Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

9/11 Attacks

191012141522

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 217 ✭✭Soveriegn


    Doesn't this completely rule out the commission report ?


    come on now, really, doesn't it ?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,672 ✭✭✭seannash


    In his book The Big Lie, Thierry Meyssan had entertained the possibility that the two aircraft had actually been substituted by military planes according to the procedure contemplated in Operation Northwoods (p. 168).
    now with all the videos of the plane hitting the second tower how can he entertain that idea


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 217 ✭✭Soveriegn


    Man to man here namlock..

    Isn't something starting to stink ? :D


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,355 ✭✭✭✭namloc1980


    Soveriegn wrote: »
    Ok. I refer you back to this.



    The chairman and vice chairman stated that they were frustrated with repeated misstatements by officials from The Pentagon and the Federal Aviation Administration during the investigation that it considered a separate investigation.

    Why would they give misstatements ?

    What does that have to do with my post?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 217 ✭✭Soveriegn


    seannash wrote: »
    now with all the videos of the plane hitting the second tower how can he entertain that idea


    Well, I don't full support this video, but... take a look



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 217 ✭✭Soveriegn


    namloc1980 wrote: »
    What does that have to do with my post?


    It just, we been over all this stuff. I'm trying to bring it back down to basics.

    Why would the pentagon and the FAA act like they have something to hide ?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,355 ✭✭✭✭namloc1980


    Soveriegn wrote: »
    It just, we been over all this stuff. I'm trying to bring it back down to basics.

    Why would the pentagon and the FAA act like they have something to hide ?

    Can you provide specifics of mis-statements by FAA and Pentagon officials?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 217 ✭✭Soveriegn


    namloc1980 wrote: »
    Can you provide specifics of mis-statements by FAA and Pentagon officials?


    I dont need to. The report provides it. The chairman and vice chairman of the commission report stated it.

    If I wrote a book and told you what I wrote in the book is false, would you believe me ? or would you believe the falsities in my book ?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,355 ✭✭✭✭namloc1980


    Soveriegn wrote: »
    I dont need to. The report provides it. The chairman and vice chairman of the commission report stated it.

    If I wrote a book and told you what I wrote in the book is false, would you believe me ? or would you believe the falsities in my book ?

    I'll take that as a no.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 217 ✭✭Soveriegn


    namloc1980 wrote: »
    I'll take that as a no.

    I take that as a cop out


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 217 ✭✭Soveriegn


    Why would they hamper an investigation of the murder of so many of their fellow citizens ?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 76 ✭✭housemap


    Soveriegn wrote: »
    ugghhh

    Video's have been posted of the towers architects stating they were designed to take several hits from 707 jets.

    That video is just some guy spouting his personal opinion, any very large project has a huge number of hangers on who will talk nonsense to get some tv time, just like the titanic is unsinkable, the towers were designed as office blocks not nuclear bunkers, sure when they were being built there was a lot of talk going around along the lines of wow it's so tall what if a plane hit and no doubt some people had a chat around a cup of coffee and came to the conclusion that yea this building is teh awesome and would totally survive multiple hits by jet's and an attack by the blob at the same time.

    There was no real life testing of the survivability of any part of that tower to a plane strike, it was just a chat.

    If you want to know if a construction would survive a plane strike you fly a plane into a replica - someone in this thread posted a link to a video of that nature, it would be correct to state that building was built to survive a jet strike , where's the video of a mock up of the wtc surviving a 707 hit.

    You could probably model it these days with a lot of super computer time but not back then.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 217 ✭✭Soveriegn


    housemap wrote: »
    That video is just some guy spouting his personal opinion, any very large project has a huge number of hangers on who will talk nonsense to get some tv time, just like the titanic is unsinkable, the towers were designed as office blocks not nuclear bunkers, sure when they were being built there was a lot of talk going around along the lines of wow it's so tall what if a plane hit and no doubt some people had a chat around a cup of coffee and came to the conclusion that yea this building is teh awesome and would totally survive multiple hits by jet's and an attack by the blob at the same time.

    There was no real life testing of the survivability of any part of that tower to a plane strike, it was just a chat.

    If you want to know if a construction would survive a plane strike you fly a plane into a replica - someone in this thread posted a link to a video of that nature, it would be correct to state that building was built to survive a jet strike , where's the video of a mock up of the wtc surviving a 707 hit.

    You could probably model it these days with a lot of super computer time but not back then.


    You are just some guy spouting ****

    I am not going to bother getting you the evidence of the chief engineer also stating it. use google.



    Maybe (i very much doubt it though) you can explain this.. coz all the other skeptics can't or they just had to go to bed or something.

    Why would they hamper an investigation of the murder of so many of their fellow citizens ?

    (they being the pentagon and the FAA)

    Your probably going to have to read back again, so i'l expect your reply in an hour or so , again


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,355 ✭✭✭✭namloc1980


    Soveriegn wrote: »
    I take that as a cop out

    You said FAA and Pentagon officials provided mis-statements to the 9/11 commission. I asked for examples and you failed to provide them. And you accuse me of copping out!!!!! :pac:


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 76 ✭✭housemap


    Soveriegn wrote: »

    I am not going to bother getting you the evidence of the chief engineer also stating. use google.

    Who care's what people stated, where is the real life documented testing of the survivability of any part of that tower to a plane strike. Exactly what tests were carried out and where ?

    How did whatever charges really brought down the towers survive the plane strike and subsequent inferno.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 217 ✭✭Soveriegn


    housemap wrote: »
    That video is just some guy spouting his personal opinion, any very large project has a huge number of hangers on who will talk nonsense to get some tv time, just like the titanic is unsinkable, the towers were designed as office blocks not nuclear bunkers, sure when they were being built there was a lot of talk going around along the lines of wow it's so tall what if a plane hit and no doubt some people had a chat around a cup of coffee and came to the conclusion that yea this building is teh awesome and would totally survive multiple hits by jet's and an attack by the blob at the same time.

    There was no real life testing of the survivability of any part of that tower to a plane strike, it was just a chat.

    If you want to know if a construction would survive a plane strike you fly a plane into a replica - someone in this thread posted a link to a video of that nature, it would be correct to state that building was built to survive a jet strike , where's the video of a mock up of the wtc surviving a 707 hit.

    You could probably model it these days with a lot of super computer time but not back then.

    Ok. They both survived hits from planes.

    The fuel exploded and was burned out within seconds.

    It was the office fires that finished them off, right ?

    HA!
    LOL.jpg

    But why did the pentagon and the FAA hamper investigations ?

    Were they hiding something ?

    Surely they wanted to get to the truth ?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 217 ✭✭Soveriegn


    housemap wrote: »
    Who care's what people stated, where is the real life documented testing of the survivability of any part of that tower to a plane strike. Exactly what tests were carried out and where ?

    How did whatever charges really brought down the towers survive the plane strike and subsequent inferno.



    We seen t live on tv. They survived the hits.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,355 ✭✭✭✭namloc1980


    Soveriegn wrote: »
    Ok. They both survived hits from planes.

    The fuel exploded and was burned out within seconds.

    It was the office fires that finished them off, right ?

    HA!
    LOL.jpg

    But why did the pentagon and the FAA hamper investigations ?

    Were they hiding something ?

    Surely they wanted to get to the truth ?


    Oh dear. "Taxi for Soveriegn"

    Any chance you could provide evidence of the FAA and Pentagon hampering investigations?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 76 ✭✭housemap


    Soveriegn wrote: »
    We seen t live on tv. They survived the hits.

    Well I guess they should have built the twin towers out of some thermite charges , then they would still be standing, amirite

    The buildings failed at exactly the point the planes hit, were the pilots of each plane told what floor the charges were planted and to hit those exact floors ? what if they missed there would be some explaining to do then.

    The perimeter steel columns would have needed to be cut by the charges , these columns were effectively the window frames for all the offices, how come nobody noticed the hundreds of thermite charges attached to their window frames.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 217 ✭✭Soveriegn


    namloc1980 wrote: »
    Oh dear. "Taxi for Soveriegn"

    Any chance you could provide evidence of the FAA and Pentagon hampering investigations?


    Given the fact that the chairman stated that the Pentagon and the FAA hampered the investigation by delivering misstatements, you can assume that evidence provided by pentagon and FAA officials in the commission report are misstatements.

    Do you deny this ?

    Here he is stating it on film...


    And here is a wiki statement...

    Keeping in mind, this is the chair and vice chairman stating this...
    The book was released on August 15, 2006 and chronicles the work of Kean (Commission Chairman) and Hamilton (Commission Vice-Chairman) of the 9/11 Commission. In the book, Kean and Hamilton charge that the 9/11 Commission was "set up to fail," and write that the commission was so frustrated with repeated misstatements by officials from The Pentagon and the Federal Aviation Administration during the investigation that it considered a separate investigation into possible obstruction of justice by Pentagon and FAA officials


    While I understand you are a proud man and dont wish to loose a debate... I ask you to consider this information.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 217 ✭✭Soveriegn


    housemap wrote: »
    Well I guess they should have built the twin towers out of some thermite charges , then they would still be standing, amirite

    The buildings failed at exactly the point the planes hit, were the pilots of each plane told what floor the charges were planted and to hit those exact floors ? what if they missed there would be some explaining to do then.

    The perimeter steel columns would have needed to be cut by the charges , these columns were effectively the window frames for all the offices, how come nobody noticed the hundreds of thermite charges attached to their window frames.


    And did building 7 fail at some exact point ? or many specific points ? because it seemed to me that it fell like a house of cards.

    Didnt you see that or do you constantly walk around with a blindfold on ?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 76 ✭✭housemap


    Soveriegn wrote: »
    And did building 7 fail at some exact point ? or many specific points ? because it seemed to me that it fell like a house of cards.

    Didnt you see that or do you constantly walk around with a blindfold on ?

    I didn't say anything about building 7
    why don't you answer the question.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 217 ✭✭Soveriegn


    housemap wrote: »
    I didn't say anything about building 7
    why don't you answer the question.


    Why wont you answer mine ?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 76 ✭✭housemap


    Soveriegn wrote: »
    And did building 7 fail at some exact point ? or many specific points ? because it seemed to me that it fell like a house of cards.

    Didnt you see that or do you constantly walk around with a blindfold on ?

    A skyscaper fell on it and it burned and failed.

    A more pertinent question would be why wasn't building 7 hit by a plane ?

    Why hit the two towers with planes and demolitions and just demolish 7 ?

    Did they run out of planes :pac:


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,355 ✭✭✭✭namloc1980


    Soveriegn wrote: »
    Given the fact that the chairman stated that the Pentagon and the FAA hampered the investigation by delivering misstatements, you can assume that evidence provided by pentagon and FAA officials in the commission report are misstatements.

    Do you deny this ?

    Here he is stating it on film...


    And here is a wiki statement...

    Keeping in mind, this is the chair and vice chairman stating this...




    While I understand you are a proud man and dont wish to loose a debate... I ask you to consider this information.

    Where in that video does he state that the FAA and Pentagon provided mis-statements????? I'm still waiting for the examples


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 217 ✭✭Soveriegn


    housemap wrote: »
    A skyscaper fell on it and it burned and failed.

    A more pertinent question would be why wasn't building 7 hit by a plane ?

    Why hit the two towers with planes and demolitions and just demolish 7 ?

    Did they run out of planes :pac:


    Yeah, the passengers overthrew the hijackers.

    Thats why it got shot down :D


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,355 ✭✭✭✭namloc1980


    Soveriegn wrote: »
    Yeah, the passengers overthrew the hijackers.

    Thats why it got shot down :D

    Do you find the deaths people in hijacked aircraft funny?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 217 ✭✭Soveriegn


    namloc1980 wrote: »
    Where in that video does he state that the FAA and Pentagon provided mis-statements????? I'm still waiting for the examples
    I didn't say it's in the video, it's in his book :) quoted here on wiki
    The book was released on August 15, 2006 and chronicles the work of Kean (Commission Chairman) and Hamilton (Commission Vice-Chairman) of the 9/11 Commission. In the book, Kean and Hamilton charge that the 9/11 Commission was "set up to fail," and write that the commission was so frustrated with repeated misstatements by officials from The Pentagon and the Federal Aviation Administration during the investigation that it considered a separate investigation into possible obstruction of justice by Pentagon and FAA officials
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_Commission#Work_of_commissioners_after_the_commission_ceased_its_functions
    Soveriegn wrote: »
    Given the fact that the chairman stated that the Pentagon and the FAA hampered the investigation by delivering misstatements, you can assume that evidence provided by pentagon and FAA officials in the commission report are misstatements.

    Do you deny this ?

    Here he is stating it on film...


    And here is a wiki statement...

    Keeping in mind, this is the chair and vice chairman stating this...




    While I understand you are a proud man and dont wish to loose a debate... I ask you to consider this information.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 217 ✭✭Soveriegn


    Not only was the commission report destined to fail due to lack of time and financial support but the commission was so frustrated with repeated misstatements by officials from The Pentagon and the Federal Aviation Administration during the investigation.

    WHY IN THE FUKKING WORLD WOULD THIS HAPPEN ?

    COZ THEY ARE HIDING THE FACT THAT THEY HAD A HAND IN ORCHESTRATING THE EVENT.

    SIMPLES

    OBVIOUS


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,355 ✭✭✭✭namloc1980


    Soveriegn wrote: »

    Did you read the book? What was the nature of the alleged mis-statements?


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 76 ✭✭housemap


    NIST investigated the collapse of the buildings , it's well documented, the only people who spout these alternate theories are trolls, the CT forum by the looks of things is a beacon for them, I do not believe for a second that Soveriegn and similar posters here actually hold these beliefs, they just copypasta from other forums and chuckle to themselves about the trollercoaster, anyway have fun I was just having a look I won't be staying.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,128 ✭✭✭✭Oranage2


    Charlie Sheen suports these claims, you can harldy call the highest paid sitcom actor a troll by putting his career in danger by making these claims can you?

    All you have to see it WT7 collapse when buildings WT3-WT6 stood up and had a lot more damage to them.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 217 ✭✭Soveriegn


    namloc1980 wrote: »
    Did you read the book? What was the nature of the alleged mis-statements?


    Yes I did, several times.

    Did you read my bullsh!t book ?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 217 ✭✭Soveriegn


    You lads seem to be forgetting something.............................>>>>>>

    Soveriegn wrote: »
    Given the fact that the chairman stated that the Pentagon and the FAA hampered the investigation by delivering misstatements, you can assume that evidence provided by pentagon and FAA officials in the commission report are misstatements.

    Do you deny this ?

    Here he is stating it on film...


    And here is a wiki statement...

    Keeping in mind, this is the chair and vice chairman stating this...
    The book was released on August 15, 2006 and chronicles the work of Kean (Commission Chairman) and Hamilton (Commission Vice-Chairman) of the 9/11 Commission. In the book, Kean and Hamilton charge that the 9/11 Commission was "set up to fail," and write that the commission was so frustrated with repeated misstatements by officials from The Pentagon and the Federal Aviation Administration during the investigation that it considered a separate investigation into possible obstruction of justice by Pentagon and FAA officials



    While I understand you are a proud man and dont wish to loose a debate... I ask you to consider this information.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,355 ✭✭✭✭namloc1980


    Soveriegn wrote: »
    You lads seem to be forgetting something.............................>>>>>>

    Looks like you have. You STILL haven't provided examples of the alleged mis-statements?? So can you or can you not provide these examples?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 217 ✭✭Soveriegn


    namloc1980 wrote: »
    Looks like you have. You STILL haven't provided examples of the alleged mis-statements?? So can you or can you not provide these examples?


    The report is misstatements.

    The vice and chairman stated it.

    Have another look.
    The book was released on August 15, 2006 and chronicles the work of Kean (Commission Chairman) and Hamilton (Commission Vice-Chairman) of the 9/11 Commission. In the book, Kean and Hamilton charge that the 9/11 Commission was "set up to fail," and write that the commission was so frustrated with repeated misstatements by officials from The Pentagon and the Federal Aviation Administration during the investigation that it considered a separate investigation into possible obstruction of justice by Pentagon and FAA officials


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 217 ✭✭Soveriegn


    namloc1980 wrote: »
    Looks like you have. You STILL haven't provided examples of the alleged mis-statements?? So can you or can you not provide these examples?


    It's like this.

    If I lie to you, and you don't know the truth, but I told you I was lying. How can you provide me with the truth ?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,355 ✭✭✭✭namloc1980


    Soveriegn wrote: »
    The report is misstatements.

    The vice and chairman stated it.

    Have another look.

    Where are the examples? Can you provide them?


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,225 ✭✭✭Yitzhak Rabin


    housemap wrote: »
    NIST investigated the collapse of the buildings , it's well documented, the only people who spout these alternate theories are trolls, the CT forum by the looks of things is a beacon for them, I do not believe for a second that Soveriegn and similar posters here actually hold these beliefs, they just copypasta from other forums and chuckle to themselves about the trollercoaster, anyway have fun I was just having a look I won't be staying.

    If you continue to make statements like that, certainly not.

    Pay attention to this paragraph of the charter everyone

    Please don't use sweeping generalisations which indirectly attack or belittle other posters here. Posts which are insulting to those who believe conspiracies / the mainstream, for example, may be considered to be insulting to other posters, and as such will not be tolerated.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 217 ✭✭Soveriegn


    namloc1980 wrote: »
    Where are the examples? Can you provide them?

    I robbed a shop at gunpoint today, sorry, thats a misstatement.

    Whats the truth ?

    You dont know !

    All you have are misstatements..

    You are asking an impossible question and you know it. You loose

    But here are the misstatements

    http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBsQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.9-11commission.gov%2Freport%2F911Report.pdf&rct=j&q=9%2F11%20commission%20report&ei=VhSMTM3QNYOQjAek3qCSBg&usg=AFQjCNHGlh1FX-h5OMtRGzOky5zJfmQnbQ&sig2=kUuFuI0fDGoEHceLfjZOWg&cad=rja


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,355 ✭✭✭✭namloc1980


    Soveriegn wrote: »
    I robbed a shop at gunpoint today, sorry, thats a misstatement.

    Whats the truth ?

    You dont know !

    All you have are misstatements..

    You are asking an impossible question and you know it. You loose

    But here are the misstatements

    http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBsQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.9-11commission.gov%2Freport%2F911Report.pdf&rct=j&q=9%2F11%20commission%20report&ei=VhSMTM3QNYOQjAek3qCSBg&usg=AFQjCNHGlh1FX-h5OMtRGzOky5zJfmQnbQ&sig2=kUuFuI0fDGoEHceLfjZOWg&cad=rja

    Oh dear. You haven't a clue what you're on about. You can't even answer a question and are just making it up as you go along. :pac::pac:


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 217 ✭✭Soveriegn


    namloc1980 wrote: »
    Oh dear. You haven't a clue what you're on about. You can't even answer a question and are just making it up as you go along. :pac::pac:


    Nice deflection


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 217 ✭✭Soveriegn


    So Kean and Hamilton charge that the 9/11 Commission was "set up to fail," and write that the commission was so frustrated with repeated misstatements by officials from The Pentagon and the Federal Aviation Administration during the investigation.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 217 ✭✭Soveriegn


    milliondollar_wideweb__430x301.jpg


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Soveriegn wrote: »
    But why did the pentagon and the FAA hamper investigations ?

    Were they hiding something ?

    Surely they wanted to get to the truth ?
    [/B][/SIZE]


    Not that the obvious should need to be stated, but...

    The 9/11 commission report slated various federal and state bodies over their response to 9/11, and was clearly going to point the finger of blame from early on in their investigation. Some government bodies tried to cover their arse and consequently gave the commission investigation the runaround. Read the Vanity Fair transcripts of NORAD's reactions on the day and try to pretend that they were capable of taking a role in any 'conspiracy' - they were in absolute chaos.

    9/11 Senior Council John Farmer paints the picture in a 2009 interview:
    BF: Interesting, hold the thought there, John…. (commercial break) …John, you were speaking of, before the break about some of the things that you were told and the public was told and the Commission was told that were, quote, "almost entirely and inexplicably 'untrue'"; you refer to the fact that, uh, the claim that they could have 'taken out' Flight 93 if they had wanted to, that they had within their sights, and so on and so forth- why would- why do you suspect some of these stories would have been told, that were so wildly inaccurate, as you describe them?

    JF: I think there was an effort to, um, uh, to make the government look 'better' than it was that day- to make the national command structure, um, seem, uh, like it was more in control than it was in those critical moments, and I think in doing that, one of the unfortunate byproducts was that they obscured some of the really important lessons from that morning, among which are- you know, how critical decisions are actually made in a crit- in a cataclysmic situation like that, and the essential estrangement of the top levels from the people on the ground who actually had to improvise the national defense- was important, because we saw replicated a few years later in Hurricane Katrina- completely different kind of event, uh, in fact not a surprise at all, something that had been planned for, for years- but when it actually hit, the same kind of dynamic occurred, where people on the ground in New Orleans were waiting for word from the upper levels of government and there was a disconnect in communications and difficulty communicating, they didn't have the authority to make critical decisions, and I think one of the things that comes out of this study that I think is important, is the imperative that we actually plan to deal with these crises the way they're actually experienced, as opposed according to some, uh, you know- organization chart.

    BF: Right. And we seem to have re- we constructed an organizational chart after 9/11, in response to 9/11, and then as you point out in the book, it doesn't seem we paid much attention to it when it came to Katrina- so it's unclear that we even learned anything from 9/11, frankly- and I wonder- the uh, effectiveness of the Commission- you guys did not have subpoena power early on, and how badly do you think that ended up crippling the final report that was released by the 9/11 Commission?

    JF: Well, let me just say that I think the report is, uh, extremely accurate, and- and sets forth the facts of 9/11. And we actually did point out in the report the discrepancies between the accounts that were given and what we actually found.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Oranage2 wrote: »
    Charlie Sheen suports these claims, you can harldy call the highest paid sitcom actor a troll by putting his career in danger by making these claims can you?

    All you have to see it WT7 collapse when buildings WT3-WT6 stood up and had a lot more damage to them.

    If Charlie Sheen says it's true then I've no choice but to believe.

    Oh wait...

    Now - tell me this; What was the distinctive difference between the construction of WTC7 and WTC 3 or 4?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,672 ✭✭✭seannash


    Oranage2 wrote: »
    Charlie Sheen suports these claims, you can harldy call the highest paid sitcom actor a troll by putting his career in danger by making these claims can you?

    All you have to see it WT7 collapse when buildings WT3-WT6 stood up and had a lot more damage to them.
    demon,i mean orange have you looked at any of the debunking videos out there?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 217 ✭✭Soveriegn


    alastair wrote: »
    Not that the obvious should need to be stated, but...

    The 9/11 commission report slated various federal and state bodies over their response to 9/11, and was clearly going to point the finger of blame from early on in their investigation. Some government bodies tried to cover their arse and consequently gave the commission investigation the runaround. Read the Vanity Fair transcripts of NORAD's reactions on the day and try to pretend that they were capable of taking a role in any 'conspiracy' - they were in absolute chaos.

    9/11 Senior Council John Farmer paints the picture in a 2009 interview:


    So would you suggest this is good enough reason for people to want a new investigation ?

    Maybe that would be a waste of time ?


    Lets just forget about it


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Soveriegn wrote: »
    So would you suggest this is good enough reason for people to want a new investigation ?

    Maybe that would be a waste of time ?


    Lets just forget about it

    No good reason at all - the commission highlighted claims and reality - the facts are clear from their report.

    I'm sure you'd like to forget about it given that you have once again highlighted the fact you don't really know all that much about the events of 9/11 at all. If you're going to advocate an alternative 'conspiracy theory', it's best to learn what the existing understanding actually is.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 217 ✭✭Soveriegn


    alastair wrote: »
    No good reason at all - the commission highlighted claims and reality - the facts are clear from their report.
    .


    Love you baby.

    You're right, there is no good reason.
    The book was released on August 15, 2006 and chronicles the work of Kean (Commission Chairman) and Hamilton (Commission Vice-Chairman) of the 9/11 Commission. In the book, Kean and Hamilton charge that the 9/11 Commission was "set up to fail," and write that the commission was so frustrated with repeated misstatements by officials from The Pentagon and the Federal Aviation Administration during the investigation that it considered a separate investigation into possible obstruction of justice by Pentagon and FAA officials


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement