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

Not just obvious gain, either. I saw a video where a former cop made a very strong case for 9/11 being an inside job. I wish I could remember what it was called, but it was fairly long and a very dry presentation, just him on a stage with an overhead projector in front of a live audience. He said at the beginning that he wouldn't be talking about things like remote controlled planes, missiles, or planted explosives, but that he would build a case just like he would if he was preparing to go to court. Anyway he showed evidence for the involvement of the Bush family, the CIA/drug connection, the oil angle, and talked about financial records being destroyed in one of those buildings, all backed up by what he was putting on the screen behind him. I'm not saying it was true, but it was compelling stuff if you could get past the dry presentation.

And of course it's quite possible that most everything he presented IS true. If it is, it corroborates the work of many others in the same field.

That's the beauty of 11 years after--many independent researchers have discovered all sorts of facts and evidence that corroborate the work of others. Bottom line, the amount of circumstantial evidence contradicting the official story is huge, from many different sources.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's the beauty of 11 years after--many independent researchers have discovered all sorts of facts and evidence that corroborate the work of others. Bottom line, the amount of circumstantial evidence contradicting the official story is huge, from many different sources.

You mean, like this video which was used by 911 conspiracist to attack the official story?

I don't know what ever comes over me to doubt 911 conspiracist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Sky, Im thinking today, maybe you arent hired by the government to spend the day sitting on MB's convincing people that 9/11 wasnt a inside job. Maybe you really are just that dedicated and its that important to you, so you spend your time doing it for nothing more then self gratification. In fact, if you can answer these couple questions I will start taking you more seriously.

#1 Which of the 5 Osama bin ladens that the government has told us was the real guy, over a period of a few years was the actual guy? Also who was the guy who looked more like OSBL then any of those 5 who said he had nothing to do with it?

#2 Who is Sible Edmonds, and what does her story mean to you?

Thanks ahead of time for your answers.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

SkyEagle, I'm curious... if you are in the Military and you are a pilot... How come you have so much time to spend on a forum... And you spend that time arguing about a CT that you clearly have no interest in discovering the truth about? In fact you clearly don't care for the truth, because if you did then there would be no harm in reopening the investigation as all it would do is prove your points further if you are of course correct. The families want it and loads of people want it. The only people who don't want it are skeptics like yourself and the government.... lol That alone says a lot really.

Edited by Coffey
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SkyEagle, I'm curious... if you are in the Military and you are a pilot... How come you have so much time to spend on a forum... And you spend that time arguing about a CT that you clearly have no interest in discovering the truth about? In fact you clearly don't care for the truth, because if you did then there would be no harm in reopening the investigation as all it would do is prove your points further if you are of course correct. The families want it and loads of people want it. The only people who don't want it are skeptics like yourself and the government.... lol That alone says a lot really.

He is retired from the military, as the crew chief on a variety of USAF aircraft. He was not a military pilot, but the chief pilot. He has civilian pilot licenses.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or so the little black books say ? One never knows the actual identity of people in here ! Past Present Future ! :tu:

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or so the little black books say ? One never knows the actual identity of people in here ! Past Present Future ! :tu:

Very true.

He is retired from the military, as the crew chief on a variety of USAF aircraft. He was not a military pilot, but the chief pilot. He has civilian pilot licenses.

Ah OK, that makes sense then. Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Like Babe even has a Clue ! B) B)

Maybe Look at your ISP.

Edited by DONTEATUS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very true.

Ah OK, that makes sense then. Thanks.

I made an error in my previous post. He was the chief mechanic on a variety of military aircraft. He is a civilian pilot.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I made an error in my previous post. He was the chief mechanic on a variety of military aircraft. He is a civilian pilot.

Ah right. Thanks. :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Sky, Im thinking today, maybe you arent hired by the government to spend the day sitting on MB's convincing people that 9/11 wasnt a inside job. Maybe you really are just that dedicated and its that important to you, so you spend your time doing it for nothing more then self gratification. In fact, if you can answer these couple questions I will start taking you more seriously.

Nice to be retired. I have things that keep me from looking at four walls and a ceiling all day.

#1 Which of the 5 Osama bin ladens that the government has told us was the real guy, over a period of a few years was the actual guy?

I don't know because I have not followed that story, but I do know that bin Laden is dead, which is why al-Qaeda confirmed he death of bin Laden and that explains why Osama bin Laden was replaced by Ayman al-Zawahiri.

Al Qaeda Confirms Bin Laden’s Death

Al Qaeda released a statement on militant Web sites Friday confirming the death of Osama bin Laden, according to the SITE Intelligence Group, which monitors jihadi Web sites. The lengthy statement, dated May 3 and signed by Al Qaeda’s General Command, warned of new attacks and called on the Pakistani people to rebel against their government to protest its relations with the United States.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/07/world/asia/07qaeda.html

#2 Who is Sible Edmonds, and what does her story mean to you?

Thanks ahead of time for your answers.

Do you mean the woman who slammed the FBI for its blunders and missteps prior to 911, which I have done as well? She seems to confuse the Afghan Mujahideen, which was supported by the CIA, with the Arab Mujahideen, which consisted of foreign fighters that also included Osama bin Laden. Two different groups. Eventually, the CIA and the FBI admitted their mistakes.

C.I.A. Lays Out Errors It Made Before Sept. 11

WASHINGTON, Aug. 21 — A report released Tuesday by the Central Intelligence Agency includes new details of the agency’s missteps before the Sept. 11 attacks, outlining what the report says were failures to grasp the role being played by the terror mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and to assess fully the threats streaming into the C.I.A. in the summer of 2001.

http://www.worldsecu...admits-mistakes

FBI Chief Acknowledges 9/11 Errors

FBI Director Robert Mueller, acknowledging serious lapses in how the FBI mishandled some information prior to Sept. 11, suggested for the first time that investigators might have detected the terrorist plot if they had pursued leads more diligently.

Mueller's acknowledgment came amid two new disclosures of what could be missed hints about Sept. 11.

http://www.cbsnews.c...162-510607.html

FAA MOST RESPONSIBLE FOR 9-11

Despite a congressional panel investigating potential intelligence failures leading up to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks releasing a report today that points to mistakes made by the CIA and FBI, an aviation security consultant says it is the Federal Aviation Administration that should take most of the blame for the tragedy.

http://www.wnd.com/2...iE4382TjQRiq.99

Now, from a 911 truther point of view, what was the purpose for the 911 attacks?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

SkyEagle, I'm curious... if you are in the Military and you are a pilot...

I am a civilian pilot with 44 years of experience and retired from the Air Force. In addition, I have held jobs with major defense contractors and developed special equipment, and tools for Air Force personnel, and for military helicopters located at the Army's helicopter depot in Corpus Christi, TX . I was sent to Pensacola, FL., to develop a new technical repair manual for the the TF-39 jet engine, which is used to power the Air Force's C-5 transport. In addition, I have developed unique flapper valves which are in use on the Air Force's C-5 and have occupied positions as airframe supervisor and inspector for the Air Force and with major defense contractors. Another claim of 911 truthers is that the airliners were switched, but that is false and it would take me a short period of time to uncover a switched aircraft. Each aircraft is unique and have their own so-called personalities, even among the same models.

How come you have so much time to spend on a forum... And you spend that time arguing about a CT that you clearly have no interest in discovering the truth about?

Despite being retired, I am still busy, but have enough time doing other things that keeps me from looking at walls all day. I also hold officer positions in two aviation-related chapters.

In fact you clearly don't care for the truth, because if you did then there would be no harm in reopening the investigation as all it would do is prove your points further if you are of course correct.

Conducting a new investigation will not change anything because I have posted fleet histories and all four aircraft have been accounted for and not one was modified to fly under remote control. In addition, you can compare demolition implosions with the collapse of the WTC buildings.

of all four aircraft that were lost The families want it and loads of people want it. The only people who don't want it are skeptics like yourself and the government....! That alone says a lot really.

What would they do with the wreckage if they had it? If they want further information, they can contact American Airlines and United Airlines, the operators of those flights. In addition, a former commander of my Wing at Travis AFB, was in the Pentagon when American 77 struck. The straight scoop was, and still is, there was no government conspiracy. Recently, I ran into another airman who was in the Pentagon when American 77.

I have heard that the Pentagon was attacked to cover-up missing $2.3 trillion. The money wasn't missing because the Pentagon couldn't track that much money and some of that money has since been reovered, which had nothing to do with the stealing of $2.3 trillion, yet 911 truthers decided to concoct an unfounded conspiracy over money that wasn't missing at all. Apparently, they were not knowledgeable enough to understand the Pentagon could not handle that much money at one time, so is it any wonder why I have said from time to time that 911 truthers are not in the habit of doing homework, or doing it properly when they do?

Another thing that 911 truthers are confused about is an aircraft transponder. 911 truthers have said that transponders were turned off to make the airliner invisible on radar, but I want to add a dose of reality to that claim because turning off the transponder does not make an aircraft invisible to radar, it just makes it extremely difficult for controllers to track. Remember, the B-767 and the B-757 are not stealth aircraft. Even the B-2 stealth bomber is not totally invisible on radar and let's also remember that even though the transponder on American 77 was tampered with, ground controllers were still able to track that aircraft. Here is another case in point.

That is just another example of how ignorance of the facts has resulted in another unfounded 911 conspiracy theory. I might add that the so-called, 'Hani maneuver,' did not require super-human strength because I have performed similar maneuvers as a student pilot with less that 30 hours of flying time. In fact, his maneuver was so boring, I could have gone from the living room to the kitchen and made a sandwich and return before he completed that boring maneuver, yet 911 truthers continue to claim that it took extraordinary skill to perform that maneuver, which is totally false. How wrong they are.

All I can say at this point is that 911 truthers have been duped on a number of occasions with false and misleading information in regards to 911, some of which consisted of disinformation and misinformation for the purpose of discrediting the 911 truth movement, and I have to say, they have done a very good job. In the case of "Pilots for 911 Truth," they have deliberately been misleading its readers.

So in that respect, let there be another investigation, but it will just be a waste of money because another investigation will simply reconfirm there was no government 911 conspiracy. If they wanted to know more about those airliners, all they had to do was to contact the operators, American Airlines and United Airlines. If they wanted to know more about the FDR of American 77 to see if it came from that aircraft, all they had to do was to contact American Airlines and the Boeing Aircraft Company, after all, they were the companies that supplied the conversion formulas that pertained **** ONLY **** to the airframe of American 77 and no other aircraft, but 911 truthers didn't know that, which is why they concocted another unfounded conspirac theory over the FDR of American 77.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I agree totally – doing well today aren’t we?

I know it, unbelievable, a refreshing change! Sounds like an opportune time to push my luck and see if we can agree on a couple other things. With regards to Bazant's paper:

  • If we go with the assumptions made in Bazant's paper, that the upper block remains 100% rigid, do you disagree that the building would collapse and if so do you have any grounds for it? I understand you think this assumption is relevant to the point of being fatal to his paper, but leave that as a separate issue for a moment.
  • Do you agree that the assumption that Bazant made concerning how the upper block is oriented and thus how "all the impact forces go into the columns and are distributed among them equally", by itself regarding just the variable of block orientation, is the best situation for arrest of the upper block? Do you agree that variations from this straight-on oriented impact do not favor the upper block being stopped as much as the perfectly oriented scenario that Bazant has assumed?

But what am I to think, when the official collapse theory (that is the paper written by Bazant, intended to prove a natural collapse continuation possible) does require a 100% rigid/solid ‘piledriver’ upper block? It is a fundamental condition that the calculations within are based upon. Not only is it a violation of reality but it favours collapse continuation hugely. It is what allows Bazant to claim, based upon the aforementioned calculation, that once the collapse initiates, continuation is inevitable. You see why I have a huge problem with that fundamental condition, without which, the calculations are no longer applicable?

No, I don't see why you have a huge problem actually, possibly because I'm misunderstanding you here. I'll just risk being wrong and come flat out and say, I don't think that what you have said is correct, that the 'official collapse theory' does require a literally 100% rigid upper block; I think Bazant just assumed a rigid upper block in his paper, it doesn't necessary follow that anything less will not be adequate and thus the official collapse theory is invalidated. When you say 'the calculations' are based on this, are you referring to the actual engineering equations that need to be used and that apply to the collapse scenario, or just the results derived from the equations he did correctly apply? Did Bazant's calculations show that his model is right on the cusp of collapse/non-collapse somewhere? It's really your position that if the upper block is 99.99% rigid, Bazant's 'calculations are no longer applicable'? Has someone else published a rebuttal paper showing the calculations that should have been used then, and why? I agree that if the upper block and each floor it crushed turned to liquid instantly then the collapse would arrest. How have you determined how much non-rigidness is allowed, how do you know where the threshold exactly is between 100% rigid and liquid?

But we need to realise as a first point that the official collapse theory paper is not valid – that is the first major part of the argument.

Let me see if can reword this, and this is essentially a repeat of my first question up above. Is it correct to say that his paper does not apply because you believe the assumption of a rigid block significantly changes the overall result of his calculations, and not that he has made an error in calculation or application of the relevant physical laws given his assumptions?

What needed to be done, and still needs to be done, is a realistic calculation to test and answer questions of the theory you mention above. Indeed, was the deteriorated mass ‘enough’ to continue and complete the collapse? Of course this cannot be done with pen and paper; a computer simulation is necessary, though I see no reason it could not be achieved. The best we have available at the moment are the numerous Blender physics engine simulations online, which all, without exception, discover that the WTC1 collapse arrests with deterioration of the upper block.

Great, if you see no reason that it cannot be achieved, then why hasn't anyone in the truther movement done so? When people make an argument based on how so many of the experts do not agree with truthers, you trot out AE911 and quotes from various scientists worldwide agreeing with you on some aspect or another, and you point out how they number I believe in the thousands. So many relevant experts on your side to appeal to, yet none have access to physics software and cannot get to work on this given 11 years? If with 'Blender' you are yet again referring to the simulation/cartoon done by an artist, then let's be patently clear that 'the best' you have utterly sucks.

However, if the deteriorated mass can still complete the collapse then so be it, I won’t say with absolute certainty that cannot happen, only that it is not proven, not tested in the official theory paper by Bazant, and doesn’t appear possible based on every single physics simulation I have seen.

Okay, well it's good at least to get this reality check. I'm unclear whether you really have seen a physics simulation that has any relevance, but the above seems to put lie to what you stated before, that the official collapse theory (which is not synonymous with 'Bazant's paper') requires a 100% rigid upper block.

Did you say something before about me, “winging it”? Ho-hum. Don’t read your own above argument back will you.

Ha, well I thought the relevant difference was provided before the first comma, but maybe you skimmed over it: "my admitted non-expert opinion". I can quote numerous examples from just this post that convey no similar sentiment on your own limitations, so just thought I'd point out your own lack of expertise in case there was any confusion. At this point you are largely in the same expertise category concerning the disciplines relevant to what we are discussing as I am: "some dude on the internet".

The debris layer is accelerated by existing momentum of the upper block, there is no time for gravity to bring it up to speed.

It was my understanding that the rate of floor failure accelerated at some part of the collapse, how did that occur if not by gravity?

You aren’t making much sense still attempting to ideally match a conventional demolition to the 9/11 demolition, and then more nonsensically mocking when it doesn’t.

Actually I was noting that 90% of the evidence that we find in a demolition is unavailable in this case despite your reference to 'all' the evidence for demolition, you disagree? Please define then what evidence we should expect to find in 'a covert demolition' and why, and what 11% of it we have and how you know. Before you say it, 'could be' doesn't count.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We all agree then ? No Demo ! No Conspiracies,Only the Fact , Two Airliners into the Towers ! YEaH !!!! We Did it Broke on thru the Other Side !

RIP Ray buddie !

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For all intents and purposes, an avalanche is pretty much a piledriver. Particularly the very rare ones that fall directly downward.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most individuals define themselves by the jobs they have performed during their life. Our experience becomes our destinies. We believe in it. And it becomes who we are.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You mean, like this video which was used by 911 conspiracist to attack the official story?

[media=]

[/media]

I don't know what ever comes over me to doubt 911 conspiracist.

You mean like this peice of **** that posted the video to manipulate people? Is that what you mean Sky? Cause if it is, and you use it.... what does that say about you? Let's not stop there either.

You knowingly post a video of a guy that intentionly misleads people.. right or wrong... and try to use it to put people down.

Reminds me of the time you minipulated an article to make Babe look bad. I pointed out your lying in that one. Why the hell anyone cares what you think anymore is beyond me.

I'm done with you Sky.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You mean like this peice of **** that posted the video to manipulate people? Is that what you mean Sky? Cause if it is, and you use it.... what does that say about you? Let's not stop there either.

Let's face the facts! When the video was released, 911 truthers used that hoaxed WTC7 video as their so-called proof that WTC7 was demolished by explosives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's face the facts! When the video was released, 911 truthers used that hoaxed WTC7 video as their so-called proof that WTC7 was demolished by explosives.

And the best you can use agaist them is a "HOAX" video to make your case. You're pathetic.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the best you can use agaist them is a "HOAX" video to make your case. You're pathetic.

It does prove a good point. Most truthers are willing to believe anything that supports their cause without checking facts or proper beforehand.

Not saying all truther are like that, however...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

And the best you can use agaist them is a "HOAX" video to make your case. You're pathetic.

I wanted to make a point that 911 truthers are not in a habit of doing homework, or doing it correctly when they do, which is why they have claimed that hoaxed video was evidence that explosives were used to demolish WTC7, but, that is just one example of many.

I can also point out their false claim the WTC buildings collapsed at free fall speed when it fact, the dusty plumes and falling debris, which are actually outpacing the collapse of those buildings, should have told them that the buildings were not collapsing at free fall speed and in fact, using audio and seismic data, It took WTC1, 22.02 seconds to collapse, which is nowhere near free fall speed, and it took WTC2, 15.28 seconds to collapse, which once again, is nowhere near free fall speed and again, another prime example of 911 truthers not doing their homework.

We can now move on to the Pentagon where 911 truthers claim American 77 flew north of the gas station, which would have been impossible because the path of destruction leading to the Pentagon has proven beyond a doubt that American 77 passed south of the gas station. In addition, it would have been impossible for American 77 to fly a path north of the gas station and strike the Pentagon. They should have taken notice that the downed light poles clearly indicated a flight path south of the gas station, so with that fact in hand, why did 911 truthers continue to claim Americn 77 passed north of the gas station when the damaged light poles and interior damage within the Pentagon indicated a path south of the gas station? You see, it is like this, they are not interested in doing homework they are just interested in creating unfounded conspiracy theories.

While on the Pentagon, there were those who have said that American 77 passed over the Pentagon and sneaked in and landed at nearby National Airport, Question is, how do you sneak into an international airport and not attract attention from radar, air and ground traffic controllers? Now you know why I have said that 911 truthers have this Hollywood mindset that belong in the movies, not in the real world. And of course you already know about Cleveland Airport and United 93, so I don't need to go there.

Next, we can take a look at claims that United 93 was shot down. I might add that an Air Combat Patrol (CAP) was set up over Washington D.C., not over the Shanksville area, so why did 911 truthers claim that United 93 was shot down and despite the fact the shoot-down order wasn't issued until after United 93 had crashed? I consider that another serious blunder on their part..To add to that, the F-16 unit out of Andrews AFB, was not trained to shoot down airliners nor familiar with NORAD's air defense protocol.

An F-15 pilot stated for the record that even if he did intercept an airliner, he would not have shot it down. There were commanders who refused to forward the shoot-down order to their pilots for fear of shooting down an innocent aircraft and killing many innocent passengers and crew.. Many peoplel were also unware that during the CAP over Washington, there were still aircraft flying below the fighters and doing so unimpeded.

Those are just a few examples of 911 truthers not knowing the rest of the story, and not knowing the rest of the story is why 911 truthers have created unfounded conspiracy theories. You have to understand that I have a long list of other examples, but I think these few examples should be enough to make my point very clear, but should I need to post more examples, I can whip out the next list.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I didn't have to be there. I have experienced enough bomb explosions for many months during war to know from available WTC videos and audio there were no bomb explosions. There is a BIG difference between explosive-like sounds of structural failures and real bombs and at no time did I see explosions nor heard bomb explosions.

Demolition experts at the scene have also stated they saw no bomb explosions.

I disagree with you. I had family there , first responders at the scene, so don't attempt to try and lie to me.

Editing this statement from : don't attempt to try and lie to me , to, don't attempt to try and disinform me !

Edited by Reann
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It does prove a good point. Most truthers are willing to believe anything that supports their cause without checking facts or proper beforehand.

Not saying all truther are like that, however...

Why isn't anyone checking over the facts that a group of scientist have put forth in their discovery ? They found evidence of a substance . Why would anyone ignore literal facts ?

Why would building 7 just fall down ? What about the reasearch and discovery from the grounds around there. . Will the scientist ever be permitted to testify ?

Why it is now unlawful to invesigate 911 ? Is it because of scientist such as Dr. Harrit who can provide facts and evidence ,which he already discovered and obtained ? Is that the real reason why no one is permitted to invesigate 911 anylonger?

Why haven't the media invited these chemist , these scientist, on their station ? I haven't seen one of them on mainstream media , not on fox ,not on cnn , or nbc, or abc, not on cbs I have seen one interview on bbc though they did try and disinform him .Thankfully Dr. Harrit 's honesty, and scientific knowledge kept that from happening...

.

Why do "indenial theorist " want for everyone to simply believe the original conspiracy theory that the media , politicians, and those whom these individuals are in the pockets of want for you to believe. Believe them , even when they tell you that the air there was safe to breath .

Dr. Niels Harrit, Associate Professor Emeritus of Chemistry at the University of Copenhagen,

was conducted by Michael Rudin of the BBC. Excellent interview.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love the " I can provide the evidence" Stundie will indeed be digging a deep hole to crawl out of ! :tu:

I love the cheer leading, it's very cute...lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where is that evidence?

Its right in front of you, you just have to open your eyes. lol
Considering that no bomb explosions were seen on video, nor heard on audio, nor detected on seismic monitors and no evidence of explosives was ever found at ground zero, then it is apparent that no such exvidence exist especially in light of the fact that investigations have concluded that fire, not explosives, was responsible for the collapse of the WTC buildings.
Wrong on so many counts. lol

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.