Learn the Truth about 9/11!

1234568»

Comments

  • Reply 141 of 152
    vineavinea Posts: 5,585member
    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.
  • Reply 142 of 152
    sammi josammi jo Posts: 4,634member
    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



  • Reply 143 of 152
    vineavinea Posts: 5,585member
    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.
  • Reply 144 of 152
    sammi josammi jo Posts: 4,634member
    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?
  • Reply 145 of 152
    shetlineshetline Posts: 4,695member
    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.
  • Reply 146 of 152
    vineavinea Posts: 5,585member
    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.
  • Reply 147 of 152
    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 [email protected], 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 [email protected] 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
  • Reply 148 of 152
    sammi josammi jo Posts: 4,634member
    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.....
  • Reply 149 of 152
    vineavinea Posts: 5,585member
    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
  • Reply 150 of 152
    vineavinea Posts: 5,585member
    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.
  • Reply 151 of 152

    Its quite obvious that something is wrong about the official story...

    http://outfacted.com/3-911-steel-fire-impossible

     

    I mean steel does not bend until about 700°C and jet fuel burns very well below 300°C, so mathematically and physically the official story does not make sense.

     

    Also the WTC is like the first steel building ever to fall to a fire :D

Sign In or Register to comment.