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
redhen

911 inside job - for what?

4,447 posts in this topic

In what language?

Let' me put it this way, it is apparent that you do not understand what you post. You should have known that the Afghan Mujahideen and the Afghan Arabs were actually two different groups, which is why you tried to place a piece of the picture puzzle depicting bin Laden where it didn't fit.

Your missteps on other issues have been closely monitored as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let' me put it this way, it is apparent that you do not understand what you post. You should have known that the Afghan Mujahideen and the Afghan Arabs were actually two different groups, which is why you tried to place a piece of the picture puzzle depicting bin Laden where it didn't fit.

Your missteps on other issues have been closely monitored as well.

I’d put it this way – you are doing a good impression of an imbecile. The difference between the Afghan Mujahideen and the Afghan Arabs is nothing to do with what anyone said or was talking about, much less relied on “to place a piece of the picture puzzle”, what on Earth? You just randomly came out with it and did not take time to consider anything I actually said. Are you a mental case? I don’t know why you are allowed to disrupt every attempt at discussion on 9/11 topics over and over. Just try reading, understanding and making your responses relevant, seriously.

Knowing the moderators will not do anything about your disruptive posts, let’s keep it simple. What do you think the difference between the Afghan Mujahideen and the Afghan Arabs has to do with anything I actually said?

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that is clumsy and you’d make a terrible lawyer.

Special agent LG: Did you commit the crime?

Suspect: No.

Special agent LG: Oh.

Great work special agent!

:lol:

It might be better along these lines: -

NIST: Mr. Silverstein, we understand that prior to the collapse of WTC7, on that day, you contacted your insurance carrier seeking authorization of a controlled demolition. Please could you detail the response you received? In addition, when did you envision the potential controlled demolition of the building would take place?

LS: The insurance carrier did not grant approval of my request. I envisioned a potential demolition would be put into action immediately to counteract the safety risk.

NIST: Mr. Silverstein, who advised you that the WTC7 structural condition was so severe that a demolition option should be considered, thus leading to the telephone call with your insurance carrier?

LS: I remember getting a call from the fire department commander advising of the situation and I agreed, ‘maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it’, following which I sought authorization for the... um, I mean,
a
controlled demolition.

NIST: Mr. Silverstein, the conclusions of NIST are that a fire based collapse would be an “extraordinary” first-time ever “phenomenon”, we struggled for years to come up with a theory to be honest. Do you find it possible that the controlled demolition option may have been taken despite non-compliance of your insurance carrier, yes or no?

LS: No [lie detector goes off the scale and explodes
]

Ha! I think that's excessively paranoid and you'd make a terrible script writer. As long as we're making things up out of whole cloth, why not just shorten this excerpt from your imagination to:

NIST: Did you blow up WTC7?

LS: Yes.

Here's another possibility:

NIST: Mr. Silverstein, we understand that prior to the collapse of WTC7, on that day, you contacted your insurance carrier seeking authorization of a controlled demolition. Please could you detail the response you received? In addition, when did you envision the potential controlled demolition of the building would take place?

LS: As soon as possible, but it's not only my decision when the demolition takes place, that obviously requires coordination between the demolition company, the insurance company, and city officials.

NIST: Mr. Silverstein, who advised you that the WTC7 structural condition was so severe that a demolition option should be considered, thus leading to the telephone call with your insurance carrier?

LS: Firefighters had informed me they didn't think know if they could contain the fire, and there was clearly a large gash in the building. If your house appeared to be significantly damaged by fire, the idea that you may need to just tear it down wouldn't cross your mind as the owner?

Seriously though, your scenario is a little light on why Silverstein is contacting his insurance carrier in the first place. Let's say they say yes, go ahead and demolish asap, what then? No one's going to notice that they haven't called in a demolition company to actually set up explosives? Wasn't it imperative that the building be destroyed asap, there's incriminating evidence in there? Maybe we did touch on this before, sorry, is this the one where people from the FDNY are involved too?

Edited by Liquid Gardens

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Knowing the moderators will not do anything about your disruptive posts, let’s keep it simple. What do you think the difference between the Afghan Mujahideen and the Afghan Arabs has to do with anything I actually said?

Did you post the following?

All U.S. sources had to do was create the right conditions and give the Muslim terrorist threat a helping hand. It appears to me that the CIA bin Laden unit provided Al Qaeda just that with their 1999 plan to infiltrate agents within Afghanistan.

I knew where you were going with it. Let's take another step back into history since you forgot.

quote name='Q24' timestamp='1192227478' post='1932176']

I understand the CIA link with Osama Bin Laden via the Pakistani ISI and Mujahideen respectively, during the Soviet war in Afghanistan. I have read about Operation Gladio and believe through using a similar technique, Al Qaeda would be at least in part a CIA tool.

There were no links between the CIA and bin Laden as you say and once again, bin Laden did not belong to the Afghan Mujahideen, which was supported by the CIA.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ha! I think that's excessively paranoid and you'd make a terrible script writer. As long as we're making things up out of whole cloth, why not just shorten this excerpt from your imagination to:

NIST: Did you blow up WTC7?

LS: Yes.

As I said, the direct question is clumsy and an affirmative answer unlikely (whether Silverstein knew of the demolition or not). You specifically asked how I would script out the NIST questioning and that was the particular point of my example - to present those questions that would extract information to further the investigation. I even made it clear (well I thought I did) I think that Silverstein’s, “responses could be different to that I've suggested”. Of course it’s a clean slate we are working from because none of the official investigations have ever asked Silverstein of his role on 9/11.

You are asking for my opinion and hypotheticals that fit a WTC7 demolition and the basic investigation we should have had then almost complaining when I provide them. All I have been saying is that NIST should have asked the questions to determine what was known on 9/11 between Silverstein, his insurance carrier, the firefighters and those anonymous engineers we spoke about previously. That would give a better idea of what happened. We already know that a demolition option was discussed on 9/11 before the WTC7 collapse and we need to determine the outcome of that because NIST’s current theory pushes the boundaries (putting it very mildly) for this type of collapse whereas the demolition option could achieve the result every day of the week.

Seriously though, your scenario is a little light on why Silverstein is contacting his insurance carrier in the first place. Let's say they say yes, go ahead and demolish asap, what then? No one's going to notice that they haven't called in a demolition company to actually set up explosives? Wasn't it imperative that the building be destroyed asap, there's incriminating evidence in there?

What’s a little light about someone informing Silverstein his building is structurally unstable and a legitimate controlled demolition is to be considered so he phones his insurance carrier? Had the insurance carrier given the go ahead then option 1) could proceed. Yes, us inquisitive ‘conspiracy theorists’ would have thought it most odd that the demolition could be arranged so quickly. But so long as the official narrative put out a cover story, “oh some guys from Turner Construction based in the towers who have carried out demolition works before did a quick job for us due to the danger WTC7 posed”, then guys of your mindset wouldn’t challenge it, no you'd argue with people like me who questioned it, so no worry for the official story there.

Maybe we did touch on this before, sorry, is this the one where people from the FDNY are involved too?

I don’t know who you were talking to but I’ve never said the FDNY were involved in the WTC7 demolition. That’s a strawman official adherents have long attempted to make anyone who proposes a WTC7 demolition look bad, but it’s never stuck so I don’t know why people still bother with it. In my opinion the firefighters are heroes and it is in part their actions and later testimony which assist to reveal the WTC demolitions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you post the following?

[/color]

I knew where you were going with it. Let's take another step back into history since you forgot.

There were no links between the CIA and bin Laden as you say and once again, bin Laden did not belong to the Afghan Mujahideen, which was supported by the CIA.

Apparently you can’t even answer a straightforward question: -

What do you think the difference between the Afghan Mujahideen and the Afghan Arabs has to do with anything I actually said?

I’m talking about here, on this thread, now, not something completely different that you suddenly want to drag in that I said nearly 6 years ago on another thread.

Do you understand that in 1999 the CIA put in place a new strategy to recruit and infiltrate agents close to bin Laden?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently you can’t even answer a straightforward question: -[/color]

What do you think the difference between the Afghan Mujahideen and the Afghan Arabs has to do with anything I actually said?

What did I say about knowing where you were going? At no time has the CIA supported bin Laden or his terrorist group.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my opinion the firefighters are heroes and it is in part their actions and later testimony which assist to reveal the WTC demolitions.

False! Where did you get the idea that WTC7 was demolished by explosives when no one heard nor saw bomb explosions or even recovered explosive evidence from the rubble of WTC7? WTC7 collapsed due to fires.

WTC7

Hayden: ... but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse.

You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

WTC Building 7 appears to have suffered significant damage at some point after the WTC Towers had collapsed, according to firefighters at the scene. Firefighter Butch Brandies tells other firefighters that nobody is to go into Building 7 because of creaking and noises coming out of there.

[Firehouse Magazine, 8/02]

Battalion Chief John Norman later recalls, "At the edge of the south face you could see that it is very heavily damaged."

[Firehouse Magazine, 5/02]

At approximately 2:00 pm, firefighters noticed a bulge in the southwest corner of 7 World Trade Center between the 10th and 13th floors, a sign that the building was unstable and might collapse.

Subsequently, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) was authorized to lead an investigation into the structural failure and collapse of the World Trade Center Twin Towers and 7 World Trade Center.

The investigation, led by Dr S. Shyam Sunder, drew upon in-house technical expertise as well as the knowledge of several outside private institutions, including the Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers (SEI/ASCE), the Society of Fire Protection Engineers (SFPE), the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC), the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH), and the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEAoNY)

The NIST report found no evidence supporting conspiracy theoriesthat 7 World Trade Center was brought down by controlled demolition.

Nothing there about WTC demolitions as responsible. You speak of WTC demolitions, however, you've failed to provide evidence to backup your claim and without evidence, you have no case.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure there is.

Would you like to hear it?

No there is not.

And here is a hint for you, before you regurgitage 9-11 troother talking points again: Wild speculations and cherry-picked, unrelated snippets of convenient factoids are not "evidence".

And I am still waiting for the very basic logic behind the claim that, in addition to tens of thousands of jihadist terror attacks, the government (any government) would feel compelled to add yet another one for some nebulous purpose.

Of course there is none, so I am not holding my breath.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No there is not.

And here is a hint for you, before you regurgitage 9-11 troother talking points again: Wild speculations and cherry-picked, unrelated snippets of convenient factoids are not "evidence".

And I am still waiting for the very basic logic behind the claim that, in addition to tens of thousands of jihadist terror attacks, the government (any government) would feel compelled to add yet another one for some nebulous purpose.

Of course there is none, so I am not holding my breath.

It appears that what you are waiting for is a signed confession from Dubya & Dick. Nothing else would open your mind, and that might not even work. :innocent:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It appears that what you are waiting for is a signed confession from Dubya & Dick. Nothing else would open your mind, and that might not even work. :innocent:

Real evidence speaks louder than words.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The complete blackout of the motivation of the 9/11 terrorists tilled the soil for conspiracy theories to grow which further contributed to our collective ignorance. The only real conspiracy of this issue is that the foreign policy was more important than the rule of law, the truth, our liberty, our security, and our lives. Our freedom got blamed. The "intelligence" got blamed. Muslims got blamed. Saddam Hussein got blamed. Absolve the government of its responsibility, and prevent our people from reassessing our policy at all costs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The complete blackout of the motivation of the 9/11 terrorists tilled the soil for conspiracy theories to grow which further contributed to our collective ignorance. The only real conspiracy of this issue is that the foreign policy was more important than the rule of law, the truth, our liberty, our security, and our lives. Our freedom got blamed. The "intelligence" got blamed. Muslims got blamed. Saddam Hussein got blamed. Absolve the government of its responsibility, and prevent our people from reassessing our policy at all costs.

[media=]

[/media]

The complete blackout of the truth by the mainstream media, and the refusal of the Bush administration to conduct a proper investigation, and the blatant inaccuracy and falsehoods reached by those investigation are a blackout themselves.

THOSE are what led to all the conspiracy theories. When the government's story cannot withstand minimal scrutiny without collapsing, it appears certain the government is lying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

THOSE are what led to all the conspiracy theories. When the government's story cannot withstand minimal scrutiny without collapsing, it appears certain the government is lying.

What has been collapsing over the years were 911 conspiracy claims, and in fact, their claims have collapsed one after another as they were scrutinized.

There are those within the 911 conspiracy movement who have misinterpreted data and eyewitness accounts. Remember, they've claimed the airliners were switched, but radar data, ACARS and communication tapes indicated no such thing.

They have said that United 93 was shot down, but the military had no orders to shoot down anything when United 93 crashed. In fact, the military was unaware that United 93 had even crashed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

93 wasn't shot down Sky. 30 minutes after it supposedly crashed in Shanksville, it was still flying in Illinois somewhere. Which only makes sense, because there is no visible evidence of a wrecked Boeing in that field.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

93 wasn't shot down Sky. 30 minutes after it supposedly crashed in Shanksville, it was still flying in Illinois somewhere.

False! At no time did radar data nor ACARS depict United 93 in the sky after it crashed. Add to the fact that victims of United 93 were recovered at the United 93 crash site, but you were aware of that fact. :yes: .

Which only makes sense, because there is no visible evidence of a wrecked Boeing in that field.

Let's take another look.

Flight path of United 93

260px-UA93_path.svg.png

][/b]

United Airlines Statement on Plane Crashes

Following is a statement issued by United Airlines on the crash of Flight 93 near Pittsburgh and Flight 175 in a location that was not immediately disclosed:

United Airlines has now confirmed that two of its aircraft have crashed.

— UA 93, a Boeing 757 aircraft, departed from Newark, N.J. at 8:01 a.m. local time, bound for San Francisco, with 38 passengers on board, two pilots, five flight attendants.

http://www.washingto..._text091101.htm

Flight 93 victims' effects to go back to families

United Airlines Flight 93 slammed into the earth Sept. 11 near Shanksville, Somerset County, at more than 500 mph, with a ferocity that disintegrated metal, bone and flesh. It took more than three months to identify the remains of the 40 passengers and crew, and, by process of elimination, the four hijackers.

Those remains were gathered by the FBI and other investigators from the 50-foot-deep pit the Boeing 757 jet gouged in a reclaimed strip mine, and from the woods adjoining the crash site.

But searchers also gathered surprisingly intact mementos of lives lost.

Those items, such as a wedding ring and other jewelry, photos, credit cards, purses and their contents, shoes, a wallet and currency, are among seven boxes of identified personal effects salvaged from the site. They sit in an El Segundo, Calif., mortuary and will be returned to victims' families in February.

"We have some property for most passengers," said Craig Hendrix, a funeral coordinator and a personal effects administrator with Douglass Air Disaster Funeral Coordinators, a company often contacted by airlines after devastating crashes.

http://old.post-gaze...ght931230p3.asp

Wreckage of United 93

800px-Flight93Engine.jpg

800px-UA93_fuselage_debris.jpg

739px-UA93_livery_debris.jpg

So once again, you got caught trying to deceive readers.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

93 wasn't shot down Sky. 30 minutes after it supposedly crashed in Shanksville, it was still flying in Illinois somewhere. Which only makes sense, because there is no visible evidence of a wrecked Boeing in that field.

Don't understand why you continue to assert that flight 93 was tracked over Illinois after the reported crash time. The ACARS data has been explained to you ad nauseum.

Just because you shy away from that topic and come back several months later to repeat the same, already been debunked, misinformation, doesn't make it anymore true.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It has been explained to YOU, Raptor. Or more accurately, you have embraced the explanation. I do not. Neither you nor anybody else here has been able to offer an explanation as to how WoodyBox was incorrect in his analysis. FWIW, there are some Italian investigators that concur.

Or more accurately perhaps, he has offered an explanation that is consistent with what other corroborating evidence offers--there was no 757 in that field that day.

You claim there was a 757 there that day, but you cannot prove it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It has been explained to YOU, Raptor. Or more accurately, you have embraced the explanation. I do not. Neither you nor anybody else here has been able to offer an explanation as to how WoodyBox was incorrect in his analysis.

It has been explained to you also, BR. There is no record in the ACARS data that suggests Flight 93 was in Illinois after the crash time. It was simply the RGS attempting to predict where the aircraft should have been once it stopped communicating after the crash time (that is simply how the system works according to ARINC documentation). The uplink blocks even state error codes after the crash time demonstrating non-receipt from the aircraft. I informed you of why WoodyBox is incorrect here: -

http://www.unexplain...45#entry4694871

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It has been explained to YOU, Raptor. Or more accurately, you have embraced the explanation. I do not. Neither you nor anybody else here has been able to offer an explanation as to how WoodyBox was incorrect in his analysis. FWIW, there are some Italian investigators that concur.

Or more accurately perhaps, he has offered an explanation that is consistent with what other corroborating evidence offers--there was no 757 in that field that day.

You claim there was a 757 there that day, but you cannot prove it.

On top of Q's analysis he offered you 3 months ago about woodybox's explanation, I sent you the link to ARINC's PDF file of the model used in the commercial airlines of the time.

I assume you just hand waved it away like most other evidence that doesn't support your agenda.

Like I said before. Trying to convince you of anything reminds me of the SS cascade debacle.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It has been explained to you also, BR. There is no record in the ACARS data that suggests Flight 93 was in Illinois after the crash time. It was simply the RGS attempting to predict where the aircraft should have been once it stopped communicating after the crash time (that is simply how the system works according to ARINC documentation). The uplink blocks even state error codes after the crash time demonstrating non-receipt from the aircraft. I informed you of why WoodyBox is incorrect here: -

http://www.unexplain...45#entry4694871

Sorry Q. As much as I respect your knowledge and views, I think you're wrong on that. The data and interpretation provided by Woody are persuasive to me. No humans were texting, but the machines were still communicating. You and I will have to agree to disagree on the interpretation of data.

Sure as heck was not a Boeing in that field that day, and it makes perfect sense that if it flew at all that day, and it seems from evidence at Newark that it did, it was still logged on to the system and communicating computer-to-computer in Illinois.

Bollyn's 2011 interview with Wally Miller explains exactly how it happened at Shanksville that day, but you're probably not interested in reading that. Though that interview does not touch upon the ACARS data, it does explain other actions, and does dovetail nicely with ACARS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry Q. As much as I respect your knowledge and views, I think you're wrong on that. The data and interpretation provided by Woody are persuasive to me. No humans were texting, but the machines were still communicating. You and I will have to agree to disagree on the interpretation of data.

Sure as heck was not a Boeing in that field that day, and it makes perfect sense that if it flew at all that day, and it seems from evidence at Newark that it did, it was still logged on to the system and communicating computer-to-computer in Illinois.

Bollyn's 2011 interview with Wally Miller explains exactly how it happened at Shanksville that day, but you're probably not interested in reading that. Though that interview does not touch upon the ACARS data, it does explain other actions, and does dovetail nicely with ACARS.

The information on the ACARS system is on ARINC's website. in PDF form and specifically states how the system handles failed up-links....in detail!!

This is why you lose any sort of credibility in this discussion is because you are susceptible to reading and agreeing gish gallop and woo off sites like PF911T.

Why base your understanding off someone else's obvious bias analysis when it would that much easier to read about the system off the company's own provided documentation??

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry Q. As much as I respect your knowledge and views, I think you're wrong on that. The data and interpretation provided by Woody are persuasive to me. No humans were texting, but the machines were still communicating. You and I will have to agree to disagree on the interpretation of data.

It is very apparent that do not understand a thing about ACARS. Now, explain to us why there was no way that ACARS could have depicted United 93 in over Illinois at the time you have claimed so here is a lesson for you and after you have been enlighten, come back and tell us why you are incorrect on ACARS.

http://www.arinc.com/

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

Sure as heck was not a Boeing in that field that day,...

It is apparent that you are not true with the facts and that you are simply making things up as you go considering that the victims of United 93 were recovered at the crash site of United 93 and that United Airlines confirmed the crash site as that of United 93.

Coroner identifies seven more victims of Flight 93 crash

Seven victims of the Sept. 11 United Airlines Flight 93 crash in Somerset County were positively identified over the weekend, bringing the number of identified bodies to 11.

But Somerset County Coroner Wallace Miller said that additional identifications could take months. There were 44 passengers and crew members on the flight.

"We're in the process of notifying families," said Miller near the crash scene yesterday. "We're continuing the identification process as we speak."

http://old.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010924scenenat5p5.asp

In addition:

flight93-graphic.gif

ollyn's 2011 interview with Wally Miller explains exactly how it happened at Shanksville that day, but you're probably not interested in reading that.

Seems to me that you have been deliberately ignoring the remarks of Wally Miller's, because he confirmed the recovery of the victims from United 93. Perhaps, you missed what he has said about 911 conspiracist distorting his comments.

Edited by skyeagle409
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this will give you an idea who was behind the plot

Murdering Liberty Killing Hope

https://www.box.com/shared/4vbu1tkq32

nine eleven gold

https://www.box.com/shared/yghazdjnmd

hint. 240 billion dollars .................follow the money.

securities_zpsf94ac1ed.jpg

I think you forgot to mention that in the coming years, the United States will be short trillions of dollars because of the 9-11 attack, and the wars in Iraq and in Afghanistan, not to mention the long-term care for our veterans involved in those wars over the next few decades.

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.