911 inside job - for what?

[Stundie]

Here is debunking god and darling Mark Roberts lying to himself and everyone else....

"Well, it's also completely false. No one said the air at Ground Zero was safe to breathe. Looks like Avery's desire to make this version "100% airtight" went by the wayside."

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3125436%26postcount=13

On September 18, the EPA released a report in which Whitman said, "Given the scope of the tragedy from last week, I am glad to reassure the people of New York and Washington, D.C. that their air is safe to breathe and their water is safe to drink."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christine_Todd_Whitman

[bee]

My advice is for you is not to take his comments as credible because it is full of disinformation, misinformation and lies. For an example, he claimed that no phone calls were made and yet, phone records have been produced proving that phone calls from the aircraft were in fact, made, most from Airfones. He claimed that he saw NORAD photos that depicted a missile striking the Pentagon and claims that no wreckage nor even an engine was found at the Pentagon.

Heaven knows what Internet Intelligence game Gordon Duff is playing....but in this video at 5:16..he actuallys says...

"About 30% of what's on VT is patently false...about 40% of what I write is at least purposely partially false..."

He implies that large aircraft cannot fly at high airspeeds at low level, but you can be the judge of that by reviewing this video.

[media=]

To be honest Sky..that video looks fake to me...and anyway it isn't flying 500 + MPH so it doesn't really counter what Duff said.

He said...whether it is true or not I don't know...or whether it is part of his purposely false information...

he said that the lowest an airliner can fly at 560 MPH..without breaking up.. is 25,000 feet....and that if it flew at 560 MPH at ground level

(ie at the Pentagon) then it would disintegrate...

I presume that you would disagree with that...?

.

Edited March 20, 2013 by bee

[regeneratia]

You actually think that evidence could be presented on this forum? Get real.

You think that the average person has true access to this 9-11 evidence? Get real.

You mean, you know some of those Pentagon people who had child porn on their computers? Are you a "bird of a feather" with these guys? And if so, do you really think that we would respect your opines? The Pentagon is filled with undesirables.

Also your motivations for challenging anyone who questions the 9-11 "official story" are becoming quite clear ... to me, at least.

What I can tell you is that more and more people are able to personally access truth more than ever before, by means that do not easily present themselves to the average delusions of members of forums like this. More and more poeple are learning to do this, daily adding to the numbers of truth-knowers. I KNOW a lie when it is told. More than 1 in 10 people immediately KNOW a lie when it is told, while I said that that number is growing daily. '

So you think it is good to just keep lying to people with these truth-accessing skills??? There are full-proof ways to determine a lie from the truth. You obviously don't know about them.

The government doesn't keep their eggs in any baskets. They are too busy throwing them about.

I repeat. I will not be arguing 9-11 logistics with you. I didn't come to the belief that 9-11 was done by a group of Americans thru evidence. I knew immediately that we were not being told the truth. I respect the truth. I will remain in my stance.

Actually, it goes much further. For an example, how many government officials have been implicated in the 911 attacks? In other words, where is the evidence?

To bring reality out into the open.

In addition, I know a couple of people who were in the Pentagon when it was struck by American 77, one of whom was the commander of my former Wing and their testimonies on events of that day refutes 911 conspiracies, but then again, I've posted the fleet history of American Airlines, FDR and FAA information regarding the airframe of American 77 to put my points across but it seems the facts went straight over the heads of those who refuse to accept those facts. I look at things from an aviation standpoint with over 40 years experience as a pilot and technician and from that experience, I see nothing but disinformation, misinformation, and outright lies emanating from the 911 conspiracist side of the house.

I say that is false because there is no way the United States could have pulled it off and not get caught and in addition, you have to account for the airframe, passengers and crew of those flights, which 911 conspiracist have failed to do. Most of all, it should have been evident that the Bojinka Plot, which was hatched in the Philippines, had shed light on terrorist plans in regards to the 911 attacks. In other words, Philippine officials revealed during the 1990s that terrorist were planning to fly airliners into American landmarks, which included the WTC buildings, the Pentagon and CIA headquarters. I guess you were unaware of those facts.

In addition, nations around the world had warned the United States that terrorist were finalizing plans to attack America, which should have told you that the U.S. government was not involved, and why there is no evidence implicating America in the 911 attacks.

That is irrelevant considering the U.S. government does not keep all of its eggs in the same basket. Remember, we share and store information in computers and in files across the country and around the world, but I guess 911 conspiracist were unaware of that fact.

911 conspiracist have claimed that over $2 trillion dollars was missing from the Pentagon, but if they had done their homework they would have found that the money was not missing at all, yet they concocted an unfounded conspiracy because they did not read the rest of the story.

Mishandling of money is no excuse to fly an airliner into a building.

Edited March 20, 2013 by regeneratia

[+Liquid Gardens]

I didn't come to the belief that 9-11 was done by a group of Americans thru evidence.

Rare to see that admitted so openly, but it certainly does explain the content of your comments...

[regeneratia]

Rare to see that admitted so openly, but it certainly does explain the content of your comments...

It all depends on whether you believe that rationality is the only way to truly think. Yet in your life, I am totally assured that you are not totally rational all the time. We are human beings, for gods' s sake. We are not totally rational, and we shouldn't be.

We make decisions based on rationality, feelings, thinking and intuition, according to psychological research. However, some are deluded into believing only the rational is valid.

Yet the US military is never ceased to use the intuitive to access information. How do you come to grips with this? And why don't you think that other people can access this intuitive information outside the military?

It is simple. I KNOW that the official story on 9-11 is not the truth. You don't know that. It isn't about belief or disbelief. It is about knowing.

Edited March 20, 2013 by regeneratia

[skyeagle409]

Here is debunking god and darling Mark Roberts lying to himself and everyone else....

You were the person who brought Mr. Roberts into the debate in the first place and you should have realized that he meant molten metal, not molten steel. Later, he said that he had no knowledge to identify molten metal.

[skyeagle409]

To be honest Sky..that video looks fake to me...and anyway it isn't flying 500 + MPH so it doesn't really counter what Duff said.

Actually, the video is not faked at all. We have had large aircraft exceed the speed-of-sound and land safely. What many people were unaware of is that large aircraft have a safety margin as far as redline speed is concern, which means that just because a pilot exceeds the redline speed of an aircraft it is not going to fall apart.

Check out these videos and note the capabilities of large the general public was largely unaware of.

[media=]

he said that the lowest an airliner can fly at 560 MPH..without breaking up.. is 25,000 feet....and that if it flew at 560 MPH at ground level

But, it didn't breakup and in fact, there were many people who watched American 77 strike the Pentagon.

Edited March 20, 2013 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

You actually think that evidence could be presented on this forum? Get real.

It is real evidence.

You think that the average person has true access to this 9-11 evidence? Get real.

Considering that I have over 40 years working for the government and additional time working for defense contractors in the field of aviation and time as a pilot and aircraft technician and expertise in aircraft airframes, which includes helicopters, not to mention flying as a DCC crew member aboard the Air Force's C-5 Galaxy, I know when 911 conspiracist try to pull the wool over the eyes of others in attempts to deceive and mislead people.

Fact of the matter is, I have worked with government computers for many years to know what I am talking about which places me in a position to tell you that you have no idea what you are talking about. It is rather silly for you to think that flying an aircraft into the Pentagon is going to destroy evidence when such evidence is shared and stored on many computers in other locations. Had you done your homework you would have found that the Pentagon had no such capability to track over $2 trillion. The money wasn't lost at all.

The government doesn't keep their eggs in any baskets. They are too busy throwing them about.

Of course the government doesn't keep all of its eggs in the same basket, so why did you think that flying an airliner into the big basket (Pentagon) is going to destroy all of the government financial eggs?

I repeat. I will not be arguing 9-11 logistics with you. I didn't come to the belief that 9-11 was done by a group of Americans thru evidence.

Looking at the evidence, the evidence backs the official story.

Edited March 20, 2013 by skyeagle409

[regeneratia]

Oh I see, only the government is allowed to pull the wool over people's eyes. Oh yes, I get it now. I know just where you are coming from.

Only the child-porn-laden Pentagon is supposed to tell us what is real and what is not. Oh yes, I get it.

Only the Pentagon is the authority and tells us the truth. Oh yeah. I get it.

I didn't feel bad for the Pentagon when it got hit on 9-11. I don't care to question it, because I just don't have concerns for the Pentagon, have no desire to protect it. Altho I am happy with Chuck, sure wanted him for president when he tried to get in the Oval Office.

BTW, I KNEW that the Pentagon had no way to track their money. What you fail to ask is WHY NOT? You didn't ask why not? I did. The pentagon at one time ws getting around 63% of US tax-payer dollars. There certainly should have been accounting for that amount of money.

It is real evidence.

Considering that I have over 40 years working for the government and additional time working for defense contractors in the field of aviation and time as a pilot and aircraft technician and expertise in aircraft airframes, which includes helicopters, not to mention flying as a DCC crew member aboard the Air Force's C-5 Galaxy, I know when 911 conspiracist try to pull the wool over the eyes of others in attempts to deceive and mislead people.

Fact of the matter is, I have worked with government computers for many years to know what I am talking about which places me in a position to tell you that you have no idea what you are talking about. It is rather silly for you to think that flying an aircraft into the Pentagon is going to destroy evidence when such evidence is shared and stored on many computers in other locations. Had you done your homework you would have found that the Pentagon had no such capability to track over $2 trillion. The money wasn't lost at all.

Of course the government doesn't keep all of its eggs in the same basket, so why did you think that flying an airliner into the big basket (Pentagon) is going to destroy all of the government financial eggs?

Looking at the evidence, the evidence backs the official story.

Edited March 20, 2013 by regeneratia

[+Liquid Gardens]

It all depends on whether you believe that rationality is the only way to truly think. Yet in your life, I am totally assured that you are not totally rational all the time. We are human beings, for gods' s sake. We are not totally rational, and we shouldn't be.

We make decisions based on rationality, feelings, thinking and intuition, according to psychological research. However, some are deluded into believing only the rational is valid.

Well we're not in disagreement on what you say here but it doesn't have much to do with what I said. You said you don't determine what you believe to be true concerning 9/11 based on evidence, and I said that explains why you have the opinions that you do. Since you arrive at conclusions and base your 'knowledge' concerning empirical questions on something besides evidence, it pretty much eliminates any possibility of discussion as it isn't possible to challenge, nor for you to defend, positions you've arrived at that are based on your feelings and intuition. What am I going to challenge it with, non-evidence?

Yet the US military is never ceased to use the intuitive to access information. How do you come to grips with this? And why don't you think that other people can access this intuitive information outside the military?

Ha, come to grips with what exactly? What specifically has the US military accessed via the intuitive?

It is simple. I KNOW that the official story on 9-11 is not the truth. You don't know that. It isn't about belief or disbelief. It is about knowing.

Sorry to break it to you, but this is plainly false. I know that government involvement in 9/11 is merely a product of the wild imaginations of those people who are susceptible to the cognitive errors of conspiratorial thinking. You clearly don't know that and must then be wrong. Search your true feelings and listen to your intuition and you will know that you are wrong and I am correct.

Convinced yet? I did what you suggested and made sure not to provide evidence and relied on my feelings and intuition. Why do I think you're going to disagree with what I said there? Doesn't that tell you something about this non-rational method of ascertaining the truth that you are proposing? I'll grant that it certainly is an easier route to take, takes far less time, study, and effort compared to evaluating evidence rationally.

[regeneratia]

I am well aware of what you want me and others to believe.

Honey, the proof is out there for the military use of intuits (word used as a noun). You have to look past your need to scoff to find it.

Well we're not in disagreement on what you say here but it doesn't have much to do with what I said. You said you don't determine what you believe to be true concerning 9/11 based on evidence, and I said that explains why you have the opinions that you do. Since you arrive at conclusions and base your 'knowledge' concerning empirical questions on something besides evidence, it pretty much eliminates any possibility of discussion as it isn't possible to challenge, nor for you to defend, positions you've arrived at that are based on your feelings and intuition. What am I going to challenge it with, non-evidence?

Ha, come to grips with what exactly? What specifically has the US military accessed via the intuitive?

Sorry to break it to you, but this is plainly false. I know that government involvement in 9/11 is merely a product of the wild imaginations of those people who are susceptible to the cognitive errors of conspiratorial thinking. You clearly don't know that and must then be wrong. Search your true feelings and listen to your intuition and you will know that you are wrong and I am correct.

Convinced yet? I did what you suggested and made sure not to provide evidence and relied on my feelings and intuition. Why do I think you're going to disagree with what I said there? Doesn't that tell you something about this non-rational method of ascertaining the truth that you are proposing? I'll grant that it certainly is an easier route to take, takes far less time, study, and effort compared to evaluating evidence rationally.

Edited March 20, 2013 by regeneratia

[skyeagle409]

Oh I see, only the government is allowed to pull the wool over people's eyes.

Which they have done and I have brought it up before, but there was no way the government could have pulled off 911 and not get caught. As I have said before, if an aircraft was switched, it would take me 30 minutes or less to make that determination.

Oh yes, I get it now. I know just where you are coming from. Only the child-porn-laden Pentagon is supposed to tell us what is real and what is not. Oh yes, I get it.

There are ways to make that determination, which doesn't involve the U.S. government, and we can start with American Airlines, Rolls-Royce, and the Boeing Aircraft Company.

Only the Pentagon is the authority and tells us the truth. Oh yeah. I get it.

Of course not. Who supplied the conversion formulas for the FDR that pertained ONLY to the airframe of American 77? I might add that it wasn't the government.

I didn't feel bad for the Pentagon when it got hit on 9-11.

Neither did Osama bin Laden.

Edited March 21, 2013 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

New al Qaeda document sheds light on Europe, U.S. attack plans

(CNN) -- A previously secret document found at Osama bin Laden's compound in Pakistan sets out a detailed al Qaeda strategy for attacking targets in Europe and the United States.

The document -- a letter written to bin Laden in March 2010 by a senior operational figure in the terror group -- reveals that tunnels, bridges, dams, undersea pipelines and internet cables were among the targets. Yassin Musharbash, an investigative reporter with Die Zeit in Berlin, says the document seems "to support information gleaned from other terror trials that Al Qaeda in 2010 was trying to plan a comprehensive plot against the West," and al-Mauretani appears to have been bent on "hitting Europe and the U.S. by targeting critical infrastructure and economic targets."

Some of al-Mauretani's ideas may seem far-fetched, but they underline al Qaeda's continuing fascination with bringing down airliners. He proposed that men recruited into the Yemeni al Qaeda affiliate AQAP become pilots with airlines, and then drug their co-pilots before flying the plane into a target. One target he identified was the massive petrochemical facility at Abqaiq in Saudi Arabia.

Al Mauretani suggested that Osama bin Laden signal the go-ahead for attacks in Europe with a public message that al Qaeda's patience with Europe had run out. And he had a clear sense of how to finance attacks, saying that al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) had "millions" and its leaders trusted him, according to Die Zeit. Mauretani himself was originally from Mauritania in north-west Africa.

Bin Laden appears to have liked the ideas in al-Mauretani's letter, and assigned them high priority. Other documents found at his Pakistani compound in Abbottabad suggest he forwarded it to at least one other senior figure in al Qaeda. In around June 2010, bin Laden wrote to senior Libyan operative Atiyah abd al Rahman, then al Qaeda's head of operations in Waziristan, instructing him to tell the leaders of the al Qaeda affiliates AQIM in North Africa and AQAP in Yemen to "put forward their best in cooperating" with al-Mauretani "in whatever he asks of them." "Hint to the brothers in the Islamic Maghreb that they provide him with the financial support that he might need in the next six months, to the tune of approximately 200,000 euros," bin Laden wrote.

Pakistani authorities appear to have uncovered some of his terror plans. In announcing his arrest a month later, they stated: al-Mauretani "was tasked personally by Osama bin Laden to focus on hitting targets of economical importance in United States of America, Europe and Australia, including gas pipelines, power generating dams and oil tankers."

Edited March 21, 2013 by skyeagle409

[Babe Ruth]

Oh I see, only the government is allowed to pull the wool over people's eyes. Oh yes, I get it now. I know just where you are coming from.

Only the child-porn-laden Pentagon is supposed to tell us what is real and what is not. Oh yes, I get it.

Only the Pentagon is the authority and tells us the truth. Oh yeah. I get it.

I didn't feel bad for the Pentagon when it got hit on 9-11. I don't care to question it, because I just don't have concerns for the Pentagon, have no desire to protect it. Altho I am happy with Chuck, sure wanted him for president when he tried to get in the Oval Office.

BTW, I KNEW that the Pentagon had no way to track their money. What you fail to ask is WHY NOT? You didn't ask why not? I did. The pentagon at one time ws getting around 63% of US tax-payer dollars. There certainly should have been accounting for that amount of money.

The Pentagon's 'wounds' were self-inflicted, on purpose. Destruction of records was the goal, and protection of the guilty.

[preacherman76]

New al Qaeda document sheds light on Europe, U.S. attack plans

The document -- a letter written to bin Laden in March 2010 by a senior operational figure in the terror group --

Who was the senior operational figure? 2010, was his name 0bama?

[Q24]

How so exactly, how specifically am I resistant to the possibility that there was a plane switch? Where did I say I reject it because it involves too many steps? That sure is a skewed reading of something that, if anything, I was overly repetitive on: you have no evidence that there was a plane switch.

The evidence I set out in my last post is highly fitting and suggestive that there could have been a plane switch – the long list of everything we would expect to be present in such an operation and cover up exists. Your last couple of posts refer to the number of “steps” involved as though that is a practical way to determine the truth. Where we disagree, is that I think we need something solid to close the case – physical serial number identification, for example – whereas you don’t.

You don't know when, where, how, why or if it happened, you have no evidence to support any of those basic questions. Yes, this plane switch and DNA planting and all this other spy-novel-fiction stuff, which we are discussing on the sole basis that it is possible to imagine it, involves several steps, none of which have any evidence to support them actually occurring. Thus, there is no reason to think it actually did.

Ah, the old ‘point out a lack of answers whilst opposing an investigation’ trick. Oh course, we’d never have any answers if crimes were never investigated, especially those which necessitate a resultant cover-up. Just because there are multiple possibilities to the ‘when, where, how’ does nothing to rule out a crime. The ‘why’ is easily answered: to ensure success of the operation. The real question is ‘if’. This is where, in everyday life, procedures and checks are in place to deter and uncover fraud and crimes which may otherwise be committed. This is the type of normal safeguard that on 9/11 became conspicuous by its absence.

Oh, and followed by the old ‘spy-novel-fiction’ line... even though exactly such an operation proposed has been planned and documented by highest levels of the U.S. military. Figure that one out. It’s a real possibility, you just don’t want to believe it.

Had the Northwoods plan gone ahead (specifically the plane switch element), what evidence would you demand to avoid falling victim to the deception?

If the Northwoods plan had gone ahead and the things actually occurred as specifically documented and the Northwoods document was then produced, yes, that gives us a reason to make sure we're not being deceived. In that case, I'd demand from the people who think we were deceived evidence that we were, I'd expect evidence that is really only explainable if there was deception involved.

Thank you for providing an answer to my question at last. And it’s one heck of an admission. One that means we should not be putting trust in you when it comes to 9/11, not in a month of Sundays. Let me get this straight...

Had government statements and media reports emerged in 1962, that declared a Cuban fighter had shot down a U.S. civilian airliner, which resulted in a U.S. military operation against Cuba... you would have demanded no further evidence, fallen for the deception and accepted the situation.

Were the Northwoods documents subsequently produced, you would only then believe there is reason to make sure we are not being deceived but... would still think it responsibility of those who consider the possibility to provide direct evidence.

Can you tell me, at this point would you want to see an investigation along the lines of physical serial number identification?

I don't consider things like not providing you an audit trail of to some arbitrary detail level nor proving to you that the serial numbers you demand to be checked have been checked to be 'information black holes'. The identification of this plane is not based solely on matching serial numbers nor does the idea that the passenger's remains were found in the Pentagon get rendered invalid because you didn't get to supervise the whole process and they were sent to a medical examiner at a military base (cue ominous music) before being sent to the DNA testing lab.

...

Confirm what audit process exactly? Specify exactly what must happen, how many people from how many different agencies must accompany these remains, especially if it has to be able to withstand, not actual counter evidence, but what could have happened? That's why I think this argument of yours as far as the remains is so ridiculous, you haven't provided any criteria by which 'deception' arguments can be countered, and I don't think it's possible without illustrating vividly how subjective the whole process is. It applies equally to the serial number matching, short of having you at the wreckage picking it all up, how is deception supposed to be controlled? I have no idea on what basis you are drawing the line at 'sufficient to record/confirm the process was carried out', if you suspect someone is lying or deceptive now about the remains why do you think this requirement of yours is at all a hindrance? You think that faking serial number matching is a big issue when compared with an unspecified operation involving switching planes? Ha, and just to be clear, it's not that these processes haven't been carried out, it's just that it hasn't been shown to you that it hasn't been carried out?! Unfortunately this doesn't really clear anything up, this provides no standard by which to measure when the possibility of deception is admissable and when it's not.

First, you seem to be under some illusion and/or empty hope that aircraft serial number identification may have been carried out. Your confusion can be solved by reading the following FBI response to FOIA requests: -

http://911blogger.co...ication-records

There is no record, nor has there ever been, of serial number identification and therefore no reason to believe the process was carried out. The FBI line is that identities of the four aircraft on 9/11 were never in doubt from the word go (through some undefined means which the FBI do not elaborate on) and therefore no physical identification was necessary.

The same is true of the FDR which has certainly never been identified through a serial number match to records. This is confirmed through NTSB/FAA/FBI information in the following link: -

http://911blogger.com/node/16089

It is not so clear-cut about a potential audit/record of DNA identification. In this case we only have confirmation that the agency responsible is withholding potentially responsive documents under FOIA exemptions: -

http://911blogger.com/node/22200

This is also what the FBI did – quote a FOIA exemption - in response to request for the debris/FDR serial number identification record, before confirming that no potentially responsive documents actually existed.

So we see there is no record and you are way out of bounds to claim, “Ha, and just to be clear, it's not that these processes haven't been carried out, it's just that it hasn't been shown to you that it hasn't been carried out?!” No, that is not clear at all, actually it is misleading. The fact is that debris and FDR serial number identification has certainly not been carried out, with DNA audit appearing to follow the same line.

After that, I will reiterate my statement, “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.”

What record or audit you ask? It could be the paperwork which accompanies any investigation – a record of where remains were found, signed and dated by the recovering officer. It could be a custody sheet signed by those in possession of the remains and debris. It could be as simple as a short report of the FBI stating that serial numbers of debris and/or the FDR matched records of the aircraft (perhaps even a file containing photographs and Boeing records). This is all very basic stuff which any competent government agency or business follows in normal course.

But when it comes to 9/11, there is nothing. How can the NTSB not be in possession of FDR serial numbers as usually is the case? It’s not supposed to be like that. It’s not normal at all – terrorist attack or not, basic procedures have gone missing. Why?

But that’s probably a pointless question to pose to someone who would admittedly be deceived by Northwoods.

How so? I have no expectation of a perfect investigation that meets your impossible standard of being able to refute every suspicion you have. I expect people to make mistakes, I expect people to not follow procedures that you presume have been set up for dealing with 'normal terrorist attacks', I expect established investigation procedures to not be efficient nor sufficient, and I have overly abundant precedent for all of that. Where's the unlikelihood? The theory that the plane is Flight 77 does not rely on proving to you that serial numbers were checked, nor do I see any possible way for you not to be able to invoke 'could be deception' willy-nilly anyway no matter what procedures were followed and even if the matching serial numbers documentation were provided to you.

I’m not expecting perfection either - only the minimum essential evidence; the normal/basic procedures that act to safeguard us in everyday life, mentioned above. I don’t understand how you think this most minor of expectations is “impossible” or “willy-nilly”.

But it’s fine, I get the idea by now. You think that no such record, audit, paperwork, evidence is at all necessary to forming your beliefs or conclusions. And I do. There’s not much more to be said.

'We see' no such thing. You mean there was some confusion with ATC as they attempted to get a handle on what would turn out to be the most chaotic day since that job title has existed, with hundreds of planes in the air? Do you happen to have a map of how much area these radar coverage gaps cover and how unusual they actually are?

Yes there was confusion leading ATC to locate and track an unidentified aircraft to the Pentagon. In the case of the alleged Flight 77, this was largely due to its passing through a radar coverage gap. As you can see, radar coverage on the East coast is fairly comprehensive. The gap where Flight 77 allegedly turned around is circled in red: -

Even this is really beside the point. The fact is that the attack was carried out in such a way as to make a plane switch viable. Any genuine hijackers would have done better to leave the transponders alone, leaving the planes visible to SSR so as not to alarm ATC to a problem sooner.

Really? It matches the results of poor communication very well also.

Yet the first fighters launched to the WTC were not sent in the wrong direction, only in case of the alleged Flight 77 did that occur. Neither does your answer address that Vice President Dick Cheney had an order in place in regard to the alleged Flight 77 as he watched it approach and impact the Pentagon - an order which the 9/11 Commission found 'incompetent' enough, or whatever, to conceal in their final report.

I don't know what happened to my link I thought I had it bookmarked. I found the same pic on wiki:

http://www.911myths....bris_serial.jpg

The original article I had read said that the serial number on that piece I believe was matched to 77.

Well I’m calling it nonsense – I have seen zero evidence the serial number has been matched to the record of Flight 77. Please find the original article you are referring to so we can settle it. This could be groundbreaking. But somehow I doubt it.

If you really think that the balance of what is true favors a false flag attack then why do you keep applying these different bars in the first place, when I've said countless times over months now that I'm not arguing about freaking consequences because they have no logical bearing?

Why shouldn’t we have high standards for the official story? This whole line of discussion came about because I challenged you to OMG “prove” Flight 77 crashed at the Pentagon (through normal/basic, everyday evidence of record/audit/paperwork)... at which point you began complaining about “goalposts” and too high “bars” and how unfair it all is. I think that is a problem and very telling.

At the end of the day, the identity of the aircraft at the Pentagon is not at all integral to my overall theory. Not so the official story. I think you need to consider who needs the investigation/evidence more before pinning their hat on a conclusion. I don’t have a nailed on conclusion – I’m aware that the lacking evidence means there are many possibilities – I claim that further investigation and evidence are necessary. It’s you backing a lack of evidence that backs a story that backs a war. You need to prove Flight 77 crashed at the Pentagon to morally justify your argument much more than I do.

But I know, you want to forget all that and only determine a balance of what is true. The problem is, without the investigation and evidence that my argument results in, it will always come down to speculation and/or faith, which is why we cannot agree. So, when are you going to help us out and back a new investigation? When will you begin to question the administration which put us in this position, and why it is so?

You know what supports a further investigation? A decent case that there's a massive deception going on.

Wasn't it you talking about horses and carts? The investigation forms the case.

I think the crime which occurred on 9/11 is enough to warrant a thorough and competent investigation. That investigation should form the case about what exactly happened and who is responsible. That is how it should work.

I do not agree that we should form the case first, speculating to fill in evidence holes, and declare it good enough until another case opposing that case is proven to who ever's satisfaction, all just to begin a thorough and competent investigation. That is not how it should work.

[Babe Ruth]

Very well done Q!

I submit to you that IF it's true that Ptech software was installed on so many government agency computers, including the FAA, then all that business about switching airplanes and such, radar holes included, becomes rather academic. That is, if the radar displays were utterly spoofed, then it really doesn't matter, it is not necessary to physically switch airplanes, except for the possible need to deplane cooperating passengers.

[regeneratia]

Obviously you are without the poutput of love if you live totally in the rational. That makes me sad, that love is not in your life.

Well we're not in disagreement on what you say here but it doesn't have much to do with what I said. You said you don't determine what you believe to be true concerning 9/11 based on evidence, and I said that explains why you have the opinions that you do. Since you arrive at conclusions and base your 'knowledge' concerning empirical questions on something besides evidence, it pretty much eliminates any possibility of discussion as it isn't possible to challenge, nor for you to defend, positions you've arrived at that are based on your feelings and intuition. What am I going to challenge it with, non-evidence?

Ha, come to grips with what exactly? What specifically has the US military accessed via the intuitive?

Sorry to break it to you, but this is plainly false. I know that government involvement in 9/11 is merely a product of the wild imaginations of those people who are susceptible to the cognitive errors of conspiratorial thinking. You clearly don't know that and must then be wrong. Search your true feelings and listen to your intuition and you will know that you are wrong and I am correct.

Convinced yet? I did what you suggested and made sure not to provide evidence and relied on my feelings and intuition. Why do I think you're going to disagree with what I said there? Doesn't that tell you something about this non-rational method of ascertaining the truth that you are proposing? I'll grant that it certainly is an easier route to take, takes far less time, study, and effort compared to evaluating evidence rationally.

[regeneratia]

The Pentagon's 'wounds' were self-inflicted, on purpose. Destruction of records was the goal, and protection of the guilty.

The digital cannot be destroyed.

However, the fire on Cheney's office in the old exec building was certainly very suspicious. I knew it at the time, and so did most of the rest of the country.

[skyeagle409]

Who was the senior operational figure? 2010, was his name 0bama?

I think you are confused. Remember, it was Obama who got Osama.

Edited March 21, 2013 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

The evidence I set out in my last post is highly fitting and suggestive that there could have been a plane switch –

That would have been impossible. You cannot switch airliners and not account for the original radar tracking data, maintenance and operational records of the original aircraft in addition to ACARS information, the original airframe and passengers and crew of each airliner. The conversion formulas provided for the FDR of American 77 pertained only to the airframe of American 77 and no other aircraft.

Remember, only a certain number of B-767-200 series and B-757-200 series were built. The 911 conspiracy claim concerning so-called switched airliners proves a lack of understanding of how things work in the real world of aviation and as I have mentioned before, it would taken me less than 30 minutes to exposed a switched aircraft and do so with no problem at all.

Why shouldn’t we have high standards for the official story? This whole line of discussion came about because I challenged you to OMG “prove” Flight 77 crashed at the Pentagon (through normal/basic, everyday evidence of record/audit/paperwork)... at which point you began complaining about “goalposts” and too high “bars” and how unfair it all is. I think that is a problem and very telling.

You need to prove Flight 77 crashed at the Pentagon to morally justify your argument much more than I do.

It is very simple? To what location did radar track American 77? Right to the location of the Pentagon.

What other means can be used to verify the flight track of American 77? And remember, contrary to conspiracist claims, turning off the transponder does not render an aircraft invisible to radar and neither the B-757 nor the B-767, are stealth aircraft, which is another hint conspiracist tend to overlook when concocting unwarranted conspiracies. BTW, what companies supplied conversion formulas of the FDR that pertained ONLY to the airframe of American77?

I might add that the Wing commander of my former Wing at Travis AFB, CA. was in the Pentagon when American 77 crashed and he too, has confirmed the airliner as American 77 and I ran into another airman recently who was in the Pentagon when it was struck by American 77. They have trashed conspiracy claims that American 77 was a missile or was a switched aircraft.

The fact is that the attack was carried out in such a way as to make a plane switch viable. Any genuine hijackers would have done better to leave the transponders alone, leaving the planes visible to SSR so as not to alarm ATC to a problem sooner

Tampering with the transponders or not, it would not have made any difference at all. Remember, the airliners were in controlled airspace so any unauthorized changes in heading or altitude is going to attention to the controllers, not to mention there are multiple means to track an aircraft.

Edited March 21, 2013 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

The digital cannot be destroyed. However, the fire on Cheney's office in the old exec building was certainly very suspicious.

Only to those who have no real understanding of how things work in the real world.

[skyeagle409]

Very well done Q!

Actually not! First of all, there was no way to switch a B-757-200 or a B-767-200 series because only a certain number of those aircraft were built and you cannot switch flight and maintenance records of those aircraft, which is another fact that conspiracist have overlooked.

submit to you that IF it's true that Ptech software was installed on so many government agency computers, including the FAA, then all that business about switching airplanes and such, radar holes included, becomes rather academic.

Did you really think that American Airlines and United Airlines would have allowed unauthorized modifications under the nose of their maintenance personnel and inspectors? How are you going to modify the systems of the B-767 and the B-757 and not attract attention of maintenance and servicing personnel and pilots as they conduct their preflight system checks? Remember, they are not fly-by-wire aircraft, so in that regard, what does a pilot have to do in order to override a modified system on the B-767 or the B-757? The 911 conspiracist do not think of the little things, which is why they spew unwarranted conspiracy theories without doing any real homework.

...it is not necessary to physically switch airplanes, except for the possible need to deplane ooperating passengers.

How are you going to switch airliners and not account for the passengers and crew of those flights?

Edited March 21, 2013 by skyeagle409

[+Liquid Gardens]

Obviously you are without the poutput of love if you live totally in the rational. That makes me sad, that love is not in your life.

Did you forget that you already responded to this post yesterday, regen? This response doesn't make any more sense than that last one and is just proving that there isn't much point in having a discussion with you since your responses are orthogonal (look it up) to anything I said. They seem to largely be composed of your ruminations and delusions about me personally based only on comments on the internet, but I guess that's what happens when you disdain the concept of evidence in favor of the 'truths' derived from feelings and intuition. These odd responses of yours may be exactly what you intend though based on your warnings concerning looking at everything purely rationally an robotically; you're doing an excellent job of making sure no one can accuse your posts of being too rational.

[frenat]

The Pentagon's 'wounds' were self-inflicted, on purpose. Destruction of records was the goal, and protection of the guilty.

Because the military NEVER has computer backups!