9/11: The September 11th Attacks

[WhistlingJack]

LATEST BIN LADEN TAPE REVEALS PROG-ROCK DIRECTION

OSAMA Bin Laden has swapped his hate-fuelled rhetoric for lengthy progressive rock jams, his new audio tape has revealed.

The Al Qaeda chief is believed to have become disillusioned with killing everyone and instead wants to 'explore a new sonic direction', producing a batch of Yes/ELP-influenced tracks linked by the concept of how whales are really time machines.

Security analyst Tom Logan said: "I think this tape is genuine. We know that Bin Laden's close consort Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was heavily into prog, favouring Caravan, It Bites and early Van Der Graaf Generator, so maybe he'd made Bin Laden a compilation tape and got him into it that way.

"This sounds like it's got Bin Laden on vocals and lead guitar with the rest of the band made up of senior Al Queda officials. Intelligence sources believe it's Deputy Operations Chief Ayman al-Zawahiri on drums, and I have to say he's pretty good, a bit like a young Phil Collins."

Al Qaeda fans' reaction to the new tape has been mixed. One devotee said: "I'd just bought a shitload of fertiliser and was on my way to blow up Tie Rack in Bridgwater when I get a message from my handler saying it was all off and that I should nip into Oxfam and see if they've got any Rick Wakeman albums."

However hook-handed radical cleric Abu Hamzu has surprised his followers by describing the new Bin Laden output as 'intensely groovesome'.

He added: "I used to be a pretty decent bassist before I got my hands blown off fiddling about with bombs.

"When I was doing civil engineering at Brighton Poly we had a band doing Pink Floyd and Alan Parsons Project covers and some of our own stuff, which was more Hawkwind-influenced but with a jazz fusion twist."

Copyright © 2008 Mashed Productions Ltd

 

[ramonmercado]

This is a sad development. In his younger days Bin was more of a punk. He used to mock me for liking The Jam though.

 

[Dr_Baltar]

Well, Dr B, perhaps you'd like to enlighten, edify and entertain us with your explanation for what the 737 engine was doing on that pavement, or the Flight 77 black box anomalies - and let's not forget the two films showing a small white object bearing no resemblance whatsoever to an airliner flying into the Pentagon? :?:

No, I wouldn't. If a raft of eyewitnesses to the events and experts in their particular fields can't convince you after 8 years, I don't think anything I say will contribute to the "debate".

 

[Bigfoot73]

Doc, I haven't come across any witnesses to the 737 engine who thought it was anything other than a 737 engine, or any experts who thought it possible that Flight 77 could have done the damage from that height at that proximity, or any witnesses or experts who thought that small white object was a twin engine airliner.
You have a unique opportunity to set us wingnuts straight on these matters.
Your contribution to these aspects of the debate would be most welcome, and will receive the most open minded and even handed consideration a dingbat like me can muster.

Jack & ramon. I just knew Osama would turn out to be one of the 'missed-the- sixties' brigade. Fits with the Asimov books I guess. Afghanistan is a right old hash haven too! Hope someone's got him the digitally remastered re-releases of all that stuff :- with today's kit the acoustics potential in the Tora Bora caves must produce some awesome mixes !
Mocking the Jam just sounds utterly pseud-ish of him though. Probably in denial about his regard for their talent. Even Rat Scabies came out and admitted to a fondness for Genesis.Wonder what Osama made of the Here and Now/ATV collaboration.
Hamza should mash up with Bill Bruford. The jazz/prog crossover never got the attention it deserved and with all this thought controlled software stuff to make up for the hooks who knows what they could come out with?

 

[Bigfoot73]

So is that it? No sage testimony from the 'raft' of experts? No damning indictments from the 'scores' of witnesses?
The last time this thread heated up I was confronted with a veritable legion of sceptics, verbally brandishing their bible - Popular Mechanics - and stridently demanding evidence, evidence and more evidence. So I introduced some, namely the 737 engine, Flight 77 security gate and Doubletrees Hotel flims ( actually I think it was a sceptic who posted a link to that one!!) and the 77 autopsy report. They all went quiet.

Now I've raised those items again, and the same thing has happened.Those who assume a monopoly of rationality and empiricism suddenly seem shy of reasoned debate about some verifiable evidence, most of it from the sort of official sources they otherwise hold in high esteem.None of it copyright Wingnut Productions. All I get is blase` dismissiveness from Dr B.
You might think that seeing as I was prepared to engage with them on their terms they might be prepared to return the courtesy and respond to my submissions. I think we all know why that is.It's happened on other forums I've posted on - I introduce the aforementioned issues and the sceptics' Flaming Sword of Truth suddenly turns into a plastic airliner meal tray knife.
Any more sceptics posting on this thread will find their comments swiftly followed by reiterations of the above evidence by me. Hopefully that should guarantee the future dormancy of this sorry excuse for a debate.

 

[Analis]

All of this is a matter of psychological denial. To evade the unbearable truth. See that : we fancy the time we're living in as the most advanced in history. We value democracy, balance of power, transparency.... While in fact we're almost as much at the mercy of manipulations than our ancestors from 15th century. We wouldn't be superior to them backward primitives ? What an horror !

 

[Bigfoot73]

Bang on the money!!
I've just come across the first half-way workable theory for what was actually going on - it was all to protect the interests of dodgy financial institutions, money laundering operations and corporations. Check out HawksCAFE.com, a team of aviation, military and intelligence experts, and forensic economists who have beeen working on this for years.
It wasn't just the neocons orchestrating a war for oil, and needless to say it wasn't Islamist terrorists.
We're not empowered, informed citizens at all, just subjects.

 

[rynner2]

I've just come across the first half-way workable theory for what was actually going on - it was all to protect the interests of dodgy financial institutions, money laundering operations and corporations. Check out HawksCAFE.com, a team of aviation, military and intelligence experts, and forensic economists who have beeen working on this for years.

The video on that site
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 962556504#
certainly puts together a chilling story, together with several facts I don't recall being raised before: Such as

• How come each high-jacked aircraft proceeded to a USAFB before turning for its target?
  How come the film crews in New York seemed to know where the impacts would be?

One hell of a conspiracy, if so.

 

[Bigfoot73]

I think it is suggested that not only was it to facilitate swaps with drones, but there were actually some seriously big blindspots in the regional radar coverage and the arrival of unexplained planes wouldn't be noticed.
As for the Naudet brothers, yes , that smells a bit.You might think their footage would have earned them a minor place in history, and led to a glittering career. Yet they seem to have faded into obscurity.

This might sound fantastical but if you slow down or pause their second plane film, you will notice that the left wing and tailplane vanish. Run on a few frames and you can see it disappear - literally - against the building , without even beginning to slow down,losing any bodywork or wing parts, and without so much as breaking a window.
There is footage on the dreaded YouTube from the NBC helicopter which shows a clear view of the towers and the river, and thus the path of the plane's approach. It shows the explosion, but not the plane approaching ! The reporters comment on the explosion but obviously saw no plane.
There's a couple more videos of news channels' films , one BBC I think, taken from ground level a few hundred yards away which again show the plane with a wing and tailplane missing.
The conclusion that it was a hologram possibly synchronised with a missile would seem daft but for all these films , but there it is.

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

So is that it? No sage testimony from the 'raft' of experts? No damning indictments from the 'scores' of witnesses?
The last time this thread heated up I was confronted with a veritable legion of sceptics, verbally brandishing their bible - Popular Mechanics - and stridently demanding evidence, evidence and more evidence. So I introduced some, namely the 737 engine, Flight 77 security gate and Doubletrees Hotel flims ( actually I think it was a sceptic who posted a link to that one!!) and the 77 autopsy report. They all went quiet.

Now I've raised those items again, and the same thing has happened.Those who assume a monopoly of rationality and empiricism suddenly seem shy of reasoned debate about some verifiable evidence, most of it from the sort of official sources they otherwise hold in high esteem.None of it copyright Wingnut Productions. All I get is blase` dismissiveness from Dr B.
You might think that seeing as I was prepared to engage with them on their terms they might be prepared to return the courtesy and respond to my submissions. I think we all know why that is.It's happened on other forums I've posted on - I introduce the aforementioned issues and the sceptics' Flaming Sword of Truth suddenly turns into a plastic airliner meal tray knife.
Any more sceptics posting on this thread will find their comments swiftly followed by reiterations of the above evidence by me. Hopefully that should guarantee the future dormancy of this sorry excuse for a debate.

I think you'll find the problem is that you've never actually produced any evidence. You've stated something but offered no corroboration. It's very difficult to have a debate with someone when they're not actually backing up anything they're saying. It basically means that it's incumbent on the legion of sceptics to hunt down the information you might be alluding to. Seeing as how it's so poorly referenced it's difficult to find, especially since most searches online turn up multiples of the same tired discredited theories each referencing each other on the same tired discredited websites. Atta's stripper strumpet is a good case in point.

Here's another example. You've raised the issue of the black box recorder on Flight 77 showing the plane was too high 2 seconds before the impact to have been responsible for it. Now, it might be helpful if you could provide a source for this claim. However, I would be curious to know how you square the fact that

a) There was no plane

and

b) a black box recorder was recovered from it.

I can't find any explanation for this in my Bible (Popular Mechanics, of course, which if it were the one source sceptics used for reference it would still be more numerous than the ones you've provided) so perhaps you could illuminate us all with an explanation? Although perhaps it can best be understood in the light of the revelation that silence has fallen after the submission of your similarly elusive 'verifiable' claims.

 

[Bigfoot73]

Same old line with the evidence: say I'm not producing any and then dismiss it a priori. If you're not happy with the "tired,discredited old websites " you could try the original NTSB report from 2002 .They said it would take millions of bucks worth of software to decipher, but it transpired it doesn't take anything of the sort. I wouldn't bother ringing them up, they don't take calls about it. Or publish their analysis of the raw data from their copies of the million-dollar software.
The data was analyzed by Scholars for 9/11 Truth (that's scholars, and all rather better at their jobs than the Popular Mechanics guys) and Pilots for 9/11 Truth, who you might expect to have a wealth of knowledge and experience germane to their deliberations. I am yet to see anything discrediting either.
Added to which I seem to remember producing plenty of sources for my claims about the Flight 93 wreckage etc. There is only one Flight 77 autopsy report so confirming it has no Arab names on it shouldn't tax you too much.
As for the black box/missile issue. It was 3 days before the black box was 'recovered' from the Pentagon. Apparently the cockpit voice recorder data was unusable, the first time that has ever occurred in the history of black boxes. It stopped recording 2 seconds before the alleged impact, again something without precedent or explanation. The plane was a decoy, it flew over the roof and landed at Reagan airport 2 miles North.
I notice you're not disputing the films of the missile flying into the Pentagon, which leaves me wondering why you're so concerned about the black box.

And yes, I think it is incumbent on the sceptics to make themselves aware of the evidence I and others allude to. Particularly as that evidence completely undermines the official explanation. Doesn't that strike you as rather important? How you are unaware that Atta's girlfriend was a stripper eludes me - it has never been claimed he didn't have a girlfriend, nor that she was anything other than a stripper .
I notice you don't have any questions about the 737 engine. You won't have checked that out either, so I suggest the tired , discredited, dingbat-ridden whatreallyhappened.com as the most easily accessible source.

 

[tastyintestines]

It's New York in mid morning. Morning t.v crews are all over the place like normal. :headbutt:

 

[Bigfoot73]

No, it's Saturday night in dear old Blighty and you've just got back from one of this nation's few remaning pubs !

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

Same old line with the evidence: say I'm not producing any and then dismiss it a priori.

Not a priori at all. In fact we're still rather waiting on the a to be priori to. When you say:

If you're not happy with the "tired,discredited old websites " you could try the original NTSB report from 2002 .They said it would take millions of bucks worth of software to decipher, but it transpired it doesn't take anything of the sort. I wouldn't bother ringing them up, they don't take calls about it. Or publish their analysis of the raw data from their copies of the million-dollar software.

...it might help if you could be a little more specific. It's difficult to know what you're actually referring to here.

The data was analyzed by Scholars for 9/11 Truth (that's scholars, and all rather better at their jobs than the Popular Mechanics guys) and Pilots for 9/11 Truth, who you might expect to have a wealth of knowledge and experience germane to their deliberations. I am yet to see anything discrediting either.

Then you've not been looking very hard. The issue has been dealt with in this forum. If you'd been paying attention you'd have noted that whilst Scholars For 9/11 truth are indeed all very good at their jobs sometimes their jobs (or rather their qualifications) are often in things like Feminist Theology and the theatre. I could give you a link to where this has been discussed but...

I think it is incumbent on the sceptics to make themselves aware of the evidence I and others allude to.

Consider this an attempt at discrediting, if you like.

Added to which I seem to remember producing plenty of sources for my claims about the Flight 93 wreckage etc.

Yes, after being asked repeatedly to do so.

There is only one Flight 77 autopsy report so confirming it has no Arab names on it shouldn't tax you too much.

Actually you'd be surprised. Guess what happens when you do a search for this autopsy report? I'll give you a clue - it involves a plethora of links to sites recirculating the same story. When you click on the links they rehash an article which itself has a series of dead links. So, no it's not actually that easy to find and you might be interested to know that the post that I'm responding to now is currently ranked number 7 in a google search for "Flight 77" "Autopsy Report". Messageboard debates on 9/11 seem to be going post-modern.

But let's think about this statement again

There is only one Flight 77 autopsy report so confirming it has no Arab names on it shouldn't tax you too much.

Right. So there's a Flight 77 autopsy report. There are no Arab names on it. Ah, I see it now - it must have been a missile strike on the Pentagon which killed all those non-Arabs on the non-existent Flight 77.

Blimey.

As for the black box/missile issue. It was 3 days before the black box was 'recovered' from the Pentagon. Apparently the cockpit voice recorder data was unusable, the first time that has ever occurred in the history of black boxes.

(Not actually true)

It stopped recording 2 seconds before the alleged impact, again something without precedent or explanation.

And how can it be known when it stopped working if it's unusable?

The plane was a decoy, it flew over the roof and landed at Reagan airport 2 miles North.

Which plane? The one that according to you witnesses claim was a small executive jet? You'd think that if you were going to go to the lengths of providing a decoy plane then you'd at least get one of the same kind, no?

I notice you're not disputing the films of the missile flying into the Pentagon, which leaves me wondering why you're so concerned about the black box.

Yes, I am disputing the films of the missile flying into the Pentagon. Remember that sceptic who posted the footage? That was me. And I did contest it. If you'd like to read my thoughts on it you could go back to that page and pretend it's a new post to save others having to read them again.

For what it's worth I'm not concerned about the black box, I'm merely curious at what you believe to be true about it.

And yes, I think it is incumbent on the sceptics to make themselves aware of the evidence I and others allude to. Particularly as that evidence completely undermines the official explanation. Doesn't that strike you as rather important?

What? That loads of people get involved in a wild goose chase for information which rarely tends to be accurate or support your case?

How you are unaware that Atta's girlfriend was a stripper eludes me - it has never been claimed he didn't have a girlfriend, nor that she was anything other than a stripper .

Actually it has - the 'girlfriend' questioned it. She admitted to lying about it all. You should be aware of this since it was discussed earlier on in the thread, you were given a link and then it resurfaced in a discussion about erroneous claims that you made. This is predictably ironic sine I noticed when I was checking back to find thes posts you were also claiming that nobody was even trying to convince you the Pentagon was struck by a plane.

I notice you don't have any questions about the 737 engine. You won't have checked that out either, so I suggest the tired , discredited, dingbat-ridden whatreallyhappened.com as the most easily accessible source.

Really, is there any point? Do you know how much time I've wasted already on the 'what-about-this-then' trail let alone using only the vaguest signposts on the road to 9/11 truth?

 

[Bigfoot73]

Ted, I'm in the middle of composing a very important email to someone very important , it's 3.30 a.m. and well past my bedtime .I will get back to you but don't wait up for it. Until tomorrow...

 

[Analis]

Right. So there's a Flight 77 autopsy report. There are no Arab names on it. Ah, I see it now - it must have been a missile strike on the Pentagon which killed all those non-Arabs on the non-existent Flight 77.

Sorry to interrupt, but ... Well... how could there be a Flight 77 autopsy report at first, if it was completely consumed at the Pentagon ? If there was an autopsy report, then Flight 77 didn't crash on the Pentagon.

 

[Bigfoot73]

I was referring to the NTSB report on the black box data. Their statements about reading it and refusal to directly comment on it were highlighted in the Scholars', and Pilots' for 9/11 Truth's responses. you don't seem to have had any trouble digging deeply enough into Scholars' backgrounds to discover their educational backgrounds so how come you've missed the comments they made which I had no trouble finding with one Google?
And so what about their qualifications and jobs anyway? If their qualifications and jobs aren't good enough how about PILOTS for 9/11 Truth? Pilots not good enough either are they? Must be something wrong with them for you to have omitted all mention of them from your comments!
Surely you're not suggesting only people with some particular sort of degree or employment should be allowed to comment on this? Where would that leave just about anybody on this thread? Bollocks!

As for being repeatedly asked for evidence for my claims about the 93 wreckage I produced some and still await satisfactory rebuttal.The photos of the bodywork that wasn't even from a 757 or 767 - you were all happy enough with it up till then. Who's not doing their homework now?
Somebody had even forgotten that the plane had TWO engines!!

You're bitching about having to ask me to produce evidence, trying to claim some moral high ground , when your conveniently forgetting how that one played out. You're trying to discredit Scholars for 9/11 Truth with an utterly ridiculous attitude to their educations and jobs while completely failing to address the comments of the Pilots?! Like all sceptics you are only managing to keep your sid of the debate going by ignoring most of what you are confronted with. No you needn't bother giving me a link to something about the Scholars because it's a completely BS line of argument anyway!
As for the 77 autopsy report - did you, or did you not, find enough about it to see that there are no Arab names on it? Never mind where this comment is ranked, if you don't like the way the comments on FTMB end up in Google complain to the moderators and do try not to
make it sound like a bad case of sour grapes! Is all this whining supposed to be obfuscating the fact that you have found the report and that it does not contain any Arab names?
Bitching about people's backgrounds and whining about Google and the number of times you had to ask me for citations is all you seem to have got here Ted.In the same way Derren Brown managed to convince the nation he predicted the Lottery results you are trying to convince the viewers of this thread you've actually got an argument.
Seeing as you think the plane hit the Pentagon why don't you explain the absence of Arab names from the autopsy report? Seeing as I think it didn't I don't see why you expect me too. You're the one who believes ot to be genuine, how do you explain it?
It wasn't all the data that was claimed to be unusable just the cockpit voice recorder. If it was all unusable then there wouldn't have been any release of anything by the NTSB, would there? What are you on about?

So it was you who posted the film. No I don't want to go back and look again, i've seen it enough times and the securoty gate film too.If there was a 757 in that it would have at least half filled the screen.That you can convince yourself either film shows a twin engine airliner only proves the old adage about people seeing what they want to see. This completely undermines any claim to objectivity on your part. Airliner indeed, for pity's sake!!!!

Then you have the temerity to ask me what I think about the black box after telling me you're not bothered about it? What is that supposed to mean? You aren't bothered about it because the discrepancies involved undermine your case. You demand evidence , question my and others' credibility and then come out and say you're not bothered about it? You expect to be taken seriously carrying on like that?
And then the final sleight of hand - complain of difficulty finding my evidence for Atta's girlfriend and use that as an excuse not to look at the picturs of the 737 engine WHEN I'VE ACTUALLY PROVIDED A LINK !

Do you actually stop and think what your comments are going to look like to anybody with an ounce of critical faculty?
Whatever qualifications the Scholars have it's more than you've got.Then you omit all mention of the Pilots.
Then you try putting the burden of proof re; the autopsy report on me on me when you're the one who thinks it's genuine .
Then you think you can dismiss the black box out -of -hand yet still retain credibility.
You might be able to convince yourself the films show an airliner but do you really think you can convince anyone else?
And you're just going to ignore the 737 engine and hope nobody notices.

You've started a lot of threads and posted a lot of comment on the Board recenly Ted. Perhaps now the academic year has started up again you will go back to school and (hopefully) have enough homework to keep you more productively occupied.

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

I was referring to the NTSB report on the black box data. Their statements about reading it and refusal to directly comment on it were highlighted in the Scholars', and Pilots' for 9/11 Truth's responses. you don't seem to have had any trouble digging deeply enough into Scholars' backgrounds to discover their educational backgrounds so how come you've missed the comments they made which I had no trouble finding with one Google?

Simple - you knew what you were looking for. The rest of us don't. Hunting down what you might be talking about is like some bizzare new game called Chinese Google - a cross between Chinese Whispers and a fruitless search for forbidden truth online.

And so what about their qualifications and jobs anyway?

Exactly. So what about their jobs? With such an attitude to them why cite them? If not for their qualifications then they've got no more to offer the debate than you, me or the guy at the launderette I use who talks to me about that Nostra Demus and smells of Gin and turps.

If their qualifications and jobs aren't good enough how about PILOTS for 9/11 Truth? Pilots not good enough either are they? Must be something wrong with them for you to have omitted all mention of them from your comments!

I'm not a trained pilot so I can't comment on whether their claims, technical as they are, are accurate or not. Neither can you. However, it's a moot point. I could have pointed out that they are but a small number of those qualified to comment from within that particular field and that a far larger number are untroubled by their questions but I genuinely fear provoking the mutation this particular conspiracy virus is likely to take (you could say, for example - in abstentia of any evidence, mind - that they're scared to lose their jobs or reputation and so on).

Surely you're not suggesting only people with some particular sort of degree or employment should be allowed to comment on this? Where would that leave just about anybody on this thread? Bollocks!

Quite. So why be dazzled by the shiny letters after the names of drama lecturers who happen to share your view?

As for being repeatedly asked for evidence for my claims about the 93 wreckage I produced some and still await satisfactory rebuttal.The photos of the bodywork that wasn't even from a 757 or 767 - you were all happy enough with it up till then. Who's not doing their homework now?
Somebody had even forgotten that the plane had TWO engines!!

I didn't ask you for any evidence on the 93 wreckage. You'd have to ask somebody who did what they think of it. I might even have a look at it after you produce evidence for something that I did ask since so far the quality of the evidence has been, well, a little patchy not to mentioned obscured.

You're bitching about having to ask me to produce evidence, trying to claim some moral high ground , when your conveniently forgetting how that one played out.

No, I'm pointing something out to you - that it's difficult to analyse your claims when they stretch to a few half-remembered details. Bitching would be saying things like:

You've started a lot of threads and posted a lot of comment on the Board recenly Ted. Perhaps now the academic year has started up again you will go back to school and (hopefully) have enough homework to keep you more productively occupied.

Please don't think I'm bitching about your bitching, though - I'm just pointing it out.

You're trying to discredit Scholars for 9/11 Truth with an utterly ridiculous attitude to their educations and jobs while completely failing to address the comments of the Pilots?! Like all sceptics you are only managing to keep your sid of the debate going by ignoring most of what you are confronted with.No you needn't bother giving me a link to something about the Scholars because it's a completely BS line of argument anyway!

I'm not so sure. As someone who would be qualified to join Scholars For Truth I'd like to use the status you afford people like me to point out that it's valid to question our claims when we talk outside of our specialist fields.

As for the 77 autopsy report - did you, or did you not, find enough about it to see that there are no Arab names on it? Never mind where this comment is ranked, if you don't like the way the comments on FTMB end up in Google complain to the moderators and do try not to
make it sound like a bad case of sour grapes!

I'm not complaining about where the FTMB's comments rank on a Google search. I'm merely pointing that when one searches for a subject online one often comes across a great deal of opinions but not too many hard facts. There are no subjects of which this is more true than those which the world of conspiracy theory takes an interest in and none more prominent within that world than 9/11 theories.

Is all this whining supposed to be obfuscating the fact that you have found the report and that it does not contain any Arab names?

No. I couldn't find the autopsy report. I could find lots of reports which talked about them, though, and invariably from the perspective with which you seem familiar. Have you actually seen them yourself rather than read about them on one of these sites? If so it would be absolutely peachy if you could provide us with a link to it

but...

I'm afraid it's unlikely to be a convincing document if it merely states that there are no Arab names on the it. Perhaps it may tell us how the bodies came to be identified, perhaps not. In any case it poses more questions of those seeking to deny that the Pentagon was struck by a plane, raising anomalies and possibilities which make any alternative stories far less coherent than the official version.

Bitching about people's backgrounds and whining about Google and the number of times you had to ask me for citations is all you seem to have got here Ted.In the same way Derren Brown managed to convince the nation he predicted the Lottery results you are trying to convince the viewers of this thread you've actually got an argument.

Well, to be fair I have had to play mindreader at times on this thread...that said it would be easy enough to counter this by using citations. That would be double peachy.

Seeing as you think the plane hit the Pentagon why don't you explain the absence of Arab names from the autopsy report?

Because I haven't seen the autopsy. Again, since you have perhaps you could supply us with a link to it. In fact make that double peachy. With cream.

Seeing as I think it didn't I don't see why you expect me too. You're the one who believes ot to be genuine, how do you explain it?

I'm not asking you to explain why there are no Arab names on the autopsy report. I'm asking you to explain how there could be an autopsy report on the victims of a plane crash that didn't kill anyone because it didn't happen.

It wasn't all the data that was claimed to be unusable just the cockpit voice recorder. If it was all unusable then there wouldn't have been any release of anything by the NTSB, would there? What are you on about?

The black box - the thing (although it's actually things) you claimed was unusable but now claim can in fact be used.

So it was you who posted the film. No I don't want to go back and look again, i've seen it enough times and the securoty gate film too.If there was a 757 in that it would have at least half filled the screen.

Really? That would have made it bigger than the Pentagon. Could you direct us to any photographs of missiles, pilotless drones or small executive jets which would be of such dimensions. Whilst you're at it you might want to send them to the people at the Guinness Book of Records.

That you can convince yourself either film shows a twin engine airliner only proves the old adage about people seeing what they want to see. This completely undermines any claim to objectivity on your part. Airliner indeed, for pity's sake!!!!

I haven't convinced myself that either film, though I've only made reference to one, shows a twin engine airliner. I am convinced, though, that what is featured on the Doubletree Hotel footage is far bigger than any missile anyone's been able to produce as an explanation for the explosion.


I do agree, though, with the sentiment that people only see what they want to see. Unfortunately my objectivity on this issue is probably undermined.

Then you have the temerity to ask me what I think about the black box after telling me you're not bothered about it?

I'm sorry. I'll only attempt to question with the utmost humility from now on. If you'll forgive my impertinence I was trying to explain that the specific issue of the black box is of less interest to me than your explanation for the facts emerging from it, which I cheekily assumed to be contradictory. Rest asssured I have admonished myself several times over for my attitude to the point of finding life a long march through an unending tunnel of shame.

What is that supposed to mean? You aren't bothered about it because the discrepancies involved undermine your case. You demand evidence , question my and others' credibility and then come out and say you're not bothered about it? You expect to be taken seriously carrying on like that?

No, I expect my point to be missed like the wall of the Pentagon by a decoy plane. On the contrary the reason it still holds even the dimmest flicker of interest for me is that it undermines your case.

And then the final sleight of hand - complain of difficulty finding my evidence for Atta's girlfriend and use that as an excuse not to look at the picturs of the 737 engine WHEN I'VE ACTUALLY PROVIDED A LINK !

I haven't complained about the difficulty of finding your evidence for Atta's girlfriend. Partially because you never provided any and partially because I was referring (not complaining) to the brief search for a link which I had provided. Perhaps my hand is just too sleight at times.

Do you actually stop and think what your comments are going to look like to anybody with an ounce of critical faculty?

No. I'm only interested in how you might receive them.

Whatever qualifications the Scholars have it's more than you've got.Then you omit all mention of the Pilots.

Really? Care to explain how Jim Hogue (FM) MS Theatre, Taught at Community College of Vermont, or Scott Meredith (FM)Oriental languages; Theoretical linguistics; Computationallinguistics, or Joe E. Adams (AM) Active American, or Noguns Sheehan (SA) Artist, Rainbow woman, Counter-cultural beader, or the equally amusingly monickered Gordon Ginn (AM) Motives behind attack or Rick Guerard (AM) Journeyman ironworker, Industrial maintenance are better qualified? What about the as yet unqualified in anything students? I may not have a first from Oxford in Buildings Being Destroyed By Neocon Conspirators but I'm not sure I'd be out of place in that line-up although in many respects I'd hope that I was.

Then you try putting the burden of proof re; the autopsy report on me on me when you're the one who thinks it's genuine .

I haven't said I thought it was genuine. In fact I haven't even stated whether I believe it exists or not - I can't finf it. It's you who claims that it's a document of some import. If you don't believe it to be true then why bother mentioning it since it doesn't prove any contention you make.

Then you think you can dismiss the black box out -of -hand yet still retain credibility.
You might be able to convince yourself the films show an airliner but do you really think you can convince anyone else?

I don't need to. Most people seem to be of the same opinion.

And you're just going to ignore the 737 engine and hope nobody notices.

Yes. The way you do with any questions that you don't feel a need to answer.

You've started a lot of threads and posted a lot of comment on the Board recenly Ted. Perhaps now the academic year has started up again you will go back to school and (hopefully) have enough homework to keep you more productively occupied.

Actually I've only started one thread in the last year. And I post a lot less than I used to mainly due to finding myself making the same points in response to circular arguments that even Charles Fort would have difficulty in finding a place to start with on this particular topic. Unfortunately I forgot how fruitless an endeavour this was. My memory has gone cold and would serve me better if it was more like an elephant's.

Actually you've been posting more than me recently. Which is nice. And whilst I have no desire to go back to school myself I would certainly recommend it to anyone who's never been before.

Now, that was a bit bitchy and juvenile but then...you started it.

 

[Bigfoot73]

I really don't know where you got this Scholars for 9/11 Truth membershipn list from, when I checked it , it was full of academics with masters degrees and doctorates in relevant fields.Perhaps there's another organization of the same name out there. By your own benchmark they deserve your attention.
You could take Pilots for 9/11 Truth seriously, pilot or not. Neither they , nor the Scholars, nor anyone else of either opinion intended their judgments to be read solely by others in their respective professions. You seem to be implying that we should all conduct ourselves like disenfranchised illiterates. This is post-mediaeval western civilization for pity's sake!

You may not have repeatedly asked me for evidence about the Flight 93 wreckage, but those who did passed on the opportunity to rebut my response at the time so I see no point in asking them now, especially as they won't have come up with one now any more than they did then. That one went donw as one in the back of the net for me, let's not obscure that.

It would indeed be double peachy with real cream - not the aerosol stuff - and chocolate vemicelli too if i could provide you with a link to the autopsy report but it seems that it is now only accessible through FOIA request .Strange, don't you think? Those various sources are mostly quoting Dr Olmsted( now that's a doctor Ted, hats off), who made such a request. I'm prepared to take his word for it , shameless iconoclast though I may be , and surely you should too. It explains that the bodies were identified by DNA, which is strange because DNA is destroyed at temperatures far lower than those the fire would have burned at.There was more to it than the lack of Arab names, but it's the lack of Arab names that raises a few questions for the sceptics I think - like why not, and as Analis pointed out earlier why does it exist at all?
If it isn't already obvious I happen to think the autopsy report is bogus. Perhaps you could enlighten me as to why you think it's been withheld from the public domain and why there are no Arab names, let alone those of the hijackers on it.
I didn't say the black box data was unusable , it was the US government that claimed the cockpit voice data was unusable. Here I am repeating what I said in the passage you quote and find myself asking again, what are you on about? They only said the voice recordings were unusable because the data would be incriminating to them IMHO.
A 757 in the security gate film would not have been bigger than the Pentagon. There are any number of misiles, UAVs and small jets it could have been , doesn't matter which . If you're not convinced it was an airliner either then where do you think the airliner was ? You're a sceptic, you're supposed to think it was an airliner ! Again I ask, what are you on about?
Your objectivity on the issue isn't just undermined it's collapsing into a hole in the ground faster than free-fall speed without a single core column left standing !
Perhaps you would like to provide me with a link to anything claiming Atta's girlfriend was lying.All it could prove is that she was lying. All perusing the 737 engine would prove is that the official explanation for 9/11 is a lie.Go on, you've subjected yourself to the Sisyphean labours of trawling the web for truther evidence, why not just summon one little bit more of your sorely tested resolve and check out that engine.

You claim most people seem to be of the opinion that the Pentagon film show an airliner. After saying that you don't . I fail to understand why you said that, or why you think most people do think it's an airliner. It isn't. I've never met anyone who thought it was.

 

[hokum6]

Bloody hell, is he still going? Yet more ridiculous claims without a single shred of evidence. Well done bigfoot, you're the new forum loony.

 

[Bigfoot73]

Hokum6, you';re supposed to be on my ignore list.Haven't seen your name anywhere else apart from a thread you startted about an obviously fake ghost photo. Just like last time you show no sign of having read my posts and resort to abuse, so it's back to the ignore list. Bye.

 

[hokum6]

I have read your posts, they're all nonsense.

 

[stu neville]

Well done bigfoot, you're the new forum loony.

Now now, less of the ad-homs.

Besides, there's a long waiting list to be the forum loony.

 

[Bigfoot73]

Stuneville :- somehow the latest in a long line of content - free, abusive comments showed up on my screen. thanks for that dude, appreciate it

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

I really don't know where you got this Scholars for 9/11 Truth membershipn list from, when I checked it , it was full of academics with masters degrees and doctorates in relevant fields.

From their website. In fact I even put a link to the site in the last post despite the fact you believe it to be your responsibility to find it. If you'd like further clarification - and giving sources, links and so forth does tend to do this - then you might like to have a look at this:

http://twilightpines.com//index.php?opt ... &Itemid=35

Perhaps there's another organization of the same name out there. By your own benchmark they deserve your attention.

There isn't and no they don't. I've explained why a few times now.

You could take Pilots for 9/11 Truth seriously, pilot or not. Neither they , nor the Scholars, nor anyone else of either opinion intended their judgments to be read solely by others in their respective professions.

Quite. In fact Scholars For Truth seems quite willing to try and dupe those who don't bother to check the bona fides.

You seem to be implying that we should all conduct ourselves like disenfranchised illiterates. This is post-mediaeval western civilization for pity's sake!

No, we just shouldn't pretend to understand something if we don't. I don't pretend to know whether or not what they're saying is accurate regarding a subject that you have to get a license in to prove your ability. Presumably you do although the reference to a black box suggests to me you don't. Nor should we simply accept something because someone with qualifications says it's so, especially when so many more with qualifications don't seem to back it up.

You may not have repeatedly asked me for evidence about the Flight 93 wreckage, but those who did passed on the opportunity to rebut my response at the time so I see no point in asking them now, especially as they won't have come up with one now any more than they did then. That one went donw as one in the back of the net for me, let's not obscure that.

Absolutely. You're the Gary Lineker of 9/11 conspiracy debate.

Or maybe others are exhausted pointing out to you that you're shooting into the wrong goal. Either way I don't doubt there many on here shame-faced at the intellectual leathering you've handed out to them on their own Field of Shame. But then it shouldn't really be about point-scoring, should it?

It would indeed be double peachy with real cream - not the aerosol stuff - and chocolate vemicelli too if i could provide you with a link to the autopsy report but it seems that it is now only accessible through FOIA request .Strange, don't you think?

Well, it's hard to say without anything other than your word that that happens to be the case. In lieu of a copy of it to view online would it be impossible to offer a link which explains why - from any perspective -this should be the case?

Those various sources are mostly quoting Dr Olmsted( now that's a doctor Ted, hats off), who made such a request. I'm prepared to take his word for it , shameless iconoclast though I may be , and surely you should too.

A doctor, eh? Like Shipman or Crippen? Or some of the quacks that have needlessly prescribed me into hospital on more than one occasion. I'm probably the least likely person you'll ever come across to be a respecter of doctors by title alone. Although he is a psychiatrist (and a Christian and homeschool dad too, he hastens to add not to mention a believer in the 'satanic conspiracy' behind 9/11). Perhaps he'll have a unique take on much of his own work if no-one else has. In any case you're welcome to place your faith wherever you feel it most comfortable.

It explains that the bodies were identified by DNA, which is strange because DNA is destroyed at temperatures far lower than those the fire would have burned at.There was more to it than the lack of Arab names, but it's the lack of Arab names that raises a few questions for the sceptics I think - like why not, and as Analis pointed out earlier why does it exist at all?

On the contrary - the lack of Arab names merely suggests that if the government is lying about there having even been a crash site that it's not smart enough to make up a few. Do you believe the same people who would be so dimwitted as to make such a basic error would be capable of orchestrating such an evidently successful hoax.

If it isn't already obvious I happen to think the autopsy report is bogus. Perhaps you could enlighten me as to why you think it's been withheld from the public domain and why there are no Arab names, let alone those of the hijackers on it.

Hard to say - first of all I've yet to see the evidence that it was withheld let alone what the reasons might be. When I went to the good doctor's site (again) I followed the links and got an error page
http://www.sierratimes.com/?404=Y. If you want to find out more about crack or LSD then this page has much to offer.

I probably take the opposite view from Doc O who says - "From photos of all of those that perished on that flight, it is clear that none are even 'Arab looking.' This seems to rule out Arabs sneaking aboard under assumed names." Maybe if I could see their pictures then I would be able to work out with such vigorous science whether they were actually a bit 'Arab looking'. But then maybe's there's no need to - http://www.911myths.com/html/missing_arabs.html


By the way your most recent post is up to number 5 on Google with a search for http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q= ... 7%22&meta=

I didn't say the black box data was unusable , it was the US government that claimed the cockpit voice data was unusable. Here I am repeating what I said in the passage you quote and find myself asking again, what are you on about?

Apologies. There seems to be some confusion here. It stems from the fact that you appear to have made a confused claim. Unless my Google skills are not up to speed - although I should be in the form of my life given the hours I've put in recently - no-one appears to be making the same claim that you are, namely that the cockpit voice recorder stopped working 2 seconds before impact. You seem to have conflated 2 separate but related claims about the different pieces of kit commonly referred to as the black box recorder.

A 757 in the security gate film would not have been bigger than the Pentagon.

Maybe not. But it's not as helpful a video as the Doubletree Hotel one, which is a far more revealing video since it actually shows hundreds of frames rather than just 2. In any case if there had been a missile it would have filled up more of the screen in the security gate footage than the incomplete object which appears in it.

There are any number of misiles, UAVs and small jets it could have been , doesn't matter which . If you're not convinced it was an airliner either then where do you think the airliner was ? You're a sceptic, you're supposed to think it was an airliner ! Again I ask, what are you on about?

I do think it was an airliner. I'm not convinced on the evidence of the footage alone but given what else we know of the day and in lieu of any coherent explanation as to what else it might have been I consider it the most likely scenario. In particular the size of the object which struck the Pentagon is clearly larger than any missile and would appear to be larger than any 'small executive jet'.

Perhaps you would like to provide me with a link to anything claiming Atta's girlfriend was lying.All it could prove is that she was lying.

Yes and that the basis for your claims about Atta's behaviour and background are non-existent.

I note also that the rules of incumbency have changed. Well, it has already been posted but here it is again, just for you: http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Amanda_Keller

All perusing the 737 engine would prove is that the official explanation for 9/11 is a lie.Go on, you've subjected yourself to the Sisyphean labours of trawling the web for truther evidence, why not just summon one little bit more of your sorely tested resolve and check out that engine.

You'd presumably say the same of the supposed evidence around the Pentagon. So far it's proved nothing other than the fact that persistence doesn't always pay off.

You claim most people seem to be of the opinion that the Pentagon film show an airliner.
After saying that you don't . I fail to understand why you said that, or why you think most people do think it's an airliner. It isn't. I've never met anyone who thought it was.

Well, it depends since you seem to interchangably refer to the 2 different films as though they were the same. I've never met anyone who thought that the Doubletree Hotel video showed a missile. It's clearly too big for that. If the footage from the security gate should show a plane half the size of the picture then any other plane should show up on it as well but nothing does. So what ever hit the Pentagon had to be bigger than a missile - at least the size of a small jet - and yet nothing of that size can be seen. It's a pretty useless piece of film.

I'd also back up the claim that despite the existence of this footage the fact that most people are largely accepting of the official version, in essence at least. That neither video seems to have changed this except for the truth movement and those who most likely already believed in the conspiracy regardless of whether this evidence emerged or not.

 

[Bigfoot73]

We were both quoting from the same website, only you were quoting from the Associate members list , not the Full members list. It shouldn't need to be said that it is the full members who wrote the content of the site.Obvious really.So why ignore that? Your several statements of why the associate members don't deserve your attention are irrelevant , as it was the full members who wrote what you chose to ignore . I don't see why you brought the associates into it.
Then you go on to say Scholars For Truth are prepared to dupe those who don't check their bona fides - but their bona fides are just fine and it looks like you are trying to dupe people into thinking they aren't.
If you don't pretend to know whether a qualified expert's opinion is accurate how do you know the pro-official explanation experts are accurate? You claim so many more experts don't support the conspiracist view , just like you claim most people think the Pentagon film shows a plane.Perhaps you'd like to provide some evidence for either of those claims, especially as you seem to find numbers more important than anything else. I think you would be very lucky to find substantiation for either claim, particularly the Pentagon film.

No, I'm afraid I can't find anything about why the autopsy report is so inaccessible. I suspect it's because public availability would reveal data which would lead to people questioning the official explanation for the events of 9/11 - such as the absence of the names of the hijackers.Perhaps you could suggest another possible reason.
Likening Dr Olmsted to serial killers is not worthy of a response - in fact it wouldn't matter if an associate member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth had got their hands on the report provided they could read well enough to see that there WEREN'T ANY ARAB NAMES ON IT ! Has it not occurred to you that if there were, the government might just have come out and said so in protest at Crippen's, sorry, Olmsted's scandalous misrepresentation?Well, don't you ?
Come to think of it why hasn't the US government clarified the issues around the other plane's passenger lists, or indeed anything at all that the sceptics seem to think needs just a few i, s dotting and t,s crossing?
Any opinion on that? Bit of expansive thinking for once maybe?

There does indeed appear to be yet more confusion over the black box issue.I didn't say the voice recording stopped working 2 seconds before the supposed impact. I said that the government said the entire voice recording was unusable. The last data of any sort was from 2 seconds before the impact. I am not going to check how many times I have said anything about the black box data and I'm not saying it again - you're looking for inconsistencies in what I've said when there aren't any.

Priding yourself on your rationality is leading you into a formulaic and regimented mode of thought - no, actually you've always had that and it's no substitute for genuine intellectual bandwidth.
Why, pray tell , are you so sure a missile would have taken up more of the frame than this incomplete object in it? What exactly is an incomplete object when it's at home? Can't be an airliner or you'd have said so.Why are you insisting that I claimed it was a missile when I said it could be a missile , drone or small plane? You're so good at nitpicking every detail of what i said how come you got that one wrong.Why does what I said about the black box keep eluding your cognitive faculties? How did you miss the scholars' full members' list?
So now you think it was an airliner? Really? You weren't convinced yesterday so perhaps it was me reminding you that as a sceptic you actually have to think it was that has convinced you? Perhaps you momentarily let your eyes get the better of your preconcieved ideas. Way to go Ted !!! Why is it larger than any small executive jet? Whatever it is you are having a hell of a time convincing yourself it's a Boeing 757, aren't you? The only reason you have to think it is one is that the US government said so when they released the security gate film, regardless of the fact that it isn't.
You say I haven't provideda coherent explanation of what it might be when I have , and i will spare you the capitals : missile or drone or small exexuctive jet. got that? I do believe I said as much before. Coherent enough I think , just like it was the first time

Ah yes, Ms Keller. Five years after the event she suddenly comes out and says she was lying all along.What's more some nameless FBI agent is prepared to back her up .Says he's checked her phone records, she and Atta never spoke on the phone and so she must be telling the truth this time round. Which raises a few questions. Why did the Feds not check the records of phone calls between her and a terrorist responsible for the deaths of thousands before, like the day they went looking for her ?Why did she leave it so long if it was never true ? Why did she claim otherwise in the first place? Why dishonestly link herself with a mass murderer? If the FBI knew, why not clear the poor woman's name in the first place?
Apparently Atta and Keller's neighbours Tony and Vonnie LaConca told the G-men that Atta stood bail for Keller,saying they could find his surname on the South County jail paperwork. I can't think of any reason at all why it shouldn't be there, or any reason why they wouldn't look.Follow my drift?
apparently her 'real' boyfriend was one Mohamed Arajaki, who was 6 inches taller than Atta. A noticeable difference would you not think?Funny how nobody noticed it at the time!
I wonder if I may crave a favour: it would be just triple organically grown peaches with double helping of cream from Jersey cows and extra 90% cocoa solids fairtrade chocolate vermicelli of you if you would indulge this pitiable old wingnut by having a gander at those piccies of the 737 engine.Of course I realise I probably haven't answered any of your points at all, but that could only mean I haven't got any answers and if so then pronouncing on them would make for a delightful coup de grace for you .
Wouldn't it?

 

[WhistlingJack]

A temporary aside...

Forgive me if I'm being dim, but is there some significance behind the eighth anniversary of 9/11? If not, it seems odd that there's recently been a spate of programmes commemorating the events of that day :?

 

[Timble2]

I think it's just that they think if they wait to to the 10th anniversary, all but the hardline conspiracy theorists will have lost interest. Look at the the damp squib that was the 10th anniversary of Diana's encounter with a underpass support column....

Actually, if people stopped bothering with the 911 conspiracy theorists, they'd soon disappear as they split up into squabbling sects, or vanished up their own bottoms...

 

[Bigfoot73]

Hi Timble! I suppose your absence from this thread is you ignoring the truthers in the hope we'll go away .Wouldn't be anything to do with the way the Flight 93 bodywork in the photo you posted wasn't actually from Flight 93? Or that you seemed to have overlooked the fact that it had two engines?
How about Atta's will and undertaking instructions? All that Christian-style guilt and repentance in a muslim's will? Instructions for what to do with the body when he was about to go and cremate it himself?
Remember how you said he must have been planning on leaving it somewhere? To which I remarked that the inaugural flight of bin Laden's Express Courier Service obviously did not go according to plan?
Then you went and threatened to report someone, presumably me , for abusive language - only to realise it was you who had just used abusive language !
Seeing as your comments here have been a) wrong andb) abusive , and you're now intent on ignoring me thre isn't much point me letting you take up page space - so you now join Hokum on my Ignore list. Bye.

 

[GNC]

Hmm, I'm not sure a conspiracy theorist who ignores tricky questions (or facts) is being all that constructive. Surely it's supposed to be the other way around?