Top OS contradictions that silence it's proponents

originally posted by: peacefulpete
How about the engine they found in NYC that was from the wrong plane?

care to show a source for that silly claim?

because we all know there was a TINY BIT of debris found on 9-11.

tiny bit? why lie, when fuselage parts, engines, wheels, seats, undercarriage etc were found at the Pentagon

But the problem is that the tiny bit of wreckage, is inconsistent with real plane crashes, as the world knows them. They leave tons of debris, not tiny pieces.

tonnes were found at the Pentagon....

For example, the hole in PA was an empty hole AFAIK. Nothing was dug up, it was a hole.

you really do not know much about 9/11, do you! have you even looked?
/nofgkrp

a reply to: peacefulpete

The engines in NYC weren't the wrong type. They were consistent with 767 engines.

As always, you look at low speed impacts where the pilot was trying NOT to crash and think that's the only way crashes happen. It's not. High speed impacts leave lots of small pieces consistent with the debris on 9/11.

The hole in Pennsylvania was far from empty.

sites.google.com...

The debris was removed and stored. Almost the entire aircraft was recovered from the hole.

a reply to: hellobruce
Credit to David Ray Griffin and his book "The 9/11 Report: Omissions, Distortions, and Disinformation" with much of this. There is so much more. This is only a first pass.

1. Tower Construction.
“The outside of each tower was covered by a frame of 14 inch steel columns…..These exterior walls bore most of the weight of the building. The interior core was a hollow steel shaft in which elevators and stairwells were grouped.”
The Truth: The core consisted of 47 massive steel columns, measuring 14” x 36” with 4” thick walls. No explanation why “pancaking” didn’t leave massive steel columns in the air, rather than breaking into convenient smaller pieces.
2. Building 7 doesn’t even get a mention

This 47 story skyscraper would have been the largest building in more than 30 states. However, its problematic fall doesn’t even merit a mention, or any detail, in the official report. Was the commission unaware of its collapse? Or was it because they knew there was no explanation? Silverstein’s comments in the PBS documentary (“pull it”) were overlooked as well. If you don’t think “pull it” means demolition, then why would a building with small fires fall on its own? Its convenient to not even mention it in the report.

3. No mention of Rudy Giuliani’s comments to Peter Jennings on ABC news:

“We were operating out of there (the Emergency Command Center on the 23rd Floor of WTC-7) when we were told that the WTC was going to collapse, and it did collapse before we could get out of the building.”

The twin towers were not expected to collapse by anyone admission, until they did by surprise yet Giuliani indicates he had forewarning. This is completely left out of the official report.

4. Omission of Bush’s relatives.

Because the commission sidestepped the comments of Silverstein and the possibility of controlled demolition, which would have taken weeks to set up, no mention was made of the fact that Bush’s brother, Marvin Bush, and his cousin, Wilt Walker III, were principals in the firm charged with security of the towers. Another glaring omission, made possible by ignoring building 7 and Silverstein’s comments.

5. Hani Hanjour, who couldn’t rent a Cessna, remarkably engineers a twisting 270 degree corkscrew turn and slams into the Pentagon at more than 500 MPH. Experienced pilots have marveled at the maneuver. Yet, the Official Story never even touches what a remarkable piece of flying he performed. Amazing for a pilot who had never flown a 757, and could not rent a Cessna because of his poor flight skills and mastery of the language.

6. The Pentagon plane hit the one part of the building, the West Wing, that had recently been reinforced, and housed the fewest personnel. This impossible maneuver that Hanjour was said to engineer, would have been greatly simplified by flying into the roof, which would have killed far more people. You would also think they would have targeted the executive wing where Rumsfeld and the top brass were located, but they chose the spot where budget analyst were working on the missing $2.3 trillion. Apparently the terrorists were more concerned with the missing $2.3 trillion than inflicting damage to our top military brass? Strange, don’t you think? This irony was not even mentioned in the official report.

7. The Commission fails to mention the photograph that shows the upper façade of the Pentagon remained in place for 30 minutes before collapsing. In another glaring omission, they never ask how a 757, with a wingspan of 125 feet, and tail 40’ high, could leave an 18’ hole. Large enough for the nose, but not the rest of the plane. There should have been tons metal and parts, but only a few select pieces were photographed, which could have easily been planted. Questions were not asked, like how did a Boeing 757 fit in an 18’ hole? If it didn’t why wasn’t there much more wreckage from a huge plane? How did it emerge to punch a hole in the other side, if it didn’t enter through the hole?

8. Why did the commission not subpoena all the video from the Pentagon crash, or from the nearby hotel and gas station? Why were reports like this from the Richmond Times not acknowledged in the official report? Why did they not interview the gas station employee who made these claims and document it in the 500 page report?

“An employee at the gas station across the street from the Pentagon says the gas station’s security cameras should have recorded the moment of impact. However, he says, “I’ve never seen what the pictures looked like. The FBI was here within minutes and took the film."

9. Why is no mention made of Ashcroft flying commercial, due to terrorist threats, since earlier in the summer of 2001? That would have been very interesting to understand what information Ashcroft was given, but the report never even asks the question, even though he is mentioned 26 times in the official report. Another glaring omission.
10. Two days after 9/11 Attorney David Schippers declared that six weeks prior to 9/11, FBI agents had given him information about a forthcoming attack in lower Manhattan. Yet, this stunning admission is overlooked and not mentioned in the official report. He is not even interviewed, nor the alleged FBI agents who were said to have warned him, for the official story.
11. Why no mention that of the suspicious trading leading up to 9/11 one key investor in these transactions was Deutsche Bank, which was headed until 1998 by Buzzy Krongard, who was an executive director in the CIA? Seems like that is important information, completely overlooked by the committee.
12. Why did the commission not interview San Francisco mayor Willie Brown, who various reports said had forewarning of a 9/11 attack, and was told not to fly? Whether the story was true, or not, it was widely circulated and should have been looked into, and should have been mentioned in the report

a reply to: Jchristopher5

6.

Flying into the roof would have been much harder. He would have had to dive into the building and an aircraft in a dive is extremely hard to control. During WWII they had to modify aircraft with special dive flaps, and tails that were almost twice as large as on unmodified aircraft, and they still had trouble dropping bombs on target.

An unmodified 757 would have been almost impossible to control enough to guarantee that they would hit the target once they increased speed beyond a certain point.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Jchristopher5

6.

Flying into the roof would have been much harder. He would have had to dive into the building and an aircraft in a dive is extremely hard to control. During WWII they had to modify aircraft with special dive flaps, and tails that were almost twice as large as on unmodified aircraft, and they still had trouble dropping bombs on target.

An unmodified 757 would have been almost impossible to control enough to guarantee that they would hit the target once they increased speed beyond a certain point.

What about flying into the wing where Rumsfeld and the top brass were located? Wouldn't that bring more pain to America, if engineered by Middle Eastern terrorists? Why did they select the budget analysts wing where the $2.3 trillion missing was being researched? Ironic, don't you think?

Any input on the other 11 points?

Thanks.

a reply to: Jchristopher5

I stay clear of the building stuff because I don't know enough about them.

The wing that was under renovation at the Pentagon was the only section that had wide open access for an aircraft to come in towards. There were other buildings and terrain blocking the other wings that would have made it more difficult.

As for Hani Hanjour, he held a commercial pilot rating from the FAA. That means he successfully completed over a thousand hours of flight time.

Part of his problem was language, which he didn't need. The other part was landing, which he didn't care about.

In March of 2001 he had completed simulator work flying a 737. If you watch the animation of the turn he made over the Pentagon you can tell it was made by a pilot not familiar with that type of aircraft. The controls are constantly moving and the aircraft moves up and down.

7.

The 757 fuselage is only 14 feet in diameter. The wings and tail are both hollow and other than the spars, very fragile. There's no way they would punch through a concrete wall and leave a hole.

originally posted by: Jchristopher5
no mention was made of the fact that Bush’s brother, Marvin Bush, and his cousin, Wilt Walker III, were principals in the firm charged with security of the towers.

It was not mentioned as it is just a truther lie. Please detail exactly how they were principals in the firm charged with security of the towers

This 47 story skyscraper would have been the largest building in more than 30 states. However, its problematic fall doesn’t even merit a mention, or any detail, in the official report.

Yes it did, why did you ignore www.nist.gov...

where budget analyst were working on the missing $2.3 trillion. Apparently the terrorists were more concerned with the missing $2.3 trillion

Another truther lie, only truthers lie and claim $2.3 trillion was missing.

There are 3 huge lies I spotted in a few seconds, why use them?

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Jchristopher5

I stay clear of the building stuff because I don't know enough about them.

The wing that was under renovation at the Pentagon was the only section that had wide open access for an aircraft to come in towards. There were other buildings and terrain blocking the other wings that would have made it more difficult.

As for Hani Hanjour, he held a commercial pilot rating from the FAA. That means he successfully completed over a thousand hours of flight time.

Part of his problem was language, which he didn't need. The other part was landing, which he didn't care about.

In March of 2001 he had completed simulator work flying a 737. If you watch the animation of the turn he made over the Pentagon you can tell it was made by a pilot not familiar with that type of aircraft. The controls are constantly moving and the aircraft moves up and down.

7.

The 757 fuselage is only 14 feet in diameter. The wings and tail are both hollow and other than the spars, very fragile. There's no way they would punch through a concrete wall and leave a hole.

I don't feel the reports and pictures that I have seen after the crash are indicative of wings spanning 125' and titanium engines being deposited in the courtyard outside the building. We see a random piece of skin and an engine. Where did tons of metal and wreckage go?

If the nose is flimsy, how did it penetrate not only in the outer wall, but through 3 walls and do a punch out hole on the other side? Where were all the bodies, along with the wreckage of this massive plane?

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: Jchristopher5
no mention was made of the fact that Bush’s brother, Marvin Bush, and his cousin, Wilt Walker III, were principals in the firm charged with security of the towers.

It was not mentioned as it is just a truther lie. Please detail exactly how they were principals in the firm charged with security of the towers

where budget analyst were working on the missing $2.3 trillion. Apparently the terrorists were more concerned with the missing $2.3 trillion

Another truther lie, only truthers lie and claim $2.3 trillion was missing.

There are 2 huge lies I spotted in a few seconds, why use them?

I am quite tired of you calling me a liar, and I am calling you out on it.

Why not address the other points, rather than Cherry pick? Do you have answers for the rest?

originally posted by: Jchristopher5
If the nose is flimsy, how did it penetrate not only in the outer wall, but through 3 walls and do a punch out hole on the other side?

What makes you claim the nose punched out a hole on the other side? Proof of that claim?

Where were all the bodies, along with the wreckage of this massive plane?

The bodies and body parts were inside the Pentagon the plane was Inside and outside the Pentagon, have a look at www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: Jchristopher5

The nose didn't, the keel beam in the bottom of the fuselage, which is the strongest part of the aircraft did. The nose just happened to go with it. The keel beam started the damage, and once it did the rest of the aircraft continued it.

The engines, while appearing large, are actually rather small once you get behind the fan. And only the fan blades, which are so fragile a small rock can damage them, and certain portions of the inner core are titanium. Both engines were found at the Pentagon.

The wings are so fragile that if you step outside of the small area you can walk on them, your foot can go through the skin into the wings structure. The only portion of the wing that could have gone through the wall was the spar, and that doesn't go very far out into the wing.

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: Jchristopher5
If the nose is flimsy, how did it penetrate not only in the outer wall, but through 3 walls and do a punch out hole on the other side?

What makes you claim the nose punched out a hole on the other side? Proof of that claim?

Care to answer any other points rather than cherry picking?

originally posted by: Jchristopher5
Care to answer tory mother points rather than just finding one or two?

tory mother points?

How about you fix the "errors" I pointed out....

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: Jchristopher5
Care to answer tory mother points rather than just finding one or two?

tory mother points?

How about you fix the "errors" I pointed out....

I had a typo Bruce and I fixed it. Darn autocorrect. Also the pic. Go back to my post. How about you answer the other points rather than cherry picking?

originally posted by: Jchristopher5
but through 3 walls

You need to double check your facts there.

This is a lie told to you by the truth movement and you believed it. AA77 only went through 2 walls,the exterior wall and the C ring wall. Most truthers know this but still they let the lie continue

I just want to add as I look through the obvious MIC backed anti conspiracy OS sites,
I feel an empty corporate backed pit in my stomach. The MOUNTAIN of evidence
points to a sophisticated high level well funded homeland based hit.

Blackwater shape charges thermite Global Hawks the Saudis Israelis
and a villain Vice Prez are much more suspect. Real investigations
should include things like motive. How were Cheney Rums and
Giuliani's bank accounts looking before 9-11 vs say 2008 ?

This is why now hundreds of thousands of people
are NOT in the;
'We made these plans on SAT phones in a cave
and handed out box box cutters' camp.

a reply to: Jchristopher5

1. The official story is a conspiracy theory. I have not been able to get them to admit it yet, they seem to ignore the question, as I have asked the directly several times. Is the official 9/11 story a conspiracy theory?

Then you are lost if you need ask that.

Whats does conspiracy mean?

What does theory mean?

Define those and its obvious people conspired and there is evidence to back it.

Who the pole are and what evidence there is to back who and what they conspired for is a different argument and question altogether.

There is no way they can say it's not, as by definition it is a conspiracy theory. A conspiracy theory, which they like to chide anyone who considers one, is simply a nefarious and secretive plan by two or more individuals.

So, the official story is a conspiracy theory.

Great so why do you need others to say its one if you know its one.

4. The Guardian ran an extensive story, several years after 9/11, saying that a number of the 9/11 hijackers were still alive. Some on here claim the story was retracted. I have asked for proof and received none. If you have it, produce it.

I thought it was concluded that it was not the hijackers still being alive but others with the same identity, names, etc.

When I read a bit about it all those years ago I remember something like the hijackers had fake identities and he ones coming forward were guys that had their identities stolen or copied for the operation.

Maybe that is why the story was detracted because it wasn't the hijackers still being alive but a story of stolen identities so the 'still alive hijackers' was false and retracted.

I have asked for proof and received none. If you have it, produce it.

and yet you claim to research for truth, so off to it, don't ask others to research for you and claim you are one yourself but don't research.

Why is it impossible to believe these same horrid individuals would conspire on 9/11?

Its not,

However real research point to these horrid individuals doing clean up work and covering up their foreknowledge and who might have been really responsible.

Maybe another governing body in another country or a few other countries with help of inside info from some of the US intelligence agencies.

Any of these alone proves, or provides considerable evidence that the official story is a lie.

Not necessarily, maybe a misdirection or an incomplete story.

The US government and the CIA have a long history of nefarious activities aimed at the American people, and the world at large. Overthrow of democratically elected governments; flase flags, or planned flase flags, to justify war; involvement in global drug distribution; MK Ultra;and so much more.

Yes, why is not possible that the CIA had people infiltrate Fundamentalist Islamic groups and manipulate them into attacking,

I believe it was proven or good evidence pointing to that is what the FBI did with certain homegrown terrorism and the first world trade center bombing, they all had FBI or CIA handlers.

You just want things o be black and white when none can found with whats available and in my opinion many had a part in the attacks of 9/11 and the events that followed concerning the attacks.

If you want to counter the points above then answer all points please

No thanks, I can speak as freely as the site allows, you have no say in the matter.

The five remaining points prove the official story is a lie.

How does point one its a lie?

Its just shows you know definitions of the words conspiracy and theory.

Others can deny it was and or call it a conspiracy fact if they believe and cling to OS as you say, why does that bother you if you know better or differently so to speak?

I also notice that not one OS'er has taken the challenge yet.

Who are these OSers you speak of and your thread has been up by the time of you posting for a little over an hour, maybe the shills are on their lunch break.

No wonder Conspiracy theorist are seen as mad rambling idiots, just at look at yourself and what and when you post it.

a reply to: soulwaxer

Exposing 9/11 for what it is has the potential to change WW3.

Or start it

a reply to: Jchristopher5

We must fight to get the truth out there, which is why I do this. Slowly and surely people are becoming aware of the truth.

Yes that being you don't research in an unbiased fashion but do so to try and prove your preconceived beliefs that have manipulated.

You keep trying to taunt these OSers you speak of when I fail to see anyone clinging to everything that the official word has said about he event and followings events concerning the attacks.

My hope is that we garner enough support to encourage a new, impartial investigation. Those who are responsiblr for 9/11, killing nearly 3,000 innocent Americans on 9/11, and tens of thousands of innocents in our wars since that time, should be brought to Justice.

Haven't others actually done something instead of post on internet conspiracy sites that might lead to a new investigation, were you a part of getting signatures and trying to get new laws passed or attempting to get FOIA documents?

Other wise your hope is is another manipulation of Obama's slogan when he was running for president, wasn't it "Hope".

What was that hope for?

That is exactly what they want us to do.

If you have some idea about the truth you want to expose stop using the term 'they', its used when you haven't got a clue or are confused or are simply to lazy which a good researcher wouldn't be to spell out who they are every time they mention 'them'.

How about you realizing it could be you next time, or someone you love?

Or, just keep spewing your garbage like you have for months.

How about you stop sounding like a religious fanatic and act like the researcher you claim to be or do as you say in the second line just quoted.

a reply to: InhaleExhale

Thank you for your opinions about my research, motives, and religion. All of which are meaningless to me.

But, thanks for the effort. Care to address for others the 11 points, preferably all of them, that I posted this morning?