No Planes Theories on 9/11

Di0genes

orourkeda wrote: »

I'm not sure if these claims are made in loose change but I've heard it suggested that several of the hijackers had been seen alive after the sep 11 attacks.

Long debunked.

http://www.911myths.com/html/still_alive.html

Conspiracy theorists still make the claim, and yet all one of these "documentaries" would have to do is find and interview one of the alive hijackers, and BAM the official story is a lie, and instant Pulitzer Prize.

In the near decade since 9/11 noone of the conspiracy theorists have gotten close to any of the "alive" hijackers.

Superlativeman

Di0genes wrote: »

Long debunked.

http://www.911myths.com/html/still_alive.html

Conspiracy theorists still make the claim, and yet all one of these "documentaries" would have to do is find and interview one of the alive hijackers, and BAM the official story is a lie, and instant Pulitzer Prize.

In the near decade since 9/11 noone of the conspiracy theorists have gotten close to any of the "alive" hijackers.

But the Pentagon has gotten close to the leaders of these supposed "hijackers": http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/10/20/al-qaeda-terror-leader-dined-pentagon-months/

Why didn't Anton Sutton ever win any awards for his conscientious books about how Wall Street financed the Bolsheviks and the Nazi's?

You do know that the American government admits that some conspiracies have been true? So when you use those words "conspiracy theorists", as if it's a bad thing, it makes you look a bit asinine.

Di0genes

Superlativeman wrote: »

But the Pentagon has gotten close to the leaders of these supposed "hijackers": http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/10/20/al-qaeda-terror-leader-dined-pentagon-months/

What's your point? This is a embarrassing incident for the Americans.

Why didn't Anton Sutton ever win any awards for his conscientious books about how Wall Street financed the Bolsheviks and the Nazi's?

Thats a complete non sequitur. it has nothing to do with the demonstratively untrue claims that the hijackers are still alive.

You do know that the American government admits that some conspiracies have been true?

So? And conspiracies such as?

So when you use those words "conspiracy theorists", as if it's a bad thing, it makes you look a bit asinine.

It's the name of the forum.

Superlativeman

Di0genes wrote: »

What's your point? This is a embarrassing incident for the Americans.



Thats a complete non sequitur. it has nothing to do with the demonstratively untrue claims that the hijackers are still alive.



So? And conspiracies such as?



It's the name of the forum.

"Embarrassing incident." Embarrassing response. Probably was a mistake giving STD'S to kids as well on purpose and infecting hemophiliacs with HIV on purpose, but hey, that's the American Government, just sloppy and inept.................

"So? And conspiracies such as?"

What do you mean "so"? What kind of response is that? And Cass Sunstien admits MK Ultra and others. He wants to ban conspiracy theorists and use cointelpro to cause disruption among patriot groups and also wants to do this on internet forums. Is that something that a "good" government would do?

"Thats a complete non sequitur. it has nothing to do with the demonstratively untrue claims that the hijackers are still alive."

Maybe so, but you can understand the apprehension with people regarding what comes out of the U.S government and more coincidences such as two of the hijackers living with an F.B.I informant, can't you? And these two were known to be terrorists after they were identified at a terrorist summit in Malaysia in which George Tenet attended as C.I.A director.

And the point I was making was that you don't get rewarded for telling the truth, do you? As Dr. Sutton got no rewards. But at least Brzezinski gave him credit.

I actually will agree about the hijackers. There is no need to even try to prove it as there is far more evidence. By the way, that embarrassing moment for the U.S ended up in the fort hood shooting and the underwear bomber. And both of those events were pretty odd as well.

meglome

Superlativeman wrote: »

"Embarrassing incident." Embarrassing response. Probably was a mistake giving STD'S to kids as well on purpose and infecting hemophiliacs with HIV on purpose, but hey, that's the American Government, just sloppy and inept.................

"So? And conspiracies such as?"

What do you mean "so"? What kind of response is that? And Cass Sunstien admits MK Ultra and others. He wants to ban conspiracy theorists and use cointelpro to cause disruption among patriot groups and also wants to do this on internet forums. Is that something that a "good" government would do?

"Thats a complete non sequitur. it has nothing to do with the demonstratively untrue claims that the hijackers are still alive."

Maybe so, but you can understand the apprehension with people regarding what comes out of the U.S government and more coincidences such as two of the hijackers living with an F.B.I informant, can't you? And these two were known to be terrorists after they were identified at a terrorist summit in Malaysia in which George Tenet attended as C.I.A director.

And the point I was making was that you don't get rewarded for telling the truth, do you? As Dr. Sutton got no rewards. But at least Brzezinski gave him credit.

I actually will agree about the hijackers. There is no need to even try to prove it as there is far more evidence. By the way, that embarrassing moment for the U.S ended up in the fort hood shooting and the underwear bomber. And both of those events were pretty odd as well.

So if I understand what you're saying, the US government have suggested and done some bad things. Okay so I think we'd all agree on that as a general point, even if we don't agree on all the specifics. (Sorry wasn't MKULTRA actually disclosed by the US congress?)

But how does that prove that the US had anything to do with 911?

Superlativeman

meglome wrote: »

So if I understand what you're saying, the US government have suggested and done some bad things. Okay so I think we'd all agree on that as a general point, even if we don't agree on all the specifics. (Sorry wasn't MKULTRA actually disclosed by the US congress?)

But how does that prove that the US had anything to do with 911?

Yes, but just because it was disclosed doesn't mean it's not important. It came out by the NSA and Robert McNamara confirmed it in 2004 that they knew the Golf of Tonkin incident never occurred. Last summer it came out that senators even knew that it was all lies, but still voted for the "Golf of Tonkin Resolution."

If anything, what you're saying is not really relevant. You're basically saying "yeah, they admitted it, so what?" Well how long do we want to wait before finding out 9/11 was a lie?

First off, I'm not one of these "Oh, you believe the government, you're a sheep" guys. I just stick to facts and don't claim to be anything I'm not or ahead of the "sheeple." Everything I said in that quote is documented in fact.

Does 6 out of the 10 9/11 commissioners who say it's a criminal cover up mean Bush staged the attacks? No. Does John Farmer, senior council to the 9/11 commission in his new book saying it was a lie from the start mean Bush staged it? No.

Does America installing and funding dictators mean that 9/11 was an inside job? No.

My point of view is that when you really look at American foreign policy and domestic policy over the last 6 decades, it annoys me that people consider you insane ever for suggesting that something was suspicious about that day.

Perhaps I took Diogenes up wrong. But when I saw him say "conspiracy theorists" I just immediately thought: "OK, another archetypal guy who thinks everything is fine and America would never even consider staging an attempt."

Also, when you say they've done a few bad things, that's the understatement of the century. Take for example, Iran. All the bellicose neocons, even Obama officials, are all saying the same rhetoric when it comes to Iran. Do I like Iran? Nope. Would I like to live there? Nope. I wish Iran would end its Theocracy and become a free country....... like it was in 1953. But who ended all that? The C.I.A. Operation Ajax, the declassified document showing how the helped overthrow mosedeck(spelling completely wrong, I know) and install the Shah. And obviously his tyranny led to the Iranian Revolution and the Ayatollah Khomeini, who, by the way, I've heard was on the C.I.A payroll in the 70's, but I can't say it unequivocally as I haven't got the docs, but it wouldn't surprise me if he was.

What I'm saying is, WW3 could start with a country which America destroyed and because of their interference, it has led to the horror nation it has now. Does that not make your blood boil? It makes mine.

I have my views about 9/11. I don't believe the towers were blown up or that the Pentagon was hit with a missile(a smaller plan than a commercial airliner I think from the video analysis). I do believe that the American government unequivocally indirectly helped the hijackers and the likes of Sibel Edmonds' testimony and countless other high profiles people and all the other evidence makes me think that some in the government were complicity with the attackers. The Al-walaki news is mind blowing and it's indefensible. To say that it was an mistake is asinine, in my opinion.

meglome

Superlativeman wrote: »

Yes, but just because it was disclosed doesn't mean it's not important. It came out by the NSA and Robert McNamara confirmed it in 2004 that they knew the Golf of Tonkin incident never occurred. Last summer it came out that senators even knew that it was all lies, but still voted for the "Golf of Tonkin Resolution."

If anything, what you're saying is not really relevant. You're basically saying "yeah, they admitted it, so what?" Well how long do we want to wait before finding out 9/11 was a lie?

First off, I'm not one of these "Oh, you believe the government, you're a sheep" guys. I just stick to facts and don't claim to be anything I'm not or ahead of the "sheeple." Everything I said in that quote is documented in fact.

So again we're all agreeing that the US has done some terrible things.

Superlativeman wrote: »

Does 6 out of the 10 9/11 commissioners who say it's a criminal cover up mean Bush staged the attacks? No. Does John Farmer, senior council to the 9/11 commission in his new book saying it was a lie from the start mean Bush staged it? No.

They do? link?

Superlativeman wrote: »

Does America installing and funding dictators mean that 9/11 was an inside job? No.

My point of view is that when you really look at American foreign policy and domestic policy over the last 6 decades, it annoys me that people consider you insane ever for suggesting that something was suspicious about that day.

It's not inane but since it's a unique event there's nothing to compare it to. So everyone is entitled to their opinion, but to accept US involvement you need to have evidence that directly relates to it. Assuming their involvement means nothing.

Superlativeman wrote: »

Also, when you say they've done a few bad things, that's the understatement of the century. Take for example, Iran. All the bellicose neocons, even Obama officials, are all saying the same rhetoric when it comes to Iran. Do I like Iran? Nope. Would I like to live there? Nope. I wish Iran would end its Theocracy and become a free country....... like it was in 1953. But who ended all that? The C.I.A. Operation Ajax, the declassified document showing how the helped overthrow mosedeck(spelling completely wrong, I know) and install the Shah. And obviously his tyranny led to the Iranian Revolution and the Ayatollah Khomeini, who, by the way, I've heard was on the C.I.A payroll in the 70's, but I can't say it unequivocally as I haven't got the docs, but it wouldn't surprise me if he was.

So let's see.. imagine I'm a violent guy and am known for several violent incidents. So someone in my area gets killed should I be arrested and imprisoned. Should people assume I did it, should I be lynched because of previous bad behaviour?

Superlativeman wrote: »

What I'm saying is, WW3 could start with a country which America destroyed and because of their interference, it has led to the horror nation it has now. Does that not make your blood boil? It makes mine.

I'm no fan of what they often do either. Doesn't make them guilty of 911 though.

Superlativeman wrote: »

I have my views about 9/11. I don't believe the towers were blown up or that the Pentagon was hit with a missile(a smaller plan than a commercial airliner I think from the video analysis).

Video analysis?

Superlativeman wrote: »

I do believe that the American government unequivocally indirectly helped the hijackers and the likes of Sibel Edmonds' testimony and countless other high profiles people and all the other evidence makes me think that some in the government were complicity with the attackers. The Al-walaki news is mind blowing and it's indefensible. To say that it was an mistake is asinine, in my opinion.

What evidence is this?

Di0genes

Superlativeman wrote: »

Yes, but just because it was disclosed doesn't mean it's not important. It came out by the NSA and Robert McNamara confirmed it in 2004 that they knew the Golf of Tonkin incident never occurred. Last summer it came out that senators even knew that it was all lies, but still voted for the "Golf of Tonkin Resolution."

You watched but clearly didn't understand the fog of war.

Perhaps I took Diogenes up wrong. But when I saw him say "conspiracy theorists" I just immediately thought: "OK, another archetypal guy who thinks everything is fine and America would never even consider staging an attempt."

Well stop projecting your opinion onto me.

I have my views about 9/11. I don't believe the towers were blown up or that the Pentagon was hit with a missile(a smaller plan than a commercial airliner I think from the video analysis).

You understand that of the hundred or so witnesses they saw a 737, and saw it with untied airline markings.

I do believe that the American government unequivocally indirectly helped the hijackers

Source.

and the likes of Sibel Edmonds' testimony

Really which part?

and countless other high profiles people

Surely you could name one or two?

and all the other evidence makes me think that some in the government were complicity with the attackers. The Al-walaki news is mind blowing and it's indefensible. To say that it was an mistake is asinine, in my opinion.

Why is it indefensible?

RGDATA!

Superlativeman wrote: »

Does 6 out of the 10 9/11 commissioners who say it's a criminal cover up mean Bush staged the attacks? No.

any link to support this claim, seems incredible if true?

Superlativeman wrote: »

My point of view is that when you really look at American foreign policy and domestic policy over the last 6 decades, it annoys me that people consider you insane ever for suggesting that something was suspicious about that day.

I agree with you on this. I personally don't think anyone is insane for simply suggesting "something was suspicious" about aspects of 9/11. But you have to make a case based on facts, not on innuendos or flawed logic (not saying this is what you're doing, but just where my natural skepticism kicks in). At the same time, I don't think someone who disputes certain conspiracy theories around 9/11 is automatically a sheep who swallows everything they see in the media, or automatically endorses the Bush admin or American foreign policy etc

Superlativeman wrote: »

Perhaps I took Diogenes up wrong. But when I saw him say "conspiracy theorists" I just immediately thought: "OK, another archetypal guy who thinks everything is fine and America would never even consider staging an attempt."

Also, when you say they've done a few bad things, that's the understatement of the century. Take for example, Iran. All the bellicose neocons, even Obama officials, are all saying the same rhetoric when it comes to Iran. Do I like Iran? Nope. Would I like to live there? Nope. I wish Iran would end its Theocracy and become a free country....... like it was in 1953. But who ended all that? The C.I.A. Operation Ajax, the declassified document showing how the helped overthrow mosedeck(spelling completely wrong, I know) and install the Shah. And obviously his tyranny led to the Iranian Revolution and the Ayatollah Khomeini, who, by the way, I've heard was on the C.I.A payroll in the 70's, but I can't say it unequivocally as I haven't got the docs, but it wouldn't surprise me if he was.


What I'm saying is, WW3 could start with a country which America destroyed and because of their interference, it has led to the horror nation it has now. Does that not make your blood boil? It makes mine.

Don't make the mistake of thinking that somebody who shows skepticism about some of the conspiracy claims of 9/11 therefore agrees with American foreign policy of the last 50 years or so. Couldn't be further from the truth for me personally.

Superlativeman wrote: »

I have my views about 9/11. I don't believe the towers were blown up or that the Pentagon was hit with a missile(a smaller plan than a commercial airliner I think from the video analysis).

Not nit-picking here but what do you think happened Flight 77 and the passengers that were on it in that case?

Superlativeman

meglome wrote: »

So again we're all agreeing that the US has done some terrible things.



They do? link?



It's not inane but since it's a unique event there's nothing to compare it to. So everyone is entitled to their opinion, but to accept US involvement you need to have evidence that directly relates to it. Assuming their involvement means nothing.



So let's see.. imagine I'm a violent guy and am known for several violent incidents. So someone in my area gets killed should I be arrested and imprisoned. Should people assume I did it, should I be lynched because of previous bad behaviour?



I'm no fan of what they often do either. Doesn't make them guilty of 911 though.



Video analysis?



What evidence is this?

They do? link?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/01/AR2006080101300.html?sub=new
http://www.salon.com/entertainment/feature/2006/06/27/911_conspiracies/index4.html
http://www.democracynow.org/2004/3/23/the_white_house_has_played_cover
http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2008/02/lehman-commission-purposely-set-up-so.html

I haven't got the link for the quote from John Farmer, but I can give you the title of his book, if you want?

It's not inane but since it's a unique event there's nothing to compare it to. So everyone is entitled to their opinion, but to accept US involvement you need to have evidence that directly relates to it. Assuming their involvement means nothing.

Norman Mineta's testimony is the antithesis of the 9/11 commissions official story. And Mineta was in the EPOC with Cheney and heard the stand down order. But this was left out of the commission. Ample lie. Amazing.

So let's see.. imagine I'm a violent guy and am known for several violent incidents. So someone in my area gets killed should I be arrested and imprisoned. Should people assume I did it, should I be lynched because of previous bad behaviour?

Where have I even suggested something like that? It wouldn't be like that if you were violent once, but if you've been caught doing naughty things an incalculable amount of times, like the U.S gov, then yes, I'd like you to be questioned.

Video analysis?

http://physics911.net/pentcrashvideo

What evidence is this?

What do you think the number 3 in Al Qaeda and Pentagon officials were talking about in the Pentagon 3 months after the attacks? Do you not see anything at all suspicious or odd about that?

I'm honestly shocked at how you just brush that off, honestly.

Superlativeman

Di0genes wrote: »

You watched but clearly didn't understand the fog of war.




Well stop projecting your opinion onto me.



You understand that of the hundred or so witnesses they saw a 737, and saw it with untied airline markings.



Source.



Really which part?



Surely you could name one or two?



Why is it indefensible?

You watched but clearly didn't understand the fog of war.

Of course.

Well stop projecting your opinion onto me.

:rolleyes:

You understand that of the hundred or so witnesses they saw a 737, and saw it with untied airline markings.

I also understand that there has been 80 something freedom of information acts to release the footage of the Pentagon requests, but they have been denied. And before you say that would be disrespectful for the families, Bill Doyle, head of the biggest 9/11 victims family group says the majority believe inside job.

Also, the move by Hanjour was ineffable and most pilots agree it would be hard to pull off. This is interesting as this guy was described by his flight instructor as a poor pilot.

Source.

They lived with an F.B.I informant. Atta was on Able dangers hit list of terrorists but they were told to ignore him and others and the head of the group was sent to Latin America. Col. Shauffer, think that's his name.

Really which part?

That Bin Laden was working for the C.I.A right up until September 11th, 2001. Mainly in Asia. She testified for 3 hours before the 9/11 commission, but it ended up being classified and left out of the official report.

Why is it indefensible?

Imagine Heydrich meeting with Jews and having dinner after the Wanness conference. It's very similar thing, is it not? It's funny that Iran is accused of helping terrorism yet America invites them to the Pentagon and funds them.

Superlativeman

RGDATA! wrote: »

any link to support this claim, seems incredible if true?



I agree with you on this. I personally don't think anyone is insane for simply suggesting "something was suspicious" about aspects of 9/11. But you have to make a case based on facts, not on innuendos or flawed logic (not saying this is what you're doing, but just where my natural skepticism kicks in). At the same time, I don't think someone who disputes certain conspiracy theories around 9/11 is automatically a sheep who swallows everything they see in the media, or automatically endorses the Bush admin or American foreign policy etc



Don't make the mistake of thinking that somebody who shows skepticism about some of the conspiracy claims of 9/11 therefore agrees with American foreign policy of the last 50 years or so. Couldn't be further from the truth for me personally.


Not nit-picking here but what do you think happened Flight 77 and the passengers that were on it in that case?

"any link to support this claim, seems incredible if true?"

You better look at these, because I'm going to go on a mad one with links, ha.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEkMnbpXKQs
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/01/AR2006080101300.html?sub=new
http://visibility911.com/media/
http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2003/11/21/cleland/index.html?pn=1
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/11/13/911_panel_to_get_access_to_withheld_data/

I can't find the 6 out of 10 want new investigation, but read them, they're very interesting. Here's some more people who suspect deception or it being an inside job:

http://911blogger.com/node/5854
http://prisonplanet.com/articles/february2008/022208_congressman_involved.htm
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/08/politics/08graham.html?_r=1(MUST READ)
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11222.htm

Countless more people. The F.B.I informant's landlord never being allowed to be interviewed is just amazing. No doubt that the 9/11 report is a cover up. Remember Kissenger was to head it? But the families went mad over it.

I agree with you on this. I personally don't think anyone is insane for simply suggesting "something was suspicious" about aspects of 9/11. But you have to make a case based on facts, not on innuendos or flawed logic (not saying this is what you're doing, but just where my natural skepticism kicks in). At the same time, I don't think someone who disputes certain conspiracy theories around 9/11 is automatically a sheep who swallows everything they see in the media, or automatically endorses the Bush admin or American foreign policy etc

Agreed, man. I'm the same. I use to brush off all this NWO stuff, but when you read the likes of Sutton and the CFR documents, they are what they are, FACTS! I don't believe everything that Alex Jones or Alan Watt says, but they've much more credibility in my view that FOX, RTE, akk the mainstream - from Ireland to Canada and the rest of the world.

Don't make the mistake of thinking that somebody who shows skepticism about some of the conspiracy claims of 9/11 therefore agrees with American foreign policy of the last 50 years or so. Couldn't be further from the truth for me personally.

As I said, I think I took that guy up wrong. But can you understand that the facts I've shown and the links are proof of something suspicious? And when I see that word "theorist" it really makes my blood boil. It's like saying the sky is green, but it's blue.

Not nit-picking here but what do you think happened Flight 77 and the passengers that were on it in that case?

Well, I'll say this. I don't know what happened with the passengers. Maybe they were on the plane, maybe they weren't. I really don't know why people question the hijackers on that day, but there is a few things, but not enough to suggest they weren't on the planes or anything like that.

I know people always say "why did this happen, why did that happen, why not just do this?" Yes, I agree. But why not just say there was WMD'S when you've lied so much already? And on and on and on.

I personally don't think the truth will ever come out on 9/11. Maybe when we're all dead. But I know, for sure, that the official story is a massive lie, because it's not the sentiments of an Irish clown on Boards.ie, it's the people who wrote the official report.



.

Di0genes

Superlativeman wrote: »

Of course.

:rolleyes:

You can roll your eyes all you want. It doesn't change the fact you were projecting your opinion onto me

I also understand that there has been 80 something freedom of information acts to release the footage of the Pentagon requests, but they have been denied. And before you say that would be disrespectful for the families, Bill Doyle, head of the biggest 9/11 victims family group says the majority believe inside job.

Thats nice why don't we see family members with the conspiracy theorists at ground zero?

Also, the move by Hanjour was ineffable and most pilots agree it would be hard to pull off.

Thats simply put, a lie. Pilots will tell you that Hanjour's manoeuvres were "unsafe" for a 737. Not hard to pull off but dangerous.

This is interesting as this guy was described by his flight instructor as a poor pilot.

Thats a complete misquote, and shows how poor your research is.

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Flight_School_Dropouts


They lived with an F.B.I informant. Atta was on Able dangers hit list of terrorists but they were told to ignore him and others and the head of the group was sent to Latin America. Col. Shauffer, think that's his name.

That Bin Laden was working for the C.I.A right up until September 11th, 2001. Mainly in Asia. She testified for 3 hours before the 9/11 commission, but it ended up being classified and left out of the official report.

The list of things that Sibel gets wrong is breathtaking. I'll start with an easy one.

There is no evidence that she testified that Bin Laden worked for the CIA, and absolutely no supporting evidence to back up this assertion.

Imagine Heydrich meeting with Jews and having dinner after the Wanness conference. It's very similar thing, is it not? It's funny that Iran is accused of helping terrorism yet America invites them to the Pentagon and funds them.

No it's not. At the time the US weren't aware of his involvement and wanted to gain greater insight into radical muslim

And it's not like he got brought in for cigars and brandy, reports are the audience were very hostile towards him

Oh and your Norman Mineta timeline is wrong too.

http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feat...ndex.html?pn=1

Do you even read your own links?

Hoffman and other "Loose Change" debunkers offer an even more devastating critique of the movie's strange claim that Flight 93 ended up in Cleveland. Avery bases his Cleveland idea on a story posted on the Web site of WCPO, a local TV station in Cincinnati, on the morning of 9/11; Avery says that the report proves that "two planes landed at Cleveland Hopkins Airport due to a bomb threat," and that "United Airlines identified one of the planes as Flight 93." It turns out that Avery is right that WCPO reported this news on its Web site -- but the story was actually authored by the Associated Press wire service, and the AP corrected the news minutes after it was posted, as WCPO has explained. (You'll recall that false media reports were widespread during that morning's hysteria.)
Hoffman finds a host of evidence indicating that Flight 93 crashed in Pennsylvania, including numerous photographs of the Shanksville site -- some of which were released as part of the Zacarias Moussaoui trial -- in which you can see a deep impact crater and huge airplane parts. Many human remains were found at the scene -- according to the Washington Post, searchers discovered "about 1,500 mostly scorched samples of human tissue" around the crash crater. Hoffman also points to flaws in the study that Avery says proves that cellphones wouldn't have worked at high altitudes. The particular experiment only tested Motorola-brand phones, and it was conducted over London, Ontario, rather than on the flight paths of the 9/11 jets -- thus the research says nothing about whether different kinds of phones might have worked in the parts of the sky that the planes flew that morning. Moreover, Hoffman points out, several crew and passengers placed their calls using on-board GTE Airphones designed to work in the sky.



In addition, Avery seems to be oddly confused about the number of people who were on board the four flights on 9/11. He says that there were either 198 or 243 "passengers" on the planes; in fact, there were 232 passengers on board, excluding the crew but including the hijackers. The number is relatively easy to check, and it's unclear what Avery means when he alleges that the number shifts "depending on who you ask."
"'Loose Change' speculates that 200 people were somehow herded onto Flight 93 ... and then mysteriously disappeared into a NASA research facility," Hoffman writes. "Could it get any more ridiculous?"


Conspiracy theorists often respond to criticism by expanding the conspiracy to include their critics. Both Avery and Rowe, without naming names, say they suspect some who've heaped scorn on their movie might be secretly working for the government. "I'm pretty sure our movement has been infiltrated," Avery says. Rowe argues that "the government puts out disinformation agents within the movement to splinter it. This is what they do, they try to create dissension between head members." Both say they've looked over the rebuttals, but stand by their film's major claims.

Superlativeman

Di0genes wrote: »

You can roll your eyes all you want. It doesn't change the fact you were projecting your opinion onto me



Thats nice why don't we see family members with the conspiracy theorists at ground zero?



Thats simply put, a lie. Pilots will tell you that Hanjour's manoeuvres were "unsafe" for a 737. Not hard to pull off but dangerous.



Thats a complete misquote, and shows how poor your research is.

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Flight_School_Dropouts


They lived with an F.B.I informant. Atta was on Able dangers hit list of terrorists but they were told to ignore him and others and the head of the group was sent to Latin America. Col. Shauffer, think that's his name.




The list of things that Sibel gets wrong is breathtaking. I'll start with an easy one.

There is no evidence that she testified that Bin Laden worked for the CIA, and absolutely no supporting evidence to back up this assertion.



No it's not. At the time the US weren't aware of his involvement and wanted to gain greater insight into radical muslim

And it's not like he got brought in for cigars and brandy, reports are the audience were very hostile towards him

Oh and your Norman Mineta timeline is wrong too.



Do you even read your own links?

Thats nice why don't we see family members with the conspiracy theorists at ground zero?

Another useless response, like your Al-walaki, which I'll address in a minute.

Thats simply put, a lie. Pilots will tell you that Hanjour's manoeuvres were "unsafe" for a 737. Not hard to pull off but dangerous.

I'm glad you get so worked up by my lies, but not the admitted lies by the U.S government.

First, you mention Pilots:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/ But I know, they're not credible, I know, I know.

Then you mention that the move was "unsafe", but not hard to pull off. Which is asinine considering Hanjour's lack of skill.


T

hats a complete misquote, and shows how poor your research is.

Your insults are very tedious and not really making you look smart, which I know you're trying to be.

The link you gave is mostly from the commission and actually agrees with my sentiments that he was a poor pilot and nervous.

So everything is being contradicted. You'll have links to pilots and so will I. But this is just another "coincidence" I suppose, eh? http://www.911hardfacts.com/report_14.htm

The list of things that Sibel gets wrong is breathtaking. I'll start with an easy one.

There is no evidence that she testified that Bin Laden worked for the CIA, and absolutely no supporting evidence to back up this assertion.

She got all these things wrong, but they tried to block her speech? This is doublethink from you, are you actually serious? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWbyZSnHFkc

No it's not. At the time the US weren't aware of his involvement and wanted to gain greater insight into radical muslim

And it's not like he got brought in for cigars and brandy, reports are the audience were very hostile towards him

Oh and your Norman Mineta timeline is wrong too.

Wholly pathetic. You really do find every excuse under the sun, don't you? I can't believe that you're brushing this off as "he wasn't well known." Tedious, very tedious.

Oh, "they were very hostile" like they are in public about North Korea - then Rumsfeld sells them their nuclear reactors...... brilliant.

Mineata was wrong? What he said has been backed by by Richard Clarke and Dick Cheneys photographer, the only thing that contradicts it is the 9/11 commission, and as I've shown, it's admittedly a fraud and doomed to fail from the start:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDfdOwt2v3Y

You have so much trust for the U.S government it's unbelievable. Even when they've admitted they lied.

Also, at the end of that link you post, it makes it out that Avery lies about how the government puts out disinfo and tries to suggest this is not a plausible excuse or it's a blatant lie. When Obama's regulation czar admits it's true. Some guy asked for proof of the commission being a lie, I gave him it. At the end of the link it tells you(from an debunker link) that the commission has flaws and mentions Able Danger.

The Recliner

Lads can ye not just rebutt each others posts without getting little digs in at each other

There is no need for it

meglome

Superlativeman wrote: »

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/01/AR2006080101300.html?sub=new
http://www.salon.com/entertainment/feature/2006/06/27/911_conspiracies/index4.html
http://www.democracynow.org/2004/3/23/the_white_house_has_played_cover
http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2008/02/lehman-commission-purposely-set-up-so.html

So if I'm reading these correctly they think officials covered their asses. There's no proof they were involved.
There's two ways of looking at some of the events around 911, ineptitude or malice. Given the arse covering I'm going with ineptitude.

Superlativeman wrote: »

Norman Mineta's testimony is the antithesis of the 9/11 commissions official story. And Mineta was in the EPOC with Cheney and heard the stand down order. But this was left out of the commission. Ample lie. Amazing.

So we should have some corroboration from other people and the evidence should support it. There isn't though is there and the evidence doesn't.

Superlativeman wrote: »

http://physics911.net/pentcrashvideo

Okay some we have some pilots who say this is not possible and we have some that say it's just dangerous. So let's look at the other evidence...

http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/noplane/index.html

What the No-Plane Theories Imply

1. That the 140-foot wide damage to the Pentagon, including a 96-foot-wide puncture, were somehow produced by a means other than a plane.
2. That fires smelling of burning jet fuel, were produced by some other means, or the photographs were faked.
3. That the aircraft debris, some clearly from an AA Boeing 757, was planted.
4. That the swath of downed lamp-poles matching a 757's wing span were sliced and knocked over by some other means.
5. That smashed objects in the paths of the engines were damaged by some other means.
6. That scores of eyewitness reports of a jetliner were faked, coerced, or coincidentally mistaken.
7. That the identification of Flight77's victims was fraudulent.
8. That Flight 77 and all on board were disposed of at some unknown location.

To believe that the Pentagon was not hit by Flight 77 requires accepting points 7 and 8.

To believe that the Pentagon was not hit by a jetliner requires accepting points 3 through 8.

To believe that no plane hit the Pentagon, one has to accept all 8 points.

Superlativeman wrote: »

What do you think the number 3 in Al Qaeda and Pentagon officials were talking about in the Pentagon 3 months after the attacks? Do you not see anything at all suspicious or odd about that?

I'm honestly shocked at how you just brush that off, honestly.

The US backed Bin-Laden against the Soviets in the 80's. So why would it be so odd they would meet someone from Al Qaeda before 911. The British government secretly met Sinn Fein and IRA people long before the peace process. We're the British government behind the IRA attacks?


You say you're not a conspiracy theorist but you're doing some very typical CT things. You seem to be ignoring the body of evidence (see above) at the Pentagon for an American Airlines jet crashing into it and latching onto the things that cannot be proven either way.

Superlativeman

meglome wrote: »

So if I'm reading these correctly they think officials covered their asses. There's no proof they were involved.
There's two ways of looking at some of the events around 911, ineptitude or malice. Given the arse covering I'm going with ineptitude.



So we should have some corroboration from other people and the evidence should support it. There isn't though is there and the evidence doesn't.



Okay some we have some pilots who say this is not possible and we have some that say it's just dangerous. So let's look at the other evidence...

http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/noplane/index.html





The US backed Bin-Laden against the Soviets in the 80's. So why would it be so odd they would meet someone from Al Qaeda before 911. The British government secretly met Sinn Fein and IRA people long before the peace process. We're the British government behind the IRA attacks?


You say you're not a conspiracy theorist but you're doing some very typical CT things. You seem to be ignoring the body of evidence (see above) at the Pentagon for an American Airlines jet crashing into it and latching onto the things that cannot be proven either way.

So if I'm reading these correctly they think officials covered their asses. There's no proof they were involved.
There's two ways of looking at some of the events around 911, ineptitude or malice. Given the arse covering I'm going with ineptitude.

Not once did I suggest anything to the contrary of what you're saying there. I also love the way you asked for links, I give them to you showing that it's a cover up, and then you brush it aside. Amazing.

So we should have some corroboration from other people and the evidence should support it. There isn't though is there and the evidence doesn't.

Yes. Now, will you please look at the video of Mineta before the 9/11 commission, please. It's wholly contrary to the official story - which is nothing but self admitted lies and cover ups.

Okay some we have some pilots who say this is not possible and we have some that say it's just dangerous. So let's look at the other evidence...

This is where I disagree with what Alex Jones and Richard Clarke say: I do believe a plane hit the Pentagon. If they just released the clear footage that would categorically show it, it could be debunked. The video link I gave you shows what the plane would have looked like. The released one looks much smaller - maybe a missile, maybe not. Just release the footage. That's all I'm saying. It doesn't matter to me if it was a plane or not. And, it's the same with Honjour. Although, I still don't think that he was capable of carrying out that maneuverer. And many pilots feel he could, many feel he couldn't.

The US backed Bin-Laden against the Soviets in the 80's. So why would it be so odd they would meet someone from Al Qaeda before 911. The British government secretly met Sinn Fein and IRA people long before the peace process. We're the British government behind the IRA attacks?


You say you're not a conspiracy theorist but you're doing some very typical CT things. You seem to be ignoring the body of evidence (see above) at the Pentagon for an American Airlines jet crashing into it and latching onto the things that cannot be proven either way.

Yes, but America backs most of its enemies: Like Bin Laden, like Saddam Hussein, like North Korea, etc. I wouldn't take anything credible from the British government, they too back their future enemies like Mussolini:http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/oct/13/benito-mussolini-recruited-mi5-italy

Anyway, we're talking about America, not the I.R.A. If you want to go down the road of who backed who, do we have to go through Trotsky in New York, the plants in the 5 year plans, like the Gorki Plant, built by the Ford Motor company, etc?

You say you're not a conspiracy theorist but you're doing some very typical CT things. You seem to be ignoring the body of evidence (see above) at the Pentagon for an American Airlines jet crashing into it and latching onto the things that cannot be proven either way.

Listen, mate. I can't live in this world you live in, OK. I can't do it. I haven't said that 100 per cent, the Pentagon was a missile, OK? I have't said that.

It honestly amazes me that I'm here saying that Rumsfeld gave North Korea their nukes, Wall Street funded Hitler and Stalin, Al-Walaki is dining in the Pentagon and the 9/11 commission is a complete joke and admitted failure. And it's like: "Yeah, but if you believe that 9/11 was an inside job." I only joined this forum to kill time and knew I would end up coming into the conspiracy forum and start on 911, but it honestly amazes me how people just brush aside the evidence. THE US HAS THE BEST INTELLIGENCE IN THE WORLD. AL WALAKI WAS NUMBER 3 IN AL QAEDA. THEY SHOULD HAVE KNOW WHO HE WAS, AND THEY DID. AND TO SAY LIKE SOME OTHER GUY THAT THEY WERE TRYING TO FIND OUT INFORMATION ABOUT AL QAEDA IS SO STUPID AND SO DETRIMENTAL THAT IT MERITS NO RESPONSE. THEY HAD BIN LADEN UNITS IN THE EARLY 90'S AND YOU'VE PEOPLE SAYING THEY DON'T KNOW MUCH ABOUT IT. THEY HAD OVER 11 CHANCES TO KILL THE GUY. THAT'S ACCORDING THE MICHAEL SCHEUER, FORMER HEAD OF THE "BIN LADEN UNIT."

I'm not trying to be pretentious like: "Oh, I know this, you don't." I'm just giving examples of past stuff the U.S has engaged in, which is imperative in understanding the present.

I don't know why people show such passion for debunking anyway. I looked at the Moon landing, no doubt it was real. The Holocaust, no doubt it happened. And on and on. Left it at that.

Can I ask you and others a question: Why is it that you feel the need to debunk 9/11 over and over again if it's obviously not a cover up?

And don't tell me "for the victims and their families" when they majority of them at the very bottom disagree with the 9/11 commission and official story.

meglome

Superlativeman wrote: »

Not once did I suggest anything to the contrary of what you're saying there. I also love the way you asked for links, I give them to you showing that it's a cover up, and then you brush it aside. Amazing.

I fully accept some sort of cover-up. However my reading of it suggests covering ineptitude not malice. Have a read of this.

Boo Radley wrote: »

Okay, maybe I wasn't articulating myself well (not being sarcastic).

So, here's how I see it. The 9/11 CT has it that the report is completely fabricated etc. because the shadowy figures in the government colluded to cause the attacks on NY and pentagon etc. The report in this case is supposed to cover up this master plan.

So, along comes another CT as highlighted in the OP. This says the authors of the report covered up the extent to which the agencies involved messed up, were incompetent and how badly they communicated. This is a very different cover up to that proposed by the first CT above.

If the second CT cover up is true, it would discredit the first CT cover up because it would prove that in fact the events of 9/11 were caused by incompetence - since the degree of incompetence is what is being covered up - among agencies and NOT caused by people colluding to create the attack.

Therefore, a cover up (the second) CAN disprove another cover up theory (the first).

Superlativeman wrote: »

Yes. Now, will you please look at the video of Mineta before the 9/11 commission, please. It's wholly contrary to the official story - which is nothing but self admitted lies and cover ups.

Is his testimony backed up by other people and the evidence?

Superlativeman wrote: »

This is where I disagree with what Alex Jones and Richard Clarke say: I do believe a plane hit the Pentagon. If they just released the clear footage that would categorically show it, it could be debunked. The video link I gave you shows what the plane would have looked like. The released one looks much smaller - maybe a missile, maybe not. Just release the footage. That's all I'm saying. It doesn't matter to me if it was a plane or not. And, it's the same with Honjour. Although, I still don't think that he was capable of carrying out that maneuverer. And many pilots feel he could, many feel he couldn't.

Modern jets basically fly themselves. But let's leave that aside for a moment. I posted a list of reasons why it was an American Airline jet at the pentagon, you didn't mention this at all. So instead of talking about what we can't prove let's look at what we can. Makes sense no?

http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/noplane/index.html

What the No-Plane Theories Imply

1. That the 140-foot wide damage to the Pentagon, including a 96-foot-wide puncture, were somehow produced by a means other than a plane.
2. That fires smelling of burning jet fuel, were produced by some other means, or the photographs were faked.
3. That the aircraft debris, some clearly from an AA Boeing 757, was planted.
4. That the swath of downed lamp-poles matching a 757's wing span were sliced and knocked over by some other means.
5. That smashed objects in the paths of the engines were damaged by some other means.
6. That scores of eyewitness reports of a jetliner were faked, coerced, or coincidentally mistaken.
7. That the identification of Flight77's victims was fraudulent.
8. That Flight 77 and all on board were disposed of at some unknown location.

To believe that the Pentagon was not hit by Flight 77 requires accepting points 7 and 8.

To believe that the Pentagon was not hit by a jetliner requires accepting points 3 through 8.

To believe that no plane hit the Pentagon, one has to accept all 8 points.

Superlativeman wrote: »

Yes, but America backs most of its enemies: Like Bin Laden, like Saddam Hussein, like North Korea, etc. I wouldn't take anything credible from the British government, they too back their future enemies like Mussolini:http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/oct/13/benito-mussolini-recruited-mi5-italy

Sure the US has a dreadful history in foreign policy but is that proof of something about 911? And is the British supporting Mussolini relevant either.

Superlativeman wrote: »

Anyway, we're talking about America, not the I.R.A. If you want to go down the road of who backed who, do we have to go through Trotsky in New York, the plants in the 5 year plans, like the Gorki Plant, built by the Ford Motor company, etc?

I made a specific point about how governments often deal with terrorists behind the scenes, nothing more.

Superlativeman wrote: »

Listen, mate. I can't live in this world you live in, OK. I can't do it. I haven't said that 100 per cent, the Pentagon was a missile, OK? I have't said that.

Nope you haven't. But you also don't talk about the actual evidence, you talk about the things that are in some dispute.

Superlativeman wrote: »

It honestly amazes me that I'm here saying that Rumsfeld gave North Korea their nukes, Wall Street funded Hitler and Stalin, Al-Walaki is dining in the Pentagon and the 9/11 commission is a complete joke and admitted failure. And it's like: "Yeah, but if you believe that 9/11 was an inside job." I only joined this forum to kill time and knew I would end up coming into the conspiracy forum and start on 911, but it honestly amazes me how people just brush aside the evidence. THE US HAS THE BEST INTELLIGENCE IN THE WORLD. AL WALAKI WAS NUMBER 3 IN AL QAEDA. THEY SHOULD HAVE KNOW WHO HE WAS, AND THEY DID. AND TO SAY LIKE SOME OTHER GUY THAT THEY WERE TRYING TO FIND OUT INFORMATION ABOUT AL QAEDA IS SO STUPID AND SO DETRIMENTAL THAT IT MERITS NO RESPONSE. THEY HAD BIN LADEN UNITS IN THE EARLY 90'S AND YOU'VE PEOPLE SAYING THEY DON'T KNOW MUCH ABOUT IT. THEY HAD OVER 11 CHANCES TO KILL THE GUY. THAT'S ACCORDING THE MICHAEL SCHEUER, FORMER HEAD OF THE "BIN LADEN UNIT."

It honestly amazes you how people brush aside evidence but you are ignoring evidence completely.

Superlativeman wrote: »

I'm not trying to be pretentious like: "Oh, I know this, you don't." I'm just giving examples of past stuff the U.S has engaged in, which is imperative in understanding the present.

Yup and no one is disagreeing with you that the US has done some terrible things, even if we disagree on specific details. So since we agree can we stop bringing it up.

Superlativeman wrote: »

I don't know why people show such passion for debunking anyway. I looked at the Moon landing, no doubt it was real. The Holocaust, no doubt it happened. And on and on. Left it at that.

In this specific instance to think a missile hit the pentagon you have to ignore all the points in the quote above. Since no one can explain away this evidence it tells me people who believe otherwise are mistaken. And personally speaking if I'm on the internet offering opinions that are incorrect I'd be glad that someone let's me know. Nothing like learning something new.

Superlativeman wrote: »

Can I ask you and others a question: Why is it that you feel the need to debunk 9/11 over and over again if it's obviously not a cover up?

And don't tell me "for the victims and their families" when they majority of them at the very bottom disagree with the 9/11 commission and official story.

See above. I'll also add... I often see videos and opinion pieces that say "the only way [insert event here] could have happened is blah". I take an interest and I watch the videos, and read the opinion pieces. But more often that not what the video or opinion piece says is obviously wrong, often very obviously. There is a mistrust of science out there on the internet due to much of this bull and I hate that.

Superlativeman

meglome wrote: »

I fully accept some sort of cover-up. However my reading of it suggests covering ineptitude not malice. Have a read of this.





Is his testimony backed up by other people and the evidence?



Modern jets basically fly themselves. But let's leave that aside for a moment. I posted a list of reasons why it was an American Airline jet at the pentagon, you didn't mention this at all. So instead of talking about what we can't prove let's look at what we can. Makes sense no?

http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/noplane/index.html





Sure the US has a dreadful history in foreign policy but is that proof of something about 911? And is the British supporting Mussolini relevant either.



I made a specific point about how governments often deal with terrorists behind the scenes, nothing more.



Nope you haven't. But you also don't talk about the actual evidence, you talk about the things that are in some dispute.



It honestly amazes you how people brush aside evidence but you are ignoring evidence completely.



Yup and no one is disagreeing with you that the US has done some terrible things, even if we disagree on specific details. So since we agree can we stop bringing it up.



In this specific instance to think a missile hit the pentagon you have to ignore all the points in the quote above. Since no one can explain away this evidence it tells me people who believe otherwise are mistaken. And personally speaking if I'm on the internet offering opinions that are incorrect I'd be glad that someone let's me know. Nothing like learning something new.



See above. I'll also add... I often see videos and opinion pieces that say "the only way [insert event here] could have happened is blah". I take an interest and I watch the videos, and read the opinion pieces. But more often that not what the video or opinion piece says is obviously wrong, often very obviously. There is a mistrust of science out there on the internet due to much of this bull and I hate that.

Is his testimony backed up by other people and the evidence?

Mineta is a primary source, he was there. Have you proof that Bin Laden staged 9/11 besides a video of him saying he did?

Modern jets basically fly themselves. But let's leave that aside for a moment. I posted a list of reasons why it was an American Airline jet at the pentagon, you didn't mention this at all. So instead of talking about what we can't prove let's look at what we can. Makes sense no?

When they release the footage, I think it will be put to bed, do you not? The video link I gave you suggests that it wasn't a commercial airliner. That's all I'm saying. Plane 100% hit the pentagon.

Sure the US has a dreadful history in foreign policy but is that proof of something about 911? And is the British supporting Mussolini relevant either

They fund they enemies they go on to fight. Does that not enrage you? Imagine the deaths that could have been prevented in the last century and this one?

Nope you haven't. But you also don't talk about the actual evidence, you talk about the things that are in some dispute

.

All they have to do is release the footage.

It honestly amazes you how people brush aside evidence but you are ignoring evidence completely.

When they release the footage, which they've denied to do over 80 times. And the reason for the cap locks in that quote was that it makes my blood boil how history keeps repeating itself and we have already over a million dead people from war in this century and only 10 years in. And the vast majority of these deaths are from two wars in the middle East against people who had nothing to do with Al Qaeda and were funded by America years ago.

Yup and no one is disagreeing with you that the US has done some terrible things, even if we disagree on specific details. So since we agree can we stop bringing it up.

Agreed.

In this specific instance to think a missile hit the pentagon you have to ignore all the points in the quote above. Since no one can explain away this evidence it tells me people who believe otherwise are mistaken. And personally speaking if I'm on the internet offering opinions that are incorrect I'd be glad that someone let's me know. Nothing like learning something new.

Again, not part of the missile theory. The plane crash in Pennsylvania, is doubtful. Still hasn't been debunked or explained by anyone for me. A picture of a seat belt is not hard evidence.

There is nothing like learning something new. Which is why you need to come to the net to find out about books that prove Wall Street financed Hitler and led to the deaths of 50 million people.

See above. I'll also add... I often see videos and opinion pieces that say "the only way [insert event here] could have happened is blah". I take an interest and I watch the videos, and read the opinion pieces. But more often that not what the video or opinion piece says is obviously wrong, often very obviously. There is a mistrust of science out there on the internet due to much of this bull and I hate that.

I just hate tyranny and corrupt government and financing all these terrorists and dictators. That's all I hate. Not truthers or birthers or holocaust deniers or Black Israelites, just corrupt government.

meglome

Superlativeman wrote: »

Mineta is a primary source, he was there. Have you proof that Bin Laden staged 9/11 besides a video of him saying he did?

Well I have no idea whether he did it but as you point out he says he did.

Superlativeman wrote: »

When they release the footage, I think it will be put to bed, do you not? The video link I gave you suggests that it wasn't a commercial airliner. That's all I'm saying. Plane 100% hit the pentagon.

All they have to do is release the footage.

When they release the footage, which they've denied to do over 80 times. And the reason for the cap locks in that quote was that it makes my blood boil how history keeps repeating itself and we have already over a million dead people from war in this century and only 10 years in. And the vast majority of these deaths are from two wars in the middle East against people who had nothing to do with Al Qaeda and were funded by America years ago.

Well no... releasing the footage won't solve anything for three reasons. Now don't get me wrong I think they should release it but it really won't solve anything.

1. There are numerous videos of the twin towers being hit and still there are many many people that believe there were no planes.
2. The cameras on buildings around the pentagon were not pointing into the air, being security cameras they will point down so what would they pick up anyway.
3. There is ample other evidence to prove an AA jet hit the pentagon.

Superlativeman wrote: »

They fund they enemies they go on to fight. Does that not enrage you? Imagine the deaths that could have been prevented in the last century and this one?

A lot of things enrage me but it doesn't make the US guilty of involvement in 911.

Superlativeman wrote: »

Again, not part of the missile theory. The plane crash in Pennsylvania, is doubtful. Still hasn't been debunked or explained by anyone for me. A picture of a seat belt is not hard evidence.

Why is it doubtful?



So back to the evidence that is available.

http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/noplane/index.html

What the No-Plane Theories Imply

1. That the 140-foot wide damage to the Pentagon, including a 96-foot-wide puncture, were somehow produced by a means other than a plane.
2. That fires smelling of burning jet fuel, were produced by some other means, or the photographs were faked.
3. That the aircraft debris, some clearly from an AA Boeing 757, was planted.
4. That the swath of downed lamp-poles matching a 757's wing span were sliced and knocked over by some other means.
5. That smashed objects in the paths of the engines were damaged by some other means.
6. That scores of eyewitness reports of a jetliner were faked, coerced, or coincidentally mistaken.
7. That the identification of Flight77's victims was fraudulent.
8. That Flight 77 and all on board were disposed of at some unknown location.

To believe that the Pentagon was not hit by Flight 77 requires accepting points 7 and 8.

To believe that the Pentagon was not hit by a jetliner requires accepting points 3 through 8.

To believe that no plane hit the Pentagon, one has to accept all 8 points.

Since you believe it was a missile or smaller plane maybe you can explain the evidence away to me.

Di0genes

Superlativeman wrote: »

Your insults are very tedious and not really making you look smart, which I know you're trying to be.

Firstly I'm going to address your tone.

the same post from you wrote:

Another useless response,



Which is asinine considering Hanjour's lack of skill.

Wholly pathetic.

Tedious, very tedious.

Your insults are very tedious and not really making you look smart, which I know you're trying to be.

See I'm not trying to claim the moral high ground while at the same time using a variety of personal attacks.

The link you gave is mostly from the commission and actually agrees with my sentiments that he was a poor pilot and nervous.

A poor pilot? Perhaps, But nothing he did on the day required a great deal of skill.

Dangerous flying? Definitely. But the safety of his passengers was not the concern of a man on a suicide mission.

She got all these things wrong, but they tried to block her speech? This is doublethink from you, are you actually serious? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWbyZSnHFkc

There is no evidence to support her claim.

Mineata was wrong? What he said has been backed by by Richard Clarke and Dick Cheneys photographer,

No. I'm going to explain something else later on that demostrations how little you know about 911, read it and come back to me.

the only thing that contradicts it is the 9/11 commission, and as I've shown, it's admittedly a fraud and doomed to fail from the start:

And the following line of the quote you're referring to, goes on to explain what a enormous success the commission was.

Also, at the end of that link you post, it makes it out that Avery lies about how the government puts out disinfo and tries to suggest this is not a plausible excuse or it's a blatant lie.

Avery is a liar and scum. I know this. Why? He's banned me from his forum. Twice.

RTE were planning on screening loose change a number of years ago, based on e-mails sent by me, amongst others, were I exposed how Avery and and his "producer" were they admitted the film contained falsehoods, they quietly agreed to drop the film.

Avery swore that Loose Change would donate more of it's profits to the family members of United 93, than Universal Studios who produced "United 93" Paul Greengrass's film on the crash.

6 years later Universal has donated 1.4 million dollars to a fund for family members. And 'Louder than Words" films, has donated zilch.

I don't know about you but promising money to charity, and then reneging on that promise is pretty much a dictionary definition of an asshole in my book.

Again, not part of the missile theory. The plane crash in Pennsylvania, is doubtful. Still hasn't been debunked or explained by anyone for me. A picture of a seat belt is not hard evidence.

Okay.....

Cracks knuckles. i'm going to seize on this one point. We're going to discuss this at length.

• 8 Police Departments • 7 EMS Services • 8 Fire Departments • 10 Emergency Management Agencies • NTSB • ATF • FBI • CISM • Red Cross • United Airlines

All were on the scene of Shanksville within hours of the crash.

Shanksville Volunteer Fire Company, Stoystown Volunteer Fire Company, Central City Fire Department, Berlin Fire Department, Friedens Volunteer Fire Department, Listie Volunteer Fire Company, Somerset Volunteer Fire Department, Somerset Ambulance Association, Hooversville Volunteer Fire Department, and the Hooversville Rescue Squad.

Y'know what the key word is here "volunteer" These are people who gave up their time and volunteered to help identify wreckage and remains at the crash site.

So now you're essentially accusing 1,500 people of being complicit in the cover up of the murder of over a 100 people.

http://www.nvfc.org/pdf/rolevolfiresvc911.pdf

Goes into this at length

http://www.redcross.org/news/ds/0109wtc/010913penn.html

Do you really think the red cross helped cover up at shanksville

Not only that but dozens of people saw the plane crash

http://www.flight93crash.com/flight93_eyewitness.html

There were 37 documented call from loved ones and to airline staff from the plane




Shall I go on?

Oh okay. The remains of all but one passenger were found and identified by among others somerset county corner Wallace Miller.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/09/09/1031115990570.html

"a picture of a seatbelt"

You clearly have no idea how extensive the recovery operation was

http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20011230flight931230p3.asp

"Flight 93 crash site left most of the horror to the imagination"
Terrorism in Shanksville: A Study in Preparedness and Response
Beyond September 11th: An Account of Post-Disaster Research – The Crash of United Flight 93 in Shanksville, Pennsylvania (PDF)
Homeland Security Report on Flight 93 (PDF)
Investigators on-site Shanksville "Day of Terror: Outside tiny Shanksville, a fourth deadly stroke"
FBI ends site work, says no bomb used

This all taken from mark roberts excellent site.

Whats my point here?

You don't know the first thing about one aspect about 9/11. As to the Pentagon, it's doubtful you have a copy of Firefight, the story about the Pentagon crash and the rescue efforts on that day.

Instead of patronisingly waving me in the direction of sibel edwards and a bunch of long refuted nonsense, you should perhaps spend a while researching the volume of evidence that refutes your claims.

Superlativeman

Di0genes wrote: »

Firstly I'm going to address your tone.

See I'm not trying to claim the moral high ground while at the same time using a variety of personal attacks.

A poor pilot? Perhaps, But nothing he did on the day required a great deal of skill.

Dangerous flying? Definitely. But the safety of his passengers was not the concern of a man on a suicide mission.


There is no evidence to support her claim.



No. I'm going to explain something else later on that demostrations how little you know about 911, read it and come back to me.

And the following line of the quote you're referring to, goes on to explain what a enormous success the commission was.

Avery is a liar and scum. I know this. Why? He's banned me from his forum. Twice.

RTE were planning on screening loose change a number of years ago, based on e-mails sent by me, amongst others, were I exposed how Avery and and his "producer" were they admitted the film contained falsehoods, they quietly agreed to drop the film.

Avery swore that Loose Change would donate more of it's profits to the family members of United 93, than Universal Studios who produced "United 93" Paul Greengrass's film on the crash.

6 years later Universal has donated 1.4 million dollars to a fund for family members. And 'Louder than Words" films, has donated zilch.

I don't know about you but promising money to charity, and then reneging on that promise is pretty much a dictionary definition of an asshole in my book.



Okay.....

Cracks knuckles. i'm going to seize on this one point. We're going to discuss this at length.


All were on the scene of Shanksville within hours of the crash.

Y'know what the key word is here "volunteer" These are people who gave up their time and volunteered to help identify wreckage and remains at the crash site.

So now you're essentially accusing 1,500 people of being complicit in the cover up of the murder of over a 100 people.

http://www.nvfc.org/pdf/rolevolfiresvc911.pdf

Goes into this at length


http://www.redcross.org/news/ds/0109wtc/010913penn.html

Do you really think the red cross helped cover up at shanksville

Not only that but dozens of people saw the plane crash

http://www.flight93crash.com/flight93_eyewitness.html

There were 37 documented call from loved ones and to airline staff from the plane




Shall I go on?

Oh okay. The remains of all but one passenger were found and identified by among others somerset county corner Wallace Miller.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/09/09/1031115990570.html

"a picture of a seatbelt"

You clearly have no idea how extensive the recovery operation was

http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20011230flight931230p3.asp


This all taken from mark roberts excellent site.

Whats my point here?

You don't know the first thing about one aspect about 9/11. As to the Pentagon, it's doubtful you have a copy of Firefight, the story about the Pentagon crash and the rescue efforts on that day.

Instead of patronisingly waving me in the direction of sibel edwards and a bunch of long refuted nonsense, you should perhaps spend a while researching the volume of evidence that refutes your claims.

See I'm not trying to claim the moral high ground while at the same time using a variety of personal attacks.

Again, dodge the Al-Walaki question.

A poor pilot? Perhaps, But nothing he did on the day required a great deal of skill.

Dangerous flying? Definitely. But the safety of his passengers was not the concern of a man on a suicide mission.

You said all pilots said it wasn't dangerous or impossible, but countless pilots say it was.

There is no evidence to support her claim.

Maybe so, but still, she was ignored by the 9/11 commission and she also had a gag order on her to shut up. But she's no evidence. But Al Walaki isn't any evidence. The number 3 in Al Qaeda being invited to the Pentagon. But your excuse was "they didn't know who he was and they were trying to find out information on the enemy, which they already had a unit for and had a chance to kill him about, what, 10 times under Clinton or something?

No. I'm going to explain something else later on that demostrations how little you know about 911, read it and come back to me.

Never claimed to "know it all". You also haven't addressed the Mineta question. By simply saying "no" doesn't make it right.

And the following line of the quote you're referring to, goes on to explain what a enormous success the commission was.

The commission wasn't an enormous success, even though they deliberately were denied the freedom to investigate certain people by the Bush administration and 6 of the 10 commissioners want a new investigation and the C.I.A admits it destroyed 85 hours of interrogation videos of Al Qaeda operatives? And much more, but it was a success?

Avery is a liar and scum. I know this. Why? He's banned me from his forum. Twice.

YES, I KNOW THAT. YOU MISSED MY POINT. What you say may be correct, however, the government has lied about nearly everything and I haven't heard you call them "scum" once. You see what I mean? So while Avery, a white nerdy kid may have lied making a film, the U.S government has lied about WMD'S, selling nukes to North Korea, experimenting on kids, giving out HIV infected products, but you haven't once called them "scum."

Give me a nerdy white kid lying, anytime. Because Avery is a liar, but says he's for real, makes the self admitted lie, the 9/11 commission, true? Explain how that works?

I was banned from Jones' forum a year ago, and I seldom was on it. What's your point? It's sad to hear your frustration about being banned from a scumbag, loser's forum, but you don't get mad at the government, just say "well, that doesn't mean they'd stage 9/11.

RTE were planning on screening loose change a number of years ago, based on e-mails sent by me, amongst others, were I exposed how Avery and and his "producer" were they admitted the film contained falsehoods, they quietly agreed to drop the film.

I don't follow the "loose change" thing as you do, but from what I'm aware, they already admitted they got a lot of things wrong about the film. Like the 9/11 commission got many things wrong. And they had the help of the American government, not a nerdy white kid on his computer. Again, any letters to RTE about how the American Government has tore the middle East apart in the last century and this?

I know you're on a mission to stand for truth and protect the families, even though most say it's an inside job. I guess all them haven't done their research either and know nothing about 9/11.

Avery swore that Loose Change would donate more of it's profits to the family members of United 93, than Universal Studios who produced "United 93" Paul Greengrass's film on the crash.

The more I read this the more comical it becomes. I don't know much about all this loose change stuff, but the anger you show is priceless. If what you say is true, then yes, he's scum. However, Avery didn't authorize torture, like Bush and lie about WMD'S which they knew weren't going to be there. Avery didn't sell North Korea their nukes.

This is disturbing info you're giving me. And it's terrible that he has lied like this, but again, I'd rather his lies than the nefarious lies of the U.S government,

All were on the scene of Shanksville within hours of the crash.

Y'know what the key word is here "volunteer" These are people who gave up their time and volunteered to help identify wreckage and remains at the crash site.

And what bout the likes of William Rodriquez and the countless other firefighters and staff at the WTC who said bombs were going off before and after the plane hit the first tower? Are they all liars? Nope, we ignore theirs and just look at yours. And also we'll stick Willy on the no fly list.

So now you're essentially accusing 1,500 people of being complicit in the cover up of the murder of over a 100 people.

http://www.nvfc.org/pdf/rolevolfiresvc911.pdf

Goes into this at length

http://www.redcross.org/news/ds/0109wtc/010913penn.html

Do you really think the red cross helped cover up at shanksville

Not only that but dozens of people saw the plane crash

http://www.flight93crash.com/flight93_eyewitness.html

Nope, but their beliefs are contrary to there being no debris at the crash site. Oh, well, the debris was over 6 to 7 miles spread across, of course.

First of all, let's look at what the man who was looking for an excuse to invade Iraq while the Pentagon was on fire says: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6Xoxaf1Al0&feature=related

Now, I know, that means nothing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxsmhnZeM6w

Backs up what you say, however, there is a sever lack of debris.

Like in these:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZekosYOmXc&feature=related

Are these not reliable, because they were "caught in the confusion of that
they?"

There were 37 documented call from loved ones and to airline staff from the plane

I know nothing about that, admittedly.

http://www.post-gazette.com/headline...ht931230p3.asp

But before the FBI delivered the ring to Garcia, which was inscribed with "All my love, 8-2-69," Douglass sent it to a jeweler for cleaning and repair.

Hmmmm, that seems to be the jist of that link. What does that mean? Nothing. A lot of people who were there saw no plane or no wreckage. But CNN reported that the debris had sprawled over 6 miles.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWcdSyyppHI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=It5JC45KMGo&feature=related

I can't answer the question of the people who say it was a plane, but there are others who say they saw no plane. Unless you want to start saying that majority rule wins.

FBI ends site work, says no bomb used
Beyond September 11th: An Account of Post-Disaster Research – The Crash of United Flight 93 in Shanksville, Pennsylvania (PDF)
Homeland Security Report on Flight 93

Do I have to reiterate again where they admit that it was a government cover up?

You don't know the first thing about one aspect about 9/11. As to the Pentagon, it's doubtful you have a copy of Firefight, the story about the Pentagon crash and the rescue efforts on that day.

And you, who say the commission was a success claim to know everything about it, even though it's an admitted lie?

I doubt the government story of the Pentagon and flight 93 because they've lied about nearly everything and won't release the evidence of the Pentagon attack.

Instead of patronisingly waving me in the direction of sibel edwards and a bunch of long refuted nonsense, you should perhaps spend a while researching the volume of evidence that refutes your claims.

That Al Qeada is CIA? Check for Edmounds.
That Cheney ordered NORAD to stand down? Check
That the commission is an admitted fraud? Check
That the families biggest group believes inside job? Check
That the hijackers lived with an F.B.I informant and were known to be terrorists? Check
That Able Danger was pulled off the likes of Atta when they were bound to find him? Check
When Al walaki, the number 3 in Al Qaeda dines at the Pentagon after being invited? Then goes on to mastermind the Fort hood shooter and the underwear bomber? Check

I'm not waving you in the direction of anyone, nothing I say will change your mind. Nothing about the American Government will amaze you or make you angry. You just hate people who question 9/11.

The fact you say the commission was a success overlaps your Al-walaki comment.

Superlativeman

meglome wrote: »

Well I have no idea whether he did it but as you point out he says he did.



Well no... releasing the footage won't solve anything for three reasons. Now don't get me wrong I think they should release it but it really won't solve anything.

1. There are numerous videos of the twin towers being hit and still there are many many people that believe there were no planes.
2. The cameras on buildings around the pentagon were not pointing into the air, being security cameras they will point down so what would they pick up anyway.
3. There is ample other evidence to prove an AA jet hit the pentagon.

A lot of things enrage me but it doesn't make the US guilty of involvement in 911.



Why is it doubtful?



So back to the evidence that is available.

http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/noplane/index.html



Since you believe it was a missile or smaller plane maybe you can explain the evidence away to me.

Well I have no idea whether he did it but as you point out he says he did.

I guess Zinoviev was guilty during the show trials? But at least Stalin didn't come out and say "we've no hard evidence that Zino is a Trotskyite engaging in right wing conspiracies." http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article13664.htm

But that doesn't matter. Two wars and over 500,000 deaths based on someone who claims to have carried out the attack.

ell no... releasing the footage won't solve anything for three reasons. Now don't get me wrong I think they should release it but it really won't solve anything.

1. There are numerous videos of the twin towers being hit and still there are many many people that believe there were no planes.
2. The cameras on buildings around the pentagon were not pointing into the air, being security cameras they will point down so what would they pick up anyway.
3. There is ample other evidence to prove an AA jet hit the pentagon.

While on the no planes theory. Why do you think that Alex Jones hasn't been allowed on FOX to discuss 9/11 specifically but the no planers have?

There is ample other evidence to prove an AA jet hit the pentagon.

If there was no video of the towers being hit, but the F.B.I had the videos, would it be released?

Release the video and debunk it, simple as that.

A lot of things enrage me but it doesn't make the US guilty of involvement in 911.

Not more I can show that makes it obvious that they admit they categorically covered up a lot of the evidence and admitted it was going to fail from the start.

Can I ask a question: What do you think the American's response would be if Iran came out and said: "OK, we're actually making nuclear weapons. We lied?" Just curious

Why is it doubtful?

Because again, it could be off any plane and the fact that they have again, admitted it was an ample cover up and have been caught lying, lying and lying again, makes it hard to believe anything they say on this subject.

So back to the evidence that is available.

http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/noplane/index.html

As the video I gave you showed, the plane is much bigger than the one that supposedly "debunked" the 9/11 loons. Also, that piece of evidence doesn't fit the size of flight 93. But one thing I immediately noticed watching "9/11 ripple effect" was that the person they asked to identify the part wasn't the head of royals royce. But since Corporations in America run the country and American industrialist financed Hitler and Lenin and the rest of them, it's hard to take their word for it saying it was one of their jets.

Since you believe it was a missile or smaller plane maybe you can explain the evidence away to me.

As I said, when they release the video, I'll accept it.

Not to change the subject at all, but the towers were built to withstand a 707 going at 600mph and that wouldn't have caused any "major damage." So, strange things do happen I suppose. And many official stories and designed plans end up all being broke........... on the one day.

You're obviously objective, but it would be a fallacy to say that "you're enraged" be American foreign policy, in my opinion as your sentiments are very passive and timid.

Hopefully it can be resolved for the families who believe it was an inside job.

Di0genes

snip

Firstly I notice you ignored the mass of evidence for flight 93 crashing.

Superlativeman wrote: »

Again, dodge the Al-Walaki question.



You said all pilots said it wasn't dangerous or impossible, but countless pilots say it was.

No they don't. Don't wave me a pilots for truth. Show me members of FAA or Pilots who claim it was impossible I will match that with two pilots who say it was.

Maybe so, but still, she was ignored by the 9/11 commission and she also had a gag order on her to shut up. But she's no evidence. But Al Walaki isn't any evidence. The number 3 in Al Qaeda being invited to the Pentagon. But your excuse was "they didn't know who he was and they were trying to find out information on the enemy, which they already had a unit for and had a chance to kill him about, what, 10 times under Clinton or something?

Never claimed to "know it all". You also haven't addressed the Mineta question. By simply saying "no" doesn't make it right.

YES, I KNOW THAT. YOU MISSED MY POINT. What you say may be correct, however, the government has lied about nearly everything and I haven't heard you call them "scum" once. You see what I mean? So while Avery, a white nerdy kid may have lied making a film, the U.S government has lied about WMD'S, selling nukes to North Korea, experimenting on kids, giving out HIV infected products, but you haven't once called them "scum."

Give me a nerdy white kid lying, anytime. Because Avery is a liar, but says he's for real, makes the self admitted lie, the 9/11 commission, true? Explain how that works?

I was banned from Jones' forum a year ago, and I seldom was on it. What's your point? It's sad to hear your frustration about being banned from a scumbag, loser's forum, but you don't get mad at the government, just say "well, that doesn't mean they'd stage 9/11.



I don't follow the "loose change" thing as you do, but from what I'm aware, they already admitted they got a lot of things wrong about the film. Like the 9/11 commission got many things wrong. And they had the help of the American government, not a nerdy white kid on his computer. Again, any letters to RTE about how the American Government has tore the middle East apart in the last century and this?

Wow you're totally running with this non sequitur. Why should RTE give airtime to a punk kid who admits he's a liar?

I know you're on a mission to stand for truth and protect the families, even though most say it's an inside job. I guess all them haven't done their research either and know nothing about 9/11.

Source. Seriously. One guy claiming he speaks for the family members claims loads of the family members are part of the truth movement.

Why don't I know their names?

The more I read this the more comical it becomes. I don't know much about all this loose change stuff, but the anger you show is priceless. If what you say is true, then yes, he's scum. However, Avery didn't authorize torture, like Bush and lie about WMD'S which they knew weren't going to be there. Avery didn't sell North Korea their nukes.

Irrelevant non sequitur. Whether Rumsfeld's company sold nuclear material to north korea does not have any relivance vis a vie as to whether Avery's documentary is accurate.

And what bout the likes of William Rodriquez

William Rodriquez has changed his account of what happened many many times since.

and the countless other firefighters and staff at the WTC who said bombs were going off before and after the plane hit the first tower? Are they all liars? Nope, we ignore theirs and just look at yours.

They heard explosions not explosives.

And also we'll stick Willy on the no fly list.

For attending a holocaust denial conference in Iran? Sure.

Nope, but their beliefs are contrary to there being no debris at the crash site. Oh, well, the debris was over 6 to 7 miles spread across, of course

No it wasn't.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxsmhnZeM6w

All verfying a plane crash. Not a shoot down.


Backs up what you say, however, there is a sever lack of debris.

Like in these:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZekosYOmXc&feature=related

Are these not reliable, because they were "caught in the confusion of that
they?"
[/quote]

No one talks about a shoot down.

I know nothing about that, admittedly.

Hmmmm, that seems to be the jist of that link. What does that mean?

Hmmmmmm remember this bit you ignored

All were on the scene of Shanksville within hours of the crash.

Y'know what the key word is here "volunteer" These are people who gave up their time and volunteered to help identify wreckage and remains at the crash site.

So now you're essentially accusing 1,500 people of being complicit in the cover up of the murder of over a 100 people.

http://www.nvfc.org/pdf/rolevolfiresvc911.pdf

Goes into this at length


http://www.redcross.org/news/ds/0109wtc/010913penn.html

Do you really think the red cross helped cover up at shanksville

Not only that but dozens of people saw the plane crash

http://www.flight93crash.com/flight93_eyewitness.html

There were 37 documented call from loved ones and to airline staff from the plane

Nothing. A lot of people who were there saw no plane or no wreckage. But CNN reported that the debris had sprawled over 6 miles.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWcdSyyppHI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=It5JC45KMGo&feature=related

Incorrect, the road to the lake is 6 miles way, the lack is 2 miles as the crow flies and the debris found there were pieces of paper.

I can't answer the question of the people who say it was a plane, but there are others who say they saw no plane. Unless you want to start saying that majority rule wins.

The majority rule and the overwhelming physical evidence.

Do I have to reiterate again where they admit that it was a government cover up?

There was a government cover up to hide the confusion in the minutes after the hijacking and leading up to the attacks.

And you, who say the commission was a success claim to know everything about it, even though it's an admitted lie?

I doubt the government story of the Pentagon and flight 93 because they've lied about nearly everything and won't release the evidence of the Pentagon attack.

They have realised video.

That Al Qeada is CIA? Check for Edmounds.

No. No evidence to support Edmonds claim.

That Cheney ordered NORAD to stand down? Check

The testimony of one man, which has been shown to be confused about the location and time.

That the commission is an admitted fraud? Check

The commission members stated that they felt the commission was a success

That the families biggest group believes inside job? Check

Please provide a public statement from this group where they list this out.

Superlativeman

Firstly I notice you ignored the mass of evidence for flight 93 crashing.

Gave you CNN footage that suggests the contrary.

No they don't. Don't wave me a pilots for truth. Show me members of FAA or Pilots who claim it was impossible I will match that with two pilots who say it was.

Again experts who disagree with the official story are wrong. Experts that don't agree are right. What do you mean don't wave it at you? I'm not waving it at you. You said pilots say it wasn't impossible. I gave you a link with thousands saying it was.

Never claimed to "know it all". You also haven't addressed the Mineta question. By simply saying "no" doesn't make it right.

I did address it. You keep saying the time thing. Fair enough. But it still doesn't expiate for the stand down order. And the 9/11 commission left his testimony out.

Wow you're totally running with this non sequitur. Why should RTE give airtime to a punk kid who admits he's a liar?

Where did I suggest they should? Not once did I suggest it. I was just saying that you call him a liar AND MAYBE HE IS but so are the government but I haven't heard you call them "scum" once or liars for that fact.

Source. Seriously. One guy claiming he speaks for the family members claims loads of the family members are part of the truth movement.

I give you these sources, but you brush them off and neglect them:
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060709040719187
http://buildingwhat.org/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFPobKeSzKQ&feature=player_embedded
http://www.911truth.org/2006/911statementB.pdf

That's why this guy was going mad:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hf33g9ep4YU

"Scum" asking questions and trying to get attention and make money off their families deaths on 9/11.

Why don't I know their names?

"I, Hamlet, the Dane." I don't know, why don't you? C'mon, man, that was pretty pretentious, was it not?

Irrelevant non sequitur. Whether Rumsfeld's company sold nuclear material to north korea does not have any relivance vis a vie as to whether Avery's documentary is acc

That is very true. But it's your vehement anger and aggression towards Avery that makes me think otherwise. You said you sent e mails into RTE about his film. And I admire you passion, really I do. I hate seeing people make money off scams and things and if he did what you say, then you're right, he's scum.

First of all, it is not a case of "whether", he did, OK? Let's just stop right there with this arrant nonsense. He did: http://market-state.blogspot.com/2007/12/abb-rumsfeld-and-north-korea.html This goes back to Clinton as well. My point is that Avery didn't do anything as bad as this. Also, America is now saying that N. Korea is fully nuclear and blah, blah, blah, yeah........... thanks to them though. They'll probably end up invading the country they built up.

Just like Rumsfeld sold Saddam his weapons that he used on the Kurds to kill thousands of innocent people. But where is your indignation about that? Why didn't you bombard RTE with e mails when Tony Blair(noted war criminal) appeared on Ryan's show about these things? Blair stated that a reason they went in was because Sadamm was doing these things to his own people......... yeah, but with the weapons they sold. So it's wholly relevant in the context of your antagonisms towards a nerdy white kid, but you have none towards the powers that be.

Was that clear enough or do I have to go over the Operation Northwoods plan that Bush and Blair wanted when they unequivocally "knew" that no WMD'S were in Iraq but they were willing to stage a Northwoods style event to get in?

William Rodriquez has changed his account of what happened many many times since.

Haven't heard that, maybe true. But was "left out" at the time he made it. Plus, he wasn't the only one.

They heard explosions not explosives.

What? I never said they heard explosives? They heard explosions, in the lobby. Just like for example, the new NIST footage that people had to go to court to get hold off because they wouldn't release them.

There is nothing to hide, we just won't show the videos to unequivocally back up our claims.

It's like leaving out WTC7 and saying "but why should we include it in our commision?" Not saying anything about WTC7, just making the example. I agree with the Larry Silverstein debunking clip out there actually. I know, but I refuse to look at the evidence.............

For attending a holocaust denial conference in Iran? Sure.

Didn't know that, thanks.

But Bush will order torture, then people will get arrested, then he gets to brag about it and isn't arrested? Do you not see the hypocrisy?

And say what you want about William, he's more of a man than you and me, that's for sure. I've seen the debunking of him. It's been things like: "I believed it was a conspiracy from day one." Or: "It took me a while to come to the fact that I wasn't told the truth." Misquotes and stuff like that. Hardly epic lies.

And yes, but he still heard them explosions in the lobby before the plane hit. And Popular mechanics(who refuse to debate Jones) wouldn't address on the Democracy Now debate with the "scum" about why people on the news were saying their skin was hanging off before a plane hit in the basement. They just brushed it aside. And claimed it was from the plane's impact, but just ignored the "scum"'s points.


You also mention how William has changed his story. How many times has NIST changed theirs?

No it wasn't.

I have never said what happened, I just said there was contradicting reports about what happened. As the news clips I showed prove.

No one talks about a shoot down

Contradicts your links.

Hmmmmmm remember this bit you ignored

Those links don't work bar the last one:

What does Temyer think she heard? "I think the plane was shot down,"

Backs up shoot down order by Cheney

“I didn’t see the plane but I heard the plane’s engine. Then I heard a loud thump that echoed off the hills and then I heard the plane’s engine. I heard two more loud thumps and didn’t hear the plane’s engine anymore after that.”

(I) heard the engine gun two different times," he said. "(I) heard a loud bang and the windows of the houses all around rattled."
http://www.pjstar.com/news/worldtrade/g34835a.html

Larry Williams, a former state police trooper who is now a private investigator, was golfing on the 17th green at Oakbrook Golf Course about eight miles away when he heard the engines “roar real loud and shut off.”
http://www.dailyamerican.com/disaster.html#3

They heard. Not "saw". Again, people contradicting people and CNN showing more contradictions. That's my point. Not that it matters if it was shot down or not, I just find it remarkable by the lack of debris.

Incorrect, the road to the lake is 6 miles way, the lack is 2 miles as the crow flies and the debris found there were pieces of paper.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFsPG3_TwOo 36 secs.

The majority rule and the overwhelming physical evidence.

Which you still fail to produce. Speaking of majority rule, the 9/11 movement is really rising in America.

There was a government cover up to hide the confusion in the minutes after the hijacking and leading up to the attacks.

By Avery is the scumbag. I'll address this conscientiously at the end of the post. Also, confusion to get an fighter jet in the air for an hour.

They have realised video.

A terrible one that no one can make out what it is. And this is contradicted by physics professors(I know, because these guys don't agree with the official story they're not relevant) who did thorough computers tests and video tests to show what the plane would have looked like had it been a commercial airliners that supposedly hit the Pentagon: http://physics911.net/pentcrashvideo

No. No evidence to support Edmonds claim.

Well Al Qaeda is or was C.I.A. Wholly admitted. And Edmounds' claims are all arrant nonsense and lies and lies, yet they put a gag order on her from speaking?

The commission members stated that they felt the commission was a success

I can't even remember if I addressed this with you and I don't like personal insults. But for someone who accuses me of not having "one aspect on 9/11" and then saying the commissioners believe the 9/11 commission was a success, is very, very stupid.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/02/opinion/02kean.html?_r=1&ref=opinion
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/01/AR2006080101300.html?sub=new
http://visibility911.com/media/
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/08/02/9-11panel.pentagon/index.html (Great success)
http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2003/11/21/cleland/index.html?pn=1

Then you have John Farmer, senior counsel to the 9/11 commission who says in his book "The Ground Truth": At some level of the government, at some point in time... there was an agreement not to tell the truth about what happened."

The reason the commission was set up because the families were outraged when the lunatic Henry Kissinger(who was advising Bush on how to get into Iraq later on) was picked to carry out the investigation. I think that's when the trepidations of some family members about the investigation started to kick in.

Remember this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9AoaU7LlTk

Oh, what an independent investigation. What a biased, objective investigation. Look at Bush, he can't even talk. Painful lookin' at that "scum", isn't it? What a great investigation. No doubt you think it's ineffably stupid to think the President of America should be publicly questioned about the biggest attack since pearl harbor(despite the chemical attack by the government on the New York subway in 1968 releasing chemicals on the American people) on his own? What a weirdo those families are and Andreas von Bülow and the former head of Italian intelligence are thinking that this is suspicious.

Now, hear what this guy has to say about this independent, biased, objective commission:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJvABLaMUT8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V01Ol2Nk-Tk&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhqSsjBvlQI

What did Condi say before the commission? They had no clue that anyone was willing the hijack planes? Refresh my memory, August 6th memos, correct?

Seems the F.B.I had some indication:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0lzZvCNkJw

Oh, Atta, wow, that's the guy that Able Danger had and it seems the F.B.I had as well. But what did they do? Does this mean inside job? No! Does this mean intelligence failure? Yes. Does this mean cover up? No doubt.

Where is all this in the 9/11 commission? I have the uncensored one here as well that I picked up and none of this is in it, well, a slight bit, but nothing as deep as this.

Where is this success man, honestly? Where is it? They didn't investigate nathin'.

Please provide a public statement from this group where they list this out.

I already did, but here it is again. It was on FOX NEWS, Geraldo(who I suspected was into this as he's had Jones on before) couldn't believe that family members felt inside job.

Remember all the times you heard O'Reilly and others saying: "It's disrespectful to the families to question 9/11? Ever see the Jeremy Glick interview?

All asinine nonsense.

I don't believe everything the gov says or Jones or truthers or whoever says. But I know from their own statements that a criminal cover up happened and that more money was spent investigating Clinton getting head then 9/11 - that's insane. I just want a new investigation as many do - from congress in America to the Japaneses' Parliament who have had debates in their Parliament about this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pDpfvwGfn0

Apologies for spelling mistakes and other things. Seriously need to study now, that's why I hate coming on these forums.

One more thing about Avery. He didn't tell the fire fighters that it was safe to go to an area that was hazardous to their health, did he? And are they being rewarded? Nope. They're ambulance chasers as the media claim: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BxdttHY59b4

God damn ineptness, I suppose.

The Recliner

Lads can we stop throwing words like "Scumbag" around, it doesn't make for healthy debate

alastair

Superlativeman wrote: »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFsPG3_TwOo 36 secs.

Too many sloppy assumptions and evasions of fact in this post to bother with, but as an indicative source - a 'breaking news' report from CNN on the day is easily understood to be something other than considered and conclusive, and the actual geography and distances are quickly and easily checked on google maps. Indian lake is two to three miles away from the crash site, depending which end of the lake you measure from.

Superlativeman

http://maps.google.ie/maps?hl=en&biw=1212&bih=715&q=flight%2093%20&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wl

Oh, 3 miles, wow, not suspicious at all. So when the plane crashed bits of it went into the air and traveled for 6, sorry 3 miles......................

Please do point out the inaccuracies I said and specifically the inaccuracies of where the commissioners say it was a fraud. Actually, just the commissioners saying it was a fraud, that's the only part I want you to debunk, nothing else.

As I've said, it's not important what happened at the Pentagon or with flight 93, they're just lil' details. The fact is it's an admitted fraud and the American government guaranteed it would be like that.

And lets all celebrate the Korean War number 2 if it takes off - brought to you by Bill Clinton and Donald Rumsfeld.

Di0genes

Superlativeman wrote: »

Gave you CNN footage that suggests the contrary.

No I pointed out that the rescue efforts took thousands of people hundreds of hours.

You gave me a CNN report from the hours after the crash.


You are going to stop this scattergun gun approach. We will discuss one aspect and one aspect alone, and when we are done with it, we will move on to the next aspect.

Where is your evidence for a shoot down/no plane at shankesville.

All were on the scene of Shanksville within hours of the crash.

Y'know what the key word is here "volunteer" These are people who gave up their time and volunteered to help identify wreckage and remains at the crash site.

So now you're essentially accusing 1,500 people of being complicit in the cover up of the murder of over a 100 people.

http://www.nvfc.org/pdf/rolevolfiresvc911.pdf

Goes into this at length


http://www.redcross.org/news/ds/0109wtc/010913penn.html

Do you really think the red cross helped cover up at shanksville

Not only that but dozens of people saw the plane crash

http://www.flight93crash.com/flight93_eyewitness.html

There were 37 documented call from loved ones and to airline staff from the plane




Shall I go on?

Oh okay. The remains of all but one passenger were found and identified by among others somerset county corner Wallace Miller.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/20...115990570.html

"a picture of a seatbelt"

You clearly have no idea how extensive the recovery operation was

http://www.post-gazette.com/headline...ht931230p3.asp

After we've proved or disproved shanksville we've move onto the missile at the pentagon, jibbering on about Mineta or Rumsfeld, or HIV laced products will not lead to an informed rational debate.

Superlativeman

Di0genes wrote: »

No I pointed out that the rescue efforts took thousands of people hundreds of hours.

You gave me a CNN report from the hours after the crash.


You are going to stop this scattergun gun approach. We will discuss one aspect and one aspect alone, and when we are done with it, we will move on to the next aspect.

Where is your evidence for a shoot down/no plane at shankesville.



After we've proved or disproved shanksville we've move onto the missile at the pentagon, jibbering on about Mineta or Rumsfeld, or HIV laced products will not lead to an informed rational debate.

You see, infecting kids with HIV is not jibbering.

Please tell me how they said it was an enormous success when the quotes I've shown are to the contrary?

I never said it was shot down, also.