To those who believe the 911 official story

[merril]

I saw a link to something called K*lltown. They appear in league with various anti-everything blogs.

Sewer rats attack Pennsylvania lady-

http://flight93photo.blogspot.com/2006/08/...ndsor-park.html

Bizzare phone call sounds staged- and fake-

http://flight93photo.blogspot.com/2007/03/...t-says-val.html

Further, these classless nobodies are shown for what they are in this article (it's two years old, but I never heard of this, until now)-

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06218/711239-85.stm

Absolute human vile.

I also saw, on this thread, a link to a website, which includes-

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...va&aid=8485

What dismal, rank froth and brew do these sites purvey? And, why?

[flyingswan]

Still want to discuss court cases?

The question was whether the "inside job" side had any evidence that would stand up in a court. I fail to see how the question of whether or not there is evidence of a link between the hijackers and Bin Laden is relevent to this.

Sorry to disappoint, but the hundreds of engineers, architects, scientists, former military and government officials, amongst many other scholars and academics calling for a new and independent 9/11 investigation are all experts in their fields. It’s ok, you just keep telling yourself they aren’t there if it makes you feel better.

...and have they any evidence for a court case?

Any comments?

Plenty of evidence of negligence, especially from the point of view of hindsight, but is there any evidence of anyone actually letting the attacks happen? This is another of your claims that needs to be tested in court.

[Sunofone]

Further, these classless nobodies are shown for what they are in this article (it's two years old, but I never heard of this, until now)-

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06218/711239-85.stm

Absolute human vile.

I also saw, on this thread, a link to a website, which includes-

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...va&aid=8485

What dismal, rank froth and brew do these sites purvey? And, why?

they are govt created false flag truthers-- operations designed to work in tandom with your kind-- they intentionally put out ludicrous theories that are meant to smear the truth movement by association-- footballs meant to be carried by govt shills or talking head parrots that never investigate the facts-- considering that last link accuses the pentagon of suppressing free energy im going to have to assume you think the pentagon can NOT tell a lie-- a gross error on your part --the free energy debate is another thread all together-- and swan i can assure you that a majority of murder cases are won on circumstantial evidence alone which in the case of 9/11 is too much to list in one sitting but is irrelavent when considering the actual physical evidence which is irrefutable

Edited May 13, 2008 by Sunofone

[flyingswan]

1. Oh you have Gilsanz model at last – can you provide a link to it please?
2. When you answer all of the questions I asked regarding WTC7, I might then take you seriously.

Gilsanz's article does happen to have that fact as its main theme.

I have answered your questions in considerably more detail than you have answered mine.

I don’t think column damage at a low-level is going to make a section of the building fall ‘through’ itself all the way up to the roof. You say ‘misplaced’ high-level charges which is possible I guess, but I was thinking more along the lines of a charge being too close to column 79 at a high-level.

Now I think again, why couldn’t a high-level charge have been meant to damage column 79 to weaken the structure? The charge was just more effective than planned and the penthouse collapsed prior to the main demolition. How do we know the high-level charges in the Fort Worth demolition did not cut the vertical columns?

If you cut vertical elements, you expect things to start to move, which is asking for damage to the rest of the set-up from falling debris. Cutting horizontal elements doesn't have the same effect.

I love your idea of a demolition team so competent that they can prep an occupied building without anyone noticing, but so incompetent that they cut the wrong bits.

Ah sorry, I didn’t realise there were two flyingswans on UM. I had a long chat with the other flyingswan on another thread but I shall repeat the points here for your benefit.

Controlled demolition set-up surviving damage and fire: -

I did ask for evidence that it was possible, a previous example or expert's opinion. All that is just your non-expert opinion.

CD set-up of occupied building: -

Again, just your opinion that the security and maintenance staff of the WTC were incompetents all.

Absence of physical evidence of CD: -

Again, none of that is absolute evidence for CD, most of it is explained easily by the "official" theory, and you have yet to explain how a CD could even produce the debris pile effects - hot spots, molten metal, high-temperature corrosion - at all.

The difference this time round is that I'm asking you for evidence, not opinions. I'm surprised you are still claiming Mossad agents with explosives, as the evidence for that evaporated under examination.

Page upon page can be written for each of the above, suffice to say there is only one phenomenon on its own – controlled demolition – that can account for all, whereas the ‘official’ story must introduce multiple contentious excuses to cover for each point separately and then failing still.

Page upon page was indeed written, but it was all your opinions, the evidence wasn't there. For every aspect that you said was incontrovertible evidence of CD, I explained how it was something that an engineer would expect to find in the circumstances.

The point is that the car “looks like” it has explosive damage, as did the WTC buildings. Your argument that the WTC collapses were natural is precisely equivalent to me claiming the car suffered damage from a crash. Afterall, we know that a tree impact can distort a car… we know that a resultant fire could have caused the car explosion… we know that a car battery could reach unimaginable temperatures… so why should it have been a car bomb, right?

The point is that I set up the car as an example of a phenomenon which could be explained in solid engineering terms, even though the sort of detail you are demanding cannot be produced. Your picture of a car that had suffered a different event is irrelevant to my example.

You are claiming that an engineer couldn't tell from examining a damaged car whether it was a car bomb or a tree impact, but to do that you have to only allow him to look at your less than detailed picture, not examine anything else.

WTC7 looks like a CD if you look at only the last few seconds of its collapse, but if you examine the whole evidence, the ways in which it doesn't resemble a CD become apparent.

I'm off on holiday now, so you can live in your dream world unchallenged again.

[Space Commander Travis]

they are govt created false flag truthers-- operations designed to work in tandom with your kind-- they intentionally put out ludicrous theories that are meant to smear the truth movement by association-- footballs meant to be carried by govt shills or talking head parrots that never investigate the facts-- considering that last link accuses the pentagon of suppressing free energy im going to have to assume you do not think the pentagon can NOT tell a lie-- a gross error on your part --the free energy debate is another thread all together-- and swan i can assure you that a majority of murder cases are won on circumstantial evidence alone which in the case of 9/11 is too much to list in one sitting but is irrelavent when considering the actual physical evidence which is irrefutable

These govt created false flag truthers, are they paid by the government? Is the pay good, I wonder? And considering that no one as yet seems to have answered the questions I've often asked, vis-a-vis the extraordinarily complex theories surrounding how the planes were switched and what happened to the passengers, and how all the people who must have been involved have still kept silent after all this time, I do sometimes wonder why it might be necessary for the government to go to all that effort, when, by its inability to answer such questions as those, the truth movement doesn't seem to need any government sponsored assistance in damaging its own credibility.

I think i'd like a talking head parrot, actually. Might be entertaining.

[Sunofone]

And considering that no one as yet seems to have answered the questions I've often asked, vis-a-vis the extraordinarily complex theories surrounding how the planes were switched and what happened to the passengers, and how all the people who must have been involved have still kept silent after all this time, I do sometimes wonder why it might be necessary for the government to go to all that effort, when, by its inability to answer such questions as those, the truth movement doesn't seem to need any government sponsored assistance in damaging its own credibility.

the questions have been answered many times its just your selective acceptance that seems to block it out-- the perps are not afraid to demolish two 110 story towers with people in them so a few occupants from a plane would be nothing-- the flight paths allowed for switches to be performed at military bases and as far as keeping silent goes i can assure you any accomplis to mass murder will keep quite for his own good

Edited May 14, 2008 by Sunofone

[Dowisetrepla]

"False Flag Truthers"? And football carrying parrots?? Seriously???

[Zaus]

Denial never saved anyone from disaster, neither will innocence or bliss save anyone.

[Space Commander Travis]

the questions have been answered many times its just your selective acceptance that seems to block it out-- the perps are not afraid to demolish two 110 story towers with people in them so a few occupants from a plane would be nothing-- the flight paths allowed for switches to be performed at military bases and as far as keeping silent goes i can assure you any accomplis to mass murder will keep quite for his own good

Exactly the same argument that's always stated over and and over and over again... "they're evil enough to do anything." It's so convenient when you just decide that, as it saves having to think about any of the questions that people ask, doesn't it. Who are "they"? The Bush Administration? the Military as a whole? please, could someone elaborate a little bit more, please? This just seems to be the only reply I ever get. And it's just not sufficient.

[MolonLabe]

Denial never saved anyone from disaster, neither will innocence or bliss save anyone.

Less platitudes and more causality from you would be a fresh start to proving beyond any doubt the real perpetrators of this crime.

Such generalizations from you only seek to dull the senses and reduce the intellect to a blunt instrument from which serious debate can no longer be achieved. Rather than providing clear facts and proof, the best you can come up with is a single one liner that does nothing but replicate the same type of rhetorical adages we get from campaigning politicians blathering on about "change" without providing any specifics.

You are cheapening the debate.

Simple request...show me proof and causality...otherwise the only support you will ever receive is from the simpleton minds out there that are looking more for belonging and faith than they are for solutions and evidence. This is why so many people call him Jesus Jones(Alex), because of his blind followers who do not question many of his findings, but rather swallow whole what he shovels as a substitute to the usual organized authority and religious blathering they have come to expect on the other hand.

What is most important is critical thinking rather than a copy/paste mentality. Even when my Instructor makes claims(such as his prior claims of AGW) I still challenge him on them regardless of his learnings and higher education, simply to bolster my own desire to question my environment and test every aspect of my surroundings in the Iron Forge of my own experiential gathering. Anything less cheapens the discovery process.

"From out of the Darkness into the Light. I Am"

[Q24]

The question was whether the "inside job" side had any evidence that would stand up in a court. I fail to see how the question of whether or not there is evidence of a link between the hijackers and Bin Laden is relevent to this.

The original question was, “why not test it in court,” to which I have shown any courts worthwhile are not in a position or do not have the inclination to do so. If the question is hypothetically whether there is “any evidence that would stand up in a court”, I believe certainly yes there are masses of evidence that presented logically would convince a jury of a 9/11 inside job. Also, if it were possible to get the Vice President on the stand to be questioned by a competent prosecutor, I am sure the ‘official’ story would be exposed for the contradictory riddled fabrication it is and would quickly fall apart.

I raised the fact there has never been, nor could there be if FBI Director Robert Mueller is correct there is “no legal proof” of the ‘hijackers’ identities, a court case against Osama Bin Laden or Al Qaeda in the interests of a fair and balanced discussion.

...and have they any evidence for a court case?

I raised the list of experts in response to your “amateurs know best” comment. Richard Gage, the founder of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, with 380 registered and verified construction professionals (notice how that figure keeps going up), has “been a practicing Architect for 20 years and has worked on most types of building construction including numerous fire-proofed steel-framed buildings.” I think he would be a suitable expert to give evidence in a theoretical court case.

Plenty of evidence of negligence, especially from the point of view of hindsight, but is there any evidence of anyone actually letting the attacks happen? This is another of your claims that needs to be tested in court.

We have evidence of foreknowledge of the attacks, we have evidence of investigations of the Bin Ladens and hijackers being restricted, we have evidence of infiltration of Al Qaeda by the CIA, we have evidence of US agents being associated with the hijackers. What exactly more evidence ‘should’ there be of that the attacks were, at a minimum, allowed to happen? You aren’t going to get a signed confession from anyone.

As always with questions I ask you, third time lucky – is it possible with the information we have that elements of US agencies let the attacks happen on purpose?

[Q24]

Gilsanz's article does happen to have that fact as its main theme.

I have answered your questions in considerably more detail than you have answered mine.

Gilsanz’s article references a WTC7 computer model and then fails to give any graphics, fails to detail how it was put together, fails to say how the simulation was executed. How many inputs were manually added, how many overestimations were made, how far into collapse did it progress?

As Gilsanz and the ‘official’ story are being very secretive about the WTC7 collapse theory, perhaps it is best to wait for NIST’s final report so as we might hopefully at last have some real detail to discuss.

I love your idea of a demolition team so competent that they can prep an occupied building without anyone noticing, but so incompetent that they cut the wrong bits.

I didn’t say they “cut the wrong bits”, I suggested that charges local to the column could have inadvertently caused the penthouse collapse or that designed weakening of the column may have caused the penthouse failure due to column 79’s relative isolation from others.

I did ask for evidence that it was possible, a previous example or expert's opinion. All that is just your non-expert opinion.

I have provided links in the past to details of tertiary explosives, thermite and electrical or chemical detonators. Where is your evidence that these are somehow my opinion and do not in fact exist.

Again, just your opinion that the security and maintenance staff of the WTC were incompetents all.

We know that Marvin Bush was on the board of directors of the company that ran elements of WTC, Dulles International Airport and United Airlines security. Where is your evidence that no insiders could possibly be placed in security positions?

I'm off on holiday now, so you can live in your dream world unchallenged again.

You have a nice time – it will give you a break from thinking up excuses and all that hand-waving… er… challenging I mean, of course.

[Zaus]

I was speaking very generally, i call it "common sense".

Less platitudes and more causality from you would be a fresh start to proving beyond any doubt the real perpetrators of this crime.

Such generalizations from you only seek to dull the senses and reduce the intellect to a blunt instrument from which serious debate can no longer be achieved. Rather than providing clear facts and proof, the best you can come up with is a single one liner that does nothing but replicate the same type of rhetorical adages we get from campaigning politicians blathering on about "change" without providing any specifics.

You are cheapening the debate.

You didnt read the opener, or any of my other posts...

Simple request...show me proof and causality...otherwise the only support you will ever receive is from the simpleton minds out there that are looking more for belonging and faith than they are for solutions and evidence. This is why so many people call him Jesus Jones(Alex), because of his blind followers who do not question many of his findings, but rather swallow whole what he shovels as a substitute to the usual organized authority and religious blathering they have come to expect on the other hand.

Religion = brainwashing that makes an easy entrance for brainwashing. Something to think about, is that brainwashing works better with repetition and routine, I.E. christians go to church on SunDay, a blatant worship of the Sun of God, light of the world, crown of thorns, had a "halo"... Every SunDay they get preached at by a person claiming spiritual enlightenment from GOD ALMIGHTY... and he wants your money too.

This makes no sense, but people all over the world get caught in "organized religion". Oh yes, and when catholicism held the world in its crutches nothing happened for 300 years except the death plague and overflowing infestations of rats.

What is religion other than control? What is a paradigm of ideas the affect the way a person sees the world? Does the idea of a constant exposure to a stream of suggestions about how life is lived and how life should be lived scare you?

We have the ultimate, we have television, radio, magazines, "new york times bestselling authors!", and newspapers full of this.

And of the 15 mega corporations that own all of this media(bar a very... very... very small portion of actual free stations privately owned), they have meetings... they dress up in satanic(or whatever weird mock-sacrifice kind of religion/secret society BS) fashion and have some good old *spam filter*(all men there) with eachother...

Tell me all you will but these are the people who you trust to run the world... and BTW they own practically everything you see, do you think they are telling you the truth, much less the rest of the world?

Other religions include our scientific community itself, the "experts" who never raise the question, "WTF is the government doing?"

Fema's got 600 concentration camps IN AMERICA, a small portion capable of holding a MILLION PEOPLE, all built near POPULATED AREAS, such as large cities.

Rofl i love this line. With one minor change

...I only seek to dull the senses and reduce the intellect to a blunt instrument from which serious debate can no longer be achieved.

I swear thats a bush quote! The president you so dearly trust as he starts wars and is quoted on saying "a peaceful nation does not go to war"

Ofcourse he's also quoted on saying...

"One thing is clear, is relations between America and Russia are good, and they're important that they be good." --George W. Bush, Strelna, Russia, July 15, 2006

"I've reminded the prime minister-the American people, Mr. Prime Minister, over the past months that it was not always a given that the United States and America would always have a close relationship." --George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., June 29, 2006

"I think -- tide turning -- see, as I remember -- I was raised in the desert, but tides kind of -- it's easy to see a tide turn -- did I say those words?"--George W. Bush, asked if the tide was turning in Iraq, Washington, D.C., June 14, 2006

"I was not pleased that Hamas has refused to announce its desire to destroy Israel." --George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., May 4, 2006

"No question that the enemy has tried to spread sectarian violence. They use violence as a tool to do that." --George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., March 22, 2006

"People don't need to worry about security. This deal wouldn't go forward if we were concerned about the security for the United States of America." --George W. Bush, on the deal to hand over U.S. port security to a company operated by the United Arab Emirates, Washington, D.C., Feb. 23, 2006

"He was a state sponsor of terror. In other words, the government had declared, you are a state sponsor of terror." --George W. Bush, on Saddam Hussein, Manhattan, Kan., Jan. 23, 2006

"I like to tell people when the final history is written on Iraq, it will look like just a comma because there is -- my point is, there's a strong will for democracy." --George W. Bush, interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer, Sept. 24, 2006

Kinda... makes you... think... about... ?!

What is most important is critical thinking rather than a copy/paste mentality. Even when my Instructor makes claims(such as his prior claims of AGW) I still challenge him on them regardless of his learnings and higher education, simply to bolster my own desire to question my environment and test every aspect of my surroundings in the Iron Forge of my own experiential gathering. Anything less cheapens the discovery process.

"From out of the Darkness into the Light. I Am"

Blinded by my massive egotistical complex!

Id like to share something with you, go type "george carlin, people id like to kill" into youtube, and tell me what you think when he starts talking about the "indoctrination" of children through the public school system.

He is a smart man, because truly it IS FUNNY, ISNT IT?!?!?

The most powerful nation in the world has given its power over to an insane(and downright stupid) oil baron hell bent on destruction...

in his own words...

"You know, when I campaigned here in 2000, I said, I want to be a war President. No President wants to be a war President, but I am one." --George W. Bush, Des Moines, Iowa, Oct. 26, 2006

EDIT: Editted to add awesome Bush slam image

"There is no doubt in my mind when history was written, the final page will say: Victory was achieved by the United States of America for the good of the world."

Edited May 14, 2008 by Zaus

[Space Commander Travis]

You make, actually, a point there, Zaus, somewhere among it all: no, I wouldn't trust any of them to run the world ...

So basically, you're saying that, whereas most dictators (Adolf Hitler, Iosif Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili, etc), try to make the world, and ntheir own people, believe that they're omnipotent and all-powerful and their governments are likewise, the Bush regime takes exactly the opposite approach... con them into thinking they're all a bunch of clowns, when actually they really are omnipotent and all-powerful, is that right?

It's a theory, certainly; but one that doesn't, thus far, seem to have any corroborative evidence to back it up. Nevertheless, it's worth thinking about.

[Sunofone]

You make, actually, a point there, Zaus, somewhere among it all: no, I wouldn't trust any of them to run the world ...

So basically, you're saying that, whereas most dictators (Adolf Hitler, Iosif Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili, etc), try to make the world, and ntheir own people, believe that they're omnipotent and all-powerful and their governments are likewise, the Bush regime takes exactly the opposite approach... con them into thinking they're all a bunch of clowns, when actually they really are omnipotent and all-powerful, is that right?

It's a theory, certainly; but one that doesn't, thus far, seem to have any corroborative evidence to back it up. Nevertheless, it's worth thinking about.

yes because they were still struggling to attain complete control but the shift in approaches marks the moment of their achieving their goal and the switching from a power grab approach to a eugenics based extermination agenda through fake enemies and contrived wars

Edited May 14, 2008 by Sunofone

[Obviousman]

I raised the list of experts in response to your “amateurs know best” comment. Richard Gage, the founder of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, with 380 registered and verified construction professionals (notice how that figure keeps going up), has “been a practicing Architect for 20 years and has worked on most types of building construction including numerous fire-proofed steel-framed buildings.” I think he would be a suitable expert to give evidence in a theoretical court case.

So how do others react to Richard Gage's assessments and claims?

A Critical Analysis of the Collapses of WTC Towers 1, 2 & 7 from an Explosives and Conventional Demolition Industry Viewpoint

A slide-by-slide assessment of his slideshow

Just how many of the "Architects and Engineers" are what they claim?

Hmm.

[MolonLabe]

I was speaking very generally, i call it "common sense".

"All generalizations are useless; including this one"

Your generalizations are pure correlations removed of intimate details that would otherwise create a line of causation.

You didnt read the opener, or any of my other posts...

I did...and it is chopped full of correlations...but no causation whatsoever. You need to prove an immediate and direct link between actions taken and results observed.

Religion = brainwashing that makes an easy entrance for brainwashing.

While I happen to be an atheist I will still keep my opinions on religion to myself. But a point should be made on the line of reasoning you take here. The essence of brainwashing is that it derives it strength on the weak minded, therefore those who are easily lead or mislead will be the first and simplest followers of said brainwashing.

Something to think about, is that brainwashing works better with repetition and routine, I.E. christians go to church on SunDay, a blatant worship of the Sun of God, light of the world, crown of thorns, had a "halo"... Every SunDay they get preached at by a person claiming spiritual enlightenment from GOD ALMIGHTY... and he wants your money too.

A series of correlations and intimately old pagan symbols that have no real bearing on present day beliefs or such belief structures. I was raised as a Roman Catholic and spent countless hours in bible school and in church. I don't remember anything about sun worship at all.

You are reaching here. The nature of those old pagan symbols find themselves as leftovers mixed in with the rest of the later symbology simply through the precedence of tradition. The root word of Worship is worth...to find worth in something. Hence the worth of such a faith is determined greatly by personal point of view...and from personal experience I can sincerely note that each and every Christian I have met has a different view of what they find specifically worthy in each aspect of religious practices they adhere to.

This makes no sense, but people all over the world get caught in "organized religion". Oh yes, and when catholicism held the world in its crutches nothing happened for 300 years except the death plague and overflowing infestations of rats.

No argument there...the Roman Catholic church has seen its fair share of abuses over the centuries.

What is religion other than control? What is a paradigm of ideas the affect the way a person sees the world? Does the idea of a constant exposure to a stream of suggestions about how life is lived and how life should be lived scare you?

It sincerely depends on just how much a person desires to question their environment and what they are told. As I said...those who are easily lead will end up in the same position regardless

We have the ultimate, we have television, radio, magazines, "new york times bestselling authors!", and newspapers full of this.

I enjoy watching all of it...one can get a clear grasp of what lies are presented and thusly a good picture of the truth through viewing and reading such programs and articles. Bias presents itself, and as such it helps to have it in the open.

And of the 15 mega corporations that own all of this media (bar a very... very... very small portion of actual free stations privately owned), they have meetings... they dress up in satanic(or whatever weird mock-sacrifice kind of religion/secret society BS) fashion and have some good old *spam filter*(all men there) with eachother...

Obviously you are referring to "Bohemian Grove". They dress up, pretend to sacrifice a child, which they endow with all of the evil of the Molech...and in doing so the essence of the evil is carried away by the soul of the innocent. It is an old tradition rooted in the worship of the Owl God of Sumer...not Molech. It is actually a representation of an attack against Molech.

What would be amusing is if they instead chose to do a mock sacrifice based on Mayan traditions...I would be interested to see what your take on that would be. Or perhaps a Jewish sacrifice of a goat...or maybe mimic Abraham giving up his child to YHWH.

The concept of sacrifice is extremely old(prehistory into neolithic man back 10,000 years) and what they are doing is showing a reverence for that old tradition(however wrong I may feel they happen to be in doing so). The point is not whether they are right or wrong...but in the fact that they truly believe that they are doing something good...they literally believe it to be so. And no matter what you try to do, you are never going to change that opinion, as it is deeply rooted in their own biases and traditions, so that any removal would actually require nothing short of revolution.

And it is 5 mega corps...not 15

Tell me all you will but these are the people who you trust to run the world... and BTW they own practically everything you see, do you think they are telling you the truth, much less the rest of the world?

I am a Libertarian (who also happened to be an Anarchist back in the day -- but I grew up ) and as such I never take anything at face value and have a serious mistrust of anything Government related. But in the same token I also do not take anything anyone else says at face value as truth without tearing it apart and looking for its causational roots.

Other religions include our scientific community itself, the "experts" who never raise the question, "WTF is the government doing?"

The best way to get through to such scientists is simply to look at the numbers and bring the discrepancies to them so they can review it. You are not going to affect their world view by ranting. They like to see causation too, but they aren't going to simply drop everything they are doing, put their lives on hold, all so they can go into debt to spend time on something that they sincerely believe other scientists are reviewing. Instead they will wait for the reports to come out and then look for some spare time to review them as peers.

Keep in mind that many of them have tons of other reviews they have to peruse in the course of their private and business lives, many of which they do in their spare time. I know of three engineers that are employed and are backed up close to 2 years worth of papers that they are looking into.

Not all of them have time

Fema's got 600 concentration camps IN AMERICA, a small portion capable of holding a MILLION PEOPLE, all built near POPULATED AREAS, such as large cities.

Prove it...it is all I ask(yes I am aware of Rex84)

Rofl i love this line. With one minor change

All I want is causation.

I swear thats a bush quote! The president you so dearly trust as he starts wars and is quoted on saying "a peaceful nation does not go to war"

Why do you say "The president you so dearly trust"

The standards I hold to requiring you to present causation and evidential gathering, I also hold to him and his crew. To date their theories are lacking...but lack of evidence is not evidence of a lack.

Blinded by my massive egotistical complex!

So long as you prefer to swallow whole everything fed to you by "conspiracy theorists" then you will remain more of a reactionary rather than a revolutionary. The same type of blind faith you despise in your "enemy" you adhere to in regards to theories opposed to said "enemy"

[MolonLabe]

So how do others react to Richard Gage's assessments and claims?

A Critical Analysis of the Collapses of WTC Towers 1, 2 & 7 from an Explosives and Conventional Demolition Industry Viewpoint

While it is commendable to see any type of review, I did not see a single mass computation or KE/PE energy transfer calc to back up or refute any claims within. Kind of disappointing.

A slide-by-slide assessment of his slideshow

Same again...with much conjecture and contradictions. Of course Gage's slide show is quite the same.

Just how many of the "Architects and Engineers" are what they claim?

So "based on his own findings" he could not find enough information in a casual net search(assuming on my part).

Perhaps he could simply ask the people in question directly for their references...any engineer would be happy to oblige with a source and date for their degrees.

[Q24]

BTW, what PROOF do you have that the 136 witnesses are lying? You know, 104 of which actually saw the aircraft hit the Pentagon?

Troublesome details which truthers don't like to talk about.

Well I could certainly argue that at least some of the witness accounts are false. Your link says that Kim Flyler, “Could see silhouettes of people in 2 back rows”, that Cissell James, “Saw faces in plane” and that William Lagasse could see, “Window shades pulled down”. Well sorry, but if the airliner was travelling at approximately 530mph then no you could not define that detail. See video here of a Boeing 757 speeded up to approximately 530mph. Then there are all the contradictions – big plane/small plane, wheels up/wheels down, cart-wheeled into the building, dragged its wing along the ground?

Saying that, I wasn’t actually arguing in my post for ‘no airliner impacted the Pentagon’ – more the fact it wasn’t the airliner/flight it was supposed to be. You see, there certainly are indicators that an airliner did not impact the Pentagon but due to those witnesses and also because the generator in front of the building appeared to have been moved/damaged, I cannot be sure. It can be taken for now that my argument is an airliner did impact the Pentagon, as they did the Towers… only not the flights we were told.

Irrelevant. It has nothing to do with…

You replied to my Pentagon post with a lot of ‘irrelevant/so what’ type refutations. Sure any point on its own could be ignored in that way but it’s when you start adding up the odds that the ‘official’ story strains credibility: -

• Odds of former Navy pilot who worked on anti-terrorism strategies in the Pentagon happening to be the Flight 77 pilot? Let’s be generous – 10%.
• Odds of air traffic control mistakenly thinking this was a military plane? Well four planes on 9/11 and it only happened once – 25%.
• Odds of two out of the three calls coming from a person with close links to the Bush Administration? Let’s be generous again and say – 10%.
• Odds of the Pentagon being struck at its least vulnerable spot? Five sides – 20%.

Multiplying just these points, odds of the ‘official’ story happening as it did gives a fraction of a percent - 0.05%. Now what are the odds of all the above happening when viewed from an alternative theory? Would you hand-pick a pilot, use a military plane, set-up calls and choose where to impact? Yes to all – 100%.

Killclown? Bzzzt. ANYTHING that idiot says is suspect. Both "missing" flights were from American; perhaps they didn't report the data, because the flights had crashed? Not proof (I'll keep reminding you of that word: PROOF).

No, your opinions are not proof – it works both ways. And I’m not sure how unbiased your research method is when you link to “debunk911myths” and immediately discard other information because of the website it is on. If you research the flight data you will see in this case that ‘Killclown’ is correct.

Do you mean to say that an aircraft, not in primary radar coverage, turns off it's transponder and disappears from the SSR picture? Amazing. Pity it is exactly what is expected to happen.

Do you mean to say the ‘hijackers’ knew where to fly as to be undetected by radar or is that just another coincidence we need to add to the list above? The point is there is no record of Flight 77’s eastbound journey and that after disappearing from radar, Flight 77 was never positively identified as such again. Chances of that happening by accident – what 10, 20, 30%? Chances of that happening if you want to ‘swap’ your aircraft – 100%

No, Hanjour - an FAA registered commercial pilot with logged time in 'heavy' simulators - flew the aircraft into a building. Hundreds of thousands of commercial pilots around the world have no difficulty in understanding how this happened.

Can you prove that ‘hundreds of thousands’ figure or did you pluck it out of the air? Here is a list of 100+ pilots and aviation professionals who question the ‘official’ story. Here are the comments of just a few: -

“At the Pentagon, the pilot of the Boeing 757 did quite a feat of flying. I have 6,000 hours of flight time in Boeing 757’s and 767’s and could not have flown it the way the flight path was described. I was also a Navy fighter pilot and Air Combat Instructor, U.S. Navy Fighter Weapons School and have experience flying low altitude, high speed aircraft. I could not have done what these beginners did.”

Commander Ralph Kolstad, U.S. Navy (ret)

“The government story they handed us about 9/11 is total B.S. plain and simple." … Wittenberg convincingly argued there was absolutely no possibility that Flight 77 could have "descended 7,000 feet in two minutes, all the while performing a steep 280 degree banked turn before crashing into the Pentagon's first floor wall without touching the lawn.…"For a guy to just jump into the cockpit and fly like an ace is impossible - there is not one chance in a thousand," said Wittenberg.

Capt. Russ Wittenberg, U.S. Air Force

"The maneuver at the Pentagon was just a tight spiral coming down out of 7,000 feet. And a commercial aircraft, while they can in fact structurally somewhat handle that maneuver, they are very, very, very difficult. And it would take considerable training. In other words, commercial aircraft are designed for a particular purpose and that is for comfort and for passengers and it's not for military maneuvers. And while they are structurally capable of doing them, it takes some very, very talented pilots to do that. ..."

Commander Ted Muga, BS CE, U.S. Navy (ret)

"Finally, going over the hill and highway and crashing into the Pentagon right at the wall/ground interface is nearly impossible for even a small slow single engine airplane and no way for a 757. Maybe the best pilot in the world could accomplish that but not these unskilled "terrorists"."

Capt. Daniel Davis, U.S. Army

"The Pentagon event shows that the official story is false because of the improbable flight path flown by the 757. The Shanksville event shows that the official story is false because of the characteristics of the aircraft debris field."

Arthur L. Carran, BS Aerospace Eng, PE

The Citego - open only to DoD personnel - and they actually got to the cameras quick smart. Some call that a quick response; you call that suspicious. How long did it take to confiscate ALL the tapes from all the various locations?

Hang on… the Pentagon is under attack, there’s damage to the building, people killed or injured, chaos all around, hell no one knows at this point whether there might even be another incoming airliner… and the very first thing FBI agents think is to pop across the road to start confiscating video footage? This is not what we would expect in the situation; this is the action of someone who knew what was going to happen and had a plan.

I don’t know how long it took to confiscate all of the footage but the gas station owner said, “The FBI was here within minutes and took the film.” There were apparently 84 tapes confiscated of which only 3 I can think of have been released. Why are the rest being withheld despite Freedom of Information Act requests?

It couldn't be that Mr Mineta got the times mixed (seeing how all records disagree with his timings)?

http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/Norman_Mineta

Do you check these articles or just post them because they have “debunk911myths” in the title? As well as containing irrelevant/incorrect information that does nothing to clear up Mineta’s testimony, the link is just a parroting of the 9/11 Commission Report. Your article states: -

“Thus the military did not have 14 minutes to respond to American 77, as testimony to the Commission in May 2003 suggested. It had at most one or two minutes to react to the unidentified plane approaching Washington, and the fighters were in the wrong place to be able to help. They had been responding to a report about an aircraft that did not exist.”

The “one or two minutes” mentioned above is a plain fallacy. Whilst there certainly was confusion over identifying the flights, this does not change the fact that NEADS were aware of an incoming threat to Washington at 09:21 and requested fighters over the airspace in response. The reason they were in the “wrong place” is that the fighters from Langley AFB were then somehow sent in completely the wrong direction, despite the NEADS request. From the Vanity Fair article detailing the NEADS tapes that mrbusdriver previously linked: -

09:21:37

DOOLEY: Another hijack! It's headed towards Washington!

NASYPANY: sh**! Give me a location.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Okay. Third aircraft—hijacked—heading toward Washington.

09:21:50

NASYPANY: O.K. American Airlines is still airborne—11, the first guy. He's heading towards Washington. O.K., I think we need to scramble Langley right now. And I'm—I'm gonna take the fighters from Otis and try to chase this guy down if I can find him.

It’s strange actually – the ‘unidentified male’ specifically says, “Third aircraft” but Nasypany still assumes it’s Flight 11. As I said, doesn’t matter, fighters were requested over Washington more than 15 minutes prior to the Pentagon impact – the “debunk911myths” article that your research is based on is wrong.

This “order” that the Vice President had in place obviously will not be agreed upon but this leads on to the Commission Report’s discrepancy with Norman Mineta’s testimony that I have been discussing with mrbusdriver: -

It is clear from the

transcript of Mineta’s testimony

that he is not ‘mixed up’ about the timings. He states his arrival time of 9:20am, that Dick Cheney is already there and that Flight 77 impacts the Pentagon whilst they are at the PEOC. The only way to assume the Commission’s arrival time of 09:58am for Cheney is correct, would be to somehow assume Mineta completely ‘lost’ an hour in his timeline somewhere or in fact lied – neither of which are plausible when viewing his testimony

There have been accounts from former US government employee Richard Clarke and White House photographer David Bohrer that indirectly support Mineta’s testimony (see ‘

Other Reports Supporting Cheney’s Early Arrival

’).

Also, Mineta says he first learned of the “order” at around 09:25am or shortly after and hears, “The plane is 50 miles out. The plane is 30 miles out”… the Commission report states, “At 9:29, the autopilot on American 77 was disengaged; the aircraft was at 7,000 feet and approximately 38 miles west of the Pentagon”… thereby corroborating Mineta’s timeline.

Mineta has since been asked about the discrepancy between his account and that of the Commission Report –

. When presented with the Commission’s timeline, Mineta says he could possibly have been out on his timing but also that the Vice President was there before him and further says, “

9:58? Oh no no no, I don’t know how that comes about.

”

I have yet to see a reasonable explanation for this discrepancy and omission of Mineta’s testimony. To say he was ‘mixed up’ not only assumes Mineta got the time of the “order” wrong, but also his time of arrival wrong, the Pentagon impact time wrong and timing of the directive given to land all commercial aircraft wrong. Now unless you are claiming Mineta was abducted by aliens, implanted with false memories and plonked back on Earth 1 hour later… ‘mixed up’ does not make any sense. Research that and, if you can figure a version of events whereby the Commission report was not fabricated to absolve Cheney of any responsibility, let me know your conclusion.

[Q24]

Just how many of the "Architects and Engineers" are what they claim?

Hmm.

So "based on his own findings" he could not find enough information in a casual net search(assuming on my part).

Perhaps he could simply ask the people in question directly for their references...any engineer would be happy to oblige with a source and date for their degrees.

I had this discussion with flyingswan earlier in the thread. I directly e-mailed Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth about the issue and posted the responses here. The conclusion is that AE911T do verify their members and if anyone has evidence that individuals are not who they are supposed to be, you should let the site know and they will be happy to investigate the claim.

So, Obviousman, do you have any specific evidence that you would like to make AE911T aware of?

[Space Commander Travis]

Hmmm... still, i notice, apart from Zaus, no one has yet offered any answers to the questions I was asking a while back. maybe, then, I should just assume that the ultimate answer to everything is simply that "They" are evil, and leave it at that.

hmmm.

Edited May 15, 2008 by 747400

[Lilly]

maybe, then, I should just assume that the ultimate answer to everything is simply that "They" are evil, and leave it at that.

Of course "they" are evil. "They" (take your pick of any of the "theys") are always evil (remember poor 'Rubber Duckie' if you doubt the veracity of this).

[Sunofone]

Hmmm... still, i notice, apart from Zaus, no one has yet offered any answers to the questions I was asking a while back. maybe, then, I should just assume that the ultimate answer to everything is simply that "They" are evil, and leave it at that.

hmmm.

And considering that no one as yet seems to have answered the questions I've often asked, vis-a-vis the extraordinarily complex theories surrounding how the planes were switched and what happened to the passengers, and how all the people who must have been involved have still kept silent after all this time, I do sometimes wonder why it might be necessary for the government to go to all that effort, when, by its inability to answer such questions as those, the truth movement doesn't seem to need any government sponsored assistance in damaging its own credibility.

the questions have been answered many times its just your selective acceptance that seems to block it out-- the perps are not afraid to demolish two 110 story towers with people in them so a few occupants from a plane would be nothing-- the flight paths allowed for switches to be performed at military bases and as far as keeping silent goes i can assure you any accomplis to mass murder will keep quite for his own good

as i said ...selective acceptance

[Space Commander Travis]

the questions have been answered many times its just your selective acceptance that seems to block it out-- the perps are not afraid to demolish two 110 story towers with people in them so a few occupants from a plane would be nothing-- the flight paths allowed for switches to be performed at military bases and as far as keeping silent goes i can assure you any accomplis to mass murder will keep quite for his own good

as i said ...selective acceptance

um, Say again, please? over.

[mrbusdriver]

Some notes here...

AA77 was NOT being tracked by NORAD...they got an offhand mention of it from the FAA at 9:21. And the FAA was calling it AA11. The live radar data was coming from FAA contacts at Dulles to the Secret Service, not to NORAD. NORAD was pretty much in the dark. They scrambled Langley (airborne at 9:30) who followed their standard departure route with ATC into a Navy ATC controlled Warning Area offshore...NORAD wasn't controlling them, ATC was...this is peacetime operations. NAVY ATC did not understand the urgency. Dulles TWR reported a fast mover at 9:33 to the Secret Service contact, NORAD did not get this information.

Looking at the AA77 FDR data here. Best as I can tell, the 757 was doing around 300kias coming abreast the Pentagon around 8000 feet. Civil aircraft are limited to <250kias below 10K, while the military fighters need a bit more speed...300-350kias. Seeing a track inbound at 300kias, a controller would reasonably estimate the track was military.

Now, the 757 starts turning and descending. While not smoothly flown, the data shows a reasonable descent...N1 reduced to 30-40%, airspeed kept around 300kias, descent rate around 2000ft/min, and pretty much a standard turn rate, perhaps slightly less. Only when he is rolling out on heading at the target does he firewall the throttle and continued down and in. Bank angle in the turn was ragged, between around 20 and 40 degrees, and was rolling out as the power and speed started up. Not the best maneuver, but certainly not "extreme" in any respect that I can see, until the very end

Still confused over the "who's on first" quandry...Clark started out in the Situation Room, not sure when he got to the PEOC to be with the VP and DOT boss. et al. He was apparently on a video teleconference at 9:25 from there.