9/11 for Dummies?

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
How do we explain Newtonian physics to high school kids for the next 1000 years?

Why should we have to?

Seriously.

One would assume someone wouldn't get into an argument about something they don't understand in the first place, but on the internet there are no real standards except the forum rules so..

It's called education. My first physics course was in high school but it wasn't very good.

There seems to be a large number of people that either can't figure out that they don't understand or they are liars.

And some claim to be physics teachers or to have a masters degree in the subject.

I regard 9/11 as the Piltdown Man incident of the 21st century. People claiming to understand physics have let this crap go on. And the silent majority has allowed it also.

psik

Originally posted by psikeyhackr


It's called education. My first physics course was in high school but it wasn't very good.

There seems to be a large number of people that either can't figure out that they don't understand or they are liars.

And some claim to be physics teachers or to have a masters degree in the subject.

I regard 9/11 as the Piltdown Man incident of the 21st century. People claiming to understand physics have let this crap go on. And the silent majority has allowed it also.

psik

The great majority of people are WAY below average, and like it that way.

I was once a friend of the "Majority Leader" of the US House of Representatives. He was a very dumb man, and didn't hide it well.

Can you imagine anything more boring than being "Marjority Leader" of anything?

[edit on 13-2-2010 by etcorngods]

Originally posted by etcorngods

The great majority of people are WAY below average

That is a statistically interesting statement.

psik

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Concern: "9/11 was an Inside Job" vs "9/11 was no Inside Job"...

Im a 9/11 noob. My mind is 100% unpolluted by both sides of this argument. Im impressionable and wide open to any side.

Do you think it would be possible to speak to me like a Dummy so that I understand your side? That is -

* In short posts
* In your own words
* Without a bunch of links
* In a summarizing-way
* Without wasting time/space putting others down
* Just the facts as you understand them?

Hi Skyfloating, I will give it a try.

I won’t come up this time with all the usual reasons for why I believe that "9/11 was an Inside Job" because many of them are already posted here.

I just want try to convince the dummy with some thoughts for why alone it seems very logical to me for why Osama bin Laden would/could never have done 9/11 in the first place.

1. Why would he, who once was a powerful and therefore very useful ally [friend???] of America from whom he received all the necessary means to kick those Russians out of Afghanistan back then do such a thing, because he must surely have realized that he only could lose tremendously by such an act?

[Just as the Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto realized and said after his attack on Pearl Harbor, "I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve."]

Osama bin Laden

Al Qaeda was founded in 1988 by Osama bin Laden to consolidate the international network he established during the Afghan war. Its goals were the advancement of Islamic revolutions throughout the Muslim world and repelling foreign intervention in the Middle East.

Bin Laden, son of a billionaire Saudi businessman, became involved in the fight against the Soviet Union’s invasion and occupation of Afghanistan, which lasted from 1979 to 1988 and ended with a Soviet defeat at the hands of international militias of Muslim fighters backed by the U.S.

www.adl.org...

2. He wasn’t/isn’t a stupid unintelligent man, so he surely must have realized himself very well that when he would attack America the way of where he after that was accused his family over there [in America] would be in very great danger then. So if he really would have planned it, he first would have taken out his family there. [Strangely enough, it was after 911 that his family was despite all that has happened permitted to leave America.???]

The bin Ladens’ Great Escape
How the U.S. helped Osama's family leave the country after 9/11.

www.nationalreview.com...

3. He could in my opinion not have known in any way that on that particular day coincidently ??? the world’s most powerful and most advanced air force would held large scaled exercises for as a result of that it was in a way completely defenseless against any sort of attacks.??? Such a situation would/could only be allowed/created due people/powers who knew what would going to happen that day from out America itself.

4. If he really would have wanted attacking America for some reason, he most logically would have done it with one plain and a very well prepared plan because of the normally very well secured American airspace. And I think that anyone who is familiar with the flight capabilities of those Boeing 757 planes would never have planned an attack at such a low building as the pentagon.

5. Is it not very naïve to think that people who had just learned due some lessons how to fly a small training plane would therefore be able to fly so easy and precise a giant plane like the Boeing 757?

6. And how then where they able to know exactly where they are and where they must going.

I know these thoughts aren’t any proof in any way that he not did it then, but together with all the other information I have read and seen I am shore that it was not done the way and by whom the American government wants us all to believe.



[edit on 14/2/10 by spacevisitor]

reply to post by spacevisitor


Don't forget that OBL also claimed in multiple interviews that he wasn't responsible for 9/11 and his best guesses were to look to either to Israel or the US government itself. And that the first OBL tape where he "admitted" to being involved with 9/11 was "found" by the US military in a bombed-out basement of a house in an Afghani town, which they said was a 'home movie' kind of VHS that OBL didn't mean for mass media broadcast.

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by spacevisitor

 

Don't forget that OBL also claimed in multiple interviews that he wasn't responsible for 9/11 and his best guesses were to look to either to Israel or the US government itself. And that the first OBL tape where he "admitted" to being involved with 9/11 was "found" by the US military in a bombed-out basement of a house in an Afghani town, which they said was a 'home movie' kind of VHS that OBL didn't mean for mass media broadcast.

Right, thanks for mentioning that, I saw that so called OBL tape, and from the moment I saw it I got the very strong impression that something was not right, that it looks not real, that it was more a manipulated fake, the same as they have done in my opinion with that pentagon tape.

All the footage from those other pentagon security cameras and even a few cameras on other buildings close to the pentagon were confiscated that day and disappeared strangely enough completely.

So, they were able to “find” that still playable tape where Osama Bin Laden "admitted" [which he did not in my opinion] to being involved with 9/11 in a bombed-out basement of a house in Afghanistan, they were even also able to “find” human DNA material originating from flesh or bone from as they claim 13 of the 19 Al Qaeda terrorist hijackers from the plane that slammed into the pentagon and how unbelievable it sounds even from those planes that slammed into the towers, but they are strangely enough not able to present the 9/11 Aircraft 'Black Box' Serial Numbers because they where mysteriously absent and all the confiscated footage from all these other camera’s around the pentagon which could proof without a doubt that a Boeing 757 did crashed in there.

That alone is very suspicious indeed in my opinion.




[edit on 15/2/10 by spacevisitor]

reply to post by bsbray11


Yep, dont forget those rascals in the US Army...they were in on it too.

Is there anyone you DONT hate?

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999


Will you ever the rules of formal logic?

Or are you eternally damned to asking loaded questions without even realizing it?

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by etcorngods

The great majority of people are WAY below average

That is a statistically interesting statement.

psik

And 75% of all statistics are made up.

reply to post by bsbray11


I dont know, will you ever get over your habit of assuming that everybody was in on it?

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999


Again with the total misunderstanding.

It wouldn't take every freaking soldier on the ground to fake a video and say the army found it in a bombed-out building. Not even a tiny fraction.

But you know, I'm tired of explaining common sense to you. You can think what you want Swampy, you'll just never get it. Now go on about your day, just pretend you "won" this debate with your brilliant insight.

reply to post by bsbray11

Again with the total misunderstanding.

No misunderstanding at all. Just my pigeonholing style I use for people that believe some of the ridiculous things on here.

Of course, you thinking the tape was faked and then planted...does add more people to the conspiracy. Its a list that gets bigger and bigger every day.

reply to post by Skyfloating


For "Skyfloating"....

Possibly the best definitive easy-to-understand documentary about the whole 9/11 falderal is something that just repeated, last night, in my area on the History Channel --- "9/11 Conspiracies: Fact or Fiction?"

At the end, it clearly blows up ALL of these so-called 'conspiracies'.

And, they offer the DVD for sale on their website....but, if you have cable or Sat TV, you can catch the show for free---hopefully.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
At the end, it clearly blows up ALL of these so-called 'conspiracies'.

Just to bad we still do not have the truth of what really happened either.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
At the end, it clearly blows up ALL of these so-called 'conspiracies'.

And, they offer the DVD for sale on their website....but, if you have cable or Sat TV, you can catch the show for free---hopefully.

Just out of curiosity, you wouldn't happen to be one of those people who believe so many detailed documentaries or books like "Crossing the Rubicon" were written just to make money because they are for sale, are you?

Because I see that allegation thrown around a lot and very loosely. Just trying to spark some critical thinking here.

reply to post by bsbray11

...books like "Crossing the Rubicon"...

Not sure where your question was headed...

I was typing a reply, first time, and lost it, so will try again.

You mentioned that book title, which (although the phrase was familiar) I had not heard of a book by that title, so "googling" it, it came up on Amazon.com

the phrase 'crossing the Rubicon' ALSO came up....

en.wikipedia.org...

Much to ponder --- as well as, what was your point???

(...of no return...)

reply to post by weedwhacker


Hmm, I didn't even get a straight answer out of you.

If you can't see what the "point" would be in endorsing some books/documentaries being sold about 9/11, but dismissing others out of hand because they are also being sold, then don't even worry about it. I'll save you the effort of trying to defend your hypocrisy today.

reply to post by bsbray11

Hmm, I didn't even get a straight answer out of you.

Ummm...I told you, the reference to the "rubicon" was lost on me, thought I was clear on that.

... but dismissing others...

(inserting here, editorial word from 'weedwhacker'..."books")

out of hand because they are also being sold, then don't even worry about it.

OK...still, having not read the "Rubicon" book....I still see no hyprocrisy....

I mean, I will gladly critiscize ANYTHING and EVERYTHING written by, oh just for example, Ann Coulter as pure pablum, and all FOR PROFIT, and not having one iota of TRUTH on any page!!!

AND, no, and yes, I realize that she/he(?) ((horse whinny in the background sound effect)) may not seem to be a candidate for derision, in the 9/11 field of discussions....EXCEPT for her vile and hateful remarks at one time, about 9/11 "widows"...so, she is fair game for ridicule, based on that nastiness she displayed.

OF course, as well, any and all books that tried to explain the relaity of those events, (9/11) also were written for profit....the BIG difference is the REASON for the book, in the first place!!!

SOME were written, perhaps in hopes of a Pulitzer, or other acclaim...(and for profit, of course) BUT based on actual reporting of ACTUAL factual events....

BIG DIFFERENCE in motivation factors, there!!!!

(because, writing based only on 'gossip' or 'innunedo' is best left to the likes of Jaqueline Suzanne, or Jackie Collins, and their ilk ....)

reply to post by weedwhacker


So this is your reasoning.

a) Some books/documentaries are written to disseminate information ('reporting', etc.).
b) Some books/documentaries are written to win awards.
c) Some books/documentaries are ONLY written for profit.


If you like what a book or documentary says, even if it's being sold and some companies and the author(s) are making money from it, then you ignore the fact that people are profiting from it and just say it's a service to people, informational, etc. Ie the fact that people are making money from it doesn't even come into question, and is a non-issue, even though people are.

If and when you DON'T like a book or documentary says, then you don't consider anyone was trying to raise awareness or disseminate information, and you simply focus on the fact that someone is making money and say that's the REAL reason this documentary/book is being marketed. Even if it IS also disseminating information and raising public awareness.

reply to post by bsbray11

So this is your reasoning.

NO.

That is YOUR interpretation, and "spin", in order to attempt to refute and/or discredit anything I contribute in this forum, and on this topic, just to gain a "gotcha" sense of well-being, for yourself.

ANY reasonable person knows that when a book is written, and intended for publication to a mass audience, it is for profit. That should be obvious.

Regardless of the subject or topic.

There are a LOT of really, really BAD books out there, that still manage to sell.

On the other hand, there are many, many scholarly papers written not-for-profit, but for the benefit of the author to achieve notoriety, in his/her field of expertise. OR, as part of a doctoral dissertation, or what have you.

Sometimes, a written document merely seeks the approval of peers.

However, in today's society, the lure of hte quick buck is ever-present.....and everyone, regardless of their stance on any given topic, may wish to "cash in" if at all possible.

It is up to the discerning reader to tell the difference.