Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6
Q24

9/11: The Flight 77 Eyewitnesses

1,812 posts in this topic

Nobody I'm aware of can prove the Official Conspiracy Theory. They can't even prove the airplanes were hijacked by the named critters, and they cannot prove that 77 crashed at the Pentagon.

The official story has already been proven with facts and evidence, and the amazing thing about that is, you know it. :yes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody I'm aware of can prove the Official Conspiracy Theory. They can't even prove the airplanes were hijacked by the named critters, and they cannot prove that 77 crashed at the Pentagon.

Wrong.

Evidence has been presented on behalf of the OCT. Just because you dismiss them as eivdence because they do not support your theories does not make them go away.

In fact, all this time and you have yet been able to provide any evidence that can hold up to scruitny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nor have you been able to prove the official narrative Raptor, and so we are back to the stalemate.

Mere repetition of government statements is proof of nothing.

Amendment after amendment of such records as passenger manifests, so that they will finally comport with the Official Story is ACTUALLY evidence of fraud, somehow or other.

Explosions in the basement before the airplane strike is evidence of SOMETHING, that's for sure. :whistle:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nor have you been able to prove the official narrative Raptor, and so we are back to the stalemate.

No we are not at a stalemate.

Raptor, nor anyone else has any obligation to back up the Accepted Fact of what happened on 9/11.

You however have all the burden to prove that your version of events is what happened, something you have been unable and unwilling to do and have aggressively avoided.

Cz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No we are not at a stalemate.

Raptor, nor anyone else has any obligation to back up the Accepted Fact of what happened on 9/11.

You however have all the burden to prove that your version of events is what happened, something you have been unable and unwilling to do and have aggressively avoided.

Cz

That seems fair. One side has billions of dollars to spend supporting their theory and one man on the internet with no backing cannot prove it wrong.

That has settled it for me then...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody I'm aware of can prove the Official Conspiracy Theory. They can't even prove the airplanes were hijacked by the named critters, and they cannot prove that 77 crashed at the Pentagon.

Well, except for the fact that they did prove all that, I suppose there a shred of something in your comments.

Who do you know who is a part of the actual investigation--you know, all those scientists and engineers who did the astute, professional work??

Oh, snd incidentally, there was no Official Conspiracy Theory advanced by anyone in this case (**).

I know it's impossible to comprehend for you, but these qualified people I referred to put out a report and a detailed engineering analysis on what occurred on 9-11-01.

The only "theory" advanced has been the one advanced by people who have no professional grade knowledge or skill sets concerning the matter, have no professional responsibility to engage in an investigation / analysis, and are somehow still posessed of an elementary distrust of all authority.

That's people like you, B.R., the people who actually do craft Conspiracy theories about these cases.

The Official Investigation didn't craft a theory. They merely explained what happened. I know that's not necessarily acceptible for people who don't have the requisite knowledge level and aren't capable of reading and understanding the reports.

But they did produce the required reports, and they were well understood...by those of us who know about this stuff, and can read and understand the technish.

:st:tu:

(**) That's a simplistic, and erroneous crafting of people like you, who can't understand the real thing.

Edited by MID

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nor have you been able to prove the official narrative Raptor, and so we are back to the stalemate.

Wrong BR. Evidence has already been presented to you hundreds if not thousands of times.

Mere repetition of government statements is proof of nothing.

Was my findings of the Ross and Furlong's paper from a government statement?

Was Wally Miller's statement regarding the twisting of his words by CT's a government statement?

Was my review on Steven Jone's paper about the inconsistancies and lack of aluminum oxide in quantity consistant with a thermitic reaction a government statement?

Amendment after amendment of such records as passenger manifests, so that they will finally comport with the Official Story is ACTUALLY evidence of fraud, somehow or other.

And yet the media has the habit of giving out improper information on initial reports and having to correct itself ALL the time.

Explosions in the basement before the airplane strike is evidence of SOMETHING, that's for sure. :whistle:

We already spoke about that BR. Can you conclusivly prove my analysis of the Ross and Furlong paper incorrect?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That seems fair. One side has billions of dollars to spend supporting their theory and one man on the internet with no backing cannot prove it wrong.

That has settled it for me then...

Except you do not know the posting history of BR.

I will give you a short form.

BR: no plane crashed at the Pentagon

OCT: there's photos of 757 parts all over the place inside and outside the pentagon

BR: it was planted

OCT: by who

BR: i don't know, the government lies all the time spo it makes sense it was planted.

OCT: /facepalm

BR: there was no plane at shanksville

OCT: bodies were found and identified at the crash site, including pieces of UA flight 93

BR: but Coroner Wally Miller said there was no bodies

OCT: taken out of context, there were no bodies but only bits and pieces of body parts

BR: Wally Miller was paid to lie and retract his statement

OCT: /facepalm

BR: i once heard nukes were used to bring down the WTC, how else can anyone explain the intense heat, hot enough to melt paint and tires

OCT: what about nuclear fall out?

BR: it was only something i heard, i dont know

OCT: /facepalm

I can go on and on, but thats the basic jist of it.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That seems fair. One side has billions of dollars to spend supporting their theory and one man on the internet with no backing cannot prove it wrong.

That has settled it for me then...

So you're saying that its ok for someone to make ridiculous claims based on personal incredulity and ignorance, claim that evidence exists to support his position and then flatly refuse to provide any form of evidence and to do everything he can - including lying about his ability to use a computer - to deflect the attention from the fact that he has no evidence to support his position?

I am just one man on the internet, yet I was able to use freely available evidence to prove TO YOU that neither the impact of Flt. 77 into the Pentagon nor the Pentagon itself could be seen or should have been able to have been visible on the video footage from the Doubletree hotel. The only thing I spent was time.

BR says the evidence exists to prove him right, yet does everything he can - including lying about his computer skills - to avoid and deflect his burden of proof.

The bottom line here is that the "official narrative" of 9/11 is the accepted fact of that day, regardless of whether you or anyone else believes it. People who bring up other theories on what may or may not have happened, or who may or may nor be responsible are making a claim against the accepted fact of that day and have the burden to prove their claims. Period. End of story.

This isn't me just making it up. This is how debates work. BR constantly claims to be here for "honest and intelligent debate" then he proceeds to prove to everyone that he's lying about that, too.

Cz

Edited by Czero 101
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Amendment after amendment of such records as passenger manifests, so that they will finally comport with the Official Story is ACTUALLY evidence of fraud,....

You got it wrong again, because hijackers are not considered victims. :no: But, you knew that! :yes:

I guess only in your own mind, these terrorist can be considered innocent victims.

alghamdi.jpg

hijacker3.jpg

hijacker2.jpg

hijacker1.jpg

alshehri.jpg

attaunit.jpg

alshehhiunit.jpg

hanjourunit.jpg

jarrahunit.jpg

Explosions in the basement before the airplane strike is evidence of SOMETHING, that's for sure. :whistle:

But, no one heard any explosions in the basement. Where did you get that false idea?!?!?!

Taking a look at this video, there are no sounds of explosions just before American 11 struck WTC1. which simply means that you are in serious error! :yes: .

[media=]

[/media] Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That seems fair. One side has billions of dollars to spend supporting their theory and one man on the internet with no backing cannot prove it wrong.

That has settled it for me then...

BR, has been caught many times pushing disinformation and misinformation. He claimed to be a pilot. but his many blunders and missteps concerning aircraft maneuvers, FAA regulations, confusing pilot associations, and lack of knowledge on aerodynamics, and aeronautics shows he has no piloting experience whatsoever. :no:

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nor have you been able to prove the official narrative Raptor, and so we are back to the stalemate.

Mere repetition of government statements is proof of nothing.

Amendment after amendment of such records as passenger manifests, so that they will finally comport with the Official Story is ACTUALLY evidence of fraud, somehow or other.

Explosions in the basement before the airplane strike is evidence of SOMETHING, that's for sure. :whistle:

A work of genius...most certainly :-*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BR, has been caught many times pushing disinformation and misinformation. He claimed to be a pilot. but his many blunders and missteps concerning aircraft maneuvers, FAA regulations, confusing pilot associations, and lack of knowledge on aerodynamics, and aeronautics shows he has no piloting experience whatsoever. :no:

Well, Sky, I can't but agree with that!

:tsu::tu::tsu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Duplicate post!

Edited by MID

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[/i]

Well, Sky, I can't but agree with that!

:tsu::tu::tsu:

I think the closest he got to a cockpit of an aircraft was when he boarded an airliner as a passenger through the front entry door..

Edited by skyeagle409
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wrong BR. Evidence has already been presented to you hundreds if not thousands of times.

Was my findings of the Ross and Furlong's paper from a government statement?

Was Wally Miller's statement regarding the twisting of his words by CT's a government statement?

Was my review on Steven Jone's paper about the inconsistancies and lack of aluminum oxide in quantity consistant with a thermitic reaction a government statement?

And yet the media has the habit of giving out improper information on initial reports and having to correct itself ALL the time.

We already spoke about that BR. Can you conclusivly prove my analysis of the Ross and Furlong paper incorrect?

No sir, and as I have ALREADY POSTED HERE (wondering how many times I'm going to have to repeat it?), your point MIGHT BE CORRECT. Then again, it might not. So I cannot prove it wrong, and you cannot prove it right. It is, almost literally, the toss of a coin.

But I must say that you who defends the Official Story as true and accurate, are willing to accept the 911 Commission Report as true and accurate, EXCEPT that you would like to quibble with the times they used.

Seems very much like trying to have it both ways Raptor. :innocent: And I say again sir, it's tough, real tough, having to defend a lie.

Wally Miller twisted his own words sir. I've heard and read BOTH his statements to the media. BOTH his statements. UNDER DURESS from Pentagon honchos, he retracted his first statement. That means he was lying on one occassion. Considering that his underlings concurred in his first statement, and that the statements of OTHER news people, and the videos they took corroborate Wally's first statement, Common Sense tells you that his first statement was true and his second statement was a lie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But I must say that you who defends the Official Story as true and accurate, are willing to accept the 911 Commission Report as true and accurate, EXCEPT that you would like to quibble with the times they used.

Looking at the facts, evidence back the official story whereas, 9/11 conspiracist lack evidence to support their case.

And I say again sir, it's tough, real tough, having to defend a lie.

But, the evidence supports the government's case, and looking back over the years, facts and evidence have been supporting the government, not 9/11 conspiracist, which is why conspiracist claims have been successfully refuted over the years.

Wally Miller twisted his own words sir. I've heard and read BOTH his statements to the media. BOTH his statements. UNDER DURESS from Pentagon honchos, he retracted his first statement.

No he didn't. He accused 9/11 conspiracist twisting his words just as you are now doing. :yes: Remember, you were the person who introduced Wally Miller to us after his remarks. :yes: And now, look what you are posting. Wally Miller's comments were also backed by recovered evidence. :yes:

Let's take another look at his video and understand that it was YOU ,BR, who brought in Wally Miller.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

just a question because ive esearched a lot about 911 but i never came across the list of passangers for any of the fights. im sure its out there as ive ony really watched docs on it.

but... why hasnt anyone took the list of passangers who supposedly died, gone to each one of tbe families, interview and try to verify those people were infact on the plane and are now dead.

has this been done

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

just a question because ive esearched a lot about 911 but i never came across the list of passangers for any of the fights. im sure its out there as ive ony really watched docs on it.

but... why hasnt anyone took the list of passangers who supposedly died, gone to each one of tbe families, interview and try to verify those people were infact on the plane and are now dead.

has this been done

Familes of the passengers have already been contacted and confirmed the loss of their loved ones.

There is a reason why talking about it in CT videos is taboo.

Edited by RaptorBites

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No sir, and as I have ALREADY POSTED HERE (wondering how many times I'm going to have to repeat it?), your point MIGHT BE CORRECT. Then again, it might not. So I cannot prove it wrong, and you cannot prove it right. It is, almost literally, the toss of a coin.

So the Ross and Furlong paper could be incorrect.

Funny, so tell me again how this is considered conclusive evidence in support of the WTC explosives then? You base your evidence on a 50% chance that it is correct? No very bright there.

But I must say that you who defends the Official Story as true and accurate, are willing to accept the 911 Commission Report as true and accurate, EXCEPT that you would like to quibble with the times they used.

I'm just getting down to the details. As I have already said. It does boil down to mere seconds. If you want the truth about whether or not explosions happened in the WTC prior to the planes crashing then it comes down to mere seconds.

It seems like your only argument here is by claiming those of us who follow the Official Narrative are backing up the Commission Report 100%. Thats your argument and direction you chose to discredit someone like myself.

Did i not just state that the FAA confirmation time of when both planes crashed could have a few second discrepancy? How is that following the report 100%?

Seems very much like trying to have it both ways Raptor. :innocent: And I say again sir, it's tough, real tough, having to defend a lie.

Rightly so. How hard is it defending your no plane at the Pentagon position? Which is also clearly a lie.

Wally Miller twisted his own words sir. I've heard and read BOTH his statements to the media. BOTH his statements. UNDER DURESS from Pentagon honchos, he retracted his first statement. That means he was lying on one occassion. Considering that his underlings concurred in his first statement, and that the statements of OTHER news people, and the videos they took corroborate Wally's first statement, Common Sense tells you that his first statement was true and his second statement was a lie.

Prove to me he was put under DURESS from the Pentagon.

Where's your proof??????????

Again Babe, you want to claim all these things without providing proof to your accusations.

Show me proof Wally Miller was put under DURESS by the Pentagon and maybe I will take you seriously from now on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ok more question i have.

how many of the planes black boxes were recovered? i saw that the gov said the ones at the wtc were never recovered, is this true? black boxes dont just dissapear, one guy who was doing volunteer clean up for the first year after 911 claims he was there when they found it? if everything is legit why lie about the black boxes?

why did tower 7 come down like it was demod and a witness from inside the building claims he heard explosions coming from inside the building, im not sure what his name was but he was black ad was interviewed by tv cameras afte he escaped. apparently he also died a week before the official government story came out. do you know who im referring too? and why was super thermite found in the dust?

why do they only have o e crap video of plane hitting pentagon when there was probaby hundereds of cameras?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ok more question i have.

how many of the planes black boxes were recovered? i saw that the gov said the ones at the wtc were never recovered, is this true? black boxes dont just dissapear, one guy who was doing volunteer clean up for the first year after 911 claims he was there when they found it? if everything is legit why lie about the black boxes?

You might want to read from this link.

http://www.911myths....The_Black_Boxes

...why did tower 7 come down like it was demod...

Temperatures from the fires were high enough to weaken steel and afterward, gravity took over.

...and a witness from inside the building claims he heard explosions coming from inside the building,

Mr. Rodriquez has been discredited because he initially said that what he heard were rumbling sounds, not explosions.

...im not sure what his name was but he was black ad was interviewed by tv cameras afte he escaped. apparently he also died a week before the official government story came out.do you know who im referring too?

Yes, and you can read about him here.

...

and why was super thermite found in the dust?

Super thermite was not found in the rubble of the WTC buildings. Check it out in this link.

why do they only have o e crap video of plane hitting pentagon when there was probaby hundereds of cameras?

The Pentagon is not going to reveal everything on the Internet, however, videos are not required to determine what happened. We have videos of American 11 and United 175 striking the WTC buildings and yet, 9/11 conspiracist have distorted facts concerning those videos.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i dont buy that building 7 came down from fire alone. mr rodriguez story may have been a tiny bit inconsistent but that doesnt mean hes lying or discredited. i dont see any reason why he would make it up.

ok black boxes could possibly been destroed but i dont buy it.

i never even see that evidence for the superthermite before, the one i seen was some scientist who tested the dust from 911 in a lab and found traces of superthermite, i think.

also the reasoning for the pentagon crash is absurd. if they have the other crashes on film and all this controversy surrounding 911 surely they just release the tape, the people have a right to eee what happened.

i was hopin your evidence to disprove the conspiracy theory would be a little better. honestly im not impressed or sold by the info you provided.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ok more question i have.

how many of the planes black boxes were recovered? i saw that the gov said the ones at the wtc were never recovered, is this true? black boxes dont just dissapear, one guy who was doing volunteer clean up for the first year after 911 claims he was there when they found it? if everything is legit why lie about the black boxes?

There have been times when the black boxes were never fully recovered. Calling them indestructible is hardly the case.

April 28, 1999

HEADLINE: KAL MD-11 crew complained of control problems: CVR

SOURCE: Air Transport Intelligence

BYLINE: Nicholas Ionides

DATELINE: Singapore

The crew of the Korean Air (KAL) Boeing MD-11 freighter which crashed near Shanghai on 15 April complained to each other of control problems soon after take-off, according to an initial decoding of the aircraft's cockpit voice recorder (CVR)...The CAAC, which is being assisted in its investigation by the NTSB and the Korean Civil Aviation Bureau, says the aircraft's flight data recorder was destroyed by the impact, "and only fragments of the tape have been recovered".

why did tower 7 come down like it was demod

Photographic evidence of the damage building 7 took and the fires raging inside have been downplayed by many CT's.

Does this photo look like a small fire?

WTC7_Smoke.jpg

What does this photo of the damage to WTC show you?

4238.jpg

One of my supervisors at work is a retired fire fighter. Even he stated that the damage to WTC 7 and the smoke plume from the fires showed heavy interior damage was a good indication the structure was ready to come down.

and a witness from inside the building claims he heard explosions coming from inside the building, im not sure what his name was but he was black ad was interviewed by tv cameras afte he escaped.

Willy Rodriguez reported hearing a rumbling sound, and then later changed it to an explosion. Not surprising, since he also released a book and also tried to sue the US Government which failed miserably.

apparently he also died a week before the official government story came out. do you know who im referring too?

Apperantly not.

William Rodriguez 150px-William-rodriguez-american-scholars-symposium.jpg

William Rodriguez at American Scholars Symposium: 9/11 and the NeoCon Agenda in Los Angeles, California, June 24-25, 2006

and why was super thermite found in the dust?

Explain to me what the definition of Super Thermite is.

Also, can you explain to me why the amount of Aluminum Oxide (which is a by product of a thermitic reaction) does not correspond with the thousands of pounds of thermite needed to pre-weaken the WTC structures?

why do they only have o e crap video of plane hitting pentagon when there was probaby hundereds of cameras?

Probably hundreds of cameras? Probably? Where are you getting the figure from?

Have you been to the pentagon? Most of the security is on the interior. Requiring several clearance access levels to proceed. What would be the purpose of having hundreds of cameras on the outside when security is much tighter on the inside?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i dont buy that building 7 came down from fire alone.

You are the one asking questions. Well you have been given an answer and you don't buy it?

Fine, where is your proof that fire and debris damage couldn't have brought it down?

mr rodriguez story may have been a tiny bit inconsistent but that doesnt mean hes lying or discredited.

Tiny bit inconsistant is downplaying it.

How about:

1. claims he was the last to be rescued

2. claims to hear rumbling then later change to hearing explosions

3. claimed to knowing a plane struck from the tower, when he was located in the basement

Besides, based on a particular poster here. "Once a liar always a liar"

i dont see any reason why he would make it up.

He had written a book about his experience and stands by the CT side of the story. His reasoning was profit.

ok black boxes could possibly been destroed but i dont buy it.

So you agree they are not indestructible like you claim, yet don't buy that they can be destroyed?

ok................................

i never even see that evidence for the superthermite before, the one i seen was some scientist who tested the dust from 911 in a lab and found traces of superthermite, i think.

Steven Jones.

Yet he leaves out the amount of aluminum oxide which would indicate a true thermitic reaction.

also the reasoning for the pentagon crash is absurd. if they have the other crashes on film and all this controversy surrounding 911 surely they just release the tape, the people have a right to eee what happened.

thats what the FOIA was all about.

i was hopin your evidence to disprove the conspiracy theory would be a little better. honestly im not impressed or sold by the info you provided.

As I am not impressed with the lack of research you have done other than from websites on Conspiracy Theories.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.