25 Intolerable Contradictions: The Final Undoing of the Official 9/11 Story

Originally posted by jackinthebox
If you hit a pool of water at 5mph, no problem, you go for a nice swim. You hit a pool of water at 500mph, you're shark snacks. Any more questions there Mister Wizard?

Just look at Flight 800. It hit the water at several hundred miles per hour and shattered into millions of small pieces. But yet Navy divers found enough to do a reconstruction for the investigation.



[edit on 20-3-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Here is a photo of an engine found outside the Pentagon.

i22.photobucket.com...

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Here is a photo of an engine found outside the Pentagon.

i22.photobucket.com...

What evidence do you have that the engine you pictured came from Flight 77? Do you have part numbers matching it to the one used on that plane?

Originally posted by Disclosed
What evidence do you have that the engine you pictured came from Flight 77? Do you have part numbers matching it to the one used on that plane?

Well for 1 i did not say it was from flight 77, only that it was found outside the building.

In fact i can not match it to an RB211 that the 757s use.

[edit on 20-3-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by Disclosed

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Here is a photo of an engine found outside the Pentagon.

i22.photobucket.com...

What evidence do you have that the engine you pictured came from Flight 77? Do you have part numbers matching it to the one used on that plane?

Not to be nitpicky (but I will). Ultima didn't state what plane the engine came from. He just said "an engine found outside the pentagon".

Originally posted by Griff
Not to be nitpicky (but I will). Ultima didn't state what plane the engine came from. He just said "an engine found outside the pentagon".

Very true, Griff...you are 100% correct.

I see a white van in that picture as well.

What does that have to do with anything? Unless he is linking the engine to the plane that impacted the building, it isnt relevant...just like the van.

Originally posted by Griff
Not to be nitpicky (but I will). Ultima didn't state what plane the engine came from. He just said "an engine found outside the pentagon".

I do not know what plane it came from.

Its very messed up, i tried comparing it to a RB-211 but could not match it up.

Originally posted by DisclosedWhat does that have to do with anything? Unless he is linking the engine to the plane that impacted the building, it isnt relevant...just like the van.

Just pointing out the fact that there was an engine found outside the Pentagon. Which means that the at least 1 engine was not destroyed by hitting the wall.

As stated i cannot match it too the engine for a 757.

[edit on 20-3-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by KMFNWO
reply to post by Whodunnit

 

As with most things in this argument, neither side will relent. So again, where did the two 6 ton engines impact the building? Why is this so difficult to answer? They were moving at 500mph. The damage should be quite easy to point out.

Not if they vaporized! I still to this day cannot believe idiots still believe in the hot fuel vaporization theory! I mean even for a die hard myth buster- this theory was over-the-top stupid.

reply to post by dk3000

Not if they vaporized! I still to this day cannot believe idiots still believe in the hot fuel vaporization theory! I mean even for a die hard myth buster- this theory was over-the-top stupid.

Who said the jet engines vaporized because of a hot fuel fire? Was that in the Pentagon performance report somewhere?

reply to post by dk3000


Especially when you could run over to your local hardware store and for a few bucks buy all you need to test out if jet fuel can in fact cause steel to get hot enough to become malleable.

It's so easy it's rediculase. You don't have to re-create the towers to test the hypothesis of jet fuel office fires causing steel to become hot enough to cause failure. I suggest a visit to a testing lab and see how materials are tested to see if they will do the job they are required to do. I think a few people would be surprised when they see events do not have to be exactly re-created to see how materials act in given situations.

If you fail to get a piece of steel to become malleable enough to bend, warp, sag, using office materials and jet fuel then you can throw the whole 'pancake' collapse hypothesis right out the window.

But they want us to think the situation is more complex and can't be re-produced because it was a 'unique' situation. What a load of baloney.
The evidence against global collapse caused by fires and gravity is so simple I think people miss it because they expect the explanation to be complex.
The population has been conditioned into believing itself to be stupid to put it bluntly. They are looking for that book that explains it all with maths formulas, and stuff they don't understand but looks impressive, when the proof against the 'official STORY' is really very simple.

Originally posted by dk3000
Not if they vaporized! I still to this day cannot believe idiots still believe in the hot fuel vaporization theory! I mean even for a die hard myth buster- this theory was over-the-top stupid.

Originally posted by Boone 870
Who said the jet engines vaporized because of a hot fuel fire? Was that in the Pentagon performance report somewhere?

I have already shown a photo of an engine found outside the Pentagon. Which means another question for the official story believers. Or another nail in the coffin of the official story.



[edit on 21-3-2008 by ULTIMA1]

The situation with the story of 9/11 is becoming like the situation of anti-semitism. The longer one believes the official fable the more difficult it is for one to change one's mind. The social dynamics involved in changing one's opinion just become too difficult to deal with. The best that can be hoped for, from a dupe's point of view, is that the situation just goes away.

How do you accept to abandon anti-semitism when your parents and social set have practiced it for decades if not generations? Move to another town and start over?

That's the sort of problem that must be grappled with by 9/11 truthers. We are past the days of changing people's minds by argument. The people who believe the baloney now have too much invested in it. In the Soviet Union there are still people who think that Josef Stalin was a great guy. There is nothing you can do with people like that. It's a psychological thing.

We need arrests and court cases. The 9/11 truth movement has failed so far to give us those things.

[edit on 21-3-2008 by ipsedixit]

Originally posted by ipsedixit
We need arrests and court cases. The 9/11 truth movement has failed so far to give us those things.

There are court cases moving forward.

Also i have e-mailed companies that were at ground zero to ask them questions and they repsonded that they could could not answer all my questions due to 9/11 lawsuits.

You might also look at the number of first responders that are speaking out against the official story.

reply to post by ULTIMA1


That is encouraging. One court case will lead to another and eventually we will get to someone who can finger someone big and who is not willing to take the fall for the perps. That's when things will start to get interesting.

This is going to be a long process. Look at the situation with JFK. I hope that Dick Cheney and George Bush are in jail or exposed for what they are in my lifetime, but I am not optimistic.


[edit on 21-3-2008 by ipsedixit]

Originally posted by ipsedixit
That is encouraging. One court case will lead to another and eventually we will get to someone who can finger someone big and who is not willing to take the fall for the perps.

Well if it is proven that even 1 person or company lied on a report it will open up for a lot of lawsuits and will be a final nail in the coffin for the official story.

To speculate for a moment, I suspect that there is another impediment faced by people, who currently believe the story of 9/11 as told by the Bush administration, which prevents them from coming to a point where they might change their minds and accept that there is a possibility that the Bush administration was behind the attacks of 9/11 and that a thorough police investigation of that crime is required.

Speaking very broadly (some might say talking through my hat) one could say that people who do not believe the Bush administration on 9/11 are more reflective and thoughtful, while those who believe the Bush administration are less reflective and more action oriented. I'm talking very loosely and broadly here, but the exaggeration will help to make my point.

Elaborating a little one could say that people who support the Bush administration are people who, under extreme circumstances, would opt for vigilante justice. They are the kind who would just march into Afghanistan and arrest bin Laden without a warrant and without providing evidence to the Afghani authorities to obtain a warrant. Due process is preferable of course but in extremes, they would do what they thought necessary outside the law.

The same group would opt for invading Iraq. Due process, conclusive evidence, other alternatives would be given short shrift by these people because of the qualities of their intellects and their emotional temperament. Action first, thought a distant second.

Here's where the rubber meets the road. What would these people, these less reflective, action oriented people be inclined to do if they became convinced that their own government played a trick on them and pulverized 3000 New Yorkers to jump start a new foreign policy agenda and then went on to murder hundreds of thousands of foreigners overseas in pursuit of that agenda?

Suddenly the mandate of morality, the mantle of moral rectitude, the clarion call of outrage demands action at home. Suddenly all those John Waynes ready to spring into action overseas have their bluff called by reality at home.

I personally think that this is a major roadblock to the 9/11 truth movement. These action oriented, morally righteous people cannot face up to the gut check at home. They just don't want to know. In the words made famous by Jack Nicholson in the movies, they "can't handle the truth."

In the words of George Bush, senior, as quoted by Sarah McLendon: "If the American people knew what we were up to they would chase us through the streets and lynch us." Unfortunately Bush was wrong. The American people would rather murder a million foreigners than do their duty at home.

[edit on 21-3-2008 by ipsedixit]

Originally posted by ipsedixit
Here's where the rubber meets the road. What would these people, these less reflective, action oriented people be inclined to do if they became convinced that their own government played a trick on them and pulverized 3000 New Yorkers to jump start a new foreign policy agenda and then went on to murder hundreds of thousands of foreigners overseas in pursuit of that agenda?

All people have to do is look at history. Things like Pearl Harbor and the USS Liberty to see that the governemnt has and can "play tricks" on them.

Originally posted by ipsedixit
To speculate for a moment, I suspect that there is another impediment faced by people, who currently believe the story of 9/11 as told by the Bush administration, which prevents them from coming to a point where they might change their minds and accept that there is a possibility that the Bush administration was behind the attacks of 9/11 and that a thorough police investigation of that crime is required...

You make a great point ipsedixit.
If people can't see that government, any government, is capable and willing to attack it's own to the further the agenda of the wealthy elites then they are not looking at history objectively. Or looking at all.

I find it funny that with every new face in the white house we expect change for the good. Every time a new election takes place you get people saying, 'I can't wait to get rid of, clinton, bush, insert name here', yet they can't see that every ruling party has its corruption and nothing really actually changes.
It doesn't matter who is on office if war is required by the elite it will get it. The system that is controlled by the government you vote for is the problem, but we don't get to vote on the system just the controller. The assumption is our system is right and good but we don't realise this system is what allows wars, it's what allows a third of the world to be in dire poverty.
It's what puts millions in jail for non-violent crime that's only 'crime' because some suit in DC decided it was. It's what allows some to have disgusting amounts of wealth and power. It's the 50lb carrot dangling in front of eyes conditioned to be greedy and selfish.

When do we really get to make the decisions that effect us and the future of our children and planet?

reply to post by ipsedixit



I have been looking for a Rolling Stone article where they did experiments on "conservative" vs. "liberal" minds. What they did was have people (both liberal and conservative) hit a certain button for a while. Then they changed the format and told them NOT to hit the button any more.

The liberal minded folks had a very easy time of changing, but the conservatives still continued to push the button.

I think that sums up what we are against.

Sorry for no link, I read it in the magazine but forgot the name of the article. Honestly, I have tried looking but I can't find it.


[edit on 3/22/2008 by Griff]

Originally posted by ipsedixit
The American people would rather murder a million foreigners than do their duty at home.

Griff, what you referenced in regard to "conservatives" is undoubtedly true. The behavior referred to is almost a short definition of the term conservative, but I guess I'm trying to get at something else in the American psyche.

As a foreigner (Canadian), I see much to admire in the American character. Americans are respected abroad for their "can do" attitude, their energy and enterprise, their fun loving high spirits and good cheer. They are known to be generous and kind to strangers and sympathetic to any one in trouble. They are the world's leading technical innovators. They have been great neighbors and trading partners to Canada.

But there is an element of the American character which is close to becoming a classic tragic flaw. I'm talking about an exaggerated sense of patriotism and as a corollary to it, a reluctance to the point of paranoia, to acknowledge and accept faults.

Americans are often incapable of applying dispassionate critical judgement to themselves. Very often attempts to do so become swamped in patriotic reassurances that completely overwhelm the critical points being made. Americans are not afraid of "sticks and stones" but they cringe in fear of "names" that might hurt them. I fear that this is deep in the American psyche and is near to becoming a tragic flaw.

Dr. Samuel Johnson the famous eighteenth century English literary savant said that "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." It's an almost perfect aphorism when applied to George W. Bush.

I'm beginning to fear that it may be starting to apply to America as a whole in the sense that patriotism is becoming the achilles heel of a great nation, a tragic flaw that is leading it to folly and preventing it from diagnosing its own ills.

A significant part of our problem is that American patriotism is blind to an accumulation of scoundrels. But worst of all American patriotism is, in a deep psychological sense, a prophylactic which is used as a tool to avoid painful self-examination; in vulgar terms a kind of condom for the mind.

[edit on 22-3-2008 by ipsedixit]