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
Pulsar_J

911

994 posts in this topic

Fancy seeing you here, Q.... one would have thought you were too busy having your hind quarters handed to you by LG in the other thread to bother diving into another one...

Well... if that constitutes not addressing real points on the Talking Turkey thread in favour of making minor speculative arguments elsewhere – grasping at straws that unequal standards applied to authors somehow presents a fair discussion, and that 9/11 discussion in the mainstream has no political strings attached... then one would have thought so. Though apparently I’m here rather than busy there right now, so I guess you were mistaken.

Objection Overruled.

Objection upheld - on record evidence should not be misrepresented/downplayed simply as ‘CT claims’ when it is actually sourced from eyewitnesses, reporters and firefighters.

Any advances on your falling elevator theory, which is clearly not a comprehensive or even partly good match to the reports and evidence of explosions?

Perhaps, they were falling elevator cars packed with shaped charges?

Oh look, here’s one now from WTC7: -

[media=]

[/media]

Elevator car my ***.

wtc7goalgc5.gif

The claim that fire caused this complete collapse (not to mention sudden, symmetrical and freefall) is absurd – it’s not even possible – any research of indeterminate structures and all known precedent will tell you why. People who think it is reasonable clearly do not understand the construction of the building nor office fires. And after the building owner had that very morning been seeking authorisation for the demolition of WTC7... a plan that many on scene knew was taking place and even media reporters picked up on (though you will find no investigation of this evidence or questioning of these individuals in official reports, not a shred – investigation, pfft - how can anyone defend that?)... then woah, fire beat them to it, surrre.

If I were an official story adherent I wouldn't even try to argue this one. I'd say ok, it was a demolition performed for safety reasons and it's been covered up as some sort of agreed insurance scam - to make the claim as part of the terrorist attack. Though I guess that opens up a whole can of worms when we look further into the detail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well... if that constitutes not addressing real points on the Talking Turkey thread in favour of making minor speculative arguments elsewhere – grasping at straws that unequal standards applied to authors somehow presents a fair discussion, and that 9/11 discussion in the mainstream has no political strings attached... then one would have thought so. Though apparently I’m here rather than busy there right now, so I guess you were mistaken.

Which 'real' points am I not addressing again Q? I've seen what you mean by 'real points', it consistently means 'circumstantial' at best, and when pressed on a topic, we get to 'well it could be, it'd be naive to think it's not a possibility'. Or maybe on whatever real point you were just being over-certain and what you say can't actually be taken as having evidence behind it. That's a lot of irrelevant and illogical muck for me to wade through and unpack to get to the non-embellished facts behind your 'real points', if they exist at all. Ya see, I'm skeptical, including of myself; your mileage may vary. And from a skeptical standpoint, only having circumstantial evidence for your conclusions is strike one and two. And is that what 'journals proven to be biased due to political sensitivity' has now been transformed to, the strawman of, 'the 9/11 discussion in the mainstream has no political strings attached'? I understand you needing to back away from your original bs there, I wish I could say that I could 'trust you to retract it' instead of hand-waving.

But agreed, our argument about our argument is boring. On point, what is your proof that the explosions are actually from explosives and not things falling? How have you determined they are not from myriad things that will explode when exposed to fire? What does the analysis of truthers' show should have happened to the millions of square feet of air when the building collapsed, if you disagree that that is what the 'squibs' visible actually are?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And after the building owner had that very morning been seeking authorisation for the demolition of WTC7... a plan that many on scene knew was taking place and even media reporters picked up on (though you will find no investigation of this evidence or questioning of these individuals in official reports, not a shred – investigation, pfft - how can anyone defend that?)... then woah, fire beat them to it, surrre.

And your evidence that the building owner was seeking authorization to demolish 7 that morning is? The evidence that he is not referring to having to demolish 7 if it remains standing after the fire and damage sometime in the future is? And in the unlikelihood that you are correct, the reason the building owner is so stupid to allow us even to know about this conversation is? Is there a problem with confronting your speculation with opposing speculation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which 'real' points am I not addressing again Q?

The real points on the Talking Turkey thread which were addressed to you in post #543 along with the additional information I have provided since. Though you seem to have time to argue a minor point that an author granted 2-3 times the word count of another in discussion is somehow fair.

I've seen what you mean by 'real points', it consistently means 'circumstantial' at best, and when pressed on a topic, we get to 'well it could be, it'd be naive to think it's not a possibility'. Or maybe on whatever real point you were just being over-certain and what you say can't actually be taken as having evidence behind it. That's a lot of irrelevant and illogical muck for me to wade through and unpack to get to the non-embellished facts behind your 'real points', if they exist at all. Ya see, I'm skeptical, including of myself; your mileage may vary. And from a skeptical standpoint, only having circumstantial evidence for your conclusions is strike one and two.

Apparently you underestimate circumstantial evidence: -

"A popular misconception is that circumstantial evidence is less valid or less important than direct evidence. This is only partly true: direct evidence is popularly, but mistakenly, considered more powerful. Many successful criminal prosecutions rely largely or entirely on circumstantial evidence, and civil charges are frequently based on circumstantial or indirect evidence. Much of the evidence against convicted American bomber
was circumstantial, for example. Speaking about McVeigh's trial,
law professor Robert Precht said, "Circumstantial evidence can be, and often is much more powerful than direct evidence".
"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumstantial_evidence#Validity_of_circumstantial_evidence

Not only can circumstantial evidence be powerful, but surrounding 9/11 it forms a case of corroborating evidence which is more convincing still. Then we see there are numerous occurrences of corroborating evidence for a false flag attack in every area of 9/11 – this should not be the case given a ‘natural’ terrorist attack. There comes the point where you cannot keep breaking it down into single isolated points requiring a multitude of disparate explanations and 'coincidences' to write it off in each instance, where the single answer of a false flag operation covers all occurrence in one fell swoop.

In addition, if you want the non-embellished facts/sources you only need ask. I used to be good with supplying links for every piece of evidence but admit to getting sloppy lately since a lot of the points are second nature to me.

By the way, what sort of evidence do you think bin Laden’s responsibility for the attack is based on? That is circumstantial too – he had a dislike of American policy and associated with the hijackers - but I don’t see you opposing it any, thus another reason I’m beginning to think you have rather pseudo-skeptical tendancies. Come on, show me the direct evidence that bin Laden picked a flight, selected a target, gave an order or provided any of the funding. Then again, don’t waste your time trying.

And is that what 'journals proven to be biased due to political sensitivity' has now been transformed to, the strawman of, 'the 9/11 discussion in the mainstream has no political strings attached'? I understand you needing to back away from your original bs there, I wish I could say that I could 'trust you to retract it' instead of hand-waving.

No I don’t back away from it at all. To me the bias and political sensitivity that abounds in mainstream journals is as apparent as Rupert Murdoch’s pro-war coverage. I’m sorry that you don’t appear to apply the same standards to each.

On point, what is your proof that the explosions are actually from explosives and not things falling? How have you determined they are not from myriad things that will explode when exposed to fire? What does the analysis of truthers' show should have happened to the millions of square feet of air when the building collapsed, if you disagree that that is what the 'squibs' visible actually are?

As I’ve said – the explosions were reported in areas outside the impact and fire zone and considerable time after the initial impacts. In addition I respect the uninfluenced reactions of trained firefighters in a fire situation. I also trust my own ears – when I hear an explosion that sounds like a demolition charge (as in the video of my previous post), I’m not going to clutch at straws to claim it’s a bottle of exploding cleaning chemicals or some such stretch. I neither find falling elevator cars a good explanation as described in my previous posts. I also have knowledge of the far wider body of corroborating evidence which fits the conclusion the explosions witnessed were a part of the demolition.

Regarding the ‘squibs’, I would expect demolition charges to be expelled at isolated locations generally at the centre face of the building, which is what we see. I would expect millions of feet of compressed air to be expelled at dispersed locations across the whole building facade, which is also what we see with the debris clouds at the collapse front. I believe the two different types of ejections are both visible and the result of different cause.

I would also be interested to hear your opinion on cause of the molten metal flow from WTC2 which initiated shortly prior to the collapse. I don’t see it could possibly be anymore fitting of a thermite reaction used to bring the building down (every expected observable is present, from the appearance to the timing) and I have found all alternative explanations to fall short to some degree – I’ll explain why if you present any. I’ve raised this before but you declined to answer, so second time lucky.

And your evidence that the building owner was seeking authorization to demolish 7 that morning is? The evidence that he is not referring to having to demolish 7 if it remains standing after the fire and damage sometime in the future is? And in the unlikelihood that you are correct, the reason the building owner is so stupid to allow us even to know about this conversation is? Is there a problem with confronting your speculation with opposing speculation?

I said that the building owner had been seeking authorisation to demolish WTC7 that morning and that many on scene knew this – that is not speculation, it is reported fact. You complained that you don’t like my embellishment, so I’ll leave you to decide if you think your speculation, that Silverstein was seeking authorisation for demolition at a later date, to be reasonable. I’ll also leave you to your speculation at how the journalist and many on scene came to find this information and why it was not reported for a decade or covered in the official investigation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently, you didn't review the video I posted before, so here it is again, and notice the squibs and take note that no explosives are used. Remember, as the buildings collapse, all of that air is going to be forced out. Check it out and notice the squibs and remember no explosives are used.

Let's take a look.

[media=]

No sound of explosions anywhere within that video. :no:

The demolition expert whose monitors I spoke of, denied that his monitors detected explosions. In addition to Protec, how about these companies;

They would not have had to look very hard because they would have had trouble avoiding thousands of feet of detonation wires if explosives were used.

building-implosion-19.jpg

building-implosion-20.jpg

Upon examination of the steel at the Fresh Kills landfill, no evidence of explosives nor thermite cutting on steel from the WTC buildings were found and remember, thermite is not a high energy explosive nor widely used by demolition companies.

Here is what bombed buildings look like when not pre-weaken.

WTC_1993_ATF_Commons.jpg

1993 WTC1 Bombing

As you can see, WTC1 remained standing.

orig.jpg

bombedbuilding.jpg

Aftermathpic1.jpg

Iraq_041.jpg

a-300x206.jpg

Temperatures from the fires were high enough to weaken steel, not melt steel.

They were mistaken because seismic monitors did not detect explosions, nor are explosions seen on video, and once again, demolition experts and recovery crews did not find evidence of explosives in the rubble of the WTC buildings.

There were no explosive devices planted either and remember, no one found evidence of explosives in the rubble of the WTC buildings.

I would like your opinion about Barry Jennings, and not did he actually hear explosions or feel them...but the dead bodies he walked over while leaving the building, where FF's had to rescue him because of an 'explosion' or whatever you want to call it.......the OFFICIAL story says NO loss of life in WTC 7.........I'm not asking for any leap to this is proof of conspiracy...just why the lies?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like your opinion about Barry Jennings, and not did he actually hear explosions or feel them...but the dead bodies he walked over while leaving the building, where FF's had to rescue him because of an 'explosion' or whatever you want to call it.......the OFFICIAL story says NO loss of life in WTC 7.........I'm not asking for any leap to this is proof of conspiracy...just why the lies?

He definitely didn't hear bomb explosions because the sound of bombs would have been heard all over Manhattan. There are many sounds he could have perceived as explosions just as people in Hawaii during a wind storm confused the sound of buildings as they broke apart as explosions.

In case you missed this video before, compare the sound of explosions with the sound of the collapse of WTC7.

Now, WTC7.

[media=]

You didn't hear explosions as WTC7 collapsed, unlike the sound of explosions heard during building demolitions in the first video. It takes many months to prepare a building for demolition and the structure must be re-weaken otherwise there may be problems.

In regards to no loss of lives in WTC7, perhaps this message will provide an answer.

Clearing a Collapse Zone around WTC7

1 - Although prior to that day high-rise structures had never collapsed, The collapse of WTC 1 & 2 showed that certain high-rise structures subjected to damage from impact and from fire will collapse.

2. The collapse of WTC 1 damaged portions of the lower floors of WTC 7.

3. WTC 7, we knew, was built on a small number of large columns providing an open Atrium on the lower levels.

4. numerous fires on many floors of WTC 7 burned without sufficient water supply to attack them.

For these reasons I made the decision (without consulting the owner, the mayor or anyone else - as ranking fire officer, that decision was my responsibility) to clear a collapse zone surrounding the building and to stop all activity within that zone. Approximately three hours after that order was given, WTC 7 collapsed.

Conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of them are without merit.

Regards, Dan Nigro

Chief of Department FDNY (retired)

http://911guide.googlepages.com/danielnigro

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He definitely didn't hear bomb explosions because the sound of bombs would have been heard all over Manhattan. There are many sounds he could have perceived as explosions just as people in Hawaii during a wind storm confused the sound of buildings as they broke apart as explosions.

In case you missed this video before, compare the sound of explosions with the sound of the collapse of WTC7.

Now, WTC7.

[media=]

You didn't hear explosions as WTC7 collapsed, unlike the sound of explosions heard during building demolitions in the first video. It takes many months to prepare a building for demolition and the structure must be re-weaken otherwise there may be problems.

In regards to no loss of lives in WTC7, perhaps this message will provide an answer.

My question was, why the lies? Jennings saw dead bodies. Official story says no one died in there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any advances on your falling elevator theory, which is clearly not a comprehensive or even partly good match to the reports and evidence of explosions?

But, there were no sound of bomb explosions.

Perhaps, they were falling elevator cars packed with shaped charges?

That doesn't make any sense at all. Why would they plant explosives in elevators?

Oh look, here’s one now from WTC7: -

I still didn't hear the sound of bomb explosions as WTC7 collapsed. :no: Now, let's listen to the sound of real explosions.

As you plainly heard, explosions were clearly evident in the video, which is not what you heard when WTC7 collapsed. :no:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My question was, why the lies? Jennings saw dead bodies. Official story says no one died in there.

Looking at his interview.

"Upon arriving into the OAM POC, we noticed that everybody was gone... only me and Mr. Hess were up there. After I called several individuals, one individual told me to leave and leave right away. Mr. Hess came running back in and said, "We're the only ones up here, we gotta get out of here."

Considering the area around WTC7 was cleared long before the collapse of WTC7, there should have been no one in WTC7 when it collapsed.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I said that the building owner had been seeking authorisation to demolish WTC7 that morning and that many on scene knew this – that is not speculation, it is reported fact. You complained that you don’t like my embellishment, so I’ll leave you to decide if you think your speculation, that Silverstein was seeking authorisation for demolition at a later date, to be reasonable. I’ll also leave you to your speculation at how the journalist and many on scene came to find this information and why it was not reported for a decade or covered in the official investigation.

Larry Silverstein did not make a decision to demolish WTC7.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How rude and derogatory would you be to a say...FBI agent with extensive knowledge and understanding of evidence who tells you there are many many problems, inconsistencies, omissions and cover ups with the official 'story? Do you think they are all wacky conspiracy nuts too?

One's life experiences don't mean anything 'round here, ESPECIALLY if it does not comport with the OCT and government press releases.

FBI agents who peddle the official line are heros and scholars, but if one goes against the grain, he is a villain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One's life experiences don't mean anything 'round here, ESPECIALLY if it does not comport with the OCT and government press releases.

FBI agents who peddle the official line are heros and scholars, but if one goes against the grain, he is a villain.

And yet, not one shred of evidence has ever surfaced after more than 11 years that implicates the United States government in the 9/11 attacks. :no:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And yet, not one shred of evidence has ever surfaced after more than 11 years that implicates the United States government in the 9/11 attacks. :no:

how naive are you???!! People will DIE if they come forward! are you kidding me?!!

There are some REALLY good human beings who also happen to be govt agents that KNOW the truth, and have proof. But they have pretty much no support because of naive folks like you! IF there was MORE outrage and more support I think they could come forward much more safely. They will DIE if they do so now.......this makes me so angry I cannot even see straight!

You have NO clue,zero, none.......this isn't about the govt.....but about rogue powerful wealthy individuals within the govt that abuse and manipulate everything and everyone to further their ideologies.

Please tell me you understand why those in the know can't speak? many knowing far less have already gone to their grave!

sheeple......sheep...following their' leaders' to the slaughterhouse. .............

there's much more evidence than you could ever handle!

I kinda don't blame you for just buying the official line and not really looking at it all and accepting how effed up the crime was........

I am somewhat envious of anyone still so innocent and naive. ...some of us don't have the luxury of such naivete.Life is crueler to some than others and some of us had our eyes opened long before 9/11.

I promise you one thing, 9/11 was NOT a surprise to many many people. Many of the people whose duty was to protect and defend you and me and our entire country? they knew.......and it makes me want to vomit. The 3,000 people murdered in cold blood at least deserve the dignity of we the American people demanding a legitimate investigation. It hasn't happened yet, even many on the 9/11 Commission KNOW this and it troubles them also. Some resigned because of the belligerance and obstructive stance the WH took.

But guess what, because so many sheeple just believe every bunch of nonsense told them......there really is no incentive for anyone to trouble themselves with the fallout of a REAL investigation!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hmm

sheeple......sheep...following their' leaders' to the slaughterhouse. .............

* everything else snipped for brevity *

How disappointing... I had hoped that there was a chance for rational conversation here, but I see now that is not the case and that you have chosen your handle very wisely...

Have a good day...

Cz

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hmm

How disappointing... I had hoped that there was a chance for rational conversation here, but I see now that is not the case and that you have chosen your handle very wisely...

Have a good day...

Cz

the only thing I find irrational is how many people don't think a legitimate investigation of 9/11 is warranted!

I think the 3,000 murdered individuals deserve that, there family deserves that...WE deserve that. We have not had that.

you could never understand the reasons for my outrage and heartbreak over the events of 9/11..........

Have a good day yourself.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

how naive are you???!!

Not very. For example, I'm not naive enough to just take your word for it.

People will DIE if they come forward! are you kidding me?!!

There are some REALLY good human beings who also happen to be govt agents that KNOW the truth, and have proof.

How exactly do you know this? Are you one of these people who are in the know? A relative or friend of yours perhaps?

But they have pretty much no support because of naive folks like you! IF there was MORE outrage and more support I think they could come forward much more safely.

What does outrage have to do with it? If there are people who have the evidence you claim that they have, shouldn't it be the evidence which generates outrage and not the other way around?

They will DIE if they do so now.......

Who is this "They" that you are referring to exactly? Do you actually know anyone who has this information that you're talking about?

this makes me so angry I cannot even see straight!

Yes, your anger is apparent. If it helps any, I'm not exactly happy with what happened on that day either. I don't think many are.

You have NO clue,zero, none.......this isn't about the govt.....but about rogue powerful wealthy individuals within the govt that abuse and manipulate everything and everyone to further their ideologies.

Who are these powerful wealthy individuals exactly and what is your proof that they are who you say they are?

Please tell me you understand why those in the know can't speak? many knowing far less have already gone to their grave!

Actually, this doesn't make any sense at all. If someone truly had this kind of information and evidence to back it up, they would be safe from retribution if they simply disseminated it anonymously to news agencies and online. Who exactly has gone to their graves already anyway? I don't suppose the answer will consist of a YouTube video will it?

sheeple......sheep...following their' leaders' to the slaughterhouse. .............

Oh dear Oh dear. Really?

there's much more evidence than you could ever handle!

If there is so much evidence as you claim, why haven't you provided any at all?

I kinda don't blame you for just buying the official line and not really looking at it all and accepting how effed up the crime was........

I am somewhat envious of anyone still so innocent and naive. ...some of us don't have the luxury of such naivete.Life is crueler to some than others and some of us had our eyes opened long before 9/11.

I promise you one thing, 9/11 was NOT a surprise to many many people. Many of the people whose duty was to protect and defend you and me and our entire country? they knew.......and it makes me want to vomit. The 3,000 people murdered in cold blood at least deserve the dignity of we the American people demanding a legitimate investigation. It hasn't happened yet, even many on the 9/11 Commission KNOW this and it troubles them also. Some resigned because of the belligerance and obstructive stance the WH took.

But guess what, because so many sheeple just believe every bunch of nonsense told them......there really is no incentive for anyone to trouble themselves with the fallout of a REAL investigation!

So how many people need to believe this stuff on faith before people with verifiable evidence come forward? Please take your time and provide a well reasoned answer. I'd like to know. A million? Two? More of a percentage perhaps? 30%? 50%? 75%? At which point will these insiders feel safe enough to shed some verifiable light on the situation?

How many sheeple does it take to screw in a light bulb?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the only thing I find irrational is how many people don't think a legitimate investigation of 9/11 is warranted!

I think the 3,000 murdered individuals deserve that, there family deserves that...WE deserve that. We have not had that.

you could never understand the reasons for my outrage and heartbreak over the events of 9/11..........

Have a good day yourself.......

Right now, the evidence supports the official story and If you don't trust the government, then talk to the folks at American Airlines, United Airlines, Rolls Royce, Boeing, Air Line Pilots Association, Allied Pilots Association, American Institute of Architects, American Society of Civil Engineers, demolition experts at Protect and other demolition companies, and let them tell you why the 9/11 conspiracist are not on the right track.

http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not very. For example, I'm not naive enough to just take your word for it.

How exactly do you know this? Are you one of these people who are in the know? A relative or friend of yours perhaps?

What does outrage have to do with it? If there are people who have the evidence you claim that they have, shouldn't it be the evidence which generates outrage and not the other way around?

Who is this "They" that you are referring to exactly? Do you actually know anyone who has this information that you're talking about?

Yes, your anger is apparent. If it helps any, I'm not exactly happy with what happened on that day either. I don't think many are.

Who are these powerful wealthy individuals exactly and what is your proof that they are who you say they are?

Actually, this doesn't make any sense at all. If someone truly had this kind of information and evidence to back it up, they would be safe from retribution if they simply disseminated it anonymously to news agencies and online. Who exactly has gone to their graves already anyway? I don't suppose the answer will consist of a YouTube video will it?

Oh dear Oh dear. Really?

If there is so much evidence as you claim, why haven't you provided any at all?

So how many people need to believe this stuff on faith before people with verifiable evidence come forward? Please take your time and provide a well reasoned answer. I'd like to know. A million? Two? More of a percentage perhaps? 30%? 50%? 75%? At which point will these insiders feel safe enough to shed some verifiable light on the situation?

How many sheeple does it take to screw in a light bulb?

you don't need to believe anything on faith.....................you don't need to believe anything other the official story.

life is complicated and cruel. Nothing is black and white.

the level of frustration is so high. the betrayal. the deceit. the audacity. the corruption.....it makes a person a little crazy, I can tell you that.

it's not a joke you know......3,000 people murdered. brutally, coldly murdered. I think people forget that part.

this isn't about me being 'right' or you being right or winning a debate.it's about demanding accountability and not settling for the official story when you know it;s bs

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right now, the evidence supports the official story and If you don't trust the government, then talk to the folks at American Airlines, United Airlines, Rolls Royce, Boeing, Air Line Pilots Association, Allied Pilots Association, American Institute of Architects, American Society of Civil Engineers, demolition experts at Protect and other demolition companies, and let them tell you why the 9/11 conspiracist are not on the right track.

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

there are many 9/11 conspiracists not on the right track....no argument there!

that does not mean the official story is accurate and it does not mean we have had a legitimate investigation.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you don't need to believe anything on faith.....................

And yet that is exactly what you are asking us to do when you make these outrageous claims with absolutely nothing substantial to back them up.

you don't need to believe anything other the official story.

I believe what the evidence tells me. So far the evidence supports the established historically documented version of events. If you have evidence which proves this version wrong, shame on you for withholding it from the rest of the world. If you don't, shame on you for lying about it.

life is complicated and cruel. Nothing is black and white.

Some things are black and white, but I agree that life is both complicated and cruel. The events of that day were horrible. We're all outraged by it. You aren't alone in that.

the level of frustration is so high. the betrayal. the deceit. the audacity. the corruption.....

Again, your frustration is apparent. As for betrayal, deceit, audacity, and corruption... evidence please?

it makes a person a little crazy, I can tell you that.

We can all see that.

it's not a joke you know......3,000 people murdered. brutally, coldly murdered. I think people forget that part.

You are under the impression that I think this is a joke? You are under the impression that I or anyone else have actually forgotten about that day?

The only joke here is that some people make claims that they cannot back up. The only joke here is that there is absolutely nothing in support of the conspiracy which you've wrapped your anger around. In that sense, the joke is on you. Unless, of course, you ever bother to bring some evidence to the table. Considering that you've brought absolutely nothing that even remotely resembles evidence after multiple requests, I doubt seriously if you're going to surprise us with something now.

this isn't about me being 'right' or you being right or winning a debate.it's about demanding accountability and not settling for the official story when you know it;s bs

.

Then produce some evidence in support of what you claim. Until you do so, you're just going to look like a stark raving mad lunatic. Sorry, but that's the Truth.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you don't need to believe anything on faith.....................you don't need to believe anything other the official story.

life is complicated and cruel. Nothing is black and white.

the level of frustration is so high. the betrayal. the deceit. the audacity. the corruption.....it makes a person a little crazy, I can tell you that.

it's not a joke you know......3,000 people murdered. brutally, coldly murdered. I think people forget that part.

this isn't about me being 'right' or you being right or winning a debate.it's about demanding accountability and not settling for the official story when you know it;s bs

.

Now, it's actually about you, and the few like you here...proving your case:

...That the "official story" is B.S.

That would, for once, be a good start...as we haven't actually had a single person do so, not in the least!

It might be a wee bit interesting to see one person start!

:yes:

Edited by MID
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there are many 9/11 conspiracists not on the right track....no argument there!

that does not mean the official story is accurate and it does not mean we have had a legitimate investigation.

There are many ways to gather information other than from government sources. In the aviation world there are tons and tons of documentation that will shed light on facts surrounding the 9/11 attacks. Furthermore, radar data and ATC communication tapes are available as well.

Intelligence missteps and blunders are nothing new and have been going on for decades. Remember, J. Edgar Hoover dismissed reports about Japanese aerial training from a double agent prior to the Pearl Harbor attack and on December 7, 1941, the attack on Pearl Harbor became history, but Pearl Harbor was not to only base that was attacked. We had other bases in the Pacific as well and we were prepared in the Philippines because warnings were sent to our troops there, but we still took a serious hit at Clark despite the warning of an impending Japanese attack.

9/11 conspiracist like to make comparisons between Pearl Harbor and the 9/11 attacks because they say there was no warning, but they are not aware of the rest of the story. General Short reposition aircraft at Hickam airfield, Hawaii due to possible sabotage prior to the Japanese attack, which was a major blunder on his part as was the case with J. Edgar Hoover.

Clark Air Base: The Pearl of the Philippines

clark12082011.jpg?w=220&h=191

When word reached Clark of the attacks at Pearl Harbor, many of the planes had been sent aloft. When the attacks didn’t come, the planes were brought back and parked so they could be refueled and the crews could eat.

And it was then that the Japanese arrived, and proceeded to demolish the place. Like Hawaii, war had come to the islands of the Philippines.

http://todayshistory...he-philippines/

.

Just a series of blunders that had nothing to do with government conspiracies.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who is this "They" that you are referring to exactly? Do you actually know anyone who has this information that you're talking about?

I don’t normally give much notice to claims that individuals with damaging information on 9/11 risk their lives in coming forward. I think those with snippets of information that challenge the official story more rather risk their jobs than lives. But this case of alleged suicide did make me take notice: -

http://www.prisonpla..._connection.htm

I’m sorry about the source, it’s not usually one I’d go for but it gives outline of the story and, if you look into it, you will see that the evidence is credible; coming from the victim herself and Wayne Madsen, a former Navy and NSA employee. Basically it appears that Madam Palfrey was set to expose members of the government for untoward activity along with a connection to information that existed prior to the 9/11 event. She stated herself that she was, “not planning to commit suicide”... before then, prior to her trial, where she vowed, “"I plan on exposing the government in ways that I do not think they want me to expose them", allegedly committing suicide... hmm.

I do think some individuals would go so far to prevent damaging information coming out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't buy the official explanations. I've always thought remote control might have been a possibility. It would take the involvement of very few people. .. as would the planning.

here is a link that speaks to the possibility: http://www.public-action.com/911/noradsend.html

. . ."Controlling the aircraft from the ground is nothing new. The military has been flying obsolete high performance fighter aircraft as target drones since the 1950s. In fact, NORAD (the North American Air Defense Command) had at its disposal a number of U.S. Air Force General Dynamics F-106 Delta Dart fighter aircraft configured to be remotely flown into combat as early as 1959 under the auspices of a program known as SAGE. These aircraft could be started, taxied, taken off, flown into combat, fight, and return to a landing entirely by remote control, with the only human intervention needed being to fuel and re-arm them."

Re-read that final sentence in the above quote:

"These [NORAD] aircraft could be started, taxied, taken off, flown into combat, fight, and return to a landing entirely by remote control … "

Given over 40 years of institutional experience, flying remotely controlled "suicide" jets into the World Trade Center towers would have been a piece of cake for NORAD.

(sorry, the link doesn't seem to be 'clickable'... copy and past web address to your browser)

Edited by lightly
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And yet that is exactly what you are asking us to do when you make these outrageous claims with absolutely nothing substantial to back them up.

I believe what the evidence tells me. So far the evidence supports the established historically documented version of events. If you have evidence which proves this version wrong, shame on you for withholding it from the rest of the world. If you don't, shame on you for lying about it.

Some things are black and white, but I agree that life is both complicated and cruel. The events of that day were horrible. We're all outraged by it. You aren't alone in that.

Again, your frustration is apparent. As for betrayal, deceit, audacity, and corruption... evidence please?

We can all see that.

You are under the impression that I think this is a joke? You are under the impression that I or anyone else have actually forgotten about that day?

The only joke here is that some people make claims that they cannot back up. The only joke here is that there is absolutely nothing in support of the conspiracy which you've wrapped your anger around. In that sense, the joke is on you. Unless, of course, you ever bother to bring some evidence to the table. Considering that you've brought absolutely nothing that even remotely resembles evidence after multiple requests, I doubt seriously if you're going to surprise us with something now.

Then produce some evidence in support of what you claim. Until you do so, you're just going to look like a stark raving mad lunatic. Sorry, but that's the Truth.

Outrageous claims?

Here are some outrageous claims that the OCT makes: that the fires at WTC were hot enough to weaken steel, that there was a Boeing at Shanksville and at the Pentagon, that despite all the destruction and mayhem at WTC, certain identification documents were found in almost pristine condition, that it is perfectly normal for jetfuel and gravity to generate sufficient heat to keep steel molten for weeks and to blister paint and melt tires of vehicles on the street.

ETC ETC

It is the official story that advances outrageous claims sir, and that is why so many common folks don't buy into the story. The most superficial scrutiny of the story reveals so many outrageous claims that it's impossible to count them all.

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.