or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › Learn the Truth about 9/11!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Learn the Truth about 9/11! - Page 4

post #121 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

Sammi Jo. Not that this might mean anything. But Cheney has been in the Washington scene for over thirty years and was Secretary of Defense under George H. W. Bush from March 1989 to January 1993. He does know what he's doing. Believe me.

Then that possibly implies even greater potential guilt.

My questions remain unanswered, Perpetually. Are the implications too uncomfortable in the playpen?

If the thread gets locked, then I guess A.O. joins the realm of Bill O'Reilly and Fox News, where "if we don't like the message, then we attack the messenger". Turn off the mic, shout someone down, kill the thread, impose "free speech zones"... its all the same BS... a symtpon of creeping Goebbels like fascism.

One of these days, we are going to stop going out of reason-and-logic's way to protect BushCorp, their cronies, and likemoded successors. Then things might start to improve.

Until we stop excuses for serial criminals in high places, the US becomes a lost cause.

"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #122 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

Forget about the Twin Towers and "controlled demolitions". Forget about "devices under planes". Forget about the "hole in the Pentagon being too small". These are distractions, and although anomalous, they cannot be used to prove that 9/11 was an inside job, especially considering that the salient evidence was removed from the crime scenes and disposed of ASAP.

How can we forget about them when that's exactly the kind of nonsense you people have been arguing proves something. If you've got something other than "watch the video of the plane in slo-mo" and "buildings can't collapse without explosives inside of them," I'd love to see it.
post #123 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

One of these days, we are going to stop going out of reason-and-logic's way to protect BushCorp, their cronies, and likemoded successors. Then things might start to improve.

439 DAYS 5 Hrs 27 Min 18.0 Sec
post #124 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

Until we stop excuses for serial criminals in high places, the US becomes a lost cause.

Why would I bother making excuses for the Bush administration? I loathe the Bush administration. I think that various members, up to and including the President, should be held criminally accountable for their conduct in things like misleading a country into war, treasonous outing of a CIA operative, illegal surveillance, and torture, and that's before we get to more mundane matters of fiscal corruption.

There's plenty of culpability to go around without venturing into fantasyland to find more.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #125 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

OK.. before this thread is locked.. some material about Dick Cheney and his role on 9/11:

Why did Cheney, a politician with zero military experience, (who also dodged the Vietnam draft on a multiplicity of occasions) do the following:

Altered the NORAD scramble protocol in the months leading up to 9/11. All scramble orders, rather than being routine protocol that happened automatically by default, had to have specific authorization?

If the normal scramble protocols had still been in place on 9/11, there is no way, (especially considering that the previous system had worked almost flawlessly for many years), with an average of 70 to 100 emergency scrambles per annum, that any of those 4 hijacked flights would have reached their destinations without a very prompt challenge. SOP would have made sure that the Air Force would have intercepted the rogue flights within a few minutes of being commandeered. And considering that the 4 flights took place over the most heavily monitored airspace on earth, and within a few minutes flight time of as many as 20 Air Force bases...

Secondly: Why did the hijackers of AA 77 allow so much time to hit their target (the Pentagon) by heading out as far as the Kentucky border before turning back and arriving back at their point of departure? Knowing the scramble routine, from all their research and mock runs, the hijackers would have made sure that they got control of the plane ASAP, and headed straight to their proposed target ASAP to avoid certain interception.... whuch under normal circumstances would have happened within a few minutes, considering all the alert AFBs in the region. But no... they took their sweet time and dawdled .. being in control of a hijacked plane for some 50 minutes.... c'mon folks.. common sense dictates that something is clearly messed up here.

As a result of Cheney's decision, 3 of the 4 flights succeeded in their mission. If this represents a case of off-the-scale ineptitude and incompetence on the part of the Vice President (at the very least), why has no action been taken against him? Nobody has even been permitted to ask him about this.

Then, consider the fact that Cheney lied to the 9/11 Commission regarding his whereabouts on the morning of 9/11. His testimony (he refused to testify under oath btw) conflicts with that of many others, including former transportation Secretary Mineta, who placed Cheney in the PEOC some 35 minutes before Cheney himself claimed he was there.

And what were those orders that Cheney was referring to when challenged by a young staffer who kept reminding Cheney... "the plane is 50 miles out... the plane is 30 miles out.. the plane is 10 miles out... do the orders still stand", Cheney barked "of course the orders still stand, have you heard anything to the contrary?"

What else could that order have been, other than "that plane is not to be intercepted". Also, by refusing to warn those in the Pentagon that a rogue plane was headed their way and likely to attack, Cheney has some culpabililty (perhaps as an accessory before the fact) to the murder of 189 people in that building.

There is so much more to Cheney's possible role in allowing the 9/11 attacks to happen, at the very least. But this thread might get locked soon... (such is the degree of mass denial and psychological dysfunction afflicting so many people re. this subject). And it is appropriate that Cheney be subject to some harsh questioning, under oath, with nothing barred, when and if the American people and the world is permitted to have some closure on this, courtesy of a real 9/11 investigation, as opposed to that ugly hairball that got sicked upon us all.

If Cheney is innocent, then I have confidence that a non biased investigation will find him such. But here is the 2.3 trillion dollar question? Would he (and his cronies) ever submit to such examination?

Forget about the Twin Towers and "controlled demolitions". Forget about "devices under planes". Forget about the "hole in the Pentagon being too small". These are distractions, and although anomalous, they cannot be used to prove that 9/11 was an inside job, especially considering that the salient evidence was removed from the crime scenes and disposed of ASAP.

If it was all about "incompetence", I leave you all with this question:
WHY HAS NOBODY BEEN FIRED? Methinks, you're asking the wrong people, ask those who were responsible yourself.

And if there is any evidence that our officials had any part in allowing the attacks to happen for political gain, then they should be brought to trial as accessories before and after the fact to the mass murder of 3000 people (and other crimes).

If they let it happen, then they made it happen.
Same end, just a different course... but both equally guilty.

... at least provide a link (or two).

Oh, and I'd prefer something from the public record, you know, actual factual data, that is referenced and/or sourced. You know, SOP like from time established peer reviewed literature. or at least something from the written public record.

BTW, could you please refrain from asking your "truth pooper troopers" spamming the AO/PO forums, I mean seriously, you people are really starting to sound manic.

It's actually kind of sad, because the louder you scream, the less people are willing to listen to whatever it is you're trying to say. \
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #126 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

... at least provide a link (or two).

Oh, and I'd prefer something from the public record, you know, actual factual data, that is referenced and/or sourced. You know, SOP like from time established peer reviewed literature.

BTW, could you please refrain from asking your "truth pooper troopers" spamming the AO/PO forums, I mean seriously, you people are really starting to sound manic.

It's actually kind of sad, because the louder you scream, the less people are willing to listen to whatever it is you're trying to say. \

Look. I believe that Cheney has been trying to reach this zenith of power since he was a buddy with Rummy for the Ford administration. He was despondent watching the powers of the president removed one by one after Nixon. He believed the president should have more powers exceeding Nixon's. He wanted the neo-conservatives to be a major force in all forms of government policy.

It's documented. Watch Frontline's "Cheney's Law" or "The Dark Side". All there.

As far as implications to 9|11, neither report points to this. But it would accelerate the doctrine and the purpose he needed after 9|11 to get them done.

For the whole NORAD thing, try reading Vanity Fair's 9-11 Live the NORAD Tapes.
post #127 of 157
[QUOTE=BRussell;1169618]How can we forget about them when that's exactly the kind of nonsense you people have been arguing proves something.

I have never stated that the Twin Towers were destroyed as a result of a controlled demolition. I have asked questions, for sure.. but what is so wrong with that?

Quote:
If you've got something other than "watch the video of the plane in slo-mo" and "buildings can't collapse without explosives inside of them," I'd love to see it.

Again, that is not what I have said. Please, if you want to defend the Bush Administration and its story, please don't misquote me, out words into my mouth, or attribute non-existent material and comments to me.

~

If it was just incompetence, with no element of an "inside job", why are you people still defending the Bush Administration's incompetence? Do you think they should get away with allowing such a huge and deadly breach of national security with ZERO accountability? That is what it looks like! Are they so honest and truthful and transparent ... so Christlike that just to ask a leetle question or two is inappropriate? Or are you people so scared of upsetting the applecart that you just want things (corruption) to continue as normal, and just forget about it all?

I spend time in here asking questions.... (the media won't ask them) hoping that this would be a reasonably open-minded forum in which to posequestions which have not been answered. The fact that some of you people try slap down people who just ask questions (I'm not even talking of alternative theories here, just simple questions)... is incredibly sad, a reflection of these bizarre times we live in.

When the realization and subsequent execution of our administration's entire (and extreme, unsellable) agenda depended upon that event or a similar devastating incident, which happened allegedly "out of the blue with no warning", according to BushCorp... and then they lied as regards not envisaging hijackers crashing planes into buildings), it is appropriate that we challenge our leaders into providing us with a fuller and more complete story and defense, other than, or in addition to what we have been given. Over 50% of the American people want a real investigation into the attacks (as opposed to that quarter-assed exhibition of BS masquerading as a real inquiry). That is a democratic majority.. and the we the people are their bosses (allegedly). Give us, the majority what we want. If a fair and unbiased investigation into the attacks eventually got the Bush Administration off the hook and dispelled the widespread doubts and suspicion that has divided the country, this would at least provide a sense of closure for everyine, not least the relatives of those who died, many of whom think the official story stinks. Common sense has been stretched to such limits by the Bush Administration's claims of total innocence, that even despite the blanket taboo that exists within the mainstream media, material is evident that is making Joe Public bristle.

The amount of time some of you people spend in here, defending the indefensible, is staggering. Frank?
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #128 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post


For the whole NORAD thing, try reading Vanity Fair's 9-11 Live the NORAD Tapes.

The NORAD Tapes story in Vanity Fair has been debunked. The real story is rather different they what is claimed in that article.

More soon on this. I dont have time right now
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #129 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

The NORAD Tapes story in Vanity Fair has been debunked. The real story is rather different they what is claimed in that article.

More soon on this. I dont have time right now

Ah, goddamn it sammi! I just finished re-reading the whole thing! By tomorrow this'll be locked down.

You notice the original phantom posters have disappeared? It's a conspiracy.

I'm off, need laundry to do.
post #130 of 157
[QUOTE=sammi jo;1169692]
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

How can we forget about them when that's exactly the kind of nonsense you people have been arguing proves something.

I have never stated that the Twin Towers were destroyed as a result of a controlled demolition. I have asked questions, for sure.. but what is so wrong with that?



Again, that is not what I have said. Please, if you want to defend the Bush Administration and its story, please don't misquote me, out words into my mouth, or attribute non-existent material and comments to me.

~

If it was just incompetence, with no element of an "inside job", why are you people still defending the Bush Administration's incompetence? Do you think they should get away with allowing such a huge and deadly breach of national security with ZERO accountability? That is what it looks like! Are they so honest and truthful and transparent ... so Christlike that just to ask a leetle question or two is inappropriate? Or are you people so scared of upsetting the applecart that you just want things (corruption) to continue as normal, and just forget about it all?

I spend time in here asking questions.... (the media won't ask them) hoping that this would be a reasonably open-minded forum in which to posequestions which have not been answered. The fact that some of you people try slap down people who just ask questions (I'm not even talking of alternative theories here, just simple questions)... is incredibly sad, a reflection of these bizarre times we live in.

When the realization and subsequent execution of our administration's entire (and extreme, unsellable) agenda depended upon that event or a similar devastating incident, which happened allegedly "out of the blue with no warning", according to BushCorp... and then they lied as regards not envisaging hijackers crashing planes into buildings), it is appropriate that we challenge our leaders into providing us with a fuller and more complete story and defense, other than, or in addition to what we have been given. Over 50% of the American people want a real investigation into the attacks (as opposed to that quarter-assed exhibition of BS masquerading as a real inquiry). That is a democratic majority.. and the we the people are their bosses (allegedly). Give us, the majority what we want. If a fair and unbiased investigation into the attacks eventually got the Bush Administration off the hook and dispelled the widespread doubts and suspicion that has divided the country, this would at least provide a sense of closure for everyine, not least the relatives of those who died, many of whom think the official story stinks. Common sense has been stretched to such limits by the Bush Administration's claims of total innocence, that even despite the blanket taboo that exists within the mainstream media, material is evident that is making Joe Public bristle.

The amount of time some of you people spend in here, defending the indefensible, is staggering. Frank?

I will defend the actual events as they occurred on 9-11.

I will defend the multitude of disconnects leading up to and on 9-11, by the FBI, by the CIA, by the Bush Administration, by the FAA, by the airlines involved, and by the military.

I have never voted for (or supported) a Republican elected administration since I started voting in national elections in 1972.

I will defend the clusterfrag that was 9-11, simply because the events that happen that day, would have most likely have under ANY administration (e. g. Gore).

I mean, just look at the blog-o-smear, with respect to 911 or Ron Pail even, pretty much has no semblance to the underlying facts.

I will always stand stedfast to the chain of evens as has been told to us, with respect to events leading up to and on 9-11, until such time that additional compelling data are presented.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #131 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

I will always stand stedfast to the chain of evens as has been told to us, until such time that additional compelling data are presented.

The compelling evidence goes something like this:

WMDs
He's got 'em.
These are mobile chemical production facilities.
We know where they are.
Iraq - Al Quaeda - Iraq

Years later, we have no WMDs.

I do not believe one word that any of these turkeys or anybody associated with them utters, and therefore question then entire thing.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #132 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

I do not believe one word that any of these turkeys or anybody associated with them utters, and therefore question then entire thing.

So does that mean if George Bush says "the sky is blue" that it must be a lie, and that you start talking seriously and sternly about the need for "questioning" the blueness of the sky, and speculating fervently about orbiting blue light projectors or drugs in the water supply that make you see blue where blue doesn't really exist?

It's one thing not to trust the Bush administration -- and I don't myself -- it's another to think that every little real or imagined inconsistency you can find adds up to making stupidities like controlled demolition of the WTC true, just because it's NOT what Bush and his cronies say happened.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #133 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

The compelling evidence goes something like this:

WMDs
He's got 'em.
These are mobile chemical production facilities.
We know where they are.
Iraq - Al Quaeda - Iraq

Years later, we have no WMDs.

I do not believe one word that any of these turkeys or anybody associated with them utters, and therefore question then entire thing.

It was plane to see what happened on 9-11, subsequent events have nothing to do with what happened on 9-11, it's called causality.

What happened after 9-11, is of course a different matter.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #134 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave K. View Post

Since we are on the topic...

What is the official cause of why Building 7 fell when no plane hit it?

Because a 47 story building built above a con-ed substation on a cassion foundation built for a 25 story building. And the fires lasted longer than the 2 hour and 3 hour ratings on the fire protection systems on the steel. With low water pressure the sprinklers were mostly non-functional.

It was a wierd building that had been extensively modified...including holding a set of diesel generators and 24,000 gal. of diesel.
post #135 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

The NORAD Tapes story in Vanity Fair has been debunked. The real story is rather different they what is claimed in that article.

More soon on this. I dont have time right now

Meanwhile...



A Day's Air Traffic as Seen From Space
post #136 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

Meanwhile...



A Day's Air Traffic as Seen From Space

Read every word of the Vanity Fair article. As to Cheney, et. al., all we can do now is wait and hope for a better future, but I'm forever the pessimist with respect to our political leadership

BTW, thanks for the link.

That this is such a sad and such a true story is very troubling , specifically considering subsequent acts (or lack thereof) by this administration.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #137 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Read every word of the Vanity Fair article. As to Cheney, et. al., all we can do know is wait and hope for a better future, but I'm forever the pessimist with respect to our political leadership

BTW, thanks for the link.

That this is such a sad and such a true story is very troubling , specifically considering subsequent acts (or lack thereof) by this administration.

If you haven't seen "9|11-The Filmmakers Commemorative -Edition (Naudet Brothers)" [link to poor quality video] rent it. In fact, I've seen it in budget bins. I'm getting it. It's the only true account in real time of what happened in NYC on 9-11. No other documentary does this, none.
post #138 of 157
Just thought I'd point out that the investigators' hard work and determination have carried the day.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #139 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

Just thought I'd point out that the investigators' hard work and determination have carried the day.

One word:

Thermite.
post #140 of 157
What are Bush and Cheney going to do once they are out of office?
post #141 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarcUK View Post

One word:
Thermite.

Yup, everyone should watch the original X-Files movie again. This came out first in 1998. Watch it today, and it should send a chill up your spine. Otherwise you all are alien-human hybrids. In which case, I want in!
post #142 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Read every word of the Vanity Fair article. As to Cheney, et. al., all we can do now is wait and hope for a better future, but I'm forever the pessimist with respect to our political leadership

BTW, thanks for the link.

That this is such a sad and such a true story is very troubling , specifically considering subsequent acts (or lack thereof) by this administration.

I have read the Vanity Fair article, several times. I have also read counter arguments to it, several times, one of which appears in "Debunking 9/11 Debunking" (David Griffin). It won't do you any harm ( I trust) to have a look at the other side of the story, with testimony and material that Vanity Fair omitted. Part 1 of "Debunking" is some 70 pages of material which makes Bronner's Vanity Fair article appear at best, threadbare, at worst fraudulent. Using testimony and commentary from people at NORAD/NEADS/NMCC/FAA etc (not included in the Vanity Fair article of course), the facts point to the opposite conclusion: in other words, NORAD knew a hell of a lot more of what was going down that morning than what the Vanity Fair article leads its readers to believe.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #143 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

I have read the Vanity Fair article, several times. I have also read counter arguments to it, several times, one of which appears in "Debunking 9/11 Debunking" (David Griffin). It won't do you any harm ( I trust) to have a look at the other side of the story, with testimony and material that Vanity Fair omitted.

Other than the $15 and several hours of your life lost to a pointless book. Skimming the reviews it's just more of the same nonsense about how there wasn't a plane at the Pentagon, and so on.

I suppose in the 70's and 80's it was UFOs and the Burmuda Triangle books.
90's I guess it was crop circles or ?.
In the '00's it's 9/11 conspiracies.
post #144 of 157
yes, its far easier to just shut up and believe whatever they want you to believe.

If we say them WMD in Iraq...If we say a plane hit the pentagon..

One day soon, they'll just lock up people who dare to dissent the official propaganda.
post #145 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

Other than the $15 and several hours of your life lost to a pointless book. Skimming the reviews it's just more of the same nonsense about how there wasn't a plane at the Pentagon, and so on.

Your statement about "no plane at the Pentagon" goes to prove that both you, or the "reviewers" you quote, haven't read it. Oh dear.

Quote:
I suppose in the 70's and 80's it was UFOs and the Burmuda Triangle books.
90's I guess it was crop circles or ?.
In the '00's it's 9/11 conspiracies.

Especially that wild and wacky conspiracy story about the 19 losers, (a) who displayed zero lifestyle characteristics consistent with fundamentalist Islam (b) whose "best pilot" had no idea how to fly a light airplane (let alone perform, according to ATC, a "next to impossible maneuver" in a commercial airliner), (c) several of whom fraternized with members of the US military, law enforcement and intelligence communities prior to the attacks (d) seven of whom were reported alive after the attacks (e) who never appeared on the airline passenger manifests (f) whose alleged ringleader, a jewelry-wearing. womanizing, coke-snorting, hard drinking (muslim!) was funded by the head of Pakistan's ISI, who himself was in D.C., in a private meeting with Porter Goss and others on the morning of 9/11, (g) several of whom fraternized with jailed GOP lobbyist Jack Abramoff on his casino yacht prior to the attacks (h) whose videotaped presence at the departure gates in Boston and DC has no verifiable chain of custody re. authenticity... and further inconsistencies seemingly ad infinitum..... a few aspects amongst hundreds... and one doesn't need to go anywhere near "controlled demolition" to realize that the Bush/Cheney yarn 'does not compute'.

If you wish to believe in the weirdest most unlikely conspiracy tale of them all, that's your prerogative. The only reason its gotten so far is because the media has run with what they were told to run with, and reiterated such until "reality" has been forcibly carved in the public psyche.

As far as I am concerned, nobody has presented the US people and the world with a complete story regarding the attacks that makes sense as regards *every facet* of the attacks, and where the timeline isn't repeatedly violated, or changed on multiple occasions. One can reasonably give some leeway, but when the inconsistencies and absurdities in the "official storyline" are legion, when its proponents display such evasiveness and have demonstrably lied, then it is reasonable to express skepticism.

As I have said before, I blame obody specifically re. the attacks, simply because I do not know who did it. It seems as if nobody else has any clue either. Like millions of others (and pratically the entire rest of the world), I would like to see a real, open and truly independent investigation with full subpoena power available to the panel, where all witnesses have to take an oath, ie no "executive privilege" BS.

If such a rigorous inquiry found (scads of data and facts as of yet unknown) that Atta and the 19, with KSM and a few of his fundies on the side, were responsible, fair enough: we could all rest easier and get some closure on this. But to date, the wound is still open, gaping and is now infected.

As Col. Bob Bowman (USAF) said recently: "the truth about 9/11, is that nobody knows the truth about 9/11". That reflects where I am with it, and it feels no better than on the day.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #146 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

Your statement about "no plane at the Pentagon" goes to prove that both you, or the "reviewers" you quote, haven't read it. Oh dear.

These are listed by a POSITIVE review as subheadings not in the TOC:

Lack of Expected Debris
Big Plane, Small Hole
Where's the Fire?

Blah blah blah. More of Griffin's there was no airplane at the Pentagon nonsense. No airplane at the 93 crash site nonsense. WTC collapsed at freefall speeds nonsense.

Despite real physical evidence and eyewitnesses. The guy is a nutjob.

Oh dear. I guess they did read the book given they are nutjobs that liked what he said eh? Too bad nutjobs theories like "no plane" at the Pentagon have been completely debunked by everyone including other nutjob 9-11 conspiracists who complain that Griffin is a government planted nutjob trying to muddy the waters. Oh dear.
post #147 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

These are listed by a POSITIVE review as subheadings not in the TOC:

Lack of Expected Debris
Big Plane, Small Hole
Where's the Fire?

Blah blah blah. More of Griffin's there was no airplane at the Pentagon nonsense. No airplane at the 93 crash site nonsense. WTC collapsed at freefall speeds nonsense.

Despite real physical evidence and eyewitnesses. The guy is a nutjob.

Oh dear. I guess they did read the book given they are nutjobs that liked what he said eh? Too bad nutjobs theories like "no plane" at the Pentagon have been completely debunked by everyone including other nutjob 9-11 conspiracists who complain that Griffin is a government planted nutjob trying to muddy the waters. Oh dear.

Has this degenerated into a "who is the biggest nutjob" contest? If so, leave me out. The most effective weapons that the rabid supporters of the official yarn, are namecalling and insults that would be considered immature by a 6th grader. When you have a more rational argument, as opposed to O'reilly fare, I might listen.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #148 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

Has this degenerated into a "who is the biggest nutjob" contest? If so, leave me out. The most effective weapons that the rabid supporters of the official yarn, are namecalling and insults that would be considered immature by a 6th grader. When you have a more rational argument, as opposed to O'reilly fare, I might listen.

The fact remains that you put forth a book that supports the theory that Flight 77 did not hit the pentagon despite physical evidence and eyewitness reports that it did. This brings to question any other "facts" the author or you bring to the "discussion" because you accept what is clearly false as reality.

The author has a significant credibility problem both inside and outside the "truther" movement. It certainly does not help your own credibility by using him as a source.
post #149 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

The fact remains that you put forth a book that supports the theory that Flight 77 did not hit the pentagon despite physical evidence and eyewitness reports that it did. This brings to question any other "facts" the author or you bring to the "discussion" because you accept what is clearly false as reality.

The author has a significant credibility problem both inside and outside the "truther" movement. It certainly does not help your own credibility by using him as a source.

I don't know what hit the Pentagon, and neither do you: neither of us were there. And.. there is no continuous radar record from Flight 77 to verify that it was indeed the plane that impacted the Pentagon. There is plenty of evidence that a plane with a large wingspan hit the building (see analysis here).. but was it Flight 77? The flight data recorder allegedly from 77 (after the FBI lied about it's having been found, or not) puts "77" over 450 feet above the Pentagon lawn, and on a different trajectory, at the time of termination of the data. Furthermore, the sketchy radar returns from 77 (after it's disappearance) has it crossing into Eastern Missouri (!) at 10am, some 20 minutes or so after it was reported to have hit the Pentagon.

When looking for a solution, one should consider all the data and weigh it, not just the material that concurs with what you want to believe.

:
:
v

"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #150 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

I don't know what hit the Pentagon, and neither do you: neither of us were there. And.. there is no continuous radar record from Flight 77 to verify that it was indeed the plane that impacted the Pentagon. There is plenty of evidence that a plane with a large wingspan hit the building (see analysis here).. but was it Flight 77? The flight data recorder allegedly from 77 (after the FBI lied about it's having been found, or not) puts "77" over 450 feet above the Pentagon lawn, and on a different trajectory, at the time of termination of the data. Furthermore, the sketchy radar returns from 77 (after it's disappearance) has it crossing into Eastern Missouri (!) at 10am, some 20 minutes or so after it was reported to have hit the Pentagon.

When looking for a solution, one should consider all the data and weigh it, not just the material that concurs with what you want to believe.



Because there are plenty of 757s to slam into the pentagon and what the heck, the USG just "disappeared" all the folks aboard. No wait, they hand carried them INTO the pentagon in pieces for recovery after slamming a different 757 into the Pentagon.

Not to mention that your "analysis" piece distinctly says it was Flight 77 that hit the Pentagon. There are eyewitness accounts to an American Airlines airplane hitting the building (yes, they were there and they're real people).

So the USG painted a different 757 to look like the AA Flt 77 and then moved in the bodies to make it look like the REAL AA Flt 77 which was in reality in Missouri. Never mind how they got the bodies from eastern Missouri to the Pentagon...must be via teleporter.

No wait, those aren't the real bodies returned to the families! They're CLONES of the real people. That must be it!

Quote:
Conclusion
I highly doubt that local firefighters would be involved in any sort of a coverup. I highly doubt that local police officers would be involved in any sort of a government cover up. Cops and firemen are just average Joes like you and me, who go home to the wife and kids, and just try to make a living and have a good life for their families (I have many friends in both professions - of course the firemen are usually more stable marriage-wise because of their job but that doesn't make the cops any less human than you or I). The men and women who pulled over a hundred people (dead and alive) out of that building would more likely than not have noticed somebody carrying over 60 bodies into the middle of the fire they were fighting. To say that the plane that hit the Pentagon was not filled with every single person who died in this terrorist attack (not counting the unfortunate people inside the building) is one thing and one thing only - ignorant.

From your link.

But somehow there's still some mystery to you as to what hit the building.
post #151 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post



Because there are plenty of 757s to slam into the pentagon and what the heck, ......

So tell me... do you believe that the Bush Administration is telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, as regards what they claim about 9/11.. in other words every member of the admin (including the military and federal govt. agencies) were 100% in the dark, re. the impending attack... and the failure to prevent it was entirely a result of "a lack of imagination", as the 9/11 commission concluded?
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #152 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

So tell me... do you believe that the Bush Administration is telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, as regards what they claim about 9/11...

You're trying to create a false dichotomy between total trust in the Bush admin (which of course is insanely foolish) and buying into the general nuttiness of the so-called "truth" movement.

One thing I trust less than the Bush admin's honesty is their competence to pull of any of the crazily elaborate plots many "truthers" accuse them of.

One thing I trust on about equal par with the Bush admin is truther claims that they're "just asking questions" when their "questions" are all of the "When did you stop beating your wife?" variety.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #153 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by shetline View Post

You're trying to create a false dichotomy between total trust in the Bush admin (which of course is insanely foolish) and buying into the general nuttiness of the so-called "truth" movement.

The two are about equivalent. As you say, believing this stuff gives Bush far too much credit.

Quote:
One thing I trust less than the Bush admin's honesty is their competence to pull of any of the crazily elaborate plots many "truthers" accuse them of.

Absolutely.

Quote:
One thing I trust on about equal par with the Bush admin is truther claims that they're "just asking questions" when their "questions" are all of the "When did you stop beating your wife?" variety.

Hey, you need SOMETHING to come back with when your own reference link calls you names.
post #154 of 157
Links to NIST WTC7 draft reports;

Process for Submitting Comments on the WTC 7 Draft Reports

Quote:
Background

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has released three draft reports documenting the Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster – WTC 7. These reports include the draft summary report on the Investigation of WTC 7, 1 project report, and supporting technical topic report. The reports were released to the public on August 21, 2008.

These reports are being issued in draft form with a three-week period for public comment. Public comments will be accepted during the period commencing August 21, 2008 and ending at 12 noon EDT on September 15, 2008. The public is welcome to comment on any of the three draft reports issued by NIST. NIST especially encourages public comment on the draft summary report, which contains the principal findings and recommendations for changes to codes, standards, and practices. NIST will consider all comments received from the public on the three draft reports before they are issued in final form.

To ensure that your comments are properly considered, it is important that they be submitted in the appropriate format to facilitate review and disposition by the report authors. NIST will prepare a public summary of the comments received and their disposition when the final report is issued.

Submittal of Comments

Comments submitted should be specific to the maximum extent possible: they should clearly state the issue, location (report number, page number, paragraph or sentence), provide a short reason for any suggested change, and provide suggested language for the requested revision. NIST cannot guarantee consideration of comments not submitted in this format.

Comments may be submitted by e-mail to wtc@nist.gov, by fax to 301-869-6275, or by mail to:

WTC Technical Information Repository
Attention: Mr. Stephen Cauffman
National Institute of Standards and Technology
Stop 8610
Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8610

Comments should contain the following information:

Name: (Optional)
Affiliation: (Optional)
Contact: Phone number or e-mail address where you can be contacted in case of questions. (Optional)
Report Number: (e.g., NCSTAR 1-1)
Page Number:
Paragraph/Sentence: (e.g., paragraph 2/sentences 2-4)
Comment:
Reason for Comment:
Suggestion for Revision:

All comments must be received by NIST by 12:00 p.m. EDT on September 15, 2008. Comments received after this time will not be considered.

Questions about submittal of comments may be addressed to Mr. Stephen Cauffman by e-mail at cauffman@nist.gov or by telephone at 301-975-6051.

I can't wait for the Final Reports, so that I can read all public comments.

Quote:
Is it possible that thermite or thermate contributed to the collapse of WTC 7?

NIST has looked at the application and use of thermite and has determined that its use to sever columns in WTC 7 on 9/11/01 was unlikely.

Thermite is a combination of aluminum powder and a metal oxide that releases a tremendous amount of heat when ignited. It is typically used to weld railroad rails together by melting a small quantity of steel and pouring the melted steel into a form between the two rails.

To apply thermite to a large steel column, approximately 0.13 lb of thermite would be needed to heat and melt each pound of steel. For a steel column that weighs approximately 1,000 lbs. per foot, at least 100 lbs. of thermite would need to be placed around the column, ignited, and remain in contact with the vertical steel surface as the thermite reaction took place. This is for one column … presumably, more than one column would have been prepared with thermite, if this approach were to be used.

It is unlikely that 100 lbs. of thermite, or more, could have been carried into WTC 7 and placed around columns without being detected, either prior to Sept. 11 or during that day.

Given the fires that were observed that day, and the demonstrated structural response to the fires, NIST does not believe that thermite was used to fail any columns in WTC 7.

Analysis of the WTC steel for the elements in thermite/thermate would not necessarily have been conclusive. The metal compounds also would have been present in the construction materials making up the WTC buildings, and sulfur is present in the gypsum wallboard used for interior partitions.

Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #155 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by shetline View Post

You're trying to create a false dichotomy between total trust in the Bush admin (which of course is insanely foolish) and buying into the general nuttiness of the so-called "truth" movement.

No. The conclusion of the 9/11 "commission" report was exactly that: the attacks came 100% out of the blue, and the failure to forecast the attack was because of a "lack of imagination". What you seem to be saying is that it is "insanely foolish" to put total trust in the Bush Administration (appropriate, since they have lied about literally everything during the last 8 years)... but on the other hand, regarding 9/11, you claim they are the epitome of honesty, openness, sincerity and trust? Have they told the whole truth on this issue... as mandated in any criminal court case? Why are you preferring to give them so much slack on this issue?

Quote:
One thing I trust less than the Bush admin's honesty is their competence to pull of any of the crazily elaborate plots many "truthers" accuse them of.

It is strange that you put so much faith in the "ability" (!) of 19 foreign losers (whose identities are in doubt anyway) regarding their abilities to pull of such an elaborate plot, as you put it, especially when their own "competence" regarding essential aspects of the alleged plot also remains dubious. Then you claim that the Bush Administration, and by extension any elements within the US government/military wouldn't have the "competence" to pull off such a scheme. All it would take, especially considering that in 2001, the greater part of the planned Bush agenda required such an event to get the ball rolling, would be for some high level party within the Bush Admin to issue an instruction to (party unknown) "we need to do this, that and the other, but it requires a trigger: make it happen"... then just wait. Only 19 people (experts or patsies) would need to take part, not thousands, to pull it off? Yes? No? Thats not farfetched considering that the motivation lay clearly with the neoconservative movement, whose most bellicose protagonists were stacked in the Bush cabinet.

The fact that a large number of people are so pressured into conforming and not asking questions... and likewise the media... represents a large factor in insuring the success of the operation, taking advantage of a psychological aspect of the population as a whole which the (possible) instigators most probably took into account.

Quote:
One thing I trust on about equal par with the Bush admin is truther claims that they're "just asking questions" when their "questions" are all of the "When did you stop beating your wife?" variety.

Thats a patently false analogy. There are more questions regarding the attacks which remain answerless, than those which have been answered.... many of which that have been given are nothing more than "politics bracketed by science". If supporters of the official story have something a little more solid than name-calling, maybe we could get somewhere. And if the same rigor was applied to the official account as is addressed to the skeptics, then we might also get somewhere.

*

A debate, or better yet a series of debates (since the subject is so multifaceted), on prime time TV, featuring say, 5 high level parties representing the official account, and 5 skeptics to counter them could be a way of settling this ongoing battle in the minds of the public. All of the questions would be unscreened, and nothing would be "out of bounds". I am sure the skeptics would jump on the chance. If the official story was as watertight, accurate and honest as the USG/media claim, it would be so easy to debunk the truthers' claims, and in a highly public forum, and finally put the matter to rest. One would imagine that the corporate media, being so on the side of the official account, would jump on such a potential ratings winner.....
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #156 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

No.

Yes. The false dichotomy is that because the Bush administration might be lying about SOMETHING implies that the airplane that hit the Pentagon was not Flight 77 or that the WTC was brought down by explosive charges.

That the administration is lying about SOMETHING is a given because every government will put spin after a huge disaster. That doesn't imply anything more than they're trying to cover up incompetence. Could there be more beyond that? Possible but unlikely.

That they replaced one airplane full of passangers with another airplane full of passangers + a missile (or whatever) that no one saw for some bizzaro reason is simply STUPID.

Quote:
It is strange that you put so much faith in the "ability" (!) of 19 foreign losers (whose identities are in doubt anyway) regarding their abilities to pull of such an elaborate plot, as you put it, especially when their own "competence" regarding essential aspects of the alleged plot also remains dubious.

The elaborate plot consists of

1) purchasing airline tickets
2) taking over the airplanes with box cutters
3) crashing the airplanes into buildings.

Come on. They were very smart in identifing a weakness in policy (give hijackers what they want*) and exploiting it. There's no way in hell it would work today because neither the passangers or the authorities will comply.

The flying into the WTC is not all that hard. That hanjour flown poorly is evidenced by the idiotic manner in which he flew the 757. Had he been unlucky he'd have departed from controlled flight and dropped the airplane somewhere else. The hardest part is landing in one piece. He did not. He managed to plow into the side of a VERY large building.

"Despite Hanjour's poor reviews, he did have some ability as a pilot, said Bernard of Freeway Airport. "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," he said."

Off your ATS site somewhere via google. Those guys flew 737 simulators to get FAA certs. They may not have been able to land cessnas but they did have simulated heavy multi-engine experience.

I also find it mildly racist to think that these middle eastern guys would be unable to carry out an attack like this. I, for one, do not underestimate their abilities and this attack is more or less in line with what a small determined group with good finances can manage. We're talking 4 airplanes not 400. That means only 4 semi-competent pilots are required.

Does that also mean that somehow the USG might have run the activity with the terrorists as dupes? Yes, I think it's highly improbable (not to mention a tad stupid to do so) but at least it's defensible as a conspiracy theory as opposed to outright insanity.

Quote:
Then you claim that the Bush Administration, and by extension any elements within the US government/military wouldn't have the "competence" to pull off such a scheme.

Yes, because your "scheme" is a Rube Goldberg version of reality. The level of coordination and the number of folks required to wire up multiple high rise buildings in NYC (because "truthers" claim WTC 1, 2, and 7 were all wired to blow) for "controlled" demolition as well as replace Flight 77 with some alternate while inserting the bodies of the passangers of Flight 77 into the wreckage defies any rational assessment of the capabilities of ANY government.

Quote:
All it would take, especially considering that in 2001, the greater part of the planned Bush agenda required such an event to get the ball rolling, would be for some high level party within the Bush Admin to issue an instruction to (party unknown) "we need to do this, that and the other, but it requires a trigger: make it happen"... then just wait. Only 19 people (experts or patsies) would need to take part, not thousands, to pull it off? Yes? No? Thats not farfetched considering that the motivation lay clearly with the neoconservative movement, whose most bellicose protagonists were stacked in the Bush cabinet.

If you want to argue that the 19 terrorists were patsies of the CIA that's a different argument. Look above. You support the assertion that Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon.

Quote:
Thats a patently false analogy.

It's a perfectly good analogy because the only choices are

1) to believe EVERYTHING a government tells you
2) to believe EVERYTHING the "truthers" propose is "possible"

To accept either one brands you a complete moron.

Quote:
A debate, or better yet a series of debates (since the subject is so multifaceted), on prime time TV, featuring say, 5 high level parties representing the official account, and 5 skeptics to counter them could be a way of settling this ongoing battle in the minds of the public. All of the questions would be unscreened, and nothing would be "out of bounds". I am sure the skeptics would jump on the chance. If the official story was as watertight, accurate and honest as the USG/media claim, it would be so easy to debunk the truthers' claims, and in a highly public forum, and finally put the matter to rest. One would imagine that the corporate media, being so on the side of the official account, would jump on such a potential ratings winner.....

Except that there were debates between truthers and skeptics and the skeptics won every time because truthers believe in idiotic scenarios with zero basis in reality. Like Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon. It was no contest...the truthers looked like morons every time because they defended such stupid positions.


* so you can get them on the ground and take them out with tactical teams
post #157 of 157
Oh...having spent an amusing hour on ATS reading that thread...John Lear is funny as hell. I dither between the concept that he's having an immense joke on the gullible or that very smart people can have mental disorders.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: AppleOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › Learn the Truth about 9/11!