Geraldo a 911 Truther??? [Archive] - Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com

PaceAdvantage

11-14-2010, 11:16 PM

IF Building 7 WAS brought down on purpose (and there is plenty of video evidence to suggest that it was...from the firemen and first responders in the street, to the building owner himself), here is why and how:

Building 7 was an EXCLUSIVE home to government agencies and financial institutions. Government agencies such as the CIA, US Secret Service & IRS Regional Council (whatever that is).

Now, think about it for a moment. The CIA and the Secret Service are in that building...common sense dictates that there would be a lot of classified/Top Secret information stored in that building...and now that building has been SERIOUSLY compromised by the events of 9/11. It would not shock me at all to learn that Building 7 was DESIGNED (or pre-wired) with explosives to bring it down in the event the building's security was seriously compromised, either through a terror attack or a natural disaster.

Now please note, I'm not saying this is what I believe actually happened. What I am saying is that IF this is what happened, this is the theory I have come up with as to why. And it's a valid justification in my opinion, given the nature of the building after the attacks (pretty much gutted by fire) and the security issues involved with the sensitive nature of the information contained within.

Now, I know people are going to clamor "do you really think a building sitting in the middle of downtown Manhattan was wired with explosives all these years in the remote chance it needed to be brought down in case of disaster?" I have no answer for that question, as I don't know anything about the explosives used in building demolition and how volatile they might be just sitting around for years.

I do know that in every building demo I've seen on video, there are always these very loud explosions going off...I don't think anyone has brought to light any evidence of such explosions just prior or during the collapse of Building 7...but it sure looks like it was "pulled," just like Larry Silverstein, the owner of 7 WTC, said it was:

7WYdAJQV100

JustRalph

11-14-2010, 11:19 PM

Geraldo is not a truther. He is a publicity hound though........

That explains anything he does.

delayjf

11-15-2010, 09:37 AM

Seems to me that if they wanted to destroy classified documents etc, they could do it without having to destroy a bldg.

ArlJim78

11-15-2010, 10:17 AM

I hadn't heard the bldg7 theory before, but it seems really far-fetched to me and not the brightest idea in the world to rig the building for demolition.

The owner said the fire commander said to "pull" because there had already been such a loss of life. Don't you think that simply meant to cease the fire and rescue efforts? meaning "pull the men out of there".

OTM Al

11-15-2010, 10:35 AM

Why did I foolishly think all this garbage had gone away?

johnhannibalsmith

11-15-2010, 11:04 AM

...
Now, I know people are going to clamor "do you really think a building sitting in the middle of downtown Manhattan was wired with explosives all these years in the remote chance it needed to be brought down in case of disaster?"

As you say, it is a hell of a lot more plausible than to believe that it was charged with technologically advanced explosives by anyone else under the nose of everyone else.

They had a show on... I think the Military Channel... damn, I can't remember exactly... maybe Nat. Geo. or History Intl. - but they basically ran a bunch of experiments trying to duplicate the scenarios and refute the claims of truthers and others. It was a decent little program as they had a few truthers on that were at least professionals in relevant vocations (engineers, etc...) and then the truthers would observe the experiment performed to essentially substantiate the "official" version.

It was at that moment that you realized that their belief was based upon something more than objective analysis. They wanted to believe and even these intelligent, scientific members of academia when confronted with something damning, it caused them to conveniently ignore the plain facts in their face in order to reassert their own rationale.

Bluntly, non-truthers would try to prove the facts as reported and succeed to some measure in doing so. Unfazed, the truthers continue to ignore this pseudo-scientific reality to press on with theories that either can not be proven, have not been proven, or nobody seems interested in trying to prove.

I love a great conspiracy. I enjoy a bad conspiracy. This one isn't going anywhere... if there was ANYTHING here... this is 2037, we'd know...

Greyfox

11-15-2010, 01:26 PM

Geraldo must have watched a recent Jessie Ventura episode.

OTM Al

11-15-2010, 01:40 PM

Just in case any actually believes explosives were involved, read something rational

http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

bks

11-15-2010, 03:49 PM

More importantly, don't leave this thread believing the false dichotomy that either:

a. Building 7 or the Twin Towers were demolished by pre-planted explosives;

or

b. No parts of the government could possibly have had actionable foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks.

There is little to no evidence of point a., and lots of evidence consistent with (without proving) point b.

PaceAdvantage

11-15-2010, 10:50 PM

Why did I foolishly think all this garbage had gone away?Probably because when you see something like this:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40190224/ns/world_news-asiapacific/

you wonder how Building 7 can come down like that while the above building in China (and other skyscraper infernos before it) still stands tall after burning for hours and hours...

I thought I presented what I thought to be a very plausible scenario, given the occupants of the building. I had never heard my particular scenario brought forth before, but I was told by someone else on here that Bo Dietl had presented a similar scenario when he was on the Imus radio show...so I guess I can't claim originality, even though I had never heard that before.

Rookies

11-15-2010, 10:58 PM

Must be his ratings were dropping off.
Last time I watched him, he was opening Al Capone's basement bathroom stall.

Uncanny. That's EXACTLY what I thought...:eek: :rolleyes: :lol:

PaceAdvantage

11-15-2010, 11:05 PM

Just in case any actually believes explosives were involved, read something rational

http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htmThis is an excellent page...thanks for posting it...I never believed explosives were involved, simply because you never heard any going off prior to or during collapse.

All I did was present a scenario as to why perhaps it "might" have been brought down intentionally...not that it was brought down intentionally.

JustRalph

11-15-2010, 11:48 PM

Probably because when you see something like this:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40190224/ns/world_news-asiapacific/

you wonder how Building 7 can come down like that while the above building in China (and other skyscraper infernos before it) still stands tall after burning for hours and hours...

Jet fuel burns at a much faster rate. The high rise fires burn slowly compared to jet fuel etc. The two original Twin Towers went to very high temp very fast. Comparably speaking. The jet fuel got hot enough to weaken the corner structures etc..... once they are weakened they bend first and eventually go. I have seen video of this scenario used as a simulation and it makes very good sense to me. But what the hell, I am just another guy on an Internet site.

I have a buddy who's father was a pretty well known architect before retiring a few years ago and he believes this theory and says his contacts in the engineering community all believe that that's what happen to the first two original buildings. He also pointed out that once the top floors started down, the first failure is magnified immensely each time an upper floor collapses the next floor is coming down with much more force than the one before it. He also pointed out that this is exactly what demolition crews rely on. They knock out a few key structural points and the weight of the upper floors do most of the work as they come down. Multiplying the force each time a floor collapses.

I think the opinion of building 7 was that it was structurally damaged in the initial collapse of the other buildings and eventually went down. They would have had to knock it down anyway. You think they would have let it stay up ? I don't.

On another note related to the video. I know that some Fire Departments use the term "pull it" or "pull from it" as the terminology to indicate they are giving up on the structure and are retreating outside to just contain the fire and damage around a particular structure. They pull all of their guys out of the building and go into containment mode. They are no longer trying to save the building that is on fire, but focusing on the surrounding area. Not sure if NYFD uses terms like that........but who knows.

Great website in the link, thanks.

johnhannibalsmith

11-15-2010, 11:57 PM

Jet fuel burns at a much faster rate. The high rise fires burn slowly compared to jet fuel etc. The two original Twin Towers went to very high temp very fast. Comparably speaking. The jet fuel got hot enough to weaken the corner structures etc..... once they are weakened they bend first and eventually go. I have seen video of this scenario used as a simulation and it makes very good sense to me...

This was one of the experiments that attempted to recreate and support this theory on that show (still can't think...) - they were actually amazed at just how fast the steel became heated enough by the juet fuel to be compromised and begin to fail. As you explained from there, between gravity and accumulation of weight, the downward force accelerates so rapidly... I'm a pretty skeptical fellow and in this case, the science backed up the logic; it was pretty hard to find a "yeah, but".

Stillriledup

12-23-2015, 02:30 PM

Good documentary.

8XRMrMdn0NQ

Tom

12-23-2015, 02:44 PM

SRU...no time to watch it all right now, but is this one that sows the molten aluminum pouring out of the tower? I might have seen this on Smithsonian or Military Channel?

Stillriledup

12-23-2015, 02:47 PM

SRU...no time to watch it all right now, but is this one that sows the molten aluminum pouring out of the tower? I might have seen this on Smithsonian or Military Channel?

Yes.

Tom

12-23-2015, 03:10 PM

It was very good.

fast4522

12-26-2015, 08:00 PM

Geraldo is rubbish and has always made a good living selling it.

Stillriledup

12-26-2015, 10:54 PM

Geraldo is rubbish and has always made a good living selling it.

9GqgSWpD_-Y

Ff to 2:56 on clip

Greyfox

12-27-2015, 02:11 PM

Good documentary.

8XRMrMdn0NQ

Whether there was a conspiracy or not, this video certainly raises lots of questions about the 9-11 Investigation or lack of investigation.

Stillriledup

12-27-2015, 02:56 PM

Whether there was a conspiracy or not, this video certainly raises lots of questions about the 9-11 Investigation or lack of investigation.

Exactly.

The people who believe the official story will try and denigrate 'conspiracists' as wackos etc but my approach to all this is fairly simple, just answer the questions in a satisfactory manner instead of ignoring them. Neither GWB or BO has addressed any of this to most people's liking, all these people give lip service about never forgetting, all some people want is to have their legitimate questions answered.

There's so many questions, but no answers.

OTM Al

12-27-2015, 03:45 PM

Exactly.

The people who believe the official story will try and denigrate 'conspiracists' as wackos etc but my approach to all this is fairly simple, just answer the questions in a satisfactory manner instead of ignoring them. Neither GWB or BO has addressed any of this to most people's liking, all these people give lip service about never forgetting, all some people want is to have their legitimate questions answered.

There's so many questions, but no answers.
There are plenty of answers and correct ones. This is slickly produced shit. Sorry if that violates the TOS here but I can think of no more accurate a way to describe stuff like this. It is a slap in the face to those who died to keep bringing this crap up. Maybe I'm a little sensitive being that I watched this from about a mile away and it isn't something you forget. It is a you problem if you can't find the answers because they are easier to find than all the past threads you keep dredging up.

PaceAdvantage

12-27-2015, 03:52 PM

There are plenty of answers and correct ones. This is slickly produced shit. Sorry if that violates the TOS here but I can think of no more accurate a way to describe stuff like this. It is a slap in the face to those who died to keep bringing this crap up. Maybe I'm a little sensitive being that I watched this from about a mile away and it isn't something you forget. It is a you problem if you can't find the answers because they are easier to find than all the past threads you keep dredging up.I respectfully disagree. Coming from someone who also had friends and family running for their lives on 9/11 as the towers fell.

While I might not buy into what this video is selling (I haven't watched the whole thing yet), the official version of what happened leaves a LOT to be desired in my opinion.

There are just FAR too many highly educated professionals in various endeavors (architecture, demolition, etc. etc.) who disagree with the official version of events for me to buy it hook line and sinker.

The very fact that three of four amateur pilots were able to hit their mark on the first pass (with the Pentagon being the most amazing feat of flying I've ever heard of) should cause you to take some pause with the official version of events. And that fourth pilot only missed supposedly because the passengers took him out.

Really?

Despite what you might think, it's not all that easy to slam into the World Trade Center flying a commercial jetliner at nearly 600mph on your first pass. But they did it twice.

And forget about how that guy was able to hit the Pentagon. I have no explanation to that. Allah himself must have been flying that plane.

OTM Al

12-27-2015, 06:23 PM

I respectfully disagree. Coming from someone who also had friends and family running for their lives on 9/11 as the towers fell.

While I might not buy into what this video is selling (I haven't watched the whole thing yet), the official version of what happened leaves a LOT to be desired in my opinion.

There are just FAR too many highly educated professionals in various endeavors (architecture, demolition, etc. etc.) who disagree with the official version of events for me to buy it hook line and sinker.

The very fact that three of four amateur pilots were able to hit their mark on the first pass (with the Pentagon being the most amazing feat of flying I've ever heard of) should cause you to take some pause with the official version of events. And that fourth pilot only missed supposedly because the passengers took him out.

Really?

Despite what you might think, it's not all that easy to slam into the World Trade Center flying a commercial jetliner at nearly 600mph on your first pass. But they did it twice.

And forget about how that guy was able to hit the Pentagon. I have no explanation to that. Allah himself must have been flying that plane.

It is actually very easy to do. The thing that is hard is to land the things. Once in the air you just had to point the plane in the right direction. Modern jetliners are very maneuverable and those guys were trained to fly them. And the planes were going nowhere near 600 mph. The Pentagon is freaking huge. The better question is how could he miss? This is just the kind of misdirection and film flam these productions use. They make things sound believable but they do not offer anything from the overwhelming amount of evidence that what they are saying is BS.

Why is it so hard to believe a group of people hijacked some jets, slammed them into some buildings and a couple of those buildings fell down? For every one of these experts you will find 100 others who will tell you this is crap. Given that is probably close to the percentage of mentally disturbed people in the population, I think you have your answer.

Guess I shouldn't be surprised at this foolishness anymore. Was reading about the idiots that think the Sany Hook school shooting was staged to enable the govt to take everyone's guns away.

Stillriledup

12-27-2015, 07:45 PM

It is actually very easy to do. The thing that is hard is to land the things. Once in the air you just had to point the plane in the right direction. Modern jetliners are very maneuverable and those guys were trained to fly them. And the planes were going nowhere near 600 mph. The Pentagon is freaking huge. The better question is how could he miss? This is just the kind of misdirection and film flam these productions use. They make things sound believable but they do not offer anything from the overwhelming amount of evidence that what they are saying is BS.

Why is it so hard to believe a group of people hijacked some jets, slammed them into some buildings and a couple of those buildings fell down? For every one of these experts you will find 100 others who will tell you this is crap. Given that is probably close to the percentage of mentally disturbed people in the population, I think you have your answer.

Guess I shouldn't be surprised at this foolishness anymore. Was reading about the idiots that think the Sany Hook school shooting was staged to enable the govt to take everyone's guns away.

What's the benefit of believing the official story? Also, what's the problem to question authority? You're a smart guy, I'm pretty sure you are just trying to 'move on' and the pain of that day disturbs you if it's rehashed over and over again, but I think really what it comes down to is the families of the people murdered, what do THEY believe. If they don't believe the official story and still have questions they need answered, I'm going to defer to them and keep asking. Never forget.

OTM Al

12-27-2015, 08:01 PM

What's the benefit of believing the official story? Also, what's the problem to question authority? You're a smart guy, I'm pretty sure you are just trying to 'move on' and the pain of that day disturbs you if it's rehashed over and over again, but I think really what it comes down to is the families of the people murdered, what do THEY believe. If they don't believe the official story and still have questions they need answered, I'm going to defer to them and keep asking. Never forget.
The benefit is that you get closure and can move on with your life instead of chasing fairy tales. This also is not questioning authority, it is denying reality. There are no answers given by garbage like this. What is so deplorable about this stuff is how it takes advantage of the very people you think you are defending. And as to your trite little closing, this is far worse than forgetting. It is a lie manufactured to make money on the tragedy. I'd rather forget than be part of that.

Greyfox

12-27-2015, 08:07 PM

For every one of these experts you will find 100 others who will tell you this is crap.

I think OTM Al you'd find that the majority of experts would not offer an opinion until they had seen more first hand evidence.
Also, a fair number of experts would not dismiss that video's evidence so easily and would likely agree that some of those questions deserve more answers than were provided in the 9-11 Investigation.

fast4522

12-27-2015, 08:29 PM

I think OTM Al's points are more valid than the need to question the loyalty of our elected officials. In the end I feel there was a well orchestrated plan executed by maggots to destroy our economy and set fear into our hearts. We as Americans can not let those goals be accomplished even by a small percentage, how in gods green earth can we subscribe to such rubbish without losing part of ourselves?

OTM Al

12-27-2015, 08:35 PM

I think OTM Al you'd find that the majority of experts would not offer an opinion until they had seen more first hand evidence.
Also, a fair number of experts would not dismiss that video's evidence so easily and would likely agree that some of those questions deserve more answers than were provided in the 9-11 Investigation.
The answers have been given time and time again. Some people simply can't accept them because there has to be some plan, some bigger reason because the fact that a few people could pull off something like this frightens them.

Have a read. Coincidently this just came out

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/dec/26/the-truth-is-rushing-out-there-why-conspiracies-spread-faster-than-ever

ArlJim78

12-27-2015, 09:19 PM

government does participate in cover-ups and otherwise often tries to control the information which is released. The magnitude of the event was so large, no one group or agency has all the answers about what happened.
this does not mean that there was an active government conspiracy to bring about these events. do any of the conspiracy minded ever stop to think about the size and scope and complexity of such an operation, involving flawless coordination among numerous agencies and perfect planning and secrecy? what was the objective of this plan? why did it involve not only hijacked airliners plowing into skyscrapers but also the infinitely more complex matter of secretly rigging those same buildings for demolition? and for what reason?the planes hitting their targets is what killed most of the people and rendered the buildings unusable, what was the point of having them also collapse? was that the icing on the cake?
It really bothers me that we were attacked on 9/11 but it also bothers me that so many people want to concoct a political conspiracy to explain it. OTM Al is right, the answers are out there and have been provided. you just have to look around.

Stillriledup

12-27-2015, 09:25 PM

The benefit is that you get closure and can move on with your life instead of chasing fairy tales. This also is not questioning authority, it is denying reality. There are no answers given by garbage like this. What is so deplorable about this stuff is how it takes advantage of the very people you think you are defending. And as to your trite little closing, this is far worse than forgetting. It is a lie manufactured to make money on the tragedy. I'd rather forget than be part of that.

I'm not the one who needs closure, the families need closure, not me. The guy in the video I posted hasn't gotten closure, he's not satisfied and has questions that nobody has answered. If you met a survivor face to face and they told you they haven't had all their questions answered to their satisfaction, are you going to tell them to 'move on'?

OTM Al

12-27-2015, 11:02 PM

I'm not the one who needs closure, the families need closure, not me. The guy in the video I posted hasn't gotten closure, he's not satisfied and has questions that nobody has answered. If you met a survivor face to face and they told you they haven't had all their questions answered to their satisfaction, are you going to tell them to 'move on'?
He'll never be satisfied because he does not want to believe what happened and crap like this video just feeds that. Some people so desperately want a reason that makes sense to them, something more to just give some meaning to what happened, but reality just doesn't always work that way. Productions like this are an extreme disservice to people like him. Again, all meaningful questions have been answered. Some just will grasp at any straw because they don't want to believe those answers. I don't expect you to understand since every other post of yours has some conspiracy in it.

LottaKash

12-28-2015, 12:16 AM

"Cursed be the man that trusteth in man".. Jer 17:5

Stillriledup

12-28-2015, 02:56 AM

He'll never be satisfied because he does not want to believe what happened and crap like this video just feeds that. Some people so desperately want a reason that makes sense to them, something more to just give some meaning to what happened, but reality just doesn't always work that way. Productions like this are an extreme disservice to people like him. Again, all meaningful questions have been answered. Some just will grasp at any straw because they don't want to believe those answers. I don't expect you to understand since every other post of yours has some conspiracy in it.

Just because those questions have been answered, doesn't mean people have to like or accept the answers. As far as conspiracies go, sign me up, I'm going to question everything, I'm not gullible to just accept big brothers 'findings' if you want to believe what you're told, that's a you decision, but don't expect others to feel the same way.

OTM Al

12-28-2015, 07:47 AM

Just because those questions have been answered, doesn't mean people have to like or accept the answers. As far as conspiracies go, sign me up, I'm going to question everything, I'm not gullible to just accept big brothers 'findings' if you want to believe what you're told, that's a you decision, but don't expect others to feel the same way.
Why then aren't you questioning the motivations and reasons behind this video?

delayjf

12-28-2015, 11:38 AM

It is actually very easy to do. The thing that is hard is to land the things.
As a pilot, I agree with the statement above.

thaskalos

12-28-2015, 02:33 PM

Nutz and Boltz

12-28-2015, 03:00 PM

A lot of it isn't just opinion, it's " hey,here's a way to make a buck off of a tragedy, I'll write a book and everything "! This is one sad society.

OTM Al

12-28-2015, 03:01 PM

The conspiracy theorists cannot be blamed in this case because there is enough doubt here to fuel plenty of suspicion...if a person is of a suspicious nature. If a person is more inclined to believe that governments are straightforward and honest in cases like these...then these conspiracy theories won't gain a foothold.

In either case...the citizen has a right to his opinion.
There really isn't, but he can have his opinion. Just realize that he is being manipulated more by this stuff than the government he is so suspicious of. Of course I will also retain my right to call people that believe this stuff fools.

thaskalos

12-28-2015, 03:02 PM

A lot of it isn't just opinion, it's " hey,here's a way to make a buck off of a tragedy" !
Only the conspiracy theorists have made a buck off this tragedy?

Nutz and Boltz

12-28-2015, 03:07 PM

Only the conspiracy theorists have made a buck off this tragedy?
No, of course the ones who say that they are out to debunk the theories are no better.

They all use photos and videos of that terrible scene. When they show the scene of the plane heading towards that tower, I have to turn my head away. I can't watch.

thaskalos

12-28-2015, 03:21 PM

There really isn't, but he can have his opinion. Just realize that he is being manipulated more by this stuff than the government he is so suspicious of. Of course I will also retain my right to call people that believe this stuff fools.

As long as you acknowledge that this works BOTH ways...

Stillriledup

12-28-2015, 03:32 PM

Only the conspiracy theorists have made a buck off this tragedy?

Whenever there's a great crime committed, they say follow the money. Who stood to benefit.

Stillriledup

12-28-2015, 03:34 PM

Why then aren't you questioning the motivations and reasons behind this video?

Because they weren't the ones behind controlled demolitions and didnt kill thousands of people?

OTM Al

12-28-2015, 03:51 PM

As long as you acknowledge that this works BOTH ways...
Why should I? The basic principles that allowed you to post that message are the same basic principles of science that disprove this stupidity.

OTM Al

12-28-2015, 04:02 PM

Because they weren't the ones behind controlled demolitions and didnt kill thousands of people?
Please explain to me how those buildings were wired up with enough demolitions to destroy them and no one noticed and none of the people involved talked. Further, please explain how those demolitions survived the impact of a jetliner and the resulting fires to be able to be set off flawlessly nearly an hour later for the first tower and over an hour later for the second.

Here's your explanation. Two jets hit the two towers. The impact and resulting fires weakened the structures of the buildings to the point where gravity took over and they collapsed. Basic science and engineering.

Two theories. One based in fact, the other a product of fantasyland. Hint, yours is the fantasy land version.

Saratoga_Mike

12-28-2015, 04:07 PM

Two theories. One based in fact, the other a product of fantasyland. Hint, yours is the fantasy land version.

Don't waste your time - you can't use logic with a nutcase, and on this matter, he's a nutcase.

Tom

12-28-2015, 04:17 PM

It takes weeks, if not months of careful work to demolish a building with explosives, and the interiors are virtually destroyed. The WTC was open Monday, 9/10/11. No way anyone did that with explosives.

The first video that showed the molten aluminum pouring out of the building shows how hot it got in there, which back up, in spite of what Rosie says, that the steel beams were melted.

OTM Al

12-28-2015, 04:18 PM

Don't waste your time - you can't use logic with a nutcase, and on this matter, he's a nutcase.
On this matter? You are a kind person.

thaskalos

12-28-2015, 05:46 PM

Why should I? The basic principles that allowed you to post that message are the same basic principles of science that disprove this stupidity.

OK, Al... :ThmbUp:

ArlJim78

12-28-2015, 06:46 PM

Whenever there's a great crime committed, they say follow the money. Who stood to benefit.
If it's not a secret please tell us, who stood to benefit from 9/11?

Stillriledup

12-28-2015, 07:07 PM

Please explain to me how those buildings were wired up with enough demolitions to destroy them and no one noticed and none of the people involved talked. Further, please explain how those demolitions survived the impact of a jetliner and the resulting fires to be able to be set off flawlessly nearly an hour later for the first tower and over an hour later for the second.

Here's your explanation. Two jets hit the two towers. The impact and resulting fires weakened the structures of the buildings to the point where gravity took over and they collapsed. Basic science and engineering.

Two theories. One based in fact, the other a product of fantasyland. Hint, yours is the fantasy land version.

I didnt realize a jetliner hit building 7.

Good to know.

Stillriledup

12-28-2015, 07:08 PM

Don't waste your time - you can't use logic with a nutcase, and on this matter, he's a nutcase.

Stay classy Michael.

classhandicapper

12-28-2015, 07:44 PM

I think the government lies through its teeth almost endlessly and much of the media is in the back pocket is those using government to advance their own agendas and ultimately screw the rest of us. All that said, it was always close to impossible for me to believe there was some kind of conspiracy here. In fact, even in this video some of the arguments were totally inconsistent with each other.

I do believe it's possible the government knows more about the incident than it is letting on (funding, help with coordination, people that knew beforehand etc...). There was some evidence of that in trading of the airline and insurance stocks in the days prior to the attack. I never saw that resolved well enough to totally dismiss it as coincidence or explained away by other factors.

Stillriledup

12-28-2015, 07:46 PM

ArlJim78

12-28-2015, 07:49 PM

I didnt realize a jetliner hit building 7.

Good to know.

If you're interested NIST made a full report on WT7.
That is unless you also think they're also part of the vast conspiracy.
What you have to understand is nothing like this had ever happened before.
Watch this video, about 5 seconds before the thing came down you can see that the entire utility access structure on the roof simply disappears, falling within the inside the building. you can see windows blowing out as it descended. a cascade of events happened in the next few seconds and the whole thing came down.

PK_iBYSqEsc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PK_iBYSqEsc

Greyfox

12-28-2015, 09:52 PM

Tom

12-28-2015, 10:03 PM

I'm more amazed a the angle it hit.
More like out of the parking lot than out of the sky.

Stillriledup

12-28-2015, 10:34 PM

I'm more amazed a the angle it hit.
More like out of the parking lot than out of the sky.

And then all the surveillance video in the immediate area was confiscated in the blink of an eye. Odd Dick Cheney sighting too.

ArlJim78

12-28-2015, 10:38 PM

No need any more to do controlled demolitions which take months to set up.
Just get a hot burn going and down she comes eh.

Does anyone here know how that Boeing 757 made just a 16 foot hole in the Pentagon?
if you read up on it the 16ft hole was in the 3rd ring of the building. they say on the outer wall it was a 75 ft opening before the wall collapsed.

this link has a detailed summary of first person eye-witnesses and first responders.

https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/911pentagonflight77evidencesummary

ArlJim78

12-28-2015, 10:44 PM

And then all the surveillance video in the immediate area was confiscated in the blink of an eye. Odd Dick Cheney sighting too.

f0vxc50xAbk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0vxc50xAbk

Stillriledup

12-28-2015, 10:56 PM

f0vxc50xAbk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0vxc50xAbk

Anyone can say anything. When I heard the surveillance video from the nearby gas station was confiscated I thought 'huh, interesting'

Ill go on that and you can believe what you hear. If you can produce a video of a commercial airliner flying into the pentagon, ill believe it.

OTM Al

12-29-2015, 08:18 AM

Anyone can say anything.
Thus the only truth about your videos.

ArlJim78

12-29-2015, 11:46 AM

Anyone can say anything. When I heard the surveillance video from the nearby gas station was confiscated I thought 'huh, interesting'

Ill go on that and you can believe what you hear. If you can produce a video of a commercial airliner flying into the pentagon, ill believe it.
There are virtually hundreds of people who saw the plane, this is only one of them.
So you maintain that even although hundreds of people saw an American Airlines plane hit the pentagon including several pilots who saw the plane flight right in front of them, and although the remains of the passengers of said AA flight along with jet fuel and plane fragments, were found and photographed on site at the pentagon, that it's not believable and must have been staged because you heard that some videos were confiscated? Oy vey.

Stillriledup

12-29-2015, 12:16 PM

There are virtually hundreds of people who saw the plane, this is only one of them.
So you maintain that even although hundreds of people saw an American Airlines plane hit the pentagon including several pilots who saw the plane flight right in front of them, and although the remains of the passengers of said AA flight along with jet fuel and plane fragments, were found and photographed on site at the pentagon, that it's not believable and must have been staged because you heard that some videos were confiscated? Oy vey.

I dont know about any of that, I don't blindly just believe what people say, video evidence would be nice. I don't know what happened there, I'm not professing to know, you could be right about a commercial plane hitting there, I just need more proof in order to buy in, sorry.

Stillriledup

12-29-2015, 12:18 PM

Thus the only truth about your videos.

The videos raise questions. They don't have answers.

OTM Al

12-29-2015, 12:24 PM

The videos raise questions. They don't have answers.
Because that is the whole point of the videos. There is no attempt to answer anything. They are completely one sided. If they actually made an effort to answer the questions then they wouldn't create suckers that clammour for more and more pointless questions

OTM Al

12-29-2015, 12:31 PM

I dont know about any of that, I don't blindly just believe what people say, video evidence would be nice. I don't know what happened there, I'm not professing to know, you could be right about a commercial plane hitting there, I just need more proof in order to buy in, sorry.
And this is the whole gist. Nothing is ever enough when you fall into these things. If you had video, then the video would be doctored. If you had eye witnesses, they would be government plants. Let's make this simple. Do you believe Wilt Chamberlain scored 100 points in an NBA game on March 2, 1962? There's no video. Was it just a ploy by the NBA to grow the popularity of the league? Did the game ever really happen?

Stillriledup

12-29-2015, 12:38 PM

Because that is the whole point of the videos. There is no attempt to answer anything. They are completely one sided. If they actually made an effort to answer the questions then they wouldn't create suckers that clammour for more and more pointless questions

I think the idea is that they believe the 'official story' is a lie and they want the people who lied to fess up. Do you think the people who made the video have access to sensitive police records and fbi files and whatnut? I'm pretty sure they would be able to make a better 'effort' if 'law enforcement' would give them carte Blanche instead of saying 'believe what we say, now go away'

Stillriledup

12-29-2015, 12:42 PM

And this is the whole gist. Nothing is ever enough when you fall into these things. If you had video, then the video would be doctored. If you had eye witnesses, they would be government plants. Let's make this simple. Do you believe Wilt Chamberlain scored 100 points in an NBA game on March 2, 1962? There's no video. Was it just a ploy by the NBA to grow the popularity of the league? Did the game ever really happen?

The NBA has been known to 'ploy' things. I don't know anything about Chamberlain on 3/2/62. I don't have any answers.

OTM Al

12-29-2015, 12:48 PM

I don't have any answers.
You never will.

Stillriledup

12-29-2015, 12:55 PM

You never will.

I agree with this, I don't expect much from our government in the way of answers about 911. They're just hoping people stop remembering and go away, like you have.

OTM Al

12-29-2015, 01:24 PM

I agree with this, I don't expect much from our government in the way of answers about 911. They're just hoping people stop remembering and go away, like you have.
I'm not turning their deaths into some loony bin fantasy, if that is what you mean. So was Sandy Hook a government plot too? Did our government shoot a bunch of kids so they can control us?

Stillriledup

12-29-2015, 01:36 PM

I'm not turning their deaths into some loony bin fantasy, if that is what you mean. So was Sandy Hook a government plot too? Did our government shoot a bunch of kids so they can control us?

I don't know anything about Sandy Hook or Aurora, as far as governmental control goes, I don't know what to think. I wake up on a daily basis and live my life, so I don't necessarily feel controlled, so it's hard for me to buy into any of that. However, if you're a person who believes in the illuminati and the NWO I'm not going to be the one to convince you that you're wrong or tell you what you should believe. I take a lot of things with a grain of salt.

classhandicapper

12-29-2015, 02:20 PM

It doesn't have to be one extreme or the other.

You can believe the planes hit the WTC and Pentagon and the official story about the collapse is correct because that's the most logical explanation and there are witnesses to it, but still believe the government knows things that the public will never know because of national security concerns, economic interests, and/or because of embarrassment.

Like I said before, they have tried to explain away the stock market moves in airlines and insurance companies, but it makes perfect sense that if someone was planning an operation like that, someone that was in on it or knew about it might try to profit from it also. Explaining away some of the activity (supposedly some of airline activity in options might have an explanation according to official stories) does not explain all of it away. It could be that no one tried to profit. It could be that they figured it all out and couldn't reveal what they found.

It could be that there was some Saudi Arabia connection that they had to bury. Who knows?

Stillriledup

12-29-2015, 02:24 PM

OTM Al

12-29-2015, 02:47 PM

classhandicapper

12-29-2015, 02:51 PM

You are talking about something else entirely here. Of course the government isn't going to tell everything. Lot of reasons for that from not revealing informants to issues of security. Right or wrong, this is normal. Thinking the government blew up the buildings because of whatever is not normal. There have been real coverups attempted in the past, but nothing on this scale and even the smaller ones have failed miserably because people talk.

I'm not a 9/11 truther or whatever they call it.

But I'm not particularly trusting either. ;)

thaskalos

12-29-2015, 02:51 PM

You are talking about something else entirely here. Of course the government isn't going to tell everything. Lot of reasons for that from not revealing informants to issues of security. Right or wrong, this is normal. Thinking the government blew up the buildings because of whatever is not normal. There have been real coverups attempted in the past, but nothing on this scale and even the smaller ones have failed miserably because people talk.
Al...do you believe that our government was forewarned about the attack at Pearl Harbor, and failed to act to prevent it...or do you consider this to be another "conspiracy theory"?

classhandicapper

12-29-2015, 02:53 PM

Al...do you believe that our government was forewarned about the attack at Pearl Harbor, and failed to act to prevent it...or do you consider this to be another "conspiracy theory"?

I'll call that bet and raise you John Kennedy. ;)

thaskalos

12-29-2015, 02:59 PM

I'll call that bet and raise you John Kennedy. ;)
The only difference being that there exists plenty of information which has been declassified...proving that our government was INDEED forewarned about the Pearl Harbor attack...and the forewarning came from very credible sources.

Of course, just because certain information has become declassified doesn't mean that the citizens will rush to read it. Sometimes...ignorance is bliss. :ThmbUp:

Saratoga_Mike

12-29-2015, 03:12 PM

The only difference being that there exists plenty of information which has been declassified...proving that our government was INDEED forewarned about the Pearl Harbor attack...and the forewarning came from very credible sources.

Of course, just because certain information has become declassified doesn't mean that the citizens will rush to read it. Sometimes...ignorance is bliss. :ThmbUp:

But the 1941 memo said the Japanese were interested in striking the west coast, Hawaii or perhaps even the Panama Canal. Kind of like the PDB GWB received a few months before 9/11: "OBL posed to strike." What was FDR to do? What was GWB to do? With the benefit of hindsight, FDR should have expected a brazen, full-scale attack on PH.

OTM Al

12-29-2015, 03:13 PM

The only difference being that there exists plenty of information which has been declassified...proving that our government was INDEED forewarned about the Pearl Harbor attack...and the forewarning came from very credible sources.

Of course, just because certain information has become declassified doesn't mean that the citizens will rush to read it. Sometimes...ignorance is bliss. :ThmbUp:
It's easy to say forewarned after the fact when you can know the result and can put all the pieces together. I think that law enforcement often stops things before they can happen and we never know, but they aren't perfect and things that look obvious after the fact weren't so much before. Were there warnings before these attackd? Sure there were, but no one was able to put it together. That is a far cry from knowing and having a coverup.

thaskalos

12-29-2015, 03:30 PM

But the 1941 memo said the Japanese were interested in striking the west coast, Hawaii or perhaps even the Panama Canal. Kind of like the PDB GWB received a few months before 9/11: "OBL posed to strike." What was FDR to do? What was GWB to do? With the benefit of hindsight, FDR should have expected a brazen, full-scale attack on PH.
You make it sound as if GWB received a short telegram telling him, "OBL poised to strike. STOP." Is that how you suppose it happened?

The truth may be out there, Mike...but it isn't laying out in the open. You have to dig for it...and the American citizen would rather live with the belief that his country stands for all that's right and true in this world. The overwhelming majority of the American citizens don't even know the real history of their country...even though their country in only 240 years old. The American citizen sees American flags being burned in other parts of the world...and he honestly believes that this hatred is a statement against the high standard of living in this country.

Stillriledup

12-29-2015, 03:37 PM

You make it sound as if GWB received a short telegram telling him, "OBL poised to strike. STOP." Is that how you suppose it happened?

The truth may be out there, Mike...but it isn't laying out in the open. You have to dig for it...and the American citizen would rather live with the belief that his country stands for all that's right and true in this world. The overwhelming majority of the American citizens don't even know the real history of their country...even though their country in only 240 years old. The American citizen sees American flags being burned in other parts of the world...and he honestly believes that this hatred is a statement against the high standard of living in this country.

The belief is that it's jealousy. Anyone 'hating' on America is just jealous. There must be a reason people are flooding over the borders to get INTO America.

Saratoga_Mike

12-29-2015, 03:46 PM

You make it sound as if GWB received a short telegram telling him, "OBL poised to strike. STOP." Is that how you suppose it happened?

Yeah, that was the extent of it. Prior to its release, we all heard about highly classified "Presidential Daily Briefings" and thought they were chocked full of information. When this PDB was released, I thought "that's pitiful." Anyway, I think GWB was a horrible foreign policy president. But I don't believe for a second he knew on 9/10 what was going to happen on 9/11. .

thaskalos

12-29-2015, 03:54 PM

The belief is that it's jealousy. Anyone 'hating' on America is just jealous. There must be a reason people are flooding over the borders to get INTO America.

That's where a little knowledge of our history comes in handy. It gives us a better understanding of the world that we are a part of. But this understanding doesn't comes cheap...it comes with a price-tag. It will cost us some of the delusion that we perhaps would like to hold on to.

Saratoga_Mike

12-29-2015, 03:56 PM

That's where a little knowledge of our history comes in handy. It gives us a better understanding of the world that we are a part of. But this understanding doesn't comes cheap...it comes with a price-tag. It will cost us some of the delusion that we perhaps would like to hold on to.

You're being cryptic, which is out of character for you.

thaskalos

12-29-2015, 03:58 PM

You're being cryptic, which is out of character for you.

I don't understand. What do you want me to say?

Saratoga_Mike

12-29-2015, 04:00 PM

I don't understand. What do you want me to say?

Explain why you believe America is hated by many people around the world. SRU offered one explanation. Please offer yours.

classhandicapper

12-29-2015, 04:30 PM

Explain why you believe America is hated by many people around the world. SRU offered one explanation. Please offer yours.

Whenever you stick your nose in other people's business one side or the other is going to hate you because you are interfering with their goal of achieving power, wealth, their idea of a perfect society etc...

The libertarian view is stop sticking your nose where it doesn't belong.

The conservative view is that we should defend and promote freedom, democracy, free markets, and our friends when others threaten them.

The classhandicapper view is that the libertarians are right a lot of the time, but not always. ;)

thaskalos

12-29-2015, 04:34 PM

Explain why you believe America is hated by many people around the world. SRU offered one explanation. Please offer yours.

We are hated because of our foreign policy, Mike...and it's imprudent for me to go into detail about that in a public forum such as this. All the information that you are asking is out there, readily available. Of course...whether you choose to avail yourself of it, is a different story.

Saratoga_Mike

12-29-2015, 04:41 PM

We are hated because of our foreign policy, Mike...and it's imprudent for me to go into detail about that in a public forum such as this. All the information that you are asking is out there, readily available. Of course...whether you choose to avail yourself of it, is a different story.

This post reminds me of something Boxcar would write. And I mean tone, not content.

thaskalos

12-29-2015, 04:46 PM

This post reminds me of something Boxcar would write.
To be honest...I had a different post all set up and ready to go. But I abstained from sending it because I didn't know how it would be received...this being the Holiday Season, and all.

But if you want to talk about this further with me, please drop me your phone number by PM. I promise to call you back promptly...and we can discuss this in private for as long as you desire.

Saratoga_Mike

12-29-2015, 04:52 PM

To be honest...I had a different post all set up and ready to go. But I abstained from sending it because I didn't know how it would be received...this being the Holiday Season, and all.

But if you want to talk about this further with me, please drop me your phone number by PM. I promise to call you back promptly...and we can discuss this in private for as long as you desire.

I think US foreign policy plays a role, but it isn't the single factor. As for a phone call, I don't think that's necessary.

thaskalos

12-29-2015, 04:54 PM

I think US foreign policy plays a role, but it isn't the single factor. As for a phone call, I don't think that's necessary.

I just didn't want you to think that I was evading the subject.

Saratoga_Mike

12-29-2015, 04:57 PM

I just didn't want you to think that I was evading the subject.

I've listened to Ron and Rand Paul enough over the years. I'd be surprised if your view deviates too much from theirs. If it does, I'll just live under that delusion for now. Life will go on.

TJDave

12-29-2015, 05:00 PM

Why don't you just post the other?

Please ;)

thaskalos

12-29-2015, 05:03 PM

I've listened to Ron and Rand Paul enough over the years. I'd be surprised if your view deviates too much from theirs. If it does, I'll just live under that delusion for now. Life will go on.

How can I disagree with you, when you are making sense? :ThmbUp: :)

Tom

12-29-2015, 10:25 PM

They are free to hate us for whatever reason.
But when they act on it, it sucks to be them.
You and I and Joe blow did nothing to them.

But I have no problem obliterating anyone if they attack us.
Two nukes and the Japs have not been a problem for 70 years.
Lesson learned.

Greyfox

12-29-2015, 11:28 PM

They are free to hate us for whatever reason.
But when they act on it, it sucks to be them.

Yeah. Once upon a time.
Not with the current Commander in Chief.

thaskalos

12-29-2015, 11:54 PM

Yeah. Once upon a time.
Not with the current Commander in Chief.

I forget...has anyone acted against us with the current Commander in Chief?

Stillriledup

12-30-2015, 12:55 AM

I forget...has anyone acted against us with the current Commander in Chief?
Depends on what you mean by 'acted'

I'm pretty sure N Korea called us a few names and maybe issued a few threats, but did we put them in their place?

thaskalos

12-30-2015, 01:36 AM

Depends on what you mean by 'acted'

I'm pretty sure N Korea called us a few names and maybe issued a few threats, but did we put them in their place?

When you are the Big Bully, SRU...then people will call you names once in a while. It comes with the territory.

What's the matter with you guys? You wanna push people around...and then be universally LOVED? :lol:

Stillriledup

12-30-2015, 04:55 AM

When you are the Big Bully, SRU...then people will call you names once in a while. It comes with the territory.

What's the matter with you guys? You wanna push people around...and then be universally LOVED? :lol:

The big bully?

rastajenk

12-30-2015, 07:54 AM

I forget...has anyone acted against us with the current Commander in Chief?Ben ghazi. And that after we led from behind to get rid of Kadaffy and open the door for the terrorists in the first place; ingrates, they are.

Tom

12-30-2015, 07:54 AM

I do not desire nor need the love and affection and of third world POS nation.
The can call us all the names they want to.

Tom

12-30-2015, 07:55 AM

Ben ghazi. And that after we led from behind to get rid of Kadaffy and open the door for the terrorists in the first place; ingrates, they are.

Yup. Perfect example of our sniveling coward potus and lying bitch SOS.

PaceAdvantage

12-30-2015, 09:55 AM

It is actually very easy to do. The thing that is hard is to land the things. Once in the air you just had to point the plane in the right direction. Modern jetliners are very maneuverable and those guys were trained to fly them. And the planes were going nowhere near 600 mph. The Pentagon is freaking huge. The better question is how could he miss? This is just the kind of misdirection and film flam these productions use. They make things sound believable but they do not offer anything from the overwhelming amount of evidence that what they are saying is BS.

Why is it so hard to believe a group of people hijacked some jets, slammed them into some buildings and a couple of those buildings fell down? For every one of these experts you will find 100 others who will tell you this is crap. Given that is probably close to the percentage of mentally disturbed people in the population, I think you have your answer.

Guess I shouldn't be surprised at this foolishness anymore. Was reading about the idiots that think the Sany Hook school shooting was staged to enable the govt to take everyone's guns away.This is where you are way off. Yes, it would be easy perhaps to DIVE BOMB the Pentagon, but it is virtually IMPOSSIBLE to fly into it the way they did. Not only was it "landing-like," it was far, FAR more difficult than a regular landing. It was a freakin' miracle is what it was.

As for the Twin Towers, the official report is that the planes (at least one of them) were estimated at travelling 560 MPH. I was 40MPH off.

Either they are lying about the training these hijackers had, and they were indeed military and/or commercially trained, or somebody other than who we've been told were flying those planes.

Maybe they got lucky with the Twin Towers, but the Pentagon is a whole other ball of wax. I've thought this almost from the beginning, and don't need a documentary to tell me this, although this particular documentary (or piece of propaganda as you would likely call it) spelled it out pretty nicely concerning the plane that hit Pentagon.

PaceAdvantage

12-30-2015, 10:02 AM

As a pilot, I agree with the statement above.OK. Let me ask you then, as a pilot.

Let's buy the official story about the training these men had. Prop plane training if I recall, correct? I also recall that the man who trained them said they sucked balls as pilots. Do we all agree with this?

You tell me then. How does a man who can't even fly a prop plane all that well get behind the controls of a 757 and make the maneuvers that had to be made in order to hit the Pentagon the way that plane did? Coming in at that angle, that fast, that low to the ground for a perfect strike. Didn't even clip the grass in front of the building.

You tell me what the chances are of that happening.

PaceAdvantage

12-30-2015, 10:05 AM

Don't waste your time - you can't use logic with a nutcase, and on this matter, he's a nutcase.Wow. I can't believe I stand here defending SRU, but just wow.

PaceAdvantage

12-30-2015, 10:06 AM

If you're interested NIST made a full report on WT7.
That is unless you also think they're also part of the vast conspiracy.
What you have to understand is nothing like this had ever happened before.
Watch this video, about 5 seconds before the thing came down you can see that the entire utility access structure on the roof simply disappears, falling within the inside the building. you can see windows blowing out as it descended. a cascade of events happened in the next few seconds and the whole thing came down.

PK_iBYSqEsc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PK_iBYSqEscYeah, I know. And steel skyscrapers that weren't even finished being built yet were caught up in an inferno for 20+ HOURS...but was STILL STANDING at the end when the fires were put out (Madrid).

But Twin Towers 1, 2 and 7 melted like ice cream cakes in the sun because of fire. I get it...

ReplayRandall

12-30-2015, 10:07 AM

PaceAdvantage

12-30-2015, 10:07 AM

And then all the surveillance video in the immediate area was confiscated in the blink of an eye. Odd Dick Cheney sighting too.Not Dick Cheney...Rumsfeld...

classhandicapper

12-30-2015, 10:08 AM

OTM Al

12-30-2015, 10:09 AM

This is where you are way off. Yes, it would be easy perhaps to DIVE BOMB the Pentagon, but it is virtually IMPOSSIBLE to fly into it the way they did. Not only was it "landing-like," it was far, FAR more difficult than a regular landing. It was a freakin' miracle is what it was.

As for the Twin Towers, the official report is that the planes (at least one of them) were estimated at travelling 560 MPH. I was 40MPH off.

Either they are lying about the training these hijackers had, and they were indeed military and/or commercially trained, or somebody other than who we've been told were flying those planes.

Maybe they got lucky with the Twin Towers, but the Pentagon is a whole other ball of wax. I've thought this almost from the beginning, and don't need a documentary to tell me this, although this particular documentary (or piece of propaganda as you would likely call it) spelled it out pretty nicely concerning the plane that hit Pentagon.

To make such a statement, you also have to believe it is impossible to land a plane. There was some belief that the guy actually did miss by a bit and skipped it on the lawn. Throw a stone at a flat angle and see what it does when it hits water. Same principle. You are demonstrating the trick of these videos very well. Make something very doable sound impossible.

OTM Al

12-30-2015, 10:14 AM

I'm surprised no one is discussing the 4th hijacked plane. There's at least some possibility it was shot down by our military after we saw what the previous ones did. That would be logical, legal, and there's no chance in hell we would would admit it.
Other than the fact that the pilots, their chain of command, their maintenance crews, any air traffic controllers overseeing the area as well as anyone looking up at the time would have seen it would have had to all stayed quiet, this is entirely possible....yeah, entirely possible. Or just maybe some guys that were going to die anyway just cut their losses and decided to do what damage they could.

PaceAdvantage

12-30-2015, 10:17 AM

Wasn't I told in this very thread that what these guys pulled off was kinda easy because it wasn't like they were landing?

Well, the Pentagon was basically a landing on steroids...read the official report and come back to me about how fast that plane was going, and how low it was to the ground for how long? Come on...he should have crashed that sucker a mile out...

I wish JustRalph (another pilot) would jump in here and set me straight. In fact, all pilots, I welcome you to tell me just how lucky that hit was on the Pentagon...or not.

A one in a trillion chance if you ask me for a guy trained on nothing but a prop plane.

Cice

12-30-2015, 10:22 AM

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/

PaceAdvantage

12-30-2015, 10:27 AM

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/They are selling a DVD. Ooops...

OTM Al

12-30-2015, 10:28 AM

OK. Let me ask you then, as a pilot.

Let's buy the official story about the training these men had. Prop plane training if I recall, correct? I also recall that the man who trained them said they sucked balls as pilots. Do we all agree with this?

You tell me then. How does a man who can't even fly a prop plane all that well get behind the controls of a 757 and make the maneuvers that had to be made in order to hit the Pentagon the way that plane did? Coming in at that angle, that fast, that low to the ground for a perfect strike. Didn't even clip the grass in front of the building.

You tell me what the chances are of that happening.

This is where you are going wrong. The school they went to for 5 months was for commercial training. This is well established, so again you have fallen afoul of misdirection. Give either of us that level of training and we would be able to do it to.

Second misdirection is you are claiming he intended to hit the building exactly the way he did. Maybe he just intended to hit the building and that's the way it ended up. It is a huge building. Absolutely enormous. Makes much more sense he was really trying to hit the middle and simply had a close miss.

OTM Al

12-30-2015, 10:38 AM

They are selling a DVD. Ooops...
That would be because anyone using the "for truth" tag on this stuff is about as legitimate as the countries that use the word "democratic" in their names...

OTM Al

12-30-2015, 10:49 AM

Yeah, I know. And steel skyscrapers that weren't even finished being built yet were caught up in an inferno for 20+ HOURS...but was STILL STANDING at the end when the fires were put out (Madrid).

But Twin Towers 1, 2 and 7 melted like ice cream cakes in the sun because of fire. I get it...
They weren't hit by a plane. They didn't have massive amounts of weight pushing down on them. Big difference. 7 took much longer to fall. It had a large chunk taken out of it from one of the big buildings coming down. Entirely different situation and another misdirection.

PaceAdvantage

12-30-2015, 10:49 AM

PaceAdvantage

12-30-2015, 10:54 AM

They weren't hit by a plane. They didn't have massive amounts of weight pushing down on them. Big difference. 7 took much longer to fall. It had a large chunk taken out of it from one of the big buildings coming down. Entirely different situation and another misdirection.So then you have no problem laying blame on the designers of the twin towers who have emphatically stated time and again the towers were designed to withstand MULTIPLE impacts from jet planes?

Guess we can blame the unions on this one...cutting corners and all that.

That kind of conspiracy is easy to believe I suppose...

BTW, what is all this massive amount of debris that you refer to that caused building 7 to come down in free fall?

You look at the face of the building, and other than some fires, you really see nothing wrong. If that much debris fell on the building, causing it to collapse hours later, you would kind of think there would be whole chunks missing from the facade...but I don't recall seeing any such damage...and the roof line looks intact before it fell.

It defies logic that the entire structure of all three buildings absolutely crumbled at one precise moment, causing the entire building to fall without resistance from below at any point. Total free fall...it defies logic.

I'm sorry, but I just don't buy the whole story.

classhandicapper

12-30-2015, 10:56 AM

Other than the fact that the pilots, their chain of command, their maintenance crews, any air traffic controllers overseeing the area as well as anyone looking up at the time would have seen it would have had to all stayed quiet, this is entirely possible....yeah, entirely possible. Or just maybe some guys that were going to die anyway just cut their losses and decided to do what damage they could.

If the military ordered it, only a handful of people would know (Rumsfeld, a general, maybe Bush, and the pilot(s) that shot it down). No one at a lower level could make that call or would know. No way the general or Rumsfeld are talking. The pilot(s) would be under direct orders to say nothing. From my understanding there would be nothing illegal about it if the order came from Rumsfeld or the president. It would just generate huge political problems and be better off quiet.

The better argument would be that air traffic controllers would see a military plane tracking the passenger plane, but they probably could not know if it fired or not. They would see the plane being tracked. They would see the plane crash. They would assume the official story that the passengers did something was correct.

There were also reports that the crash site was not typical of a normal plane crash. That could easily be truther BS or maybe it wasn't a typical crash. I haven't researched it. But I remember the reports saying the fuselage was practically disintegrated.

OTM Al

12-30-2015, 11:02 AM

So then you have no problem laying blame on the designers of the twin towers who have emphatically stated time and again the towers were designed to withstand MULTIPLE impacts from jet planes?

Guess we can blame the unions on this one...cutting corners and all that.

That kind of conspiracy is easy to believe I suppose...

BTW, what is all this massive amount of debris that you refer to that caused building 7 to come down in free fall?

You look at the face of the building, and other than some fires, you really see nothing wrong. If that much debris fell on the building, causing it to collapse hours later, you would kind of think there would be whole chunks missing from the facade...but I don't recall seeing any such damage...and the roof line looks intact before it fell.

It defies logic that the entire structure of all three buildings absolutely crumbled at one precise moment, causing the entire building to fall without resistance from below at any point. Total free fall...it defies logic.

I'm sorry, but I just don't buy the whole story.
They designed the building to withstand a hit from a single 707 traveling at landing speed sub 200 mph that would presumably be lost in the fog. The planes that hit were much bigger and traveling much faster. Very much faster according to you. You want a comparison look at a car that is designed to be hit at 30 mph and keep the passengers safe. Then look at what happens when the car is hit at as little as 65 mph. Now hit it with a semi rather than another car.

OTM Al

12-30-2015, 11:06 AM

If the military ordered it, only a handful of people would know (Rumsfeld, a general, maybe Bush, and the pilot(s) that shot it down). No one at a lower level could make that call or would know. No way the general or Rumsfeld are talking. The pilot(s) would be under direct orders to say nothing. From my understanding there would be nothing illegal about it if the order came from Rumsfeld or the president. It would just generate huge political problems and be better off quiet.

The better argument would be that air traffic controllers would see a military plane tracking the passenger plane, but they probably could not know if it fired or not. They would see the plane being tracked. They would see the plane crash. They would assume the official story that the passengers did something was correct.

Um, yeah as long as Rumsfeld was servicing the aircraft by himself, this would work. See plane take off with missiles. See plane return without missiles....hmmmm...of course those items would have had to have been properly checked out to begin with, mounted on the craft by someone etc, etc etc. A pilot shooting a missile is not done in a vacuum.

PaceAdvantage

12-30-2015, 11:11 AM

They designed the building to withstand a hit from a single 707 traveling at landing speed sub 200 mph that would presumably be lost in the fog. The planes that hit were much bigger and traveling much faster. Very much faster according to you. You want a comparison look at a car that is designed to be hit at 30 mph and keep the passengers safe. Then look at what happens when the car is hit at as little as 65 mph. Now hit it with a semi rather than another car.That point is debatable:

The investigators also said that newly disclosed Port Authority documents suggested that the towers were designed to withstand the kind of airplane strike that they suffered on Sept. 11.

Earlier statements by Port Authority officials and outside engineers involved in designing the buildings suggested that the designers considered an accidental crash only by slower aircraft, moving at less than 200 miles per hour. The newly disclosed documents, from the 1960's, show that the Port Authority considered aircraft moving at 600 m.p.h., slightly faster and therefore more destructive than the ones that did hit the towers, Dr. Sunder said.

The towers did withstand the plane strikes at first, allowing thousands of people to escape, but then the fires, stoked by burning jet fuel, softened the steel of the towers. Potentially challenging other statements by Port Authority engineers, Dr. Sunder said it was now uncertain whether the authority fully considered the fuel and its effects when it studied the towers' safety during the design phase. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/03/nyregion/03TOWE.html?ei=5007&en=a2c62eb2b42cf30c&ex=1385874000&adxnnl=1

OTM Al

12-30-2015, 11:19 AM

That point is debatable:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/03/nyregion/03TOWE.html?ei=5007&en=a2c62eb2b42cf30c&ex=1385874000&adxnnl=1
Even if I give you this, what is your point then? You live here. You know the buildings came down. What caused it then? Are you saying that the government blew them up and then covered it all up? Are you telling me the people you and many other people here are constantly calling incompetent were able to pull this off? Which way are you going to have it then?

classhandicapper

12-30-2015, 11:25 AM

Um, yeah as long as Rumsfeld was servicing the aircraft by himself, this would work. See plane take off with missiles. See plane return without missiles....hmmmm...of course those items would have had to have been properly checked out to begin with, mounted on the craft by someone etc, etc etc. A pilot shooting a missile is not done in a vacuum.

I wouldn't know the how things like that are tracked, but I assume we have planes like that armed and ready to go at all times at bases all over the country. Others that not armed or that do test firing get serviced and rearmed all the time too. So unless loads of people get to track a single plane, which I doubt, the couple of people that might know and put 2 + 2 together would be military personnel that would be ordered to forget it.

I think you are over blowing the problem with keeping this quiet.

The real problem is the lack of evidence.

The idea comes the fact that it makes sense the military would consider shooting it down after having already seen what happened at the WTC and knowing that this other plane must have an important target in mind also. Some people question what took the military so long to react to begin with. So either the passengers were successfully attempting to take back control of the plane from hijackers that presumably had locked themselves in the cockpit (so they crashed it instead) or it was shot down. If the passengers did it, I'd still be questioning why the military wasn't there sooner and didn't shoot it down in an area that was safe for that kind of action.

As horrific as that would be, it would be less horrific than allowing it to crash into the capital building or something like that.

Greyfox

12-30-2015, 11:27 AM

Are you saying that the government blew them up and then covered it all up?

The fall of Building 7 looks very suspicious, as if it could have been a controlled demolition.
Remember - this was a CIA/FBI building.

OTM Al

12-30-2015, 11:28 AM

BTW, this is a good link for those looking to argue with me:

http://www.911myths.com/html/flight_school_dropouts.html

However, reading through the entire thing, a common theme seems to develop. Even in their attempt to "debunk the debunkers," it becomes painfully obvious that these hijackers were at the very best, BARELY competent to fly anything.

It's difficult from the above to even ascertain whether or not any of them had ever set foot inside the cockpit of a jet (any jet, small or large) before 9/11.

There isn't one instructor at the link above who sings the praises about any of these men in terms of their skills.

Like I implied earlier...I guess praying to Allah really works, because these guy's prayers were indeed answered when they hit all their targets (we won't count Shanksville, but that wasn't their fault they missed).

They didn't have to have full skills. They needed to know how to change speed and turn. That's it. You could learn this in 15 minutes if you step in a cockpit for the first time. They had 5 months of training on commercial aircraft. You also don't seem to realize that full training manuals are readily available. You don't even get in a cockpit on a new plane until you learn the manual inside out. My best friend growing up got the manual and knew his training jet inside out before he even saw the plane when he was in the Air Force. Once he got into the plane he said it was way. And he had to do full piloting skills

OTM Al

12-30-2015, 11:34 AM

I wouldn't know the how things like that are tracked, but I assume we have planes like that armed and ready to go at all times at bases all over the country. Others that not armed or that do test firing get serviced and rearmed all the time too. So unless loads of people get to track a single plane, which I doubt, the couple of people that might know and put 2 + 2 together would be military personnel that would be ordered to forget it.

I think you are over blowing the problem with keeping this quiet.

The real problem is the lack of evidence.

The idea comes the fact that it makes sense the military would consider shooting it down after having already seen what happened at the WTC and knowing that this other plane must have an important target in mind also. Some people question what took the military so long to react to begin with. So either the passengers were successfully attempting to take back control of the plane from hijackers that presumably had locked themselves in the cockpit (so they crashed it instead) or it was shot down. If the passengers did it, I'd still be questioning why the military wasn't there sooner and didn't shoot it down in an area that was safe for that kind of action.

As horrific as that would be, it would be less horrific than allowing it to crash into the capital building or something like that.

You've seen way too many movies. Planes armed and ready to go all over the country? Seriously? You know how much that costs? This isn't true even now, let alone back then. Ordered to forget it? Are you joking? Did the guy that did that fly off to Area 51 in his black helicopter after doing this?

OTM Al

12-30-2015, 11:39 AM

The fall of Building 7 looks very suspicious, as if it could have been a controlled demolition.
Remember - this was a CIA/FBI building.
No it wasn't. The CIA had some offices on one floor they shared with the IRS and the DOD. So nefarious.....

Greyfox

12-30-2015, 11:42 AM

No it wasn't. The CIA had some offices on one floor they shared with the IRS and the DOD. So nefarious.....

The fall of Building 7 looked like a controlled demolition, independent of whoever occupied it. Absolutely straight down.

classhandicapper

12-30-2015, 11:52 AM

You've seen way too many movies. Planes armed and ready to go all over the country? Seriously? You know how much that costs? This isn't true even now, let alone back then. Ordered to forget it? Are you joking? Did the guy that did that fly off to Area 51 in his black helicopter after doing this?

Do you actually think there aren't planes set to scramble and go within minutes and that things aren't done by the military all the time that are squashed under order that never get out?

Do you think if we were suddenly under attack there would be some chain of command that ends up with some low level guys having to arm planes before we could respond?

If that's true, we need a new military.

I'd bet anything they are armed and ready to go anywhere near Washington DC for example.

PaceAdvantage

12-30-2015, 11:59 AM

Even if I give you this, what is your point then? You live here. You know the buildings came down. What caused it then? Are you saying that the government blew them up and then covered it all up? Are you telling me the people you and many other people here are constantly calling incompetent were able to pull this off? Which way are you going to have it then?All I'm saying is that if one part of the story has been manufactured, then all other parts of it are open to scrutiny.

Everyone who questions the official version isn't a Donald Trump supporter...there are some legitimate, highly educated and highly respected people...experts in their field...who have serious issues with the official story.

I've never made the claim that the Bush administration is responsible for 9/11.

OTM Al

12-30-2015, 12:05 PM

The fall of Building 7 looked like a controlled demolition, independent of whoever occupied it. Absolutely straight down.
Hold your tv remote out to the side. Let go. How does it fall? There's this thing called gravity.

OTM Al

12-30-2015, 12:09 PM

All I'm saying is that if one part of the story has been manufactured, then all other parts of it are open to scrutiny.

Everyone who questions the official version isn't a Donald Trump supporter...there are some legitimate, highly educated and highly respected people...experts in their field...who have serious issues with the official story.

I've never made the claim that the Bush administration is responsible for 9/11.
So which part is manufactured then. I'm not talking surmise or best estimate info. I'm talking straight up falsified. Listen, I work at a major research university as you know. I know a few experts in their fields that are nuts. That supposedly intelligent people say crazy things is nothing new to me and proves nothing,

ArlJim78

12-30-2015, 12:13 PM

The fall of Building 7 looked like a controlled demolition, independent of whoever occupied it. Absolutely straight down.
a controlled demolition would have left a lot of evidence that was not found (explosive residue, steel girders sheared by an explosive, numerous very loud explosive charges).
Have you listened to the sound of a real controlled demolition? Those blasts are huge and since you have to blast all around the building at the same time, unmistakable. Not to mention the amount of time it takes to rig a building to fall via explosives. Seriously man its fantasyland to even think that, when there is so much overwhelming evidence as to what DID happen. The design of the building plus fires that burned on mulitple floor for hours coupled with the damage from the debris of the other buildings caused the joints to weaken and fail.

OTM Al

12-30-2015, 12:18 PM

a controlled demolition would have left a lot of evidence that was not found (explosive residue, steel girders sheared by an explosive, numerous very loud explosive charges).
Have you listened to the sound of a real controlled demolition? Those blasts are huge and since you have to blast all around the building at the same time, unmistakable. Not to mention the amount of time it takes to rig a building to fall via explosives. Seriously man its fantasyland to even think that, when there is so much overwhelming evidence as to what DID happen. The design of the building plus fires that burned on mulitple floor for hours coupled with the damage from the debris of the other buildings caused the joints to weaken and fail.
Besides all that, the foundations were created for a much smaller building. They had to do some pretty solid engineering work to adapt the footprint for the larger building. Nothing under board and completely safe, unless massively set on fire and hit by large amounts of falling debris of course....that building would have had to come down even if it hadn't fallen on its own.

Greyfox

12-30-2015, 12:36 PM

The science is settled.
Everything reported by the 9-11 Investigation Committee is 100% true and there were no sins of omission.:rolleyes:

Stillriledup

12-30-2015, 12:44 PM

The science is settled.
Everything reported by the 9-11 Investigation Committee is 100% true and there were no sins of omission.:rolleyes:

Yes, just like the Warren Commission told us about a lone gunman and how Ruby killed Oswald because he was 'distraught' the president died. That Jack Ruby, such a sensitive fellow, you can see how a big softie like that would crack. Makes perfect sense. :rolleyes:

delayjf

12-30-2015, 12:52 PM

You tell me what the chances are of that happening.

What I'm saying is it does not take hundreds of hours of flying time to get the hang of flying or maneuvering an airplane. It does take flying experience to maneuver an airplane correctly - but I doubt they concerned with being on speed, altitude, and on course when they were flying. It was a clear day, all they needed to do was aim the aircraft into the buildings.

There were / are aircraft on alert at Langley AFB in Norfolk VA. And I believe they were scrambled, but too late to intercept the plane that hit the Pentagon. I don't think there were any alert aircraft stationed at Andrews, but it would seem logical to do so - Currently the ANG has a F-16 squadron stationed at Andrew.

OTM Al

12-30-2015, 01:04 PM

The science is settled.
Everything reported by the 9-11 Investigation Committee is 100% true and there were no sins of omission.:rolleyes:
What do you all want? This isn't a hour long tv drama where everything gets wrapped up in minute 56. Not every single minute question and point is going to be clearly expounded on. There's no sense in that. It changes nothing and adds nothing to the overall facts. If you want to operate on that basis nothing will ever be accomplished. Modern culture has really put the whack on you if you think this is the way things actually work.

OTM Al

12-30-2015, 01:10 PM

What I'm saying is it does not take hundreds of hours of flying time to get the hang of flying or maneuvering an airplane. It does take flying experience to maneuver an airplane correctly - but I doubt they concerned with being on speed, altitude, and on course when they were flying. It was a clear day, all they needed to do was aim the aircraft into the buildings.

There were / are aircraft on alert at Langley AFB in Norfolk VA. And I believe they were scrambled, but too late to intercept the plane that hit the Pentagon. I don't think there were any alert aircraft stationed at Andrews, but it would seem logical to do so - Currently the ANG has a F-16 squadron stationed at Andrew.
I don't get why people don't get this. You can tell me if I'm crazy but I figure if I went up with you, you could show me in 15 minutes how to change speed and do a turn. Even back in 2001 you could get all kinds of flight sims for your home PC that were very realistic in terms of cockpit layout. It is so easy to learn what the controls are and what they do. Then it's just a matter of getting the hang of it in real life.

Greyfox

12-30-2015, 01:16 PM

What do you all want? This isn't a hour long tv drama where everything gets wrapped up in minute 56. Not every single minute question and point is going to be clearly expounded on. There's no sense in that. It changes nothing and adds nothing to the overall facts. If you want to operate on that basis nothing will ever be accomplished. Modern culture has really put the whack on you if you think this is the way things actually work.

You are happy with all of the answers.
Usually the truth defends itself with no need for people such as you to defend it.
But there are lots of questions that some of us have that seem very puzzling.
For instance, the military knew 48 minutes before the Pentagon was hit that Flight 77 was hijacked.
Flight 77 flew towards Washington, circled it, and apparently crashed into it.
Doesn't it concern you at all why 48 minutes elapsed while Andrews Air Force Base made no attempt to defend the capital? Langley 120 miles away became involved but still Flight 77 attacked the Pentagon.
Doesn't it concern you that no anti-aircraft gunners defended the Pentagon that day?
Doesn't it bother you that no one has been shown publicly footage of Flight 77 flying into the Pentagon?
For sure something hit the Pentagon. Can you be sure it was Flight 77?
I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but I'm also not swallowing the whole explanation given for events of 9-11 that day.

delayjf

12-30-2015, 01:16 PM

I think if they went up an flew around a little bit they would have an idea of what we are attempting to convey.

PaceAdvantage

12-30-2015, 01:25 PM

What I'm saying is it does not take hundreds of hours of flying time to get the hang of flying or maneuvering an airplane. It does take flying experience to maneuver an airplane correctly - but I doubt they concerned with being on speed, altitude, and on course when they were flying. It was a clear day, all they needed to do was aim the aircraft into the buildings.

There were / are aircraft on alert at Langley AFB in Norfolk VA. And I believe they were scrambled, but too late to intercept the plane that hit the Pentagon. I don't think there were any alert aircraft stationed at Andrews, but it would seem logical to do so - Currently the ANG has a F-16 squadron stationed at Andrew.I don't concern myself with scrambling interceptors. I am only concerning myself with how in the world a totally inexperienced pilot was able to maneuver a Boeing 757-223 into the side of the building like that without crashing somewhere else on the way in...

He's either a helluva pilot or just another lucky bastard that day...

OTM Al

12-30-2015, 01:30 PM

You are happy with all of the answers.
Usually the truth defends itself with no need for people such as you to defend it.
But there are lots of questions that some of us have that seem very puzzling.
For instance, the military knew 48 minutes before the Pentagon was hit that Flight 77 was hijacked.
Flight 77 flew towards Washington, circled it, and apparently crashed into it.
Doesn't it concern you at all why 48 minutes elapsed while Andrews Air Force Base made no attempt to defend the capital? Langley 120 miles away became involved but still Flight 77 attacked the Pentagon.
Doesn't it concern you that no anti-aircraft gunners defended the Pentagon that day?
Doesn't it bother you that no one has been shown publicly footage of Flight 77 flying into the Pentagon?
For sure something hit the Pentagon. Can you be sure it was Flight 77?
I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but I'm also not swallowing the whole explanation given for events of 9-11 that day.

Wrong again and also a matter of public record. FAA lost 77 and reported it presumed crashed. They told the military to be looking for a downed aircraft. They put two and two together and reported it may have been hijacked a little more than 3 minutes before it hit. Of course it was 77. There were parts all over the place including the engine that made your 16 foot hole. Parts have serial numbers. As to footage, it was captured on film as a big blur right before it hit. Video doe cameras can only film what they are pointed at and they were far less prevalent then than now.

OTM Al

12-30-2015, 01:32 PM

I don't concern myself with scrambling interceptors. I am only concerning myself with how in the world a totally inexperienced pilot was able to maneuver a Boeing 757-223 into the side of the building like that without crashing somewhere else on the way in...

He's either a helluva pilot or just another lucky bastard that day...
He wasn't totally inexperienced so stop getting hung on that and I'm honestly telling you either of us could do it with minimal training. They had 5 months of commercial training.

Greyfox

12-30-2015, 01:36 PM

Wrong again and also a matter of public record. FAA lost 77 and reported it presumed crashed.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to remember all flights were grounded and those in the air were told to land as soon as possible on that day.
It seems somewhat silly for FAA to presume Flight 77, a hijacked plane, had crashed.
At any rate, 48 minutes went by. No antiaircraft defense apparent.

delayjf

12-30-2015, 01:36 PM

Flight 77 flew towards Washington, circled it, and apparently crashed into it.
Doesn't it concern you at all why 48 minutes elapsed while Andrews Air Force Base made no attempt to defend the capital? Langley 120 miles away became involved but still Flight 77 attacked the Pentagon.
Doesn't it concern you that no anti-aircraft gunners defended the Pentagon that day?
Doesn't it bother you that no one has been shown publicly footage of Flight 77 flying into the Pentagon?
For sure something hit the Pentagon. Can you be sure it was Flight 77?
I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but I'm also not swallowing the whole explanation given for events of 9-11 that day.

The only fighter squadron stationed at Andrews was an Air Guard F-16 unit that may not have been on standby to respond to the attack. The F-15s at Langley were launched to late to intercept the attack on the Pentagon. Not only that, but because they were not briefed as to what was happening in DC, they initialing flew east over the ocean (Per their training) before turning back to DC.

Here's a link that describes the Military's response timeline.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._military_response_during_the_September_11_att acks

And yes, we should all be concerned.

OTM Al

12-30-2015, 02:38 PM

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to remember all flights were grounded and those in the air were told to land as soon as possible on that day.
It seems somewhat silly for FAA to presume Flight 77, a hijacked plane, had crashed.
At any rate, 48 minutes went by. No antiaircraft defense apparent.
Flights were grounded eventually but do you think that means they could all land in seconds? Further it was before 9 am they lost the flight. The first hit on the WTC less than 10 minutes before. The second wouldn't hit for several more minutes. They probably didn't even know what had happened in NY yet. No one knew what the hell was happening. It was totally reasonable to think it crashed and besides they never saw it turn back east. As to the anti aircraft defenses, I think you have also been watching too many movies. Again, you make it sound so easy to figure out after the event had occurred. Before and during no one had a clue and the few that were figuring out were unable to communicate fast enough and even if they had nothing likely still could have been done.

PaceAdvantage

12-30-2015, 02:56 PM

This topic is like religion and politics...you'll never convince the other person of anything.

I finally watched the entire "documentary" that was part of the revival of this thread. It's fairly old...I think about 10 years old by now...

But it's one of the better ones I've seen.

thaskalos

12-30-2015, 03:00 PM

Perhaps we could institute a poll in this thread...so we could see more clearly what the majority thinks about this.

PaceAdvantage

12-30-2015, 03:25 PM

The majority of people believe in Christianity...would that sway you too? :lol:

classhandicapper

12-30-2015, 03:26 PM

Perhaps we could institute a poll in this thread...so we could see more clearly what the majority thinks about this.

1. The 3 planes identified hit the 3 buildings and they collapsed as described in the public record. Tower 7 also collapsed as part of it.

2. The government probably has information about who funded it, who helped organize it, who knew beforehand, and what other connections they had that it is not telling the public for political, economic, or embarrassment reasons.

3. There's a reasonable chance some of the terrorists had more training than we've been told and may have been more than just random guys from Al Qaeda

4. There's a very small chance the plane over Pennsylvania was shot down by the military to prevent a final attack on the capital.

5. There's a reasonable chance someone that knew about this beforehand tried to profit from it in stock markets somewhere around the world.

Greyfox

12-30-2015, 03:40 PM

Flights were grounded eventually but do you think that means they could all land in seconds? Further it was before 9 am they lost the flight.

Robert Watson-Watt pioneered Radar ready for military use by 1935.
Nazi Germany's planes did not have transponders, yet even his primitive radar sets could detect them.
So by 2001, the U.S. Military, NORAD, and whatever else could not pick up Flight 77, while most other air traffic was grounded, apparently because the transponder had been shut off.
Surely Radar detection has become far more sophisticated than it was in 1935.
That's a head shaker isn't ?

OTM Al

12-30-2015, 05:08 PM

Robert Watson-Watt pioneered Radar ready for military use by 1935.
Nazi Germany's planes did not have transponders, yet even his primitive radar sets could detect them.
So by 2001, the U.S. Military, NORAD, and whatever else could not pick up Flight 77, while most other air traffic was grounded, apparently because the transponder had been shut off.
Surely Radar detection has become far more sophisticated than it was in 1935.
That's a head shaker isn't ?
All other traffic was not grounded at that time. The order to ground all air traffic came almost 10 minutes after it crashed. And Reagan International did pick up 77 and issued a warning. It was too late. With the transponder off it is much more difficult to pick up a plane and they were looking to the west initially, the direction the plane had been going, not east. Radar does nothing if you don't know where to look. So no head shaking here either.

OTM Al

12-30-2015, 05:13 PM

The majority of people believe in Christianity...would that sway you too? :lol:
I believe that Christianity exists because I see people practicing it. But since you really meant the tenets of Christianity, I'll give you a pass. I guess since this is the US you can make a religion out of this if you want. What I hate though is the lack of looking at the basic facts which you can find in seconds. Maybe you can tell us all then the difference between faith and believing what has been shown clearly to be a lie.

thaskalos

12-30-2015, 05:37 PM

The majority of people believe in Christianity...would that sway you too? :lol:
The fact that Christianity is the majority religion precludes the existence of Jesus from being considered a "conspiracy theory". When the "conspiracy theorists" comprise only a small percentage of the population...then we can assume that the fault lies with these conspiracy theorists. But when the vast MAJORITY of the population shares this "conspiracy theory" opinion...then the blame should be assigned to the entity which has been unable to adequately dispel these "unsubstantiated rumors".

I admit that I haven't kept up with the post-9/11 events as diligently as perhaps I should have. The last thing I remember was the government telling us that the black boxes of these 4 planes couldn't be recovered (first time in history)...while they were able to recover a paper passport belonging to one of the hijackers. It was then when I decided that the "findings" of this "investigation" would upset me...so, I tuned out. When the government hides things, then the populace starts indulging in "conspiracy theories"...and you can't blame them.

OTM Al

12-30-2015, 05:45 PM

The fact that Christianity is the majority religion precludes the existence of Jesus from being considered a "conspiracy theory". When the "conspiracy theorists" comprise only a small percentage of the population...then we can assume that the fault lies with these conspiracy theorists. But when the vast MAJORITY of the population shares this "conspiracy theory" opinion...then the blame should be assigned to the entity which has been unable to adequately dispel these "unsubstantiated rumors".

I admit that I haven't kept up with the post-9/11 events as diligently as perhaps I should have. The last thing I remember was the government telling us that the black boxes of these 4 planes couldn't be recovered (first time in history)...while they were able to recover a paper passport belonging to one of the hijackers. It was then when I decided that the "findings" of this "investigation" would upset me...so, I tuned out. When the government hides things, then the populace starts indulging in "conspiracy theories"...and you can't blame them.

Again the problem. The boxes from the WTC were not recovered. Yes a first, but also the first time a building collapsed on one too. The box from PA was definitely found and contained recordings of the hijackers dwere firing to crash the plane rather than be taken by the passengers. The box in DC was also recovered. So what was hidden here?

elysiantraveller

12-30-2015, 05:59 PM

The only fighter squadron stationed at Andrews was an Air Guard F-16 unit that may not have been on standby to respond to the attack. The F-15s at Langley were launched to late to intercept the attack on the Pentagon. Not only that, but because they were not briefed as to what was happening in DC, they initialing flew east over the ocean (Per their training) before turning back to DC.

Here's a link that describes the Military's response timeline.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._military_response_during_the_September_11_att acks

And yes, we should all be concerned.

ANG Units are never on combat-alert for CAP missions...

The birds in Battle Creek, MI didn't get off the ground until after 12:30 despite their necessity to do so due to our defense condition.

Source: I watched them go up.

thaskalos

12-30-2015, 05:59 PM

Again the problem. The boxes from the WTC were not recovered. Yes a first, but also the first time a building collapsed on one too. The box from PA was definitely found and contained recordings of the hijackers dwere firing to crash the plane rather than be taken by the passengers. The box in DC was also recovered. So what was hidden here?
Who can say with certainty what was recorded on the black boxes that you say were recovered?

burnsy

12-30-2015, 06:03 PM

Only the conspiracy theorists have made a buck off this tragedy?

No, but that's what the government loves about them and that's why they are useful. It takes the heat off of everyone else that's making "hay" and money off of this tragedy.

It was a "sucker punch", what people don't understand is that all of these attacks are sucker punches. They go for our softest targets because that's all they can do.

The government takes this a runs with it. Instead of tightening up and keeping quiet. They go out of their way to spread the fear. With big media help. That's the real "conspiracy". "Look out" they are coming is all we hear. Why? New government agencies, leave your rights at the door and we need 3 wars............And, Somehow not many people see the "profit" in doing this. Oh yes, government contractors, agencies and all the ties to these have made a ton off of this. The "kooks" selling "conspiracy is a nice, neat distraction from the facts.

Most of the attackers were Saudi and yet we went into Iraq. Weapons of mass destruction? People still argue over that crap. These are the "distractions". Every country in the modern world possess weapons, that was a complete joke of a reason. Iran, the Shia and the Kurds wanted that country, do people think Sadaam would give up his weapons? Prominent Saudi family members were flown out of the country when not one plane was leaving the ground. Even if parts of their "mal contents" were in on this, which it seems they were. We did squat. We made Osama Bin Laden when he was fighting the Soviets and he came back to bite us in the ass.......with help that has yet to be disclosed properly. There are even rumblings now that we were actually funding ISIS at first to be our proxies in Syria. It took the Soviets a week to figure out that the oil was going to Turkey, only then did we bomb the shipments, because they were (Soviets) first.

No, they got us, not fair an square, it was more like a kick in the nuts. But many people here took advantage of an opportunity all the way to the top. Instead of quelling the fear, they turn it up and count the money and power. There's your conspiracy. Instead of sucking up and waving the flag, people really do need to follow the money..............these "conspiracy" shows are great for the Wizards, nothing to see behind the curtain, be very afraid though, their coming here to get you........with pick up trucks, bomb belts and our own airliners. Yeah, they are a real Third Reich.

How many times can Americans be fooled? If scared, many. This is the second time in my lifetime. The first was Vietnam, another complete lie and build up. "The commies are coming." 50,000 or so lives later and God knows how much money we pissed away to get people richer. You go there now and its............"what size fries do want with that Big Mac." People really think there is no motivation of "greed" behind our methods.......that's the conspiracy. Wake up folks. The other lie, there are way more reasons than just jealousy that they hate us and some of them are actually pretty good ones. If you, for one second think we have not been involved in bringing countries and leaders down.....you are an idiot. That's why the older generations in Iran hate us. People love to believe what they want, we are some great, innocent, country. Its going down the crapper because we are not. For the Bible belters, if there is God he's turning his back on this swill we put out. Then things go down the drain like Sodom and Gomorrah or the Roman Empire, because we are a combo of both. That's what people should really fear. But you'll never see what I say on TV, maybe a few people will point it out...and be hated. The truth really does hurt.

elysiantraveller

12-30-2015, 06:05 PM

Do you actually think there aren't planes set to scramble and go within minutes and that things aren't done by the military all the time that are squashed under order that never get out?

No.

Do you think if we were suddenly under attack there would be some chain of command that ends up with some low level guys having to arm planes before we could respond?

Yes.

Shooter 79

12-30-2015, 06:18 PM

Hold your tv remote out to the side. Let go. How does it fall? There's this thing called gravity.
And there's the laws of physics...you should look into them.

Stillriledup

12-30-2015, 06:25 PM

No.

Yes.

No?

Seriously ?

OTM Al

12-30-2015, 06:47 PM

No, but that's what the government loves about them and that's why they are useful. It takes the heat off of everyone else that's making "hay" and money off of this tragedy.

It was a "sucker punch", what people don't understand is that all of these attacks are sucker punches. They go for our softest targets because that's all they can do.

The government takes this a runs with it. Instead of tightening up and keeping quiet. They go out of their way to spread the fear. With big media help. That's the real "conspiracy". "Look out" they are coming is all we hear. Why? New government agencies, leave your rights at the door and we need 3 wars............And, Somehow not many people see the "profit" in doing this. Oh yes, government contractors, agencies and all the ties to these have made a ton off of this. The "kooks" selling "conspiracy is a nice, neat distraction from the facts.

Most of the attackers were Saudi and yet we went into Iraq. Weapons of mass destruction? People still argue over that crap. These are the "distractions". Every country in the modern world possess weapons, that was a complete joke of a reason. Iran, the Shia and the Kurds wanted that country, do people think Sadaam would give up his weapons? Prominent Saudi family members were flown out of the country when not one plane was leaving the ground. Even if parts of their "mal contents" were in on this, which it seems they were. We did squat. We made Osama Bin Laden when he was fighting the Soviets and he came back to bite us in the ass.......with help that has yet to be disclosed properly. There are even rumblings now that we were actually funding ISIS at first to be our proxies in Syria. It took the Soviets a week to figure out that the oil was going to Turkey, only then did we bomb the shipments, because they were (Soviets) first.

No, they got us, not fair an square, it was more like a kick in the nuts. But many people here took advantage of an opportunity all the way to the top. Instead of quelling the fear, they turn it up and count the money and power. There's your conspiracy. Instead of sucking up and waving the flag, people really do need to follow the money..............these "conspiracy" shows are great for the Wizards, nothing to see behind the curtain, be very afraid though, their coming here to get you........with pick up trucks, bomb belts and our own airliners. Yeah, they are a real Third Reich.

How many times can Americans be fooled? If scared, many. This is the second time in my lifetime. The first was Vietnam, another complete lie and build up. "The commies are coming." 50,000 or so lives later and God knows how much money we pissed away to get people richer. You go there now and its............"what size fries do want with that Big Mac." People really think there is no motivation of "greed" behind our methods.......that's the conspiracy. Wake up folks. The other lie, there are way more reasons than just jealousy that they hate us and some of them are actually pretty good ones. If you, for one second think we have not been involved in bringing countries and leaders down.....you are an idiot. That's why the older generations in Iran hate us. People love to believe what they want, we are some great, innocent, country. Its going down the crapper because we are not. For the Bible belters, if there is God he's turning his back on this swill we put out. Then things go down the drain like Sodom and Gomorrah or the Roman Empire, because we are a combo of both. That's what people should really fear. But you'll never see what I say on TV, maybe a few people will point it out...and be hated. The truth really does hurt.
Now this is truth. As usual you sum up well.

OTM Al

12-30-2015, 06:48 PM

And there's the laws of physics...you should look into them.
Um, yeah. Like gravity.

OTM Al

12-30-2015, 06:50 PM

Who can say with certainty what was recorded on the black boxes that you say were recovered?
If you want to go there then there is nothing you can believe without seeing it for yourself. And I am not the one saying it. Just look it up. Takes seconds.

Shooter 79

12-30-2015, 06:53 PM

Look into the conservation of momentum...then maybe you'll understand how silly your remote control experiment suggestion is.

delayjf

12-30-2015, 07:17 PM

ANG Units are never on combat-alert for CAP missions...

Are you sure? March AFB has two F-16 under hangers located at the end of their main runway. As far as I know, there are no AF fighter squadrons stationed in CA - there are plenty of Navy and Marine fighters available.

March AFB lists the CA Air Guard as a tenant at the base, so one could reasonable conclude that those F-16 are with the CA ANG. But perhaps not.

When I was stationed at El Toro, I never saw any F-18s on standby ready take off at a moments notice. Neither did I ever see any jets at Miramar on standby either. But again, I could have been wrong.

OTM Al

12-30-2015, 08:17 PM

Look into the conservation of momentum...then maybe you'll understand how silly your remote control experiment suggestion is.
This law is about the collision of objects and how the total momentum is maintained after that collision so exactly what does it have to do with a structurally weakened building falling more or less straight down?

Shooter 79

12-30-2015, 08:57 PM

OTM Al

12-30-2015, 09:15 PM

What it means is that in your remote control experiment, the remote will continue to "freefall" without resistance. Yet building 7 falls at near freefall speed. How is that possible? It was a 47 story skyscraper with several hundred tons of structural steel, yet it falls straight down with no resistance...just like your remote control experiment.
No it didn't. It took quite a bit longer to fall than that. Further, it didn't fall quite straight down but at a bit of a tilt that was completely consistent with the giant gash in the building reported by the firefighters on scene. Come on, the free fall thing has been debunked so many times and so completely it is ridiculous to still go down that road. The one major law of physics here was gravity, just like dropping the remote.

ArlJim78

12-30-2015, 09:23 PM

There was resistance, the detailed NIST report calculated the descent to be 40% longer than freefall.

The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:
Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity

This analysis showed that the 40 percent longer descent time—compared to the 3.9 second free fall time—was due primarily to Stage 1, which corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis model which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above. In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased as the upper portion of the north face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below.

OTM Al

12-30-2015, 09:32 PM

There was resistance, the detailed NIST report calculated the descent to be 40% longer than freefall.
They also believe a central section may have fallen first as well, making the time of collapse even longer. The firefighters that were close in could hear the building creaking and groaning and were very afraid because they almost were ordered in before saner heads prevailed and told them to fall back.

ArlJim78

12-30-2015, 09:51 PM

They also believe a central section may have fallen first as well, making the time of collapse even longer. The firefighters that were close in could hear the building creaking and groaning and were very afraid because they almost were ordered in before saner heads prevailed and told them to fall back.
yes the report says that a lot of internal damage had already occurred. This is what the fire fighters heard, the thing was coming apart from within. Once they realized this they backed off.

What I have not seen in any account is that they heard 30-40 nearly simultaneous very loud high explosives going off all around the perimeter just moments before the collapse. The kind of sounds which you hear on any demolition job. Not only were they not heard, they were not seen and did not cause any damage to adjacent buildings which would almost certainly be the case had it been a building demolition.

OTM Al

12-30-2015, 10:01 PM

yes the report says that a lot of internal damage had already occurred. This is what the fire fighters heard, the thing was coming apart from within. Once they realized this they backed off.

What I have not seen in any account is that they heard 30-40 nearly simultaneous very loud high explosives going off all around the perimeter just moments before the collapse. The kind of sounds which you hear on any demolition job. Not only were they not heard, they were not seen and did not cause any damage to adjacent buildings which would almost certainly be the case had it been a building demolition.
Very true and points out very well how things that sound good in theory fall apart when you look at how they really work. Not one thing posted in this thread yet has not been debunked years ago. Still waiting for someone to tell me that planes never hit the buildings but that it was a hologram. Some whack actually said that. Unbelievable.

One of the best quotes on all this explained how these people are using reverse scientific inquiry. They start with the conclusion and throw out every fact that doesn't agree with that conclusion until all they are left with is a ridiculous surmise that cofirms the conclusion they started with. This isn't asking questions, it's just plain making stuff up.

ArlJim78

12-30-2015, 10:25 PM

here is a cool compilation of building demolitions. I urge conspiricists to watch them and notice the sound and energy of the detonations required to severe steel. This is of course after weeks or months or preparation. It's not like you could do this with people mere blocks away and nobody notices.

eem7d58gjno
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eem7d58gjno

Shooter 79

12-30-2015, 10:28 PM

The 2008 NIST final report admits to freefall acceleration for 2.25 seconds yet they offer zero explanation for it.

rastajenk

12-31-2015, 07:19 AM

I can't believe we're still arguing trutherism points all these years later.

Tom

12-31-2015, 07:29 AM

I can't believe we're still arguing trutherism points all these years later.

I'm gonna have to see your birth certificate......

classhandicapper

12-31-2015, 09:00 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by classhandicapper
Do you actually think there aren't planes set to scramble and go within minutes and that things aren't done by the military all the time that are squashed under order that never get out?

No.

Quote:
Do you think if we were suddenly under attack there would be some chain of command that ends up with some low level guys having to arm planes before we could respond?

Yes.

The chances that the military does not squash stories is zero. It's been done in every single war since the dawn of man. A lot of what we do overseas now will never see the light of day. The media and people like us will never know.

If what you are OTM Al are describing about our preparedness is true in places like Washington DC and near certain key bases, nuclear reactors etc.. imo we are woefully incompetent. We are spending hundreds of billions of dollars annually on defense and we can't get planes off the ground in a few minutes if someone is using commercial planes as a weapon? We have to contact a bunch of low level schmoes first?

elysiantraveller

12-31-2015, 09:03 AM

No?

Seriously ?

No we don't have the resources, funds, or personnel to be able to rapidly clear our skies. Our main air-space threats come from a long distance off. Do we have planes on alert throughtout the country ready to counter violations? Sure. Not nearly to the extent most people think. Hell, we have very few Air Superiority fighters to begin with.

CAPs take tons of logistics, resources, and manpower.

elysiantraveller

12-31-2015, 09:07 AM

The chances that the military does not squash stories is zero. It's been done in every single war since the dawn of man. A lot of what we do overseas now will never see the light of day. The media and people like us will never know.

If what you are OTM Al and describing is true about our preparedness in places like Washington DC and near certain key bases etc.. imo we are woefully incompetent. We are spending hundreds of billions of dollars annually on defense and we can't get planes off the ground in a few minutes if someone attacks or is using planes as a weapon? We have to contact a bunch of low level schmoes first?

I'm sure we have some alert fighters but to think we had a National Defense Strategy in place to deal with the events of 9/11 and the use of commercial airliners is absurd.

Why would we?

The F15s scrambled and headed east to be refueled and head off and fight Ivan coming in from the north...

That was our national defense strategy at the time.

elysiantraveller

12-31-2015, 09:11 AM

Are you sure? March AFB has two F-16 under hangers located at the end of their main runway. As far as I know, there are no AF fighter squadrons stationed in CA - there are plenty of Navy and Marine fighters available.

They might be on some level of readiness but to think they are anything like we had in the days of SAC is foolish. If they are a guard unit where are the pilots? My guess is not on base.

Tom

12-31-2015, 09:11 AM

And a pretty poor strategy it was.
We KNEW the threat of using airplanes as weapons existed.
Hell, they tried to hijack one and crash into Nixon in the 70's.

Relying on our government for protection is what is absurd.

I bet that today, we have no good plans in place.

elysiantraveller

12-31-2015, 09:19 AM

classhandicapper

12-31-2015, 09:29 AM

I'm sure we have some alert fighters but to think we had a National Defense Strategy in place to deal with the events of 9/11 and the use of commercial airliners is absurd.

Why would we?

The F15s scrambled and headed east to be refueled and head off and fight Ivan coming in from the north...

That was our national defense strategy at the time.

I wouldn't expect that we had a national defense strategy in place for something like 9/11.

My argument earlier was simply that it was conceivable that after the towers and pentagon were hit, the military would have known about the flight over Pennsylvania and that it was very likely to be heading for Washington. So they would have tried to intercept it.

I also think it's at least conceivable that if the military could not get that plane to alter course, an order would have come down from Rumsfeld or the president to take it down so it didn't hit the capitol. That's something the military and the 2-3 people in government that knew would do everything in their power to keep quiet about.

The basic underlying belief behind all conspiracy theories is that the government lies and covers things up.

The same people that will argue that there was this grand conspiracy of lies by politicians and generals to get us into Iraq and that there were no legitimate fears about our bad relationship with Saddam, his possible possession of WMDs, his relationship with hostile nations, and this new environment we were, in will tell you that you have to believe everything the government is saying on other subjects.

The government lies.

The government withholds information.

The government has people in their back pocket (including in the media) that will swear to the government's lies or withhold sensitive information to advance its agenda.

The problem is that what is presented as fact by the government, these individuals, and these institutions is not always fact or the whole truth and you can't really selectively decide what to believe and what not to believe when they can't be trusted PERIOD.

elysiantraveller

12-31-2015, 09:47 AM

...

It's perfectly conceivable they didn't know where it was. Its not like we have AWACS cruising around over BIG 10 country...

Radars operate via line of sight and it's perfectly logical at the time the backbone of our command and control system was not civilian operated IE Air Traffic Towers that may or may not have even seen the plane.

Our Air Defense posture is (was) designed to keep the bad shit out. Not hunt down the needle in our haystack.

All of this is exactly why so many of these things were integrated with the creation of Homeland Security.

OTM Al

12-31-2015, 10:10 AM

OTM Al

12-31-2015, 10:18 AM

I wouldn't expect that we had a national defense strategy in place for something like 9/11.

My argument earlier was simply that it was conceivable that after the towers and pentagon were hit, the military would have known about the flight over Pennsylvania and that it was very likely to be heading for Washington. So they would have tried to intercept it.

I also think it's at least conceivable that if the military could not get that plane to alter course, an order would have come down from Rumsfeld or the president to take it down so it didn't hit the capitol. That's something the military and the 2-3 people in government that knew would do everything in their power to keep quiet about.

The basic underlying belief behind all conspiracy theories is that the government lies and covers things up.

The same people that will argue that there was this grand conspiracy of lies by politicians and generals to get us into Iraq and that there were no legitimate fears about our bad relationship with Saddam, his possible possession of WMDs, his relationship with hostile nations, and this new environment we were, in will tell you that you have to believe everything the government is saying on other subjects.

The government lies.

The government withholds information.

The government has people in their back pocket (including in the media) that will swear to the government's lies or withhold sensitive information to advance its agenda.

The problem is that what is presented as fact by the government, these individuals, and these institutions is not always fact or the whole truth and you can't really selectively decide what to believe and what not to believe when they can't be trusted PERIOD.
Of course they can't be trusted but you have it all backward. As the saying goes "let no good crisis go to waste". That's exactly what they did. Of course they used 911 to go back into Iraq. We gave them a free pass to do so because we got so wrapped up in stupidity like this we gave them a free pass. But saying they staged it to go into Iraq is just lunacy. I honestly believe they would have found a way to do it anyway but this made it easy.

The government does lie to us indeed, but keep clouding your mind with this stuff and you'll miss everything that matters.

OTM Al

12-31-2015, 10:21 AM

I'm sure you're wrong.

Regardless... Its just not possible to be prepared for every conceivable threat.
We certainly have better plans in place, but a dedicated individual will always find a way to thwart the very best of plans. As you say, it is impossible to plan for everything.

classhandicapper

12-31-2015, 02:52 PM

Of course they can't be trusted but you have it all backward. As the saying goes "let no good crisis go to waste". That's exactly what they did. Of course they used 911 to go back into Iraq. We gave them a free pass to do so because we got so wrapped up in stupidity like this we gave them a free pass. But saying they staged it to go into Iraq is just lunacy. I honestly believe they would have found a way to do it anyway but this made it easy.

The government does lie to us indeed, but keep clouding your mind with this stuff and you'll miss everything that matters.

I think you are choosing to selectively believe what you want and not believe what you don't want when there's actually often a reasonable grey area of what is possible that feeds this stuff (and I'm not talk about the lunatics here).

I think the government lies and withholds information about just about everything including going to war with Iraq, 9/11, the Kennedy assassinations, and loads of other things. The problem is knowing where the line is that separates appropriate questioning of what they are saying without crossing over into lunacy.

I might conclude there's no way they set up 9/11 and that the buildings all came down on their own, but I might also strongly suspect they know way more about the incident and connections than they are telling us.

I might conclude is it likely the Pennsylvania plane came down on it's own because of some of the voice recordings I heard, but it's not inconceivable the plane was shot down because if I was president I would have ordered it myself. I think Cheney once said in an interview he would have done it and Rumsfeld supposedly once had a Freudian slip about the incident and said the plane was shot down (which I'm sure he would have retracted immediately regardless of whether it was true or not or who shot it down).

I might conclude there were clear reasons for big oil, certain foreign countries, Bush and the neocons, and others to want us to invade Iraq and get rid of Saddam. So they were willing to lie, exaggerate, and use 9/11 as an opportunity to do that. But I might also believe they had legitimate concerns that he used to have WMDs, had relationships with terrorist countries, and posed a bigger risk in the new environment.

I might think Oswald was involved with the Kennedy assassination, but also think it's possible there's massively more to that story than we are ever going to know and Oswald may have been killed to ensure that remained the case.

There's a grey area between reasonable and lunacy that is fair game when you know someone is always lying. I don't accept some stories and not others to fit my world view.

OTM Al

12-31-2015, 04:58 PM

I think you are choosing to selectively believe what you want and not believe what you don't want when there's actually often a reasonable grey area of what is possible that feeds this stuff (and I'm not talk about the lunatics here).

I think the government lies and withholds information about just about everything including going to war with Iraq, 9/11, the Kennedy assassinations, and loads of other things. The problem is knowing where the line is that separates appropriate questioning of what they are saying without crossing over into lunacy.

I might conclude there's no way they set up 9/11 and that the buildings all came down on their own, but I might also strongly suspect they know way more about the incident and connections than they are telling us.

I might conclude is it likely the Pennsylvania plane came down on it's own because of some of the voice recordings I heard, but it's not inconceivable the plane was shot down because if I was president I would have ordered it myself. I think Cheney once said in an interview he would have done it and Rumsfeld supposedly once had a Freudian slip about the incident and said the plane was shot down (which I'm sure he would have retracted immediately regardless of whether it was true or not or who shot it down).

I might conclude there were clear reasons for big oil, certain foreign countries, Bush and the neocons, and others to want us to invade Iraq and get rid of Saddam. So they were willing to lie, exaggerate, and use 9/11 as an opportunity to do that. But I might also believe they had legitimate concerns that he used to have WMDs, had relationships with terrorist countries, and posed a bigger risk in the new environment.

I might think Oswald was involved with the Kennedy assassination, but also think it's possible there's massively more to that story than we are ever going to know and Oswald may have been killed to ensure that remained the case.

There's a grey area between reasonable and lunacy that is fair game when you know someone is always lying. I don't accept some stories and not others to fit my world view.

I just don't find what you have called grey areas really all that questionable. Shooting down a plane and saying you would do it are two different things. Of course they would have shot it down if it became an immanent threat. But they couldn't find it and there is very clear evidence that it was crashed on purpose. There was a full investigation of the market activity as well. Most of it was done by one firm. No wrongdoing was found. If there had been there is no way someone would not have been prosecuted. Seems to me everything has been clearly laid out and that you a e selecting which to believe and which not to. I am quite satisfied. Do I think some little questionable things happened? Sure. How about the relation between bin Laden's family and the Bushes, et al. and favors that were done? Sure stuff like that happened but don't think it was nefarious as they hated him too.

Tom

12-31-2015, 05:55 PM

We certainly have better plans in place, but a dedicated individual will always find a way to thwart the very best of plans. As you say, it is impossible to plan for everything.

They have to be right once out of a million tries.
We have to be right every time.

As we just saw with the government not checking social media posting of people being allowed here - it is not conspiracy near as much as it is total incompetence. Let's focus our energies on finding what else our pathetic excuse of a government is NOT doing that it should be doing.

Everyone - thake a deep brath and read this slowly......

IT IS THE US GOVERNMENT HERE - THEY ARE FAR TOO STUPID TO PULL OFF ANYTHING YOU ARE SUGGESTING.

Stillriledup

12-31-2015, 06:52 PM

Tom

12-31-2015, 06:58 PM

I got Was Flip Wilson married?

Stillriledup

12-31-2015, 07:01 PM

I got Was Flip Wilson married?

:D

What else gets filled in?

fast4522

12-31-2015, 07:14 PM

Saddam was very vocal that he intended to head the caliphate, his dream was the same one as Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. Many of Saddam's guard are now serving under Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, some released from Guantanamo Bay are resuming to lead under Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi as well. We have cells here in the United States who intend to die if they can make it count, and now we have our own questioning if insiders had a part of 9/11. Instead of bumping heads between left and right there should be unity that our kill rate should be much higher.

OTM Al

12-31-2015, 07:14 PM

Was Flipping Vegas Cancelled

classhandicapper

01-01-2016, 12:20 PM

I just don't find what you have called grey areas really all that questionable. Shooting down a plane and saying you would do it are two different things. Of course they would have shot it down if it became an immanent threat. But they couldn't find it and there is very clear evidence that it was crashed on purpose. There was a full investigation of the market activity as well. Most of it was done by one firm. No wrongdoing was found.

You are making my point.

You admit that government sometimes lies through its teeth, but you accept the official story that they did a thorough investigation of all trades on exchanges around the world in airline and reinsurance stocks and can account for everything around the globe (of which there were multiple examples). It may not even be possible to understand all the interrelated market movements.

They found one trade by one large firm and a newsletter with a sell recommendation and basically said that accounted for everything around the world. IMO it's total BS, but at a minimum it's gray. Sometimes I think snopes is an arm of the government. lol

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks_advance-knowledge_conspiracy_theories

"The Times reported on September 18 that investigations were under way into the unusually large numbers of shares in insurance companies and airlines sold off before the attack, in the UK, Italy, Germany, Japan, Switzerland, France and the US.[13][14] News accounts in the weeks that followed reported a notable pattern of trading in the options of United and American Airlines[15] as well as Morgan Stanley and other market activity.[16] An article published in The Journal of Business in 2006 provides statistical evidence of unusual put option market activity days before 9/11:"

Later research[edit]
The papers of several finance researchers also suggest that some profited from foreknowledge of 9/11. In 2006, Allen Poteshman, a professor of Finance from the University of Illinois, published an analysis of the airline stock option trades preceding the attacks. This peer-reviewed study, published by the University of Chicago Press, came to the conclusion that an indicator of long put volume was "unusually high which is consistent with informed investors having traded in the option market in advance of the attacks".[25] In January 2010, a team of Swiss financial experts published evidence for at least thirteen informed trades in which the investors had apparent foreknowledge of the attacks.[26] Finally, in April 2010, an international team of experts showed that there was a significant abnormal increase in trading volume in the option market just before the 9/11 attacks in contrast to the absence of abnormal trading volume over periods long before the attacks, concluding that their findings were "consistent with insiders anticipating the 9-11 attacks".[27]

OTM Al

01-01-2016, 12:54 PM

Robert Fischer

01-01-2016, 01:27 PM

Geraldo is a character, but probably not a guy you want to seek truth from.

topic related =
When we get media from the government or from corporate broadcasting, it's important to remember that incentives are at play.

Incentives sometimes distort the truth, and sometimes even require that truth be manufactured.

People are willing to suspend disbelief when an authority tells them something.
Common knowledge of human psychology, Milgram type experiments, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment) and many other studies have repeatedly demonstrated this principle as well as many other related influential principles.

When considering the reality and the scope of the incentivized power that is at play, it becomes clear that media is more complex than literal factual verbatim.

Greyfox

01-01-2016, 02:55 PM

When considering the reality and the scope of the incentivized power that is at play, it becomes clear that media is more complex than literal factual verbatim.

RobertF - That is an intriguing comment which begs clarification.
I'm not sure what you are insinuating here and have a fear of reading too much or to little into it.
Can you expand on that for us?

Robert Fischer

01-01-2016, 03:21 PM

RobertF - That is an intriguing comment which begs clarification.
I'm not sure what you are insinuating here and have a fear of reading too much or to little into it.
Can you expand on that for us?

There is a lot of power at play. That power creates big incentives.
The presence of those big incentives distort and even shape the media broadcast.

I'm simply stating my opinion of how things work. However much you wish to read into it, is up to you and your view. I'm certainly not claiming to know anything specifically about 9/11.

Tom

01-01-2016, 05:17 PM

The press is not free.
It has a high price tag.

But it will report what it is paid to report at all levels.

And that' s the way it is, January 1, 2016.....

classhandicapper

01-01-2016, 07:56 PM

No, I'm not. You continually have a problem recognizing the scope and scale of things. You act as if a couple guys wrote this report and were able to manipulate as they wished. This report was compiled by hundreds if not thousands of people. It is likely the most scrutinized report of any ever written, and I'm not talking by just the whacks but by people that actually know what they are talking about. Your info also proves nothing. Correlation is not causality. A reasearcher's model says it was consist the with inside info. Don't doubt it given the volumes, but he did not say that it was inside info. How many other actions that are legit have raised red flags because they appear consistant with inside info? And if legitimate evidence has been given that people knew, where are the arrests? Or is law inforcement in every country you mention in on it too? Because that would have to be true for you hypothesis to work.

The whole reason something is a "theory" is that there is no proof. There's motive and evidence.

We have an event that took a long time to plan that some of the organizers survived.

We have an event that even amateur investors would know would impact airlines and reinsurance companies negatively.

The stocks of multiple insurance companies and airlines in a broad range of countries around the world declined and had unusual volumes of options activity just prior to the event.

We have a report from the US government that talks about a single transaction in one airline company in the US and a newsletter that suggested selling airline stocks in the US (something that happens practically every single day in a variety of industries without major influence globally) and somehow that's supposed to account for transactions in countries all over Europe and in Japan in gigantic international insurance companies and airlines.

We have multiple subsequent "private" international studies by "neutral" sources suggesting that the trading activity in 13 international transactions was consistent with insider trading.

There are a lot of people that would/could have known about it, including friends and families of the actual perpetrators. Al Qaeda members, members of their families, people that fund Al Qaeda quietly etc... Some of those people are very wealthy and influential with close business and political ties to governments, including the Bin Laden family.

Does that mean it's 100%?

Of course not. That's why there's speculation, a theory, and continued studies years after the fact. No one has proof. But I'm not buying what the US is selling. It doesn't account for it all. It's very difficult to prove insider trading. In this case we probably don't even know all the connections and money flows because they are terror organizations.

To simply accept the government's word on this is not logical unless you are the type of person that always accepts the "official" story.

You are getting caught up in trying to disprove the really loony aspects of the 9/11 conspiracy theories and it's clouding your ability to admit that sometimes there are good reasons to suspect we aren't getting the whole story.

OTM Al

01-01-2016, 09:02 PM

The whole reason something is a "theory" is that there is no proof. There's motive and evidence.

We have an event that took a long time to plan that some of the organizers survived.

We have an event that even amateur investors would know would impact airlines and reinsurance companies negatively.

The stocks of multiple insurance companies and airlines in a broad range of countries around the world declined and had unusual volumes of options activity just prior to the event.

We have a report from the US government that talks about a single transaction in one airline company in the US and a newsletter that suggested selling airline stocks in the US (something that happens practically every single day in a variety of industries without major influence globally) and somehow that's supposed to account for transactions in countries all over Europe and in Japan in gigantic international insurance companies and airlines.

We have multiple subsequent "private" international studies by "neutral" sources suggesting that the trading activity in 13 international transactions was consistent with insider trading.

There are a lot of people that would/could have known about it, including friends and families of the actual perpetrators. Al Qaeda members, members of their families, people that fund Al Qaeda quietly etc... Some of those people are very wealthy and influential with close business and political ties to governments, including the Bin Laden family.

Does that mean it's 100%?

Of course not. That's why there's speculation, a theory, and continued studies years after the fact. No one has proof. But I'm not buying what the US is selling. It doesn't account for it all. It's very difficult to prove insider trading. In this case we probably don't even know all the connections and money flows because they are terror organizations.

To simply accept the government's word on this is not logical unless you are the type of person that always accepts the "official" story.

You are getting caught up in trying to disprove the really loony aspects of the 9/11 conspiracy theories and it's clouding your ability to admit that sometimes there are good reasons to suspect we aren't getting the whole story.

In a true theory you have plenty of proof, but lets put that aside. I already said there are some things that haven't been told but in the grand scale of things they are quite minor. Tell me then if it is so clear that markets were actually manipulated, which is not a minor thing, why not a single person has sued. Wealthy people also had to have taken a bath if other wealthy people benefitted. Wealthy people hate losing money. Where are the lawsuits? That's a real question. It makes no sense which makes your "theory" make no sense in turn. You have only a supposition and an extremely baseless one. If you want to quote things that are corollary then I would say people who lost money taking legal action is also a corollary but that just didn't happen. That's what I have faith in, and in turn, because of the consistency of that observation, thus I have faith in that section of the report.

Stillriledup

01-01-2016, 09:12 PM

fast4522

01-01-2016, 10:05 PM

Maybe people aren't suing because they feel the corrupt justice system will laugh them out of court.

Our justice system is the most revered in the whole world, some of us prefer when there is no mockery. In every similar large scale horror event there is always aspects that are inconvenient, there is no shortage of people who make much out of nothing.

classhandicapper

01-02-2016, 11:30 AM

In a true theory you have plenty of proof, but lets put that aside. I already said there are some things that haven't been told but in the grand scale of things they are quite minor. Tell me then if it is so clear that markets were actually manipulated, which is not a minor thing, why not a single person has sued. Wealthy people also had to have taken a bath if other wealthy people benefitted. Wealthy people hate losing money. Where are the lawsuits? That's a real question. It makes no sense which makes your "theory" make no sense in turn. You have only a supposition and an extremely baseless one. If you want to quote things that are corollary then I would say people who lost money taking legal action is also a corollary but that just didn't happen. That's what I have faith in, and in turn, because of the consistency of that observation, thus I have faith in that section of the report.

If there was proof, we wouldn't be having this discussion. What we have is a clear cut opportunity to gain an advantage using insider information, ample motive (greed), and statistical evidence compiled by multiple independent researchers that it probably occurred.

It's not even clear to me who would sue.

The government usually makes insider trading cases first. If they can't (which is very conceivable) or don't want to, then who knows what happens. Maybe they demonstrated there was no insider trading in the US markets, but were not in a position to do so in every country where there was unusual activity.

My point on this is that the government dismissed it all and people accepted that, but they never accounted for much of it. So we don't know other than having opportunity, motive, and statistical evidence. "Don't Know" is different than "dismissing it" like I would with controlled demolition of the towers.

elysiantraveller

01-02-2016, 01:29 PM

If there was proof, we wouldn't be having this discussion. What we have is a clear cut opportunity to gain an advantage using insider information, ample motive (greed), and statistical evidence compiled by multiple independent researchers that it probably occurred.

It's not even clear to me who would sue.

The government usually makes insider trading cases first. If they can't (which is very conceivable) or don't want to, then who knows what happens. Maybe they demonstrated there was no insider trading in the US markets, but were not in a position to do so in every country where there was unusual activity.

My point on this is that the government dismissed it all and people accepted that, but they never accounted for much of it. So we don't know other than having opportunity, motive, and statistical evidence. "Don't Know" is different than "dismissing it" like I would with controlled demolition of the towers.

Straw man...

I don't find it inconceivable that there was in fact some insider trading that occurred in lieu of the disaster but that's a very weak point to reconcile it with a truther philosophy.

PaceAdvantage

01-02-2016, 02:21 PM

a controlled demolition would have left a lot of evidence that was not found (explosive residue, steel girders sheared by an explosive, numerous very loud explosive charges).
Have you listened to the sound of a real controlled demolition? Those blasts are huge and since you have to blast all around the building at the same time, unmistakable. Not to mention the amount of time it takes to rig a building to fall via explosives. Seriously man its fantasyland to even think that, when there is so much overwhelming evidence as to what DID happen. The design of the building plus fires that burned on mulitple floor for hours coupled with the damage from the debris of the other buildings caused the joints to weaken and fail.Obviously, this "controlled demolition" (if it were in fact something like this), would not be of the conventional nature. We can talk theory all day long from a position of ignorance, as neither you nor I nor probably anyone else on here is familiar with industrial or military-grade controlled demolition.

The documentary that was posted here recently, talks about the finding of evidence of military-grade Thermite in the rubble/dust of the WTC collapse. The use of such a thing might require less conventional explosives to bring the buildings down. There is multiple eye-witness accounts (I know, eye-witnesses aren't very reliable) of multiple, very loud explosions going off both right BEFORE the planes hit and after the impacts...explosions quite far away from the impact points. Like in the sub-basements.

PaceAdvantage

01-02-2016, 02:28 PM

I believe that Christianity exists because I see people practicing it. But since you really meant the tenets of Christianity, I'll give you a pass. I guess since this is the US you can make a religion out of this if you want. What I hate though is the lack of looking at the basic facts which you can find in seconds. Maybe you can tell us all then the difference between faith and believing what has been shown clearly to be a lie.I think the point I was trying to make was that in other religious topics, thaskalos has shown not to be a believer in Christianity. He's also clearly not a believer in any of the 9/11 conspiracies that are out there.

Yet he is asking for a poll that, if I'm reading him right, would show the vast majority of posters here rejecting all 9/11 conspiracies, as if something like that should hold some validation for those of us who put stock in some of the alternative theories floating about.

The point being, a poll of those here that would show the majority believing in Christianity would NOT sway Gus's rejection of the religion in his own life.

PaceAdvantage

01-02-2016, 02:50 PM

PaceAdvantage

01-02-2016, 02:59 PM

Hey look...another skyscraper burns for what? 20 PLUS hours...and is still standing...

I know, I know...it wasn't hit by a plane.... :rolleyes:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-35209029

elysiantraveller

01-02-2016, 03:01 PM

Hey look...another skyscraper burns for what? 20 hours...and is still standing...

I know, I know...it wasn't hit by a plane.... :rolleyes:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-35209029

Wasn't the fuel and the temperature it could reach what melted the supports causing the collapse? I thought this was already determined.

Additionally the towers buckled at POI... so to bring them down the pilots flew into the location where the pre-laid explosives were?

PaceAdvantage

01-02-2016, 03:24 PM

ArlJim78

01-02-2016, 03:39 PM

Again, something like this, if it did actually occur, could not have been done in the conventional manner.
That's the whole point, it could not have been done by any known conventional manner. Are you holding out the possibility that not only was this whole conspiracy kept completely secret but that it also involved using secret unknown methods of building demolition?

Shouldn't we then be worried that some covert group could use this undetectable method and level the whole downtown area and leave no trace?

OTM Al

01-02-2016, 03:43 PM

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/design/a3524/4278874/

An article from 2008, right in its headline, states FIRE ALONE brought down building 7.

Fire alone.

Who the hell was building this thing? My 5yo nephew using tinker toys?

And yet an unfinished skyscraper in Madrid and now this Dubai tower...both burned for 20+ hours and both were still standing once the fires were eventually put out. And the fires that consumed the Madrid and Dubai towers were ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE worse than anything burning inside building 7.

Doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
Rip a big chunk out of the building and then set it on fire. Makes a huge difference. Of course I'm sure materials and design techniques haven't changed one bit either. The building had a nearly 20 story gash in it. It wa in trouble structurally before it even started burning.

OTM Al

01-02-2016, 03:44 PM

Wasn't the fuel and the temperature it could reach what melted the supports causing the collapse? I thought this was already determined.

Additionally the towers buckled at POI... so to bring them down the pilots flew into the location where the pre-laid explosives were?
And the wiring remained entirely intact despite having a plane smash through the floor...oh wait, it was just a hologram....

Stillriledup

01-02-2016, 03:52 PM

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/design/a3524/4278874/

An article from 2008, right in its headline, states FIRE ALONE brought down building 7.

Fire alone.

Who the hell was building this thing? My 5yo nephew using tinker toys?

And yet an unfinished skyscraper in Madrid and now this Dubai tower...both burned for 20+ hours and both were still standing once the fires were eventually put out. And the fires that consumed the Madrid and Dubai towers were ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE worse than anything burning inside building 7.

Doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

I disagree, it makes perfect sense.

If you were born last night.

PaceAdvantage

01-02-2016, 04:00 PM

And the wiring remained entirely intact despite having a plane smash through the floor...oh wait, it was just a hologram....I like how you keep bringing up the hologram theory. It's totally unnecessary, but I like how you're doing it just the same... :rolleyes:

Greyfox

01-02-2016, 04:21 PM

The building had a nearly 20 story gash in it. It wa in trouble

PA's post referred to Building 7.
Building 7 did not have a big gash in it.

Chaka26

01-02-2016, 05:19 PM

OTM Al

01-02-2016, 05:20 PM

PA's post referred to Building 7.
Building 7 did not have a big gash in it.
Yes it did on the side you couldn't see on tv. Or were the members of the NY fire department in on the whole thing too?

OTM Al

01-02-2016, 05:25 PM

I like how you keep bringing up the hologram theory. It's totally unnecessary, but I like how you're doing it just the same... :rolleyes:
Just shows how far it goes. Worst part of all this crap is large numbers of people in the Muslim world believe this stuff too. One of the reasons many don't want to help us as why would you want to help a country that killed its own people and then pinned it on fellow Muslims. Pakistanis especially buy into this stuff. Seen estimates that as many as two thirds don't even believe we killed bin Laden.

PaceAdvantage

01-02-2016, 05:27 PM

Seen estimates that as many as two thirds don't even believe we killed bin Laden.Are you looking to open up ANOTHER can? :lol:

I tend to believe we killed bin Laden...only we did it long before it was announced to the world...LONG before...

OTM Al

01-02-2016, 05:32 PM

Are you looking to open up ANOTHER can? :lol:

I tend to believe we killed bin Laden...only we did it long before it was announced to the world...LONG before...
Just making an example of how crap like this helps create enemies of our country. It's probably stupid to try to point this out though to people so far gone down the yellow brick road.

PaceAdvantage

01-02-2016, 05:48 PM

Just making an example of how crap like this helps create enemies of our country. It's probably stupid to try to point this out though to people so far gone down the yellow brick road.What DOESN'T help create enemies of our country?

They say Donald Trump's comments put him into recruiting videos for ISIS. Up until a few days ago, this wasn't true, but now it is...I read of a video yesterday that has finally surfaced featuring Trump.

However, do you know how many ISIS recruiting videos are out there with Obama, Bush and Clinton appearing in them? TONS more than any Trump videos, but nobody had a problem apparently until Trump came along... :lol:

We'll always have enemies. Because if we didn't, we'd have to create some....ooops...I've said too much... :lol: :lol: :lol:

OTM Al

01-02-2016, 07:27 PM

What DOESN'T help create enemies of our country?

They say Donald Trump's comments put him into recruiting videos for ISIS. Up until a few days ago, this wasn't true, but now it is...I read of a video yesterday that has finally surfaced featuring Trump.

However, do you know how many ISIS recruiting videos are out there with Obama, Bush and Clinton appearing in them? TONS more than any Trump videos, but nobody had a problem apparently until Trump came along... :lol:

We'll always have enemies. Because if we didn't, we'd have to create some....ooops...I've said too much... :lol: :lol: :lol:
I don't know but why help the cause more than it could be. Propaganda wins far more victories than guns.

Tom

01-03-2016, 09:24 AM

classhandicapper

01-03-2016, 10:19 AM

Straw man...

I don't find it inconceivable that there was in fact some insider trading that occurred in lieu of the disaster but that's a very weak point to reconcile it with a truther philosophy.

I'm not sure what point you are making here. I never defended any of the "truther" arguments about controlled demolitions or it being as inside government job. I see no evidence of that and the "story" doesn't make sense to me.

I am mostly arguing that the government and media are full of crap on many things and we shouldn't just accept the "official" story without actually investigating if they are in fact telling the whole truth, which they have not on an endless number of occasions.

OTM Al

01-03-2016, 01:58 PM

So we should shut up lest we offend some weak minded little weasels?
If people are so mentally incompetent that they would act on merely being offended, out best bet is to identify them and target them.

Anyone offended by us can go to Hell.
The issue is that we are alienating people who would help us battle these terrorists because they don't like them either. Just see us as more of the same. But screw them, so much can be made by so few in a perpetual and unwinnable state of war.

Tom

01-03-2016, 04:11 PM

THEY should be sucking up to US to help them clean up THEIR mess.
I am willing the let them wallow in what they refuse to deal with.
Just not allow ANY of them to come here.

OTM Al

01-03-2016, 05:59 PM

THEY should be sucking up to US to help them clean up THEIR mess.
I am willing the let them wallow in what they refuse to deal with.
Just not allow ANY of them to come here.
Why? How many of these messes did we have a hand in? Seems your argument is a bit tired too. Sounds like what "they" said about the Irish, the Germans, the Russians, etc, etc, etc.....

Tom

01-03-2016, 06:16 PM

OTM Al

01-03-2016, 06:23 PM

What I am saying is we do not bow to those who might be offended. We do not live our lives not to offend others. If others are offended by us, then that is their problem to solve,unless they want to elevate it, then we will have to solve it for them.
I'm not talking about offending people. I'm talking about some of our own citizens being so stupid that they are convincing people who may otherwise help us that we are just as deceitful as their own corrupt governments. They believe that our government blew up the buildings and killed its own people to start a war or do whatever these whacks think was behind all this. We haven't offended them at all, simply taught them they can't trust us because all they have to do is point to this stuff as proof.