites...

You don't really have to think much at all. You just line up our questions and points with your lists of rebuttals and counters. All written before hand for you.

Yeah I am an ass for saying that.

Edx
22nd Jan 2011, 23:08
Edx it must be hard work, copy and pasting from your 2 main debunking sites...

You don't really have to think much at all. You just line up our questions and points with your lists of rebuttals and counters. All written before hand for you.

Im not doing that actually but since all you've done since you got here is copy and paste conspiracy theorist websites and videos you really have a cheek. :rolleyes:

Fox89
22nd Jan 2011, 23:08
I'm asking you why they would decided to risk people seeing or people video taping something other than a B757 hit the building when they could just crash the plane into the building. You provide no motive for such a risky conspiracy.

In fairness, he doesn't have to. If there is solid evidence backing up his claim that it was something else, that's what you go by. If the evidence suggested the Pentagon was struck by a pig loaded with C4 fired from an 18th century cannon, then we must assume that is what happened, even if we are baffled by the motives for doing so.

As to whether or not K2s claim IS backed up...I'm not getting into that as you're both posting things that seem feasible to the casual observer and I don't want to get bogged down in it all when I could be listening to a Gene Kranz speech on youtube about Apollo 13 :)


Edx it must be hard work, copy and pasting from your 2 main debunking sites...

You don't really have to think much at all. You just line up our questions and points with your lists of rebuttals and counters. All written before hand for you.

Even if true, irrelevant. It's the information that's important. And yoooouuuu have no credibility here any more at all, so there is no reason to listen to you. ;)


They shot down AA 77. They needed a crash site.

This bit gets to me. If they shot down the AA 77... wouldn't they already HAVE a crash site? I.e: the location the plane crashed after being shot down? I find it hard to believe that nobody would notice a shot down plane. And then, having shot down AA 77 (and thus prevented the Pentagon from being attacked, hooray!) the government thinks "Oh no! We've just stopped the Pentagon from being attacked! This is in some way a bad thing. QUICK! Fly a plane into the Pentagon!"

Edx
22nd Jan 2011, 23:09
I haven't made clams on this thread yet. I'm just saying the Razor is a lie. I'm also saying that you cannot underestimate the intelligence of the Illuminati, they are the most intelligent people on the face of the planet.

Edit: Thinking about it now, Alex Jones is like Cartman, if Cartman was a conspiracy theorist.


Urgh I fell for a poe didn't I lol. Good work, its really hard to tell a parody .:o

badhabitz
22nd Jan 2011, 23:10
edx, what I mean is I copy and paste from more than 2 websites. the youtube videos come from many sources.

do you really think if Wikileaks was a real threat and pusher for truth they would worship Assange all over the media??

Wikileaks exposed nothing we did not know. It only pushed more anti-Iranian anti-Islam propaganda. It also destroys any hope of finding out what other whistlerblowers had to say if they went to Wikileaks, because now they have all been compromised. It was massive disinfo/distraction tool - Wikileaks was psy ops, another card they played to mind fudge the public.

Edx
22nd Jan 2011, 23:25
In fairness, he doesn't have to. If there is solid evidence backing up his claim that it was something else, that's what you go by. If the evidence suggested the Pentagon was struck by a pig loaded with C4 fired from an 18th century cannon, then we must assume that is what happened, even if we are baffled by the motives for doing so.

Well it does matter since there is no evidence backing up his claims and his claims require an absurd scenario where the conspirators decide to create this ridiculous conspiracy for no reason at all and had to know in advance everything is going to be okay. If he is going to say it makes more sense than the "official story", then this is a valid criticism. edit: and he should provide some kind of reason why they would go to all that trouble


This bit gets to me. If they shot down the AA 77... wouldn't they already HAVE a crash site? I.e: the location the plane crashed after being shot down? I find it hard to believe that nobody would notice a shot down plane. And then, having shot down AA 77 (and thus prevented the Pentagon from being attacked, hooray!) the government thinks "Oh no! We've just stopped the Pentagon from being attacked! This is in some way a bad thing. QUICK! Fly a plane into the Pentagon!"

See, you're asking the same questions as me .;)

Edx
22nd Jan 2011, 23:27
i don't know why I'm bothering...


edx, what I mean is I copy and paste from more than 2 websites. the youtube videos come from many sources.

And 911 myths has collected many sources like the NTSB report in the case of Payne Stewarts LearJet. :rolleyes:

The point is I'm doing more than copy and pasting, I'm actually debating the points and understand the subjects. All you do is cut and paste and ignore, then cut and paste some more. Do you like my rhyme?


do you really think if Wikileaks was a real threat and pusher for truth they would worship Assange all over the media??

Wikileaks exposed nothing we did not know. It only pushed more anti-Iranian anti-Islam propaganda. It also destroys any hope of finding out what other whistlerblowers had to say if they went to Wikileaks, because now they have all been compromised. It was massive disinfo/distraction tool - Wikileaks was psy ops, another card they played to mind fudge the public.

But no 911 leaks despite you guys alleging the most convoluted, incomprehensible and incoherent conspiracy known to man.

St. Mellow
22nd Jan 2011, 23:29
Wait, I'm lost here. Which conspiracy nut thread is this? Man, you'd suppose DX would attract its share of freaks, but this is way too much.

Fox89
22nd Jan 2011, 23:29
Well it does matter since there is no evidence backing up his claims and his claims require an absurd scenario where the conspirators decide to create this ridiculous conspiracy for no reason at all and had to know in advance everything is going to be okay. If he is going to say it makes more sense than the "official story", then this is a valid criticism.

Ah well, if what you say about it not being backed up is true, then yes I agree with you. Although, I'm pretty sure K2 at least does believe it's backed up.

Though the logs you posted from the NTSB seem pretty conclusive.

68_pie
23rd Jan 2011, 00:02
Why do you all so desperately need to be right?

K^2
23rd Jan 2011, 00:39
Do you believe the thermite claims have validity too?
What thermite claims? If the claim is that thermite is frigin' hot, I can attest to that. If it's something else, you need to be more specific.


I'm sorry you're simply making things up. Here's a fellow truther (http://www.oilempire.us/pentagon-hole.html)to tell you why you're wrong. And here's (http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/analysis/index.html) another. I have never heard anyone present the "the hole isn't big enough" argument as you have done, so if you still disagree present some evidence with sources that back up your statements.
This is sad. Really, really sad. Ok, lets start easy.

Here is a rough diagram of 757 (http://web.ana-aviation.com/anaweb/web.nsf/0/90BCFE529B2FF74380257191008243F7/$file/757-200.gif).

Here is a digram detailing structure (http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/5156/boeing2.jpg).

Here is a diagram showing damage to first floor. (http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_j1WCY4T_2yI/SB250i6NRdI/AAAAAAAACs8/n0EzfgJ799s/s1600-h/Arlington+County+After-Action+Report+damage+1.jpg)

Lets do numbers. Distance between columns at the wall is 10 feet almost exactly. Wing span of the 757 is 124 feet. The span in the engine-to-engine section is just over 50 feet. The fuel tanks extend just past that. The was officially at 42° to the wall. That gives you 80 foot projection of the engine-to-engine span. That's at least 8 beams just from this section alone. This is the densest portion of the airplane, so if anything knocks down beams it's this section.

Moving out along the wing. On the structure digram, you can clearly see how far the flaps extend. During landing, these flaps take a significant portion of the airplane's weight. The mechanism for extending and retracting flaps, with all of the structure to hold both the wings and the flaps rigid is the toughest portion of the wing. Besides engine mounts and fuel tanks, this is where most of the weight of the wing is concentrated. This section takes up approximately 80 feet of the airplane's total width. Projected onto the wall, that would give you 120 feet span.

Right wing makes impact first. Because of the sweep, it meets the wall pretty much straight on. From the center line, approximately 40 feet are hit by the center-to-engine portion. Complete destruction there. Next 20 feet are hit by the heavy portion of the wing containing flaps. The remaining 30 or so feet are hit by the lighter section of the wing.

Left wing hits the wall at a very steep angle. This allows the impact to be further distributed in time, reducing peak forces. In the center-to-engine section nothing changes. From there on, impact is significantly reduced compared to the right wing.

Possible outcomes of the impact.

1) Walls are impervious. No damage to the columns.

2) Walls are unrealistically tough, preventing most of the damage. The toughest part of the plane are the engines, so you get two points of penetration, with some columns remaining in the center.

3) Walls are tough enough to withstand abuse by aluminum fragments. Depending how much the angles of the sweep make a difference, you are either looking at 9-10 columns destroyed, with more damage on the right side, or 12-13 columns destroyed, equally distributed.

4) Walls are just strong enough to support the structure. Entire 180+ foot span from wing tip to wing tip is knocked out. Structure promptly collapses.

Notice that none of these options correspond to the picture of the damage. The corridor dug out by the plane is too complete in the center for option 2 and too narrow for option 3. We look at the simulation I linked to earlier. It is entirely consistent with option 3, with angle of the sweep making a big difference, resulting in 9 columns knocked out and 1-2 additional columns on each side severely damaged.

Reported damage could not have been done by a structure consistent with B757.

Here is an additional consideration, which may help identify the aircraft actually responsible for the damage. Again, observe that by far the densest portion of the aircraft is the engines. This is the portion that should have the most ability to penetrate structure. Yet, the damage seems to be concentrated along the central line. I strongly suspect that we are looking for an aircraft with fuselage-mounted, rather than wing-mounted engines. Total wing span would likely be under 100 feet.


I'm asking you why they would decided to risk people seeing or people video taping something other than a B757 hit the building when they could just crash the plane into the building. You provide no motive for such a risky conspiracy.
Who said anything was flying for Pentagon? It's a silly target, when you think about it. Capitol would make much more sense. Easier to hit, too. Who says attack on Pentagon wasn't staged as an afterthought when they shot down AA 77?

And hell, when we get down to it, I don't know. I'm speculating like everyone else. I know 757 didn't hit Pentagon. That's just physics. I'm trying to come up with plausible explanation for what actually happened. I don't claim to have all the pieces. I'm bound to be making wrong guesses.



Good lord, the he had trouble flying a Cessna claim, really? REALLY? :rolleyes: Why don't you just admit you're regurgitating Loose Change?

Don't tell me, you think you have a quote from his flight instructor that says he was a bad pilot, right?
Hey, fair enough. Lets say he got a flight license. Lets say he had a practice with the simulator. You have any idea what it takes to fly that shallow of an approach at that small of a target at 460 frigin' knots? Tell you what. Try it. Get a descent flight simulator. MS FSX with all options turned to realistic should be sufficient to demonstrate the point. Try to fly a 757 into Pentagon. Then come back and we discuss it, alright?


the official version says: ” American 77 was then 5 miles west-
southwest of the Pentagon and began a 330-degree turn. At the end of the
turn, it was descending through 2,200 feet, pointed toward the Pentagon and
downtown Washington. The hijacker pilot then advanced the throttles to
maximum power and dove toward the Pentagon”. The plane flew a 330
degree turn, that is a circle less 30 degrees… It was a left turn, which is
what someone sitting on the left seat (captain’s seat) would do to keep a
target to his left in sight.
All good... except it was a right turn. So close, though. Almost believable.



So you're proposing this makes more sense: A conspiracy where they didn't plan it in advance, that fighters did in fact catch up and shoot down Flight 77 but instead of saying it was shot down, which is something truthers insist should have happened, they decided its better for the public to think it flew into the Pentagon instead so they flew another plane into the Pentagon killing 125 people. Wow. Just wow.
That's the best I've got. Where'd you get 125 people, though? Are you counting the passengers? You really should be more careful with the numbers you quote.

If you have a better scenario that doesn't involve 757 flying into Pentagon?

See, I have to balance what I know is implausible against what I know is impossible.


How does another plane flying into the Pentagon like the planes that flew into WTC 1 and 2 not make more sense than that absurd scenario you just said you believe is more likely?
It would, if it was physically possible for 757 to do that damage. It's not.


You claim it should have been shot down, so do other truthers, they say that NORAD performed so badly it must be intentional. But according to you they were competent enough to shoot down Flight 77, but then decide to cover it up to make themselves look more guilty by constructing a absurdly risky conspiracy where they fly a drone into the Pentagon killing over a hundred people and where knew that all of the thousands of people that investigated it would be so incompetent they wouldn't notice it wasn't Flight 77 or could be paid off and somehow are lucky enough that no one blabbed about it.
Do you remember 9/11? Do you remember what people were like? Imagine, US military announces that they shot down AA 77. Maybe even U 93. How do you think people would have reacted. You think they'd be understanding? Consider this a fair price for the lives that could have been saved if these planes hit population centers?

Instead, one of these hit Pentagon, and the other was brought to a crash by heroic actions of people on board. Instead of internal fighting, there is unification against common enemy.

Do you think Afghan invasion would even happen if the two flights were known to be shot down?

But anyways, as I said, just speculation. This is the best I have. If you have a better version without 757 hitting Pentagon, I'm all ears.



10 minutes???? That's even more ridiculous! I've run out of words to describe how unbelievably wrong and absurd your claims are.
The plane would have to travel about 40 nm at about 400 knots, that's 6 minutes, than perform a 330° turn. Yeah, about 10 minutes from the time it entered the must-contact-ATC zone to the impact at Pentagon. So by the time ATC allegedly reported it, it would be just approaching the Mall.


You also ignore the fact that the transponder was off anyway and are ignorant of how the systems work.
Uhh... Where do I ignore that transponder was off? The system is designed to keep planes without transponders out of zones within 30 nm of Class B airports. You want to challenge me on that? Why don't you open up the FAR and look it up?

But again, if you think you have some idea of what was going on and have a better theory, I'm always happy to learn something new.

El_Bel
23rd Jan 2011, 00:57
Wait, i think i have an answer. I say that the wings did not go through the wall. The hole was just as long as the main body of the plain and maybe the engines.


Also i found this site.
http://www.911review.com/attack/pentagon/impact.html

Lastly, even if this is true, and i am not convinced, what deference does it make?? :S

K^2
23rd Jan 2011, 01:05
Wait, i think i have an answer. I say that the wings did not go through the wall. The hole was just as long as the main body of the plain and maybe the engines.
Can't. The portion of the wings in question results in higher peak force than any part of the fuselage, except maybe the front landing gear. Fuselage penetrates further because of the total mass, but if the wall was strong enough to stop everything beyond the engines, it would stop or almost stop fuselage, meaning no continued destruction beyond the front wall at the very least. Again, look at the simulation.

Keep in mind that at these speeds the forces keeping the plane together might as well not be there. It hits a wall like a torrent of chunky fluid. Parts that have higher density result in higher peak forces.

Edx
23rd Jan 2011, 01:24
@K^2:

I'm looking to this hole too small pentagon claim you are making, in the mean time lets scale this back a bit.

You claimed fighters from Andrews could have intercepted Flight 77 within 10 minutes of being notified and could have scrambled jets in 5 minutes. I think I know where you are getting this from, but please explain yourself.

K^2
23rd Jan 2011, 01:31
As I said, the plane needs to make a roughly 40 nm path, then a 330° turn. That's where I'm getting a 10 minute estimate from. Might be a bit longer if cruise speed is going to be bellow 400 knots.

Fighters that patrol the border are required to scramble under 5 minutes. Anything longer and they leave an opening for strategic bombers. I'm hoping that at the base protecting the Capitol the standards are no worse than that.

Edx
23rd Jan 2011, 01:35
Fighters that patrol the border are required to scramble under 5 minutes. Anything longer and they leave an opening for strategic bombers. I'm hoping that at the base protecting the Capitol the standards are no worse than that.

Where's your source? I found where you probably got this from and its nonsense. So unless you can show me something different....

K^2
23rd Jan 2011, 01:48
A Tupolev 160 crosses 200 nm in 10 minutes. If you don't scramble jets in 5, there is really no point. I think I've seen some standards somewhere, though. I'll take a look.

Edx
23rd Jan 2011, 01:53
A Tupolev 160 crosses 200 nm in 10 minutes. If you don't scramble jets in 5, there is really no point. I think I've seen some standards somewhere, though. I'll take a look.

Okay please post it. You claimed Andrews could scramble fighters in 5 minutes, I have already looked this up and know its false even though people like David Ray Griffin have given times like you have.

Andrews was not ready to launch fighters at a moments notice, you are wrong.

Though it also wouldn't have made any difference anyway since Flight 77 would have crashed by then. Which reminds me, have you learnt how the ATC system works yet and why they couldn't easily locate the hijacked jets?

ChrisVCB
23rd Jan 2011, 02:03
Has it occured to anyone that perhaps the reason the USAF tried to mislead the 9/11 commission about how good thier reactions were is because they're sheepish about admitting to the Russians/world about how slow their reaction times are?

A good deal of warfare is about deception - if your enemies think you can launch fighters within 5 minutes, no matter if the reality, then you know that unless you give them reason to believe otherwise then that is what they'll carry on believing. Do you really think the USAF was going to admit that they cannot scramble fighters that fast? No, they want an enemy to believe that it's true, even if in reality it takes them far far longer. Having been part of a military organisation, I'm highly aware that a good deal of bluster and bull**** goes on, and things don't always line up with the official version. Hell, we had an entire cold war based on both sides thinking the enemy had a far greater capability than they actually did.

Point being, just because they "should" have been able to scramble in X time, doesn't mean that's neccessarily the everday reality. Probably if an airbase was already on alert, then yeah. But day to day ops? Yeah right, more like.

K^2
23rd Jan 2011, 02:14
Okay please post it. You claimed Andrews could scramble fighters in 5 minutes, I have already looked this up and know its false even though people like David Ray Griffin have given times like you have.

Andrews was not ready to launch fighters at a moments notice, you are wrong.
Then Washington is completely open to an external attack by strategic bombers. What you are telling me is that US Capitol could be leveled by Chinese or Russians at whim without using nuclear weapons, and therefore, without fear of retribution.

If that's true, you better have a damn good source. Also, I'd suggest looking for a new country of residence immediately afterwards.

Edx
23rd Jan 2011, 02:23
Then Washington is completely open to an external attack by strategic bombers. What you are telling me is that US Capitol could be leveled by Chinese or Russians at whim without using nuclear weapons, and therefore, without fear of retribution.

If that's true, you better have a damn good source. Also, I'd suggest looking for a new country of residence immediately afterwards.

No we'll play it like this, you claimed Andrews could scramble fighters at a moments notice, you say, in 5 minutes. Are you admitting you do not have any source for this claim? Because David Ray Griffin claims he does, but he is very wrong.

I also explained that with the transponder turned off they have very little data to go on. Flight 77 was lost, everyone was frantically looking for it and when a suspicious radar signal was finally identified it would have been too late anyway. You reacted to the information on transponders like it was news to you and said you'd look it up, have you done that?

Its very late here so I might reply to any more posts tomorrow.

PS: I don't live in the US

ArcR
23rd Jan 2011, 03:22
The reality of me !

http://www.tromsite.com

The TROM documentary is trying to present, in a simplistic way, the world in which we, human beings, live. The world discovered so far, not some idea or personal choice. Moreover we tried to present alternative solutions to current problems and took into account the future, which promises to be more than interesting.
An informative documentary, perhaps shocking and disturbing to many, depending on how you digest the information.


Open your mind !

I haven't watched the whole thing but I picked a few topics of interest. The way things are presented I'm not thrilled about. The tone and the editing... too grim. The content is interesting. My favorite is the study done on financial motivation for more mentally demanding tasks. A few of the subjects are probed too superficially and some of the conclusions/solutions aren't the ones I'd arrive too. Would love to discuss the topics and see if we'd get anywhere. I'll watch the rest when I get some free time.

Not a fan of the Venus Project.

Romeo
23rd Jan 2011, 05:22
I don't like arguing.

More Illuminati info. This guy has not been seen or heard from in years. John Todd.

DerUFYMExS8


THE 9/11 COVER UP - If this guy is lying... WHY IS HE LYING... WHO TOLD HIM TO?? oh yeah, he is also dead... not too long after this interview.

7nD7dbkkBIA
Wanna know the fastest way to draw unnecessary attention to a secret? Take out the people who 99.99% of the population simply ignores anyways.

LAST1
23rd Jan 2011, 05:28
Awesome bro...refreshing documentary.

K^2
23rd Jan 2011, 14:59
No we'll play it like this, you claimed Andrews could scramble fighters at a moments notice, you say, in 5 minutes. Are you admitting you do not have any source for this claim?
Absolutely none. I know planes. I know if you don't scramble fighters on 5 minute notice, you don't need to bother. Tu-160 can cross the border going Mach 2. If the F-15s have to play catchup, they'll never make it to the bombers before they complete their mission.

If you have a source claiming otherwise, go ahead and give it.

I also explained that with the transponder turned off they have very little data to go on.
No, you cited the same excuse I hear from everywhere, but I just don't buy it. Do you know how a transponder works? It works as an extension of radar detection, not as a separate system. When a radar sends a ping, it's not just a short burst of radio frequency. It's a short code. When transponder picks up that code, it sends a burst of its own, replying to the sent code and also encoding the squak code, and depending on the system some additional information that is difficult for radar to acquire. Mode C specifically, which is what required within 30nm of Class B sends back pressure altitude.

This is very important for the ATC operations in large airports. A squak code is used to identify aircraft, so that the ATC can give specific instruction to a specific blip on the screen. The altitude is important because radar cannot pick it up, and it's another piece of information that the ATC will require.

Now why am I claiming that it's a load of crap that they couldn't find a plane? What happens if I'm flying my crop duster, and I flew into a busy Class B airport area? Am I simply not going to show up on the radar screen which ATC are using to steer the planes? Are you seriously that naive? Do you know what will happen if that crop duster ends up on the path of a 747 going for final? You'll have 300 dead bodies. That's if the 747 doesn't end up dropping on a residential area.

Everything that's big enough to show up on radar shows up on the screen to which all the transponder data is fed. If something does not have transponder, it will be shown without a squak and without an altitude. You see a dot on your radar without a squak in Class B, you report it immediately, because it's a hazard to all aircraft in the area. That's how the system works. That's how people get busted for flying within 30nm of a Class B without a working Mode C Transponder.

And hey, I just checked the charts, and it's almost 50nm from Mode C boundary of Washington Dulles to Pentagon going from direction that AA 77 reportedly came in from.

Edx
24th Jan 2011, 16:11
Absolutely none. I know planes. I know if you don't scramble fighters on 5 minute notice, you don't need to bother. Tu-160 can cross the border going Mach 2. If the F-15s have to play catchup, they'll never make it to the bombers before they complete their mission.

First, Andrews was not an alert base so was not in a position for fighters to be able to take off within a few minutes. They tried to get fighters up but it look a long time to arm them.

Secondly, the response time was about 15 minutes for alert sites, not 5. However they would still not have had time to intercept Flight 77 because they were notified too late.

Thirdly, bombers you talk about would have been detected long before they got there.


Now why am I claiming that it's a load of crap that they couldn't find a plane? What happens if I'm flying my crop duster, and I flew into a busy Class B airport area? Am I simply not going to show up on the radar screen which ATC are using to steer the planes? Are you seriously that naive? Do you know what will happen if that crop duster ends up on the path of a 747 going for final? You'll have 300 dead bodies. That's if the 747 doesn't end up dropping on a residential area.
.


If that happened ATC would warn traffic in the area to be on the lookout or avoid the area completely. The FAA would get him when he landed.

What do you think would happen?

NORAD would dispatch fighters to go shoot it down or something?

Remember it took over an hour from when they first realised Payne Stewarts jet was in trouble to intercept it, which was the only civilian intercept by NORAD in the previous 10 years. NORAD was set up to look out over the ocean, they did not monitor US continental airspace and was not responsible for it. There is no way they would have had time to do anything about the first plane that hit the WTC and the other planes had their transponders off.

You still don't understand that without transponder information they had very little to go on and had to rely on the primary radar, you need to find out what they had to deal with. No one says the planes wouldn't show up on the screen, only that primary radar is not the same as secondary radar. Apparently today they have better systems but in 2001 they did not. You also still don't seem to understand how NORAD was set up prior to 911.

K^2
24th Jan 2011, 23:35
You still don't understand that without transponder information they had very little to go on and had to rely on the primary radar, you need to find out what they had to deal with.
Transponder data is fed into the system along with primary radar data. These are not separate systems. They work together. Every dot from primary radar shows up on the main screen. Transponder data shows up alongside if available. There is no problem finding the blip on main screen without transponder data. That's how the system works.

Again, if the blips without transponder data DID NOT show up on main screen, ATC would not be aware of the aircraft with no transponder that accidentally wondered into Class B air space. They would be unaware of it right up until the collision, which is exactly why it DOES show up on main screen, and why it's immediately possible to see which airplane has no transponder.

Yeah, you wouldn't be able to tell which flight it is, and outside of the Mode C zone, you wouldn't be able to tell it from any number of private planes with no transponder. But once the A 77 was in Mode C zone, it would light up on main screen. And that's 50nm from impact site.


Remember it took over an hour from when they first realised Payne Stewarts jet was in trouble to intercept it, which was the only civilian intercept by NORAD in the previous 10 years.
Haven't we been over that? It took an hour until a fighter was sent over. It did not take an hour to locate the flight. It did not take an hour for fighter to reach the flight. It took them 1 hour to decide that they need a fighter to check it out. Why? I don't know. But they were not concerned over hijacking. Until the fighter arrived, assumption was communication failure.


First, Andrews was not an alert base so was not in a position for fighters to be able to take off within a few minutes.
So the AFB that's there specifically to protect the Capitol is not on constant alert? Hey, I don't know. That could be true, but this is something people should be outraged about. There is no point in even having an AFB there if it's not on alert.

And why didn't they put it on alert when WTC was struck? It's been what, 50 minutes since the attacks began, and AFB at Capitol was not put on alert? Again, if this is the way it happened, and there is no conspiracy, a lot of people should have been kicked out of their jobs over that. This is ridiculous. This is not how the military base charged with protecting the Capitol should be run.


Thirdly, bombers you talk about would have been detected long before they got there.
In 15 minutes you are claiming, Tu-160s can take off from Cuba and drop bombs on Miami and Tu-160's performing exercises in Kamchatka could be dropping bombs on missile and radar bases in Alaska.

15 minutes of Mach 2 flight West of D.C. are neutral waters of Atlantic Ocean. I would hope that Tu-160s flying exercises there would prompt some fighters airborne over US coast, but with all the idiotic things you claim to be true (I'm pointing out that it's these things that are idiotic, not the claims. You might be right, it'd just be really stupid.) who knows, right?

Point is, 15 minutes to scramble jets on alert AFB is absurd. If that's true, US is completely defenseless against a surprise attack.



Either way, the situation is bad. If the official version is true, either the attacks were known in advance and were simply allowed to happen, or the attacks demonstrated true readiness of US military. In either case, I would not feel safe in the least with these people in charge of state security from external threat. Considering post-9/11 reforms having been largely superficial, it would not have improved.

In this light, idea that U93 and AA77 have actually been shot down by US forces and the Pentagon attack and the crash site having been merely cover ups for that, seems like the most optimistic view possible. And yes, there are way too many holes in this scenario.

As pointed out earlier, my main problem is with the physics of the collision between the aircraft and Pentagon. A 757 should have knocked out 10-20 feet wider section of the front wall at the very least, and the pattern of internal destruction should have been wider, following trajectories of the two engines. Fact that both the width of the opening and the internal pattern suggests a smaller aircraft with fuselage-mounted engines completely excludes 757, at least, in any collision scenario consistent with official version. (If, for example, it hit straight on, rather than at 42°, the width of the opening is just right. But then why is the pattern tilted?)

If you can find a more likely scenario in which 757 was not the plane hitting pentagon OR a scenario where it hit under a different angle and for some reason that was covered up, let me know. I really would like to hear other options. AA77 being shot down is the best I've got.

2PapaTango
28th Jan 2011, 09:54
There is no problem finding the blip on main screen without transponder data. That's how the system works.

The problem is that there are tons of other things that also give off "blips." A flock of birds will give you a primary target, even something like a big truck on a high highway overpass. Primary targets in Class B or C aren't unusual at all. The only way you can really even tell if you have a Mode C violator is if another plane sees and verifies that the primary target is a plane or a tower controller sees the target out the window. Nothing gets "lit up." Otherwise we'd scramble fighters everytime a flock of geese decided to take a short cut through class B airspace. Hell, every now and then you'll get a primary only target that IS a plane, but is well above your airspace. Doesn't mean he has no transponder, it just means his transponder signal is too weak to pick up but his primary return isn't
Not to mention, it's also possible to not get a primary on a plane at all i.e. low altitude, if the aircraft flies an arc that matches the radar sweep, terrain or buildings in the way of the radar's line of sight etc.etc.
And don't even get me started on fake targets. Sometimes you'll get mirror targets, fake in trail targets...

I mean in all reality... let's keep in mind that air traffic control equipment has been practically unchanged for the past thirty years before we start making assumptions about just how well and accurate all this stuff works.

K^2
28th Jan 2011, 14:36
A flock of geese can result in the same end game as a crop duster if it ends up on a path of a 747 on approach. 4-engine FoD is not something a 747 can recover from at low altitude. For smaller jets its anyone's guess if they'll find a place to land. My main point was that all of these blips still show up on main screen. Not to do so would defeat the purpose of having the system set up the way it is. Sure, you might not scramble fighters every time a blip shows up without first having visual verification that it's an aircraft, but if you see a blip with no transponder data, ATC are aware of it, and they are going at very least to steer traffic around it. That means tracking its position and air speed.

So what I'm getting at is this. Exactly how many flocks of geese have been flying through KIAD Mode C space at 400 knots to make it difficult to identify the hijacked flight?

Edit: Just checked the charts. The high altitude airways passing over the area are all in completely the wrong directions for hijacked flight. The airways approaching from the East terminate right before getting into terminal area. So you aren't supposed to get blips from out-of-range high altitude traffic on that side of the screen either.