2219 replies to this topic

[Q24]

psyche101, on 08 March 2013 - 08:33 AM, said:

I understand that you have no argument with regards to the facts that show Al Jazeera reporters are killed often, and they do have personal involvement with Bin Laden, as he utilises that very network for his video releases. The evolution of that particular sentence was painfully obvious and your links only further supported my position.

Ok, I’m going to try to avoid the unevidenced rhetoric/delusions throughout your post – Al Jazeera reporters have “personal involvement” with bin Laden?? – and make this into something informative and hopefully interesting.

So let’s assume you are correct that a network who releases bin Laden messages has personal involvement with bin Laden, and let’s talk about the February 2003 audiotape.  Who was first to release existence of that tape and details of the transcript to the world?  It wasn’t Al Jazeera.  It was the Secretary of State, Colin Powell, in the U.S. Senate!

This means, according to your logic, that top tier of the Bush administration had “personal involvement” with bin Laden.  Though I’m sure you will change your own rules and adopt the delusion to make the fact fit your worldview any which way.  Al Jazeera were initially unaware of the audiotape and dismissed the claim as rumour, but later that day came into possession of the message which they broadcast in full.

Personally I think this shows only that U.S. intel were uncomfortably close to ‘Al Qaeda’ and bin Laden to get hold of that transcript so fast and beat Al Jazeera to the punch.

psyche101, on 08 March 2013 - 08:33 AM, said:

I personally find you wish to absolve the terrorists...

I could say the same to you, and it would be all the more true.  You see, whist I would like to have seen bin Laden on trial and face punishment for crimes he is found guilty of, in addition to thorough investigation and understanding of the hijackers and their support network, along with a full enquiry into actions of the Bush administration and intelligence agencies... you defend involvement of those latter players to the hilt.  I don’t defend anyone – I’ll throw the whole lot in a pot and apportion guilt where it’s due – you are the one who is selective and heavily biased about where we point the finger.

psyche101, on 08 March 2013 - 08:33 AM, said:

As is your cheap shot with the intelligent readers remark, which I would have through below you but like Stundie, you too have proven to be something other than I imagined.

It’s not a cheap shot to point out that intelligent readers will hold more credence in sources such as the FBIS, BBC and Al Jazeera than in Annanova, the world’s first ‘cyberbabe’ newscaster, as you do.

psyche101, on 08 March 2013 - 08:33 AM, said:

I do not feel Al Qaeda deserves all that much understanding.

That is a problem – understanding of crimes requires that we get in the mind of the killer(s).  And you don’t even seek to understand those you accuse, much less those latter players I mentioned involved.  It’s a wilful ignorance on your part – never a good thing.

psyche101, on 08 March 2013 - 08:33 AM, said:

And no, it does not surprise me that the CIA would do something as stupid as give Ali chance after chance. I have already stated that I hold the CIA in very low regard, and continue to wonder how such a bunch of kooks manage to maintain funding, it really does bewilder me. They seem to think they are above the law, and some sort of super human group. The CIA is better known for it's perversion of justice and rights, and absolutely ridiculous programs since it;s inception. Right through to the men who stare at goats. That one person tried to point out to inherent danger in such a stupid notion does not surprise me at all. Niether does the CIA molly coddling this double agent, with some stupid false bravado believing themselves to be the ones who were actually benefiting.

I can find some agreement with you here.  Now all you have to realise is that agents of the CIA are not stupid or crazy, and find that section of the command where individuals did benefit.  Once you realise that it makes a whole lot of sense and you won’t have to wonder anymore.

psyche101, on 08 March 2013 - 08:33 AM, said:

No it does not help me understand Al Qaeda, are you saying you support Al Qaeda?

You constructed that question from me talking about a CIA/‘Al Qaeda’ double-agent?  Oh dear, I’ll have to spell it out.  I’m saying that the CIA support ‘Al Qaeda’.  No, more than that, I’m saying that in instances the CIA are ‘Al Qaeda’.

psyche101, on 08 March 2013 - 08:33 AM, said:

Bin Laden to the rescue??? So then you agree that Bin Laden hasa admitted responsibility for the 911 attacks, seeming as he said in that instance:

"had no connection at all with September 11... I am the one in charge of the 19 brothers and I never assigned brother Zacarias to be with them in that mission...

Please note nuance of the apostrophes around a name, meant to indicate that I’m not being sincere when I reference ahem... ‘bin Laden’.  When I say, “it’s a good job that ‘bin Laden’ came riding to the rescue”, I’m actually saying it’s bull****, the tape appears coerced/edited/fabricated to suit U.S. needs.

• That is why the 2003 audiotape was revealed to the world by Colin Powell in the U.S. Senate, with ‘bin Laden’ conveniently declaring his allegiance with Iraq one month before the U.S. invasion.
  
• That is why the 2004 ‘first confession’ was released shortly before Bush’s re-election, the ‘October Surprise’ which boosted his ratings, with the CIA director stating, “bin Laden certainly did a nice favour today for the President” and CIA consensus that the tape was “designed strategically to help President Bush win re-election”.
  
• That is why the 2006 audiotape absolved the U.S. of failure to prosecute Moussaoui on 9/11 related charges (despite his obvious involvement in the plot, which I agree) whilst having no benefit to bin Laden.

There is more, much more, but do you see the pattern?  It all plays right into U.S. hands.

The reason being... ?  Ah, you will never figure it out.  The reason being, that releases are not coming from bin Laden.  The tapes are coerced/edited/fabricated by those holding bin Laden in confinement – elements of the CIA/ISI in Pakistan.

psyche101, on 08 March 2013 - 08:33 AM, said:

Here you are convincing yourself that you have the right parameters for a prison, and I have built almost half a dozen of the bloody things from the ground up. You are dead wrong I am afraid. One thing for sure, I know you are not an architect  

I went to college with many trainee architects - not always the brightest of fellows when it comes to problem solving and logic it must be said.  Even with those fully qualified architects, it was often about aesthetics (external appearance) and very little practicality (sense).  I’d be more impressed if you were an engineer... even more, an unbiased person with no qualification at all...

The features are ideal fit for a prison, that is blatant.  You could make the counter-argument that a prison design forms a good ‘strong house’ but that does not remove that the building design and features fit a prison.

The example you have provided of the Swiss ambassador building...







Is a terrible fit to bin Laden’s prison...




Please try again.

Hey, why do you think the ISI were so aggrieved with the man who helped the CIA find bin Laden?  He should have been a hero, but instead the ISI tortured him and put him away for 33 years.  Clearly the answer is that he disrupted their operation.  There are even reports that the building was designed by an architect who worked for the ISI and that the compound was initially used by the ISI (I won’t bother you with link to those particular reports - coming from a Gulf news source I know you’d dismiss it out of hand).  I’ll stick with this one for now: -

http://www.nytimes.c...-says.html?_r=0


There’s another particular story you can lookup online which highlights the prison nature of the compound.  When a child’s ball would be lost in the courtyard over the compound wall, the guards would never hand it back, but rather pay the child 2-3 times the money the ball was worth.  Why?  Did the guards like balls that much?  Or is that a standard procedure to ensure no message can leave confines of the compound walls?

You know, I know... but can you accept it?  I think not – a decade of bin Laden propaganda runs deep and I’m quite sure you have no will to overcome it.  Fortunately others prefer to be enlightened.

[Tesla II]

Like i said this is pure inside job...It was like OP Northwoods abit changed scenario but it was all there and where is CIA and similar agencies you dont know much about anything...When Northwoods was first proposed US had a smart and sane president... When they later opened up some archives in Bush decade they probably said why not? We would gain alot in trade for some thousands lives...and then you go back to how CIA or maybe some other black- shadowy agency managed to get some
" terrorists " on to some planes and well you dont need to do much from there on.. Those terrorist were probably given many things before their death sentence, and they were probably already death sentenced criminals...

Than US invades ME pillages,steals, etc. The locals reported such crimes US soldiers were taking out valaubles from museums, taking out oil reserves and than you just make a small OP of 6 specops guys and you conclude a 10 year resource pump operation...

Not to mention the trading that took place there a day before and on the same day of incident... and all the people who actually knew in advance for the event from various sources.

So the bottom line is US gained loads and loads of many things... If one chooses to believe the government that isnt any good now and it hasnt been since JFK or choose to look at things with brains and eyes it is your own choice... But government will never explain such things or better yet it already did with very sloppy information... Why bother anyway? It was terrorists and that suited the wider public.. ( Probably even the high ranking officals didnt know how it might be staged )  Others who are still fair and righteous find that very disturbing, because if they were capable of such things then, god knows what can they do now...

Think with your brains, not with TVs or governments...

[Liquid Gardens]

Q24, on 07 March 2013 - 11:47 AM, said:

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

I've read too much about the Northwoods document.  Frankly, I think the invocation of it in relation to 9/11, which is mostly done by you unfortunately, is way out of proportion to whatever point you are trying to milk out of it, I think it's a little kooky actually.  I think it's more accurately termed a 'proposal' than a 'plan', and with relation to 9/11 it just demonstrates that false flags are possible and 'could be', I never doubted that.  Or as I think it was either redhen or psyche pointed out, we likewise have 'plans' to invade Canada; so?

Quote

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

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

This, ' "X" is just evidence of "X" ' definition of yours is just silly, it equally applies to every single point I've heard from you concerning the 'evidence' for a government CT, but somehow I doubt you'll be consistent and say there is zero evidence of that.  For every single piece of evidence you have I can easily invoke what 'could be' as you have done here: 'the molten flow from the tower that superficially resembles (among other things) a thermite reaction is evidence that there was a molten flow from the tower that superficially resembles a thermite reaction', etc.  Do you think there is 'zero evidence' for Bigfoot, UFOs, God because none of that evidence is definitive and unambiguous, is that really how you want to use the word 'evidence', which results in your CT case entirely evaporating?  I think there's evidence for all of those, hell I think there's evidence for a 9/11 CT for that matter, it's just that the evidence for none of those things is that compelling.

Quote

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

Let's keep those goalposts right where they are, thanks.  We are talking about whether there is zero evidence that Flight 77 crashed at the Pentagon, not whether we've 'proved' that it was Flight 77 that crashed, according to your standard of proof.  Again with the hypocritical 'proving', as if your case was within light-years of that bar.

Quote

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

I don't find any of that detail to be important as far as determining whether there is zero evidence.  Why on earth do you think identification of human remains should be carried out at the Pentagon?  There is no record of collection or no available record of collection?  You don't think that needs to be provided to truthers for inspection do you?  I just saw a map of the Pentagon showing where body parts were found indicating which were from the Pentagon, from 77, and 'other'; that's not a record of collection?  How was that done then?  You can invoke 'could have been' anywhere on any crime, if there was a record of collection then the DNA analysis 'could have been' falsified.  What you, or I, can imagine is not evidence of anything.

Quote

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

No you are not talking to a reasonable standard nor are you being fair/sensible, if you don't believe me then go ahead and provide any evidence point you have supporting a CT and I'll just quote your words here and make the same 'could be deceived' comments back at you, you've made that abundantly easy. 'Could have been a deception' can be invoked at any point, especially when as in this case, you are invoking it based on no evidence whatsoever.  The alternative to the idea that Flight 77 didn't crash at the Pentagon involves several other steps:  77 landed somewhere else and another plane was substituted (for what purpose according to you, I don't know), apparently the 77 passengers were killed in some fashion and 'samples' inserted somewhere in the process, it gets a little murky here as I'm not sure exactly how this counter-theory works nor am I sure you do as there is absolutely no evidence except what we can dream up that any of this actually occurred.  The real issue I think probably links into the, I'll just say 'creative', ways that you have attempted in the past to misapply Occam's Razor and principles of parsimony.  In this case especially I don't think there is any argument against that, Occam's razor has a slight range of meanings but the one usually given is don't multiply entities without necessity.  You've provided no necessity and 77 crashing into the Pentagon is by far more parsimonious than what is involved with faking that.

What seems especially odd to me about your argument here is how starkly it contrasts with the sound and reasonable rebuttal you just gave to BR's latest iteration of 'no plane at Shanksville'.  You've provided him many arguments here that he could use in defense if they were actually valid:  the crash site of 93 (or was it?) provided ample opportunity for passenger 'samples' to be planted, I'm sure there are holes somewhere in the 'chain of custody' where deception can be suggested, etc.  What's the diff?

Been busy lately and am still reading up on what was going on in the intelligence community prior to 9/11, I'll try and respond to your latest points on that topic after I read up a little more.

[Babe Ruth]

Q24, on 07 March 2013 - 09:53 PM, said:

Of course Miller did not see a wrecked Boeing, because there was no wrecked Boeing, there was a smashed to smithereens Boeing largely embedded in the earth which matches the case of Caspian Airlines Flight 7908 that you do not comment on.

And yes Miller was a random coroner who you allege, on absolutely no basis other than your own desire/imagination, was coerced to be a ‘team player’ in the cover-up of a non-existent crash.  The whole idea is ridiculous even on its own, never mind when we look at the full body of evidence and logic which demonstrates that there was an airliner crash.




The statements I make are easily reconciled because in no instance of the 9/11 crashes do I expect to find passenger bodies.  This is more favourable than OCTs who in their inconsistency say passenger bodies were at the Pentagon but should not be at Shanksville, or many alternative theorists who inexplicably want vice versa.




You want me to prove that the Pentagon and ground were in the respective flight paths?  Of course no statements and pictures show an airplane – we would not expect so after a nose first impact with the Pentagon or ground.  What statements and pictures do show is an airliner crash resulting in a much airliner debris.




Did I say you meant voice transmissions?  I know exactly what you meant – the misinformation you are regurgitating from P4T and Woody.  The computer belonging to Flight 93 was not communicating with ARINC after the crash time at all – that is complete ignorance/misunderstanding of the record and system, much less it being ‘on the record’.  The record shows that the aircraft cease downlink attempts after the crash times.  It’s your problem if you cannot research this for yourself or follow the article I provided to understand it.  How about show me what you are looking at (supposing you have done some research into this yourself and aren’t just regurgitating P4T and Woody) and I’ll explain it to you?

The evidence held up by P4T and Woody, depicting those RGS which you have been misled to believe are a discrepancy with the official story, are actually messages between the airline and ARINC, nothing to do with direct communication from the aircraft.  The ACARS manual clearly notes that where communication is lost with the aircraft, uplink will be attempted from the RGS denoted by the airline, based on standing data.  So those messages are not indication of the aircraft physical location – complete poppycock.

Do you ever think perhaps there is a reason why I turn into a rabid OCT on this one?  I’m no friend of the OCT.  Do you not think, if there was a shred of possibility in the claim, that I’d let it go?

That’s the worst part - it’s unambiguous, yet the P4T article remains online.  Then again, perhaps it is best that these people make themselves look like fools to educated researchers.  The only problem, it does quickly become apparent in these discussions that most people, on either side of the argument, are not educated researchers.  So... perhaps the P4T article has its uses as a recruitment tool?  Is that the game?  I guess it depends whether the aim is only to convert the masses rather than go through the legal channels.  Either for money or politics, doesn’t matter.  To hell with the truth, we’ll fight propaganda with propaganda?  

Because it works... it worked on you Babe Ruth, like hundreds of others I have seen.

I’m not sure my time is best spent arguing this thing.  For what?  To give me tiny credence with OCTs who are never going to accept my findings anyhow.  On you go BR... yep... ACARS shows Flight 93 still in the air after the crash... pass it on...

Hmmm I’m still conflicted.

The thing is, we don’t need to spread this false **** to demonstrate to any reasonable person that the OCT is unproven at best, a show at worst, and contradicted in places, or that there were additional players at work than the official story tells.  Those with an open mind will be convinced without it, so there is no benefit, only the chance that this easily debunked rubbish will provide OCTs ammunition that will come back to bite us.

I suspect that your experiences regarding aircraft crashes is different from mine.  Maybe not, but I have viewed from the air and from the ground quite a few crashes over the years.  I have talked with various investigators of those accidents, and made sworn statements to NTSB in 1 or 2 crashes over the years.  Aircraft do not just vaporize and become invisible, your pictures of the Caspian crash notwithstanding.

On that day the pictures showed, and the people present said that there was no crashed airplane in that field.  I saw it with my own eyes as it was playing out.  As gathered by Bollyn, we know that after Wally's spilling the beans to the media, the feds "moved" the crash site into the woods.

Neither you nor anybody else can show me a picture IN CONTEXT of the wreckage of 93 at Shanksville.  You can show me arranged pictures brought by the same DOJ that brought us Fast 'n Furious, but that's all you have.

Psyche shows that tired old picture of a small mushroom cloud that the feds produced, and claims it's a just crashed 757.  He might believe that, and you might believe that, but I know better, thanks very much.

As far as the ACARS data goes, I strongly suspect you don't really know how the system works.  Just like cell phones, whether the humans are making key strokes OR NOT, the computers that control the systems are in communication.  While the humans may be utterly silent, the computers are communicating, SO THAT the system knows where its mobile units are located.  In which cell or sector the mobile unit is.  Without that knowledge in the machines, the system becomes useless.

The airborne unit assigned to the aircraft playing 93 that day was still communicating with the ground unit somewhere in Illinois, which makes perfect sense, because everybody and every camera in Shanksville showed there was no wrecked Boeing in that field.

I have viewed airplane impacts in which soft sandy soil is indeed penetrated by fighter aircraft on a perpendicular course.  However, the land of Pennsylvania coal country is not sandy soil, and a 757 is not a fighter aircraft, but a very fragile aluminum tube with very strong steel landing gear and engines.  Crashed aircraft do not vaporize.

Now, if you're suggesting that somehow a group of Leprechauns moved the Boeing that Miller could not find, well, I can see where you're coming from.

[Q24]

Liquid Gardens, on 08 March 2013 - 12:19 PM, said:

I've read too much about the Northwoods document.  Frankly, I think the invocation of it in relation to 9/11, which is mostly done by you unfortunately, is way out of proportion to whatever point you are trying to milk out of it, I think it's a little kooky actually.  I think it's more accurately termed a 'proposal' than a 'plan', and with relation to 9/11 it just demonstrates that false flags are possible and 'could be', I never doubted that.  Or as I think it was either redhen or psyche pointed out, we likewise have 'plans' to invade Canada; so?

So if there is indication the U.S. invade Canada, you don’t stand there and say, oh, we would never do that.  Again, Northwoods is opening the door to those who believe the U.S. government would never commit their own to death in war on a false pretext.

Anyhow, please remember the following as you read my post because it is very important:  That is all I am saying when it comes to the Pentagon:  “false flags are possible and 'could be'...”  This is something that you don’t doubt either, so as I go on to bash the rest of your post, maybe we really agree from the outset?  I’m quite open to the idea that Flight 77 or another aircraft crashed at the Pentagon but what I would like to see is definite closure to safeguard us.

You can even forget about 9/11, I’ll ask the question simply in context of the Northwoods plan.  Had the 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.

And it is the same low standard you apply when it comes to 9/11.

It’s really poor, you are basically asking me to take your word for it.  Oh we don’t need to check the serial numbers, cross-check records, see the audit trail (all standard investigative procedure).  No let’s all big fat ASSUME it was Flight 77.

I’m not saying this proves or disproves anything, I’m saying it is dangerous.

Liquid Gardens, on 08 March 2013 - 12:19 PM, said:

Let's keep those goalposts right where they are, thanks.  We are talking about whether there is zero evidence that Flight 77 crashed at the Pentagon, not whether we've 'proved' that it was Flight 77 that crashed, according to your standard of proof.  Again with the hypocritical 'proving', as if your case was within light-years of that bar.

I’m sure I’ve explained this before.  The official story upon which a war was launched does require a higher standard of evidence than an alternative theory upon which an investigation might be launched.  I acknowledge this and provide the reason, therefore it is not hypocritical.  Yes it is necessary to ‘prove’ that Flight 77 crashed if the intention is to base a war on that case.  No it is not necessary to ‘prove’ that Flight 77 did not crash to demand a competent investigation.

The evidence currently available allows only the conclusion that Flight 77 ‘could’ have crashed at the Pentagon or another aircraft ‘could’ have crashed at the Pentagon.  That is good enough to prove my case that another aircraft could have crashed at the Pentagon and investigation was necessary.  It is not good enough to prove the OCT case and back a war.

Liquid Gardens, on 08 March 2013 - 12:19 PM, said:

Why on earth do you think identification of human remains should be carried out at the Pentagon?  There is no record of collection or no available record of collection?  You don't think that needs to be provided to truthers for inspection do you?  I just saw a map of the Pentagon showing where body parts were found indicating which were from the Pentagon, from 77, and 'other'; that's not a record of collection?  How was that done then?  You can invoke 'could have been' anywhere on any crime, if there was a record of collection then the DNA analysis 'could have been' falsified.  What you, or I, can imagine is not evidence of anything.

I don’t necessarily think identification should be carried out at the Pentagon (though it was at the WTC site) and that is beside the issue: multiple points for evidence to enter the system and lack of control/audit trail leave the door open to potential deception.  Yes I think evidence needs to be provided for public inspection and anyone who follows such an important claim without evidence is foolish.

I have seen that map also.  How was it compiled?  When?  By Who?  This is the process of collection and audit trail that I’m talking about.  Without it, I’m going to take sample bags and write location/co-ordinates on them, heh, I can say they came from anywhere I want, oh yeah, cuz LG will believe it.  Hey look LG, I found Mickey Mouse DNA in your kitchen, here’s a drawing to prove it.   Do you have any questions?  No, of course you don’t.  A competent record/audit trail would prevent this possibility (that’s the whole point in them) – is there such a record?  Not to my knowledge, and I’m not taking your big fat ASSUMPTION for it.

Am I really asking for anything unreasonable here, just the basic requirement of investigation, record and evidence?  I agree with your last sentence above – you should not imagine that the passenger DNA came from the Pentagon, you should know.

Liquid Gardens, on 08 March 2013 - 12:19 PM, said:

What seems especially odd to me about your argument here is how starkly it contrasts with the sound and reasonable rebuttal you just gave to BR's latest iteration of 'no plane at Shanksville'.  You've provided him many arguments here that he could use in defense if they were actually valid:  the crash site of 93 (or was it?) provided ample opportunity for passenger 'samples' to be planted, I'm sure there are holes somewhere in the 'chain of custody' where deception can be suggested, etc.  What's the diff?

There is no difference - you only think so because I confirm your bias in one case and deny it in another – but my standard is the same throughout.  I believe there was a plane crash at both the Pentagon and Shanksville – the whole ‘logic’ of faking these crashes is beyond me, even beside the evidence.  I can put absolute closure on the ACARS issue.  I wouldn’t put my house on specific identity of the aircraft in the Shaksville crash, not without a physical cross-check of the debris serial numbers against records, but what sways me hugely are the coroner/witness reports which indicate human tissue recovery at the Flight 93 crash site (which by my logic, out in the middle of nowhere, can reasonably only have come from the aircraft).  I’m not disbelieving of these things where there is sufficient testimony; I don’t believe there are a huge number of liars out there.  And there are other points – the way Flight 93 was flying prior to the crash for example.  This all contrasts with the Pentagon crash where there were many office occupants recovered to complicate the issue along with the pristine approach of Flight 77.

I want conclusive evidence that Flight 77 or its passengers were ever at the Pentagon, that’s it.  Without such, we are left open to potential deception.  Why do you find this demand for evidence so unreasonable?  How dare anyone ask for evidence of the OCT?  What on Earth?

Ah perhaps I’m being unfair though.  This is not an area I’m accounting for in isolation, it rarely is.  I’m demanding this level of evidence in consideration of precedent, the circumstances, motive and most of all, as mentioned, the high stakes of war involved (do you really think about that word “war” and realise the death and suffering caused?).  Oh, well curse me – how dare I expect conclusive evidence to justify a war.

I’ll reiterate from the start of my post – this is not good evidence for a false flag or the OCT other than providing ‘could be’ situations, with that, I know you agree.  And that is not good enough given the consequences.  It really depends what sort of world you want this to be.

[Babe Ruth]

Q24, on 08 March 2013 - 11:45 AM, said:

I’m not sure about those ‘nice’ CIT guys who delete posts and ban from their forum members who disagree with and can discredit their crackpot Pentagon flyover theory.

Is the discussion about people, or about facts?

[Q24]

Babe Ruth, on 08 March 2013 - 01:57 PM, said:

Aircraft do not just vaporize and become invisible, your pictures of the Caspian crash notwithstanding.

So did Caspian Airlines Flight 7908 also not crash, you think?

Babe Ruth, on 08 March 2013 - 01:57 PM, said:

The airborne unit assigned to the aircraft playing 93 that day was still communicating with the ground unit somewhere in Illinois

Then show us the record.  I know you will just refer to the Woodybox article on ACARS where there is actually no such record.  So to avoid wasting our time, please indicate or quote the exact record which you think shows this.  Or is this a case where you swear some mysterious information exists but cannot show us?

In support of this request, if I could just quote the UM policy on sources: -

Quote

Why should I post a source - its up to everyone else to do research and validate what i'm saying
No it isn't, if you are making a claim that requires validation and you are able to provide it then it is generally up to you to do so; you are making the claim and therefore you need to back it up with sources if you want it to be taken seriously. Again while there is no strict enforcement of this if you are looking to convince others that your point is correct but are telling others that they will need to look up the facts themselves or to "do their homework" then you are unlikely to elicit much support.

Can I ask someone to post a source ?
If someone has made a claim and you feel a source can be provided and is warranted then it is acceptable to ask that person to provide one.

I've been asked to provide a source, do I have to ?
If you are putting forward an argument, a source has been requested and it is possible to provide one then while not compulsary it will substantially harm your position and likely render your argument void if you deliberately refuse to provide one. If you are unable to provide a source when one has been requested it is good practice to respond by explaining the reason behind that.

http://www.unexplain...howtopic=191437

Babe Ruth, on 08 March 2013 - 02:06 PM, said:

Is the discussion about people, or about facts?

The quote - "CIT guys who delete posts and ban from their forum members who disagree with and can discredit their crackpot Pentagon flyover theory" - is obviously about both relevant people and facts surrounding the discussion.

[Liquid Gardens]

Babe Ruth, on 08 March 2013 - 02:06 PM, said:

Is the discussion about people, or about facts?

Sez the guy who talks about his own unevidenced psychological analysis of Wally Miller incessantly...

Is there something that you just quoted from Q that is not a fact?  I may accuse him of occasionally 'selling' some of his points, but I don't think I've ever seen him claim something was factual when it was not.

[Babe Ruth]

Q

I have no opinion on the Caspian crash because I have not studied anything about it.  All I know is from the pictures posted here by Sky.  I'm sure it did crash, but know nothing of the dynamics of the accident.

And speaking of pictures posted by Sky, what's your take on the pictures of the 93 debris he has posted here?  Real, or otherwise?

As for Woody's research on the ACARS, I believe him.  He is the same fellow who spent many many hours poring over the records at Boston ATC that day and eventually discovered the trivial bit of information that 2 aircraft using the callsign United 175 called in for clearance that morning.  Doesn't mean much in and of itself, but it does fit in with the idea that deception was involved.

You are absolutely correct that P4T are juvenile in some of their relationships.  But being juvenile, or arrogant, or any number of other sort of interpersonal behavior does not necessarily make a person wrong in their conclusions.

On the ACARS, the work of Warren Stutts was an example of the benefits of rational public dialogue.  After the initial controversy regarding Woody's work, with the input from Stutts, much was learned.  As for me, it caused me to study the system, and in the process I talked to several line pilots still flying for the airlines.  My license is lapsed at this time, but I was a licensed Amateur Radio Operator, HAM, as more commonly known.  When it came out all those years ago, I never paid much attention to ACARS.  I have never used the system because I have never flown for the airlines.

The legitimate criticism of Stutts made me go back and study the system more thoroughly.  And a year after the initial controversy, I now understand what happened.  Even though the humans were not necessarily using the system, the system was still communicating, keeping track of the various mobile units.  Oops, it turns out one unit was in Illinois when it should have been in a hole in Shanksville.

[Q24]

Babe Ruth, on 08 March 2013 - 02:38 PM, said:

I have no opinion on the Caspian crash because I have not studied anything about it.  All I know is from the pictures posted here by Sky.  I'm sure it did crash, but know nothing of the dynamics of the accident.

Perhaps it would be a good idea to research and compare equivalent crash sites to establish their validity?

Babe Ruth, on 08 March 2013 - 02:38 PM, said:

And speaking of pictures posted by Sky, what's your take on the pictures of the 93 debris he has posted here?  Real, or otherwise?

I have no reason to believe pictures of aircraft debris at Shanksville, the Pentagon or WTC are fake.  Furthermore, there are multiple sources and witness statements which corroborate the pictures.

Babe Ruth, on 08 March 2013 - 02:38 PM, said:

Even though the humans were not necessarily using the system, the system was still communicating, keeping track of the various mobile units.  Oops, it turns out one unit was in Illinois when it should have been in a hole in Shanksville.

Last chance – please indicate or quote the record which shows that otherwise consider your argument void.

[Stundie]

Q24, on 08 March 2013 - 11:45 AM, said:

I’m not sure about those ‘nice’ CIT guys who delete posts and ban from their forum members who disagree with and can discredit their crackpot Pentagon flyover theory.

I know a lot of people are not fans of these guys but they were nice enough with me at the loose change forum.

[skyeagle409]

Babe Ruth, on 08 March 2013 - 02:38 PM, said:

Q

I have no opinion on the Caspian crash because I have not studied anything about it.  All I know is from the pictures posted here by Sky.  I'm sure it did crash, but know nothing of the dynamics of the accident.

You will have noticed there is no photo of an intact Tu-154 at the crash site.

Quote

And speaking of pictures posted by Sky, what's your take on the pictures of the 93 debris he has posted here?  Real, or otherwise?

That doesn't work for you, especially when everyone else has confirmed the crash site as that of United 93.

Quote

As for Woody's research on the ACARS,...

Woody Box is s joke.

Quote

I believe him.  He is the same fellow who spent many many hours poring over the records at Boston ATC that day and eventually discovered the trivial bit of information that 2 aircraft using the callsign United 175 called in for clearance that morning.

Now, you know why I have said that Woody Box is a joke. It seems you don't think it would not have been a problem for United Airlines and ATC to overlook two airliners operating at the same airport within minutes of one another or in the same airspace with the same callsign.

Quote

The airborne unit assigned to the aircraft playing 93 that day was still communicating with the ground unit somewhere in Illinois, which makes perfect sense, because everybody and every camera in Shanksville showed there was no wrecked Boeing in that field.

On the contrary, the wreckage near Shanksville was that of United 93 and radar did not track United 93 to any other location nor did ACARS indicate that United 93 landed. The airframe of United 93 has been written off and its registration number was taken off the shelf because it was destroyed in the crash.

I guess you overlooked the response of United Airlines after United 93 had crashed.

Edited by skyeagle409, 08 March 2013 - 05:35 PM.

[Q24]

Stundie, on 08 March 2013 - 04:53 PM, said:

I know a lot of people are not fans of these guys but they were nice enough with me at the loose change forum.

You can’t have laid bare their deceit, that’s when the claws and censorship come out.

Oh but you can’t know they are lying, Q.  Yes, I can, and so can you.  To anyone familiar with the topic, this is apparent from posing to them the question, “how many witnesses are you aware of who claim to have seen a south of citgo flight path?” and the CIT answer, “there are none”.

Whereas in fact, CIT have interviewed numerous witnesses who testify to a south of citgo flight path, it’s on record.  CIT simply will do everything to discredit and conceal them because their whole premise relies on one-sided promotion of only witness statements that support their flyover theory.  It is not surprising these can be found in a large body of notoriously unreliable witness statements.

It is through raising this fact and asking the question above that CIT banned me from their forum.  There are no two ways about this - they know what they are doing.

Where a witness supports north of citgo they are depicted as credible accounts, despite any other contradiction found in the statement.  Where a witness supports south of citgo they are depicted as unreliable, the slightest discrepancy is magnified to disproportionate levels, they are slandered, hounded and provided minimum exposure.

This in my opinion is not ‘nice’ behaviour but actually quite disgusting.

For the record, witnesses who can corroborate the aircraft on the south of citgo (official) flight path outnumber those who report a north of citgo (flyover) flight path by approximately 3:1.  Not that CIT would like us to believe those three times as many exist.

Just something to look out for Stundie, should you head across to Loose Change forum or delve into the subject again.

[Tesla II]

Interesting link... here.

[Babe Ruth]

Q24, on 08 March 2013 - 02:58 PM, said:

Perhaps it would be a good idea to research and compare equivalent crash sites to establish their validity?




I have no reason to believe pictures of aircraft debris at Shanksville, the Pentagon or WTC are fake.  Furthermore, there are multiple sources and witness statements which corroborate the pictures.




Last chance – please indicate or quote the record which shows that otherwise consider your argument void.

www.911woodybox.blogspot.com

Scroll down to the article on 25 October 2012.  He explains it in very much detail.  18 uplinks to 93 after the Shanksville time of crash.

As for the Caspian flight, I'm not going there because in the end it's irrelevant.

If you believe that the pictures of the debris at Shanksville as posted here by Sky and others are genuine and belong to 93, I find it curious that while you demand serial numbers from other airplanes that day, you are apparently content to accept the 93 wreckage as genuine without such serial number checks.  I find that to be a strange position on the matter, all things considered, especially your acknowlegement that the events of the day constituted a FF operation.

Further, your previous statement that the 93 airplane was reduced to smithereens, vaporized, or however you put it, do not square with the existence of those fuselage pieces that you accept as genuine.  That is, how can an airplane that was blown to smithereens by penetrating the earth at very high speeds, still generate whole pieces of fuselage sections, including windows, showing no compression damage at all?  It cannot.  It either penetrated the ground or it did not.  It was either doing 400 knots, or it was not.  No compression damage on those pieces shown in the trial demand that whatever airplane they came from remained fairly intact.  Certainly baggage, landing gear assemblies and engines would fare much better than the fragile fuselage.

Have a good weekend.