911

[skyeagle409]

You might be right about the pax/crew being dead, but I think there are other considerations. Looking at the operation as one who might have planned it, the passengers could easily be seen as cooperating individuals.

Evidence please! Otherwise, you have no case. I might add that you have insulted the families of the victims of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

Some researchers, not me, but I've read their work, have delved into the biographies of "the passengers".

Are you implying that Barbara Olson and other passengers were part of the conspiracy?

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

[Babe Ruth]

This statement alone says a lot about your position.

You claim the OCT has holes, yet you cannot even be bothered to answer questions that would give any of your theories credence.

Who should I believe? Someone who is able to explain how the magic was done? or the magician who doesn't want to explain a damn thing?

It is you who goes on blind faith BR, no the OCT

OK Raptor, I'll play again. 747 is right, ain't nothin' gonna change here, but in good faith....PLEASE show me pictures from Shanksville that show the debris presented in the Moussaoui trial IN CONTEXT. Please show me a picture of some 757 debris IN THAT FIELD.

Please explain to me how you rationalize molten steel at WTC, or how large pieces of exoskeleton are ejected laterally several hundred feet?

[RaptorBites]

OK Raptor, I'll play again. 747 is right, ain't nothin' gonna change here, but in good faith....PLEASE show me pictures from Shanksville that show the debris presented in the Moussaoui trial IN CONTEXT. Please show me a picture of some 757 debris IN THAT FIELD.

It has been posted several other times. Each time it was posted you hand wave it away as fakes. Why should I have to repost all those pictures again? Stop playing your games and show us evidence/proof that there was no plane there.

Please explain to me how you rationalize molten steel at WTC, or how large pieces of exoskeleton are ejected laterally several hundred feet?

Which is it BR? Molten Steel or Molten Metal? Pick one and go with it. You seem to change which one it is EVERY SINGLE TIME.

[bee]

Bee

You might be right about the pax/crew being dead, but I think there are other considerations.

Looking at the operation as one who might have planned it, the passengers could easily be seen as cooperating individuals.

Some researchers, not me, but I've read their work, have delved into the biographies of "the passengers". A curious fact is that while the total number is fairly small considering the number of seats available, only about 200 out of possibly about 800, many of them, not all, were employed in(for lack of a better word) the Military Industrial Complex. Raytheon and others. IF they were cooperating individuals, THEN they are valuable assets. It sounds dramatic, but it IS true, giving people new identifications, papers, is not a difficult thing.

Hiya.....for me...the more people that have to be involved in the CT for it to 'work' ...the less likely it is that it is real (the Inside Job theory)

Because we are talking about accusations of mass murder and high treason here...and it is, IMO....impossible that there would be so

many people aiding and abetting such a crime. (and then keeping quiet about it)

As it happens, one of the flight attendants is from my home town. I did not know her, but I know a handful of people who DID know her, including a defense attorney she hired for some trouble she got into. So I know she existed.

Several years after, her widower and children moved away, even though they had family and friends and close community ties. That does not prove a thing, but they have rather dropped off the face of the earth. Just interesting, that's all.

yes it is interesting....

Perhaps he just wanted to make a new life somewhere else...where his life wasn't dominated by 9/11 and the pity of everyone in

the community....?

.

[skyeagle409]

PLEASE show me pictures from Shanksville that show the debris presented in the Moussaoui trial IN CONTEXT. Please show me a picture of some 757 debris IN THAT FIELD.

Please explain to me how you rationalize molten steel...

What molten steel? The following photo depicts reflection from a light, not molten steel.

...at WTC, or how large pieces of exoskeleton are ejected laterally several hundred feet?

Just WTC debris following the law of physics. Seems you are not up-to-speed on physics anymore than you are in aeronautics and aerodynamics.

Edited August 7, 2012 by skyeagle409

[Babe Ruth]

It's your choice Raptor, metal or steel, whichever blows your skirt. But really, is that the best you can do? Reduce it to semantics instead of proving your point? Reminds me of when I was scorned last week for "not knowing anything about photogrammetry", and then the scolder and photogrammetric enthusiast could not provide any photogrammetric art or science to support his position regarding the size of the airplane in the parking lot video. Jeez Louise!

No sir, I'm saying there is no Boeing at Shanksville. YOU are the one claiming there is. That's a pretty lame excuse for a grown man claiming to be in a rational public discussion. If you think there is evidence of one, show me. Saying "Oh gee, it's been debunked", or some other facile dodge cheapens the discussion. You guys are the master linkers, I'm the klutz. Any picture will show no airplane in that field. Just one. Just one little link showing anything resembling a 757, anything resembling its 50 some odd passengers and their baggage.

You can't because there ain't.

As for my "proof", pick any aerial shot you want to, and none will show anything identifiable in that field. Unless, of course, you pick one of Sky's 'modified' pictures. It's very tough indeed defending the indefensible.

[skyeagle409]

Reduce it to semantics instead of proving your point? Reminds me of when I was scorned last week for "not knowing anything about photogrammetry", and then the scolder and photogrammetric enthusiast could not provide any photogrammetric art or science to support his position regarding the size of the airplane in the parking lot video. Jeez Louise!

Well, the video depicts the vertical stabilizer of a B-757 in the background.

No sir, I'm saying there is no Boeing at Shanksville.

And, photo and documented evidence, and witnesses have proven you wrong.

Any picture will show no airplane in that field.

Wrong again!!

Just one. Just one little link showing anything resembling a 757,...

...anything resembling its 50 some odd passengers and their baggage.

You can't because there ain't.

Already been done.

As for my "proof", pick any aerial shot you want to, and none will show anything identifiable in that field.

CNN: 'Hijacker' Visa Found in Flight 93 Wreckage

Edited August 7, 2012 by skyeagle409

[RaptorBites]

It's your choice Raptor, metal or steel, whichever blows your skirt. But really, is that the best you can do? Reduce it to semantics instead of proving your point? Reminds me of when I was scorned last week for "not knowing anything about photogrammetry", and then the scolder and photogrammetric enthusiast could not provide any photogrammetric art or science to support his position regarding the size of the airplane in the parking lot video. Jeez Louise!

No sir, I'm saying there is no Boeing at Shanksville. YOU are the one claiming there is. That's a pretty lame excuse for a grown man claiming to be in a rational public discussion. If you think there is evidence of one, show me. Saying "Oh gee, it's been debunked", or some other facile dodge cheapens the discussion. You guys are the master linkers, I'm the klutz. Any picture will show no airplane in that field. Just one. Just one little link showing anything resembling a 757, anything resembling its 50 some odd passengers and their baggage.

You can't because there ain't.

As for my "proof", pick any aerial shot you want to, and none will show anything identifiable in that field. Unless, of course, you pick one of Sky's 'modified' pictures. It's very tough indeed defending the indefensible.

Here is the problem with the way you seem to want to involve yourself with this discussion BR.

*photo evidence shown of debris in shanksville*

BR: its fake, show me something else

*repeated attempts of photos shown of debris in shanksville*

BR: its fake show me "real" evidence, unfortunately I cannot provide you with links or evidence to prove the photos are faked.

You see where this is going BR? Do you see how ridiculous you are being at the moment?

You expect for us to show you evidence which you will just hand wave away as being evidence of trickery, yet you fail to provide anything to the debate.

Why not provide us with pictures/links to prove your version of the story? I can't even begin to believe half the crap you are saying at this point.

Edited August 7, 2012 by RaptorBites

[Wandering]

Here is the problem with the way you seem to want to involve yourself with this discussion BR.

As I read it, he wants to see photos of the crash site from a height, which show wreckage.

Skyeagle is providing pictures that could have been taken on my lawn. Closeup with nothing to reference in regards to what area it is from.

I believe BR is asking you where the proof is that those photos were taken in that field. If a photo taken from further up in the air shows any large pieces of wreckage that would stop BR. So get looking lads. HD preferably.

I'm not taking sides here, but it is surprising to me that none of you appear to understand what he is asking. He just wants a photo from a distance in the sky, showing the same wreckage in the closeups that provide no identifiable area to place them in.

Is it really that hard to understand, or do you guys just want to pretend you don't understand because you can't actually show what he wants? I lean towards this.

So maybe this post was a waste....Keep the blindfold on fellas.

[+Liquid Gardens]

As I read it, he wants to see photos of the crash site from a height, which show wreckage.

Skyeagle is providing pictures that could have been taken on my lawn. Closeup with nothing to reference in regards to what area it is from.

I believe BR is asking you where the proof is that those photos were taken in that field. If a photo taken from further up in the air shows any large pieces of wreckage that would stop BR. So get looking lads. HD preferably.

I'm not taking sides here, but it is surprising to me that none of you appear to understand what he is asking. He just wants a photo from a distance in the sky, showing the same wreckage in the closeups that provide no identifiable area to place them in.

Is it really that hard to understand, or do you guys just want to pretend you don't understand because you can't actually show what he wants? I lean towards this.

So maybe this post was a waste....Keep the blindfold on fellas.

Hmmm, speaking of blindfolds, have you read many of BR's posts? You really just typed with a straight face, 'If a photo taken from further up in the air shows any large pieces of wreckage that would stop BR'?!? I don't use icons much, but .

There is no point to showing him the photographs (that don't exist) that he's requesting, he has made it clear that he saw the scene from the media chopper on that day on TV with his other pilot friends and knows what he saw. He has both piloting and life experience you know, and has been present at crash scenes, possesses unlimited common sense, and is a master at 'connecting the dots', and 'reading between the lines'.

You don't honestly think that were such photos to be produced, especially a decade later, that he wouldn't also say it's staged (or maybe you really don't know him very well). The next request would likely be serial number verification for the wreckage connecting it to Flight 93 so we know it's that plane, and if that's provided, well the govt can do anything you see and almost always is lying and deceptive (except about Space Shuttle disasters, we know they're telling the truth about those... somehow).

I'll make you a deal, 'lad': I'll start looking for aerial photos of Shanksville on 9/11 as soon as you or BR start looking for Flight 93 and it's crew and passengers.

Edited August 8, 2012 by Liquid Gardens

[skyeagle409]

As I read it, he wants to see photos of the crash site from a height, which show wreckage.

Skyeagle is providing pictures that could have been taken on my lawn. Closeup with nothing to reference in regards to what area it is from.

I say the photos are authentic, and if you don't believe me, I can point the way to an airline that can confirm the photos as authentic since that airlne confirmed United 93 has crashed at Shanksville.

United Airlines provides further update on UA Flights 93 and 175; sends family assistance teams to PA and NY

CHICAGO - United Airlines has provided the following additional information relating to UA Flights 93 and 175. Flight UA 93, a single aircraft, also operated as a code share flight with Air Canada under AC 4085. Flight UA 175, a single aircraft, also operated as a code-share flight with Air New Zealand under NZ 9051. Earlier today, United confirmed the following details:

• UA 93, a Boeing 757 aircraft, departed from Newark, NJ, at 8:01 local time, bound for San Francisco, with 38 passengers onboard, two pilots, and five flight attendants. This aircraft crashed near Johnstown, PA.
  
• UA 175, a Boeing 767 aircraft, departed from Boston at 7:58 local time, bound for Los Angeles, with 56 passengers onboard, two pilots, and seven flight attendants. United has confirmed the loss of this aircraft. Last radar contact with the aircraft was between Newark, NJ and Philadelphia, PA.
  

United is dispatching a team to Johnstown, PA as soon as possible, to assist in every way, with the investigation and to provide assistance, help, and support to family members. Based on information received from the authorities, United is also sending employees to the New York City area to assist, in every way it can, with this tragedy.

http://www.prnewswir...-154520735.html

Contact Information

http://onyoursi.de/w...nited-airlines/

You will note that the crash site of United 93 looks like the crash site of PSA 1771.

And, the Caspian Airline crash site. Note the similarities between those crash sites and the crash site of United 93.

So maybe this post was a waste....Keep the blindfold on fellas.

Ask BR why you do not see a large tail sections at the crash sites of Caspian Airlnes and PSA 1771. While you are at it, contact United Airlnes for confirmation that the photos I have been presenting are authentic and depict crash debris from United 93. Question is: are you willing to accept my challenge??

Edited August 8, 2012 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

I believe BR is asking you where the proof is that those photos were taken in that field. If a photo taken from further up in the air shows any large pieces of wreckage that would stop BR.

If BR was a pilot, he would have already known why you won't find large pieces of a large aircraft that struck the ground at over 500 mph at such a steep angle. From the aerial photos you can plainly see the wing indentation on the ground.

Which of the following two photos depict the crash site of United 93?

PHOTO 1

PHOTO 2

The list of phone calls from United 93

How many calls were made from Airfones? You will also note that when the two cell phone calls were made from United 93, the aircraft was roughly at 5000 feet.

Edited August 8, 2012 by skyeagle409

[Czero 101]

Proof, please?

Good luck with that...

I've been waiting for Preacherman to provide proof* for a claim he made about 3 weeks ago in** in another thread, proof which he also claimed he was able to find "in seconds*** and has as yet been unable to provide.

* - Link to one of the posts where I asked Preacherman to supply the proof which he claimed existsed

** - Link to post where Preacherman makes the initial claim

*** - Link to post where Preacherman says he is able to find the proof "in seconds"

Cz

Edited August 8, 2012 by Czero 101

[Space Commander Travis]

Proof, please?

Well, even Wiki Pedia, which is hardly going to be one to go very far to challenge the official line, says

The origins of al-Qaeda as a network inspiring terrorism around the world and training operatives can be traced to the Soviet War in Afghanistan (December 1979 – February 1989).^[76] The U.S. viewed the conflict in Afghanistan, with the Afghan Marxists and allied Soviet troops on one side and the native Afghan mujahideen, some of whom were radical Islamic militants, on the other, as a blatant case of Soviet expansionism and aggression. A CIA program called Operation Cyclone channeled funds through Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency to the Afghan Mujahideen who were fighting the Soviet occupation.^[77]

At the same time, a growing number of Arab mujahideen joined the jihad against the Afghan Marxist regime, facilitated by international Muslim organizations, particularly the Maktab al-Khidamat,^[78] which was funded by the Saudi Arabia government as well as by individual Muslims (particularly Saudi businessmen who were approached by bin Laden). Together, these sources donated some $600 million a year to jihad.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda

Note also the involvement of the Saudi government, valiant & valued allies against the forces of Bad.

Edited August 8, 2012 by 747400

[preacherman76]

Thanks 747

To the others, what now?

[preacherman76]

Truth is AQ is ours. Have always been ours. OSBL worked for the US government for decades, and by a FBI translator its known that he worked for us right up till the day of 9/11. Even the FBI admitts there is no evidence OSBL had anything to do with 9/11. This was a set up. Government have used false flags very much including ours (look up gulf of tonkin) all through history to acheive thier agendas.

We are aiding AQ in Syria as we speak. We armed and aided them in Lybia as well. The AQ flag flighs high over government buildings in Lybia. Explain that maddness in our brave new world?

[TK0001]

I'm interested in what the people of America tend to believe regarding the horrible September 11 incidents. It's easy for us over the other side of the world to watch a doco on how your government might be lying. 911 conspiracy theorists claim that the government are behind it and these are extremely strong allegations to make. I'm interested in how the American population in general feel about it.

What are your thoughts America?

Hopefully by now you've learned that over here in America, 9/11 can become a never-ending topic full of willful denial and perpetual goalpost shifting. But never fear, these discussions usually only take place in cyberspace. To actually present actual proof of one's fanciful conspiracy theory in, say, a court of law is to this point nothing but a fantasy, no matter how "iron clad" the evidence is claimed to be. So it's really an exercise in futility.

[skyeagle409]

Truth is AQ is ours. Have always been ours. OSBL worked for the US government for decades, and by a FBI translator its known that he worked for us right up till the day of 9/11.

You don't seem to understand that the U.S. government did not support al-Qaeda, it was supporting the Afghan Mujahideen. Read the history of what happened after the war with the Soviet Union.

Even the FBI admitts there is no evidence OSBL

That is not true at all and what you have just done was to further spread disinformation. Check it out.

FBI Blames al-Qaeda for the 9/11 Attacks

Two weeks after the September 11 attacks, the Federal Bureau of Investigation identified the hijackers and connected them to al-Qaeda, a global, decentralized terrorist network. In a number of video, audio, interview and printed statements, senior members of al-Qaeda have also asserted responsibility for organizing the September 11 attacks.

http://en.wikipedia....cks#cite_note-1

You said, the FBI did not blame Osama bin Laden, a claim that has been proven false.

Bin Laden claims responsibility for 9/11

Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden appeared in a new message aired on an Arabic TV station Friday night, for the first time claiming direct responsibility for the 2001 attacks against the United States. The militant Islamic group decided "we should destroy towers in America" because "we are a free people... and we want to regain the freedom of our nation," said bin Laden, dressed in yellow and white robes and videotaped against a plain brown background.

In the 18-minute message, parts of which were played on Qatar-based Al-Jazeera just four days before the American presidential election, bin Laden accused U.S. President George W. Bush of negligence on the day 19 suicide hijackers took over four American passenger jets. He also threatened new attacks if the policies of the U.S. government do not change.

http://www.cbc.ca/ne...sage041029.html

It was no secret that Osama bin Laden declared war on the United States.

Edited August 8, 2012 by skyeagle409

[TK0001]

Also, I believe 9/11 conspiracy theories stem from a culture of distrust and dissatisfaction with our government. We haven't had a government to be proud of in decades, and some people have a hard time expressing their anger. I believe some people's anger toward the government gets misdirected by people like Alex Jones. He takes that youthful vitriol and angst and points it toward baseless anti-government theories, and he makes money off it.

There's nothing wrong with being p***ed off at the government. What is wrong is allowing yourself to be manipulated by profiteers of any stripe.

[Babe Ruth]

Blindfold it is WANDERING, and you hit the nail on the head!

The pieces that SKY keeps showing and showing and showing would have stuck out like a sore thumb when viewed from the air. Relatively speaking, they were huge, and would have been very obvious from the air. They don't believe me, but I've seen too many crashes from above, and pieces like that stick out big time.

They cannot show those pictures because they don't exist. Everybody there that day said there was nothing to see. The 3 videos shot from news cameras showed nothing was there. Those videos have been removed from the internet several years ago, and there is a reason for that.

[skyeagle409]

Blindfold it is WANDERING, and you hit the nail on the head!

Yes indeed, the 9/11 CT folks have been walking around with their blindfolds on.

The pieces that SKY keeps showing and showing and showing would have stuck out like a sore thumb when viewed from the air.

Considering that the area was at the location of the crash site of United 93, what more is there to say?!

Relatively speaking, they were huge, and would have been very obvious from the air.

Judgeing from the crash sites of Caspian Airlines and PSA 1771, which were similar to the crash site of United 93, you've lost another argument. Any pilot would have known that.

They cannot show those pictures because they don't exist.

Compare the crash site photos of Caspian Airlines and PSA 1771 to understand how SILLY your remarks are when compared to the crash site of United 93.

[Babe Ruth]

LG

Please note that of the aerial photos provided by Sky on this thread, NOT ONE shows any pieces of fuselage. Not one.

Unless he photoshops one in there, which he has done here before, there will not be one.

Now, if you or anybody else can provide a verifiable picture showing that fuselage section in the field, I would be more than happy to admit I was wrong.

You guys could end this controversy instantly, IF ONLY you could provide such a picture. I've admitted many times that I was wrong, and will do it again when necessary.

At the moment you cannot provide such a picture of the debris IN CONTEXT, as Wandering noted.

And for reasons I suspect I understand, YOU have chosen to NOT provide Coroner Miller's first statements to the media.

As I've mentioned before sir, having done so myself for the better part of 4 years, it's tough duty to attempt to defend a lie.

[skyeagle409]

They cannot show those pictures because they don't exist. Everybody there that day said there was nothing to see.

Oops, you are loose with the truth again!!

The 3 videos shot from news cameras showed nothing was there.

Oops, you are loose with the truth again!!

Those videos have been removed from the internet several years ago, and there is a reason for that.

Evidence please! No evidence, you have no case.

[skyeagle409]

Please note that of the aerial photos provided by Sky on this thread, NOT ONE shows any pieces of fuselage.

LOL!! Any pilot would have known that a large aircraft striking the ground at over 500 mph at such a steep angle would leave behind a crate like this.

Now, BR, show us the fuselage of the Caspian Airlines, TU-154 at the crash site above.

[TK0001]

Babe Ruth, please tell me what happened on 9/11.