911 inside job - for what?

[psyche101]

I just want to add that we cannot expect to find executives from Al-Jazeera and FOX News hamming it up arm-in-arm at the local pub singing; "14 Bottles of Beer on the Wall."

LOL, mate wouldn't that be a sight!!

[psyche101]

I think that is really callous and heartless with regards to the people who were survived by the victims. You really out to have concrete proof of such an accusation. I find t hard to believe that 5- forensic scientists were paid off.

Correction:

*50

[Babe Ruth]

Hi BR,

I'm not at all concerned with what can be 'proved', or probably more relevantly, what you or others accept as 'proof'; that is a huge rabbit-hole of a pointless conversation about semantics (although I may just be instead heading to a rabbit-hole of a conversation about what 'evidence' means). The claim I'm disputing is 'zero evidence'; a missing flight and passengers is a pretty significant evidence point that is highly unusual and requires an explanation. Nor am I concerned on this point about what is 'suspect' and is 'suggested', neither of those standards come close to removing this evidence as being supportive of Flight 77 impacting the Pentagon. And more importantly, and maybe you or Q has addressed it in the past (not that your theory holds that these planes did not crash, Q), I struggle with what possibly there is to gain for our theoretical CTs by faking either of these crashes. It certainly wouldn't be to save anybody's life, they showed wanton disregard for innocents at WTC I don't see why they'd blink at another few hundred casualties and whatever hit the Pentagon still caused as much damage as ramming the real plane into it. What possible purpose is there to fake that 77 hit the Pentagon that is not accomplished by crashing the real 77 into the Pentagon? On second thought, maybe that question is better applied to Flight 93, I think you are under the impression that maybe they had to fake it because Hani couldn't pull off the maneuver, which as we've all seen is highly debatable. Regardless, the possible explanations of how it was done and the motivations for faking the Pentagon crash seem extremely convoluted and not very compelling.

The purpose of faking, scripting 77 impacting the Pentagon is to hide the fact that the damage at the Pentagon was deliberate, planned, and caused mostly by HE. The purpose was to destroy the evidence being investigated by ONI in the part that was struck. About 80% of the casualties there were in that office.

Dick Eastman, Tom Flocco, V.K. Durham, Karl Schwarz and E.P. Heidner detail that fairly well. www.doeda.com/y911.html

[Babe Ruth]

You investigate plane crashes?

My experience is to do with large scale construction, which often requires controlled demolition.

No? Who put the debris at Shanksville?

Who saw someone taking all this stuff out there and setting it alight? Even body parts were recovered, and pictures of the recovery are plentiful. I recall reading about a tooth in a tree even.

Where is the plane now?

What happened to the passengers? Many of whom left family behind? You do think it is not a tad insensitive to suggest that when people called from the plane, they were lying, staged to set up their loved ones, and are faking it on some island someplace? Daddy faked his death?

If nobody saw this, what did Linda Shepley see?

Yes, FAA and UAL were tracking different planes coded UA93. I am sure you have seen the case study.

Really, I seem to remember that when replication was attempted it failed 100% of the time, in every experiment. Also, notable chemist, Frédéric Henry-Couannier came to a very different conclusion and said the claims was baseless. The RJ Lee company also looked for thermite, and found nothing. LINK - WTC Dust Signature report. I know that when Harett and Jones put forth their claim, they compared the sudden energy spike of their burning chips with the spikes of known nanothermites, and found that their chips ignited at around 150° C. lower than the known nanothermites, and the energy release was off between their chips and the nanothermites by a factor of at least two. Yet they called this a match for nanothermite!

Your knowledge is incomplete, especially regarding the events at Shanksville.

No, I do not investigate plane crashes, but I've seen my share over the years, military and civilian type.

Wally Miller was the coroner at Shanksville, and beat the feds to the scene by maybe an hour or more. Just enough time to have already told the media, (yes, it's recorded) that there was nothing there remotely resembling a 757 with passengers and bags.

Miller was eventually interviewed years later by Christopher Bollyn on another matter--the Dover AFB Mortuary case, which involved "remains" from Shanksville. In the course of that interview Wally and a few other locals, with the luxury of hindsight, explained what really happened.

If you are interested in broadening your knowledge base, read Bollyn's book.

[skyeagle409]

The purpose of faking, scripting 77 impacting the Pentagon is to hide the fact that the damage at the Pentagon was deliberate, planned, and caused mostly by HE. The purpose was to destroy the evidence being investigated by ONI in the part that was struck. About 80% of the casualties there were in that office.

You can't destroy evidence inside the Pentagon with a B-757. Some folks I know were at the Pentagon when American 77 struck the building and one was the former commander of my Wing.

Edited March 6, 2013 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

No, I do not investigate plane crashes, but I've seen my share over the years, military and civilian type.

So have I.

Wally Miller was the coroner at Shanksville, and beat the feds to the scene by maybe an hour or more. Just enough time to have already told the media, (yes, it's recorded) that there was nothing there remotely resembling a 757 with passengers and bags.

You seem to forget that United Airliners also confirmed the loss of United 93 near Shanksville and Wally Miller was not an employee of United Airlines. What Wally Miller has confirmed.

United Airlines has confirmed the loss of United 93.

United Airlines provides further update on UA Flights 93 and 175; sends family assistance teams to PA and NY

CHICAGO - United Airlines has provided the following additional information relating to UA Flights 93 and 175. Flight UA 93, a single aircraft, also operated as a code share flight with Air Canada under AC 4085. Flight UA 175, a single aircraft, also operated as a code-share flight with Air New Zealand under NZ 9051.Earlier today, United confirmed the following details:

• UA 93, a Boeing 757 aircraft, departed from Newark, NJ, at 8:01 local time, bound for San Francisco, with 38 passengers onboard, two pilots, and five flight attendants. This aircraft crashed near Johnstown, PA.
  
• UA 175, a Boeing 767 aircraft, departed from Boston at 7:58 local time, bound for Los Angeles, with 56 passengers onboard, two pilots, and seven flight attendants. United has confirmed the loss of this aircraft. Last radar contact with the aircraft was between Newark, NJ and Philadelphia, PA.
  

United is dispatching a team to Johnstown, PA as soon as possible, to assist in every way, with the investigation and to provide assistance, help, and support to family members. Based on information received from the authorities, United is also sending employees to the New York City area to assist, in every way it can, with this tragedy.

http://www.prnewswire.co.uk/news-releases/united-airlines-provides-further-update-on-ua-flights-93-and-175-sends-family-assistance-teams-to-pa-and-ny-154520735.html

[Babe Ruth]

You can't destroy evidence inside the Pentagon with a B-757. Some folks I know were at the Pentagon when American 77 struck the building and one was the former commander of my Wing.

Finally we agree on something Sky!

No, you can't destroy evidence inside the Pentagon with a Boeing. That's why HE was used.

[skyeagle409]

Finally we agree on something Sky!

No, you can't destroy evidence inside the Pentagon with a Boeing. That's why HE was used.

Considering that remains of crew and passengers of American 77 were recovered at the Pentagon reconfirms the aircraft was American 77, not to mention that American Airlines confirmed the aircraft as American 77. Additionally, ACARS did not show that American 77 landed anywhere else.

[Scorpius]

http://911truth.org/

http://zen-haven.com...ourt-in-the-uk/

http://911truthnews....for-themselves/

http://911research.w...ce/missing.html

http://www.ae911truth.org/

One will have to review and form their own judgement based on the interpretations and counter claims, presented to us. Some even presented to us from various educational backgrounds from architects to engineers provide quite compelling arguements to believe the unbelievable...

Edited March 6, 2013 by Scorpius

[frenat]

The purpose of faking, scripting 77 impacting the Pentagon is to hide the fact that the damage at the Pentagon was deliberate, planned, and caused mostly by HE. The purpose was to destroy the evidence being investigated by ONI in the part that was struck. About 80% of the casualties there were in that office.

Dick Eastman, Tom Flocco, V.K. Durham, Karl Schwarz and E.P. Heidner detail that fairly well. www.doeda.com/y911.html

Too bad the government NEVER has backups!

[skyeagle409]

http://911truth.org/

http://zen-haven.com...ourt-in-the-uk/

http://911truthnews....for-themselves/

http://911research.w...ce/missing.html

http://www.ae911truth.org/

One will have to review and form their own judgement based on the interpretations and counter claims, presented to us. Some even presented to us from various educational backgrounds from architects to engineers provide quite compelling arguements to believe the unbelievable...

Be careful of those truth websites because they are well-known for spewing disinformation and misinformation. They won't tell you that the majority of architects and civil engineers agree with the official story.

Let's take an example of what I am talking about. Conspiracist have claimed that squibs seen spewing from the WTC buildings was evidence of explosions, but were those squibs evidence of explosions?

SQUIBS: VISIBLE EXPLOSIONS

0:35:45

Let's look carefully at the collapse itself. Notice the puffs of concrete issuing from the sides of the building well ahead of the collapse wave. Called "squibs" in demolition language, these are actual explosives – charges firing visibly through the exterior as gravity pulls the building down.

http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/911mysteries/index.html

Where did conspiracist think the massive volume of air was going to flow as each WTC building collapsed?

Check out the following video and notice a demolition process that does not use explosives yet you can see the same squibs of air flowing from those buildings as was the case when the WTC buildings collapsed and remember, no explosives are used.

In addition:

Posted 04 September 2012 - 01:14 AM

Towers Weakened by Planes; Brought Down by Fire

WASHINGTON, D.C., MAY 1, 2002

Analysis by a team of 25 of the nation's leading structural and fire protection engineers suggests that the World Trade Center Towers could have remained standing indefinitely if fire had not overwhelmed the weakened structures, according to a report presented today at a hearing of the House Science Committee. That finding is significant, said W. Gene Corley, Ph.D., team lead for the ASCE/FEMA Building Performance Study Team, because extreme events of this type, resulting in such substantial damage, are generally not considered in building design, and the fact that these structures were able to successfully withstand such damage is noteworthy.

Only a handful of architects and engineers question the NIST Report, but they have never come up with an alternative. Although at first blush it may seem impressive that these people don't believe the NIST Report, remember that there are 123,000 members of ASCE(American Society of Civil Engineers) who do not question the NIST Report. There are also 80,000 members of AIA(American Institute of Architects) who do not question the NIST Report.

http://911-engineers.blogspot.com/

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ARCHITECT Magazine

The Magzine of the American Institute of Architects

The boardroom at the Washington, D.C., headquarters of the American Institute of Architects is an impressive place: Beautiful concentric wooden desks, with microphones in front of every seat, encircle a small central dais, offering the impression that important discussions are had here. “It feels like the United Nations,” a guest recently commented.

This room recently served as a peculiar venue for the 23rd stop on the 30-city “world premiere tour” of AIA member Richard Gage’s new film 9/11: Explosive Evidence—Experts Speak Out: Final Edition. Since 2006, Gage has been traveling all over the world under the banner of his organization, Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth—an organization that has no affiliation with the AIA, express or otherwise—to preach the theory that the Twin Towers and 7 World Trade Center were actually brought down by explosives on September 11, 2001, and not the impact of two hijacked jetliners and the resulting fires and debris.

“I had to be dragged kicking and screaming into believing that our government and the Israeli government, the Israeli Mossad, could be responsible for the Twin Towers demolition,” one member of the DC chapter of 911truth.org declared from the AIA-emblazoned podium.

The accusations of Gage’s organization are the typical hodgepodge of pseudo-scientific claims. Along with other esoteric and debunked technical arguments, he says that melted steel was visible at the Ground Zero site proving that the fires burned too hot to have been caused by jet fuel; that because the buildings collapsed at “near free fall speed” there must have been a controlled demolition; and that traces of athermitereaction found in the World Trade Center debris proves that explosives were used.

All of Gage’s so-called evidence has been rebutted in peer-reviewed papers, by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, by the National Institute for Standards and Technology, by the American Society of Civil Engineers, by the 9/11 Commission Report, and, perhaps most memorably, by the 110-year-old engineering journal Popular Mechanics.

What is more interesting than these bizarre and debunked conspiracy theories is the way that Gage places his AIA membership front and center in his presentations. He seems to be attempting to cloak his organization in the officialdom of the venerable 155-year-old professional institution, even as AIA wants nothing to do with his organization. At the start of his latest film, he explains that he is “a licensed architect of over 20 years and member of the American Institute of Architects.”

Gage often seems to wield his AIA status in promoting his conspiracy theories. In making his case, he also regularly cites that more than 100 AIA members and at least six AIA Fellows have signed his petition calling for a new investigation. In total, Gage says that more than 1,700 of the petition’s roughly 16,000 signatures are from architects and engineers.

During the screening, Gage was at the very least intimating that his organization had been invited to AIA officially. “I can’t tell you how grateful we were to have been accepted to be here in the boardroom at the national headquarters,” Gage said. “We hope this is the beginning of a very productive relationship.”

Aside from Gage, though, there was not a single other architect in the room, much less an official from AIA, or even another member. The 80-strong crowd was made up largely of members of the local 9/11 Truth movement and other political activists.

http://www.architect...y-theory_2.aspx

Don't allow yourself to be duped by those 911 conspiracy websites as they duped so many others who were unaware of the rest of the story.

Edited March 7, 2013 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

Too bad the government NEVER has backups!

I guess 911 conspiracist believe that the U.S. government doesn't believe in backups.

[psyche101]

Your knowledge is incomplete, especially regarding the events at Shanksville.

Lets see about that shall we.

No, I do not investigate plane crashes, but I've seen my share over the years, military and civilian type.

I used to see a Nurse who was on the recovery teams for Pan Am Flight 103. I have seen some pictures nobody else has on that, and my sister served for the RAAF, and was able to inform me intimately of the 2006 jet incident. I have not seen many, but what I have seen has been pretty graphic and quite some unadulterated detail. Fire destruction and explosion damage I have seen a plenty. One real bad one was at a local theme park, when the pyrotechnics shed at the back of a daily show went off with three men inside.

Wally Miller was the coroner at Shanksville, and beat the feds to the scene by maybe an hour or more. Just enough time to have already told the media, (yes, it's recorded) that there was nothing there remotely resembling a 757 with passengers and bags.

Miller was eventually interviewed years later by Christopher Bollyn on another matter--the Dover AFB Mortuary case, which involved "remains" from Shanksville. In the course of that interview Wally and a few other locals, with the luxury of hindsight, explained what really happened.

And Wally says the people were cremated in the explosion, and that he saw human samples. Ct'ers get all excited because he said he was surprised by the size of the impact zone. Many were because they had not seen a high speed impact zone. I have seen CCTV footage of a man caught in a switchboard explosion. After the smoke cleared, he just did not exist any more.

And Miller was indeed interviewed by Bollyn, that condescending weed bled Wally dry, and then dismissed him. It's always a big red flag when a person consults a professional and then cherry picks the answer without further input. This is what he had to say:

Wally is a nice fellow, but he thinks that everybody plays by the rules. He doesn't think about destroying evidence, especially when that evidence is human remains. He allowed the federal authorities to take control of the crime scene that was his responsibility and jurisdiction under the laws of the state of Pennsylvania. I had read that human remains had been taken from Shanksville to Dover AFB for identifying. I read that the identifying process at Dover was being done by several FBI agents working at the mortuary.

What a tosspot. Wally had to deal with the grief of all those families, and is of the opinion that people were cremated due to the severity of the impact. That's his professional opinion that Bollyn has taken a piece of and re-written. Wally still gets calls from the victims relatives, and looks forward to the day his role in flight 93 ends. He also has set up memorials but he has to put up with persistant mongrels who do things like:

I called Miller sometime before May 2006 and asked him about the ethics of his having signed death certificates for bodies that had been identified by others at Dover AFB. He got angry at me for having asked this direct question, but he cannot say that he has not heard that such things could have occurred.

I am not surprised he got angry at him. I cannot imagine why any person would want to speak to a jumped up upstart like Bollyn.

If you are interested in broadening your knowledge base, read Bollyn's book.

Or I could just go have a beer at Ground Zero Lounge with all the drunk people on stage pretending they are important. There are many copies, rip offs and wannabe's. He is not the only one with outright nutso ideals like missiles being involved. No, I do not need to broaden my CT database. I do not consider that as actual knowledge. Because it is not. I know enough about this cretin without having to give him money or buy his book, belting out kooky claims that border on treason gets you noticed somewhat.

Edited March 7, 2013 by psyche101

[psyche101]

http://911truth.org/

http://zen-haven.com...ourt-in-the-uk/

http://911truthnews....for-themselves/

http://911research.w...ce/missing.html

http://www.ae911truth.org/

One will have to review and form their own judgement based on the interpretations and counter claims, presented to us. Some even presented to us from various educational backgrounds from architects to engineers provide quite compelling arguements to believe the unbelievable...

Do you have anything to discuss, this being a discussion forum and all, or do you just wish to post links to indicate you are a closet truther without a personal opinion?

[psyche101]

You can't destroy evidence inside the Pentagon with a B-757. Some folks I know were at the Pentagon when American 77 struck the building and one was the former commander of my Wing.

Indeed Sky, and a missile would not help either. I guess these guys have never heard of the digital age. They do not seem to realise this is how the Internet was born - not keeping all your sensitive data in one place.

I hope all of your compatriots made it out OK mate.

[psyche101]

Considering that remains of crew and passengers of American 77 were recovered at the Pentagon reconfirms the aircraft was American 77, not to mention that American Airlines confirmed the aircraft as American 77. Additionally, ACARS did not show that American 77 landed anywhere else.

And the Truthers are using poor Wally Miller, who had the most unenviable of jobs to do.

Wally Miller looks decidedly uncomfortable standing in a dark gray suit in front of a church audience. He is hugely popular in Somerset, reelected as county coroner last year with more than 80 percent of the vote -- without campaigning. Since September 11, he has been in great demand as a speaker, not just locally, but at gatherings of coroners, emergency rescue workers and law enforcement groups from New Orleans to Toronto. He'll talk about his work, he says, but not too much about himself.

For months, he tells the church group, he's been conscious of "the burden I carried" as coroner, but reluctant to discuss it in public. He did not plan to attend this service at Somerset Alliance Church on March 11, the night of the six-month anniversary, he says, but has done so at the urging of friends who convinced him that "this is the time and place to talk about the spiritual aspect of what happened out there."

First, though, he wants to make clear that he has no special qualifications for the discussion or for what he's done since September 11. "I am a Christian," he says. "I'm not an exemplary Christian. For some reason, which remains unknown to him, Miller says, "God put me in charge of the site."

"I knew when I stood in that crater that it was going to be a long road ahead. But I knew we would make it through. I never dreamed it would go the way it has. My phone never stops ringing" and the demands seem endless, he says, "but it was okay . . . I was put here for this." He says he looks forward to the end of his role in Flight 93. "This is not something I want to be remembered for. It was part of my journey . . ."

Miller says he is often asked how he copes emotionally with the work he must do. He says he is not sure. Then he tells the church audience that, remarkably, two heavily damaged Bibles were found in the wreckage of the flight; a white one at the crash site that belonged to a passenger who was a practicing Buddhist; and a second one, black, of uncertain ownership. Miller says he ran across the second one on the floor of the warehouse where victims' belongings were being kept. The second Bible was scrunched up and was lying open, he says, to the 121st Psalm, which is customarily read at funerals. He says he has no idea who left the Bible in that position.

Then Miller opens the Bible he is holding and starts to read that Old Testament psalm to the church audience: "I will lift up mine eyes unto the hills, from whence cometh my help . . ."

LINK

Just does not sound like Wally is an ardent supporter of the "truth" movement does it

even worse than the ridiculous phone call claims.

Edited March 7, 2013 by psyche101

[Q24]

The problem I have is with your #1; what do you mean we have 'zero evidence' that 77 was the plane that crashed into the Pentagon? You mean no evidence except the small fact that Flight 77 and it's occupants did not land at it's destination and the people have never been heard from again? And that a plane just so happened to hit the Pentagon in the timeframe that Flight 77 was supposed to be in the air? Your CT relies heavily on things not being 'just a coincidence' and now you are going to say it might just be a coincidence that Flight 77 disappeared around the same time that the Pentagon was struck and thus there is 'zero evidence'?

Have you read the Northwoods document? What I mean is, we have as much evidence Flight 77 crashed at the Pentagon as we would have had that the original aircraft crashed in the Northwoods plan, i.e. ‘zero’ because despite appearances the aircraft were actually switched.

The fact that Flight 77 did not land at its intended destination is evidence that Flight 77 did not land at its intended destination. The fact that the passengers have never been heard from again is evidence that the passengers have never been heard from again. The fact that an aircraft crashed at the Pentagon is evidence that an aircraft crashed at the Pentagon. These are likewise similar occurrences that were planned in the deceptive Northwoods operation.

It is not ‘coincidence’ that Flight 77 disappeared at the time the Pentagon was struck whichever way we look at it. Either Flight 77 impacted the Pentagon, which would not be a coincidence, or another aircraft impacted the Pentagon, which, as a part of the operation, would not be coincidence either. Is it a coincidence that the passenger carrying aircraft in the Northwoods plan disappeared at the time the drone substitute aircraft crashed? No, of course not, it’s just necessarily how the plan works.

The fact is this: to prove that Flight 77 terminated at the Pentagon, serial numbers of the physical debris needed to be matched to records – this is only reasonable/sensible. This process was never carried out. The Northwoods plan was also dependent on this lack of identification process.

Why is the identification of human remains from Flight 77 at the Pentagon not evidence? The transponder being shut off, no serial numbers, etc, doesn't remove either of these evidence points: Flight 77 is missing and the occupant's remains were found at the Pentagon. Again, the standard is almost never 'proof', if it was there'd really be no point in even discussing the CTs, the 'evidence' for those is nowhere near that standard.

If that were the case then I’d accept Flight 77 crashed at the Pentagon, but there is some important detail that you are missing out. The fact is that identification of human remains was not carried out at the Pentagon. Samples were analysed by the DNA Identification Laboratory in Rockville, Maryland though none had come directly from the Pentagon crash site; they were received from Dover Air Force Base and Davison Army Airfield. The problem: there is no available record of collection, transit or custody regarding this process. The passenger samples (specifically the passenger samples, not the far greater many office occupants) could have been inserted anywhere in the chain of custody.

In all, there is no reasonable confirmation that Flight 77 or the passengers were ever at the Pentagon. I’m talking to a reasonable standard of physical investigation that protects from potential deception, not speculation that leaves us so wide-open to a false flag. I’m being fair/sensible here. Whether Flight 77 impacted the Pentagon or not actually makes no odds to my theory. I’m just saying how it is – the investigation was lacking and the official story remains unconfirmed.

Also some helpful advice – beware of skyeagle’s nonsense : -

That is incorrect. Turning off the transponder does not make an aircraft invisible to radar. Another misconception on the part of 911 conspiracist. Remember, the B-757 is not a stealth aircraft which should have told you that your claim is false. Even the F-117 stealth fighter was not totally invisible to radar. Turning off the transponder simply makes an aircraft more difficult to track on radar, not make it invisible.

How many times does it need pointing out to you? Flight 77 disappeared from radar altogether.

I didn’t say that turning off a transponder makes an aircraft invisible to radar. I said the airliner disappeared altogether from radar with the brackets “(primary radar too in this case)” indicating a distinction from the secondary radar/transponder reading that you should have noticed. The fact is that Flight 77 disappeared altogether from radar for a period of time – no one actually saw that aircraft turn around - an area of low radar coverage the reason provided – which is an ideal opportunity to perform an aircraft switch.

You have just made another error. Who do you think supplied the information needed for investigators to decipher black box data that pertained ONLY to the airframe of American 77? The two companies were American Airlines and the Boeing Company.

The airline companies provided the NTSB with the make and model (family/type) of the FDR allowing decode of the data. This is contained in the NTSB report. The NTSB were not in possession of the serial number of the FDR that would have tied it to a specific aircraft.

[Q24]

Hi psyche. I won’t respond to most of your last posts because personally I think your reasoning and speculation to avoid certain facts is absurd (and will be noted so by intelligent readers), especially that continued reliance on the ‘cyberbabe’ newscaster in preference to the FBIS, BBC or Al Jazeera reports – it’s really tough to discuss with someone of such persuasion.

he was picked up by the Special Forces in the American army, who sent him to the Special Warfare school and encouraged him to pursue a doctorate in Islamic Studies and teach courses on the Middle East.

This was about Ali Mohammed, and with that you begin to understand Al Qaeda. Even Mohammed’s own commanding officer in the U.S. army wanted him investigated and court-martialed, when this was denied leading him to conclude Mohammed was sponsored by the CIA. Of course, you would know better.

I am more than happy to consider him a liar and mass murderer 100% of the time if that helps.

Except it seems when bin Laden talks about killing civilians (which you do not take in the context of reciprocation/collateral damage he intended by the way) and disparagement of America – then his word is the pinnacle of truth and evidence to you.

The US need no justification with Moussaoui. His courtroom antics speak volumes.

Actually the U.S. prosecution did need justification after Moussaoui was found innocent of 9/11 related charges due to lack of evidence – there was quite a furore in the media about it. It’s a good job that ‘bin Laden’ came riding to the rescue within a couple of weeks to validate the prosecution failure and declare that Moussaoui had nothing to do with the 9/11 operation.

There is no evidence that Bin Laden was incarcerated, and look at the house where has captured, in town, access to the Internet, and arials all over the building.

Yes there is, read this post again: -

http://www.unexplain...90#entry4240550

The compound was not in any normal town, but the Pakistan military district, only 1km from the elite military training academy and home to many retired military officers.

I don’t know where you are getting the claim regarding internet access (please not Annanova again?). All reports I have read state there was no phone or internet connection. The official explanation for this has been that bin Laden transported messages the old-fashioned way, by courier, to avoid electronic message intercepts.

The facts are this: -

• a compound with security gates
  
• and 12ft high walls, topped with barbed-wire
  
• monitored by security cameras
  
• no phone or internet connection
  
• where the rubbish is burnt rather than left for collection
  
• a courtyard for exercise
  
• and armed guards
  
• a building excluded from the official Pakistan census
  

Really think about each point - the comparison is clear to see; this is ideal match to features of a prison.

Look at the double-ended security corridor/gates: -

Now that of a prison: -

Lt Col Ralph Peters, whilst praising the U.S. operation: -

“I think the reason bin Laden stayed there so long was very straightforward - he was a

prisoner

in a gilded cage. The Pakistani ISI

had

him there, he wasn't free to go. They were in my view keeping him there until they needed him. So it was a gentle

imprisonment

.

I worked with the Pakistanis at least briefly in the 90s, I have followed them for a long time. And there is no way the Inter Services Intelligence Agency, the Pakistani CIA plus equivalent, didn't know where this guy was, they had to know. There is no doubt that the ISI knew he was there and helped him. It is my supposition that he wasn’t free to go,

the deal was he wasn’t free to go

and they protected him.”

Raelynn Hillhouse, an American security analyst with contacts in the intelligence services: -

“My sources tell me that the informant claimed that the Saudis were paying off the Pakistani military and intelligence (ISI) to essentially shelter and keep bin Laden under

house arrest

in Abbottabad, a city with such a high concentration of military that I'm told there's no equivalent in the US.”

Another security analyst, Juan Zarate: -

“One of the things that surprised me (in viewing the video) is, with bin Laden having been in this compound for about five, maybe six years, it's a little bit like he was under

house arrest

. He was really a

prisoner

, in a sense, in this compound. And so, what we may be looking at is a dimension of the

prison

that he was in for about five years there in Abbottabad.”

But typically in your blinkered way, there is ‘no evidence’ that bin Laden was incarcerated. I guess you must like your fantasy/propaganda world, but not everyone is so content to remain in the dark.

[Babe Ruth]

Psyche

Wally did not have to deal with the grief of all those families--he never even met them. They were names on a list to him, a list of names provided by the FBI, attached to tissue samples or DNA samples provided him by the FBI.

Being an honest man and small town funeral director, he accidentally spilled the beans to the media, reporting the simple truth--they found no human bodies, no baggage, nothing resembling the scene one would expect where a half loaded 757 had just crashed.

Shortly after he spilled the beans, and after the overhead news helicopters corroborated the story--no airplane--the feds showed up on site. Realizing what had happened, they made a bad situation tolerable. They asked Wally if he could be a team player. Who tells the FBI 'no' in a situation like that? Nobody.

He agreed to be a team player, and eventually issued an amended statement about what they had seen. The feds set him up in a temporary morgue about 10 miles away on the other side of the county. The feds designated a new site of "the crash", borrowed equipment from a local heavy equipment operator, roped off the "scene of the crime", and would let nobody see it.

Wally was subsequently provided samples of human remains, identified by the feds. Wally signed off on the death certificates for the State Of Pennsylvania.

Years later in an amiable interview, Wally and other locals told Bollyn the story. There was no Boeing there that day.

That is confirmed by ACARS data showing the tail number assigned as UA93 was still transmitting from Illinois somewhere, 30 minutes after the supposed crash in PA.

[Q24]

Wally did not have to deal with the grief of all those families--he never even met them. They were names on a list to him, a list of names provided by the FBI, attached to tissue samples or DNA samples provided him by the FBI.

Being an honest man and small town funeral director, he accidentally spilled the beans to the media, reporting the simple truth--they found no human bodies, no baggage, nothing resembling the scene one would expect where a half loaded 757 had just crashed.

I thought it was only official story adherents that believe in intact human bodies after an airliner crashes headlong into a solid object. Of course there should be no bodies and Miller’s initial comments confirmed this, though body parts and tissue samples were later recovered from the Flight 93 crash site.

I think that a certain amount of emotional disconnect is good in consideration of theories and seeking the truth. But when people like Wally Miller and Lloyd England are dragged in with no apparent basis other than speculation, of hugely contentious logic (they asked a random citizen to ‘be a team player’ in the cover-up? Oh dear), then it stretches even my considerable limits of what is tasteful.

That is confirmed by ACARS data showing the tail number assigned as UA93 was still transmitting from Illinois somewhere, 30 minutes after the supposed crash in PA.

This is the second time in quick succession that you have needed to be corrected on the ACARS issue.

The attempted ACARS uplinks are not necessarily reflective of the aircraft physical location (demonstrably so in this case).

There were no transmissions from the aircraft after the crash times.

Please read this article very carefully: -

http://www.unexplain...showentry=24415

To anyone with an ability to understand the system, it is very black and white: your claim is false.

It’s not even like it ‘could’ be correct/open to interpretation, it’s just patently false.

Edited March 7, 2013 by Q24

[Stundie]

I see a tremendous amount of difference between Bush and Usama. Usama allows for women and children to be killed, Bush laments such, Bin Laden actively attacks America, America sent troops to Afghanistan to help which Bin Laden denies, which I found a huge insult to those who lost lives fighting so these cretins might enjoy freedom, Bin Laden declared war on America, Bush declared war on terrorism, and whilst 100-150 thousand are presumed dead, I understand that the vast majority of civilians killed in Iraq were not killed by US troops. I recognise that the actions of the USA bears some clear responsibilities for the chaos, but ineptitude, miscalculation, ignorance, etc do not qualify as genocide. Otheriwse the United Nations and France would be responsible for the genocide in Rwanda (900,000 people). Putin would be a better candidate for "genocider", since the vast majority of Chechen civilians killed under his watch were killed by Russian troops. And in now way do I believe that at any time did Bush collaborate with Australia or the UK in a deliberate attempt to harm any civillian. Bin Laden considers civillians collateral damage.

I see why you can see a difference but I really do not see a difference at all. The US allows for women and children to be killed but they are classed as casualties of war. Wikileaks release of the classified Iraq War Logs showed that over 150,000 people died a violent death with 122,000 being innocent civilians. Although the US armies didn't directly kill all of these people, they are still culpable.

After the overthrowing Saddam and the Iraqis realised that the US were not leaving, the Sunni and Shia's were united against the occupation and even held marches against the occupation back in 2004. Even the Sadrist and Sunni MPs were united. There was no civil war but the US couldn't have that. Sunnis were soon banned from employment in major enterprises and Lewis Paul Bremer dissolved 400,000 former soldiers putting them out of work which helped create an insurgency. The coalition was collaborating with Shia extremists known as the Wolf Brigade targeting Sunni civilians, the Iraqis were more terrified of Wolf Brigade than the occupying forces. Then in 2007, there was a redirection when the US paid Sunni Militias they had previously been fighting against including Al-Qaeda fighters, to fight the Sunni extremists and the Shia Madhi army who are portrayed as pro-iranian. They have manage to divide and conquer by creating a civil war and help promote sectarianism. This would not have happened without US involvement.

You can't blame the UN or France for the responsibility of the genocide in Rwanda, you could argue that by doing nothing, they allowed it to happen, but that doesn't make them responsible for it. And yes, I would blame Putin for the killing of Chechen civilians. And I would also argue that US thinks the killing of innocent civilians as collateral damage, look at the van of innocent people that pulled over to help the people shot down by the gunship in the Collateral Murder video released by Wikileaks for evidence of that.

I do not feel religion is an argument, it is in itself unsupported. Yet that is why we have Jihad, and Jihad being a direct citation of violence against others, ought to be outlawed. To me it is like saying certain faiths are OK with domestic violence so we have to accept it.

I agree that religion is not an argument. I think the term Jihad has been misused and misunderstood.

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

Violence is the last option and that is where extreme forms of Islam come into it.

I agree that soldiers have to be held accountable. I do not subscribe to the war zone claim, I know that war would be worse than what I could even imagine, but I do not remember ANZAC's carrying on like this. It's not the first war fought, and it is not the first time we have seen unethical behaviour, Vietnam should have been a mental wake up call. Haditha is an atrocity I agree, and I would like to see harsher punishment. But I do not know if the is sympathy to ones own people, or to a greater picture. If the US did prosecute those at Haditha, would that have given more sympathy to Abhu Graib? Whilst Abhu Graib is considered an example of American injustice, looking at it closely, it is not as clean cut as the bleeding hearts would have one believe.

There might be a bigger picture, I cannot see it I admit, but if not, then I agree it is one sided to not dispense justice to perpetrators if US citizens. I think if Bales is not incarcerated for life, only so we can chop his brain up when he is dead to try and find what was broken, then he should be handed over the Afghan officials. That is the patriotism you spoke of, looking after one's own, and I admit it is most certainly a reality. I am personally not affected by that being an Aussie.

I think this is the sort of thing that needs to go to the press. There is most definitely two minds of the public on that issue.

As someone once said "Immoral wars, breed immoral behaviour".

If the US did prosecute and treat others as they would like to be treated so to speak, then there would be a lot more people sympathetic to US causes but the truth is, that it highlights the lengths the US will go to, even if it's doing things immoral, to protect it's hegemony over the region.

Religion has something of a history of sacrificing that which is greatest value to one to one's preferred deity. These people take religion to an extreme. They do not use their own all the time either:

Last summer, Afghan President Hamid Karzai pardoned a group of would-be child suicide attackers ranging in age from 8 to 17. Some of the 20 youngsters told Karzai they had been recruited by the Taliban, strapped with vests and ordered to detonate them near foreigners, the president's office said in a statement last August. Militants told the youngsters that the blasts would spare them but kill the foreigners, it said.

LINK

Not all of them it seems, I remember seing a thread here last year I think, where a child ran to officials and told them she had bombs strapped to her, they got her out of it.

I think that people taking religion and using it for the own gains and ends is something which has happened throughout history. Look at the Catholics church in response to child abuse it committed.

As I said, killing is killing and there are plenty of ways to justify it, whether it is for religious reasons, revenge, pre emptive attack or reason X. As for religion, it doesn't matter whether they are using a child as bomb or as a sexual partner, they are both abhorrent.

He is, and this is a kind description I think. A group of guys here called The Chasers caught him in the street and really took the Mickey. Really funny actually.

I do not see this as similar to the Christian comparison. Islam is mainly divided into two factions. That would be like Christianity having only say Catholics and Protestants. What Bin Laden represents also represents law in the Middle East. Shari'ah is not small, and comments like those of Hillali show us that this is what the leaders (a reasonable comparisons seems an Archbishop?) are preaching, and what they are spreading. The Pope is not ever going to incite a holy war. Muti's an Imams do, and all the time, and all over the world, and they have the blessing of their leaders. By comparison, Westboro seems little more than a joke. And they are to anyone outside f that particular group. Westboro also calls Catholicism Devil Worship. The main comparison I see is small minded people, but in every other way, they seem pretty different. They even say Christians are to blame for all the worlds woes today. More of a third party that stole the name really - LINK - Westboro Baptist Church Claims Christians Are To Blame For 'Fag Marriage' (VIDEO)

I love the Chasers, it's a shame they aren't on TV any more as far as I'm aware, but I think they were to risqué...lol

I see all religions the same, whether it is Islam or Christianity, they can be very good for people but of course in the wrong hands, they can be very, very bad. Not all Imans preach hate, there might be a few that do but we can't use the actions of a few, to outlaw something that is good for many other people.

Again, it would be like saying that because the Catholic Church didn't little to nothing to stop the child abuse and turned a blind eye to such evil doings within it's own society, that we should outlaw it.

I do not feel so, and I would vote for a death penalty. I think that is the price to pay for being in a society. Lethal injection is not barbaric painful nor humiliating, it is peaceful and puts an end to people who cannot fit into society, and are judged so by a jury of peers. Any child molester, murderer or the like IMHO has given away their rights, as that is the cost of living in society. I believe in a civilised death, and think death should be a more open subject, I completely support Euthanasia. Burying people up to their necks in the ground, and enticing their friends and neighbours to painfully and slowly kill them I think is about the lowest a human can sink to. If a man forfeits his right to life by forcibly taking a happy child's life and ending it I feel has no place n society, and must be removed. Quietly, quickly ,and painlessly. Put them to sleep, do not make them kneel in midday sun in front of all those who are part of their life, and have their head hacked away for a slow, humiliating painful death. I think a child killer is were we can draw this line as per cases such as the James Bulger case, but upon reaching a mature age, such should simply be expired.

This is the ultimate price one can pay for the worst actions one can commit. As such, I feel dignity is shown by finally doing "the right thing" and removing oneself from society is an act that should as such should be provided with privacy and dignity.

I think this is a discussion for another day, but lethal injection is not painless.

http://www.newscient...m-painless.html

I know where you are coming from, but I cannot condone state executions, especially when they get it wrong. A prime example of that being Derek Bentley who was hung here in the UK. If we still had the death penalty here in the UK, the Birmingham six, Guildford four and many others would have been put to death when they are later found to be innocent.

Killing people is barbaric and its doesn't matter how it is done and I'm not a fan of killing innocent people.

I think we rely too much on Governments for things like this. Apple and Windows have more money than the US does. We need Government's to put rules in place, and give guidelines. I do not know if it os so much control, and just keeping a status quo. Leaders have too short a time to make a real difference I feel, this I feel is not right. the Government does not use religion, religion was the Government until the 30 years war, when the common man insisted on a say. Not that it is a new Western concept, ancient rome practised democracy.

Whilst it is true that some people are given a hard time for speaking out, if they do, and are indeed right in what they say, it seems to me that these people are eventually recognised. Sometimes posthumously unfortunately, but if they have fact behind them, in antiquity, they tend to prevail. In fact, Ignaz Semmelweis immediately comes to mind as a precedent.

Bill Gates said he would end world hunger. If he can, and does, I think it will be a major motivating step forward for other philanthropists to make their mark. I keep an eye on Branson. He is going to do good things for all of us yet.

Not much to disagree on here.

I have no doubt he would have uncovered the plot, and I think Bodine knew that, and wanted the limelight, but was unable to hold a candle to ONeill.

Had he survived 911 I bet he could have really made some waves, but if the FBI had given him more room to investigate, I think he wold have been well on the way to disolving Al Qaeda now.

I think he might have uncovered more than that, but unfortunately we will never know.

I do not know, to be frank, you could get some pretty hard*spam filter* 50 years ago, just on paper. Betty Page still turns heads, and despite heavy bondage which shocked most, she was quite religious. She something to the effect of "If God gave me a bidy that makes people happy, why should I not show it to them and make them happy?" Perspective I guess.

But I think that the major benefits of Western society would simply allow people to adopt and embrace it. Shari'ah only benefits men, who are the only ones allowed to vote, It's circular to keep it in place no matter what, and democracy out. I homestly do not think anyone would need to be erradicated, we just need to allow them to experience the benefits. From there, I feel it is just time. Generationally, Shari'ah would just be deemed unacceptable, as the notion of such suppression is in the West.

I'm much prefer the western society than that of the Islamic world, but just because I think it's better, that doesn't mean I think it is best for everyone else too. And even though I think it's better for everyone, I'm not a fan of dictating how others choose to live their lives, whether it benefits just the men. You have to look at what you call the benefit, Islamic societies from many years ago had a fairly relaxed attitude to alcohol but as time went on it was outlawed and seen as sinful. Here in the UK we have major binge drinking issues, so I'm sure there would be some people converted but I'm sure there would be some that are horrified by the things that go off in western culture.

Ohh, not I would not say you are a genuine CT'er, as I say, it has been a very pleasant discussion. I had that impression to begin with due to your debate with Sky, but I see now that is simply not the case. I guess I would consider you from my view as a fence sitter?

Oh I wouldn't say I was a fence sitter but I wouldn't call myself a CTer either. I swing more of the way of a conspiracy being true than the official story but I'm open to all possibilities.

As I've said before, I had no reason to doubt the official story and it wasn't until I watched a great documentary called The Power of Nightmares that made me question it. There was a part in it where British troops were in the Tora Bora looking for Bin Laden and being sent by Americans to various locations, only to find startled sheep herders and that there was a suspicion that Bin Laden was given a safe passage to Pakistan. (This was back in 2006!) That is when I really started questioning it. I think the whole Iraq has WMDs and the case made by Blair for the UK involvement had already made me think, if they can lie about this, what else could/are they lying about.

I do not believe the official story to be true based on my own investigation and research, this doesn't mean that I automatically think there is a conspiracy either, all it means is that I think it's a possibility. It could also be possible that the official story is true too, but I'm not really seeing the evidence to support it.

What threw it for me was the movement and actions of those in power like Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz. Other than Bush, all of there accounts from the moment the first plane hit to the last one (If a plane crashed at Shanksville... ...lol) are sketchy to say the least and I would call them criminally negligent. But again, it's a discussion for another day.

Part two coming up.....lol

[Stundie]

Have you seen any footage of those numpties at Ground Zero lounge? Laying of the Scotch before ranting might be a good idea for those blokes. This idiots do try to absolver murderers, bloody idiots the lot of them.

Or this moron

Who's book Painful Questions has been aptly described as one of the softest piles of steaming BS ever produced. Or this tosspot:

Who goes as far as to suggest that ordinary Americans are involved in the cover up, and have faked their deaths.

He deserves to be handed over to a group of people who lost loved ones in these disasters.

These guys are detrimental to the way of life our brothers, sisters, uncles Aunts, and Dads and Mums fight and have fought for. No compassion for the real victims, these people are the ones absolving murderers with their actions for personal gain. They are really not much more than the scum who train for Al Qaeda.

I do not really follow any particular conspiracy theorists and I'm not really sure who they are to be honest.

I think it helps if you understand that these people are like me and do not think the official story is true, I do not know what they are claiming, whether they think no planes hit the WTC or whether it was a laser beam, but it might help you understand that the reason these people think the way they do is because they do not believe in the official story.

Again, I do not have a hatred of those who gain from 9/11 conspiracies, even if there conspiracy theories are bonkers because if we look at what others had to gain from 9/11 as a whole, what these guys earn is peanuts in comparison to the money being earned by those in power who had more to gain from it.

Agreed, not the way things roll as I understand, but I agree. I bet ONeill would too. One is always remembered for the last thing they did wrong, not all the good things one does. This cost ONeill the path he needed to prevent 911. I admit that how Bodine remins scott free to this day is indeed a bewilderment. She did not entirely get away with it, we Aussies ousted he role and made it public in an ABC docudrama called The Path to 911. Upon having seen the show, she retorted:

"According to the mythmakers, a battle ensued between a cop obsessed with tracking down Osama bin Laden and a bureaucrat more concerned with the feelings of the host government than the fate of Americans and the realities of terrorism. I know this is false. I was there. I was the ambassador."

Yeah Barb, we hear ya. Loud and clear honey. Shame you could not hear ONeill, all that way back from Yemen when he was warning her about the cells.

But its not just her, there are plenty of others who have not been held accountable for screw ups.

Most CT'ers are delusional' date=' do not have an argument, and just regurgitate what they hear. Many do not have an ounce of engineering capability, but will tell you that WTC was controlled demolition. For the larger part, just their claims are a strong indicator. Is it a regurgitated argument that has been doing the rounds? Or is it out and out plain nonsense? If neither, then it would appear serious debate will ensue. Not that any of the Thermite or Laser beams claims hold any water, or ever did. People like Bee cannot be as dim as they make out, in that case it is a game, some people have fun winding others up. Bee used to be a school teacher. I do not beliebe for a second that the ditzy questions and cailms she spreads are things she is so much as capable of believing in to begin with. The cutesy "dumb blonde" game. And I am fine with that. We are all different, and these claims are so off the wall, it is hard to see anyone taking them as truly serious.[/quote']I would have to disagree, of course there are some delusional conspiracy theorists but there are plenty of rational, logical people who believe in the 9/11 theories too.

I think that to tar most of them with the same brush is just a simple way of dismissing arguments which may have validity. There are plenty who do have engineering capabilities and will tell you that the WTC was a controlled demolition, I certainly believe it was possible, more possible than the official collapse theory.

I do not know who Bee is??

I would also say that instead of taking the attitude that all of the thermite and even laser beams theories do not hold water is to look at it like a true skeptic. In otherwords, don't hold any thing as true and work with possibilities and I'll assure you that you will see some validity to the claims.

OK, maybe not the laser beam, but I am open enough to accept the possibility, even though I think there truly isn't any chance of the laser beams being used.

Religion has always been a strong motivator, and these people were very proud of what they had accomplished, there is no reason to look at the US, they bungled the investigation and paid for it, but that is about the depth of their responsibility - stupidity and complacency. Some crazy religious zealots took their faith to an extreme, and hurt a lot of people for an imaginary ideal. Such is common in history, it is just that such thinking is very foreign to the west having abandoned such barbaric and backwards ways about 400 years ago. Just the astounding lack of respect for human life as a whole Indicates fundamental Isalm. The US learned the same lesson at Pearl Harbour, when they could not so much as fathom an enemy so determined as to take their own lives and fly their planes into targets, killing themselves for the Emperor. Astounding they fell for it again.

I understand that religion is strong motivator and I'm sure there were many cheering when the towers collapsed. I would accept the bungled investigation argument but it appears that even the commissioners knew they were set up to fail.

Why would something be set up to fail? You have to remember than the White House didn't want an investigation but bowed to public pressure from the families, then when they tried to set up the first one, they were going to get Kissinger to do it initially until there were obvious signs of a conflict of interest.

But it's not even a bungled investigation, there was blatant lying which really makes the whole point of an investigation pointless if you allow people to lie or do not have the power to punish those who perjure.

As Skyeagle as pointed out, the idea of using planes as weapons was not beyond the scope of the US government, we knew of Operation Bojinka many years before.

Even less than a year before, the US military were holding exercises with a large model of the Pentagon planning for terrorist attacks.

There were even military drills of planes hitting the WTC initially planned just after the 9/11 which were then cancelled.

Indeed, the US justice system would probably collapse. Yes, indeed it would be a major blow. Even with things like MKUltra in our history, we still get amazed that the Government are not always 100% of the time in out immediate best interests. We do need ombudsmen, we do need impartial bodies. Bodine alone is proof of this. Even if the level of her incompetence was made note of, it would undermine much of the US system. OBL was not even half as smart as he thought he was, he set sights on the wrong target to accomplish what he wanted, but again, blinded by what he thinks is important.

From what I understand, the Government could have prevented this, but had the wrong people in the wrong places, and one main person dropped the ball, which I feel is a very different thing as to what the CT'ers propose. I think it is fairly simple, just a bit muddy. Some patience, and the waters clear I feel.

The problem is that there is a pattern to these mistakes.

If you look at the FAA, the commission blamed them for allowing the planes to hit their targets by y not notifying the right people, even though they had done this for many years before, yet the did a really good job of grounding all of the planes in the sky, even though they had never done this before.

When you look patterns, mistakes on stuff they were doing for years and

I do not know if he is a liar, or a crackpot, but one of the two no doubt.

I do not think he is a liar, a bit crackers maybe but I wouldn't call him a liar.

Wow, that lady really got the short end of the stick. It's terrible that things like this can happen. I am sincerely very sorry to hear she had to live with that.

I think it was the times, this was back in the 1950s. Child abuse was never spoken about and I would say that here in the UK, it was only discussed after consumer programs like That's Life which brought it to the attention of the public.

Quite a similar story has been unfolding here over the last 10 months or so. We used to have a family show called "Hey Dad"! which was actually pretty good. Some nasty allegations are coming out about "Dad" (Robert Hughes) seeing an icon like that which one grows up with, you do not want it to be true, but unfortunately sometime facts are facts, and these things test us form time to time. Realisation is quite a deflating let down.

It is and I'm sure you could find some people out there willing to defend his actions.

I agree that conspiracy can and does happen. Sky would not deny this as he has participated in a cover up. He will tell you so. I am really glad to speak to you, I have seen a different light to many aspects of the case, and indeed, ONeill is a pivotal point in resolving 911 and the responsibility of the US, and I too would like to see everything out in the open public like it or lump it. But where we see instances such as Bodine letting the nation down, I am hoping not to give the zealots something to run with because in most cases, they need little to find a way of twisting a thing out of proportion and creating a monster, Again the Ground Zero Lounge comes to mind. They now congregate to sit around screaming at each other, then patting themselves on the back as to how these "truthers" have uncovered evil plots the government wish to experiment on them with. Nobody is perfect, I bet most people in Government realise this, but truthers seem to think they are. Thanks for the kind words Stundie. Aways a pleasure to discuss with you mate.

Cheers.

Well I can't comment on truthers seeing as I do not know any personally. Other than a few I have spoke to on forums and the ones I've dealt with via email, they all come across as nice people, even the CIT guys who are often labelled and name called.

Although it's a pleasure chatting with you, I think we need to shorten the conversation down a little because we are going off on all kinds of subject matters such as the death penalty and Iran. Also formulating a response is taking a while and sometimes frustrating, especially when your mouse as a back key that you hit it occasionally, wiping off everything you have typed...Arrgghhh!! lol

Cheers

Stundie

[skyeagle409]

Wally did not have to deal with the grief of all those families--he never even met them.

Do you realize what you have just said?

"Grief of all those families."

They were names on a list to him, a list of names provided by the FBI, attached to tissue samples or DNA samples provided him by the FBI.

How about asking the families of the victims of United 93 what they think?

Being an honest man and small town funeral director, he accidentally spilled the beans to the media, reporting the simple truth--they found no human bodies,...

Let's be realistic. Why would anyone expect to find intact bodies of such a violent aircraft crash? How many intact bodies were recovered from the crash site of PSA 1771? The answer to that question is, there were no intact bodies found at that crash site.

...no baggage, nothing resembling the scene one would expect where a half loaded 757 had just crashed.

I don't think you are even familiar with aircraft crash sites. Were intact luggage recovered from the crash site of PSA 1771? If not, then why?

Shortly after he spilled the beans, and after the overhead news helicopters corroborated the story--no airplane--the feds showed up on site.

That is rather silly considering that after people provided photos of similar crash sites, you come back with the same lame "no airplane" remark. Photos were provided to you which depicted no intact aircraft wreckage at those crash sites.

Now once again, why do you not see an intact Tu-154 in this photo?

There was no Boeing there that day.

We are all familiar with the way you make up false stories on a regular basis and here is an example. You say there was no Boeing there that day and yet look what was observed, photographed and recovered from the crash site you have said, no Boeing crashed there.

So once again, you got caught. You must think that people here were born yesterday.

That is confirmed by ACARS data showing the tail number assigned as UA93 was still transmitting from Illinois somewhere, 30 minutes after the supposed crash in PA.

That would have been impossible. Do you even know why? Radar did not track United 93 over Illinois after it crashed nor did ACARS depict United 93 landing anywhere, which should have told you something but I think you knew that already. In other words, you made up another false story, which is typical.

Edited March 7, 2013 by skyeagle409

[Babe Ruth]

I thought it was only official story adherents that believe in intact human bodies after an airliner crashes headlong into a solid object. Of course there should be no bodies and Miller’s initial comments confirmed this, though body parts and tissue samples were later recovered from the Flight 93 crash site.

I think that a certain amount of emotional disconnect is good in consideration of theories and seeking the truth. But when people like Wally Miller and Lloyd England are dragged in with no apparent basis other than speculation, of hugely contentious logic (they asked a random citizen to ‘be a team player’ in the cover-up? Oh dear), then it stretches even my considerable limits of what is tasteful.

This is the second time in quick succession that you have needed to be corrected on the ACARS issue.

The attempted ACARS uplinks are not necessarily reflective of the aircraft physical location (demonstrably so in this case).

There were no transmissions from the aircraft after the crash times.

Please read this article very carefully: -

http://www.unexplain...showentry=24415

To anyone with an ability to understand the system, it is very black and white: your claim is false.

It’s not even like it ‘could’ be correct/open to interpretation, it’s just patently false.

He was not a random citizen Q, he was the owner of a private funeral home in a small town, and served when needed as the county coroner. In his role as county coroner at the site, he told the media what he had seen--nothing suggesting a wrecked Boeing.

Your understanding of the dynamics of airplane crashes is incomplete. Who said there should be no bodies? Bodies were vaporized at WTC, but not from impact. Bodies were NOT vaporized at the Pentagon, goes the story, so how do you reconcile that with your statement above?

Headlong into a solid object? Cripes, you're starting to sound like Skyeagle. What solid object? Prove it. You cannot, and all statements and pictures show no airplane.

Miller was PROVIDED body parts and/or tissue samples, at his morgue 10 miles away from the accident site, by the feds.

When I used the term "transmission" as in transmitting within the ACARS system, I do NOT mean voice transmissions, as ACARS is but a texting system operated by computers on VHF radio. The computer belonging to 93 was still communicating with the computer operated by ARINC, and that is on the record. Yes, an inconvenient fact for the OCT, but a fact nonetheless.

The location of the airplane can be closely approximated, because the VHF frequencies used by the system are different in different geographical areas. That, so there will not be any bleedover or frequency interference. The investigator known as Woody has worked on this in great detail. ARINC and UA dispatchers were deposed by FBI people, and it's on the record. I have provided the link to Woody's blog here before. Apologies for not having it at my fingertips right now.

ACARS is but a VHF based texting system, and all times and locations are recorded. It's there, and it corroborates the statements of Miller and his helpers and the video from helicopters overhead.

Bollyn's interview of Miller resulted from the Dover AFB Mortuary scandal of November of 2011.

[skyeagle409]

He was not a random citizen Q, he was the owner of a private funeral home in a small town, and served when needed as the county coroner. In his role as county coroner at the site, he told the media what he had seen--nothing suggesting a wrecked Boeing.

Are you implying that United Airlines, recovery crews, coroners, investigators and many others who have worked at the crash site were all lying when they confirmed the crash site was that of United 93? As I have said before, you must think that people here were born yesterday.