9/11: The September 11th Attacks

[Bigfoot73]

I wouldn't describe his remarks as candid I would describe them as dismissive since he's clearly trying to get away from the people asking the questions

Candid, dismissive, whatever - it's as if he's saying it's insoluble anyway so please let me be on my way. I certainly don't think he's making it up just to effect an exit.

Not so much a 30 year-conspiracy as a 30 year-old conspiracy?

I listened again and he does actually say 30 year old, not just 30 year. That would eliminate a conspiracy beginning and ending with the construction and destruction of the WTC, it could still mean that the plot started up after the WTC was built and was grafted on to the already running WTC scam. It still leaves us with a 30 year old conspiracy and al Qaeda didn't exist in 1979.

His comment on Building 7 at 5.50 onwards comes straight after a series of comments on the state of mind of aircrews operating weaponry using enhanced images and graphics, and seems more dismissive than the 30 year remark.
Nobody ever suggested the explosives were installed decades in advance.

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

Candid, dismissive, whatever - it's as if he's saying it's insoluble anyway so please let me be on my way. I certainly don't think he's making it up just to effect an exit.

No-one's suggesting he's making anything up. What is being suggested is that his comments are in no way the 'confession' that they've been widely reported to be by conspiracy theorists. If he thought the situation was insoluble due to being a 30 year conspiracy then he'd be contradicting himself since he evidently knows how long the conspiracy has been going on and, one would have to assume, the main actors and the nature of the conspiracy.

I listened again and he does actually say 30 year old, not just 30 year. That would eliminate a conspiracy beginning and ending with the construction and destruction of the WTC, it could still mean that the plot started up after the WTC was built and was grafted on to the already running WTC scam. It still leaves us with a 30 year old conspiracy and al Qaeda didn't exist in 1979.

It didn't need to since he isn't neccessarily talking about al Qaeda. He could very well be talking about the conditions under which they were allowed to develop - tumult in a cold-war frontier where American intelligence was keen to assist mujahideen without due consideration of the consequences or the willingness to engage with threats further down the line.

His comment on Building 7 at 5.50 onwards comes straight after a series of comments on the state of mind of aircrews operating weaponry using enhanced images and graphics, and seems more dismissive than the 30 year remark.

Nobody ever suggested the explosives were installed decades in advance.

Perhaps but nobody's ever been able to provide evidence of when or how the place was rigged let alone that the collapses were caused by explosives (the pattern of collapse of WTC 7 is not suggestive of controlled demolition, after all). Nor for that matter the supposed scam and why all this would be neccessary.

 

[flamesong]

Interesting quote from former Senator and member of the 9/11 Commission, Bob Kerrey.

Questioner: Unless we get to the bottom of it then we are still talking a treasonous exposition

Bob Kerrey:This is a longer conversation - I'm not sure [we will ever] get to the bottom of it.

Questioner: We have to... or we can't save our countries.

Bob Kerrey: I don't think... If that's the condition upon which we are saving our country... the problem is, it's a thirty year old conspiracy.

Questioner: I'm talking about 9/11.

Bob Kerrey: That's what I'm talking about.

9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey

 

[kamalktk]

He's being dismissive because he realizes that no answer will change the mind of the questioner, anything he says will be used as confirmation of the questioner's existing belief.

 

[flamesong]

He's being dismissive because he realizes that no answer will change the mind of the questioner, anything he says will be used as confirmation of the questioner's existing belief.

Very telling answer which as well as disregarding the context could equally apply to the attitude of those who have swallowed the bait without chewing.

 

[Bigfoot73]

If he thought the situation was insoluble due to being a 30 year conspiracy then he'd be contradicting himself since he evidently knows how long the conspiracy has been going on and, one would have to assume, the main actors and the nature of the conspiracy.

Then he probably also realises the shortcomings of the available evidence
as means of securing convictions. Perhaps the critical evidence really was in the Securities and Exchanges Commisssion offices in Building 7. Did he really utter that 30 year old remark dismissively or did he have a world-weary tone, it's 30 years old and we'll never catch them now ?

He was talking about an actual discrete conspiracy not the circumstantial preconditions for it. I don't think anyone has ever found any suggestion of the operation in al Qaeda/AfPak intelligence more than 2-3 years before 9.11

Perhaps but nobody's ever been able to provide evidence of when or how the place was rigged let alone that the collapses were caused by explosives (the pattern of collapse of WTC 7 is not suggestive of controlled demolition, after all). Nor for that matter the supposed scam and why all this would be neccessary.

It has always been suggested that the charges were installed during maintainance or construction work but that's as far as it goes.

As for the pattern of collapse not being suggestive of controlled demolition I suppose you have arrived at that conclusion using the same powers of observation that led you to think that actually is a a Boeing 757 in the Pentagon security gate video.

 

[Jonfairway]

lets do it this way


untruth or lie
coincedence
assumption with after knowledge
suspicion with assumptions
proof


i said we will never get proof , or anyone else
what is left is what we can get

?????

i remember us having this conversation many years ago

you will not come to any judgement on hearsay/assumption/suspicion/
or shall we call that problem solving

You have always said you wanted PROOF incontrovertible

that proof is not going to be found !!!

so why bother ??????

 

[Analis]

No it is most emphatically not related to the questions you have been asking us and we are not here for a one -sided interrogation. It is a damning item of evidence for conspiracy and if the testimony of the pilot isn't good enough for you there are plenty of excerpts from news programmes confirming the details. Debunk if you can.

So which details did the pilot confirm? All of them - including the details about the Qurans and Al-Qaeda documents in the luggage? Where did that information come from? How is it a 'damning item of evidence for conspiracy'?

The answer is in a link that was provided a while ago, by kamaltk :

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/17/busin ... gewanted=2

[......]
ABC News continued to stand by the report, which it said was bolstered by the fact that the police had arrested one detainee and that the airports had been closed. It said its information was fully checked out, and information about the knives -- which was reported by some other news outlets, among them The Washington Post -- was gleaned from police reports.

''At this point, we're still reporting out the discrepancy on what these individuals had on them,'' said Christopher Isham, the senior producer in charge of the ABC News investigative team. ''I find it stunning personally that the police officers could have gotten it that wrong as to what these people had on them.''
[......]

So, it seems that sources were directly from the police, and that they had really reported that knives had been found, which is indeed strange.

The yearly tendency doesn't explain why there was a sudden surge in shares trading shortly before the attacks.

Yes, it does. The investment newsletter recommendation was on 9 September. You can read the investigation for yourself http://911myths.com/images/0/01/T-0148-911MFR-00139.pdf where they discovered 90% of the trades were from subscribers to the newsletter. This was explained by the link I provided on the previous page of this thread. In fact the whole stock trading thing was explained there.

This newsletter looks more like a decoy. Share traders don't use to proceed to massive trading so abruptly, just after a newsletter (morever stating weak tendencies) is issued (again, exactely 2 days before, another strange coincidence). For this reason, many experts of this field still believe that this speculation was not normal.
In addition, some of the suspect trading on Merryl Lynch, Bank of America and Citygroups took place 4 to 5 days before the attacks, Morgan Stanley 3 days.
http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/sept1 ... ong38.html
http://www.themodernreligion.com/terror ... ading.html

It is interesting to note an usually overlooked fact : there was too a suspect increase of bets on the rise on firms that would be expected to benefit from the attacks. Notably, again, Raytheon.

 

[Analis]

http://www.disclose.tv/news/Former_Head ... J20E.gmail

Former Head Of Star Wars Program Says Cheney Main 9/11 Suspect

Read more: http://www.disclose.tv/news/Former_Head ... z1zHO0py00

June 25, 2012 - The former head of the Star Wars missile defense program under Presidents Ford and Carter has gone public to say that the official version of 9/11 is a conspiracy theory and his main suspect for the architect of the attack is Vice President Dick Cheney.

Dr. Robert M. Bowman, Lt. Col., USAF, ret. flew 101 combat missions in Vietnam. He is the recipient of the Eisenhower Medal, the George F. Kennan Peace Prize, the President’s Medal of Veterans for Peace, the Society of Military Engineers Gold Medal (twice), six Air Medals, and dozens of other awards and honors. His Ph.D. is in Aeronautics and Nuclear Engineering from Caltech. He chaired 8 major international conferences, and is one of the country’s foremost experts on National Security.

Bowman worked secretly for the US government on the Star Wars project and was the first to coin the very term in a 1977 secret memo. After Bowman realized that the program was only ever intended to be used as an aggressive and not defensive tool, as part of a plan to initiate a nuclear war with the Soviets, he left the program and campaigned against it.

In an April 4, 2006 interview with The Alex Jones Show aired nationally on the GCN Radio Network, Bowman (pictured below right) stated that at the bare minimum if Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda were involved in 9/11 then the government stood down and allowed the attacks to happen. He said it is plausible that the entire chain of military command were unaware of what was taking place and were used as tools by the people pulling the strings behind the attack.

Bowman outlined how the drills on the morning of 9/11 that simulated planes crashing into buildings on the east coast were used as a cover to dupe unwitting air defense personnel into not responding quickly enough to stop the attack.

“The exercises that went on that morning simulating the exact kind of thing that was happening so confused the people in the FAA and NORAD….that they didn’t they didn’t know what was real and what was part of the exercise,” said Bowman

“I think the people who planned and carried out those exercises, they’re the ones that should be the object of investigation.”

Asked if he could name a prime suspect who was the likely architect behind the attacks, Bowman stated, “If I had to narrow it down to one person….I think my prime suspect would be Dick Cheney.”

Bowman said that privately his military fighter pilot peers and colleagues did not disagree with his sentiments about the real story behind 9/11.

Bowman agreed that the US was in danger of slipping into a dictatorship and stated, “I think there’s been nothing closer to fascism than what we’ve seen lately from this government.”

Bowman slammed the Patriot Act as having, “Done more to destroy the rights of Americans than all of our enemies combined.”

Bowman trashed the 9/11 Commission as a politically motivated cover-up with abounding conflicts of interest, charging, “The 9/11 Commission omitted anything that might be the least bit suspicious or embarrassing or in any way detract from the official conspiracy so it was a total whitewash.”

“There needs to be a true investigation, not the kind of sham investigations we have had with the 9/11 omission and all the rest of that junk,” said Bowman.

Asked if the perpetrators of 9/11 were preparing to stage another false-flag attack to reinvigorate their agenda Bowman agreed that, “I can see that and I hope they can’t pull it off, I hope they are prevented from pulling it off but I know darn good and well they’d like to have another one.”

A mainstay of the attack pieces against Charlie Sheen have been that he is not credible enough to speak on the topic of 9/11. These charges are ridiculed by the fact that Sheen is an expert on 9/11 who spends hours a day meticulously researching the topic, something that the attack dogs have failed to do, aiming their comments solely at Sheen’s personal life and ignoring his invitation to challenge him on the facts.

In addition, from the very start we have put forth eminently credible individuals only for them to be ignored by the establishment media. Physics Professors, former White House advisors and CIA analysts, the father of Reaganomics, German Defense Ministers and Bush’s former Secretary of the Treasury, have all gone public on 9/11 but have been uniformly ignored by the majority of the establishment press.

Will Robert Bowman also be blackballed as the mainstream continue to misrepresent the 9/11 truth movement as an occupation of the fringe minority?

Bowman is currently running for Congress in Florida’s 15th District.

Read more: http://www.disclose.tv/news/Former_Head ... z1zHOX4den

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

Then he probably also realises the shortcomings of the available evidence
as means of securing convictions. Perhaps the critical evidence really was in the Securities and Exchanges Commisssion offices in Building 7. Did he really utter that 30 year old remark dismissively or did he have a world-weary tone, it's 30 years old and we'll never catch them now ?

He certainly sounded weary of the questioner.

Evidence of what though? And why would it be easier to destroy it in this way rather than through some other process? That's also assuming that there would be no other means of accessing this evidence. It's really stretching the conspiracy theory to make any of this coherent.

He was talking about an actual discrete conspiracy not the circumstantial preconditions for it.

How could you possibly know this? What indication has he given that this definitively is the case? What other statements or indications has he given that even back up the view that this is his belief?

I don't think anyone has ever found any suggestion of the operation in al Qaeda/AfPak intelligence more than 2-3 years before 9.11

I don't think anyone has ever suggested they had but that's neither here nor there - Kerrey's remark is not being interpretted by anyone as a reference to the 9/11 plot (or even neccessarily Al-Qaeda, for that matter).

It has always been suggested that the charges were installed during maintainance or construction work but that's as far as it goes.

Suggested but where is the evidence of this? Is this standard practise? Had it ever been suggested before the need to invent a theory to describe a supposed controlled demolition? Would it even be effective after all this time and not just an extreme hazard? There is little to turn this suggestion into anything more than just that.

As for the pattern of collapse not being suggestive of controlled demolition I suppose you have arrived at that conclusion using the same powers of observation that led you to think that actually is a a Boeing 757 in the Pentagon security gate video.

Yes, I've looked at the video evidence and spotted glaring errors in the various claims that are presented as evidence that (a) nothing/a missile/a drone/a light aircraft struck the Pentagon wall and (b) WTC 7 was taken down in a controlled demolition.

Just as it's perfectly evident that something fitting the description of a Boeing 757 struck the Pentagon it's equally observable that WTC 7 collapsed in stages. A portion of the penthouse collapses well before the rest of the building collapses. Are we to assume that there was neither a cause of that initial collapse due to a lack of structural integrity below and that the force of that collapse would not severely weaken the supporting structure itself? How do you account for it if it was indeed a controlled demolition?

Obviously the issue of what struck the Pentagon wall is still exercising you since it's been brought up again. In order to try and reach some agreement could you say what was the minimum size of object that caused the impact ?

Bear in mind I'm not saying, despite your erroneous claim, that you can observe a Boeing 757 hitting the side of the Pentagon but that merely something incompatible with the suggestions of all the conspiracy theories presented here did indeed impact. Given all other available information it seems reasonable to conclude that it's more likely to have been a 757 than anything else. What else could it have been?

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

http://www.disclose.tv/news/Former_Head_Of_Star_Wars_Program_Says_Cheney_Main_911_Suspect/85412#.T-iXpdrJ20E.gmail

Former Head Of Star Wars Program Says Cheney Main 9/11 Suspect

Read more: http://www.disclose.tv/news/Former_Head ... z1zHO0py00

June 25, 2012 - The former head of the Star Wars missile defense program under Presidents Ford and Carter has gone public to say that the official version of 9/11 is a conspiracy theory and his main suspect for the architect of the attack is Vice President Dick Cheney.

This article is an unattributed cut'n'paste from a Prison Planet article published over six years ago. Is there a reason why it's resurfacing now?

That aside he seems to be rather confused when discussing the disorientating effects of the exercises...

Bowman outlined how the drills on the morning of 9/11 that simulated planes crashing into buildings on the east coast were used as a cover to dupe unwitting air defense personnel into not responding quickly enough to stop the attack.

“The exercises that went on that morning simulating the exact kind of thing that was happening so confused the people in the FAA and NORAD….that they didn’t they didn’t know what was real and what was part of the exercise,” said Bowman

“I think the people who planned and carried out those exercises, they’re the ones that should be the object of investigation.”

Which exercises is he referring to? None of the exercises seem to meet his description. If he's referring to the exercise the author implies he might be (simulated airplane crashing into a building) then this article illustrates how wide of the mark Bowman's comments are.

His assessment is simply inaccurate if not fanciful:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta ... r_11,_2001

 

[Bigfoot73]

And why would it be easier to destroy it in this way rather than through some other process?

Any other process would create more suspicion that it was not a terrorist act.
Maybe there was no other version of the evidence, perhaps IT data was not backed up as rigorously as it is now.

There is little to turn this suggestion into anything more than just that.

Not only was major construction work undertaken earlier that year but there was major maintenance and upgrading of utilities, installation of security cameras and other such opportunities to install charges.

Just as it's perfectly evident that something fitting the description of a Boeing 757 struck the Pentagon it's equally observable that WTC 7 collapsed in stages. A portion of the penthouse collapses well before the rest of the building collapses. Are we to assume that there was neither a cause of that initial collapse due to a lack of structural integrity below and that the force of that collapse would not severely weaken the supporting structure itself? How do you account for it if it was indeed a controlled demolition?

Collapsed in stages ? What stages ? How does the glaringly anomalous toppling of the penthouse structure followed by the collapse of the rest of the building amount to anything worthy of the word stages? How exactly do you account for the penthouse if it was not a controlled demolition ?

In order to try and reach some agreement could you say what was the minimum size of object that caused the impact ?

How about what would you say the maximum size could be ? Somebody inspected the very first fractions of a second of that video and superimposed an outline of a Predator drone over the blurred image, and a Predator is about 70 feet long.
I fail to see why the object hitting the Pentagon could not possibly be anything suggested by conspiracists. If it was likely to have been a a757 then it would have looked like one. It doesn't.

 

[kamalktk]

and a Predator is about 70 feet long.

Predator drones are 27 feet (8.22 meters) long. Their maximum speed is 135 mph. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Atomics_MQ-1_Predator There's a picture there of two people pushing one, to give an even better idea of scale.

It would barely destroy your house.

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

Any other process would create more suspicion that it was not a terrorist act. Maybe there was no other version of the evidence, perhaps IT data was not backed up as rigorously as it is now.

In which case it would surely be very easy to destroy, corrupt or misplace it without becoming embroiled in the most complex and risky mass murder in American history. If I was an American reading of these theories I'd be so proud that bribery and corruption was so difficult to carry out in my country that leaders had to go to such lengths to destroy evidence of which the public knew so little. I'd be slightly surprised if that were the case, though.

Also, their ingenious plan to avoid suspicion appears to have failed since it's helped fuel the most enduring conspiracy theory of the century so far. That's quite apart from the fact that the destruction could easily have been averted for a variety of unpredictable reasons outwith the control of the conspirators thus leaving them back at square one in terms of removing the evidence.

Not only was major construction work undertaken earlier that year but there was major maintenance and upgrading of utilities, installation of security cameras and other such opportunities to install charges.

I'd expect most large buildings to have maintenance and upgrading of utilities on a regular basis. The rather small office building in which I work seems to be constantly in some state of upgrade. In a complex of massive skyscrapers I would expect this to be the case too. However, that is still merely a suggestion - there is nothing to indicate that any planting of explosives did actually happen and it's contestable that it's even plausible.

Collapsed in stages ? What stages ? How does the glaringly anomalous toppling of the penthouse structure followed by the collapse of the rest of the building amount to anything worthy of the word stages? How exactly do you account for the penthouse if it was not a controlled demolition ?

You can't have it both ways. You can't claim controlled demolition on the basis of an apparent freefall collapse and then ignore the evidence that the collapse occurred over a larger period of time than is neccessary for freefall.
It is sensible to talk of stages in the collapse because it can be posited that there's cause and effect, that two separate events occurred.

The amount of damage required to bring down a portion of the penthouse would not neccessarily be the same as that required to bring down a whole building. However, a large mass plummeting through the remaining structure of the building would shatter the integrity of the inner support (if it had not already been destroyed) thus causing the remaining shell, which is all that is seen from the visual evidence, to collapse at great speed.

How about what would you say the maximum size could be ? Somebody inspected the very first fractions of a second of that video and superimposed an outline of a Predator drone over the blurred image, and a Predator is about 70 feet long.

I fail to see why the object hitting the Pentagon could not possibly be anything suggested by conspiracists. If it was likely to have been a a757 then it would have looked like one. It doesn't.

As I've pointed out before the object that struck the Pentagon is greater, perhaps significantly greater, than a large road vehicle. As you well know, since it's been brought up here before, we do not need to rely on the Pentagon video as the footage from the Doubletree Hotel's camera clearly shows an object of some magnitude. What is that object if it is not a large commercial aircraft?

If it's not a Boeing 757 bear in mind this raises a series of questions which have yet to be adequately answered with recourse to any evidence or even credible theory ,the obvious questions of why you would need to fly a plane into the side of the Pentagon wall, what happened to the people supposedly on board the flight, what happened to the hijackers who trained to take control of the plane etc etc

 

[kamalktk]

There seems to be a shortage of people coming forward in any way to say they participated in this conspiracy in some manner. Unlike the number of people that say they've worked on crashed ufo's, met with aliens at area 51, were part of the Bilderberg group, Illuminati, etc. Something to consider.

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

There seems to be a shortage of people coming forward in any way to say they participated in this conspiracy in some manner. Unlike the number of people that say they've worked on crashed ufo's, met with aliens at area 51, were part of the Bilderberg group, Illuminati, etc. Something to consider.

Exactly - that just proves how effective this conspiracy is.

Or not.

 

[kamalktk]

There seems to be a shortage of people coming forward in any way to say they participated in this conspiracy in some manner. Unlike the number of people that say they've worked on crashed ufo's, met with aliens at area 51, were part of the Bilderberg group, Illuminati, etc. Something to consider.

Exactly - that just proves how effective this conspiracy is.

Or not.

Perhaps this is an opportunity on the talk show/book/convention circuit. Appearance fees, book royalties and whatnot?

if I was in on it! by such and so.

 

[Bigfoot73]

Predator drones are 27 feet (8.22 meters) long. Their maximum speed is 135 mph. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_At ... 1_Predator There's a picture there of two people pushing one, to give an even better idea of scale.

It would barely destroy your house.

Must have been something else then, and whatever it was didn't do much damage to the Pentagon.

In which case it would surely be very easy to destroy, corrupt or misplace it without becoming embroiled in the most complex and risky mass murder in American history.

Perhaps that part of the plot was only grafted on later to suit the purposes of the faction wanting a false flag incident.

However, that is still merely a suggestion - there is nothing to indicate that any planting of explosives did actually happen and it's contestable that it's even plausible.

The plausibility of any element of the plot is contestable and of little bearing to the crucial issue of the rather more damning evidence. The finer points of the theory are of little interest to me and the only reason they are receiving so much attention on here is because various sceptics have run out of perceived weaknesses in the actual evidence to focus on, as if doing so will somehow make the validity of the evidence evaporate.

 

[kamalktk]

Predator drones are 27 feet (8.22 meters) long. Their maximum speed is 135 mph. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_At ... 1_Predator There's a picture there of two people pushing one, to give an even better idea of scale.

It would barely destroy your house.

Must have been something else then, and whatever it was didn't do much damage to the Pentagon.

Fighter plane into a reinforced concrete wall at 500+ mph. Notice how little damage the wall takes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jxrJR26IdY

even larger
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3939904420012109745

Notice how the plane disintegrates, no part of the plane visible goes through the wall.

Walls of the Pentagon. http://www.structuremag.org/article.aspx?articleID=1 , even the windows are designed for blast resistance http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/pentagon/pentagon-retrofit.htm

It's no wonder not more damage was done. It's structural engineering and design.

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

Perhaps that part of the plot was only grafted on later to suit the purposes of the faction wanting a false flag incident.

Was this conspiracy put out to tender or floated on the stock exchange? It's quite the conspiracy which involves factions with their own unique needs.

The plausibility of any element of the plot is contestable and of little bearing to the crucial issue of the rather more damning evidence. The finer points of the theory are of little interest to me and the only reason they are receiving so much attention on here is because various sceptics have run out of perceived weaknesses in the actual evidence to focus on, as if doing so will somehow make the validity of the evidence evaporate.

On the contrary it's the conspiracy theorist's point blank refusal/inability to actually give any evidence which is producing this state of affairs. The various suggestions, possibilities, "perhaps" etc only arise after the fact of belief in the conspiracy theory, not before. There is no damning evidence of the WTC being rigged with explosives.

Essentially all we're left with is the theory. Like most sceptics I'm curious as to why people seem willing to believe something simply because it's possible whilst dismissing alternative viewpoints which are every bit as possible, often more so.

I'm also surprised that the finer points are of no interest to you given the exhaustive combing over of details which, it is claimed, support a conspiracy.

 

[Analis]

There seems to be a shortage of people coming forward in any way to say they participated in this conspiracy in some manner. Unlike the number of people that say they've worked on crashed ufo's, met with aliens at area 51, were part of the Bilderberg group, Illuminati, etc. Something to consider.

What is this supposed to evidence ? How are we supposed to understand that ? That there are really aliens and crashed saucers at Area 51, that Roswell was really an ET crash ?

 

[Analis]

Which exercises is he referring to? None of the exercises seem to meet his description. If he's referring to the exercise the author implies he might be (simulated airplane crashing into a building) then this article illustrates how wide of the mark Bowman's comments are.

His assessment is simply inaccurate if not fanciful:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta ... r_11,_2001

I suppose you mean that if only one exercise involved a plane crashing into a building, the staff should not have been confused. But the list of exercises performed on this day was really long, and we don't even know if it is exhaustive. Personally, I have no trouble to accept that people confronted with so many simulations, had trouble to determine what was happening when they heard of planes hijacked or crashed, even if they were not included in the list of exercises.

Collapsed in stages ? What stages ? How does the glaringly anomalous toppling of the penthouse structure followed by the collapse of the rest of the building amount to anything worthy of the word stages? How exactly do you account for the penthouse if it was not a controlled demolition ?

You can't have it both ways. You can't claim controlled demolition on the basis of an apparent freefall collapse and then ignore the evidence that the collapse occurred over a larger period of time than is neccessary for freefall.
It is sensible to talk of stages in the collapse because it can be posited that there's cause and effect, that two separate events occurred.

The amount of damage required to bring down a portion of the penthouse would not neccessarily be the same as that required to bring down a whole building. However, a large mass plummeting through the remaining structure of the building would shatter the integrity of the inner support (if it had not already been destroyed) thus causing the remaining shell, which is all that is seen from the visual evidence, to collapse at great speed.

The collapse of the penthouse only means that its support structure had been destroyed. The almost vertical and simultaneous collapse of the whole building can only be explained by the complete, almost simultaneous destruction of the whole remaining support structure. This is where the case for the accidental explanation has always bumped into the same basic facts, because the localized collapse of the penthouse can't account for this complete synchronous destruction, in any way. The structure just vanished.

It seems that in this case, we are facing a demolition where the inner structure was destroyed first, the modus operandi used for a controlled implosion. In fact, it looks like a controlled demolition in stages, of which I had provided examples.

 

[Jerry_B]

[......]
ABC News continued to stand by the report, which it said was bolstered by the fact that the police had arrested one detainee and that the airports had been closed. It said its information was fully checked out, and information about the knives -- which was reported by some other news outlets, among them The Washington Post -- was gleaned from police reports.

''At this point, we're still reporting out the discrepancy on what these individuals had on them,'' said Christopher Isham, the senior producer in charge of the ABC News investigative team. ''I find it stunning personally that the police officers could have gotten it that wrong as to what these people had on them.''
[......]

So, it seems that sources were directly from the police, and that they had really reported that knives had been found, which is indeed strange.

Well, the problem is still one of veracity - unless there is some way to access those police reports. One still wonders about the 'Quran and Al Qaeda documents' side of the story also...

 

[Analis]

Fighter plane into a reinforced concrete wall at 500+ mph. Notice how little damage the wall takes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jxrJR26IdY

even larger
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3939904420012109745

Notice how the plane disintegrates, no part of the plane visible goes through the wall.

Walls of the Pentagon. http://www.structuremag.org/article.aspx?articleID=1 , even the windows are designed for blast resistance http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/pentagon/pentagon-retrofit.htm

It's no wonder not more damage was done. It's structural engineering and design.

I know this video, but it shows only a fighter jet. In fact, we see almost nothing of the results of the crash. It seems at least that the wall was left with a mark on the whole lenght of the impact. In any case, with a huge commercial airliner, things would be very different.

But we are left with another mystery : walls were supposed to be reinforced. Yet, it seems they were more like butter : how could the aircraft drill a hole in at least three rings of the Pentagon ?

 

[Bigfoot73]

Essentially all we're left with is the theory. Like most sceptics I'm curious as to why people seem willing to believe something simply because it's possible whilst dismissing alternative viewpoints which are every bit as possible, often more so.

I'm also surprised that the finer points are of no interest to you given the exhaustive combing over of details which, it is claimed, support a conspiracy.

No Ted , you are left with so much more than a theory. you are left with shedloads of evidence which you can't get your head round and isn't going to go away. You are left with the frankly pathetic prospect of having to undermine the evidence by undermining the conspiracy theory.
That is the sad

denouement

of the sceptic cause I'm afraid, for it reveals a fatal intellectual weakness, namely that they think there actually is a conspiracy theory. I nor I suspect any of the 'truthers' on this thread give a single solitary flying one about the finer details of the conspiracy theory. It's just a theory, we are quite prepared to acknowledge the weaknesses of it but however do not see doing so as admission that there is no validity to the notion that the evidence indicates conspiratorial foul play.
It's no good pretending this is anything other than an intellectual game. My recall of it's recent moves goes something like this; the truthers went off on one with the'no planes' theory only to be shot down in flames by the sceptics, only too glad of having something to go on. By way of reviving their fortunes the truthers then started focussing on the Building 7 issue, perhaps the most obviously suspicious event of that day. What do the sceptics counter that with but a relentless and rigorous scrutiny of a vague and incomplete conspiracy theory few of the truthers set any store in owing to their cognizance of the fact that it is just gratuitous speculation and only a second inquiry will have any hope of uncovering the actual truth.
Forgive me or being less than impartial but it seems to me that every time a truther has confronted a sceptic with a point directly relevant to the actual evidence the sceptic in question has evaded addressing the issue and instead countered with some ratiional and cogent query about the supposed conspiracy theory they erroneously believe truthers to be convinced of.

The manner in which the sceptics have convinced themselves they understand the truthers' mindset only serves to illuminate their intellectual paucity. It was never the theory that attracted anybody, it was the evidence.
Exactly what sort of argument is it that because of reasons not stated it logically had to be a 757 that hit the Pentagon, or that because the penthouse structure fell off the top of Building 7 fractions of a second before the rest of the building collapsed that is somehow a collapse in stages and thus to be expected of a steel framed building which had suffered minimal fire damage. Or that because of some vaguely perceived implausilbility none of the actual logistic components of the plot could have been effected in reality.
I could end up feeling embarrassed about posting here, most other truthers can see this thread for the Fortean wasteland it is and don't bother with it.

 

[kamalktk]

Fighter plane into a reinforced concrete wall at 500+ mph. Notice how little damage the wall takes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jxrJR26IdY

even larger
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3939904420012109745

Notice how the plane disintegrates, no part of the plane visible goes through the wall.

Walls of the Pentagon. http://www.structuremag.org/article.aspx?articleID=1 , even the windows are designed for blast resistance http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/pentagon/pentagon-retrofit.htm

It's no wonder not more damage was done. It's structural engineering and design.

I know this video, but it shows only a fighter jet. In fact, we see almost nothing of the results of the crash. It seems at least that the wall was left with a mark on the whole lenght of the impact. In any case, with a huge commercial airliner, things would be very different.

Ah, good. Now back to "it must have been controlled demo because it looked like it". How many other skyscrapers have had 757's flown into them? None.

So either the video represents approximately what would happen when a 757 is flown into the Pentagon, or you can't predict how/if the WTC would fall because no 757's have been flown into skyscrapers before or since. So please either stop with the "must have been controlled demo because it looked like it", or stop with the "757 would cause more damage to the Pentagon", because they are contradictory. You can't say there's no evidence a 757 would cause that damage to the Pentagon and then they controlled demo of WTC, because there's also no evidence of what a 757 into a skyscraper would do (or how a skyscraper reacts to having large chunks of another skyscraper fall onto it).

 

[kamalktk]

There seems to be a shortage of people coming forward in any way to say they participated in this conspiracy in some manner. Unlike the number of people that say they've worked on crashed ufo's, met with aliens at area 51, were part of the Bilderberg group, Illuminati, etc. Something to consider.

What is this supposed to evidence ? How are we supposed to understand that ? That there are really aliens and crashed saucers at Area 51, that Roswell was really an ET crash ?

All the other items are things where there are supposed to be vast coverups, yet have people come forward. This makes the supposed 9/11 cover up unique, despite necessitating a wider pool of members. The more people know a secret, the less likely it is to remain secret.

 

[Jerry_B]

The manner in which the sceptics have convinced themselves they understand the truthers' mindset only serves to illuminate their intellectual paucity. It was never the theory that attracted anybody, it was the evidence.
Exactly what sort of argument is it that because of reasons not stated it logically had to be a 757 that hit the Pentagon, or that because the penthouse structure fell off the top of Building 7 fractions of a second before the rest of the building collapsed that is somehow a collapse in stages and thus to be expected of a steel framed building which had suffered minimal fire damage. Or that because of some vaguely perceived implausilbility none of the actual logistic components of the plot could have been effected in reality.
I could end up feeling embarrassed about posting here, most other truthers can see this thread for the Fortean wasteland it is and don't bother with it.

If 'truthers' do indeed not want to take part in a thread like this one, then that suggests that they aren't any more open-minded than those they deride. That seems counter-productive. If your case is watertight, there should be absolutely problem or any qualms about posting here and proving it.

I strongly suggest that you read the previous threads about 9/11 here at the FTMB, as we've gone over these points before.

 

[Jerry_B]

I know this video, but it shows only a fighter jet. In fact, we see almost nothing of the results of the crash. It seems at least that the wall was left with a mark on the whole lenght of the impact. In any case, with a huge commercial airliner, things would be very different.

But we are left with another mystery : walls were supposed to be reinforced. Yet, it seems they were more like butter : how could the aircraft drill a hole in at least three rings of the Pentagon ?

Again, we have covered this in depth before. I suggest you read the previous thread(s) where we went over this, at length. That will save alot of time on rehashing things.

 

[Jonfairway]

ted_bloody_maul wrote:
kamalktk wrote:
There seems to be a shortage of people coming forward in any way to say they participated in this conspiracy in some manner. Unlike the number of people that say they've worked on crashed ufo's, met with aliens at area 51, were part of the Bilderberg group, Illuminati, etc. Something to consider.


Exactly - that just proves how effective this conspiracy is.

Or not.

Perhaps this is an opportunity on the talk show/book/convention circuit. Appearance fees, book royalties and whatnot?

i can't even beleive you are comparing 911 with someone seeing a UFO for crying sake, as if anyone is going to hold up their hand and say i was involved ?????? for thousands of deaths.....

pleaseeeeeeeeeeee