View Full Version : 2.3 TRILLION bucks 'missing' from Pentagon on 9/10/01
Foxtrot
10-15-11, 07:06 AM
The day before 9/11/01, Donald Rumsfeld said that 2.3 TRILLION bucks were "missing" from Pentagon funds.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xU4GdHLUHwU
And I get excited when I find a ten spot in the dirty laundry.
What would have been the story of the year somehow meant nothing the next day.
Fabricated materials, I would say to raise those who believe in a conspiracy.
Long read, but gives some explanations:
http://www.911myths.com/html/rumsfeld__9_11_and__2_3_trilli.html
TL;DR?
Basicly, the money simply couldn't be tracked throughout the system due to
incompatible software at the time in Pentagon.
The technology revolution has transformed organizations across the private
sector, but not ours, not fully, not yet. We are, as they say, tangled in our
anchor chain. Our financial systems are decades old. According to some
estimates, we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions. We cannot
share information from floor to floor in this building because it's
stored on dozens of technological systems that are inaccessible or
incompatible.
Dread Knot
10-15-11, 07:36 AM
So much for history by YouTube. :rotfl2:
9/11 is a can of worms
As far as im concerned these are the only 9/11 facts.
2 planes hit WTC 1 and 2 which then collapes along with Wtc 7
Something hit the pentagon.
Something crashed in Pittesgburg.
Americas Air defense failed.
over 3000 people died.
And thats it, that is all anyone REALLY knows.
Everything else that anyone believes surrounding 9/11 is unproven. whether they support the offical story or the truth movements theories -, there is no true evidence to support either, if one was 100% proven the other would not exist, simple as that.
Its down to what people 'choose' to believe.
9/11 is a can of worms
As far as im concerned these are the only 9/11 facts.
2 planes hit WTC 1 and 2 which then collapes along with Wtc 7
Something hit the pentagon.
Something crashed in Pittesgburg.
Americas Air defense failed.
over 3000 people died.
And thats it, that is all anyone REALLY knows.
Everything else that anyone believes surrounding 9/11 is unproven. whether they support the offical story or the truth movements theories -, there is no true evidence to support either, if one was 100% proven the other would not exist, simple as that.
Its down to what people 'choose' to believe.
There's a lot of evidence you're ignoring. The bodies of the people who were aboard the Pittsburgh and Pentagon planes and the parts of the airplanes found at both crash sites for instance.
If you discount those pieces of evidence then what makes you think airplanes really hit the WTC? Some film footage?
$2.3 trillion? That's enough for a toilet seat and a hammer isn't it? :03:
There's a lot of evidence you're ignoring. The bodies of the people who were aboard the Pittsburgh and Pentagon planes and the parts of the airplanes found at both crash sites for instance.
If you discount those pieces of evidence then what makes you think airplanes really hit the WTC? Some film footage?
If you can point me to this evidence I'll happily believe it. I've seen the plane hit wtc2 from about 20 angles, it would be pretty irrational to conclude that something else happened.
Trust me I would much rather believe the official story than the truthers, no question there, but what I prefer is irrelevant
Jimbuna
10-15-11, 11:39 AM
One thing I am certain of....the world has never been the same since 9/11 whether you believe it or not.
Just for the record....I believe.
Sailor Steve
10-15-11, 11:44 AM
The only thing I find interesting here is that someone would suddenly "find" evidence in a video that's been there for five years.
If you can point me to this evidence I'll happily believe it.
I'd suggest you start researching here. http://www.debunking911.com/
I'd suggest you start researching here. http://www.debunking911.com/
Been there done that. That site is already in my favorites, its mostly hearsay mate :)
We shouldnt need sites like this anyway - if they had carried out a proper investigation and not destroyed and with held most of the evidance.
"Shall we foresically examine the rubble of the worst terrorist attack on US soil? - nah i dont think we'll bother, lets just assume that fire softened the trusses".
For real?
No wonder the 9/11 'truth' movement is growing, nothing wrong with asking for the truth mind, but there is pleanty wrong with saying 'it was an inside job' that is just theory and assumption......
trust me I ve spent days reading up on 9/11 and my conclusion is - its inconclusive, I dont think we will ever really know -or be 100% sure of what happened on that terrible day.
Been there done that. That site is already in my favorites, its mostly hearsay mate :)
We shouldnt need sites like this anyway - if they had carried out a proper investigation and not destroyed and with held most of the evidance.
"Shall we foresically examine the rubble of the worst terrorist attack on US soil? - nah i dont think we'll bother, lets just assume that fire softened the trusses".
For real?
No wonder the 9/11 'truth' movement is growing, nothing wrong with asking for the truth mind, but there is pleanty wrong with saying 'it was an inside job' that is just theory and assumption......
trust me I ve spent days reading up on 9/11 and my conclusion is - its inconclusive, I dont think we will ever really know -or be 100% sure of what happened on that terrible day.
As you wish. For me 99.9% is good enough. That last .1% requires having participated in the event itself.
magicstix
10-15-11, 01:41 PM
The whole truther movement is in dire need of some Occam's razor.
The whole truther movement is in dire need of some Occam's razor.
Rofl- true that
This thread, remind me of other discussion I have had and I have asked them this question, wich I also will ask you:
Why are those who believe in the official explanation, so afraid of an independent investigation???
When I read all those "official" believes mocking those who, have a quite different view or believes
i can only come to one conclusion: they are afraid of an independent investigation.
The question is why.
I say make this investigation. Whatever conclusion they may come to, we can take it from there.
Markus
This thread, remind me of other discussion I have had and I have asked them this question, wich I also will ask you:
Why are those who believe in the official explanation, so afraid of an independent investigation???
When I read all those "official" believes mocking those who, have a quite different view or believes
i can only come to one conclusion: they are afraid of an independent investigation.
The question is why.
I say make this investigation. Whatever conclusion they may come to, we can take it from there.
Markus
Agree, but its never going to happen.
Its too late to re-investigate 9/11, that ship has sailed.
The 9/11 commission report was an insult to those who lost their lives, it may as well have been printed on toilet paper for what its worth.
They actually spent MANY more $$$ investigating Clinton's Affair with Lewinsky than they did investigating 9/11.
And people are 'fine' with that :doh:. well ok, whatever.
Americas Air defence system, usually has fighters intercepting within minutes of an aircraft straying off its flight path with out explaination, (yes it really is that good) on 9/11, 4 large airliners were allowed to fly around for the best part of an hour completley unmolested.
No one has recieved so much as a slap on the wrist for this error.
Agree, but its never going to happen.
Its too late to re-investigate 9/11, that ship has sailed.
The 9/11 commission report was an insult to those who lost their lives, it may as well have been printed on toilet paper for what its worth.
They actually spent MANY more $$$ investigating Clinton's Affair with Lewinsky than they did investigating 9/11.
And people are 'fine' with that :doh:. well ok, whatever.
Americas Air defence system, usually has fighters intercepting within minutes of an aircraft straying off its flight path with out explaination, (yes it really is that good) on 9/11, 4 large airliners were allowed to fly around for the best part of an hour completley unmolested.
No one has recieved so much as a slap on the wrist for this error.I'd say it's easy to criticize with 20/20 hindsight. If the USAF knew the intent in the hour prior then the claim there was a failure might be valid. Without that knowledge what response would you have them make?
I'd say it's easy to criticize with 20/20 hindsight. If the USAF knew the intent in the hour prior then the claim there was a failure might be valid. Without that knowledge what response would you have them make?
Oh its not the USAFs fault whatsoever, I dont think they were told anything until the last moment - Yet NORAD and the FAA knew about the hijackings from almost the moment they happened.
The question is what happened inbetween?
And as for 'No prior knowledge', I wouldnt be so sure about that one, many intelligence servicemen have come forward and stated the opposite, As expected they have been discredited and/or ignored....
Americas Air defence system, usually has fighters intercepting within minutes of an aircraft straying off its flight path with out explaination, (yes it really is that good)
Care to cite some references to this? I doubt any such system exists as it'd be physically impossible to cover ever inch of US airspace.
Platapus
10-15-11, 05:00 PM
Americas Air defence system, usually has fighters intercepting within minutes of an aircraft straying off its flight path with out explaination, (yes it really is that good) on 9/11, 4 large airliners were allowed to fly around for the best part of an hour completley unmolested.
How many times per month are commercial aircraft off course for a few minutes. I don't think we scramble fighters, absent of other information, just because a commercial aircraft strays off course for a few minutes. Especially domestic flights.
If we did, I would imagine we would be scrambling pretty often and that, in itself, would cause problems with air traffic.
I am sure that if we have an unidentified or suspiciously operated aircraft entering out ADIZ we might scramble. But not for domestic flights.
Logistically how would such a plan operate?
Until that morning a civilian airliner getting hijacked meant a hostage drama, political and ransom demands, maybe a diversion to the classic hijacker destination of the Commie paradise of Cuba, not mass murder.
Care to cite some references to this? I doubt any such system exists as it'd be physically impossible to cover ever inch of US airspace.
Do some reading up on Norad and the FAA. every flight is tracked and every inch is covered, there is no where to hide in US airspace! :salute:
In 2008 or 2009 a danish university build an exact copy of three storey
from the WTC . They let this "building" burn for 3 days. Only thing that happened to it, was that the metal bended.
But no "freefall"
Markus
Do some reading up on Norad and the FAA. every flight is tracked and every inch is covered, there is no where to hide in US airspace! :salute:
Question is what they had been looking and where-the NORAD i mean.
On what was their focus in normal peace time.
You are talking about possible technical capability.
Do some reading up on Norad and the FAA. every flight is tracked and every inch is covered, there is no where to hide in US airspace! :salute:
There's a big difference between "tracking" and "intercepting" dude.
And like Plat mentions how often are commercial flights off course? You think they scramble fighters every time a 747 diverts around a thunderhead or changes altitude to avoid turbulence?
magicstix
10-15-11, 05:32 PM
Oh its not the USAFs fault whatsoever, I dont think they were told anything until the last moment - Yet NORAD and the FAA knew about the hijackings from almost the moment they happened.
The question is what happened inbetween?
And as for 'No prior knowledge', I wouldnt be so sure about that one, many intelligence servicemen have come forward and stated the opposite, As expected they have been discredited and/or ignored....
Protip: NORAD is a part of the USAF, therefore by definition the USAF knew.
Protip #2: Every inch of airspace isn't (or wasn't rather) covered by NORAD. NORAD ringed around the *perimeter* of North America to protect against Soviet air attack. There's no point in NORAD watching inside American airspace for threats...
In 2008 or 2009 a danish university build an exact copy of three storey
from the WTC . They let this "building" burn for 3 days. Only thing that happened to it, was that the metal bended.
But no "freefall"
Markus
All due respect to the Danish University but a miniature is different than the full size original by definition.
I personally know people who saw it happen with their own eyes. I personally know people who worked in all three buildings in the days and weeks prior to the event who would have had to notice any signs of preplanned demolition or other construction. I personally saw it happen on live network TV along with just about every other one of my fellow citizens with access to a TV set on that morning.
You'll forgive me if i'm a bit skeptic that this terrible event was anything besides the terrorist attack we believe it to be.
krashkart
10-15-11, 05:41 PM
$2.3 trillion? That's enough for a toilet seat and a hammer isn't it? :03:
"If you call in the next ten minutes, we'll even include a free nail!" :yeah:
Platapus
10-15-11, 06:06 PM
In 2008 or 2009 a danish university build an exact copy of three storey
from the WTC . They let this "building" burn for 3 days. Only thing that happened to it, was that the metal bended.
But no "freefall"
Markus
All due respect to the Danish University but a miniature is different than the full size original by definition.
...
You'll forgive me if i'm a bit skeptic that this terrible event was anything besides the terrorist attack we believe it to be.
I don't care if it was an exact full copy made with the same "lowest American Bidder" materials. This "experiment" only proves a tower won't ALWAYS collapse when subject to such heat. To try and make any other inference from this experiment is sophistry.
It in no way supports or refutes whether this specific tower in NYC would or would not have collapsed.
Now if someone would built 1,000 or 10,000 exact copies of the towers and subjected each one of them to the exact same heat environment, under actual scientific control, and NONE of them collapsed, then we might be getting at something.
But one three story model? Why even bother?
All due respect to the Danish University but a miniature is different than the full size original by definition.
I personally know people who saw it happen with their own eyes. I personally know people who worked in all three buildings in the days and weeks prior to the event who would have had to notice any signs of preplanned demolition or other construction. I personally saw it happen on live network TV along with just about every other one of my fellow citizens with access to a TV set on that morning.
You'll forgive me if i'm a bit skeptic that this terrible event was anything besides the terrorist attack we believe it to be.
No one have said that!
They just wanted to see if they could "copy" this event(steel that breaks and not bending) and they didn't succed and no other university a.s.o have manege to get the same result. They could have build one or two storey that would have been enough.
Never before or after have a building or a skyscraper, "crushed" during a fire.
I do NOT believe in all thise 9/11 conspiracy. I'm a scientist and I think like one and I say, there's more to it, than meets the eye, when it comes to those two WTC "freefall"
About this independent investigation. Whatever result they may come to, there will always be those who will denie their result.
Markus
Tribesman
10-15-11, 06:22 PM
9/11 conspiracy theories:damn:
krashkart
10-15-11, 06:38 PM
Never before or after have a building or a skyscraper, "crushed" during a fire.
Up until that day no building had ever been hit by a 100+ ton jet aircraft. *shrug*
Up until that day no building had ever been hit by a 100+ ton jet aircraft. *shrug*
True indeed
Up until that day no building had ever been hit by a 100+ ton jet aircraft. *shrug*
true - but (BIG BUT) WTC7 came down from fire also and no plane hit that :hmmm:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A
Meh. I dont really care for the truthers demolition theory, nor do i care for the offical fire-weakened-steel theroy - Niether one has, or ever will be be proven or disproven.
The Evidence was melted down and sold ten years ago.
Why the remains of the 3 failed WTC buildings and the two boeings were disposed of with out any forensic examination is a question that no one can answer.
You find me one other aviation disaster in the past 40 odd years where they just didnt bother with an examination of the debris....
Sailor Steve
10-15-11, 08:26 PM
true - but (BIG BUT) WTC7 came down from fire also and no plane hit that :hmmm:
Which would indicate that if it was a conspiracy then the conspirators were incredibly stupid, thinking no one would notice.
Why the remains of the 3 failed WTC buildings and the two boeings were disposed of with out any forensic examination is a question that no one can answer.
I can answer that quite easily. Either
1) They were in a hurry to cover up any possible evidence, which might work for the buildings but would make no sense for the aircraft, since it's obvious what happened to them (which is what truthers want you to believe, or
2) Since it was obvious what happened, why bother to examine the debris? An aircraft investigation is usually conducted to discover what happened and why. In this case both were presumed to be known. A mistake? Possibly. A cover-up? Not likely.
You find me one other aviation disaster in the past 40 odd years where they just didnt bother with an examination of the debris....
And I have to ask: What debris? What exactly remained of an aluminum aircraft that flew headlong into a steel building? There may not have been anything left to examine.
You might want to take a look at this analysis of the pentagon evidence:
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/analysis/conclusions/debris.html
And these pictures of the wreckage from inside the pentagon, especially the wheel photos:
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/analysis/conclusions/debris.html
And a better analysis of the same story:
http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/nodebris.html
MothBalls
10-15-11, 08:29 PM
$2.3 trillion? That's enough for a toilet seat and a hammer isn't it? :03:Don't exaggerate. Those were only $600.00 USD each. It was shipping and handling that ran the bill up.
krashkart
10-15-11, 09:41 PM
true - but (BIG BUT) WTC7 came down from fire also and no plane hit that :hmmm:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A
I'm betting that it was a Creeper. :D
Kongo Otto
10-16-11, 04:00 AM
And I have to ask: What debris? What exactly remained of an aluminum aircraft that flew headlong into a steel building? There may not have been anything left to examine.
maybe you should look this one, about your debris question, it was done years before 9/11
F4 Phantom crash test against concrete wall:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5XTsQ-9vvo&feature=related
Which would indicate that if it was a conspiracy then the conspirators were incredibly stupid, thinking no one would notice.
To be fair -most people didnt notice. they were still in too much of a shock from the towers coming down, and there was relitivley little media coverage of WTC7s collapes.
We are supposed to belive that office fires over a few floors caused the 47 story steel building to near symetrically collapes into its own foot print.
Im no engineer, so maybe its possible, but then again 1,627 architects and engineers say thats its not. http://www.ae911truth.org/ :06:
I can answer that quite easily. Either
1) They were in a hurry to cover up any possible evidence, which might work for the buildings but would make no sense for the aircraft, since it's obvious what happened to them (which is what truthers want you to believe, or
2) Since it was obvious what happened, why bother to examine the debris? An aircraft investigation is usually conducted to discover what happened and why. In this case both were presumed to be known. A mistake? Possibly. A cover-up? Not likely.
Its possible I suppose that it was overlooked, but it doesn't seem likely that organisations such as FEMA and NIST simply forgot to do their job properly.
We dont normally 'assume' why buildings collapes or why aircraft crash, we normally check to make sure, (Even when it seems obvious!)
If a 737 pilot reports a dual engine failure before a fatal crash, we still investigate, to se if he was correct.
Likewise if two 110 storey building fall to the gound after plane impacts and fires, we still need know exactly how it happened from a scientific point of view.
If nothing else it could help us build safer highrise buildings in the future.
Ground Zero was both a disaster Zone and a crime scene, but for what ever reason it was only treated as the former.
And I have to ask: What debris? What exactly remained of an aluminum aircraft that flew headlong into a steel building? There may not have been anything left to examine.
Well we have managed to examined aircraft that have flown headlong in to the ground, or at least recover the flight data recorders.
you dont need me to tell you that the ground is denser than a steel and glass building. But who knows...
You might want to take a look at this analysis of the pentagon evidence:
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/analysis/conclusions/debris.html
And these pictures of the wreckage from inside the pentagon, especially the wheel photos:
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/analysis/conclusions/debris.html
And a better analysis of the same story:
http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/nodebris.html (http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/nodebris.html)
[/QUOTE]
Thank for the links, i will see if they have anything I may have missed.
I am skeptical about the pentegon, but im not convinced either way. I would like to see them release some of the CCTV footage they collected that clearly shows a 757 hit the building.
I will not believe that such footage doesnt exist, we are talking about the Pentagon
That would remove all doubt in my mind.
Anyway, there is too much speculation, most people who conduct armchair investigations into 9/11 are either Conspiricy theroists or Conspiricy Debunkers who have already made up there mind on what happened and just choose the bits that support what they belive.
Tribesman
10-16-11, 08:17 AM
but then again 1,627 architects and engineers say thats its not.
I could probably list more than 1600 architects and engineers who are absolutely clueless, so if its that easy to come up with those numbers on a very localised list how much weight does 1600 architects and engineers that you know nothing of scale on a worldwide count?
It like saying 0.00000000000000000000000001% of doctors dispute the link between smoking and some cancers and holding up a herbalist with some magic stones and an online doctorate from St Barts(Lagos branch)as a medical expert
Armistead
10-16-11, 09:36 AM
Look, we all know the truth, GW Bush, a secret group of CIA officers and Fox News and did all of this. They spent months planting explosives in all these buildings, perfectly timed with plane hits so they could murder 3000 americans...
:har::har::har::har::har:
Sorry, Bush was so dumb he couldn't beat himself out of a wet paper bag.
Like WMD's....that was proven a known myth.
It would take 1000's of people to be in the know around the world at highest levels without any talking or getting caught.
They call themselves truthers, but operate on possible theories..
*sigh* Here we go again.
Look, there was no "freefall", load up a video of the towers collapsing and time it.
You'll notice that the "truther" theory is nothing but BS. That's how they do it.
Re: USAF failing
Ju_88, what exactly makes you say that? Lemme guess, Loose Chance?
Again, do your own research. The "truthers" say it should've taken, what, 10-15
minutes to intercept the planes? Wanna know what they base that on?
On a flight control simulator, i.e. a video game. Nothing but BS.
Do you your own damn research people. :nope:
There's nothing in 9/11 that indicates there was any foul play.
Takeda Shingen
10-16-11, 10:20 AM
9/11 conspiracy theories:damn:
QFT
A new religion is born lol
*sigh* Here we go again..
If its boring to you, no one is forcing you to particiapate.
*Look, there was no "freefall", load up a video of the towers collapsing and time it.
You'll notice that the "truther" theory is nothing but BS. That's how they do it..
Despite the fact I partially agree with you, "Its all BS" not exactly best example of reasoning either, is it Dowly?
*Ju_88, what exactly makes you say that? Lemme guess, Loose Chance?
You mean loose change? No. I saw the trailer and I though it looked crap, thanks for assuming anyway.:nope:..
*Do you your own damn research people... :nope:
I have done, many hours over the the space of the last 10 years, sorry but I didnt quite reach the same conclusions as you.
*There's nothing in 9/11 that indicates there was any foul play.
Again Im sorry but i dont agree, IMO - There's nothing in 9/11 that PROVES there was any foul play.
Each to their own
Im done here.
Growler
10-16-11, 05:25 PM
The simplest reasoning: For 9/11 to have been anything other than a terrorist attack, we have to assume that the government planning and execution of the plot have happened in complete secrecy, and that said secrecy would be 100% inviolate over not only the initial planning and execution phase, but also over the last ten years.
I find that highly implausible.
CaptainHaplo
10-16-11, 07:29 PM
There is one other problem with the 9/11 government plot idea....
To have that happen - not only would the government have had to know the exact timing of the terrorist actions (since no one disputes that planes actually flew into the 2 towers or that it was done by terrorists), they would have had to work WITH the terrorists to get that info. Had that happened - you can bet your last virgin that ole bin laden and the rest of al queda (along with the Afghan taliban government) would have been trumpeting that loud and long. It would have saved them tremendous hardship.
The fact they havent - and that there has been NO indication of collusion between the 2, demonstrates that the 9/11 truther movement is based on imagination, and not any fact.
Oh, JU88 - there are pictures and video showing the airplane debri at the pentagon.
Sailor Steve
10-16-11, 10:56 PM
The simplest reasoning: For 9/11 to have been anything other than a terrorist attack, we have to assume that the government planning and execution of the plot have happened in complete secrecy, and that said secrecy would be 100% inviolate over not only the initial planning and execution phase, but also over the last ten years.
I find that highly implausible.
Aye, there's the rub. Hundreds of people to make it happen, only one to blow the thing wide open. Hard to believe that one hasn't come forward with proof in all this time.
If its boring to you, no one is forcing you to particiapate.
The discussion of said subject is not boring. What is boring, is the bit where
in the past discussions, tons and tons of material has been brought up that
more or less debunks everything the "truthers" say, yet I feel like repeating myself.
Despite the fact I partially agree with you, "Its all BS" not exactly best example of reasoning either, is it Dowly?
In this case, it pretty much sums the "truthers" evidence. Which in many
cases is either a) Stuff taken out of context or b) lies (that have been proven as ones).
You mean loose change? No. I saw the trailer and I though it looked crap, thanks for assuming anyway.:nope:..
I didn't assume, I guessed. There's a difference. :yep: Doesn't really matter, tho.
The USAF failing has been discussed and pointed out that fighters were scrambled,
they just didn't have enough time to intercept.
:nope:
I have done, many hours over the the space of the last 10 years, sorry but I didnt quite reach the same conclusions as you.
Then may I suggest http://www.911myths.com/ and http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/ to study. :up:
The show "Hardfire" is pretty good too, good debates. You can find the channel
on youtube by searching for "Hardfire". :yep:
Blood_splat
10-17-11, 08:17 AM
Those poor 3000 souls. :(
krashkart
10-17-11, 08:20 AM
Those poor 3000 souls. :(
QFT
Osmium Steele
10-17-11, 08:39 AM
For those who aren't sure whether planes, or something else hit the Pentagon and the field in Pennsylvania; where are the people who boarded those planes that morning?
They were businessmen, students, mothers, fathers, etc. They all had loved ones who saw them off, and have never heard from them again.
A fortunate few spoke to them during the hijackings and were able to say good-bye.
The missile theory does not explain away the missing people.
They are at super secret NSA plant being reprogrammed to be assassins for the government.
That was easy...
The missile theory does not explain away the missing people.
Don't recall there being any possible, sane, explanation for the missile theory to begin with. :O:
Jimbuna
10-17-11, 11:48 AM
They are at super secret NSA plant being reprogrammed to be assassins for the government.
That was easy...
A little insensitive don't you think?
A little insensitive don't you think?
What is that about???
Jimbuna
10-17-11, 12:59 PM
What is that about???
The post prior to yours:
The missile theory does not explain away the missing people.
The post prior to yours:
What's insensitive about it? The missile theory does not explain the disappearance of those people who were aboard the aircraft that was "supposed" to have hit the Pentagon.
sidslotm
10-17-11, 02:44 PM
what is a trillion, how big is and how much does it weigh, :timeout:
Jimbuna
10-17-11, 02:45 PM
What's insensitive about it? The missile theory does not explain the disappearance of those people who were aboard the aircraft that was "supposed" to have hit the Pentagon.
My response is directly in relation to those who lost family/loved ones.
My response is directly in relation to those who lost family/loved ones.
Sorry but I don't understand then.
There have been conspiracy theory claims that the 9-11 damage to the Pentagon was the result of a missile and not from an airliner being flown into the building. The "missile theory" does not account for the disappearance of the 64 people aboard the Flight 77.
MH's comment seemed pretty straightforward but maybe i'm missing something.
My response is directly in relation to those who lost family/loved ones.
Sorry.... again.
I suppose i broke some unknown rule regarding the usual crap people are allowed to post here.
Maybe the wrong subject.:hmmm:
(thought it was clear that i was joking)
Think Jim is referring to the tongue in cheek comment by MH.
I don't see it as insensitive, not after 10 years. That's just me, tho. :hmmm:
Jimbuna
10-17-11, 02:56 PM
Sorry.... again.
I suppose i broke some unknown rule regarding the usual crap people are allowed to post here.
Maybe the wrong subject.:hmmm:
No need to apologise....the internet is full of textual distortion and your response leads me to believe you were not insinuating what I initially suspected....carry on :up:
No harm...no foul.
As I have said before-I'm not into all those conspiracy stuff.
The only question I have, is this:
Why are those who believes in the official explanation, so afraid of an independent investigation.(no the evidence is not gone, it's saved in some bunker)
Would I approve their result? Indeed I would, if ther's no involvement from your government a.s.o
5-7 years back, I was one of those who believed in the official explanation, but after having red and heard others(like me), mocking those that believes otherwise, I have started to raise this question.
YES! I'm starting to wonder if there are some truth, in what those who believes otherwise, claim.
Markus
I have seen lots of conspiracy video on youtube. Some of them, made me laugh so much, that i couldn't breathe and others were just plain stupid.
Markus
Why are those who believes in the official explanation, so afraid of an independent investigation.(no the evidence is not gone, it's saved in some bunker)
Err... who said we are afraid of independent investigation? :doh: While we are
at it, what exactly was wrong with the NIST investigation? Or the quite extensive
Popular Mechanics article debunking many of the myths?
5-7 years back, I was one of those who believed in the official explanation, but after having red and heard others(like me), mocking those that believes otherwise, I have started to raise this question.People wouldn't mock them if they'd actually show some evidence to back their claims. ;)
YES! I'm starting to wonder if there are some truth, in what those who believes otherwise, claim.That's good. One shouldn't take anything as true without researching it first.
Especially not in 9/11's case. Look at the both sides and make up your own mind.
Err... who said we are afraid of independent investigation? :doh: While we are
at it, what exactly was wrong with the NIST investigation? Or the quite extensive
Popular Mechanics article debunking many of the myths?
People wouldn't mock them if they'd actually show some evidence to back their claims. ;)
That's good. One shouldn't take anything as true without researching it first.
Especially not in 9/11's case. Look at the both sides and make up your own mind.
So even thou you believe in NIST explanation, you are also one of them who wants an independent investigation on 9/11 or did I misunderstood you?
Have I red the whole report from NIST? No!
Have I red everything from the opposite? No!
I'm just one of those, who wants a fully and truly independent investigation on this 9/11. I my self can't make my mind up before we have had this investigation. Until then I stand (almost)neutral
However, even if there would be such an investigation, there will stil be people who believe otherwise.
Markus
There are some videos that i think is very interesting
Like this one
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tYJfKzkTEoU&feature=related
Markus
So even thou you believe in NIST explanation, you are also one of them who wants an independent investigation on 9/11 or did I misunderstood you?
I haven't read the NIST report completely, but what I've read, they do very
detailed work on explaining what they are out to explain.
As for the independent investigation, sure, it wouldn't hurt. Tho, I don't see
how it would change opinions. For some, being a "truther" is a business, so. :O:
Have I red the whole report from NIST? No!
Have I red everything from the opposite? No!Frankly, I don't think that reading the whole NIST report is mandatory to get
a good idea of what happened. 911myths.com has pretty much everything
you need in nice "their claim, our take" style of explanation.
I'm just one of those, who wants a fully and truly independent investigation on this 9/11. I my self can't make my mind up before we have had this investigation. Until then I stand (almost)neutralLook around the internet, plenty of stuff available publicly to make up your own
mind about 9/11.
There are some videos that i think is very interesting
Like this one
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tYJfK...eature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tYJfKzkTEoU&feature=related)Personally, I don't see anything suspicious in the collapse of WTC7. :hmmm:
For one, it was badly damaged by the WTC 1 and 2 collapses, secondly it
burned for 6-7 hours more or less unchecked and lastly, WTC7's floors from the
7th up were supported by only 3 trusses, one of them collapsed and that made
the other 2 to collapse few seconds later (supported by video of the collapse).
soopaman2
10-17-11, 05:17 PM
This is the popular Mechanics report Dowly spoke of.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/engineering/architecture/911-myths
You 9-11 conspirators piss me off, being thousands of miles away from NYC yet somehow knowing more than locals and actual witnesses...
Am I the only one here that actually saw this crap to call these know nothing fruitcake morons out?
You 9-11 conspirators piss me off, being thousands of miles away from NYC yet somehow knowing more than locals and actual witnesses...
In all fairness, in the age of internet, one doesn't need to have experienced
something personally to know about it. :yep:
soopaman2
10-17-11, 05:28 PM
In all fairness, in the age of internet, one doesn't need to have experienced
something personally to know about it. :yep:
But if you were in the close vicinity working and heard and saw the planes hit, you would be equally enraged by"armchair quarterbacks"
who saw a "you tube video on it"
I get your point Dowly, sir:). But nothing beats the eyes.. Not even some dumb you tube video... When did You Tube become facts anyways?
But if you were in the close vicinity working and heard and saw the planes hit, you would be equally enraged by"armchair quarterbacks"
who saw a "you tube video on it"
I get your point Dowly, sir:). But nothing beats the eyes.. Not even some dumb you tube video... When did You Tube become facts anyways?
Likewise, I get your point.
Personal experience gives you the edge in some situations, but not sure if that's
the case in something as widely covered as 9/11. :hmmm:
Of course, there's those theories that say everyone who witnessed it were paid off
and what we saw on TV was just CGI. :doh:
But nothing beats the eyes.
This isn't some kind of outrage contest you know. It's quite possible to be every bit as angry from the other side of the world as it is to see an event such as this first hand.
Penguin
10-17-11, 05:53 PM
this is an "answer" page to the architects & engineers:
http://ae911truth.info/ - a very good place for further, scientific research
Also check out the link section: tons of good material there, I would just to point to this good forum (sorry Unca Neal), which is exclusively about 9/11 skepticism: http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=64 all videos and "proof" from ae and other conspiricy sites are free and vivid discussed there.
I found out however, that people who want to believe and wear their blinders are resistant to arguments:
For any counter-argument they present a new one, however abstract that is:
when you say that Bush Jr. is too dumb to knock over a bucket of water they say: "Oh, maybe Bush didn't know about it!" :88) If you say what happened to the passengers on the planes (missile theory) or the involved personnel: "oh, they were probably all killed by ____(insert organization of your choice)" :damn:
Believer: "Oh, look, other steel structure buildings, like the one in Madrid didn't collapse after a fire"
Penguin: "The fires were not comparable."
B:"Oh, you don't want to see it! You're brainwashed!"
P:"There are other buildings with a steel frame which indeed did collapse after a fire!"
B:"But those buildings are not comparable to the WTC buildings!"
*P puts a 12 gauge into his mouth and pulls the trigger* :dead:
soopaman2
10-17-11, 05:56 PM
This isn't some kind of outrage contest you know. It's quite possible to be every bit as angry from the other side of the world as it is to see an event such as this first hand.
Never said it was, my mouth has words in it I didn't put.
But I refuse to listen to missile crap when I know what I saw...
Now I don't speak on the Pentagon, have at that. I won't argue. But NYC, far too many witnesses for some "loose change" fakeling to sway me...
But more than enough for alot of the rubes who read the inter-tubes.
PT Barnum said it...A sucker born every minute. (not saying you are, you seem smarter than this August)
Penguin
10-17-11, 05:58 PM
blatantly stolen from this (http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewthread/2665/P0/) forum:
To those who believe the events of 9/11 were an “Inside Job”, could you please explain two things:
1.) Who exactly was responsible for planning and carrying out the attack?
2.) Why did they do it?
And do you also believe any of the following 15 events were also “Inside Jobs”?
1.) Was the 1979 Iranian Hostage Crisis an “Inside Job”?
2.) Was the bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Beirut, Lebanon in 1983 an “Inside Job”?
3.) Was the bombing of Marine Barracks, Beirut, Lebanon an “Inside Job”?
4.) Was the TWA hijacking in 1985 an “Inside Job”?
5.) Was the Pan Am 103 bombing in 1988 and “Inside Job”?
6.) Were the shootings outside CIA Headquarters in 1993 an “Inside Job”?
7.) Was the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993 an “Inside Job”?
8.) Was the attempted assassination of (the first) President Bush in 1993 an “Inside Job”?
9.) Was the attack on U.S. Military Headquarters in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia in 1995 an “Inside Job”?
10.) Was the attack on Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia in 1996 an “Inside Job”?
11.) Was the Empire State Building sniper shootings in 1997 an “Inside Job”?
12.) Was the U.S. Embassy bombings in East Africa in 1998 an “Inside Job”?
13.) Was the attack on U.S.S. Cole in 2000 an “Inside Job”?
14.) Were the Beltway sniper shootings in 2002 an “Inside Job?”
15.) Was the bombing of the Federal Building in Oklahoma City in 1995 an “Inside Job”?
Never said it was, my mouth has words in it I didn't put.
But I refuse to listen to missile crap when I know what I saw...
Now I don't speak on the Pentagon, have at that. I won't argue. But NYC, far too many witnesses for some "loose change" fakeling to sway me...
But more than enough for alot of the rubes who read the inter-tubes.
PT Barnum said it...A sucker born every minute.
You sounded like you were to me.
Believer: "Oh, look, other steel structure buildings, like the one in Madrid didn't collapse after a fire"
Penguin: "The fires were not comparable."
B:"Oh, you don't want to see it! You're brainwashed!"
P:"There are other buildings with a steel frame which indeed did collapse after a fire!"
B:"But those buildings are not comparable to the WTC buildings!"
*P puts a 12 gauge into his mouth and pulls the trigger* :dead:
The only thing that kept the Windsor Building together was the concrete structures,
the steel structure of the building did indeed collapse. :yep:
(nit-picky hat = off :O:)
soopaman2
10-17-11, 06:07 PM
You sounded like you were to me.
Nope, just stating with absolute truth what I saw? Discount it with whatever interpretations you see fit.
Nope, just stating with absolute truth what I saw? Discount it with whatever interpretations you see fit.
I wouldn't even try to do that. It's just that I think proximity to an event like that doesn't make ones feelings any more or less valid than those who heard about it via the media.
soopaman2
10-17-11, 06:35 PM
I wouldn't even try to do that. It's just that I think proximity to an event like that doesn't make ones feelings any more or less valid than those who heard about it via the media.
Enough to discount missile theories and controlled explosions, sir.
Anyone is welcome to their own opinion, but bull-stuff is bull-stuff, no matter how much perfume you spray on it. Or how many loose change videos you watch, In cases like this I will call people out. Sorry bro, I am what I am.
Of course, there's those theories that say everyone who witnessed it were paid off
and what we saw on TV was just CGI. :doh:
Oh thats nothing!
have a look as this, http://letsrollforums.com/world-trade-center-demolished-f16.html?
Just look at some of the threads here, these guys (both of them?)
seem to think that WTC plane hole was faked, the smoke was from a smoke machine, the fires were fake... no wait, in fact the WTC wasnt reall, it was just a 'hollow structure' :damn:...
:doh:
And they appear to be serious -or maybe just seriously ill.
Oh thats nothing!
have a look as this, http://letsrollforums.com/world-trade-center-demolished-f16.html?
Just look at some of the threads here, these guys (both of them?)
seem to think that WTC plane hole was faked, the smoke was from a smoke machine, the fires were fake... no wait, in fact the WTC wasnt reall, it was just a 'hollow structure' :damn:...
:doh:
And they appear to be serious -or maybe just seriously ill. If 3000 people handn't died, It would actually be comedy gold.
Almost everyone of those conspiracy, makes one either cry or laugh.
Mostly I laugh at them
Like this one
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ek-Q0T9wK2g
Markus
Almost everyone of those conspiracy, makes one either cry or laugh.
Mostly I laugh at them
Like this one
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ek-Q0T9wK2g
Markus
oh yes, classic - Look! I slowed the footage down and zoomed in so it becomes pixelated and
WALLA! there is proof of <insert theory>
(face plam)
Look at this one, apparently even the birds on 9/11 were UAV's :88) the proof being in the 'pixelated freeze frame' - naturally.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4o0T2UVOFeo
oh yes, classic - Look! I slowed the footage down and zoomed in so it becomes pixelated and
WALLA! there is proof of <insert theory>
(face plam)
Look at this one, apparently even the birds on 9/11 were UAV's :88) the proof being in the 'pixelated freeze frame' - naturally.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4o0T2UVOFeo
Incredible.
In my mind there's no doubt that it was an attack on WTC 1-2 and pentagon. There's no doubt that WTC 1-2 was hit by airplane. Pentagon-there I'm stil not sure.
Only thing I want to be investigated, is if it was an inside job and if there was explosive included( don't ask me where, how or why) and more on how and why WTC 1-2 collapsed, while that's never happened before and why WTC 7 collapsed.
Markus
Incredible.
In my mind there's no doubt that it was an attack on WTC 1-2 and pentagon. There's no doubt that WTC 1-2 was hit by airplane. Pentagon-there I'm stil not sure.
Only thing I want to be investigated, is if it was an inside job and if there was explosive included( don't ask me where, how or why) and more on how and why WTC 1-2 collapsed, while that's never happened before and why WTC 7 collapsed.
Markus
I dont know, Ive reached the point where it just not worth going into
anymore.
There is a mountain of speculation and a silly and eternal debunking war regarding 9/11, both sides hold some valid and some ridiculous claims (often with very flimsy examples of 'proof' to support them),
You have to wade though a sea of crap before you can find anything of any actual substance or scientific value - and even then! 'science' itself is only a bunch of theories that can also often be proven wrong.
You got the truthers on one side and the debunkers on the other - both camps have already firmly made up their minds as to what happened,
It doesnt matter what they are presented with that is to the contrary, they will simply refuse to consider it outright, then start hissing and spitting like a cat out of a bag, do what they can to discredit the opposing source or resort to personal attacks and insults if needed.
IMO they are as bad as each other, in that the objective part of their collective brains seems to be on vacation.
In a nut shell
Do I think our governments are capable of lying or assisting/commiting attrocities against their own people in order to persue a bigger agenda?
Absolutley, I dont think is something they ENJOY doing, but in politics and power, human lives are often (reluctantly) dispensible when trying to achieve a wider goal, that is a fact with 2000+ years of human history to back it up.
Do I think it took place on 9/11?
No idea- I'd like to think not but at the same time I dont think its quite as implausable as many here seem to believe.
So the fact is I'm 'on the fence' for this one. If you think that makes me a moron, so be it.
I've looked at as much 9/11 as i can bear and for me the only logical conclusion is an 'inconclusion' if there is such a word.
So thats my take on it, if my doubt offends you, well I'm sorry.
Do I think our governments are capable of lying or assisting/commiting attrocities against their own people in order to persue a bigger agenda?
No, I believe it is not possible for our government to assist or commit an atrocity of this scale and especially not get away with it.
If that makes me a "debunker" in your eyes then so be it.
Oh thats nothing!
have a look as this, http://letsrollforums.com/world-trade-center-demolished-f16.html?
Just look at some of the threads here, these guys (both of them?)
seem to think that WTC plane hole was faked, the smoke was from a smoke machine, the fires were fake... no wait, in fact the WTC wasnt reall, it was just a 'hollow structure' :damn:...
:doh:
And they appear to be serious -or maybe just seriously ill.
Just happened to watch an episode of Hardfire yesterday where Ace Baker
showed "evidence" that.. wait for it.. realtime video composition was used for
some of the media footage. :DL Of course, Steven Wright, a video analyst and
a digital artist was there to say "Look, no one can do that stuff".
Here's the 2 parts of said episode:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IwyfP5AyMMk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nV0JKUkUxuE
Only thing I want to be investigated, is if it was an inside job and if there was explosive included( don't ask me where, how or why) and more on how and why WTC 1-2 collapsed, while that's never happened before and why WTC 7 collapsed.
Ok, there's few things here that I think needs to be clarified.
1. The "steel framed collapse has never happened"
This is simply not true. If you look at how many steel framed skyscrapers that
has been hit by an commercial airliner and left burning unchecked has
collapsed, the answer is 2 out of 2, 100%. That jet did some pretty serious
damage to the insides of the towers, taking out core supports.
Further, many steel framed high-rises have collapsed due to fire alone. Windsor
Building's steel supports being a good example (but there are more cases).
2. WTC7
The most used claim I have seen about WTC7 is that it had only small fires.
Again, there's something the "truthers" don't tell you, which is the fact that
the other side of WTC7 was badly damaged by the WTC 1 collapse.
Also, the fire wasn't as small as they want you to believe. 10 floors of the 47
caught on fire when WTC 1 collapsed, fire on 4 floors grew and kept burning
until the collapse.
Here's what NIST has to say in their summary on WTC7:
Factors contributing to the building failure were: thermal expansion
occurring at temperatures hundreds of degrees below those typically
considered in design practice for establishing structural fire resistance
ratings; significant magnification of thermal expansion effects due to the
long-span floors, which are common in office buildings in widespread use;
connections that were designed to resist gravity loads, but not thermally
induced lateral loads; and a structural system that was not designed to
prevent fire-induced progressive collapse.
Do I think it took place on 9/11?
No idea- I'd like to think not but at the same time I dont think its quite as implausable as many here seem to believe.
It becomes increasingly harder to believe if you look at it this way:
If part X was inside job, what other parts had to be inside job for the
big picture to hold?
Somewhere along the line you come across something that you just can't
figure out how on earth it could've been an inside job and then the whole
conspiracy falls apart. ;)
No, I believe it is not possible for our government to assist or commit an atrocity of this scale and especially not get away with it.
If that makes me a "debunker" in your eyes then so be it.
Even if you are - I dont view your opinion as 'wrong' and I certainly dont hold it against you buddy.
For all I know you maybe right - and hell, at least you have opinion, since im 'on the fence' its almost as good as me not having one at all in a funny sense LOL.
As I'm sure you noticed i do tend to flip-flop a bit (maybe you think im a typical lefty :D). im always thinking then re-thinking and then re-re-thinking, Ive always found it tricky to stay on the same course when it comes the more complex issues in life. Just the way I am wired I guess.
If you think that makes me a moron, so be it
NO! I would never put those words into my mouth. I have always respected my opponent, even if they have a totally different view on a subject, like this one.
There are lots of conspiracy on different subject such as Kennedy, moon, a.s.o
But I have never seen such a massive claim from americans and people from rest of the world, to make a second investigation, independent offcourse.
Markus
soopaman2
10-18-11, 12:40 PM
No, I believe it is not possible for our government to assist or commit an atrocity of this scale and especially not get away with it.:yeah:
Too much money in books and movies these days. The scandal ignited by a whistleblower would make them a hero. Something like this would require thousands of participants, and not all of them adequately compensated enough to keep their yaps shut.
Sometimes it is not a conspiracy, sometimes it just is what it looks like.
NO! I would never put those words into my mouth. I have always respected my opponent, even if they have a totally different view on a subject, like this one.
There are lots of conspiracy on different subject such as Kennedy, moon, a.s.o
But I have never seen such a massive claim from americans and people from rest of the world, to make a second investigation, independent offcourse.
Markus
Who would you pick as your independent investigator?
Who would you pick as your independent investigator?
I really do not know. I do know that this team of investigatior, must be a broad of scientist from all those area that have to be investigated. I also know that NO imployee from US government or related to must stay outside and not to interfere.
And they shall have unrestricted access to every paper and physical evidence there are.
YES I'm stil neutral(almost), but from what I have red there were some government influent in the NIST commission.
Why I'm almost neutral?
I'm not an Construction Engineering and definitive not an expert in this area.
I'm not and expert on metallurgy.
Okey I could search the internet, to find things or expert that "approve" my attitude for or against the official explanation.
A few years ago(can't remember year or day) I saw on danish news, a Construction Engineering totally rejected the NIST report.
So after this interview I should be for some of thise conspiracy or?
No!
On youtube I have seen Construction Engineering explained why the offial report was right.
So after have seen those videos I should be for the official standpoint or?
No!
That's why I stand almost neutral on this( a little part of my left foot is on the official half).
Markus
And they shall have unrestricted access to every paper and physical evidence there are.
Keep dreaming.
I don't think USA government would be stupid enough to do it.
It would be like wikileaks.
I really do not know. I do know that this team of investigatior, must be a broad of scientist from all those area that have to be investigated. I also know that NO imployee from US government or related to must stay outside and not to interfere.
And they shall have unrestricted access to every paper and physical evidence there are.
YES I'm stil neutral(almost), but from what I have red there were some government influent in the NIST commission.
Why I'm almost neutral?
I'm not an Construction Engineering and definitive not an expert in this area.
I'm not and expert on metallurgy.
Okey I could search the internet, to find things or expert that "approve" my attitude for or against the official explanation.
A few years ago(can't remember year or day) I saw on danish news, a Construction Engineering totally rejected the NIST report.
So after this interview I should be for some of thise conspiracy or?
No!
On youtube I have seen Construction Engineering explained why the offial report was right.
So after have seen those videos I should be for the official standpoint or?
No!
That's why I stand almost neutral on this( a little part of my left foot is on the official half).
Markus
The problem is there is nothing that a scientist can do now....
there is almost no WTC remains left for a scientist to Anylise. (And we dont need another computer model)
People focus way too much on the collapes anyway.
Most of what Id like to see re-investigated, is a probe in to the infomation that has been withheld and the actions of certain inderviduals.
9/11 Whistle blowers do exist in some form or another.
Read up on them if you can be bothered and draw your own conclusions.
(and dont shoot the messenger please)
Coleen Rowley (former CIA)
Sible Edmonds (FBI translator)
Robert Wright (FBI)
Susan Lindauar (former CIA Asset)
Richard Andrew Grove (Former employee at the WTC)
Sible Edmonds' story pretty much sums up why we dont get more whistle blowers in general (not just 9/11 related).
soopaman2
10-18-11, 05:37 PM
Regardless of what whom or why, you can certainly say the results have been disastrous.
I gave rise to a big brother culture..Patriot act, cameras going up everywhere. A huge increase in so called Homeland Security spending...
Hey I know where it went!:woot:
The TSA stole it out of someones luggage, they had the owner distracted because they were invasively searching their 4 year old.
The lady in the Burqua got nodded through though.
Robert Wright (FBI) -this guy it seems makes some good case for possible typical intelligence screw up.
Again far from conspiracy theory.
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.