Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
911 - Points to discuss
Comments
-
Experts are they? Lets take a jaunty look at your "Experts"
Glen Stanish, aka John Doe X, founder of "pilots for truth". He shouldn't really be wearing that pilots outfit because he lost his FAA licence several years ago, so it's a bit like going to interview a retired CIE worker who still likes to dress in his uniform.
The next is Jim Fetzer, has a doctorate in philosophy, not aviation or engineering or physics. He also believes that the planes that hit the WTC were in fact holograms, and that the towers were in fact destroyed by invisible space lasers.
Jim Marrs, wrote the book that Oliver Stone based on JFK, a film riddled with inaccuracies, and a book riddled with inaccuracies, he's a conspiracy theorist dyed in the wool.
Albert Stubblebine. May have spent some time staring at photos, but he's chiefly remembered as setting up the secret army goat lab, during the 70s. This lab was dedicated to training soldiers to gain psychic powers. They were trying to use the power of their minds to stop goat's hearts.
So what have we learnt about your experts? THEY'RE ALL FREAKING NUTS
how do you know this? proof please0 -
-
adrian280582 wrote: »how do you know this? proof please
You think I could make any of that up?
Before I trawl through the internet for these juicy mortals, let me ask you something. If I prove any of those facts about these people, will you consider revising your opinion on their status as experts?0 -
A well thought out reply.adrian280582 wrote: »post 194 from me
aaaaaaaaa why would they cover it up hahaha? well thats what I want to know omfg like
Explain it to us. Why would the government cover up evidence that completely agrees with their story? Habit?
And have you anything to suggest that this footage has been covered up other than the claim it exists?0 -
adrian280582 wrote: »
- Eugenio Hernandez, APTN - Latin American Desk, "I was in my Jeep Cherokee, driving on Route 395 toward DC and listening to NPR. I saw the plane coming down. I didn't have a camera with me. On the left shoulder, I saw this tourist with a video camera. The man was with his wife and son. They were from southern Virginia. He was freaked out completely. He was not recording anything. The camera was facing the ground. I jumped out of my car, pulled out one of my business cards, and handed it to him. 'I work for a news agency. Please could I borrow your camera?' I explained, 'I'm sure you will be rewarded.' He handed me the camera, and I went across the road. No one stopped me. I was holding my press badge on top of the camera while I was recording; I walked as close as possible. I was maybe 300 feet from the impact."[10]
The guy from the "big list" to solve all problems..
adrian280582 we seem to have got into a bit of a tit for tat bitching session which is a pity. I can honestly say I'm not tied to any version of events regarding the Pentagon. However after reading the numerous eyewitness reports with stuff like the lampposts to back it up, it would seem there is little doubt that it was a plane. It's not about believing the official story or not, just what we can prove within reason.
I find it somewhat odd that from a page with numerous eyewitness statements describing how a plane hit the Pentagon you bring up one which is about someone filming after the event, which isn't what we were even discussing. We were discussing video of the event itself. We don't know what happened to this footage or if the camera was even working but I'd be very interested to find out. However it doesn't change all the other information we have.
I'm curious, claims of the building being hit by a missile cannot be backed up once we look at the detail and yet you refuse to be budged from your position. Surely we all want to know the truth as far as it can be established? I dunno there seems to something approaching fixation on the US government, the assumption that they were involved no matter what the actual evidence shows. I'm not stating they weren't involved but it would be nice to keep some sort of open mind, instead of assuming the worst of them always.0 -
You think I could make any of that up?
Before I trawl through the internet for these juicy mortals, let me ask you something. If I prove any of those facts about these people, will you consider revising your opinion on their status as experts?
That depends on who the crtitc(s) is basically0 -
A well thought out reply.
Explain it to us. Why would the government cover up evidence that completely agrees with their story? Habit?
And have you anything to suggest that this footage has been covered up other than the claim it exists?
"Why would the government cover up evidence that completely agrees with their story"
Yes but it is there story that they want everyone else to believe0 -
adrian280582 wrote: »"Why would the government cover up evidence that completely agrees with their story"
Yes but it is there story that they want everyone else to believe
But the witness you quoted clearly states he saw an airplane. I'd imagine his film (If it actually did catch the plane) would show that.
Why would the government cover it up in that case?
And why would they go through the bother of covering up the footage yet fail to cover up the testimony he gave? Seems A bit odd to do that.0 -
adrian280582 we seem to have got into a bit of a tit for tat bitching session which is a pity. I can honestly say I'm not tied to any version of events regarding the Pentagon. However after reading the numerous eyewitness reports with stuff like the lampposts to back it up, it would seem there is little doubt that it was a plane. It's not about believing the official story or not, just what we can prove within reason.
I find it somewhat odd that from a page with numerous eyewitness statements describing how a plane hit the Pentagon you bring up one which is about someone filming after the event, which isn't what we were even discussing. We were discussing video of the event itself. We don't know what happened to this footage or if the camera was even working but I'd be very interested to find out. However it doesn't change all the other information we have.
I'm curious, claims of the building being hit by a missile cannot be backed up once we look at the detail and yet you refuse to be budged from your position. Surely we all want to know the truth as far as it can be established? I dunno there seems to something approaching fixation on the US government, the assumption that they were involved no matter what the actual evidence shows. I'm not stating they weren't involved but it would be nice to keep some sort of open mind, instead of assuming the worst of them always.
Meglome I have to say I think you made some valid points and in many ways agree with what you said totally and have respect for your opinions as with others(even though to some might seem otherwise)
I just want to point out once again I hope im proven wrong but till I am I just have to say I just dont go along with the total story.
To be honest there was many things that day from even when I was watching it live that got me thinking to myself well how come that could happen
Of course my aunts taughts from that day in Pentagon just triggered my feelings. Even things like them finding a passport of one of the terroists from WTC plane crash was just outragous and I just taught why would the US Governemnt lie about that because they did. No other evidence from WTC but that passport was found from the plane and what chances of that happening?
Yor point about "fixation on the US Governemnt" I agree with totally. I am not a critic of US in many ways (thats for different discussion) but on this occassion I think they have plenty of questions to answer.
This clip is off the point but just shows why people may have their eyebrows raised on the 9/11 attacks.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmzEzOJd2ws0 -
Advertisement
-
But the witness you quoted clearly states he saw an airplane. I'd imagine his film (If it actually did catch the plane) would show that.
Why would the government cover it up in that case?
And why would they go through the bother of covering up the footage yet fail to cover up the testimony he gave? Seems A bit odd to do that.
But why cant they just show a simple clip of the plane thats all I think us people would want to see and then people like me can apoligise to people like you for wasting yours and eveybody involved time.0 -
Because chances are the footage doesn't exist.adrian280582 wrote: »But why cant they just show a simple clip of the plane thats all I think us people would want to see and then people like me can apoligise to people like you for wasting yours and eveybody involved time.
Even the witness you quoted probably missed the vital moment.
It's funny how you demand definitive evidence of the plane but insist it was a missile based on....... what exactly?0 -
adrian280582 wrote: »Meglome I have to say I think you made some valid points and in many ways agree with what you said totally and have respect for your opinions as with others(even though to some might seem otherwise)
And in fairness to you you've argued your case whether I agree with you or not. It's a pity more people didn't get involved.adrian280582 wrote: »I just want to point out once again I hope im proven wrong but till I am I just have to say I just dont go along with the total story.
To be honest there was many things that day from even when I was watching it live that got me thinking to myself well how come that could happen
Believe me I think it was a surprise and shock to everyone watching, me included. But however incredible we thought all the events of 911 were, any decisions we came to in our minds on the day, were going to be full of assumptions. The simple fact is we have nothing to compare it with, we've never seen an attack this bold or of this magnitude before. And more specifically no building with the same design as the WTC has ever been hit by a big jet before, so any of us thinking it fell too easily is just another assumption.adrian280582 wrote: »Of course my aunts taughts from that day in Pentagon just triggered my feelings. Even things like them finding a passport of one of the terroists from WTC plane crash was just outragous and I just taught why would the US Governemnt lie about that because they did. No other evidence from WTC but that passport was found from the plane and what chances of that happening?
Let's face it the dogs on the street have an opinion on 911 and you and I are no different. The real problem is there is so much repeated hearsay and assumption, which is what prompted the whole idea of us looking at all the fine details carefully.
You do realise that in an explosion that the light objects will get blasted out? So finding small light items like a passport is exactly what you'd expect and not the other way around.adrian280582 wrote: »Yor point about "fixation on the US Governemnt" I agree with totally. I am not a critic of US in many ways (thats for different discussion) but on this occassion I think they have plenty of questions to answer.
There's plenty of documented things the US have done, some quite nasty things. But it still doesn't mean we should automatically assume they've done something else. And as I keep pointing out they keep getting caught doing these things, but for 911 they seem to have managed to pull it off or they weren't as involved as people assume.adrian280582 wrote: »This clip is off the point but just shows why people may have their eyebrows raised on the 9/11 attacks.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmzEzOJd2ws
Yup lot's of eyebrow were raised, it was shocking day. However that doesn't mean it didn't happen the way the government says it did.0 -
adrian280582 wrote: »That depends on who the crtitc(s) is basically
No it's not. Frankly if I am bothered I can find evidence of Glen's loss of his FAA licence, I need to root around the JREF forum archive, it's been common knowledge for nearly three years now. Their are direct quotes from Fetzer where he argues that space based star wars weapons destroyed the WTC, Stubblebine was interviewed extensively for Jon Ronson's "the men who stared at goats" (I've got a signed copy of the book sitting on my bookshelf) Stubblebine also appeared on Alex Jones show and claimed he was in charge of the unit. And there there is the extensive book by Vincent Bugliosi (the man who wrote the definitive book on the Manson murders) who wrote a stunningly detailed book on the JFK assassination, that exposes the many factual errors in Marrs book (again on my bookshelf). Furthermore Marrs is a member of Fetzer's "Scholars for 911 truth" an organisation that believes that star wars beam weapons destroyed the WTC.
So to make this easier.
If I expose the Glen Stanish no longer possesses a FAA pilots licence, will you discount his opinion?
If I show Stubblebine was involved in a US military unit that spent years trying to kill goats using psychic powers, will you reject his photographic "expetise?"
If I Show the Fetzer has set up a group, that Marrs belongs to, that believes the WTC were destroyed by star wars beam weapons and the planes were infact holograms, would it make you question their status as "experts" in the interpretation of the evidence of the crash of United 77?
Those are three, "yes" or "no", questions, I'd like to get a unambiguous answer from you before I proceed.0 -
adrian280582 wrote: »But why cant they just show a simple clip of the plane thats all I think us people would want to see and then people like me can apoligise to people like you for wasting yours and eveybody involved time.
So you do believe this eyewitness report then? Because if you are using this as proof there was more video footage then I assume you also believe that he saw a plane.0 -
adrian280582 wrote: »But why cant they just show a simple clip of the plane thats all I think us people would want to see and then people like me can apoligise to people like you for wasting yours and eveybody involved time.
BECAUSE THE SODDING PLANE WAS TRAVELLING AT 530MPH, OR 730FT PER SECOND, THAT'S THE LENGTH OF BETWEEN 5-7 FOOTBALL PITCHES A SECOND
No security camera is equipped to capture something travelling that fast. Very few cameramen could get a shot of that, never mind an amateur photographer, who could grab a shot.
A professional camerman who knew the plane was coming, could possibly have caught the plane.
Essentially you're expressing incredibility watching CCTV footage of a guy being shot. You're amazed that none of the cameras show the bullet flying through the air.0 -
Advertisement
-
Where is there a military base near NYC!?
or
Did the FBI or CIA have information about the attack or attacker's!?
if so what was the info!?
or
Why were the military,so slow to respond or the times it did!?
OR
Could someone tell me were this conspiracy starts and dates
or am i to believe it starts on that day in 2001.
if its a hidden agenda were are the clues before 9/9/2001
for people to believe[our just me] its some what real.0 -
Didn't want to change the subject right at the minute but I'll answer as best I can. Maybe the Mods will move this to a new thread.Where is there a military base near NYC!?
There are military bases all over the US, any specific reason why NYC?Did the FBI or CIA have information about the attack or attacker's!?
if so what was the info!?
Funnily this to me is where the real conspiracy might lie. It is known the US government were aware some of the hijackers were in the country. The question is how much they knew and what did they do about it. One of the things people forget about that time is US security agencies weren't always forthcoming about sharing information with each other. So as far as we can tell the information didn't get passed along until it was too late. Now we can assume this happened on purpose but we also know they didn't always share information with each other so...Could someone tell me were this conspiracy starts and dates
or am i to believe it starts on that day in 2001.
if its a hidden agenda were are the clues before 9/9/2001
for people to believe[our just me] its some what real.
Well people are great at seeing what happening after the fact but don't seem to notice anything at the time. So you'd have to wonder why.
I think the most successful conspiracies will involve a small number of people. Governments do get found out, that's been shown time and time again so since with 911 no one has talked we can assume it is a small number of people or maybe the US weren't involved. So I don't rule out any conspiracy but each time someone tells me some other group must be involved the conspiracy gets less and less likely by default. Take the Pentagon, there were something in the region of 8000 people working on the site after 911. So we have to either assume that many people can be made to lie or the official story is true since not one of them has spoken out. We're also told the media is involved too so how many more people do we have to add, another one thousand, two? So are we up to 10,000 just for the Pentagon alone? Does it seem likely to you that anyone could keep that many people quiet?0 -
What makes you feel the military were slow to respond?Why were the military,so slow to respond or the times it did!?
(I'm addressing only this question of yours, as its the only one that meglome missed)
The notion that the military reactions were slow is typically based on on a number of claims. As best I can, here's a summary of what I undertstand them to be:
1) There's some sort of a hotline direct from major ATC centers to military bases, where the air-traffic guys can make the call to scramble military planes.
2) The military have planes sitting on the tarmac, with the engines literally idling, and guys sitting in teh ready room all dressed to go, so that when the call comes, they can scramble out and be in the air in seconds.
3) As soon as someone even thinks its an emergency, military planes can fly at full thrust (maximum afterburner). This has no impact on their range, nor the amount of time they can stay in the air.
4) US ATC has complete radar coverage of the entire nation, in an integrated system so that the people in charge can see everything everywhere and be aware of every glitch, rather than relying on chains of escalation.
5) The US military have full access to this system described in the previous point, and actively monitor it to ensure that the US is protected from airborne threats originating inside the nations borders. They are not dependant on ATC contacting them at all. They have large number of widely-spread resources ready to deploy (as described in point 2), so that they can get anywhere quickly once they detect something.
I think that about sums it up...but I'm sure someone will tell me if I've missed something or gotten something wrong.
So...is this why you think the response times were slow - that you believe some or all of these points to be essentially accurate, thus leading to the conclusion that the military could have (and therefore should have) reacted faster?0 -
i dont have answers only questions that i think are, very good points to discuss and i feel there not being addressed in the reseach or discussion.
i dont feel a need to answer my own questions, but i'll give my opinion.
when i think of that day....9/9/01
the first thing i remember is a report, newsflash about a small plane hitting one of the tower's, even if it had been a small plane the people inside should of been evacuated as fast as possible no questions asked for the firefighters to work.
the military did or did not act fast with their response!?
The military didnt act for its people thats my opinion, not only that they have never done this,should i be bold,so-called, act for the people no-matter what military were talking about and its wrote all over the history books we learn when were in school...not only that so many people died,and the military say they're around to protect,thats just the way i look at it.no-one in the USA had a look in the mirrior,only looked to the middle east which will be seen as a failure in time.
so' ,how fast could they respond to a terrior attack before 2001!?
and we have that answer.
what are the reports given by military about their response or like i feel they had no warning from the FBI or CIA.
i believe they had known about hijacker's and that planes were their target, and I believe the hijacker's aims or their real target was unknown until that day...
what other traffic,or how many planes were around also at the time and why them 2 planes!?
i think there's alot more under un-turned stones and where does this conspircy start if anyone can point that out!?0 -
i dont have answers only questions that i think are, very good points to discuss and i feel there not being addressed in the reseach or discussion.
i dont feel a need to answer my own questions, but i'll give my opinion.
when i think of that day....9/9/01
As I mentioned in a post above even the dogs on the street have an opinion on 911. The only real question for all of us is do we have a properly informed opinion or just a feeling. And if we don't know about something it's right to ask and seek proof for it.the first thing i remember is a report, newsflash about a small plane hitting one of the tower's, even if it had been a small plane the people inside should of been evacuated as fast as possible no questions asked for the firefighters to work.
There were lot's of confused stories just as you get with every major news event. As far as we can tell no one initially knew it was anything other than a tragic accident. And why wouldn't the fire-fighters try to put out the fire since they didn't know the building was going to collapse, remember there was no such building collapse to compare it to before then.the military did or did not act fast with their response!?
The military didnt act for its people thats my opinion, not only that they have never done this,should i be bold,so-called, act for the people no-matter what military were talking about and its wrote all over the history books we learn when were in school...not only that so many people died,and the military say they're around to protect,thats just the way i look at it.no-one in the USA had a look in the mirrior,only looked to the middle east which will be seen as a failure in time.
so' ,how fast could they respond to a terrior attack before 2001!?
and we have that answer.
what are the reports given by military about their response or like i feel they had no warning from the FBI or CIA.
what other traffic,or how many planes were around also at the time and why them 2 planes!?
To know the answer to your points we'd first have to answer what Bonkey asked above. There were over 3000 aircraft in the air over the US on 911 so how long does it take to find 4 planes with their transponders turned off? You're assuming that it should or must take x amount of time for the military to do that based on several other indeterminate factors. First we need to look at all the factors then we can determine if the military should have got there faster or not.i believe they had known about hijacker's and that planes were their target, and I believe the hijacker's aims or their real target was unknown until that day...
Well any of us can believe whatever we like. It is a different thing to prove it though.i think there's alot more under un-turned stones and where does this conspircy start if anyone can point that out!?
First we have to assume it was a conspiracy. If we don't want to assume we have to prove as much of the information we can about 911. So far in the new threads we are far from proving a conspiracy, quite the opposite.0 -
Advertisement
-
a building to compare it to!?
OKLAHOMA city just a building collopse to compare!?...no!?
thats the beautiful thing about conspiracy theories they take years and years.......thats all just the part of a researcher.
first of all ask your an important question........
why the need for the attack!? with an open mind.0 -
a building to compare it to!?
OKLAHOMA city just a building collopse to compare!?...no!?
thats the beautiful thing about conspiracy theories they take years and years.......thats all just the part of a researcher.
first of all ask your an important question........
why the need for the attack!? with an open mind.
I wasn't attacking anyone.
What are the comparisons with between the WTC and Oklahoma city buildings? We were talking about the fire-fighting efforts initially, right?0 -
i dont have answers only questions that i think are, very good points to discuss and i feel there not being addressed in the reseach or discussion.
Fair enough...lets have a look...
I'm not sure why you think this is not addressed in research or discussion. More importantly, I'm not sure why you think this wasn't done.the people inside should of been evacuated as fast as possible no questions asked for the firefighters to work.
The people inside were evacuated as fast as possible, in accordance with well-established evacuation principles.
Exactly...how fast could they respond to a terror attack before 2001 is exactly the question we should ask. The answer - which has been researched and discussed - is that every indication is that the response on September 11, 2001, was faster than it should have been in terms of established protocol, and faster then any even-half-way comparable example.the military did or did not act fast with their response!?
The military didnt act for its people thats my opinion, not only that they have never done this,should i be bold,so-called, act for the people no-matter what military were talking about and its wrote all over the history books we learn when were in school...not only that so many people died,and the military say they're around to protect,thats just the way i look at it.no-one in the USA had a look in the mirrior,only looked to the middle east which will be seen as a failure in time.
so' ,how fast could they respond to a terrior attack before 2001!?
and we have that answer.
You started this post talking about lack of research and/or discussion. Belief has little part in that. What was or may have been known has been researched and discussed from every possible angle.i believe they had known about hijacker's and that planes were their target, and I believe the hijacker's aims or their real target was unknown until that day...
You've lost me...what 2 planes? There were 4 planes hijacked, so what 2 planes are you talking about?what other traffic,or how many planes were around also at the time and why them 2 planes!?0 -
-
heres a little about what the response was like, so how is it fast do you think!?http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x50j7f_jesse-ventura-debates-the-911-consp_newsFair enough...lets have a look...
I'm not sure why you think this is not addressed in research or discussion. More importantly, I'm not sure why you think this wasn't done.
The people inside were evacuated as fast as possible, in accordance with well-established evacuation principles.
Exactly...how fast could they respond to a terror attack before 2001 is exactly the question we should ask. The answer - which has been researched and discussed - is that every indication is that the response on September 11, 2001, was faster than it should have been in terms of established protocol, and faster then any even-half-way comparable example.
You started this post talking about lack of research and/or discussion. Belief has little part in that. What was or may have been known has been researched and discussed from every possible angle.
You've lost me...what 2 planes? There were 4 planes hijacked, so what 2 planes are you talking about?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_bombing_conspiracy_theories
even if i believe the 2 are linked, my belief has notting to do with it[oklahoma city bombing and 911]....i just wanted to add my belief.
the two planes that hit there target.theres still two that didnt hit.
ill also add this if you read this bit about the US response.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories0 -
heres a little about what the response was like, so how is it fast do you think!?http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x50j7f_jesse-ventura-debates-the-911-consp_news
Ventura is wrong.
He claims that when contact was lost with Payne Stewart's plane, they had a figher jet there in 20 minutes. This is entirely incorrect.
Here is the timeline for Payne Stewart's last flight.
9:33 - Contact lost
10:08 - Two fighters already in the air on a training mission were asked to redirect to investigate. They never got near the plane
10:52 - Another fighter got within 9 miles. I haven't been able to find if this fighter was sent up to investigate, or was merely redirected like the first.
11:00 - Visual inspection begins.
Ventura is missing an hour from his claim. Its a common mistake, based on the fact that the events took place spanning two timezones, so the confusion often arises because contact was lost at 9:33 EDT, and visual contact was established at 9:52 CDT.
Furthermore, in the case of Stewart, SEADS was notified 28 minutes after contact was lost. In the case of Flight 11, NEADS was notified 25 minutes after contact was lost. Can you explain how this shows that the latter case was unusually slow?
Ventura goes on to say that on 9/11 not one jet got up into the air. Again, he's wrong. No successful intercept was made. No jet got into the air before the first crash, but its not true to say that no jet got into the air. The first jets were launched at 8:46. Flight 11's final normal contact was at 8:13. So the jets were launched 30 minutes after thefirst indication that something was wrong.
To be honest, I gave up listening to Ventura at this point. He's batting 0-for-2 with information that's relatively simple to fact-check. If you think he makes a valid point later in the video, feel free to tell me what it is, and where on the video to find his claim.
Still not getting you.the two planes that hit there target.theres still two that didnt hit.
Four planes were hijacked. Three hit their targets (WTC1, WTC2, Pentagon) and one crashed.
What two planes are you talking about?0 -
-
ok i'll have a look around today......for info on accountsVentura is wrong.
He claims that when contact was lost with Payne Stewart's plane, they had a figher jet there in 20 minutes. This is entirely incorrect.
Here is the timeline for Payne Stewart's last flight.
9:33 - Contact lost
10:08 - Two fighters already in the air on a training mission were asked to redirect to investigate. They never got near the plane
10:52 - Another fighter got within 9 miles. I haven't been able to find if this fighter was sent up to investigate, or was merely redirected like the first.
11:00 - Visual inspection begins.
Ventura is missing an hour from his claim. Its a common mistake, based on the fact that the events took place spanning two timezones, so the confusion often arises because contact was lost at 9:33 EDT, and visual contact was established at 9:52 CDT.
Furthermore, in the case of Stewart, SEADS was notified 28 minutes after contact was lost. In the case of Flight 11, NEADS was notified 25 minutes after contact was lost. Can you explain how this shows that the latter case was unusually slow?
Ventura goes on to say that on 9/11 not one jet got up into the air. Again, he's wrong. No successful intercept was made. No jet got into the air before the first crash, but its not true to say that no jet got into the air. The first jets were launched at 8:46. Flight 11's final normal contact was at 8:13. So the jets were launched 30 minutes after thefirst indication that something was wrong.
To be honest, I gave up listening to Ventura at this point. He's batting 0-for-2 with information that's relatively simple to fact-check. If you think he makes a valid point later in the video, feel free to tell me what it is, and where on the video to find his claim.
Still not getting you.
Four planes were hijacked. Three hit their targets (WTC1, WTC2, Pentagon) and one crashed.
What two planes are you talking about?
i note all your valid points.
four planes were hijacked....but can we leave this to one side for now.
i feel its another thread, i or someone can start.0 -
Defender's of the official story have claimed that payne stewarts wayward cessna is the only plane in the last decade to have elicited a military intercept in the US.
However not only does this directly contradict numerous other government reports citing hundreds of other such intercepts incidents,NORD's own spokesman marine corp's major mike snyder told the boston globe on september 15 2001 that its fighters routinely intercept air traffic.
now to 911.
the FAA confirmed by 8:14 .a.m the first plane had being hijacked.
FAA confirmed hijacking time is hard to corroborate, other reliable accounts push the time of military contact regarding the hijacking back about ten minutes, placing FAA's call to NORAD at around 8:25 a.m
still 21 mins before the first impact,NORAD official lt. col. dawne deskin's of the air national guard confirmed that the military had received hijacking information by 8:30 a.m
The 911 commission report for some reason puts the time of military contact at 8:37:52 a.m
An unsupported , unexplained time that stands a full 23 min's longer than the standard operating procedure would have dictated.0 -
So you do believe this eyewitness report then? Because if you are using this as proof there was more video footage then I assume you also believe that he saw a plane.
I am assuming that if there was footage out there that they would show a plane and then I think we can see that this case and be closed once and for all0 -
Advertisement
-
No it's not. Frankly if I am bothered I can find evidence of Glen's loss of his FAA licence, I need to root around the JREF forum archive, it's been common knowledge for nearly three years now. Their are direct quotes from Fetzer where he argues that space based star wars weapons destroyed the WTC, Stubblebine was interviewed extensively for Jon Ronson's "the men who stared at goats" (I've got a signed copy of the book sitting on my bookshelf) Stubblebine also appeared on Alex Jones show and claimed he was in charge of the unit. And there there is the extensive book by Vincent Bugliosi (the man who wrote the definitive book on the Manson murders) who wrote a stunningly detailed book on the JFK assassination, that exposes the many factual errors in Marrs book (again on my bookshelf). Furthermore Marrs is a member of Fetzer's "Scholars for 911 truth" an organisation that believes that star wars beam weapons destroyed the WTC.
So to make this easier.
If I expose the Glen Stanish no longer possesses a FAA pilots licence, will you discount his opinion?
If I show Stubblebine was involved in a US military unit that spent years trying to kill goats using psychic powers, will you reject his photographic "expetise?"
If I Show the Fetzer has set up a group, that Marrs belongs to, that believes the WTC were destroyed by star wars beam weapons and the planes were infact holograms, would it make you question their status as "experts" in the interpretation of the evidence of the crash of United 77?
Those are three, "yes" or "no", questions, I'd like to get a unambiguous answer from you before I proceed.
if you show constructive evidence brought by non government evidence then yes to all three questions0 -
adrian280582 wrote: »if you show constructive evidence brought by non government evidence then yes to all three questions
What do you mean by "constructive evidence" and "non government evidence"? Stubblebine was a member of the US government his military record is a held by the US government.
However just to show my good faith James Fetzer's credentials as a philosophy professor as for star wars beam weapons (or invisible space lasers) try his book.
Still think I'm making this up? Or wonder why we question the calibre of your "experts?"
(PS Adrian I'm just getting warmed up here man, keep this up and we're going to redefine the interweb dictionary of pwnage, to include a photo of you)0 -
What do you mean by "constructive evidence" and "non government evidence"? Stubblebine was a member of the US government his military record is a held by the US government.
However just to show my good faith James Fetzer's credentials as a philosophy professor as for star wars beam weapons (or invisible space lasers) try his book.
Still think I'm making this up? Or wonder why we question the calibre of your "experts?"
(PS Adrian I'm just getting warmed up here man, keep this up and we're going to redefine the interweb dictionary of pwnage, to include a photo of you)
ill give you James Fetzers story fair enough hands down..
Why do you think that stubblebine would have lost his job from the us government if he was a activist for the inside job theory?
as for your ps message man if thats supposed to scare me off is little childish tbh...i aint into that crap this is discussion fourm your entitled to your opinion and i am mine...( maybe the mods will help me out but doubt it)
From the inside job side the pentagon attack is the hardest to get round because of many different disadvatge stops to come round too..0 -
adrian280582 wrote: »I am assuming that if there was footage out there that they would show a plane and then I think we can see that this case and be closed once and for all
You didn't answer my point though. You appear to be accepting what he said about the footage as true so are you also accepting that he also saw a plane?
And as I already pointed out, if this footage exists, it doesn't prove what you say at all. It was taken after the event, just like all the other pictures. It appears your implication is now that the pieces of plane were planted, even though it's next to a busy highway. The proof of which is one reporter changing their story. Am I warm?
Given that they are so many eye witnesses who saw a plane and many who saw the plane debris lying about at the time just as we see in the pictures you'll forgive me for continuing to think it was a plane. Not to mention the corroborating evidence.
Will I post the pictures of the Air France plane again with most of the plane gone just from a (quite brief) fire?0 -
BECAUSE THE SODDING PLANE WAS TRAVELLING AT 530MPH, OR 730FT PER SECOND, THAT'S THE LENGTH OF BETWEEN 5-7 FOOTBALL PITCHES A SECOND
No security camera is equipped to capture something travelling that fast. Very few cameramen could get a shot of that, never mind an amateur photographer, who could grab a shot.
A professional camerman who knew the plane was coming, could possibly have caught the plane.
Essentially you're expressing incredibility watching CCTV footage of a guy being shot. You're amazed that none of the cameras show the bullet flying through the air.
a plane cannot travel that fast at height thats a fact....
funnily enough i got this and as you can see by title its supposed back up your claim just count to one and if you honestly think that a plane can go through 5-7 football pitches in that time then cows can fly
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nBaU0vwP-o&feature=related0 -
You didn't answer my point though. You appear to be accepting what he said about the footage as true so are you also accepting that he also saw a plane?
And as I already pointed out, if this footage exists, it doesn't prove what you say at all. It was taken after the event, just like all the other pictures. It appears your implication is now that the pieces of plane were planted, even though it's next to a busy highway. The proof of which is one reporter changing their story. Am I warm?
Given that they are so many eye witnesses who saw a plane and many who saw the plane debris lying about at the time just as we see in the pictures you'll forgive me for continuing to think it was a plane. Not to mention the corroborating evidence.
Will I post the pictures of the Air France plane again with most of the plane gone just from a (quite brief) fire?
seen the photo you were on about and have say got me second taughts but on your first point I am accepting a plane crash IF and only IF this person has footage of the plane then surely for all arguments sake if its proof then why not show it..
basically till footage (one photo can claer all this remember) is shown to clearly show a plane hit the pentagon then the argument of the inside job team will always be of strong in my view0 -
But no such footage of a missile exists. Why do you believe it was a missile that hit?adrian280582 wrote: »seen the photo you were on about and have say got me second taughts but on your first point I am accepting a plane crash IF and only IF this person has footage of the plane then surely for all arguments sake if its proof then why not show it..
basically till footage (one photo can claer all this remember) is shown to clearly show a plane hit the pentagon then the argument of the inside job team will always be of strong in my view0 -
adrian280582 wrote: »a plane cannot travel that fast at height thats a fact....
funnily enough i got this and as you can see by title its supposed back up your claim just count to one and if you honestly think that a plane can go through 5-7 football pitches in that time then cows can fly
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nBaU0vwP-o&feature=related
You do realise you posted a link to a piece of video that directly refutes your assertion?
Also if planes cannot fly at that height and speed, how on earth do you expect missiles to pull off that trick?0 -
adrian280582 wrote: »seen the photo you were on about and have say got me second taughts but on your first point I am accepting a plane crash IF and only IF this person has footage of the plane then surely for all arguments sake if its proof then why not show it..
basically till footage (one photo can claer all this remember) is shown to clearly show a plane hit the pentagon then the argument of the inside job team will always be of strong in my view
I call this the "until everyone can prove all alleged photos of bigfoot, are in fact guys in furry suits, I maintain that bigfoot exists" logic.0 -
Advertisement
-
adrian280582 wrote: »ill give you James Fetzers story fair enough hands down..
Why do you think that stubblebine would have lost his job from the us government if he was a activist for the inside job theory?
Pssst Stublebine retired over 25 years ago. In '83.as for your ps message man if thats supposed to scare me off is little childish tbh...i aint into that crap this is discussion fourm your entitled to your opinion and i am mine...( maybe the mods will help me out but doubt it)
Well I'm 0 for 2 at the moment.From the inside job side the pentagon attack is the hardest to get round because of many different disadvatge stops to come round too..
So we've clarified Fetzer is nuts, Stubblebine ain't active in the military, and wasn't for nearly twenty years before 9/11.
I can prove Marrs is another member of scholars for 911 truth, and I can prove Stanish lost his licence.
Lets not forget your argument was that these people were "experts" and you believed their authority in this matter.0 -
You do realise you posted a link to a piece of video that directly refutes your assertion?
Also if planes cannot fly at that height and speed, how on earth do you expect missiles to pull off that trick?
Yes I said that on my post I was well aware of it read my second paragaph justd proves that ylou dont read you only read what you want to read
Missiles at max go at about 326kmph from what i have seen in real life and studied in middle east..never been proven so no use but there are reports that korea are able ship missiles at over 400 but not proven yet now0 -
BECAUSE THE SODDING PLANE WAS TRAVELLING AT 530MPH, OR 730FT PER SECOND, THAT'S THE LENGTH OF BETWEEN 5-7 FOOTBALL PITCHES A SECOND
No security camera is equipped to capture something travelling that fast. Very few cameramen could get a shot of that, never mind an amateur photographer, who could grab a shot.
A professional camerman who knew the plane was coming, could possibly have caught the plane.
Essentially you're expressing incredibility watching CCTV footage of a guy being shot. You're amazed that none of the cameras show the bullet flying through the air.
actually this got me thinking if a plane was going at 530mph like you say then people who saw "clearly" that it was american airlines they must have one hell of good eyesight to be able to explain everything in prob no more then 2 secs max dont you think0 -
Pssst Stublebine retired over 25 years ago. In '83.
Well I'm 0 for 2 at the moment.
So we've clarified Fetzer is nuts, Stubblebine ain't active in the military, and wasn't for nearly twenty years before 9/11.
I can prove Marrs is another member of scholars for 911 truth, and I can prove Stanish lost his licence.
Lets not forget your argument was that these people were "experts" and you believed their authority in this matter.
you can prove quiet lot. you being on and on but still come back to same points every single time..Im afrad then i have come with same answers everytime0 -
adrian280582 wrote: »seen the photo you were on about and have say got me second taughts but on your first point I am accepting a plane crash IF and only IF this person has footage of the plane then surely for all arguments sake if its proof then why not show it..
basically till footage (one photo can claer all this remember) is shown to clearly show a plane hit the pentagon then the argument of the inside job team will always be of strong in my view
King Mob already asked the first obvious question so I'll move along.
If we accept what the eye witness says, then A. It a was a plane and B. There should be footage taken after the crash. This would not show the actual plane as it was taken after the crash but would show small pieces of plane just like the other pictures do that were also taken after the crash.
The argument for an inside job will always be strong because even when you show evidence to the contrary people still choose to believe it. Personally I hope I'm keeping an open mind.0 -
what if it was both missile and plane, or even remote controlled!?adrian280582 wrote: »Yes I said that on my post I was well aware of it read my second paragaph justd proves that ylou dont read you only read what you want to read
Missiles at max go at about 326kmph from what i have seen in real life and studied in middle east..never been proven so no use but there are reports that korea are able ship missiles at over 400 but not proven yet now
if a person told me in 2001 he/she seen a plane, they seen a plane...
if the crime scene doesnt add up why!? were did the wings of the plane go!?0 -
Advertisement
-
adrian280582 wrote: »Yes I said that on my post I was well aware of it read my second paragaph justd proves that ylou dont read you only read what you want to read
Missiles at max go at about 326kmph from what i have seen in real life and studied in middle east..never been proven so no use but there are reports that korea are able ship missiles at over 400 but not proven yet now
Wrong!
Cruise Missiles can travel at sub and super sonic speeds.Both are far in excess of 326mph.actually this got me thinking if a plane was going at 530mph like you say then people who saw "clearly" that it was american airlines they must have one hell of good eyesight to be able to explain everything in prob no more then 2 secs max dont you think
No theres a world of difference between passively observing something , and taking out a camera, switching it on, trying to focus on the object and filimming it.0 -
adrian280582 wrote: »Yes I said that on my post I was well aware of it read my second paragaph justd proves that ylou dont read you only read what you want to read
Missiles at max go at about 326kmph from what i have seen in real life and studied in middle east..never been proven so no use but there are reports that korea are able ship missiles at over 400 but not proven yet now
A Tomahawk Cruise missile flies at 550 mph or 880 km/h.0 -
I call this the "until everyone can prove all alleged photos of bigfoot, are in fact guys in furry suits, I maintain that bigfoot exists" logic.
had my own little theory but im wiser then to go down this petty route. anyway
Think about what you said.. You have said that plane was travelling at 730ft per second 530mph im not sure you realise how quiet fast that is. if true then dont you think that most people would not even had time to really make out what plane was.
god bless the americans eyesight thats all i will say0 -
-
I'll ask again.
If you argee that there is no footage of what actually hit the building and that what ever did hit it was traveling too fast to see, why do you believe a missile hit the pentagon?0 -
Advertisement
Advertisement