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

#1771    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,549 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 23 April 2013 - 07:58 PM

Sky

I THEORIZED about the Granit missle.  Still do.  I offer it as a possibility, and stated that right up front.

You presented a fake video as genuine, and told the truth only when confronted about it.


#1772    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,156 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 23 April 2013 - 08:15 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 23 April 2013 - 07:58 PM, said:

I THEORIZED about the Granit missle.

That was a MAJOR mistake on your part because it shows that you did not do your homework.

Quote

You presented a fake video as genuine, and told the truth only when confronted about it.

And, what did I post afterward? I have to say it again, we are well aware of your distortion routine. :yes:

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1773    Ellapennella

Ellapennella

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,310 posts
  • Joined:28 Aug 2012

Posted 23 April 2013 - 11:15 PM

View Postlightly, on 21 April 2013 - 10:03 PM, said:

Posted ImageReann, on 21 April 2013 - 10:53 AM, said:

Maybe commercial planes ought to  have an remote auto pilot control system set up with the airforce , where as, if ever someone did try to take one over , they would not be able to do so,  like an airforce personal would be able to operate full conrol of the plane,  dismantle any attempt for the plane to be flown by highjakers..




I thought i had heard and read about such anti highjacking remote control systems. And, being installed on commercial airliners by the 70's?   (can't seem to find info about it on the web anymore¿)

all i can find now are 'conspiracy' sites on the subject.


http://www.911-strike.com/remote.htm

New Questions about remote control and 9-11

By Jerry Russell
British aeronautical engineer Joe Vialls claims that all 757 and 767 aircraft are equipped with computerized remote flight control systems for the purposes of rescuing the planes from attempted hijackings.  If this were true, it would raise some very interesting questions.  On the one hand, if the systems were used to control the aircraft and pilot them into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, then who was at the controls?  How did they get access to the secret codes?
But on the other hand: if these systems were on the aircraft, and they were not compromised by some enemy trick of espionage, then why weren't they used on September 11 to save the four ill-fated flights?

quote from Vialls, who posted in October 2001:


In the mid-seventies America faced a new and escalating crisis, with US commercial jets being hijacked for geopolitical purposes. Determined to gain the upper hand in this new form of aerial warfare, two American multinationals collaborated with the Defense Advanced Projects Agency (DARPA) on a project designed to facilitate the remote recovery of hijacked American aircraft. Brilliant both in concept and operation, “Home Run” [not its real code name] allowed specialist ground controllers to listen in to cockpit conversations on the target aircraft, then take absolute control of its computerized flight control system by remote means.

◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊

http://911review.com...otecontrol.html


All modern jetliners have sophisticated flight control computers, which allow the planes to be flown with at least the precision of a skilled human pilot. The 757s and 767s used in the 9/11/01 attack were developed in the 1970s and employ similar avionics. Both contain integrated flight management computer systems (FMCS) which provide automatic guidance and control of the aircraft "from immediately after takeoff to final approach and landing." 1
Researcher Don Paul was among the first to describes the possible use of remote and programmed control in the execution of the 9/11/01 attack, in his 2002 book Facing Our Fascist State: e x c e r p t title: Facing Our Fascist State authors: Don Paul

Home Run and Global Hawk



If the supposed pilots are impossible or unlikely prospects for flying a Boeing 757 or 767 through sharp turns and complex maneuvers, how COULD those airliners otherwise have been flown?






In an interview with the German newspaper Tagesspeigel on January 13, 2002, Andreas von Buelow, Minister of Technology for the united Germany in the early 1990s, a person who first worked in West Germany's Secretary of Defense 30 years ago, told about a technology by which airliners can be commanded through remote control.






The former Minister of Technology said: '"The Americans had developed a method in the 1970s, whereby they could rescue hijacked planes by intervening into the computer piloting."'


...one more  

http://www.kolki.com...ce/Home-Run.htm
Interesting. Thanks for sharing . I guess they depend on those  steal doors now  to keep them safe . That's got to be annoying , having to pilot a plane under those conditions.

Edited by Reann, 23 April 2013 - 11:17 PM.


#1774    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,156 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 23 April 2013 - 11:52 PM

View PostReann, on 23 April 2013 - 11:15 PM, said:

Interesting. Thanks for sharing . I guess they depend on those  steal doors now  to keep them safe . That's got to be annoying , having to pilot a plane under those conditions.

There was a very good reason why those doors were strengthen.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1775    Stundie

Stundie

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,555 posts
  • Joined:03 Oct 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 24 April 2013 - 12:17 AM

View Postpsyche101, on 23 April 2013 - 06:43 AM, said:

Hi Stundie

It is hard not to broad brush people when they seem to have the same goal. I understand that they might arrive there in different vehicles, but the end result seems to be the same - do not trust the Government, and that stament seems to hold more weight than all the proof in the world.

The Jersey Girls are very stand alone aren't they? I do not think Kristen Breitweiser denies the deaths, her husbands arms and ring were found in the wreckage (which is a horrifying thought in itself) but falls for the political stuff? She is making sure her daughter understand the Muslims way of life and is travelling to understand cultures and ways of life. It sure sounds like deep down she knows who did this, but she is having a hard time mentally. I might be wrong, but that is what I see, a very troubled lady who is pretty screwed up after being involved and directly affected by a traumatic event.

I do not find Sky out of touch, anything but, I find he just puts forth the most basic information which is good, because any person can understand what he is trying to get across. I see Q said earlier in the piece that MSM was not to be trusted, then he said it was OK if you can verify the facts, then did a complete turn around, and attacked Annovva for not being a person, despite the obvious information laid out before him, with an obvious evolution of a sentence  Lets face it, truthers do not care about source, they care about people agreeing with them, I am not sure if it is just insecurity and a need for personal validation or if the agenda is far more nefarious than I imagined. But source will be used by these people as an appeal to authority argument. At the end of the day, it is what can be proven, and Sky has pictures that I do not see can be denied. Repetitive or not, they tell the story that answers the questions people are asking.
I find it strange that you would believe or think that people who believe in CT whether its 9/11 or Bigfoot stuff "thinking" boils down to a distrust of government. I think we all understand that there is a need for laws for us to be governed by social contracts that society creates but criticism of governments and those laws, doesn't always equate to being anti government. Its a poor attack and label designed as a argument to stifle the debates even before it starts. I'm critical of lots Formula 1, but that doesn't mean I'm anti Formula 1. Everyone knows that governments do lots of good work and but just because they do good work, that doesn't mean they do no wrong.

The government does lots of things wrong, is it that hard to theorise that the government did wrong on 9/11?

View Postpsyche101, on 23 April 2013 - 06:43 AM, said:

The fact that very few of these people - if they exist - are the minority in a crowd, and do not have the gumption to stand up for their beliefs, or claims, in public is not telling?
No, it's not telling at all because we do not know how many AIA member have read the NIST reports. It's a logical fallacy to claim that AIA doesn't agree with the CT's and they have 80,000 members who don't agree when we do not know if every single member has read the reports or even if they are aware of A&E 9/11? Clearly some have read and joined with Gage but even if I was an architect, I probably wouldn't join.

If I had said that AIA don't agree with any particular religious beliefs and therefore all AIA 80,000 members are atheists. Would that be a logical argument? lol I hope not.

View Postpsyche101, on 23 April 2013 - 06:43 AM, said:

I work in a technical capacity, and if I see a colleague making an error, I will argue it with him. Either he will be wrong, or I will, but at the end of the day, the job benefits, as does our experience. That's the win. If I was to see something i this trutherism, and it stood to scrutiny, I would be making my colleagues prove what they say, or challenge them. I find it hard to believe I am the only one in the world who thinks like this. But nobody in Architects and Engineers for Truth holds this principal? To stand up for what they believe the be the right answer? Only from the closet?
If I can prove that Christians are wrong about how humans came to be, do I have to provide a better theory of how we came to be to disprove the original theory? When the reality is even though I believe in evolution and I believe it provides a better theory, I do not and can never truly know how we came to be, have to present that theory if the original is already disproven.

The problem is in life, there are no absolutes, look at how the Higgs Boson experiments are changing everything we thought we knew. This is why I work with possibilities. If I thought you had robbed me and you disproved it wasn't you, you do not then have to come up with a better theory and expecting truthers or architect and engineers to do it by examining evidence that has been made accessible, then I think you are asking to much and will never be satisfied because so many individuals have different alternative theories. Some good some very bad as you have no doubt seen, like the hologramers. :blink:

View Postpsyche101, on 23 April 2013 - 06:43 AM, said:

Yet nobody mentioned anything about the refuting information I supplied when I first arrived? The thermite ideal is full of holes. In addition to that which I pointed out, the strategic positions had to be carefully laid out. It seems strange to me that CT'ers think that a plane full of fuel cannot burn down a building, but people can bring one down without being seen, ar accessing strategic areas that must be accessed for the ideal to work as explained.

Details of the collapse seem pretty wide ranging and very accessible, why must one hang ones hat on one of these two choices to consider the situation for oneself?
See this is where I get confused.... :huh:

If a airplane crashes into the WTC and it collapses, it requires no explosives.....but...
If a airplane crashes into the WTC rigged with explosives/thermite, it wont collapse without explosives or thermite being in strategic positions or without there needing tons and tons of them.

Maybe it is me and I just don't understand that by adding a explosive thermitey cocktail to a building that some already believe would collapse without it, would hinder the collapse. This is why I do not understand the logic or sense of those who are strongly opposed to the idea of explosives/thermite. The WTC were huge and full of people doing all sort of things and wherever these strategic place are, it would be easy for anyone to access them and blend in with the crowd.

View Postpsyche101, on 23 April 2013 - 06:43 AM, said:

I am in favour for people thinking for themselves. Too little of that goes on. Still, I do not think some etiquette for the families goes astray. It is not diverting the truth to give a damn about your fellow man.
Well I do not know that many truthers, but I have not met or spoke to many other than on the forums and I've not met anyone one of them who doesn't give a damn about their fellow man.

View Postpsyche101, on 23 April 2013 - 06:43 AM, said:

Tyey profited fro the incident, so I am not sure how I view the morals of these men, but what are their main complaints? Not enough money, not enough time. It is my experience that a poor tradesman blames his tools. Most of the people they spoke to were frightened they might end up somehow implicated, or have their name tarnished by the investigation, so they recieved little co-operation, which seems understandable. This is not evidence in any way, it is the opinion of men profiting from tragedy. To me it's the worlds smallest violin.
To understand the complaints from the commissioners requires it own thread but it is clear that the White House were steering the commission with Zeiklow at the wheel. I don't think by saying they were set up to fail helped sell books or to profit from the tragedy, they already profited as they were both head commissioners and would have been paid to do the report. But it's not the just the opinion of men profiting, the 9/11 commission is their opinions too and it is their opinion they were set up to fail.

Of course there are going to be people who were frightened, didn't want their names tarnished or did not want to cooperate, but that is not the reason they came up with the statement. So they state "..there were all kinds of reasons we thought we were set up to fail."

In the book they state "Fog of war could explain why some people were confused on the day of 9/11, but it could not explain why all of the after-action reports, accident investigations and public testimony by FAA and NORAD officials advanced an account of 9/11 that was untrue,"

Max Cleland resigned from the commission saying it was a scam and that America had been cheated because the rest of the commissioners made a deal to not look to far into the CIA reports to the White House that suggested advanced warnings were known about to the Bush admin. So dismissing Hamilton and Kean criticisms who were from both sides of the political spectrum, when they were in the best position to see exactly what was happening isn't really an argument.

View Postpsyche101, on 23 April 2013 - 06:43 AM, said:

I heard about Rolf yesterday, and am rather surprised. Although I always held him in bad light somewhat as he got me in trouble as a kid. I was a huge fan of his Dulux Paint commercials, and tried to repeat his signature drumming on the top of a paint can, I had 4 liters of varnish in my parents bedroom, to cut a story short, the 4 liters ended up in the carpet. I still remember that like 40 years later.

I meant the Hey Dad guy with the sympathy bit, nobody seems to be on his side, which if he is innocent is very sad. Personally, I have no idea.

I reckon Icke got his information from stalking the Royal family. Happened to be in the right place at the right time I guess. Which is a good plus, it is very nice to be able to say something good about Icke.
I was a bit surprised by Rolf, I remember he used to do commercials for getting kids to swim and I didn't realise it was Rolf Harris until years later. I just thought he was a creepy looking man back then but learned to like him and thought he was alright.

View Postpsyche101, on 23 April 2013 - 06:43 AM, said:

I think the obvious problems with the 911 reports are the problems, They are being used as evidence for a conspiracy theory, but they are not evidence of a conspiracy theory. Therein lies the problem. People love a good drama and will listen just for the sake of entertainment. Whilst there might be 2-3% of truthers who are indeed genuine, and not just Government haters, that does not validate the ideal. We all know there was problems, and I feel anyone in the real world will realise they still exist, or have been replaced with other problems. That's just life. From my perspective, Bodine was the gate that opened and let this thing happen. But that too does not relieve blame form Al Qaeda. It just means that some incompetent people are in responsible positions that they are not suited to. Such is business.
I agree they are not evidence of a conspiracy, but they do point to the possibility of a conspiracy.

Of course there are problems and life always throws out the unexpected, like it did for a lot of people on 9/11 and people will make mistakes and sometimes lie, but what if there is a pattern to these mistakes and lies? Do we consider the possibility that they are a series of unrelated lies and mistakes, or do we consider the possibility there might be a reason for this pattern?

The problem is that even though there is plenty of evidence pointing to the possibility of a conspiracy and not a real definitive conspiracy, the other side of panto debunkers won't even admit to possibility and will reject at any cost any suggestion, even as a thought experiment. Lets us assume for a moment that we suddenly find rock hard evidence that the towers were rigged with explosives, that still doesn't mean there is a conspiracy because AQ could have rigged them. This is why I do not subscribe a definitive conspiracy theory.  I will always argue that it was possible that the towers were rigged because I believe it is possible, the reason to reject why it is not possible seems odd when I am arguing with people that believe

View Postpsyche101, on 23 April 2013 - 06:43 AM, said:

Flaming True Believer :D Plenty of them, no matter the subject. It's not just 911, everything from aliens to Bigfoot has opposing sides, and in all cases, one side has proof, the other a claim.
I see...lol.

View Postpsyche101, on 23 April 2013 - 06:43 AM, said:

I think drunks and loudmouths are the driving force, they may not be the arrowhead, nor the brains, but the idiots at Ground Zero Lounge who embarrass the US on Yoube are quite eye opening, have you seen GZL recordings before? They are pretty pathetic. Those people really need something more in their lives. I understand panto debunking, but that's not the case here I do not think, there is enough information readily available that can be debated and countered, this is not the blind idiot ranting I have seen from GZL. This is where the truthers gather and a large concentration of them, so one I feel is right to assume this is a sizeable representation of this group, and mate, it's not one I would want to be associated with. In this case, the truthers have buried themselves I believe by not being conversant with facts before they jump on a podium and yell it to the world, some are so young the ideal is nothing short of laughable (seen that kid, like 19 years old on the tube telling life long experienced engineers that they are full of it? He is a tosser and a half) and some are just plain wrong, like the BS about Wally Miller. Like I said above the Thermite claim does not hold water either. I think we all know what cog was loose in this machine, the CIA. And that still does not absolve the sicko Jihadists who just wanted to kill any non-Muslim blindly.
No, I've not seen the GZL recordings before and I have no interest in what they do or say. You see I would rather debate what I claim and provide as evidence rather than what this or that truther group believe. I am not part of a group and most of the people who I've spoke to on forums are labelled a truthers and are not part of these groups. A lot of people I know believe in the possibility of a conspiracy but are not part of these groups either.

While I think it is more likely this group of people planned this attack and elements within the government let it happen rather them being patsies and elements within the government planed it and made it happen, it would not absolve them but it wouldn't absolve the government not doing anything and letting it happen. I think this CIA had a big part to play, but with them being so secretive, its going to be hard to uncover which if any theory holds water, unless it was genuinely just a series of mistakes of course.

Cheers

Stundie :)

Edited by Stundie, 24 April 2013 - 12:19 AM.

There is no such thing as magic, just magicians and fools.

#1776    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,156 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 24 April 2013 - 12:39 AM

View PostReann, on 23 April 2013 - 11:15 PM, said:



All modern jetliners have sophisticated flight control computers, which allow the planes to be flown with at least the precision of a skilled human pilot. The 757s and 767s used in the 9/11/01 attack were developed in the 1970s and employ similar avionics. Both contain integrated flight management computer systems (FMCS) which provide automatic guidance and control of the aircraft "from immediately after takeoff to final approach and landing."

Researcher Don Paul was among the first to describes the possible use of remote and programmed control in the execution of the 9/11/01 attack, in his 2002 book Facing Our Fascist State: e x c e r p t title: Facing Our Fascist Stateauthors: Don Paul


What can a pilot do to disable those features in the cockpit?

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1777    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 31,833 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 24 April 2013 - 03:32 AM

View PostQ24, on 23 April 2013 - 08:18 AM, said:

What does satellite tv prove?  

A connection to the outside world!!! Gracious me, it shows us he utilised wireless technology, which is quite common these days. I doubt they want real technicians form official sources poking around in Bin Ladens house!

I am assuming you have heard of mobile phones and wireless internet?? He more likely received superior quality from the air than he would have with buried copper in that region. Egyptsat would be a better option.

Things are what they are. - Me Reality can't be debunked. That's the beauty of it. - Capeo If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants. - Sir Isaac Newton Let me repeat the lesson learned from the Sturrock scientific review panel: Pack up your old data and forget it. Ufology needs new data, new cases, new rigorous and scientific methodologies if it hopes ever to get out of its pit. - Ed Stewart Youtube is the last refuge of the ignorant and is more often used for disinformation than genuine research.  There is a REASON for PEER REVIEW... - Chrlzs Nothing is inexplicable, just unexplained. - Dr Who

#1778    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 31,833 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 24 April 2013 - 04:42 AM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 23 April 2013 - 01:31 PM, said:

Psyche

What YOU consider to be a refutation of facts is not necessarily a legitimate refutation.  


BR

This is how a discussion works. You have to actually show your refutation, you cannot claim it exists and them proclaim victory from your claim. That is as bad as any CT I have ever seen. You have failed to provide this at any point.

With all due respect, who do you think you are? It seems a mighty tall order for you to simply pronounce that your claims have answers when you do not present them, but insist one accepts them.

View PostBabe Ruth, on 23 April 2013 - 01:31 PM, said:

That you consider the material posted here by Sky to be authentic accurate and valid is consistent with your position here in support of the Official Conspiracy Theory.  

It is you that is promoting the CT. What Sky presents is the mainstream understanding. If course some parts will have personal interpretation, and some will be subject to Chinese Whispers. It is an overalll easy to read wrap up of the situation, that being that religious fundies wanted to hurt America, and killed a bunch of people, and then rejoiced about it.

View PostBabe Ruth, on 23 April 2013 - 01:31 PM, said:

You may not be aware of it, but last year or so Sky posted a video, very convincing, of an F-18 crashing into a civilian apartment building or some such.  When called upon it, Sky did (admirably) admit that it was a concocted video, completely fake.

You just validated Sky. He admitted it. Wherein lies the deception, or any reason not to trust his information? Ask and ye shall receive, what more can you ask? What you have ascertained is when asked directly, Sky will offer the truth to the best of his knowledge. I am not sure why you see that as reason for distrust.

View PostBabe Ruth, on 23 April 2013 - 01:31 PM, said:

Since then, I don't look at any of his gazillions of pictures and videos, and I do not trust what he says.  I understand the feeling is mutual, and have no problem with that.

All you have done is allow your personal position to blinker yourself to the evidence. Those pictures tell more of the story than all the CT'ers tied together and folded over. Refusing to accept they exist does not in any way strengthen your claim. It only illustrates unreasonable bias.

View PostBabe Ruth, on 23 April 2013 - 01:31 PM, said:

And now YOU, from the Land of Oz on the other side of the planet, are going to tell me that Wally Miller "denies what I am saying".  Guess what Psyche?  I have never ever met Wally Miller.  

Neither have I, yet you seem to think that being in the same country gives you and advantage on this situation? Pray tell, could you enlighten me further on that?

View PostBabe Ruth, on 23 April 2013 - 01:31 PM, said:

I have seen him on TV snips, I have heard recorded telephone interviews with him, and I have read statements he has made in private interviews.  So how on earth can Wally deny what I am saying?  

And I quote a direct interview where he stated that the claims you have made are embellished and incorrect.

View PostBabe Ruth, on 23 April 2013 - 01:31 PM, said:

You are as deep in denial as Sky is.  

To be quite frank, considering your bias, and the very fact that you have not supported your position at all, but simply protested it must be heard and accepted, I am OK with that, and consider myself in good company. My shout Sky.

View PostBabe Ruth, on 23 April 2013 - 01:31 PM, said:

In an interview conducted by Christopher Bollyn in late 2011, it seems that in Shanksville PA many people are able to joke about how the feds created the story by getting Wally to "be a team player."  They are joking about it Psyche.  The yanks are joking about it.  It's local common knowledge.  And you're going to lecture me from Australia. :whistle:

Bull.
Bollyn is a parasite that feeds on human misery. I already covered this, and again, you had nothing more to say.

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.

Miller got angry with him. He gave him time and patience, and Bollyn just kept pushing buttons.


I do not see how Bollyn claims Wally is both a team player, and some dumb hick who cannot play the gane he says he is playing at the same time:

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.

Bollyn is just a prime class A jerk. No ethics, no morals, no sense of decency, and no proof. We could use less people like that in the world to be frank.


What Wally says is that he saw human remains and evidence that cremated human remains. He has held masses and vigils for the lost souls, is that part of the cover up is it? Not necessary is it, nobody would even know Waly's role if Bollyn did not start making stuff up about him. Bollyn's refuse is far from proof. It is merely opinion, and unsuported at that.

These people do not look like they are joking to me mate.

Posted ImagePosted Image


And this is Wally Miller, yeah looking so manipulated isn't he.


Posted Image





Yes, just peeing himself laughing hey.



Dead set, to say such hurtful nasty things withut any more than a notion form a parasite is disheartening to witness, I certainly hope you do not have to live with that which you put these people through, or the accustations you make against your fellow man some day. Nobody should be subject to that. I find your accusations, and that of Bollyn inherently evil.


View PostBabe Ruth, on 23 April 2013 - 01:31 PM, said:

The OCT is a bald-faced lie, and all the evidence, the preponderance of the evidence, shows that.  Get a grip, Mate.


If that is the case, why can you not prove it? You point at Truther groups that do not have the gumption to stand behind their nonsense in public, you present nothing, and then proclaim you have all the answers. And you are telling me to get a grip? I seriously think you need a long hard look in the mirror pal. The louder you yell, the less you are heard. Evidence speaks volumes. And I wont accept vague references to unethical groups who have no more to share than rumour and opinion. Lousy opinion at that. And if I go to GZL, drunken lousy opinion.

Edited by psyche101, 24 April 2013 - 04:45 AM.

Things are what they are. - Me Reality can't be debunked. That's the beauty of it. - Capeo If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants. - Sir Isaac Newton Let me repeat the lesson learned from the Sturrock scientific review panel: Pack up your old data and forget it. Ufology needs new data, new cases, new rigorous and scientific methodologies if it hopes ever to get out of its pit. - Ed Stewart Youtube is the last refuge of the ignorant and is more often used for disinformation than genuine research.  There is a REASON for PEER REVIEW... - Chrlzs Nothing is inexplicable, just unexplained. - Dr Who

#1779    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 31,833 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 24 April 2013 - 04:54 AM

View Postskyeagle409, on 24 April 2013 - 12:39 AM, said:

[/font]

What can a pilot do to disable those features in the cockpit?


Hey Guys

Everyone except Sky here.

You know how most of you are bagging Sky over his information all the time? May I ask, who else here has the personal experience, and understanding to ask and know to ask this question, and know it's answer?

And you all are telling a real pilot who has flown in war time how a plane flies? Or crashed for that matter? I know you do some flight time BR, Sky has told be he has submitted designs to the USAF to improve the flight characteristics of aircraft, can you match that? He even designed a wind turbine, told me about it, and I have to say as a qualified electrical engineer, the design is sound and robust.


Seriously?

Nah, lets attack the sources of his information. That will make the real world experience go away?

You keep quoting pilots, and you have one right under your nose, who when challenged presented the truth, as shown and explained by BR. Seems to me to be a valuable resource that is being attacked for the wrong reasons. Forget the headlines, ask him about the plane and the stupid no planers claims. He has experience, and as we can see, is kind enough to share all we want to know. Seems a good deal to me.

Anyone game enough to take him on in his professional capacity? I know if it was me, Id' want my powder to be extra dry on this one.





As for Sky himself.

Bravo my good man. Real world experience is a very valuable commodity. :tu:

Edited by psyche101, 24 April 2013 - 04:57 AM.

Things are what they are. - Me Reality can't be debunked. That's the beauty of it. - Capeo If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants. - Sir Isaac Newton Let me repeat the lesson learned from the Sturrock scientific review panel: Pack up your old data and forget it. Ufology needs new data, new cases, new rigorous and scientific methodologies if it hopes ever to get out of its pit. - Ed Stewart Youtube is the last refuge of the ignorant and is more often used for disinformation than genuine research.  There is a REASON for PEER REVIEW... - Chrlzs Nothing is inexplicable, just unexplained. - Dr Who

#1780    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 31,833 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 24 April 2013 - 04:59 AM

View PostQ24, on 23 April 2013 - 08:18 AM, said:

What does satellite tv prove?  Most prisons I know of have satellite tv.


LOL, most prisons have phones and Internet too!

Things are what they are. - Me Reality can't be debunked. That's the beauty of it. - Capeo If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants. - Sir Isaac Newton Let me repeat the lesson learned from the Sturrock scientific review panel: Pack up your old data and forget it. Ufology needs new data, new cases, new rigorous and scientific methodologies if it hopes ever to get out of its pit. - Ed Stewart Youtube is the last refuge of the ignorant and is more often used for disinformation than genuine research.  There is a REASON for PEER REVIEW... - Chrlzs Nothing is inexplicable, just unexplained. - Dr Who

#1781    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 31,833 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 24 April 2013 - 06:12 AM

View PostStundie, on 24 April 2013 - 12:17 AM, said:

I find it strange that you would believe or think that people who believe in CT whether its 9/11 or Bigfoot stuff "thinking" boils down to a distrust of government. I think we all understand that there is a need for laws for us to be governed by social contracts that society creates but criticism of governments and those laws, doesn't always equate to being anti government. Its a poor attack and label designed as a argument to stifle the debates even before it starts. I'm critical of lots Formula 1, but that doesn't mean I'm anti Formula 1. Everyone knows that governments do lots of good work and but just because they do good work, that doesn't mean they do no wrong.

It is not meant to be an attack at all, just an observation. I am genuinely amazed you have not seen numerous examples of this yourself, and would urge you to consider have a good look at the many forums at Unexplained Mysteries and I am quite positive that you will find more than enough examples to support my claim. Anti Government seems to be the driving force, as in if they said something believe anything else.

View PostStundie, on 24 April 2013 - 12:17 AM, said:

The government does lots of things wrong, is it that hard to theorise that the government did wrong on 9/11?
No, it's not telling at all because we do not know how many AIA member have read the NIST reports. It's a logical fallacy to claim that AIA doesn't agree with the CT's and they have 80,000 members who don't agree when we do not know if every single member has read the reports or even if they are aware of A&E 9/11? Clearly some have read and joined with Gage but even if I was an architect, I probably wouldn't join.

If I had said that AIA don't agree with any particular religious beliefs and therefore all AIA 80,000 members are atheists. Would that be a logical argument? lol I hope not.

We know the Bodine connection, we know where the Government went wrong. Why is it not conceivable that Gage is embellishing? If people know something to be true someone will stand up for it. That is just not happening 100% here. That is telling. If you were an Architect, but knew some vital information that could confirm or deny curcial components of the hypothesis, why would you keep silent?

If you said that about AIA religious beliefs, when challenged, some would stand up and say "this is simply not the case".

View PostStundie, on 24 April 2013 - 12:17 AM, said:

If I can prove that Christians are wrong about how humans came to be, do I have to provide a better theory of how we came to be to disprove the original theory? When the reality is even though I believe in evolution and I believe it provides a better theory, I do not and can never truly know how we came to be, have to present that theory if the original is already disproven.

We know evolution is the answer, we do not know how the spark started. The tricj is Evolution has firm proof, I can pick up a fossil and donk a creationist on the head with it and say "that did not hurt, this bone does not exist according to you". That is reality, empirical evidence.

View PostStundie, on 24 April 2013 - 12:17 AM, said:

The problem is in life, there are no absolutes, look at how the Higgs Boson experiments are changing everything we thought we knew. This is why I work with possibilities. If I thought you had robbed me and you disproved it wasn't you, you do not then have to come up with a better theory and expecting truthers or architect and engineers to do it by examining evidence that has been made accessible, then I think you are asking to much and will never be satisfied because so many individuals have different alternative theories. Some good some very bad as you have no doubt seen, like the hologramers. :blink:

You do realise that by stating there are no absolutes, that you have just stated an absolute don't you?

Higgs surprised everyone, That is the nature of science. Professor Hawking lost a bet over it. Science is not the repository of knowledge, it is a pursuit of knowledge. It represents out best understanding currently. Yes, I agree many people have ideals, and I am OK with that, and that is where the 911 CT falls down. It is being over-thought  Every discrepancy rises from molehill to mountain without effort. And each one takes on a life of it's own. Why do you refuse all the information that refutes the CT in favour of the CT? Both sides have extensive information available, and every claims that I know of is countered. What do you feel remains to tip the balance in favour of CT?


View PostStundie, on 24 April 2013 - 12:17 AM, said:

See this is where I get confused.... :huh:

If a airplane crashes into the WTC and it collapses, it requires no explosives.....but...
If a airplane crashes into the WTC rigged with explosives/thermite, it wont collapse without explosives or thermite being in strategic positions or without there needing tons and tons of them.

Because the claim is the thermite's were laid is it not? They had to be on structural columns, if they were in the plane how would they have worked? The CT states that Thermite charges were placed to allow a controlled demolition.

View PostStundie, on 24 April 2013 - 12:17 AM, said:

Maybe it is me and I just don't understand that by adding a explosive thermitey cocktail to a building that some already believe would collapse without it, would hinder the collapse. This is why I do not understand the logic or sense of those who are strongly opposed to the idea of explosives/thermite. The WTC were huge and full of people doing all sort of things and wherever these strategic place are, it would be easy for anyone to access them and blend in with the crowd.

It is not easy to access structural columns without being noticed. And it would take considerable planning and time. Someone must have seen something. Lets remember who was in charge of security? Would he let this get past him with what he knew?

Did you know that  Jones, Niels H. Harrit and seven other authors published a paper in The Open Chemical Physics Journal, causing the editor, Prof. Marie-Paule Pileni, to resign as she accused the publisher of printing it without her knowledge and that she'd already had suspicions that the "Bentham Scientific" publisher ran pseudo-scientific journals?

Have you looked into the extensive answers provided by Brent Blanchard with regards to the Thermite claim?

View PostStundie, on 24 April 2013 - 12:17 AM, said:

Well I do not know that many truthers, but I have not met or spoke to many other than on the forums and I've not met anyone one of them who doesn't give a damn about their fellow man.

You woud think so, Gummug said the same thing in the Sandy Hook thread, then a couple of posts later a poster proved him wrong. "Truthers" do not seem to give a damn about the harm they cause, or the victims who protest their heartless accusations. Ethics and Truthers seem to be polar opposites to my experience.

View PostStundie, on 24 April 2013 - 12:17 AM, said:

To understand the complaints from the commissioners requires it own thread but it is clear that the White House were steering the commission with Zeiklow at the wheel. I don't think by saying they were set up to fail helped sell books or to profit from the tragedy, they already profited as they were both head commissioners and would have been paid to do the report. But it's not the just the opinion of men profiting, the 9/11 commission is their opinions too and it is their opinion they were set up to fail.

Of course there are going to be people who were frightened, didn't want their names tarnished or did not want to cooperate, but that is not the reason they came up with the statement. So they state "..there were all kinds of reasons we thought we were set up to fail."

In the book they state "Fog of war could explain why some people were confused on the day of 9/11, but it could not explain why all of the after-action reports, accident investigations and public testimony by FAA and NORAD officials advanced an account of 9/11 that was untrue,"

Max Cleland resigned from the commission saying it was a scam and that America had been cheated because the rest of the commissioners made a deal to not look to far into the CIA reports to the White House that suggested advanced warnings were known about to the Bush admin. So dismissing Hamilton and Kean criticisms who were from both sides of the political spectrum, when they were in the best position to see exactly what was happening isn't really an argument.

Paid to do the report, but complaining about money?

The people who feared wrongful conviction may well have been quite paranoid, but it certainly did hamper the investigation, and was a complaint from both of these men as far as I know.

"It proved difficult, if not impossible, to raise hard questions about 9/11 in New York without it being perceived as criticism of the individual police and firefighters or of Mayor Giuliani," Kean and Hamilton said.

That statement seems to indicate professional animosity, not evasiveness.  

View PostStundie, on 24 April 2013 - 12:17 AM, said:

I was a bit surprised by Rolf, I remember he used to do commercials for getting kids to swim and I didn't realise it was Rolf Harris until years later. I just thought he was a creepy looking man back then but learned to like him and thought he was alright.

Yeah, the wobble board will go down in history, so will Jake the Peg I reckon, personally, I find it a little hard to believe but I suppose we shall see.

View PostStundie, on 24 April 2013 - 12:17 AM, said:

I agree they are not evidence of a conspiracy, but they do point to the possibility of a conspiracy.

Of course there are problems and life always throws out the unexpected, like it did for a lot of people on 9/11 and people will make mistakes and sometimes lie, but what if there is a pattern to these mistakes and lies? Do we consider the possibility that they are a series of unrelated lies and mistakes, or do we consider the possibility there might be a reason for this pattern?

The problem is that even though there is plenty of evidence pointing to the possibility of a conspiracy and not a real definitive conspiracy, the other side of panto debunkers won't even admit to possibility and will reject at any cost any suggestion, even as a thought experiment. Lets us assume for a moment that we suddenly find rock hard evidence that the towers were rigged with explosives, that still doesn't mean there is a conspiracy because AQ could have rigged them. This is why I do not subscribe a definitive conspiracy theory.  I will always argue that it was possible that the towers were rigged because I believe it is possible, the reason to reject why it is not possible seems odd when I am arguing with people that believe

Not quite, if explosives were used I think this would be a different conversation. It's not just the possibility, or the thought experiment, it's the ethics an morals. As I mentioned, that powder would want to be very dry before firing off that accusation. What I have seen is that most of this comes form a hand ful of unscrupulous individiuals, with Jones leading the charge. These men benefit greatly from these "questions" yet the same claim you put on the supporters of the official claim are only expending more and more to provide proof of their own innocence. In this light, I think it seems obvious that the CT'ers are the ones who want this CT alive, well and widespread, as it means big dollars to them. Hell, look at Jones, he thinks every bloody tragedy is a CT, as such, I can only view him ad a human parasite that feeds of the suffering. Few forms of life are lower IMHO.

I do not feel believing a thing is possible is reason to endlessly insist it is very likely, or a best option. If you feel some of the information is valid, it should be presented for review, if it survives that, your on your way. I do not think some clown has the right to jump on the radio, make stuff up, and lie to the world for his own benefit. That is what I feel is happening here. Some people made some stupid mistakes from personal conviction, and that caused everyone to suffer. To me, Bodine was the turning point that allowed 911 to happen. In the same fashion that the US soldiers did not believe in kamikaze pilots before Pearl Harbour.

View PostStundie, on 24 April 2013 - 12:17 AM, said:

No, I've not seen the GZL recordings before and I have no interest in what they do or say. You see I would rather debate what I claim and provide as evidence rather than what this or that truther group believe. I am not part of a group and most of the people who I've spoke to on forums are labelled a truthers and are not part of these groups. A lot of people I know believe in the possibility of a conspiracy but are not part of these groups either.

While I think it is more likely this group of people planned this attack and elements within the government let it happen rather them being patsies and elements within the government planed it and made it happen, it would not absolve them but it wouldn't absolve the government not doing anything and letting it happen. I think this CIA had a big part to play, but with them being so secretive, its going to be hard to uncover which if any theory holds water, unless it was genuinely just a series of mistakes of course.

Cheers

Stundie :)


I feel if one is supportive of a Truther group, then for all intensive purposes, one is then classified a truther. Your unique position of not quite truther is probably why I get along with you better than any other CT proponent. And no doubt, why you can discuss with reason in a fair and balanced debate. You are better at this than the more vocal and adamant supporters of the truther movement. Even the ones that like to use big words to sound intellectual. ;) Intellectual BS is still BS LOL.

Thing is they have let us know what happened, Bodine denied FBI agent ONeil, and that allowed the terrorists the upperhand. Bodines personal distrust of ONeil is without doubt a key element in the failure to protect against terrorist action on 911. There is a bit more to it I grant, but this seems to me to be a major turning point that would have allowed 911 to get no further than Bojinka did. As such, it seems to me to be a series of mistakes, but in hindsight, not many people are willing to accept accountability for said mistakes. And with Bodine being somewhat protected, one would wonder what internal polotics are at play, and who's backside will be sacrificed for the likes of Bodines rear end. The panic seems to be the hindsight, not the lead up.

Cheers Mate.

ANZAC day here tomorrow, doubt I will be in here, probably be playing two up at the pub ;)

Edited by psyche101, 24 April 2013 - 06:15 AM.

Things are what they are. - Me Reality can't be debunked. That's the beauty of it. - Capeo If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants. - Sir Isaac Newton Let me repeat the lesson learned from the Sturrock scientific review panel: Pack up your old data and forget it. Ufology needs new data, new cases, new rigorous and scientific methodologies if it hopes ever to get out of its pit. - Ed Stewart Youtube is the last refuge of the ignorant and is more often used for disinformation than genuine research.  There is a REASON for PEER REVIEW... - Chrlzs Nothing is inexplicable, just unexplained. - Dr Who

#1782    Stundie

Stundie

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,555 posts
  • Joined:03 Oct 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 24 April 2013 - 09:44 AM

View Postpsyche101, on 24 April 2013 - 06:12 AM, said:

It is not meant to be an attack at all, just an observation. I am genuinely amazed you have not seen numerous examples of this yourself, and would urge you to consider have a good look at the many forums at Unexplained Mysteries and I am quite positive that you will find more than enough examples to support my claim. Anti Government seems to be the driving force, as in if they said something believe anything else.
As I said, because people are critical of government, that doesn't make them anti government. I'm sure there are those who actively oppose the things that governments do and do not trust them, but that still doesn't make them anti government.

If you are anti government, then you are against being governed. Out of all the ones that I have met, I have not met a single person who claims they are anti government, as I think you'll probably find that most people understand as a society, we need laws and regulations to be governed by. Its like when people criticise America and then get called Anti American, being critical of something doesn't mean you are anti it.

View Postpsyche101, on 24 April 2013 - 06:12 AM, said:

We know the Bodine connection, we know where the Government went wrong. Why is it not conceivable that Gage is embellishing? If people know something to be true someone will stand up for it. That is just not happening 100% here. That is telling. If you were an Architect, but knew some vital information that could confirm or deny curcial components of the hypothesis, why would you keep silent?
I disagree that if people know something to be true, they will stand up for it. Again I can cite many examples of people knowing things to be true and not standing up for it. Again, I point back to the Saville case, plenty of people caught him in compromising positions with young girls and were well aware of what he was up to, yet nobody said anything until long after he had died.

Standing up for something sometimes leads to more trouble than it is worth. I watched a nurse who worked in a care home stand up against the neglect and poor standards of care the patients were receiving. She reported it her superiors who ignored her, so when she reported it to the media and secretly filmed the conditions, it received media attention. The care quality commissions investigations admitted that she was correct and that patients had been neglected but she was struck off the nursing and midwifery council and now her 20 year career as a nurse, a job which she loved is now over.

http://www.telegraph...n-Panorama.html

Sometimes standing up for something isn't that easy especially if there are threats or risks in doing so.

View Postpsyche101, on 24 April 2013 - 06:12 AM, said:

If you said that about AIA religious beliefs, when challenged, some would stand up and say "this is simply not the case".
That is exactly what has happened with some of the members of AIA. They have signed Gages petition.

We do not know how many of the AIA members have read the report or are aware of A&E 9/11 group. We cannot ASSUME that all AIA members have read it and disagree with Gages assertion because the organisation doesn't support him. Individuals within the group clearly do, some might totally agree with him but they still might not wish to sign or join his group.

View Postpsyche101, on 24 April 2013 - 06:12 AM, said:

We know evolution is the answer, we do not know how the spark started. The tricj is Evolution has firm proof, I can pick up a fossil and donk a creationist on the head with it and say "that did not hurt, this bone does not exist according to you". That is reality, empirical evidence.
We THINK we know the answer, but the reality is we do not know for sure. Nobody knows. We have theories which we think explain things and they might be the best theories, but we do not know.

As I said, you do not have to prove to me that you didn't rob me by providing a better theory of who did rob me. The fact you disprove it is you is enough for me to be aware that it was someone else. If truther can prove that the towers didn't collapse by planes and fires, then asking them to provide a better that theory of how the towers collapse does not mean they are wrong. It just means that they do not know how it was done.

View Postpsyche101, on 24 April 2013 - 06:12 AM, said:

You do realise that by stating there are no absolutes, that you have just stated an absolute don't you?
Have I?? lol Unless by stating that there are no absolutes, I am stating one....lol

View Postpsyche101, on 24 April 2013 - 06:12 AM, said:

Higgs surprised everyone, That is the nature of science. Professor Hawking lost a bet over it. Science is not the repository of knowledge, it is a pursuit of knowledge. It represents out best understanding currently. Yes, I agree many people have ideals, and I am OK with that, and that is where the 911 CT falls down. It is being over-thought  Every discrepancy rises from molehill to mountain without effort. And each one takes on a life of it's own. Why do you refuse all the information that refutes the CT in favour of the CT? Both sides have extensive information available, and every claims that I know of is countered. What do you feel remains to tip the balance in favour of CT?
I think you are right when you say the CT is being over thought, I think this is why laser beams and hologram theories exist. lol
The information which tips me in the favour of a CT has nothing to do with WTC, WTC7, the Pentagon crash, Shanksville or any of the usual theories associated with 9/11. My own investigation into the movements of Dick Cheney on the morning of 9/11 is enough to convince me in the possibility of a conspiracy because of the discrepancies in the commissions account and that of him and others. Again, it is something that requires its own thread.

View Postpsyche101, on 24 April 2013 - 06:12 AM, said:

Because the claim is the thermite's were laid is it not? They had to be on structural columns, if they were in the plane how would they have worked? The CT states that Thermite charges were placed to allow a controlled demolition.
The claim of some CTers is that thermite was laid within the building. However, if you believe that no thermite was needed and the plane and fires was enough, then why would it matter where it was placed when you believe that none was needed anyway?

View Postpsyche101, on 24 April 2013 - 06:12 AM, said:

It is not easy to access structural columns without being noticed. And it would take considerable planning and time. Someone must have seen something. Lets remember who was in charge of security? Would he let this get past him with what he knew?
The building had 110 floors and each floor was over 4 million square meters. Nobody is going to take any notice of people accessing structural columns especially as there would be maintenance men all over the place doing odd jobs. And we are aware of who was in charge of security, it was the same security companies which manned the airports the hijackers flew from too. It is easy to get around security if you know what security checks are in place.

View Postpsyche101, on 24 April 2013 - 06:12 AM, said:

Did you know that  Jones, Niels H. Harrit and seven other authors published a paper in The Open Chemical Physics Journal, causing the editor, Prof. Marie-Paule Pileni, to resign as she accused the publisher of printing it without her knowledge and that she'd already had suspicions that the "Bentham Scientific" publisher ran pseudo-scientific journals?

Have you looked into the extensive answers provided by Brent Blanchard with regards to the Thermite claim?
I thought she had said that the papers topic lies outside her expertise and she couldn't comment whether it was bad or good.

And I have read Blanchards paper and Jim Hoffmans rebuttal. Blanchard reasoning against thermite does not stand up to scrutiny and there is plenty of evidence that contradicts his claims

View Postpsyche101, on 24 April 2013 - 06:12 AM, said:

Paid to do the report, but complaining about money?
When you consider that it cost $40 million to investigate Bill Clinton and $60 million for the Challenger disaster, then being given $3 million to investigate the biggest terrorist attack is certainly something worth complaining about if you want a full account of what happened.  

View Postpsyche101, on 24 April 2013 - 06:12 AM, said:

The people who feared wrongful conviction may well have been quite paranoid, but it certainly did hamper the investigation, and was a complaint from both of these men as far as I know."It proved difficult, if not impossible, to raise hard questions about 9/11 in New York without it being perceived as criticism of the individual police and firefighters or of Mayor Giuliani," Kean and Hamilton said.

That statement seems to indicate professional animosity, not evasiveness.  
They also wished they had asked harder question from Giuliani but it wasn't professional animosity or evasiveness for the reasons they think they were set up to fail, their claims go much further than that, because they said people were advancing accounts which were not true and that they were lying.

Max claimed the White House were covering up. Richard Clarke also stated that the group were focused on Iraq and not AQ the day after the attacks, all without a shred of evidence that Iraq was involved. If AQ are involved, talking about Iraq the next day doesn't sound like you think AQ are the problem. We know that the Neocons wanted to invade Iraq during Clintons admin by the open letters they sent since the mid 90's. We also know that former treasury secretary Paul O'Neill has said that the Bush admin were talking and planning about invading Iraq days after his inauguration.

So if members of the Bush admin were talking about attacking Iraq before his presidency and planning it at that start of his presidency, then talking about it the day after the attacks when there is no evidence for Iraqs involvement, then invade Iraq and then cover up any investigations into the attacks. Is it any surprise that people think the Bush Admin/government think they may have been involved whether they let it happen or helped to make it happen?

View Postpsyche101, on 24 April 2013 - 06:12 AM, said:

Not quite, if explosives were used I think this would be a different conversation. It's not just the possibility, or the thought experiment, it's the ethics an morals. As I mentioned, that powder would want to be very dry before firing off that accusation. What I have seen is that most of this comes form a hand ful of unscrupulous individiuals, with Jones leading the charge. These men benefit greatly from these "questions" yet the same claim you put on the supporters of the official claim are only expending more and more to provide proof of their own innocence. In this light, I think it seems obvious that the CT'ers are the ones who want this CT alive, well and widespread, as it means big dollars to them. Hell, look at Jones, he thinks every bloody tragedy is a CT, as such, I can only view him ad a human parasite that feeds of the suffering. Few forms of life are lower IMHO.
I'm not sure how or Jones benefits from these questions. I'm sure his job at Brigham was financially more beneficial than running his truth group. Although I have no idea of his financial dealings to confirm or deny it but you think he earns big dollars, I would say that it pales to insignificant to the amount that others have made off the back of the tragedy and subsequent wars.

I do not understand your comment about CTers wanting to keep the CT alive. I can't understand why someone would want to believe that members of their own government were involved or ignored warnings of the attacks for financial or political gains. Its a horrible thought and I think that most CTer are doing it because they believe it to be true and such a horrible idea.

View Postpsyche101, on 24 April 2013 - 06:12 AM, said:

I do not feel believing a thing is possible is reason to endlessly insist it is very likely, or a best option. If you feel some of the information is valid, it should be presented for review, if it survives that, your on your way. I do not think some clown has the right to jump on the radio, make stuff up, and lie to the world for his own benefit. That is what I feel is happening here. Some people made some stupid mistakes from personal conviction, and that caused everyone to suffer. To me, Bodine was the turning point that allowed 911 to happen. In the same fashion that the US soldiers did not believe in kamikaze pilots before Pearl Harbour.
I do not think that believing something is possible means that it is likely to have happened. Some people didn't make mistakes, some people lied as the commissioner stated.

You are appear to be angry at the CTers for peddling lies, but yet I do not see the same anger at the people/departments who peddled lies to the commission.

I feel that this double standard highlights a hatred of conspiracy theorists rather than people lying in general because you would also be talking about the liars in government rather than trying to excuse their lies as evasiveness and professional animosity.

View Postpsyche101, on 24 April 2013 - 06:12 AM, said:

I feel if one is supportive of a Truther group, then for all intensive purposes, one is then classified a truther. Your unique position of not quite truther is probably why I get along with you better than any other CT proponent. And no doubt, why you can discuss with reason in a fair and balanced debate. You are better at this than the more vocal and adamant supporters of the truther movement. Even the ones that like to use big words to sound intellectual. ;) Intellectual BS is still BS LOL.
My only support of all truther groups is that I support a new investigation.

I do not mind being labelled as one either as I have been called much worse names than a twoofer...lol

View Postpsyche101, on 24 April 2013 - 06:12 AM, said:

Thing is they have let us know what happened, Bodine denied FBI agent ONeil, and that allowed the terrorists the upperhand. Bodines personal distrust of ONeil is without doubt a key element in the failure to protect against terrorist action on 911. There is a bit more to it I grant, but this seems to me to be a major turning point that would have allowed 911 to get no further than Bojinka did. As such, it seems to me to be a series of mistakes, but in hindsight, not many people are willing to accept accountability for said mistakes. And with Bodine being somewhat protected, one would wonder what internal polotics are at play, and who's backside will be sacrificed for the likes of Bodines rear end. The panic seems to be the hindsight, not the lead up.

Cheers Mate.

ANZAC day here tomorrow, doubt I will be in here, probably be playing two up at the pub ;)
I would have to agree that Bodine didn't help O'Neil and it probably played a small part in to why the terrorist were successful but I think it goes far deeper than that too.

It is clear from the commissioner themselves that they had unanswered questions and that investigation is by no means a full account of what happened, yet anyone who dares to question the commissions account is automatically labelled as a truther. Any deviation from what the commission says is met with the label of a being a truther whether there is any truth to it or not and it is designed to stifle debate.

I find that it's hard for any panto debunker to accept mistakes or even outright lies that are in the official account. I think this is down to a fear that there is some validity behind some of the truthers claims and this is why they are so motivated to debate and counter their arguments.

I do not believe in religious beliefs, I accept that there are people who do believe in them, but I don't challenge their beliefs or debate with them by telling them they are wrong or that they are nutters because I am comfortable with my own beliefs. I do not need to challenge what others believe even if I think it's a bunch of crapola on toast. I would only challenge their beliefs and thoughts on religion if I wasn't to sure or comfortable with my own beliefs. I think this is why panto debunkers are so vehemently against any conspiracy that they will even lie to themselves in order to keep the official story as the biblical standards of truth about what happened that day.

Anyway, have a stubby or whatever your poison is for me and have a good day out.  

Cheers

Stundie :)

There is no such thing as magic, just magicians and fools.

#1783    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,156 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 24 April 2013 - 02:22 PM

View PostStundie, on 24 April 2013 - 09:44 AM, said:

Sometimes standing up for something isn't that easy especially if there are threats or risks in doing so.
That is exactly what has happened with some of the members of AIA. They have signed Gages petition.

About Richard Gage. He is not credible. Check it out.




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.

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/


I assume that you are unaware that Richard Gage has been caught lying on video. So what were have here, Richard Gage's papers have been debunked by peer review, and the majority of demolition experts, civil engineers and architects agree with the official story.

Quote

The information which tips me in the favour of a CT has nothing to do with WTC, WTC7, the Pentagon crash, Shanksville or any of the usual theories associated with 9/11.

But, no one found evidence of explosives and no bomb explosions are seen nor heard in the videos nor detected on seismic monitors.

Quote

My own investigation into the movements of Dick Cheney on the morning of 9/11 is enough to convince me in the possibility of a conspiracy because of the discrepancies in the commissions account and that of him and others. Again, it is something that requires its own thread.

What difference does that make? Where was Rumsfeld when the Pentagon was struck?

Quote

The claim of some CTers is that thermite was laid within the building.

No one found planted thermite in the rubble of the WTC buildings and no  thermite cuts were found on the columns. Thermite was not capable of bringing down the WTC buildings, but as the evidence has shown, fire, not thermite, was responsible for the collapse of the WTC buildings.

Quote

And I have read Blanchards paper and Jim Hoffmans rebuttal. Blanchard reasoning against thermite does not stand up to scrutiny and there is plenty of evidence that contradicts his claims

On the contrary, Brent Blanchard is right on the money. There is no evidence that thermite was planted and no thermite cuts were ever found on the structures of the WTC buildings.

Edited by skyeagle409, 24 April 2013 - 02:37 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1784    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,549 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 24 April 2013 - 02:31 PM

Stundie

An outstanding series of posts! :tu:

Many good points, but I think the best was that one need not offer another theory to understand that a particular theory is false and invalid.  Sky and Psyche just cannot comprehend how simple and valid that point is.

To understand that the Official Conspiracy Theory is false, one need not offer another theory.  Of course one MAY offer another theory if one has constructed another, but it's quite possible to recognize a lie and deception without offering an alternative explanation.

The best example is magic tricks and card tricks.  I can easily understand I am being tricked and deceived, EVEN THOUGH I do not understand exactly how the magician pulled it off.  Though I cannot explain the details, I know I've been duped.

That is too sophisticated for Sky & Psyche.


#1785    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,156 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 24 April 2013 - 02:41 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 24 April 2013 - 02:31 PM, said:

Stundie

An outstanding series of posts! :tu:

Actually not! :no:

The majority of demolition experts, civil engineers and architects agree with the official story and they have debunked the papers of Steven Jones and Richard Gage.

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

ARCHITECT Magazine
The Magzine of the American Institute of Architects


All of Gage’s so-called evidence has been rebutted in peer-reviewed papers,...

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

Quote

To understand that the Official Conspiracy Theory is false, one need not offer another theory.  

Looking at the facts and evidence, the facts and evidence support only the official story, which explains why 911 Truthers have failed to provide evidence that refutes the official story.

Quote


The World Trade Center's Steel Structure Was Buckling Before the Collapse

Police, Firemen and Civilians Saw Warning Signs of Collapse of the Twin Towers on September 11th 2001

Before the collapse of either tower, evidence the structures of the WTC were failing was reported by Police, Firemen and civilians. As already mentioned, flying around outside the WTC, the NYPD helicopters reported "an inward bowing of the buildings' columns in the minutes before they collapsed." Inside WTC 1, New York City Fire Department's Assistant Chief Joseph Callan realized the building was in trouble even before the first building, building two, collapsed. Interviewed Nov. 2, 2001, Assistant Chief Callan told New York City Fire Marshal Michael Starace, "Approximately 40 minutes after I arrived in the lobby, I made a decision that the building was no longer safe.

And that was based on the conditions in the lobby, large pieces of plaster falling, all the 20 foot high glass panels on the exterior of the lobby were breaking. There was obvious movement of the building, and that was the reason on the handy talky I gave the order for all Fire Department units to leave the north tower. Approximately ten minutes after that, we had a collapse of the south tower, and we were sort of blown up against the wall in the lobby of the north tower, and we gathered together those of us who were still able to."

http://www.represent...xplosives2.html

Quote

To understand that the Official Conspiracy Theory is false, one need not offer another theory.  

Looking at the facts and evidence, the facts and evidence support only the official story, which explains why 911 Truthers have failed to provide evidence that refutes the official story.

Edited by skyeagle409, 24 April 2013 - 02:50 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX




3 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 3 guests, 0 anonymous users