Nat'l Security Former High-Ranking Intelligence Officer: Cheney Responsible for 9/11 [Archive]

View Full Version : Nat'l Security Former High-Ranking Intelligence Officer: Cheney Responsible for 9/11

Pages : [1] 2

KILLER_CLOWN

09-02-2009, 07:21 PM

Washington’s Blog
Wednesday, Sept 2, 2009

David Steele is a former 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.

Steele has previously written that “9/11 was at a minimum allowed to happen as a pretext for war”.

This month, Steele went further, writing:

Pakistan briefed Cheney [about the plans for the terrorist attacks ahead of time] …nations also got wind of this and warned the CIA. We also had two walk-ins to the FBI, one in Orlando, one in Newark, that were dismissed by the FBI because the names were all virgins and not in the FBI data base—the arrogance of stupid bureaucracy.

Cheney saw an opportunity for what Bush called his trifecta, and gave it to him by giving the go-ahead to ISI and Al Qaeda, and ordering up a terrorism exercise that allowed him to send all relevant close-in air defense strip alert craft away from the target areas, and to disable the NORTHCOM normal response to flight path diversion.

While the details might be open to debate, many other very high-level intelligence officers have said the “official” explanation for 9/11 makes no sense. And see this and this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_David_Steele

http://www.amazon.com/review/R1LNNW9GMEILN5/ref=cm_cr_rdp_perm

http://www.wedemandtransparency.com/steele.html

http://patriotsquestion911.com/#McGovern

http://911summary.com/intel.php

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2009/06/dick-cheney-only-had-to-delay-things.html

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2009/09/former-high-ranking-intelligence.html

petegz28

09-02-2009, 09:47 PM

As much as I don't want to say 9/11 was pre-meditated or allowed to happen, I would not be surprised in the least.

KILLER_CLOWN

09-03-2009, 12:37 AM

As much as I don't want to say 9/11 was pre-meditated or allowed to happen, I would not be surprised in the least.

What will Obama's 9/11 be? I mean he has the lowest approval rating ever 7 months into his presidency so they will have to stage something to get people behind them.

whatsmynameagain

09-03-2009, 08:01 AM

What will Obama's 9/11 be? I mean he has the lowest approval rating ever 7 months into his presidency so they will have to stage something to get people behind them.

he is going to shut infowars down

then hopefully, u kill yourself...
Posted via Mobile Device

Chief Henry

09-03-2009, 08:02 AM

Riiiiiiiiiight !

KILLER_CLOWN

09-03-2009, 08:23 AM

he is going to shut infowars down

then hopefully, u kill yourself...
Posted via Mobile Device

that was a zinger, was it a half day in kindergarten?

donkhater

09-03-2009, 08:32 AM

KILLER_CLOWN

09-03-2009, 08:34 AM

So, just to make sure I'm reading this thread right:

It wouldn't really surprise anyone that the White House purposefully created lax security conditions to encourage a terrorist attack on American soil which killed thousands of Americans to perpetuate an invasion of a country.

But..

Suspicions that our current sititng president isn't a natural born citizen because no one can verify when and where he was born and has continued to block the release of documents pertaining to his birth and early school years is stuff made from tin foil hats?

Right. Got it.

Both points are valid.

wild1

09-03-2009, 08:56 AM

Thanks, I needed that.

Mr. Kotter

09-03-2009, 09:01 AM

:rolleyes:

ChiTown

09-03-2009, 09:02 AM

This must be Tin Foil Hat Day at the Planet

Donger

09-03-2009, 09:11 AM

HonestChieffan

09-03-2009, 09:13 AM

This must be Tin Foil Hat Day at the Planet

Moon Phase change?

petegz28

09-03-2009, 09:28 AM

Most of you will call this all "tin foil hat" and stuff but the fact is it is probably more true than it isn't.

Do I believe Bush organized it? No. Do I believe we knew what was happening and allowed it to happen? Increasingly more as time goes on.

You have to look at the history of American war...

The Japanese were provoked
The Gulf of Tonkin
The Lusitania being armed heavily as she sailed into hostile waters with civilians

It wouldn't surprise me one bit if we did little if anything to stop 9/11

ChiTown

09-03-2009, 09:33 AM

Radar Chief

09-03-2009, 09:34 AM

Moon Phase change?

Heh, good call.

http://www.calculatorcat.com/moon_phases/moon_phases.phtml

petegz28

09-03-2009, 09:36 AM

Based on what?

Seriously, so you must then believe that we had a 2-Term President and WH Members that were borderline criminally insane? I'm at a loss for typed words.......

Would it really shock you? You think we haven't ahd that in the past? You honestly think Roosevelt didn't know about Pearl Harbor? You think the Lusitania was not plotted out by the Americans?

None of those you talk about were effected by 9/11 and stood to gain a lot from it. That is all I am saying.

ChiTown

09-03-2009, 09:41 AM

Would it really shock you? You think we haven't ahd that in the past? You honestly think Roosevelt didn't know about Pearl Harbor? You think the Lusitania was not plotted out by the Americans?

None of those you talk about were effected by 9/11 and stood to gain a lot from it. That is all I am saying.

I'll apologize in advance, but I like to deal in the world of facts and evidence. I haven't seen any evidence to prove any of this to the contrary. Feel free to correct me, as I've been wrong more than once.

petegz28

09-03-2009, 09:41 AM

I am not saying these videos are telling the truth. But all would do well to just keep an open mind while viewing...many of you have probably seen some of these before

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/wDKa1Q1GwTQ&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/wDKa1Q1GwTQ&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

petegz28

09-03-2009, 09:42 AM

I'll apologize in advance, but I like to deal in the world of facts and evidence. I haven't seen any evidence to prove any of this to the contrary. Feel free to correct me, as I've been wrong more than once.

I am posting some videos that may or may not lend fact to the argument. What I am saying is you cannot say 100% factually that the Fed Gov had nothing to do with this

petegz28

09-03-2009, 09:46 AM

Pay clsoe attention at 4:55

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/h7cvjBViV7g&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/h7cvjBViV7g&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

ChiTown

09-03-2009, 09:48 AM

Lzen

09-03-2009, 09:48 AM

I am not saying these videos are telling the truth. But all would do well to just keep an open mind while viewing...many of you have probably seen some of these before

<object height="344" width="425">

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/wDKa1Q1GwTQ&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" height="344" width="425"></object>

Now that is some tinfoil hat stuff. Boom, boom, boom, boom. Yes, I'm sure it did sound like that. I imagine that is the way it sounds when floors pancake in progression like that.

petegz28

09-03-2009, 09:50 AM

petegz28

09-03-2009, 09:51 AM

stop

I've seen all this BS before. You're wasting your time with me, if you actually want to use that "evidence" as some sort of proof of a conspiracy. That's just flat out, full on Moon Bat shit gone crazy.

Sorry

Proof?

Taco John

09-03-2009, 09:52 AM

Seriously, so you must then believe that we had a 2-Term President and WH Members that were borderline criminally insane? I'm at a loss for typed words.......

Even if you think 9/11 was perpetrated by a bunch of goat herders who managed to pull one over on the Pentagon, it's not a stretch to believe that we had a 2 - Term President and WH Members that were criminally insane.

petegz28

09-03-2009, 09:53 AM

Now that is some tinfoil hat stuff. Boom, boom, boom, boom. Yes, I'm sure it did sound like that. I imagine that is the way it sounds when floors pancake in progression like that.

Well, this is exactly what is counted on. You are no expert in any of this as neither am I. Yet you seem 100% convinced that this is tin foil hat stuff.

All I ask you is based on what do you come to such a conclusion?

ChiTown

09-03-2009, 09:53 AM

Proof?

??

petegz28

09-03-2009, 09:54 AM

WTC 7, which was not even hit by a plane, imploded all at once.....

IT WAS FUCKING PROFESSIONALLY DEMOLISHED! There is no other explanation for why that building itself came down the way it did.

petegz28

09-03-2009, 09:54 AM

??

Prove these people are wrong is all I am saying. I am not saying they are right. I am not saying your take is right either, however.

vailpass

09-03-2009, 09:56 AM

ROFL Nothing like a hot cup of stupid to start the day.

petegz28

09-03-2009, 09:56 AM

I did not want to even entertain these thoughts for years until I finally had to come to grips with the fact of what I was seeing and what experts were saying. Yes there are experts on both sides. But to say one side is crazy because we as average people could not ever fathom doing such a thing is not evidence of anything.

WilliamTheIrish

09-03-2009, 09:58 AM

Well, this is exactly what is counted on. You are no expert in any of this as neither am I. Yet you seem 100% convinced that this is tin foil hat stuff.

All I ask you is based on what do you come to such a conclusion?

Most people feel that it's just impossible for a group of human beings to allow this to happen to the country they are charged to serve and protect.

Taco John

09-03-2009, 09:58 AM

WTC 7, which was not even hit by a plane, imploded all at once.....

IT WAS ****ING PROFESSIONALLY DEMOLISHED! There is no other explanation for why that building itself came down the way it did.

The first steel structure building in the history of architecture to suffer complete failure to the point of instantaneous implosion. Anyone who bothers to study the facts surrounding the WTC7 collapse with an objective eye and doesn't conclude that there is AT LEAST A CASE for suspicion is simply ignoring the evidence in order to feel good and fit in with popular opinion.

Ignore everything else. Just examine the facts around WTC7. There's more than enough there to raise questions that deserve answers.

petegz28

09-03-2009, 09:59 AM

If people think these floors smashed on top of each other, one by one with such perfection for such a long length, I would say the cartoon generation is being fooled.

Sorry...things just were too perfect when it came to these buildings coming down.

petegz28

09-03-2009, 09:59 AM

Most people feel that it's just impossible for a group of human beings to allow this to happen to the country they are charged to serve and protect.

I agree. But the key word is "feel". And do you think it really impossible? Seriously? Given the history of our country and war?

WilliamTheIrish

09-03-2009, 10:01 AM

Fee?

Taco John

09-03-2009, 10:01 AM

feel

petegz28

09-03-2009, 10:01 AM

The first steel structure building in the history of architecture to suffer complete failure to the point of instantaneous implosion. Anyone who bothers to study the facts surrounding the WTC7 collapse with an objective eye and doesn't conclude that there is AT LEAST A CASE for suspicion is simply ignoring the evidence in order to feel good and fit in with popular opinion.

Ignore everything else. Just examine the facts around WTC7. There's more than enough there to raise questions that deserve answers.

Exactly! And though I cannot find it now, as I am looking, I have seen footage of fireman on the ground getting peopel backed away from WTC 7 cause they were going to "blow it".

They blew it cause they were afraid it would come down unsafe. I understand that and have no problems with it. But that is not what we are told.

petegz28

09-03-2009, 10:01 AM

Fee?

edited to help you

WilliamTheIrish

09-03-2009, 10:02 AM

feel

Feeley

Felt.

WilliamTheIrish

09-03-2009, 10:05 AM

ChiTown

09-03-2009, 10:08 AM

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=5

WTC 7 Collapse
Claim: Seven hours after the two towers fell, the 47-story WTC 7 collapsed. According to 911review.org: "The video clearly shows that it was not a collapse subsequent to a fire, but rather a controlled demolition: amongst the Internet investigators, the jury is in on this one."

Fire Storm: WTC 7 stands amid the rubble of the recently collapsed Twin Towers. Damaged by falling debris, the building then endures a fire that rages for hours. Experts say this combination, not a demolition-style implosion, led to the roofline "kink" that signals WTC 7's progressive collapse. (Photograph by New York Office of Emergency Management)

FACT: Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom — approximately 10 stories — about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.

NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.

According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."

There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.

Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."

WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors — along with the building's unusual construction — were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse.

ChiTown

09-03-2009, 10:10 AM

Here's more - an update in 2008

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/research/4278874.html

whatsmynameagain

09-03-2009, 10:14 AM

that was a zinger, was it a half day in kindergarten?

no, it was half day in your mothers ass. half of the day i will be plugging your mother's ass and the othef half of the day plugging her mouth, shit for brains
Posted via Mobile Device

Radar Chief

09-03-2009, 10:14 AM

http://www.debunking911.com/index.html

:rolleyes:

Taco John

09-03-2009, 10:14 AM

petegz28

09-03-2009, 10:14 AM

One of the other aspects that has really bothered me: Why has there not been a release of the footage of the plane that hit the Pentagon from the cameras that could (possibly) help conclude that matter?

Why mothball that video?

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/zAwtmun_aj8&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/zAwtmun_aj8&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

petegz28

09-03-2009, 10:19 AM

ChiTown

09-03-2009, 10:29 AM

If all we need to put our concerns at rest is an article from a magazine, then so be it. There's not much I can tell anyone if they think a single article from Popular Mechanics should be the last word on the greatest crime this nation has ever suffered.

Likewise, if all you need is a bunch of YouTube videos from amateur conspiracy theorists to prove your point, without ANY real evidence, then I can't help the fact that you're looking for a Conspiracy that just isn't there.

One other question......
In our World, where THOUSANDS of great minds exit, how come none of this has ever really come to light in front of our vast liberal mainstream media that would love nothing more than to hang the 9/11 Conspiracy around the Bush Administrations neck? If there's enough evidence to convince you, why wouldn't there be enough evidence to convince the people who have power, and could have absolutely brought the hammer down on the Bush WH?

Hells bells, you would have at least thought Geraldo would have single-handedly taken this project on. I mean, if he'll risk his career to uncover a few beer bottles looking for the Secret Vaults of Al Capone, certainly he could uncover this vast 9/11 WH Conspiracy with all the evidence lying at our fingertips.......

Radar Chief

09-03-2009, 10:30 AM

Mr. Kotter

09-03-2009, 11:05 AM

So much for that “open mind” crap you were talking.

LMAO

petegz28

09-03-2009, 11:06 AM

Likewise, if all you need is a bunch of YouTube videos from amateur conspiracy theorists to prove your point, without ANY real evidence, then I can't help the fact that you're looking for a Conspiracy that just isn't there.

One other question......
In our World, where THOUSANDS of great minds exit, how come none of this has ever really come to light in front of our vast liberal mainstream media that would love nothing more than to hang the 9/11 Conspiracy around the Bush Administrations neck? If there's enough evidence to convince you, why wouldn't there be enough evidence to convince the people who have power, and could have absolutely brought the hammer down on the Bush WH?

Hells bells, you would have at least thought Geraldo would have single-handedly taken this project on. I mean, if he'll risk his career to uncover a few beer bottles looking for the Secret Vaults of Al Capone, certainly he could uncover this vast 9/11 WH Conspiracy with all the evidence lying at our fingertips.......

A lot of these videos have Firefighters and quotes fro College Profressors and other experts and you just dismiss them out of hand. For no other reason than you think something like this would never happen.

Mr. Kotter

09-03-2009, 11:08 AM

ChiTown

09-03-2009, 11:14 AM

A lot of these videos have Firefighters and quotes fro College Profressors and other experts and you just dismiss them out of hand. For no other reason than you think something like this would never happen.

I'm not dismissing what the firefighters "heard" or "saw". I'm dismissing their comments being attributable to some sort of conspiracy. Big difference.

As far as the "Professors" go, yes, I'm dismissing their take, as I have read enough to believe that they are wrong - imo.

jAZ

09-03-2009, 11:15 AM

I've said this before.

I don't think you can dismiss the potential of the following:

1) Bush WH didn't understand or much believe the threat of terrorism was the #1 priority
2) They turned an ingorant/blind eye on the threat building over the summer
3) They didn't see a domestic terrorist attack (even a failed attempt) as an entirely bad thing
4) They never imagined the scale of the damange
5) They chose not to go above and beyond to avoid the threat

Those things are imaginable based on smoe circumstantial evidnece. The biggest hurdle to thinking in those terms for me was the "no one would ever even *think* of such a thing".

Then I read about:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

Operation Northwoods
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Operation Northwoods memorandum (March 13, 1962).[1]Operation Northwoods, or Northwoods, was a false-flag plan, proposed within the United States government in 1962. The plan called for CIA or other operatives to commit apparent acts of terrorism in U.S. cities to create public support for a war against Castro-led Cuba. One plan was to "develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington".

This operation is especially notable in that it included plans for hijackings and bombings followed by the use of phony evidence that would blame the terrorist acts on a foreign government, namely Cuba.

The plan stated:

The desired resultant from the execution of this plan would be to place the United States in the apparent position of suffering defensible grievances from a rash and irresponsible government of Cuba and to develop an international image of a Cuban threat to peace in the Western Hemisphere.

Operation Northwoods was drafted by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and signed by then-Chairman Lyman Lemnitzer, and sent to the Secretary of Defense.

Several other proposals were listed, including the real or simulated actions against various U.S military and civilian targets. Operation Northwoods was part of the U.S. government's Cuban Project (Operation Mongoose) anti-Castro initiative. It was never officially accepted or executed.

Taco John

09-03-2009, 11:15 AM

Likewise, if all you need is a bunch of YouTube videos from amateur conspiracy theorists to prove your point, without ANY real evidence, then I can't help the fact that you're looking for a Conspiracy that just isn't there.

I'm not trying to prove any point except that there are a lot of legitimate questions that have gone unanswered - or at the very least inadequately answered. And even then, I've given up on even trying to prove that much. Americans simply don't care to get to the bottom of this thing.

One other question......
In our World, where THOUSANDS of great minds exit, how come none of this has ever really come to light in front of our vast liberal mainstream media that would love nothing more than to hang the 9/11 Conspiracy around the Bush Administrations neck? If there's enough evidence to convince you, why wouldn't there be enough evidence to convince the people who have power, and could have absolutely brought the hammer down on the Bush WH?

Hells bells, you would have at least thought Geraldo would have single-handedly taken this project on. I mean, if he'll risk his career to uncover a few beer bottles looking for the Secret Vaults of Al Capone, certainly he could uncover this vast 9/11 WH Conspiracy with all the evidence lying at our fingertips.......

Look at what happens to the people who have tried. They get attacked mercilessly just for asking the questions.

It's quite simple: people are sheep. They say that you're disgracing the memory of those who died if you even ask the question. It's a simple equation: ask the question, you get attacked. In some cases, you lose your job - your tenureship - your advertisers - and they go after your credibility. Just for asking the question. If you start to draw conclusions from the counter evidence (ie. the stuff that Popular Mechanics doesn't pay any attention to), and the fire gets hotter.

There are not many people "in the mainstream" who are willing to risk their lives and livelihood on this until the popular tide turns.

jAZ

09-03-2009, 11:20 AM

Like something of that magnitude could, magically, be kept a secret. Get a life...

It doesn't take a conspiracy of blowing things up. That, to me, seems ridiculous.

But if someone else is poised to blow things up, and you can make a minimal effort to avoid it, that's entirely different.

At that point the actions of an incompetent administration and calculatedly passive administration are identical. The only difference being motive.

petegz28

09-03-2009, 11:23 AM

Like something of that magnitude could, magically, be kept a secret. Get a life...

Wow, that is some excellent analysis, Kotter. Award winning stuff. You got anything to support that other than specualtion on a gut feeling?

petegz28

09-03-2009, 11:25 AM

It doesn't take a conspiracy of blowing things up. That, to me, seems ridiculous.

But if someone else is poised to blow things up, and you can make a minimal effort to avoid it, that's entirely different.

At that point the actions of an incompetent administration and calculatedly passive administration are identical. The only difference being motive.

Minimal effort to avoid it or maximum effort to exploit it?

ChiTown

09-03-2009, 11:28 AM

I'm not trying to prove any point except that there are a lot of legitimate questions that have gone unanswered - or at the very least inadequately answered. And even then, I've given up on even trying to prove that much. Americans simply don't care to get to the bottom of this thing.

Look at what happens to the people who have tried. They get attacked mercilessly just for asking the questions.

It's quite simple: people are sheep. They say that you're disgracing the memory of those who died if you even ask the question. It's a simple equation: ask the question, you get attacked. In some cases, you lose your job - your tenureship - your advertisers - and they go after your credibility. Just for asking the question. If you start to draw conclusions from the counter evidence (ie. the stuff that Popular Mechanics doesn't pay any attention to), and the fire gets hotter.

There are not many people "in the mainstream" who are willing to risk their lives and livelihood on this until the popular tide turns.

So refusing to buy into the conspiracy makes people sheep?

Solid.....

Taco John

09-03-2009, 11:29 AM

Wow, that is some excellent analysis, Kotter. Award winning stuff. You got anything to support that other than specualtion on a gut feeling?

Of course he doesn't. Kotter's only concern in life is what "the cool people" think about him. He's not going to look at any issue critically where he might go against the mainstream. His entire existence is about being in the center of the mainstream.

KILLER_CLOWN

09-03-2009, 11:29 AM

So refusing to look at all the evidence presented makes people sheep?

Solid.....

FYP and yup.

ChiTown

09-03-2009, 11:31 AM

FYP and yup.

:LOL:

No, not at all. If I look at something and don't agree with your "evidence", then I'm a sheep.

petegz28

09-03-2009, 11:32 AM

So refusing to buy into the conspiracy makes people sheep?

Solid.....

Well, I won't speak for Taco and I am not calling anyone a sheep. I am just saying that the typical reaction one has when asked of 9/11 was known of or otherwise exploited byt the Bush Admin is exactly what the expected behavior is.

Most people won't believe it cause it is not in the nature of most people to do something like that.

However, there are legitimate issues, such as WTC 7, the uniform demolition of not 1 but 2 towers and the case of the missing airliner at the Pentagon, that seem to be glosseed over without legitimate answers.

So what I am saying is that, while I don't believe Bush orchestrated 9/11, I believe it was known about, aided and exploited.

KILLER_CLOWN

09-03-2009, 11:34 AM

:LOL:

No, not at all. If I look at something and don't agree with your "evidence", then I'm a sheep.

No All of THE evidence, this isn't my evidence. I'm coming at this wanting to know the truth not drawing conclusions based on the fact that this can't happen here.

Taco John

09-03-2009, 11:35 AM

So refusing to buy into the conspiracy makes people sheep?

Solid.....

See, that's not even what I said. You and I can't communicate because you refuse to examine the counter evidence, and immediately jump to the conclusion that you are comfortable with.

Nobody has asked you to buy into any conspiracy. Just to examine the evidence around WTC7. Whether you can accept it or not, there are a lot of inadequately answered questions. You seem to brush these under the rug with a wave of a wand. That's ok with me. But your wand doesn't actually remove a single question from the table.

ChiTown

09-03-2009, 11:37 AM

No All of THE evidence, this isn't my evidence. I'm coming at this wanting to know the truth not drawing conclusions based on the fact that this can't happen here.

Doesn't fkg matter what I say or show you as counter "evidence". If you want to believe in conspiaracies, you can dig them up all day long.

I posted the Pop Mech links and they were disregarded as quickly as I disregarded the YouTube proof.

Radar Chief

09-03-2009, 11:38 AM

A lot of these videos have Firefighters and quotes fro College Profressors and other experts and you just dismiss them out of hand. For no other reason than you think something like this would never happen.

The Popular Mechanics article was done by a panel of actual architects and structural engineers, yet you’re dismissing their expert analysis “out of hand”.

petegz28

09-03-2009, 11:40 AM

The Popular Mechanics article was done by a panel of actual architects and structural engineers, yet you’re dismissing their expert analysis “out of hand”.

I am not dismissing their analysis at all. I take theirs into consideration with the others.

Explain to me how WTC 7 was imploded perfectly when it was never even hit by a plane?

Taco John

09-03-2009, 11:41 AM

I posted the Pop Mech links and they were disregarded as quickly as I disregarded the YouTube proof.

That's because the Popular Mechanic links are inadequate. We're talking about the greatest crime our nation has ever suffered, and you want to put it to rest with a 3000 word article from a pop-science publication. Just the idea that we won't accept a pop-sci publication as the last word on this bristles you. And then you wonder why someone would throw around a word like "sheep."

KILLER_CLOWN

09-03-2009, 11:41 AM

9/11: Looking for Truth in Credentials: The Peculiar WTC “Experts”

When Matthew Rothschild, editor of the online magazine The Progressive, wrote an article called “Enough of the 9/11 Conspiracies, Already”, we all knew he was not talking about the conspiracy theory that the US government sells us to justify the expanding 9/11 Wars.[1] To the contrary, in writing that article Mr. Rothschild was selling that same theory himself. What he actually meant was that people should not question the US government’s story of terror because credentialed experts have been found to support it. But the fact is that the experts found to support the official conspiracy theory of 9/11 are predominantly those who profit from doing so. That’s not to say that all of these people were “part of the conspiracy”. But they are, whether consciously or not, a part of the cover-up. And that, of course, is the greater crime.

The Bush Administration employed a number of such credentialed experts to give us multiple explanations for the unprecedented destruction of three tall steel-framed buildings at the World Trade Center (WTC). Unfortunately, all of those explanations have proven to be false, and this fact reminds us that academic credentials don’t necessarily make a person more capable, or more likely, to tell the truth.

Exactly how they could find so many experts on the fire-induced collapse of tall buildings is not immediately clear, considering such an event had never happened before. But it did help that the questions were quickly framed as being solely matters of structural engineering, a sub-field of civil engineering, because structural engineers cannot find work without continual government approvals. A Chemistry laboratory manager like myself can work without permits or licenses, but people can’t just go out and build a bridge or a tall building on their own. The extensive paperwork necessary to complete civil engineering projects is obtained by working closely with, and staying on good terms with, local and national authorities. That fact may not be enough to ensure vocal support for the official story of “global collapse”, but it has been enough to keep most structural engineers from publicly opposing the intransigent government stance on the WTC events.

From where, then, has the vocal support come within the engineering community? Matthew Rothschild points to some interesting characters when he says that “I made a few calls myself”, including to Gene Corley and to Mete Sozen. Additionally, Rothschild says that he consulted “some of the top building design and engineering firms”, like Skidmore Owings & Merrill, and Greenhorne & O’Mara. To emphasize just how solid the government’s story is, he adds that he “also contacted engineering professors at MIT and other leading universities in the country, and none of them puts any stock in the 9/11 conspiracy theories.”

What Mr. Rothschild failed to tell us is that Gene Corley and Mete Sozen not only created the reports that he is defending, but have also, for many years, worked for the US Department of Defense (DOD) through the Blast Mitigation for Structures Program (BMSP). Since 1997, this program has provided the DOD with expertise in explosives, and has been funded at $10 million annually.[2] After 9/11, astronomical increases in DOD funding were likely to have benefited all DOD partners and programs, like DOD’s Nunn-Perry award winner, Greenhorne & O’Mara, and those involved with the BMSP. Of course, the DOD was probably already awash in black-budget funds prior to 9/11, as indicated by the missing trillions reported by the DOD on 9/10/01.[3]

Rothschild also failed to let us know that Skidmore Owings & Merrill (SOM), one of his independent engineering firms, is responsible for the architectural design of the new Freedom Tower. SOM gained that contract at the personal insistence of Larry Silverstein, the original owner of WTC 7 and the WTC towers’ leaseholder. Mr. Rothschild may also not be aware that William Baker, a top executive at SOM, was involved in several of the official WTC investigations and reports that have been generated. In any case it is clear that the “Freedom Tower” would not be the publicity-rich project it is today if an alternative explanation forced us to rename it the “There Goes Our Freedom Tower”.

Getting back to those experts at BMSP, we see that DOD employs a number of consulting firms to help out Corley and Sozen, in what is called the Blast Mitigation Action Group (BMAG), including ARUP, ARA, SAIC, SGH, Thornton-Tomasetti and Weidlinger Associates.[4] It should be noted that most of these firms were major contributors to the various official explanations for collapse of the WTC buildings, as well as being government contractors in fields related to terrorism. Strangely, despite their overwhelming expertise in the use of explosives, none of their explanations for the WTC events had anything to do with explosives.

That’s not to say that these characters never deal with explosives, however, as Corley and Sozen were two of the four members of the Oklahoma City (OKC) engineering investigation, along with Paul Mlakar and Charles Thornton. The work they did followed the damage estimates found within the Federal Emergency Management Administration’s (FEMA) OKC report, written by Greenhorne & O’Mara. Although none of these credentialed experts even toured the site at OKC, Corley and Sozen were able to produce an engineering report that was a highly questionable extrapolation of minimal evidence, primarily the size of a bomb crater, provided to them by the FBI.[5] Their report was created in support of the “One Guy, One Truck Bomb” political story that directly contradicted testimony given by several leading experts, including USAF General Benton Partin.

After spending 25 years dealing with explosive weaponry, General Partin independently studied the damage done to the Murrah building in the month before the evidence was destroyed, and made several strong statements to members of the US Congress. In July of 1995, General Partin wrote to Senator Trent Lott, stating, “The attached report contains conclusive proof that the bombing of the Aflred P. Murrah Federal Building…was not caused solely by the truck bomb. Evidence shows that the massive destruction was primarily the result of four demolition charges placed at critical structural points at the third floor level.” He added “No government law enforcement agency should be permitted to demolish, smash and bury evidence of a…terrorist attack without a thorough examination by an independent, technically competent agency.”[6]

When speaking about the unprecedented destruction of evidence, General Partin was referring to the demolition of the Murrah Building by Mark Loizeaux’s company, just five days after Partin made his strong statements directly to the US Congress. But Partin might as well have been talking about the WTC six years later, where much of the steel evidence was destroyed in the month before engineering investigators began inspecting the scene. It was noted by the House Committee on Science, as they reviewed early shortcomings of the WTC investigation, that, “Some of the critical pieces of steel…were gone before the first BPAT team member ever reached the site.”[7] At the time of this destruction of evidence, Gene Corley was in charge of the investigation and his OKC partner Charles Thornton’s company was in charge of the site at Ground Zero.

In any case, it is clear that Rothschild’s primary experts have a long history of involvement in US government interests, and in highly questionable engineering reports. But surely the “engineering professors at MIT and other leading universities in the country” could not all be so tied to US government interests. There must be some objective members within the group of scientists supporting the Bush Administration’s theories, and some agreement among scientists around the world.

The truth is that interpretation of the events at the WTC does include some agreement from all parties. We all agree that no tall steel-framed building in history has ever collapsed uniformly at nearly free-fall speed into a pile of rubble for any reason whatsoever, outside of demolition. And we’re in agreement that the first three occasions of such an event supposedly occurred all on the same day, all in the same place. To round out a quick agreement, we can all safely say that these improbable events were the emotional basis for the passing of legislation that had already been written (e.g. the Patriot Act), and for the invasion of several strategically-important countries, the plans for which were already in the works.

From there, however, the views of the government’s credentialed experts diverge from those who are more interested in objectively seeking the truth. The initial facts of agreement should lead any objective person to seek a detailed investigation that leaves no hypothesis un-examined. But for the government’s credentialed experts, only one hypothesis was worthy of consideration, a fire-based failure of all three buildings that jibed with the overall official version of the events of that day.

In support of that fire-based triple play, the experts gave us a progression of false stories. The media gave us the first false story, with help from PhD engineers, some of whom were contributors to the official reports. Eduardo Kausel, an “engineering professor at MIT” and contributor to the WTC report generated by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), suggested to us in Scientific American that this catastrophe was probably due to the jet fuel fires melting the steel in the buildings.[8] He was joined in this early theory by a handful of other PhD engineers and professors around the country, and by the US government’s top suspect - Osama Bin Laden. The US State Department still promotes the melting steel theory by promoting the alleged confession video of the alleged Bin Laden, which Matthew Rothschild finds convincing as well. In this confession video, the credentialed expert Bin Laden said -- “Due to my experience in this field, I was thinking that the fire from the gas in the plane would melt the iron structure of the building..."[9] Apparently Bin Laden’s plan was a complete failure after all, because even the experts now agree that jet fuel-accelerated office fires cannot melt steel (or Iron for that matter).

Another structural engineer who made early claims of melting steel, in the infamous 2002 Nova video “Why the Towers Fell”, was Matthys Levy. Mr. Levy was a principal at the BMAG consulting firm Weidlinger Associates that, later, with the help of many other PhD engineers, produced a report on the WTC disaster as part of an insurance claim by Larry Silverstein.[10] This Silverstein-Weidlinger investigation was based on extensive computer modeling and involved many of the same contractors that contributed to the government studies. Their final report told us that floor failure had nothing to do with the WTC disasters, but “that the failure of columns alone, independent of the floors, explains the collapses.”[11] At the time, Levy told us “There is no doubt left about the sequence of failure.”[12]

Unfortunately, the credentialed experts were wrong again. Until NIST’s final report came out in 2005, the “Pancake Theory” had replaced the column failure theory as the most widely accepted explanation for collapse. FEMA, along with a professor of Engineering from Northwestern, Zdenek Bazant, championed this theory of pancaking floors as the major explanation for the collapse of both towers, directly contradicting the Silverstein-Weidlinger report. This was strange, considering many of the same experts were involved in both the FEMA and Weidlinger investigations, including Gene Corley.

Amazingly enough, just last summer NIST finally admitted that the explanation could not involve pancaking floors either, by saying “NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse”.[13] NIST’s findings, first reported in their final draft report of October 2004 and built over a period of several years, originally consisted of two considerably different stories for the two towers. But NIST modified this nine months later in their final, final draft report, giving just one story for both towers about “widely-dislodged” fireproofing and sagging floors pulling the external columns inward, with no mention of pancaking. Their final, final collapse initiation sequence, the essence of their report, is now known to be false in every aspect.[14]

Through the years, NIST and the other official investigators ignored the demolition hypothesis completely, as can be seen from their reports and archived presentations. That’s not surprising though, as the scientists working for FEMA and NIST, and therefore for the Bush Administration, would not likely lead their investigation toward a result that would limit or stop the 9/11 Wars. For example John Gross of NIST and Therese McAllister of Greenhorne & O’Mara, who not only co-authored the most important sections of NIST’s report, but were also primary authors of FEMA’s report, continue to act deaf, dumb and blind when it comes to evidence for the demolition hypothesis.[15] And we can imagine that all those “independent” contractors who contributed to the ever-changing story, who were also consulting firms for the DOD’s interesting Blast Mitigation Action Group, would be hard-pressed to offer an explanation that would require a less militarily focused solution.

The only supposedly independent corroboration that the Bush scientists at NIST could produce for their appalling pack of lies was from that old respected scientific institution, Popular Mechanics. This Hearst magazine is not, as most people know, a scientific publication in any way, shape or form. When they talk about Mechanics, they do not mean Quantum Mechanics or Statistical Mechanics, or even Classical Mechanics. Popular Mechanics (PM) is simply a gloss-covered advertisement for numerous consumer items ranging from ATVs to lawn mowers. You know – mechanics.

This hasn’t prevented many who cling to the official story from using PM as their scientific champion. For example, in his poorly researched hit piece against “conspiracy theorists”, British essayist George Monbiot foists Popular Mechanics upon us, saying they “polled 300 experts” to support their findings.[16] But science is not about popularity, and PM’s “poll” of “structural engineering/building collapse experts” actually consisted of only about 33 people, some of them listed as photographers, media-relations staff and spokespersons. Of those that were engineering-related, most were in some way related to OKC, FEMA, NIST or DOD, and many were responsible for the Weidlinger report, the Pancake Theory, or the NIST report.[17] It turns out that, when it comes to scientific explanations for terrorist acts, it’s a small world after all.

MORE

KILLER_CLOWN

09-03-2009, 11:42 AM

It’s in PM’s book, “Debunking 9/11 Myths”, that we find this survey. Here they include other figures like Forman Williams, although they fail to tell you that Dr. Williams was also a member of NIST’s top advisory committee, and therefore was defending his own work. Williams is presented by PM as a disinterested academic expert, but one must wonder how disinterested Williams was when the University of California San Diego received $393 million in federal grants in 2005, the same year the NIST WTC report came out, with his own Engineering department receiving $44 million of that sum.[18] Another of PM’s disinterested experts was Engineering professor Richard Fruehan of Carnegie Mellon University, an institute that received $100 million in federal grants that same year, with Engineering and research grants accounting for approximately half of the total.

In the case of Popular Mechanics, we see people being quite openly deceptive in their strong support of the Bush Administration’s terror story. In their book they promote false claims that the government no longer supports, including the Pancake Theory. They also promote other, more ridiculous ideas including the claim that massive damage was done to the basement levels of a WTC tower by a bolus of jet fuel that meandered its way through several elevator shafts in the jogged elevator system, moving carefully around the elevators themselves and waiting all the while to explode in the sub-basements over 90 stories below. Additionally, PM repeats the false and ludicrous claim that the buildings were designed for airliner impacts, but not for jet fuel fires. In fact, John Skilling, the actual chief engineer of the WTC, made it clear in 1993 that jet fuel fires were considered in the structural design.[19]

In the forward to PM’s book, Republican Senator John McCain describes how he feels the truth behind September 11th is more mundane than “conspiracy mongers” would have us believe. Strangely, he refers us to the “banality of Nazi evil” to show that 9/11 was probably not an elaborate conspiracy. That is, according to McCain, 9/11 was probably NOT part of a simple plan by corporate-funded politicians to maintain and expand their power, but was instead the work of a small group of powerless fanatics whose plans to bring about worldwide totalitarian rule were held back only by our own cherished freedoms. That’s a tough bit to swallow, to be sure, but the idea that a Hearst publication would resort to the “banality of Nazi evil” is absolutely astounding. That’s because in writing this forward, Senator McCain joined an infamous group of Hearst publication authors, including Adolf Hitler and Hermann Goering, who wrote for Hearst, the latter until 1938.[20]

Those of us fighting for the truth about 9/11 owe it to the victims of the expanding 9/11 Wars, and to ourselves, to reveal these ongoing lies from corporate criminals and their credentialed “experts”. It is becoming increasingly obvious that those giving us one false story after another, while simultaneously ignoring much of the evidence of 9/11, might have more than just a cozy relationship with this government, and more than a benign past. It seems quite possible that some among those providing these explanations are knowingly complicit in the greater crime of a 9/11 cover-up.

It is also true that, like Matthew Rothschild, many of us simply want quick and easy answers, in order to relieve ourselves of any need to think about the facts of 9/11 and the changes in worldview that might be demanded of such an examination. The problem is, the easy answers have all been wrong, while at the same time the experts have ignored one fairly simple hypothesis that is now becoming obvious to many. It should be clear that this is because the credentialed experts we’ve been dealing with are all quite well invested in maintaining the official version of events.

1. Enough of the 9/11 Conspiracies, Already, The Progressive, Matthew Rothschild, September 11, 2006 http://www.progressive.org/mag_wx091106

2. For a short description of DOD’s BMSP, see “Department of Defense Should Broaden Communication Efforts to Protect Federal and Civilian Buildings From Bomb Attacks”, The National Academy of Sciences, November 2001, http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=10230

3. Missing Trillions: Rumsfeld Buries Admission of Missing 2+ Trillion Dollars in 9/10/01 Press Conference, 911Research.com, http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/trillions.html

4. US Army Corps of Engineers, Blast Mitigation Action Group (BMAG), Consulting Firms, https://bmag.usace.army.mil/consulting_firms.php

5. Blast Loading and Response of Murrah Building, Mlakar, Corley, Sozen, Thornton, 1997, http://www.terrorisminfo.mipt.org/pdf/forensicengineering2.pdf

6. General Partin’s letter to Senator Lott can be found in its entirety in the Final Report on the Bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building, April, 19,1995, The Oklahoma Bombing Investigation Committee, Appendix, page 378-380. This letter is also reproduced here -http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/OK/PARTIN/ok8.htm

7. See Context of 'March 6, 2002: House Committee on Science Holds Hearing on WTC Collapses Investigation, Cooperative Research, http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a030602collapsehearing

8.“When the Twin Towers Fell”, Scientific American, October 9, 2001 http://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/sciam/

9. The US State Department still appears to be promoting this first false theory by promoting Osama (Fatty) Bin Laden’s baseless statements. US State Department website: The Top September 11 Conspiracy Theories, http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/display.html?p=pubs-english&y=2006&m=August&x=20060828133846esnamfuaK0.2676355

10. Profile: Weidlinger Associates, Cooperative Research http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?entity=weidlinger_associates_1

11. “Report Ties WTC Collapses to Column Failures”, Engineering News-Record, 10/25/02, McGraw Hill Construction, http://www.construction.com/NewsCenter/Headlines/ENR/20021025b.asp

12. Study Absolves Twin Tower Trusses, Fireproofing, Engineering News-Record, 11/04/02 http://enr.construction.com/news/buildings/archives/021104.asp

13. Answers to Frequently Asked Questions, August 2006, National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster, http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

14. See my essay, What is 9/11 Truth? – The First Steps, at the Journal of 911 Studies, http://www.journalof911studies.com . Also see the critique of my presentation Review of 'A New Standard For Deception: The NIST WTC Report' A Presentation by Kevin Ryan, Jim Hoffman, 911Research.com, 10/15/06 http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/kevin_ryan/newstandard.html

15. See video of John Gross’ presentation at the University of Texas Austin, with testimonies and evidence of molten metal at the WTC. Project for New American Citizens, http://911blogger.com/node/6104

16. “A 9/11 Conspiracy Virus is Sweeping the World, But it Has No Basis in Fact”, George Monbiot, The Guardian, February 6, 2007, http://film.guardian.co.uk/features/featurepages/0,,2007519,00.html

17. Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can’t Stand up to the Facts, Dunbar & Reagan, Hearst Press, 2006. Note: See also Eduardo (melting steel) Kausel’s glowing review in the front cover.

18. See Fedspending.org, Grants, http://www.fedspending.org/

19. City in the Sky: The Rise and Fall of the World Trade Center, James Glanz and Eric Lipton, (New York: Times Books, 2003), 138

20. Remembering “The Chief”, PBS’s Online NewsHour, 9/07/00, http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/media/july-dec00/nasaw_9-7.html

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=5071

Taco John

09-03-2009, 11:43 AM

The Popular Mechanics article was done by a panel of actual architects and structural engineers, yet you’re dismissing their expert analysis “out of hand”.

Out of hand? Nonsense. There are plenty of counter arguments to this article available that are also put together by actual architects and structural engineers.

ChiTown

09-03-2009, 11:43 AM

See, that's not even what I said. You and I can't communicate because you refuse to examine the counter evidence, and immediately jump to the conclusion that you are comfortable with.

Nobody has asked you to buy into any conspiracy. Just to examine the evidence around WTC7. Whether you can accept it or not, there are a lot of inadequately answered questions. You seem to brush these under the rug with a wave of a wand. That's ok with me. But your wand doesn't actually remove a single question from the table.

:banghead:

That's BS. I posted the Pop Mech links that show that your theories can be debunked. The difference between you and I is that I haven't been shown enough evidence to prove that I should STILL be looking for a smoking gun.

One other thing, I have looked through a lot of information on how 9/11 was an inside job, or how we ignored the information, etc. I've also looked at the other side and decided that the information provided by the Conspiracy angle just doesn't hold enough water. It's not turning a blind eye to your angle, I've actually looked into it myself and made my own assessment.

Radar Chief

09-03-2009, 11:43 AM

Taco John

09-03-2009, 11:44 AM

You're wasting your time posting long articles in this thread. They're not going to be read. They're not going to be considered.

ChiTown

09-03-2009, 11:45 AM

You're wasting your time posting long articles in this thread. They're not going to be read. They're not going to be considered.

likewise

petegz28

09-03-2009, 11:46 AM

The “bottom” has been reached. That you and others like you don’t like the conclusion seems to be where the friction is.

LMAO.....yeah, ok,,,,the bottom has been reached. Sure it has.

KILLER_CLOWN

09-03-2009, 11:49 AM

You're wasting your time posting long articles in this thread. They're not going to be read. They're not going to be considered.

I understand some of the louder ones won't read it but i'm sure a few will.

Taco John

09-03-2009, 11:50 AM

The difference between you and I is that I haven't been shown enough evidence to prove that I should STILL be looking for a smoking gun.

Then it's this simple: you haven't honestly looked for it. Truly.

The questions are there - unanswered. I'd be willing to bet that you don't even have the foggiest of ideas on what the unanswered questions even are. I'm telling you that the bar isn't that high here. Anyone who looks at WTC7 with an objective eye and without any bias is going to find plenty of unanswered (or inadequately answered) questions. There is a mountian of "things that make you go hmmm" there.

One other thing, I have looked through a lot of information on how 9/11 was an inside job, or how we ignored the information, etc. I've also looked at the other side and decided that the information provided by the Conspiracy angle just doesn't hold enough water. It's not turning a blind eye to your angle, I've actually looked into it myself and made my own assessment.

If you think the government's story on this holds enough water, more power to you. You and I just aren't going to find common ground if your tact is "well, the conspiracy side doesn't hold enough water, therefore the government side does, discussion over."

Dayze

09-03-2009, 11:51 AM

Anyone ever seen the inside of a cockpit similar to the ones in the planes that struck the towers/Pentagon? I’m not asking rhetorically, or sarcastically…seriously have no idea what they look like.

I ask because , I vaguely remember (I’m by no means fluent in the 9/11 material) the hijackers killed the pilots/took over the cockpit? Just wonder how much room there is up there in the flight deck.

Also…man; to fly I jet like that into the Pentagon would be (I would assume) difficult for a novice; even a novice pilot. I know they apparently had training…but wow. That pilot must have ate his Wheaties that day.
How hard is it for a non-pilot / non-jet pilot to navigate and fly an a/c to a point and strike a target?

I would think it would be fairly difficult?

I’m not trying to stir the pot here; I don’t really have a dog in the fight. I’ve been looking into the pilot thing as a career (Thanks Reerun!)….and just started thinking of the ‘pilot’ aspect of the whole deal.

Taco John

09-03-2009, 11:51 AM

The “bottom” has been reached. That you and others like you don’t like the conclusion seems to be where the friction is.

The "bottom" has been reached? Justice has been served?

This is seriously your take?

Donger

09-03-2009, 11:52 AM

I wonder what the percentage of these 9/11 conspiracy people are Ron Paul voters or identify themselves as libertarian?

petegz28

09-03-2009, 11:53 AM

I wonder what the percentage of these 9/11 conspiracy people are Ron Paul voters or identify themselves as libertarian?

This has what to do with anything?

Donger

09-03-2009, 11:55 AM

This has what to do with anything?

That a certain mindset is required for both.

ChiTown

09-03-2009, 11:55 AM

Then it's this simple: you haven't honestly looked for it. Truly.

The questions are there - unanswered. I'd be willing to bet that you don't even have the foggiest of ideas on what the unanswered questions even are. I'm telling you that the bar isn't that high here. Anyone who looks at WTC7 with an objective eye and without any bias is going to find plenty of unanswered (or inadequately answered) questions. There is a mountian of "things that make you go hmmm" there.

If you think the government's story on this holds enough water, more power to you. You and I just aren't going to find common ground if your tact is "well, the conspiracy side doesn't hold enough water, therefore the government side does, discussion over."

:LOL:

Truly, you win. I can't combat any of this. I'm just going to accept what I am......

lambs

KILLER_CLOWN

09-03-2009, 11:57 AM

I wonder what the percentage of these 9/11 conspiracy people are Ron Paul voters or identify themselves as libertarian?

I'm a registered republican thank you.

petegz28

09-03-2009, 11:57 AM

That a certain mindset is required for both.

I disagree

Radar Chief

09-03-2009, 11:57 AM

I am not dismissing their analysis at all. I take theirs into consideration with the others.

Explain to me how WTC 7 was imploded perfectly when it was never even hit by a plane?

Contained within the link I previously posted.
You’re already posting a misconception, WTC 7 did not fall perfectly back into it’s own footprint.

ChiTown

09-03-2009, 11:57 AM

I'm a registered republican thank you.

and Conspiracy Theorist!
:evil:

Radar Chief

09-03-2009, 11:59 AM

Out of hand? Nonsense. There are plenty of counter arguments to this article available that are also put together by actual architects and structural engineers.

Actually no, you’re quoting mostly kooks that have been disproven.

KILLER_CLOWN

09-03-2009, 11:59 AM

Contained within the link I previously posted.
You’re already posting a misconception, WTC 7 did not fall perfectly back into it’s own footprint.

Building 7's Rubble Pile

Less than seven seconds after Building 7 began to implode, all that was left of the steel skyscraper was a rubble pile. The rubble pile is notable for several features:

WTC 7 rubble pile * its location - It was centered around the vertical axis of the former building.
* its size - The pile from the 47-story building was less than two stories high.
* its tidiness - The pile was almost entirely within the footprint of the former building

What does the shape of the rubble pile indicate about the events leading to the collapse of building 7?

Consider the rubble piles produced by other collapses. The only examples of total collapses of steel frame highrises (excepting WTC 1, 2, and 7) involved either severe earthquakes or controlled demolition.
Total collapses due to earthquakes are extremely rare. The rubble piles of the few documented cases had none of the above features. 1
Total collapses due to controlled demolition generally have all of the above features. In fact, to achieve such a small, consolidated rubble pile is one of the main objectives of a controlled demolition.

http://www.wtc7.net/docs/wtc7_pile_s.jpg

petegz28

09-03-2009, 12:02 PM

Contained within the link I previously posted.
You’re already posting a misconception, WTC 7 did not fall perfectly back into it’s own footprint.

IT didn't? I believe you need to re-think that argument as the video shows differently.

Radar Chief

09-03-2009, 12:03 PM

The "bottom" has been reached? Justice has been served?

This is seriously your take?

“Justice has been served”? HTF do you jump to that conclusion? Or is this just an attempted deflection? :spock:
The answers to your questions have been provided by actual experts in the field, “the bottom has been reached”, that you and others like you don’t like those answers is the root cause for not only this topic but the discussion between you and I.
You’ve even said as much in this very topic.

Donger

09-03-2009, 12:05 PM

How do the 9/11 nuts explain that the buildings all showed signs of deformation right before they collapsed? How did the folks who planted the explosives manage that trick?

petegz28

09-03-2009, 12:05 PM

Let me repost this....start watching at 4:55. You will get 2 angles of WTC 7 being imploded along with commentary of the landlord saying to "pull it".

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/h7cvjBViV7g&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/h7cvjBViV7g&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Radar Chief

09-03-2009, 12:05 PM

IT didn't? I believe you need to re-think that argument as the video shows differently.

Contained within the link I’ve already provided.
You should rely on a little more than edited video and kooks with an agenda.

petegz28

09-03-2009, 12:06 PM

How do the 9/11 nuts explain that the buildings all showed signs of deformation right before they collapsed? How did the folks who planted the explosives manage that trick?

So now you are arguing that 2 buldings that were already deformed both fell exactly the same way? Not sure I am going to reach that far on that one, Donger.

petegz28

09-03-2009, 12:07 PM

Contained within the link I’ve already provided.
You should rely on a little more than edited video and kooks with an agenda.

Oh, so it's edited video? The implosion on 2 different cameras from 2 different angles really didn't happen?

Taco John

09-03-2009, 12:07 PM

I wonder what the percentage of these 9/11 conspiracy people are Ron Paul voters or identify themselves as libertarian?

I would be proud to wager it's a fairly high percentage. Libertarians are naturally distrustful of government and much more critical of the information that it puts out.

If we could get Republicans to be half as critical of this event as they are about Obama's selection of a dog, that would be something.

Radar Chief

09-03-2009, 12:08 PM

How do the 9/11 nuts explain that the buildings all showed signs of deformation right before they collapsed? How did the folks who planted the explosives manage that trick?

Yup, and again, contained in the link provide.

Donger

09-03-2009, 12:08 PM

So now you are arguing that 2 buldings that were already deformed both fell exactly the same way? Not sure I am going to reach that far on that one, Donger.

Gravity really is a bitch. So, why did the buildings deform?

petegz28

09-03-2009, 12:08 PM

petegz28

09-03-2009, 12:10 PM

Taco John

09-03-2009, 12:11 PM

How do the 9/11 nuts explain that the buildings all showed signs of deformation right before they collapsed? How did the folks who planted the explosives manage that trick?

Your question #1 you answered with your question #2. Your question #2 is one thing that I'd like to see investigated. Of course, that won't be investigated as the evidence surrounding your question #1 is broadly ignored.

petegz28

09-03-2009, 12:11 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=877gr6xtQIc

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/877gr6xtQIc&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/877gr6xtQIc&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Donger

09-03-2009, 12:12 PM

Radar Chief

09-03-2009, 12:13 PM

I would be proud to wager it's a fairly high percentage. Libertarians are naturally distrustful of government and much more critical of the information that it puts out.

Bingo, and that’s exactly where this comes from.
Questioning authority can be a healthy thing, but you guys have carried it to an extreme here.

If we could get Republicans to be half as critical of this event as they are about Obama's selection of a dog, that would be something.

I've never posted giving much of a shit about Obama's dog.
Or his birth certificate for that matter. :shrug:

Taco John

09-03-2009, 12:13 PM

How come they didn't set the demo charges at the bottom of WTC 1 and 2?

They did. If you care to look for it, there are reports from first responders of explosions in the basement.

Donger

09-03-2009, 12:14 PM

Your question #1 you answered with your question #2. Your question #2 is one thing that I'd like to see investigated. Of course, that won't be investigated as the evidence surrounding your question #1 is broadly ignored.

That's because most people realize that slamming jet-fuel laden aircraft into a building at 500 mph is going to cause a big hole, with big damage and a big fire. They terrorists knew it, too.

Donger

09-03-2009, 12:15 PM

They did. If you care to look for it, there are reports from first responders of explosions in the basement.

When did these explosions take place?

Taco John

09-03-2009, 12:16 PM

They did. If you care to look for it, there are reports from first responders of explosions in the basement.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/rzpaZE5XSfg&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/rzpaZE5XSfg&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

ChiTown

09-03-2009, 12:16 PM

Taco John

09-03-2009, 12:16 PM

When did these explosions take place?

About 30 seconds before the towers collapsed.

Radar Chief

09-03-2009, 12:16 PM

Your question #1 you answered with your question #2. Your question #2 is one thing that I'd like to see investigated. Of course, that won't be investigated as the evidence surrounding your question #1 is broadly ignored.

ROFL
So tell us, demolitions expert Teej, how exactly are explosives going to deform a building a couple of hours before its collapse?

KILLER_CLOWN

09-03-2009, 12:16 PM

5. Essentially in Free Fall

NIST: [Question:] “How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds (WTC 1) and 9 seconds (WTC 2) — speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from similar height in a vacuum (with no air resistance)?” [Answer:] …As documented in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, these collapse times show that: “… the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation. Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos”.3

We agree with some of this, that the building “came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos.” This is an important starting point. (Because of obscuring dust clouds, it is difficult to determine the exact fall times, but the statement that the buildings “came down essentially in free fall” seems correct when accelerations are viewed, for the WTC Towers and also for WTC 7.)13, 14 Further, we agree with NIST that “the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance” to the fall – but we ask – how could that be? NIST mentions “energy of deformation” which for the huge core columns in the Towers would be considerable, and they need to be quantitative about it (which they were not) in order to claim that the “intact structure” below would not significantly slow the motion.

Beyond that, NIST evidently neglects a fundamental law of physics in glibly treating the remarkable “free fall” collapse of each Tower, namely, the Law of Conservation of Momentum. This law of physics means that the hundreds of thousands of tons of material in the way must slow the upper part of the building because of its mass, independent of deformation which can only slow the fall even more. (Energy and Momentum must both be conserved.)

Published papers have argued that this negligence by NIST (leaving the near-free-fall speeds unexplained) is a major flaw in their analysis.13, 14 NIST ignores the possibility of controlled demolitions, which achieve complete building collapses in near free-fall times by moving the material out of the way using explosives. So, there is an alternative explanation that fits the data without violating basic laws of physics. We should be able to agree from observing the near-free-fall destruction that this is characteristic of controlled demolitions and, therefore, that controlled demolition is one way to achieve complete collapse at near free-fall speed. Then we are keen to look at NIST’s calculations of how they explain near-free-fall collapse rates without explosives.

We await an explanation from NIST which satisfies Conservation of Momentum and Energy for the rapid and complete destruction of all three WTC skyscrapers on 9/11, or a discussion of alternative hypotheses that are consistent with momentum and energy conservation in these near-free-fall events.

http://www.mathaba.net/news/?x=589465

petegz28

09-03-2009, 12:18 PM

Taco John

09-03-2009, 12:19 PM

Radar Chief

09-03-2009, 12:19 PM

They did. If you care to look for it, there are reports from first responders of explosions in the basement.

http://www.debunking911.com/explosions.htm

petegz28

09-03-2009, 12:19 PM

I see two buildings.

One is collapsed by explosives (you'll note the first charges start at the base).

One is a collapse due to structural failure caused by fire (well, heat to be precise).

How come they didn't set the demo charges at the bottom of WTC 1 and 2?

You should watch more of the videos.

petegz28

09-03-2009, 12:20 PM

http://www.debunking911.com/explosions.htm

Yea, the explosions were transformers......

KILLER_CLOWN

09-03-2009, 12:21 PM

Yea, the explosions were transformers......

ROFL

Radar Chief

09-03-2009, 12:22 PM

Yea, the explosions were transformers......

But, but, open mind, and, and, take in all the evidence.

We see how quickly that’s out the window.

Donger

09-03-2009, 12:22 PM

You should watch more of the videos.

Honestly, I'd rather argue with TFG than continue this discussion.

KILLER_CLOWN

09-03-2009, 12:23 PM

Honestly, I'd rather argue with TFG than continue this discussion.

I understand it's hard to believe it, I thought that way up until the end of 2003.

ChiTown

09-03-2009, 12:23 PM

Honestly, I'd rather argue with TFG than continue this discussion.

I agree. I've wasted too much time here

It's been real..........

Radar Chief

09-03-2009, 12:24 PM

5. Essentially in Free Fall

http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm

petegz28

09-03-2009, 12:25 PM

Radar Chief

09-03-2009, 12:25 PM

I agree. I've wasted too much time here

It's been real..........

Pretty much.
It’s the same characters with the same line anyway. Not like this is going anywhere.

petegz28

09-03-2009, 12:26 PM

But, but, open mind, and, and, take in all the evidence.

We see how quickly that’s out the window.

Sorry, the buldings, both of them, came down to evenly for me to accept the fact that transformers blew the same way in both buildings with the same exact effect.

BigChiefFan

09-03-2009, 12:27 PM

Simple math says it's impossible for TWO airplanes to take out THREE buildings.

ChiTown

09-03-2009, 12:27 PM

petegz28

09-03-2009, 12:27 PM

Honestly, I'd rather argue with TFG than continue this discussion.

Well, bye

KILLER_CLOWN

09-03-2009, 12:27 PM

Simple math says it's impossible for TWO airplanes to take out THREE buildings.

That's a conspiracy theory. :drool:

petegz28

09-03-2009, 12:28 PM

Donger, Radar and Chitown have it all figured out.

Donger

09-03-2009, 12:29 PM

Well, bye

Think about it, pete.

In order for this to happen, our government must have coordinated with al Qaeda. They would have had to agree on the date and time, let alone the targets.

You agree that that is correct, yes?

petegz28

09-03-2009, 12:30 PM

You didn't read my link. Too bad.

Have fun with this, seriously. Bye!

I read it. I also showed you video of the landowner giving the go-ahead to "pull it" and videos explaining what "pull it means".

Have fun in your denial of the situation, you have every Right to think what you wish.

Radar Chief

09-03-2009, 12:31 PM

Sorry, the buldings, both of them, came down to evenly for me to accept the fact that transformers blew the same way in both buildings with the same exact effect.

No one is claiming exploding transformers brought the buildings down.
Maybe you should re-read that link.

petegz28

09-03-2009, 12:33 PM

Think about it, pete.

In order for this to happen, our government must have coordinated with al Qaeda. They would have had to agree on the date and time, let alone the targets.

You agree that that is correct, yes?

You mean like the way we allowed Pearl Harbor to happen? Amazing the majority of our fleet was out to sea at the exact time we got bombed. Or the way the Lusitania was sent into hostile waters with civilians on board and a shit load of ammunition all but guaranteeing a German attack on it? All the Gov had to know was when it was planned and move ahead of time. They never would have had to coordinate with Al Qaeda at all. Not at all. Although I wouldn't put is past some individuals to do so.

Radar Chief

09-03-2009, 12:33 PM

Donger, Radar and Chitown have it all figured out.

Ah, the ole “You’re not a true fan”.
Guess this topic has now gone full circle.

petegz28

09-03-2009, 12:34 PM

No one is claiming exploding transformers brought the buildings down.
Maybe you should re-read that link.

So the explosions of the transformers were happening in a "boom-boom-boom" way that the Firefighters described right as each floor slammed nicely and neatly on top of the one below it?

Radar Chief

09-03-2009, 12:35 PM

So the explosions of the transformers were happening in a "boom-boom-boom" way that the Firefighters described right as each floor slammed nicely and neatly on top of the one belowe it?

Ah, so we’re back to it being the floors slapping one on top of another?
You’re kind of all over the place here, Pete.

Dayze

09-03-2009, 12:37 PM

:grouphug:

KILLER_CLOWN

09-03-2009, 12:39 PM

petegz28

09-03-2009, 12:40 PM

Ah, so we’re back to it being the floors slapping one on top of another?
You’re kind of all over the place here, Pete.

How so? That is the basis of your argument, is it not? That the bulding literally collapsed onto itself, thus meaning the floors fell one on top of the other.

Just a hint, the floors would have to fall on top of each other to have such a neat implosion. Otherwise there would have been too much random damage and the building at some point or another would have fallen sideways when one part of the structure held stronger than the other.

Basically you are arguing that everything gave way at the same exact time in the same exact manner causing the same exact follow-up effect. In 2 buildings nonetheless.

Donger

09-03-2009, 12:42 PM

You mean like the way we allowed Pearl Harbor to happen? Amazing the majority of our fleet was out to sea at the exact time we got bombed. Or the way the Lusitania was sent into hostile waters with civilians on board and a shit load of ammunition all but guaranteeing a German attack on it? All the Gov had to know was when it was planned and move ahead of time. They never would have had to coordinate with Al Qaeda at all. Not at all. Although I wouldn't put is past some individuals to do so.

Actually, most of our fleet was in Pearl on 12/7/1941. The two carriers were not.

Anyway, yes, they would have had to coordinate with al Qaeda if this were an inside job.

Think about that...

American: "Okay, so you want to fly a few planes into buildings and stuff?"

AQ; "Die you Yankee infidel!"

American: "Yes, we are on the same page. So, what buildings?"

AQ: "Big ones!"

American: "How about the WTC?"

AQ; "Lot's of infidels?"

American: "Yes, many."

AQ: "Very well!"

American: "What about a date? We need a date so that we have time to set the explosives in those buildings. We have to be really sneaky about it, since, well, they are occupied and stuff."

AQ: "How about 9/12?"

American: "Nah. that doesn't have a good ring to it."

AQ: "Die, infidel scum!"

American: "Yes, that's the goal. Kill many American infidel. Then, we'll use it as a pretext to kill a bunch of your buddies. Hope you don't mind that. Shall we continue?"

AQ: "How about 9/11? Catchier?"

American: "Yes, much better. What time and where are you going to hit the buildings? We need to make sure that you fly the planes into the buildings ABOVE where we plant the explosives, k?

AQ: "Are you f*cking kidding me?"

American: "Please do focus, Muhhamad."

AQ: "Okay, okay. We'll do our best."

American: "Very good. Say 8:15-ish?"

Dayze

09-03-2009, 12:44 PM

Actually, most of our fleet was in Pearl on 12/7/1941. The two carriers were not.

Anyway, yes, they would have had to coordinate with al Qaeda if this were an inside job.

Think about that...

American: "Okay, so you want to fly a few planes into buildings and stuff?"

AQ; "Die you Yankee infidel!"

American: "Yes, we are on the same page. So, what buildings?"

AQ: "Big ones!"

American: "How about the WTC?"

AQ; "Lot's of infidels?"

American: "Yes, many."

AQ: "Very well!"

American: "What about a date? We need a date so that we have time to set the explosives in those buildings. We have to be really sneaky about it, since, well, they are occupied and stuff."

AQ: "How about 9/12?"

American: "Nah. that doesn't have a good ring to it."

AQ: "Die, infidel scum!"

American: "Yes, that's the goal. Kill many American infidel. Then, we'll use it as a pretext to kill a bunch of your buddies. Hope you don't mind that. Shall we continue?"

AQ: "How about 9/11? Catchier?"

American: "Yes, much better. What time and where are you going to hit the buildings? We need to make sure that you fly the planes into the buildings ABOVE where we plant the explosives, k?

AQ: "Are you f*cking kidding me?"

American: "Please do focus, Muhhamad."

AQ: "Okay, okay. We'll do our best."

American: "Very good. Say 8:15-ish?"

ROFLROFL

petegz28

09-03-2009, 12:46 PM

billay

09-03-2009, 12:48 PM

9-11 Truthers have been debunked so whatever they say is irrelevant.

Donger

09-03-2009, 12:50 PM

Are you ****ing kidding me? We did not have to coordinate with Al Qaeda at all!

To use your format:

July 2001
Bush Admin Official: "we know Al Qaeda is targeting the WTC for airplane attacks in late August or early September".

That is all you need to know. So you send some people in, plant some explosives in key areas, let the attack happen and commence operation exploitation.

It isn't that hard, Donger.

It's the same way we allowed Pearl Harbor to be attacked to get us into a war the few elite wanted us in so badly.

You are missing one key point, pete. In that scenario, why would they plant explosives at all?

billay

09-03-2009, 12:50 PM

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/

petegz28

09-03-2009, 12:51 PM

9-11 Truthers have been debunked so whatever they say is irrelevant.

Right, and the Gulf of Tonkin really happened, Sadaam Hussein had a bazillion WMD's and we have no idea where bin Laden is or how to catch him if we did. :spock:

KILLER_CLOWN

09-03-2009, 12:53 PM

You are missing one key point, pete. In that scenario, why would they plant explosives at all?

Insurance money, and they wanted full effect to pass the (un)patriot act, John warner defense authorization act, etc.

BigChiefFan

09-03-2009, 12:55 PM

Yea, 17 hack pilots can hijack, not one, not two, but FOUR planes and then be so coordinated and skilled as to be able to fly into the Pentagon at altitudes even the most skilled pilot couldn't hold, all without any footage of ANY plane, at one of the most secured buildings in the country. They can also take out THREE Buildings with TWO planes in New York City. Yea, there's nothing to seek the truth over, is there?

BigChiefFan

09-03-2009, 12:56 PM

9-11 Truthers have been debunked so whatever they say is irrelevant.Debunked by what... a bullshit story? That doesn't hold water.

Donger

09-03-2009, 12:56 PM

Insurance money, and they wanted full effect to pass the (un)patriot act, John warner defense authorization act, etc.

I pretty sure that they could have gotten all those things with just the flying the planes into the buildings. You may have noticed that the WTC was pretty dinged up. That's what happens when fuel-laden jets crash into stuff at 500 mph.

Unless, of course, you dispute that planes hit the WTC?

petegz28

09-03-2009, 12:58 PM

You are missing one key point, pete. In that scenario, why would they plant explosives at all?

Exploitation. I am not missing anything. It's called maximizing opprtuinity. Why take a chance on a half-ass tragedy when you can ensure a huge tragedy with the cover of blaming it all on the bad guys.

Why did we send the Lusitanion in hostile waters with a shitload of ammo on it when there were tons of civilians? To ensure maximum exploitation. The ammo all but ensured an attack by the Germans and the whole thing was wrote off as the Germans attacked civilians and it was the excuse we needed\wanted to get into the war.

KILLER_CLOWN

09-03-2009, 12:58 PM

I pretty sure that they could have gotten all those things with just the flying the planes into the buildings. You may have noticed that the WTC was pretty dinged up. That's what happens when fuel-laden jets crash into stuff at 500 mph.

Unless, of course, you dispute that planes hit the WTC?

Hardly, If it were just 2 planes those buildings would still be there since they were built with the idea of withstanding a 707 hit.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/_BbN_2tAUCU&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/_BbN_2tAUCU&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Donger

09-03-2009, 12:58 PM

Donger

09-03-2009, 12:58 PM

Hardly, If it were just 2 planes those buildings would still be there since they were built with the idea of withstanding a 747 hit.

They weren't actually. I suggest you read a little more.

Donger

09-03-2009, 01:00 PM

Exploitation. I am not missing anything. It's called maximizing opprtuinity. Why take a chance on a half-ass tragedy when you can ensure a huge tragedy with the cover of blaming it all on the bad guys.

Why did we send the Lusitanion in hostile waters with a shitload of ammo on it when there were tons of civilians? To ensure maximum exploitation. The ammo all but ensured an attack by the Germans and the whole thing was wrote off as the Germans attacked civilians and it was the excuse we needed\wanted to get into the war.

I see. We would have said, "Yeah, you naughty terrorist types flew those planes into our buildings. But, you're darn lucky that they didn't collapse! If they had, we'd be REALLY pissed off!"

Seriously, how does a rational person even consider this stuff?

petegz28

09-03-2009, 01:02 PM

The 9/11 mainstreamers would do better if PNAC members weren't directly involved at the highest levels of power at the time 9/11 occured.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

June 3, 1997

American foreign and defense policy is adrift. Conservatives have criticized the incoherent policies of the Clinton Administration. They have also resisted isolationist impulses from within their own ranks. But conservatives have not confidently advanced a strategic vision of America's role in the world. They have not set forth guiding principles for American foreign policy. They have allowed differences over tactics to obscure potential agreement on strategic objectives. And they have not fought for a defense budget that would maintain American security and advance American interests in the new century.
We aim to change this. We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership.

As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?

We are in danger of squandering the opportunity and failing the challenge. We are living off the capital -- both the military investments and the foreign policy achievements -- built up by past administrations. Cuts in foreign affairs and defense spending, inattention to the tools of statecraft, and inconstant leadership are making it increasingly difficult to sustain American influence around the world. And the promise of short-term commercial benefits threatens to override strategic considerations. As a consequence, we are jeopardizing the nation's ability to meet present threats and to deal with potentially greater challenges that lie ahead.

We seem to have forgotten the essential elements of the Reagan Administration's success: a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States' global responsibilities.

Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.

Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences:

• we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global
responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;

• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;

• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;

• we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.

Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next.

Elliott Abrams Gary Bauer William J. Bennett Jeb Bush

Dick Cheney Eliot A. Cohen Midge Decter Paula Dobriansky Steve Forbes

Aaron Friedberg Francis Fukuyama Frank Gaffney Fred C. Ikle

Donald Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad I. Lewis Libby Norman Podhoretz

Dan Quayle Peter W. Rodman Stephen P. Rosen Henry S. Rowen

Donald Rumsfeld Vin Weber George Weigel Paul Wolfowitz

Fabricating a "war on terror" gave these people the clout they thought they needed to achieve their stated goals.

billay

09-03-2009, 01:02 PM

Debunked by what... a bullshit story? That doesn't hold water.

The explaination for the Towers has been proven true by a number of experts. Where is the proof from these "truthers". Like the poster above stated more conspiracies but never solid proof.

petegz28

09-03-2009, 01:04 PM

I see. We would have said, "Yeah, you naughty terrorist types flew those planes into our buildings. But, you're darn lucky that they didn't collapse! If they had, we'd be REALLY pissed off!"

Seriously, how does a rational person even consider this stuff?

Are you purposely being obtuse?

What you described pretty much happened at the WTC in 1993 and Clinton did nothing.

You ensure a tragedy of 9/11 proportion and then it is hard to not call for war. Now is it?

Come on man, use your head. I know you are smarter than that.

billay

09-03-2009, 01:06 PM

Yea Clinton did nothing but capture and prosecute the people who were behind the WTC. My favorite "conspiracy" is the one that suggest all the people on the planes are at some base and the planes that flew into the buildings were remote controled. Then the "truthers" go to the 9-11 memorial and say this shit (with no evidence) to the victims of 9-11. Truley peices of shit.

Donger

09-03-2009, 01:07 PM

Are you purposely being obtuse?

What you described pretty much happened at the WTC in 1993 and Clinton did nothing.

You ensure a tragedy of 9/11 proportion and then it is hard to not call for war. Now is it?

Come on man, use your head. I know you are smarter than that.

That's because Clinton was a coward and a pussy. And, he did react somewhat but certainly not sufficiently.

So, you are saying that Bush would not have responded had the WTC not collapsed?

petegz28

09-03-2009, 01:08 PM

KILLER_CLOWN

09-03-2009, 01:09 PM

petegz28

09-03-2009, 01:09 PM

That's because Clinton was a coward and a pussy. And, he did react somewhat but certainly not sufficiently.

So, you are saying that Bush would not have responded had the WTC not collapsed?

And there was aslo no national outcry for military action, was there?

I am saying that by ensuring the devistation was on the level that it was made sure Bush had a green light to "respond", or in this case, start a new war in the ME. Again, it is called maximizing opprtunity. They saw an opportunity to go all PNAC but they had to ensure that things happened at a level that the country would support them. It isn't hard to figure our or that far fetched, for that matter.

billay

09-03-2009, 01:11 PM

There are certainly a few loons and some are no doubt paid idiots to discredit those who want the truth like the victims families and the 1st responders.

Yea I can debate with people and disagree but when its that obsurb you do have to draw the line.

Dayze

09-03-2009, 01:12 PM

petegz28

09-03-2009, 01:15 PM

I just wonder what degree of effort/pilot knowledge it takes to successfully navigate and fly a plane like that – in general etc.

The pentagon crash is a head scratcher for me; I would think (not knowing the specifics of the aircraft) the pilot would need to be pretty skilled to fly that low and fast; or come in from above at that speed and level off that low to the ground etc.

You are right. And that is why a plane never hit the Pentagon. Now for a cruise missle, the impact and trajectory and such would be spot on. It would take one hell of a piliot to get the plane that low to the ground and maintain level while never hitting the ground at all. In fact I would guess most pilots would say it is a 1-10000 shot with an airliner.

billay

09-03-2009, 01:16 PM

You are right. And that is why a plane never hit the Pentagon. Now for a cruise missle, the impact and trajectory and such would be spot on.

Thats batshit crazy and has already been debunked.

BigChiefFan

09-03-2009, 01:16 PM

Sigh. So what happened to all the people on AA 77?Maybe there never was any people on board and it was an unmanned drone? Maybe there never was a flight 77? Todd Beamer is just a "character", perhaps. I don't profess to know all the answers, I'm not privy to all that information, I do know that, the official government story doesn't add up.
I also can clearly see with my own eyes, that those buildings IMPLODE and could not come down by an Airplane attack. I also KNOW that the steel beams used in the world trade center would NOT MELT under those tempertures. I also know the steel beams used in the world trade center were fire-proofed. I also know it's impossible for two planes that make direct impacts on just two buildings, can NOT take out a THIRD building, BLOCKS away, and yet it happned. I also know that our civil liberties have been taken after this. I also know that we went to war with a country that has ZERO to do with 9/11. I also know the world's gone into a world wide recession and Bush himself, already told us the cause and effect, PRIOR to 9/11. Meaning they knew exactly what they were doing. I also know Rumsfeld, himself, claimed MILLIONS were missing. I also know our government PAID the victims of 9/11. Why would they do that? I also know, that we shipped off 99% of the wreckage of the twin twowers overseas, within months of the incident, possibly weeks.

Yea, so you'll excuse me, if I don't buy their horse tripe.

KILLER_CLOWN

09-03-2009, 01:17 PM

You are right. And that is why a plane never hit the Pentagon. Now for a cruise missle, the impact and trajectory and such would be spot on.

Absolutely.

Donger

09-03-2009, 01:17 PM

And there was aslo no national outcry for military action, was there?

I am saying that by ensuring the devistation was on the level that it was made sure Bush had a green light to "respond", or in this case, start a new war in the ME. Again, it is called maximizing opprtunity. They saw an opportunity to go all PNAC but they had to ensure that things happened at a level that the country would support them. It isn't hard to figure our or that far fetched, for that matter.

Sorry, but I believe that Bush would have had the same reaction even if the WTC had not collapsed. Throw in AA77 and United 93 for good measure.

KILLER_CLOWN

09-03-2009, 01:18 PM

Maybe there never was any people on board and it was an unmanned drone? Maybe there never was a flight 77? Todd Beamer is just a "character", perhaps. I don't profess to know all the answers, I'm not privy to all that information, I do know that, the official government story doesn't add up.
I also can clearly see with my own eyes, that those buildings IMPLODE and could not come down by an Airplane attack. I also KNOW that the steel beams used in the world trade center would NOT MELT under those tempertures. I also know the steel beams used in the world trade center were fire-proofed. I also know it's impossible for two planes that make direct impacts on just two buildings, can NOT take out a THIRD building, BLOCKS away, and yet it happned. I also know that our civil liberties have been taken after this. I also know that we went to war with a country that has ZERO to do with 9/11. I also know the world's gone into a world wide recession and Bush himself, already told us the cause and effect, PRIOR to 9/11. Meaning they knew exactly what they were doing. I also know Rumsfeld, himself, claimed MILLIONS were missing. I also know our government PAID the victims of 9/11. Why would they do that? I also know, that we shipped off 99% of the wreckage of the twin twowers overseas, within months of the incident, possibly weeks.

Yea, so you'll excuse me, if I don't buy their horse tripe.

Yes on 09/10/01 Rumsfeld stated the Pentagon couldn't account for 2.3 trillion dollars.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/xU4GdHLUHwU&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/xU4GdHLUHwU&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

PRIEST

09-03-2009, 01:19 PM

Thats batshit crazy and has already been debunked.

How? all the videos that captured anything of value have been kept away from public view.

Dayze

09-03-2009, 01:19 PM

You are right. And that is why a plane never hit the Pentagon. Now for a cruise missle, the impact and trajectory and such would be spot on. It would take one hell of a piliot to get the plane that low to the ground and maintain level while never hitting the ground at all. In fact I would guess most pilots would say it is a 1-10000 shot with an airliner.

the pentagon strike puzzles me. I'm not sure of the terrain/obstacles in the immediate airspace of the pentagon....but I would imagine the pilot would have to descend from whatever altitude he was at; locate the pentagon, then come down even lower - avoiding other structures (building/light and utility poles etc).....then fly that sucker that low off the ground and not crash.

petegz28

09-03-2009, 01:20 PM

Thats batshit crazy and has already been debunked.

Sure it has...a guy with no flying skill ouside of a month's training flew a 757 about 12 ft if that, from the ground and slamming head-on into the base of the Pentagon. Right.

Donger

09-03-2009, 01:20 PM

PRIEST

09-03-2009, 01:20 PM

Yes on 09/10/01 Rumsfeld stated the Pentagon couldn't account for 2.3 trillion dollars.

<object width="425" height="344">

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/xU4GdHLUHwU&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></object>

Never to be spoke of again STFU

billay

09-03-2009, 01:20 PM

How? all the videos that captured anything of value have been kept away from public view.

If I post info will ya'll actually read it? Not trying to be a dick but it seems like whenever theres a 9-11 discussion nobody listens to anyone.

petegz28

09-03-2009, 01:23 PM

Okay, so what happened to all the people on AA 77? The debris found in the wreckage? The eyewitnesses?

Show me video of the plane hitting the Pentagon, please. Why has the Fed Gov confiscated them all? Show me an eyewitness that says they actually saw the plane hit the Pentagon?

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/zAwtmun_aj8&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/zAwtmun_aj8&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

PRIEST

09-03-2009, 01:23 PM

If I post info will ya'll actually read it? Not trying to be a dick but it seems like whenever theres a 9-11 discussion nobody listens to anyone.

sure ill read it.

petegz28

09-03-2009, 01:24 PM

If I post info will ya'll actually read it? Not trying to be a dick but it seems like whenever theres a 9-11 discussion nobody listens to anyone.

I want to see video of a plane hitting the Pentagon like we see them hitting the WTC. At this point, nothing short of that is proof.

BigChiefFan

09-03-2009, 01:26 PM

Yes on 09/10/01 Rumsfeld stated the Pentagon couldn't account for 2.3 trillion dollars.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/xU4GdHLUHwU&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/xU4GdHLUHwU&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Wow, I had forgotten it was trillions and it does seem very suspect that they would announce that the day PRIOR to 9/11. I would say the big event got that issue swept under the rug in a hurry.

Donger

09-03-2009, 01:26 PM

Show me video of the plane hitting the Pentagon, please. Why has the Fed Gov confiscated them all? Show me an eyewitness that says they actually saw the plane hit the Pentagon?

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/zAwtmun_aj8&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/zAwtmun_aj8&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Here:

USA Today reporter Mike Walter was driving on Washington Boulevard when he witnessed the crash, which he recounted, "I looked out my window and I saw this plane, this jet, an American Airlines jet, coming. And I thought, 'This doesn't add up, it's really low.' And I saw it. I mean it was like a cruise missile with wings. It went right there and slammed right into the Pentagon".[50] Terrance Kean, who lived in a nearby apartment building, heard the noise of loud jet engines, glanced out his window, and saw a "very, very large passenger jet". He watched "it just plow right into the side of the Pentagon. The nose penetrated into the portico. And then it sort of disappeared, and there was fire and smoke everywhere."[51] AP reporter Dave Winslow recounted, "I saw the tail of a large airliner ... It plowed right into the Pentagon."[52] Tim Timmerman, who is a pilot himself, noticed American Airlines markings on the aircraft as he saw it hit the Pentagon.[53] Other drivers on Washington Boulevard, Interstate 395, and Columbia Pike witnessed the crash, as did people in Pentagon City, Crystal City, and other nearby locations.[47]

KILLER_CLOWN

09-03-2009, 01:26 PM

I want to see video of a plane hitting the Pentagon like we see them hitting the WTC. At this point, nothing short of that is proof.

We'll have to wait about 50 years until it's declassified(mostly forgotten) until we see the vids the FBI confiscated.

petegz28

09-03-2009, 01:27 PM

KILLER_CLOWN

09-03-2009, 01:28 PM

Here:

USA Today reporter Mike Walter was driving on Washington Boulevard when he witnessed the crash, which he recounted, "I looked out my window and I saw this plane, this jet, an American Airlines jet, coming. And I thought, 'This doesn't add up, it's really low.' And I saw it. I mean it was like a cruise missile with wings. It went right there and slammed right into the Pentagon".[50] Terrance Kean, who lived in a nearby apartment building, heard the noise of loud jet engines, glanced out his window, and saw a "very, very large passenger jet". He watched "it just plow right into the side of the Pentagon. The nose penetrated into the portico. And then it sort of disappeared, and there was fire and smoke everywhere."[51] AP reporter Dave Winslow recounted, "I saw the tail of a large airliner ... It plowed right into the Pentagon."[52] Tim Timmerman, who is a pilot himself, noticed American Airlines markings on the aircraft as he saw it hit the Pentagon.[53] Other drivers on Washington Boulevard, Interstate 395, and Columbia Pike witnessed the crash, as did people in Pentagon City, Crystal City, and other nearby locations.[47]

hmmm....

petegz28

09-03-2009, 01:29 PM

Donger

09-03-2009, 01:29 PM

I want to see video of a plane hitting the Pentagon like we see them hitting the WTC. At this point, nothing short of that is proof.

You have to have video? Why?

How about radar tracks?

petegz28

09-03-2009, 01:30 PM

hmmm....

Some cruise missiles have wings.

petegz28

09-03-2009, 01:31 PM

You have to have video? Why?

How about radar tracks?

See the latest video I posted, Donger. The whole doesn't match up even close to the size of the plane.

Radar tracks are nothing more than information being told to us. I want to see the hard proof. Why can I see planed hit the WTC but not the Pentagon?

Donger

09-03-2009, 01:31 PM

hmmm....

Hmmm, indeed:

A plane was detected again by Dulles controllers on radar screens as it approached Washington, turning and descending rapidly. Controllers initially thought this was a fighter plane, due to its high speed and maneuvering.[29] Reagan Airport controllers then asked a passing Air National Guard C-130 Hercules plane to identify and follow the aircraft. The pilot, Lt. Col. Steven O'Brien, told them it was a Boeing 757 or 767, and its silver fuselage meant it was probably an American Airlines jet. He had difficulty picking out the plane in the "East Coast haze", but then saw a "huge" fireball, and initially assumed it had hit the ground. Approaching the Pentagon, he saw the impact site on the building's west side and reported to Reagan control, "Looks like that aircraft crashed into the Pentagon sir".[17][30]

petegz28

09-03-2009, 01:32 PM

Hmmm, indeed:

A plane was detected again by Dulles controllers on radar screens as it approached Washington, turning and descending rapidly. Controllers initially thought this was a fighter plane, due to its high speed and maneuvering.[29] Reagan Airport controllers then asked a passing Air National Guard C-130 Hercules plane to identify and follow the aircraft. The pilot, Lt. Col. Steven O'Brien, told them it was a Boeing 757 or 767, and its silver fuselage meant it was probably an American Airlines jet. He had difficulty picking out the plane in the "East Coast haze", but then saw a "huge" fireball, and initially assumed it had hit the ground. Approaching the Pentagon, he saw the impact site on the building's west side and reported to Reagan control, "Looks like that aircraft crashed into the Pentagon sir".[17][30]

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/fUIvIz1ufIs&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/fUIvIz1ufIs&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

explain, Donger....

billay

09-03-2009, 01:33 PM

sure ill read it.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

http://911myths.com/html/pentagon.html

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/

Donger

09-03-2009, 01:33 PM

See the latest video I posted, Donger. The whole doesn't match up even close to the size of the plane.

Radar tracks are nothing more than information being told to us. I want to see the hard proof. Why can I see planed hit the WTC but not the Pentagon?

So, a video is hard proof but reflecting radio signals off a moving object is, what, bunk?

petegz28

09-03-2009, 01:33 PM

The FBI went to every gas station, parking lot, security camera, you name it, surrounding the Pentagoin, confiscated the videos and will not release them.

Why?

KILLER_CLOWN

09-03-2009, 01:34 PM

Some cruise missiles have wings.

Exactly.

billay

09-03-2009, 01:35 PM

See the latest video I posted, Donger. The whole doesn't match up even close to the size of the plane.

Radar tracks are nothing more than information being told to us. I want to see the hard proof. Why can I see planed hit the WTC but not the Pentagon?

"During an interview earlier this week, Koch delicately handled eerie mementos of the crash found during cleanup: Whittington's battered driver's license... a burnt luggage tag and a wedding ring lie on a book dedicated to those lost in the events of Sept. 11, 2001. The wedding ring belonged to Ruth's daughter and the luggage tag belonged to one her granddaughters."
http://onlineathens.com/stories/091104/new_20040911030.shtml

“Suzanne Calley died aboard American Airlines Flight 77 when terrorists hijacked the plane and sent it crashing into the Pentagon... Rescue crews were able to pull Calley’s body from Flight 77’s wreckage.

Jensen [Calley’s husband] spent last year’s anniversary of the national tragedy in Washington, D.C. There, a Pentagon official - assigned to Calley’s family as a liaison - gave Jensen his wife’s wedding ring, which had been recovered from the plane.”
http://gilroydispatch.com/news/contentview.asp?c=73724

Debunked.

petegz28

09-03-2009, 01:36 PM

So, a video is hard proof but reflecting radio signals off a moving object is, what, bunk?

Where are you getting those radar tracks from? How do you know what you are being told about them is true?

Seeing is believing, brother.

Donger

09-03-2009, 01:36 PM

Donger

09-03-2009, 01:37 PM

The FBI went to every gas station, parking lot, security camera, you name it, surrounding the Pentagoin, confiscated the videos and will not release them.

Why?

Link?

petegz28

09-03-2009, 01:37 PM

"During an interview earlier this week, Koch delicately handled eerie mementos of the crash found during cleanup: Whittington's battered driver's license... a burnt luggage tag and a wedding ring lie on a book dedicated to those lost in the events of Sept. 11, 2001. The wedding ring belonged to Ruth's daughter and the luggage tag belonged to one her granddaughters."
http://onlineathens.com/stories/091104/new_20040911030.shtml

“Suzanne Calley died aboard American Airlines Flight 77 when terrorists hijacked the plane and sent it crashing into the Pentagon... Rescue crews were able to pull Calley’s body from Flight 77’s wreckage.

Jensen [Calley’s husband] spent last year’s anniversary of the national tragedy in Washington, D.C. There, a Pentagon official - assigned to Calley’s family as a liaison - gave Jensen his wife’s wedding ring, which had been recovered from the plane.”
http://gilroydispatch.com/news/contentview.asp?c=73724

Debunked.

Evidence can be planted. I want to see the video of the plane hitting the building.

You can use the word debunked all you want but you have debunked nothing.

billay

09-03-2009, 01:38 PM

Evidence can be planted. I want to see the video of the plane hitting the building.

You can use the word debunked all you want but you have debunked nothing.

Now you are just reaching.

petegz28

09-03-2009, 01:38 PM

Link?

FBI Withholding 84 More Tapes of Pentagon on 9/11
The FBI is withholding at least another 84 surveillance tapes that were seized in the immediate aftermath of the attack on the Pentagon.

There is an ongoing lawsuit to get these tapes released via the Freedom of Information Act. The FBI has admitted in a statement to attorney, Scott Hodes, representative of Mr Scott Bingham who runs the website http://www.flight77.info/, that they have these tapes, that they have already analyzed them and are still keeping them under lock and key.

A great deal of speculation has surrounded reports that on the morning of september 11th, 2001 the FBI visited two private businesses near the pentagon and confiscated several security camera video tapes.

The first is said to be the Cigto gas station with several security cameras aimed in the direction of the pentagon. Flight 77 flew directly over the gas station at an altitude of roughly 50 feet, less than 3 seconds from impact.

Three months after 9/11 The National Geographic and others reported on this, publishing short interviews with the gas station owner, Jose Velasquez.

http://www.infowars.net/articles/may2006/170506Pentagon_videos.htm

Donger

09-03-2009, 01:38 PM

Evidence can be planted. I want to see the video of the plane hitting the building.

You can use the word debunked all you want but you have debunked nothing.

And all the people on board?

petegz28

09-03-2009, 01:39 PM

Now you are just reaching.

Sure I am, and like I said, the Gulf of Tonkin really happened, Sadaam had billions of WMD's and bin Laden cannot be found.

Donger

09-03-2009, 01:39 PM

http://www.infowars.net/articles/may2006/170506Pentagon_videos.htm

Sorry, I meant from a source worthy of consideration.

billay

09-03-2009, 01:40 PM

Hey look up the Plane that crashed in July in Iran. Look at the hole in the ground it looks like a missle and not a plane.

petegz28

09-03-2009, 01:40 PM

And all the people on board?

Donger, what the fuck is with you? Where did I say those people did not die? I just said the plane never hit the Pentagon. For all you know the plane was shot down elsewhere.

billay

09-03-2009, 01:41 PM

Sure I am, and like I said, the Gulf of Tonkin really happened, Sadaam had billions of WMD's and bin Laden cannot be found.

Considering there was thousands of graves in Iraq and America gave Saddam the WMD's, I would say yes at one point he did not when America invaded though.

KILLER_CLOWN

09-03-2009, 01:41 PM

Now I am just reaching.

exactly.

Donger

09-03-2009, 01:41 PM

Donger, what the **** is with you? Where did I say those people did not die? I just said the plane never hit the Pentagon. For all you know the plane was shot down elsewhere.

So, every eyewitness and the radar track saw what?

petegz28

09-03-2009, 01:41 PM

Sorry, I meant from a source worthy of consideration.

so for 40+ feet on eaither side of the Pentagon 65ft hole there are no marks of damage at all from a 124ft wide airplane?

Gotcha

petegz28

09-03-2009, 01:42 PM

So, every eyewitness and the radar track saw what?

What eyewitness? No one has said they actually saw an airliner hit the building? Why won't the Gov release the videos, Donger?

Donger

09-03-2009, 01:42 PM

so for 40+ feet on eaither side of the Pentagon 65ft hole there are no marks of damage at all from a 124ft wide airplane?

Gotcha

Did you watch a lot of cartoons as a child?

Donger

09-03-2009, 01:42 PM

What eyewitness? No one has said they actually saw an airliner hit the building? Why won't the Gov release the videos, Donger?

I posted them a few minutes ago. Why don't you read them?

petegz28

09-03-2009, 01:43 PM

Sorry, I meant from a source worthy of consideration.

Whatever. You explain to me then why we have no video of the plane hitting the Pentagon?

billay

09-03-2009, 01:43 PM

exactly.

You need to manipulate posts to make it look like your right. Kind of like Truthers need to manipulate newsclips to look like they are right.

billay

09-03-2009, 01:43 PM

Did you watch a lot of cartoons as a child?

A better question might be was he dropped on his head as a child?

petegz28

09-03-2009, 01:44 PM

http://www.yementimes.com/article.shtml?i=983&p=letters&a=2

The FBI just released video recordings taken on 9/11 by six security cameras located at the CITCO station overlooking the Pentagon. I find it incredulous that, according to the FBI, none showed any aircraft during the actual attack on 9/11. So far - six cameras - no aircraft - nothing! It’s unbelievable!
There were video recordings taken by security cameras mounted on the rooftop of the Pentagon, as well as cameras at the nearby Double Tree Hotel, and the Maryland Department of Transportation buildings. Why won’t the FBI release all of these videos? Will the videos show a passenger jet striking the building or, more likely, will they show nothing?

All the unedited video recordings confiscated by the FBI within minutes following the attack should be released before the election. I believe these videos could document conclusively that a missile, perhaps one armed with depleted uranium, struck the Pentagon. How much longer will the FBI be allowed to cover up this crime?

http://www.yementimes.com/article.shtml?i=983&p=letters&a=2

KILLER_CLOWN

09-03-2009, 01:44 PM

You need to manipulate posts to make it look like your right. Kind of like Truthers need to manipulate newsclips to look like they are right.

NO you pointed out something that could easily, i mean easily be staged and really proves nothing.

KILLER_CLOWN

09-03-2009, 01:45 PM

A better question might be was he dropped on his head as a child?

That should surely clear things up. :(

billay

09-03-2009, 01:45 PM

NO you pointed out something that could easily, i mean easily be staged and really proves nothing.

Yea cuz shooting a missle into the Pentagon could easily be done.

petegz28

09-03-2009, 01:45 PM

In regards to the Pentagon and Flight 77, the government and its defenders could, if they wished, put all the wild speculation as to the specifics of that event to rest. Surrounding the Pentagon, as one would expect with a building of its stature, sit numerous video cameras. On the morning of September 11, they were positioned at an adjacent gas station, on top of neighboring hotels, mounted atop an array of different lamp posts running along I-395 that encircle the building, and scattered across other buildings and positions within clear view of the Pentagon. All of those video cameras recorded the specific event of an aircraft crashing into the Pentagon on the morning of September 11. But the government will release none of those videos. The only thing they have released is a short burst of non-sequential still-frames that shows virtually nothing. Click here to view this supposed conclusive video evidence, and see if you can find the 757.

Why would the government release five individual, non-sequential still frames to the public, and not whole video clips of the event? What logical reason, besides suppression of what the full videos would show, can there be for this behavior? Some have suggested the government perhaps does not want to upset the public with more traumatic footage. Besides the fact that we are all adults who have, by now, seen far worse than a plane flying into the Pentagon, they did choose to release those individual five frames. So again, why those five frames? For a full, calm, sober analysis of this video and all things related to the Pentagon, again click here.

http://www.911hardfacts.com/report_15.htm

petegz28

09-03-2009, 01:46 PM

Yea cuz shooting a missle into the Pentagon could easily be done.

A lot easier than flying a 757 into it.

Son, we have missles we can put through a window from 500 miles away. Wake up.

KILLER_CLOWN

09-03-2009, 01:46 PM

Donger

09-03-2009, 01:47 PM

Whatever. You explain to me then why we have no video of the plane hitting the Pentagon?

The most obvious answer is that no camera was fixed on that specific part of the Pentagon at the time.

On May 16, 2006, the Department of Defense released filmed footage that was recorded by a security camera of American Airlines Flight 77 crashing into the Pentagon, with a plane visible in one frame, as a "thin white blur" and an explosion following.[89] The images were made public in response to a December 2004 Freedom of Information Act request by Judicial Watch.[90] Some still images from the video had previously been released and publicly circulated, but this was the first official release of the full video of the crash.[91] A nearby Citgo gas station also had security cameras, but this video released on September 15, 2006 did not show the crash because it was pointed away.[92][93] The Doubletree hotel, located nearby in Crystal City, Virginia, also had a security camera video, and on December 4, 2006 the FBI released the video in response to a freedom of information lawsuit filed by Scott Bingham. The footage is "grainy and the focus is soft, but a rapidly growing tower of smoke is visible in the distance on the upper edge of the frame as the plane crashes into the building".[94]

petegz28

09-03-2009, 01:48 PM

The most obvious answer is that no camera was fixed on that specific part of the Pentagon at the time.

On May 16, 2006, the Department of Defense released filmed footage that was recorded by a security camera of American Airlines Flight 77 crashing into the Pentagon, with a plane visible in one frame, as a "thin white blur" and an explosion following.[89] The images were made public in response to a December 2004 Freedom of Information Act request by Judicial Watch.[90] Some still images from the video had previously been released and publicly circulated, but this was the first official release of the full video of the crash.[91] A nearby Citgo gas station also had security cameras, but this video released on September 15, 2006 did not show the crash because it was pointed away.[92][93] The Doubletree hotel, located nearby in Crystal City, Virginia, also had a security camera video, and on December 4, 2006 the FBI released the video in response to a freedom of information lawsuit filed by Scott Bingham. The footage is "grainy and the focus is soft, but a rapidly growing tower of smoke is visible in the distance on the upper edge of the frame as the plane crashes into the building".[94]

Horsehit. No camera fix on it? Then why were all these tapes confiscated?

Sorry Donger, but you have yet to prove anything at all.

Where is link of said video? A cruise missle would also appear as a "thin white blur".

KILLER_CLOWN

09-03-2009, 01:50 PM

The most obvious answer is that no camera was fixed on that specific part of the Pentagon at the time.

On May 16, 2006, the Department of Defense released filmed footage that was recorded by a security camera of American Airlines Flight 77 crashing into the Pentagon, with a plane visible in one frame, as a "thin white blur" and an explosion following.[89] The images were made public in response to a December 2004 Freedom of Information Act request by Judicial Watch.[90] Some still images from the video had previously been released and publicly circulated, but this was the first official release of the full video of the crash.[91] A nearby Citgo gas station also had security cameras, but this video released on September 15, 2006 did not show the crash because it was pointed away.[92][93] The Doubletree hotel, located nearby in Crystal City, Virginia, also had a security camera video, and on December 4, 2006 the FBI released the video in response to a freedom of information lawsuit filed by Scott Bingham. The footage is "grainy and the focus is soft, but a rapidly growing tower of smoke is visible in the distance on the upper edge of the frame as the plane crashes into the building".[94]

I haven't seen any of them, I call BS on them being released because no one on either side of the debate has seen them or they would be all over them.

Donger

09-03-2009, 01:51 PM

Horsehit. No camera fix on it? Then why were all these tapes confiscated?

Sorry Donger, but you have yet to prove anything at all.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12818225/

I suppose that this isn't sufficient?

petegz28

09-03-2009, 01:51 PM

The most obvious answer is that no camera was fixed on that specific part of the Pentagon at the time.

On May 16, 2006, the Department of Defense released filmed footage that was recorded by a security camera of American Airlines Flight 77 crashing into the Pentagon, with a plane visible in one frame, as a "thin white blur" and an explosion following.[89] The images were made public in response to a December 2004 Freedom of Information Act request by Judicial Watch.[90] Some still images from the video had previously been released and publicly circulated, but this was the first official release of the full video of the crash.[91] A nearby Citgo gas station also had security cameras, but this video released on September 15, 2006 did not show the crash because it was pointed away.[92][93] The Doubletree hotel, located nearby in Crystal City, Virginia, also had a security camera video, and on December 4, 2006 the FBI released the video in response to a freedom of information lawsuit filed by Scott Bingham. The footage is "grainy and the focus is soft, but a rapidly growing tower of smoke is visible in the distance on the upper edge of the frame as the plane crashes into the building".[94]

To be clear, full videos do exist. The FBI, by its own admission, has 83 such videos. They confiscated all of them shortly after the impact of Flight 77. "A security camera atop a hotel close to the Pentagon (the Sheraton) may have captured dramatic footage of the hijacked Boeing 757 airliner as it slammed into the western wall of the Pentagon. Hotel employees sat watching the film in shock and horror several times before the FBI confiscated the video as part of its investigation. (Also) the attack occurred close to the Pentagon's heliport, an area that normally would be under 24-hour security surveillance, including video monitoring." (Washington Times, 9/21/01)

http://www.911hardfacts.com/report_15.htm

ROYC75

09-03-2009, 01:51 PM

Loony Toon's I Tell Ya, Loony!

Donger

09-03-2009, 01:52 PM

Horsehit. No camera fix on it? Then why were all these tapes confiscated?

Sorry Donger, but you have yet to prove anything at all.

Where is link of said video? A cruise missle would also appear as a "thin white blur".

I just posted it. Pretty much anything would look like a blur moving at 530 mph.

I have plenty of evidence that that blur was AA 77.

What evidence do you have that that blur was a cruise missile?

KILLER_CLOWN

09-03-2009, 01:53 PM

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12818225/

I suppose that this isn't sufficient?

That looks like a cruise missile, seriously watch it.

petegz28

09-03-2009, 01:53 PM

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12818225/

I suppose that this isn't sufficient?

Dude, no way is that an airplane at all!!! Give me a ****ing break!

You know how skilled a pilot would have to be to fly an airliner that close to the gound and keep it level???? And at that speed?

Your own link is your undoing, my friend.

billay

09-03-2009, 01:54 PM

Notice how each follow up to proof is a conspiracy. Its like answering a questiong with another question. I think these 9-11 truthers are the anti-intellectual wing of the Liberterian party.

Donger

09-03-2009, 01:54 PM

That looks like a cruise missile, seriously watch it.

What kind of cruise missile?

KILLER_CLOWN

09-03-2009, 01:54 PM

Notice how each follow up to proof is a conspiracy. Its like answering a questiong with another question. I think these 9-11 truthers are the anti-intellectual wing of the Liberterian party.

Take a look at the vid Donger just posted and tell me if you see a plane.

KILLER_CLOWN

09-03-2009, 01:55 PM

What kind of cruise missile?

It looks like it's about 4' tall and has no length whatsoever.

petegz28

09-03-2009, 01:55 PM

Assume Donger's video link is accurate. It was NOT carried out by some schlub who spent a month in flight school. No fucking way. My Uncle works for American Airlines as a mechanic, I will be sure to ask him about the authenticity of this feat.

petegz28

09-03-2009, 01:56 PM

What kind of cruise missile?

JDAM, perhaps?

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/aircraft-pictures/assets_c/2009/04/JDAM%20bomb-thumb-450x341.jpg\

Thus explaining why there were no marks outside of 65ft from a 124ft wide airliner

KILLER_CLOWN

09-03-2009, 01:56 PM

Assume Donger's video link is accurate. It was NOT carried out by some schlub who spent a month in flight school. No ****ing way. My Uncle works for American Airlines as a mechanic, I will be sure to ask him about the authenticity of this feat.

Do you see a plane? I sure don't.

Donger

09-03-2009, 01:57 PM

Dude, no way is that an airplane at all!!! Give me a ****ing break!

You know how skilled a pilot would have to be to fly an airliner that close to the gound and keep it level???? And at that speed?

Your own link is your undoing, my friend.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/0nBaU0vwP-o&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/0nBaU0vwP-o&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

You may note that this pilot managed to not fly it into the ground, either. Crashing really isn't that difficult.

I take it you are not a pilot?

Donger

09-03-2009, 01:58 PM

JDAM, perhaps?

A JDAM has no propulsion. It is a gravity BOMB.

petegz28

09-03-2009, 01:58 PM