Conspiracies, sheeple, the universe and everything

[Mittelwaechter]

@ 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]

Originally Posted by Mittelwaechter

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/WRHART...witnesses.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]

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]

Sometimes one just needs to know when to say when.

[Dowly]

Originally Posted by Mittelwaechter

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...io-transcript/

Search for Gofer 06.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Mittelwaechter

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]

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

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]

Originally Posted by Safe-Keeper

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

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]

A+ for effort, guys

[Safe-Keeper]

Also love the logic on display here:

Originally Posted by Mittelwaechter

@ 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 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?

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. .

[Dread Knot]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

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]

Originally Posted by Mittelwaechter

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.

[Catfish]

Originally Posted by Dowly

Funny how they edited that bit out from NSA.

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

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

[Stealhead]

Attack of the Troof Copter