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

skyeagle409

yes i did watch that clip and it proves absolutely nothing, i prefer nowadays to listen to scientists rather than put any faith in an anonymous u tube clip with spookie music, but cheers anyway.

wouldn't you agree that a independent investigation is required to resolve all the issues concerning that day.

http://www.scientistsfor911truth.org/introduction.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

skyeagle409

yes i did watch that clip and it proves absolutely nothing, i prefer nowadays to listen to scientists rather than put any faith in an anonymous u tube clip with spookie music, but cheers anyway.

Let's take a look back.

Did experts on the scene think WTC 7 was a controlled demolition?

Whom should we ask to find out if WTC 7’s collapse resembled an explosive demolition? How about asking the explosive demolition experts who were on the scene on 9/11? Brent Blanchard of Protec:

"Several demolition teams had reached Ground Zero by 3:00 pm on 9/11, and these individuals witnessed the collapse of WTC 7 from within a few hundred feet of the event.

We have spoken with several who possess extensive experience in explosive demolition, and all reported seeing or hearing nothing to indicate an explosive detonation precipitating the collapse.

As one eyewitness told us, "We were all standing around helpless...we knew full well it was going to collapse. Everyone there knew. You gotta remember there was a lot of confusion and we didn't know if another plane was coming...but I never heard explosions like demo charges.

We knew with the damage to the building and how hot the fire was, that building was gonna go, so we just waited, and a little later it went."

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

https://sites.google...wtc7resembledac

Controlled Demolition Inc

D.H. Griffin Companies

Mazzocchi Wrecking

Gateway Demolition

Yannuzzi Demolition & Disposal

ARCHITECT Magazine

The Magzine of the American Institute of Architects

All of Gage’s so-called evidence has been rebutted in peer-reviewed papers, by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, by the National Institute for Standards and Technology, by the American Society of Civil Engineers, by the 9/11 Commission Report, and, perhaps most memorably, by the 110-year-old engineering journal Popular Mechanics.

Architects Shy From Truther 9/11 Conspiracy Theory

Architects didn't show up for a 9/11-architecture-conspiracy documentary screening—and the AIA doesn't want its name associated with Trutherism.

http://www.architect...y-theory_2.aspx

img_bannerlogo.jpg

Towers Weakened by Planes; Brought Down by Fire

WASHINGTON, D.C., MAY 1, 2002

Analysis by a team of 25 of the nation's leading structural and fire protection engineers suggests that the World Trade Center Towers could have remained standing indefinitely if fire had not overwhelmed the weakened structures, according to a report presented today at a hearing of the House Science Committee. That finding is significant, said W. Gene Corley, Ph.D., team lead for the ASCE/FEMA Building Performance Study Team, because extreme events of this type, resulting in such substantial damage, are generally not considered in building design, and the fact that these structures were able to successfully withstand such damage is noteworthy.

Only a handful of architects and engineers question the NIST Report, but they have never come up with an alternative. Although at first blush it may seem impressive that these people don't believe the NIST Report, remember that there are 123,000 members of ASCE(American Society of Civil Engineers) who do not question the NIST Report. There are also 80,000 members of AIA(American Institute of Architects) who do not question the NIST Report.

http://911-engineers.blogspot.com/

wouldn't you agree that a independent investigation is required to resolve all the issues concerning that day.

What good would that do? A new investigation is going to require the same data evidence, videos and photos that were used during the initial investigation.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes theirs loads of info at that link and even more in the pdf, if you was naming individuals and the like, you would put a disclaimer in their too, don’t want to end up in a pine overcoat like so many others that have spoken out, the latest victim Demolition Expert Danny Jowenko after Speaking about Building 7 springs to mind.

Pretty sad state of affairs that a satisfactory investigation was never forthcoming and maybe never will be, personally I think when the next generation look back at history they will be dumb founded that the nearest that came to a proper investigation was a few heated discussions on the internet.

Pdf version

http://www.wanttokno..._fund_trust.pdf

The 'next generation' is already completely brainwashed, from a very young age. The history books are written, the movies made, the government report issued. Time to move on.

This sort of revised history is common. Youngsters are utterly conditioned to believe everything the government and media tell them.

Welcome to the forum.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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. 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.

No, I'm not resistant to possibilities, but I don't know why you think possibilities even need discussing. Yes, I'm very resistant to assertions that are based on no evidence, you should be too.

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

Let's put the cart and the horse back in their proper order, provide your reason for the 'demand' in the first place with 77 crashing into the Pentagon. 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. That's the problem, the perfectly executed deception is indistinguishable from there being no deception at all, and if I didn't know better I'd think you are invalidly trying to shoehorn in that when there is no evidence of a deception that is just 'evidence' that the deception was successful. Provide your counterpart to the Northwoods document that details the plan for the Pentagon crash, provide evidence of even the bare minimum of steps that would be necessary to switch the planes and falsify the DNA of the victims or whatever you think might have happened.

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

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.

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

This subjective likelihood mishmash approach is not at all 'the method' that we usually invoke. The usual process is 1) state your specific hypothesis and 2) provide the evidence for this hypothesis. If you were able to provide evidence for a plane switch, what anyone would 'expect' under your two largely undefined categories would be moot. What is this 'normal terrorist attack' you are appealing to? I'm only aware of a handful against the US by which you are somehow determining this 'normal'.

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

Now what I should do here is just parrot back to you such inanities like 'the lack of serial number checks is only evidence that there is a lack of serial number checks', since that is how you defined 'evidence' just a couple posts ago. If you think that an AA Boeing 757 hitting the Pentagon is not evidence for the theory that an AA Boeing 757 designated Flight 77 hit the Pentagon on 9/11, then it should be clear that nothing you mention in any of these paragraphs is 'evidence' for a false flag by your own standard.

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

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.

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

'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?

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

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

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

I'd deem these 'speculations and irrelevancies'. (didn't the 'momentarily delayed' air defense response encompass all of a few seconds and two sentences of conversation, as long as it took to confirm that it wasn't a drill?) However, you use an example here that is illustrative of a larger issue, namely that you are again dwelling in the wide open realm of possibilities and 'could be's'. It's not 'the false flag', it's definitely not, 'Q's specifically defined false flag theory', it's just 'a false flag', as in 'any possible false flag'. There is absolutely no expectation under a false flag that minimizing casualties at the Pentagon would be a goal. None. It is equally arguable that a false flag would desire to maximize casualties (remember when they needed Pearl Harbor level of casualties when it was convenient for your argument?). Similarly with, "success of the plan necessitates that the aircraft are not identified." What plan, what are you talking about? If Flight 77 secretly landed, disembarked the passengers and replaced them with explosives, took off again and rammed the Pentagon, and you personally matched serial numbers to the wreckage and identified it as 77, that's not a successful false flag? If it's not necessary that the plane not be identified, then that pretty well reduces or removes the idea that there's some basis to say what is more or less likely or expected.

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

You are not a statistician nor mathematician, nor have I seen much evidence that you are any better at estimating probabilities by gut than anyone else. I have seen evidence though that you don't recognize your own entirely normal limitations in this regard though.

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

Along with your bulletproof, and unfortunately empty, argument that if you can imagine deception at any point than counter-evidence isn't evidence at all.

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

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.

Matching... what? What record are you matching it to?

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.

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

I don't. Your 'guilt' is only going one way, you can't meet your higher evidentiary standard that any govt conspirators are 'guilty'. The consequences are NOT 'still about what is true/false' as far as what happened on 9/11. At. All. The consequences of not believing in God are purportedly the gravest of all, does that magically change the content of the evidence?

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

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? There'd be no reason to even invoke these standards at all, simply state your case that does stand on its own, but hasn't yet. Again, without an even playing field any 'debate' portion of this conversation is pointless, you've tilted the whole thing in your favor which, purely coincidentally I'm sure, just happens to be required for your 'case' to have any traction at all.

It's odd that we even need to discuss why you shouldn't be biased. You know what supports a further investigation? A decent case that there's a massive deception going on. Few things are more damaging to cases from evidence than bias, admitted or not.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What good would that do? A new investigation is going to require the same data evidence, videos and photos that were used during the initial investigation.

No that is not correct, there is a huge amount of data that has been assembled over these last few years take a look at the deaths related to Leukemia, non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma and Multiple Myeloma, three rare cancers, these have increased dramatically since that day and this data would not have been available .

And now scientists have requested that they peer review the NIST report and that has been refused, sceptics can’t have it both ways the NIST report is worthless until it is peer reviewed.

The unwillingness to investigate speaks volumes.

http://www.scientistsfor911truth.org/

thanks for the welcome Babe Ruth

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No that is not correct, there is a huge amount of data that has been assembled over these last few years take a look at the deaths related to Leukemia, non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma and Multiple Myeloma, three rare cancers, these have increased dramatically since that day and this data would not have been available .

And now scientists have requested that they peer review the NIST report and that has been refused, sceptics can’t have it both ways the NIST report is worthless until it is peer reviewed.

The unwillingness to investigate speaks volumes.

http://www.scientistsfor911truth.org/

thanks for the welcome Babe Ruth

You have to be beware of those who push disinformation and misinformation.

When black box data from American 77 was reexamined, the new investigation reconfirmed the aircraft was American 77 and in fact, it was revealed that American Airlines and the Boeing Company supplied the conversion formulas ONLY for the airframe of American 77, which was required to facilitate the black box data and I might add that American Airlines and the Boeing Company are not government agencies.

Recently, I attended a going-away dinner for a commanding officer who led my former Wing at Travis AFB, CA. He was in the Pentagon when American 77 crashed, and last month, I ran into another person who was in the Pentagon as well, and based not only on available data and physical evidence, their testimonies on what happened that day has shown that conspiracist theories regarding American 77 are false.

I have made aviation my career for over 40 years and I have never seen so much disinformation, misinformation and lies put forth as I have seen from 911 conspiracist and their conspiracy websites and I might add that much of what they have claimed doesn't occur in the real world of aviation.

They seem to think that our air defense were impenetrable, which is not correct at all. I have been sent TDY at Andrews AFB where some of those F-16s were based and that unit was not familiar with protocols of NORAD and not trained nor receive authority to shoot down airliners before United 93 crashed. Question is, how do you determine which aircraft is a direct threat or not? If you shoot down an airliner over a city, there will be a guarantee of heavy damage and loss of life on the ground, but what if that airliner was simply complying with another ATC instruction to land at another airport? That would mean that you have just shot down an innocent airliner which was redirected to another airport by ATC. In other words, accidently shooting down the wrong airliner was a fear why some commanders refused to convey the shoot down order to their pilots.

911 conspiracist have stumbled on ACARS as well and I received confirmation of their missteps when I personally contacted ARINC, the ACARS experts, by phone and I might add that 911 conspiracist had no understanding of ACARS and yet they saw themselves as armchair experts.

The list goes on and on, so simply calling for another investigation would simply be a waste of money. There is no evidence of explosions in the videos nor sound of explosions and in fact, no bomb explosions were detected by seismic monitors in the area.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...if I didn't know better I'd think you are invalidly trying to shoehorn in that when there is no evidence of a deception that is just 'evidence' that the deception was successful.

You got it, that's one of Q's favourite arguments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello skyeagle409

You have quoted my post but you have addressed none of its content, the whole NIST report was never peered reviewed am I right or wrong?

You think another investigation is a waste of money but the American government spent nearly 80 million dollars investigating the Monica Lewinsky scandal and the amount of money allocated for the 9/11 Commission a meagre $14 million, that’s another elephant in the room is it not?

What is the cost of having the NIST report independently peer reviewed by experts, probably the cost of one bomb ear marked for brown people in some far off land.

To be honest with you skyeagle409 I have posted on this thread because the OP asked the question “For those who hold that 911 was an inside job, I would like to discover why you believe those responsible would have executed this plan.” He also asked for no u tube video’s and the like, all I have done is give Redhen a link which I believe is one of the reasons why 9/11 came to pass, when I mentioned the untimely death of Demolition Expert Danny Jowenko you have leapt in with a highly dubious u tube clip and now you’re going on about flight 77 and the black box data, please save your propaganda for the courtroom.

Incidentally isn’t Field McConnell one of your air -force guys whose job it was to protect American air space, I’ve seen him on uk television ripping to shreds the official narrative and as for the black box data I’ve seen Dennis Cimino rip that to shreds to, were these two gentlemen invited to your back slapping pentagon party or was it only for those who don’t ask uncomfortable questions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[media=]

[/media]

skyeagle409

Gordon Duff with Sahar on 911

Gordon Duff from veterans Today posted this yesterday 18th march 2013.

seems relevant care to comment?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't say anything. I merely passed on information.

Since I don't trust our government, and I am among the 75% of the US population that was polled, and I do not trust the US Military or Defense Contractors, I just store this information without passing judgement until information comes in that adds to that knowledge base.

I have friends that tell me "I would tell you what I do but then I would have to kill you." A very tired phrase as I demand no more secrecy from our government and our military.

Iraq was a mistake. 9-11 is not as we are told. I am extremely tired of lies. I KNOW when I am being lied to.

One thing for sure is that I do not feel as tho you are lying, which seems odd to me, that I don't think you are lying. Lying is a national passtime.

I am scratching my head again!! What do you mean by killed because of their knowledge? We don't keep everything in our heads because we share information on computer systems and conduct regular conference calls with groups around the country and share information openly.

I began employment at Raytheon in 1998 shortly after my retirement from the Air Force and have always traveled by air during my trips while employed with the company. On one trip to Pensacola, FL., the Air Force and Raytheon sent me by air to developed a new repair manual for the inlet that is used for the TF-39 jet engine.

I might add that defense contractors regularly travel by air.

Doesn't sound like the United States made a good profit in Iraq, and we have yet to get to Afghanistan. This is another clear example how conspiracist dream up fantasies in order to concoct unfounded conspiracies.

Edited by regeneratia
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello skyeagle409

You have quoted my post but you have addressed none of its content, the whole NIST report was never peered reviewed am I right or wrong?

You think another investigation is a waste of money but the American government spent nearly 80 million dollars investigating the Monica Lewinsky scandal and the amount of money allocated for the 9/11 Commission a meagre $14 million, that’s another elephant in the room is it not?

What is the cost of having the NIST report independently peer reviewed by experts, probably the cost of one bomb ear marked for brown people in some far off land.

What evidence can be brought to the table after more than 11 years? Data, seismic, physical, photo and video evidence will remain the same as will the outcome, which will show there was no inside job.

To be honest with you skyeagle409 I have posted on this thread because the OP asked the question “For those who hold that 911 was an inside job, I would like to discover why you believe those responsible would have executed this plan.” He also asked for no u tube video’s and the like, all I have done is give Redhen a link which I believe is one of the reasons why 9/11 came to pass, when I mentioned the untimely death of Demolition Expert Danny Jowenko you have leapt in with a highly dubious u tube clip and now you’re going on about flight 77 and the black box data, please save your propaganda for the courtroom.

In regards to Danny Jowenko, his statement goes against statements of clean-up crews and demolition experts at ground zero who found no evidence of explosives. There are no sounds of explosions nor signs of explosions as the WTC buildings collapsed. In other words, there is no evidence that explosives were used and I might add that the collapse of the WTC buildings is not indicative of demolition implosions.

Incidentally isn’t Field McConnell one of your air -force guys whose job it was to protect American air space, I’ve seen him on uk television ripping to shreds the official narrative and as for the black box data I’ve seen Dennis Cimino rip that to shreds to, were these two gentlemen invited to your back slapping pentagon party or was it only for those who don’t ask uncomfortable questions.

Their radical views are nothing new and Dennis Cimino has already been proven wrong as well. He should have asked the question that relates to the significance of conversion formulas provided by the Boeing Aircraft Company and American Airlines, which were pertinent ONLY to the airframe of American 77.

It seems he failed to understand the significance of the radar tracking data regarding American 77 and direct physical evidence outside and inside the Pentagon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

my motto to so much is: Things are seldom as they seem. There is the theory out there of a break-away culture in the military. I don't know about the New Pearl Harbor. I didn't write it. But do keep asking questions about it. It gives me more to think about.

Oh man, it is hard to listen to the podcast and be on this site. I prefer to learn about the sun. BBL.

I am still scratching my head because the Air Force didn't make its selection until 2002. In addition, Italy's aircraft became the first KC-767 to be assembled and it made its maiden flight on 21 May 2005. Boeing's revised KC-767 proposal to the U.S. Air Force was selected in February 2011 for the KC-X program under the designation KC-46.

About that so-called, "New Pearl Harbor!" What does that mean?

Edited by regeneratia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

skyeagle409

Gordon Duff with Sahar on 911

Gordon Duff from veterans Today posted this yesterday 18th march 2013.

seems relevant care to comment?

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.

He also claimed that no airliners can fly at the airspeeds recorded, but it seems he was unaware that an DC-8 and an Air Force C-141 exceeded the speed of sound and both aircraft landed safely. There is even a case where a China Airlines B-747 exceeded its structural limitations and yet, the jumbo jet landed safely in San Francisco. 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=]

I've noticed that the "New Pearl Harbor" was brought up. What is that suppose to mean? After the 911 attacks, the military suffered financially and now faces a huge budget cut. He also claims there were no hijackers.

It is very clear as to why he is not credible.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

9-11 is not as we are told.

Of course it is because the evidence supports the official story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

my motto to so much is: Things are seldom as they seem. There is the theory out there of a break-away culture in the military. I don't know about the New Pearl Harbor. I didn't write it. But do keep asking questions about it. It gives me more to think about.

One only has to examine the financial state of the military after the 911 attacks. The Iraqi war will cost the United States trillions of dollars as the years roll on and the war in Afghanistan will cost trillions more in the coming decades, so what is that so-called "New Pearl Harbor suppose to indicate?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course it is because the evidence supports the official story.

Whose evidence?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One only has to examine the financial state of the military after the 911 attacks. The Iraqi war will cost the United States trillions of dollars as the years roll on and the war in Afghanistan will cost trillions more in the coming decades, so what is that so-called "New Pearl Harbor suppose to indicate?"

The Iraqi war was based on lies and egos. It should never have happened. But oh, we have a new fiber optic Tower of Babel. Personally, I don't think it was worth it just to spy on Asia. The entire Bush fAdministration was crooked.

I believe, and I knew this immediately while everyone else was glued to the TV, that 9-11 was orchestrated BY Americans for various reasons, one of which was to intiate the boosting of the US Stock market with the hash crop in Afghanistan. If you will note, the Afghan opium crop travels the same peaks and troughs the US Stock market does starting in 2002. When the crop was low, the US Market was also low. When the crop was high, so was the US Stock market.

I give very little support to the US military. In fact, I have called Congressmen and told them to cut the defense budget to the bones, especially for those operations that are considered black. Secrecy is the hallmark of tyranny, says Robert A. Heinlein. I trust Heinlein far more than I trust the US military.

The US military is meant for defense of this country, and NOT for corporate interests and the stock market.

Pearl Harbor could have been prevented. But it wasn't. And we killed thousands of innocent Japanese in retaliation for one dead soldier at Pearl Harbor.

Nope, this country cannot take the high moral ground when it comes to bombs. We are the only country in the world to use nukes on another country. That, Sir, is an extremely dubious honor. I expect better behavior from my government. Thankfully, so does the population of Israel, a state that is not supposed to have nukes but does.

Edited by regeneratia
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whose evidence?

Evidence provided by structural engineers, demolitions experts, investigators, seismic, videos, photos, radar and FDR data, to name a few.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Iraqi war was based on lies and egos. It should never have happened.

Well, it did.

But oh, we have a new fiber optic Tower of Babel. Personally, I don't think it was worth it just to spy on Asia. The entire Bush fAdministration was crooked.

But, there is no evidence implicating Bush in the 911 attacks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whose evidence?

The evidence of people who Skyeagle has fantasised about who he thinks support his claims...lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The evidence of people who Skyeagle has fantasised about who he thinks support his claims...lol

Yet the evidence of the official story is NOT there, is it?

Sorry, I cannot argue logistics on 9-11. I instinctively and immediately GNEW someone in this country directed it. It was out of GNOWING, not out of the extreme and way-over rationalized. And I did not fear. I was in the breadbacket of this country, with all moving vehicles completely filled with gas, including farm tanks, and a mass of vitamins stored. My first thought, and I know I spoke it outloud, was "What has George Bush done now?", while I knew he was takling this country on one hades of an extremely expensive, alcoholic joy ride.

Edited by regeneratia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yet the evidence of the official story is NOT there, is it?

Oh yes it is!! Claims of 911 conspiracist have been successfully debunked with reliable evidence.

The evidence of people who Skyeagle has fantasised about who he thinks support his claims...lol

On the contrary, you and other 911 conspiracist have yet to debunked the facts and evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, we are having a difference of opinion. Nothing more. Proving nothing.

I am not here to change your mind. What are your motivations for being here?

I maintain my stance on 9-11 being orchestrated by an American or a group of Americans, all in high levels of power.

And nothing has been said about the money laundering issue regarding 9-11? Why didn't you look into that?

Oh yes it is!! Claims of 911 conspiracist have been successfully debunked with reliable evidence.

On the contrary, you and other 911 conspiracist have yet to debunked the facts and evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, we are having a difference of opinion. Nothing more. Proving nothing.

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?

I am not here to change your mind. What are your motivations for being here?

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 maintain my stance on 9-11 being orchestrated by an American or a group of Americans, all in high levels of power.

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.

And nothing has been said about the money laundering issue regarding 9-11? Why didn't you look into that?

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The rest of the story on Steven Jones.

Steven Jones

Steven Jones also switches between “molten metal” and “molten steel” rather frequently. He states that molten metal was found in the basements of all three buildings. Yet he fails to specify what types of metal were found in the basements. He then states that the fires were not hot enough to melt steel without one ounce of proof that the metal that was discovered in the basements was, in fact, steel. He then states that this molten metal is evidence for thermite without proof that this molten metal is actually iron or steel.

Jones then claims that “high temperature explosives, such as thermite” were used in the towers. How is it that a man who is supposedly educated on thermite claims that it is an explosive formula? Thermite is not an explosive at all. Steven Jones was put on paid leave from BYU for his absurd suggestions and ended up standing down from his position. He was also removed from “Scholars for 9/11 Truth”.

http://www.911myster...uide.com/14.php

I might add that Steven Jones tried to mislead people with a doctored photo by claiming the photo was evidence of molten steel without admitting that what he claimed was molten steel was actually reflection from a flashlight. How many conspiracist fell for the trickery of Steven Jones regarding the following video?

Letter to the Editor

Refuting 9/11 Conspiracy Theory

April 09, 2006

Dear Editor,

After reading in the Daily Herald the presentations made by Professor Steven E. Jones (BYU Physics) to students at UVSC and BYU, I feel obligated to reply to his "Conspiracy Theory" relating to the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center (9/11/01).

I have studied the summary of the report by FEMA, The American Society of Civil Engineers and several other professional engineering organizations. These experts have given in detail the effects on the Towers by the impact of the commercial aircraft. I have also read Professor Jones' (referred to) 42 page unpublished report. In my understanding of structural design and the properties of structural steel I find Professor Jones' thesis that planted explosives (rather than fire from the planes) caused the collapse of the Towers, very unreliable.

The structural design of the towers was unique in that the supporting steel structure consisted of closely spaced columns in the walls of all four sides. The resulting structure was similar to a tube. When the aircraft impacted the towers at speeds of about 500 plus mph, many steel columns were immediately severed and others rendered weak by the following fires. The fires critically damaged the floors systems. Structural steel will begin to lose strength when heated to temperatures above 1000 degrees Fahrenheit. Steel bridge girders are bent to conform to the curved roadway by spot heating flanges between 800 and 1000 degrees Fahrenheit. It is easy to comprehend the loss of carrying capacity of all the structural steel due to the raging fires fed by the jet's fuel as well as aircraft and building contents.

Before one (especially students) supports such a conspiracy theory, they should investigate all details of the theory. To me a practicing structural engineer of 57 continuous years (1941-1998), Professor Jones' presentations are very disturbing.

D. Allan Firmage

Professor Emeritus, Civil Engineering, BYU

http://www.netxnews....9/443801bdadd6e

How long have I warned 911 conspiracist against accepting snake oil tactics of those who are bent on misleading those who allow themselves to be duped?

Edited by skyeagle409

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.