To Those Who Think 9/11 truthers are crazy

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Hey, if you want to continue playing that game, fine

I don't want to play any game, I've mearly pointed out that your generalisation of independent media sites is incorrect.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
I can play it too: I DEFY you to prove why the following article on global warming is a hoax.

I'm not playing games, but if you want to carry on, I'm still waiting for you to show what Prisonplanet.com and wattsupwiththat.com left out in order to mislead the reader about the same story the mainstream was reporting.


[edit on 25/1/2010 by Neo-V™]

I posted a link earlier to Physics911, but this is a link to their resource page.
physics911.net...
Something as important as 911 should be researched by each of us with an open mind. I suspect that many here have not given the subject more than a passing glance, but are quick to call others names.
The information is there, study up. Come to an INFORMED decision.
Note: If a retired Air Force Colonel that had a career in aircraft maintenance with experience in crash investigations writes that the planes were not identified as the ones the government claims them to be, I listen.
physics911.net...
Apparently, I am one of the few.

reply to post by Stewie


Don't forget the rental cars in airport parking lot with passports and
the hijacker identification to publish within days of 9/11/01.

That did seem surprising to say the least.
If the passengers didn't die we have an abduction of biblical proportions.

reply to post by GoodOlDave

Can we agree on that, at least?

Most definitely good sir.
Being as I am a bit of an amateur student of Rene Descartes' method of logic, as presented in his book "Rules for the Direction of the Mind", I'm a bit biased toward this approach.

It goes roughly like this: If while traveling down the road of a question, you come to a fork where you can either go left, or right. If you go left with the choice, and at ANY time you realize that Left was the wrong choice you must back-track to the point where the wrong conclusion was reached, and proceed the other way.

If this, the only other of the "obvious" choices in turn reveals itself to Also be the wrong conclusion, once again you backtrack to the original "fork", and proceed to look for the UN-obvious path..... This is the basis for unpopular ideas, imho.

I honestly think the best question any of us can ask ourselves, is At what point in our history, did the ability to believe that man can conspire for evil become equated to that person or persons being a "basket-case"?

The PNAC, while not proof, is highly suspicious.

In September 2000, neocons called for an increase in defense spending to protect the 'American Empire', stating that without public support from an event like a 'New Pearl Harbor' to boost defense spending, it would take a long time. On top of a New Pearl Harbor, they say it would also require multiple large theater wars... which they suggest against countries such as Iraq, Iran, Syria, Afghanistan... to setup permanent bases and keep the money flowing.

Now here's the part where no matter how you slice it, these Neocons had to be giddy with excitement over the amazing luck of events that would take place...

First, the fact that they would get that New Pearl Harbor exactly one year after suggesting it. Wow, that's just eerie, but AWESOME!

Second, what amazing luck that after 60 years of waiting for a New Pearl Harbor to take place on U.S. soil, that it would happen just months after these people came to power! What incredible luck! "What synchronicity!" they must have thought. "We were just talking about this very thing a year ago!" And since they just happen to be in power when this event happens, they actually get to proceed with that plan they outlined. I mean, just imagine, they must have thought, if someone else had been in charge instead of us???

Yes, indeed, the Gods must have been smiling down on those lucky Neocons.

And so what do they do? Well, what could they do with all that public support?? They follow the plan they originally outlined, of course. Start the wars, set up those permanent bases in the middle east just as they said they would. Take the oil. Increase the defense spending.

Seriously, how could these guys like Dick Cheney, Condoleeza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, Karl Rove, and William Cristol not be celebrating bigtime on 9/11/2001.

The day, their controversial dreams came true.

And I'm sure they don't even like to think about things like the melting point of steel, or the probability of two planes taking down 3 buildings in perfect demolition style or the lack of wing marks on the pentagon. It doesn't matter... Why question it... I mean, never forget... Never, but at the same time... let's keep moving forward... there are still some terrorists out there, don't you know... terrorists that would love nothing more than to kill you, or spy on you, or take your civil liberties one by one... So let's keep that defense spending coming.

Yes, I'm sure no Neocons question 9/11. You don't question the luckiest day of your life when physics and Norad both join in taking the day off. You don't question coincidences... You thank God for giving you something so special, so unique, so historical, so specifically tailored to you, at just the right time.

God Bless Neocons.




[edit on 25-1-2010 by spiritualzombie]

reply to post by spiritualzombie


Yes a lucky day indeed !?!?

So lucky, they did everything possible to make sure it happened.

reply to post by Stewie

Note: If a retired Air Force Colonel that had a career in aircraft maintenance with experience in crash investigations writes that the planes were not identified as the ones the government claims them to be, I listen.

Note: That colonel had absolutely nothing to do with the crash investigation and was not privy to the reports, nor did he visit the site. In other words, hes barking out his backside.

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by aristocrat2
US ones,

except that there were no missile batteries on the Pentagon - care to point them out? Again, where are they, what type of missiles....

The missiles batteries are a red herring. The point is that the inbound items dropped off the radar and could not be tracked. Do you think your Pentagon is utterly defenceless after 73 years of Communist threat? Of course not, but nothing tracked the inbound items.

No evidence to back this wild claim by you whatsoever.

why do you ignore the 757 undercarriage,

...Because there was NO 757 undercarriage, only parts that are obviously the wrong scale and size.

the 757 engines,

...And NO 757 engines, only parts that are obviously the wrong size.

the 757 passengers dna....

...And the convoluted chain of custody of the DNA was in no way watertight. It could have been introduced at any point by a truck driving up and saying he's some DNA samples for the autopsy. You want to belive the chain of custody was bulletproof, prove it.

Non-Nato standardised ones that still operate independently of NORAD.

once again, exactly what model radar did the base have? Why are you refusing to answer, it is because you have no clue at all...

www.independent.co.uk...

Once again, you fail to understand the basis of logical reason. The premise of the "Official story" must be watertight or it is just another theory. If "friendly" aircraft and missiles cannot be seen by Norad, they cannot be illiminated as suspects in a criminal case.

The make of the Langley radar is irrelevent, it is the fact that it is not tied into NORAD means that they can "see" friendly missiles and aircraft that others cannot.

Wromg again, Tomahawk missiles are maintained by MDBA
www.indymediascotland.org...

Wrong and irrelevant. The KBR subsidiary maintains the subs and carries out all loading, granting them full accessm and hence "OPPORTUNITY".

Nothing to see, just another "SHILL" telling lies

Originally posted by aristocrat2
The KBR subsidiary maintains the subs and carries out all loading, granting them full accessm and hence "OPPORTUNITY".

Now the "truthers" are getting even sillier, claiming that the Royal Navy were also involved in shooting a missile at the Pentagon...

Originally posted by dereks


Now the "truthers" are getting even sillier, claiming that the Royal Navy were also involved in shooting a missile at the Pentagon...

There is no audience here on these threads .

Who do you talk to in the 3rd person?

It's rather amusing , granted, but serves no purpose.

[edit on 25-1-2010 by Sean48]

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by aristocrat2
The KBR subsidiary maintains the subs and carries out all loading, granting them full accessm and hence "OPPORTUNITY".

Now the "truthers" are getting even sillier, claiming that the Royal Navy were also involved in shooting a missile at the Pentagon...

HMS Trafalgar was KNOWN to be carrying out test firings and her fire and control systems were maintained by a majority owned subsidiary of Kellogg Brown And Root, a Halliburton company.

There were only two ways to beat the Pentagon systems:-

- For someone to have switched them off or compromised them requiring a huge conspircacy.
- For the Pentagon to have been hit by a "friendly" missile as this would not have showed up on NORAD as I have repeatedly explained above. Only at a place like the US Air Force Base at Langley where radar systems pre-date NORAD. Rmember, Langley was one of the first places in America to have developed a radar system way back, In addition to which, at the time, Langley still has access and made use of the APQ-166 system installed in its B52's by Norden, now a subsidiary of Northrupp. As this APQ-166 dates back to 1970, it predates microchip technology and so would have been able to "see" HMS Trafalgar's missiles which could have been hijacked through KBR juryrigging the fire and control systems onboard when they were outfitting her in the UK. As rthose who either knowingly or, more likely unknowingly set up 9/11 would have been in the UK where people like Dr. Kelly keep coneniently disappearing and/or ending up in the morgue, covering the trail would have been easy and out of sight from the glare of highly observant 9/11 Truthers in the USA.

The situation is also similar in the case of WTC. The Turner Corporation which was by then a new subsidiary of the same multinational that had constructed Auschvitz, had privileged access to all the elevator shafts and superstructure of the WTC in the 6 months leading up to 9/11. Indeed, they had been working on it right up to the day itself. (Turner Corporation has long had close commercial links to KBR and to have allowed KBR personnel to have worked in a sub-contractor capacity would have been as nothing to them.)

I clearly remember visiting the WTC in 1990. Bored with seeing the distant view, I happened to go to one of the elevators where the doors were closed. Despite this, there wasa gap between the bottom of the door and the floor. Looking down through this I could clearly see the trusses running up along the sides of the shaft and this complies with the various reports concerning the superstructure of the WTC.

Structural engineers are not paid by a lump sum, but on a percentage of the cost of the project, so the more kit they can chuck in, the more money they make. According to Les Robertson, the structural engineer, when he visited the Japanese architect, he told him that he wanted to be able to stretch out his arms and touch two trusses on any floor, and "he was a small man" as Robertson put it.

RObertson hence designed a superstructure that was such a forest of trusses, 43 in each building as a conseqwuence, that the only thing that the architect could do was to fill that area at the core of the building with elevators, hence access to the elevators gave perfect access to the truss. Hence, KBR (and Turner Corporation) had perfect OPPORTUNITY to mount explosives upon the superstructure of each of the buildings.

If I am right, therefore, claims that the US Governement "knew" and "were involved" as generally false, as almost the whole of 9/11 could have been done by KBR, the subsidiary of Halliburton without needing to access help from the Department of Defence.

Remember, a conspiracy can only function when the number of people involved is low.

One other thought...

In standard criminology, whoever is found at the scene of the crime is considered to be a grade A suspect... so why is it that t=in the case of 9/11, some dude in a cave in Afghanistan is the prie suspect, when KBR and their associate contracting companies were at the scene of the crime?

Even in the case of the Pentagon, the cojntractors were right at the scene of the crime and the item that hit the Pentagon whould have had to dodge the contractos' huts and work equipment to hit it.

reply to post by aristocrat2


And just to play along, how did KBR manage to hijack and crash the planes into the building and also find demolition experts willing to go along with the murder of thousands of innocent civilians?

reply to post by aristocrat2

In standard criminology, whoever is found at the scene of the crime is considered to be a grade A suspect... so why is it that t=in the case of 9/11, some dude in a cave in Afghanistan is the prie suspect, when KBR and their associate contracting companies were at the scene of the crime?

Now could it be that, just maybe, because the murder weapon was a commercial jet airliner going 500 mph that the investigators concluded that anybody standing at the crash site was probably not behind the wheel?

Originally posted by blood0fheroes
It goes roughly like this: If while traveling down the road of a question, you come to a fork where you can either go left, or right. If you go left with the choice, and at ANY time you realize that Left was the wrong choice you must back-track to the point where the wrong conclusion was reached, and proceed the other way.

If this, the only other of the "obvious" choices in turn reveals itself to Also be the wrong conclusion, once again you backtrack to the original "fork", and proceed to look for the UN-obvious path..... This is the basis for unpopular ideas, imho.

In many cases, I can definitely agree with you...but to add to your analogy, suppose that when you reach that fork in the road, you met someone who had an ulterior motive for you to take a left. It really doesn't matter whether the left leads to the truth or not, he wants you to go left because taking a left means going over a toll bridge, which he collects the toll.

This is the analogy I use to describe these internet web sites tryign to convince us there';s some conspiracy afoot. For instance, when the "Loose Change" documentary shows us some blurry images of the second plane taken a mile away that (according to them) kinds sorta looks like it's launching missiles at the building before it strikes, we're definitely going to suspect something strange is going on, and of course we'll be interested in buying their books, DVD's etc...but then when we look at any of the 500 *other* videos of the second plane that show no such thing, we have to conclude it was a deliberate misinterpretation of an unclear photo as a sales gimmick. The fact that there are 500 other videos to compare it to is almost certainly known to the producers making the claim.

Therefore, the $64,000 question is this- IF you didn't know the person you met was directing you toward the toll bridge, what would te likelihood be of your taking that left?

I honestly think the best question any of us can ask ourselves, is At what point in our history, did the ability to believe that man can conspire for evil become equated to that person or persons being a "basket-case"?

Easy- when the desire to believe that man has conspired for evil overrides one's ability to think rationally. Many people consider Bush to be an evil person, but claiming that he could launch a cruise missile into the Pentagon, plant fake aircraft wreckage all over the lawn in broad daylight, trick 1,000 eyewitnesses to think they saw something entirely different, and get 10,000 journalists to go along with the fake cover story, goes way beyond his ability to produce evil. Simply saying, "he's evil, so I'm sure he could figure out a way to make two plus two equal five" is being intellectually dishonest.

I notice a major disconnect amongst the skeptics regarding 9/11. This disconnect is the asssumption that a Truther that does not believe the official story should then be able to tell you exactly what happened on 9/11.

Unfortunately, this is where a lot of Truthers trip up on their own speculation.

To question things like free-fall collapse into one's own footprint, or possible stand-down orders by Cheney, or strange situations like BBC reporting WTC7 having collapsed 23 minutes before it actually did.... Any of it... the point is... A truther recognizes there are unanswered questions.

Truthers should not be getting into the business of speculating exactly how the operation went down. That is their downfall in the discussion.

Instead keep pointing out the holes in the story, the inconsistencies, or parts that simply don't make sense, and the desire to have these questions answered.

And sorry, but when the only 'scientific' answers come from a single source (Popular Mechanics), that's just not good enough.

Point is... Truthers don't have to provide the answers, Truthers want the answers to unanswered questions.

Originally posted by hooper

Just three points, first most of the "questions" have been answered to everyone's satisfaction and they have now moved on to dealing with the impact of those answers, i.e. dealing with terrorism in the modern world.

Nine years ago there was enough anger and rage towards the West for their Democracies and Freedoms, to endorse the worlds largest acts of terrorism, as the hate fuelled fires ravished deep within them, nine years on and the atrocities and Geneva Convention breaking war crimes being committed against thousands upon thousands of innocent people, their people, the terrorists people, have inspired what acts of terrorism exactly?.....

Who are the real terrorists?, real terrorists would not sit back and take this sort of crap..........

images.google.co.uk...

If they hated us enough then to do what was alleged, then how the hell are we all still alive?.

Originally posted by aristocrat2
There were only two ways to beat the Pentagon systems

Except you still have not shown any evidence at all that the Pentagon had any such system...

For the Pentagon to have been hit by a "friendly" missile

except it was hit by a 757 plane, thus the 757 engines, undercarriage etc etc. found inside the pentagon

Langley still has access and made use of the APQ-166 system installed in its B52's by Norden,

Slight problem, Langley does not have B-52's, also that radar is for ground mapping, weather and navigation, not AI

So once again we have a "truther" talking nonsense, and having no clue at all!

reply to post by GoodOlDave


I can certainly agree with your assertion that an incomplete theory, regardless of source is nothing more than conjecture, and that many, many men would hate to "let a good tragedy go to waste". Personally I have not seen "Loose Change" but have spent the last nine ish years trying to sift fact from fiction on my own. I must say, some of the facts i've come across really do not add up. I cant remember who it was that said "terrorism is the last act of a desperate man". Having spent a good deal of time with native Afghani's and those from the neighboring countries, I find it absurd to state that "the terr'iststs attacked us cause they hates freedom". No man hates freedom; ALL men yearn for it.

As far as the official story goes, when physicists, construction workers, and demolitions experts agree that there is no possible way for the events to have taken place exactly as we have been told, well I tend to at least listen to them.

On a side note, an interesting conjecture I've just read here recently is that KBR were the ones responsible. Lets look at a little history of this company. Kellog, Brown and Root co. used to just be Brown and Root. They have had some of the biggest military contracts for at least the last 15 years if not longer. (Among other contracts they ran the best darned dining facility ive ever eaten at in camp bondsteel, Kosovo.) They are largely employed by former military members. This is most of what I know about them for fact, but I cannot say it would be outside the voice of logic to assume that a company manned by a workforce with the skills needed to accomplish this would not be able to do so. So at the very least, its an interesting idea.