Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * - - - 4 votes

911 inside job - for what?


  • Please log in to reply
4446 replies to this topic

#1291    regeneratia

regeneratia

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,894 posts
  • Joined:20 Jun 2010
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:All my posts are my own views, my own perceptions. Will not be finding links for why I think the way I do.

  • It is time to put the big guns down now, Little Boys!

Posted 16 March 2013 - 01:53 AM

View Postredhen, on 16 March 2013 - 01:34 AM, said:

Yes, the details and evidence of the events are comprehensive. So it comes down to peoples levels of knowledge in science, technology, military and government workings, and logic/reasoning. And it also greatly depends on people's ideology, basic assumptions and biases.

The image of one of my profs, who always used the classroom as his personal soapbox, will always stick with me. After showing his hostages, er students, a Youtube video of a WTC building collapsing, he turned and spat out "How does steel turn to dust!". And that was the clincher supposedly. I argued and needled him a bit during the semester, but I regret not reporting his unprofessional behaviour to the dean and/or the college allumni.

And think he should have been applauded.

Truth is such a rare quality, a stranger so seldom met in this civilization of fraud, that it is never received freely, but must fight its way into the world
Professor Hilton Hotema
(quote from THE BIBLE FRAUD)

Robert Heinlein: SECRECY IS THE HALLMARK OF TYRANNY!

#1292    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,286 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 16 March 2013 - 05:00 AM

View Postregeneratia, on 16 March 2013 - 01:33 AM, said:

  • This came to me in an email:
  • https://www.facebook...11/501701569837
  • I know some ppl who work at Raytheon. Certainly could be something to fact-check by those who can take an objective stance on this (IOW: not psychiatrically habitual skeptics or people who have pathological skepticisms).

    =====================



    Why Were Raytheon Employees on Every 9/11 Flight that Officially Hit a Building?

  • Fascinating findings.

    Flight 11: Peter Gay was Raytheon's Vice President of Operations for Electronic Systems and had been on special assignment to a company office in El Segundo, Calif. This division is one of two divisions making the Global Hawk.

    Kenneth Waldie was a senior quality control engineer for Raytheon's electronic systems.

    David Kovalcin was a senior mechanical engineer for Raytheon's electronic systems.

    Flight 175: Herbert Homer was a corporate executive working with the Department of Defense. And for some very strange reasons he was listed for several days as having died in the offices while working in the Pentagon.

    Flight 77: Stanley Hall was director of program management for Raytheon Electronics Warfare. One Raytheon colleague calls him "our dean of electronic warfare."

    Charles S. Falkenberg: He worked on "EOS Webster" a mapping system which provides Landsat Images, which are part of the mapping system for the Global Hawk technology. Raytheon was working on Global Hawk piloltless aircraft program.

    Now, if this is not coincidental enough for you:

    What are the odds that Raytheon also had one office in the WTC2?
    It was located in 91st floor in WTC2.
    Raytheon shared the floor with Washington Group and Gibbs & Hill.
    13 employees of Washington Group died.
    None died of Raytheon and Gibbs & Hill.

    This is rather surprising as after the hit of the second plane only four person survived who were above the 78th floor where the plane hit. And the 91st might be significant in another way: "every person believed to be above the 91st floor died: 1,344."

    The 91st floor was the line between life and death in the WTC tower opposite to Raytheon's office. Or in other words: The first plane hit the WTC1 in the 91st floor.

    One has to wonder if these Raytheon employees were knowingly taking part in some sort of drill on 9/11-- and then were killed because of their knowledge.
    Why Were Raytheon Employees on Every 9/11 Flight that Officially Hit a Building?

    Fascinating findings.

I am scratching my head again!! What do you mean by killed because of their knowledge? We don't keep everything in our heads because we share information on computer systems and conduct regular conference calls with groups around the country and share information openly.

I began employment at Raytheon in 1998 shortly after my retirement from the Air Force and have always traveled by air during my trips while employed with the company. On one trip to Pensacola, FL., the Air Force and Raytheon sent me by air to developed a new repair manual for the inlet that is used for the TF-39 jet engine.

I might add that defense contractors regularly travel by air.

Quote


Iraq war costs U.S. more than $2 trillion: study

The U.S. war in Iraq has cost $1.7 trillion with an additional $490 billion in benefits owed to war veterans, expenses that could grow to more than $6 trillion over the next four decades counting interest, a study released on Thursday said.

Doesn't sound like the United States made a good profit in Iraq, and we have yet to get to Afghanistan. This is another clear example how conspiracist dream up fantasies in order to concoct unfounded conspiracies.

Edited by skyeagle409, 16 March 2013 - 05:59 AM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1293    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,286 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 16 March 2013 - 05:22 AM

View Postregeneratia, on 16 March 2013 - 01:45 AM, said:

You really need to stop scratching!

"Ties That Bind – Contractor Connections to the Bush Administration: When the Bush administration first took office, it appointed 32 executives, paid consultants, or major shareholders of weapons contractors to top policymaking positions in the Pentagon, the National Security Council, the Department of Energy (involved in nuclear weapons development), and the State Department. Since that time, the "revolving door" has continued to spin, including a high profile scandal in which Air Force procurement official Darleen Druyun pled guilty to criminal charges for negotiating for a position at Boeing while simultaneously negotiating with the company on the terms of a controversial scheme to lease 100 more Boeing 767 airliners for modification and use as aerial refueling tankers. "

http://www.worldpoli...esThatBind.html
Report: Ties that Bind: Arms Industry Influence in the Bush Administration and Beyond

I am still scratching my head because the Air Force didn't make its selection until 2002. In addition, Italy's aircraft became the first KC-767 to be assembled and it made its maiden flight on 21 May 2005. Boeing's revised KC-767 proposal to the U.S. Air Force was selected in February 2011 for the KC-X program under the designation KC-46.


Quote


Obama announces Pentagon budget cuts

President Obama announced a new military strategy on Thursday that will cut the Pentagon budget by hundreds of billions of dollars over the next decade.

http://content.usato.../1#.UUQKqSqF_ww


About that so-called, "New Pearl Harbor!" What does that mean?

Edited by skyeagle409, 16 March 2013 - 06:06 AM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1294    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,373 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 16 March 2013 - 02:44 PM

Regen

Thanks for all that!  I knew that Raytheon was well represented amongs the 'passengers', but did not realize they also had an office at WTC.

The circumstantial evidence showing deception by the government and the MIC grows every day, even 11 years later. :innocent:


#1295    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,921 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 16 March 2013 - 07:04 PM

View Postredhen, on 15 March 2013 - 09:24 PM, said:

Should I have any children, remote though it is, please do not let Q24 teach them history or logic.

Ah, this is what you get when you ask an OCT to explain their argument.  But I’m all for second third chances (and pressing home the fact that redhen cannot answer a simple question that underpins his belief):  redhen, how are you distinguishing Flight 77 passengers from office occupants in the photographs that you linked?  I’ll assume your argument void if no explanation is received at this third time of asking.

Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of violence, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government. The plan called for various false flag actions, such as staged terrorist attacks and plane hijackings, on U.S. and Cuban soil.

#1296    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,286 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 16 March 2013 - 07:43 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 16 March 2013 - 02:44 PM, said:

Regen

Thanks for all that!  I knew that Raytheon was well represented amongs the 'passengers', but did not realize they also had an office at WTC.

The circumstantial evidence showing deception by the government and the MIC grows every day, even 11 years later. :innocent:

What deception? Raytheon employees regularly use commercial aircraft for travel purposes, which once again proves that 911 conspiracist dream up fantasies in order to concoct unfounded conspiracies.

Edited by skyeagle409, 16 March 2013 - 07:46 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1297    DONTEATUS

DONTEATUS

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 17,196 posts
  • Joined:15 Feb 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Planet TEXAS

Posted 17 March 2013 - 03:46 AM

Is there ever going to be an end on this non-sence ? Skyeagle can we ever get this guy to understand that 9/11 was just as it was ! A terror act against America  4 aircraft are now gone and lots of souls that need not of died !
:tu:

This is a Work in Progress!

#1298    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,286 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 17 March 2013 - 09:21 AM

View PostDONTEATUS, on 17 March 2013 - 03:46 AM, said:

Is there ever going to be an end on this non-sence ? Skyeagle can we ever get this guy to understand that 9/11 was just as it was ! A terror act against America  4 aircraft are now gone and lots of souls that need not of died !
:tu:

Isn't it amazing that he throws away viable evidence and substitutes that, for which there is no evidence?

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1299    poppet

poppet

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 154 posts
  • Joined:09 Feb 2013
  • Gender:Male

Posted 18 March 2013 - 04:19 PM

View Postredhen, on 15 March 2013 - 03:06 AM, said:

Wow, that's a lot of info to digest. I'll get back to you.

However, at the bottom of that link I see:

"The author cannot vouch for the accuracy of the source materials, although efforts have been made to validate the consistency of the story line with as many references as possible. There is no single fact or reference that this story is dependent on"

Hmm, that's one hell of a disclaimer, lol.

Yes theirs loads of info at that link and even more in the pdf, if you was naming individuals and the like, you would put a disclaimer in their too, don’t want to end up in a pine overcoat like so many others that have spoken out, the latest victim Demolition Expert Danny Jowenko after Speaking about Building 7 springs to mind.
Pretty sad state of affairs that a satisfactory investigation was never forthcoming and maybe never will be, personally I think when the next generation look back at history they will be dumb founded that the nearest that came to a proper investigation was a few heated discussions on the internet.
Pdf version
http://www.wanttokno..._fund_trust.pdf


#1300    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,286 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 18 March 2013 - 05:58 PM

View Postpoppet, on 18 March 2013 - 04:19 PM, said:

Yes theirs loads of info at that link and even more in the pdf, if you was naming individuals and the like, you would put a disclaimer in their too, don’t want to end up in a pine overcoat like so many others that have spoken out, the latest victim Demolition Expert Danny Jowenko after Speaking about Building 7 springs to mind.
Pretty sad state of affairs that a satisfactory investigation was never forthcoming and maybe never will be, personally I think when the next generation look back at history they will be dumb founded that the nearest that came to a proper investigation was a few heated discussions on the internet.
Pdf version
http://www.wanttokno..._fund_trust.pdf

You might want to check this out.



KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1301    poppet

poppet

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 154 posts
  • Joined:09 Feb 2013
  • Gender:Male

Posted 18 March 2013 - 07:23 PM

skyeagle409

yes i did watch that clip and it proves absolutely nothing, i prefer nowadays to listen to scientists rather than put any faith in an anonymous u tube clip with spookie music, but cheers anyway.

wouldn't you agree that a independent investigation is required to resolve all the issues concerning that day.

http://www.scientist...troduction.html


#1302    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,286 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 18 March 2013 - 08:36 PM

View Postpoppet, on 18 March 2013 - 07:23 PM, said:

skyeagle409

yes i did watch that clip and it proves absolutely nothing, i prefer nowadays to listen to scientists rather than put any faith in an anonymous u tube clip with spookie music, but cheers anyway.

Let's take a look back.

Quote

Did experts on the scene think WTC 7 was a controlled demolition?

Whom should we ask to find out if WTC 7’s collapse resembled an explosive demolition? How about asking the explosive demolition experts who were on the scene on 9/11? Brent Blanchard of Protec:

"Several demolition teams had reached Ground Zero by 3:00 pm on 9/11, and these individuals witnessed the collapse of WTC 7 from within a few hundred feet of the event.

We have spoken with several who possess extensive experience in explosive demolition, and all reported seeing or hearing nothing to indicate an explosive detonation precipitating the collapse.

As one eyewitness told us, "We were all standing around helpless...we knew full well it was going to collapse. Everyone there knew. You gotta remember there was a lot of confusion and we didn't know if another plane was coming...but I never heard explosions like demo charges.

We knew with the damage to the building and how hot the fire was, that building was gonna go, so we just waited, and a little later it went."

http://www.implosion... of 9-8-06 .pdf

https://sites.google...wtc7resembledac


Controlled Demolition Inc

D.H. Griffin Companies

Mazzocchi Wrecking

Gateway Demolition

Yannuzzi Demolition & Disposal



ARCHITECT Magazine
The Magzine of the American Institute of Architects

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.


Architects Shy From Truther 9/11 Conspiracy Theory

Architects didn't show up for a 9/11-architecture-conspiracy documentary screening—and the AIA doesn't want its name associated with Trutherism.

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


Posted Image


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/


Quote

wouldn't you agree that a independent investigation is required to resolve all the issues concerning that day.

What good would that do? A new investigation is going to require the same data evidence, videos and photos that were used during the initial investigation.

Edited by skyeagle409, 18 March 2013 - 08:38 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1303    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,373 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 18 March 2013 - 09:18 PM

View Postpoppet, on 18 March 2013 - 04:19 PM, said:

Yes theirs loads of info at that link and even more in the pdf, if you was naming individuals and the like, you would put a disclaimer in their too, don’t want to end up in a pine overcoat like so many others that have spoken out, the latest victim Demolition Expert Danny Jowenko after Speaking about Building 7 springs to mind.
Pretty sad state of affairs that a satisfactory investigation was never forthcoming and maybe never will be, personally I think when the next generation look back at history they will be dumb founded that the nearest that came to a proper investigation was a few heated discussions on the internet.
Pdf version
http://www.wanttokno..._fund_trust.pdf

The 'next generation' is already completely brainwashed, from a very young age.  The history books are written, the movies made, the government report issued.  Time to move on.

This sort of revised history is common.  Youngsters are utterly conditioned to believe everything the government and media tell them.

Welcome to the forum.


#1304    Liquid Gardens

Liquid Gardens

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,586 posts
  • Joined:23 Jun 2012
  • Gender:Male

  • "Or is it just remains of vibrations from echoes long ago"

Posted 18 March 2013 - 10:36 PM

View PostQ24, on 14 March 2013 - 01:38 PM, said:

It cannot quite be put to rest, because whilst you have never doubted possibility that the US govt would commit the US to war under false pretext, you appear resistant to the possibility that some entity would perform a plane switch (because it involves ‘too many steps’... so does any false flag, but that doesn't stop them).

How so exactly, how specifically am I resistant to the possibility that there was a plane switch? Where did I say I reject it because it involves too many steps? That sure is a skewed reading of something that, if anything, I was overly repetitive on:  you have no evidence that there was a plane switch. You don't know when, where, how, why or if it happened, you have no evidence to support any of those basic questions.  Yes, this plane switch and DNA planting and all this other spy-novel-fiction stuff, which we are discussing on the sole basis that it is possible to imagine it, involves several steps, none of which have any evidence to support them actually occurring. Thus, there is no reason to think it actually did.

No, I'm not resistant to possibilities, but I don't know why you think possibilities even need discussing. Yes, I'm very resistant to assertions that are based on no evidence, you should be too.

Quote

I think a good rest point, and wisdom of your argument can be assessed, with an answer to the question I asked: Had the Northwoods plan gone ahead (specifically the plane switch element), what evidence would you demand to avoid falling victim to the deception? Because so far as I can see, the answer is "none" – the lack of demand for physical confirmation means you would fall victim to it.

Let's put the cart and the horse back in their proper order, provide your reason for the 'demand' in the first place with 77 crashing into the Pentagon. If the Northwoods plan had gone ahead and the things actually occurred as specifically documented and the Northwoods document was then produced, yes, that gives us a reason to make sure we're not being deceived. In that case, I'd demand from the people who think we were deceived evidence that we were, I'd expect evidence that is really only explainable if there was deception involved. That's the problem, the perfectly executed deception is indistinguishable from there being no deception at all, and if I didn't know better I'd think you are invalidly trying to shoehorn in that when there is no evidence of a deception that is just 'evidence' that the deception was successful. Provide your counterpart to the Northwoods document that details the plan for the Pentagon crash, provide evidence of even the bare minimum of steps that would be necessary to switch the planes and falsify the DNA of the victims or whatever you think might have happened.  

Quote

I often say that the Pentagon is not the best area to demonstrate a 9/11 false flag – much of the time (but not all) it deals with information black holes rather than official story contradictions. But what should we expect in the case of a false flag and cover-up if not information black holes?

I don't consider things like not providing you an audit trail of to some arbitrary detail level nor proving to you that the serial numbers you demand to be checked have been checked to be 'information black holes'. The identification of this plane is not based solely on matching serial numbers nor does the idea that the passenger's remains were found in the Pentagon get rendered invalid because you didn't get to supervise the whole process and they were sent to a medical examiner at a military base (cue ominous music) before being sent to the DNA testing lab.

Quote

The method here is to ask, what should we expect in the case of a ‘normal’ terrorist attack? And what should we expect in the case of a false flag attack and cover-up? These expectations can then be compared to actual events to determine which is more likely.

This subjective likelihood mishmash approach is not at all 'the method' that we usually invoke. The usual process is 1) state your specific hypothesis and 2) provide the evidence for this hypothesis. If you were able to provide evidence for a plane switch, what anyone would 'expect' under your two largely undefined categories would be moot. What is this 'normal terrorist attack' you are appealing to? I'm only aware of a handful against the US by which you are somehow determining this 'normal'.

Quote

As the clearest precedent for how the military/govt would plan and potentially execute an aircraft switch, I’m going to base my thinking here on the Northwoods operation. I know you have some aversion to Northwoods so please feel free to use your own initiative instead. I have divided the evidence into broad categories over the next four paragraphs below...

Now what I should do here is just parrot back to you such inanities like 'the lack of serial number checks is only evidence that there is a lack of serial number checks', since that is how you defined 'evidence' just a couple posts ago. If you think that an AA Boeing 757 hitting the Pentagon is not evidence for the theory that an AA Boeing 757 designated Flight 77 hit the Pentagon on 9/11, then it should be clear that nothing you mention in any of these paragraphs is 'evidence' for a false flag by your own standard.

Quote

Ok, beginning with the lack of debris/FDR serial number identity checks and DNA audit trail. In a ‘normal’ terrorist event there is no reason this should not be a ) carried out and/or b ) available through FOIA requests. It can be argued there is no necessity to carry out such checks with the assumption of all agencies involved taking its place, and that does raise a question mark over whether such checks should be expected. However, I’m not sure that works in the case of the NTSB where it is standard procedure that serial numbers are always provided in FDR reports where known. In contrast, in the case of a false flag there is no way that such identification should be expected – success of the plan necessitates that the aircraft are not identified. We compare all this to the actual 9/11 case where there is complete lack of debris/FDR serial number identity checks and DNA audit trail (including fact that the NTSB were not privy to the FDR serial number decoded). This observation is clearly a better match to the expectations of a false flag and cover-up.

How so? I have no expectation of a perfect investigation that meets your impossible standard of being able to refute every suspicion you have. I expect people to make mistakes, I expect people to not follow procedures that you presume have been set up for dealing with 'normal terrorist attacks', I expect established investigation procedures to not be efficient nor sufficient, and I have overly abundant precedent for all of that. Where's the unlikelihood? The theory that the plane is Flight 77 does not rely on proving to you that serial numbers were checked, nor do I see any possible way for you not to be able to invoke 'could be deception' willy-nilly anyway no matter what procedures were followed and even if the matching serial numbers documentation were provided to you.

Quote

Next there is fact in the actual case that the aircraft disappeared altogether from radar (passing through a radar coverage hole for approx. 30 minutes) and became designated as ‘unidentified’ by ATC – meaning it was entirely impossible after a point for ATC to track and confirm identity of the aircraft in the 9/11 case – as the 9/11 Commission said, no one even saw Flight 77 turn around. Now, in the case of a ‘normal’ terrorist attack following a large majority of flight paths it is not expected that the aircraft should hit one of these radar black holes – it is possible for ATC to keep a track on the aircraft using primary radar even when the transponder is altered or turned off. It’s not certain because I guess you could make an argument the terrorists were so clever as to know where the radar coverage gap existed. Still, in contrast, it makes absolute sense for a false flag attack to deliberately seek out such radar coverage gaps to conceal the switch and approach of the aircraft. So once again we see the actual 9/11 case is a better match to expectations of a false flag and cover-up.

'We see' no such thing. You mean there was some confusion with ATC as they attempted to get a handle on what would turn out to be the most chaotic day since that job title has existed, with hundreds of planes in the air? Do you happen to have a map of how much area these radar coverage gaps cover and how unusual they actually are?

Quote

What else? In a ‘normal’ terrorist attack, after strikes at the WTC and a threat now headed for the heart of the U.S. government and military; Washington, it must be expected the aim is to get fighter aircraft to the area and authorise them to defend the country. In contrast, in a false flag attack the intention is to prevent that happening, i.e. success of the operation is based on the threat reaching the target. Once again, we look at the actual case on 9/11: fighters sent the wrong way out to sea in contradiction of NORAD’s order to defend Washington, Cheney’s order in place at the PEOC as he watched the aircraft approach and impact the Pentagon, the success of the impact. These circumstances are a best match to the expectations of a false flag.

Really? It matches the results of poor communication very well also.

Quote

The last category includes what a ‘normal’ terrorist attack would have to deem ‘peculiarities and coincidences’. In the actual case of 9/11 we have the NRO exercise which coincided with actions of the threat aircraft (we discussed this one some time ago). There is the location of the impact at the one segment of the Pentagon that minimised damage and casualties. There are the hijack exercises which momentarily delayed/confused the air defense response. There is the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, which show Flight 77 was not a standard scheduled flight on 9/11. These ‘peculiarities and coincidences’ (which are not ‘take em or leave em’ but had a potential bearing on outcome of the actual event) are all in fact expectations during a false flag attack, therefore providing best match once again.

I'd deem these 'speculations and irrelevancies'. (didn't the 'momentarily delayed' air defense response encompass all of a few seconds and two sentences of conversation, as long as it took to confirm that it wasn't a drill?) However, you use an example here that is illustrative of a larger issue, namely that you are again dwelling in the wide open realm of possibilities and 'could be's'. It's not 'the false flag', it's definitely not, 'Q's specifically defined false flag theory', it's just 'a false flag', as in 'any possible false flag'. There is absolutely no expectation under a false flag that minimizing casualties at the Pentagon would be a goal. None. It is equally arguable that a false flag would desire to maximize casualties (remember when they needed Pearl Harbor level of casualties when it was convenient for your argument?). Similarly with, "success of the plan necessitates that the aircraft are not identified." What plan, what are you talking about? If Flight 77 secretly landed, disembarked the passengers and replaced them with explosives, took off again and rammed the Pentagon, and you personally matched serial numbers to the wreckage and identified it as 77, that's not a successful false flag? If it's not necessary that the plane not be identified, then that pretty well reduces or removes the idea that there's some basis to say what is more or less likely or expected.

Quote

That is not to say the official story of the Pentagon attack is impossible, only unlikely/improbable, astronomically so in my view once we hold everything up in a single picture. And that’s just the Pentagon.

You are not a statistician nor mathematician, nor have I seen much evidence that you are any better at estimating probabilities by gut than anyone else. I have seen evidence though that you don't recognize your own entirely normal limitations in this regard though.

Quote

I’m not poking any holes, these are great big false flag/cover-up shaped information black holes (such as no physical identification of whole aircraft) that exist all by themselves – I’m just bringing it to the fore.

Along with your bulletproof, and unfortunately empty, argument that if you can imagine deception at any point than counter-evidence isn't evidence at all.

Quote

I do need to clear up something here. I’m not demanding to personally view the record of serial number identification and DNA audit (it would make me happier though I accept that it might be unreasonable). It would be sufficient simply for some agency or record to confirm the process had been carried out. This is far from ‘insurmountable’ - it's basic administration/record/investigation. I am not prepared to incorporate broad swathes of many agencies into a false flag attack and/or cover-up – no, I’ll take their word. The problem is that all FOIA requests, agency statements and the NTSB report indicate the identification and audit process has simply not been carried out. Therefore those agencies have left themselves and all of us open to a deception.

Confirm what audit process exactly? Specify exactly what must happen, how many people from how many different agencies must accompany these remains, especially if it has to be able to withstand, not actual counter evidence, but what could have happened? That's why I think this argument of yours as far as the remains is so ridiculous, you haven't provided any criteria by which 'deception' arguments can be countered, and I don't think it's possible without illustrating vividly how subjective the whole process is. It applies equally to the serial number matching, short of having you at the wreckage picking it all up, how is deception supposed to be controlled? I have no idea on what basis you are drawing the line at 'sufficient to record/confirm the process was carried out', if you suspect someone is lying or deceptive now about the remains why do you think this requirement of yours is at all a hindrance? You think that faking serial number matching is a big issue when compared with an unspecified operation involving switching planes?  Ha, and just to be clear, it's not that these processes haven't been carried out, it's just that it hasn't been shown to you that it hasn't been carried out?!  Unfortunately this doesn't really clear anything up, this provides no standard by which to measure when the possibility of deception is admissable and when it's not.

Quote

Matching... what? What record are you matching it to?

I don't know what happened to my link I thought I had it bookmarked. I found the same pic on wiki:

http://www.911myths....bris_serial.jpg

The original article I had read said that the serial number on that piece I believe was matched to 77.

Quote

And I think some things that are true/false have more grave consequences than others – this is still about ‘what is true/false’ as you say, but in more detailed consideration. Yes it’s a type of bias but a logical one. It is only sensible that ‘guilt’ and ‘war’ require higher evidentiary basis than ‘innocence’ and ‘investigation’. I really think any argument for the former requires ‘proof’ whereas an argument for the latter requires only ‘probability’, or an indication of truth as set out in the discussion and table above.

I don't. Your 'guilt' is only going one way, you can't meet your higher evidentiary standard that any govt conspirators are 'guilty'. The consequences are NOT 'still about what is true/false' as far as what happened on 9/11. At. All. The consequences of not believing in God are purportedly the gravest of all, does that magically change the content of the evidence?

Quote

It’s not about trying to ‘skew the balance’ of ‘what is true’ – for me that balance is clearly in favour of a false flag attack – that stands on its own. What I am saying, separate from that, is there are different bars that the official theory and alternative theories must meet to fulfil their arguments.

If you really think that the balance of what is true favors a false flag attack then why do you keep applying these different bars in the first place, when I've said countless times over months now that I'm not arguing about freaking consequences because they have no logical bearing? There'd be no reason to even invoke these standards at all, simply state your case that does stand on its own, but hasn't yet. Again, without an even playing field any 'debate' portion of this conversation is pointless, you've tilted the whole thing in your favor which, purely coincidentally I'm sure, just happens to be required for your 'case' to have any traction at all.

It's odd that we even need to discuss why you shouldn't be biased. You know what supports a further investigation? A decent case that there's a massive deception going on. Few things are more damaging to cases from evidence than bias, admitted or not.

"You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into"
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence" - C. Hitchens
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool" - Richard Feynman

#1305    poppet

poppet

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 154 posts
  • Joined:09 Feb 2013
  • Gender:Male

Posted 18 March 2013 - 11:43 PM

View Postskyeagle409, on 18 March 2013 - 08:36 PM, said:

What good would that do? A new investigation is going to require the same data evidence, videos and photos that were used during the initial investigation.

No that is not correct, there is a huge amount of data that has been assembled over these last few years take a look at the deaths related to  Leukemia, non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma and Multiple Myeloma, three rare cancers, these have increased dramatically since that day and this data would not have been available .
And now scientists have requested that they peer review the NIST report and that has been refused, sceptics can’t have it both ways the NIST report is worthless until it is peer reviewed.

The unwillingness to investigate speaks volumes.

http://www.scientistsfor911truth.org/


thanks for the welcome Babe Ruth





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users