9/11 Justice: Would You Accept This? (video to add perspective)

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by Asktheanimals
reply to post by Alfie1

 

True, but how do you sneak arabs onto an airplane and not have them show up on the passenger lists?
That's a pretty good trick.

That hoary old story died a death long ago. What you are referring to are "victim" lists from which the "perps" were excluded :-

www.911myths.com...

please alfie...stop quoteing 9/11myths its been proven the site has no crediblity whatsoever..your wasteing your time trying to convince us on the back of that site..



quoted from impressme research into this web site.

9/11 Myths has long been a favorite resource for skeptics and debunkers alike. Its author, Mike Williams, has compiled a collection of straw men, coupled with many distorted interpretations of valid claims. While many of Mike’s “takes” can be dismissed as patently absurd by most of us, his slimy nature and style of addressing these can be deceptive to those who are new to this material and haven’t had time to do their research. Therefore, I think it’s important that we have a thread dedicated to debunking 9/11 Myths. It’s a huge website and so I don’t know if I will ever have the time to write an entire debunk, however, if we all work together on this we’ll have Mike’s site debunked in no time!

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Click here to learn more about this warning.

Originally posted by snapperski

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by Asktheanimals
reply to post by Alfie1

 

True, but how do you sneak arabs onto an airplane and not have them show up on the passenger lists?
That's a pretty good trick.

That hoary old story died a death long ago. What you are referring to are "victim" lists from which the "perps" were excluded :-

www.911myths.com...

please alfie...stop quoteing 9/11myths its been proven the site has no crediblity whatsoever..your wasteing your time trying to convince us on the back of that site..



quoted from impressme research into this web site.

9/11 Myths has long been a favorite resource for skeptics and debunkers alike. Its author, Mike Williams, has compiled a collection of straw men, coupled with many distorted interpretations of valid claims. While many of Mike’s “takes” can be dismissed as patently absurd by most of us, his slimy nature and style of addressing these can be deceptive to those who are new to this material and haven’t had time to do their research. Therefore, I think it’s important that we have a thread dedicated to debunking 9/11 Myths. It’s a huge website and so I don’t know if I will ever have the time to write an entire debunk, however, if we all work together on this we’ll have Mike’s site debunked in no time!

www.abovetopsecret.com...

snapperski, golden opportunity then for you to prove 9/11 Myths wrong. Just show how the hi-jackers were not on the original passenger manifests. Thanks in anticipation.

Originally posted by loveguy
Hi Dave. How's it going?

I see you're still at it, good work BTW.

I'd like to ask you the same question that is in the opening thread...9-11 Justice; Would you accept this? (Video perspective). It's evident that we know your answer, but why must you persist to argue about it and bring nothing pertaining to the provided video in your arguments?

I have always made my position known- I have no objections to further investigations. Have as many investigations as you'd like. The events of the day were so surreal (not to mention, lethal) that it behooves us to know as much as we can so that it doesn't happen again. The problem isn't that I object to more investigations. The problemis that a great many of you truthers have been seduced by some specific scenario that you actually hope it's true, and you will attempt to rewrite the events of 9/11 to your liking. This person claims there were nukes in the basement. That person claims the towers were destroyed by lasers from outer space. Yet another person claims the planes were all holograms. Ever so often, I meet someone who even thinks the 9/11 attack was staged by secret cults of Satan worshipping numerologists. Whenever I point out evidence showing why it's improbable, you always say it's disinformation from secret gov't agents planted everywhere. Whenever I show why these damned fool conspiracy web sites are pulling your legs, you accuse me of being a gov't agent myself.

The question is, if the next fifteen investigations show it was a genuine terrorist attack and the buildings genuinely fell down from fire damage, do you genuinely think that such people will ever accept their findings, or do you think they'll still hold onto their conspiracies and just make up some reason off the tops of their heads why they shouldn't have to believe it?

*I* can see a direct analogy between you truthers and the plotline within the novel, "To Kill a Mockingbird" even if you cannot.

The question is, if the next fifteen investigations show it was a genuine terrorist attack and the buildings genuinely fell down from fire damage, do you genuinely think that such people will ever accept their findings

I lived in NYC on 9/11 and watched the events from the roof of my building. I smelled the acrid air for weeks after while panicking over constant threats of biological weapons (which was all the talk at the time what with our little island in such disarray) so I feel I have the right to comment. I can't even remember when I started questioning the official story but it took a few years. I've done some "research" but of course, how much is credible since all I have at my disposal is the Internet. Just within the last few weeks, I've begun to think that indeed, perhaps the buildings fell due to damage from the impact and fire and there was so much energy, they were pulvarized (which was the part I was having trouble getting my head around). But this does not explain other unanswered questions I have.

1) With 4 plane crashes in one day, why was not one of these plane's parts put through a forensic investigation by the NTSC? 2 were of course pulvarized but what of the other 2? Isn't it standard practice to collect the parts, bring them to a warehouse and put them back together so that they can be studied and catalogued?

2) If it's true that a commercial airline hit the Pentagon and everyone knows it, why have they only released 4 rather blurry videos? What would anyone gain by not releasing the rest?

3) What was Cheney talking about in the bunker when asked "Do the orders still stand?"

4) Why would the government underfund an investigation into the most major attack on American soil (ie. $40 Million for Clinton's affair, $3 million initially for 9/11)?

5) If Osama bin Laden is not wanted for 9/11, who is?

My point is, you don't need holographic airplanes or alien spacer lasers to say that there are still a lot of unanswered questions and it seems odd to me that the government would fight attempts to attain these answers and yet, in my opinion, that's exactly what they've done. I am not a "Twoofer" or a "Conspiracy Nut" or any of the other "brilliant" titles that are dished out on these forums and others and frankly, I resent the insinuation that I am one by asking questions.

reply to post by theplu

Isn't it standard practice to collect the parts, bring them to a warehouse and put them back together so that they can be studied and catalogued?

It is when they are trying to determine the cause of the crash .

My reply should be self-explanatory .

I meant NTSB of course, sorry. And yes, I considered that they figured they already knew the cause of the accident but that particular day, there was a lot of speculation on the news as to whether the planes had bombs on board as well. So I would think they would still have a thorough investigation. In any case, I just found an NTSB database which states that they punted these 4 incidences. Here is their official statement:

"The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 are under the jurisdiction of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation. The Safety Board provided requested technical assistance to the FBI, and any
material generated by the NTSB is under the control of the FBI. The Safety Board does not plan to
issue a report or open a public docket."

I can accept this so I suppose I have to let that one question go. Any thoughts on the other ones I've listed?

With 4 plane crashes in one day, why was not one of these plane's parts put through a forensic investigation by the NTSC? 2 were of course pulvarized but what of the other 2? Isn't it standard practice to collect the parts, bring them to a warehouse and put them back together so that they can be studied and catalogued?

If there had been any question as to why the planes crashed, they would have.

Consider this:
If they had spent the time and money to do this, what would the conspiracy sites be saying right now.

Likely it would be something like:
What kind of trace are they looking for if they are telling us that terrorists intentionally crashed the planes.

If one of the investigators picked his nose the truthers would question his motives. Just look at some of the minutia they are bringing up. Disappearing wings and such.

Originally posted by samkent

With 4 plane crashes in one day, why was not one of these plane's parts put through a forensic investigation by the NTSC? 2 were of course pulvarized but what of the other 2? Isn't it standard practice to collect the parts, bring them to a warehouse and put them back together so that they can be studied and catalogued?

If there had been any question as to why the planes crashed, they would have.

Consider this:
If they had spent the time and money to do this, what would the conspiracy sites be saying right now.

Likely it would be something like:
What kind of trace are they looking for if they are telling us that terrorists intentionally crashed the planes.

If one of the investigators picked his nose the truthers would question his motives. Just look at some of the minutia they are bringing up. Disappearing wings and such.

edit on 9-11-2010 by samkent because: spelling

Consider this: If they had spent the time and money to do this, what would the conspiracy sites be saying right now.

we would be saying nothing,because it would have been done properly but it wasn't.

Likely it would be something like: What kind of trace are they looking for if they are telling us that terrorists intentionally crashed the planes.

once again,trying to put words in our mouths.why dont you answer the questions that the person above asked..big 9/11 guru.

honestly are you bringing anything to the topic,or just trying to do character assassination,thats all you can do samkent,you just try and belittle people with your pointless comments....this is why no one takes you seriously

Originally posted by theplu
But this does not explain other unanswered questions I have.

1) With 4 plane crashes in one day, why was not one of these plane's parts put through a forensic investigation by the NTSC? 2 were of course pulvarized but what of the other 2? Isn't it standard practice to collect the parts, bring them to a warehouse and put them back together so that they can be studied and catalogued?

2) If it's true that a commercial airline hit the Pentagon and everyone knows it, why have they only released 4 rather blurry videos? What would anyone gain by not releasing the rest?

3) What was Cheney talking about in the bunker when asked "Do the orders still stand?"

4) Why would the government underfund an investigation into the most major attack on American soil (ie. $40 Million for Clinton's affair, $3 million initially for 9/11)?

5) If Osama bin Laden is not wanted for 9/11, who is?

All right, fair enough...

1) No, they don't do this every time. They do this when there's an investigation into why the plane had crashed, so they put it back together to see if they can find tell-tale clues in the structure. They already know why the four hijacked planes had crashed so they aren't going to put them back together simply for the sake of putting them back together.

2) The Pentagon isn't going to train a camera on every nearby storm drain and trash basket. Security would only train cameras on high traffic areas like entrances, hallways, parking lots, and security gates, 'cause this is where most of the anticipated trouble is going to be. Flight 77 hit a section of blank wall facing an empty front lawn so there'd be no reason for why there would even be a camera there.

3) Norm Mineta's own testimony to the 9/11 Commission report shows this was in reference to the grounding order of all civilian air traffic.

4) The 9/11 commission was essentially a hearing where people came in and told what they knew. How much money could such an thing actually cost?

5) This factoid comes from the truther drivel that OBL isn't on the FBI's most wanted list. This is because to be on the FBI's most wanted list they need to first file charges in a public civilian court. The gov't has always made it clear they want to try Bin Laden in a military court so they can keep the trial behind closed doors.

My point is, you don't need holographic airplanes or alien spacer lasers to say that there are still a lot of unanswered questions and it seems odd to me that the government would fight attempts to attain these answers and yet, in my opinion, that's exactly what they've done. I am not a "Twoofer" or a "Conspiracy Nut" or any of the other "brilliant" titles that are dished out on these forums and others and frankly, I resent the insinuation that I am one by asking questions.

...and MY point is that most of the questions being asked are either based upon false assumptions, or are questions that have already been answered years ago. It's just that characters like Dylan Avery, Alex Jones, and David Ray Griffin are unrepentent con artists and they're not going to tell you that.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by loveguy
Hi Dave. How's it going?

I see you're still at it, good work BTW.

I'd like to ask you the same question that is in the opening thread...9-11 Justice; Would you accept this? (Video perspective). It's evident that we know your answer, but why must you persist to argue about it and bring nothing pertaining to the provided video in your arguments?

I have always made my position known- I have no objections to further investigations. Have as many investigations as you'd like. The events of the day were so surreal (not to mention, lethal) that it behooves us to know as much as we can so that it doesn't happen again. The problem isn't that I object to more investigations. The problemis that a great many of you truthers have been seduced by some specific scenario that you actually hope it's true, and you will attempt to rewrite the events of 9/11 to your liking. This person claims there were nukes in the basement. That person claims the towers were destroyed by lasers from outer space. Yet another person claims the planes were all holograms. Ever so often, I meet someone who even thinks the 9/11 attack was staged by secret cults of Satan worshipping numerologists. Whenever I point out evidence showing why it's improbable, you always say it's disinformation from secret gov't agents planted everywhere. Whenever I show why these damned fool conspiracy web sites are pulling your legs, you accuse me of being a gov't agent myself.

The question is, if the next fifteen investigations show it was a genuine terrorist attack and the buildings genuinely fell down from fire damage, do you genuinely think that such people will ever accept their findings, or do you think they'll still hold onto their conspiracies and just make up some reason off the tops of their heads why they shouldn't have to believe it?

*I* can see a direct analogy between you truthers and the plotline within the novel, "To Kill a Mockingbird" even if you cannot.

Hi Dave. Thanks for your reply.

So, are you willing to join the fight for a new investigation? I don't drink beer, but I'll buy you one; even before the investigation get's underway. Because; like you said not everyone will accept the out-come. I believe that a believable out-come would be found by the investigators whose only stake in it would be to resolving the issues forced upon us by the previous parties.

Let this new investigation be conducted not by any (SIG), but actually a forum of both sides of the argument. Let's kill this "Mockingbird" shall we?

Originally posted by theplu

The question is, if the next fifteen investigations show it was a genuine terrorist attack and the buildings genuinely fell down from fire damage, do you genuinely think that such people will ever accept their findings

I lived in NYC on 9/11 and watched the events from the roof of my building. I smelled the acrid air for weeks after while panicking over constant threats of biological weapons (which was all the talk at the time what with our little island in such disarray) so I feel I have the right to comment. I can't even remember when I started questioning the official story but it took a few years. I've done some "research" but of course, how much is credible since all I have at my disposal is the Internet. Just within the last few weeks, I've begun to think that indeed, perhaps the buildings fell due to damage from the impact and fire and there was so much energy, they were pulvarized (which was the part I was having trouble getting my head around). But this does not explain other unanswered questions I have.

1) With 4 plane crashes in one day, why was not one of these plane's parts put through a forensic investigation by the NTSC? 2 were of course pulvarized but what of the other 2? Isn't it standard practice to collect the parts, bring them to a warehouse and put them back together so that they can be studied and catalogued?

2) If it's true that a commercial airline hit the Pentagon and everyone knows it, why have they only released 4 rather blurry videos? What would anyone gain by not releasing the rest?

3) What was Cheney talking about in the bunker when asked "Do the orders still stand?"

4) Why would the government underfund an investigation into the most major attack on American soil (ie. $40 Million for Clinton's affair, $3 million initially for 9/11)?

5) If Osama bin Laden is not wanted for 9/11, who is?

My point is, you don't need holographic airplanes or alien spacer lasers to say that there are still a lot of unanswered questions and it seems odd to me that the government would fight attempts to attain these answers and yet, in my opinion, that's exactly what they've done. I am not a "Twoofer" or a "Conspiracy Nut" or any of the other "brilliant" titles that are dished out on these forums and others and frankly, I resent the insinuation that I am one by asking questions.

You forgot the issue with the flight recorders of the planes involved, how they are not available to be reviewed.

reply to post by samkent



So you have no information to add to the conversation. I'm not sure why you even took the time to write this as it is pointless and misleading.

All right, fair enough...

1) No, they don't do this every time. They do this when there's an investigation into why the plane had crashed, so they put it back together to see if they can find tell-tale clues in the structure. They already know why the four hijacked planes had crashed so they aren't going to put them back together simply for the sake of putting them back together.

As stated in a subsequent post, with the speculation that there were also bombs on board, I would think they would investigate to determine if that were true but who knows.

2) The Pentagon isn't going to train a camera on every nearby storm drain and trash basket. Security would only train cameras on high traffic areas like entrances, hallways, parking lots, and security gates, 'cause this is where most of the anticipated trouble is going to be. Flight 77 hit a section of blank wall facing an empty front lawn so there'd be no reason for why there would even be a camera there.

Perhaps. But I won't take your speculation as fact any more than I would someone who claims that a plane didn't hit the pentagon.

3) Norm Mineta's own testimony to the 9/11 Commission report shows this was in reference to the grounding order of all civilian air traffic.

I have never heard this explanation before and can't find confirmation of it. Do you have a source on this? My understanding was that his testimony was also left out of the final Commission Report.

4) The 9/11 commission was essentially a hearing where people came in and told what they knew. How much money could such an thing actually cost?

From TIME Magazine dated March 23, 2003: "Sources tell TIME that the White House brushed off a request quietly made last week by the 9-11 Commission Chairman Tom Kean, the Republican former governor of New Jersey, to boost his budget by $11 million. Kean had sought the funding as part of the $75 billion supplemental spending bill that the president just requested to pay for war with Iraq. Bush's recent move has miffed some members of the 9-11 panel."

www.time.com...

They eventually did get the $11 million bringing the total to $14 million (versus $50 million to investigate the Challenger shuttle explosion and $40 for Clinton's indiscretions with an intern) so I don't know... I guess these things actually cost an awful lot.

5) This factoid comes from the truther drivel that OBL isn't on the FBI's most wanted list. This is because to be on the FBI's most wanted list they need to first file charges in a public civilian court. The gov't has always made it clear they want to try Bin Laden in a military court so they can keep the trial behind closed doors.

Again, I have never heard this. I just did several Internet searches and the only thing I can find is the following: "Rex Tomb of the FBI’s public affairs unit says, “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Osama bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11.” Apparently, then the Washington Post picked up on this and said that it's "because he has not been indicted for it" which is a stretch from the details you've gone into.

Source: www.historycommons.org...

...and MY point is that most of the questions being asked are either based upon false assumptions, or are questions that have already been answered years ago. It's just that characters like Dylan Avery, Alex Jones, and David Ray Griffin are unrepentent con artists and they're not going to tell you that.

Sorry but I don't think that you've proven your premise that the questions are based upon false assumptions or have been answered years ago. Also, you can't seem to make a statement on here without trying to making a connection between "fair" (your word) questions and some wider movement in the attempt to discredit anyone who has questions. You clearly have as much of an agenda as the gentlemen you listed above - why else would you spend your time on a 9/11 Conspiracy Theory forum if you think you already have all the answers - so I take your input with a grain of salt (as I do anything I read on the Internet).

Originally posted by snapperski

Observation:

GoodOlDave

those damned fool conspiracy web sites

dereks

You really should not believe the damn fool conspiracy sites

odd how you both have very similar writing style,i've notice this quite a bit...Hmmmmmm ?

I just made that exact same comment to myself a minute ago.
They are always on the same thread Ive noticed. Where there is one, there is the other.