How did we know...

reply to post by hdutton


Well, first, research the documents used in the Moussari trial. There you will find the actual flight manifests, which list 18 of the 19 hijackers...Hani Hanjour is the sole exception. You will also find the Airfone records showing some of the phone calls made. In addition you will find that SOMEONE called the Solicitor General's ( Ted Olson) office from flight 77. You will also find statements from Olson's secretary that it was Barbara Olson who called, and statements from the FBI stating it was Ms Olson who.made those calls.

Originally posted by maxella1

Originally posted by huh2142

Originally posted by maxella1
reply to post by huh2142

 

The Bush/Cheney testifying before Congress under oath is a Separation of Powers issue and setting a bad precedent. You have the Legislative branch questioning the Executive branch. This leads to the slippery slope argument that in the future when Congress objects to the Presidents' actions they can be hauled in front of Congress to be questioned/interrogated

Wouldn't wanna set a bad precedent of making them tell the truth. How do you feel about the precedent they set after 9/11 ( patriot act) ?

I want our leaders to tell the truth. I want to know the truth. In this case there is a conflict between maintaining the integrity of the system and truth and the system won. Like I wrote in my previous post, politicians will protect each other. They have a sweet deal and they don't want it gone no matter how much they complain it is broken. This very typical of all ruling elite. They hold power until forced to give it up.

Could you clarify what you mean by bad precedent set by the Patriot Act? Pretty much every single piece of legislation passed restricts our freedoms to a certain extent.

How about the unprecedented expansion of search and surveillance authority?
How about an unprecedented amount of power to arrest and to detain people who were thought to be terrorists or who were suspected of having information about a threat. And subject some of them to military tribunals?

I know that John Ashcroft argued that all of that has been done by previous Administrations. But am I wrong to think that the Patriot Act set new precedent for the future Administrations?

OK so your definition of a bad precedent is one you do not like. I agree that the Patriot Act is a stepping stone to future restrictions of freedoms by future administrations. In my opinion, ObamaCare is another bad precedent that will restrict our freedoms.

Back to the topic of 9/11 conspiracies. No matter how bad a precedent you believe the Patriot Act is, accusing the government of blowing up WTC 1, 2 & 7, faking a plane crash into the Pentagon and other assorted conspiracies based on innuendo and incredulity is not the way to reverse the Patriot Act. Patriot Act is a political action and therefore requires a political solution. You are trying to solve the problem with the wrong tools and in doing so you make yourself appear to be a loony which further limits your ability to affect change.

reply to post by huh2142

OK so your definition of a bad precedent is one you do not like. I agree that the Patriot Act is a stepping stone to future restrictions of freedoms by future administrations. In my opinion, ObamaCare is another bad precedent that will restrict our freedoms. Back to the topic of 9/11 conspiracies. No matter how bad a precedent you believe the Patriot Act is, accusing the government of blowing up WTC 1, 2 & 7, faking a plane crash into the Pentagon and other assorted conspiracies based on innuendo and incredulity is not the way to reverse the Patriot Act. Patriot Act is a political action and therefore requires a political solution. You are trying to solve the problem with the wrong tools and in doing so you make yourself appear to be a loony which further limits your ability to affect change.

You are the one who started talking about setting a bad precedent as an excuse for Bush and Cheney "testifying" to the Commission. And what the hell do you mean my definition of a bad precedent is one that i don't like? Am I the only one that doesn't like it? ObamaCare? really? compared to the Patriot Act ObamaCare is nothing.
Accusing the government of covering up the truth about 9/11 is what I'm doing. You people make me sick, trying to look all smart and shi*.

Be specific what makes me appear to be loony?

Originally posted by BobM88
reply to post by BobM88

 

Because this is important to me...I want to know others' opinions, so I'm reposting my own from a few minutes ago in this thread...

Here you go, lots of opinions from people who were there ...

whatreallyhappened.com...

Originally posted by maxella1
reply to post by huh2142

 

OK so your definition of a bad precedent is one you do not like. I agree that the Patriot Act is a stepping stone to future restrictions of freedoms by future administrations. In my opinion, ObamaCare is another bad precedent that will restrict our freedoms. Back to the topic of 9/11 conspiracies. No matter how bad a precedent you believe the Patriot Act is, accusing the government of blowing up WTC 1, 2 & 7, faking a plane crash into the Pentagon and other assorted conspiracies based on innuendo and incredulity is not the way to reverse the Patriot Act. Patriot Act is a political action and therefore requires a political solution. You are trying to solve the problem with the wrong tools and in doing so you make yourself appear to be a loony which further limits your ability to affect change.

You are the one who started talking about setting a bad precedent as an excuse for Bush and Cheney "testifying" to the Commission. And what the hell do you mean my definition of a bad precedent is one that i don't like? Am I the only one that doesn't like it? ObamaCare? really? compared to the Patriot Act ObamaCare is nothing.
Accusing the government of covering up the truth about 9/11 is what I'm doing. You people make me sick, trying to look all smart and shi*.

Be specific what makes me appear to be loony?

The bad precedent I was talking about is the Executive branch testifying under oath to the Legislative branch. That is my understanding of the argument put forth by Bush & Cheney to avoid testifying under oath in that circumstance. I'm not a lawyer or knowledgeable enough about constitutional law to agree or disagree with their actions. Bush & Cheney did testify. It appears that you did not understand my original post on that subject.

Accusing the government of malfeasance (doing bad things) based on your incredulity and innuendo makes you appear loony. You see links that no rational person would see.

reply to post by huh2142

Accusing the government of malfeasance (doing bad things) based on your incredulity and innuendo makes you appear loony. You see links that no rational person would see.

Specify what links I see that no rational person would !

Originally posted by DeadSeraph

The only one claimed to be recovered is from the Pennsylvania crash, and even that is littered with questions.

As expected, this is a lie.

The recorders at the Pentagon were also recovered.

Originally posted by DeadSeraph
3 out of 4 black boxes not being recovered yet a passport on the street is, and you are asking HER/HIM to follow up?

edit on 22-6-2012 by DeadSeraph because: (no reason given)

You might want to research flight 1771. It crashed near Cayucos, California, doing 700mph when it crased into the ground.

A myrder/suicide note, hand written on an airsick bag, was found, written by the guy who shot the pilots.

Stuff survives fiery crashes.

Learn something troother.

Originally posted by skycowboy

heated steel BENDS,,,

It will buckle

not compressing into itself

Well that didn't happen, so now what do you think?

The columns broke apart at the splices.

which is what would have to happen for a building that size to freefall into it's own footprint

This is a lie.

You have nothing to back up this statement other than bald assertion.

Originally posted by skycowboy

Answer is No, but the steel columns would BEND and that would throw the structure into the street

No.

Columns would fracture after about 8 degrees of rotation.

Oh by the way, I'm an Ironworker/Welder. Launch pads and roller coasters

Iron workers are the jobs that the uneducated take cuz, well, they;re uneducated.

Therefore, your opinion of what would happen means nothing.

Originally posted by BobM88

The structure was designed to resist exterior forces, not force from directly above.

Bingo !!

It was designed to have air - which has weight - ramming into it during a hurricane. It was NOT designed to have something falling onto it.

It was assumed that the structure would remain intact vertically, and damage would come at a face horizontally...that's my understanding, and why I can understand the pancake effect we saw.

Exactly

Originally posted by skycowboy

Understand that steel columns do NOT collapse straight down into themselves.

This is correct.

However, no one other than you is suggesting that this MUST have taken place.

They bend some, then they fracture, then the ends pass by each other.

They would bend making the building fall over, not straight down.

Laughable

Dynamic load vs static load ?

Yes.

This is the key.

Learn it.

Originally posted by Fluffaluffagous

Originally posted by DeadSeraph
3 out of 4 black boxes not being recovered yet a passport on the street is, and you are asking HER/HIM to follow up?

edit on 22-6-2012 by DeadSeraph because: (no reason given)

You might want to research flight 1771. It crashed near Cayucos, California, doing 700mph when it crased into the ground.

A myrder/suicide note, hand written on an airsick bag, was found, written by the guy who shot the pilots.

Stuff survives fiery crashes.

Learn something troother.

a myrder/suicide note? troother?

How the hell do you expect anyone to take you seriously?

And at what point did I say it would be impossible for a passport to survive a crash?

Originally posted by Atlantien
A passport survives an inferno to land on a sidewalk to be picked up.

You don't know this.

I say it escaped the inferno and was blown into the street along with all the other intact paper.

Originally posted by DeadSeraph

How the hell do you expect anyone to take you seriously?

Cuz I can back up what I claim.

en.wikipedia.org...

And at what point did I say it would be impossible for a passport to survive a crash?

So then you admit that it is not out of the ordinary. Good.

So then on what basis are you questioning it?

Why would anyone read about a handwritten suicide note surviving a similar plane crash, and then give your incredulity any weight?

Anyone that would is already deluding themslf is the answer.

Originally posted by Fluffaluffagous

Originally posted by DeadSeraph

How the hell do you expect anyone to take you seriously?

Cuz I can back up what I claim.

en.wikipedia.org...

And at what point did I say it would be impossible for a passport to survive a crash?

So then you admit that it is not out of the ordinary. Good.

So then on what basis are you questioning it?

Why would anyone read about a handwritten suicide note surviving a similar plane crash, and then give your incredulity any weight?

Anyone that would is already deluding themslf is the answer.

Perhaps if you had bothered to consider my point or quote the entirety of the text it might help you understand what I was trying to say?

How likely is it that a passport (likely in one of the hijackers pockets) is blown out of the plane and the building with no fire damage after the plane it was traveling in (fully loaded with fuel) impacted the world trade center, yet the black box of the plane did NOT survive, and was unable to be recovered? Of course it's not impossible. It's not impossible that aliens will land on the white house lawn tomorrow morning. Does that mean it will happen?

Furthermore, how likely is it that this same passport escaped damage from the very burning jet fuel the OS claims weakened the structural steel of the tower enough to initiate a complete implosion/collapse of the building practically into it's own foot print? What is the likelihood that this would happen not once, but three times that day, with all of the buildings collapsing straight into themselves?

I'm pretty sure if you had a statistician calculate all of the little nuances that must fit together to make the OS fit what happened that day, the odds would be astronomical. But I guess we can throw occam's razor out the window when it challenges what the government tells us.

Rather, we can just reapply it because we aren't comfortable with the evidence and suggest hijackers with box cutters who couldn't even fly cessna's pulled off the greatest attack on american soil in history, because it is apparently simpler (on the surface) than the alternative: The U.S Government lied to it's people.

Originally posted by DeadSeraph

we aren't comfortable with the evidence and suggest hijackers with box cutters who couldn't even fly cessna's pulled off the greatest attack on american soil in history,

So who do you think did it ? Can you give us some names and tell us how they did it ?

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by DeadSeraph

we aren't comfortable with the evidence and suggest hijackers with box cutters who couldn't even fly cessna's pulled off the greatest attack on american soil in history,

So who do you think did it ? Can you give us some names and tell us how they did it ?

I don't claim to know who did it or even how it was done. All I claim is that it doesn't add up, and we aren't being told the truth. Men and women far more intelligent than I have presented ample enough evidence of that. There is practically a mountain of evidence on BOTH sides. That's enough for me to conclude that the official story doesn't hold water. While I'm still uncertain if that indicates a cover up of incompetence, compliance, or direct involvement on the part of the U.S government, it's enough to leave me asking questions.

I literally just started watching "Loose Change" on Netflix...seems pretty good.

reply to post by BobM88


It's not I'm afraid. It's bad enough that so far they've made 5 different versions, all with different claims and different takes on the subject.

Please please take the time to read at least the summaries of the NIST reports and the 911 commission. They contain a lot of valuable information that you won't find if you only watch the pro-conspiracy documentaries.