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

All modern jetliners have sophisticated flight control computers, which allow the planes to be flown with at least the precision of a skilled human pilot. The 757s and 767s used in the 9/11/01 attack were developed in the 1970s and employ similar avionics. Both contain integrated flight management computer systems (FMCS) which provide automatic guidance and control of the aircraft "from immediately after takeoff to final approach and landing."

Researcher Don Paul was among the first to describes the possible use of remote and programmed control in the execution of the 9/11/01 attack, in his 2002 book Facing Our Fascist State: e x c e r p t title: Facing Our Fascist Stateauthors: Don Paul

What can a pilot do to disable those features in the cockpit?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What does satellite tv prove?

A connection to the outside world!!! Gracious me, it shows us he utilised wireless technology, which is quite common these days. I doubt they want real technicians form official sources poking around in Bin Ladens house!

I am assuming you have heard of mobile phones and wireless internet?? He more likely received superior quality from the air than he would have with buried copper in that region. Egyptsat would be a better option.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Psyche

What YOU consider to be a refutation of facts is not necessarily a legitimate refutation.

BR

This is how a discussion works. You have to actually show your refutation, you cannot claim it exists and them proclaim victory from your claim. That is as bad as any CT I have ever seen. You have failed to provide this at any point.

With all due respect, who do you think you are? It seems a mighty tall order for you to simply pronounce that your claims have answers when you do not present them, but insist one accepts them.

That you consider the material posted here by Sky to be authentic accurate and valid is consistent with your position here in support of the Official Conspiracy Theory.

It is you that is promoting the CT. What Sky presents is the mainstream understanding. If course some parts will have personal interpretation, and some will be subject to Chinese Whispers. It is an overalll easy to read wrap up of the situation, that being that religious fundies wanted to hurt America, and killed a bunch of people, and then rejoiced about it.

You may not be aware of it, but last year or so Sky posted a video, very convincing, of an F-18 crashing into a civilian apartment building or some such. When called upon it, Sky did (admirably) admit that it was a concocted video, completely fake.

You just validated Sky. He admitted it. Wherein lies the deception, or any reason not to trust his information? Ask and ye shall receive, what more can you ask? What you have ascertained is when asked directly, Sky will offer the truth to the best of his knowledge. I am not sure why you see that as reason for distrust.

Since then, I don't look at any of his gazillions of pictures and videos, and I do not trust what he says. I understand the feeling is mutual, and have no problem with that.

All you have done is allow your personal position to blinker yourself to the evidence. Those pictures tell more of the story than all the CT'ers tied together and folded over. Refusing to accept they exist does not in any way strengthen your claim. It only illustrates unreasonable bias.

And now YOU, from the Land of Oz on the other side of the planet, are going to tell me that Wally Miller "denies what I am saying". Guess what Psyche? I have never ever met Wally Miller.

Neither have I, yet you seem to think that being in the same country gives you and advantage on this situation? Pray tell, could you enlighten me further on that?

I have seen him on TV snips, I have heard recorded telephone interviews with him, and I have read statements he has made in private interviews. So how on earth can Wally deny what I am saying?

And I quote a direct interview where he stated that the claims you have made are embellished and incorrect.

You are as deep in denial as Sky is.

To be quite frank, considering your bias, and the very fact that you have not supported your position at all, but simply protested it must be heard and accepted, I am OK with that, and consider myself in good company. My shout Sky.

In an interview conducted by Christopher Bollyn in late 2011, it seems that in Shanksville PA many people are able to joke about how the feds created the story by getting Wally to "be a team player." They are joking about it Psyche. The yanks are joking about it. It's local common knowledge. And you're going to lecture me from Australia. :whistle:

Bull.

Bollyn is a parasite that feeds on human misery. I already covered this, and again, you had nothing more to say.

I called Miller sometime before May 2006 and asked him about the ethics of his having signed death certificates for bodies that had been identified by others at Dover AFB. He got angry at me for having asked this direct question, but he cannot say that he has not heard that such things could have occurred.

Miller got angry with him. He gave him time and patience, and Bollyn just kept pushing buttons.

I do not see how Bollyn claims Wally is both a team player, and some dumb hick who cannot play the gane he says he is playing at the same time:

Wally is a nice fellow, but he thinks that everybody plays by the rules. He doesn't think about destroying evidence, especially when that evidence is human remains. He allowed the federal authorities to take control of the crime scene that was his responsibility and jurisdiction under the laws of the state of Pennsylvania.

Bollyn is just a prime class A jerk. No ethics, no morals, no sense of decency, and no proof. We could use less people like that in the world to be frank.

What Wally says is that he saw human remains and evidence that cremated human remains. He has held masses and vigils for the lost souls, is that part of the cover up is it? Not necessary is it, nobody would even know Waly's role if Bollyn did not start making stuff up about him. Bollyn's refuse is far from proof. It is merely opinion, and unsuported at that.

These people do not look like they are joking to me mate.

SHANKSVILLE-3-articleInline.jpgtl11-pg-horizontal.jpg

And this is Wally Miller, yeah looking so manipulated isn't he.

doc4e6cd0f060fdf4229500701.jpg

Yes, just peeing himself laughing hey.

Dead set, to say such hurtful nasty things withut any more than a notion form a parasite is disheartening to witness, I certainly hope you do not have to live with that which you put these people through, or the accustations you make against your fellow man some day. Nobody should be subject to that. I find your accusations, and that of Bollyn inherently evil.

The OCT is a bald-faced lie, and all the evidence, the preponderance of the evidence, shows that. Get a grip, Mate.

If that is the case, why can you not prove it? You point at Truther groups that do not have the gumption to stand behind their nonsense in public, you present nothing, and then proclaim you have all the answers. And you are telling me to get a grip? I seriously think you need a long hard look in the mirror pal. The louder you yell, the less you are heard. Evidence speaks volumes. And I wont accept vague references to unethical groups who have no more to share than rumour and opinion. Lousy opinion at that. And if I go to GZL, drunken lousy opinion.

Edited by psyche101
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[/font]

What can a pilot do to disable those features in the cockpit?

Hey Guys

Everyone except Sky here.

You know how most of you are bagging Sky over his information all the time? May I ask, who else here has the personal experience, and understanding to ask and know to ask this question, and know it's answer?

And you all are telling a real pilot who has flown in war time how a plane flies? Or crashed for that matter? I know you do some flight time BR, Sky has told be he has submitted designs to the USAF to improve the flight characteristics of aircraft, can you match that? He even designed a wind turbine, told me about it, and I have to say as a qualified electrical engineer, the design is sound and robust.

Seriously?

Nah, lets attack the sources of his information. That will make the real world experience go away?

You keep quoting pilots, and you have one right under your nose, who when challenged presented the truth, as shown and explained by BR. Seems to me to be a valuable resource that is being attacked for the wrong reasons. Forget the headlines, ask him about the plane and the stupid no planers claims. He has experience, and as we can see, is kind enough to share all we want to know. Seems a good deal to me.

Anyone game enough to take him on in his professional capacity? I know if it was me, Id' want my powder to be extra dry on this one.

As for Sky himself.

Bravo my good man. Real world experience is a very valuable commodity. :tu:

Edited by psyche101
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What does satellite tv prove? Most prisons I know of have satellite tv.

LOL, most prisons have phones and Internet too!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it strange that you would believe or think that people who believe in CT whether its 9/11 or Bigfoot stuff "thinking" boils down to a distrust of government. I think we all understand that there is a need for laws for us to be governed by social contracts that society creates but criticism of governments and those laws, doesn't always equate to being anti government. Its a poor attack and label designed as a argument to stifle the debates even before it starts. I'm critical of lots Formula 1, but that doesn't mean I'm anti Formula 1. Everyone knows that governments do lots of good work and but just because they do good work, that doesn't mean they do no wrong.

It is not meant to be an attack at all, just an observation. I am genuinely amazed you have not seen numerous examples of this yourself, and would urge you to consider have a good look at the many forums at Unexplained Mysteries and I am quite positive that you will find more than enough examples to support my claim. Anti Government seems to be the driving force, as in if they said something believe anything else.

The government does lots of things wrong, is it that hard to theorise that the government did wrong on 9/11?

No, it's not telling at all because we do not know how many AIA member have read the NIST reports. It's a logical fallacy to claim that AIA doesn't agree with the CT's and they have 80,000 members who don't agree when we do not know if every single member has read the reports or even if they are aware of A&E 9/11? Clearly some have read and joined with Gage but even if I was an architect, I probably wouldn't join.

If I had said that AIA don't agree with any particular religious beliefs and therefore all AIA 80,000 members are atheists. Would that be a logical argument? lol I hope not.

We know the Bodine connection, we know where the Government went wrong. Why is it not conceivable that Gage is embellishing? If people know something to be true someone will stand up for it. That is just not happening 100% here. That is telling. If you were an Architect, but knew some vital information that could confirm or deny curcial components of the hypothesis, why would you keep silent?

If you said that about AIA religious beliefs, when challenged, some would stand up and say "this is simply not the case".

If I can prove that Christians are wrong about how humans came to be, do I have to provide a better theory of how we came to be to disprove the original theory? When the reality is even though I believe in evolution and I believe it provides a better theory, I do not and can never truly know how we came to be, have to present that theory if the original is already disproven.

We know evolution is the answer, we do not know how the spark started. The tricj is Evolution has firm proof, I can pick up a fossil and donk a creationist on the head with it and say "that did not hurt, this bone does not exist according to you". That is reality, empirical evidence.

The problem is in life, there are no absolutes, look at how the Higgs Boson experiments are changing everything we thought we knew. This is why I work with possibilities. If I thought you had robbed me and you disproved it wasn't you, you do not then have to come up with a better theory and expecting truthers or architect and engineers to do it by examining evidence that has been made accessible, then I think you are asking to much and will never be satisfied because so many individuals have different alternative theories. Some good some very bad as you have no doubt seen, like the hologramers. :blink:

You do realise that by stating there are no absolutes, that you have just stated an absolute don't you?

Higgs surprised everyone, That is the nature of science. Professor Hawking lost a bet over it. Science is not the repository of knowledge, it is a pursuit of knowledge. It represents out best understanding currently. Yes, I agree many people have ideals, and I am OK with that, and that is where the 911 CT falls down. It is being over-thought Every discrepancy rises from molehill to mountain without effort. And each one takes on a life of it's own. Why do you refuse all the information that refutes the CT in favour of the CT? Both sides have extensive information available, and every claims that I know of is countered. What do you feel remains to tip the balance in favour of CT?

See this is where I get confused.... :huh:

If a airplane crashes into the WTC and it collapses, it requires no explosives.....but...

If a airplane crashes into the WTC rigged with explosives/thermite, it wont collapse without explosives or thermite being in strategic positions or without there needing tons and tons of them.

Because the claim is the thermite's were laid is it not? They had to be on structural columns, if they were in the plane how would they have worked? The CT states that Thermite charges were placed to allow a controlled demolition.

Maybe it is me and I just don't understand that by adding a explosive thermitey cocktail to a building that some already believe would collapse without it, would hinder the collapse. This is why I do not understand the logic or sense of those who are strongly opposed to the idea of explosives/thermite. The WTC were huge and full of people doing all sort of things and wherever these strategic place are, it would be easy for anyone to access them and blend in with the crowd.

It is not easy to access structural columns without being noticed. And it would take considerable planning and time. Someone must have seen something. Lets remember who was in charge of security? Would he let this get past him with what he knew?

Did you know that Jones, Niels H. Harrit and seven other authors published a paper in The Open Chemical Physics Journal, causing the editor, Prof. Marie-Paule Pileni, to resign as she accused the publisher of printing it without her knowledge and that she'd already had suspicions that the "Bentham Scientific" publisher ran pseudo-scientific journals?

Have you looked into the extensive answers provided by Brent Blanchard with regards to the Thermite claim?

Well I do not know that many truthers, but I have not met or spoke to many other than on the forums and I've not met anyone one of them who doesn't give a damn about their fellow man.

You woud think so, Gummug said the same thing in the Sandy Hook thread, then a couple of posts later a poster proved him wrong. "Truthers" do not seem to give a damn about the harm they cause, or the victims who protest their heartless accusations. Ethics and Truthers seem to be polar opposites to my experience.

To understand the complaints from the commissioners requires it own thread but it is clear that the White House were steering the commission with Zeiklow at the wheel. I don't think by saying they were set up to fail helped sell books or to profit from the tragedy, they already profited as they were both head commissioners and would have been paid to do the report. But it's not the just the opinion of men profiting, the 9/11 commission is their opinions too and it is their opinion they were set up to fail.

Of course there are going to be people who were frightened, didn't want their names tarnished or did not want to cooperate, but that is not the reason they came up with the statement. So they state "..there were all kinds of reasons we thought we were set up to fail."

In the book they state "Fog of war could explain why some people were confused on the day of 9/11, but it could not explain why all of the after-action reports, accident investigations and public testimony by FAA and NORAD officials advanced an account of 9/11 that was untrue,"

Max Cleland resigned from the commission saying it was a scam and that America had been cheated because the rest of the commissioners made a deal to not look to far into the CIA reports to the White House that suggested advanced warnings were known about to the Bush admin. So dismissing Hamilton and Kean criticisms who were from both sides of the political spectrum, when they were in the best position to see exactly what was happening isn't really an argument.

Paid to do the report, but complaining about money?

The people who feared wrongful conviction may well have been quite paranoid, but it certainly did hamper the investigation, and was a complaint from both of these men as far as I know.

"It proved difficult, if not impossible, to raise hard questions about 9/11 in New York without it being perceived as criticism of the individual police and firefighters or of Mayor Giuliani," Kean and Hamilton said.

That statement seems to indicate professional animosity, not evasiveness.

I was a bit surprised by Rolf, I remember he used to do commercials for getting kids to swim and I didn't realise it was Rolf Harris until years later. I just thought he was a creepy looking man back then but learned to like him and thought he was alright.

Yeah, the wobble board will go down in history, so will Jake the Peg I reckon, personally, I find it a little hard to believe but I suppose we shall see.

I agree they are not evidence of a conspiracy, but they do point to the possibility of a conspiracy.

Of course there are problems and life always throws out the unexpected, like it did for a lot of people on 9/11 and people will make mistakes and sometimes lie, but what if there is a pattern to these mistakes and lies? Do we consider the possibility that they are a series of unrelated lies and mistakes, or do we consider the possibility there might be a reason for this pattern?

The problem is that even though there is plenty of evidence pointing to the possibility of a conspiracy and not a real definitive conspiracy, the other side of panto debunkers won't even admit to possibility and will reject at any cost any suggestion, even as a thought experiment. Lets us assume for a moment that we suddenly find rock hard evidence that the towers were rigged with explosives, that still doesn't mean there is a conspiracy because AQ could have rigged them. This is why I do not subscribe a definitive conspiracy theory. I will always argue that it was possible that the towers were rigged because I believe it is possible, the reason to reject why it is not possible seems odd when I am arguing with people that believe

Not quite, if explosives were used I think this would be a different conversation. It's not just the possibility, or the thought experiment, it's the ethics an morals. As I mentioned, that powder would want to be very dry before firing off that accusation. What I have seen is that most of this comes form a hand ful of unscrupulous individiuals, with Jones leading the charge. These men benefit greatly from these "questions" yet the same claim you put on the supporters of the official claim are only expending more and more to provide proof of their own innocence. In this light, I think it seems obvious that the CT'ers are the ones who want this CT alive, well and widespread, as it means big dollars to them. Hell, look at Jones, he thinks every bloody tragedy is a CT, as such, I can only view him ad a human parasite that feeds of the suffering. Few forms of life are lower IMHO.

I do not feel believing a thing is possible is reason to endlessly insist it is very likely, or a best option. If you feel some of the information is valid, it should be presented for review, if it survives that, your on your way. I do not think some clown has the right to jump on the radio, make stuff up, and lie to the world for his own benefit. That is what I feel is happening here. Some people made some stupid mistakes from personal conviction, and that caused everyone to suffer. To me, Bodine was the turning point that allowed 911 to happen. In the same fashion that the US soldiers did not believe in kamikaze pilots before Pearl Harbour.

No, I've not seen the GZL recordings before and I have no interest in what they do or say. You see I would rather debate what I claim and provide as evidence rather than what this or that truther group believe. I am not part of a group and most of the people who I've spoke to on forums are labelled a truthers and are not part of these groups. A lot of people I know believe in the possibility of a conspiracy but are not part of these groups either.

While I think it is more likely this group of people planned this attack and elements within the government let it happen rather them being patsies and elements within the government planed it and made it happen, it would not absolve them but it wouldn't absolve the government not doing anything and letting it happen. I think this CIA had a big part to play, but with them being so secretive, its going to be hard to uncover which if any theory holds water, unless it was genuinely just a series of mistakes of course.

Cheers

Stundie :)

I feel if one is supportive of a Truther group, then for all intensive purposes, one is then classified a truther. Your unique position of not quite truther is probably why I get along with you better than any other CT proponent. And no doubt, why you can discuss with reason in a fair and balanced debate. You are better at this than the more vocal and adamant supporters of the truther movement. Even the ones that like to use big words to sound intellectual. ;) Intellectual BS is still BS LOL.

Thing is they have let us know what happened, Bodine denied FBI agent ONeil, and that allowed the terrorists the upperhand. Bodines personal distrust of ONeil is without doubt a key element in the failure to protect against terrorist action on 911. There is a bit more to it I grant, but this seems to me to be a major turning point that would have allowed 911 to get no further than Bojinka did. As such, it seems to me to be a series of mistakes, but in hindsight, not many people are willing to accept accountability for said mistakes. And with Bodine being somewhat protected, one would wonder what internal polotics are at play, and who's backside will be sacrificed for the likes of Bodines rear end. The panic seems to be the hindsight, not the lead up.

Cheers Mate.

ANZAC day here tomorrow, doubt I will be in here, probably be playing two up at the pub ;)

Edited by psyche101
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is not meant to be an attack at all, just an observation. I am genuinely amazed you have not seen numerous examples of this yourself, and would urge you to consider have a good look at the many forums at Unexplained Mysteries and I am quite positive that you will find more than enough examples to support my claim. Anti Government seems to be the driving force, as in if they said something believe anything else.
As I said, because people are critical of government, that doesn't make them anti government. I'm sure there are those who actively oppose the things that governments do and do not trust them, but that still doesn't make them anti government.

If you are anti government, then you are against being governed. Out of all the ones that I have met, I have not met a single person who claims they are anti government, as I think you'll probably find that most people understand as a society, we need laws and regulations to be governed by. Its like when people criticise America and then get called Anti American, being critical of something doesn't mean you are anti it.

We know the Bodine connection, we know where the Government went wrong. Why is it not conceivable that Gage is embellishing? If people know something to be true someone will stand up for it. That is just not happening 100% here. That is telling. If you were an Architect, but knew some vital information that could confirm or deny curcial components of the hypothesis, why would you keep silent?
I disagree that if people know something to be true, they will stand up for it. Again I can cite many examples of people knowing things to be true and not standing up for it. Again, I point back to the Saville case, plenty of people caught him in compromising positions with young girls and were well aware of what he was up to, yet nobody said anything until long after he had died.

Standing up for something sometimes leads to more trouble than it is worth. I watched a nurse who worked in a care home stand up against the neglect and poor standards of care the patients were receiving. She reported it her superiors who ignored her, so when she reported it to the media and secretly filmed the conditions, it received media attention. The care quality commissions investigations admitted that she was correct and that patients had been neglected but she was struck off the nursing and midwifery council and now her 20 year career as a nurse, a job which she loved is now over.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/5165337/Nurse-struck-off-for-exposing-patient-neglect-on-Panorama.html

Sometimes standing up for something isn't that easy especially if there are threats or risks in doing so.

If you said that about AIA religious beliefs, when challenged, some would stand up and say "this is simply not the case".

That is exactly what has happened with some of the members of AIA. They have signed Gages petition.

We do not know how many of the AIA members have read the report or are aware of A&E 9/11 group. We cannot ASSUME that all AIA members have read it and disagree with Gages assertion because the organisation doesn't support him. Individuals within the group clearly do, some might totally agree with him but they still might not wish to sign or join his group.

We know evolution is the answer, we do not know how the spark started. The tricj is Evolution has firm proof, I can pick up a fossil and donk a creationist on the head with it and say "that did not hurt, this bone does not exist according to you". That is reality, empirical evidence.
We THINK we know the answer, but the reality is we do not know for sure. Nobody knows. We have theories which we think explain things and they might be the best theories, but we do not know.

As I said, you do not have to prove to me that you didn't rob me by providing a better theory of who did rob me. The fact you disprove it is you is enough for me to be aware that it was someone else. If truther can prove that the towers didn't collapse by planes and fires, then asking them to provide a better that theory of how the towers collapse does not mean they are wrong. It just means that they do not know how it was done.

You do realise that by stating there are no absolutes, that you have just stated an absolute don't you?
Have I?? lol Unless by stating that there are no absolutes, I am stating one....lol
Higgs surprised everyone, That is the nature of science. Professor Hawking lost a bet over it. Science is not the repository of knowledge, it is a pursuit of knowledge. It represents out best understanding currently. Yes, I agree many people have ideals, and I am OK with that, and that is where the 911 CT falls down. It is being over-thought Every discrepancy rises from molehill to mountain without effort. And each one takes on a life of it's own. Why do you refuse all the information that refutes the CT in favour of the CT? Both sides have extensive information available, and every claims that I know of is countered. What do you feel remains to tip the balance in favour of CT?
I think you are right when you say the CT is being over thought, I think this is why laser beams and hologram theories exist. lol

The information which tips me in the favour of a CT has nothing to do with WTC, WTC7, the Pentagon crash, Shanksville or any of the usual theories associated with 9/11. My own investigation into the movements of Dick Cheney on the morning of 9/11 is enough to convince me in the possibility of a conspiracy because of the discrepancies in the commissions account and that of him and others. Again, it is something that requires its own thread.

Because the claim is the thermite's were laid is it not? They had to be on structural columns, if they were in the plane how would they have worked? The CT states that Thermite charges were placed to allow a controlled demolition.
The claim of some CTers is that thermite was laid within the building. However, if you believe that no thermite was needed and the plane and fires was enough, then why would it matter where it was placed when you believe that none was needed anyway?
It is not easy to access structural columns without being noticed. And it would take considerable planning and time. Someone must have seen something. Lets remember who was in charge of security? Would he let this get past him with what he knew?
The building had 110 floors and each floor was over 4 million square meters. Nobody is going to take any notice of people accessing structural columns especially as there would be maintenance men all over the place doing odd jobs. And we are aware of who was in charge of security, it was the same security companies which manned the airports the hijackers flew from too. It is easy to get around security if you know what security checks are in place.
Did you know that Jones, Niels H. Harrit and seven other authors published a paper in The Open Chemical Physics Journal, causing the editor, Prof. Marie-Paule Pileni, to resign as she accused the publisher of printing it without her knowledge and that she'd already had suspicions that the "Bentham Scientific" publisher ran pseudo-scientific journals?

Have you looked into the extensive answers provided by Brent Blanchard with regards to the Thermite claim?

I thought she had said that the papers topic lies outside her expertise and she couldn't comment whether it was bad or good.

And I have read Blanchards paper and Jim Hoffmans rebuttal. Blanchard reasoning against thermite does not stand up to scrutiny and there is plenty of evidence that contradicts his claims

Paid to do the report, but complaining about money?
When you consider that it cost $40 million to investigate Bill Clinton and $60 million for the Challenger disaster, then being given $3 million to investigate the biggest terrorist attack is certainly something worth complaining about if you want a full account of what happened.
The people who feared wrongful conviction may well have been quite paranoid, but it certainly did hamper the investigation, and was a complaint from both of these men as far as I know."It proved difficult, if not impossible, to raise hard questions about 9/11 in New York without it being perceived as criticism of the individual police and firefighters or of Mayor Giuliani," Kean and Hamilton said.

That statement seems to indicate professional animosity, not evasiveness.

They also wished they had asked harder question from Giuliani but it wasn't professional animosity or evasiveness for the reasons they think they were set up to fail, their claims go much further than that, because they said people were advancing accounts which were not true and that they were lying.

Max claimed the White House were covering up. Richard Clarke also stated that the group were focused on Iraq and not AQ the day after the attacks, all without a shred of evidence that Iraq was involved. If AQ are involved, talking about Iraq the next day doesn't sound like you think AQ are the problem. We know that the Neocons wanted to invade Iraq during Clintons admin by the open letters they sent since the mid 90's. We also know that former treasury secretary Paul O'Neill has said that the Bush admin were talking and planning about invading Iraq days after his inauguration.

So if members of the Bush admin were talking about attacking Iraq before his presidency and planning it at that start of his presidency, then talking about it the day after the attacks when there is no evidence for Iraqs involvement, then invade Iraq and then cover up any investigations into the attacks. Is it any surprise that people think the Bush Admin/government think they may have been involved whether they let it happen or helped to make it happen?

Not quite, if explosives were used I think this would be a different conversation. It's not just the possibility, or the thought experiment, it's the ethics an morals. As I mentioned, that powder would want to be very dry before firing off that accusation. What I have seen is that most of this comes form a hand ful of unscrupulous individiuals, with Jones leading the charge. These men benefit greatly from these "questions" yet the same claim you put on the supporters of the official claim are only expending more and more to provide proof of their own innocence. In this light, I think it seems obvious that the CT'ers are the ones who want this CT alive, well and widespread, as it means big dollars to them. Hell, look at Jones, he thinks every bloody tragedy is a CT, as such, I can only view him ad a human parasite that feeds of the suffering. Few forms of life are lower IMHO.
I'm not sure how or Jones benefits from these questions. I'm sure his job at Brigham was financially more beneficial than running his truth group. Although I have no idea of his financial dealings to confirm or deny it but you think he earns big dollars, I would say that it pales to insignificant to the amount that others have made off the back of the tragedy and subsequent wars.

I do not understand your comment about CTers wanting to keep the CT alive. I can't understand why someone would want to believe that members of their own government were involved or ignored warnings of the attacks for financial or political gains. Its a horrible thought and I think that most CTer are doing it because they believe it to be true and such a horrible idea.

I do not feel believing a thing is possible is reason to endlessly insist it is very likely, or a best option. If you feel some of the information is valid, it should be presented for review, if it survives that, your on your way. I do not think some clown has the right to jump on the radio, make stuff up, and lie to the world for his own benefit. That is what I feel is happening here. Some people made some stupid mistakes from personal conviction, and that caused everyone to suffer. To me, Bodine was the turning point that allowed 911 to happen. In the same fashion that the US soldiers did not believe in kamikaze pilots before Pearl Harbour.
I do not think that believing something is possible means that it is likely to have happened. Some people didn't make mistakes, some people lied as the commissioner stated.

You are appear to be angry at the CTers for peddling lies, but yet I do not see the same anger at the people/departments who peddled lies to the commission.

I feel that this double standard highlights a hatred of conspiracy theorists rather than people lying in general because you would also be talking about the liars in government rather than trying to excuse their lies as evasiveness and professional animosity.

I feel if one is supportive of a Truther group, then for all intensive purposes, one is then classified a truther. Your unique position of not quite truther is probably why I get along with you better than any other CT proponent. And no doubt, why you can discuss with reason in a fair and balanced debate. You are better at this than the more vocal and adamant supporters of the truther movement. Even the ones that like to use big words to sound intellectual. ;) Intellectual BS is still BS LOL.
My only support of all truther groups is that I support a new investigation.

I do not mind being labelled as one either as I have been called much worse names than a twoofer...lol

Thing is they have let us know what happened, Bodine denied FBI agent ONeil, and that allowed the terrorists the upperhand. Bodines personal distrust of ONeil is without doubt a key element in the failure to protect against terrorist action on 911. There is a bit more to it I grant, but this seems to me to be a major turning point that would have allowed 911 to get no further than Bojinka did. As such, it seems to me to be a series of mistakes, but in hindsight, not many people are willing to accept accountability for said mistakes. And with Bodine being somewhat protected, one would wonder what internal polotics are at play, and who's backside will be sacrificed for the likes of Bodines rear end. The panic seems to be the hindsight, not the lead up.

Cheers Mate.

ANZAC day here tomorrow, doubt I will be in here, probably be playing two up at the pub ;)

I would have to agree that Bodine didn't help O'Neil and it probably played a small part in to why the terrorist were successful but I think it goes far deeper than that too.

It is clear from the commissioner themselves that they had unanswered questions and that investigation is by no means a full account of what happened, yet anyone who dares to question the commissions account is automatically labelled as a truther. Any deviation from what the commission says is met with the label of a being a truther whether there is any truth to it or not and it is designed to stifle debate.

I find that it's hard for any panto debunker to accept mistakes or even outright lies that are in the official account. I think this is down to a fear that there is some validity behind some of the truthers claims and this is why they are so motivated to debate and counter their arguments.

I do not believe in religious beliefs, I accept that there are people who do believe in them, but I don't challenge their beliefs or debate with them by telling them they are wrong or that they are nutters because I am comfortable with my own beliefs. I do not need to challenge what others believe even if I think it's a bunch of crapola on toast. I would only challenge their beliefs and thoughts on religion if I wasn't to sure or comfortable with my own beliefs. I think this is why panto debunkers are so vehemently against any conspiracy that they will even lie to themselves in order to keep the official story as the biblical standards of truth about what happened that day.

Anyway, have a stubby or whatever your poison is for me and have a good day out.

Cheers

Stundie :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sometimes standing up for something isn't that easy especially if there are threats or risks in doing so.

That is exactly what has happened with some of the members of AIA. They have signed Gages petition.

About Richard Gage. He is not credible. Check it out.

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.

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/

I assume that you are unaware that Richard Gage has been caught lying on video. So what were have here, Richard Gage's papers have been debunked by peer review, and the majority of demolition experts, civil engineers and architects agree with the official story.

The information which tips me in the favour of a CT has nothing to do with WTC, WTC7, the Pentagon crash, Shanksville or any of the usual theories associated with 9/11.

But, no one found evidence of explosives and no bomb explosions are seen nor heard in the videos nor detected on seismic monitors.

My own investigation into the movements of Dick Cheney on the morning of 9/11 is enough to convince me in the possibility of a conspiracy because of the discrepancies in the commissions account and that of him and others. Again, it is something that requires its own thread.

What difference does that make? Where was Rumsfeld when the Pentagon was struck?

The claim of some CTers is that thermite was laid within the building.

No one found planted thermite in the rubble of the WTC buildings and no thermite cuts were found on the columns. Thermite was not capable of bringing down the WTC buildings, but as the evidence has shown, fire, not thermite, was responsible for the collapse of the WTC buildings.

And I have read Blanchards paper and Jim Hoffmans rebuttal. Blanchard reasoning against thermite does not stand up to scrutiny and there is plenty of evidence that contradicts his claims

On the contrary, Brent Blanchard is right on the money. There is no evidence that thermite was planted and no thermite cuts were ever found on the structures of the WTC buildings.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stundie

An outstanding series of posts! :tu:

Many good points, but I think the best was that one need not offer another theory to understand that a particular theory is false and invalid. Sky and Psyche just cannot comprehend how simple and valid that point is.

To understand that the Official Conspiracy Theory is false, one need not offer another theory. Of course one MAY offer another theory if one has constructed another, but it's quite possible to recognize a lie and deception without offering an alternative explanation.

The best example is magic tricks and card tricks. I can easily understand I am being tricked and deceived, EVEN THOUGH I do not understand exactly how the magician pulled it off. Though I cannot explain the details, I know I've been duped.

That is too sophisticated for Sky & Psyche.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stundie

An outstanding series of posts! :tu:

Actually not! :no:

The majority of demolition experts, civil engineers and architects agree with the official story and they have debunked the papers of Steven Jones and Richard Gage.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

ARCHITECT Magazine

The Magzine of the American Institute of Architects

All of Gage’s so-called evidence has been rebutted in peer-reviewed papers,...

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To understand that the Official Conspiracy Theory is false, one need not offer another theory.

Looking at the facts and evidence, the facts and evidence support only the official story, which explains why 911 Truthers have failed to provide evidence that refutes the official story.

The World Trade Center's Steel Structure Was Buckling Before the Collapse

Police, Firemen and Civilians Saw Warning Signs of Collapse of the Twin Towers on September 11th 2001

Before the collapse of either tower, evidence the structures of the WTC were failing was reported by Police, Firemen and civilians. As already mentioned, flying around outside the WTC, the NYPD helicopters reported "an inward bowing of the buildings' columns in the minutes before they collapsed." Inside WTC 1, New York City Fire Department's Assistant Chief Joseph Callan realized the building was in trouble even before the first building, building two, collapsed. Interviewed Nov. 2, 2001, Assistant Chief Callan told New York City Fire Marshal Michael Starace, "Approximately 40 minutes after I arrived in the lobby, I made a decision that the building was no longer safe.

And that was based on the conditions in the lobby, large pieces of plaster falling, all the 20 foot high glass panels on the exterior of the lobby were breaking. There was obvious movement of the building, and that was the reason on the handy talky I gave the order for all Fire Department units to leave the north tower. Approximately ten minutes after that, we had a collapse of the south tower, and we were sort of blown up against the wall in the lobby of the north tower, and we gathered together those of us who were still able to."

http://www.represent...xplosives2.html

To understand that the Official Conspiracy Theory is false, one need not offer another theory.

Looking at the facts and evidence, the facts and evidence support only the official story, which explains why 911 Truthers have failed to provide evidence that refutes the official story.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see Q said earlier in the piece that MSM was not to be trusted, then he said it was OK if you can verify the facts, then did a complete turn around, and attacked Annovva for not being a person

I said, “I’m quite happy to use Fox News as a source when there is no reason to doubt validity of a report”. That is only sensible and vigilant. I also said this applies to all media and whether of an Eastern/Western source does not change the rule. I attacked Fox News and Annanova first and foremost for reporting false information incongruent with original bin Laden transcripts released by Al Jazeera, the BBC and FBIS. The fact that Annanova is the world’s first ‘cyberbabe’ newscaster deserved to be mentioned as icing on the cake. There was no ‘turnaround’ during any of this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What does satellite tv prove?

A connection to the outside world!!! Gracious me, it shows us he utilised wireless technology, which is quite common these days. I doubt they want real technicians form official sources poking around in Bin Ladens house!

I am assuming you have heard of mobile phones and wireless internet?? He more likely received superior quality from the air than he would have with buried copper in that region. Egyptsat would be a better option.

What does satellite tv prove? Most prisons I know of have satellite tv.

LOL, most prisons have phones and Internet too!

Why are you responding to my same quote twice? Did you forget you had already replied? Or is it just the lack of thought that went into your first response needed expanding upon?

Anyhow, please check what initially raised the topic – it is Zaphod’s claim that the presence of satellite tv rules out the prison nature of the compound. I refuted that claim. Your response above only serves to further backup that Zaphod’s claim has no merit. I’m sure that was not your intention, but thank you for the assistance.

I have made my case for why I believe the bin Laden compound to be a detention facility, rather than a ‘hideout’. Can you explain exactly how you rule out the possibility of a detention facility?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many good points, but I think the best was that one need not offer another theory to understand that a particular theory is false and invalid. Sky and Psyche just cannot comprehend how simple and valid that point is.

I will make it even simpler. Why have 911 Truthers failed to produce evidence that refutes the official story after more than 11 years?

Answer: No such evidence exist for 911 Truthers to produce which explains why after more than 11 years not one shred of evidence has surfaced that implicates the U.S. government.

What is one of the evidence that 911 Truthers had claimed refuted the official story? Let's take a look.

[media=]

[/media] Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It just makes one think ? Do the Truthers and 9/11 Idiots are just what they are Idiots ! To be kind I will not fill in the names that believe in this Crap ! :tu:

Good one Skyeagle ! On your Six still !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anyone said anything about The New World Order or Aaron Russo yet?

Anyways, here's Arron Russo telling Alex Jones what Nick Rockafeller told him about the 911 false flag operation and why they did it...

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, it's a shame Aaron Russo died early.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

About Richard Gage. He is not credible. Check it out.

He has more credibility than you...lol

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.

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

What peer review papers?? lol

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/

I assume that you are unaware that Richard Gage has been caught lying on video. So what were have here, Richard Gage's papers have been debunked by peer review, and the majority of demolition experts, civil engineers and architects agree with the official story.

I am aware of you lying and that you are still employing logical fallacies in stating that the majority of demolition experts, civil engineers and architects agree with the official story, when the majority of them have never been asked.

You are assuming that everyone in ASCE agrees with the official story. Of course, I do not expect you to understand the logical fallacies you employ because you sponsor so many of them.

But, no one found evidence of explosives and no bomb explosions are seen nor heard in the videos nor detected on seismic monitors.
No one checked and using Blanchards seismic data which doesn't appear to exist, highlights the fact you have nothing but repeated mantras which have been debunked...lol
What difference does that make?
It doesn't make any difference to you because you are a fool.
Where was Rumsfeld when the Pentagon was struck?
At the Pentagon...lol
No one found planted thermite in the rubble of the WTC buildings and no thermite cuts were found on the columns. Thermite was not capable of bringing down the WTC buildings, but as the evidence has shown, fire, not thermite, was responsible for the collapse of the WTC buildings.
Wrong on so many counts...:rolleyes:
On the contrary, Brent Blanchard is right on the money. There is no evidence that thermite was planted and no thermite cuts were ever found on the structures of the WTC buildings.

Jim Hoffman put Blanchards arguments to rest....lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will make it even simpler. Why have 911 Truthers failed to produce evidence that refutes the official story after more than 11 years?

Answer: No such evidence exist for 911 Truthers to produce which explains why after more than 11 years not one shred of evidence has surfaced that implicates the U.S. government.

What is one of the evidence that 911 Truthers had claimed refuted the official story? Let's take a look.

[media=]

[/media]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I said, because people are critical of government, that doesn't make them anti government. I'm sure there are those who actively oppose the things that governments do and do not trust them, but that still doesn't make them anti government.

If you are anti government, then you are against being governed. Out of all the ones that I have met, I have not met a single person who claims they are anti government, as I think you'll probably find that most people understand as a society, we need laws and regulations to be governed by. Its like when people criticise America and then get called Anti American, being critical of something doesn't mean you are anti it.

I would call the following, all from UM, Anti Government. There is a common agenda, and Babe Ruth is a prime example. It matters not what the subject is, the Government is to blame, and they want to keep us in the dark, Flying Saucers, Bombs, Bigfoot, you name it, the Government is to blame.

Obama is a lying piece of ****, I don't trust him with signing food and health things which is worse than faking the killing of a terrorist. Hell it's worse than 9/11.

In my view, that is a diversionary tactic to distract from the real issue; government suppression of intimate knowledge of ET life and the UFO phenomena.

The government is controlled by special interests, pure and simple. Whether they own the government or merely control it, is hard to tell. The barbarians are indeed inside the gate, and so many of them wear business suits.

So I'm pretty sure most of you guys are familiar with the conspiracy that the Illuminati are driving the world to having a one world government dictatorship

I know the so called government should care about us lol and provide subsidies to these things, if they get free from lobbying and giving money to the rich

"have you seen anything unusual in the sky, think you may have missing time, nightmares, wake up frozen with fear.... have unusual heat rashes… whoops I mean alien experimental injection sites, well you are entitled to government benefits and money for pain and suffering. Call 1-800-SUE-THEM, and get restitution for the terror and mental/medical problems that you have suffered because of the governments 60 years of lies and cover-up"

And from Dr. Jones, the arch nemesis of government story apologists, No explanation for the presence of iron-rich and silicate spheres is given in the USGS reports.

People are prevented from being individuals, from being who they are born to be. They are prevented from thinking for themselves. They must think what the government tells them to think, or what science tells them to think, they must say what they are told to say and must do what they are told to do. This is another death.No one's saying the government does this EVERYDAY, but it DOES happen a lot and the media puts a little article about it in the news, yet when a bomb goes off in Boston they report it everywhere, and are SOO sympathetic to the victims and the families.

I disagree that if people know something to be true, they will stand up for it. Again I can cite many examples of people knowing things to be true and not standing up for it. Again, I point back to the Saville case, plenty of people caught him in compromising positions with young girls and were well aware of what he was up to, yet nobody said anything until long after he had died.

Standing up for something sometimes leads to more trouble than it is worth. I watched a nurse who worked in a care home stand up against the neglect and poor standards of care the patients were receiving. She reported it her superiors who ignored her, so when she reported it to the media and secretly filmed the conditions, it received media attention. The care quality commissions investigations admitted that she was correct and that patients had been neglected but she was struck off the nursing and midwifery council and now her 20 year career as a nurse, a job which she loved is now over.

http://www.telegraph...n-Panorama.html

Sometimes standing up for something isn't that easy especially if there are threats or risks in doing so.

That is exactly what has happened with some of the members of AIA. They have signed Gages petition.

We do not know how many of the AIA members have read the report or are aware of A&E 9/11 group. We cannot ASSUME that all AIA members have read it and disagree with Gages assertion because the organisation doesn't support him. Individuals within the group clearly do, some might totally agree with him but they still might not wish to sign or join his group.

Well I do not feel you have presented a case to prove what you believe is indeed the case. I have looked into the Saville case, there are many that suspected him over the years, claims go back as far as 1963, not to mention he was connected with a child sex ring back as far as 1964. The Yorkshire police are being investigated themselves as a result. Same thing happened within the Catholic Church, these things do come out, people will only stand for so much.

You will note that Nurse was not only reinstated, but received an award. - LINK Nursing Times - Margaret Haywood, a nurse who had been struck off for whistleblowing and exposing her concerns over poor standards of care, has described herself as ‘absolutely delighted’ to have been reinstated on the register.

What we do know is that not one person is confident enough to be publicly associated with Gage. You can speculate until the cows come home about how many, or if any, but you are only guessing that anyone supports him, this is not fact, it is merely suspicion. You need to know if the support is warranted, or just some cheerleaders. Without conviction, you have nothing but speculation. As facts stand, not one professional stands up and supports these findings. Speculation won't resolve this, nor will bias, facts will, and the facts are against Gage.

We THINK we know the answer, but the reality is we do not know for sure. Nobody knows. We have theories which we think explain things and they might be the best theories, but we do not know.

With evolution? I disagree, yes we do know. Evolution is both fact and theory.

As I said, you do not have to prove to me that you didn't rob me by providing a better theory of who did rob me. The fact you disprove it is you is enough for me to be aware that it was someone else. If truther can prove that the towers didn't collapse by planes and fires, then asking them to provide a better that theory of how the towers collapse does not mean they are wrong. It just means that they do not know how it was done.

I am not trying to do that, is that not what the CT is doing? It is saying that it could not been terrorists, so it must have been the Government? The hypothesis I defend is the original as far as I am aware. It's not a better one, or an alternate, it's the result of outright confessions. Would you not say a confession is somewhat decent evidence? With the claims, I have not given alternates, I said why they do not add up, which I cannot see as the same thing as giving a better theory? The investigations were always going to happen.

Have I?? lol Unless by stating that there are no absolutes, I am stating one....lol

That you are matey. :D Tricky business philosophy isn't it. ;)

I think you are right when you say the CT is being over thought, I think this is why laser beams and hologram theories exist. lol

And Alex Jones.

The information which tips me in the favour of a CT has nothing to do with WTC, WTC7, the Pentagon crash, Shanksville or any of the usual theories associated with 9/11. My own investigation into the movements of Dick Cheney on the morning of 9/11 is enough to convince me in the possibility of a conspiracy because of the discrepancies in the commissions account and that of him and others. Again, it is something that requires its own thread.

Is there such a thread? I would be interested to see your thoughts. To me the outright confessions are rather damming.

The claim of some CTers is that thermite was laid within the building. However, if you believe that no thermite was needed and the plane and fires was enough, then why would it matter where it was placed when you believe that none was needed anyway?

Because that is how Thermite works. For a structural collapse, the charges have to be laid in certain places. This is what is being claimed to have happened - controlled demolition. It's all part of the same claim that does not work.

The building had 110 floors and each floor was over 4 million square meters. Nobody is going to take any notice of people accessing structural columns especially as there would be maintenance men all over the place doing odd jobs. And we are aware of who was in charge of security, it was the same security companies which manned the airports the hijackers flew from too. It is easy to get around security if you know what security checks are in place.

ONeil would and he was head of security, and died in the attack. I doubt any person on earth would be more knowledgable on the subject than ONeil. If there was something untoward I find it very hard to believe it would just slip past the man whop was expecting this.

I thought she had said that the papers topic lies outside her expertise and she couldn't comment whether it was bad or good.

That is even worse is it not? She is an editor, so it is hard to see her being an expert in Thermites.

"They have printed the article without my authorization else, so when you wrote to me, I did not mean that the article was published. I can not accept, and I have written to Bentham, that I withdraw myself from all activities with them, "says Marie-Paule Pileni, which daily is a professor specializing in nanomaterials at the prestigious Université Pierre et Marie Curie in France .

“I cannot accept that this topic is published in my journal. The article has nothing to do with physical chemistry or chemical physics, and I could well believe that there is a political viewpoint behind its publication. If anyone had asked me, I would say that the article should never have been published in this journal. Period.” Concludes the former editor in chief.

Sounds pretty straightforward even with the language filters. LINK As you can see, her objection is to the lack of scientific content, and the amount of political agenda. Scientific content seems prudent when making such wild allegations.

And I have read Blanchards paper and Jim Hoffmans rebuttal. Blanchard reasoning against thermite does not stand up to scrutiny and there is plenty of evidence that contradicts his claims

One big and notable difference between Hoffman and Blanchard is that Blanchard is a specialist in controlled demolition. Blanchard actually gives explanations does he not? Does not Hoffman pretty much say, well he is wrong, and all demolitions are not the same, and this one was differnt? Blanchard works for a demolition company who had seimic spikes all over the place thet did not record what Hoffman says they should. Hoffman is lacking expertise, and I have to say has more ambiguities in his claim than he alleges Blanchard does. And he attacks truthers for his own credibility, something of a vampire I feel.

When you consider that it cost $40 million to investigate Bill Clinton and $60 million for the Challenger disaster, then being given $3 million to investigate the biggest terrorist attack is certainly something worth complaining about if you want a full account of what happened.

They also wished they had asked harder question from Giuliani but it wasn't professional animosity or evasiveness for the reasons they think they were set up to fail, their claims go much further than that, because they said people were advancing accounts which were not true and that they were lying.

I think the sensitivity of Clinton, and the expected law suits might have raised that bar, and the Challenger disaster was spread all over the place. In this case we had specific sites, ONiel's notes, and an outright confession with people dancing in the streets. It seems most of the work was done. Did they ever insist on more funds, or just whine about what they had been issued?

You also seem to be using the broad brush you said I had in my hand, people lied? That's a bit vague isn't it? And is it reason to suspect your own people over rejoicing Jihadists proud of their work? Or is it reason to suspect some people could have done their job a little better and are now worried about that complacency costing them their livelihoods?

Max claimed the White House were covering up. Richard Clarke also stated that the group were focused on Iraq and not AQ the day after the attacks, all without a shred of evidence that Iraq was involved. If AQ are involved, talking about Iraq the next day doesn't sound like you think AQ are the problem. We know that the Neocons wanted to invade Iraq during Clintons admin by the open letters they sent since the mid 90's. We also know that former treasury secretary Paul O'Neill has said that the Bush admin were talking and planning about invading Iraq days after his inauguration.

So if members of the Bush admin were talking about attacking Iraq before his presidency and planning it at that start of his presidency, then talking about it the day after the attacks when there is no evidence for Iraqs involvement, then invade Iraq and then cover up any investigations into the attacks. Is it any surprise that people think the Bush Admin/government think they may have been involved whether they let it happen or helped to make it happen?

I'm not sure how or Jones benefits from these questions. I'm sure his job at Brigham was financially more beneficial than running his truth group. Although I have no idea of his financial dealings to confirm or deny it but you think he earns big dollars, I would say that it pales to insignificant to the amount that others have made off the back of the tragedy and subsequent wars.

This all comes from Captain Hindsight, Paul ONeill doesn't it? He was sacked. By Bush. People love to hate Bush, read any thread of Regenratia's. IN any case, this case of sour grapes says Bush had no idea what was going on around him.

In the book, O'Neill says that the president did not make decisions in a methodical way: there was no free-flow of ideas or open debate.

At cabinet meetings, he says the president was "like a blind man in a roomful of deaf people. There is no discernible connection," forcing top officials to act "on little more than hunches about what the president might think."

LINK

He also reckons he was warned not to do the book, but walking around quite happily today isn't he. What a load of rubbish. Disgruntled ex employees might have plenty of dirt, but it's mainly BS.

I do not understand your comment about CTers wanting to keep the CT alive. I can't understand why someone would want to believe that members of their own government were involved or ignored warnings of the attacks for financial or political gains. Its a horrible thought and I think that most CTer are doing it because they believe it to be true and such a horrible idea.

I think people enjoy the controversy. I do not see any progress, I only see truthers getting a worse name than they already do. No compassion, no empathy, no ethics the way I see it. For instance, only yourself and Q have put up any sort of decent debate in this thread. Look at all the other responses, hell look at Babe Ruths responses. They have no technical information, no countering debate, nothing, just someone on a soapbox.

I do not think that believing something is possible means that it is likely to have happened. Some people didn't make mistakes, some people lied as the commissioner stated.

You are appear to be angry at the CTers for peddling lies, but yet I do not see the same anger at the people/departments who peddled lies to the commission.

I feel that this double standard highlights a hatred of conspiracy theorists rather than people lying in general because you would also be talking about the liars in government rather than trying to excuse their lies as evasiveness and professional animosity.

We cannot just say lies were told, hell that could mean someone said they had a sandwich for lunch when they had a roll, I am not angry at CT'ers. I despise their motives and their morals, and what they largely stand for, which I do not believe is a pursuit of the ruth at all. Some I am sure I could not stand, but some I could, I think it depends on the person and the depth of their belief in the CT. Looking at yourself as an example, you seem to lie someplace in between but lean towards the CT side, and I most certainly do not have a problem with you at all, in fact I find you very pleasant in discussion.

From what I have seen, the people in Government are covering their backsides, some were complacent, Bodine feels she has no responsibility, but we all know she is primarily responsible. I can understand self preservation, I cannot understand the jerks at Ground Zero Lounge saying that Daddy faked his death for the Government. You and your ideology are not the majority with regards to blind belief in the CT, people without argument, and sorry Babe Ruth, but I will be using you as an example here. Babe Ruth has not ever that I have seen put up an argument, let alone a convincing argument, He just says "believe the truthers" and makes stuff up like he did about Wally Miller. He is blindly regurgitating the nonsense the guys like Jones spew onto the public. Give me a reason to hate the US Government, because nobody has done so to date, they have only told me to join up with them. Q is just a hypocrite. His standards only apply to himself. The examples of truthers that you and I can put up are not only less than convincing, they have little information to depart. Is there anything is this thread, after the ten years of mulling over that you fid convincing? Or do you have your own train of thought, and where did it originate? What is actually accomplished by the truth movement other than dragging out pain and suffering? That is one thing I cannot condone.

Mate, what about yourself, are you not turning a blind eye to Babe Ruths Panto support?

My only support of all truther groups is that I support a new investigation.

I do not mind being labelled as one either as I have been called much worse names than a twoofer...lol

But it is one way. You see the deep explanations from truthers as a right, but you do not seem to extend this right to those who understand the official story to be roughly the main sequence of events? At the end of the day it comes down to one ting does it not? Who controlled the planes into the towers. Do you feel there is any reason to think the US Government actuated this atrocity?

I'd rather just call you Stundie I think :D

I would have to agree that Bodine didn't help O'Neil and it probably played a small part in to why the terrorist were successful but I think it goes far deeper than that too.

It is clear from the commissioner themselves that they had unanswered questions and that investigation is by no means a full account of what happened, yet anyone who dares to question the commissions account is automatically labelled as a truther. Any deviation from what the commission says is met with the label of a being a truther whether there is any truth to it or not and it is designed to stifle debate.

Small part? I certainly would consider that something of a major understatement. I think it goes deeper too, there is the Pikard connection.

It depends on what aspect the commission is defending, do you see any reason to absolve terrorists as the main culprit according to discrepancies in the commission, or do you see something untoward, which can really mean a million different things?

Being labelled a truther should not stifle debate. If these people really do believe this nonsense, they should be proud of that label.

I find that it's hard for any panto debunker to accept mistakes or even outright lies that are in the official account. I think this is down to a fear that there is some validity behind some of the truthers claims and this is why they are so motivated to debate and counter their arguments.

I do not see that here, and I do not feel that is Sky at all. I feel that is Babe Ruth being described All you really have in here is myself and Sky from what I have seen over many pages, do these panto debunkers frequent here?

Your main beef with Sky is that he uses MSM is it not? Which will overlook faults on the behalf of the US, and really, would you expect different? It seems to me that some backside covering has ballooned into an attack from the US government on it's own people? MSM has the basics right, that being that soe religious fundamentals wanted to hurt America, and their small minds could not look past money, and attacked what they perceive to be the US source of wealth. And that is hardly surprising from a group of maniac killers who want to rule the world with their religion that accepted the US help with the Soviets, but were not gracious enough to continue to accomodate these benevolent people after the fact, and went to war with them over perceived sovereign issues. The US should have just left them sort their own battles out with Russia, and the US might not have lost 3,000 people to an insane attack.

I do not believe in religious beliefs, I accept that there are people who do believe in them, but I don't challenge their beliefs or debate with them by telling them they are wrong or that they are nutters because I am comfortable with my own beliefs. I do not need to challenge what others believe even if I think it's a bunch of crapola on toast. I would only challenge their beliefs and thoughts on religion if I wasn't to sure or comfortable with my own beliefs. I think this is why panto debunkers are so vehemently against any conspiracy that they will even lie to themselves in order to keep the official story as the biblical standards of truth about what happened that day.

To a point I can run with that, I just do ot think that people have the right to try to change entire countries to accept their belief system, and many Muslim Muftis have stated that the world (and even Australia has been particularly noted) would be a better pace if it was Muslim, and that it must one day be so. But when it comes to stonging kids for talking to the opposite sex, I think that is totally screwed, and everyone involved in such barbaric nonsense should just be removed from society, even by placing a small lead ball in the left ear with a gun if need be. There is no place in the modern world for stoning's beheadings, hangings and other barbaric slow and painful deaths for minor social discrepancies. That is pure evil. As mentioned, no religion would be great, but removing the most violent and barbaric ones would be a good start. I can never condone religious acceptance of honor killing. Honor killing is an oxymoron.

Anyway, have a stubby or whatever your poison is for me and have a good day out.

Cheers

Stundie

I did that, and rather enjoyed the well deserved break.

Cheers.

Edited by psyche101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stundie

An outstanding series of posts! :tu:

I wish I could say the same about you, really I do, but you just keep cheerleading, I do not think you have contributed a link or an explanation yet, but out in front leading the brigade.

Many good points, but I think the best was that one need not offer another theory to understand that a particular theory is false and invalid. Sky and Psyche just cannot comprehend how simple and valid that point is.

I do not think you got the point. Stindie was saying another hypothesis is not required to replace a failed one. Yet what do you do?

To understand that the Official Conspiracy Theory is false, one need not offer another theory. Of course one MAY offer another theory if one has constructed another, but it's quite possible to recognize a lie and deception without offering an alternative explanation.

Another theory was not offered! It is the official chain of events that you "Truthers" challenge! You have it backward Mr. The "Truthers" are offering the alternative long winded BS claims that they say falsifies the official story, yet it does not. And I suspect that is why you Cheerlead as opposed to offering evidence to back your clams? I think deep down you know it is a pile of Horse Hockey, but enjoy the controversy and the fast and thick conversation.

The best example is magic tricks and card tricks. I can easily understand I am being tricked and deceived, EVEN THOUGH I do not understand exactly how the magician pulled it off. Though I cannot explain the details, I know I've been duped.

Yeah, that is what James Randi is for, to learn how you get duped. In this case, normal people went to experts and got the details, and they have been published numerous times. You just cannot wrap your head around it all be the problem and enjoy just yelling conspiracies from a soap box. If that is what floats you boat, so be it, but expect to be challenged. I do not know why you would think everyone would just fall into line behind you.

That is too sophisticated for Sky & Psyche.

It would appear I understand it better than you do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I said, “I’m quite happy to use Fox News as a source when there is no reason to doubt validity of a report”. That is only sensible and vigilant. I also said this applies to all media and whether of an Eastern/Western source does not change the rule. I attacked Fox News and Annanova first and foremost for reporting false information incongruent with original bin Laden transcripts released by Al Jazeera, the BBC and FBIS. The fact that Annanova is the world’s first ‘cyberbabe’ newscaster deserved to be mentioned as icing on the cake. There was no ‘turnaround’ during any of this.

And yet I showed you that Annova did not have false information at all, and the three sources you provided clearly showed the obvious evolution of the sentence! You just refuse to accept that you are wrong. That is why you went to personal attacks on Annova because the information is sound, and you cannot attack it. The more you do, the more the evolution of the sentence becomes obvious. What you have proven is that if the information does not agree with you that you will Ad Hom the source, and you provided a fine example yet again to prove my point. If anything, you have provided an example of the panto debunking Stundie referred to. What the heck does the Cyberbabe comment have to do with the information presented? Don't you like girls?

Edited by psyche101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why are you responding to my same quote twice? Did you forget you had already replied? Or is it just the lack of thought that went into your first response needed expanding upon?

Just thought I might take the opportunity to point out that you use big words to peddle crap ;)

Anyhow, please check what initially raised the topic – it is Zaphod’s claim that the presence of satellite tv rules out the prison nature of the compound. I refuted that claim. Your response above only serves to further backup that Zaphod’s claim has no merit. I’m sure that was not your intention, but thank you for the assistance.

You did not refute nor confirm it. You have not proven what that dish actually does, you just assumed it. But I am sure you are proud of the speculation, that is one thing I see you do well, and frequently.

I have made my case for why I believe the bin Laden compound to be a detention facility, rather than a ‘hideout’. Can you explain exactly how you rule out the possibility of a detention facility?

I already did, and made my case, that being you have no case and have presented opinion and tried to make out your opinion is fact. A man trap does not make a prison and you have not refuted that. Not do single walls, nor does the inside of the place confirm anything prison like at all. Wives in prison? Where else do people take their wives to prison with them? It is a secure home which one would want for the leader of Al Qaeda, and one of the most wanted men in the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What peer review papers?? lol

I do not think the silence of alleged engineers and Architects is much is an argument to be frank Stundie.

AIA also seems to be a peer monitored Association. That seems to me a darn site easier for alleged individuals to stand up. Debate is expected in peer review.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The editorials written by Fire Engineering Magazine were exactly right, and they had the courage to write them at the heighth of the hysteria regarding the events.

Laws were broken by the authorities as they destroyed the forensic evidence, and they made a joke of proper forensic procedures.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



Life-long activist, Splitting the Sky appeared at St. Ann's Academy on November 29, 2008. In this impassioned and authoritative speech he meticulously follows the bloody and labyrinthine trail of corruption and money, which leads him to conclude that a cast of top-level financiers and international secret service agencies were behind the events of 9/11.


here is more on the activist Splitting the Sky and his suspicious death on Saturday, March 23, 2013.

http://splittingthesky.blogspot.co.uk/
2 people like this

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.