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

#1261    Stundie

Stundie

    Poltergeist

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

Posted 11 March 2013 - 11:28 PM

View PostQ24, on 11 March 2013 - 01:29 PM, said:

Of course it is true.

Please watch from 6:00 to 15:00 in this video as ‘CIT’ conduct an interview with Flight 77 eyewitness Keith Wheelhouse (hopefully I've linked it so the video starts on the 6 minute mark for you): -

http://www.youtube.c...6KAyvOA0#t=6m0s

So Keith is contacted as an eyewitness to the events of 9/11, he gives up his spare time (he doesn’t have to) to give his story, he sits in front of ‘CIT’ and sketches the south of citgo (official) flight path that he witnessed (which you will see if you watch up to 15:00).

Then what do ‘CIT’ do?  Does the interview find its way into the main presentation of eyewitnesses?  Of course not – he’s an official flight path witness - ‘CIT’ set out to discredit and slander Keith based on some minor discrepancies in the account regarding distance and timing which Keith himself stated as ‘guesstimates’ and are notoriously difficult for the human mind and memory to judge.

Look at the abuse ‘CIT’ aimed at Wheelhouse: -
http://z3.invisionfr...p?showtopic=467

They accuse him of being a part of a cover-up, label his statement a charade and call him a liar.

This is not nice behaviour – this is not how we treat people.

It’s the same pattern over and over with any official flight path witness ‘CIT’ encountered.  Not only do ‘CIT’ treat eyewitnesses in this way but also their biased presentation deceives genuine researchers.  Fortunately this is quite apparent to any objective person who has thoroughly researched the eyewitnesses and Pentagon event.

Please click and read each of these very brief slides from the 911research site: -

http://911research.c...on/methods.html
http://911research.c...ntacon/lie.html
http://911research.c...on/enemies.html
http://911research.c...n/contempt.html

Of course ‘CIT’ were nice to you because you don’t challenge their ‘theory’, but no wonder a large part of the truth movement have disassociated themselves from these characters.
Oh I'm sure that is why they were nice to me and the fact that I'm a nice guy of course....;) lol Even if I do blow my own trumpet and let my ego take over so to speak....lol

However, I'm not in the habit of challenging conspiracies theories much especially the ones I know very little about. Like the laser beams theories, I know sod all about laser beams, even if I think they sound absolutely absurd and something like a James Bond villan would use.

You see the problem I see with the truth movement/groups in general is that it is too divided. Its not enough that they all agree that the official story is a lot of crapola. These groups are fighting amongst themselves about which one of their theories is more relevant or closer to the truth than the other groups theory, instead of concentrating on the one thing they all agree on, the crapola. I find it puzzling to be honest and I don't think they realise that they have manage to divide their own groups because they all think that they have to agree with each others pet theories.

That is why I just work with possibilities, I do not claim to know the truth even though I might come across as someone who is convinced of his own conviction, what I wish is that all these groups would concentrate on the one thing they all agree on, which would get closer to answering the truth than all of their pet theories put together, a new investigation.

Cheers

Stundie :)

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

#1262    bee

bee

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,609 posts
  • Joined:24 Jan 2007
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:England

Posted 12 March 2013 - 11:58 AM

View PostQ24, on 11 March 2013 - 01:29 PM, said:

Of course it is true.

Please watch from 6:00 to 15:00 in this video as ‘CIT’ conduct an interview with Flight 77 eyewitness Keith Wheelhouse (hopefully I've linked it so the video starts on the 6 minute mark for you): -

http://www.youtube.c...6KAyvOA0#t=6m0s

http://z3.invisionfr...p?showtopic=467

They accuse him of being a part of a cover-up, label his statement a charade and call him a liar.

This is not nice behaviour – this is not how we treat people.



but....but....you think it was an Inside Job....which by it's very nature would involve major cover-up and lying.....

so why is it so wrong to suggest that supposed eye-witnesses to the Pentagon crash are part of a cover up and lying...?

As you know, my stance is that there is a cover up (about some things that happened)...but it wasn't an Inside Job.


It is absurd that all the eye-witnesses would be lying to cover up High Treason and Mass Murder by their own government...

BUT...they could all be lying to back up the Official Account...and they could all be subject to laws covering National Security.

In other words they could have been lying for the good of their country...in their eyes.




Thanks for the links, by the way...I watched/read them last night...and it was clever of you to get it to start at the relevant bit.

I ended up watching it all though because I find the eye-witnesses business fascinating.


The thing is....there is always the feeling (for me) that the 'eye-witnesses'...are kind of dodgey...

and Keith Wheelhouse is no exception...


I think all the confusion over a second plane is probably contrived to help muddy the waters....

There may have been another plane in the vacinity, at some point....but it probably had nothing to do with the impact on the Pentagon...IMO.

Posted Image


#1263    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,535 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 12 March 2013 - 01:27 PM

My bet is that there was a flyby with a Boeing of some sort.  The best way to generate witnesses on the ground is to fly by low level in a Boeing over a large metropolitan area.  Gets the phones ringing off the hook.

Stundie

Your point is RIGHT ON regarding how so many guys in the 'truth movement' are more concerned with their own pet theories than with what actually happened.  Personalities try to take over, at the expense of the truth.


#1264    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,146 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 12 March 2013 - 05:47 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 12 March 2013 - 01:27 PM, said:

My bet is that there was a flyby with a Boeing of some sort.

Radar and eyewitnesses did not see American 77 fly over the Pentagon.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1265    Liquid Gardens

Liquid Gardens

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,697 posts
  • Joined:23 Jun 2012
  • Gender:Male

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

Posted 13 March 2013 - 01:09 AM

View PostQ24, on 08 March 2013 - 01:58 PM, said:

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.

Well, let's put this to rest then so mentions of the Northwoods document and 'the plan' can cease:  I don't, and to my knowledge have never, doubted the possibility that the US govt would commit the US to war under false pretext.

Quote

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.

What is the evidence that there was a deception with 77?  What is the evidence for this idea?  'Because so far as I can see, the answer is "none".'  Not making 'available' to you the full audit trail of the custody of the remains is not evidence of a deception, especially using your definition of 'evidence' as used in, 'there is zero evidence that 77 hit the Pentagon', a statement you seem to be wisely distancing yourself from.  I don't see how you can't poke these little holes in almost every possible theory.  If we matched up serial numbers, that can be faked, you would apparently demand to know who exactly did this identification or else, something.  I'm going to go out on a limb and assume you don't know how to do DNA testing, have you investigated who specifically performed that testing and what audit trail they have made available to 'confirm' that there was no deception?  I think the bar of 'confirm that there was no deception', is insurmountable using your apparent standards, I invite you again to provide some part of your CT that you have even come close to 'confirming' so that I can repeat back to you your statements here.  You appear to be seizing on anomalies and lack of absolute confirmation on very specific points as if those somehow refute some very basic reasoning:

Things (I think) we accept as facts:
Flight 77 and passengers did not arrive at their destination
The passengers have been confirmed to be dead
An AA 757 crashed into the Pentagon

Possible explanations:
1)  77 crashed into the Pentagon
2)  77 was switched with another 757 which then crashed at the Pentagon, insert how, when and where the passenger remains were provided to DNA testing lab, etc

#2 obviously involves several more steps no matter how specifically you define it, steps that there is absolutely no supporting evidence, even using my definition of evidence.  Nor do I think that landing a plane, moving around 59 plane passengers and killing them, having another plane take off, substituting or planting remains at some point, etc, are steps that lend themselves to being executed covertly. No, that doesn't refute what 'could be', but nothing ever does.  I just saw a picture of some other miscellaneous part from 77 taken on the Pentagon lawn that does have a matching serial number on it, but I think I can hear you already, 'who was this photographer?', 'that photo could have been taken anywhere', etc.  Again, turn this uber-skepticism standard towards your 'evidence' and watch it vanish.

Quote

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 asking you to take my word for anything, I'm asking you to provide your evidence for the idea that there was a plane switch or something and you can't, and thus the position that 77 crashed at the Pentagon remains the best, and clearly most parsimonious explanation.  Serial numbers were checked, I'd guess just not to your satisfaction.  I've read many NTSB plane accident reports and not one provides an audit trail of the custody of the remains.  And the 'points' like, 'the remains first went a military base prior to going to the testing lab', which shows whatever point you think this makes, can be applied to everything, I see no reasonable bounds to where 'deception' can be introduced short of you personally inspecting everything.  I had incorrectly thought you and I agreed in the past that the best explanation is that 77 did crash at the Pentagon but I must be mistaken about that and misread that you just agreed a plane crashed there, as you clearly can't think that 77 is the best explanation since there is zero evidence for it.

Quote

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.

Yes, you've said this before, many times, and I've disputed it every time, but thanks again for coming right out and admitting your bias.  My only concern here regarding 9/11 is what is true, and it is undeniable that what is true or not true does not depend on the actions that people then take based on their belief concerning the truth of that 'what'.  There is no possible evidence that can show conclusively that 77 crashed at the Pentagon given your most likely temporary standards here, there is no limit to possible deception.  I've purposely avoided discussions about 'what justifies a war' and 'what justifies further investigation'  as I think they are fruitless when there is disagreement, these subjects being much more subjective than what we have attempted to discuss and not agreed too much on.  Regardless, unfortunately for you, this position of yours (low truth standard for your CT, high truth standard for OCT) is indistinguishable from the case where your CT is not a better explanation than the OCT and you are thus trying to skew the balance to compensate for that.

Quote

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'm not following an important claim without evidence, you just don't think things like the evidence of bodies of the passengers being found in the wreckage at the Pentagon is actually evidence.  And why you dispute that evidence isn't based on any actual evidence to the contrary, it's based on what 'could be' and involves a counter-proposal involving several, utterly unevidenced steps.

Quote

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.

Ha, then don't 'assume' it, provide your evidence to the contrary!  Tell me why I should necessarily doubt it!  I'm not saying it can't be faked or be deception, but anything can be, so you'll forgive if I'm not terribly convinced by your unfalsifiable position here.  This paragraph alone give me more than abundant ammo to blow the same holes in any piece of 'evidence' you supposedly have for a CT.

Quote

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.

I question whether we can ever actually 'know' anything to your standards, if you require 'audit trails' completed to your levels of detail.  I simply don't know with regards to the custody of the remains for example what 'basic requirement' you demand and that would withstand the 'could be deception' points you are making against the current situation.

Quote

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.  

Ha, so let me see if I've got this right, you and I agree planes crashed at both the Pentagon and Shanksville, but we came to that identical position via two different routes, mine biased and yours, of course, the route of the straight-shooting patriot.

Quote

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?

If you don't require any evidence for a counter-explanation and will settle for what 'could be', then there can never be conclusive evidence to refute that nor any elimination of possible deception, sorry.  There's a difference between 'evidence' and 'what Q deems evidence'.  I don't find your demand for evidence that unreasonable, the more evidence the better; it is the positions you then take when particular evidence cannot be produced that I don't agree with.

Quote

(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.

Do our meditations on the cost of war change the standards by which we accept things to be true?  Again, did the implications of Einstein's theories demand a different standard of truth?  Was it necessary to test his theories many-fold more times before accepting them because, if true, they would result in nuclear weapons?  No no, curse me - how dare I think that the truth of propositions be determined solely by the evidence and reasoning for them and not want to pollute that analysis with emotion and especially politics, neither of which have a good track record of being effective at arriving at rational conclusions.

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

#1266    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,535 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 13 March 2013 - 02:12 PM

LG

How do YOU know that 77 never arrived at its destination?  How do YOU know that 77 ever departed?

FWIW, close examination of records suggest that the gate from which '77' departed is in question.


#1267    Liquid Gardens

Liquid Gardens

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,697 posts
  • Joined:23 Jun 2012
  • Gender:Male

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

Posted 13 March 2013 - 04:10 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 13 March 2013 - 02:12 PM, said:

How do YOU know that 77 never arrived at its destination?  How do YOU know that 77 ever departed?

I don't 'know' it nor do I need to 'know' it to whatever your standard of 'knowledge' is; I think it's easily the most likely explanation.  I've seen how you determine things are 'in question' and I'm usually not convinced by your reasoning, and in the past on other related topics you have just waved off, without evidence, the other implications that must be true if 77 never did depart for instance (faked phone calls, falsification of air traffic control processes, invocation of 'Witness Protection' fantasies, etc).  Whatever disagreements I have with Q about some of his arguments, he's thankfully nowhere near you as far as trying to invalidly and one-sidedly sell unevidenced possibilities as actual evidence for something.

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

#1268    Stundie

Stundie

    Poltergeist

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

Posted 13 March 2013 - 04:41 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 12 March 2013 - 01:27 PM, said:

Stundie

Your point is RIGHT ON regarding how so many guys in the 'truth movement' are more concerned with their own pet theories than with what actually happened.  Personalities try to take over, at the expense of the truth.
I find it puzzling that these people are falling out with each other and denouncing each other as disinfo agents, shill etc etc. They are counter productive to what they are trying to achieve, which is a new investigation.

Don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with discussing different theories and possibilities in regards to 9/11, but it's when it changes from a possibility to a definitive, this is where the problems, divisions and arguments start happening.

I have a pet theory that Dick Cheney knew that AA77 was incoming long before the commission claims and did nothing to warn anyone and watched it hit the pentagon. (Of course, that is if AA77 actually hit the Pentagon at all ;)!) I believe there is a lot of evidence pointing to his involvement and culpability but I do not fall out with people who disagree with me on this, other than with fake debunkers who use no evidence to dispute my findings. I look at it as a possibility, even if I think it is highly possible but I recognise the difference between that and my beliefs. Even if I have a ton of evidence suggesting that Cheney was involved, I know it is still a belief because I was not there, there is no way I can truly know unless Cheney confesses, all I have is evidence pointing towards that possibility.

If I started falling out with those who didn't believe what I believe, then the people who do agree with me that the official story is rubbish are being segregated by my own beliefs, which would disjoint the group. While there is bickering going on about which pet theory is correct, the push for a new investigation is being forgotten about while we duke it out about which one of theories is true, even though neither side truly knows.

Its a shame really! :(

Cheers

Stundie :)

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

#1269    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,146 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 13 March 2013 - 05:24 PM

View PostStundie, on 13 March 2013 - 04:41 PM, said:

I have a pet theory that Dick Cheney knew that AA77 was incoming long before the commission claims and did nothing to warn anyone and watched it hit the pentagon.

Dick Cheney had no idea that American 77 was going to strike the Pentagon on 9/11/2001.

Quote

(Of course, that is if AA77 actually hit the Pentagon at all ;)!)

Which it did. Check out the fleet history of American Airlines before, and after the 911 attacks. After all, there was a prime reason why the airframe of American 77 was written off by American Airlines and why the FAA deregistered the tail number of American 77. There was no way to switch a B-757, and remember, only a certain number of B-757-200s were built and have been accounted for.

One of those I ran into recently who was in the Pentagon when it was struck by American 77, was a former commander of my Wing. I produced a special gift for him at his going-away dinner.

Edited by skyeagle409, 13 March 2013 - 05:30 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1270    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,535 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 13 March 2013 - 08:28 PM

Right you are Stundie!  An old priest and professor I had in college always pointed out that some humans tend to take themselves so very seriously, and that is where we are here.  It is the ego, along with some sort of arrogance I suppose.  Some of the guys at PFT were very much that way.  Certain theories took on the status of dogma, in the eyes of some.

LG

Thanks much for the candor!

Edited by Babe Ruth, 13 March 2013 - 08:28 PM.


#1271    Liquid Gardens

Liquid Gardens

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,697 posts
  • Joined:23 Jun 2012
  • Gender:Male

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

Posted 13 March 2013 - 09:22 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 13 March 2013 - 08:28 PM, said:

LG

Thanks much for the candor!

No problem BR, although you're likely being sarcastic here.  If you have evidence for the idea that planes were switched (not just how it could have been) or whatever I'm happy to give you my thoughts on it, I'm not trying to be totally dismissive of you as I am dismissive of the strategy of pointing out things like this that are purportedly 'in question'.  To be more specific, even if the gate that 77 was at is truly questionable, the idea that 77 crashed at the Pentagon is not wholly or largely dependent on this specific point, so it doesn't do much as far as making a CT a better explanation than the OCT in my mind.

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

#1272    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,535 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 14 March 2013 - 01:29 PM

No sarcasm intended LG.  The candor I commented on was your admitting that you had no personal knowledge of 77, whether it actually departed and from where, or whether it landed at its supposed destination or not.  That's all.  Many folks are simply not that candid. :-*

You are exactly right that what actually happened to 77 is not in the least dependent upon which gate it departed from.  All the gate point proves, assuming it's true, is that deception was involved.  And if the official gate number is different from the actual gate number, it simply follows the pattern of AA11 at Boston, and also suggestive of the gate issue for 93 at Newark.  Similar patterns is my only point, all involving deception.


#1273    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,924 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 14 March 2013 - 01:38 PM

View PostLiquid Gardens, on 13 March 2013 - 01:09 AM, said:

Well, let's put this to rest then so mentions of the Northwoods document and 'the plan' can cease:  I don't, and to my knowledge have never, doubted the possibility that the US govt would commit the US to war under false pretext.

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

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

Please confirm the evidence you would demand or accept you would fall victim to the deception.


View PostLiquid Gardens, on 13 March 2013 - 01:09 AM, said:

What is the evidence that there was a deception with 77?  What is the evidence for this idea?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We can tabulate this information: -

Posted Image

This culmination is evidence for the idea there was a deception with Flight 77.

The above table is only for illustrative purposes to show the thought process of how many people conclude a deception.  It could be split out to provide a much longer and impressive list and there are plenty more direct and background facts that could be added to those mentioned: timing of the event coinciding with the new Neocon government, the final military/guided imitating manoeuvre of Flight 77, the background of Hanjour and the hijackers, etc.  It is seen every time, over and over, that where a distinction can be drawn between expectations of a ‘normal’ attack and expectations of a false flag attack, that the latter is consistently best match.

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


View PostLiquid Gardens, on 13 March 2013 - 01:09 AM, said:

Not making 'available' to you the full audit trail of the custody of the remains is not evidence of a deception, especially using your definition of 'evidence' as used in, 'there is zero evidence that 77 hit the Pentagon', a statement you seem to be wisely distancing yourself from.  I don't see how you can't poke these little holes in almost every possible theory.  If we matched up serial numbers, that can be faked, you would apparently demand to know who exactly did this identification or else, something.  I'm going to go out on a limb and assume you don't know how to do DNA testing, have you investigated who specifically performed that testing and what audit trail they have made available to 'confirm' that there was no deception?  I think the bar of 'confirm that there was no deception', is insurmountable using your apparent standards...

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

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


View PostLiquid Gardens, on 13 March 2013 - 01:09 AM, said:

I just saw a picture of some other miscellaneous part from 77 taken on the Pentagon lawn that does have a matching serial number on it, but I think I can hear you already, 'who was this photographer?', 'that photo could have been taken anywhere', etc.  Again, turn this uber-skepticism standard towards your 'evidence' and watch it vanish.

No, you would be wrong about my reaction.  I think that photograph came out with a batch of others and I’m quite content to accept its authenticity and belonging to the aircraft which impacted the Pentagon.  If you or anyone could confirm the serial number on the piece and that it matched the Flight 77 record, that would be a huge sway to me accepting the aircraft identity – it’s exactly the type of identification needed, good stuff.  But you won’t, because you can’t, because it’s impossible to read the serial number, and because there is no available record of Flight 77 which matches the serial number.  Which makes rubbish of your claim there is, “a matching serial number on it”.  Matching... what?  What record are you matching it to?

Please see here: -
http://www.unexplain...80#entry4269813


View PostLiquid Gardens, on 13 March 2013 - 01:09 AM, said:

Serial numbers were checked, I'd guess just not to your satisfaction.

Evidence please.

The FBI who carried out the ‘investigation’ are not in possession of such record, but you are?


View PostLiquid Gardens, on 13 March 2013 - 01:09 AM, said:

I'm not following an important claim without evidence, you just don't think things like the evidence of bodies of the passengers being found in the wreckage at the Pentagon is actually evidence.

Is that despite the fact that you have just made three important claims in quick succession without evidence??

1) a component serial number matches the Flight 77 record
2) debris serial numbers were checked
3) passengers were found at the Pentagon

Where are you getting this stuff??

Honestly, it’s about as well founded as BR claiming the ACARS record shows the flights still in the air after the crash times.


View PostLiquid Gardens, on 13 March 2013 - 01:09 AM, said:

Yes, you've said this before, many times, and I've disputed it every time, but thanks again for coming right out and admitting your bias.  My only concern here regarding 9/11 is what is true...

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

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

I think it good enough for me to show an alternative theory likely/probable – that should set the alarm bells ringing and put an investigation in full swing.  I think it is necessary that the official theory should be proven (in doing so, refuting the alternative theory) to justify a verdict of guilt and retaliation.


View PostLiquid Gardens, on 13 March 2013 - 01:09 AM, said:

Ha, so let me see if I've got this right, you and I agree planes crashed at both the Pentagon and Shanksville, but we came to that identical position via two different routes, mine biased and yours, of course, the route of the straight-shooting patriot.

I didn’t say that, at all, and I think I’ve addressed the rest of your post with the responses above.

Edited by Q24, 14 March 2013 - 02:01 PM.

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

#1274    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,924 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 14 March 2013 - 01:53 PM

View Postbee, on 12 March 2013 - 11:58 AM, said:

but....but....you think it was an Inside Job....which by it's very nature would involve major cover-up and lying.....

so why is it so wrong to suggest that supposed eye-witnesses to the Pentagon crash are part of a cover up and lying...?

There is a difference between selectively accusing Joe Public of lying because that would better fit your pre-formed theory, and accusing the likes of Dick Cheney and the intelligence agencies who have an established precedent for deception on record and visibly had a hand in events on 9/11.  I think it's a little sick to point the finger at the likes of Keith Wheelhouse under the circumstances.  The likes of Dick Cheney reap what they sow – I’ve no sympathy there at all.


View PostStundie, on 13 March 2013 - 04:41 PM, said:

I find it puzzling that these people are falling out with each other and denouncing each other as disinfo agents, shill etc etc. They are counter productive to what they are trying to achieve, which is a new investigation.

Yes it is counter-productive when some people are pushing easily refuted rubbish (ACARS, ‘no-plane’, etc) and presenting it in court and/or on tv where it’s immediately thrown out and rejected thus discrediting the whole truth movement.  Former Bush administration employee Morgan Reynolds got on tv talking about holograms and space lasers – Jesus, a clearer attempt to discredit the truth movement cannot be seen.  It ripped the scholars for 9/11 truth group apart – brilliant, but ultimately too indiscreet.  P4T and CIT, intentionally or not, are proving to be more enduring in their disinformation campaign which exists for whatever reason.  I don’t expect people unfamiliar with details of the evidence to see this at a glance, but I and many others do.

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

#1275    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,535 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 14 March 2013 - 02:18 PM

Q

A very well reasoned response to LG.

As I'm sure we both agree, what snide remarks I make about you, or what snide remarks you make about me have absolutely nothing to do with "the truth", for lack of a better word, about what happened that day.

Commenting on your point about the piece of debris in the yard at the Pentagon, we're in a similar position regarding the piece of debris shown at Shanksville.  That is, neither is consistent with the story told.

The painted piece in the yard at the Pentagon requires one to believe that an airplane doing something over 350knots, that quickly penetrated through several concrete walls of the building and leaving an 'exit' mark/hole, would eject backwards one small piece of its fuselage.  Not several parts, not parts of the tail section, but one fairly small part, backwards.  That part had to overcome its 350knot speed, and fly backwards however many feet was required.  That's nonsense.

I understand in general terms "chaos" theory, but even that does not explain such a selective ejection of debris opposite the direction of travel.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users