Conspiracies, sheeple, the universe and everything [Archive]

Penguin

09-06-13, 07:59 AM

You mock me several times and call me a CT. So yes, I describe your sheepness.

I should not have climbed down on your niveau? Ok, I give you that one.

As I wrote abou niveau, not Dowly, so I'll bite:

Niveau sieht nur von unten wie Arroganz aus – Klaus Kinski
(niveau only looks like arrogance from below)
:sunny:

Why did I mock your "political history of the middle East in 5 sentences"? Because you use oversimplification of a complex matter, which in the end all comed down to "THEM" – whoever they are, Illuminati, jews, the stinky rich, stinky rich jewish illuminati from outer space or whoever might just plan every step which happens in the history of the world. This might be not your personal point of view, but when checking out conspiracy sites it all ends in the same thing: the big theory to explain everything.
At the end it results in binary thinking. Simple explainations for complex stuff.

Yeah, of course your defense mechanism steps in and says: "Y'all are sheeple." Which is funny in the end, as you don't seem to grasp the possibility that some of us mainstream media believers who suck every dick the government offers us, might have done their research and think for ourselves.

Dowly stated here on subsim that he did not believe the official version of 9/11 after the events. So he possibly did some research and came to other conclusions. Maybe he was also tied into a chair Clockwork Orange style by the Finnish authorities and was force-fed the official version. Using Occam's Razor, I'll stick with the first theory.

So is it unfair in reverse to paint all the Verschwörungsspinner (conspiracy nuts - ct is the best german computer mag) with one big brush? I say no.
After all the time I have wasted checking out conspiracy resources and discussing it in real life, I came to the conclusion that most troofers show an alarming amount of resistance to reexamine their theories when things are disproven. A trait which is also often seen with religious fundamentalists.

Simple examples would be the photos of plane parts in front of the Pentagon which are around since 12 years, still the missile theory looks pretty popular. Or the WTC7 fell in this short amount of seconds with the "proof" being a vid (funny enough from the mainstream media :haha:) which shows only a limited angle, not the building as a whole.

More than that it is a tiring game the conspiracy guys play, as a critical thinker can only respond, being always one step behind:
Teddy Troofer:"See here is my proof: Pearl Harbor was an inside job."
Ralf Rational:"Ok, I did some research: here are the historical sources which make your 'evidence' bogus."
TT: "Well, but they still did 9/11"
RR:"Sigh, okay, I sepnt some weeks follwing your claims, I found no proof providing your theories! As in every official statement there are flaws, but I found this the best explaination out there "
TT: "Well, they still made the Gulf of Tonkien incident up."
RR: :-?

It can be entertaining for a while, but in the long run it gets repetetive, tiresome and boring.

Wasting time is also the keyword when it comes to reconsider one's opinion. It's pretty discouraging for us humans to find out that all the amount of time and energy you put into watching grainy videos, photographing jet trails or looking why the Reich still exists, has been wasted. Yet, every scientist worth it's title does so, when following a theory for decades and finding out another person developed a better-fitting theory, they say:"Screw it, when the new theory has better explainations, I'll stick to it from now on."
However many of us "commons" do the same. This goes for the guy who suddenly discovers Dawkins, finds his arguments fitting to his believes and says:"Damn all the time I spent in church! Atheism ftw!" or vice versa for the girl who says "I have discovered the bible, cool book. I'll throw away my Marx and regret the time I spent reading it." Certainly oversimplified examples, but showing the concept of independent thinking which doesn't work without the ability to reexamime our views.

Another example of oversimplification? Sure:

There is nothing you can prove over the internet.

This is nonsense, as the internet is a medium. Legitimate sources is all that matters, you might find them on the web, you might find them in newspaper archives. The medium itself says crap about legitimacy or truth.

Same goes for this:

Stay with the mainstream if you prefer.

If something is mainstream or not says nothing about its value and legitimacy. A hastily cobbled together website which only links to others, equally badly made websites, who link each other as a source makes them still not anymore believable. Source critique ftw!
My favorite German newspaper is the Jungle World – with a circulation of about 5 issues certainly not the most mainstreamy paper :03:. I like it, not because it often represents my opinion, but because it covers the topics that interest me. What makes them good to me is that despite being quite lefty, they have no problems linking or quoting articles from conservative papers, like the FAZ, Jerusalem Post or The Times. Why wearing blinders, when others do provide a good coverage of certain topics?
Also, if you are a 9/11 troofer: with 40% of Americans believing 9/11 was an inside job, I would hardly consider this opinion being very undergroundy.

One last word about conspiracies, and as we are on a gaming site. In Civ 4 , when discovering companies or modern capitalism there is an inmteresting quote. I'll quote from my mind from, but it goes along this line of thought: When two businessmen meet in private to talk, they commit a conspiracy. (I.) True dat!

The fact that real life attempts to profit from others, to cut civil rights and the like exist, does not make Alex Jones and the ogthers more believable, the opposite is true. Using the "I told ya so!" from the conspiracy folks as a proof of the legitimacy of their theories is a fallacy. If I run blindfolded onto the street and point at every car, shouting: "It's a green car!" I will certainly point at some green vehicles.

Ducimus fell into this trap here:
'm not saying I believe it, but I do find myself wondering if the conspiracy theorists have it right. Hell, a few months ago if someone told me big brother is watching everything i say or type, id have called them a wacko. Then the whole NSA thing came out.. so *shrug* i dunno.

Just because this topic hasn't been on the public radar, doen't mean that there wasn't any evidence before Snowden. Though I prefered reading about it from people who know their stuff, folks like the American EFF or the German CCC who had been on this for years.

So yeah, when confronting the ruling class about this nasty system they built, I prefer to say:"Your surveillance works like this, here is the technical data, here is the evidence, here are the laws which enable me to say you have no legitimation! And here's my moral code which allows me to say FU!"

Imho this creates a better line of argumentation than saysing "Boo! You are surveilling us! And poison the air with chemtrails! And you blew up a tower! And also killed Bambi!"

This is also why I prefer reading about history from well researched books rather than looking into what Nostradamus wrote.

Dowly

09-06-13, 08:10 AM

For the record: I did not add that "female breasts" tag.

(but I may have added the other one)

Penguin

09-06-13, 08:25 AM

(but I may have added the other one)

Damned, didn't know that others can add tags to a thread! You're one of... THEM! :o:o:o

09-06-13, 09:10 AM

http://cdn.themonolith.com/wp-content/uploads/Iron-Man-3-Trevor-Slattery.jpg

Armistead

09-06-13, 09:35 AM

It always concerns we when the OP states he's going to be the first to respond to his post.

I look forward to finding out what role Johnson had in killing Kennedy.

TarJak

09-06-13, 09:37 AM

It always concerns we when the OP states he's going to be the first to respond to his post.

I look forward to finding out what role Johnson had in killing Kennedy.

Don Johnson had nothing to do with it. He wasn't even in Dallas then.:D

Ducimus

09-06-13, 09:40 AM

Dowly

09-06-13, 09:42 AM

I look forward to finding out what role Johnson had in killing Kennedy.

Looking at his hair, he was probably the grassy knoll. :hmmm:

AVGWarhawk

09-06-13, 09:56 AM

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lscnpeBnRa1qjtg6no1_400.jpg

Wolferz

09-06-13, 11:08 AM

Let's tag team the linear thinkers and see how many times they bang their heads on the wall.:haha:

http://i205.photobucket.com/albums/bb295/Wolferz_2007/cid_1C3AA6F478F94037A7C035B1BF7CA0B0shewolfPC_zps3 d539aec.gif

Penguin

09-06-13, 11:29 AM

Leave me out of your trolling please.

Any mention of conspiracy theories I made, I did so with an air of caution and skepticism, for grins and giggles. At no point that i can recall, did i express them as my personal opinion, nor as fact. If I implied anything it was that the condition and actions of our government is so poor and abysmal as to make the conspiracy theorist look correct. Which is to say, they're doing a real bad job.

Should I break down to you what I quoted in post #2? Can you explain to me how "I'm not saying I believe it, [...] so *shrug* i dunno." means anything else than what those words mean or imply that you believe these theories?
I read you post as a "they might have a point" and I used it to explain why I see this as a logical fallacy, nothing more. If you don't stand behind the stuff you write and hate being quoted then of course I will respect it, as Your Majesty wishes.

Sorry, one last quote of you:

Glossing over the last few pages of the Syrian thread, its clear that your fight, and the point your trying to prove (whatever it is) is with other members of this forum, not me. So leave me out of it.

I did exactly post 2 times in the Syrian thread. One, po'd post, about 2 posters who wrote oversimplified stuff, a second one which should be an answer to a poster, but not only to him (this is what "I don't want to single you out" means). So, you're right, my fight was not with you.
However seeing other members being tired of OT discussions, I linked to this thread I created instead as my second post in the Syria thread. The intention was not to cluster the original one and to create a room to discuss a topic of which I have the perception that many subsim members are fed up with; something which kept constantly surfacing over the course of the last months nonetheless.

This is what I wrote about in the first post here. If you have trouble with reading comprehension, I am glad to assist you by explaining what certain words of the English language mean.

You can now go back to the "I'm done talking to you" routine, have a nice Friday! :salute:

Penguin

09-06-13, 11:30 AM

Dowly

09-06-13, 11:39 AM

Honestly, I don't think Ducimus believes it as some CTer would, he was just throwing it out there.
The time I've "known" Ducimus, I've never seen him promote CTs. :hmmm:

EDIT: Might as well answer to this while I'm here.

I don't want to discuss 9/11, but just for the entertainment: check the second airplane, it has an unusual device attached to its belly. How comes?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=huK0MAb0Xa4
Again, I have no evidence, but I'm 'sceptic'.

It's a fairing, which houses the undergarriage.
See here for example: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1b/G-BNWA_British_Airways_B767-300_planform.jpg

Penguin

09-06-13, 11:44 AM

That's what I've meant to express, a better wording of how I saw his thoughts would be "they might have a point regarding this particular topic"

Mittelwaechter

09-06-13, 11:45 AM

Penguin

Sorry if I confused you somehow, but I had a discussion with Dowly and the mocking theme is well solved. I didn't felt mocked by you.

I searched for your comment #777 on page 52 right now, to remember you not to be a qualified partner for discussion, considering your stated flat attitude.

Now you show up with this verbose - but well mannered - comment on... well, sorry but I don't get your point.
I read what all the others of your party have to say about CTs, about their totally critic support for the official declarations and about the 9/11 truthers stupidity.

And I read some common truths, some universal accepted statements on green cars or some buzz words like Ockham's Razor or Dawkins, CCC and Nostradamus. :06:

Dowly started this kind of evidence and 'Al Qaeda literally' discussion. I was on topic - more or less - until he came up with his "mocking" and comparing to 9/11.

I was in Saudi Arabia trying to rent the US army for Petro-Dollars to kick Assad.
A statement - some brain food - not to be proved with some media articles, because there are no such articles. Just another unconsidered view on the situation.

Evidence over the internet?
Even if there is an article, a videoclip or a table - if one refuses to read or watch, to realize the validity of the content, to open his mind - there is no evidence possible over the internet.

To show my respect for your attempt to entertain - let's play the game.

You say a plane hit the Pentagon. Your evidence is the plane parts and all the comments and articles on TV and the web. You have no evidence yourself, as you were not there. So you have to rely on the provided information, as we all.

I doubt the whole story and have to find some possible explanations for the plane parts and the comments and articles.

How could someone get some plane parts into the construction area of the Pentagon, but doesn't fly an airplane into the building?
Maybe he has some (military) superiority to order new air conditioner installations for the wing. They have to be proved by the US Army to not contain any buging devices, they have to be sealed into wooden crates and they have to be delivered to the Pentagon. Only to be opened by authorized personnel. Crates A through P to be stored next to the outer wall for easy access. The other crates inside the building.
This superior may order some old airplane parts from Nevada (or wherever this huge parking area in the dessert is) for a shooting test at an army base in Maryland. Metal parts for checking the performance of the new yellow tracer bullets...

Park the two trucks overnight in Kansas next to each other, change the hauling papers and/or order two new drivers.
Now blow the Pentagon and collect the airplane parts and let the Army shoot the air condition.

You say there are too many people involved. I say who knew what he did?
We can go on and on and on.

Sorry, but I'm not really good with this Pentagon issue, you know. I don't gather all the 9/11 information and web it into CT on a regular basis.

Fact is, the believers trust the government to have evidence 19 muslim amateurs were able to run the complex 9/11 attacks, without any further support from the US.
And fact is, there is too much highly sensitive and secret information - as way too much skill - necessary for these 19 guys to perform the shown act.

More CT?

If you find the right patriotic guys within the US, with power to simply order things to be done, you can order a team of subcontractors to place some sealed containers with extreme sensible, seismic eqipment at every second floor in the WTC buildings in may 2001, just to have some data about the stability in high winds, for a new building insurance. A remote control, some fancy thermite in the containers and thousands of kilometers "WiFi-cable" will do the well timed destructive part.

Four drone pilots in a Nevada simulator follow their virtual flight paths, but two are translated into real flight paths for two real drones - through the twin towers?
Which of all the participants are aware of being part of it? A few 'good' men and some clever planning is all you need. A way more likely scenario than the sold one of Atta and his evil 18.

Evidence?

There is no evidence, but the evidence provided by the scientists who examined the debris and found thermite remains, but are discredited, unpatriotic and troofers.
Pilots who state it is impossible for a flight trainee to handle the air liners this way.
Witnesses in the buildings, hearing explosions and where blown around on the ground floor, directly after the impacts. Video clips of original footage of 9/11, showing a very special air plane hitting the second tower. Destruction experts, telling the collapse of WTC7 was a demolition job. Firefighters realizing rhythmic explosions during the collapse of the towers. Cataclystic clouds crawling through the NY streets. An ex-pilot states, found engine parts in New York identifyed to be used by the military (General Electric), but not by United Airlines (only Pratt&Whitney)...

No evidence you see?

The question is, what do we accept to be evidence, or at least justified reason to doubt?

Hoping I didn't dissapoint your expectations in my answer, Sir. :)

Or the expectations of the other honest society of extraordinary gentlemen.

Ducimus

09-06-13, 11:48 AM

@ The trollmeister

If you think I read all the crap you just wrote your crazy. I read the first sentence, a sentence somewhere in the middle, and the last sentence. I get it, your real life name is Richard Cranium, and you love arguing on the internet. Bravo.

Wolferz

09-06-13, 11:59 AM

:haha:
Wouldn't this be more of a right-angled thinker? Or maybe even a square thinker? :)

Tagging me in?:D
More like the old flat fore headed thinkers... from conducting the illustrated activity.:O:
The wheels on the bus go round and round....thump, thump.:huh:

You don't have to be crazy to post here...
But it helps.:03::yep:

Wolferz

09-06-13, 12:01 PM

Armistead

09-06-13, 12:10 PM

Should I break down to you what I quoted in post #2? Can you explain to me how "I'm not saying I believe it :salute:

Geesh, don't you have some fish to catch or ice to slide down?::smug:

I imagine Skybird will be along to respond with a book of his own..:03:

Penguin

09-06-13, 12:19 PM

Hoping I didn't dissapoint your expectations in my answer, Sir. :)

Not at all, man, I thought you are certainly capable of wrtiting a well written response and you proofed it. That's the level and niveau I expect from subsim. :up: Just please don't call me Sir - somehow this word hurts me - in contrast to some internet tough guy who comes up with a pseudo clever way to say dick head as his only argument. :rotfl2:

I'd like to answer to you later and explain my verbal diarrhea to you and continue the discussion, but I've got some real life stuff to attend. So I might write a drunken response at 3am or a sober, but not necessarily more consistent onen tomorrow. :) Have a good Friday night - and I mean it!

Dowly

09-06-13, 12:43 PM

I know this was aimed at Penguin, but:

I doubt the whole story and have to find some possible explanations for the plane parts and the comments and articles.

May I ask why you doubt the whole story?

Tribesman

09-06-13, 12:52 PM

Honestly, I don't think Ducimus believes it as some CTer would, he was just throwing it out there.
The time I've "known" Ducimus, I've never seen him promote CTs. :hmmm:

In all fairness, of late on politics and especially single issue politics to make his points he has been posting a lot of links to people and groups who can only be described as CTs.

Dowly

09-06-13, 12:58 PM

In all fairness, of late on politics and especially single issue politics to make his points he has been posting a lot of links to people and groups who can only be described as CTs.

Yeah, I've noticed. But I still have hope for him. :) He hasn't gone bat**** nuts with it.

Sailor Steve

09-06-13, 12:58 PM

It's a fairing, which houses the undergarriage.
See here for example: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1b/G-BNWA_British_Airways_B767-300_planform.jpg
And here:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8f/American_Airlines_767-200_N324AA.jpg

"Extra equipment..."

Gotta love it. :rotfl2:

Dowly

09-06-13, 01:00 PM

And here:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8f/American_Airlines_767-200_N324AA.jpg

"Extra equipment..."

Gotta love it. :rotfl2:

Ah, didn't even notice I posted the wrong 767. Thanks for correcting me. :salute:

Madox58

09-06-13, 01:02 PM

Oh come on now!

You guys know that all images and planes were modified AFTER the event, right?
:har:

Dowly

09-06-13, 01:10 PM

Oh come on now!

You guys know that all images and planes were modified AFTER the event, right?
:har:

Actually, there was a guy who said that they edited the videos in real time so it looked like a plane hit the South Tower.

Pretty hilarious, and sad at the same time, but worth a watch still:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IwyfP5AyMMk

Sailor Steve

09-06-13, 01:40 PM

...let's play the game.
Two can play the same game, so I'm joining in.

You say a plane hit the Pentagon. Your evidence is the plane parts and all the comments and articles on TV and the web. You have no evidence yourself, as you were not there. So you have to rely on the provided information, as we all.
Are the plane parts not enough evidence? Possibly. What other evidence is there?

I doubt the whole story and have to find some possible explanations for the plane parts and the comments and articles.
Do you doubt the whole story because the evidence looks wrong, or does the evidence look wrong because you doubt the story? You claim that those of us who accept the evidence are just believing what we are told, but there is also no evidence to support what you claim. None at all. This means that you are believing what someone told you, just as you claim we are.

How could someone get some plane parts into the construction area of the Pentagon, but doesn't fly an airplane into the building?
That's a whole lot of "maybes". Yes, anything is possible, but that's an awful lot of work to make an excuse to start a war, especially when we didn't need an excuse in the first place. And, has been shown, if they were that good why didn't they get away with it?

Fact is, the believers trust the government to have evidence 19 muslim amateurs were able to run the complex 9/11 attacks, without any further support from the US.
And fact is, there is too much highly sensitive and secret information - as way too much skill - necessary for these 19 guys to perform the shown act.
Actually, learning to fly a plane isn't that hard, even a big one. They didn't have to learn how to take off or how to land, just how to point it at something and die.

If you find the right patriotic guys within the US, with power to simply order things to be done, you can order a team of subcontractors to place some sealed containers with extreme sensible, seismic eqipment at every second floor in the WTC buildings in may 2001, just to have some data about the stability in high winds, for a new building insurance. A remote control, some fancy thermite in the containers and thousands of kilometers "WiFi-cable" will do the well timed destructive part.
If? Is there one single shred of evidence that this was done? If not, then it's all imaginings.

Four drone pilots in a Nevada simulator follow their virtual flight paths, but two are translated into real flight paths for two real drones - through the twin towers?
Which of all the participants are aware of being part of it? A few 'good' men and some clever planning is all you need.
Again, is there any evidence of this happening, or is it just a case of "they could have"?

A way more likely scenario than the sold one of Atta and his evil 18.
Several hundred people being led through a conspiracy to make drone planes crash and blame the Arabs more likely than a few crazies killing themselves and taking innocent passengers and workers with them? Maybe more likely if you already believe it, but not near as likely if you look at it without bias.

There is no evidence
Spot on the money. No evidence. Period.

Destruction experts, telling the collapse of WTC7 was a demolition job.
Already covered in a thread all its very own. And debunked.

An ex-pilot states, found engine parts in New York identifyed to be used by the military (General Electric), but not by United Airlines (only Pratt&Whitney)...
Actually they use both.

The question is, what do we accept to be evidence, or at least justified reason to doubt?
There is always reason to doubt. The problem is that you already doubt, and do nothing but look for reasons to support your doubt.

Sailor Steve

09-06-13, 01:41 PM

Ah, didn't even notice I posted the wrong 767. Thanks for correcting me. :salute:
Oh, yours clearly shows it too. I was just adding to the obvious. :sunny:

Catfish

09-06-13, 01:57 PM

What is true is, that the US helped and supported Bin Laden for decades, when he fought against the Russians in Afghanistan until they withdrew.

At that time the CIA had also recruited some additional people from abroad to fight with the Taliban resistance aginst the Russians in Afghanistan, and ran a data base that contained all fighters along with telephone number, addresses and ways to contact them.

At some point this group decided (for whatever reason - maybe they were betrayed, or at least felt like that) to turn against the US - really ? Did they ?

The name of said file was indeed "Al quaeda", and this is nothing new. Come on Dowly, do you want to question that ?

Make of that what you want :hmph:

AVGWarhawk

09-06-13, 02:01 PM

I heard the issue in Syria is over a natural gas pipeline.

Why has the little nation of Qatar spent 3 billion dollars to support the rebels in Syria? Could it be because Qatar is the largest exporter of liquid natural gas in the world and Assad won’t let them build a natural gas pipeline through Syria? Of course. Qatar wants to install a puppet regime in Syria that will allow them to build a pipeline which will enable them to sell lots and lots of natural gas to Europe. Why is Saudi Arabia spending huge amounts of money to help the rebels and why has Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan been “jetting from covert command centers near the Syrian front lines to the Élysée Palace in Paris and the Kremlin in Moscow, seeking to undermine the Assad regime”? Well, it turns out that Saudi Arabia intends to install their own puppet government in Syria which will allow the Saudis to control the flow of energy through the region. On the other side, Russia very much prefers the Assad regime for a whole bunch of reasons. One of those reasons is that Assad is helping to block the flow of natural gas out of the Persian Gulf into Europe, thus ensuring higher profits for Gazprom. Now the United States is getting directly involved in the conflict. If the U.S. is successful in getting rid of the Assad regime, it will be good for either the Saudis or Qatar (and possibly for both), and it will be really bad for Russia. This is a strategic geopolitical conflict about natural resources, religion and money, and it really has nothing to do with chemical weapons at all.

Dowly

09-06-13, 02:13 PM

Oh, yours clearly shows it too. I was just adding to the obvious. :sunny:

Ah, but you can't be too careful when it comes to CTs. The name of my
image was 767-300, the one that struck the tower was 767-200. No idea how much
difference there is, if any, but better get it straight. :yep:

Ah, what the heck. I might just tell my whole "truther" story while I'm here,
MAYBE it helps someone who is one the fence. So, about when "Loose Change"
came out and I saw it, I thought it was pretty damn convincing, to the point that
I was suckered in to the whole "truther" thing. Then I started to see debunkers
pointing how wrong "LC" was. And I admit, I was pretty angry to see
that someone couldn't see the "obvious truth". Hell, even someone I highly respected
from the GWX team PM'd me to stop the nonsense. I took about 12 months off from the
whole thing (I never was a "hardcore" truther), and then came the anniversary,
which was then somewhat of a "big deal" in finnish media too. We had reruns
of the live shows, documentaries and stuff. So, I decided to start looking at
9/11 again (I love mysteries), and little by little I started to see just how wrong I was.
To see how the "truthers" acted, manipulating photos/videos/audio, taking quotes
out of context and riding on fancy titles.

And that's why I want everyone, who's "on the fence" to look at both sides,
with an open mind, do your own research. Taught me quite a bit.

Lastly, a riddle: What you see on most CT sites but you hardly ever see on debunker sites?

Madox58

09-06-13, 02:22 PM

:hmmm:
I smell a conspiracy!

Takeda Shingen

09-06-13, 02:35 PM

I believe that I have made my view of conspiracy theories, as well as those that hold to them, so painfully clear as to negate any need to repeat myself, so I'll just leave this here instead.
http://www.davidicke.com/images/stories/August20129/catconspiracy.jpg

AVGWarhawk

09-06-13, 02:35 PM

Ah, but you can't be too careful when it comes to CTs. The name of my
image was 767-300, the one that struck the tower was 767-200. No idea how much
difference there is, if any, but better get it straight. :yep:

Ah, what the heck. I might just tell my whole "truther" story while I'm here,
MAYBE it helps someone who is one the fence. So, about when "Loose Change"
came out and I saw it, I thought it was pretty damn convincing, to the point that
I was suckered in to the whole "truther" thing. Then I started to see debunkers
pointing how wrong "LC" was. And I admit, I was pretty angry to see
that someone couldn't see the "obvious truth". Hell, even someone I highly respected
from the GWX team PM'd me to stop the nonsense. I took about 12 months off from the
whole thing (I never was a "hardcore" truther), and then came the anniversary,
which was then somewhat of a "big deal" in finnish media too. We had reruns
of the live shows, documentaries and stuff. So, I decided to start looking at
9/11 again (I love mysteries), and little by little I started to see just how wrong I was.
To see how the "truthers" acted, manipulating photos/videos/audio, taking quotes
out of context and riding on fancy titles.

And that's why I want everyone, who's "on the fence" to look at both sides,
with an open mind, do your own research. Taught me quite a bit.

Lastly, a riddle: What you see on most CT sites but you hardly ever see on debunker sites?

See, I knew you studied it inside and out. And you denied it you, you, you scamp!
:haha::O::O:

Dowly

09-06-13, 02:43 PM

Does that make me a disinformation agent? I hope not, I dont like that name.

Call me.. Your Majesty. Yeeees, much better.

:shucks:

AND SOMEONE FIX THIS ******* CROWN! IT'S TOO BIG! :stare:

Madox58

09-06-13, 02:47 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQgMXOW0FLU

Mittelwaechter

09-06-13, 03:04 PM

May I ask why you doubt the whole story?

Why do I doubt the official interpretation of the 9/11 events?

The sheer unbelievable amount of suspicious coincidences and advantages that accrued for a few make me doubt.
I don't trust the US government - as I don't trust my own government - not as far as I can drop an elefant.
And I trust those greedy ghosts behind our governments even less.

I am no truther, but I was interested in Moore's documentary like most of us.
I still think he has some valid questions to be explained by those, who say they have the sovereignty of interpretation and the legitimation to kill.
It is not my job to provide some hard evidence for any justified doubt, but theirs to deliver transparent and possibly irrefutable answers.
They get paid for it, they have access and any support.

Well, I personally am not questioned anyway. http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/images/smilies/28.gif

Jimbuna

09-06-13, 03:07 PM

so feel free to write whatever you like;

It's sure starting to look that way.

Jimbuna

09-06-13, 03:11 PM

Sailor Steve

09-06-13, 03:22 PM

Ah, but you can't be too careful when it comes to CTs. The name of my
image was 767-300, the one that struck the tower was 767-200. No idea how much
difference there is, if any, but better get it straight. :yep:
The -300 is 6.43m longer, for increased passenger and cargo loads.

Lastly, a riddle: What you see on most CT sites but you hardly ever see on debunker sites?
I have no idea.

I don't trust the US government - as I don't trust my own government - not as far as I can drop an elefant.
And I trust those greedy ghosts behind our governments even less.
Nor do I, but as a friend of mine once said, every conspiracy requires a number of people, every single one of whom has to keep his mouth shut. It only takes one to blow the whole thing out of the water.

Every single conspiracy theory is made up of outsiders speculating. Not one of them has ever had someone step up and say "Yes, I was a part of it, and I can prove it."

I am no truther, but I was interested in Moore's documentary like most of us.
Michael Moore has himself been shown to be a liar, both about his films and about his personal life. This doesn't mean he's wrong about any particular thing, but it's a good reason not to take him at face value, and to double-check everything he says.

Mittelwaechter

09-06-13, 03:47 PM

Nor do I, but as a friend of mine once said, every conspiracy requires a number of people, every single one of whom has to keep his mouth shut. It only takes one to blow the whole thing out of the water.

There are thousands of secret operations with thousands of members and they never see daylight. Especially military personnel and black hats are good at this.
I.e. the CT of Mossadeq to have been removed by the CIA was covered for decades.

Groups of special interest are to be found in the economy either and they are quite good in hiding their deeds.

Even little Annie has some secrets she keeps with her best friend forever.

Every single conspiracy theory is made up of outsiders speculating. Not one of them has ever had someone step up and say "Yes, I was a part of it, and I can prove it."

The police is quite good at this. They persuade some to step up and say "Yes, I was part of it and you proved it."

And water boarding is obviously motivating to tell the speculators what they want to hear.

Sailor Steve

09-06-13, 04:53 PM

There are thousands of secret operations with thousands of members and they never see daylight.
If you know this then they obviously have seen daylight. If they haven't seen daylight then how do you know it?

Especially military personnel and black hats are good at this.
Again, how do you know? If you do know, then they are not good at it.

I.e. the CT of Mossadeq to have been removed by the CIA was covered for decades.
Sure the CIA secretly supported the Shah. Were they an integral part of the overthrow? You might want to read this.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Sg6-pEiQQZ1WfD7Fr5_pHRPmLjqsKPrbf_t7UO-UKoo/edit?hl=en&pli=1

Did the CIA assassinate Diem? Good question. You misunderstand me. I'm not arguing that governments don't do dirty deeds and keep secrets. I'm only saying that each and every case needs to be looked at on its own. Trade Center? Show one shred of real proof for your claims. Kennedy? Same thing. Pearl Harbor? Same thing.

Did you know that the assassination of Abraham Lincoln was a conspiracy? It was. One of the conspirators was supposed to assassinate Vice President Andrew Johnson, but panicked and ran. Another was supposed to kill Secretary of State William Seward. He got into Seward's bedroom but the VP's son tackled and disarmed him. They ended up trying and hanging four people. Not a theory, but an actual conspiracy. And for the most part if failed.

Groups of special interest are to be found in the economy either and they are quite good in hiding their deeds.
I believe it too, but if they're really that good at it how do we actually know this. Unless you prove a specific deed it's only a theory, and if you do prove it it's no longer hidden.

Even little Annie has some secrets she keeps with her best friend forever.
Until Annie gets famous and her former best friend posts them on Twitter.

The police is quite good at this. They persuade some to step up and say "Yes, I was part of it and you proved it."
First they have to have an actual person to interrogate. Are you suggesting Bush and Cheney be tortured until they talk?

And water boarding is obviously motivating to tell the speculators what they want to hear.
So you think people should be tortured until they say what you want to hear?

I just stumbled on this page:
http://swallowingthecamel.blogspot.com/2010/01/33-conspiracy-theories-that-turned-out.html

Catfish

09-06-13, 05:22 PM

... First they have to have an actual person to interrogate. Are you suggesting Bush and Cheney be tortured until they talk?

They say waterboarding is not that bad. I mean the CIA says that.
I am not sure whether this would be bad enough then, for Cheney :nope:

So you think people should be tortured until they say what you want to hear?

Apparently this was and is currently done, and not alone in Guantanamo. You certainly know that western european countries have let US jets fly over their territory, so they could transport suspected insurgents to be tortured abroad, to not violate US law on own soil ? :hmm2:

For the NSA or CIA, no i do not think that some countries are 'better' than the US, and that they are doing everything according to international law, but to be a part of the west and know what we claim, and then really do, makes a difference for me. We should be and do better, not only in that respect.

Dowly

09-06-13, 05:56 PM

I have no idea.

Ads. Go to any "big" CT site and all you have is "buy this book, and buy this DVD"

The main sites that "debunkers" use are 100% ad free.

Sailor Steve

09-06-13, 05:57 PM

Ah. Cool. I doubt I ever would have noticed that.

Dowly

09-06-13, 06:41 PM

Ah. Cool. I doubt I ever would have noticed that.

Well, excuuuuse me. :O:

Stealhead

09-06-13, 06:48 PM

If I run blindfolded onto the street and point at every car, shouting: "It's a green car!" I will certainly point at some green vehicles.

That was an excellent analogy.

Dowly

09-06-13, 06:56 PM

I am no truther,

Sorry, but yes, you kinda are, not the first time you question the almighty official story.

but I was interested in Moore's documentary like most of us.

And Moore's "documentary" was quite easily debunked, almost a DECADE a go.

I still think he has some valid questions to be explained by those, who say they have the sovereignty of interpretation and the legitimation to kill.

Give me one, please. Seriously.

It is not my job to provide some hard evidence for any justified doubt,

You are the one making the claims, burden of proof is on you.

Sailor Steve

09-06-13, 07:39 PM

You are the one making the claims, burden of proof is on you.
:sign_yeah:

That's the way it works. If you accuse someone of wrongdoing, it is your job to back up the claim. It is not the accused person's job to prove he didn't do it.

Wolferz

09-06-13, 10:30 PM

http://i205.photobucket.com/albums/bb295/Wolferz_2007/522487_411383152233551_552532450_n.jpg

09-07-13, 04:40 AM

Why do I doubt the official interpretation of the 9/11 events?

The sheer unbelievable amount of suspicious coincidences and advantages that accrued for a few make me doubt.
I don't trust the US government - as I don't trust my own government - not as far as I can drop an elefant.
And I trust those greedy ghosts behind our governments even less.

I am no truther, but I was interested in Moore's documentary like most of us.
I still think he has some valid questions to be explained by those, who say they have the sovereignty of interpretation and the legitimation to kill.
It is not my job to provide some hard evidence for any justified doubt, but theirs to deliver transparent and possibly irrefutable answers.
They get paid for it, they have access and any support.

Well, I personally am not questioned anyway. http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/images/smilies/28.gif

In cases like this it usually takes few coincidences and screw ups on one side and some planning on the other for it all to work.
The problem is that you apply backward logic to it all.

Catfish

09-07-13, 06:39 AM

09-07-13, 06:59 AM

So becasue of some (!) 'truthers' (what an analogy b.t.w., to belittle people who want to know the truth lol) tell nonsense or expect a conspiracy, it makes all true what the government had to say ? I don't think so.
No, this is all about desinformation.
Feed them some bits of truth that can be proven, but leave out the bigger picture and background that led to the mess.

Just maybe if you spend your time on researching how it all got messed up-how the all mighty billion dollar intelligence service got screwed up by a few beard muslims WTF? How come?- instead of searching great conspiracy, THEN all it will come together.

Yet some prefer great conspiracies.:03:

Turns out you can never be paranoid enough and don't underestimate.

Not to mention as stated below that troofers climes are bull.:doh:

Tribesman

09-07-13, 08:06 AM

So becasue of some (!) 'truthers' (what an analogy b.t.w., to belittle people who want to know the truth lol) tell nonsense or expect a conspiracy, it makes all true what the government had to say ? I don't think so.
No, this is all about desinformation.
Feed them some bits of truth that can be proven, but leave out the bigger picture and background that led to the mess.
You seem to be getting things backwards.
It isn't a matter of believing what the government has to say, its a matter of looking at the troofers claims and seeing if they are true or false.
Nearly every claim made about conspiracies over 9/11 takes about a minute to fall apart, some might take ten minutes of looking though before they are thoroughly trashed.
What we get is the same claims being repeated again and again as der troof by people who state that other people are blind and do not look, when they are the ones just repeating conspiracy crap of the internet that they havn't even examined but just swallowed blindly.

Dread Knot

09-07-13, 08:46 AM

So becasue of some (!) 'truthers' (what an analogy b.t.w., to belittle people who want to know the truth lol)

"Truther" is the term they came up with for themselves. No one foisted it upon them.

9/11 Truthers love to brush everyone who disagrees with them as "sheeple" who believe everything authority tells them. Since most of them believe at least one government (usually the U.S.’s, but sometimes Israel’s) is responsible for the attacks, and anyone who defends what conspiracy theorists call the “official story” is automatically tarred as a mouthpiece for that evil, corrupt government.

The argument is invalid because it establishes a binary choice. Either you believe the conspiracy theory 100%, or you believe the government 100%. There is no in-between. In the mind of a conspiracy theorist, it’s not possible to question or oppose the government and also deny the validity of conspiracy theories accusing that government of wrongdoing; you’re either enlightened or you’re a shill. I find this dichotomy interesting because it illustrates the shallowness of conspiracist thinking and also, in a subtle way, the attraction conspiracy theories have for their followers. Conspiracy theorists like these theories because they separate a complicated world into black and white, good and evil, wrongdoers and the enlightened warriors. Consequently, if you aren’t willing to stand up and be counted with the enlightened warriors, you may as well cross over to the dark side. There is no gray area. If only the world were that simple.

Oberon

09-07-13, 08:52 AM

Aliens have abducted a load of the tags for this thread! :doh:

Sailor Steve

09-07-13, 09:03 AM

(what an analogy b.t.w., to belittle people who want to know the truth lol)
That's the problem. They don't want to know the truth. They are already convinced that they know the truth and desperately want everyone else to agree with them. In case you haven't noticed, most people who disagree with them are like me - people who don't accept the government line, but are waiting for even one of these claims to have a single shred of real evidence to back it up. Just because we don't trust the government doesn't mean that every claim made against them is true.

The second problem is that all these claims are based on the idea that what looks apparent doesn't really add up. That's fine, but a thousand questions do not equal one hard fact. That's all most of us are asking for - one hard fact.

@ Dread Knot: Very well said!

Wolferz

09-07-13, 10:43 AM

Truth is the first casualty of any good conspiracy theory.:hmmm:

Mittelwaechter

09-07-13, 12:59 PM

You are moving in causal circles, gentlemen.

You ask me why I doubt, you ask for valid questions concerning 9/11 and for my opinion on your comments and answers, but you are bored to answer "a truther's" doubts, questions and comments.

Does it make sense?
As I said before you may have to convince yourself again to believe the official claims by repeating them.
I think you have to feel the approval, the legitimation of the majority, to ensure yourself to support the right side.
So you feel reassured, you back each other and you applaud yourself. Additionally there may be some joy in supporting the authorities.

You constantly ask me for evidence. Questions need no evidence, but claims do. If the claims are intransparent or doubtable they are to be questioned.
If they are not - like my 'black hat operations stay behind the scenes commonly' claim - asking for evidence is just infantile, shows the lack of a position or is just intentional trolling.

There are thousands of truther trolls out there. With doubtable evidence they are not better than the officials offering doubtable evidence.
This group behaviour of mutual assurance, this encouraging each other, the feeling to support a noble cause are similar motivators to the ones described above.
Again, I don't consider me to be a truther. I don't have to believe all the truther claims as I don't have to doubt all official claims.
There is much nonsense to find out there. And there is some official evidence for claims of the believers.

But there are also serious concerns and questions by serious scientists, experts and regulars, who just want to find the causes, the real connections, the so called truth.

I show you a picture of the original airplane, carrying some object attached to its fuselage, simply recognizable with our senses - evident!
You show me a picture of an airplane of the same type, but without the attached object - simply recognizable with our senses - and you call it evidence.
This is on the level of the thousand truther trolls. Doesn't it make you a debunker troll?

It simply disqualifies you. You refuse to deal with the obvious and retreat into your comfort zone.
Mainstream is not stupid by default, but it isn't correct either. It's an easy chair, commonly provided by some interested party.

Don't mix gameplay, brain food, entertainment, critical analysis of a situation, alternative interpretation of an issue with serious questions on doubtable claims.
Irony, cynism, stilistic writing, context, personality etc. are to be considered by judging the intentions of a comment. This may be difficult, especially through language barriers.

Damn, I didn't even want to discuss 9/11.

Tchocky

09-07-13, 01:18 PM

Good god I almost didn't make it through that post.

MW - enough with this rubbish about the 767. There is no device

Tchocky

09-07-13, 01:20 PM

Double.

Jimbuna

09-07-13, 01:48 PM

Aliens have abducted a load of the tags for this thread! :doh:

Must be a boring day in outer space as well then.

Oberon

09-07-13, 01:53 PM

Must be a boring day in outer space as well then.

Well, you can't abduct humans, draw crazy circles in crops and mutilate cattle every day without getting a little bored, I guess.

Sailor Steve

09-07-13, 01:55 PM

You are moving in causal circles, gentlemen.
No, we're not. We're using our brains.

You ask me why I doubt, you ask for valid questions concerning 9/11 and for my opinion on your comments and answers, but you are bored to answer "a truther's" doubts, questions and comments.
No, we don't ask for "valid questions". What we ask for is one single shred of evidence that will stand up to scrutiny, and so far you, and they, have provided none. Not one piece.

As I said before you may have to convince yourself again to believe the official claims by repeating them.
I don't have to convince myself of anything. It's you who needs to convince others. I don't believe, or accept, any official claims. If you can show one actual piece of proof then we'll have something to talk about. On the other hand you do exactly what you accuse others of doing. You believe all the Truthers' claims without question. You have already convince yourself that the claims are true, and won't accept any other answer.

I think you have to feel the approval, the legitimation of the majority, to ensure yourself to support the right side.
So you feel reassured, you back each other and you applaud yourself.
What a crock. You can think that all you want, but it's just not true. Most of us don't support the authorities at all. You have no idea what I or anyone else thinks.

Additionally there may be some joy in supporting the authorities.
I could argue the opposite, that you have failed so badly that you can't be happy unless you convince yourself that we can only think what the leaders tell us. It's a game. If you can't prove your case, insult the other side.

You constantly ask me for evidence. Questions need no evidence, but claims do. If the claims are intransparent or doubtable they are to be questioned.
Questions are fine, but you're not asking questions. You are claiming that it's a government conspiracy, and keep referring to other claims made by other people. You use references to those claims to "prove" your point, and we show that those references are wrong and the claims have no proof.

Question: Did the Bush administration create 9/11 to give them a cause for war?
Answer: I don't know. Anything is possible.

Claim: The Bush administration created 9/11 to give them a cause for war.
Answer: Prove it. Sure it's possible, but I'll need to see some real evidence.

Claim 2: Here is evidence.
Answer 2: That's not evidence. Here are the problems with it.

Claim 3: You just don't want to believe it! You're willing to be duped by the government!

Do you see how the game is played? Do you see what you're doing?

If they are not - like my 'black hat operations stay behind the scenes commonly' claim - asking for evidence is just infantile, shows the lack of a position or is just intentional trolling.
We all know the government engages in secret operations. Some of them are exposed, some are not. When you say they are engaging in a specific operation, asking for evidence is not infantile, it's important.

You have now sunk so low that you have to accuse those who oppose you of being trolls. Your arguments are getting worse and worse.

There are thousands of truther trolls out there. With doubtable evidence they are not better than the officials offering doubtable evidence.
I get it. You think that a group of militants learning how to fly a plane well enough to crash it is a government lie, and you want the government to prove it. The problem there is that we know they did attend the flight school and there is evidence that they took over the planes. On the other hand you want us to believe that thousands of government employees planted bombs and not one of them has been convinced to admit it. If that's true, where are all the passengers who were supposed to be on those flights? Are they part of the conspiracy? Were they murdered by government agents.

The problem with your version is that it leaves even more questions than the "official government line". It's possibly true, but you need to come up with something that a rational mind can't see through.

This group behaviour of mutual assurance, this encouraging each other, the feeling to support a noble cause are similar motivators to the ones described above.
We aren't a group in that fashion. We are individuals. I would be saying what I'm saying if was the only one saying it. It just happens that there are other individuals who also think you're falling for a line yourself. Again you try to argue by making accusations. This demeans you and makes your own arguments look bad. Trying to argue by labelling your opponents that way just makes you look desperate.

Again, I don't consider me to be a truther. I don't have to believe all the truther claims as I don't have to doubt all official claims.
So you say. On the other hand you sure talk like one.

There is much nonsense to find out there. And there is some official evidence for claims of the believers.
By "believers" do you mean "truthers" or do you mean me and others who question them. If the former then you need to show some of that evidence. So far none of it has been worth anything. If you mean the latter then I have to remind you that we haven't made any claims.

You're right in that questions do need to be asked. That is a universal given. On the other hand when the questioners claim that their questions are answers but can't show it, then they also need to be questioned.

I show you a picture of the original airplane, carrying some object attached to its fuselage, simply recognizable with our senses - evident!
You show me a picture of an airplane of the same type, but without the attached object - simply recognizable with our senses - and you call it evidence.
No, you showed a picture of the original airplane. Anyone familiar with airliners at all can immediately see that the "object" is obviously the landing gear housing and wing fairing. I showed a picture of the same type, and the housing is obviously there. The was no "attached object".

This is on the level of the thousand truther trolls. Doesn't it make you a debunker troll?
No, it's simply pointing out the obvious.

It simply disqualifies you. You refuse to deal with the obvious and retreat into your comfort zone.
Again you try to argue by insult. That is indeed trolling. The problem you have there is that what you said also applies to you, only you can't see it.

Don't mix gameplay, brain food, entertainment, critical analysis of a situation, alternative interpretation of an issue with serious questions on doubtable claims.
One last time: The questions are fine. The answers the Truthers claim to provide are not, unless they present some real evidence. So far they've provided none which will stand up to any close look. The only people who believe what they've shown so far are the ones who already wanted to believe something like that.

Mittelwaechter

09-07-13, 01:56 PM

Stealhead

09-07-13, 01:57 PM

I like how his comfort zone is the crazy theory.

I also like how the same excuse is used over and over despite the fact that it falls flat on its face every time.That is the thing though everything else is disinformation so you can not trust it.:hmm2:

Edit: and now your just reading things of off the web and placing what ever spin you want on the information.
I might as well link this article about kids and their favorite colors and then say that the article proves that the petrodollar is real and that galactic butt monkeys are controlling world governments.It makes just as much sense.
http://www.slate.com/articles/life/family/2012/04/small_children_and_favorite_colors_research_into_w hy_colors_are_so_important_to_kids_identity_.html

By the way having worked with aircraft on a daily basis for 12 years i can assuredly tell you that you do not know what the heck you are talking about.

that system was not even developed until 2003 and it is a one off platform.

Sailor Steve

09-07-13, 02:06 PM

Just stumbled over this here:

https://directory.eoportal.org/web/eoportal/airborne-sensors/uavsar

The design of the UAVSAR focuses on two key challenges:
First, repeat pass measurements need to be taken from flight paths that are nearly identical. This instrument utilizes real-time GPS that interfaces with the platform flight management system (FMS) to confine the repeat flight path to within a 10 m tube over a 200 km course in conditions of calm to light turbulence. The FMS is also referred to as the PPA (Platform Precision Autopilot).
Okay, let's discuss that. What is it for? Examining "Crustal deformations", i.e. looking at the earth's crust. Currently it is looking at volcanoes in Japan. The part that you keep jumping on, "repeat flight path", simply says that they have to over the same route several times to make sure their data is correct. The article states clearly that the first one flew in 2009, or eight years after 9/11.

Let's assume that they had one in 2001. What was the purpose of it flying into the Trade Center? To look as seismic faults on Manhattan Island? You might say I'm beeing flippant, or mocking, but that's what the device is for.

The device itself looks nothing like the "object" in the 9/11 video. Also if you look very closely at the video pictures you can see that there is not just one on the starboard side of the airliner, as claimed in the video, but one on the port side as well. Landing gear housings, just like in the photo I posted. You're looking for something that isn't there, because you want to believe it.

Platapus

09-07-13, 02:09 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OF7btbIVFF0

"he would make outrageous claims that he invented the question mark. He used to accuse chestnuts of being lazy..." :yeah:

Wolferz

09-07-13, 02:29 PM

Must be a boring day in outer space as well then.

The aliens continue their solar manipulations unabated. Prepping for the next CME kill shot.
Got generator?:rock:

Penguin

09-07-13, 03:43 PM

back with a hangover, so excuse my slow typing :88)

Now you show up with this verbose - but well mannered - comment on... well, sorry but I don't get your point.

i don't even know if I have a point :D. My point with many conspiracy people is that they happen to be exactly those close-minded, self-centered folks which they paint anyone who disagrees with them. My point is that I miss the critical thinking they claim to have.
My point with you is only, assuming you are German, that you don't vote for those arses from the PDV, haha, really, they are even worse than the FDP which is pretty much the bottom of the German party barrel. You seem to have the heart in the right place and care for the crap going on in this world, so I hate to see this wasted by one-sided thinking.

One of my fav CT's is from Southpark, where they make the US government being behind the truther movement. :hmmm: If you consider this seriously, you see that every hour you watch videos on YT, looking for the smoking gun in the rublle of the WTC, is one our less to inform yourself about the real life stuff which is going on right under our collective noses, with the constant erosion of civil rights, the cutting of our social systems, the deep bowing to crony capitalism, injustice in general - one hour less to protest against it. I have 2 friends who also fall for some of this stuff, so, yes, I also have a personal agenda if you will so, as I am a little shocked how all this mind-garbage could become so influential over the past decade.

I read what all the others of your party have to say about CTs, about their totally critic support for the official declarations and about the 9/11 truthers stupidity.

sorry, the link to "my" party is in my signature, they are the only party I follow, as they are the party and hence always right. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JwBZzxHOI7o :D I couldn't even tell you about the political affilations of the other posters in this thread who don't believe in CTs - I consider myself a lefty.

And I read some common truths, some universal accepted statements on green cars or some buzz words like Ockham's Razor or Dawkins, CCC and Nostradamus. :06:

My unintentional buzzwording came from speaking about the tools we have to check out certain claims. If you're not a direct eyewitness, you rely on other resources. Using professionals who focus on certain topics, are more helpfull to me than those universal geniuses on conspiracy sites. Looks like everyone's an expert on international law, the finance system, hostory, demolition, aviation, biology, chemistry, etc on there.

The Nostradamus example was used to show how claims are seen as true in hindsight. You can test it by picking a random paper from last week and read your horoscope: I am sure you'll find stuff that you experienced during that week being predicted by the astrologist.

However even direct witnesses should also never be the single proof. Ask any LEO who spoke to witnesses about the color a getaway car had and you could come to the conclusion that 99% of all getaway cars belong to the gay community because of the rainbow colors they are painted in. :) Interesttingly enough this goes for all kind of witnesses, regardless of their education or training – even for NYC firefighters ;)

Just as experts are a tool for coming to your own conclusions, there is also the good ole rusty razor from Occam. Note that OR doesn't deny unlikely things to happen, but it's a tool to cut away many 'if' and 'when' scenarios.

For example the scenerao you created – I know it's not meant 100% seriously, but it's entertainingly written, so I refer to it:

How could someone get some plane parts into the construction area of the Pentagon, but doesn't fly an airplane into the building?
Maybe he has some (military) superiority to order new air conditioner installations for the wing. They have to be proved by the US Army to not contain any buging devices, they have to be sealed into wooden crates and they have to be delivered to the Pentagon. Only to be opened by authorized personnel. Crates A through P to be stored next to the outer wall for easy access. The other crates inside the building.
This superior may order some old airplane parts from Nevada (or wherever this huge parking area in the dessert is) for a shooting test at an army base in Maryland. Metal parts for checking the performance of the new yellow tracer bullets...

Park the two trucks overnight in Kansas next to each other, change the hauling papers and/or order two new drivers.
Now blow the Pentagon and collect the airplane parts and let the Army shoot the air condition.

You say there are too many people involved. I say who knew what he did?
We can go on and on and on.

I think the switching truck scenario by itself would work well for a drug deal. However for a plan to fake an attack on one of America's landmarks, there are too many ifs and buts involved in the whole construction.

For example would the time window to place the content of the crates onto the Pentagon's lawn be extremely short, from the impact, untill the first people reach the scene. If the crates would have been stored inside, you still would have to put out some stuff manually. In both scenarious you would still either hope that any remains of a crate would be blown to unidentifable pieces or have to make them disappear – still in the time window, before any rescue personnel walks through the scene. Also must the shooting of the parts resemble the same damage an airline crash with some hundred km/h into a building causes.

Your last point is true: too many people involved. And I am pretty sure than many members of the US military, who shot at some 767 parts, would have asked questions after the attack on the Pentagon. Same goes for truck drivers, airport graveyard managers, people who fake part numbers on the aircraft remains, basically anyone involved.

How to make people keeping their mouths closed? Either through fear, money, ideology or simply by offing them. The first 3 are extremely unlikely to work with 1000s involved, not on the long run – all three cannot substitute a conscience or morale. The last works, but also involves other people who kill them for you, you gotta keep them secret too, and the circle goes on and on....

I've got a new Pentagon theory: What if the parts of the airplane have been in the missile's payload? :o *Twillight Zone music silently fades in*

Another thing is the paper trail any government action involves. From buying parts, to transportation, over hundreds of other preparations, to the very concrete attack plans. We recently got the paper trail confimation how the CIA supported Saddam's chemical warfare against Iran by providing battlefield intelligence, available here: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/08/25/secret_cia_files_prove_america_helped_saddam_as_he _gassed_iran?page=0,3 Only a handfull of people involved here, hell they couldn't even keep a bj in the White House secret, an action which includes exactly 2 persons.

But you see how just one little part of the whole 9/11 operation would raise tons of questions, whens and ifs.

By the way this is what I have often noticed with the 9/11 truthers. They focus on small scale scenarious. Many of them not impossible, but what about the whole picture? I have yet to see one universal theory to include it all – the unversal theory what really happened 12 years ago, according to the truth movement. A scenario which includes launching a missile, remote controlling planes, killing airline passengers and draping their bodies on the scene, faking phone calls, blowing up a skyscraper, yada, yada, yada -and keeping everyone involved quiet over the course of more than a decade.

Penguin

09-07-13, 03:52 PM

Michael Moore has himself been shown to be a liar, both about his films and about his personal life. This doesn't mean he's wrong about any particular thing, but it's a good reason not to take him at face value, and to double-check everything he says.

As a bleeding-heart Penguin, who is very smpathetic towards Moore's cause and intentions, I have to agree.
Just saying that the personal life shouldn't be a criteria, as that's not something he puts into the public spotlight.
Many people who done good deeds had been some rather disgusting persons in private, which doesn't take away any of their achievements.

Catfish

09-07-13, 04:14 PM

...
The argument is invalid because it establishes a binary choice. Either you believe the conspiracy theory 100%, or you believe the government 100%. There is no in-between. ...

Blah. Who defines that - you ?
It is not "binary" at all. I do not believe the truthers, and i do not believe the US or my government to a hundred percent. This is not about "right or wrong, my country", and it definitely is not either this or that.

There is always a reason for all that is happening. The US have massively supported Mr Laden, until the Russians left Afghanistan. You cannot say there is no connection. The data base run by the CIA was named Al Quaeda. Fact. Bin Laden was one of the resistance leaders fighting against the Russians, and being supported by the US. Fact.
The question is, why Mr Laden turned around and bit the hand which was feeding him, before.
The US also have massively supported Mr. Noriega, a notorious killer, torturer and dictator, they have supported Saddam Hussein and numerous other potentates violating everything the West stands for, officially, and they had their hands in killing Mr Allende and installing another dictator instead in Argentine, Mr. Pinochet. B.t.w. this happened at 9/11. 1973.

This all is, as mentioned before, desinformation. They feed us a few crumbs that are true, but not all facts, reason and background.
And it is always good to ask 'Cui bono?'.
They tell you Mr Laden was bad (ok, granted, but why exactly if they supported him all this time?), that Iran had weapons of mass destruction and stood behind the attack on the WTC (really?), and now that Mr Assad is 'bad'. He sure is, but why bother ? The US have supported worse dictators when it suited them.

This may be the first ever real humanitarian invasion of a country to remove a dictator, but i cannot help thinking if that is what it's all about why not go for North Korea? Ah, because of China=BIG THREAT and atomic bomb, ok. But aren't they godless communists as well ?
Godless commies, but everyone wants an iPhone assembled in China.
I have no high hopes, for mankind :O:

P.S.: and Dread knot, it seems i misunderstood your post completely lol

Penguin

09-07-13, 04:20 PM

You ask me why I doubt, you ask for valid questions concerning 9/11 and for my opinion on your comments and answers, but you are bored to answer "a truther's" doubts, questions and comments.

Sorry, but I haven't seen any questions you posted in this thread, only a "I question the whole official story", which is rather broad, as it could range from the date of the event to the shoe size of W.

It simply disqualifies you. You refuse to deal with the obvious and retreat into your comfort zone.
Mainstream is not stupid by default, but it isn't correct either. It's an easy chair, commonly provided by some interested party.

See, this is the kind of thinking Dread Knot addressed in his post. You're either one of us or one of them.
This argumentum a contrario is very prevailant among the conspiracy folks. If some entity profits from an event says nothing if they are behind it. For example, as an direct result of the 9/11 attacks, I had some days off, but I swear by the ghost of Elvis(*) that I didn't plan the attacks! :know:

When I click on prisonplanet.com or similar sites, I get a comfy chair feeling. Hey, everything explained on this site, past and present events. Sit back and get everything taught with a few clicks, pretty comfortable if you ask me.

The conspiracy guys often ask the question: qui bono? - who profits? Well, as Dowly already pointed out, some people seem to profit from the content of these websites, just watching the ads on them which offer stuff you can buy in normal stores for a fraction of the price.
Or take Senor Glenn Beck: http://www.good.is/posts/glenn-beck-s-gold-scam-explained

(*) that was a joke, we all know Elvis is still alive and everywhere (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRi-oEDd6fM) :smug: :rock:

Jimbuna

09-07-13, 04:26 PM

(*) that was a joke, we all know Elvis is still alive and everywhere (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRi-oEDd6fM) :smug: :rock:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QccPUSTMriM

nikimcbee

09-07-13, 04:59 PM

Jerry! Jerry! Jerry!

http://www.thedailyrash.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/main-1096184.jpg

Mittelwaechter

09-07-13, 07:15 PM

How good does the evidence has to get until you realize there is something dubious?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5FhQc-LJ-o

Stealhead

09-07-13, 07:36 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMHHWfSe4TE

Sailor Steve

09-07-13, 07:42 PM

How good does the evidence has to get until you realize there is something dubious?
How long do you have to keep this up before you admit that you were indeed a Truther?

We've had threads on this before, and it has been adequately debunked. I'm not going to go through the entire hour-and-a-half video just to do it all over again. I will ask you one more time though: If it was a missile that hit the Pentagon and not an airliner, where is the plane? Where are the passengers? You love posing questions, but you seem to hate having them asked of you.

mapuc

09-07-13, 07:51 PM

As you may know, for some an issue is nothing more than a conspiracy and for other it is the God given truth

Markus

u crank

09-07-13, 07:56 PM

How good does the evidence has to get until you realize there is something dubious?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1wQ2BJsgx0

Mittelwaechter

09-07-13, 08:31 PM

Tchocky

09-07-13, 08:42 PM

Just for fun - the device on the B762/3 is bogus. Seriously, nothing there.

Mittelwaechter

09-07-13, 08:43 PM

How long do you have to keep this up before you admit that you were indeed a Truther?

We've had threads on this before, and it has been adequately debunked. I'm not going to go through the entire hour-and-a-half video just to do it all over again. I will ask you one more time though: If it was a missile that hit the Pentagon and not an airliner, where is the plane? Where are the passengers? You love posing questions, but you seem to hate having them asked of you.

Dowly and this thread has made me looking for some clips on youtube and some sites offered by truthers and by debunkers.
Most of the stuff is total crap, but some is quite good and justifies to question the official reports.

Again, I don't have answers but questions. Shall I write it down for you? http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif

Takeda Shingen

09-07-13, 09:00 PM

^^ This is your high quality debunking?

:har:

Please folks: watch this clip, it's worth it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5FhQc-LJ-o

These people interview witnesses of the Pentagon event.
It is well done and I guess no one aboard can ask for more evidence from privat investigators.

For the tenth time the burden of proof is on you, conspiracy theorist. Prove your assertion to be true; to be contrary of conventional knowledge. You sit back and smugly proclaim yourself correct; challenging others to prove yourself wrong. As you have clearly never had to defend yourself in an academic fashion, allow me to tell you how this works.

You assert X is true as opposed to the conventional Y. It is therefore your responsibility to prove X is in fact the truth. The burden of proof lies with you. You have the burden of proof. The burden of proof is yours. The burden is yours alone. Redundancy cannot make this more clear. Your questions are irrelevant. Your facts are only of consequence.

It is time for you to put up or shut up. I suspect the latter will be the case. I will be the arbiter. Present!

Sailor Steve

09-07-13, 09:59 PM

^^ This is your high quality debunking?

:har:
So much for honest questioning. He shows a clip with statements from several eyewitnesses and a link to a site with all their statements, and your answer is to mock it. You are a Truther, and you only see what you want to see and hear what you want to hear. I thought you said you were honest. At least you could admit that you are a true believer and won't listen to anything but your own beliefs.

Please folks: watch this clip, it's worth it:
You've already linked to that video. This is the second time on the same page. Do you think showing it more times will make it true?

Sailor Steve

09-07-13, 10:01 PM

Again, I don't have answers but questions. Shall I write it down for you? :)
Yet you make fun of somebody who links to eyewitness statements. That's not a question, that's an insult.

Mittelwaechter

09-07-13, 10:09 PM

Takeda Shingen

They/you claim X - and I have some questions on that, because some of this claim is obviously doubtable.

I can proof I have some questions.

Again, I have no connections to any truther or have been engaged in truthing.
But as I had to answer your questions, provide evidence for my doubts, I had to do some reseach to find valid questions meeting your requirements.

And I found some questions - relevant to me.

I think the pod is something worth doubtable and I have not found any explanation for this device, but the denial of its existence from so called debunkers. I realized there are as many stupid debunkers out there as stupid truthers.

So I asked for this pod.
You say there is no pod attached to the airplane, but it is clearly visible on several pictures and in several clips.
You claim there is no pod, showing pictures of airplanes without pod.
You claim this fairing is mistaken as the pod.
But there is a 3D object attached to the fuselage of the airplane, not only the fairing. It is visible and it doesn't change in the clips.
I'm not alone with these doubts, but there is no reasonable explanation available for this pot. Speculations grow.

I find a picture of a science airplane equipped with an attached pod. It looks different but the site explains the function of this pod. It enables the aircraft to fly a programmed flightpath precisely on auto pilot. This technics is not new, the cruise missiles use something similar to navigate. It is just a piece in the puzzle, no evidence but it may be an explanation for the pod visible at the WTC airliner.

Again, I didn't even want to discuss 9/11. You guys came up with it and asked for evidence on doubts or only for valid - honestly - questions concerning the official reports.

Now I found this clip with the interviews. This is the best evidence for doubting the official reports I can think of. If you still think this is not valid I am out of options.
In this case I would just want to know, what you think valid evidence for any doubts could be. What would you accept from a private person.

Shall I call Bush and talk him into confessing the conspiracy? Could be easy, obviously it wants out of him.

The entertainment for Penguin is entertainment as stated. Obviously he was amused.

Takeda Shingen

09-07-13, 10:13 PM

Mittelwaechter

09-08-13, 12:26 AM

eddie

09-08-13, 01:19 AM

Nope, I don't believe it!!

Tribesman

09-08-13, 05:31 AM

Nope, I don't believe it!!

But do you believe in Hugo Artenis Solon Saturnicus Reginald Arthur Rune?
He has all the answers:yep:

Jimbuna

09-08-13, 05:43 AM

Come on gents.

Nope...I think it is fast approaching the time you "Come on"

Stop trolling...if you'd be so kind.

Dowly

09-08-13, 06:19 AM

^^ This is your high quality debunking?

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/images/smilies/24.gif

Please folks: watch this clip, it's worth it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5FhQc-LJ-o

These people interview witnesses of the Pentagon event.
It is well done and I guess no one aboard can ask for more evidence from privat investigators.

I'm not going to touch all of the video as a lot of it is just repeating the already debunked material.
But there are few less "popular" things in it I'd like to get to.

1. Robert Balsamo's G-force calculations.
Are wrong. See here: http://www.cesura17.net/~will/Ephemera/Sept11/Balsamo/balsamo2.html

2. Edward Paik's eyewitness statement.
He seems to be unsure of the flight path. He says the plane clipped the tower you see on the right
side in the video. That would put the flight path way to the south side of Navy Annex.

In 2010 interview, he says he was inside when the plane flew past.

Ed Paik: [Ed is standing in front of the counter] “Shinki sitting over there, I’m standing up here. We’d been talking about the Twin Towers. And then we heard about- the big sound. And then I just look out like this [bends over, ducking and turning head to look out the front window] and then aircraft- I can hear- black, big wing as it goes- heading to that way [motions with arm, sweeping from West to East, roughly parallel to Columbia Pike]
Erik Larson: “So- were you outside when it happened?”
Ed: “After that- I saw it, and after that I go out.”
Erik: “So, you were inside when the plane flew over.”
Ed: “Yeah- flew this way.” [indicates path with his hand, West to East, parallel to Columbia Pike, again]
Erik: “OK. But you were looking outside the window.”
Ed: [bends head down, and points outside] “Looking outside here.”

Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3aCPyagWT8&feature=player_detailpage#t=68

Also, in another interview from 2006, conducted by "truthers" I might add, he says he was inside:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZL97reiuWE

And lastly, a quote from Clark Ranke, founder of CitizenInvestigationTeam (you know, the makers of the video you posted):
You can't use a witness to extrapolate what you want regarding the placement of the plane in an area that they would not even be able to witness from their location! That is spin and is deceptive.

So, if Ed Paik was inside, as he says he was in 2 out of 3 interviews, then how could he be a reliable eyewitness when it comes to figuring out the flight path of Flight 77?

I might do a few more points later on, not that it'll convince you of anything.

u crank

09-08-13, 06:22 AM

Come on gents.

If you don't start to doubt after this clip, you will never start to doubt.
Then there is never any evidence possible, because you deny everything.
Then I have the proof you simply fall back to mainstream, into your comfort zone.

Watch it!

And then tell me honestly there is no justification to doubt.

Your problem is you are asking the wrong questions.

You say you are not a truther . Neither am I, but if I was, my first question concerning 9/11 would be this. If some one wanted to attack the U.S. as it happened on 11/11/01 why would they go to these incredible lengths to make it look like three airliners crashed into their targets. You know, say a missile or a strange pod under a commercial airliner or a remote controlled airliner/ military plane, etc. All these scenarios lead to more unanswerable questions. The answer of course is that to accomplish this you would actually hijack said planes and crash them into their targets. The evidence that this happened is pretty convincing. The possibility that something else happened requires a massive covert operation and cover-up that would be impossible to keep undiscovered.

Like I said, you're asking the wrong questions.

Catfish

09-08-13, 06:31 AM

@Ucrank - right.

So why do you think did they crash the planes into the WTC, and the Pentagon. What about the story before that?

Yes i know, all muslims hate 'us', they want to overtake the world and they are hiding between every curtain to kill us.

That rubbish aside:
Where exactly does that hate come from?
Why did they turn around and began to suddenly hate us, just of all after this successful joint venture between some resistance fighters and the West, in Afghanistan?

Tribesman

09-08-13, 08:08 AM

I think Fox says it all.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbmsisvXfjA

Oberon

09-08-13, 09:09 AM

I think Fox says it all.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbmsisvXfjA

I've been waiting for that to arrive here... :dead:

Mittelwaechter

09-08-13, 09:24 AM

u crank

09-08-13, 09:39 AM

So why do you think did they crash the planes into the WTC, and the Pentagon. What about the story before that?

What we do know is that certain groups of Muslims in the world have undertaken a jihadist war on America and its allies. Bin Laden is on record declaring this war. There have been dozens of attacks with Al-Qaeda and other groups claiming responsibility. Bin Laden is also on record as to why. Infidel boots on the ground in the holy land. This is pretty common knowledge, but of course it could all be a massive CIA/Zionist/Illuminati plot. Anything is possible I guess. All it takes is a little mistrust, a healthy dose of paranoia and a good imagination. I'm a sceptic. The thing about being a sceptic is you have to question everything and do some honest research. If you enter into this little adventure with previously held ideas about government plots and a NWO you are at a disadvantage. You are easy prey. So much for the comfort zone.

Where exactly does that hate come from?
Why did they turn around and began to suddenly hate us, just of all after this successful joint venture between some resistance fighters and the West, in Afghanistan?

I assume you are referring to the Mujahideen. These resistance fighters/warlords were used by the U.S. to fight a proxy war with their superpower rival in the 1980's in Afghanistan. Both sides got what they wanted. I doubt if either side believed the relationship would last forever. Who gets the dog?:O:

Subnuts

09-08-13, 09:44 AM

Conspiracy HUSSEIN Theory.

Jimbuna

09-08-13, 09:52 AM

Am I entitled to answer or would it be considered as trolling again?
I don't want to annoy you.

I did already some reseach on the problem ( it made me courious now) and I was reading some rather good debunk on that either.

Your entitled to post whatever you wish, as is anyone in the community but you should also be prepared to be able to backup any claims you make.

Honestly, debating is really that simple.

Oh and btw, nobody annoys me here, I simply try to ensure the forum runs within the guidelines and rules as set out by the forum owner.

Mittelwaechter

09-08-13, 10:01 AM

Ok.

Let me start with Mr Paik, as I didn't do any G-force calculations yet.

He seems to be Asian. I have some experience with Asians working for me to claim the following:
(I keep it simple and therefore general - so it may sound a bit arrogant, but that is not my intention at all. As a matter of fact I generally like their company.)
They want to attract an interlocutor. They try to avoid a "No", a negative response or statement answering a question.
They listen carefully and try to interpret the intention of a question to support the intention.
If you are not very careful to avoid any intentional question, they will tell you what they think you want to hear.

So asking "did the plane go this way?" - showing a rough direction - they will smile, nod and copy your hand sign, as long as the general direction is true.
And if a second guy asks him directly the same question, but showing a slightly different direction, they will support it either. They'll try to avoid any conflict.

So Mr Paik is certainly a wonderful person, never intentionally stating something not true, but he is slightly unfit as a witness (as long as the questions are not strictly neutral).

Again, I don't want to diss any Asians or state they are all the same.

We can assume the plane was somewhere close to him, but we should NOT consider his claims to be a fact.

Agreed?

Tchocky

09-08-13, 10:04 AM

You have to be kidding.

Dowly

09-08-13, 10:29 AM

We can assume the plane was somewhere close to him, but we should NOT consider his claims to be a fact.

Agreed?

Yes, I agree the plane was somewhere near him.

Can't say I agree with the reason why Ed Paik said what he said.

My take on it is that either it was edited out or he was lead so that he didn't think
it was necessary to say where he was at the time, for example, maybe he was
just asked to come outside and show the path he thinks the plane took.

I don't have anything to back that up, though. I tried to look for the interview
transcript on CIT's site as they say in the video they have them, but I couldn't
find Ed Paik's interview transcript.

Mittelwaechter

09-08-13, 10:45 AM

Just to avoid a s...storm, some info concerning my Asian claim:

http://www.fastenseatbelts.eu/en/continent/1/6/

http://asiapacificglobal.com/2013/05/how-asians-say-no-without-saying-it-top-5-indirect-nos/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2954668/

____

Dowly - I think I can't help you with that one. I may have visited such a site the last 12 hours, but I can't provide a link.

____

I have a question for native English/American speakers.

I see sometimes some unusual grammer here at Subsim.
I don't know if the writer is English or American, but there seems to be some slang confusing "was" and "were", like "We was hiding in the conning tower..."
In this context - is it possible (or maybe even common in dialects and slangs) to get a "was" instead of a "would have been"?
Like "He was speeding down the road or he would have been late" to be transformed into "He was speeding down the road or he was late"?

Sailor Steve

09-08-13, 10:58 AM

I don't know if the writer is English or American, but there seems to be some slang confusing "was" and "were", like "We was hiding in the conning tower..."
Not slang, but bad usage (or grammar if you like). I was. He was. She was. You were. We were. They were.

In this context - is it possible (or maybe even common in dialects and slangs) to get a "was" instead of a "would have been"?
Normally no. "He was" means that he actually was there. "He would have been" means that was his destination but he didn't make it, or that he wanted to be there. "He would have been hiding, but he didn't get there in time."

Like "He was speeding down the road or he would have been late" to be transformed into "He was speeding down the road or he was late"?
No, neither one of those is considered good English. "He was speeding down the road because he didn't want to be late" works. The use of "or" always means there's an "either" as well, even if it's not stated. "He was speeding down the road" says what he was doing. "Or" would be used if he was doing something else: "He was speeding down the road or he was sitting in his car." "or he was late" would be a contrast to something similar "He was early or he was late."

"Or" always compares two similar things. "He is or he isn't." Your "speeding down the road" question would be like saying "He is or the cat is hungry."

I'm sorry if that's even more confusing. I'm not sure how to show it without using a lot more examples.

Mittelwaechter

09-08-13, 11:23 AM

Thanks for the explanation Steve.

Maybe I should have been more precise. I want to know if this happens often, if it is common especially when people speak. It may be more casual to use a "was" instead a complicated construct like "would have been".

It is bad grammar I know, but is it more or less common?
Is it more usual if you are distracted, confused or unconcentrated, even if you are a sophisticated person?

Edit: Stupid me! He was speeding down the road else he would have been late - and - He was speeding down the road else he was late - should have been my question.

Sailor Steve

09-08-13, 12:23 PM

Maybe I should have been more precise. I want to know if this happens often, if it is common especially when people speak. It may be more casual to use a "was" instead a complicated construct like "would have been".

It is bad grammar I know, but is it more or less common?
Is it more usual if you are distracted, confused or unconcentrated, even if you are a sophisticated person?
No, I don't think it's common at all. In fact I can't say I've ever heard someone do that. "I was there" and "I would have been there" mean to very different things.

Edit: Stupid me! He was speeding down the road else he would have been late - and - He was speeding down the road else he was late - should have been my question.
No, and now I begin to understand your confusion. "Or" is not good for that sentence, and "Else" is not , but "Or else" might be. It's a phrase that uses both words, and it is the correct one for some uses. Unfortunately the sentence "He was speeding down the road or else he would be late" works, but is awkward and uncomfortable. The other, "...or else he was late" is not good at all. The best would be the one I said in the earlier post: "...so he wouldn't be late."

Mittelwaechter

09-08-13, 01:07 PM

Ok, I see. Thanks again Steve.

I tried to understand the problem with Pentagon Police Officer Lagrasse and his statement concerning the light poles.

Dowly,

before you invest your precious time into this, to convince me I think we should close our 9/11 discussion.

I was reading some stuff here

http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2013/08/19/pentagon-session-at-dc-911-conference-marred-by-organizational-issues-buys-into-false-premise-of-disunity/

and it seems to be very difficult to proof anything at all.

It's just a waste of time for us and it's over our limits anyway. At least I don't want to truth me crazy.
My Englisch is not good enough to understand some of the claims without constantly checking the dictionary.

I think the CIT is a really good effort, particularly for amatuers. But there is too much nick nack and distraction mixed in the discussion on a bunch of other boards. It's hard to find through for me. And we would end with endless quoting and requoting - and I hate that.

Let's agree to disagree.

Platapus

09-08-13, 01:39 PM

People here are overlooking one clear conspiracy concerning the 11 Sep 2001 attacks.

The attack happened on 11 Sep 2001, a Tuesday. A day not many of us will forget.

But the next year, the government decided to commemorate it on a Wednesday. Kinda got their day mixed up.

To compound the cover up, the government could not decide which day the attack occurred on. The cover-up commemorations continued for years after the attack

2003 Thursday
2004 Saturday. What happened to Friday? It's a smoking gun of conspiracy! How much of a "leap" of faith does the government expect from its citizens???
2005 Sunday
2006 Monday The just can't keep their story straight! The evidence is there!
2007 Tuesday They finally realized that their coverup failed and decided to commemorate the attack on the day it actually happened.
2008 Wednesday. Did the government really think we would not notice???
This has been continuing every year since the attack.

Only when confronted with the evidence of the coverup in 2012, did the government acknowledge that the attack occurred on the actual day Tuesday.

But yeah, in 2013, back to the old cover-up. The attack "happened" on a Wednesday. :stare::stare::stare:

We are on to the government's plan! In 2018, the will of the people shall expose this coverup. How much do you wanna bet that the government, in a feeble attempt to pacify the True Believers will suddenly commemorate the attack on a Tuesday.. AS WE ALL KNOW IT HAPPENED ON A TUESDAY!!

:arrgh!:

Dowly

09-08-13, 01:51 PM

Let's agree to disagree.

Fair enough.

But I do want to leave you with this quote from Ryan Mackey over at JREF forums:

So let me see if I've got it straight:

According to the Citzen Investigation Team, the Government or whomever wanted to fool the world into thinking American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon, along a certain heading that took it through several light poles and low over the freeway just prior to impact.

To do this, They executed the following:

They flew an aircraft over the Pentagon

The aircraft traveled along a different heading entirely, on the opposite side of a visible landmark (viz. the Citgo station)

The aircraft passed nowhere near the light poles in question

The light poles were sabotaged anyway, in some completely different fashion than aircraft impact

One light pole was staged to penetrate the windshield of a car, in traffic, again despite the actual aircraft not passing anywhere near overhead

A large amount of explosives was detonated as the aircraft passed by

The aircraft then flew away over the Pentagon, where it was allegedly sighted by at least one individual

The explosion or whatever demolition carried out at the Pentagon left a hole far too small to have been caused by AA 77

A readable flight data recorder (FDR) was planted (along with an insufficient amount of aircraft debris) that allegedly conflicts with both Their false story and the track of the actual aircraft

And, finally,

The aircraft in question was deliberately painted so as to not even resemble an American Airlines jetliner.

:03:

Catfish

09-08-13, 02:28 PM

^ of course. Operation Northwoods and Mongoose, anyone?

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

:03:

Mittelwaechter

09-08-13, 03:19 PM

Sorry Dowly, I have some good reason to let you not away with it.

Ryan Mackey is a clever guy.

At first I was baffled.

And then it took me ~ 30 minutes to explain the Pentagon attack.

Skilled pilots willing to commit suicide grow at every corner in the US. Not.
The approach exactly into the construction site was quite difficult I think.
Hard to have an auto pilot perform the action, in opposite to the WTC.

The aircraft left the planned flight path for some reason slightly to the north.
Still good enough to fly over the designated impact zone.
If you want to survive, you can't fly that low, you want to make it over the top of the roof.
But you have to proof you did fly low. Cut the light poles to do so.

England stated "it happend not on the bridge" several times iirc.
Lagrasse claimed to have seen the cab east of the bridge on the road. It was someones proof to doubt him and his claim of the NoC.
Now let England drive on the bridge. To enhance the impression of an airborne light pole hit by a plane, push one into the cab.
If someone states the cab to have been on the road approaching the bridge, it would support an airborne light pole hit the car while driving to the bridge.

A large amount of explosives was detonated as the aircraft passed by - just right after the liner crossed the border of the roof to be safe.
The aircraft then flew away over the Pentagon, where it was allegedly sighted by at least one individual. Confuse the witnesses with a second airplane around.

The explosion or whatever demolition carried out at the Pentagon left a hole far too small to have been caused by AA 77.
Easily to be observed. I would have positioned a truck or two loaded with some explosives at the impact zone to damage the veneer.
The inside of the Pentagon is fully under my control.

A readable flight data recorder (FDR) was planted (along with an insufficient amount of aircraft debris) that allegedly conflicts with both Their false story and the track of the actual aircraft.
It was fully under control of the evil ones. It had to read the light pole approach. Bad luck the liner took the NoC.

The aircraft in question was deliberately painted so as to not even resemble an American Airlines jetliner.
Sure. If you want to fly over the roof and some witness observes you climbing again, it would be funny to explain the just exploded silver painted version.

Just a second, the door bell rings...

mapuc

09-08-13, 03:43 PM

We all, in some way, believe a lot or, very little, or nothing, in all these conspiracy that is floating on the web.

Do I have some believe in all of these conspiracy??
No none of them. However there is one case, in which I somehow have very difficult to believe the official report.

I'm not an expert on ballistic and all that kind of things. I just have very hard to believe that Lee Harvey Oswald was all alone in killing JFK. That's all. This is the only thing I believe in this conspiracy.

Markus

Tchocky

09-08-13, 04:19 PM

^ of course. Operation Northwoods and Mongoose, anyone?

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

:03:

This isn't a judicial decision. You can't claim a massive secret plot just because there is forty year old precedence. You need evidence as opposed to supposition.

Mittelwaechter

09-09-13, 04:35 AM

A better version of my comment above.

Did an airliner hit the Pentagon? No!
The airliner flew over the roof of the Pentagon.

If you haven't seen the CIT videoclip - do it now to understand the following explanation of the Pentagon Attack.
(http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/ - National Security Alert, videoclip or at YT)

And visit http://arabesque911.blogspot.de/ - to experience the distraction, the mix of truth and lies, the discreditation of witnesses,
the overwhelming evidence to keep the real story covered.

Be critical and learn how the public is manipulated.

The 9/11 attack on the Pentagon - what happened and why.
(My answer to Ryan Mackey over at JREF forums)

Skilled pilots willing to commit suicide do not grow at every corner.
The approach exactly into the construction site at the Pentagon was quite difficult.
No way for an auto- or remote-pilot to perform the task, in opposite to the WTC.

The plane didn't hit the Pentagon, because it was not remote contolled or auto pilotet, but flown directly by some skilled pilot.

The aircraft left the planned flight path along the Navy Annex for some reason slightly to the north.
Still good enough to fly over the designated impact zone, but now passing CITGO at the north side.

The pilot wanted to survive, he couldn't fly too low, or he wouldn't made it over the top of the roof. Mr Turcios from CITGO correctly claims the jet was pivoting up.
But they had to proof he did fly low into the Pentagon.
So they cut the light poles to have hard evidence against all witnesses observing and claiming the jet to fly over the roof.
All experts would state it to be impossible, to hit the light poles and make it over the roof.

Mr England - the cab driver - stated "that's not where I was" several times, insisting on not standing on the bridge (when the explosion occurred).
(CIT - National Security Alert, videoclip ~1.04.00)
He seems to be part of the plot, but easily to be discredited.

Mr Lagrasse, Pentagon Police Officer, observing at CITGO - claimed to have seen the cab east of the bridge on the road. It was one of Arabesque's proof to doubt him and his claim of the northern flight path. Everybody 'knew' the cab was on the bridge.
(http://arabesque911.blogspot.de/2009/07/william-lagasse-these-poles-were-not.html)

The cab was there, waiting for the impact event. They wanted to imitate the cab was hit by a light pole, wich was kicked into the air by an airliner flying low. It is the strong evidence the airliner 'really' hit the light posts in the approach, as one of them obviously got kicked through the air. Any witnesses for an other flight path would have to face this. And it covers any problems with accidental witnesses of the cutting job. An already cut light pole could not have been kicked into the air by the approaching airliner.

But the actual airliner didn't follow the planned flight path and the prepared side plot "flying pole into cab" could have been a problem so close to the real flight path. Improvising, they ordered the cab and the "flying" light pole on the bridge and kept the side plot strictly along the southern CITGO route. They simply smashed the cab's windscreen, the hood stayed undamaged. This would explain Mr England's confusing statements.

A large amount of explosives was detonated as the aircraft passed by. Correct. Just right after the plane crossed the border of the roof to be safe.
The aircraft then flew away over the Pentagon, where it was allegedly sighted by at least one individual.
Confuse the witnesses with a second airplane around (the military prop plane) and they would have to claim three airplanes were actually at the Pentagon.
Two flying around and one crashed into the Pentagon. It would disqualify them to be reliable witnesses.

The explosion carried out at the Pentagon left a hole far too small to have been caused by AA 77.
This is easily to be observed, but people refuse to accept the obvious in this drama. The authorities claim the airliner fits into the damage. Period.
Some willing supporters provide graphics and animation to "explain" it. Hidden in plain sight.

One or two trucks loaded with some explosives (and maybe some airplane debris) parked at the impact zone to damage the veneer, causing the fireball and the small debris outside.
The inside of the Pentagon was fully under contol. Additional debris was available to be carried outside.
All Pentagon workers and the fire fighters had to leave the scene, due to a possible second incoming airliner. Time to fix what's necessary.

The hole outside fits to the hole at the inner ring - in direction of the planned flight path.
Two directly attached round explosives in the size of the fuselage and the nozzle, ignited well timed with the fireball cut the holes into the walls.
There was a problem with the resistance of the structure or the ignition of additional explosives. The outer wall was still standing and the engines and wings impact did not show on the veneer.
After 45 minutes the structure collapsed and buried all embarrassing evidence of missing damage.

All inside walls were prepared to fit the demand. It was a construction site. The documented furniture and undamaged computerscreen fit perfectly into the lack of an exploding airliner.
All internal damage was a matter of desire, all fire and smoke was orchestrated.

A readable flight data recorder (FDR) was planted, that allegedly conflicts with both the false story and the track of the actual aircraft.
It was fully under control of the persons resposible. It had to mirror the light pole approach south of CITGO and the prepared hole configuration.
Bad luck the airliner took the northern CITGO route, but it was compensated by authority and order.

The aircraft in question was deliberately painted so as to not even resemble an American Airlines jetliner.
Sure. If you want to fly over the roof and some witness observes you climbing again, it would be hard to explain the just exploded silver painted version.

It's all about plausible 'evidence' and discreditation of unwanted witnesses.

Briefed 'witnesses' support the plot. Real witnesses claiming the truth have to face "the evidence" and are discredited if necessary or ordered to keep silence.
Many witnesses "believe" they have seen the official process and support it. The brain tricks us sometimes, but we are not aware of it.
Some are simply self-exposers, happy to get some air-time. And there are briefed witnesses to confuse the public, to distract and to cover the unpredicted.

"We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."
http://arabesque911.blogspot.de/2007/08/were-empire-now-and-when-we-act-we.html

Dowly

09-09-13, 11:48 AM

You just went full troofer, never go full troofer... :nope:

That's all I have to say to that nonsense. Sorry.

PS. Arabesque actually doesn't support CIT's fly-over theory, quite the opposite.

AVGWarhawk

09-09-13, 12:07 PM

My office assisted in the clean up efforts. A plane certainly hit the Pentagon.

09-09-13, 12:13 PM

..... what a story.
Everthing was planted... are we talking about Pamela Anderson here?

mapuc

09-09-13, 12:16 PM

Can't we agree on that we do not agree on how we look at this 9-11 stuff

Markus

Sailor Steve

09-09-13, 12:17 PM

For the "official" story to be true, several things have to have happened that some people don't want to believe. That's fine. Some people question all the evidence. That's a good thing.

On the other hand, for the CT version to be true several hundred people have to have acted in concert, planting explosives and evidence, silencing witnesses, hiding the hundred or more passengers who were supposedly on the "real" flight, silencing certain witnesses...basically getting away with a huge deception and hoping that not one single person involved will come forth and admit the deception. This also raises question, that the Truthers are careful to avoid thinking about. Where is the real plane? More importantly, where are all the passengers?

Most important of all, the CT version relies on the concept that while these conspirators are very good at planting evidence and fooling all the sheep, they are also so incompetent, so bad at it that they couldn't even get parts from the right airliner, couldn't get all the witnesses to agree and couldn't get their stories straight.

So if they're so good at it why doesn't the evidence match up (or so the Truthers claim), and if they're so bad at it why isn't there absolute proof?

As for eyewitnesses giving different versions, here's a known real-life incident: On November 1, 1949, an Eastern Airlines DC-4 and a Lockheed P-38 fighter collided over Washington DC, Killing everyone on the airliner. As a boy I read about it in a book called The Probable Cause, an investigation into several airliner crashes, written by aviation expert Robert J. Serling. In the book Serling recounts the testimony given by several eyewitnesses on the ground. I don't have a copy of the book now, so I'm only going on memory, but the eyewitnesses apparently didn't see the same incident. The fighter hit the airliner. The airliner hit the fighter. The fighter shot the airliner down, then crashed. One witness even said the airliner did a full loop and then fell on the fighter.

The point is that "eyewitness testimony" doesn't always add up, and going by what different witnesses said doesn't really prove very much one way or the other. Just ask any detective with crime scene experience.

My other point is that while the Truthers accuse anyone who doesn't believe them of being sheep who only believe what they are told, they themselves only believe what they want to believe, and refuse to accept that sometimes things really are what they seem.

AVGWarhawk

09-09-13, 12:48 PM

Excellent point Steve. The bigger issue is where are the parts of the plane? Well, there were parts. Landing gears. Bits of engine. Questions on why there is no tail sectoin. The plane simply disintegrated.

Take a look at this clip. Where is the tail section after impact?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3Mz_zGJmgc

Planes are not designed to withstand hitting anything let alone a multi-walled standing structure.

u crank

09-09-13, 01:26 PM

On the other hand, for the CT version to be true several hundred people have to have acted in concert, planting explosives and evidence, silencing witnesses, hiding the hundred or more passengers who were supposedly on the "real" flight, silencing certain witnesses...basically getting away with a huge deception and hoping that not one single person involved will come forth and admit the deception. This also raises question, that the Truthers are careful to avoid thinking about. Where is the real plane? More importantly, where are all the passengers?

Most important of all, the CT version relies on the concept that while these conspirators are very good at planting evidence and fooling all the sheep, they are also so incompetent, so bad at it that they couldn't even get parts from the right airliner, couldn't get all the witnesses to agree and couldn't get their stories straight.

So if they're so good at it why doesn't the evidence match up (or so the Truthers claim), and if they're so bad at it why isn't there absolute proof?

There you go. You have the most likely, most probable and most doable explanation with witnesses vs the least likely, least probable and the most difficult to do explanation, also with witnesses. On top of that you have to explain why either possibility was undertaken. A known terrorist group attacking America again, or the U.S. Govt. faking an attack as an excuse to start 'the war on terror'. :hmmm:

eddie

09-09-13, 02:11 PM

Heck Steve, when it comes to eye witness accounts of a crime or a traffic accident, ask a cop how many different versions of what actually happened that they have to sort through!

Stealhead

09-09-13, 03:13 PM

Here is some better film footage of a real crash a B-52 that flew into the ground.As you can see very little was left and it hit the ground and at a much lower speed that than the aircraft flown during 9/11.

Guess what people when a large aircraft loaded down with fuel flies into a solid object it simply disintegrates into at most very small parts.

The claims of the tails being left behind are from aircraft that crashed upon landing or just after take off where the crew had attempted to make a control landing and where at a much more resolvable AOA and air speed than the 9/11 aircraft where or this B-52 was.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=182AepOJjMs

Same B-52 better view(at the end of the clip)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQa4PpIkOZU

And here is the recent 747 crash in Afghanistan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sUWC2jfjqI

Sorry CTers but when planes crash with great force they freaking disintegrate to claim other wise is to deny physics.

Dread Knot

09-09-13, 03:28 PM

For the "official" story to be true, several things have to have happened that some people don't want to believe. That's fine. Some people question all the evidence. That's a good thing.

On the other hand, for the CT version to be true several hundred people have to have acted in concert, planting explosives and evidence, silencing witnesses, hiding the hundred or more passengers who were supposedly on the "real" flight, silencing certain witnesses...basically getting away with a huge deception and hoping that not one single person involved will come forth and admit the deception. This also raises question, that the Truthers are careful to avoid thinking about. Where is the real plane? More importantly, where are all the passengers?

Most important of all, the CT version relies on the concept that while these conspirators are very good at planting evidence and fooling all the sheep, they are also so incompetent, so bad at it that they couldn't even get parts from the right airliner, couldn't get all the witnesses to agree and couldn't get their stories straight.

So if they're so good at it why doesn't the evidence match up (or so the Truthers claim), and if they're so bad at it why isn't there absolute proof?

I've noticed that conspiracy theorists seem to have an innate inability to employ or understand Occam's Razor. They never notice that the small inconsistencies in the accounts which they reject are dwarfed by the enormous, gaping holes in logic, likelihood and evidence in most of the alternative accounts.

Also, doesn't it seem odd that the government that could conjure the great illusion on Sept. 11, couldn't conjure up some WMDs in Saddam's Iraq at the end of the war to avoid getting political egg all over their face.

Sailor Steve

09-09-13, 03:48 PM

Also, doesn't it seem odd that the government that could conjure the great illusion on Sept. 11, couldn't conjure up some WMDs in Saddam's Iraq at the end of the war to avoid getting political egg all over their face.
:o :damn: :rotfl2:

All this time and I never even thought of that! Good point!

Jimbuna

09-09-13, 03:49 PM

http://www.nomad4ever.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/11/egg_on_the_face.jpg

Stealhead

09-09-13, 04:44 PM

http://www.nomad4ever.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/11/egg_on_the_face.jpg

The "troof" goggles.You just put them on and all is revealed.

You also find out that you have been raising someone else's kid for past 20 years.

Mittelwaechter

09-09-13, 05:43 PM

Let's be evil and plan the Pentagon attack. We are the government and want to make the public believe Al Qaeda attacked the building.

Autopilot or remote operator don't match the difficult area.
We have no suicide pilot to fly the Jetliner into the Pentagon.
We have to fake it. The pilot has to survive in our szenario.
How?
Let him fly low and let the people watch him, then distract the people while he disappears. (Good idea Mr Copperfield)
When they see the airliner heading at the Pentagon, they will expect it to crash into the building, because every station aires the WTC attacks.
Ask the pilot to come as close as possible to the construction site at the Pentagon. There our preparations will be unsuspect and we can restrict access.
Let him fly over the prepared impact point and distract the public with the expected explosion. They see the plane, the heading, they hear the radio, they see the explosion.
They will be shocked. They will believe.
Some stupid guys will doubt it. Witnesses will claim they saw the airliner over the roof or climbing in the sky.
Uh - let's order a second aircraft into the area. Everybody shall see it. Discredit the witness and ask him how there should have been three airplanes around the Pentagon.
Other witnesses will report our second airplane, the explanation for the stupid witnesses watching our pilot disappear.
But some may see him how he climbs to make it over the roof.
Uh - we need some hard evidence he didn't. Let's check the foto here. The trees? No. Better something more close to emphasize he couldn't make it over the roof.
The light poles here! See, incoming from here he could hit five light poles. Good idea. How does he hit them and makes it over the roof?
Uh - it doesnt work, but we could cut the poles with some internal device or explosive at the right time.
Well, they would simply fall, but there wouldn't be the impression they were hit by the airplane.
We could cut and damage them the night before the attack and place them. Maybe we can camouflage them and uncover just after the impact?
Nice. But what if someone watches it? Daylight, traffic?
Uh - we need some hard evidence they were ok before the approach. Evidence to discredit the witness.
Get a civillian, someone harmless and sympatic, some Joe and let him proof the light poles were intact.
How?
Let's fake the airliner hits the lightpoles and one of them hits the car of that guy. How should that be possible without the airliner hitting the pole?
What? How should that work?
Let the guy wait on the road, some problem with the car. Here - 60 yards from the bridge with the light poles.
With the explosion everybody distracted smash the windshield or if too much traffic, wait until we have closed the road.
Put the prepared pole close to his car and let him tell, someone unknown helped him to get the pole out of the car.
We can search for this unknown with the media, if it is necessary to proof it happend like stated by our guy.
We can search publicly for the evidence and a trustable Mr X will show up and tell the story of the poor guy with the pole in his car.
No witness will stand against this.
We have hard evidence the airliner hit the poles now and we can discredit any witness with evidence for our story.
The flight path of our pilot has to match the light posts. So he has to come down south of the Navy Annex.
Should be no problem I guesss.
Well - the impact point and the building damage must support this flight path to keep up the imagination.
Let's talk about this now...

Again, I can't proof anything over the internet. I have no access to any government data or physical parts of debris, witnesses or enclosed material etc.
I have only available what is in public domain on the net. I can't do anything but seach for inconsistencys or alternative interpretations of the official reports.

I have no influence on American politicians, but I can try to make you doubt the 9/11 reports and question your Senators and Congress Members as other officials to engage in finding the truth.
They have tons of material enclosed - it's all out there, but they are not motivated to act.

If you are comfortable with the actual situation, if you know everything is ok, you should stay out of any discussion, any engagement. Relax and be happy. Its not your business.
If you start to doubt, do it. But do it consequently and change your attitude. If there is any doubt ask questions. If you find satisfying answers - disengage, switch back to comfortable and stay out.
If you find no good answers - act accordingly. Discuss ideas and theories with like minded, supportive people. Those won't discourage and mock you.

I gave you a pretty good explanation for the Pentagon attack, assuming it was not the arabian prince steering AA77.
All important factors are logically connected and line up. Details may be different, no trucks but containers, the internal situation at the construction site etc.
This is the best you will get over the internet.

Now you jump at me and ask me to explain all the connected strings to this. What do you smoke?
I do this for a few days and the missus is giving me the bad eye already. If you think it is justified to search for answers, I expect you to act like descibed above.

You 'know' (=believe) or you want to be delivered (= change believe) with the complete true story of 9/11. I doubt the official story and have to split it down into pieces, to work on them.
I'm a one man show.
I fully understand, my partial success counts nothing to you. But do you beam yourself into your car park or do you go there step by step?

My general approach to 9/11 is to doubt, more than 90% of my fellow citizens do so.
Maybe I will work further on this topic, but not with you bloodhounds on my neck. ;)

But before you can't sleep tonight, some thoughts about AA77

The situation justified to order all airborne aircraft to land and all starts to cancel.
AA77 may have been in the air or not. If grounded it could be at the airport of planned departure.
Or it was somewhere else parked and waiting.
If it was airborne it was ordered to land somewhere.
I guess there was chaos at the airports. Good conditions to veil the truth.

Military airbases are available, with big hangars. Authority and orders may have hidden or hide AA77.
I would prefer the military version, to keep the conrol over the situation.
Papers and data were more easily to fake and even the passengers could be ordered to stay quiet.
Security reasons you know...
No military personnel would be astonished to see a commercial landing at their base.

The passengers may have been confused not to be on AA77 at their departure and would do as ordered.
It would help at a civillian air port either. I can't proof it, but it is a possible version.

Tchocky

09-09-13, 05:47 PM

Ah....Jesus....what?

Tribesman

09-09-13, 05:58 PM

You just went full troofer, never go full troofer... :nope:

I think you spoke too early.

u crank

09-09-13, 06:09 PM

Let's be evil and plan the Pentagon attack. We are the government and want to make the public believe Al Qaeda attacked the building.

Why?

I doubt the official story

Why?

eddie

09-09-13, 07:40 PM

He's just playing head games now, and you're falling for it! Move on, nothing to see here!:88)

Sailor Steve

09-09-13, 08:03 PM

Ooh! More games! Okay, I'll play.

Again, I can't proof anything over the internet. I have no access to any government data or physical parts of debris, witnesses or enclosed material etc.
But you don't want to prove it anyway. You're just asking questions.

I have only available what is in public domain on the net. I can't do anything but seach for inconsistencys or alternative interpretations of the official reports.
So you admit that you want to find alternate interpretations. You're actually looking for something and trying to prove it was all faked.

I have no influence on American politicians, but I can try to make you doubt the 9/11 reports and question your Senators and Congress Members as other officials to engage in finding the truth.
They have tons of material enclosed - it's all out there, but they are not motivated to act.
Again you admit that you not only doubt the official version, you are totally convinced it's false. Your whole purpose is to prove that it's false.

[quoet]If you are comfortable with the actual situation, if you know everything is ok, you should stay out of any discussion, any engagement. Relax and be happy. Its not your business.[/quote]
So if I can show holes in your version, I should shut up and let you have your way.

If you start to doubt, do it. But do it consequently and change your attitude. If there is any doubt ask questions. If you find satisfying answers - disengage, switch back to comfortable and stay out.
If you find no good answers - act accordingly. Discuss ideas and theories with like minded, supportive people. Those won't discourage and mock you.
But you haven't done that. You've spent page after page trying to prove that those who look at the evidence and conclude the Truthers are crazy are wrong, and there was indeed a huge government conspiracy. You won't even address our questions, such as why would they do it in the first place? You completely ignore everything I say and go right back you your own cozy comfort zone, which is that there has to be a conspiracy, and you need to prove it to us.

I gave you a pretty good explanation for the Pentagon attack, assuming it was not the arabian prince steering AA77.
Not really. You pulled together a bunch of things that would have to have happened for your version to work. There are so many tricks and dodges that would have to be forced to fit that it really is much easier to believe that crazies did this.

All important factors are logically connected and line up. Details may be different, no trucks but containers, the internal situation at the construction site etc.
Not really. The "connections" have to be forced to fit into your scenario with tire irons and crowbars, and make much less sense than the "official" version. It's only logical if you already believe it, which despite your claims you seem to do just that.

Now you jump at me and ask me to explain all the connected strings to this. What do you smoke?
Not really. No one has asked you to explain anything. We've looked at your strings and pointed out that they don't add up. They don't make any sense. And then you turn to insults again. "What do you smoke?" When your arguments fail, accuse the other guy of being on drugs.

I do this for a few days and the missus is giving me the bad eye already. If you think it is justified to search for answers, I expect you to act like descibed above.
I think that if you were only looking for answers you wouldn't be having this problem. You've already decided the "official" version is wrong, and you are desperate to prove it.

You 'know' (=believe) or you want to be delivered (= change believe) with the complete true story of 9/11. I doubt the official story and have to split it down into pieces, to work on them.
Doubting it is fine. The problem is that you're working overtime to convince us of you doubt. That's also fine, but when one of us gives a simple explanation for something you insist that it can't be true and we must be "smoking" something, or just willingly blind. That's not being a doubter or a questioner. That's being a Truther.

I fully understand, my partial success counts nothing to you. But do you beam yourself into your car park or do you go there step by step?
What success would that be? You've swallowed the Truther claims hook, line and sinker, and keep trying to convince others that you're right. So far you've failed miserably.

My general approach to 9/11 is to doubt, more than 90% of my fellow citizens do so.
Cool. Contrary to your claim, I doubt everything. I've looked at the claims of both sides, and not one of the Truther claims hasn't been shown to be stretching the facts to be made to work.

Maybe I will work further on this topic, but not with you bloodhounds on my neck. ;)
"Bloodhounds?" People doubt your claims and show where they are screwy, and that makes them bloodhounds? What are we supposed to do if we see holes in your claims? Just sit and ignore them?

AA77 may have been in the air or not. If grounded it could be at the airport of planned departure.
Or it was somewhere else parked and waiting.
If it was airborne it was ordered to land somewhere.
I guess there was chaos at the airports. Good conditions to veil the truth.
Or it was busy being taken over by religious fanatics. You ignore that possibility because it doesn't fit your theories.

Military airbases are available, with big hangars. Authority and orders may have hidden or hide AA77.
I would prefer the military version, to keep the conrol over the situation.
Papers and data were more easily to fake and even the passengers could be ordered to stay quiet.
"Ordered?" This is America. An authority "ordering" someone to stay quiet is an invitation for them to start talking to anyone who will listen. Do you know how much fame and money could be made by exposing this plot? They aren't all going to stay quiet. It just ain't gonna happen.

Security reasons you know...
No military personnel would be astonished to see a commercial landing at their base.
Very true. Some of them might start to wonder when the plane is put into a hangar and the passengers disappear, though. Civilian planes that land at military bases do so because the military has chartered them to carry military personel somewhere. They aren't hangared.

The passengers may have been confused not to be on AA77 at their departure and would do as ordered.
It would help at a civillian air port either. I can't proof it, but it is a possible version.
And where are all those passengers now?

The biggest flaw in all you ideas is the simple fact that you are speculating and casting a wide net. "It could have happened this way." "They could have been ordered to be quiet." "Witnesses could be faked." "Light poles could be faked." "Explosions could be faked."

Do you start to see it yet. Everything you say is "maybe" this and "could be" that. You absolutely refuse to believe the possibility that the story you deny might be true. It can't be true. The planes can't have been hijacked and flown into buildings. it has to be something else. The government has to be behind it.

Do you see why people like me tend to believe the evidence of our eyes first? The "official version", as you call it, is easier to believe because it makes sense. The evidence found at the scenes does indeed add up. The Truther version requires so many plots, so many lies and so many people to all keep quiet that it doesn't add up.

I also notice that with all your name-calling you haven't addressed any of our own questions. How could a government so efficient as to pull this off also be so stupid as to make all the mistakes the Truthers are able to point out? How could a government so smart as to make this happen just to get us into a war be unable to "find" a few WMDs and "prove" they were right? As someone said earlier, your version has a whole lot more holes in it that the one you claim to doubt.

You're claiming all these things. You really do need to prove them.

Sailor Steve

09-09-13, 08:04 PM

He's just playing head games now, and you're falling for it! Move on, nothing to see here!:88)
Possibly, but this is entertainment for some of us.

09-10-13, 01:33 AM

This whole conspiracy looks worse than a low budget porn movie.

Dowly

09-10-13, 03:22 AM

@Mittelwaechter

What about the bodies and body parts recovered from Pentagon?
You do know that a body, still sitting on a airliner seat was found, right?
Why go through the trouble of doing that, when they could have just said:
"We took samples from the little we could find and DNA confirms the passengers of AA77 died at Pentagon."

Also, if the plane did fly over Pentagon, why no one saw it? We are talking about
a big city here, yet no one saw it??

Jimbuna

09-10-13, 04:31 AM

He's just playing head games now, and you're falling for it! Move on, nothing to see here!:88)

Possibly, but this is entertainment for some of us.

Savage amusement more like :doh:

I've just wasted ten minutes of my life catching up on the overnight posts.

Madox58

09-10-13, 05:37 AM

I've just wasted ten minutes of my life catching up on the overnight posts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8LOPpBZ904

Mittelwaechter

09-10-13, 07:20 AM

@Dowly

As I said, it is about having something to show for those witnesses claiming the plane didn't hit the Pentagon.
Bodies and bodyparts are available on a daily basis.
Organizing debris in the construction area, use some seat and strap a body in. Did they identify any parts to be AA77 at all?
(a FDR was presented a few years later, to counter the US pilots doubts of the flight manouvers)

It is more convincing to have some visible "evidence" there was DNA to find.
They "identified" the highjackers not with positive DNA, but with exclusion.
They didn't cross check this unidentified DNA with probes from rented cars or hotel rooms of the Arabians. (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/21/us/21hijackers.html?_r=0)

The Reagan Airport is quite close to the Pentagon. Airborne, climbing jetliners are usual in the general area.
Those who saw something suspect have to argue there were three aircraft over the Pentagon. Two flying and one crashed.
Everybody 'knows' the same day AA77 has crashed into the building. If you saw some climbing jetliner you doubt yourself.
Better not make a fool out of you.
This Pentagon Police Officer at the southern dock claimed a commercial jetliner flying away. He is allegedly ordered to not talk about it any longer.

________

I just read an actual 9/11 article . The Arabian pilot wasn't on the first passenger list of AA77. They put him later on, to have a pilot with flying license aboard.
They say he came aboard without check in. (http://edition.cnn.com/2001/US/09/13/investigation.terrorism/index.html)
Otherwise it would have been even more doubtful to claim, an absolute amateur did this perfect high speed landing at exactly the impact point.
The FBI claims, evidence supporting the official story of 9/11 seemed to have been placed.

Why do I doubt? I told already I see too many coincidences in favour for the government and I stongly doubt these 19 amateurs were able to run such a complex attack.
Al Qaeda attacks an embassy or manages some C4 into the USS Cole. They bomb a subway or highjack a plane to free a blind sheik.
(What might have been the intention with the Shanksville airliner. If the government new Al Qaeda was planning this highjacking long enough before, they could have used it to orchestrate 'their own Al Qaeda' attack. This would explain Osama's denial to be responsible for 9/11 (http://web.archive.org/web/20090421105709/http://muckrakerreport.com/id267.html))
Do you remember my statement for possible two (or even three) Al Qaedas in Syria?

Why should they do it? They want to have the public opinion back the following intentions:
- attack Iraq (save the Petro-Dollar), worked
- enforce oil contracts in the Middle East (they have something we want to have - possible oil peak! - let's make them enemies and take what we want), didn't work as expected
- justify the military to hunt down Osama in a large scale in Afghanistan (billions of taxmoney for the military + contracors, + for the MIC), worked
(there may be more behind - http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf)
- hinder the Saudi Arabians to end the cooperation with the USA (pretty unknown to most, SA stated the USA to fully support only Israel. Again Petro-Dollar! SA immediately canceled these plans with 9/11)
- forget the already missing billions (destroy placed evidence in WT7), worked
- control communication and internet, justify surveillance (keep control over any 'resistance' to be expected, challenging the actual true regency + spy efficiently other nations and their economy for US profit) worked
- attack the Euro to disqualify a new/second global currency (Moody's, Finch and Standard & Poor's ratings), worked (I don't know if the American public is aware of this = save the Petro-Dollar),
- stay the dominant superpower, despite of severe internal problems (more money for the military), works (we'll see for how long)

There may be more I'm not aware right now.

What happened to the passengers of AA77? Good question.
Assuming they landed at my preferred military base ,they are at home today, but stay quiet.
They were made to think they are not the passengers of AA77.

Assuming this, the passenger list of the faked AA77 has to be a fake.
My problem with this is - how do these faked passengers have relatives staying behind?

Someone?

Will have to think on this.

Tchocky

09-10-13, 07:21 AM

:woot:

Dread Knot

09-10-13, 07:54 AM

@Dowly

What happened to the passengers of AA77? Good question.
Assuming they landed at my preferred military base ,they are at home today, but stay quiet.
They were made to think they are not the passengers of AA77.

Assuming this, the passenger list of the faked AA77 has to be a fake.
My problem with this is - how do these faked passengers have relatives staying behind?

Someone?

Will have to think on this.

Yes, that part needs a lot thinking. Seriously, is this the best you can do to account for the missing passengers? They're just sitting at home or are back at their jobs? Their kids are enrolled in school, and their relatives say nothing and their neighbors say nothing. The pilots and crew are back flying other planes and no news or media organizations notice? A government with such awesome power to silence hundreds of living people (or simulate them) would never need to stage an event like 911 in the first place to get what it wants.

It also doesn't make any sense to me why the government would stage 9/11 in order to go to war in Iraq. The administration made several allegations about Iraq's possession and capacity to use WMDs as a reason for attacking them, even though it meant lessening our military presence in Afghanistan, where Bin Liden was supposed to be. If the government had perpetrated 9/11 in order to go to war in Iraq, why didn't they just frame Saddam Hussein in the first place? Why waste time, money, and military personnel by framing Bin Laden, having to get into a messy conflict in Afghanistan, and then be forced to exaggerate Iraq's threat potential? If they controlled the event and the narrative why not fill the planes with Iraqi hijackers instead of muddying the waters with Saudi ones?

Someone?

It's your burden of proof. We don't have to throw you a lifeline while you flail about to fill the gaping holes in your theory.

Dowly

09-10-13, 08:38 AM

@Dowly

As I said, it is about having something to show for those witnesses claiming the plane didn't hit the Pentagon.
Bodies and bodyparts are available on a daily basis.
Organizing debris in the construction area, use some seat and strap a body in.
The photo of the body was released after Zacarias Moussaoui's trial in 2006.
Why wait that long if their aim was to convince people?

Did they identify any parts to be AA77 at all?
(a FDR was presented a few years later, to counter the US pilots doubts of the flight manouvers)

Identified by means of comparing serial numbers and such? I don't know,
haven't seen anything on the internet. (note: that doesn't meant it wasn't identified,
we don't know)

That question is irrelevant anyways, there is plenty of data to point towards AA77
being what struck the Pentagon.

The Reagan Airport is quite close to the Pentagon. Airborne, climbing jetliners are usual in the general area.
Expect on 9/11, it would have been highly unusual, because FAA had,
almost 45 minutes prior banned all takeoffs in the New York, Boston,
Cleveland and Washington area.

Those who saw something suspect have to argue there were three aircraft over the Pentagon. Two flying and one crashed.
Everybody 'knows' the same day AA77 has crashed into the building. If you saw some climbing jetliner you doubt yourself.
Better not make a fool out of you.
This Pentagon Police Officer at the southern dock claimed a commercial jetliner flying away. He is allegedly ordered to not talk about it any longer.

I remember some eyewitnesses saying they saw a plane flying after the crash,
but that would have been the C-130, which was tasked to follow AA77 and
report back on what it (AA77) was doing.

The Pentagon PO you are talking about is Roberts Roosevelt, I believe and yes
you are right, he does mention a second plane he describes as a commercial jet.
What about the rest of 100+ eyewitnesses?

I'll leave it at that for now.

mapuc

09-10-13, 08:42 AM

Here's a hypothetically question that I want you think about and not just give a quick answer

Before I continue I must once again give my point of view on the 9/11 conspiracies -I do not believe in them-

Here's the question

Try to imagine what would happen, political, communities etc IF it turned out that the attack on WTC, Pentagon and the failed attack on the White House*
was a inside job.

Me and some friend had this discussion once. We came to this conclusion that it will result in a deep political crisis and the people of the states will be in a deep chock

Do remember it is only a hypothetically question

Markus

* I believe that the plane that crashed in the middle of nowhere was on it's way to hit the White House.

Sailor Steve

09-10-13, 09:29 AM

What happened to the passengers of AA77? Good question.
Assuming they landed at my preferred military base ,they are at home today, but stay quiet.
All 184 of them have never said a word in twelve years? I know that I, and many like me, would certainly have said something. Are they all afraid of government reprisals? Are all of them part of the conspiracy? Do you see how your version raises more questions than it answers?

They were made to think they are not the passengers of AA77.
Who did they think they were then?

Assuming this, the passenger list of the faked AA77 has to be a fake.
Only because you are assuming something first, then looking for an answer. If the airliner hit the Pentagon, then nothing has to be assumed.

Here's a guy who says he believes the airliner hit the Pentagon but there is a huge government conspiracy to convince us that it was a missile. I think he's joking, but you never know. The good thing about his site is that he shows pictures of the debris I don't recall seeing, including a wheel that is unquestionably from a B-757. At the end he includes a list of how many eyewitnesses claimed to see each different version of the crash. He includes a link to all the testimony. His other pages are of interest as well.
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/ppfinal.html

Mittelwaechter

09-10-13, 10:22 AM

There was and is no hard evidence at all, Osama to be the guy behind 9/11 - especially the WTC and Pentagon attacks.
Hussein wanted to end the Petro-Dollar. They had to attack Iraq, as an example for all the others what happens, if they would try to do alike.

No WMDs in Iraq?
Well, there's a huge difference in faking at home with authority or faking in a foreign country, different language and totally opposing potential witnesses for your intentions.
Blix was searching at the relavant places and didn't find anything. Now you want to prove some chemo-bio-research facility has been working on chemical or bio-weapons for years. You have to provide evidence for this. It's not enough to place some blue vials there or some truck with chemical warheads and claim "I found it!"

The setup must be more complicated, more complex and hard to uncover.

The US knew Hussein had chemical weapons. They supported him to use them against Iran. They accepted the use against the Kurdes. They were sure Hussein must have some left, but didn't find some.

The US is able to determine the chemical weapons in Syria were fired from Assads territory into rebel territory. Via satellite!
I guess the Russians had a few spy satellites over Iraq these days...

It's your burden of proof. We don't have to throw you a lifeline while you flail about to fill the gaping holes in your theory.

You didn't get the joke. I hope it is not all of you.

Even with a smiley some have problems to realize some fun and feel insulted. Sorry for that.

@Dowly

The people are convinced. They waited with the photo, because it was not necessary to show it before. They still keep tons of evidence enclosed. Why?
Just because they have material to chose from, matching exactly the question in being, or usable to alter accordingly.
And because any public material is also a danger to be uncovered.

A positive ID of AA77 would be usual. All crashed airliners are tried to be reconstructed after the crash. It's a duty. You may know these pictures, showing some hangar, where all remaining debris is put at its correct position. But they didn't do it with AA77. They say there was some debris and the seat - but all other parts have "disintegrated".

The ban for take off seems to support you, but did a witness know this ban and was this person ready to claim three aircraft being around?
If this witness knew of the ban, it would have been even more confusing to claim a climbing jetliner.

The C-130 is exactly there for covering the airliner flying over the Pentagon. It is the explanation for any witnesses who dare to question the official story.
The C-130 was visible for all people at the Pentagon and on TV. They were pretty sure, any witness claiming a climbing jetliner, would have seen this prop plane instead, simply deluding himself.

This is a very important part of the whole fake. Confusing the witnesses and providing the solution for all who insist on what they saw.

Roberts Roosevelt simply told what he saw. He didn't care for any number of planes or the following discreditation.
Some simply stand for what they see or what they believe to see. No matter if someone - or the majority - judges them wrong or right.
They rely on their senses and face the opposition. A question of character.

_____

184 passengers of "AA77" - believing they fly with AA136 - land on 9/11 at a military airbase. They understand it was necessary, becaue of the events of that day.
A serious US Air Force Commander tells them, they have to stay quiet about this, because they have seen the secret new F22 in front of that hangar over there.
They shall not speak about where they landed, they shall not expose themselves to any spies interested in the F22.
These passengers of "AA77"/AA136 survived, they are at home. They believe to be AA136 and shall stay quiet about their landing at the military airbase. No need to speak up.

But who was listed on the "AA77" that departed Washington, took a re-route of 400 miles, switched off the transponder exactly in a secret radar gap, came back to hit the Pentagon, with extremely high speed, declimbing fast and forcing the plane to pull up at ground level, to ram five light poles, touching down exactly into the construction site?
And why didn't the pilot simply head straight from above into the Pentagon? He made an aggressive declimb to get the light poles first, because he didn't like the USA?

Assuming it was a fake, the question is: how do you convince relatives, they have lost family in the Pentagon attack?
(It is not a question I'm asking you. It is a question I'm asking myself. I don't consider you to be supportive) ;)

Will check your link, Steve.

AVGWarhawk

09-10-13, 11:15 AM

It was a guy on a grassy knoll. That is all we know.

Mittelwaechter

09-10-13, 11:39 AM

@ Steve

Listen to Mark Petitt - eyewitness - again (4th of the first four video clips - oops - No.2 is no clip)
"I knew it's gonna hit. I mean, I've heard already about the WTC. And the next thing I/you know was just this huge explosion."
Exactly what I was talking about when explaining how the magic works.
Seeing the liner - expecting what will happen - seeing the proof of the expectation in a large fireball.
Note, he didn't claim to see an impact. That's psychology at its best. He didn't see the impact, but an explosion.
A magician will tell you, this human nature is a perfect base for magic tricks.

And the "3rd" clip shows an Airbus flying low. But not low enough to cut the light poles at the Pentagon.
Check the people watching and imagine a light pole size. I think the wings would not touch them.
Do you think this is an experienced - or even stunt - pilot in the Airbus?
Do you believe Hanjour could do this? After a fast declimb at high speed?
Over the bridge, through the light poles into the Pentagon? Even lower than this Airbus?

Have a look at the cab. The windscreen is smashed, but the hood is completely shiny.
A ? kilo metal pole lying in the car would leave a dent in the hood close to the windscreen.
And two people took the heavy pole out of the car, without scratching the hood? Do you really believe this?

I guess it happend like I told above. They simply smashed the windshield and told a nice story.
The unknown silent helper could even be a fantastic emotional witness. Searched over the media.
(Mr England - the cab driver: "he was so silent, didn't say a word.")
An inapparent person could state in sign language what happened. Who would dare to doubt him?

I allways loved the F-4 Phantom video. Did someone ever see a documentary showing what remained after the impact, when the dust has settled?

The table at the end states witnesses seeing an airplane. Well - there was an airplane. It just didn't hit the Pentagon.
It went to "full throttle" only the last seconds at least 12 persons say. Pivot up and full throttle would take it over the roof, wouldn't it?
Two witnesses from CIT claimed it was pulling up, going full throttle.

Sadly the link with individual quotes is down.

Sailor Steve

09-10-13, 11:43 AM

There was and is no hard evidence at all, Osama to be the guy behind 9/11 - especially the WTC and Pentagon attacks.
That may be true. Many wars have been started on faulty evidence. There is plenty of evidence that the hijackers were Muslim extremists and since Bin Laden was one of their main leaders the conclusion, while possibly wrong, was still logical. That there is no hard evidence that Bin Laden was behind it is not therefore evidence that the US government was.

Hussein wanted to end the Petro-Dollar. They had to attack Iraq, as an example for all the others what happens, if they would try to do alike.
I agree with the belief that attacking Iraq was the wrong thing to do and was done for the wrong reasons. That doesn't lead to the conclusion that the US government did it. Not even a little bit.

No WMDs in Iraq?
Well, there's a huge difference in faking at home with authority or faking in a foreign country, different language and totally opposing potential witnesses for your intentions.
It would be simple. The CIA just takes in a couple of weapons and puts them in a bunker somewhere. Quite easy, actually. The funny part is that you want to believe in huge, and I mean massive, deceptions by thousands of people, but won't allow that a small handful could plant a few WMDs. It sounds like your mind is already made up, and always has been.

Blix was searching at the relavant places and didn't find anything. Now you want to prove some chemo-bio-research facility has been working on chemical or bio-weapons for years. You have to provide evidence for this. It's not enough to place some blue vials there or some truck with chemical warheads and claim "I found it!"
Sure it is. You already argue that we'll believe whatever we're told. Now you want to change that because it doesn't fit your personal agenda?

The US knew Hussein had chemical weapons. They supported him to use them against Iran. They accepted the use against the Kurdes. They were sure Hussein must have some left, but didn't find some.
So Bush didn't lie about the WMDs? I agree.

You didn't get the joke. I hope it is not all of you.

Even with a smiley some have problems to realize some fun and feel insulted. Sorry for that.
You used a "winking" smiley. That one is usually used to indicate that you are saying something the other person can learn from, not to emphasize a joke.

A positive ID of AA77 would be usual. All crashed airliners are tried to be reconstructed after the crash. It's a duty. You may know these pictures, showing some hangar, where all remaining debris is put at its correct position. But they didn't do it with AA77. They say there was some debris and the seat - but all other parts have "disintegrated".
When an aircraft crashes into the ground there are usually major pieces left. When an aircraft crashes head-on into a wall it does indeed tend to disintigrate. Didn't you watch the video of the Phantom hitting the wall? Were are the pieces to assemble of that plane? There were none. Same thing here.

The ban for take off seems to support you, but did a witness know this ban and was this person ready to claim three aircraft being around?
If this witness knew of the ban, it would have been even more confusing to claim a climbing jetliner.
Here is a complete list of all the eyewitness accounts, plus a transcript of the Air Traffic Control conversation. Where are the "three planes", and where is the "climbing airliner"?
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/911_pentagon_eyewitnesses.html

The C-130 is exactly there for covering the airliner flying over the Pentagon. It is the explanation for any witnesses who dare to question the official story.
Or it was tracking the hijacked jetliner, as stated. Read the transcript provided in the above link. "Gofer06" is the C-130.

The C-130 was visible for all people at the Pentagon and on TV. They were pretty sure, any witness claiming a climbing jetliner, would have seen this prop plane instead, simply deluding himself.
It has already been proven that eyewitnesses often are mistaken about what they think they saw. You used that argument yourself.

This is a very important part of the whole fake. Confusing the witnesses and providing the solution for all who insist on what they saw.
You have claimed several times that you are not a Truther, just asking questions, yet you continually insist that it was faked and do nothing but try to prove it. When are you going to admit that you are convinced it was faked and your purpose here is to prove it.

Roberts Roosevelt simply told what he saw. He didn't care for any number of planes or the following discreditation.
Some simply stand for what they see or what they believe to see. No matter if someone - or the majority - judges them wrong or right.
They rely on their senses and face the opposition. A question of character.
Again you use the tactic of personal attack. If they don't agree with you, they must lack character. The majority you keep bringing up agree with the official version. They must be sheep who believe what they are told.

184 passengers of "AA77" - believing they fly with AA136 - land on 9/11 at a military airbase. They understand it was necessary, becaue of the events of that day.
That was twelve years ago. After that the whole Truther movement came out. Not one of them also doubts and is willing to tell his story?

A serious US Air Force Commander tells them, they have to stay quiet about this, because they have seen the secret new F22 in front of that hangar over there.
They shall not speak about where they landed, they shall not expose themselves to any spies interested in the F22.
The F-22 has been common knowledge for many years since. You can buy models of it. You can look up all the details. It's no longer secret. Not one of them, given what's going on now, would mention it?

These passengers of "AA77"/AA136 survived, they are at home. They believe to be AA136 and shall stay quiet about their landing at the military airbase. No need to speak up.
If they are at home then they are living their lives. They have credit cards. They own houses. They own cars. It should be easy for the Truthers to find at least some of them, which would prove beyond doubt that they are right. Yet not one has turned up.

But who was listed on the "AA77" that departed Washington, took a re-route of 400 miles, switched off the transponder exactly in a secret radar gap, came back to hit the Pentagon, with extremely high speed, declimbing fast and forcing the plane to pull up at ground level, to ram five light poles, touching down exactly into the construction site?
And why didn't the pilot simply head straight from above into the Pentagon? He made an aggressive declimb to get the light poles first, because he didn't like the USA?
Your last two questions are the answer to your first. He didn't dive onto the Pentagon because it would have been too easy to miss. He didn't dive steeply at all. He came in at a shallow angle, almost flat, because that gave him the biggest target. If he was too high he would still have a good chance of hitting the building somewhere. If he was too low there would be a good chance of skidding into the building. He clipped the light poles because in his shallow trajectory they were in his way. He couldn't avoid them and still hit his target.

Assuming it was a fake, the question is: how do you convince relatives, they have lost family in the Pentagon attack?
(It is not a question I'm asking you. It is a question I'm asking myself. I don't consider you to be supportive) ;)
That is the question I've been asking you. As for not being supportive, how can you support someone who has repeated called you a sheep and a believer who doesn't think for himself? And there's that wink smiley again. Maybe you're joking this time too, but it doesn't look like it.

Mittelwaechter

09-10-13, 01:33 PM

Steve - not sure how to say this. I think you don't want to understand.

A. I doubt the official story! I stated more than once. You ask me why and what "Proof" I have for my doubts. I have no material to proof anything but the available information on the internet. If I doubt the official story, I have to provide an alternative story to prove may doubt is justified. More I can not do.

B. The F22 is just an example - please try to get my intention.
Do I really have to search for a possible secret fighter in 2001, to motivate the passengers to stay quiet. It isn't even necessary to tell them to stay quiet at all, I guess.
They don't have a reason to speak up, thinking they are AA136.

C. Bombing (logical) suspects is wrong. Attacking them with drones either. You may be used to it, but it is wrong. The good ones bring suspects to justice. So they get a chance to defend themselves. Bombing suspects is plain terror. The US does what it proclaims to fight. Again - bombing the Afghan mountains to hit the suspected Osama was wrong.

D. Some would have believed your "CIA Bunker WMD" story. Maybe the US public. Maybe the GB public. But you can't fool the hole world constantly.

E. Bush lied about the WMDs, because they didn't know anything. They simply wanted to attack. Scuds over Europe, 'Nucular' bomb material from Africa...
They really knew he had some in the 80's, and they where "sure" he had some left. My fault not to use the quotation marks.Sorry.

F. This ;) is a sign of shared hidden knowledge. It means to smirk, to wink, to blink, to twinkle. It's not an emoticon for "learn from me". Sorry.

G. Your link: first clip: what type of plane is that? ;) <= we now both, it is not a 757! We share this knowledge, right?

9:38:53 - GOFER06: And uh, this is GOFER zero six, it looks like that aircraft crashed into the Pentagon, sir.

It looks like! It looks like! It looks like!
The attack looked like an airliner crashed into the Pentagon. Indeed.

GOPHER06 was ordered to follow the traffic. He did as ordered

9:38:26 - GOFER06: [?] ... aircraft is down, he's in our [a?] twelve o'clock position, looks like it's just a, uh, north, west of the airfield at this time sir.

and saw the big fireball covering our escaping stunt pilot.

Where is the following conversation? What did GOPHER06 radio further on?
Do you have a link?

H. There is absolutely no personal attack. But I understand your intention.
I'm talking about Roberts Roosevelt. Neither about you nor me nor anyone else.

I. Again. If you don't think you are involved as passenger of AA77, because you think you are a passenger of AA136, you don't have a reason to speak up. Or would you expect the other thousands of passengers forced to land somewhere on 9/11 to speak up? Why should they? They live their lives, grow kids, use credit cards.

A faked passenger list of AA77 would not list their names.

J. You think he tried the low approach, because the surface to hit would be larger?
It would be more likely to touchdown, hit the bridge or the CITGO and miss completely, coming in low.
From above you have the largest surface to hit. It is not as critical as coming in low.
Simply head downwards and crash through the roof. 20°, 30°, 40° down - full speed - bang!

But this way you would have to down an airliner into the Pentagon.

AVGWarhawk

09-10-13, 02:04 PM

Sometimes one just needs to know when to say when. :up:

Dowly

09-10-13, 02:28 PM

G. Your link: first clip: what type of plane is that? <= we now both, it is not a 757!

It's a E-4B. It was taking part in the Global Guardian exercise at the time.

Where is the following conversation? What did GOPHER06 radio further on?
Do you have a link?

http://www.rutgerslawreview.com/2011/full-audio-transcript/

Search for Gofer 06.

Sailor Steve

09-10-13, 02:56 PM

Steve - not sure how to say this. I think you don't want to understand.
And I think it's you who don't understand.

A. I doubt the official story! I stated more than once. You ask me why and what "Proof" I have for my doubts.
You say you're only expressing your doubts. I accept that. Unfortunately it looks to others like you are trying to prove what the Truthers say. If we counter their claims you argue with us. That sounds like you do a lot more than just doubt. Maybe it's a language problem.

C. Bombing (logical) suspects is wrong. Attacking them with drones either. You may be used to it, but it is wrong. The good ones bring suspects to justice. So they get a chance to defend themselves. Bombing suspects is plain terror. The US does what it proclaims to fight. Again - bombing the Afghan mountains to hit the suspected Osama was wrong.
That's a fair argument. I agree that bombing everybody to try to get one man is wrong. Is that what we really did? I don't know. I haven't looked into that so I can't say one way or the other.

D. Some would have believed your "CIA Bunker WMD" story. Maybe the US public. Maybe the GB public. But you can't fool the hole world constantly.
I agree. On the other hand, even if they had found real WMDs there would be those who doubted, and those who would try to disprove it.

I was just agreeing with the guy who compared a government smart enough to pull off something like 9/11 but not smart enough to do it properly and get away with it.

E. Bush lied about the WMDs, because they didn't know anything. They simply wanted to attack. Scuds over Europe, 'Nucular' bomb material from Africa...
They really knew he had some in the 80's, and they where "sure" he had some left. My fault not to use the quotation marks.Sorry.
Got it. And I agree. Did Bush lie, or was he lied to? Did he really believe there were WMDs? I think it's the last.

9:38:53 - GOFER06: And uh, this is GOFER zero six, it looks like that aircraft crashed into the Pentagon, sir.

It looks like! It looks like! It looks like!
The attack looked like an airliner crashed into the Pentagon. Indeed.
That's not an uncommon phrase in American English. "It looks like the worst has happened, sir." It's a phrase I've used myself. This might be a language problem on your part.

I. Again. If you don't think you are involved as passenger of AA77, because you think you are a passenger of AA136, you don't have a reason to speak up. Or would you expect the other thousands of passengers forced to land somewhere on 9/11 to speak up? Why should they? They live their lives, grow kids, use credit cards.
That's possible, but again the people who planned it all were too stupid to get away with it? If the Truthers believe that scenario, you can bet they would have spent the last decade doing everything in their power to find someone, anyone, who was involved. The fact that in all that time they haven't found one single person who knew anything or would say anything says something. Either the people smart enough to pull it off but not smart enough to get away with it were once again smart enough to figure out how to keep everyone involved quiet.

Or maybe it really is just what it looks like - Muslim terrorists hijacked the planes and crashed them into the buildings.

J. You think he tried the low approach, because the surface to hit would be larger?
It would be more likely to touchdown, hit the bridge or the CITGO and miss completely, coming in low.
From above you have the largest surface to hit. It is not as critical as coming in low.
Simply head downwards and crash through the roof. 20°, 30°, 40° down - full speed - bang!

But this way you would have to down an airliner into the Pentagon.
Thomas D. Trapasso: He was startled by the large American Airlines aircraft flying about 300 ft. overhead. "The engines were just screaming, and the wheels were up," Trapasso said. "It disappeared over the trees, and I heard a boom. I knew something awful had happened--that an airplane had crashed somewhere in Washington, D.C. Then the cell phone went dead. I was scared."

Alan Wallace: He looked up and saw a jetliner coming straight at him. It was about 25 feet off the ground, no landing wheels visible, a few hundred yards away and closing fast.

Ian Wyatt: a commercial airplane roared by about 100 yards off the ground. ... "It was going so fast and it was so low," he said, standing on Army-Navy Drive. "The only intelligent thought that came into my head was, 'Oh my God, they hit the Pentagon.' I could then hear cars squealing all around and people were just stunned."

Madelyn Zakhem: It was an airliner coming straight up Columbia Pike at tree-top level. "It was huge! It was silver. It was low -- unbelievable! I could see the cockpit. I fell to the ground.... I was crying and scared". "If I had been on top of our building, I would have been close enough to reach up and catch it."

The bold is not mine, but the poster of the witness list.

Safe-Keeper

09-10-13, 03:14 PM

Why are people cherry picking lone witness statements and adding armchair psychology and layman opinions to them as if doing so means something:06:?

Oh, and:
A. I doubt the official story! I stated more than once. You ask me why and what "Proof" I have for my doubts. I hate this buzzword. As if the only reason why people believe Usama was behind 9/11 was because, "oh, the gubmint sed so and I dun' trust 'em".

9/11 was witnessed by probably thousands of people who happened to be in and around the city of Manhattan and other "sites" that day, and by millions more watching TV footage. Then there's all the people who were directly involved -- fighter pilots, air traffic controllers, firefighters, politicians, men in charge of handling rescue operations, the list goes on.

After 9/11, the events of that day have been thouroughly investigated, and exhaustively looked into and studied by countless people all over the world. Intelligence agencies and world governments, many of which hated the Bush regime and/or the United States with a passion, have spent countless hours piling over every scrap of info they could get their hands on.

Trying to handwave all this by running your mouth about the "official story" borders on sheer respectlessness.

Sailor Steve

09-10-13, 03:19 PM

Why are people cherry picking lone witness statements and adding armchair psychology and layman opinions to them as if doing so means something:06:?
If you're referring to me, my intent was to show that witnesse agreed that the plane came in low. The question was asked as to whether they wouldn't have been more likely to dive down from above. What I or anyone else thinks would have been more likely, several witness agree as to the low approach.

Tchocky

09-10-13, 03:26 PM

A+ for effort, guys

Safe-Keeper

09-10-13, 03:31 PM

Also love the logic on display here:
@ Steve

Listen to Mark Petitt - eyewitness - again (4th of the first four video clips - oops - No.2 is no clip)
"I knew it's gonna hit. I mean, I've heard already about the WTC. And the next thing I/you know was just this huge explosion."
Exactly what I was talking about when explaining how the magic works.
Seeing the liner - expecting what will happen - seeing the proof of the expectation in a large fireball.Yeah, he just dreamed up the whole impact. Good job, you figured the NWO out...

...oh, wait, there is lots of more evidence an airliner hit.

And the "3rd" clip shows an Airbus flying low. But not low enough to cut the light poles at the Pentagon.
Check the people watching and imagine a light pole size. I think the wings would not touch them. 'k. So? Do you have any way to put weight behind this statement, or is it just your layman musings?

Do you think this is an experienced - or even stunt - pilot in the Airbus?
Do you believe Hanjour could do this? After a fast declimb at high speed?
Over the bridge, through the light poles into the Pentagon? Even lower than this Airbus?Stop JAQing off (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/JAQing_off)and contribute.

Have a look at the cab. The windscreen is smashed, but the hood is completely shiny.
A ? kilo metal pole lying in the car would leave a dent in the hood close to the windscreen.Evidence?

And two people took the heavy pole out of the car, without scratching the hood? Do you really believe this?Appeal to personal incredulity.

I guess it happend like I told above. They simply smashed the windshield and told a nice story.
The unknown silent helper could even be a fantastic emotional witness. Searched over the media.
Your uneducated guesses are not appreciated. Do some research and stop wasting our time.

(Mr England - the cab driver: "he was so silent, didn't say a word.")
An inapparent person could state in sign language what happened. Who would dare to doubt him?... ... ...what:06:?

I allways loved the F-4 Phantom video. Did someone ever see a documentary showing what remained after the impact, when the dust has settled?Given the whole airplane disintegrated on impact, probably a lot of F-4 in dust form. Why?

The table at the end states witnesses seeing an airplane. Well - there was an airplane. It just didn't hit the Pentagon.Evidence?

It went to "full throttle" only the last seconds at least 12 persons say.A perfectly rational reaction when you realize you've fouled up your reckless and amateurish approach and that the forces of gravity and momentum are about to slam your hijacked plane into a highway.

Pivot up and full throttle would take it over the roof, wouldn't it?If they pivoted upwards and applied more throttle, essentially the forces of this action acted against the forces of the aforementioned momentum and gravity driving the plane towards the ground -- and probably lots of other forces professionals would be able to tell you much more about. There have been plenty of air crashes where the pilots have learned too late that they were flying downwards or that they were too low, and applied full throttle and/or flaps and pushed the nose up too late. Real life isn't a cheap arcade flight game.

Also remember there's a difference between "pivoting up" to avoid a premature crash and pulling the stick all the way towards you. Fighter jets land with their noses up all the time, to increase air resistance in order to help slow the plane down. Here's some footage for you if you're interested (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4AQUuxFy88).

Dread Knot

09-10-13, 03:34 PM

If you're referring to me, my intent was to show that witnesse agreed that the plane came in low. The question was asked as to whether they wouldn't have been more likely to dive down from above. What I or anyone else thinks would have been more likely, several witness agree as to the low approach.

Almost any building is more vulnerable to lateral loads than to downward loads. That is why demolition crews generally slam wrecking balls into the sides of buildings to knock them down. I have no way of knowing whether the pilot of the airplane followed that line of reasoning while aiming his airplane, but I find the notion that a more vertical approach "must" have been considered more potentially damaging fairly absurd from a structural engineering point of view. The Pentagon does not have one roof but is made up of a series on concentric rings. The plane could just ended up as smoldering wreckage between two rings or in the park in the middle.

The construction methods used in the modern renovations of the Pentagon were indeed intended to harden it. However even the original structure, from a method devised in the mid-1930s, is also considered enormously strong. It is a particular variant on post-and-beam construction using prestressed and normally-reinforced concrete that incorporates naturally a great degree of structural redundancy. It was meant to be cheap, but it is also strong.

For that reason the Pentagon is naturally an enormously strong building by today's standards, but so is any building built by the same method. And for that reason the Pentagon is only a few stories tall. The price you pay for such structural redundancy is limited height.

Dowly

09-10-13, 03:48 PM

Two witnesses from CIT claimed it was pulling up, going full throttle.

Who was the other one? I know Mr. Turcios said he saw it take altitude.

BTW, regarding Mr. Turcios' interview, he just says the plane took altitude before
going over the road (which is on higher ground).

Also, if you watch CIT's "PentaCon" which they released in 2007 (NSA was released in 2009),
there is a longer version of that interview, where he is asked if he saw the plane
fly over the Pentagon and Mr. Turcios actually says that he saw the plane going
directly towards Pentagon. Funny how they edited that bit out from NSA. :O:

Catfish

09-10-13, 04:21 PM

Funny how they edited that bit out from NSA. :O:

Tit for tat, when the NSA releases material to divert from its 'missons', 12 out of 13 Sheets are usually blackened :haha:

Madox58

09-10-13, 05:49 PM

Here's how I feel about most of this thread.
:D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XaINAVQyXpw

Stealhead

09-10-13, 07:30 PM

Attack of the Troof Copter
http://i1162.photobucket.com/albums/q527/datsun260zyojimbo/chopper_zps19bcef39.gif~original (http://s1162.photobucket.com/user/datsun260zyojimbo/media/chopper_zps19bcef39.gif.html)

Mittelwaechter

09-10-13, 08:53 PM

@ Dowly

CIT - NSA - Darius Prather ~42:00 speaks of pivoting up too.

Mr Turcios ~ 22:30 said the plane "lift up a little bit, to get over - to the side of the bridge". (the northern side of the bridge - north of the light poles)
To get over the road - you are right. If you lift an airliner at 500 knots (FDR!) a little bit over the road, how do you bring it down again to hit the Pentagon at ground level?
You have ~0.89 seconds to lift and down it again. (just a rough estimation!)

_____

Gopher06 circled the Pentagon, then headed west - back where he came from. Time enough for all to watch him over the Pentagon at 2000 feet.

My airliner was "bunking right" - went over the roof - and disappeared. Probably climbing and heading south - Roberts Roosevelt saw the Jet over the southern parking lot.
That's the airport direction. Take offs were banned at Reagan Airport, but no landings. Maybe my stunt pilot simply hopped over the I 395 and landed there.
It would be not unusual to see an airliner coming this way, rather low, "passing" the Pentagon, flying over the Interstate and landing at Reagan National Airport.

Just curious - I simply explained why my jetliner wasn't painted the AA colours on page 8.
But I didn't find a claim it wasn't. Why did Ryan Mackey finally list this? Obviously someone claimed that somewhere.

From surfin 'one of Steve's links:

An aircraft at Elgin AFB would be painted and numbered as an exact duplicate for a civil registered aircraft belonging to a CIA proprietary organization in the Miami area. At a designated time the duplicate would be substituted for the actual civil aircraft and would be loaded with the selected passengers, all boarded under carefully prepared aliases. The actual registered aircraft would be converted into a drone [a remotely controlled unmanned aircraft.] Take off times of the drone aircraft and the actual aircraft will be scheduled to allow a rendezvous south of Florida.

I guess it's from the Northwood paper (should have noted it)

Passengers would be in the plot this way, using aliases. The relatives situation still unclear to me.

Concerning the listed, written witness' claims:

William Lagasse:

Sgt. William Lagasse, a Pentagon police dog handler, the son of an aviation instructor, was filling up his patrol car at a gas station near the Pentagon when he noticed a jet fly in low. He watched as the plane plowed into the Pentagon. Initially, he thought the plane was about to drop on top of him -- it was that close. Lagasse knew something was wrong. The 757's flaps were not deployed and the landing gear was retracted.

No mention of his statement the Jetliner was north of CITGO here. With CIT he didn't claim to see the liner hitting the Pentagon.

Terry Morin:

I can’t remember exactly what I was thinking about at that moment, but I started to hear an increasingly loud rumbling behind me and to my left. As I turned to my left, I immediately realized the noise was bouncing off the 4-story structure that was Wing 5. One to two seconds later the airliner came into my field of view. By that time the noise was absolutely deafening. ... I estimate that the aircraft was no more than 100 feet above me (30 to 50 feet above the FOB) in a slight nose down attitude. The plane had a silver body with red and blue stripes down the fuselage. I believed at the time that it belonged to American Airlines, but I couldn’t be sure. It looked like a 737 and I so reported to authorities. Within seconds the plane cleared the 8th Wing of BMDO and was heading directly towards the Pentagon. Engines were at a steady high-pitched whine, indicating to me that the throttles were steady and full. I estimated the aircraft speed at between 350 and 400 knots. The flight path appeared to be deliberate, smooth, and controlled. As the aircraft approached the Pentagon, I saw a minor flash (later found out that the aircraft had sheared off a portion of a highway light pole down on Hwy 110). As the aircraft flew ever lower I started to lose sight of the actual airframe as a row of trees to the Northeast of the FOB blocked my view. I could now only see the tail of the aircraft. I believe I saw the tail dip slightly to the right indicating a minor turn in that direction. The tail was barely visible when I saw the flash and subsequent fireball rise approximately 200 feet above the Pentagon.

His CIT claim was totally different. But he was not filmed and I have no impression of his credibility.

These written reports of witnesses are highly doubtable.
CIT did a pretty good job in filming them and questioning critically.
Would be great to have the same footage from witnesses backing the official report.

The Cementary workers were reliable, not sure about the last one.
The Pentagon Police Officers too, as the CITGO worker.
Sean Boger from the heliport stated the incoming airliner definitively on the CITGO north either.

If you consider these witnesses to be right, (why should they lie?) - it is impossible the airliner hit the light poles. And it could not have hit the Pentagon, because the internal damage followed the CITGO south path and the light poles. The cab drivers story isn't matching either. The FDR reads the cockpit cabin door wasn't opened during the whole flight. How did Hanjour got behind the controls? Especially when he wasn't on the passanger list, not at the check in and 99% not on the plane? Did he beam himself into the plane and into the cockpit?
EDIT: And the radar operators stated, the 270° right turn to approach the Pentagon from the west was perfect and jet fighter like. Hanjour couldn't even handle a Cessna 176.

I doubt the official report on the Pentagon attack. After doing my research even more.

Takeda Shingen

09-10-13, 08:56 PM

Holy crap, this is still going on? Has there been an X-Files marathon on recently or something?

Oberon

09-10-13, 08:58 PM

Holy crap, this is still going on? Has there been an X-Files marathon on recently or something?

The truth is out there...but not in here...

Onkel Neal

09-10-13, 09:56 PM

http://i3.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/163/032/Abandon+thread+gorilla+READ+DESCRIPTION+OK+EVERYON E+JUST+READ+THIS_b3bd49_1584652.gif

Dowly

09-11-13, 02:35 AM

@Mittelwaechter

The eyewitness interviews in NSA are highly edited and as such no better than written testimonies.
I already showed you how they edited out Mr. Turcios stating that the plane
struck the Pentagon.

Here's another from CIT's older video "PentaCon", with extended interviews.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bR-k96laOI

41:27 - William Lagasse: "[..]yawed substantially before it hit the building."

Again, that bit is edited out from NSA, quite understandably as it would show
that even their own eyewitnesses think/saw the plane hit the Pentagon.

EDIT: And the radar operators stated, the 270° right turn to approach the Pentagon from the west was perfect and jet fighter like.
They were describing how the jet was flying, don't take it so literally.

"The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in
the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a
military plane," says O'Brien. "You don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's
unsafe."

Hanjour couldn't even handle a Cessna 176.
In 2000, that is. He continued to train after that. He also had both private and
commercial licenses.
No one has claimed he was a great pilot, but pilot enough to crash the plane.

EDIT: Oh and here's a thread you might find interesting:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=87823

It's "Lyte Trip" aka Craig Ranke from CIT challenging Mark Roberts' witness list
regarding Pentagon and pretty much getting his butt handed to him.

Have fun! :D

Safe-Keeper

09-11-13, 09:28 AM

@ Dowly

CIT - NSA - Darius Prather ~42:00 speaks of pivoting up too.

Mr Turcios ~ 22:30 said the plane "lift up a little bit, to get over - to the side of the bridge". (the northern side of the bridge - north of the light poles)
To get over the road - you are right. If you lift an airliner at 500 knots (FDR!) a little bit over the road, how do you bring it down again to hit the Pentagon at ground level?
You have ~0.89 seconds to lift and down it again. (just a rough estimation!)Do you have me on ignore:06:?

My airliner was "bunking right" - went over the roof - and disappeared. Probably climbing and heading south - Roberts Roosevelt saw the Jet over the southern parking lot.
That's the airport direction. Take offs were banned at Reagan Airport, but no landings. Maybe my stunt pilot simply hopped over the I 395 and landed there.
It would be not unusual to see an airliner coming this way, rather low, "passing" the Pentagon, flying over the Interstate and landing at Reagan National Airport.
Maybe, or perhaps it was Santa and his reindeer. Again, so what?

An aircraft at Elgin AFB would be painted and numbered as an exact duplicate... :words:See above. 9/11 happened 12 years ago today. Are you truthers ever going to come up with anything but "durr, this looks odd from my layman point of view" and wild speculations such as "hurr, maybe it was a stuntman"?

I guess it's from the Northwood paper (should have noted it)
We don't care. Stop guessing and give us facts.

Passengers would be in the plot this way, using aliases. The relatives situation still unclear to me.
Then do your bloody research already. You've had over a decade.

These written reports of witnesses are highly doubtable. Because:-??

If you consider these witnesses to be right, (why should they lie?)You're a conspiracy theorist and you simultaneously don't believe in people lying:-??

Seriously, though, eyewitness testimony is known to be ridiculously inaccurate.

- it is impossible the airliner hit the light poles. And it could not have hit the Pentagon, because the internal damage followed the CITGO south path and the light poles.Evidence?!

The cab drivers story isn't matching either.Oh. How funny. Perhaps this means you shouldn't cherry-pick eyewitness testimony and take it as gospel after all.

The FDR reads the cockpit cabin door wasn't opened during the whole flight. How did Hanjour got behind the controls? Especially when he wasn't on the passanger list, not at the check in and 99% not on the plane? Did he beam himself into the plane and into the cockpit?Sigh.

EDIT: And the radar operators stated, the 270° right turn to approach the Pentagon from the west was perfect and jet fighter like.I can't believe CTers consider this so important. Yes, the radar operator noted that the 757 performed a maneuver 757s typically do not perform, and thus thought it was a jet or something else that typically moves that way.

So what? Do you have a point of some kind? Is it supposed to be impressive that Hanjour managed to botch his approach so badly that he had to make this bizarre and incredibly risky maneuver to line up with his target?

I think the strawman the CTers are trying to construct is that flying the 757 in a manner that would fool an ATC into thinking it was a jet fighter would require some kind of expert skill. Is this what you're trying to argue? If yes, would you care to back this idea up with facts of some kind?

Edit: oh, and can you give me a source that the ATC used the words "perfect" and "jet fighter like" in the first place?

Hanjour couldn't even handle a Cessna 176.He couldn't handle a 757 either. Had he known what he was doing, he would have just lined up the Pentagon when it was still miles away and just done a straight, level approach. He wouldn't have clipped light posts, he wouldn't have nearly overshot the target, and he probably wouldn't have hit a side of the Pentagon that was not in use.

Again, what's your point?

Holy crap, this is still going on? Has there been an X-Files marathon on recently or something?Consider that the Kennedy, Rosswell and Lunar Landing CTs are still alive decades later. The 9/11 CTers are dwindling, but will probably never go away completely.

Oberon

09-11-13, 10:53 AM

Let's just give it a break for one day, eh lads?

No matter if the planes were empty, full or drones, people still died on this day, so let's just give it a rest for today and carry on again tomorrow.

In the meantime, watch this, there's no commentary, no theories, just footage and the geniune reactions of those who saw what unfolded that day.

So watch, and remember what you were doing that day, remember how you felt as you watched it take place, and reflect.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkuvnjS0KnU

mapuc

09-11-13, 12:48 PM

Ain't that just funny. If a eyewitness testimony doesn't fit into my little world of belief they are not trustworthy.

Markus

u crank

09-11-13, 03:34 PM

If you consider these witnesses to be right, (why should they lie?)

Now I know you are not serious.

Alex

09-11-13, 07:26 PM

an airliner at 500 knots (FDR!)

Pentagon at ground level?

circled the Pentagon

flying over the Interstate and landing at Reagan National Airport

The actual registered aircraft would be converted into a drone

Sgt. William Lagasse, a Pentagon police dog handler, the son of an aviation instructor,

No mention of his statement the Jetliner was north of CITGO here. With CIT he didn't claim to see the liner hitting the Pentagon.

Terry Morin:

I can’t remember exactly what I was thinking about at that moment,

Engines were at a steady high-pitched whine

As the aircraft approached the Pentagon, I saw

impression of his credibility.

These written reports of witnesses are highly doubtable.

The Cementary workers were reliable, not sure about

the light poles. And it could not have hit the Pentagon, because the

cockpit cabin door wasn't

even handle a Cessna 176.

I doubt the official report on the Pentagon attack. After doing my research even more.

http://img15.hostingpics.net/pics/215599gaga.jpg

Looks like you're trying to find any sense in that **** dude. Don't be as dumb as everyone else. :88)

Watch that video (http://youtu.be/hgrunnLcG9Q) and make some fun instead ! :har:

soopaman2

09-11-13, 08:17 PM

So this is the tinfoil hat thread?

may I share my syrian theory.

This is a manufactured war to feed the military industrial complex, because it is drying out for them, the 1k plus an hour pay days are becoming less, and Dick Cheneys Xe merc company (formerly known as Blackwater) is running low on brown skins to kill for fun and profit.

(yeah NSA, I SAID IT, COME GET ME)

Shove Prism up your bunghole.

Tribesman

09-12-13, 02:06 AM

I must say I am disappointed the moderators or admin didn't shut this pile of lunatic nonsense down for 24hrs yesterday.:down:

Feuer Frei!

09-12-13, 02:57 AM

I must say I am disappointed the moderators or admin didn't shut this pile of lunatic nonsense down for 24hrs yesterday.:down:

Keep it open i say.

That way all this clap trap and nonsense hopefully doesn't stain any other threads (too much) and stays in 1 central place.

Here.

Any sane person will stay away.

Dowly

09-12-13, 04:00 AM

Just found this.

Have fun, Truthers :haha:

Six really stupid 9/11 conspiracies debunked in about six seconds:

SOURCE (http://www.news.com.au/world-news/six-really-stupid-911-conspiracies-debunked-in-about-six-seconds/story-fndir2ev-1226717737311)

Such articles just serve as more ammunition for the truthers as they contain heaps
of errors, that one is no exception.

Feuer Frei!

09-12-13, 04:14 AM

Such articles just serve as more ammunition for the truthers as they contain heaps
of errors, that one is no exception.

Edited out.

I concur.

Thought it might have been fun.

Dowly

09-12-13, 04:33 AM

Oh there was no need to edit it out. :)

HunterICX

09-12-13, 05:08 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKLo-jzizdg

HunterICX

Jimbuna

09-12-13, 05:57 AM

Keep it open i say.

That way all this clap trap and nonsense hopefully doesn't stain any other threads (too much) and stays in 1 central place.

Here.

Any sane person will stay away.

That is the general plan....unless it turns nasty.

Dread Knot

09-12-13, 05:59 AM

9/11 conspiracy theories are never going to completely fade away, even though they have largely been debunked in quite some detail. There are always going to new people unfamiliar with the arguments buying into it, as well as a constant stream of people growing out of it. At the center there will always be a hard core group of cynics and cranks who will use it as a nice steady source of income and notoriety. Much like the JFK assassination, the Moon Hoax, the Illuminati, they are self-perpetuating organisms. About the only conspiracy theories that seem to die are the ones with a built-in expiration date. Last year's 2012 Mayan end of the world stupidity being a good example. I hope nobody bought any tickets on the giant Space Ark.

Anyway, here's a decent objective source for debunking 911 with no pejoratives that I can see.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories

mapuc

09-12-13, 08:44 AM

I say let it be open. It's very interesting to read other members standpoint regarding 9/11.

Here's another thought that I have, after have read some of the post in this thread. As some wrote, it had to be a huge operation to get all this things together and in would involved hundred of people to get such an operation on it's feet.

That means that Al-Quada is much bigger and a lot better than I've been reading and heard( they say they are nothing more than a bunch of amateurs).

Markus

Safe-Keeper

09-12-13, 09:30 AM

Here's another thought that I have, after have read some of the post in this thread. As some wrote, it had to be a huge operation to get all this things together and in would involved hundred of people to get such an operation on it's feet.Let's see now. An "inside job" involving the government's planning and execution of a terrorist attack killing 3000 Americans, which is then pinned on a Middle Eastern terrorist group, without anyone involved blowing the whistle, and without anyone but a tiny number of laymen on the Internet busting them?

Firstly, "hundreds of people" is a massive understatement. Secondly, even in authoritarian nations such as China it would be very hard to keep under wraps for even a very short time. Even starting to discuss or plan such an operation without a single person going to the media would be next to impossible, not to mention keeping it secret for 12 years. In the opening hours of the the Cuban missile crisis, the US media came very close to publicising the news of rockets in Cuba before the official Presidential announcement, despite the administration's best efforts to keep it under wraps. In more recent times, we have scandals like Assange and Snowden. Face it, 9/11 couldn't have been an "inside job".

Just hijacking airplanes in a country with rather lax security and with crews instructed to submit to hijackers rather than fight, for then to fly those planes into skyscrapers and the Pentagon? Probably something just about anyone could do with a little planning.

That means that Al-Quada is much bigger and a lot better than I've been reading and heardYes, Al-Qaida is indeed bigger than a few hundred people. They apparently number 6-10 000 in Syria alone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda). Now you know.

( they say they are nothing more than a bunch of amateurs).Do they? Source?

Penguin

09-12-13, 11:44 AM

Let's just give it a break for one day, eh lads?

No matter if the planes were empty, full or drones, people still died on this day, so let's just give it a rest for today and carry on again tomorrow.

I disagree. Every day we discuss a topic or history is a day many people died, massacres or attacks took place. If it's disrespectfull to the relatives of the plane passengers to say "nobody in those aircrafts died" is another topic, discussing morales.(I think so, but it's a kick to their faces any day, not only on 9/11, but it's only my personal opinion)
However the disadvantages of (voluntary) censorship always outweigh its benefits - no matter how morally the censor's opinions may be.

Penguin

09-12-13, 11:47 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKLo-jzizdg

HunterICX

:o Now I know the truth, the whole truth and nothing but it!
The real Daffy Duck had been institutionalized in the late 30s. All we have been fed by the mainstream media afterwards is a lie. They want to cover that Duffy is still a political prisoner, rotting in some hospital, tortured and imprisoned since more than 70 years.

Free Duffy! Don't believe their lies!

Smaragdadler

09-12-13, 11:51 AM

The Mao Tse Tung Experience - Irregular Times 1991

you wake up ev'ry morning, you want to see reality, you don't believe in god
you're really watching tv, but now it's telling you, what's really bad, what's really good
you want to have more sureness, you want to leave your unconscious mind
but no school and no preacher, just lookin' through irregular times, irregular times

you're tryin' ev'ry studies, with reading and with learning and with asking all the time
no but, no friend, no video, no disco kinda appease your flaws of knowledge in your mind
you want to have more sureness, you want to leave your unconscious mind
but no school and no preacher, just lookin' through irregular times, irregular times

you wake up ev'ry morning, you want to see reality, but don't believe in god
you're really watching tv, but now it's telling you, what's really bad, what's really good
you want to have more sureness, you want to leave your unconscious mind
but no school and no preacher, just lookin' through irregular times, irregular times

you're tryin' ev'ry studies, with reading and with learning and with asking all the time
no but, no friend, no video, no disco kinda appease your flaws of knowledge in your mind
you want to have more sureness, you want to leave your unconscious mind
but no school and no preacher, just lookin' through irregular times, irregular times

you're tryin' ev'ry studies, you're reading and you're learning and you're asking all the time
no but, no friend, no video, no disco kinda appease your flaws of knowledge on your mind
you want to have more sureness, you want to leave your unconscious mind
but no school and no preacher, just lookin' through irregular times, irregular times

you wake up ev'ry morning, you want to see reality, you don't believe in god
you're really watching tv, but now it's telling you, what's really bad, what's really good
you want to have more sureness, you want to leave your unconscious mind
but no, I am no preacher, just lookin' through irregular times, irregular times

Watch:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwiQCTKqZwc
...

Safe-Keeper

09-12-13, 12:57 PM

[Random song]...your point being:06:?

Smaragdadler

09-12-13, 02:04 PM

...That there is no point.

http://gizadeathstar.com/

Platapus

09-12-13, 08:23 PM

This whole conspiracy looks worse than a low budget porn movie.

You wrote "low budget porn movie" like it was a bad thing. :D

Platapus

09-12-13, 08:28 PM

I do wish people would make up their minds about the US government.

Which is it?

1. The government is incompetent and unable to run even the simplest project without mucking it up, nor is the government able to keep a single secret.. uh.. well.. secret.

or

2. The government is all powerful and capable to planning, implementing, covering up massive conspiracies involving thousands of people (from different political viewpoints) among scores of different agencies (and sometimes international organizations) and keeping it quiet for decades.

Ya really can't have it both ways. :nope:

Stealhead

09-12-13, 08:31 PM

You wrote "low budget porn movie" like it was a bad thing. :D

Hell a simple interwebs search will prove that true amature porn is the best and it costs nothing.

Dowly

09-13-13, 01:00 PM

Hell a simple interwebs search will prove that true amature porn is the best and it costs nothing.

This is true.

And there's a lot of "romantic porn" out there these days, which is waaaay better
than the "mainstream" crap. :yep:

:salute:

Platapus

09-13-13, 01:13 PM

This is true.

And there's a lot of "romantic porn" out there these days, which is waaaay better
than the "mainstream" crap. :yep:

:salute:

Romantic porn? :hmmm:

Is that where he says "thank you" after tying her up and urinating on her? :D

Or is there a different type out there? :oops:

Dowly

09-13-13, 01:22 PM

Romantic porn? :hmmm:

The kind that doesn't look like a rape as most of the "mainstream" crap looks like these days.

Guess the correct term is "Erotic Porn", I don't know, but's it's very nice.
Almost reminds me of those older french/italian films from Salieri and that other
guy who's name I never remember... anywho, did tons of films featuring Laure Sinclair/Sainclair.

:hmmm:

Remember kids: Porn is good for you! :yeah:

:salute:

EDIT: Marc Dorcel was the other director!

EDIT2: Actually, the porn industry being "devilish" should be our next conspiracy. :)

Penguin

09-13-13, 03:08 PM

Mittelwaechter

09-14-13, 09:55 AM

@Platapus

I tend to No.1 - they mucked it up. Their baby was the Pentagon attack - and so much public available data shows their unability to run it properly.
(There was an explosion inside the Pentagon (09:32), minutes before the airliner "hit the building" (09:37:42)? The cabin door of "AA77" wasn't opened during the whole flight?)
They wanted the public to support their intentions in Middle East and at home, so they used their own "Al Qaeda" to "hit the building".

The real Al Quaeda wanted to highjack an airliner, to free Omar Abdel-Rahman - the Blind Sheik.
The US knew it way before and decided to jump on that train.

If the US didn't run the WTC attack, there is a "Third Al Qaeda" - a foreign supported group - that did it.
Some US persons of influence were supportive, they helped them. They didn't care about casualties, there is much money behind.
Again, it shoud motivate the US public to support action against the Middle East, plus there were some other favourable side effects.

9/11 is three different events - woven into two hours. Al Qaeda did what they are capable to do, highjacking an airliner. The passengers or a missile ended the flight.
The US government tried to use their knowledge to run a second event at the Pentagon, to show how dangerous Al Qaeda is. "We are vunerable - we must act accordingly..."
And the "Third Al Qaeda" knew of the planned highjacking (maybe even of the US plot) and wanted to jump on too. They clapped a few flies with a single strike.

As I showed - there is no need to inform or involve hundreds or thousands of people. Most don't have to know they are part of the attack.
It's just the right people with the authority to order certain things.
And assuming Shanksville was Al Qaeda and WTC a "special foreign plot", the US government run only the Pentagon attack.
And that didn't run as expected, because the jetliner got off course and failed the setup - supporting your No.1.

This may be the cause for DoubYah and Mrs Jenny to speak only behind closed doors. They were probably fooled themselves with the WTC events. But there is no way to tell the truth to the public.
They try to keep it under control, with faked evidence (the FDR is a good example) and active discreditation of witnesses and "truthers". What else should they do?

And DoubYah was sitting in the school and heared of the first plane, assuming it was an accident. With the message of the second plane at the WTC, he was totally confused, because it should have been the Pentagon to be under attack, according to his knowledge. He didn't react, because he didn't understand what happened. He probably doubted himself, to have understood what was planned for that day.

@Penguin

The media took the church's task in reigning the people. As these were not able to read and write, they came together once a week and were told by the priests what god to follow, what's right and wrong, who's good who's evil, what to think about the new laws of the king or the taxes burden to bear. The view of the world was provided by the church. In cooperation with the aristocracy they made the leaders opinion the leading opinion.
Today that's what the media does. They explain to us our new god called Mammon, they tell us who's evil and who is to support, they motivate us to act or to bear, they provide the view of the world today. They ensure - in cooperation with the true regents - the leaders opinion becomes the leading opinion.
Nothing has changed. There was a short intermezzo of democratic engagement, of getting rid of the aristocracy - the big money. But today they are as mighty as ever. They just run a nice show for the people, to make them believe they have a say.
In other regions of the world, the church has overcome the aristocracy. They make the people five times a day pray as our media makes the people 'five times a day' deal with Mammon and it's religion. They gather the people once a week (Friday) to tell them their view of the world. The same principle, just other regents. They run a nice show for the people too, to make them believe they have a say. Funny how we totally are aware of this, thanks to our media, but completely deny the facts on our side. Due to the media, as they tell us, our system ensures the people have a say.

Sailor Steve

09-14-13, 10:28 AM

(There was an explosion inside the Pentagon (09:32), minutes before the airliner "hit the building" (09:37:42)?
Evidence please? Who says that and where?

The cabin door of "AA77" wasn't opened during the whole flight?)
They wanted the public to support their intentions in Middle East and at home, so they used their own "Al Qaeda" to "hit the building".

The real Al Quaeda wanted to highjack an airliner, to free Omar Abdel-Rahman - the Blind Sheik.
The US knew it way before and decided to jump on that train.
This is just you once again trying to think of ways it "could have" happened. There is not the tiniest bit of evidence that any of this is real.

If the US didn't run the WTC attack, there is a "Third Al Qaeda" - a foreign supported group - that did it.
Some US persons of influence were supportive, they helped them. They didn't care about casualties, there is much money behind.
Again, it shoud motivate the US public to support action against the Middle East, plus there were some other favourable side effects.
So the crazy Muslims did part of it, and the US government joined in. How did they plant the explosives before the fact? It looks like you are reaching further and further in an attempt to justify your own beliefs, which puts the lie to your claim that you are not a Truther.

9/11 is three different events - woven into two hours. Al Qaeda did what they are capable to do, highjacking an airliner. The passengers or a missile ended the flight.
The US government tried to use their knowledge to run a second event at the Pentagon, to show how dangerous Al Qaeda is. "We are vunerable - we must act accordingly..."
And the "Third Al Qaeda" knew of the planned highjacking (maybe even of the US plot) and wanted to jump on too. They clapped a few flies with a single strike.
You seem to be making this up as you go along. You accuse others of mocking you, but you are looking sillier and sillier with each new claim you make.

As I showed - there is no need to inform or involve hundreds or thousands of people. Most don't have to know they are part of the attack.
And not one of these innocent dupes ever thought to find out if they might have been involved? Nothing happens in a vacuum. None of them thought to ask questions, but a bunch of unrelated layment did?

It's just the right people with the authority to order certain things.
And assuming Shanksville was Al Qaeda and WTC a "special foreign plot", the US government run only the Pentagon attack.
And that didn't run as expected, because the jetliner got off course and failed the setup - supporting your No.1.
So now the US government and Al Queda were in on it together?

DoubYah and Mrs Jenny
And you claim you're an unbiased questioner and have no agenda? Only people who hate Bush call him that.

(the FDR is a good example)
So you believe the Pearl Harbor conspiracy theories too?

Mittelwaechter

09-14-13, 11:45 AM

Barbara Honegger
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fIARRAOmS8E

Pilotsfor9/11truth claimed, the FDR shows, the cabin door wasn't opened. The officials refuse to comment on this.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=18405

It is my theory, there happened three events on 9/11. You don't believe it, no problem on my side.

And you claim you're an unbiased questioner and have no agenda? Only people who hate Bush call him that.Evidence? ;) (You see it's easy to ask for evidence)

I constantly state I doubt the official claims on 9/11. I think Bush and Cheney are part of the plot. True, I don't like them and I want them to be judged for their deeds. I never was engaged in any truther site or actions. I did all the reseach for my current point of view within a few days, just surfing the internet and collecting claims and statements and facts and theories.

Pearl Harbor? http://tmh.floonet.net/articles/ph25_3.html

:)

Catfish

09-14-13, 11:49 AM

Ah, Pearl Harbour.
Did anyone read the 'Cruise of the Lanikai' ?

Seems if the japanese had not attacked, there would have been an 'incident'. How impolite from them to strike where it hurt.

Safe-Keeper

09-14-13, 01:33 PM

Since Mittelwaechter is still ignoring my posts, I'm not spending more time in this thread. I suppose he has me on ignore for some reason or something. Pity. He might have learned something.

Sailor Steve

09-14-13, 01:51 PM

Evidence? ;) (You see it's easy to ask for evidence)
Nobody calls Bush "Dubya" except those who don't like him. Nobody ever uses insulting nicknames on people they like. It's not so easy to provide evidence, and you have shown none at all. You're claiming a conspiracy, you need to show it.

I constantly state I doubt the official claims on 9/11.
That's fine. The problem is you don't express doubts. You express conviction, and try to prove the conspiracy is real. So far you haven't.

I never liked Bush or Cheney either. You still need to prove the connections, and you haven't.

I never was engaged in any truther site or actions. I did all the reseach for my current point of view within a few days, just surfing the internet and collecting claims and statements and facts and theories.
And yet you spend all your time trying to prove the Truthers' claims. You certainly sound exactly like one.

Pearl Harbor? http://tmh.floonet.net/articles/ph25_3.html
Many people have tried to prove the same thing, and many others have provided alternate explanations trying to disprove it. Again you claim to be an honest questioner, but again you show yourself to be a conspiracy theorist of the first order.

soopaman2

09-14-13, 02:56 PM

Steve? You bothered to debate that mess?

The truthers claims were started by some loose change asshat, 21 years old upon writing, rich from parents, and lives no where near New York or DC.

Look up Opie and Anthony, Korey Rowe on you tube to see him owned on Radio before 2 countries.

To the point they began mock prank calling him.

Not before Anthony absolutly owns him.

Here it is.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pz6-2eAMrck

They do cuss it is satellite radio.( the players are opie anthony and Jimmy, you hear jimmy alot at the beginning, anthony is the one doing the debating.)

Jimbuna

09-14-13, 03:36 PM

I'm not spending more time in this thread.

Wise decision.

Platapus

09-14-13, 03:42 PM

What if someone made a thread in GT and no one posted to it?

:D

soopaman2

09-14-13, 03:46 PM

What if someone made a thread in GT and no one posted to it?

:D

The universe would implode.:salute:

Jimbuna

09-14-13, 03:54 PM

What if someone made a thread in GT and no one posted to it?

:D

http://www.gifmania.co.uk/Simpsons/homer3d/3dhomani.gif

Aktungbby

09-14-13, 05:48 PM

[QUOTE=Sailor Steve;2114307] Nobody ever uses insulting nicknames on people they like.

Not necessarily so Herr Schtikler: We like you and Herr Onkel!:Kaleun_Applaud::Kaleun_Applaud:Is the Vicks and hot towel working?

Aktungbby

09-14-13, 06:07 PM

You wrote "low budget porn movie" like it was a bad thing. :D
You're not REAR admiral for nuthin'!:k_rofl:

Safe-Keeper

09-15-13, 04:20 AM

Just one last thing before I go: far as I know, the "black box" didn't show the cockpit door opening because that particular feature of the data recorder wasn't installed/connected in the first place on the plane in question. So Mittelwaechter's bizarre claim that officials "refuse to comment on this" is a misconception at best, a lie at worst.

Evidence? ;) (You see it's easy to ask for evidence)You act as if asking people to support their views is a bad thing:-?.

Platapus

09-15-13, 07:00 AM

You're not REAR admiral for nuthin'!:k_rofl:

I just knew I would be the butt of a joke in the end. :shifty:

Mittelwaechter

09-15-13, 07:22 AM

Quotes from pilotsf0r9/11truth (no laymen):

"...if the [cabin door] sensor failed, it would "ding" the FDR that a sensor has failed during self-diagnosis. If the FDR is inoperative, the airplane is not allowed to take-off. The sensor was operative."

"Does the FDR record if the door is open or closed?
A. Clearly it does. It says closed for the entire flight and was confirmed by the Data Frame Layout provided by the NTSB and a pilot who has flight time in this exact 757 at American Airlines."

"But the fact remains, the [FDR] data shows the door as closed, the altitude too high to hit the Pentagon, Vertical speed too great for level off as seen in DoD 5 frames video, the list goes on. The NTSB/FBI refuse to comment on such blatant conflict with the govt story."

Dowly

09-15-13, 07:39 AM

It is most probable that AA77 had newer FDR which recorded the door sensor,
but the plane itself had no sensor installed hence it shows "0".

Did Pilotsfor911truth mention that the FDR also contains data from the previous
11 flights? In all cases the cockpit door sensor stays as "0". I bet they didn't.

Mittelwaechter

09-15-13, 08:56 AM

Dowly

09-15-13, 09:22 AM

"Also, i cross checked this with Capt Ralph Kolstad who flew the 757 with American just to make sure their 757's have a sensor for when the door is open. They have an overhead button to push to open the flight deck door. The button lights up when the door is open. There is a sensor on the door."

Does he know this for sure? Has he checked every single American Airlines 757?
Flight 77's 757 was built in 1991 (SOURCE) (http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NNum_Results.aspx?NNumbertxt=644AA), so it was an old plane.

Going to need some more concrete evidence than what Robert Balsamo says.

EDIT: Ah, Ralph Kolstad is another truther, so yeah, definitely going to have to ask for some actual evidence.

IF the door wasn't opened the last 11 flights, what does that prove?
Is it usual, that no one opens the door during flight? The pilots stay in the cabin, the door stays closed, as security regulations probably expect it?

It doesn't 100% prove anything, but it is rather strange that no one left or entered
the cockpit during any of the previous 11 flights. Flight 77 flew from LA to Washington,
that's roughly 3700 kilometers, so we are not talking about short flights.

Safe-Keeper

09-15-13, 09:41 AM

Did Pilotsfor911truth mention that the FDR also contains data from the previous 11 flights? In all cases the cockpit door sensor stays as "0". I bet they didn't. My guess is the pilots beamed into the cockpit.

Sailor Steve

09-15-13, 09:43 AM

Is it usual, that no one opens the door during flight? The pilots stay in the cabin, the door stays closed, as security regulations probably expect it?
In 11 flights not one crewmember ever had to use the toilet? The flight attendants never once brought the pilots coffee or meals?

It sounds to me like the sensor was broken. It also sounds to me like you're grasping at straws.

Mittelwaechter

09-15-13, 10:55 AM

There are only 41hours recorded for 12 flights of this "AA77" FDR.

41/12 makes it ~ 3.5 hours per flight, right?

Strange eh? Assuming you cant fly 3700 km (~ 2300mls) in 3.5 hours with a 757 at 530 miles/hour top speed.

Was the airliner N644AA constantly assigned to the AA77 flight from Washington to LAX? (and back?) If so, the presented FDR is not from AA77.
If the N644AA (aka N5BPAA) was not constantly asigned to AA77 - you can't assume it to be doubtable, the cabin door has been closed over the average 3.5 hours per flight.

http://www.seattle911visibilityproject.org/flt77_tail_no.htm

Are there any meals served for the pilots on a 3.5 hours flight?
Are there meals served at all on such short hops?
Do you have to use the lav within 3.5 hours leaving the airport?
A female pilot probably...;)

The FDR is off, as long as the engines are not running. The pilots enter the flight deck before starting the engines and they shut them down before leaving the flight deck.
=> They open the cabin door, but the FDR doesn't read it. No beaming necessary.

Tribesman

09-15-13, 11:13 AM

It also sounds to me like you're grasping at straws.
I disagree, I think he is hugging a whole haystack.

Sailor Steve

09-15-13, 12:06 PM

There are only 41hours recorded for 12 flights of this "AA77" FDR.

41/12 makes it ~ 3.5 hours per flight, right?

Strange eh? Assuming you cant fly 3700 km (~ 2300mls) in 3.5 hours with a 757 at 530 miles/hour top speed.
Now I know that you are guessing, and don't know what you're talking about. The route - Washington to Los Angeles - is assigned the number AA77. The plane - N644AA - is assigned to different routes on a regular basis. Here are photographs of N644AA taken in various places around the country, including pictures taken in 2001 in Miami and Boston. You cannot take the total flight time and divide it by the number of flights and get anything resembling a working number. Yes, the plane flew from DC to LA, which is a longer flight, and it flew shorter hops under different route numbers.
http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?regsearch=N644AA

Was the airliner N644AA constantly assigned to the AA77 flight from Washington to LAX? (and back?) If so, the presented FDR is not from AA77.
No

If the N644AA (aka N5BPAA) was not constantly asigned to AA77 - you can't assume it to be doubtable, the cabin door has been closed over the average 3.5 hours per flight.
Not at all. The FDR says it was never opened at all. By your own numbers the DC-LA flight would be 4.3 hours, not including takeoff and landing, so it would likely be closer to five hours.

Are there any meals served for the pilots on a 3.5 hours flight?
Arguable either way, but meals are always served on coast-to-coast flights.

Are there meals served at all on such short hops?
Usually not.

Do you have to use the lav within 3.5 hours leaving the airport?
Some don't, but some do.

A female pilot probably...;)
Misogynism is not welcome here.

The FDR is off, as long as the engines are not running. The pilots enter the flight deck before starting the engines and they shut them down before leaving the flight deck.
True, but your whole argument consists on the door never being opened even once, which is possible but highly unlikely.

=> They open the cabin door, but the FDR doesn't read it. No beaming necessary.
The most likely answer is that reached by the investigators, that the sensor malfunctioned. It does happen, you know. :03:

Here is a set of discussions that answer your "questions" in a much more logical and reasonable fashion than the answers you Truthers like to give. They include the leading Truthers misreading and misunderstanding things to the point of having no clue what they are on about.
http://www.911myths.com/index.php/American_Airlines_Flight_77

mapuc

09-15-13, 12:41 PM

According to a danish newspaper "Jylland Posten" it is now allowed to name these truthers a.s.o, to be some kind of weirdo

When I read that it made me really mad. OK some of the conspiracy is really far out, well almost everyone is, but let these who believe in these, let them believe and do not call them weirdo just because of that.

Markus

Safe-Keeper

09-22-13, 03:32 AM

I'm not sure what you mean. If you publicly state that you believe in CTs, I can publicly state that you're a weirdo. Denmark is a free country, "non-believers" don't have a choice but to "let them believe". They do, however, also have the right to say exactly what they think about said beliefs.

Bubblehead1980

09-24-13, 08:03 PM

Apparently John Kerry will sign the UN Arms Treaty tomorrow. The treasonous behavior of this admin just never ends. :/\\!! Yes, I am sure the usual actors will chime in and defend it herebut it is no secret the UN seeks to disarm everyone.Luckily, the Senate will not ratify it but the fact these traitors would even sign such a monstrosity, is ridiculous.

AVGWarhawk

09-24-13, 08:14 PM

He'll sign it swiftly.

Oberon

09-24-13, 09:11 PM

The FEMA death camps are on standby awaiting your call! :up:

Nippelspanner

09-24-13, 09:26 PM

ridiculous.
Funny, that word crossed my mind right after reading your post, what a coincidence! :yeah:

Sailor Steve

09-24-13, 09:48 PM

Apparently John Kerry will sign the UN Arms Treaty tomorrow. The treasonous behavior of this admin just never ends. :/\\!!
How exactly is this treason? Please explain in full sentences with references. Calling something treason doesn't make it so. If it is treason, what can be done about it? What is being done about it?

Yes, I am sure the usual actors will chime in and defend it here
If you were a regular reader of this particular forum you would recognize that the phrase you just used is common here, and it always has one of two purposes. Either it is used defensively, because the poster is not really as sure of himself as he claims to be, or it is used dismissively to support trolling. We have one member who starts every thread he creates with "I can't wait to see what the usual suspects have to say about this." As soon as you dismiss any opposition with a challenge like that you admit that your position is weak.

but it is no secret the UN seeks to disarm everyone.
Isn't it? Can you show this to be true, or is it just another paranoid cry in the dark? You have made so many claims like this that have been proven false that this time you need to show actual citations and references.

Luckily, the Senate will not ratify it but the fact these traitors would even sign such a monstrosity, is ridiculous.
Again, show that it is treason, how and why, or retract your use of the phrase "traitors". If you can prove it, fine. If you can't then you yourself are one of "the usual actors", and are guilty of trolling.

razark

09-24-13, 11:29 PM

Ok, so the UN is going to take all the guns, but Obama is trying to get the first. That's why the DHS bought all the ammunition, so they can distribute it to Obama's private army, armed with all the confiscated guns that are hidden in bunkers disguised as FEMA concentration camps where they film fake moon landings?

Tribesman

09-25-13, 01:56 AM

Can I motion a suggestion that this be merged with the Conspiracies thread?
Not until someone mentions the secret army of Nazi dentists.

Platapus

09-25-13, 03:57 PM

... it is no secret the UN seeks to disarm everyone.Luckily, the Senate will not ratify it but the fact these traitors would even sign such a monstrosity, is ridiculous.

Yeah, because the UN has such a good history of taking guns away in other countries. :nope:

Big secret. No one but a select few on the Internets Tubes knows the "real truth". :yep:

Can you name one country that the United Nations, since 1945, has been able to impose, by themselves, a disarmament of the citizens?

I would really like to see a citation on this.

eddie

09-25-13, 04:00 PM

Not until someone mentions the secret army of Nazi dentists.

:har::har:

Catfish

09-26-13, 10:39 AM

Nazi dentists? So it must be true ..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UP-Nlb549J8

Bubblehead1980

09-26-13, 10:53 AM

Not until someone mentions the secret army of Nazi dentists.

Get over yourself, really.

Oberon

09-26-13, 11:17 AM

Ein Volk! Ein Reich! Ein Fluorine!

Bubblehead1980

09-26-13, 11:26 AM

How exactly is this treason? Please explain in full sentences with references. Calling something treason doesn't make it so. If it is treason, what can be done about it? What is being done about it?

If you were a regular reader of this particular forum you would recognize that the phrase you just used is common here, and it always has one of two purposes. Either it is used defensively, because the poster is not really as sure of himself as he claims to be, or it is used dismissively to support trolling. We have one member who starts every thread he creates with "I can't wait to see what the usual suspects have to say about this." As soon as you dismiss any opposition with a challenge like that you admit that your position is weak.

Isn't it? Can you show this to be true, or is it just another paranoid cry in the dark? You have made so many claims like this that have been proven false that this time you need to show actual citations and references.

Again, show that it is treason, how and why, or retract your use of the phrase "traitors". If you can prove it, fine. If you can't then you yourself are one of "the usual actors", and are guilty of trolling.

The UN weapons treaty has a registration mechanism included for imports that would require a signatory government to collect data on the "end user" ie the purchaser and keep that data for 10 years, sharing it with over governments "concerned" such as where said weapon was imported.The potential for misuse of this is a threat to the rights of citizens in not only US but that of any nation who signs this monstrosity.Yes, this is treason, betraying the citizens of the United States to the UN.They can't get a registration law passed in the US, so they are trying to get some weapons registered via a treaty.This is saying "international law" holds more weight than our own laws, which is ceding our sovereignty in some regards.Absolutely unacceptable and illegal so once again, yes it is treason. Of course, Kerry is doing this on the orders of Dear Leader.

Also, this further empowers the UN, which is a threat to liberty of every human on the planet. No treaty that empowers it to do ANYTHING should be signed.The UN is about as an evil of an organization as there ever has been, perhaps only second to the Democratic Party or maybe the Nazi Party. :har:

Yes, I know some jabs at the Dems is "partisan" but it sure was fun.

Dowly

09-26-13, 11:55 AM

http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp

M'kay?

PS. You are stupid and you smell bad.

mapuc

09-26-13, 12:03 PM

Here's some more thoughts. On the 12th of September I came to think of this radio show Coast to Coast AM, and wondered if they had anything about 9/11 and of course they did.

In this show, they talked to some journalist that had made his own investigation about 9/11.

Now here's my thought.

If I have a standpoint wouldn't that effect the outcome of my investigation?

Let say that I'm convinced that the US-government is behind it. will it not then be on the result of my investigation?

Markus

Dread Knot

09-26-13, 12:07 PM

If I have a standpoint wouldn't that effect the outcome of my investigation?

Let say that I'm convinced that the US-government is behind it. will it not then be on the result of my investigation?

Yes... they have a term for that. It's called confirmation bias.

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

Oberon

09-26-13, 12:12 PM

PS. You are stupid and you smell bad.

http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/34757252.jpg

Bubblehead1980

09-26-13, 12:32 PM