Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So, you can clearly see that he didn't "change his story 180 degrees." The producers of Loose Change took a quote out of context and spoon fed it to you, and you lapped it right up.
Ten seconds on Google is all it took to locate the transcript. Why should we accept that you've put any real effort into investigating anything related to what happened on 9/11? (Watching Loose Change doesn't count, you know).
Nice work. I thought it sounded as if that clip started rather abruptly. So, one piece of misinformation down, a few thousand to go.
Which neatly illustrates the problem with conspiracy theories in general. That's 30 seconds of video, and it takes, what - 10 minutes and 2-3 posts to refute. For a one-hour video, assuming the same bunk/debunk ratio, we end up with about 20 hours of debunking effort and a couple of hundred posts. All of which will be undone when the next poster comes in and starts over. It's a losing battle, so what am I doing here?
Stop asking people that you have no intention of believing and look for yourself. YOURS are the only eyes that count.
I have. I see ejecta from a collapsing building.
I have yet to see any evidence of explosives, much less charges on every floor - which by the way would be yet another example of a needlessly complicated conspiracy. Why wire every floor for detonation? It increases the risk for discovery manyfold and, going by controlled demolitions elsewhere, simply isn't necessary. It's - stupid.
There's only one reason to see the shockwave propagation as "squibs" - a desire to find evidence for explosives.
No, 30 years of studying history that provides the the historical evidence of many engineered, false flag events designed to promote political agendas. A perspective which you obviously lack.
Sorry. 757-200 ... 124 ft wingspan, 155 ft length and 45 ft high ... is not a small plane compared to the 767 which has 156 ft wing .. 176 ft length, and only marginally larger, and changes nothing..
This is your great evidence ? This is your logic? The 757-200 is a jumbo jet ... the 767 is a jumbo jet ... the 747 is a jumbo jet.
And the "her" you refer to .. are you talking about Jamie McIntyre claiming no jet hit anywhere near the pentagon? Jamie is a HE .. HE IS ON THE VIDEO that you apparently didn't bother to watch.
What a load of nonsense and hair splitting.
So not knowing the correct plane is hair splitting. Seemed if you studies so much you would know the correct plane
and her is a list of Jumbo jets. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jumbo_jet
757 is not listed.
one thing that disproves conspiracy is grasp of the basic facts
Nice work. I thought it sounded as if that clip started rather abruptly. So, one piece of misinformation down, a few thousand to go.
Which neatly illustrates the problem with conspiracy theories in general. That's 30 seconds of video, and it takes, what - 10 minutes and 2-3 posts to refute. For a one-hour video, assuming the same bunk/debunk ratio, we end up with about 20 hours of debunking effort and a couple of hundred posts. All of which will be undone when the next poster comes in and starts over. It's a losing battle, so what am I doing here?
You only need ONE big hinky thing in order to challenge the official story- explain WTC7, for just one example- among many.
You only need ONE big hinky thing in order to challenge the official story- explain WTC7, for just one example- among many.
With a half of million tons of rubble coming down in the immediate vicinity, a 20-story gash in one corner, a raging multi-story fire possibly fueled by tons of emergency generator fuel and no intact fire suppression, I'd say we're a bit short on examples to draw on - luckily, I might add. It looked surprising to my non-expert eyes, admittedly - but I saw no evidence of demolition beyond the naive "it sorta looked like one".
With a half of million tons of rubble coming down in the immediate vicinity, a 20-story gash in one corner, a raging multi-story fire possibly fueled by tons of emergency generator fuel and no intact fire suppression, I'd say we're a bit short on examples to draw on - luckily, I might add. It looked surprising to my non-expert eyes, admittedly - but I saw no evidence of demolition beyond the naive "it sorta looked like one".
Sounds like a wrap for you. Fair enough. Hopefully other readers here will be interested in looking at this again.
SOP for any hijack attempt back then was to hold tight, give in and let the hijackers dictate where to go. That pretty much gave you your best shot at survival. Succesful hijacks were made with fake grenades fashioned out of chewed bread mid-flight. (This actually happened.)
Simply not true. 3 out of 4 of the hijacked airliners had terrorists with multi-engine qualification on board. The 4th (Flight 93) had the less experience, but was still a qualified pilot. And all had at least some simulator hours in heavy aircraft, as well. They were clearly outmatched by the aircraft and would have been utterly unable to land or fly cleanly, but they could in fact fly some.
Absolute nonsense ... are you just making this up as you go?
Here's the text and the audio of the instructor saying "no way" could the two he trained fly a 767/757 jet
If they were smart, they'd use the autopilot to get them in the vicinity (visual) before going manual. Something as simple as a fairly good PC aircraft simulator could provide familiarity.
"Hard banking turns" - or at least the sort of uncoordinated turns these *******s pulled to get their planes pointed in the direction they wanted - is the sign of a sh.tty pilot. I don't know about the bullseye, either - all three buildings were big and easy to pick out of the background. Some have made a big to-do out of the fact that some senior pilots "couldn't copy the approach", which is a bad test. It's very hard for a good pilot to fly like a bad pilot. The relevant test is whether a semi-skilled pilot can in fact hit a stationary target, and how do we go about testing that?
I'll hand it to you ... of all of the double talking I've heard ... no one has used this argument, which makes you unique and special, in a not so flattering way.
So let me get this straight .... this next to impossible manual maneuver is actually proof that the plane was flown by a crappy pilot which is why they needed to execute the bank in the first place ... and only a crappy pilot could do it? This is the wisdom you're spreading here?
That's rich, pal. REAL RICH.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA
Hollywood to the contrary, air defenses aren't really on a trigger alert around the Pentagon nor downtown NYC Probably something to do with armed defenses a couple of miles away from the runways of a highly busy international airport and shooting down an airliner because of a malfunctioning IFF beacon is bad publicity.
IIRC, Flight 93 was the single one that triggered a coordinated defense response, and that was because it went off the radars (the terrorists turned the transponder off), so the authorities assumed malfunction/crash and started down that road, only to learn of the hijacks.
At which point it was practically speaking to late. You lose track of a 500 MPH airplane for 5 minutes, it'll be in a circle with a diameter of 40+ miles - thats more than 5000 square miles. (Yes, it's an oblong, wind drift. Shaddup. Not doing the math for that.)
Air traffic radar isn't air defense and is pretty dependent on transponders rathewr than "skin paint". When Flight 93 showed up as an unidentified blip moving towards Washington (on the Dulles approach radar), it was way, way too late.
Defenses, as a rule, point outward. Not inward.
Almost sounds reasonable after the "crappy pilot theory", but then again, after that, Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy seem reasonable too.
But this is no less full of nonsensical fallacies. First, hundreds of intercepts are performed routinely each year, and is not some extraordinary event, and they are usually internal (looking in).... secondly, turning off a transponder doesn't make the plane invisible to radar ... this bit of genius could have saved the DOD billions in stealth aircraft development, and proves you haven't a clue about what a transponder actually does. The transponder gives ATC altitude, speed, and exact position to maintain separation in congested airspace, oh ... and it does amplify it's radar signature on the scopes, but not required to see the plane on radar. No, the planes were on radar .. they were tracked ... and fighters were launched ... they just weren't launched in the required 10 minute time (FAA regulations requirement is 10 minutes after a plane either deviates off it's flight path or loses contact with ATC, or it's transponder is switched off or inoperable ... ATC must have conversational contact with the flight crew in any of those scenarios or intercepts are called at the 10 minute mark. That's the deal.) In the case of the pentagon ... Cheney got reports on the location of the plane repeatedly ... with a countdown ... 50 miles out , 40 miles out, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA
I am 100% certain that mistakes - big, whopping, career-changing mistakes - were made that day, because that's how sudden attacks work. Every shortcoming is uncovered. (IIRC, the ANG units in Washington had their planes ready reasonably fast, but then had a hard time getting access to live ordnance - that kind of deal.) And undoubtedly, some have been busy covering up their mess-ups, which is one of the reasons we'll never get the full picture.
Funny, since not a single person was even written up ... most of this crack team of air defense were actually promoted, especially the higher ranking brass. Nice huh? Dereliction of duty is now cause for promotion? Or is this a case of climbing the career ladder by being a good team player and doing as you are told?
In the case of the Pentagon, with two planes already known hijacks and crashing into buildings .. and another hijack in progress ... the very moment flight 77 went off it's flight path, and transponder turned off, and pointed at Washington DC ... it was a hour before fighters were launched ... and they were launched from langely .. 175 miles away from DC ... with Andrews AFB in the Pentagon's back yard. And Andrews is the home of DCANG with two wings of fighters.
You don't mention the MILD coincidence of multiple exercises of simulated hijackings run by Cheney at the very same time the real attacks were unfolding. Of course, that wouldn't pique your interest ... or bring up any questions, now would it? No, I'm sure it wouldn't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA
But I have yet to see convincing evidence of the Pentagon missile theory, or the controlled demolition in NYC, or the hundreds of other claims that have been made to make an attempt at a coherent hypothesis. All I can see is a conspiracy so big, unwieldy and, frankly, fragile, it boggles the mind. So many ways the slightest mess-up would have uncovered the plan. (A mechanical failure in one of the WTC planes would have left the schemers with a hard-to-explain building rigged for demolition, to name but one. There's dozens.)
I don't think the possibility exists that you'd consider any evidence convincing, unless it agreed with your already decided opinion. Nevertheless ... there were "MANY MESS UPS" ... including Building 7 collapsing without being hit by a plane (my speculative opinion is that the Shanksville plane was intended to ram building 7 but was shot down), so they had to drop the bloody building anyway, and blame it on fire. And, the BBC reported the collapse of building 7 - 25 minutes before it actually collapsed, and you can see the building in the background as the reporter makes the claim ... and Silverstein and his famous "pull it" comment ... and the Rumsfeld slip up about the "Missile" that hit the pentagon ... and a hundred other equally telling deviations including the Jamie McIntyre 180, "I don't see no stinkin plane .. followed by Oh yeah, I saw the plane, and even took pictures .... which I see you didn't care to address ...
Your story is so typical ... "if there was such a conspiracy, somebody would talk" ... well MANY are talking ... you just choose not to listen.
We've got the head of Pakistani Intelligence transferring 100k to Atta just before 911, and on the morning of 911, he's sitting with US Defense officials in Washington having breakfast. We've got Sibel Edmonds, the FBI translator blowing the whistle .. and having a gag order put on her ... then there is John Oneil, one of the top counter terrorism agents at the FBI who revealed the pressure he received from the Bush administration and higher ups at the FBI to back off on his Osama Bin Laden investigation prior to 911. He left the FBI in disgust ... he subsequently took a job as head of security at the WTC ... his first day on the job was 911 ... he died in the attacks.
No, this is clear to any thinking human being that there is a MOUNTAIN of evidence that cannot be dismissed as coincidence. Buildings collapsing at free fall speed .... reports of multiple explosions like controlled demolition as reported by firefighters ... fires allegedly so hot they warp the steel structure, yet we see people standing inside the gaping holes waving for help ... no debris consistent with a jet crash at the pentagon, and an entire 757 literally squeezed through a 12 ft diameter hole .. yet not one single recognizable image of the plane hitting or approaching the pentagon ... NO EXPLANATION, nor even a mention of building 7 in the 911 commission report .. even members of the 911 commission claiming it was a scam and a cover up .... Bush's initial blocking of an investigation of the greatest crime in US history ... the collection, sale and transport of the structural steel debris from the WTC which prevented proper forensic analysis ... traces of military grade thermite found in the dust at ground zero ... unexplained presence of pools of molten iron in the basement of the WTC ...
The list or questions and inconsistencies and outright red flags is ENDLESS.
Of course, you don't see ANY evidence except your "crappy pilot theory"?
I have yet to see any evidence of explosives, much less charges on every floor - which by the way would be yet another example of a needlessly complicated conspiracy. Why wire every floor for detonation? It increases the risk for discovery manyfold and, going by controlled demolitions elsewhere, simply isn't necessary. It's - stupid.
There's only one reason to see the shockwave propagation as "squibs" - a desire to find evidence for explosives.
With no evidence of explosives found in the debris. I know too many people who worked on that pile, too many engineers who examined the debris and the steel. They don't work for the government. It doesn't make any sense that the cops who lost so many of their own and who sifted through all the crap out at Fresh Kills covered up for the government. That's a giant hole in the story of those who want it to be a controlled demolition--that the federal government somehow did all the cleanup and investigation on their own or fooled the other 40,000 or so people who worked at the WTC site and Fresh Kills.
Looks kind of like you have a blindfold on ...or at least you have a foil hat to block out all information that you just don't believe can be true in your little world....who knows....All I know is I used to call people freaks too, but then I woke up
As an engineer, the arguments presented by your side make no sense. If you want more detail, feel free to hit "Search" and find any one of the many other threads on this garbage that already exist on this forum.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
