911 - Points to discuss

Diogenes · 10-04-2009 03:31PM

Bubba HoTep wrote: »

and i know this is off topic but....when asked, why did they attack the US? the answer was "because they hate our freedom!"

You do realise this wasn't the first Al Qaeda attack on the US. The African Embassy bombings, the USS Cole, and the 93 WTC bombing? Right.

You have read Bin Laden's letter to America outlining their reasons for the attack?

Full text here

Some significant points.

As for the first question: Why are we fighting and opposing you? The answer is very simple:

(1) Because you attacked us and continue to attack us.

a) You attacked us in Palestine:

(b) You attacked us in Somalia; you supported the Russian atrocities against us in Chechnya, the Indian oppression against us in Kashmir, and the Jewish aggression against us in Lebanon.

(c) Under your supervision, consent and orders, the governments of our countries which act as your agents, attack us on a daily basis;

(i) These governments prevent our people from establishing the Islamic Shariah, using violence and lies to do so.

(ii) These governments give us a taste of humiliation, and places us in a large prison of fear and subdual.

(iii) These governments steal our Ummah's wealth and sell them to you at a paltry price.

(iv) These governments have surrendered to the Jews, and handed them most of Palestine, acknowledging the existence of their state over the dismembered limbs of their own people.

(v) The removal of these governments is an obligation upon us, and a necessary step to free the Ummah, to make the Shariah the supreme law and to regain Palestine. And our fight against these governments is not separate from out fight against you.

(d) You steal our wealth and oil at paltry prices because of you international influence and military threats. This theft is indeed the biggest theft ever witnessed by mankind in the history of the world.

(e) Your forces occupy our countries; you spread your military bases throughout them; you corrupt our lands, and you besiege our sanctities, to protect the security of the Jews and to ensure the continuity of your pillage of our treasures.

(f) You have starved the Muslims of Iraq, where children die every day. It is a wonder that more than 1.5 million Iraqi children have died as a result of your sanctions, and you did not show concern. Yet when 3000 of your people died, the entire world rises and has not yet sat down.

(g) You have supported the Jews in their idea that Jerusalem is their eternal capital, and agreed to move your embassy there. With your help and under your protection, the Israelis are planning to destroy the Al-Aqsa mosque. Under the protection of your weapons, Sharon entered the Al-Aqsa mosque, to pollute it as a preparation to capture and destroy it.

meglome · 10-04-2009 03:31PM

Bubba HoTep wrote: »

EXACTLY!!!!

and i know this is off topic but....when asked, why did they attack the US? the answer was "because they hate our freedom!"

then along came the patriot act. (illegal) phone tapping etc etc

Or we could discuss the fine details and you could prove the conspiracy? (See previous page)

The_Kew_Tour · 10-04-2009 05:42PM

bonkey wrote: »

I'm not entirely sure what you're asking.

What evidence is there that lamp-posts were knocked down? The knocked-down lamp-posts, for one. The pictures of the knocked-down lamp-posts for another. The vehicles damaged by knocked-down lamp-posts...the eye-witnesses who saw them getting knocked down...the media reports...

Need we continue?

You may be asking what evidence points to them having been knocked down by a plane?

The positioning of the knocked posts is 100% consistent with a possible flight-path of a plane exactly the size of the one which you don't believe hit the Pentagon.

The flight-path that would have resulted in this is 100% consistent with all other damage, including that of the Pentagon itself.

Again, the eye-witness accounts who saw a plane knock lampposts.

Now...before you ask again who these eyewitnesses are..can I just point out that it took me one search with google to find references to media reports from September 11 and 12, 2001, which included named individuals, who were interviewed the day of the events.

One search.

This is relevant, because if you've been looking into the events of September 11, 2001, as I believe to be the case, I find it hard to believe that you wouldn't either have come across such things yourself, be aware they exist or be able to easily find them given no more than the discussion going on here.

So given that you've repeated the question several times, let me ask you some in advance...

Have you, in all of your 911 research, come across no eyewitness accounts outside of government-agency documents which match those that you are asking for?
If not, have you looked for such accounts?

Show me the evidence from reports to show me there 100% consistent with a plane (lamp posts)

the answer to your last question is simple yes

The_Kew_Tour · 10-04-2009 05:45PM

bonkey wrote: »

Attack the post, not the poster

No-one is forcing you to take part in this discussion. If you find it boring, you're free to leave.

well if that the best you can come across against me then I happy to take that as proof that you just read me threads..aint replying to someone who a bully

The_Kew_Tour · 10-04-2009 05:48PM

King Mob wrote: »

That's the aforementioned argument for authority. "These guys are pilots therefore they must be right." That's just not gonna work I'm afraid.

.

Not trying be smart but if there not right who says you are right???:D

10-04-2009 05:49PM

adrian280582 wrote: »

Show me the evidence from reports to show me there 100% consistent with a plane (lamp posts)

the answer to your last question is simple yes

Had you been actually read the responses to your post you'd have seen these where post at least twice.
Flight%2077%20flight%20path%20from%20pentagonresearch.jpg

Flight%2077%20flight%20path%20from%20pentagonresearch.jpg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVDdjLQkUV8ed

10-04-2009 05:52PM

adrian280582 wrote: »

Not trying be smart but if there not right who says you are right???:D

The fact I'm not basing my argument on arguments from authority or arguments from incredulity?

The_Kew_Tour · 10-04-2009 05:55PM

King Mob wrote: »

Had you been actually read the responses to your post you'd have seen these where post at least twice.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVDdjLQkUV8ed

This proves nothing to me its a picture plan and simple a sketch that shows a few planes and how its supposed to have landed..im sorry but this is like me drawing a missile instead of plane and getting sombody belive that

The_Kew_Tour · 10-04-2009 05:56PM

King Mob wrote: »

The fact I'm not basing my argument on arguments from authority or arguments from incredulity?

But one simple question I asked and you could not answer it.

I mean how am I supposed take you serious when you think that "experts" are talking **** as you called it...

Double standards here im afraid

10-04-2009 06:04PM

adrian280582 wrote: »

This proves nothing to me its a picture plan and simple a sketch that shows a few planes and how its supposed to have landed..im sorry but this is like me drawing a missile instead of plane and getting sombody belive that

And what about the pictures of the lampposts? And the fact that it is completely consistent with the damage and flightpath of the plane?
Why exactly do you believe it was a missile when you have signifigantly less evidence than what we've supplied.

adrian280582 wrote: »

But one simple question I asked and you could not answer it.

I mean how am I supposed take you serious when you think that "experts" are talking **** as you called it...

Double standards here im afraid

Because I don't take experts word for it when the only thing backing them up is "I'm a expert."
And what about the vast majority of experts that argee with the idea a plane hit and can back it up? Are they lying?

The_Kew_Tour · 10-04-2009 06:06PM

Eugenio Hernandez, APTN - Latin American Desk, "I was in my Jeep Cherokee, driving on Route 395 toward DC and listening to NPR. I saw the plane coming down. I didn't have a camera with me. On the left shoulder, I saw this tourist with a video camera. The man was with his wife and son. They were from southern Virginia. He was freaked out completely. He was not recording anything. The camera was facing the ground. I jumped out of my car, pulled out one of my business cards, and handed it to him. 'I work for a news agency. Please could I borrow your camera?' I explained, 'I'm sure you will be rewarded.' He handed me the camera, and I went across the road. No one stopped me. I was holding my press badge on top of the camera while I was recording; I walked as close as possible. I was maybe 300 feet from the impact."[10]

http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/Pentagon_witnesses

The guy from the "big list" to solve all problems..

The_Kew_Tour · 10-04-2009 06:09PM

King Mob wrote: »

And what about the pictures of the lampposts? And the fact that it is completely consistent with the damage and flightpath of the plane?
Why exactly do you believe it was a missile when you have signifigantly less evidence than what we've supplied.

Because I don't take experts word for it when the only thing backing them up is "I'm a expert."
And what about the vast majority of experts that argee with the idea a plane hit and can back it up? Are they lying?

So you just agree with the experts you want to agree with ya?

your right on your second point but one problem there and I have stated why so aint going to state this again our else ill become the broken record as some people say(not you):)

The_Kew_Tour · 10-04-2009 06:13PM

I was looking out the window; I live on the 16th floor, overlooking the Pentagon, in a corner apartment, so I have quite a panorama. And being next to National Airport, I hear jets all the time, but this jet engine was way too loud. I looked out to the southwest, and it came right down 395, right over Colombia Pike, and as it went by the Sheraton Hotel, the pilot added power to the engines. I heard it pull up a little bit more, and then I lost it behind a building. And then it came out, and I saw it hit right in front of -- it didn't appear to crash into the building; most of the energy was dissipated in hitting the ground, but I saw the nose break up, I saw the wings fly forward, and then the conflagration engulfed everything in flames. It was horrible.[57]

if he saw this then the wings should have ben on the ground for everybody to see

The_Kew_Tour · 10-04-2009 06:15PM

CNN: What can you tell us about the plane itself? Timmerman: It was a Boeing 757, American Airlines, no question. CNN: You say that it was a Boeing, and you say it was a 757 or 767? Timmerman: 7-5-7. CNN: 757, which, of course. Timmerman: American Airlines. CNN: American Airlines, one of the new generation of jets. Timmerman: Right. It was so close to me it was like looking out my window and looking at a helicopter. It was just right there. a yes the good old "expert" who always happens to be there when something wrong happens.

this happened quite a bit on the WTC clips that CNN did after

10-04-2009 06:17PM

adrian280582 wrote: »

So you just agree with the experts you want to agree with ya?

No, I agree with the experts that provide empirical evidence and back up their assertions with something more than "I'm an expert."

adrian280582 wrote: »

your right on your second point but one problem there and I have stated why so aint going to state this again our else ill become the broken record as some people say(not you):)

Oh enlighten us, why don't you argee with the experts who argee with the official story?

adrian280582 wrote: »

http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/Pentagon_witnesses

The guy from the "big list" to solve all problems..

Hey look at one of the first quotes at the top of the page:

Richard Benedetto was in his car on his way to work, stuck in traffic just outside the Pentagon. He was listening -- in horror -- to an account of what had just happened at the World Trade Center in New York. "Then the plane flew right over my head. I said to myself, boy, that plane is going awfully fast," Benedetto said. "That plane is going to crash." The jet knocked over several light posts before it smashed into the Pentagon. Other observers said it seemed to come in full throttle with no attempt to slow down. "The noise was like an artillery shell, not an explosion like a bomb," Benedetto said. Then he saw a giant billow of smoke followed by a huge fireball, presumably the exploding fuel from the crashed plane. "You couldn't even see the building because there was so much smoke," said Benedetto. The sight was shocking and chilling, even for a veteran reporter. "You don't hand in your humanity when you get a press pass," he said.[2]

The_Kew_Tour · 10-04-2009 06:26PM

King Mob wrote: »

Hey look at one of the first quotes at the top of the page:

yes I have read these through over about four times now at this stage there more then those that say it. Your not catching me out here like I know they are report of "witnesses"

My point is there is a person as the report claims to have taken footage of plane hitting the building yet he new agency worker and nobody has seen it?

Second post I pointed out clearly is a new media catch in providing "experts" at the scene

The_Kew_Tour · 10-04-2009 06:29PM

King Mob wrote: »

No, I agree with the experts that provide empirical evidence and back up their assertions with something more than "I'm an expert."

I presume your on about my video in relation to this point in some part of your answer here..

Thing is they did provide simply solutions from what they know I mean you dont have have big IQ to understand what they are trying to picture for us.

10-04-2009 06:30PM

adrian280582 wrote: »

yes I have read these through over about four times now at this stage there more then those that say it. Your not cathcing me out here like I know they are report of witnesses

And note how they're all consistent with a plane crashing, not a missile. Are all these witnesses lying?

adrian280582 wrote: »

My point is there is a person as the rport claims to have taken footbage of plane hitting the building yet he new agency worjker and nobody has seen it?

Ok and where is it?
The guy clearly saw an airplane why would government cover it up?

adrian280582 wrote: »

Second post I pointed out clearly is a new media catch in prviding "experts" at the scene

I'm not talking about experts at the scene I'm talking about expert who looked at the event afterwards. Just like the ones in the video you posted.

Diogenes · 10-04-2009 06:32PM

adrian280582 wrote: »

But one simple question I asked and you could not answer it.

I mean how am I supposed take you serious when you think that "experts" are talking **** as you called it...

Double standards here im afraid

Experts are they? Lets take a jaunty look at your "Experts"

Glen Stanish, aka John Doe X, founder of "pilots for truth". He shouldn't really be wearing that pilots outfit because he lost his FAA licence several years ago, so it's a bit like going to interview a retired CIE worker who still likes to dress in his uniform.

The next is Jim Fetzer, has a doctorate in philosophy, not aviation or engineering or physics. He also believes that the planes that hit the WTC were in fact holograms, and that the towers were in fact destroyed by invisible space lasers.

Jim Marrs, wrote the book that Oliver Stone based on JFK, a film riddled with inaccuracies, and a book riddled with inaccuracies, he's a conspiracy theorist dyed in the wool.

Albert Stubblebine. May have spent some time staring at photos, but he's chiefly remembered as setting up the secret army goat lab, during the 70s. This lab was dedicated to training soldiers to gain psychic powers. They were trying to use the power of their minds to stop goat's hearts.

So what have we learnt about your experts? THEY'RE ALL FREAKING NUTS

10-04-2009 06:32PM

adrian280582 wrote: »

I presume your on about my video in relation to this point in some part of your answer here..

Thing is they did provide simply solutions from what they know I mean you dont have have big IQ to understand what they are trying to picture for us.

Not really. They just put forward arguments like "I don't see how they would have flown so low?" etc. Those are arguments for incredulity. They don't stand up I'm afraid.
But yea the reason I don't don't believe them is obvisously because I'm stupid.

The_Kew_Tour · 10-04-2009 06:38PM

Diogenes wrote: »

Experts are they? Lets take a jaunty look at your "Experts"

Glen Stanish, aka John Doe X, founder of "pilots for truth". He shouldn't really be wearing that pilots outfit because he lost his FAA licence several years ago, so it's a bit like going to interview a retired CIE worker who still likes to dress in his uniform.

The next is Jim Fetzer, has a doctorate in philosophy, not aviation or engineering or physics. He also believes that the planes that hit the WTC were in fact holograms, and that the towers were in fact destroyed by invisible space lasers.

Jim Marrs, wrote the book that Oliver Stone based on JFK, a film riddled with inaccuracies, and a book riddled with inaccuracies, he's a conspiracy theorist dyed in the wool.

Albert Stubblebine. May have spent some time staring at photos, but he's chiefly remembered as setting up the secret army goat lab, during the 70s. This lab was dedicated to training soldiers to gain psychic powers. They were trying to use the power of their minds to stop goat's hearts.

So what have we learnt about your experts? THEY'RE ALL FREAKING NUTS

how do you know this? proof please

The_Kew_Tour · 10-04-2009 06:39PM

King Mob wrote: »

Ok and where is it?
The guy clearly saw an airplane why would government cover it up?

.

post 194 from me

aaaaaaaaa why would they cover it up hahaha? well thats what I want to know omfg like

Diogenes · 10-04-2009 06:41PM

adrian280582 wrote: »

how do you know this? proof please

You think I could make any of that up?

Before I trawl through the internet for these juicy mortals, let me ask you something. If I prove any of those facts about these people, will you consider revising your opinion on their status as experts?

10-04-2009 06:46PM

adrian280582 wrote: »

post 194 from me

aaaaaaaaa why would they cover it up hahaha? well thats what I want to know omfg like

A well thought out reply.
Explain it to us. Why would the government cover up evidence that completely agrees with their story? Habit?

And have you anything to suggest that this footage has been covered up other than the claim it exists?

meglome · 10-04-2009 09:35PM

adrian280582 wrote: »

Eugenio Hernandez, APTN - Latin American Desk, "I was in my Jeep Cherokee, driving on Route 395 toward DC and listening to NPR. I saw the plane coming down. I didn't have a camera with me. On the left shoulder, I saw this tourist with a video camera. The man was with his wife and son. They were from southern Virginia. He was freaked out completely. He was not recording anything. The camera was facing the ground. I jumped out of my car, pulled out one of my business cards, and handed it to him. 'I work for a news agency. Please could I borrow your camera?' I explained, 'I'm sure you will be rewarded.' He handed me the camera, and I went across the road. No one stopped me. I was holding my press badge on top of the camera while I was recording; I walked as close as possible. I was maybe 300 feet from the impact."[10]

http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/Pentagon_witnesses

The guy from the "big list" to solve all problems..

adrian280582 we seem to have got into a bit of a tit for tat bitching session which is a pity. I can honestly say I'm not tied to any version of events regarding the Pentagon. However after reading the numerous eyewitness reports with stuff like the lampposts to back it up, it would seem there is little doubt that it was a plane. It's not about believing the official story or not, just what we can prove within reason.

I find it somewhat odd that from a page with numerous eyewitness statements describing how a plane hit the Pentagon you bring up one which is about someone filming after the event, which isn't what we were even discussing. We were discussing video of the event itself. We don't know what happened to this footage or if the camera was even working but I'd be very interested to find out. However it doesn't change all the other information we have.

I'm curious, claims of the building being hit by a missile cannot be backed up once we look at the detail and yet you refuse to be budged from your position. Surely we all want to know the truth as far as it can be established? I dunno there seems to something approaching fixation on the US government, the assumption that they were involved no matter what the actual evidence shows. I'm not stating they weren't involved but it would be nice to keep some sort of open mind, instead of assuming the worst of them always.

The_Kew_Tour · 11-04-2009 06:26PM

Diogenes wrote: »

You think I could make any of that up?

Before I trawl through the internet for these juicy mortals, let me ask you something. If I prove any of those facts about these people, will you consider revising your opinion on their status as experts?

That depends on who the crtitc(s) is basically

The_Kew_Tour · 11-04-2009 06:27PM

King Mob wrote: »

A well thought out reply.
Explain it to us. Why would the government cover up evidence that completely agrees with their story? Habit?

And have you anything to suggest that this footage has been covered up other than the claim it exists?

"Why would the government cover up evidence that completely agrees with their story"

Yes but it is there story that they want everyone else to believe

11-04-2009 06:39PM

adrian280582 wrote: »

"Why would the government cover up evidence that completely agrees with their story"

Yes but it is there story that they want everyone else to believe

But the witness you quoted clearly states he saw an airplane. I'd imagine his film (If it actually did catch the plane) would show that.

Why would the government cover it up in that case?

And why would they go through the bother of covering up the footage yet fail to cover up the testimony he gave? Seems A bit odd to do that.

The_Kew_Tour · 11-04-2009 06:40PM

meglome wrote: »

adrian280582 we seem to have got into a bit of a tit for tat bitching session which is a pity. I can honestly say I'm not tied to any version of events regarding the Pentagon. However after reading the numerous eyewitness reports with stuff like the lampposts to back it up, it would seem there is little doubt that it was a plane. It's not about believing the official story or not, just what we can prove within reason.

I find it somewhat odd that from a page with numerous eyewitness statements describing how a plane hit the Pentagon you bring up one which is about someone filming after the event, which isn't what we were even discussing. We were discussing video of the event itself. We don't know what happened to this footage or if the camera was even working but I'd be very interested to find out. However it doesn't change all the other information we have.

I'm curious, claims of the building being hit by a missile cannot be backed up once we look at the detail and yet you refuse to be budged from your position. Surely we all want to know the truth as far as it can be established? I dunno there seems to something approaching fixation on the US government, the assumption that they were involved no matter what the actual evidence shows. I'm not stating they weren't involved but it would be nice to keep some sort of open mind, instead of assuming the worst of them always.

Meglome I have to say I think you made some valid points and in many ways agree with what you said totally and have respect for your opinions as with others(even though to some might seem otherwise)

I just want to point out once again I hope im proven wrong but till I am I just have to say I just dont go along with the total story.

To be honest there was many things that day from even when I was watching it live that got me thinking to myself well how come that could happen

Of course my aunts taughts from that day in Pentagon just triggered my feelings. Even things like them finding a passport of one of the terroists from WTC plane crash was just outragous and I just taught why would the US Governemnt lie about that because they did. No other evidence from WTC but that passport was found from the plane and what chances of that happening?

Yor point about "fixation on the US Governemnt" I agree with totally. I am not a critic of US in many ways (thats for different discussion) but on this occassion I think they have plenty of questions to answer.

This clip is off the point but just shows why people may have their eyebrows raised on the 9/11 attacks.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmzEzOJd2ws

The_Kew_Tour · 11-04-2009 06:43PM

King Mob wrote: »

But the witness you quoted clearly states he saw an airplane. I'd imagine his film (If it actually did catch the plane) would show that.

Why would the government cover it up in that case?

And why would they go through the bother of covering up the footage yet fail to cover up the testimony he gave? Seems A bit odd to do that.

But why cant they just show a simple clip of the plane thats all I think us people would want to see and then people like me can apoligise to people like you for wasting yours and eveybody involved time.

911 - Points to discuss

Comments