The only group NOT ACCUSED by the truthers of being in on it!

[Bobert]

I think I am going to leave and find a colony somewhere of these guys:
http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d83/iamanemofag/midgets.jpg

[ULTIMA1]

I think I am going to leave and find a colony somewhere of these guys:

Where has anyone accused anyone of "being in on it" ?

[PhantomWolf]

Where has anyone accused anyone of "being in on it" ?

Well for a start Alex Jones claimed that Larry Silverstein and the FDNY were guilty of at least Manslaughter, then there were those people that stood outside Silverstein's office and yelled that he was a Murder and then there are all the ones that claim Bush was in on it, and Cheney was in on it, and....


Oh yeah, and then there are the ones that try and avoid claiming the airlines were in on it since they were the ones that identified the planes all within an hour of each crash, but hey....

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I think I am going to leave and find a colony somewhere of these guys:
http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d83/iamanemofag/midgets.jpg

Your implicit accusations against the Myley Cyrus Fan Club, The Springfield Missourri Lawn and Garden Society and the Jennings & Rall Corporation (http://www.jenningsandrall.com/html/index.php) are duly noted.

[Zipster]

Where has anyone accused anyone of "being in on it" ?

Are you serious?? There have been plenty of "Truthers" that have claimed everyone from Dick Cheney to the tooth fairy have been "in on it".

But really, don't get your panties in such a bind. The OP was just trying to make a joke. Sheesh...

[MikeW]

Where has anyone accused anyone of "being in on it" ?
This site (http://www.whodidit.org/cocon.html) lists "103 suspected 9-11 criminal co-conspirators", for instance. And that's before you get into the people required to plant explosives, wreckage or passports, fake phone calls, or implement/ cover up any of the other many evil deeds claimed to have taken place before, on or after 9/11.

[JihadJane]

Welcome to the freak-pointing forum.

[Caustic Logic]

Oh no, see they didn't say these people were IN ON IT... rather, they were either willfully in on it, or coerced/duped into helping - brainwashed, tricked, or conscious murderers/enablers.

But clearly a lot of people were involved somehow, from faking plane crash scenes, disposing of passengers, faking radar tracks, faking black boxes (forgot those from the WTC tho!), planting bombs/thermite, plane parts, DNA maybe, projecting the holograms, coordinating the media cover-up (you gotta have good cameramen who can pan perfectly following the nothing at just the right time to line up with the blow ups), ... not that every truther/twoofer subscribes to every contrivance outlined here, but that have all been posited at one(thousand) time or another.

[ULTIMA1]

Well for a start Alex Jones claimed that Larry Silverstein and the FDNY were guilty of at least Manslaughter, ..


Well for one, Larry Silverstein did not order building 7 to be pulled the fire commander did.

Second the firemen were out of buidling 7 before the call was made.

[AJM8125]

Well for one, Larry Silverstein did not order building 7 to be pulled the fire commander did.

Second the firemen were out of buidling 7 before the call was made.



http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/2683248e72ec43da3d.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=14003)

[PhantomWolf]

Welcome to the freak-pointing forum.

You have no evidence that we use freaks as pointers....



Code Violet, the goose is in the doghouse, I repeat the goose is in the doghouse.

[ULTIMA1]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/2683248e72ec43da3d.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=14003)

1. Did Silverstein or the fire commander give the order to PULL ?

2. Both Chief Nigro and Chief Hayden stated the firemen were out of the building early in the day.

[AJM8125]

1. Did Silverstein or the fire commander give the order to PULL ?

2. Both Chief Nigro and Chief Hayden stated the firemen were out of the building early in the day.

1. Pull what?

2. That's because they feared losing more personnel in an obviously unstable building.

[ULTIMA1]

1. Pull what?

2. That's because they feared losing more personnel in an obviously unstable building.

1. The transcipts state that the Fire Commander decided to PULL IT (the building)

2. So you agree the firemen were out of the building before the call to Silverstien, so the fire commander could not have been talking about the firemen when he said PULL IT.

[UNLoVedRebel]

1. The transcipts state that the Fire Commander decided to PULL IT (the building)

2. So you agree the firemen were out of the building before the call to Silverstien, so the fire commander could not have been talking about the firemen when he said PULL IT.

Go get 'em Colombo.

[AJM8125]

1. The transcipts state that the Fire Commander decided to PULL IT (the building)

2. So you agree the firemen were out of the building before the call to Silverstien, so the fire commander could not have been talking about the firemen when he said PULL IT.

1. What transcripts?

2. What call to Silverstien and which fire commander?

[UNLoVedRebel]

Ultima, read Silverstein's quote again, this time without your truther reading glasses. Notice how Silverstein uses the Direct Object Pronoun (it) BEFORE using the word "building". Thus, "it" could not have meant the building. If he would've said "We decided to pull THE BUILDING, and we watched IT collapse.." you would have a point. But he didn't, and you don't.

[DC]

What was the time when they decided to pull it?

[UNLoVedRebel]

What was the time when they decided to pull it?

I don't know, I'm not very good with that kinda stuff. This one time I made the decision to "pull out" a little too late. I got a kid out of it.

[Dave Rogers]

Where has anyone accused anyone of "being in on it" ?

That's amazing, Ultima1. We've seen no-claimers before, but claiming that the entire truth movement consists of no-claimers makes even the no-planers look mundane.

Dave

[Dave Rogers]

Your implicit accusations against the Myley Cyrus Fan Club, The Springfield Missourri Lawn and Garden Society and the Jennings & Rall Corporation (http://www.jenningsandrall.com/html/index.php) are duly noted.

Didn't some truthers claim a while back that there was a planned false flag attack where an airliner was going to be crashed into a Hannah Montana concert?

You just got Poe'd.

Dave

[CptColumbo]

To quote the movie Foul Play:

"Beware, of the Dwarf."

and

"Look out for the midgets! They're taking over the world."

[Trojan_Jockey]

I thought the only group truthers didn't accuse of being in on it were Al Qaeda.

[NoZed Avenger]

I thought the only group truthers didn't accuse of being in on it were Al Qaeda.

It's funny, because it's true.

[DC]

I thought the only group truthers didn't accuse of being in on it were Al Qaeda.

especially the LIHOPers......

[Zipster]

I thought the only group truthers didn't accuse of being in on it were Al Qaeda.

Well played my friend, well played.

[JihadJane]

You have no evidence that we use freaks as pointers....

Stop shifting the goal posts! ;)

Code Violet, the goose is in the doghouse, I repeat the goose is in the doghouse.

Don't worry, they grew up together.

[funk de fino]

Stop shifting the goal posts! ;)



Now that really is too funny JJ

[Cl1mh4224rd]

2. So you agree the firemen were out of the building before the call to Silverstien, so the fire commander could not have been talking about the firemen when he said PULL IT.


The time that conversation took place is unknown. You can not possibly make this claim with confidence.

[ULTIMA1]

1. What transcripts?

2. What call to Silverstien and which fire commander?

What transcripts, what call? Gee you really have no idea what happned that day do you?

[ULTIMA1]

That's amazing, Ultima1. We've seen no-claimers before, but claiming that the entire truth movement consists of no-claimers makes even the no-planers look mundane.

Dave

An you unable to post any facts and evidence makes you a joke.

[Good Lt]

An you unable to post any facts and evidence makes you a joke.

I don't see any evidence posted above by you.

I see a lot of debunked, long-discredited conspiracy nuttery, but no evidence to support it.

Maybe I'm reading the wrong thread and you posted "evidence" of a CD in WTC7 somewhere else.

You'd be the first. Get to it.

[ULTIMA1]

Maybe I'm reading the wrong thread and you posted "evidence" of a CD in WTC7 somewhere else.


Yes you are reading the wrong post becasue i never stated anything about a CD.

Thanks for proving my point again.

[doobiedoright]

An you unable to post any facts and evidence makes you a joke.


Dont you just love IRONY?

[ULTIMA1]

[/HILITE][/B]
Dont you just love IRONY?

If you look around at other threads on here you can see where i have posted facts and evidence.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

If you look around at other threads on here you can see where i have posted facts and evidence.


No. All you've done is claimed that you have evidence and others do not.

You've posted links to the main pages of the FBI, CIA, etc. and claimed those were "evidence", but that's just weird and insane.

[johnny karate]

1. The transcipts state that the Fire Commander decided to PULL IT (the building)

2. So you agree the firemen were out of the building before the call to Silverstien, so the fire commander could not have been talking about the firemen when he said PULL IT.

In your opinion, what does it mean to say the building was pulled?

[ULTIMA1]

[QUOTE=Cl1mh4224rd;4097488]No. All you've done is claimed that you have evidence and others do not.

Thanks again for proving my point about believers.

[ULTIMA1]

In your opinion, what does it mean to say the building was pulled?

Its a very simple term that means to bring a building down. Look it up.

I mean if you do a little reaserch you can see where they "PULLED" building 6.

[Good Lt]

Its a very simple term that means to bring a building down. Look it up.

I mean if you do a little reaserch (sic) you can see where they "PULLED" building 6.

We have looked it up. It is not a term used in building demolition. You're implying - again, with no evidence - that somebody destroyed a building with explosives (unless you're claiming they simply somehow "pulled" the building over).

That is simply false. Stop peddling falsehoods.

And who is "they?"

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Its a very simple term that means to bring a building down. Look it up.

I mean if you do a little reaserch you can see where they "PULLED" building 6.


Yes, they pulled building 6... using cables. That's exactly what "pull" means in the context of building demolition. Only the truthers have redefined "pull" to include explosive demolition.

Did they pull WTC7 down with cables, ULTIMA1?

[johnny karate]

In response to a question earlier in this thread:
Where has anyone accused anyone of "being in on it" ?

Seven posts later, sport:
Well for one, Larry Silverstein did not order building 7 to be pulled the fire commander did.

Second the firemen were out of buidling 7 before the call was made.


And just so we're clear on what's being said:
In your opinion, what does it mean to say the building was pulled?

Its a very simple term that means to bring a building down. Look it up.


Way to go, ULTIMA1! You just made my Hall of Fame (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=121938)!

[Dr Adequate]

Its a very simple term that means to bring a building down. Look it up. To be precise, it is a very simple term which, amongst other things, means to pull a building down with cables. But only when it is used with reference to buildings, which it wasn't. We may note also that WTC7 was not pulled down with cables.

You could have discovered the meaning of "pull" yourself if you weren't too lazy to take your own advice and look it up.

ImplosionWorld: Conventionally, "pull a building" can mean to pre-burn holes in steel beams near the top floor and affix long cables to heavy machinery, which then backs up and causes the structure to lean off its center of gravity and eventually collapse. But this is only possible with buildings about 6-7 stories or smaller. This activity was performed to bring down WTC 6 (Customs) after 9/11 because of the danger in demolishing conventionally.

Blanchard et al, A Critical Analysis of the Collapse of WTC Towers 1, 2 & 7 from an Explosives and Conventional Demolition Industry Viewpoint: We have never once heard the term 'pull it' being used to refer to the explosive demolition of a building, and neither has any blast team we've spoken with.

I mean if you do a little reaserch you can see where they "PULLED" building 6. Which they did by pulling it down with cables, hence the word "pull".

Can't Truthers come up with some new bullcrap to recite? Only this is getting stale.

[Zipster]

To be precise, it is a very simple term which, amongst other things, means to pull a building down with cables. But only when it is used with reference to buildings, which it wasn't. We may note also that WTC7 was not pulled down with cables.

You could have discovered the meaning of "pull" yourself if you weren't too lazy to take your own advice and look it up.

ImplosionWorld: Conventionally, "pull a building" can mean to pre-burn holes in steel beams near the top floor and affix long cables to heavy machinery, which then backs up and causes the structure to lean off its center of gravity and eventually collapse. But this is only possible with buildings about 6-7 stories or smaller. This activity was performed to bring down WTC 6 (Customs) after 9/11 because of the danger in demolishing conventionally.

Blanchard et al, A Critical Analysis of the Collapse of WTC Towers 1, 2 & 7 from an Explosives and Conventional Demolition Industry Viewpoint: We have never once heard the term 'pull it' being used to refer to the explosive demolition of a building, and neither has any blast team we've spoken with.

Which they did by pulling it down with cables, hence the word "pull".

Can't Truthers come up with some new bullcrap to recite? Only this is getting stale.

Thanks for posting those facts. Nice to know that the demolition world has an exact meaning for "pull it". Literally pulling the building down. Learn something new every day.

[ULTIMA1]

We have looked it up. It is not a term used in building demolition.


Oh so they did not use it when bringing down building 6?

Its so fun and easy to show how wrong you guys are that do not do real reserch.

http://www.wtc7.net/pullit.html
... we're getting ready to pull the building six.

Building 6 was one of the badly damaged low-rise buildings in the WTC complex that had to be demolished as part of the cleanup operation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNEoiOP76QQ
Check out this video at about the 13 second point it states about building 6 being "PULLED" which mens bringing it down.

[ULTIMA1]

Nice to know that the demolition world has an exact meaning for "pull it". Literally pulling the building down. Learn something new every day.

So you do agree PULL means to bring a bulding down?

[1337m4n]

Oh so they did not use it when bringing down building 6?

Its so fun and easy to show how wrong you guys are that do not do real reserch.

http://www.wtc7.net/pullit.html
... we're getting ready to pull the building six.

Building 6 was one of the badly damaged low-rise buildings in the WTC complex that had to be demolished as part of the cleanup operation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNEoiOP76QQ
Check out this video at about the 13 second point it states about building 6 being "PULLED" which mens bringing it down.

"Pulled" meaning LITERALLY. Because that's how they destroyed it--by pulling it apart, with heavy cables.

I challenge you to find ONE example prior to 9/11 of "pull" being used to refer to explosive demolition.

You will be unsuccessful.

[1337m4n]

So you do agree PULL means to bring a bulding down?

He agrees that it does NOT mean explosive demolition.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

So you do agree PULL means to bring a bulding down?


...with cables.

Are you suggesting they pulled a 47-story building down with cables affixed to its top floors?

[doobiedoright]

Its a very simple term that means to bring a building down. Look it up.

I mean if you do a little reaserch you can see where they "PULLED" building 6.



I'm sorry I must have missed when they put cables on 7 and pulled it down.Mind showing me when that took place!

[MikeW]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNEoiOP76QQ
Check out this video at about the 13 second point it states about building 6 being "PULLED" which mens bringing it down.
And here's an update the uploader of that movie has provided about it (from the same link):

UPDATE: Since I have uploaded this video in June of 06, I've realized that this video I edited is misleading in a way. Building 6 was "pulled" down by cables. There is no debating this, I have seen the full video. This should NOT be used as evidence of anything in regards to 911. Only that the demolition term "pull", obviously means pulling the building down with cables.

[ULTIMA1]

And here's an update the uploader of that movie has provided about it (from the same link):

But you would agree though that PULL still means to bring a building down?

Since they did PULL down building 6.

[johnny karate]

ULTIMA1, now that you've openly accused the FDNY of complicity in the events of 9/11, is there anyone else at whom you'd like to point the finger?

How about the NYPD or other first responders? Perhaps they assisted the FDNY in "pulling" WTC7.

[ULTIMA1]

ULTIMA1, now that you've openly accused the FDNY of complicity in the events of 9/11, is there anyone else at whom you'd like to point the finger?
.

Where did i say anything about the complicity of the FDNY in the events of 9/11.

The fact remains that the fire commander gave the order to PULL the building. (which they have the authority to do in most states in situations where they believe the buidling threatens lives, may cause more damage, or spread fires)

[1337m4n]

The fact remains that the fire commander gave the order to PULL the building. (which they have the authority to do

No. No they don't.

in most states in situations where they believe the buidling threatens lives, may cause more damage, or spread fires)

But that doesn't make any sense. If their motive for destroying WTC7 was benevolent, why would they keep it a secret?

[1337m4n]

But you would agree though that PULL still means to bring a building down?

Since they did PULL down building 6.

No.

"Pull" means this (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pull).

What happened to WTC6 fits this definition. What happened to WTC7 does not.

[ULTIMA1]

No. No they don't.

Yes they do, please do research.

But that doesn't make any sense. If their motive for destroying WTC7 was benevolent, why would they keep it a secret?

Why not ask the peope that were there? Like i do.

[ULTIMA1]

What happened to WTC6 fits this definition. What happened to WTC7 does not.

Does PULL mean to bring a building down, YES or NO?

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Where did i say anything about the complicity of the FDNY in the events of 9/11.


Right here:

Well for one, Larry Silverstein did not order building 7 to be pulled the fire commander did.

[johnny karate]

Where did i say anything about the complicity of the FDNY in the events of 9/11.

Right here:
Well for one, Larry Silverstein did not order building 7 to be pulled the fire commander did.


The fact remains that the fire commander gave the order to PULL the building. (which they have the authority to do in most states in situations where they believe the buidling threatens lives, may cause more damage, or spread fires)

And the fact remains that if the above scenario did occur, the FDNY have, for some mysterious reason, continually and consistently lied about it since the "official version" they support is that WTC7 collpased on its own.

This makes them guilty of covering up the "true" events of 9/11, and thus complicit in the conspiracy.

So now that you're implicated the FDNY, I'm just curious to know who else you think was involved.

[CptColumbo]

Where did i say anything about the complicity of the FDNY in the events of 9/11.

The fact remains that the fire commander gave the order to PULL the building. (which they have the authority to do in most states in situations where they believe the buidling threatens lives, may cause more damage, or spread fires)Do you have any proof that Fire [Chiefs] have the authority to demolish [buildings] in "most" states? A link to a state law is all that is required.

[MikeW]

But you would agree though that PULL still means to bring a building down?

Since they did PULL down building 6.
The word "pull" here is being used in its literal sense, not as any kind of slang term. They attached cables; they pulled on them with vehicles; the building came down. There's nothing in this clip to show that "pull" is used more generally, to bring a building down by other means.

[ULTIMA1]

Do you have any proof that Fire [Chiefs] have the authority to demolish [buildings] in "most" states? A link to a state law is all that is required.

I cannot find the one for New York right now but here is another.

http://ci.muscatine.ia.us/docushare/dsweb/Get/Document-2855/Title+6+-+Fire+Regulations.pdf

Look under section 6-1-6

[ULTIMA1]

The word "pull" here is being used in its literal sense, not as any kind of slang term. .


Again please explain to me how firemen (who were already out of the building) would be pulled out?

[CptColumbo]

I cannot find the one for New York right now but here is another.

http://ci.muscatine.ia.us/docushare/dsweb/Get/Document-2855/Title+6+-+Fire+Regulations.pdf

Look under section 6-1-6That's one town in IA. Only the rest of the state and 25 more to go.

[Dr Adequate]

Does PULL mean to bring a building down, YES or NO? That depends on the context, of course, but occasionally demolition workers (of which Larry Silverstein is of course not one in any way) will use the word "pull" of buildings to refer to the act of attaching cables to them and pulling them down.

Did this happen to WTC7 on 9/11? Yes or no?

The word "pull" can also be used of activities to mean to terminate or abort them.

Did this happen to the efforts to fight the fires in WTC7 on 9/11? Yes or no?

[MikeW]

Again please explain to me how firemen (who were already out of the building) would be pulled out?
Does the change of subject mean you're conceding my point?

[ULTIMA1]

Does the change of subject mean you're conceding my point?

Please be adult enough to answer the simple question.

How do firemen that are already out of building 7 (according to 2 fire chiefs)at the time of the call get pulled out (according to you)?

[Elizabeth I]

well for one, larry silverstein did not order building 7 to be pulled the fire commander did.

Second the firemen were out of buidling 7 before the call was made.

1. Did silverstein or the fire commander give the order to pull ?

2. Both chief nigro and chief hayden stated the firemen were out of the building early in the day.

1. The transcipts state that the fire commander decided to pull it (the building)

2. So you agree the firemen were out of the building before the call to silverstien, so the fire commander could not have been talking about the firemen when he said pull it.

what was the time when they decided to pull it?

what transcripts, what call? Gee you really have no idea what happned that day do you?

third base!

[Zipster]

I cannot find the one for New York right now but here is another.

http://ci.muscatine.ia.us/docushare/dsweb/Get/Document-2855/Title+6+-+Fire+Regulations.pdf

Look under section 6-1-6

So you admit that at this moment you cannot find evidence that shows a fire Chief in the state of New York has the authority to demolish buildings?

You'll let us know if you find that code?

[MikeW]

Please be adult enough to answer the simple question.

How do firemen that are already out of building 7 (according to 2 fire chiefs)at the time of the call get pulled out (according to you)?
We were talking about the meaning of the pull comment with building 6. You changed the subject. I think we should finish what we were talking about first. So, are you conceding my point on building 6?

[Cl1mh4224rd]

How do firemen that are already out of building 7 (according to 2 fire chiefs)at the time of the call get pulled out (according to you)?


And what time did that call take place, ULTIMA1?

[johnny karate]

How do firemen that are already out of building 7 (according to 2 fire chiefs)at the time of the call get pulled out (according to you)?

Perhaps there were still firefighters in the building, and those fire chiefs lied about it. According to you, the FDNY has lied quite a bit about the events surrounding the collapse of WTC7, so why not about this?

[AJM8125]

third base!

:D

[ULTIMA1]

According to you, the FDNY has lied quite a bit about the events surrounding the collapse of WTC7, so why not about this?

Why must you lie? I never stated the FDNY has lied.

[CptColumbo]

I cannot find the one for New York right now but here is another.

http://ci.muscatine.ia.us/docushare/dsweb/Get/Document-2855/Title+6+-+Fire+Regulations.pdf

Look under section 6-1-6

So you admit that at this moment you cannot find evidence that shows a fire Chief in the state of New York has the authority to demolish buildings?

You'll let us know if you find that code?The wording in the NYC fire code doesn't clearly state that a Firefighter in charge can demolish a building.
104.11 Authority at fires and other emergencies. The firefighting personnel in charge at the scene of a fire or other emergency involving the protection of life or property, or any part thereof, shall have the authority to direct such operation as necessary to extinguish or control any fire, perform any rescue operation, investigate the existence of suspected or reported fires, gas leaks or other hazardous conditions or situations, or take any other action necessary in the reasonable performance of duty. In the exercise of such power, firefighting personnel may prohibit any person, vehicle, marine vessel or object from approaching the scene and may remove, or cause to be removed or kept away from the scene, any vehicle, vessel or object which could impede or interfere with the operations of the department and, in the judgment of firefighting personnel, any person not actually and usefully employed in the extinguishing of such fire or in the preservation of property in the vicinity thereof.http://www.nyc.gov/html/fdny/pdf/firecode/july_2008/fire_code_local_law26_final_complete.pdf

Demolishing a large building that is already on fire is probably not a "reasonable" course of action to take, given the spread of debris and fire, and the damage to other buildings that may occur.

This is also the current code (as of 2003).

[ULTIMA1]

We were talking about the meaning of the pull comment with building 6.


I am talking about the PULL comment. Please answer the question.

How do firemen that are already out of building 7 (according to 2 fire chiefs)at the time of the call get pulled out (according to you)?

[johnny karate]

Why must you lie? I never stated the FDNY has lied.

You stated the FDNY brought down WTC7.

The FDNY denies this. If what you say is true, this denial would be a lie.

Therefore, according to you, the FDNY are liars.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Demolishing a large building that is already on fire is probably not a "reasonable" course of action to take, given the spread of debris and fire, and the damage to other buildings that may occur.


Also, if we're talking about explosive demolition, there's the unnecessary risk involved in sending people into these burning, damaged buildings.

[johnny karate]

I am talking about the PULL comment. Please answer the question.

How do firemen that are already out of building 7 (according to 2 fire chiefs)at the time of the call get pulled out (according to you)?

You have established the FDNY are liars. How do you know they weren't lying when they said the firefighters were already out of WTC7?

[Zipster]

You stated the FDNY brought down WTC7.

The FDNY denies this. If what you say is true, this denial would be a lie.

Therefore, according to you, the FDNY are liars.

Can't argue with the logic there, but I guess you are still going to huh, ULTIMA?

Also, read the 2003 New York fire code as presented above. Not Iowa, New York.

[ULTIMA1]

You stated the FDNY brought down WTC7.
.

Please read post before responding.

I never stated the FDNY brought down the building.

[ULTIMA1]

Can't argue with the logic there, but I guess you are still going to huh, ULTIMA?
.

You have failed again to post evidence from a source to debate the evidence i have posted.

WHY IS THAT?

[Dr Adequate]

How do firemen that are already out of building 7 (according to 2 fire chiefs)at the time of the call get pulled out (according to you)? I notice that you have given no evidence for your chronology.

[Zipster]

Where did i say anything about the complicity of the FDNY in the events of 9/11.

The fact remains that the fire commander gave the order to PULL the building. (which they have the authority to do in most states in situations where they believe the buidling threatens lives, may cause more damage, or spread fires)

Remember the highlighted passage above? It's you claiming (or stating) that the FDNY pulled the building. They were the only ones in the building.

Please read post before responding.

I never stated the FDNY brought down the building.

Remember this post? If you lying that you never stated that the FDNY brought the building down (which you clearly did in the first quote). If that's not a contradiction with your own words, I don't know what is.

Did I read enough?

The 2003 New York fire code has been posted with the specific passage highlighted that doesn't specifically say that the FDNY has the authority to demolish a building.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Please read post before responding.

I never stated the FDNY brought down the building.


So... the fire chief made the decision to bring down WTC7... you went to not-so-great lengths to claim that fire departments in "most states" have the authority to demolish buildings... but you're not implying that the FDNY brought down WTC7?

Really?

[johnny karate]

I never stated the FDNY brought down the building.

Don't be silly. Of course you did! Perhaps you forgot this exchange from earlier:
Well for one, Larry Silverstein did not order building 7 to be pulled the fire commander did.

In your opinion, what does it mean to say the building was pulled?

Its a very simple term that means to bring a building down. Look it up.


So again I ask, since you are on record believing the FDNY to be liars, how can you trust anything they say or use those statements as evidence to support your claims?

[Zipster]

Wow, three guys caught him in the same lie and he's now backpedaling. Zing!

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Rewinding a bit, but this just struck me...

Well for one, Larry Silverstein did not order building 7 to be pulled the fire commander did.


Mr. Silverstein says "they made the decision to pull", not "he made the decision to pull".

So your claim that the fire commander alone made the decision is contradicted by the very statement on which you based your claim.

[Dr Adequate]

I never stated the FDNY brought down the building.The fact remains that the fire commander gave the order to PULL the building. Two questions.

(1) Why are you guys called Truthers, remind me?

(2) Did the FDNY or anyone else pre-burn holes in steel beams near the top floor of WTC7 and affix long cables to heavy machinery, which then backed up and caused the structure to lean off its center of gravity and eventually collapse?

[WildCat]

Where did i say anything about the complicity of the FDNY in the events of 9/11.

The fact remains that the fire commander gave the order to PULL the building. (which they have the authority to do in most states in situations where they believe the buidling threatens lives, may cause more damage, or spread fires)
It's as if you have a split personality. The first one wrote the first sentnce of this post, and then another personality wrote the 2nd.

Bizarre.

[beachnut]

Oh so they did not use it when bringing down building 6?

Its so fun and easy to show how wrong you guys are that do not do real reserch.

http://www.wtc7.net/pullit.html
... we're getting ready to pull the building six.

Building 6 was one of the badly damaged low-rise buildings in the WTC complex that had to be demolished as part of the cleanup operation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNEoiOP76QQ
Check out this video at about the 13 second point it states about building 6 being "PULLED" which mens bringing it down.
With cables, you are a bad researcher and false information spreader.

You work for us in the NSA. An analyst is not this challenges in research and understanding.

You post from truth sites! False information is your primary research tool. Using truth web sites and ignoring real evidence make your research a joke.


Your sources are a joke.

[AJM8125]

If you look around at other threads on here you can see where i have posted facts and evidence.

You have failed again to post evidence from a source to debate the evidence i have posted.

WHY IS THAT?

I've been to the other threads. Just for my curiosity, exactly how do you define the word "evidence"?

[Cl1mh4224rd]

It's as if you have a split personality. The first one wrote the first sentnce of this post, and then another personality wrote the 2nd.

Bizarre.


You know... I'm beginning to wonder if ULTIMA1 is just unaware that "the fire commander" is actually a member of the FDNY. I don't know how that's possible, but...

[ULTIMA1]

Mr. Silverstein says "they made the decision to pull", not "he made the decision to pull".

So your entire premise that the fire commander alone made the decision is contradicted by the very statement you derived that premise from.


Gee it keeps getting more fun and easy to prove you wrong.

Are you for real? Silverstein was talking about the Fire Commander and incidenet commad. If you knew anyting about emergency incident commad you would know that the fire commander is not going to decide everything alone. But the fire commander was in charge and talking to Silverstien on the phone.

Might want to go back and read the transcript again that states he was talking to the fire commander on the phone.

[johnny karate]

Gee it keeps getting more fun and easy to prove you wrong.

Are you for real? Silverstein was talking about the Fire Commander and incidenet commad. If you knew anyting about emergency incident commad you would know that the fire commander is not going to decide everything alone. but the fire commander wasd in charge and talking to Silverstien.

Might want to go back and read the transcript again that states he was talking to the fire commander on the phone.

But how can you trust anything in that transcript? You have already established the FDNY are liars. How can you distinguish when they're lying from when they're telling the truth?

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Gee it keeps getting more fun and easy to prove you wrong.

Are you for real? Silverstein was talking about the Fire Commander and incidenet commad. If you knew anyting about emergency incident commad you would know that the fire commander is not going to decide everything alone. But the fire commander was in charge and talking to Silverstien on the phone.


Then why did you tell everyone here that the fire commander made the decision?

[ULTIMA1]

You know... I'm beginning to wonder if ULTIMA1 is just unaware that "the fire commander" is actually a member of the FDNY. I don't know how that's possible, but...

Well i can see you know nothing about emnergency incident command.

The fire commander was not a memeber of the FDNY at that time, he was in charge of all the units there. That means police, rescue, contractors, demo.

Please try to do research, it really makes you look childish.

[ULTIMA1]

Then why did you tell everyone here that the fire commander made the decision?


Maybe becasue he was in charge and made the final decision.

Is this stuff really that hard for you to understand?

[AJM8125]

You know... I'm beginning to wonder if ULTIMA1 is just unaware that "the fire commander" is actually a member of the FDNY. I don't know how that's possible, but...

Well i can see you know nothing about emnergency incident command.

The fire commander was not a memeber of the FDNY at that time, he was in charge of all the units there. That means police, rescue, contractors, demo.

Please try to do research, it really makes you look childish.

oh.... dear... lord....
:dl:

[Cl1mh4224rd]

The fire commander was not a memeber of the FDNY at that time, he was in charge of all the units there. That means police, rescue, contractors, demo.

http://images.cl1mh4224rd.com/lol/vgcats.jpg

[johnny karate]

Well i can see you know nothing about emnergency incident command.

The fire commander was not a memeber of the FDNY at that time, he was in charge of all the units there. That means police, rescue, contractors, demo.

So the fire commander was in charge of everyone on site except for the FDNY?

Sure, whatever. We can play this anyway you want.

Now that you've implicated the NYPD and other first responders in bringing down WTC7 and lying about it afterwards, is there anyone else you'd like to implicate?

[Dr Adequate]

The fire commander was not a memeber of the FDNY at that time ... Stundied.

... he was in charge of all the units there. That means police, rescue, contractors, demo. But not firemen?

Do you have any evidence for your fantasy about him being "in charge of ... police, rescue, contractors, demo"?

[defaultdotxbe]

Well i can see you know nothing about emnergency incident command.

The fire commander was not a memeber of the FDNY at that time, he was in charge of all the units there. That means police, rescue, contractors, demo.

Please try to do research, it really makes you look childish.
please try to remember the first rule of holes, it really makes you look childish

[Tin Foil Timothy]

I thought the only group truthers didn't accuse of being in on it were Al Qaeda.

That's because they recognise Al-Qaeda as being a fabricated enemy and not a real group

[beachnut]

That's because they recognise Al-Qaeda as being a fabricated enemy and not a real group
Like 9/11 truth groups who fabricate information because they have zero evidence. At least the truth movement are good apologist for the terrorist. You seem to lack evidence, are you a cult believer in 9/11 truth also?
You match the description; zero evidence, no rational sources.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

That's because they recognise Al-Qaeda as being a fabricated enemy and not a real group


You kind of missed the point of the thread, didn't you?

[CptColumbo]

Well i can see you know nothing about emnergency incident command.

The fire commander was not a memeber of the FDNY at that time, he was in charge of all the units there. That means police, rescue, contractors, demo.

Please try to do research, it really makes you look childish.I get stuck in traffic on the way home and miss this gem. Whiskey Tango Foxtrot

[Bobert]

Your implicit accusations against the Myley Cyrus Fan Club, The Springfield Missourri Lawn and Garden Society and the Jennings & Rall Corporation (http://www.jenningsandrall.com/html/index.php) are duly noted.

I am sure via 6 degrees of separation that Myley Cyrus has an uncle, cousin, autn, etc that was directly involved in the mass murder on 9-11.

[Bobert]

Where has anyone accused anyone of "being in on it" ?

Wow for a second there I thought maybe I had made some sort of spelling error and you were making a joke.....
I guess you as part of the truther community are either playing dumb or don't realize how many of your peers have no problem throwing a large net over many many people/organization, etc and accusing them of mass murder.

[Bobert]

Oh no, see they didn't say these people were IN ON IT... rather, they were either willfully in on it, or coerced/duped into helping - brainwashed, tricked, or conscious murderers/enablers.

But clearly a lot of people were involved somehow, from faking plane crash scenes, disposing of passengers, faking radar tracks, faking black boxes (forgot those from the WTC tho!), planting bombs/thermite, plane parts, DNA maybe, projecting the holograms, coordinating the media cover-up (you gotta have good cameramen who can pan perfectly following the nothing at just the right time to line up with the blow ups), ... not that every truther/twoofer subscribes to every contrivance outlined here, but that have all been posited at one(thousand) time or another.

I really don't mean this to be crass or disrespectful but lets say for a second that I believe that elements within our government would murder people just to get us into Iraq or Afghanistan why not just pick a smaller target that would kill just a couple hundred people?
They could have "targeted" a mall, school, church, etc.
They then could have blamed this on Al Qaeda just as easily and with A LOT LESS WORK then what would be required on 9-11.
This could have prompted the EXACT SAME military response to going to all the trouble the truthers claim they did on sept 11th.
If I wasn't banned over at ATS I would pose this question to the truthers.

[Bobert]

1. Did Silverstein or the fire commander give the order to PULL ?

2. Both Chief Nigro and Chief Hayden stated the firemen were out of the building early in the day.

You can always tell the meaning behind it when a truther's FIRST THOUGHT is to jump right to the Jew.
THE JOOOOOOO'S DID IT!!!!!

[jhunter1163]

Stundied.

Damn. That one's a lock to win October. A freakin' LOCK.

The fire commander was not a member of the FDNY? Just whiskey-tango-foxtrot does the F in FDNY stand for then, anyway?

[Bobert]

The wording in the NYC fire code doesn't clearly state that a Firefighter in charge can demolish a building.
http://www.nyc.gov/html/fdny/pdf/firecode/july_2008/fire_code_local_law26_final_complete.pdf

Demolishing a large building that is already on fire is probably not a "reasonable" course of action to take, given the spread of debris and fire, and the damage to other buildings that may occur.

This is also the current code (as of 2003).
Exactly.
Based on what I have seen most FD's will try and contain the fire the best they can and allow the fire to eventually burn itself out.

[Bobert]

I see that Ultima is up to his same tricks as over at ATS.
Granted this thread had a broad range of topics but his game is to jump into your thread make outrageous claims and most of the time completely change the topic.
Ignore is the best solutions for him but YMMV.

[Homeland Insurgency]

Well I guess the only guy to not (formally) be accused by both the truthers and the government is UBL.

[johnny karate]

Well I guess the only guy to not (formally) be accused by both the truthers and the government is UBL.

Then of course there's Interpol. Everyone knows they were in on it.

[Slayhamlet]

I am sure via 6 degrees of separation that Myley Cyrus has an uncle, cousin, autn, etc that was directly involved in the mass murder on 9-11.

Miley Cyrus's father is directly implicated in the mass murder of millions of eardrums, including my own.

[Bobert]

Miley Cyrus's father is directly implicated in the mass murder of millions of eardrums, including my own.
So you do believe that his voice flew north of your eardrum, right?
I mean really there is no other explanation!

[Bobert]

Then of course there's Interpol. Everyone knows they were in on it.
Also any government agency anywhere on the planet with a "B" or an "A" as part of their name.

[ULTIMA1]

Do you have any evidence for your fantasy about him being "in charge of ... police, rescue, contractors, demo"?

Gee, it is getting too fun and easy to prove you guys wrong with evidence.

I guess you never heard of or saw something called the 9/11 commission report.

Please look up the 9/11 commission staff statement #13.

Joseph Pfeifer, Deputy Assistant Chief, FDNY: Right from the beginning, before we even arrived at the Trade Center, what you see is the beginning of an Incident Command System, where things are placed in order, and command is taken immediately.

Mr. Pfeifer (on 9/11): “We have a number of floors on fire, it looks like the plane was aiming towards the building. Transmit a Third Alarm. We will have a staging area. Vesey and West Street—have the Third Alarm assignment go into that area—Second Alarm assignment report to the building.”


Mr. Pfeifer: So from the bullet point when the plane hit the building, we started our Incident Command System.

Chief Pfeifer and four companies arrived at about 8:52 a.m. As they entered the lobby, they immediately encountered badly burned civilians who had been caught in the path of the fireball.

The initial FDNY incident commanders were briefed on building systems by building personnel.

[PhantomWolf]

That's because they recognise Al-Qaeda as being a fabricated enemy and not a real group

See this is something I don't get. Al Qaeda was around and operational in Afganistan, Saudi Arabia, Southern Oman, and Sudan long before the most people in the Western world had even heard of them. If they are some enemy fabricated by the US Government to scare people, how come they were busy in the Middle East for at least 4 years before the CIA heard of them and likely at least 8 years before most other Westerners heard of them?

[Brainache]

Gee, it is getting too fun and easy to prove you guys wrong with evidence.

I guess you never heard of or saw something called the 9/11 commission report.

Please look up the 9/11 commission staff statement #13.

Ummm...:

Joseph Pfeifer, Deputy Assistant Chief, FDNY

So you've given up on the idea that he wasn't part of the FDNY?

[ULTIMA1]

Ummm...:
So you've given up on the idea that he wasn't part of the FDNY?

What does it take for closed minded, immature people like you to be adult enough to admit to evidence that shows that the fire commander was in charge of everyone that day and not just the FDNY?

[Brainache]

What does it take for closed minded, immature people like you to be adult enough to admit to evidence that shows that the fire commander was in charge of everyone that day and not just the FDNY?

[response#45] Don't hurt your back shifting those goal posts[/response#45]

[ULTIMA1]

[response#45] Don't hurt your back shifting those goal posts[/response#45]

Thanks for proving my point again about beleivers not being about to respond in a mature way.

[UNLoVedRebel]

Ultima, try to focus on the quality of your posts, rather than the quantity.

[ULTIMA1]

Ultima, try to focus on the quality of your posts, rather than the quantity.

Sure, i do already by posting facts and evidence. Something a lot of people on here fail to do.

[UNLoVedRebel]

Sure, i do already by posting facts and evidence. Something a lot of people on here fail to do.

What's your best evidence that 9/11 was an inside job?

[ULTIMA1]

What's your best evidence that 9/11 was an inside job?

Well you should really read my post before posting.

I have never stated 9/11 was an inside job. I am doing research to find out what really happened that day.

[JihadJane]

See this is something I don't get. Al Qaeda was around and operational in Afganistan, Saudi Arabia, Southern Oman, and Sudan long before the most people in the Western world had even heard of them. If they are some enemy fabricated by the US Government to scare people, how come they were busy in the Middle East for at least 4 years before the CIA heard of them and likely at least 8 years before most other Westerners heard of them?


Could you post your source for the information that al Qaeda "were busy in the Middle East for at least 4 years before the CIA heard of them and likely at least 8 years before most other Westerners heard of them?"

I think you may be underestimating the CIA's hearing abilities.

[UNLoVedRebel]

Well you should really read my post before posting.

Learn a more engaging writing style and I might. Prose before Hoes.

I have never stated 9/11 was an inside job. I am doing research to find out what really happened that day.

Cool. Get back to me if you come to the conclusion that a secret shadow government flew remote controlled Boeings into buildings and then tried to pass off a controlled demolition as a progressive collapse from the fires and impact.

[ULTIMA1]

Cool. Get back to me if you come to the conclusion that a secret shadow government flew remote controlled Boeings into buildings and then tried to pass off a controlled demolition as a progressive collapse from the fires and impact.


Sure, just as soon as you stop living in a media fed fantasy world and face reallity.

[UNLoVedRebel]

Sure, just as soon as you stop living in a media fed fantasy world and face reallity.

I see you're not interested in constructive discourse. I'm sorry I wasted my time on you. Feel free to get the last word tonight, as long as it helps relieve some of that cognitive dissonance.

(And Remember: quality, not quantity)

[ULTIMA1]

I see you're not interested in constructive discourse. )

You say i am not interested in constructive discourse when you bring up fantasies like a shadow government flying remote control planes.

I deal with facts and evidence not fantasies.

[CptColumbo]

You say i am not interested in constructive discourse when you bring up fantasies like a shadow government flying remote control planes.

I deal with facts and evidence not fantasies.So you've already come to the conclusion that it was not "a shadow government flying remote control planes?"

That is good to know.

[ULTIMA1]

So you've already come to the conclusion that it was not "a shadow government flying remote control planes?"
.


I have not found any evidence (YET) that would lead to me that that conclusion.

Even after looking at several remote control systems like the one the British came out with and have installed in a Tornado Fighter. It can take control over hijacked planes.

[CptColumbo]

Thank you for illustrating your flawed investigative technique.

[Jonnyclueless]

Maybe they should train the pilots to complain when their plane is being take over by remote control and flown into a building? I'm sure once the planes were taken over by remote control the pilots simply didn't have a procedure in place, looked at each other and just shrugged. Thank you for possibly ruling that out.

Job well done Ultima. How is it the media and the authorities aren't paying any attention to you?

[ULTIMA1]

Thank you for illustrating your flawed investigative technique.

How is my investigation flawed?

What evidence do you have to support your claim?

[Zipster]

Not to mention that the Torando that had the remote pilot system was extensively modified. I'm sure the pilots got into their planes that day, saw all the additional controls attached to theirs and just shrugged as well.

[ULTIMA1]

Job well done Ultima. How is it the media and the authorities aren't paying any attention to you?

Well they might start paying attention when i get some NSA documents from a FOIA request.

[ULTIMA1]

Not to mention that the Torando that had the remote pilot system was extensively modified. I'm sure the pilots got into their planes that day, saw all the additional controls attached to theirs and just shrugged as well.

Well just to let you know the British system in the Tornado was for contol over UAV's, BUTcould be used to take over airliners using the autopilot, no additional equipment needed in the airliners.

[Dr Adequate]

Gee, it is getting too fun and easy to prove you guys wrong with evidence.

I guess you never heard of or saw something called the 9/11 commission report.

Please look up the 9/11 commission staff statement #13. I asked you for evidence for your fantasy about the fire commander being "in charge of ... police, rescue, contractors, demo".

You have replied by supplying evidence that the FDNY set up an incident command center. Duh.

But what I would like is evidence for your fantasy about the fire commander being "in charge of ... police, rescue, contractors, demo".

This is why I asked for evidence for your fantasy about the fire commander being "in charge of ... police, rescue, contractors, demo".

Do you have any evidence for your fantasy about the fire commander being "in charge of ... police, rescue, contractors, demo"?

(Hint: no, 'cos he wasn't.)

[Zipster]

Well just to let you know the British system in the Tornado was for contol over UAV's, BUTcould be used to take over airliners using the autopilot, no additional equipment needed in the airliners.

I take it this is the technology you're referring to:

http://technology.newscientist.com/channel/tech/aviation/dn11517-aircraft-swarm-around-single-airborne-controller.html

Notice what the pilot in the BAC 1-11 said about the system:

"During the demonstration flight, as the Tornado assumed control of the BAC 1-11 via a UHF radio link, the airliner's pilot was unperturbed. "If I don't like what Autonomy is doing I just switch off the autopilot and take control again," he said."

If all the pilot has to do is switch off the autopilot to gain control back, so much for that theory...

[Elizabeth I]

Sure, just as soon as you stop living in a media fed fantasy world and face reallity.

:dl:

[Dr Adequate]

Gee, it is getting too fun and easy to prove you guys wrong with evidence. Go right ahead. Some questions spring to mind.

* Do you have any evidence that the commander of the FDNY was not a member of the FDNY?

* Do you have any evidence that the fire commander was "in charge of all the units there. That means police, rescue, contractors, demo"?

* Do you have any evidence that pulling a building down involves anything other than pulling it down?

* Do you have any evidence that the FDNY or anyone else actually "pulled the building", i.e. pre-burned holes in steel beams near the top floor of WTC7 and affixed long cables to heavy machinery, which then backed up and caused the structure to lean off its center of gravity and eventually collapse?

* Do you have any evidence that "it" in Silverstein's remarks refer to the building, which was not pulled, rather than the attempts to save it, which were?

* Do you have any evidence that the commander of the FDNY had the authority and means at his disposal to demolish WTC7?

* Do you have any evidence that Silverstein's call was made after the withdrawal of firefighters from the area?

* Do you have any evidence that WTC7 fell for any reason other than the fire and structural damage it suffered? NOTE: your inability to understand a simple four-letter English word does not constitute evidence.

[johnny karate]

What does it take for closed minded, immature people like you to be adult enough to admit to evidence that shows that the fire commander was in charge of everyone that day and not just the FDNY?

Oh, I see. So when you said this:
The fire commander was not a memeber of the FDNY at that time, he was in charge of all the units there. That means police, rescue, contractors, demo.
it was just a big, stupid lie.

Because it's not that he wasn't in charge of the FDNY, it's that he was in charge of the FDNY and everyone else on site. Do I have that right?

Which brings us back to the original point you were trying desperately to wriggle out of: That the FDNY took part in bringing down WTC7.

I'm glad we got that cleared up.

Anyway, now that you've implicated the FDNY, NYPD, and other first responders in the 9/11 conspiracy by accusing them of participating in the secret demolishing of WTC7 and lying about it to the public, is there anyone else you'd like to implicate?

[Dr Adequate]

... he was in charge of the FDNY and everyone else on site. Do I have that right? I think that's what he's trying to claim.

He has, of course, supplied no evidence for this claim, which appears to be untrue.

[Tin Foil Timothy]

That's because they recognise Al-Qaeda as being a fabricated enemy and not a real group

See this is something I don't get. Al Qaeda was around and operational in Afganistan, Saudi Arabia, Southern Oman, and Sudan long before the most people in the Western world had even heard of them. If they are some enemy fabricated by the US Government to scare people, how come they were busy in the Middle East for at least 4 years before the CIA heard of them and likely at least 8 years before most other Westerners heard of them?

The Islamic Groups you talk of probably existed but they were not Al-Qaeda

"AL-Qaeda" was created by the FBI in order to prosecute Bin Laden for the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings. The laws in those times could only prosecute someone by association if there was an Organisation, and Bin laden at that time had little support, never mind a complex terror organisation.

A former associate of Bin laden's Jamal al-Fadl was paid to testify that Bin Laden was head a of a super terror group called 'Al-Qaeda'. It's said the actual name Al-Qaeda was merely the name of a 'list' of Islamist bad guys' the FBI had on the books.

After 911 ( whoever did it ) the neocons used this fabricated group as a Label the public could focus upon in it's 'war on terror'

Al-Qaeda is not an organised group and never was. Even the british government published a papers recognising Al-Qaeda as being a 'movement' rather than a structured group. here ...

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmfaff/441/4050402.htm


Even in the last few days we here media rubbish about the Al-Qaeda Iraqi wing. The BBC reported yesterday ...

"US officials described him as the al-Qaeda military commander for the whole of Baghdad east of the Tigris river. "
- http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7652362.stm

The article continues ...

"His removal from the AQI [al-Qaeda Iraq] network will send shockwaves through Baghdad's terrorist bombing networks," a US spokesman told the Associated Press."

What utter nonsense.

Of course there are Islamic Jihadists fighting, but Al-Qaeda is nothing more than a fabrication to make it easy for the western people to have a label to put on the enemy that being fought against in the so called 'war on terror'

[Tin Foil Timothy]

I take it this is the technology you're referring to:

http://technology.newscientist.com/channel/tech/aviation/dn11517-aircraft-swarm-around-single-airborne-controller.html

Notice what the pilot in the BAC 1-11 said about the system:

"During the demonstration flight, as the Tornado assumed control of the BAC 1-11 via a UHF radio link, the airliner's pilot was unperturbed. "If I don't like what Autonomy is doing I just switch off the autopilot and take control again," he said."

If all the pilot has to do is switch off the autopilot to gain control back, so much for that theory...

Means nothing.

What if the system had been programmed/wired so that it couldn't have been overridden.

The black boxes will of course reveal if that was the case though. I'm sure the pilots or Hi-jackers would have commented about it in no uncertain terms in the cockpit. Where are the black box transcripts/recordings for all 4 planes?

[Brainache]

Means nothing.

What if the system had been programmed/wired so that it couldn't have been overridden.

The black boxes will of course reveal if that was the case though. I'm sure the pilots or Hi-jackers would have commented about it in no uncertain terms in the cockpit. Where are the black box transcripts/recordings for all 4 planes?

Where are all the teams of technicians that would be required to install and test such a system on those planes?
Where are the gaps in the flight histories of the planes to account for the time needed to install such a system?
Is such a system even possible on the types of planes used by the terrorists?
Just a few of the many questions that would need to be answered before anyone could even consider such a scenario as a possibility...

[Bobert]

Well you should really read my post before posting.

I have never stated 9/11 was an inside job. I am doing research to find out what really happened that day.
Same game you used to play over at ATS along with your pal Griff,
"Hey were not truthers" all the while regurgitating the same truther party line.
I should have added you to ignore the moment I saw you here.
There is no end to your lies.

[Bobert]

Well they might start paying attention when i get some NSA documents from a FOIA request.

Yes but first you will create a website and then 4 DVD's about how you obtained this NSA FOIA document.
Then you will spend 2 years on the internet arguing about how you will release it soon.
What will the cost be of your DVD?

[Tomblvd]

First you say:

"AL-Qaeda" was created by the FBI in order to prosecute Bin Laden for the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings.


Then you say:


Al-Qaeda is not an organised group and never was. Even the british government published a papers recognising Al-Qaeda as being a 'movement' rather than a structured group.



And then you say:



Of course there are Islamic Jihadists fighting, but Al-Qaeda is nothing more than a fabrication to make it easy for the western people to have a label to put on the enemy that being fought against in the so called 'war on terror'

First you say AQ doesn't exist, then you say it does exist, but only as a "movement" and not a "group" (huh?), and then you say it is a fabrication.


I'm guessing consistency isn't one of your strong points.

[Bobert]

TFT,
That article you posted linked to an article with the title of
Written evidence submitted by Mr M J Gohel, Asia-Pacific Foundation, International Policy Assessment Group
Is this the article you meant to link to?
Did you even read this article?
Sorry bud but that article is clearly not conveying what you are twisting it and cherry picking it to convey.

[Wowbagger]

I thought the only group not accused by the truthers of being in on it, were the actual terrorists, themselves.

[Zipster]

Don't forget the Truthers themselves. Or did the master plan also include them...?

[Peter Griffin]DUN DUN DUUUUN!![/Peter Griffin]

[Pinch]

If you look around at other threads on here you can see where i have posted facts and evidence.

Where and when? I can't remember EVER seeing any "fact" or "evidence" from you. Ever.

[Zipster]

Means nothing.

What if the system had been programmed/wired so that it couldn't have been overridden.

The black boxes will of course reveal if that was the case though. I'm sure the pilots or Hi-jackers would have commented about it in no uncertain terms in the cockpit. Where are the black box transcripts/recordings for all 4 planes?

In ULTI'MA's claim, not alteration are needed to the 767, and all the "control aircraft needs to do is fly up to the 767.

So sure it might be possible for the system to be taken over, but all the pilot has to do is flip a switch.

I'm sure you know what a switch does. It breaks or completes the electrical circuit. The pilot switching the autopilot to off means the autopilot is physically not connected to the controls anymore. You can give it remote commands, but it's not going to do anything.

[MikeW]

"AL-Qaeda" was created by the FBI in order to prosecute Bin Laden for the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings.

Here's what bin Laden said about the name:

The name "al Qaeda" was established a long time ago by mere chance. The late Abu Ebeida El-Banashiri established the training camps for our mujahedeen against Russia's terrorism. We used to call the training camp al Qaeda [meaning "the base" in English]. And the name stayed.
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/south/02/05/binladen.transcript/index.html

The name al Qaeda was around long before the embassy bombings trial. This is from a State Department fact sheet in 1996:

Bin Ladin gained prominence during the Afghan war for his role in financing the recruitment, transportation, and training of Arab nationals who volunteered to fight alongside the Afghan mujahedin. By 1985, Bin Ladin had drawn on his family's wealth, plus donations received from sympathetic merchant families in the Gulf region, to organize the Islamic Salvation Foundation, or al-Qaida, for this purpose.
http://www.usembassy-israel.org.il/publish/press/state/archive/august/sd4_8-15.htm

[T.A.M.]

Tin Foil Timothy:

Read the book "The Looming Tower".

TAM:)

[JimBenArm]

Have they implicated the US Submarine Force yet? I heard some scuttlebut there were four MK48 ADCAPs missing from some east coast fast attacks...

[Brainache]

Have they implicated the US Submarine Force yet? I heard some scuttlebut there were four MK48 ADCAPs missing from some east coast fast attacks...

You could be onto something there Cap'n. The towers were built in a Bath Tub after all...

[Mince]

Have they accused the Girl Scouts yet? Probably. The only group that isn't "in on it" is themselves, of course.

[PhantomWolf]

JJ and TFT,

Al Qaeda come to the attention of the CIA in 1993, about 4 and a half years after it was founded in 1988, although it wasn't until 1996 when Jamal al-Fadl defected from AQ that they learned of the name of the Organisation, before that all they had was that OBL was gathering a number of his followers into a Islamic Milita.

In 1989 South Yemen (sorry, I incorrently said Oman in the previous post) complained to Saudi Arabia about the activity of Bin Laden's people and threatened them with action if they didn't force OBL to withdraw and stop his attempts at destabilising the unification of Yemen. In 1990 OBL went to the SA Govt and asked that he and his fighters be allowed to remove the Iraqis from Kuwait instead of allowing the US in. After being turned down and the Allied Forces doing the job, his organisation turn on SA and he eventually moved to Sudan on 1993. It was there the CIA first learned about AQ and began to regularly started to have face offs with their people, including at one point, discovering and breaking up a group of AQ fighters who were planning to assissinate the CIA Chief in Sudan.

Between 1993 and 1996 AQ funded and run operations throughout the north of Africa including funding and training militant attacks in Egypt and Algeria. In fact at one stage Egypt threatened to invade Sudan and dealt with them if Sudan didn't do something about the problem.

In 1996 OBL and his AQ group were booted out of Sudan and fled to Afghanistan where they very nearly did cease to exist, just the core of the army left after the heydays of Sudan. Bin Laden was near bankrupcy and the Taleban really had little use for him, even tried to figure out ways to get rid of him.

It was there that his tactics changed. While in Sudan they had faced the fact that they couldn't brong down the Islamic Governments while the west propped them up. OBL had seen the way the US reacted in Somalia and with the knowledge of their fleeing Vietnam as well decided that they would go after the Western Governments. Get them out of the Middle East and the Governments they support would topple, or at least that was his plan.

The real reason the western media, and thus most westerners, didn't learn the name until after the 1998 enbassy bombings, is not because it was invented then, but rather because it wasn't until the 1998 bombings that AQ really started targeting the west, and so their previous attacks and work had largely gone unnoticed by the west who quite frankly don't give a toss about things that happen in non-western countries (G. W. H. Bush didn't even know there was still an Afghanistan War occuring when questioned about it in 1992). Once they changed tatics and stopped attacking what they believed were corrupt Islamic governments and instead went after those they believe held the strings to those governments, then they started getting western media coverage because they were directly attacking western interests and westerners.

History is fun, try learning it something, and not from a CT website, but rather a fully researched book. Looming Tower (Lawrence Wright) and Ghost Wars (Steve Coll) are two very good places to start for the history of The CIA, Afghanistan and Al Qaeda.

[Travis]

It never ceases to amaze me how some Truthers will take "I never heard of this/them until then" and extrapolate it into "this/them did not exist until I heard about this/them then."

[PhantomWolf]

It never ceases to amaze me how some Truthers will take "I never heard of this/them until then" and extrapolate it into "this/them did not exist until I heard about this/them then."

Exactly. Claiming that AQ didn't exist before 1998 because there was nothing about then in the Western Media is like claiming that the Mongrel Mob doesn't exist because there is next to nothing about them outside the New Zealand Media.

Until 1998 Bin Laden was nothing but a small time mercenary and not a great one at that, but one with a lot of charm and able to rally the disinfrantised Arabs of the Afghan war because of his one major battle. Those that actually knew of him and his group considered him Saudi Arabia's issue and of no interest to anyone outside of the area, as such there was no more need to mention him in the western media than there is for the US media to write articles on what the Rotorua Mongrel Mob has been up to. In 1998 that obviously and powerfully changed.

[JimBenArm]

You could be onto something there Cap'n. The towers were built in a Bath Tub after all...
Bathtub? Maybe it was the Rubber Duckie Coalition, perhaps? I don't think they've been implicated yet, either. And just where was Ernie at that day?
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1279348e94f62c0b00.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=14020)

[Dr Adequate]

Have they accused the Girl Scouts yet? Probably. The only group that isn't "in on it" is themselves, of course. Oh you are so wrong.

A quick google on keywords such as "disinfo" and "COINTELPRO" reveals that amongst the people accused by Truthers of complicity are Dylan Avery, David Ray Griffin, Nico Haupt, Thierry Meyssan, Judy Wood, Korey Rowe, Alex Jones, Sofia Shafquat, Morgan Reynolds, Jason Bermas ... it's a Who's Who of the Truth Movement.

[Travis]

Exactly. Claiming that AQ didn't exist before 1998 because there was nothing about then in the Western Media is like claiming that the Mongrel Mob doesn't exist because there is next to nothing about them outside the New Zealand Media.

Until 1998 Bin Laden was nothing but a small time mercenary and not a great one at that, but one with a lot of charm and able to rally the disinfrantised Arabs of the Afghan war because of his one major battle. Those that actually knew of him and his group considered him Saudi Arabia's issue and of no interest to anyone outside of the area, as such there was no more need to mention him in the western media than there is for the US media to write articles on what the Rotorua Mongrel Mob has been up to. In 1998 that obviously and powerfully changed.

I know. Very sad. There were also those that claimed Al Qaeda was made up in 2001! They'd never heard of them before, I'm guessing because they got all their news from MTV, and therefore concluded they didn't exist before!

See also their claims that "thermal expansion" was invented by NIST.:rolleyes:

[Dave Rogers]

Again please explain to me how firemen (who were already out of the building) would be pulled out?

Just in case anybody still thinks Ultima1 has a point here, there are some revealing transcripts on:

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

which make it clear that, at around 3pm, a collapse safety perimeter was established around WTC7, and all firemen, inclusing those carrying out search-and-rescue in and around WTC6, were pulled out of the area. It also appears that an operation was being prepared to enter WTC7 and fight the fires around that time, and was aborted when the order was given to evacuate the area. Therefore, the firemen were being pulled out of the area around the building; specifically, according to standard procedure, a region 1.5 times the radius of the building that was expected to collapse. There's no contradiction here.

Dave

[JihadJane]

JJ and TFT,

Al Qaeda come to the attention of the CIA in 1993, about 4 and a half years after it was founded in 1988, although it wasn't until 1996 when Jamal al-Fadl defected from AQ that they learned of the name of the Organisation, before that all they had was that OBL was gathering a number of his followers into a Islamic Milita.

...

History is fun, try learning it something, and not from a CT website, but rather a fully researched book. Looming Tower (Lawrence Wright) and Ghost Wars (Steve Coll) are two very good places to start for the history of The CIA, Afghanistan and Al Qaeda.

Thanks for providing sources for your previous assertions. My own bench mark for authors writing about the "War on Terror" is whether or not they accept the "War on Terror" at face value.

According to an interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski, then President Jimmy Carter’s National Security Adviser (now an adviser to Barack Obama), published in Le Nouvel Observateur, Paris, 15-21 January 1998, the CIA began aiding Mujahideen groups in at least as early as 1979:

Brzezinski: "According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahideen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, [on] 24 December 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise. Indeed, it was July 3, 1979, that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul."

Just because something is written in a book rather than a CT website doesn't guarantee that it is 100% comprehensive. There are multiple versions of the history of any event. There are fully researched books describing al Qaeda's function as a US military/intelligence asset but you, PhantomWolf, can't read them because the authors inevitably question the truth of the "War on Terror" and al Qaeda surprise attack narratives.

[pomeroo]

Well for one, Larry Silverstein did not order building 7 to be pulled the fire commander did.

Second the firemen were out of buidling 7 before the call was made.


You've been caught lying again. No one, as you know, ordered building 7 to be "pulled." It would have been impossible. The fire chief ordered the contingent of rescue workers and firefighters to be pulled.

[TexasJack]

Thanks for providing sources for your previous assertions. My own bench mark for authors writing about the "War on Terror" is whether or not they accept the "War on Terror" at face value.

According to an interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski, then President Jimmy Carter’s National Security Adviser (now an adviser to Barack Obama), published in Le Nouvel Observateur, Paris, 15-21 January 1998, the CIA began aiding Mujahideen groups in at least as early as 1979:

Brzezinski: "According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahideen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, [on] 24 December 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise. Indeed, it was July 3, 1979, that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul."

Just because something is written in a book rather than a CT website doesn't guarantee that it is 100% comprehensive. There are multiple versions of the history of any event. There are fully researched books describing al Qaeda's function as a US military/intelligence asset but you, PhantomWolf, can't read them because the authors inevitably question the truth of the "War on Terror" and al Qaeda surprise attack narratives.

This is common knowledge that the U.S. provided aid to the Mujahideen, because at the time the USSR was enemy number 1. The U.S. has provided aid to a lot of scumbags in the past, but at the time USSR was perceived as a bigger scumbag. But what does this have to do with the creation of Al-Qaeda and it's perception as an enemy today?

Phantomwolf has provided two excellent sources, I suggest you read them.

[Mojo]

When I saw the title I thought the thread was going to be about Al Quaida.

[Travis]

Thanks for providing sources for your previous assertions. My own bench mark for authors writing about the "War on Terror" is whether or not they accept the "War on Terror" at face value.

In other words your benchmark of authenticity is if what they say agrees with your preconceived ideas.

According to an interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski, then President Jimmy Carter’s National Security Adviser (now an adviser to Barack Obama), published in Le Nouvel Observateur, Paris, 15-21 January 1998, the CIA began aiding Mujahideen groups in at least as early as 1979:

Brzezinski: "According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahideen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, [on] 24 December 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise. Indeed, it was July 3, 1979, that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul."

So they began aiding the Mujaheddin, which is not the same as Al Qaeda, six months earlier. What's your point?

Just because something is written in a book rather than a CT website doesn't guarantee that it is 100% comprehensive. There are multiple versions of the history of any event. There are fully researched books describing al Qaeda's function as a US military/intelligence asset but you, PhantomWolf, can't read them because the authors inevitably question the truth of the "War on Terror" and al Qaeda surprise attack narratives.

Any book that would erroneously call Al Qaeda a US military/intelligence asset is by default not "fully researched."

Incidentally PhantomWolf has openly criticized many aspects of the War On Terror so your attempt at an Ad Hominem is not only cheap but wrong.