Prisonplanet NO LONGER believes 9-11 was an Inside Job

[parky76]

http://www.prisonplanet.com/military-whistleblower-claims-she-witnessed-flight-93-shootdown-order.html

They posted this article, about a supposed military witness that a shoot-down order was made for Flight 93.

So, they are telling us that Flight 93 was actually hijacked by terrorists!!

Not only that, but the DOD actually decided to attempt to shoot it down!!

Now, if the DOD and the "NWO" was actually flying the "non-existant" plane, they would not try to shoot it down. They would have let it hit its target.

But, the DOD actually did see 93 as a threat, and did actually try to intercept and destroy it.

What does this mean? It means there was a plane. It means the Bush administration did see it as a threat, and they actually did try to shoot it down.

So.....according to Prisonplanet and Alex Jones:

9-11 was NOT an Inside Job!!

:D

[TheDaver]

http://www.prisonplanet.com/military-whistleblower-claims-she-witnessed-flight-93-shootdown-order.html

They posted this article, about a supposed military witness that a shoot-down order was made for Flight 93.

So, they are telling us that Flight 93 was actually hijacked by terrorists!!

Not only that, but the DOD actually decided to attempt to shoot it down!!

Now, if the DOD and the "NWO" was actually flying the "non-existant" plane, they would not try to shoot it down. They would have let it hit its target.

But, the DOD actually did see 93 as a threat, and did actually try to intercept and destroy it.

What does this mean? It means there was a plane. It means the Bush administration did see it as a threat, and they actually did try to shoot it down.

So.....according to Prisonplanet and Alex Jones:

9-11 was NOT an Inside Job!!

:D
That’s what someone rational might think, but these people are far from rational.

[Bobert]

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/217/472900293_fe260f25c9.jpg

[portlandatheist]

http://www.prisonplanet.com/military-whistleblower-claims-she-witnessed-flight-93-shootdown-order.html

They posted this article, about a supposed military witness that a shoot-down order was made for Flight 93.

So, they are telling us that Flight 93 was actually hijacked by terrorists!!

Not only that, but the DOD actually decided to attempt to shoot it down!!

Now, if the DOD and the "NWO" was actually flying the "non-existant" plane, they would not try to shoot it down. They would have let it hit its target.

But, the DOD actually did see 93 as a threat, and did actually try to intercept and destroy it.

What does this mean? It means there was a plane. It means the Bush administration did see it as a threat, and they actually did try to shoot it down.

So.....according to Prisonplanet and Alex Jones:

9-11 was NOT an Inside Job!!

:D

It never ceases to amaze me how truthers can hold mutually exclusive ideas, both of which of course point to an inside job.

[parky76]

well, no. they will connect to any belief that holds their government to be evil and bad.

9-11 was an inside job? sure...it makes the usa look bad.

the bush administration shot down flight 93 killing 100 innocent Americans and lied about it? sure. even though it means 9-11 was NOT an inside job. it still makes america look bad.

[The Platypus]

well, no. they will connect to any belief that holds their government to be evil and bad.

9-11 was an inside job? sure...it makes the usa look bad.

the bush administration shot down flight 93 killing 100 innocent Americans and lied about it? sure. even though it means 9-11 was NOT an inside job. it still makes america look bad.

I agree, i'm starting to think that they are the ones out to destory america.

[parky76]

if flight 93 DID exist...and the DOD did shoot it down..then there was indeed a plane at shanksville, and the Bush administration did take steps to stop a terrorist attack.

one cannot believe this...AND believe that 9-11 was an inside job.

it just dont work that way.

[thewholesoul]

http://www.prisonplanet.com/military-whistleblower-claims-she-witnessed-flight-93-shootdown-order.html

They posted this article, about a supposed military witness that a shoot-down order was made for Flight 93.

So, they are telling us that Flight 93 was actually hijacked by terrorists!!

Not only that, but the DOD actually decided to attempt to shoot it down!!

But, the DOD actually did see 93 as a threat, and did actually try to intercept and destroy it.

What does this mean? It means there was a plane. It means the Bush administration did see it as a threat, and they actually did try to shoot it down.

it also demonstrates that the government LIED. once again. and raises the question why YOU STILL TRUST THEM?

why did they not tell us that Flight 93 was ordered to be shot down?

it also demonstrates that the media are peddlers of LIES. recall the movie flight 93 and the anti-islamic sentiment it fostered.

who gave the shoot down order? we know it wasnt cheney.

911 truthers claim that "some" elements within the U.S. government must have been involved. there is a lot of good men and women in the government and military and perhaps it was one of these individuals that gave the shoot down order? who knows where flight 93 was destined to strike if not intercepted?

Finally it demonstrates that debunkers (popular mechanics, jrefers, etc) were WRONG because all debunkers (perhaps even yourself) have been defending a LIE and arguing that it crashed into a field in pensilvania because the occupants put up a struggle and the pilot nose dived into a field.

you see that is the consequecne when you believe the government LIES and try to defend it. pleas ethink about this. you are defending PROVEN liars.

of course it means that LOOSE CHANGE were right.

peace

[Phrost]

Interesting. My respect for Alex Jones has raised from 0 to 0.0001.

In all seriousness it's not often you see conspiracy theorist figureheads trade in their theories for the accepted facts.

[ozeco41]

http://www.prisonplanet.com/military-whistleblower-claims-she-witnessed-flight-93-shootdown-order.html

They posted this article, about a supposed military witness that a shoot-down order was made for Flight 93.

So, they are telling us that Flight 93 was actually hijacked by terrorists!!

Not only that, but the DOD actually decided to attempt to shoot it down!!

Now, if the DOD and the "NWO" was actually flying the "non-existant" plane, they would not try to shoot it down. They would have let it hit its target.

But, the DOD actually did see 93 as a threat, and did actually try to intercept and destroy it.

What does this mean? It means there was a plane. It means the Bush administration did see it as a threat, and they actually did try to shoot it down.

So.....according to Prisonplanet and Alex Jones:

9-11 was NOT an Inside Job!!

:D

Sorry parky but you have made a fundamentral error of logic.

You have addressed the Prisonplanet information using "Proper Logic"

BUT they are using "Conspirisist Logic" AKA "Truther Logic"

"Proper Logic" is incompatible with either version of their logic even if you have the "Schizophrenic Plug in Module" installed in your brain.

The simplest test for most terms such as "Conspirisist Logic" OR "Truther Logic" is to install "Oxymoron Detecter" version 4 or later preferred but earlier versions seem to give reasonably accurate results.

:) :D ;)

[Pardalis]

BTW thewholesoul, flight 93 wasn't shot down, Ziad Jarrah crashed it nose first at top speed in the field in Shanksville.

[Phrost]

BTW thewholesoul, flight 93 wasn't shot down, Ziad Jarrah crashed it nose first at top speed in the field in Shanksville.

To their credit, the idea that flight 93 was shot down is a lot more plausible than 9-11 being an inside job.

[parky76]

it also demonstrates that the government LIED. once again. and raises the question why YOU STILL TRUST THEM?

why did they not tell us that Flight 93 was ordered to be shot down?



no plane at shanksville is one part of the "inside job" scenario. the Air Force was prevented from successfully intercepting any of the hijacked planes.

so, now, you are telling me that truthers NOW believe that the United States Air Force DID order fighters to intercept Flight 93, did shoot it down, and there actually was a passenger plane crash in PA????

well, if that is what you guys NOW believe, then you have just debunked 1/4 of your own damn theory!!!!!!!!!!!!!

don't you get it?? you just debunked yourself!!!!!!!

please...please...as a Passover gift...please tell me you grasp this.

[Pardalis]

To their credit, the idea that flight 93 was shot down is a lot more plausible than 9-11 being an inside job.

Yeah, but the intentional crash by the hijackers is even more plausible, plus it fits with the evidence. ;)

[parky76]

To their credit, the idea that flight 93 was shot down is a lot more plausible than 9-11 being an inside job.

if we actually did shoot down 93, i am confused as to why we were not told.

does it anger me greatly? not really. i would not want to be known as the guy that killed 100 of his own people with a air-to-air missile.

[Pardalis]

does it anger me greatly? not really. i would not want to be known as the guy that killed 100 of his own people with a air-to-air missile.

But he may have saved countless people on the ground in the Capitol, or White House.

(hypothetically, of course)

[ozeco41]

....well, if that is what you guys NOW believe, then you have just debunked 1/4 of your own damn theory!!!!!!!!!!!!!

don't you get it?? you just debunked yourself!!!!!!!

please...please...as a Passover gift...please tell me you grasp this.

Sad when your own side scores a "blue on blue" without seeing it coming.

No wonder the "truthers" cannot present a coherent set of claims when even OUR side fumbles the odd pass or three.

:( :mad: :o :confused:

[parky76]

You know, I have to say, I am just shocked that Prisonplanet would present evidence that there was indeed a plane at Shanksville and the USAF indeed was ordered to shoot it down and was able to accomplish this mission.

What does this mean? Is Alex Jones abandoning the "9-11 was an Inside Job" theory??

With this article, he has seriously abandoned a good 1/3rd of the MIHOP inside job theory.

Baffled...I is. Just baffled.

Alex Jones!! are you reading me?? do you realize what you have just done to 7 years of your own work??

[Grizzly Bear]

So much for the "not enough debris on site claim"

EDIT: nevermind.... I had to read :rolleyes:

"Footage of the crash site showed barely any debris whatsoever. Compare this to any other plane crash in history and the contrast is astounding."

Hmm then I can safely conlude this is not a plane: http://1802.img.pp.sohu.com.cn/images/blog/2009/1/17/11/24/11f8c265fa6g215.jpg

[parky76]

so the USAF shot it down...but it didnt crash?

where did it go?.....into a wormhole to The Land of the Lost?

=)

[Phrost]

if we actually did shoot down 93, i am confused as to why we were not told.

does it anger me greatly? not really. i would not want to be known as the guy that killed 100 of his own people with a air-to-air missile.

You're asking me to come up with theories about this?

Ok, having served in the Military here are a few ideas:


One of the pilots screwed up, jumped the gun and shot down the plane without authorization
Bush/Rumsfeld/Cheney/Head Nixon felt a story of sacrifice was more useful as a tool to encourage support for war in Iraq; Let's Roll!
...I got nothin'


Anecdotally, an Apache unit I was in was notorious for targeting cars close to base for kicks, but that's about as relevant as most "evidence" provided in many of these theories.

[parky76]

well..if the the plane was indeed shot down (which doesn't bother me), then the plane may have blown into several pieces, and the crash site, which does appear to lack major pieces, may have only been part of the whole plane, and the rest was in the woods.

who knows. but anyways, alex jones has done what we could not have done in a decade.

he has given legitimacy to a major debunking of 9-11 conspiracy theories...to 9-11 truthers.

thanx Alex, you have earned your pay once again.

[Grizzly Bear]

so the USAF shot it down...but it didnt crash?

where did it go?.....into a wormhole to The Land of the Lost?

=)

Apparently the giant crater in the ground wasn't obvious enough for them...

[debunker9145]

Unfortunately no. This time they are using truther logic. Yes now they are admitting there was a shootdown order, but not a single eyewitness saw a fighter plane in the area.

[parky76]

all i care is they are now arguing that there was a place at Shanksville, and the USAF was ordered to and allowed to intercept a hijacked plane.

MIHOP for Flight 93 is now gone. LIHOP is pretty much dead too.

[Unsecured Coins]

so Saeed Alghamdi and Ahmed Alnami, 2 hijackers said to be alive, are really, really dead this time? which is it?

[Tandem Thinking]

Someone made the comment that the shootdown and inside job were irreconcilable and here are some answers:

It’s all messed up as all psy ops are. It’s possible that their op went sideways on them and either 93 crashed or was shotdown, i don’t agree that inside job and shootdown are irreconcilable. Who knows why alot of **** happened that day. All i know is that the Media and Hollywood have perpetuated this Hero image of the passengers when their own re-enactments of events are totally false.
It seems to make sense, however on the face of it this operation was completely successful technologically and I cant see how those who planned this would not have thought of the possibility that at least one of the planes could have gone astray, and worked that into the plan. This leads me to believe that the no-planes theory is a possibility…. that would eliminate anything going wrong with the “planes”.
Agreed Jason, i’m not even close to convinced that her testimony is credible, as i said in a later post, this could just be more co-intel that they later completely debunk as to finally answer the question of 93 being “shot down”. Wouldn’t be the first time we’ve seen this.

And this beauty of a post:
You would be right, IF, this had not been an inside job, but it was. That is why CHENEY WOULD NOT CHANGE HIS “STAND DOWN” ORDER to not shoot down these planes. I believe flight 93 was suppose to hit Congress, kill most of our reps and thus MARTIAL LAW WOULD HAVE BEEN DECLARED since that is one of the acceptable reasons in the Constitution for declaring martial law.

That is why they didn’t care what we saw or HEARD FROM WITNESSES that day because under martial law no one would have been allowed to question it without being arrested. All of this would have been buried…

I think this woman is full of it, but I do believe a hero pilot shot down the plane against cheney’s orders and that is why we don’t have martial law right now. It was all botched.

Remember, Jeb Bush, anticipating flight 93 issued an Executive order ON 9/7/01, SIGNED BY HIM ON 9/7/01 AND THE ORDER WAS DATED 9/11/01, he had to cancell that martial law for the state of florida because the plane never reached the congress.

[AJM8125]

so Saeed Alghamdi and Ahmed Alnami, 2 hijackers said to be alive, are really, really dead this time? which is it?

Well the bodies guys we planted in the cockpit suspect are the hijackers are certainly dead. Sending re-education squad to your why do you ask?

[Unsecured Coins]

Because I'm disinfo just trying to find out how this fits all together without massive bong hits and still makes sense

[MikeW]

From the original link:

Nelson stresses that at no time was there any talk of “hijackers,” and the plane was shot down purely because communication had been lost and standard operating procedure mandated that the plane be intercepted and destroyed.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/military-whistleblower-claims-she-witnessed-flight-93-shootdown-order.html

SOP says you shoot down a plane if you lose contact with it?!

[thewholesoul]

BTW thewholesoul, flight 93 wasn't shot down, Ziad Jarrah crashed it nose first at top speed in the field in Shanksville.

how do you know that?

you were "told" that is what happened by media and authority figures. now if you read the opening post theres an news article that links to an interview with an individual who claims otherwise. when this whistle blower finally has to the courage to reveal him or herself you should seriously consider whether to maintain your current belief.

i suppose you also bought into the story that Barbara Olsen phoned her husband? you believed that story as well because you were "told" it was true by media and authority figures. but according to the FBI no phone calls was received by Ted Olsen i.e. the media was peddling lies, again.

do you ever ask the question "could I be wrong?"

peace

[thewholesoul]

no plane at shanksville is one part of the "inside job" scenario. the Air Force was prevented from successfully intercepting any of the hijacked planes.

so, now, you are telling me that truthers NOW believe that the United States Air Force DID order fighters to intercept Flight 93, did shoot it down, and there actually was a passenger plane crash in PA????

well, if that is what you guys NOW believe, then you have just debunked 1/4 of your own damn theory!!!!!!!!!!!!!

don't you get it?? you just debunked yourself!!!!!!!

i do get it.

i can accept the fact that the plane was shot down and this means that truther were in err on several accounts but so were debunkers.

in loose change they discussed that the remains of the plane were scattered over several miles. off course debunkers like yourself disputed this.

the main lesson to be learned however is not that truthers and debunkers were both wrong, but that the government LIED to us. can you please just tell me that you acknowledge this point?

given that flight 93 was shot down it is a fact that the media, military and governemnt are LYING to us! it doesnt get much more obvious than this.

why would they LIE to us?

why were the other planes not shot down?

the fact it was shot down raises more questions than it answers.

peace

[thewholesoul]

if we actually did shoot down 93, i am confused as to why we were not told.

the government is good, it never lies, relax, go watch more television...

does it anger me greatly? not really. i would not want to be known as the guy that killed 100 of his own people with a air-to-air missile.

so you are confused but not angry like a good little citizen.

btw: you wrongly assume that the guy who shot down flight 93 was the person who made the decsion not to tell the truth to the public.

peace

[debunker9145]

how do you know that?

you were "told" that is what happened by media and authority figures. now if you read the opening post theres an news article that links to an interview with an individual who claims otherwise. when this whistle blower finally has to the courage to reveal him or herself you should seriously consider whether to maintain your current belief.

i suppose you also bought into the story that Barbara Olsen phoned her husband? you believed that story as well because you were "told" it was true by media and authority figures. but according to the FBI no phone calls was received by Ted Olsen i.e. the media was peddling lies, again.

do you ever ask the question "could I be wrong?"

peace


I believe it because not a single eyewitness saw a fighter plane anywhere in the area at the time of the crash. Just because she did not hear them discussing anything does not believe it is not true. Secondly i cant find a single reliable source (other than hardcore truthers) that say the phone call never took place.
Do you ever ask the question "Can I be wrong?"

[parky76]

the government is good, it never lies, relax, go watch more television...

nice strawmen argument. of course people in the government lie. but not all government employees are liars. i am a govt. employee. as is my cousin, my uncle, my best friend, etc.

even truthers lie. can you fathom that one?

again, nice strawmen. make believe that non-truthers are thought slaves to the govt. makes explaining why NO ONE BELIEVES YOU sooo much easier to understand.

"why don't people believe me? cause they are sheep. that's why. and they don't have an open mind. yeah thats it. and they drink fluoridated water. and they breath in chemtrails. and they are Zionists. that's the reason!! they can't have an open mind...they just can't. because if they do..and they still don't believe me..then..then!!! oh my God!! maybe I am wrong!!!"

=)

[Unsecured Coins]

you know, you're abosultely right. I should ask questions about this.

I think I'll start with... if it is a fact that the plane was shot down, and the 8 mile debris field is your evidence...

why was there no human remains found in any area other than the "faked" crash site?

I'm just asking questions....

[parky76]

why were the other planes not shot down?



cause they didn't make it in time. no one is perfect but I'm sure, in a truther world, all things would happen right on time, and no one would ever fail.

[parky76]

do you ever ask the question "could I be wrong?"



how about you???

have you ever fathomed the idea...that YOU could be wrong???

[dtugg]

how do you know that?

you were "told" that is what happened by media and authority figures. now if you read the opening post theres an news article that links to an interview with an individual who claims otherwise. when this whistle blower finally has to the courage to reveal him or herself you should seriously consider whether to maintain your current belief.

Please. Only to a twoofer does an anonymous account, which is at best hearsay, about an event more than seven years ago and posted on a conspiracy theory website considered credible. The story sounds like complete BS to me anyway. All of this happened at the base hospital? This woman who was a PFC radiology technician was allowed to listen in on this? The SOP is to just shoot down unresponsive planes? Yeah frickin right.


i suppose you also bought into the story that Barbara Olsen phoned her husband? you believed that story as well because you were "told" it was true by media and authority figures. but according to the FBI no phone calls was received by Ted Olsen i.e. the media was peddling lies, again.

Now you're just lying. And of course you believe what the FBI allegedly says if it supports your fantasy. Everything else is a lie. Right? The hypocrisy of twoofers knows no bounds.


do you ever ask the question "could I be wrong?"

peace

I just need to see evidence proving that anything about the "official story" is wrong (and no, anonymous hearsay BS posted on a conspiracy theory website doesn't count). The twoof movement, in seven years, has yet to produce a shred of it. It would also be cool to have a coherent, internally consistent theory about what happened that day. But twoofers are too incompetent to accomplish that.

[MikeW]

according to the FBI no phone calls was received by Ted Olsen i.e. the media was peddling lies, again.
Uh, no, You were "told" that by truthers, but it's a lie.

[thewholesoul]

You know, I have to say, I am just shocked that Prisonplanet would present evidence that there was indeed a plane at Shanksville and the USAF indeed was ordered to shoot it down and was able to accomplish this mission.

What does this mean? Is Alex Jones abandoning the "9-11 was an Inside Job" theory??

With this article, he has seriously abandoned a good 1/3rd of the MIHOP inside job theory.

Alex Jones!! are you reading me?? do you realize what you have just done to 7 years of your own work??

its called honest journalism.

why is the interview of the whistle blower stll NOT heard in mainstream media?

i fail to see how proving once again that the government is lying to us in relation to events on 911 somehow debunks the position that 911 was an inside job!

tbw, your taxes were spent on the 911 comission to uncover and disclose the truth. does it not make you anrgy that they would spend your money on peddling a lie?

peace

[Drudgewire]

Uh, no, You were "told" that by truthers, but it's a lie.


This is the same FBI that thinks OBL had nothing to do with 9/11. Apparently twoofers think the FBI isn't in on the conspiracy but we've done a wonderful job of keeping them from telling the general public that. :rolleyes:

[Unsecured Coins]

you know, you're abosultely right. I should ask questions about this.

I think I'll start with... if it is a fact that the plane was shot down, and the 8 mile debris field is your evidence...

why was there no human remains found in any area other than the "faked" crash site?

I'm just asking questions....

bump

[thewholesoul]

You're asking me to come up with theories about this?

Ok, having served in the Military here are a few ideas:


One of the pilots screwed up, jumped the gun and shot down the plane without authorization
Bush/Rumsfeld/Cheney/Head Nixon felt a story of sacrifice was more useful as a tool to encourage support for war in Iraq; Let's Roll!
...I got nothin'


your a conspiracy nut if you think the government would lie to us in the furtherance of their political agenda.

[dtugg]

its called honest journalism.

why is the interview of the whistle blower stll NOT heard in mainstream media?


Because, twoofer, at best it is anonymous hearsay about an event that happened more than seven years ago. And it's probably actually outright lies. No respectable news agency would publish that. Of course, Prison Planet isn't a respectable news agency.

[Wolrab]

Is Ultima1 the whistle blower?

[Drudgewire]

Because, twoofer, at best it is anonymous hearsay about an event that happened more than seven years ago. And it's probably actually outright lies. No respectable news agency would publish that. Of course, Prison Planet isn't a respectable news agency.


But they're issued press credentials to Bloomberg press conferences.

Oh wait... :p

[Phrost]

your a conspiracy nut if you think the government would lie to us in the furtherance of their political agenda.

Is this irony? I'm no tinfoil hat wearing dude, and hell, I voted for Bush, but come on... yellow cake uranium? WMDs in Iraq? Al Qaeda-Saddam Hussein connection?

People in the government lie constantly, especially elected officials pushing an agenda.

[Reheat]

why is the interview of the whistle blower stll NOT heard in mainstream media?

Oh boy! The reason it won't appear in mainstream media is because it's quite obviously not true on the very surface even without going into details of the crash site and the evidence at that location. It debunks itself without viewing anything else.

Ft. Meade, MD is a US Army installation and also the location of the NSA. NO ONE, (is that clear enough?), NO ONE there had any authority to make a shoot down decision, period.

A US Army Base Commander as referenced in the article is an ADMINISTRATIVE ONLY position. This person has NO AUTHORITY at all to influence, affect, or make any kind of Operational Decision regarding anything whatsoever.

NEADS did not learn anything about UA 93 until after it had already crashed, so one must ask how anyone at Ft Meade knew about it in advance? Psst, they didn't. Even if CTists want to invent a fantasy about how they knew, they still had no authority to make any decision in this regard in the first place.

A PFC Nurse and her friend are told to stare at a wall, not look at the people in the room, and not listen to the conversation. Just how dumb does one have to be to believe that statement on the very surface?

There's likely more in the article that I've omitted, but this is enough to tell even the most casual reader that this stuff is tripe.

Anyone who would believe this has taken one of the nurse's barium enemas ORALLY. How did it taste thewholesoul?

[jhunter1163]

SOP says you shoot down a plane if you lose contact with it?!

But then, just the other day someone stole a plane and flew from Canada to Missouri, with fighter escort much of the way, and didn't get shot down. How does this fit in with the SOP?

[Mince]

how do you know that?

you were "told" that is what happened by media and authority figures.

And I suppose everything you know about 9/11 was accumulated first hand, right? Have you ever done an investigation of any aspect of 9/11 that didn't involve your keyboard. Or has everything you know about 9/11 been "told" to you by someone else?

now if you read the opening post theres an news article that links to an interview with an individual who claims otherwise. when this whistle blower finally has to the courage to reveal him or herself you should seriously consider whether to maintain your current belief.

Do you really think high ranking officers invited a private who was training to become a radiological technician to sit in on a top secret conference to discuss national security and the possible shoot-down of Flight 93? Do you really believe, if 9/11 was an inside job and the U.S. Government needed Flight 93 to crash into a building to gain support for a war on Iraq, they would have ordered it to be shot down?

Do you believe this person just because you were "told"?

[twinstead]

I too find it humorous when somebody who is told what happened by conspiracy websites tells me I am told what happened by media and authority figures. That takes a special kind of arrogance.

[SteveAustin]

You know for people who supposedely put a lot of time and effort into research none of you here have mentioned the truth about why this flight was believed to have been shot down and why that still supports 9/11 as an inside job.

And i'll tell you also, this is not new and it is not a minor belief in the 9/11 truth movement, so i'm curious why none of you bothered to mention it? Maybe you just wanted to smear 9/11 truth activists!

Here is what you all forgot to mention. According to many 9/11 truth activists this flight was shot down, heck we have been saying it for years now, some of us since the beginning. The likely reason it was shot down was because the passengers regained control of the aircraft and would have landed the plane and blown the whole inside job, so the plane had to be shot down to keep the cover up.

Is there a reason no one bothered to mention this theory? It fits the facts, and prisonplanet has said this same thing all along. This just supports the 9/11 was an inside job.

But you guys here all did a masterfull job at making yourselves look silly.

GREAT JOB!!

[Mince]

Finally it demonstrates that debunkers (popular mechanics, jrefers, etc) were WRONG because all debunkers (perhaps even yourself) have been defending a LIE and arguing that it crashed into a field in pensilvania because the occupants put up a struggle and the pilot nose dived into a

You're presuming that what the "whistleblower" said is true and that the shootdown order was executed. Neither is necessarily true.

[Pedantic moment]Pennsylvania[/Pedantic moment]

[Mince]

I too find it humorous when somebody who is told what happened by conspiracy websites tells me I am told what happened by media and authority figures. That takes a special kind of arrogance.

And ignorance!

[twinstead]

You know for people who supposedely put a lot of time and effort into research none of you here have mentioned the truth about why this flight was believed to have been shot down and why that still supports 9/11 as an inside job.

And i'll tell you also, this is not new and it is not a minor belief in the 9/11 truth movement, so i'm curious why none of you bothered to mention it? Maybe you just wanted to smear 9/11 truth activists!

Here is what you all forgot to mention. According to many 9/11 truth activists this flight was shot down, heck we have been saying it for years now, some of us since the beginning. The likely reason it was shot down was because the passengers regained control of the aircraft and would have landed the plane and blown the whole inside job, so the plane had to be shot down to keep the cover up.

Is there a reason no one bothered to mention this theory? It fits the facts, and prisonplanet has said this same thing all along. This just supports the 9/11 was an inside job.

But you guys here all did a masterfull job at making yourselves look silly.

GREAT JOB!!

And if there was actually any real evidence it WAS shot down you'd have a point.

[Hokulele]

You know for people who supposedely put a lot of time and effort into research none of you here have mentioned the truth about why this flight was believed to have been shot down and why that still supports 9/11 as an inside job.

And i'll tell you also, this is not new and it is not a minor belief in the 9/11 truth movement, so i'm curious why none of you bothered to mention it? Maybe you just wanted to smear 9/11 truth activists!

Here is what you all forgot to mention. According to many 9/11 truth activists this flight was shot down, heck we have been saying it for years now, some of us since the beginning. The likely reason it was shot down was because the passengers regained control of the aircraft and would have landed the plane and blown the whole inside job, so the plane had to be shot down to keep the cover up.

Is there a reason no one bothered to mention this theory? It fits the facts, and prisonplanet has said this same thing all along. This just supports the 9/11 was an inside job.

But you guys here all did a masterfull job at making yourselves look silly.

GREAT JOB!!


You are missing the point of the objection. Why would the government even have to fabricate a cover-up for a shoot down in the first place? Why couldn't they just say they shot down a plane hijacked by terrorists and thereby look like heroes in the eyes of the American (and international) public? Why cover-up something that would actually make them look good rather than like a bunch of incompetent nincompoops?

Talk about overcomplicating an issue ...

[dtugg]

You know for people who supposedely put a lot of time and effort into research none of you here have mentioned the truth about why this flight was believed to have been shot down and why that still supports 9/11 as an inside job.

And i'll tell you also, this is not new and it is not a minor belief in the 9/11 truth movement, so i'm curious why none of you bothered to mention it? Maybe you just wanted to smear 9/11 truth activists!

Here is what you all forgot to mention. According to many 9/11 truth activists this flight was shot down, heck we have been saying it for years now, some of us since the beginning. The likely reason it was shot down was because the passengers regained control of the aircraft and would have landed the plane and blown the whole inside job, so the plane had to be shot down to keep the cover up.

Is there a reason no one bothered to mention this theory? It fits the facts, and prisonplanet has said this same thing all along. This just supports the 9/11 was an inside job.

But you guys here all did a masterfull job at making yourselves look silly.

GREAT JOB!!

How do you reconcile your fantasy with the fact that many people say that they spoke to their loved ones who were on the plane and that they reported is was hijacked by Middle Eastern looking men? Are the people who say this liars? Or you one of the twoofers who say that those phone calls were magically faked (including one where a lady gave her safe combo to her sister)? Or maybe the NWO has people so dedicated to the cause of stealing oil for Bush's buddies that they actually hijacked the plane and were planning on crashing it into a building?

I don't expect an answer.

[Drudgewire]

And if there was actually any real evidence it WAS shot down you'd have a point.


Yes, when their best piece of evidence is based on an inability to read Google maps the whole "looking silly" thing starts tipping away from the skeptics.

[A W Smith]

You know for people who supposedely put a lot of time and effort into research none of you here have mentioned the truth about why this flight was believed to have been shot down and why that still supports 9/11 as an inside job.

And i'll tell you also, this is not new and it is not a minor belief in the 9/11 truth movement, so i'm curious why none of you bothered to mention it? Maybe you just wanted to smear 9/11 truth activists!

Here is what you all forgot to mention. According to many 9/11 truth activists this flight was shot down, heck we have been saying it for years now, some of us since the beginning. The likely reason it was shot down was because the passengers regained control of the aircraft and would have landed the plane and blown the whole inside job, so the plane had to be shot down to keep the cover up.

Is there a reason no one bothered to mention this theory? It fits the facts, and prisonplanet has said this same thing all along. This just supports the 9/11 was an inside job.

But you guys here all did a masterfull job at making yourselves look silly.

GREAT JOB!!

So why do no witnesses at all report fighter jets tailing ALL the hijacked planes that day? You would need to "just in case" passengers re-took those hijacked planes as well. Were they using a cloak of invisibility? How would they even know that passengers took control? Some sort of panic button that the original pilots themselves couldn't reach? Explain this for us Stevie boy. Fill in the gaping holes in this theory you have had since day one

[SteveAustin]

No. The point of the OP was that prisonplanet no longer believes 9/11 was an inside job because of an article that said the plane was shot down.

Your little side treks have nothing to do with it.

[twinstead]

No. The point of the OP was that prisonplanet no longer believes 9/11 was an inside job because of an article that said the plane was shot down.

Your little side treks have nothing to do with it.

Yes. Pointing out the HUGE holes in your (and prisonplanet's) "shootdown" theory is indeed a side trek. Maybe another thread would be in order.

[AJM8125]

Maybe you just wanted to smear 9/11 truth activists!

On this board? Never!

[Mince]

You know for people who supposedely put a lot of time and effort into research none of you here have mentioned the truth about why this flight was believed to have been shot down and why that still supports 9/11 as an inside job.

Because Americans are more angry that a field in rural Pennsylvania was destroyed vice a worthless concrete structure and a few meaningless lives somewhere in Washington or New York and are subsequently more likely to support a war on Iraq? America is starting to think "green" afterall. The grass was obviously more valuable (literally and figuratively). It's a wonder the U.S. Government didn't fly those planes (remotely, of course) into trees. We'd be rulers of the entire world by now.

Or maybe you see it differently. Maybe you could elucidate?



The likely reason it was shot down was because the passengers regained control of the aircraft and would have landed the plane and blown the whole inside job, so the plane had to be shot down to keep the cover up.

Ah. You have elucidated. Firstly, thank you for correctly qualifying your belief with "likely." Secondly, how would the passengers, having regained control of the aircraft, have spoilt the "inside job"? Presumably, and I think even you will agree on this point, the passengers had no knowledge of "an inside job." From their perspective, which you define by stating that "the passengers regained control of the aircraft," the aircraft was hijacked by muslim terrorists. Had they gained control of the plane and landed it (somehow without a pilot aboard), their stories would have confirmed the U.S. Government's story. At any rate, ignoring logical flaws, do you have any sort of credible empirical evidence the aircraft was shot down and for the reasons you state?

[TheRedWorm]

you know, you're abosultely right. I should ask questions about this.

I think I'll start with... if it is a fact that the plane was shot down, and the 8 mile debris field is your evidence...

why was there no human remains found in any area other than the "faked" crash site?

I'm just asking questions....


Re-bump

[Mince]

No. The point of the OP was that prisonplanet no longer believes 9/11 was an inside job because of an article that said the plane was shot down.

Incorrect. The point of the OP was not that PrisonPlanet no longer believed 9/11 was an inside job. The OP isn't that naive. It was a bit of sarcasm. The point of the OP, which you seemingly missed, was that PrisonPlanet, and the "truth" movement on the whole, have contradicted themselves by embracing both an "inside job" theory, dictating that the U.S. Government took control of aircraft to crash them into important structures, and a "shootdown" theory, dictating that the U.S. Government prevented an aircraft from crashing into an important structure by shooting it down; your baseless, evidenceless theories about the shootdown notwithstanding.

[T.A.M.]

Oh for the love of christ, you swear this was the first time PP produced an alleged whistleblower.

This is not even a good one. I mean this one will not even use her real name, and she says the "officers" agreed on the shootdown order. So what does that mean? They have no authority to agree or disagree on it anyway.

This story sounds 100% bogus to me...we will see.

TAM:)

[Unsecured Coins]

either way, UC 16 just wrote itself

[mark4mark]

The likely reason it was shot down was because the passengers regained control of the aircraft and would have landed the plane and blown the whole inside job, so the plane had to be shot down to keep the cover up.


From whom do you purport the passengers had to "regain control of the aircraft" if not the hijackers? Kind of a self-debunking statement, no?

All you "truthers" insist on pointing out these "lies" of the government while ignoring the countless, practically innumerable lies of Alex Jones about which you hypocritically don't call "foul." Why is that, I wonder?

Case in point, the article which is the subject of this thread whereby Jones employs his usual tactic of rewriting his "facts" without changing the overall thrust of his arguments. Meanwhile you feast at the trough without taking a moment to even breathe.

[MikeW]

From whom do you purport the passengers had to "regain control of the aircraft" if not the hijackers? Kind of a self-debunking statement, no?
That particular truther sect usually argues that the plane was being remotely controlled. Although they might still believe there were hijackers on board, perhaps as patsies.

[SteveAustin]

usually argues that the plane was being remotely controlled. Although they might still believe there were hijackers on board, perhaps as patsies.

Ding! Ding! We have a winner...well sort of.

I don't know if there were "patsies" on board or not, but if the plane was recovered by the passengers/pilots then letting them land safely and allowing them to tell what happened would have blown the plot and that was not to be allowed.

There really is no inconsistency nor any contradiction in the theory. Anyone who claims there is is either lying or simply does not comprehend

[Unsecured Coins]

how about the lack of an 8 mile human remains field? Anyone gonna touch that? or is that just too much to [rule 10]ing ask?

[dtugg]

Ding! Ding! We have a winner...well sort of.

I don't know if there were "patsies" on board or not, but if the plane was recovered by the passengers/pilots then letting them land safely and allowing them to tell what happened would have blown the plot and that was not to be allowed.

There really is no inconsistency nor any contradiction in the theory. Anyone who claims there is is either lying or simply does not comprehend

Explain how the plane landing would have blown the plot, twoofer. Nothing anybody aboard the plane said contradicts the "official story" at all. In fact, everything said to people on the ground (i.e the plane had been hijacked by Arab men) confirms it.

Are you a DRG real time voice morphing that totally fools family members variety of twoofer?

Anyway, sorry if I am making you feel any cognitive dissonance.

[SteveAustin]

how about the lack of an 8 mile human remains field? Anyone gonna touch that? or is that just too much to [rule 10]ing ask?

Is anyone going to touch the 8 mile debris field? or is that too much to ask?

[Unsecured Coins]

first, show me this 8 mile debris field. and then tell me why no remains were found with plane debris.

GO.

[stateofgrace]

Ding! Ding! We have a winner...well sort of.

I don't know if there were "patsies" on board or not, but if the plane was recovered by the passengers/pilots then letting them land safely and allowing them to tell what happened would have blown the plot and that was not to be allowed.

There really is no inconsistency nor any contradiction in the theory. Anyone who claims there is is either lying or simply does not comprehend

Really ?

So rather than simply crashing a plane that they had under remote control, they decided to shoot it down, sorry, how does this one work?

[SteveAustin]

Anyway, sorry if I am making you feel any cognitive dissonance.

LOL, reverse psychology never tainted me! ;)

Yes I know what cognitive dissonance is and I know it's not the same as reverse psychology. It's just really really really ironic to hear that coming from an OCTopus

[SteveAustin]

Really ?

So rather than simply crashing a plane that they had under remote control, they decided to shoot it down, sorry, how does this one work?

LOL straw man argument much? the whole point was they did not have it under control any longer! DUH!

[dtugg]

LOL, reverse psychology never tainted me! ;)

Yes I know what cognitive dissonance is and I know it's not the same as reverse psychology. It's just really really really ironic to hear that coming from an OCTopus

Your refusal to answer my questions indicate that you are feeling cognitive dissonance. You realize that there is no answer, yet you badly want 9/11 to be an inside jobby job.

[Drudgewire]

Is anyone going to touch the 8 mile debris field? or is that too much to ask?


Yes, when their best piece of evidence is based on an inability to read Google maps the whole "looking silly" thing starts tipping away from the skeptics.


:cool:

[Mince]

LOL straw man argument much? the whole point was they did not have it under control any longer! DUH!

So you have empirical evidence of remote control--passenger takeover--shootdown, or is this your own strawman argument?

[stateofgrace]

LOL straw man argument much? the whole point was they did not have it under control any longer! DUH!

Oh I see, so the passengers and/or pilots did regain control of the plane then ?

[lapman]

LOL straw man argument much? the whole point was they did not have it under control any longer! DUH!
How would they no longer have control of the aircraft if the remote control can override all pilot inputs?

[timhau]

do you ever ask the question "could I be wrong?"


I not only ask it, I answer it too:

Q: Could you be wrong?
A: Yes! In fact, you're doing a splendid job being wrong!

[A W Smith]

Stevie boy, No one on the ground or air saw an intercept. Care to address that? Witnesses saw the plane flying upside down towards the ground intact. No missile strike. And no human remains outside of the impact point which you would expect to see strewn all over the countryside due to a mid air break up. Which didn't happen. You appear to be tense and agitated. And We know why (http://changingminds.org/explanations/theories/cognitive_dissonance.htm)

[debunker9145]

your a conspiracy nut if you think the government would lie to us in the furtherance of their political agenda.

Do i sense a freudian slip?

[beachnut]

You know for people who supposedely put a lot of time and effort into research none of you here have mentioned the truth about why this flight was believed to have been shot down and why that still supports 9/11 as an inside job.

And i'll tell you also, this is not new and it is not a minor belief in the 9/11 truth movement, so i'm curious why none of you bothered to mention it? Maybe you just wanted to smear 9/11 truth activists!

Here is what you all forgot to mention. According to many 9/11 truth activists this flight was shot down, heck we have been saying it for years now, some of us since the beginning. The likely reason it was shot down was because the passengers regained control of the aircraft and would have landed the plane and blown the whole inside job, so the plane had to be shot down to keep the cover up.

Is there a reason no one bothered to mention this theory? It fits the facts, and prisonplanet has said this same thing all along. This just supports the 9/11 was an inside job.

But you guys here all did a masterfull job at making yourselves look silly.

GREAT JOB!!
Your ideas are pure stupid. This is why no one will mention your delusions.

The plane was taken down by passenergers who figured out 911 in minutes. After 7 years you are still in ignorace of this and other 911 issues. Bravo for being able to maintain an illusion for so long; that is the only good you have to show for your ignoreace on 911.

The FDR shows the terrorist made the inputs into the jets controls to take the plane down to impact; when they turned the control column, the jet turned, when the pushed down the jet went down. Recorded rigfht to impact with all systems running flight 93 impacted after the passengers you try to disrespet with your pathetick apologies for the 19 terrorist, took the plane down because the terrorist are chickens like 911Truth.

Do you have more stupid ideas on 911 you need to get out so your can free yourself of delusions and start thinking for yourself? This one is pretty stupid and exposes your lack of research and lack of knowledge.

My older brother told me that 93 was shot down (a few days after 911), and he got his information from someone else. Here I was a pilot in the USAF on active duty and my brother is telling me Flight 93 was shot down. I said there were no fighters near 93 and he said an AIM9 could go 80 miles and hit the airliner. I said they couldn’t shoot from that far they could hit other planes! He said more bs! So if you want to spew bs like my older brother you have. But if you want the truth you have to use evidence and facts and you are still using pure claptrap special stinky bs made up by someone else. Who started the doltish shoot down rumor? Why can’t you use evidence now?

[parky76]

your a conspiracy nut if you think the government would lie to us in the furtherance of their political agenda.

and truther leaders would never lie to further their political agenda?

don't be soo naive.

[parky76]

i fail to see how proving once again that the government is lying to us in relation to events on 911 somehow debunks the position that 911 was an inside job!


if the govt. DID shoot down flight 93, and it DID crash in shanksville, and there was NO stand-down order on flight 93, then a good 1/3rd of the "inside job" theory that you guys support, has just been debunked...by you guys.

but i perfectly grasp, why you don't understand this. don't worry.

:D

[thewholesoul]

in relation to the "alleged" cell phone calls from barbara olsen.

Secondly i cant find a single reliable source (other than hardcore truthers) that say the phone call never took place.

Now you're just lying. And of course you believe what the FBI allegedly says if it supports your fantasy. Everything else is a lie. Right? The hypocrisy of twoofers knows no bounds.

Uh, no, You were "told" that by truthers, but it's a lie.

In 2006 at the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui the FBI reported on phone calls from AA planes on 9/11. The only call attributed to Barbara Olson was an “unconnected call” to the Department of Justice, which was said to have been attempted at “9:18:58” and to have lasted “0 seconds.” So according to the US government, Barbara Olson attempted a call to the DOJ, but it did not go through and beause the government itself has presented evidence in a court of law that implies that either its former solicitor general (Ted Olsen) was (a) the victim of two faked phone calls, or (b) that he was lying. You choose? To learn more about the Olsen calls read the following link. http://pilotsfor911truth.org/amrarticle.html

Dr. Dewdney tested the claim whether cell phones could work at 25,000ft. He demonstarted that it was flat out impossible at 7,000ft. You can read about his experiment on the following links: http://physics911.net/projectachilles http://physics911.net/cellphoneflight93

I wonder is dtugg going to do the right thing and apologise for caling me a liar? I wont hold my breath.

Peace

[Unsecured Coins]

where's your 8 mile debris field at? I find your lack of it disturbing.

[thewholesoul]

I believe it because not a single eyewitness saw a fighter plane anywhere in the area at the time of the crash.

Your wrong.

"I know of two people -- I will not mention names -- that heard a missile," Stuhl said. "They both live very close, within a couple of hundred yards. . .This one fellow's served in Vietnam and he says he's heard them, and he heard one that day." The mayor adds that based on what he knows about that morning, military F-16 fighter jets were "very, very close." http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/flight93witnesses.html

Do you ever ask the question "Can I be wrong?"

Yes none of beliefs are beyond revision, or change.

[thewholesoul]

nice strawmen argument. of course people in the government lie. but not all government employees are liars. i am a govt. employee. as is my cousin, my uncle, my best friend, etc.

There is a difference between a sarcastic comment and a straw man argument.

I never said that all people in governemnt lie. I thought I made that perfectly clear in my first post to you? To repeat: 911 truthers claim that "some" elements within the U.S. government must have been involved. There is a lot of good men and women in the government and military and perhaps it was one of these individuals that gave the shoot down order?

even truthers lie. can you fathom that one?

There is a significant difference between being wrong and being a liar.

All Truthers who speculated, hypothesized, and argued that flight 93 did not crash in shanksville were proven wrong in light of the new information – in light of what really happened. Likewise all debunkers who argued against the shooting down of flight 93 were proven wrong. Truthers and debunkers are not lying because they were both unaware of what really happened.

In contrast, the government knew what really happened. Yet they intentionally decided not to disclose the truth. Such behaviour is not only illegal and liable, its disgusting because they lied to the family members in relation to the nature of how their loved one’s died. A movie based on a lie was then peddled which ultimately fostered anti-islamic sentiment which served to quell discent of the American empires foreign policy and to even support the illegal and immoral invasion of iraq. Over a million people (and counting) are dead in Iraq as a result of U.S. aggression.

Worse still, is that they used your tax dollars to pay for the 911 comission which was supposed to investigate and disclose the truth not cover it up.

Worse still, is that the government may not even be held accountable for intentionally covering up the truth.

make believe that non-truthers are thought slaves to the govt.

Your government knowingly lied to you using your money and this does not “anger you greatly”? does it anger you at all?

they drink fluoridated water.

It is a fact that flouride is a chemical waste product from the aluminium industry. This toxic substance is placed in public drinking water. Studies clearly show that it does not do what it was intended to do i.e. reduce tooth decay. Other studies show that it is linked to reduced IQ, bone cancer, etc. Please get informed
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/79326.php
http://www.nteu280.org/Issues/Fluoride/NTEU280-Fluoride.htm
http://www.fluoridealert.org/sf-masters.htm

and they breath in chemtrails.

The Associated Press reported yesterday that the Obama administration has held discussions regarding the possibility of “geo-engineering” the earth’s climate to counter global warming by “shooting pollution particles into the upper atmosphere to reflect the sun’s rays.”

Chemtrails exist and have been part of government weather modifaction for quite sometime. Chemtrails containing barium have been reported by some local news outlets, go watch in the following clip . http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okB-489l6MI&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Einfowars%2Ecom%2Fthe%2Dgov ernment%2Dis%2Dalready%2Dgeo%2Dengineering%2Dthe%2 Denvironment%2F&feature=player_embedded

and they are Zionists. that's the reason!! they can't have an open mind...they just can't. because if they do..and they still don't believe me..then..then!!! oh my God!! maybe I am wrong!!!"

Seriouly what are you talking about?

peace

[parky76]

"I know of two people -- I will not mention names -- that heard a missile," Stuhl said. "They both live very close, within a couple of hundred yards."

so there are two people, but they have no names and refuse to come forward?

I call BS.

and by the way, if flight 93 was shot down, and the pilot who pulled the trigger is unwilling to admit to this and come forward, then he as much as guilty in the cover-up as the guy who gave the order to shoot.

the Federal government has whistle-blower protection laws.

[thewholesoul]

if flight 93 DID exist...and the DOD did shoot it down..then there was indeed a plane at shanksville, and the Bush administration did take steps to stop a terrorist attack. one cannot believe this...AND believe that 9-11 was an inside job. it just dont work that way.

911 truthers contend that a criminal element within the U.S. government orchastrated and allowed to happen the tragic events that day. Presumably the good people of the military were the one’s that made the shootdown order,the ones that followed standard procedure. Was flight 93 intended for the white house, building 7, who knows? But what we do know is that crashing into a field in Shanksville was not part of the terrorists plan.

peace

[Unsecured Coins]

...debris field....

[parky76]

All Truthers who speculated, hypothesized, and argued that flight 93 did not crash in shanksville were proven wrong in light of the new information – in light of what really happened. Likewise all debunkers who argued against the shooting down of flight 93 were proven wrong.

so, flight 93 was actually hijacked, and it was shot down over shanksville.

that means that as far as Flight 93 goes, 9-11 was NOT an inside job. The govt. used deadly force to take down the aircraft and protect American lives in D.C.

you do see that..don't you?

oh....i forgot....truther logic.

but.....tell me this one...little thing.

if the USAF did shoot down Flight 93, and saved countless lives on the ground in D.C. or Baltimore, why on Earth would the US govt. NOT want to admit to this act or heroism, courage, and fast-action?????????????

does that make ANY SENSE TO YOU AT ALL????

BUSH DOES SOMETHING RIGHT ON 9-11..AND DOES NOT TAKE CREDIT FOR IT???

man, truther logic, is undeniable.

=)

[thewholesoul]

"I know of two people -- I will not mention names -- that heard a missile," Stuhl said. "They both live very close, within a couple of hundred yards."

so there are two people, but they have no names and refuse to come forward?

I call BS.

and by the way, if flight 93 was shot down, and the pilot who pulled the trigger is unwilling to admit to this and come forward, then he as much as guilty in the cover-up as the guy who gave the order to shoot.

the Federal government has whistle-blower protection laws.

so you believe the story of an anonamous pilot who shot down flight 93 but you dont beleive in two anonamous individuals who claim to have witnessed an F16? :D

[parky76]

911 truthers contend that a criminal element within the U.S. government orchastrated and allowed to happen the tragic events that day.

let me guess, these people will be sitting down for their 2nd Passover seder in 2 hours right?

;)

[parky76]

so you believe the story of an anonamous pilot who shot down flight 93 but you dont beleive in two anonamous individuals who claim to have witnessed an F16? :D

I believe neither!!

Anonymous sources are BS sources until they come forward.

[MikeW]

In 2006 at the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui the FBI reported on phone calls from AA planes on 9/11. The only call attributed to Barbara Olson was an “unconnected call” to the Department of Justice, which was said to have been attempted at “9:18:58” and to have lasted “0 seconds.” So according to the US government, Barbara Olson attempted a call to the DOJ, but it did not go through and beause the government itself has presented evidence in a court of law that implies that either its former solicitor general (Ted Olsen) was (a) the victim of two faked phone calls, or (b) that he was lying.

The 9/11 Commission said this:

57. The records available for the phone calls from American 77 do not allow for a determination of which of four “connected calls to unknown numbers” represent the two between Barbara and Ted Olson, although the FBI and DOJ believe that all four represent communications between Barbara Olson and her husband’s office (all family members of the Flight 77 passengers and crew were canvassed to see if they had received any phone calls from the hijacked flight, and only Renee May’s parents and Ted Olson indicated that they had received such calls). The four calls were at 9:15:34 for 1 minute, 42 seconds; 9:20:15 for 4 minutes, 34 seconds; 9:25:48 for 2 minutes, 34 seconds; and 9:30:56 for 4 minutes, 20 seconds. FBI report,“American Airlines Airphone Usage,” Sept. 20, 2001; FBI report of investigation, interview of Theodore Olson, Sept. 11, 2001; FBI report of investigation, interview of Helen Voss, Sept. 14, 2001;AAL response to the Commission’s supplemental document request, Jan. 20, 2004.
Footnote 57 to Chapter 1, 9/11 Commission Report

So, it's been said all along that the records don't provide the information regarding who made them or where they went. However, it was still believed that the calls were made by Barbara Olson.

The Moussaoui trial exhibit included this image:

http://911myths.com/images/thumb/b/b7/Aa77calls_unknown.png/800px-Aa77calls_unknown.png

The times for the connected call match up with those in the 9/11 Commission report. So, the image above does not change anything: it says there were four connected calls, but the records don't reveal who made them or where they went. It certainly doesn't say the calls weren't made by Barbara Olson, nor does it contradict what Ted Olson said.

[fitzgibbon]

so you believe the story of an anonamous pilot who shot down flight 93 but you dont beleive in two anonamous individuals who claim to have witnessed an F16? :D

wholesoul,

What part of "if" in parky's post that you replied to do you not understand? "If" represents a hypothetical. Ergo, it doesn't mean that parky believes in said [sic] "anonamous" pilot. And I'll second parky's call of Bravo Sierra on said story.

And BTW? The word's spelled anonymous.

HTH
Fitz

[thewholesoul]

so, flight 93 was actually hijacked, and it was shot down over shanksville. that means that as far as Flight 93 goes, 9-11 was NOT an inside job. The govt. used deadly force to take down the aircraft and protect American lives in D.C.

if the terrorists were patsies used by the government then your logic fails.

if the USAF did shoot down Flight 93, and saved countless lives on the ground in D.C. or Baltimore, why on Earth would the US govt. NOT want to admit to this act or heroism, courage, and fast-action? does that make ANY SENSE TO YOU AT ALL????

I thought you believed that flight 93 was shot down?

To answer your question, I dont know? Perhaps such a question is better addressed to the government.
peace

[thewholesoul]

you know, you're abosultely right. I should ask questions about this.

I think I'll start with... if it is a fact that the plane was shot down, and the 8 mile debris field is your evidence...

why was there no human remains found in any area other than the "faked" crash site?

I dont know. Questions of that nature are best answered through an honest investigation. But i’m sure the government would find DNA and body parts in the crash site if indeed there were people in the plane. In fact they have claimed to have found human DNA at Shanksville.

[thewholesoul]

The Moussaoui trial exhibit included this image:

The times for the connected call match up with those in the 9/11 Commission report. So, the image above does not change anything: it says there were four connected calls, but the records don't reveal who made them or where they went. It certainly doesn't say the calls weren't made by Barbara Olson, nor does it contradict what Ted Olson said.

please reread my post and especially the links i provided.

In 2006 at the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui the FBI reported on phone calls from AA planes on 9/11. The only call attributed to Barbara Olson was an “unconnected call” to the Department of Justice, which was said to have been attempted at “9:18:58” and to have lasted “0 seconds.”

So according to the US government, Barbara Olson attempted a call to the DOJ, but it did not go through and beause the government itself has presented evidence in a court of law that implies that either its former solicitor general (Ted Olsen) was (a) the victim of two faked phone calls, or (b) that he was lying. You choose? To learn more about the Olsen calls read the following link. http://pilotsfor911truth.org/amrarticle.html

Dr. Dewdney tested the claim whether cell phones could work at 25,000ft. He demonstarted that it was flat out impossible at 7,000ft. You can read about his experiment on the following links: http://physics911.net/projectachilles http://physics911.net/cellphoneflight93

peace

[MikeW]

please reread my post and especially the links i provided.
I'm well aware of the argument. And it's false, for the reasons I've just stated. The 9/11 Commission said the calls could not be directly attributed to Barbara Olson, but the FBI and DoJ believed they were hers anyway. The Moussaoui exhibit does not contradict that, it simply provides a graphic of the four calls.

Oh, and Dewdney's study is equally flawed. He flew over an urban area, where base stations generally have short ranges, then pretended it was equivalent to flying in the countryside, where base stations have longer ranges. Worse still, the truthers fell for it.

[Grizzly Bear]

Dr. Dewdney tested the claim whether cell phones could work at 25,000ft. He demonstarted that it was flat out impossible at 7,000ft. You can read about his experiment on the following links: http://physics911.net/projectachilles http://physics911.net/cellphoneflight93

peace
Some studies have indicated the contrary to his claims (http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/mar06/3069). And what about any calls made from flight 93 that were made from air phones?

[thewholesoul]

And I suppose everything you know about 9/11 was accumulated first hand, right? Have you ever done an investigation of any aspect of 9/11 that didn't involve your keyboard. Or has everything you know about 9/11 been "told" to you by someone else?

good point.

yes almost all the information I have gathered is second hand, like yours, however i did personally speak with a 911 survivor and i have proved through common sense that the first basement explosion was not caused by jet fuel.
here why dont you try answering my 4 line argument: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=92099&page=19 (post 733) let me know when you've cracked it.

Do you really think high ranking officers invited a private who was training to become a radiological technician to sit in on a top secret conference to discuss national security and the possible shoot-down of Flight 93?

i dont know i wasnt there.

Do you really believe, if 9/11 was an inside job and the U.S. Government needed Flight 93 to crash into a building to gain support for a war on Iraq, they would have ordered it to be shot down?

the element in the U.S. government involved in 911 presumably would not have made the shot down order.

or if they did make that order, they did so because the passengers had taken control over the plane.

in any case questions of that nature are best answer through investigations. however go read operation north woods, and the gulf of tonkin incident. false falg terorism does exist.

peace

[parky76]

if the terrorists were patsies used by the government then your logic fails.
To answer your question, I dont know? Perhaps such a question is better addressed to the government.
peace

So, in other words, "bla bla bla bla....bla bla bla"?

That's that I think about truther logic these days. Kinda like static from the Big Bang.

[mark4mark]

911 truthers contend that a criminal element within the U.S. government orchastrated and allowed to happen the tragic events that day.

Choose one or the other (you know, MIHOP or LIHOP) they are vastly different things.

Presumably the good people of the military were the one’s that made the shootdown order,the ones that followed standard procedure.
Well, considering this is no evidence of this "shoot down" I guess we can rule this out...

Was flight 93 intended for the white house, building 7, who knows? But what we do know is that crashing into a field in Shanksville was not part of the terrorists plan.
Building 7? Terrorists? So you contend that the military and the terrorists both orchestrated 911 and the "shootdown" of flight 93 was "allowed to happen" (obviously if they orchestrated the event it would follow it would be "allowed," no need to be so moot)? Really?

[parky76]

in any case questions of that nature are best answer through investigations. however go read operation north woods, and the gulf of tonkin incident. false falg terorism does exist.

peace

of course false-flag terrorism exists. but 9-11 was not example of one. it was done by a bunch of islamic radical knuckleheads who hate you.

please let it go. it was lovely out today.

[Unsecured Coins]

debris field.. hello.... truther... waiting on you...

[Bobert]

Your wrong.





Yes none of beliefs are beyond revision, or change.
Where are these 2 people at?
Can you provide me a link to their sworn testimony that they witnessed a missile strike flight 93?

[Bobert]

i have proved through common sense that the first basement explosion was not caused by jet fuel.
WOW!
Can you cite where within the scientific method it cites, "common sense" as part of "proving" a theory?
I look forward to hearing of this because I guess I must be dumb.

[beachnut]

... Dr. Dewdney tested the claim whether cell phones could work at 25,000ft. He demonstarted that it was flat out impossible at 7,000ft. You can read about his experiment on the following links: http://physics911.net/projectachilles http://physics911.net/cellphoneflight93 ...
Funny stuff; the tech literature on cell phones does not preclude a cell phone working in a plane. Wrong by research. Try looking up the idiotic claims made by your failed 911Truth dolts.

And I have used a cell phone in flight the biggest problem is the noise from the aircraft I flew. Cell phones can work in flight, yet on 911 most the calls were on the seat phones. So your point is idiotic claptrap; as in failed and you have done so for 7 years plus.

The topic is how all your claims are proof 911 was not an inside job. Your own ideas on 911 are not related to 911 at all just junk like this. Cell phones can work but on 911 many of the calls were from the seat phones. Failure as you cling to some tangential study that does not stop the passengers in danger on 911 from using seat phones. So stick your study in your sinking boat of failed ideas.

[debunker9145]

your a conspiracy nut if you think the government would lie to us in the furtherance of their political agenda.

thewholesoul- You did not address your Freudian slip earlier.

[thewholesoul]

WOW!
Can you cite where within the scientific method it cites, "common sense" as part of "proving" a theory? I look forward to hearing of this because I guess I must be dumb.

I never stated that my argument was proven via the scientific method, dont be absurd. I did demonstrate that my conclusion was true based on logical deduction and I notice that you have not attempted to refute even one of the four premises upon which that conclsuion is reached. Send me a PM when you think you can.

I would add, that if my argument was tested its conslusion would remain true based on what we know about the speed of a falling elevator, a falling drop of liquid, where the first basement explsoion occured, when and how the elevator cables were cut, et cetera.

peace

[Grizzly Bear]

I never stated that my argument was proven via the scientific method, dont be absurd. I did demonstrate that my conclusion was true based on logical deduction and I notice that you have not attempted to refute even one of the four premises upon which that conclsuion is reached. Send me a PM when you think you can.

I would add, that if my argument was tested its conslusion would remain true based on what we know about the speed of a falling elevator, a falling drop of liquid, where the first basement explsoion occured, when and how the elevator cables were cut, et cetera.

peace
I'll smite Bobert and myself for responding to this but at this point I don't have the energy to discuss Rodriguez's story shuffle. The "explosion" had nothing to do the with the collapse of either tower, and the list of "features" you outlined were part of your "scientific method" were vague. At this point that is not the topic we're discussing. We can leave the matter at that unless you feel like dredging up this old cannard further in another thread that deals with this.

What comment if any would you have regarding the post I made concerning studies whose results contradict those that Dewdney passed on?

[1337m4n]

debris field.. hello.... truther... waiting on you...

All planted there by Jews.

[thewholesoul]

The "explosion" had nothing to do the with the collapse of either tower,

I never said it did.

The question “was there explosives in the building?” precedes the question “why were there explosives in the building?”.

What comment if any would you have regarding the post I made concerning studies whose results contradict those that Dewdney passed on?

Dewdney’s study was to determine whether a cell phone could work at a certain “altitude”. He discovered that it was impossible, using the same cell phone technology as 2001, to contact anyone above 7,000ft.

Flight 93 was above 30,000ft when the cell phone calls were made. This is why when the FBI released the cell phone data in a court of law they said that Barbara Olsens attempted call to the DOJ lasted “0 seconds”.

So either the cell phone call to Ted Olsen was fabricated (why? And by who?) or he was making the story up about his dead wife. You choose.

Information of his experiments are here:
http://physics911.net/projectachilles http://physics911.net/cellphoneflight93

Great article by Ray Griffin here:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/amrarticle.html

The objective of the article you sent me was to “investigated the possibility that portable electronic devices interfere with a plane's safety instruments by measuring the RF spectrum inside commercial aircraft cabins”. They made no mention of the possibility of cell phone calls above a certain altitude.

peace

[MikeW]

Dewdney’s study was to determine whether a cell phone could work at a certain “altitude”. He discovered that it was impossible, using the same cell phone technology as 2001, to contact anyone above 7,000ft.
Here's what Dewdney said about his testing area:

The previous experiment, called Part Two, established a distinct trend of decreasing cellphone functionality with altitude. It was conducted in a four-seater Diamond Katana over the city of London (pop. 300,000), Ontario in Canada, an area richly supplied with some 35 cellsites distributed over an area of about 25 square miles.
http://www.physics911.net/projectachilles
Base stations in cities have reduced range because they can only handle so many calls. In the country they have far greater range because there's a smaller population, and of course the phone companies don't want to build masts unnecessarily.

I don't know how accurate it is, but Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_site) cites urban cellsites as being packed in at a quarter mile apart, while the maximum range, with no obstructions, ranges from 25 to 45 miles depending on technology.

So, if Dewney was flying over cellsites with a range of a mile or two, which would fit in with his own figures, then it's no surprise at all that he couldn't make calls at or above 7,000 feet. But it does not mean that those calls couldn't be made in a different environment where the cellsites had a greater range.

Flight 93 was above 30,000ft when the cell phone calls were made. This is why when the FBI released the cell phone data in a court of law they said that Barbara Olsens attempted call to the DOJ lasted “0 seconds”.

Olson called via an airphone, by the way.

[Drudgewire]

Dewdney’s study was to determine whether a cell phone could work at a certain “altitude”. He discovered that it was impossible, using the same cell phone technology as 2001, to contact anyone above 7,000ft.


He is wrong (http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Mobiles_at_altitude).

[twinstead]

Using the "cell phone calls were impossible" argument smacks of desperation.

[nicepants]

Dewdney’s study was to determine whether a cell phone could work at a certain “altitude”. He discovered that it was impossible, using the same cell phone technology as 2001, to contact anyone above 7,000ft.

Since his study did not take place in 2001, how could he guarantee that all of the cell sites were using 2001-era technology?

Apples & oranges...if you accept his results you must also accept stories like the following:

"Austin man charged after refusing to hang up cellphone during Southwest Airlines flight "
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/051308dnmetpassenger.f2feb5b0.html

[Pardalis]

Using the "cell phone calls were impossible" argument smacks of desperation.

Yeah, they've exhausted all their phony arguments, now they start back at the beginning.

Even the Loose Change dolts have conceded that one.

[parky76]

wow....all the way back to the phone calls.

i guess 9-11 truth is truly..revolutionary. they revolve right back to the beginning.

[eromitlab]

9/11 truth is just being eco-friendly. Can you imagine the carbon footprint of new, sane arguments backed by actual evidence? It's hay-uuge.

[jhunter1163]

The debris field of Pan Am 103 (which actually exploded in midair) was in the thousands of square miles. The debris field of UA93 was probably in the single figures of square miles. What does this tell you, truthers?

[parky76]

yay!!!..my thread is back!!!

Flight 93 was not shot down by the USAF, contrary to what semi-LIHOPer Alex Jones now believes.

[doobiedoright]

the debris field of pan am 103 (which actually exploded in midair) was in the thousands of square miles. The debris field of ua93 was probably in the single figures of square miles. What does this tell you, truthers?

bingo!

[9/11-investigator]

http://www.prisonplanet.com/military-whistleblower-claims-she-witnessed-flight-93-shootdown-order.html

They posted this article, about a supposed military witness that a shoot-down order was made for Flight 93.

So, they are telling us that Flight 93 was actually hijacked by terrorists!!

Not only that, but the DOD actually decided to attempt to shoot it down!!

Now, if the DOD and the "NWO" was actually flying the "non-existant" plane, they would not try to shoot it down. They would have let it hit its target.

But, the DOD actually did see 93 as a threat, and did actually try to intercept and destroy it.

What does this mean? It means there was a plane. It means the Bush administration did see it as a threat, and they actually did try to shoot it down.

So.....according to Prisonplanet and Alex Jones:

9-11 was NOT an Inside Job!!

:D

Parky's grinning smiley is a touching sign of the relief he feels now that he thinks that 9/11 is debunked.

Assuming the story by PP is right, parky draws the wrong conclusion.

What was special about flight93 was it's delay of some 46 minutes. This could not have been foreseen by the plotters. The military had to shoot the plane down because it could not have sold letting the plane reaching it's target while 3 other planes had crashed into landmark targets and the whole country knowing about it.

Of course the military could not tell openly that it had shot the plane down without trying to ground it. If it had done so (grounding) the public would have found out that there were no Arab hijackers. It had witnessed instead either:
1) - a pilot telling that he had lost control during flight or
2) - a plane full of corpses killed by nerve gas or something similar

Both cases obviously making impossible any grounding scenario in the first place.

That's why the 'let's roll' story had to be invented to rescue the OCT.

Nice try, parky.

[dtugg]

I take it that according to your Nazi fantasies, the jooos control the US military? Did the jooos pay a bunch of officers some of their jooo gold in so they would coverup this whole thing up, or had they been bought and paid for long before then? Which military officers, specifically are under the control of the jooos? Or maybe it's all of them? I'll ask my dad if he swore an allegiance to the vast jooo conspiracy.

[parky76]

Nice try, parky.

thank you. so what are you gonna do to me and "my group"?

hmmm???

concentration camps? exile?

pogrom??

do you believe that the Jews did 9-11..and should be collectively punished for this crime??

be honest now, we won't condemn you for expressing your true feelings.

[Unsecured Coins]

we won't condemn you for expressing your true feelings.

but we will have a hearty Viking like laugh at your expense.

[parky76]

I would like to know EXACTLY what he would like to see done to all 5.5 million Jewish-Americans.

I will tell you one thing, I ain't going anywhere without a fight. I know my 2nd Amendment rights and will happily use them.

[TK0001]

Well this thread has certainly derailed.

[parky76]

Ok, I will put it back on track.

How has Alex Jones responded to all the truther criticism about him now beleiving that there was a plane at Shanksville? are they deserting him in droves?

if i was a truther, i know i would. he has single handedly damaged the 9-11 truth theory more then we could have ever dreamed.

Good work, Alex.

[beachnut]

What was special about flight93 was it's delay of some 46 minutes. This could not have been foreseen by the plotters. The military had to shoot the plane down because it could not have sold letting the plane reaching it's target while 3 other planes had crashed into landmark targets and the whole country knowing about it.

Of course the military could not tell openly that it had shot the plane down without trying to ground it. If it had done so (grounding) the public would have found out that there were no Arab hijackers. It had witnessed instead either:
1) - a pilot telling that he had lost control during flight or
2) - a plane full of corpses killed by nerve gas or something similar

.... You make up this stuff? Only some neoNAZI dolts will believe it. Irony is 911Truth making up stories that don't match their other stories. Dumber than dirt ideas; it must attract a lot of neoNAZIs.

[alienentity]

Eyewitnesses who saw the plane in its final moments reported it flying fast, upside down, but no smoke or explosion was reported before it apparently hit the ground.

Also, the Cockpit Vox Recorder and numerous phone calls confirm that the passengers tried to storm the cockpit and the hijacker decided to crash the aircraft rather than be overpowered.

This alleged info about a shootdown doesn't match some of the other evidence, unless it confirms a shootdown ORDER, but not a successful execution of the order...

does this make sense?

[eromitlab]

<snip>
What was special about flight93 was it's delay of some 46 minutes. This could not have been foreseen by the plotters. The military had to shoot the plane down because it could not have sold letting the plane reaching it's target while 3 other planes had crashed into landmark targets and the whole country knowing about it.
<snip>


So, the evil backroom 9/11 plotters planned and executed 9/11 down to the detail, and have left it to where there have been no leaks in over seven and a half years... but the last part of their plot was foiled by an ordinary airline delay, forcing them to reach out at the last minute and add "shoot down a passenger jet and cover it up as a crash" to the double-secret no-leaks plot?

Makes perfect sense. :rolleyes:

[JoeyDonuts]

If any of you people who buy into the story of 93 being shot down, can describe, in detail, the sequence of events required for a fighter aircraft to shoot down an airliner over CONUS airspace - the authorization, the geometry of intercept, the expected damage to the aircraft, and the subsequent distribution of debris on the ground from said intercept - AND correlate it to things that we know were found on the ground at Shanksville in any sort of meaningful way, I'll eat my hat.

Go ahead. Myself and Reheat are listening, BS flags firmly in hand.

[JoeyDonuts]

Eyewitnesses who saw the plane in its final moments reported it flying fast, upside down, but no smoke or explosion was reported before it apparently hit the ground.

Also, the Cockpit Vox Recorder and numerous phone calls confirm that the passengers tried to storm the cockpit and the hijacker decided to crash the aircraft rather than be overpowered.

This alleged info about a shootdown doesn't match some of the other evidence, unless it confirms a shootdown ORDER, but not a successful execution of the order...

does this make sense?

It does, but it still doesn't jive with the testimony of the man who had the floor at NEADS that morning. He had a shootdown plan in the works, and it was rejected by NMCC. The military high command took the shootdown off the table. And unless any of the folks harping about this would like to look Mr. Nasypany right in the eye and accuse him of being complicit in murder and conspiracy, that settles that.

[ElMondoHummus]

It does, but it still doesn't jive with the testimony of the man who had the floor at NEADS that morning. He had a shootdown plan in the works, and it was rejected by NMCC. The military high command took the shootdown off the table.


As far as I remember, that's absolutely correct.


And unless any of the folks harping about this would like to look Mr. Nasypany right in the eye and accuse him of being complicit in murder and conspiracy, that settles that.


Pfff... conspiracy peddlers don't have the guts to. But, while the following was not an accusatory interview, Vanity Fair did directly put that question to him (http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2006/08/norad200608?currentPage=11):

When I asked Nasypany about the conspiracy theories—the people who believe that he, or someone like him, secretly ordered the shootdown of United 93 and covered it up—the corners of his mouth began to quiver. Then, I think to the surprise of both of us, he suddenly put his head in his hands and cried. "Flight 93 was not shot down," he said when he finally looked up. "The individuals on that aircraft, the passengers, they actually took the aircraft down. Because of what those people did, I didn't have to do anything."


You, me, and everyone else who's rational in this forum realizes the truth of what happened at NEADS that day. But we all realize that conspiracy addicts won't take it as gospel unless it's information that's been predigested by one of their conspiracy generating icons, which is why some of them are probably asking themselves "Naspany who?" and are furiously Googling to find out what the hell NEADS is :rolleyes:. The reality is that for all the agitation for a "new investigation", truthers have yet to actually comprehend what's been discovered from the other investigations to date, and given that so much of that information is public, that's the really shameful thing.

[ElMondoHummus]

For lurkers and other new folks: As others have undoubtedly pointed out earlier, the notion of FL93 being shot down is utterly disproven by all other evidence. People can retail stupid "cell calls are impossible" fantasies and endlessly nitpick on minor details of the timeline and response, but the fact of the matter is, the weight of the evidence lands in one direction, and it's not towards any conspiratorial delusion. The FDR indicates a perfectly functional aircraft right up till the point of impact. The CVR is entirely consistent with the narrative of passengers attempting to retake the jet and hijackers deliberately crashing it. The debris field not only had all but the lightest material - paper, very thin shards of metal - within hundreds of yards of the impact crater, but the bodies were also found in the immediate area. Radar data puts no other aircraft in the area. Eyewitnesses do not report any other aircraft in the area, nor do they report any smoke trails from missiles or any phenomenon indicating use of a fighter's guns. Airphone and cellphone calls support the narrative, and while truthers endlessly pontificate over the Olsen calls, none of them dare touch any others, such the Thomas Burnett ones, which were verified by his wife (http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Mobile_calls_from_Flight_93) (although to be fair, the verified ones were from airphones; the additional ones were only peripherally mentioned, although his wife does verify all of them). Or the Cece Lyles ones. Nearly all the wreckage has been recovered, and none of the recovery workers have reported anything about the debris that's inconsistent with a perfectly functional aircraft being deliberately plowed into the ground.

The point here is that conspiracy addicts can reel off as many nitpicks and marginal details they want, but ask yourself which ones of those, either individually or in combination, can overturn the entire mass of the information that does confirm FL93's fate as a hijacked airliner. And no, leaps of conclusions are not sufficient; again, no matter what you say about the Olsen calls or Dewdney's rebutted research, CeCe Lyles calls have been verified by her husband, so even if one concedes the Olsen calls as being of dubious origin (not that they are; the FBI evidence requires interpretation, but is pretty clear to me that they're from Barbara Olsen), that doesn't speak one bit towards any of the other calls. None of those are disproven, not by Project Achilles (which doesn't speak to either airphones or cell phones in anything other than over-urban area situations), and not by unsupported insinuations from anyone else.

Gravy, Mike W., and Ref have all compiles guides that address the basic myths that others here have been recycling for years now:

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/flight93page1
http://www.911myths.com/html/flight_93.html
http://www.freewebs.com/911guide/flight93.htm

I doubt this post or these links will ever put an end to this ridiculous recycling of myths and long disproven fantasies, but they might help you understand more about the real story as well as the distortions the conspiracy peddlers apply to them. Take a look at those and see how they apply to whatever FL93 myth crops up here or elsewhere.

[BenBurch]

well, no. they will connect to any belief that holds their government to be evil and bad.

9-11 was an inside job? sure...it makes the usa look bad.

the bush administration shot down flight 93 killing 100 innocent Americans and lied about it? sure. even though it means 9-11 was NOT an inside job. it still makes america look bad.

Sane people just don't need fairy tales to see evil (intended or otherwise) in the operations of government.

Government is a tool like dynamite.

Both are very powerful, and can solve problems that nothing else can.

But both can be deadly, and their use has to be watched closely.

[ElMondoHummus]

Ok, I will put it back on track.

How has Alex Jones responded to all the truther criticism about him now beleiving that there was a plane at Shanksville? are they deserting him in droves?

if i was a truther, i know i would. he has single handedly damaged the 9-11 truth theory more then we could have ever dreamed.

Good work, Alex.

Whoops. Sorry Parky. I ended up contributing to the derail. My fault.

To answer your questions: Hell if I know how Alex Jones is responding; I never listen to him or read any of his garbage. But, if they're deserting him now over this, I can't help but feel an indulgent moment of schadenfreude. Congratulations, Alex, you finally found an audience who thinks bad of you because you're not delusional enough.

And yes, between him, Fetzer way back when, and God knows how many others, there's never been any need for more realists than who post here to worry about 9/11 conspiracy peddling. Even when people don't know the actual rebuttals to the fantasies, the general public rejects those fools on character alone, and their obviously flawed and illogical arguments actually makes refutation more tedious than intellectual. The damage they've done is roughly the equivalent of a Kentucky Derby horse starting a lap down (stop and think about that for a minute, and consider how many "laps" a horse runs at that derby ;)). Aside from the finer points that Steven Jones has made, or fantasies speaking towards things completely outside my experience (like Gordon Ross's writings), well over three-quarters of the refutation work that doesn't involve looking things up at Gravy's site simply involved looking up the original sources for information and learning of the distortions that way; that's the key to dealing with DRG's work, for example, just look at the material he himself cites and study the real context, not the distorted one he provides.

If it weren't for the distortions, lunatic counterproposals, complete disdain for reality, and utter mad dash to obsess over irrelevent minituae rather than deal with the bulk of knowledge already available, they might have actually had something there with their "movement". Who wouldn't jump onboard with some government bashing? As long as the basis is even remotely, faintly possible, you can get much of the hoi-polloi to accept and maybe even excuse any government-bashing movement critiquing government actions. But no, they had to go buy into the crazy instead... :rolleyes:

[nathanmcginty]

Proven here -

http://www.freedomhaters.org/content/alex-jones-his-secret-masters-revealed

Made a snappy youtube video, too! Just like the troofers!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6pCvq2r5xzQ&feature=channel_page

[9/11-investigator]

I take it that according to your Nazi fantasies, the jooos control the US military? Did the jooos pay a bunch of officers some of their jooo gold in so they would coverup this whole thing up, or had they been bought and paid for long before then? Which military officers, specifically are under the control of the jooos? Or maybe it's all of them? I'll ask my dad if he swore an allegiance to the vast jooo conspiracy.

According to the transscript the plane was shot down because it was flying in a no-fly zone:

http://projectcamelot.org/elizabeth_nelson_flight_93_transcript.html

..Protocol is that this is a no-fly zone. We have to take this plane down. Yes, it’s a passenger plane. It needs to be taken down.

...And so I was in this room when the decision was mutually made by the people talking on the phone in the room that I was in, to shoot this plane down.

...Site R is an underground city, under a mountain in Pennsylvania.

...We have just a little bit of time to decide before it’s too late. You could feel the intensity in this room. I mean... and these men weren’t heartless men.

Here's her voice...

http://prisonplanet.com/images/april2009/080409clip.mp3

Not that we needed this confession anyway since there was hardly any debri to be found at the 'crash site', but it's a nice confirmation of what we already knew, namely that FL93 was shot down by the military.

'Let's roll' my foot.

[dtugg]

According to the transscript the plane was shot down because it was flying in a no-fly zone:

http://projectcamelot.org/elizabeth_nelson_flight_93_transcript.html

..Protocol is that this is a no-fly zone. We have to take this plane down. Yes, it’s a passenger plane. It needs to be taken down.

...And so I was in this room when the decision was mutually made by the people talking on the phone in the room that I was in, to shoot this plane down.

...Site R is an underground city, under a mountain in Pennsylvania.

...We have just a little bit of time to decide before it’s too late. You could feel the intensity in this room. I mean... and these men weren’t heartless men.

Here's her voice...

http://prisonplanet.com/images/april2009/080409clip.mp3

Not that we needed this confession anyway since there was hardly any debri to be found at the 'crash site', but it's a nice confirmation of what we already knew, namely that FL93 was shot down by the military.

'Let's roll' my foot.

Nazi, we went over this already earlier in the thread. Even if she wasn't an outright liar, this would be at best anonymous hearsay about an event that happened more than seven years ago. But it is obvious to anybody that isn't a twoofer moron that she is lying. She was allegedly a PFC (private first class-lowest rank in the Army), and they let her stay in the room while all of this happened? To just stare at the wall and not listen to anything? All of it happened at the base hospital? And at an Army base where non of the officers had the authority nor the the resources to shoot down a plane? The SOP is to just shoot down off track planes? Really? You just believe any old crap that you read don't you, Nazi?

[Unsecured Coins]

She was allegedly a PFC (private first class-lowest rank in the Army)


3rd lowest rank. There's E-Fuzzy (e-1), Private 2 (e-2) and then Private First Class,( e-3)

[dtugg]

3rd lowest rank. There's E-Fuzzy (e-1), Private 2 (e-2) and then Private First Class,( e-3)

OK. Thanks.

[9/11-investigator]

Nazi, we went over this already earlier in the thread. Even if she wasn't an outright liar, this would be at best anonymous hearsay about an event that happened more than seven years ago. But it is obvious to anybody that isn't a twoofer moron that she is lying. She was allegedly a PFC (private first class-lowest rank in the Army), and they let her stay in the room while all of this happened? To just stare at the wall and not listen to anything? All of it happened at the base hospital? And at an Army base where non of the officers had the authority nor the the resources to shoot down a plane? The SOP is to just shoot down off track planes? Really? You just believe any old crap that you read don't you, Nazi?

Shalom hater, you're not paying attention are you? She is not accusing these military men of any conspiratorial activities; they are just doing their duty. Protocol says that any plane needs to be shot down that flies over that particular area. The Russians did the same to that KAL plane flying over Sachalin, many years ago. You will do anything to whitewash your criminal government, won't you hater? Even 9/11-commission members are now backtracking although stopping short of using the I-word. How to sink a sooper-power without having to fire a shot. Trooferlife is getting better by the hour with JREF turning into an information clearing house for top class truther info. M. 28 degrees Celcius! :D

[dtugg]

Shalom hater, you're not paying attention are you? She is not accusing these military men of any conspiratorial activities; they are just doing their duty. Protocol says that any plane needs to be shot down that flies over that particular area. The Russians did the same to that KAL plane flying over Sachalin, many years ago. You will do anything to whitewash your criminal government, won't you hater? Even 9/11-commission members are now backtracking although stopping short of using the I-word. How to sink a sooper-power without having to fire a shot. Trooferlife is getting by the hour with JREF turning into an information clearing house for top class truther info. M. 28 degrees Celcius! :D

Hey Nazi, you have no idea what you are talking about. The woman is a liar. Nothing she says makes any sense whatsoever. It makes no sense that Army (instead of Air Force) officers would be discussing shooting down a plane in a hospital on an Army base in front of junior enlisted people. She is lying when she says it is standard procedure to just shoot down planes that venture over a particular area, and I don't believe that anywhere that UA 93 flew over would be protected area anyway. Furthermore, if they were just doing their duty, there would be no reason to cover it up. And so the hell what if the Soviets shot down a wayward international commercial jet a couple decades ago? I don't believe they denied doing it and as much as your Nazi fantasies wish it to be true, this country is nothing like the Soviet Union.

Get a clue, Nazi.

[beachnut]

According to the transscript the plane was shot down because it was flying in a no-fly zone:
...
Why do you post dirt dumb ideas and lies at a consistent rate?

Explain how your dumb post fits into your delusions about 911?


transscript = delusion

if transcript was used the statement would be false - but with transscript, your statement is perfecto.

[JoeyDonuts]

Hey 911-investigator:

If any of you people who buy into the story of 93 being shot down, can describe, in detail, the sequence of events required for a fighter aircraft to shoot down an airliner over CONUS airspace - the authorization, the geometry of intercept, the expected damage to the aircraft, and the subsequent distribution of debris on the ground from said intercept - AND correlate it to things that we know were found on the ground at Shanksville in any sort of meaningful way, I'll eat my hat.

Also, I'm sure you were aware that 95 percent of the plane was recovered from the Shanksville crash site? A testament to the thorough and tireless (and heartbreaking) search by the NTSB, FAA, and local LE/volunteers? Any of this breaking squelch with you?

[parky76]

I'm still waiting to hear what the Nazi pigs are gonna do to me and my people. Or are they too cowardly to say.

:D

[JoeyDonuts]

I'm still waiting to hear what the Nazi pigs are gonna do to me and my people. Or are they too cowardly to say.

:D

Hmm. I wouldn't be too worried. They're all dead, and the ones that got out through ODESSA (if it even existed) are dead or dying. Besides, the world is not a friendly place for an old Nazi, if present events are any indication.

[9/11-investigator]

Hey 911-investigator:

Also, I'm sure you were aware that 95 percent of the plane was recovered from the Shanksville crash site?
Sure Joey, if you draw a circle around it of 4 miles...

http://www.twf.org/News/Y2007/0507-United93.html

In the NBC and Fox news televison footage from September 11, 2001 we hear:

NBC Reporter: "The debris here is spread over a 3 to 4 mile radius which has now been completely sealed off, and is being treated according to the FBI as a crime scene. This is one of those cases where the pictures really do tell the story . . . one of the most horrifying aspects of this is how little debris is visible

Does not sound like '95%' to me.

Study this picture to learn what is to be expected from a plane that falls out of the sky:

http://cmgonline.com/images/stories/features/special_features/08_dash_for_a_dram/lockerbie_wreckage.jpg

[9/11-investigator]

Besides, the world is not a friendly place for an old Nazi, if present events are any indication.

Most people I know do like me. :D

[9/11-investigator]

Explain how your post fits into your delusions about 911?

As I said in my blog I do not care about explaining flight 77 and 93.

We are not going to assume that WTC was done by the Israelis, the Pentagon by the Canadians and flight93 by the Russians, all at the same time.

We can safely assume that it was one operation carried out by one group.

My story was based on
1) controlled demolition (now proven)
2) Israeli involvment on all levels but most visible at this little dance party on the Hudson river boarding.

That's enough to know who did it.

I do not know what happened to flight 93 in detail, I do know from the large size of the debri field that it was shot down. The story of this woman might be disinfo but that does not change the overall explanation if it turns out to be a hoax. As it is it confirms the basic conclusion that flight 93 was shot down. There were no passengers trying to capture the cockpit.

[9/11-investigator]

Completely contradicting the ludicrous title of this thread is this snippet from a mail I received a few hours ago from Chris Bollyn's mailing list (do I hear poor dtugg shouting 'nazi!'?):

Warm greetings from Christopher Bollyn. To those who have supported my 9-11 research in the past, I would say, "We are winning the battle. We now have positive scientific proof that the official version of 9-11 is nothing but a pack of lies."...

The scientific evidence of super-thermite in the dust from the World Trade Center is proof positive that the towers were demolished. This is a real turning point; an historic moment for 9-11 truth. Now we simply need to identify the people who sprayed super-thermite onto surfaces in the core area of the twin towers. Having come this far, that should be relatively easy. Now we know who and what to look for.

[twinstead]

You have no idea what the thread is all about, do you?

[beachnut]

...
1) controlled demolition (now proven)
2) Israeli involvment on all levels but most visible at this little dance party on the Hudson river boarding.

That's enough to know who did it.

I do not know what happened to flight 93 in detail, I do know from the large size of the debri field that it was shot down. The story of this woman might be disinfo but that does not change the overall explanation if it turns out to be a hoax. As it is it confirms the basic conclusion that flight 93 was shot down. There were no passenger trying to capture the cockpit.
1 - failed logic, not controlled demolition we have some dolts like Jones who made up thermite and we find the truth is office fires have 10 times the energy of the super thermite coating on the steel and in the ceiling tiles. That is a dirt dumb idea, why do NAZIs believe this tripe.
2 - no the Jews did not do 911, 19 idiots with UBL did it. So far your NAZI mind failed to understand 911. You sound like you are using logic from Hitler when you need Einstein. How do you tie all your failed delusions into a SIOP? Why do you not have a clue after 7 years?

No the debris field was normal, only small object that can be supported in the wind were far from the impact. Due to your inability to do research you failed to check the FDR which proves Flight 93 was in one piece at impact going 600 mph and flown with inputs only from a terrorists who was afraid of the passengers; he was chicken.

You have failed to understand Flight 93 and you present a plane blown up in the air and 93 impacted the ground in one piece; apples and oranges for your NAZI mind which lacks logic due to what? Why are you so bad at understanding 911?

High speed impact like 93. Why do you make up your lies? This is what high speed impacts look like you failed to dig deep enough.
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/impact5.jpg
And another high speed impact. I went to school to be a trained aircraft accident investigator and find your lack of knowledge and stupid ideas to be illogical and failed. You should try harder to understand reality instead of making up lies like the failed NAZIs did.
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/impact3.jpg
High speed impacts are not common, most pilots try to go slow when they impact. The photo you showed of the 747 was a plane blown up in the sky and it fell in small pieces (compared to the whole) to the ground at each pieces terminal velocity; the crew cabin would fall slower than 600 mph as it tumbles and was not followed in micro seconds by tons of more aircraft on the same exact velocity vector to drive it into the ground. Sorry, you lack general knowledge, no skills in physics, and zero ability to research 911 and make rational conclusions. You choose to make delusions based on lies, hearsay, and fantasy.

You have dirt dumb ideas on 911 which matches most NAZI like thinking. You failed and need to try again. 7 years no Pulitzer, no clue for you.

What is it, a NAZI thing to apologize for the terrorist who were you allies in the failed attempt to rule the world by telling lies just like you have now?

You live in a delusional world with your failed 911 ideas. 7 years of delusions for you, no clue what happen and you keep spewing the stupid ideas.

The best part of this thread and your posts, this post too, is you fail to see the simple logic how you contradict yourself and other 911Truth failures all spewing stupid illogical tripe about 911. Priceless to see you post super stupid stuff with ease.

[twinstead]

I find it funny that people like 9/11-investigator accepts as 'proven' (and bases all subsequent debate on that 'fact') something that is at BEST hotly contested and at worst a total sham.

I hate to break the news to you dude; Jones' "research" is not proven. On the contrary it has been shown to my satisfaction that his conclusions are totally bogus. I am not alone in this, not by a long shot.

So, every time you use the "FACT" that controlled demolition is "PROVEN", 9/11-investigator, people will just point and laugh at you as if you were some kind of circus freak.

[thewholesoul]

So, if Dewney was flying over cellsites with a range of a mile or two, which would fit in with his own figures, then it's no surprise at all that he couldn't make calls at or above 7,000 feet. But it does not mean that those calls couldn't be made in a different environment where the cellsites had a greater range.

The experiment demonstrated a problem with altitude not range. And I notice that you have no empirical experiments in support of your – it could have been – counter argument.

Olson called via an airphone, by the way.
As for the possibility of phone calls via airphones why dont you read the link I posted that thoroughly addresses this claim? http://pilotsfor911truth.org/amrarticle.html

In this link three pieces of evidence are cited against the claim that Barbara rang from an airphone. But before you go debunking that evidence you will also learn in the above link that both the 911 commission and the FBI believe that 4 cells made from flight 77 to the DOJ, where coincidently Barbara Olsens husband worked, were made by Barbara Olsen to her husband by cell phones, not airphones.

The FBI released the cell phone data in a US Court of Law and said that Barbara Olsens attempted call to the DOJ lasted “0 seconds”.

So either the cell phone call to Ted Olsen was fabricated (why? And by who?) or he was making the story up about his dead wife. You choose.
peace

[thewholesoul]

Since his study did not take place in 2001, how could he guarantee that all of the cell sites were using 2001-era technology?

they were using technology more presumably advanced than 2001 and STILL he could not make a cell phone call over 7000ft.

Apples & oranges...if you accept his results

I also accept what the FBI stated in a US court of law...why cant you?

you must also accept stories like the following:
"Austin man charged after refusing to hang up cellphone during Southwest Airlines flight "


why would i not accept that story?

what the story does not say however is when the phone call was made (just after take off, or when landing) and it doesnt tell me the altitude of the plane when the phone call was made. it doesnt even tell me if the mans phone call was successful or not.

peace

[Dave Rogers]

they were using technology more presumably advanced than 2001 and STILL he could not make a cell phone call over 7000ft.

more advanced != longer range. The range of a cellphone system is set by network design criteria, not by physical limitations. As cellular telephony becomes more popular, it can actually become necessary to reduce the range so as to accommodate a greater density of cells.

Dave

[ozeco41]

Completely contradicting the ludicrous title of this thread is this snippet from a mail I received a few hours ago from Chris Bollyn's mailing list (do I hear poor dtugg shouting 'nazi!'?):

Warm greetings from Christopher Bollyn. To those who have supported my 9-11 research in the past, I would say, "We are winning the battle. We now have positive scientific proof that the official version of 9-11 is nothing but a pack of lies."...

The scientific evidence of super-thermite in the dust from the World Trade Center is proof positive that the towers were demolished. This is a real turning point; an historic moment for 9-11 truth. Now we simply need to identify the people who sprayed super-thermite onto surfaces in the core area of the twin towers. Having come this far, that should be relatively easy. Now we know who and what to look for.
The real problem for Bollyn's position 9/11-investigator, is that the collapse of the towers did not occur from damage to the core. The claim is technically wrong whether it refers to core damage without demolition technology OR damage caused by demolition technology.

The collapse didn't happen that way.

[MikeW]

The experiment demonstrated a problem with altitude not range.
Good grief. Do you really consider that a rebuttal?

As for the possibility of phone calls via airphones why dont you read the link I posted that thoroughly addresses this claim? http://pilotsfor911truth.org/amrarticle.html
The document containing the lie about the Moussaoui exhibit, do you mean? You keep referring to this as though it's supposed to impress us, but I think you're going to be disappointed: it really doesn't.

you will also learn in the above link that both the 911 commission and the FBI believe that 4 cells made from flight 77 to the DOJ, where coincidently Barbara Olsens husband worked, were made by Barbara Olsen to her husband by cell phones, not airphones.
Total nonsense. Refer back to the 9/11 Commission quote I posted before: the times are taken from a report entitled "American Airlines Airphone Usage". We even have the airfone records now (http://911myths.com/index.php/Image:Team7_AirfoneRecords.pdf).

The FBI released the cell phone data in a US Court of Law and said that Barbara Olsens attempted call to the DOJ lasted “0 seconds”.

So either the cell phone call to Ted Olsen was fabricated (why? And by who?) or he was making the story up about his dead wife. You choose.
Or she was the "unknown caller" who called four times from the plane, as reported in the 9/11 Commission, and as presented by the graphic in the Moussaoui trial exhibit.

[beachnut]

they were using technology more presumably advanced than 2001 and STILL he could not make a cell phone call over 7000ft.



I also accept what the FBI stated in a US court of law...why cant you?



why would i not accept that story?

what the story does not say however is when the phone call was made (just after take off, or when landing) and it doesnt tell me the altitude of the plane when the phone call was made. it doesnt even tell me if the mans phone call was successful or not.

peace
Cell phones do work in flight; you have zero technical articles that say cell phones can't work in flight; I have read them. Lucky for your delusions I have an engineering degree and can recognize pure stupid when you post it. Why do you fail to research properly?

Good job using Balsamo and DRG, they are the two biggest dolts on 911 and they only make up stuff to sell it to gullible people like you.

But why does this have anything to do with prisonplanet's failure to keep their story straight? You spew delusions and back them up with junk science from Balsamo and DRG. Airphone! Your posts use dirt dumb references. Good job.

Did you fail to understand the airphone stuff? Why do you repeat the lies of Balsamo and DRG? They are pure stupid selling you lies; are getting a cut of the profits?

23 phone calls on record and you missed it?

[Unsecured Coins]

Study this picture to learn what is to be expected from a plane that falls out of the sky:

http://cmgonline.com/images/stories/features/special_features/08_dash_for_a_dram/lockerbie_wreckage.jpg


good thing you mentioned that. here's the debris field from that same flight.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v236/powers05/PA103_debris.gif

so what did we learn?

[ozeco41]

good thing you mentioned that. here's the debris field from that same flight.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v236/powers05/PA103_debris.gif

so what did we learn?
We used Lockerbie as a study example when I did my Australian National level Advanced Counter Disaster Course.

What astonished me was that the debris fell over a 50 mile path from a plane which was 7 miles high - so 7 times the scatter than the height. Astonishing stuff and I have the engineering quals.

[beachnut]

...
Warm greetings from Christopher Bollyn. To those who have supported my 9-11 research in the past, I would say, "We are winning the battle. We now have positive scientific proof that the official version of 9-11 is nothing but a pack of lies."...

The scientific evidence of super-thermite in the dust from the World Trade Center is proof positive that the towers were demolished. This is a real turning point; an historic moment for 9-11 truth. Now we simply need to identify the people who sprayed super-thermite onto surfaces in the core area of the twin towers. Having come this far, that should be relatively easy. Now we know who and what to look for.

Bet Hitler was saying he was winning the battle in May 1945. Is Chris just like Hitler, a dirt dumb NAZI? You guys bring Hitler like failed logic to a forum that requires Einstein logic.

Super-thermite sprayed on the core? Did you know there are 3 inches of insulation on the core? How did they spray the core with super thermite? How dumb does an idea have to be for you to spew it in a post? Posting real dumb ideas from a dolt like Chis is good for what?

[ElMondoHummus]

9/11 Investigator said "Study this picture to learn what is to be expected from a plane that falls out of the sky"? Well, all and good, except that 1. Pan Am 103 exploded in midair, and 2. UA 93 was flow at 500+ MPH into the ground. Intact, I should add.

I don't know what the point of that post was, but it sure does prove that there are differences between apples and oranges, doesn't it?

[twinstead]

"9/11-investigator"--perhaps the biggest misnomer since the phrase "TRUTH movement".

[parky76]

Completely contradicting the ludicrous title of this thread is this snippet from a mail I received a few hours ago from Chris Bollyn's mailing list (do I hear poor dtugg shouting 'nazi!'?):

Warm greetings from Christopher Bollyn. To those who have supported my 9-11 research in the past, I would say, "We are winning the battle. We now have positive scientific proof that the official version of 9-11 is nothing but a pack of lies."...

The scientific evidence of super-thermite in the dust from the World Trade Center is proof positive that the towers were demolished. This is a real turning point; an historic moment for 9-11 truth. Now we simply need to identify the people who sprayed super-thermite onto surfaces in the core area of the twin towers. Having come this far, that should be relatively easy. Now we know who and what to look for.

Chris Bollyn, another racist-Nazi piece of trash.

[JoeyDonuts]

In the NBC and Fox news televison footage from September 11, 2001 we hear:

NBC Reporter: "The debris here is spread over a 3 to 4 mile radius which has now been completely sealed off, and is being treated according to the FBI as a crime scene. This is one of those cases where the pictures really do tell the story . . . one of the most horrifying aspects of this is how little debris is visible

You're seriously using the words of an on-scene reporter to bolster your case? This was the morning of the attack, the search efforts hadn't had time to comb the crash site and find the fragmented debris scattered about.

Study this picture to learn what is to be expected from a plane that falls out of the sky:

http://cmgonline.com/images/stories/features/special_features/08_dash_for_a_dram/lockerbie_wreckage.jpg

As was pointed out, PA103 exploded in mid-air from an explosive inside the fuselage. It isn't comparable to the theory you're bandying about, and it isn't comparable to what actually happened.

Show me a study of the debris field produced when an airliner is shot down in mid-air by an AAM, and then we'll talk. I would recommend filing a FOIA with the Russians to get their documents on the debris field of KAL007, but you won't get very far.

So, come on then. Wow us with your encyclopaedic knowledge of aircraft missile engagements and the forensic effects on their targets. Then show me how the debris field at Shanksville indicates that. Goose-step on out of here, and come back when you have something substantive.

[AJM8125]

why would i not accept that story?

what the story does not say however is when the phone call was made (just after take off, or when landing) and it doesnt tell me the altitude of the plane when the phone call was made. it doesnt even tell me if the mans phone call was successful or not.

peace

Question. Why do we have an FAA backed FCC ban on cellular phones if they don't work in flight? I've always wondered how truthers reconcile that.

Have a little read TWS, take note of the date of the article, if anything else.

The FCC's concern about air-to-ground cellular interference is real enough. From high in the sky, a cell phone acts like a sponge, sucking capacity out of the cellular sites that carry calls. For ground users, cell phones communicate by connecting to one cell site at a time; from the air, because of the height and speed of an aircraft, the phones often make contact with several sites at once. If allowed, this would limit call capacity, which would mean less revenue, says Howard Sherry, chief wireless scientist at Telcordia Technologies Inc., formerly the research arm of the Baby Bell telephone companies, in Morristown, N.J.

http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-95986.html

[TSR]

Question. Why do we have an FAA backed FCC ban on cellular phones if they don't work in flight? I've always wondered how truthers reconcile that.

.
I had always heard that it was a unfounded fear that the phones could interfere with the airplanes systems. However
.

http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-95986.html

.
.......seems to suggest otherwise.
.

[AJM8125]

.
I had always heard that it was a unfounded fear that the phones could interfere with the airplanes systems.

http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-95986.html

[/COLOR]seems to suggest otherwise.
.


Care to elaborate?

[9/11-investigator]

You're seriously using the words of an on-scene reporter to bolster your case? This was the morning of the attack, the search efforts hadn't had time to comb the crash site and find the fragmented debris scattered about.

I acknowledge how irresponsible and reckless I really am by citing people who were actually present on the crime scene and not acquire my knowledge, as is standard procedure here at JREF, by looking into the debunkers crystal ball.

As was pointed out, PA103 exploded in mid-air from an explosive inside the fuselage. It isn't comparable to the theory you're bandying about, and it isn't comparable to what actually happened.

It certainly is not! You shoot yourself in the foot with your 'argument'! Despite the fact the PA103 exploded in mid-air there still were large recognizable parts of the fuselage to be seen. Nothing of the sort was to be observed in the case of flight 93, although, if the official lie were true, the plane came down in 1 piece before it hit the ground. There was no explosion remember, just a few Arabs and American civilians wrestling for control over the plane while it spiraled down towards its end.

[9/11-investigator]

"9/11-investigator"--perhaps the biggest misnomer since the phrase "TRUTH movement".

I am afraid you are giving me more credit than I deserve.

Thanks anyway.

[9/11-investigator]

So, the evil backroom 9/11 plotters planned and executed 9/11 down to the detail, and have left it to where there have been no leaks in over seven and a half years...

In the case of the Lusitania, which was finally solved a few weeks ago by british divers (to the disadvantage of America), nobody leaked for 92 years, not counting the ship itself of course. Seven years is nothing within the context of a cleverly constructed conspiracy. Take the JFK murder plot, the holocaust, the Genesis of the FED, the Armenian genocide, all are understood by only a handfull of people and all are decades old.

[Dave Rogers]

In the case of the Lusitania, which was finally solved a few weeks ago by british divers (to the disadvantage of America),

Are you referring to the find of some small arms consignments aboard the Lusitania which (a) everybody already knew were there, (b) didn't justify the sinking under international law anyway, and (c) couldn't have been the reason for the attack because the contents of the bottom of the hold weren't exactly visible through a periscope?

Dave

[9/11-investigator]

Are you referring to the find of some small arms consignments aboard the Lusitania which (a) everybody already knew were there, (b) didn't justify the sinking under international law anyway, and (c) couldn't have been the reason for the attack because the contents of the bottom of the hold weren't exactly visible through a periscope?

Dave

No, I am referring to this: A dive team from Cork Sub Aqua Club, diving under license, discovered 15,000 rounds of the .303 (7.7×56mmR) caliber rifle ammunition transported on the Lusitania in boxes in the bow section of the ship. The find was photographed but left in situ under the terms of the license.[58] In December 2008, Gregg Bemis discovered a further four million rounds of .303 ammunition and announced plans to commission further dives in 2009 for a full-scale forensic examination of the wreck.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RMS_Lusitania

4 million and counting. That was enough to kill tens of thousands of Germans.

But we are not going to discuss the Lusitania here. We have to (pretend to) stay on topic and discuss the all-important topic if PrisonPlanet yes/no believes that 9/11 was an inside job. My time is too valuable to see my posts AAH-ed.

The point is: yes it is possible to keep conspiracies secret without leaks for decades.

P.S. Irish divers, not British. Makes more sense in hindsight that Irish bring this kind of news, not the Brits (fish-and-chips eating Islam surrender monkeys).

[Dave Rogers]

No, I am referring to this: A dive team from Cork Sub Aqua Club, diving under license, discovered 15,000 rounds of the .303 (7.7×56mmR) caliber rifle ammunition transported on the Lusitania in boxes in the bow section of the ship. The find was photographed but left in situ under the terms of the license.[58] In December 2008, Gregg Bemis discovered a further four million rounds of .303 ammunition and announced plans to commission further dives in 2009 for a full-scale forensic examination of the wreck.

Yes, .303 ammunition is classified as small arms by anyone sane. So how did the captain of the U-boat make out the presence of the consignment through a periscope? And how exactly was the presence of this consignment a conspiracy that was kept secret for decades, when it was listed in the cargo manifest?

In fact, what exactly is the conspiratorial angle here?

Dave

[dtugg]

I bet the jooos had something to do with the sinking of the Lusitania.

[9/11-investigator]

Yes, .303 ammunition is classified as small arms by anyone sane. So how did the captain of the U-boat make out the presence of the consignment through a periscope? And how exactly was the presence of this consignment a conspiracy that was kept secret for decades, when it was listed in the cargo manifest?

In fact, what exactly is the conspiratorial angle here?

Dave

A conspiracy is an agreement between 2 or more persons to commit to some act where it is essential that it remains a secret to the rest of the world.

The U-boat captain must have known (inside-information, possibly fed by the Americans themselves) that the ship contained ammo, because he had no incentive whatsoever to sink the ship had it not contained arms as he knew it would anger public opinion and increase the chances of bringing America into the war.

Question to Dave: is .303 ammo intended to kill somebody or just to give somebody a nice tickle sensation?
Question-2 to Dave: how many people can be killed with 4 million rounds of ammo? P.S. you are allowed to use a calculator for this exercise.

Post-edit: it was always a matter of dispute whether or not the Lusitania contained arms or not. Or was the cargo manifest published on the internet back then?

[Mince]

The point is: yes it is possible to keep conspiracies secret without leaks for decades.


But I'm missing the logical connection (granted I'm not a philosopy major):

It's possible to keep conspiracies secret without leaks for decades, therefore 9/11 was an inside job.

Northwoods was conceived, therefore 9/11 was an inside job.

Gulf of Tonkin, therefore 9/11 was an inside job.

I'm sure it's just me.

[9/11-investigator]

But I'm missing the logical connection (granted I'm not a philosopy major):

It's possible to keep conspiracies secret without leaks for decades, therefore 9/11 was an inside job.

Northwoods was conceived, therefore 9/11 was an inside job.

Gulf of Tonkin, therefore 9/11 was an inside job.

I'm sure it's just me.

If you are so sure that it is you who makes dumm remarks (as is the case) why do you make them in the first place?

Nobody claims 911 was an inside job just because it is possible to prevent leaks for decades.

Don't even try to get a 'philosopy' major. Waste of money and time.

[Mince]

Nobody claims 911 was an inside job because it is possible prevent leaks for decades.

Then this track of argument seems to be a bit superfluous.

What point, exactly, were you trying to make when you made the (obvious) claim that "...yes it is possible to keep conspiracies secret without leaks for decades."? What idea were you trying to support with this statement?


ETA: Thank you for acknowledging that past events are not necessarily proof of later events.

[Dave Rogers]

The U-boat captain must have known (inside-information, possibly fed by the Americans themselves) that the ship contained ammo, because he had no incentive whatsoever to sink the ship had it not contained arms as he knew it would anger public opinion and increase the chances of bringing America into the war.

Classic. He "must have known", because the German Navy clearly had no intention of doing something that they publically announced their intention to do shortly before doing it.

Question to Dave: is .303 ammo intended to kill somebody or just to give somebody a nice tickle sensation?
Question-2 to Dave: how many people can be killed with 4 million rounds of ammo? P.S. you are allowed to use a calculator for this exercise.

It's small arms ammunition, designed to kill people. Its presence was known long before the divers found it.

Question to 9/11-investigator: Given that there was no conspiracy to conceal the fact that small arms ammunition was being carried by the Lusitania (the existence of the four million rounds of .303 ammo was well known prior to its discovery by divers) and that the German Navy carried out an act consistent with both its stated policy of unrestricted submarine warfare and its specific threat issued beforehand, who exactly do you fantasise conspiring to do what in secret concerning the sinking of the Lusitania?

Dave

[9/11-investigator]

See post-edit message 188.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/ireland/article4364701.ece

Riddle of Lusitania sinking may finally be solved

I'll stop the discussion about the Lusitania here in order to prevent being accused of 'wrecking another thread'.

[Mince]

See post-edit message 188.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/ireland/article4364701.ece

Riddle of Lusitania sinking may finally be solved

I'll stop the discussion about the Lusitania here in order to prevent being accused of 'wrecking another thread'.

Regardless of the context (or the topic), when ever would the statement: "yes it is possible to keep conspiracies secret without leaks for decades." be any kind of logical argument unless the debate topic is "Is it possible to keep conspiracies secret for decades without leaks?"?

That is clearly not the topic here, so offering up this "point" (as you call it) is superfluous.

More simply:

Ok, it is possible to keep conspiracies secret for decades without leaks.

And? So?

[SteveAustin]

Regardless of the context (or the topic), when ever would the statement: "yes it is possible to keep conspiracies secret without leaks for decades." be any kind of logical argument unless the debate topic is "Is it possible to keep conspiracies secret for decades without leaks?"?

That is clearly not the topic here, so offering up this "point" (as you call it) is superfluous.

Hehe nice try to lay this line of responses down on a truther and claim it is superfluous.

Maybe you want to scroll back up and see why this was brought up!!

Oh here let me save you the trouble...

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4622736&postcount=183

You see it was in response to an OCTopus reply, a reply that was a rather lame attempt at making all 9/11 truth activists look silly, but it backfired.

[Mince]

Hehe nice try to lay this line of responses down on a truther and claim it is superfluous.

Maybe you want to scroll back up and see why this was brought up.

No need. It was "brought up" by 9/11-investigator, regardless of the reason, and is superfluous.

If it is not superfluous, as you clearly seem to believe, please then use your bionic brain, Steve Austin, to demonstrate its cogency.


...yes it is possible to keep conspiracies secret without leaks for decades.



And? So? What, exactly, does this prove, regarding the context and topic of the thread? Or regarding anything, really.

[Dave Rogers]

See post-edit message 188.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/ireland/article4364701.ece

Riddle of Lusitania sinking may finally be solved

Is there some rule that none of your references are ever allowed to support the point you're trying to make? This newspaper article refers to a theory that explosives were on board the Lusitania, not rounds of small arms ammunition; and the exaggerated attention-grabbing headline is hardly proof that there was ever a serious debate in the first place. And, of course, the explosives were never found. So you're claiming that the discovery of something that was already known about is proof that a secret was kept for decades, and advancing a newspaper article speculating about the possibility of a completely different conspiracy theory as evidence that your non-conspiracy theory was, in fact, a conspiracy. What you've actually proved, I don't know; there was no secret over the rifle ammunition, so your claim that "yes it is possible to keep conspiracies secret without leaks for decades" is completely unsupported by all this.

I'll stop the discussion about the Lusitania here in order to prevent being accused of 'wrecking another thread'.

Or you could request a thread split, if you felt you had a defensible position.

Dave

[SteveAustin]

No need. It was "brought up" by 9/11-investigator, regardless of the reason, and is superfluous.

Wrong, it was brought up by eromitlab.

Oh wait, I forgot that OCTopie can bring up any and all topics/insults/slurs they want but when a truther responds that's when it's not appropriate or valid etc... this must be the JREF forum...yup it is!

[T.A.M.]

Wrong, it was brought up by eromitlab.

Oh wait, I forgot that OCTopie can bring up any and all topics/insults/slurs they want but when a truther responds that's when it's not appropriate or valid etc... this must be the JREF forum...yup it is!

if you don't like it...

but I can see you would rather bitch and whine...I understand.

carry on.

TAM;)

[Mince]

Wrong, it was brought up by eromitlab.

Incorrect. Here is the post:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4622843&postcount=185

It's post #185, just above.

The point is: yes it is possible to keep conspiracies secret without leaks for decades.

Now that I've established who said it, perhaps you could (again) use your bionic brain to demonstrate its cogency.

[Dave Rogers]

So, the evil backroom 9/11 plotters planned and executed 9/11 down to the detail, and have left it to where there have been no leaks in over seven and a half years... but the last part of their plot was foiled by an ordinary airline delay, forcing them to reach out at the last minute and add "shoot down a passenger jet and cover it up as a crash" to the double-secret no-leaks plot?

Makes perfect sense. :rolleyes:

Wrong, it was brought up by eromitlab.

Then perhaps you'd like to point out where eromitlab brought up the Lusitania in the post 9/11-investigator replied to. Just to help you, I've quoted eritomlab's entire post, so it shoud be easy for you to highlight the bit where the Lusitania is mentioned.

Dave

[Mince]

Then perhaps you'd like to point out where eromitlab brought up the Lusitania in the post 9/11-investigator replied to. Just to help you, I've quoted eritomlab's entire post, so it shoud be easy for you to highlight the bit where the Lusitania is mentioned.

Dave

I'm just trying to get the The Bionic Man to acknowledge that events like Northwoods and Gulf of Tonkin have no bearing on 9/11 and arguments like "government conspiracies have happened and they can be concealed" are utterly irrelevant in regards to 9/11.

[SteveAustin]

but I can see you would rather bitch and whine...I understand.

Is that what I was doing? Oh wait, no it wasn't, but it's easier to do this sort of attack isn't it? Trying to label and smear me so that no one will listen to the "whiner" isn't it?

That's what JREF is really all about, it's mainly shills and their mindless zombies who all use the same tactics over and over again, some know what they are doing and others simply fall in line with the same tactics without realizing it

38 ways to win an argument (http://www.indiauncut.com/iublog/article/38-ways-to-win-an-argument-arthur-schopenhauer/)

and I believe your response is number 38 (which is by far the most popular tactic used at JREF, but they are all used, heck quite a few were used in this very thread)

"38 Become personal, insulting and rude as soon as you perceive that your opponent has the upper hand.
In becoming personal you leave the subject altogether, and turn your attack on the person by remarks of an offensive and spiteful character.
This is a very popular technique, because it takes so little skill to put it into effect."

[Dave Rogers]

Oh wait, I forgot that OCTopie can bring up any and all topics/insults/slurs they want but when a truther responds that's when it's not appropriate or valid etc... this must be the JREF forum...yup it is!

"38 Become personal, insulting and rude as soon as you perceive that your opponent has the upper hand.
In becoming personal you leave the subject altogether, and turn your attack on the person by remarks of an offensive and spiteful character.
This is a very popular technique, because it takes so little skill to put it into effect."

Now where was that picture of the exploding irony meter?

Dave

[Mince]

"38 Become personal, insulting and rude as soon as you perceive that your opponent has the upper hand.
In becoming personal you leave the subject altogether, and turn your attack on the person by remarks of an offensive and spiteful character.
This is a very popular technique, because it takes so little skill to put it into effect."

That's what JREF is really all about, it's mainly shills and their mindless zombies...

Ahem! Your slip is showing.

[SteveAustin]

Then perhaps you'd like to point out where eromitlab brought up the Lusitania in the post 9/11-investigator replied to. Just to help you, I've quoted eritomlab's entire post, so it shoud be easy for you to highlight the bit where the Lusitania is mentioned.

Dave

This response has elements of 1, 3 and 6 in it...as well as others.

See here Dave decided to midly change it to where eromitlab brought up specifically the "lusitania" when all along I have been saying he brought up the topic of secrecy being kept. He knows this as does everyone else here, but this is part of the process.

Dave re-read what eromitlab wrote. He brought up the topic of the possibility of keeping secrets, 9/11 investigators response was a simple response to that statement. Plain and simple, but I know you OCTopie love to confuse and confound these simple things because that's what you guys do

[SteveAustin]

Now where was that picture of the exploding irony meter?

Dave

LOL, you will have to do better than that with me.

Here again we have the double standard that OCTopie love so much. They are allowed to insult/smear etc... but when it is brought to their attention that is what they are doing they just have to point out the few times it is done to them. ROFL, good one. Now how does that refute the fact of your use of these tactics? It doesn't!

[tsig]

The real problem for Bollyn's position 9/11-investigator, is that the collapse of the towers did not occur from damage to the core. The claim is technically wrong whether it refers to core damage without demolition technology OR damage caused by demolition technology.

The collapse didn't happen that way.

Good thing no one was doing any welding when the workers were spraying on explosives volatile enough to take down the building they were in.

What is the ignition temp of nano therrmite when it is atomized by spraying?;)

[twinstead]

Good thing no one was doing any welding when the workers were spraying on explosives volatile enough to take down the building they were in.

What is the ignition temp of nano therrmite when it is atomized by spraying?;)

I suppose that "no smoking" sign would take on different meaning...

[twinstead]

LOL, you will have to do better than that with me.

Here again we have the double standard that OCTopie love so much. They are allowed to insult/smear etc... but when it is brought to their attention that is what they are doing they just have to point out the few times it is done to them. ROFL, good one. Now how does that refute the fact of your use of these tactics? It doesn't!

Yea, yea, whatever, there's insulting and smearing on both sides, and sometimes people don't admit it on both sides, yada yada big flippin' deal! It has nothing to do with whether 911 was an inside job.

[beachnut]

...

That's what JREF is really all about, it's mainly shills and their mindless zombies who all use the same tactics over and over again, some know what they are doing and others simply fall in line with the same tactics without realizing it
...
You must want to post your delusions where other people share your lack of knowledge and not a skeptic forum who see your delusions based on lies and hearsay as junk. How did you mess up and post delusions at a forum where reality is expected and facts are used?

You believe in delusions so you call people here at a skeptic forum mindless zombies. Cool but your insult is worthless since you blindly repeat lies, hearsay, and delusions of 911Truth. Who are you calling a mindless zombie?

Shills, you call people shills because they are skeptical of your delusions on 911? Delusions you can't back up with evidence or saucer. This is a skeptic forum you made a mistake and brought lies and hearsay to skeptic forum and you call those who see your delusions Shills?

You are not a skeptic, why are you off topic and spewing lies from 911Truth?

Prisonplanet presents so many lies they are have always contradicted themselves spewing delusions like you do on 911. Join the skeptics and learn to spot fraud in 911Truth; so far you are still posting delusions.

[Dave Rogers]

See here Dave decided to midly change it to where eromitlab brought up specifically the "lusitania" when all along I have been saying he brought up the topic of secrecy being kept.

Since the question was who brought up the topic of the Lusitania, and you were replying to it, this is as transparent a lie as we've come to expect from you. I wonder what exactly you're trying to achieve by telling lies that anyone capable of using a scroll bar can see are lies.

Dave

[Mince]

LOL, you will have to do better than that with me.

Here again we have the double standard that OCTopie love so much. They are allowed to insult/smear etc... but when it is brought to their attention that is what they are doing they just have to point out the few times it is done to them. ROFL, good one. Now how does that refute the fact of your use of these tactics? It doesn't!

Save us poor sheep, won't you?

Baaaaaaaa. Baaaaaaaa.

Has anyone seen a pasture nearby?

[parky76]

That's what JREF is really all about, it's mainly shills and their mindless zombies who all use the same tactics over and over again, some know what they are doing and others simply fall in line with the same tactics without realizing it "

shills? who do you believe we are shilling for? what gives you the right to make such a baseless accusation like that?

just because someone disagrees with you, they must have some alterior economic motive behind that? does that sound fair to you?

what if i suggested you were shilling for Islamist terrorists? would you like that?

it is very UNAMERICAN of you to accuse those who disagree with you, of beig shills, with NO PROOF.

the Nazis did the same sort of thing. accused their enemies of working for the Communists..and then they killed them all.

[9/11-investigator]

Good thing no one was doing any welding when the workers were spraying on explosives volatile enough to take down the building they were in.

What is the ignition temp of nano therrmite when it is atomized by spraying?;)

I'm glad that I can be of any help!

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/blasting_scenario.html

Thermate incendiary coating compound: A mixture of aluminum powder, iron oxide powder, sulfur and other additives in a binder. Applied in a liquid form like paint, it dries to form durable coating that requires a high-temperature igniter to start the reaction by heating a spot to the 2,200ºC ignition temperature.

Keep on smoking, no danger. ;)

[parky76]

I think I am going to go to Peter Stuyvesant's tomb after work and piss on it. Maybe wipe some snot on it too.

=)

[SteveAustin]

Since the question was who brought up the topic of the Lusitania, and you were replying to it, this is as transparent a lie as we've come to expect from you. I wonder what exactly you're trying to achieve by telling lies that anyone capable of using a scroll bar can see are lies.

Dave

Dave, Dave, Dave, Dave, Dave...let's see what we have here...

This reply of yours has elements of points 3, 6, 24, 38 and most especially 14 from the "38 ways to win an argument"

Now let's see again how this started...here we go...

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4615526#post4615526 the post by eromitlab which was responded to by 9/11 investigator at http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4622736&postcount=183

So here again we have an OCTopie making a statement, a claim and then we have a truther countering that claim. This is where the obfuscation on this particular topic began with all the smoke and mirrors and drawing this argument way past it's initial premise to try and make it look ridiculous.. I believe that is point number 1 on that list of 38. So let's see where this particular "discussion" went from here shall we and see if Dave is being truthfull in calling me a liar or if he is lying?

Response from Dave

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4622786&postcount=184

then Dave's response is replied to here http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4622843&postcount=185 by 9/11 investigator

and again Dave responds http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4622880&postcount=186

then we have dtuggs contribution at http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4622897&postcount=187 which is simply number 32 on that list

9/11 investigator responds to Dave again http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4622913&postcount=188

Then mince chimes in at http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4622914&postcount=189 with a classic number 1 from that list with number 4 thrown in as well (see below)

Then we have 9/11 investigator, who unfortunately falls into the trap of replying to mince at http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4622937&postcount=190

and here we have minces conclusion to the number 4 tactic next here at http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4622952&postcount=191

Then Dave chimes back in with another response to 9/11 investigator at http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4622964&postcount=192 with quite a few more from that list of 38...hmmm Dave have you taken a course on this stuff? Must be required for someone in your position?

9/11 investigator replies again at http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4622973&postcount=193

Then mince comes back again at http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4623027&postcount=194 furthering his conclusion of the number 4 from above and using other elements as well

Which is where I come in at http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4623072&postcount=195 and I think considering Dave accused me of lying it is relevant enough to quote what I said here

Hehe nice try to lay this line of responses down on a truther and claim it is superfluous.

Maybe you want to scroll back up and see why this was brought up!!

Oh here let me save you the trouble...

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4622736&postcount=183

You see it was in response to an OCTopus reply, a reply that was a rather lame attempt at making all 9/11 truth activists look silly, but it backfired.

Then next at http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4623091&postcount=196 mince tries to claim this was all brought up by 9/11 investigator when it is clear it was brought up by eromitlab (unless of course you are saying that a response to someone else's claim is bringing up a topic? Not sure how that logic works but there you have it, OCTopie logic)

Then Dave at http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4623097&postcount=197 another one of his standard replies

My response to mince at http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4623105&postcount=198

tams contribution at http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4623119&postcount=199 using old number 38

then we have mince at http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4623130&postcount=200 using tactic numbers 1 and 2 (with the use as usual of number 38) by stating that...

Now that I've established who said it, perhaps you could (again) use your bionic brain to demonstrate its cogency.

Note the italics are his original and not mine, mince is trying to claim (as is Dave) that the "question" is who said the lusitania, when I have just shown you the "question" was who brought up the topic of keeping secrets. Here let me requote it for all of you...

Hehe nice try to lay this line of responses down on a truther and claim it is superfluous.

Maybe you want to scroll back up and see why this was brought up!!

Oh here let me save you the trouble...

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4622736&postcount=183

You see it was in response to an OCTopus reply, a reply that was a rather lame attempt at making all 9/11 truth activists look silly, but it backfired.

Note my bold and italics.

Then at http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4623136&postcount=201 you have Dave using parts of tactics number 1, 2 and 3 by making it sound like I said eromitlab brought up the lusitania when anyone can plainly see I never said he did nor did I ever claim he did only that he brought up the topic of being able to keep secrets which is why 9/11 investigator responded with the lusitania

Which brings us back full circle to http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4623317&postcount=212 where Dave again uses tactics from 1, 2 and 3 to accuse me of lying by saying I said something I never said so he could refute the strawman argument he made up so he could call me a liar.

Yes Dave anyone capable of scrolling up can plainly see who is the one lying here, but they don't have to scroll up as I have just documented it all in it's full glory for all to see.

Are we all clear now? Do I need to continue pointing out your lies and your tactics?

[SteveAustin]

shills? who do you believe we are shilling for? what gives you the right to make such a baseless accusation like that?

just because someone disagrees with you, they must have some alterior economic motive behind that? does that sound fair to you?

what if i suggested you were shilling for Islamist terrorists? would you like that?

it is very UNAMERICAN of you to accuse those who disagree with you, of beig shills, with NO PROOF.

the Nazis did the same sort of thing. accused their enemies of working for the Communists..and then they killed them all.

Oh the irony!

[beachnut]

I'm glad that I can be of any help!

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/blasting_scenario.html

Thermate incendiary coating compound: A mixture of aluminum powder, iron oxide powder, sulfur and other additives in a binder. Applied in a liquid form like paint, it dries to form durable coating that requires a high-temperature igniter to start the reaction by heating a spot to the 2,200ºC ignition temperature.

Keep on smoking, no danger. ;) The Hoffman delusion web site - http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/blasting_scenario.html

Hoffman and the delusional ceiling tiles! LOL, he has no clue. How do you find this anti-intellectual claptrap?

HOFFMAN and the ceiling tiles that go fizzzzzz...
The new ceiling tiles with embedded thin-film explosives and wireless detonators are installed throughout every other floor of the Tower. In all, each Tower gets 500,000 of the large tiles and 400,000 of the small tiles.
With workers swapping in new tiles at an average rate of two tiles per minute per worker, it takes a team of fourty workers 187 hours to retrofit an entire Tower. The work is performed in three weeks and weekends of night shifts, emptying one truckload per night, with the truck parking inconspicuously in the WTC subterranean parking garage.
Is he on drugs? Meth? He looks like it and this confirms he is nuts.
How dirt dumb stupid does an idea have to be before someone becomes skeptical of the expert dolts in 911Truth?

Hoffman makes up a dirt dumb scenario based on a fake paper that found rust, metal, and debris from the WTC. He never says how thick the layer of super thermite is or the amount used; he give a delusional scenario and those who lack knowledge believe it without question. The real 911 scenario is too complex a plot for Hoffman and you to grasp. Kill pilots, fly planes into buildings.

You repeat poppycock you find on the Internet, Hoffman builds delusions based on delusional junk science by Jones.

[SteveAustin]

shills? who do you believe we are shilling for? what gives you the right to make such a baseless accusation like that?

just because someone disagrees with you, they must have some alterior economic motive behind that? does that sound fair to you?

what if i suggested you were shilling for Islamist terrorists? would you like that?

it is very UNAMERICAN of you to accuse those who disagree with you, of beig shills, with NO PROOF.

the Nazis did the same sort of thing. accused their enemies of working for the Communists..and then they killed them all.

You can be one of the mindless zombies then if it makes you feel better

[twinstead]

You can be one of the mindless zombies then if it makes you feel better

Wow. All statements like that do is make you look like an mindless zombie yourself. You didn't even address his post. It was basically "who the hell are you to accuse ANYONE of being a shill?" Accusing ALL WHO DISAGREEtm of being mindless zombies is about as mindless as you can get. That makes you the sheep.

For somebody who in his mind has it "all figured out" and are a champion against the mindless zombies, you sure are irrelevant. Misplaced arrogance ROCKS!

[beachnut]

You can be one of the mindless zombies ... This is your evidence you bring to a skeptic forum, calling people mindless zombies because you believe in idiotic delusions made up by other people who based their failed ideas on hearsay, lies and delusions.

Prisonplanet is a web site that has dumb ideas packaged up to fool those who lack knowledge and fail to think for themselves.

[SteveAustin]

Misplaced arrogance ROCKS!

Oh what irony!

[SteveAustin]

This is your evidence you bring to a skeptic forum, calling people mindless zombies because you believe in idiotic delusions made up by other people who based their failed ideas on hearsay, lies and delusions.

Prisonplanet is a web site that has dumb ideas packaged up to fool those who lack knowledge and fail to think for themselves.


That uses a few of those tactics from that list of 38 but most especially number 38!

You guys are good at this, but then again you have all had lots of practice

[beachnut]

That uses a few of those tactics from that list of 38 but most especially number 38!

You guys are good at this, but then again you have all had lots of practice
You have delusions and junk ideas from prisonplanet. You can't get 911 right after 7 years. And all you can do is fail at insulting people who understand 911. You failed to present evidence but you freely repeat lies, hearsay, and delusions. Did you run out of junk to post?

Why does prisonplanet post stories that refute their other posted smoking gun stories; now they will label the new delusions loaded gun evidence?

Next time bring some evidence with your apologies for terrorists who murder people.

[9/11-investigator]

You repeat poppycock you find on the Internet, Hoffman builds delusions based on delusional junk science by Jones.

It was via the internet that I got acquainted with you as well, nevertheless I prefer Jones anytime. Please don't take it personally.

Uhhm, how do the 'dancing Israelis' fit in your scenario again?

I remember that these dancing Israelis were the weakest spot in the repertoire of my esteemed debunker opponents:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=128473

[beachnut]

It was via the internet that I got acquainted with you as well, nevertheless I prefer Jones anytime. Please don't take it personally.

Uhhm, how do the 'dancing Israelis' fit in your scenario again?

I remember that these dancing Israelis were the weakest spot in the repertoire of my esteemed debunker opponents:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=128473
Why not tell me NAZI terrorist apologist.

Jones; funny man, I found aluminized steel heater tubes with the same spectrum of thermite products. Jones made up his conclusions in his vanity paper in the vanity journal for you delusion believers.

You mention Jones and his lies about finding thermite. You like Jones and because your lack of knowledge in engineering and physics you blindly repeat his lies and junk science. Your failed ideas have the approval of 0.0001 percent of all world engineers; you are a fringe group like Bigfoot believers with no evidence to support your delusions. Like prisonplanet you cherry-pick and twist the facts to fit your delusions on 911. You won, you are void of reality in your ideas on 911.

Go ahead and bring on your massive pile of evidence you are waiting to reveal to earn the Pulitzer Prize. Watergate Pulitzer Prize was done in less than 2 years and your delusions have failed for over 7 years save get some 911Truth talkers called nut cases. What a great group, zero evidence, pure delusions.

[9/11-investigator]

I think I am going to go to Peter Stuyvesant's tomb after work and piss on it. Maybe wipe some snot on it too.

=)


Letter from Peter Stuyvesant to the Amsterdam Chamber of the Dutch West India Company, from New Amsterdam, dated September 22, 1654.

The Jews who have arrived would nearly all like to remain here, but learning that they (with their customary usury and deceitful trading with the Christians) were very repugnant to the inferior magistrates, as also to the people having the most affection for you; the Deaconry also fearing that owing to their present indigence they might become a charge in the coming winter, we have, for the benefit of this weak newly developing place and land in general, deemed it useful to require them in a friendly way to depart; praying also most seriously in this connection, for ourselves also for the general community of your worships, that the deceitful race - such hateful enemies and blasphemers of the name of Christ - not be allowed further to infect and trouble this new colony.

Stuyvesant wrote this letter from his office near de Walstraat near Ground Zero. De Walstraat became the center of usury and deceitful trading culminating in types like Marc Rich, Michael Milken and Bernie Madoff, just to name a few, not to mention the total scam of the FED.

Stuyvesant, a man with remarkable foresight.

[dtugg]

...and you continue to prove that you are a Nazi.

[9/11-investigator]

Why not tell me NAZI terrorist apologist.

Jones; funny man, I found aluminized steel heater tubes with the same spectrum of thermite products. Jones made up his conclusions in his vanity paper in the vanity journal for you delusion believers.

You mention Jones and his lies about finding thermite. You like Jones and because your lack of knowledge in engineering and physics you blindly repeat his lies and junk science. Your failed ideas have the approval of 0.0001 percent of all world engineers; you are a fringe group like Bigfoot believers with no evidence to support your delusions. Like prisonplanet you cherry-pick and twist the facts to fit your delusions on 911. You won, you are void of reality in your ideas on 911.

Go ahead and bring on your massive pile of evidence you are waiting to reveal to earn the Pulitzer Prize. Watergate Pulitzer Prize was done in less than 2 years and your delusions have failed for over 7 years save get some 911Truth talkers called nut cases. What a great group, zero evidence, pure delusions.

Again, as expected some incoherent ramblings about 'nazi's', but very revealing: beachnut has no explanation for the dancing Israelis whatsoever!! :D

As a reminder: before the first plane hit the tower there were men seen installing film camera's at the Hudson river boarding pointed towards the WTC towers. After impact and destruction of the towers they were seen celebrating and 'high-fiving' with each other. They knew what was coming because they had prepared for the collapse themselves. Unfortunately for them there was an attentive old lady who called the police who later arrested these morons. They turned out to be Israelis. They were held in custody and later released after pressure from (jewish) higher ups much to the chagrin of the FBI agents that had arrested them. Nevertheless, it will be this phone call alone that ultimately will lead to the destruction of the present day zionist power structure in the US.

Poor beachnut. From his avatar and past statements I vaguely remember that he is in the air force. That means he is working for a corrupt government. The only way he can live with that knowledge is to remain in state of denial. And call anybody who confronts him with an contradicting view a 'nazi'.

[lapman]

Again, as expected some incoherent ramblings about 'nazi's', but very revealing: beachnut has no explanation for the dancing Israelis whatsoever!! :D

As a reminder: before the first plane hit the tower there were men seen installing film camera's at the Hudson river boarding pointed towards the WTC towers. After impact and destruction of the towers they were seen celebrating and 'high-fiving' with each other. They knew what was coming because they had prepared for the collapse themselves. Unfortunately for them there was an attentive old lady who called the police who later arrested these morons. They turned out to be Israelis. They were held in custody and later released after pressure from (jewish) higher ups much to the chagrin of the FBI agents that had arrested them.

Poor beachnut. From his avatar and past statements I vagely remember that he is in the air force. That means he is working for a corrupt government. The only way he can live with that is to remain in state of denial. And call anybody who confronts him with an contradicting view a 'nazi'.
Thanks for posting yet another lie. There were no reports of them setting up before the first crash. It is all speculation without proof. The specific report states that "Maria" looked out the window AFTER the first crash occurred and smoke was already billowing out of the tower.

[beachnut]

... no explanation for the dancing Israelis whatsoever!! ...
...
Poor beachnut. From his avatar and past statements I vagely remember that he is in the air force. That means he is working for a corrupt government. The only way he can live with that is to remain in state of denial. And call anybody who confronts him with an contradicting view a 'nazi'.Poor failed 911 ideas.

You can't do much with your hate for Jews or explain the dancing Israelis. Oh go ahead tie them to the 911 event. You can't do anything close to reality work on 911. You failed with your dancing Israelis just like your other failed delusions on 911.

I thought you were proud of being a NAZI and a terrorist apologist; did you say you were a NAZI and proud of it? Why hide your true colors. You are proud of your dirt dumb delusions on 911 but deny your very core beliefs as you spew "corrupt government" and fail to support any of your ideas on 911 with evidence.

PrisonPlanet is just like you, filled with failed ideas on 911 and you have no clue on 911. Your post was filled with all the evidence you will ever have on 911; zero.

[Mince]

...mince is trying to claim (as is Dave) that the "question" is who said the lusitania...

Incorrect (again). I merely want 9/11-investigator to demostrate the cogency (to the thread's topic) of his statement he made here:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4622843&postcount=185

The point is: yes it is possible to keep conspiracies secret without leaks for decades.


That's all.

[tsig]

I'm glad that I can be of any help!

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/blasting_scenario.html

Thermate incendiary coating compound: A mixture of aluminum powder, iron oxide powder, sulfur and other additives in a binder. Applied in a liquid form like paint, it dries to form durable coating that requires a high-temperature igniter to start the reaction by heating a spot to the 2,200ºC ignition temperature.

Keep on smoking, no danger. ;)

Then how did Jones ignite it with a torch that produces less heat?

[TSR]

Care to elaborate?
.
On which part?
.

[AJM8125]

seems to suggest otherwise.

That.

[TSR]

I acknowledge how irresponsible and reckless I really am by citing people who were actually present on the crime scene and not acquire my knowledge, as is standard procedure here at JREF, by looking into the debunkers crystal ball.

.
Correction: was near but not on the crime scene, since no reporters were allowed behind the yellow tape.

What evidence do you offer in support of your slur regarding crystal balls?
.

It certainly is not! You shoot yourself in the foot with your 'argument'!

.
So, it is your assertion that a plane shot out of the sky and a plane crashed into the ground leave behind identical debris fields?

Have you considered that, depending on the altitude and angle of the "missle", a shot-down plane's debris is not going at the full airspeed of the crashed plane? That air resistance will slow them down, lessening the impact with the ground?

You really need to think things through before you choose to post foolishness.

.

[TSR]

.
I had stated that the lind AJM8125 provided offered a different explaination of the cell phone on planes ban than I had read about.

The linked article makes a strong case that the issue was not interference, but infrastructure on the ground. Although I think about it more, I don't believe a single cell *can* connect with more than one tower at a time.

There is also the possibility that both apply
.

[AJM8125]

.
I had stated that the lind AJM8125 provided offered a different explaination of the cell phone on planes ban than I had read about.

The linked article makes a strong case that the issue was not interference, but infrastructure on the ground. Although I think about it more, I don't believe a single cell *can* connect with more than one tower at a time.

There is also the possibility that both apply
.

Ah, I see what point you're making now. Thanks.

[9/11-investigator]

So, it is your assertion that a plane shot out of the sky and a plane crashed into the ground leave behind identical debris fields?

Have you considered that, depending on the altitude and angle of the "missle", a shot-down plane's debris is not going at the full airspeed of the crashed plane? That air resistance will slow them down, lessening the impact with the ground?

You really need to think things through before you choose to post foolishness.

[COLOR="white"].

No, it is my assertion that if a plane crashes into the ground in 1 piece that it should not leave a scattered debris field. That is not that difficult to follow.

The reason why we do see a scattered debris field is that it was shot to many pieces in mid-air.

You really need to read posts through until the end before you choose to post an answer.

[Unsecured Coins]

No, it is my assertion that if a plane crashes into the ground in 1 piece that it should not leave a scattered debris field. That is not that difficult to follow.

The reason why we do see a scattered debris field is that it was shot to many pieces in mid-air.

You really need to read posts through until the end before you choose to post an answer.

this is why we have the Stundies. You're saying planes have crashed into the ground and remained completely intact before?

[9/11-investigator]

Whatever parky says about the convictions of prison planet, the Dutch population does not buy the bin Laden fairy tale either:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxfeZnEKSzk&feature=related

(4 parts, 40 minutes, no irritating commercials in between, thank god we don't have that in the Netherlands).

The program is about a laywer defending somebody, in this case bin Laden. The laywer Spong BTW is jewish (!), so not every Jew is part of a Protocol of Zion kind of scheme, although I doubt he sees through 911 to the bottom, in fact he does not; the Dutch opponent Groenhuizen is a leftist America supporter through thick and thin. He is from the media of course. In the end I believe Spong brings up KSM. Anyway, the essential part is that the public does not buy the American FedGov story. It is not about believing in an inside job.

But the real fun part is this:

There is somebody in America who does not like this development:
http://www.telegraaf.nl/binnenland/3721473/__Spong_irriteert_Amerika__.html?p=16,1

And it is no coincidence that that same guy is on my list of 12 plotters: Rudy911. :D

Het enige wat dit is, is brandstof voor gekke complottheorieën en dat is een belediging voor de slachtoffers en hun nabestaanden.

Meaning: this is fueling ludicrous conspiracy theories and that is an insult for the victims and their relatives.

Heard that argument many times before here on JREF.

Poor Rudy. Unlike 10 other plotters he cannot flee to Israel. Italy will most certainly extradite him to an America governed by a Ron Paul interim government.

Chop-chop.

[twinstead]

Whatever parky says about the convictions of prison planet, the Dutch population does not buy the bin Laden fairy tale either:



I was waiting for somebody to latch on to that contrived "trial", and I knew it would be you. You should read what critics are saying about it, even in Holland. That lawyer in that venue could get Hitler of the hook.

[9/11-investigator]

I was waiting for somebody to latch on to that contrived "trial", and I knew it would be you. You should read what critics are saying about it, even in Holland. That lawyer in that venue could get Hitler of the hook.

Of course he is a laywer, meaning a hired gun. He is not supposed to give his own opinion but just the thesis the broadcaster is paying him to defend.

After bin Laden he defended the pope against accusations of anti-semitism. I never heard of a Jew doing such a thing out of free will, unless paid of course. Then he even will defend Hitler.

There are 4 more programs to follow, but I doubt he will be asked to defend Hitler.

And yes, the program about bin Laden was BS.
Nobody has a clue except me. :D

[Mince]

No, it is my assertion that if a plane crashes into the ground in 1 piece that it should not leave a scattered debris field. That is not that difficult to follow.

Your assertion? Could you please rationalize your assertion? Show, don't tell? Other than personal incredulity, what factors allow you to determine that if a plane "crashes into the ground in 1 piece" it "should not leave a scattered debris field."?

Please elucidate.

[SteveAustin]

Again, as expected some incoherent ramblings about 'nazi's', but very revealing: beachnut has no explanation for the dancing Israelis whatsoever!! :D

Speaking of the dancing israelis, did you see the video of 3 of them? The one i'm talking about is after they got home to israel 3 of them were interviewed on an israeli talk show and they said the reason they were in NY that day was to film the events of 9/11, to film the attacks.

I can find this video if anyone really wants, though it has been removed from youtube hundreds of times without reason.

But think about that for a minute, they said they were there to film the events, which means they knew what was going to happen...then they celebrated the destruction of the towers with high fives and raising their lighters like you do at a concert!!!

Hmmmmm

[zorro99]

Whatever parky says about the convictions of prison planet, the Dutch population does not buy the bin Laden fairy tale either:



Actually, one of your Dutch pols, Geert Wilders (with whom you likely agree on other issues), says this about the dumb TV show you linked:

Geert Wilders, a Dutch politician and head of the country's Party for Freedom, said the ruling could increase tensions in his home country.

"Of course this is totally ridiculous," Wilders told FOXNews.com. "I'm ashamed by it."

Wilders, who has been an outspoken critic of extremist interpretations of Islam and the Koran, was ordered in January to stand trial for “inciting hatred and discrimination against Muslims” for his production of "Fitna," a short film he made that explores what he claims are links between the Koran and terrorism. If convicted, he faces up to 16 months in prison.

Spong has gone head-to-head with many of the country's anti-immigration advocates — including Wilders — and is supporting legal action against him.

"Devil's Advocate" only stirs up the immigration debate in his country, said Wilders, who is confident that many people aren't buying into the show's spectacle.

"It's only a television show, but millions of people watch it," he said. "But I'm confident the Dutch people are no fools and the majority do believe that Al Qaeda was responsible for the attacks on 9/11."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,516195,00.html

[SteveAustin]

Incorrect (again). I merely want 9/11-investigator to demostrate the cogency (to the thread's topic) of his statement he made here:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4622843&postcount=185



That's all.

Then you are asking the wrong question to the wrong person. 9/11 investigator's statement was in response to eromitlab's statement here:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4615526#post4615526

All you are doing mince, all you were trying to do was a team effort type of thing, someone else brings up an irrelevant point like eromitlab did at his post I just linked here again then you come in (as did Dave) and played on 9/11 investigators response(s) in classic numbers 1, 2, 3, 6, 9, 14, 17 and as always 38, and now (because the light of day has been shined on your tactics) you are trying to claim that 9/11 investigator responses to someone else's statements is not cogent to the thread!! Well if one of you can make a statement that is not cogent to the thread then why should you be allowed to question why 9/11 investigator should be allowed to answer that comment?

[dtugg]

Speaking of the dancing israelis, did you see the video of 3 of them? The one i'm talking about is after they got home to israel 3 of them were interviewed on an israeli talk show and they said the reason they were in NY that day was to film the events of 9/11, to film the attacks.

I can find this video if anyone really wants, though it has been removed from youtube hundreds of times without reason.

But think about that for a minute, they said they were there to film the events, which means they knew what was going to happen...then they celebrated the destruction of the towers with high fives and raising their lighters like you do at a concert!!!

Hmmmmm

I've just watched this video, it's still on YouTube. The part with the dancing jooos on the talk show is at about three minutes in.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X63CQ-dXkwU

First of all, they are speaking in Hebrew, so unless you speak Hebrew you don't even know how accurate the translation was. Second, they didn't say that their purpose for being in New York was to film 9/11. You are a liar and just made that part up.

And at that point we were taken for another round of questioning. This time related to our allegedly being members of Mossad. The fact of the matter is we are coming from a country that experiences terror daily. Our purpose was to document the event.

I think it is pretty clear from that their meant that their purpose for filming was to document the event. That doesn't mean they knew about it before hand. If they were filming before the first plane hit, that might be one thing, but I've seen no evidence of that. Plenty of people had cameras and filmed/took pictures.

Why is it that twoofers lie all the time?

[9/11-investigator]

Speaking of the dancing israelis, did you see the video of 3 of them? The one i'm talking about is after they got home to israel 3 of them were interviewed on an israeli talk show and they said the reason they were in NY that day was to film the events of 9/11, to film the attacks.

I can find this video if anyone really wants, though it has been removed from youtube hundreds of times without reason.

But think about that for a minute, they said they were there to film the events, which means they knew what was going to happen...then they celebrated the destruction of the towers with high fives and raising their lighters like you do at a concert!!!

Hmmmmm

That's a 9/11 truther classic and was in my blog from day 1:

http://how911wasdone.blogspot.com/#dancing

The video is stil there.

They were 'documenting the event', that's what they said. They could only do so if they knew in advance that it was about to happen. And they knew because they had organised the event themselves. And while other Mossad agents were busy faking the phone calls...

http://how911wasdone.blogspot.com/#warroom

... these 'mover'&explosives-planting-kinda-guys were killing time making videos to show to their buddies in Hertzlliya/Israel later on.

Oh yes, and bomb sniffing dogs reacted positive to the van these Israelis were driving in. For the average debunker a minor insignificant detail. Everybody knows that movers need explosives to do their work properly. I mean, if you cannot get a piano through a door you use a little explosive to make some room, easy enough! :D

And everybody who says otherwise will be smeared as a 'nazi'.