America Nuked 9/11

[Likely Guy]

What are you implying when the majority of Americans support the government's official story regarding 911?

This is going back to the same old 'pie chart debate', isn't it?

Skyeagle, I admire your dogged determination to keep a thread on topic, and I agree with you on how 'public opinion' can be perceived. But, I'm going to see the infamous 'pie chart' again, aren't I?

Edited August 20, 2013 by Likely Guy

[skyeagle409]

Absolutely amazing when he tried to buy LESS insurance and had to be talked up. You've were shown that as well and ignored it as well. Anyone see a pattern here?

Yes, I have noticed BR's pattern for quite some time now, but BR is clearly aware that his claims have been debunked time and again with facts and evidence, so he waits for a certain period of time hoping that no one will remember before he brings up his flawed and debunked claims once again.

He must think that people on these boards were born yesterday, but I am glad that others have noticed his patterns as well.

[Space Commander Travis]

And all you debunkers have to do, the only arms you really have, is ridicule. How is that for logic? What you all never ever address is the fact that a good portion of the population seriously doubt what the USA government tells them, that the USA government is almost constantly seen as filled with liars, regardless of topic. For some reason, you just cannot face this fact.

The majority of people in the USA DO NOT trust their own government to tell them the truth. What say you to this?

Well, that's perfectly normal in any society (even those where the People are regularly wheeled out to demonstrate how much they love the Dear Leader, although obviously they wouldn't say that in an opinion poll). It's very healthy, not to believe everything one's Government tells one, but it doesn't necessarily provide proof that the Government was responsible for a massive outrage. And this very healthy skepticism can, as we can see very clearly from a browse through the "conspiracies & Secret Societies" forum, very easily mutate into something more than just healthy skepticism. It really doesn't prove anything if a good portion of the population seriously doubt what the USA government tells them.

[skyeagle409]

This is going back to the same old 'pie chart debate', isn't it?

Yes indeed.

Skyeagle, I admire your dogged determination to keep a thread on topic, and I agree with you on how 'public opinion' can be perceived. But, I'm going to see the infamous 'pie chart' again, aren't I?

Actually, we can use these results.

The collapse of the twin towers in New York was aided by explosives secretly planted in the two buildings.

* 77% "unlikely"

* 10% "somewhat likely"

* 6% "very likely"

The Pentagon was struck by a military cruise missile in 2001 rather than by an airliner captured by terrorists.

* 80% "not likely"

* 6% "somewhat likely"

* 6% "very likely"

[Iron_Lotus]

And all you debunkers have to do, the only arms you really have, is ridicule. How is that for logic? What you all never ever address is the fact that a good portion of the population seriously doubt what the USA government tells them, that the USA government is almost constantly seen as filled with liars, regardless of topic. For some reason, you just cannot face this fact.

The majority of people in the USA DO NOT trust their own government to tell them the truth. What say you to this?

*yawns* that's what. you seem so pessimistic and devoid of anything related to joy.

Also it is not a FACT that the government is filled with liars, that would be an opinion. as for the "majority" of people in the USA not trusting their own government well for one, that's not true, secondly I don't really give a damn either. I don't care who hates who or who distrusts who that doesn't matter and it never will. What matters to me is evidence that's it and you and babe ruth and bee and everybody else who supports these beyond stupid claims have presented.... wait for it...... NONE, nothing, nada, and you never will.

Edited August 20, 2013 by Iron_Lotus

[Space Commander Travis]

*yawns* that's what. you seem so pessimistic and devoid of anything related to joy.

Also it is not a FACT that the government is filled with liars, that would be an opinion.

No, i think that without a doubt that one is a fact. Not just the U.S. Govt., any of them.

[Babe Ruth]

Since Iron Lotus is currently off line, allow me to offer my viewpoint in regards to this topic.

You said, "And all you debunkers have to do, the only arms you really have, is ridicule." Every 'debunker', to use the term, would readily admit that conspiracies do, and have, happened. But in a case such as this that the twin towers were nuked, is so ridiculous and devoid of proof, that surely a bit of ridicule would result in a debate.

It also seems that when a 'debunker' carefully and logically presents their argument it falls entirely on deaf ears in the 'CT' camp and yet another aspect of the conspiracy is raised, and this goes on and on. After enough time I don't blame some 'debunkers' for resorting to ridicule.

I've also been active in this particular forum long enough to realize that the 'CT'ers' often resort to ridicule as well.

You also said, "What you all never ever address is the fact that a good portion of the population seriously doubt what the USA government tells them..."

I'm not an American citizen so I'll take your statement as the truth. So what? What does that prove? You'll have to provide more details for me, at least, to get your point.

Where the credibility of the government becomes a factor in this case, is when so much of the evidence, the preponderance of the evidence, works against the official story. That is, if the government is well known to lie as it pleases and all the time, THEN the evidence contradicts the official story, then the established pattern of behavior--mendacity--becomes very relevant.

[Babe Ruth]

Wrong. The camera's perspective view is of a plane coming at an angle towards the pentagon. Also considering the lens was a fish eye lens to expand the field of view distorting the size.

Then also take into account the distance of the plane from the parking lot camera.

Might want to take into consideration ALL these factors before coming to such silly assertions.

You might want to take into consideration all the factors too, before you make such silly posts.

I think the term is orthographic projection, and I think we have discussed this before and it made you uncomfortable and silent.

Consider: we know the dimensions of the airplane. We know the dimensions of the building. We know the distance from the camera to the building, and of course the airplane at moment of impact.

With all those knowns, it is very easy in this day of the computer to construct such a projection. Hell, I could probably have drawn it myself back in drafting class 20 years ago with all those known dimensions.

Get a grip Rafterman. Defending the indefensible is always a frustrating and embarassing endeavor.

[skyeagle409]

Where the credibility of the government becomes a factor in this case, is when so much of the evidence, the preponderance of the evidence, works against the official story. That is, if the government is well known to lie as it pleases and all the time, THEN the evidence contradicts the official story, then the established pattern of behavior--mendacity--becomes very relevant.

911 conspiracy websites lie on a regular basis and yet, you continue to use those flawed and discredited websites as references. Fact of the matter is, the evidence supports the official story and it is very clear that mini-nukes had nothing to do with the 911 attacks. And remember, American Airlines, United Airlines, the Boeing Aircraft Company, Rolls-Royce, civil and structural engineers, demolition experts, investigators and many others, back the government's conclusions as well.

Firefighters and police also confirmed the WTC buildings buckled before they collapsed which was an indication that fire was responsible for the collapse of the WTC buildings.

Edited August 20, 2013 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

Consider: we know the dimensions of the airplane. We know the dimensions of the building. We know the distance from the camera to the building, and of course the airplane at moment of impact.

With all those knowns, it is very easy in this day of the computer to construct such a projection. Hell, I could probably have drawn it myself back in drafting class 20 years ago with all those known dimensions.

Looking at that revised B-757 image presented by poppet, the vertical fin would be over 80 feet high, which is rather peculiar considering the height of the vertical fin of a B-757 is only 44 feet.

[RaptorBites]

You might want to take into consideration all the factors too, before you make such silly posts.

I think the term is orthographic projection, and I think we have discussed this before and it made you uncomfortable and silent.

Consider: we know the dimensions of the airplane. We know the dimensions of the building. We know the distance from the camera to the building, and of course the airplane at moment of impact.

With all those knowns, it is very easy in this day of the computer to construct such a projection. Hell, I could probably have drawn it myself back in drafting class 20 years ago with all those known dimensions.

Get a grip Rafterman. Defending the indefensible is always a frustrating and embarassing endeavor.

BR, the time and patience you take into posting such hogwash is really outstanding.

You have yet to provide evidence that the video is less than authentic. You actually claimed it was a cruise missile yet are uncomfortable with giving us an answer of its origins.

I have every reason to believe a 757 slammed into the Pentagon. Eyewitness reports, radar reports, FDR analysis, damage reports, and photographs of the aftermath all corroborate it was a 757.

You have yet been able to provide proof of anything but other than biased conjecture.

[Babe Ruth]

RB

I have never claimed the picture wasn't authentic. I have claimed all along that whatever object happens to appear in that authentic couple of frames WAS NOT A BOEING 757. Get it? The frames are authentic, but like all the other evidence that can be found, they contradict the official story.

Is that so difficult to comprehend?

As to the cruise missle, I did not CLAIM that there was a cruise missle involved, I SPECULATED that a cruise missle MIGHT have been involved. Apparently unlike yourself, I am able to entertain a thought without embracing it, without accepting it. You know, consider all the possibilities, then make up one's mind, OR NOT.

I still happen to think that some sort of flying object struck the building, but I could easily be wrong. I hold that hunch only because of the engine and landing gear parts that were in the rubble. And of course cruise missles AIN'T GOT NOT LANDING GEAR.

The orthographic projection is an accurate way to portray what a 757 WOULD HAVE LOOKED LIKE. Clearly those authentic frames show something whizzing by, but it is not a 757.

Evidence has been provided here Raptor, and this projection is an example of it. The reality is the you reject any evidence that contradicts the official story, and are unable to provide any evidence that supports the OCT.

Edited August 21, 2013 by Babe Ruth

[RaptorBites]

RB

I have never claimed the picture wasn't authentic. I have claimed all along that whatever object happens to appear in that authentic couple of frames WAS NOT A BOEING 757. Get it? The frames are authentic, but like all the other evidence that can be found, they contradict the official story.

Is that so difficult to comprehend?

As to the cruise missle, I did not CLAIM that there was a cruise missle involved, I SPECULATED that a cruise missle MIGHT have been involved. Apparently unlike yourself, I am able to entertain a thought without embracing it, without accepting it. You know, consider all the possibilities, then make up one's mind, OR NOT.

I still happen to think that some sort of flying object struck the building, but I could easily be wrong. I hold that hunch only because of the engine and landing gear parts that were in the rubble. And of course cruise missles AIN'T GOT NOT LANDING GEAR.

The orthographic projection is an accurate way to portray what a 757 WOULD HAVE LOOKED LIKE. Clearly those authentic frames show something whizzing by, but it is not a 757.

Evidence has been provided here Raptor, and this projection is an example of it. The reality is the you reject any evidence that contradicts the official story, and are unable to provide any evidence that supports the OCT.

Explain why you used the KISS (keep it simple stupid) explaination before, yet clearly not use it in this instance?

Official story: 19 hijackers take over 4 commercial jetliners. 2 hit WTC, 1 Pentagon, and 1 crash land.

Then make up baloney such as switched in mid air flight 93, fly over at Pentagon with possible cruise missile strike, coercion of witnesses, etc.

Way to keep it simple....

[skyeagle409]

As to the cruise missle, I did not CLAIM that there was a cruise missle involved, I SPECULATED that a cruise missle MIGHT have been involved.

Why would you do such a thing after American Airlines confirmed that American 77 crashed at the Pentagon and by the fact that recovered wreckage from inside and outside the Pentagon was clearly from a B-757?

The orthographic projection is an accurate way to portray what a 757 WOULD HAVE LOOKED LIKE. Clearly those authentic frames show something whizzing by, but it is not a 757.

You are contradicting yourself once again because you have posted the following comment;

I still happen to think that some sort of flying object struck the building, but I could easily be wrong. I hold that hunch only because of the engine and landing gear parts that were in the rubble.

Well, it just so happens that the engine and landing gear parts were from a B-757, not to mention additional B-757 wreckage recovered from inside and outside the Pentagon.

Since you made it aware to us that you were aware that engine and landing gear parts were found at the Pentagon, which you knew could NOT have come from a cruise missile, why would you continue to speculate that a cruise missile struck the Pentagon when you knew full well that the engine and landing parts were NOT from a cruise missile in the first place?

The reality is the you reject any evidence that contradicts the official story,...

Considering that civil and structural engineers, firefighters, demolition experts, investigators and the evidence support the official story, what more is there to say, except that you have failed to provide evidence that refutes the official story.

[Babe Ruth]

Explain why you used the KISS (keep it simple stupid) explaination before, yet clearly not use it in this instance?

Official story: 19 hijackers take over 4 commercial jetliners. 2 hit WTC, 1 Pentagon, and 1 crash land.

Then make up baloney such as switched in mid air flight 93, fly over at Pentagon with possible cruise missile strike, coercion of witnesses, etc.

Way to keep it simple....

LOL.

KISS is a good rule of thumb in planning military missions, but does not necessarily assist in analysis of historical events, Occam's Razor notwithstanding.

Analysis of historical events demands following the facts and evidence. "Switched in midair flight 93" is nothing I have ever posited here. The facts are that everybody that was there at Shanksville that day failed to observe a wrecked Boeing. Photographic evidence supports that. ACARS evidence shows the aircraft was still flying after the supposed time of crash, several states away. Interview as recently as 2011 confirm no Boeing there and explains the mystery of conflicting statements by Miller.

Flyover at Pentagon is suggested by statements of numerous eye witnesses and bogus FDR data.

I don't see how KISS comes into play.

[skyeagle409]

KISS is a good rule of thumb in planning military missions, but does not necessarily assist in analysis of historical events, Occam's Razor notwithstanding.

Using Occam's Razor:

19 hijackers carried out the 911 attacks and responsible for crashing American 11 into WTC1, American 77 into the Pentagon, United 175 into WTC2 and United 93 at Shanksville.

Analysis of historical events demands following the facts and evidence.

Which, have already proven you wrong time and again.

"Switched in midair flight 93"

Not possible considering radar tracked United 93 until it crashed and by the fact that United Airlines confirmed the Shanksville crash site as that of United 93, but you were aware of that fact.

The facts are that everybody that was there at Shanksville that day failed to observe a wrecked Boeing.

On the contrary, those at the crash site of United 93 have confirmed the crash site as United 93, but you were aware of that fact as well.

Photographic evidence supports that.

Let's take a look.

United 93 Wreckage at Shanksville

Yes indeed, the photos proved that United 93 crashed at Shanksville and that you have been proven wrong once again.

ACARS evidence shows the aircraft was still flying after the supposed time of crash,...

ACARS depicted no such thing and I made multiple phone calls to ARINC, the ACARS folks, who indicated to me the 911 conspiracy folks are incorrect, which simply means you are incorrect once again and that is peculiar considering that you have been aware that ACARS did not depict United 93 as you say.

...several states away. Interview as recently as 2011 confirm no Boeing there...

Let's take a look.

United Airlines Statement on Plane Crashes

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

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

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

— UA 175, a Boeing 767 aircraft, departed from Boston at 7:58 a.m. local time, bound for Los Angeles, with 56 passengers on board, two pilots and seven flight attendants.

United has confirmed it will dispatch a team to Johnstown, Pa., as soon as possible to assist, in every way possible, with the investigation and to provide assistance to the family members.

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

Flyover at Pentagon is suggested by statements of numerous eye witnesses and bogus FDR data.

No one saw American 77 fly over the Pentagon. Let's take a look.

American 77 Wreckage at the Pentagon

B-757 landing gear struck inside the Pentagon.

Photographic proof that American 77 did not fly over the Pentagon. Now, let's take a look here and listen to this announcement.

I might add that American Airlinesand the Boeing Aircraft Company were the two companies that sent in the conversion formulas for the FDR that pertained to ONLY to the FDR of American 77 and no other aircraft and there is further confirmation on the FDR of American 77 as well.

Flight AA77 on 9/11: New FDR Analysis Supports the Official Flight Path Leading to Impact with the Pentagon

http://journalof911s...ltimeter_92.pdf

Now, let's examine the fleet history of American Airlines. From the following link, you will notice that there were B-767s and B-757s written off. Click on those numbers in order to determine why those aircraft were written off.

American Airlines Fleet History

http://www.planespot...erican-Airlines

Now, let's take a look here and pay close attention between time line 12:40 and 12:50. Next, pay close attention between time line 13:55 and 16:00. Visual confirmation that the aircraft that crashed into the Pentagon was a B-757 and further confirmation the aircraft was tracked on radar despite the tampering of the transponder, and you heard it from me before that tampering with the transponder will not render an aircraft invisible on radar despite the radar disinformation and misinformation spewing from those 911 conspiracy websites.

Flight 77's RADAR Information:

Final Radar Track

Washington Dulles International Airport with ATC Audio

(American 77's red primary target enters from bottom left of all RADAR reconstructions)

(Best watched in Full Screen on Highest Quality)

Now, let's take a trip here.

Final 4 seconds of FDR data decoded - Proves AA77 impacted the Pentagon;

Flight AA77 on 9/11: New FDR Analysis Supports the Official Flight Path Leading to Impact with the Pentagon - .pdf

Frank Legge, (B.Sc.(Hons.), Ph.D.) and Warren Stutt, ( B.Sc.(Hons.) Comp. Sci.)

January 2011

The "Maneuver" - AA77's Final Turn and Dive

Now, what was that you were saying about the aircraft flying over the Pentagon? I find it peculiar that you would say such a thing after you told us that you SPECULATED that a cruise missile could have struck the Pentagon.

Edited August 22, 2013 by skyeagle409

[RaptorBites]

LOL.

KISS is a good rule of thumb in planning military missions, but does not necessarily assist in analysis of historical events, Occam's Razor notwithstanding.

Yet you feel that the military and government was involved in 9/11 and still feel that they disregarded the KISS rule? Such a hypocrite.

Analysis of historical events demands following the facts and evidence. "Switched in midair flight 93" is nothing I have ever posited here. The facts are that everybody that was there at Shanksville that day failed to observe a wrecked Boeing. Photographic evidence supports that.

This again, is a lie. Photographic evidence and Wally Miller's statements clearly support a Commercial Airliner crash. Why are you so uncomfortable answering a simple question such as "what happened to the passengers of flight 93? where did they go?".

Can you answer those questions BR?

ACARS evidence shows the aircraft was still flying after the supposed time of crash, several states away.

Another example of making a statement that has already been debunked and repeating it months later in hopes that it will come true.

You have already been given the explanation and information regarding this. It is listed in ARINC's ACARS PDF files. You have already been given the website it is located including the phone # to contact ARINC yourself to confirm. Seems to me that you have yet to do the proper research yourself and instead stick to PF911T woo.

Interview as recently as 2011 confirm no Boeing there and explains the mystery of conflicting statements by Miller.

Can you prove Wally Miller was being coerced? I am 100% sure you are unable to prove your allegation.

Flyover at Pentagon is suggested by statements of numerous eye witnesses and bogus FDR data.

Another one! The FDR data has already been analyzed by Warren Stutt and Legge. Both members of PF911T and truthers. They FDR was shown to be authentic including past 48 hours of flight data matching exactly to Flight 77 ithat corroborates past 48 hours of Radar data. Balsamo even temporarily banned Stutt and Legge

from PF911T immediately after release of the analysis.

I have already given you the website where the original FDR RAW data could be found from NTSB FOIA and the analysis to the data. Let me guess, you didnt bother researching that either and again are subjected to PF911T woo.

I don't see how KISS comes into play.

19 Hijackers took over 4 US Commercial airlines with the intent to cause chaos and kill thousands. Doesn't come closer to KISS than that.

[poppet]

sky

your kidding right ! the pentagon was bombed between 9.30 and 9.32 clocks do not lie forget your fake Boeing ,April Gallop sat down at her desk and pressed a button on her key board and BOOM .

http://physics911.net/pdf/honegger.pdf

[skyeagle409]

sky

your kidding right ! the pentagon was bombed between 9.30 and 9.32 clocks do not lie forget your fake Boeing ,April Gallop sat down at her desk and pressed a button on her key board and BOOM

You blew it again!! "Faked Boeing?!" Are you claiming this photo depicts bomb-related shrapnel at the Pentagon?

If you had done any real reasearch at all, you would have found that I was right on the money and furthermore, B-757 wreckage recovered from inside and outside the Pentagon proved that you are incorrect once again and the nature of damage to the structural beams of the Pentagon, which was the result of impact damage from American 77, had nothing to do with explosives.

If you had done your homework, you would determined why the Pentagon structural damage was not bomb-related. There was no bomb and a commanding officer of my Wing was in the Pentagon when American 77 struck. Nothing there that even remotely suggest the use of explosives.

BTW, I cannot count of how many government clocks depicted inaccurate time on my base during my career many of which were battery-operated.

Edited August 22, 2013 by skyeagle409

[Babe Ruth]

Sky

You are such a spambot! ;-)

RB

I wasn't in on the planning of the operation, so how can you hold me accoutable for it? Plus, it was not a conventional military operation on a battlefield. It was a false flag, and deception was a crucial part of it. Fooling the gullible media was a big part of it, even though Peter Jennings and the first report on scene at the Pentagon seemed to have NOT been fooled.

You are so deep in denial that you will not be honest about Wally's first statement to the cameras. You prefer to focus on his second statement. Plus, you absolutely deny that Bollyn interviewed him in 2011 and pretend his words in that interview, and the words of his employees present at the time, don't exist.

It's OK, RB. A man sees what he wants to see, and disregards the rest, just as Simon & Garfunkel said.

[Agent0range]

Sky

You are such a spambot! ;-)

RB

I wasn't in on the planning of the operation, so how can you hold me accoutable for it? Plus, it was not a conventional military operation on a battlefield. It was a false flag, and deception was a crucial part of it. Fooling the gullible media was a big part of it, even though Peter Jennings and the first report on scene at the Pentagon seemed to have NOT been fooled.

You are so deep in denial that you will not be honest about Wally's first statement to the cameras. You prefer to focus on his second statement. Plus, you absolutely deny that Bollyn interviewed him in 2011 and pretend his words in that interview, and the words of his employees present at the time, don't exist.

It's OK, RB. A man sees what he wants to see, and disregards the rest, just as Simon & Garfunkel said.

If you really believe it was a false flag, you should have more faith in your government. I mean, to be able to keep the largest secret in the history of mankind? Impressive.

[skyeagle409]

Sky

You are such a spambot!

With your long past record of distorting the facts, it is evident why you cannot be taken seriously.

[skyeagle409]

It was a false flag, and deception was a crucial part of it.

Your own "false flag" comment is false.

Fooling the gullible media was a big part of it,

It is evident that you make up things and expect people to believe you, but your long history of distorting the facts shows why you cannot be taken seriously. You must think that people here were born yesterday.

...even though Peter Jennings and the first report on scene at the Pentagon seemed to have NOT been fooled.

But, Peter Jennings read a report from American Airlines that confirmed that American 77 crashed into the Pentagon and look what you posted! Just another example why you cannot be taken seriously.

You are so deep in denial that you will not be honest about Wally's first statement to the cameras.

Let's take a look and listen as Wally Miller slams people like you for distorting his comments.

Just a few reasons of many as to why you cannot be taken seriously.

You are just here to have fun pushing false and misleading information and nothing else. In fact, it was brought up the other day how evidence proved you wrong in the past, and it was brought up that you tend to wait for a certain length of time and then, come back with the same old tired debunked argument hoping that people would have forgotten and what did you do???

You came back and did it again!!

Edited August 22, 2013 by skyeagle409

[RaptorBites]

Sky

You are such a spambot! ;-)

RB

I wasn't in on the planning of the operation, so how can you hold me accoutable for it? Plus, it was not a conventional military operation on a battlefield. It was a false flag, and deception was a crucial part of it. Fooling the gullible media was a big part of it, even though Peter Jennings and the first report on scene at the Pentagon seemed to have NOT been fooled.

You are so deep in denial that you will not be honest about Wally's first statement to the cameras. You prefer to focus on his second statement. Plus, you absolutely deny that Bollyn interviewed him in 2011 and pretend his words in that interview, and the words of his employees present at the time, don't exist.

It's OK, RB. A man sees what he wants to see, and disregards the rest, just as Simon & Garfunkel said.

The denial I see here is your attempt at proving coercion.

Wally Miller has already stated conspiracy theorists have taken his words out of context. Which is exactly what you are doing.

Please BR, enough of the BS and prove to me that Wally Miller was coerced.

[RaptorBites]

sky

your kidding right ! the pentagon was bombed between 9.30 and 9.32 clocks do not lie forget your fake Boeing ,April Gallop sat down at her desk and pressed a button on her key board and BOOM .

http://physics911.net/pdf/honegger.pdf

Great, so now it is a bomb? The evolution of conspiracy is really taken off now hasn't it?

First it was a drone, then cruise missile, then smaller single passenger plane, now a bomb?

I have to hand it to you conspiracy folk, you never know when to give up when the chips are stacked against you.

Nevermind the fact that evidence mounted corroborated that flight 77 hit the Pentagon and nothing supports a bomb.

What next? The tooth fairy and death rays?