Would you support an independent 9/11 investigation? [Archive]

View Full Version : Would you support an independent 9/11 investigation?

Pages : [1] 2

Oliver

2nd November 2006, 01:13 PM

Since at least cospiracy-theorists would like to see
an open 1st time independent investigation:

What do you guys and girls at JREF/CT think about it -
would you support such an investigation?

ETA:

It´s not about money. It´s about would you like to
see all the open questions answered in an independent
investigation to "get rid of all theories" or to get them
"shown to be true".

Independent:
Neutral investigators.
No one will get asked >behind closed doors<.

brodski

2nd November 2006, 01:15 PM

What d you mean by independent?
Which body is "independent" enough and has the expertise and resource to carry out such an investigation?
Who pays?

Gravy

2nd November 2006, 01:16 PM

Since at least cospiracy-theorists would like to see
an open 1st time independent investigation:

What do you guys and girls at JREF/CT think about it -
would you support such an investigation?Absolutely! I've been encouraging the CTs to undertake such an investigation for months, but they're too busy posting on internet forums.

Overman

2nd November 2006, 01:16 PM

Do I need to support it for it to happen or not happen?

Arkan_Wolfshade

2nd November 2006, 01:16 PM

CptColumbo

2nd November 2006, 01:17 PM

How would this investigation differ from the other investigations?

The "official" story isn't just the commission report and the NIST findings, it is also the work of many independent scientists and reporters. It is called "official" by many CTist to discredit it before you start.

Official=Gumbmint

Oliver

2nd November 2006, 01:21 PM

A open investigation means:

No one will get asked behind closed doors.
Independent means: Neutral investigators.
Who pays does not count here. It´s a general question.

Bell

2nd November 2006, 01:24 PM

I voted no.

Not until the troofers come up with some CREDIBLE evidence. No grainy pictures, assumptions, cherrypicked quotes or unqualified professors.

Minadin

2nd November 2006, 01:25 PM

How would it be funded / organized?

I think it would probably be mostly redundant, and find what the NIST has found, and might be a waste of money, especially if they had to scientifically investigate all of the conspiracy theories out there.

How does that old phrase go? You can't disprove a negative? Something along those lines, anyway . . . seems like it would largely be a wild goose chase, and even if the CT advocates were sufficiently convinced that their scenarios didn't occur, which I think would be unlikely, no matter how much exact proof you gave them, they would probably just come up with new hypotheticals to appear to fit the new data. We've seen it happen before - Star Wars Beam Weapon, anyone?

But, before I get too hasty, if it was to be a truly independent investigation, conducted professionally and scientifically, and not just a huge time-and-money sink, I can't see how it would hurt, really. I just have doubts as to how much it would help.

Oliver

2nd November 2006, 01:27 PM

It´s not about money. It´s about would you like to
see all the open questions answered in an independent
investigation to "get rid of all theories" or to get them
"shown to be true".

defaultdotxbe

2nd November 2006, 01:32 PM

i voted planet X because while i would persoanlly support another investigation, it wont satisfy CTers, as soon as it disagrees with someones pet theory its no longer independent, not valid, and all part of the official "lie"

brodski

2nd November 2006, 01:32 PM

A open investigation means:

No one will get asked behind closed doors.
Independent means: Neutral investigators.
Who pays does not count here. It´s a general question.

Anybody who is remotely qualified to run this investigation will already have looked into it to some degree, and given the overwhelming evidence for the "official" version, there are no qualified neutral parties. I believe that there are some questions relating to just how much arse covering by officials and politicians/ political hacks happened after the event, but an investigation like that won't touch any of the troofers claims.
Anyone who thinks that an investigation into [i]any[.i] major occurrence can clear up all of the "unanswered questions" clearly knows very little of major incident investigations, or indeed of reality.

Gravy

2nd November 2006, 01:33 PM

Jimmy Walters supposedly spent $5 million to appeal to the public to support a new investigation. Think how far that money could have gone if he had chosen to fund some actual research.

I brought this up in the thread that challenged CTs to describe what an independent investigation would mean: without subpoena power, which is granted by the government, the "independent" body would have no way to compel people to testify or to make records accessible. Then, some of the investigators would need to have security clearances to view classified documents.

Gravy

2nd November 2006, 01:38 PM

It´s not about money. It´s about would you like to see all the open questions answered in an independent investigation to "get rid of all theories" or to get them "shown to be true".No investigation can get rid of all theories. The fact that 19 Islamist hijackers, funded by al Qaeda, which was funded by numerous sources, caught the US off guard on 9/11, has been "shown to be true" beyond a reasonable doubt, IMHO.

T.A.M.

2nd November 2006, 01:38 PM

I voted yes, because I feel the first investigation fit your above criteria, and I supported it.

If you asked, would i support another one, I would say no...a waste of money.

TAM

Donal

2nd November 2006, 01:50 PM

You can't dismiss funding because thats a major part of it. No matter the outcome, people will want to "follow the money" and accuse the investigsators of bias because it didn't find their personal pet theory to be credible.

mortimer

2nd November 2006, 01:53 PM

I went ahead and voted no. I don't think a new investigation, with the most perfectly neutral members, and with all the evidence to answer all the various questions, will satisfy the CTers. It's a waste of resources in an attempt to satisfy the loons who will never be satisfied.

gumboot

2nd November 2006, 01:54 PM

Independent means: Neutral investigators.

No such thing.

Having said that. I have no problem with the concept of a fresh investigation. Although it would depend a lot on its parameters. For example I would not approve of a "witch hunt" out to blame someone in government for the attacks (or not stopping them).

Oliver, it is bad form to start a thread like this and not state your own opinion. Would you support such an investigation?

-Gumboot

delphi_ote

2nd November 2006, 01:56 PM

Support it as encourage the effort or support as in financially support it?

Oliver

2nd November 2006, 02:00 PM

No such thing.

Having said that. I have no problem with the concept of a fresh investigation. Although it would depend a lot on its parameters. For example I would not approve of a "witch hunt" out to blame someone in government for the attacks (or not stopping them).

Oliver, it is bad form to start a thread like this and not state your own opinion. Would you support such an investigation?

-Gumboot

Sorry, i forgot. I would like to get rid of all questions because
otherwise it will never stop. On the other side this could reveal
all information about who knew what in terms of foreknowledge.

brodski

2nd November 2006, 02:01 PM

Support it as encourage the effort or support as in financially support it?

You know, that's just given me another "damn these pesky ethics of mine" business ideas. How much money do you think you could make from the troofers by getting them to contribute to a "independent investigation fund"?

And then after you've got all you think you will get, you have to go into hiding from TEH GLOBALISTS.

:D

Oliver

2nd November 2006, 02:02 PM

Support it as encourage the effort or support as in financially support it?

In terms of encourage.

Gravy

2nd November 2006, 02:23 PM

Sorry, i forgot. I would like to get rid of all questions because
otherwise it will never stop. On the other side this could reveal
all information about who knew what in terms of foreknowledge.As some people (including me) have stated, no investigation would be able to "get rid of" all questions. Not all questions are valid or relevant to the subject. Not all valid questions are answerable with certainty.

delphi_ote

2nd November 2006, 02:42 PM

In terms of encourage.
If someone wants to conduct transparent research on pretty much any subject, they have my support.

I just don't want to pay for this, as I've already paid for several investigations.

Oliver

2nd November 2006, 02:51 PM

If someone wants to conduct transparent research on pretty much any subject, they have my support.

I just don't want to pay for this, as I've already paid for several investigations.

Well, at least the tax-payer would have to pay for it, but i
guess it would be peanuts compared to the war expenses.

delphi_ote

2nd November 2006, 02:58 PM

Well, at least the tax-payer would have to pay for it, but i
guess it would be peanuts compared to the war expenses.
Tax payer funded investigation? That changes everything. Conducting the same investigation again wastes money that could be used for medical research instead.

Pardalis

2nd November 2006, 03:10 PM

Planet X.

In other words: Don't care.

Oliver

2nd November 2006, 03:14 PM

Planet X.

In other words: Don't care.

Well, at least it would stop all the nazi
connections you like so much. :p

...too late... :D

defaultdotxbe

2nd November 2006, 03:18 PM

Well, at least the tax-payer would have to pay for it, but i
guess it would be peanuts compared to the war expenses.
taxes? so now the govt is finding it, instant, built-in bias, no good, CTers not happy

Almo

2nd November 2006, 03:22 PM

I vote no because nothing will convince the CTists. It would be a waste of time.

Bell

2nd November 2006, 03:27 PM

Proof that a new investigation is a waist of time and resources.
*haedbutts captain Darling*

Here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=67462)
Here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=67502)
Here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=67599)
More here (http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=64)

defaultdotxbe

2nd November 2006, 03:36 PM

How much money do you think you could make from the troofers by getting them to contribute to a "independent investigation fund"?

:D
nothing

CTers wont give money to an investigation for 3 main reasons

1: they dont trust anyone but themselves

2: funding another investigation is too close to legintimate research for their tastes

and most importantly

3: by funding it themselves they give up their best fallback position if they dont liek the conclusions, that of claiming the investigation was biased because whoever funded it is in bed with the govt

WildCat

2nd November 2006, 04:25 PM

On the other side this could reveal
all information about who knew what in terms of foreknowledge.
How so? Any such investigation would have to have subpoena powers, and testimony would have to be under oath and legally binding, I don't see how this could be done w/o the gov't being involved.

I won't even get into how such questioning would run up against revealing secrte intelligence gathering ,ethods/personnell etc.

stateofgrace

2nd November 2006, 04:33 PM

I voted no. It would simply be pointless; a massive investigation has taken place.

To have another would simply give credibility to the kooks and crackpots.

On a side issue I just waited on UK Sky, history channel a document called “Grounded on 911". In it the air traffic controllers talked candidly about what happened on that day. How they reacted to the four hijackings. How they tried desperately to get control of all the planes in the air and get them on the ground as quickly as possible. Their testimony is as absolute as it gets, it is beyond question. They were there; they are not part of some massive cover up.

Real people like this all inputted into the investigation, not one of them that were interviewed on this documentary expressed any doubt or concern about what had happened. But hey who are they? Just highly trained, highly experienced professionals who did all they could. Of course some kook on the net knows far more than these people.

They spoke of the feelings of helplessness as Flight 77 disappeared of the radar, after the Towers had been struck.

I also heard for the first time the actual cockpit transmission from flight 93, this I have never heard before. The people who heard this at the time spoke about Flight 93, how they tracked it by radar and watched on in horror as it disappeared.

No, absolutely no need for another investigation, and the more I read the rantings from these kooks the more I am convinced they are off their heads.

Bell

2nd November 2006, 04:48 PM

If the troofers are as determined with getting a new investigation off the ground, as they were with the Pent-a-going-on security cams videos released, I'll be dead before anything gets done.

The troofers are all :words: but when it comes to action, they are nowhere to be seen. It needed the Judicial Watch to get BOTH the Pentagon and the Citgo tapes to be released. All the troofers had to do was file a FOIA request. But I guess even that goes over the troofers heads!

Troofers getting an independant investigation? When I'm dead and in hell.

quixotecoyote

2nd November 2006, 05:43 PM

I voted yes. However, if the question had read "Would you support another independent 9/11 investigation?" I would have said no.

Triterope

3rd November 2006, 02:14 PM

I voted No.

The question "would you support an open, independent 9/11 investigation" implies that there hasn't already been one. The matter has been studied by a number of agencies of all types, and they've all pretty much arrived at the same conclusion: that the WTC towers were destroyed by hijacked planes crashing into them.

That a small number of conspiracy theorists refuse to accept this is no reason to duplicate effort. Besides, if any new study comes out that does not endorse a conspiracy, they'll immediately attempt to "chertoff it," or otherwise discredit it.

I'm sure there is much that can still be learned from the WTC failure, and I support any future study that might teach us something about building safety. But there is no need to prove the basic facts of the case. They are very well established.

The Demon's Head

28th November 2006, 10:45 PM

The Truth Movement has had ample time to conduct an independent investigation. Instead, they are too busy posting on websites that 9/11 was an inside job.

If every 9/11 Truth ORG came together, they may be able to conduct an independent investigation. However, they are unable to agree on what happened.

stundie

29th November 2006, 06:56 AM

Well the poll says it all!!

I can't believe some of you guys ACTUALLY do not want another investigation into 9/11?? This is something that I am quite frankly shocked at!! :jaw-dropp

Even the poor victims families are still asking questions but can't get the answers.

http://www.911independentcommission.org
http://www.911pressfortruth.com

If you care for your fellow Americans that died that day, I recommend you watch 9/11 Press For Truth. No conspiracy loons here, just the victims families fighting today for an independent investigation to valid questions.

Let me point something out too you guys....

It costs almost $80 Million to investigate Clintons BJ.
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/04/01/counsel.probe.costs/

Columbia probe costs taxpayers $454 million
http://www.floridatoday.com/columbia/columbiastory2A10209A.htm

Guess how much the investigation into 9/11 Cost?? I'm not going to answer this because all I'll get is BS etc.

So I'll let you find out much it's cost??

You should be gob smacked at the pittance spent on the investigation into 9/11!

Gravy

29th November 2006, 07:13 AM

It costs almost $80 Million to investigate Clintons BJ.
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/04/01/counsel.probe.costs/
False. Remedial reading class continues. If you had read the article you linked to, you would know that the $80 million refers to all Independent Counsel investigations during the Clinton administration.

JonnyFive

29th November 2006, 07:20 AM

I voted yes, because I feel the first investigation fit your above criteria, and I supported it.

If you asked, would i support another one, I would say no...a waste of money.

This is how I feel about it. Speaking from a totally non-technical point of view, the "official" explanation is much simpler, more plausible, and better supported by evidence than the various CT theories that are floating around out there. Not only that, it's harmonious and doesn't appeal to laser beams, invisible missiles, holographic planes, C4 buried in concrete for thirty years, and a conspiracy of tens of thousands that is so perfect that not one person blabbed, so some guys on the internet broke the truth wide open... and are somehow still alive.

If you're so unwilling to face the possibility of being wrong that you have to start introducing a hundred crazy things to support your theory, no amount of investigation will ever convince you.

I'm not a super genius engineer, but I have studied the law enforcement and intelligence agencies of this country, and I have a much easier time believing that they slipped up than believing that they all somehow got this immense conspiracy thing going.

Try again, CTs.

CONCRETE CORE AWAY!

Peephole

29th November 2006, 07:32 AM

So I'll let you find out much it's cost??
Did anyone ever start a thread on the funding of all the investigations surrounding 9/11? I see a lot of numbers flying around but has anyone ever put all the numbers together?

Crazy Chainsaw

29th November 2006, 05:47 PM

I would only support it, if there was real evidence behind it, and if all the people who signed the petitions at scholars for truth and took government money as victims of 9/11 were forced to pay back all moneys the government gave them, to allow that money to go to another stupid study.
Because it would not make one Iota of different to the cters any way.

Anti-sophist

29th November 2006, 06:48 PM

I will support any investigation into unsettled questions. Just provide me with one and I'm all for it.

Pardalis

29th November 2006, 08:11 PM

I denote a significant percentage voted for Planet X.

Planet X is the key.

tsig

29th November 2006, 08:49 PM

gumboot

29th November 2006, 09:31 PM

Let me point something out too you guys....

It costs almost $80 Million to investigate Clintons BJ.
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/04/01/counsel.probe.costs/

Columbia probe costs taxpayers $454 million
http://www.floridatoday.com/columbia/columbiastory2A10209A.htm

Guess how much the investigation into 9/11 Cost?? I'm not going to answer this because all I'll get is BS etc.

While your numbers are incorrect anyway, there was no "investigation into Clinton's BJ" and you are being dishonest by misrepresenting it in this way. I believe you will find it was a criminal investigation to determine if the President of the United States had lied under oath.

As for 9/11... the Commission Report was not a criminal investigation, and was not the only investigation into 9/11. Unless you are to include the total expenditure of ALL government investigations into 9/11 (some of which continue 5 years later) you are being dishonest in your comparison.

So. Can you give the totals spent by all departments of the government on ALL 9/11 investigations? There were (and are) many.

-Gumboot

delphi_ote

29th November 2006, 09:34 PM

I believe you will find it was a criminal investigation to determine if the President of the United States had lied under oath.
Not that it really helps stundie's point, this was a complete waste of money and time.

gumboot

29th November 2006, 10:08 PM

Not that it really helps stundie's point, this was a complete waste of money and time.

I think most people would agree on that... ;)

-Gumboot

TellyKNeasuss

29th November 2006, 10:11 PM

I would support a new investigation if I thought that it would shut up the CT'ers. But I don't think that there would be any chance of that. First of all, they would say that it wasn't truly independent because none of their leaders would be involved. But, unfortunately for them, philosophy professors are not qualified to determine what caused a building to collapse. Second, some of the evidence would necessarily have to remain classified, so they could still claim that the govt. is hiding something. Third, since some of their claims, in particular the no-airliner-struck-the-Pentagon claim, run counter to such a convincing amount of evidence that I'm skeptical that producing more evidence would have much effect.

That's not to say that there aren't things that I'm curious about. Such as how strongly did the intelligence agencies' reports indicate that the threat of a terrorist attack was. Or were there violations of procedures in airport security, and who was responsible.

gambling_cruiser

30th November 2006, 05:58 AM

because CTs can't be convinced. Otherwise they wouldn't be CTs.
I can not imagine an open question of importance.
The mount of evidence is so high that Mt. Everest is a molehill against.
Just my opinion.

solidslade

30th November 2006, 12:31 PM

I denote a significant percentage voted for Planet X.

Planet X is the key.

I for one, welcome our new Planet X Overlords.

JonnyFive

30th November 2006, 12:44 PM

I for one, welcome our new Planet X Overlords.

And if they need a trusted personality to help round up others to toil in their sugar mines...

Well, I wouldn't be a good choice. But please don't hurt me!

Zlaya

28th September 2007, 05:19 PM

Oh wow, so the consensus here is to NOT support an independant 9/11 investigation? Zelikow the Mythmaker did well enough?

Cool!

Gravy

28th September 2007, 05:25 PM

Oh wow, so the consensus here is to NOT support an independant 9/11 investigation? Zelikow the Mythmaker did well enough?

Cool!That's twoofer math for you: 39% is a "consensus."

Thanks for bringing up this 10 month-old thread, Zlaya. Your input has been very helpful and has no doubt moved the "truth movement" closer to its goal.

damien pastaume

28th September 2007, 05:28 PM

I voted yes, because I feel the first investigation fit your above criteria, and I supported it.

Philip Zelikow - neutral?

Do explain.

dudalb

28th September 2007, 05:28 PM

It would be a waste of money and time because no matter how neutral the investigators,if they did not come up with a "9/11 was an inside job" conclusion the Truthers would scream they had been subverted by the Evil New World Order,and then the Twoofers would demand still another investigation,and here we go again....

Bell

28th September 2007, 05:32 PM

Wait! What?! There still has not been a new investigation? I don't know why I even bothered to come back here.

Gravy

28th September 2007, 05:32 PM

Philip Zelikow - neutral?

Do explain.damien, you're replying to a post that's 11 months old. If you have a question for TAM perhaps you should send him a private message. :)

Bell

28th September 2007, 05:35 PM

I know of another old thread that could be bumped :boxedin:

damien pastaume

28th September 2007, 05:39 PM

While your numbers are incorrect anyway, there was no "investigation into Clinton's BJ" and you are being dishonest by misrepresenting it in this way. I believe you will find it was a criminal investigation to determine if the President of the United States had lied under oath.

And yet no criminal investigation into the greatest crime ever commited on American soil? Are you really okay with that?

Bell

28th September 2007, 05:43 PM

And yet no criminal investigation into the greatest crime ever commited on American soil? Are you really okay with that?

What did the FBI do?

damien pastaume

28th September 2007, 05:48 PM

damien, you're replying to a post that's 11 months old. If you have a question for TAM perhaps you should send him a private message. :)

Pardonez-moi. It was top o' the stack, so I checked it out.

damien pastaume

28th September 2007, 05:50 PM

What did the FBI do?

Fail to find 'any hard evidence' of OBLs involvement.

Pardalis

28th September 2007, 05:57 PM

Fail to find 'any hard evidence' of OBLs involvement.

Was that their mandate?

Jonnyclueless

28th September 2007, 06:00 PM

Fail to find 'any hard evidence' of OBLs involvement.

Might have something to do with OBL not being the mastermind behind 9/11. They were too busy capturing the guy who was. Oh those waskally investigators not going off on a pointless goose chase and actually *investigating*.

damien pastaume

28th September 2007, 06:01 PM

Was that their mandate?

It was evidently someone's mandate. How else to explain the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan?

Bell

28th September 2007, 06:03 PM

Fail to find 'any hard evidence' of OBLs involvement.

So they did investigate? As in, a criminal investigation?

Why then do you say that there was "no criminal investigation into the greatest crime ever commited on American soil?"

damien pastaume

28th September 2007, 06:04 PM

Might have something to do with OBL not being the mastermind behind 9/11.

Yet that was precisely what was fed to the public.

Pardalis

28th September 2007, 06:04 PM

It was evidently someone's mandate. How else to explain the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan?

Al Qaeda.

Loss Leader

28th September 2007, 06:07 PM

I wouldn't support an investigation if my tax dollars paid for a single cent of anything. So long as absolutely everybody does it on their dime and not mine, they can go nuts. And probably will.

twinstead

28th September 2007, 06:07 PM

Yet that was precisely what was fed to the public.

You are accusing a lot of pretty smart people on this forum of 'being fed' stuff. I'll tell you right now I wasn't 'fed' anything.

You will just have to deal with the fact that there are people, GASP Americans even, who are just as literate, world aware, intelligent, and free thinking as YOU who do not come to the same conclusions as you.

You have some evidence for your claims? Bring it.

Loss Leader

28th September 2007, 06:11 PM

Oh, I see. It's just a troother biting on old bait. Ignore my response and carry on.

Bell

28th September 2007, 06:12 PM

Oh, I see. It's just a troother biting on old bait. Ignore my response and carry on.

*puts LL on ignore*

Jonnyclueless

28th September 2007, 06:14 PM

Yet that was precisely what was fed to the public.

NO, it wasn't. It's what YOU want to believe they fed to the public, all the while the public watched the capture of the real mastermind that you ignored because it wasn't part of your fantasy.

And the reason for the invasion of Afghan? Well, had you paid attention to the news, you would then know it was because Al Qeada was running their training camps out of Afghan. The camps and Al Qeada were headed by OBL who is on the FBI most wanted list for previous crimes. The Taliban refused to give OBL up, hence the invasion.

But then, something tells me you probably mal-informed enough to think that the official claim was also that the plot was carried out by a bunch of idiots living in caves. Am I right?

Loss Leader

28th September 2007, 06:17 PM

*puts LL on ignore*

Yeah, yeah. Go ahaed, Bell, ignore me. I guess it's only fair. I've been ignoring the Netherlands my entire life.

I'm sorry. I'm not usually this mean. I'm going for the pith award two months in a row. Nominate me and I'll send you a nice basket of fresh fruit - something they've never seen in the Netherlands.

God help me, I can't stop.

Bell

28th September 2007, 06:20 PM

Now, if only LL made a snappy reply to my post, I could nominate him for the pith award. Alas, I have him on ignore, so I'll never know.

Pardalis

28th September 2007, 06:21 PM

*puts LL on ignore*

You take things so literally... :rolleyes:

Slayhamlet

28th September 2007, 06:24 PM

Now, if only LL made a snappy reply to my post, I could nominate him for the pith award. Alas, I have him on ignore, so I'll never know.

:D

Bell

28th September 2007, 06:24 PM

You take things so literally... :rolleyes:

You're rolling your eyes at me?!! :mad:

*puts Pardalis on ignore*

Jeez, I start to look like a troofer :eek:

Loss Leader

28th September 2007, 06:33 PM

Now, if only LL made a snappy reply to my post, I could nominate him for the pith award. Alas, I have him on ignore, so I'll never know.

I didn't nominate it but check out my new sig.

Bell

28th September 2007, 06:44 PM

I didn't nominate it but check out my new sig.

:D

Awesome! Thanks!

damien pastaume

28th September 2007, 06:54 PM

So they did investigate? As in, a criminal investigation?

Why then do you say that there was "no criminal investigation into the greatest crime ever commited on American soil?"

As I'm sure you're aware, the original remit of the 9/11 Commission was not to apportion 'blame'.

Apportioning blame is exactly the aim of a criminal investigation. This would entail the examination of all evidence in a open court, with full subpoena power to get to the very heart of the massive failures of that day. This is what 9/11 widows such as Mindy Kleinberg, Kristen Breitweiser and others have been asking for. Lorie Van Auken has stated that the Commission answered a mere 30% of the Family Steering Committee's questions satisfactorily.

This is why they filed a "Citizens' Complaint and Petition to the offices of the Attorney General of New York State, Eliot Spitzer, citing probable cause for an independent grand jury investigation to examine unsolved crimes committed in connection with the events of September 11, 2001."

There has been no such investigation.

Gravy

28th September 2007, 06:55 PM

damien pastaume

28th September 2007, 07:01 PM

NO, it wasn't. It's what YOU want to believe they fed to the public, all the while the public watched the capture of the real mastermind that you ignored because it wasn't part of your fantasy.

Surely you jest. I suggest you review the mainstream news footage from the weeks that followed 9/11.

And the reason for the invasion of Afghan? Well, had you paid attention to the news, you would then know it was because Al Qeada was running their training camps out of Afghan. The camps and Al Qeada were headed by OBL who is on the FBI most wanted list for previous crimes. The Taliban refused to give OBL up, hence the invasion.

Wrong. The Taliban declared they would turn OBL over if proof of his culpability was shown. None was.

But then, something tells me you probably mal-informed enough to think that the official claim was also that the plot was carried out by a bunch of idiots living in caves. Am I right?

Nope. That was just good material for gags for a while.

Bell

28th September 2007, 07:03 PM

Gravy

28th September 2007, 07:04 PM

As I'm sure you're aware, the original remit of the 9/11 Commission was not to apportion 'blame'.

Apportioning blame is exactly the aim of a criminal investigation. This would entail the examination of all evidence in a open court, with full subpoena power to get to the very heart of the massive failures of that day. This is what 9/11 widows such as Mindy Kleinberg, Kristen Breitweiser and others have been asking for. Lorie Van Auken has stated that the Commission answered a mere 30% of the Family Steering Committee's questions satisfactorily.

This is why they filed a "Citizens' Complaint and Petition to the offices of the Attorney General of New York State, Eliot Spitzer, citing probable cause for an independent grand jury investigation to examine unsolved crimes committed in connection with the events of September 11, 2001."

There has been no such investigation.Questions for you, damien:

1) Was the 9/11 Commission a law enforcement body?

2) Who did most of the investigating: U.S. and international law enforcement and intelligence agencies, or the 9/11 commission? (Hint: try comparing the number of FBI agents involved to the number of 9/11 commissioners and staff).

From the final statement of the 12-member Family Steering Committee:

When the Commission concluded its investigation, it issued a report containing 41 recommendations for improving our nation's security. The report did not answer all of our questions, but its in-depth analysis of intelligence, foreign policy, security and other failures and subsequent recommendations for improvement were reforms we could endorse. http://www.911independentcommission.org/index.html

By the way, the Family Steering Committee's members you refer to do not think that "9/11 was an inside job." Do you?

damien pastaume

28th September 2007, 07:05 PM

You are accusing a lot of pretty smart people on this forum of 'being fed' stuff. I'll tell you right now I wasn't 'fed' anything.

Not only am I not doing that, I would not waste my time on a forum of pablum-suckers. I indeed came here in the hope of finding intelligent life.

You will just have to deal with the fact that there are people, GASP Americans even, who are just as literate, world aware, intelligent, and free thinking as YOU who do not come to the same conclusions as you.

See above.

damien pastaume

28th September 2007, 07:13 PM

I thought we were talking about the criminal investigation. That would be handled by the FBI.

And the FBI would investigate their own failures?

Why are you now bringing the 9/11 Commission into the discussion?

To point out why the victims' families themselves want a grand jury investigation.

Gravy

28th September 2007, 07:17 PM

Wrong. The Taliban declared they would turn OBL over if proof of his culpability was shown. None was.You mean none was accepted by the Taliban. Such negotiations had been happening years before 9/11, damien.

damien pastaume

28th September 2007, 07:18 PM

Questions for you, damien:

1) Was the 9/11 Commission a law enforcement body?

2) Who did most of the investigating: U.S. and international law enforcement and intelligence agencies, or the 9/11 commission? (Hint: try comparing the number of FBI agents involved to the number of 9/11 commissioners and staff).

1)No: 2)the former.

From the final statement of the 12-member Family Steering Committee:

And for all the other issues, they've filed a complaint demanding a grand jury investigation. Your point?

By the way, the Family Steering Committee's members you refer to do not think that "9/11 was an inside job." Do you?

I don't know what it was. Hence my endorsement of the demand of Spitzer.

damien pastaume

28th September 2007, 07:21 PM

You mean none was accepted by the Taliban. Such negotiations had been happening years before 9/11, damien.

Kindly supply the official documents or transcripts the US government provided to the Taliban as proof.

Gravy

28th September 2007, 07:32 PM

Kindly supply the official documents or transcripts the US government provided to the Taliban as proof.I do not have access to classified material or documents used in ongoing law enforcement investigations. The indictments against bin Laden have been a matter of public record since 1998. You'll find them here, as well as several of his admissions of involvement in the 9/11 plot: http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/linkstoterrorism%2Calqaedainfo

Gravy

28th September 2007, 07:43 PM

1)No: 2)the former.And are you sticking with your claim that no criminal investigation took place, damien? If so, on what basis?

And for all the other issues, they've filed a complaint demanding a grand jury investigation. Your point?False. The Family Steering Committee final statement from which I quoted was issued in 2005. You are referring to a 2004 internet petition. None of the Family Steering Committee's members filed that petition, which garnered 15,000 plus signatures. Here's a current petition that's garnered over 26,000 signatures: ABC's Extreme Home Makeover for Pet Rescue. (http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?sep2007) This current petition has garnered 7,557 signatures in a few days: Eric Stein and Jessica Hughbanks for the Amazing Race. (http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?JericTAR) Several members of this forum, including me, jokingly signed an internet petition calling for a government investigation into atmospheric "chemtrails." That petition had thousands of signatures.

ETA: I'm wondering if you've read the "Citizen's complaint," which is chock-full of full-blown denialist kookistry. Have you read it?

I don't know what it was. Hence my endorsement of the demand of Spitzer.That was in 2004. The internet petition, like all internet petitions, was ignored. Spitzer is no longer Attorney General of New York State. What's your next step going to be?

Loss Leader

28th September 2007, 07:44 PM

Apportioning blame is exactly the aim of a criminal investigation. This would entail the examination of all evidence in a open court, with full subpoena power to get to the very heart of the massive failures of that day.

You do realize that's not how a criminal investigation works, right?

A criminal investigation starts with a law enforcement officer suspecting that a crime has been committed by a person within the jurisdiction.

The officer then interests the people's attorney, the DA, in establishing the guilt of the person.

The DA then convinces a judge or grand jury that a specific person is probably guilty of a specific crime.

Then, a judge or jury decides if that person is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

So, what specifically would you like which individuals to do regarding what exact crimes committed by which exact people?

Loss Leader

28th September 2007, 08:23 PM

Spitzer is no longer Attorney General of New York State.

I bet most days he wishes he still were.

fuelair

28th September 2007, 08:37 PM

damien pastaume

28th September 2007, 08:53 PM

I do not have access to classified material or documents used in ongoing law enforcement investigations. The indictments against bin Laden have been a matter of public record since 1998. You'll find them here, as well as several of his admissions of involvement in the 9/11 plot: http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/linkstoterrorism%2Calqaedainfo

I'll get back to you on your link's contents when I've had a chance to read them.

"At a news conference in Islamabad, the Taliban ambassador said he was sorry that people had died in the suicide attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon last week, but appealed to the United States not to endanger innocent people in a military retaliation.

"Our position on this is that if America has proof, we are ready for the trial of Osama bin Laden in light of the evidence."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/09/11/world/main310852.shtml

They received no proof, thus didn't hand bin Laden over and so were invaded.

"Bin Laden on Sunday again denied any involvement.

“I have taken an oath of allegiance (to Mullah Omar) which does not allow me to do such things from Afghanistan,’’ he said in a statement faxed by an aide to the Afghan Islamic Press."
http://www.tribuneindia.com/2001/20010918/main1.htm

The non-hand-over was the justification for the invasion.

twinstead

28th September 2007, 09:27 PM

I'll get back to you on your link's contents when I've had a chance to read them.

The link's contents are compelling to ANY rational person. They at least should get you thinking.

twinstead

28th September 2007, 09:32 PM

"At a news conference in Islamabad, the Taliban ambassador said he was sorry that people had died in the suicide attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon last week, but appealed to the United States not to endanger innocent people in a military retaliation.

"Our position on this is that if America has proof, we are ready for the trial of Osama bin Laden in light of the evidence."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/09/11/world/main310852.shtml

They received no proof, thus didn't hand bin Laden over and so were invaded.

"Bin Laden on Sunday again denied any involvement.

“I have taken an oath of allegiance (to Mullah Omar) which does not allow me to do such things from Afghanistan,’’ he said in a statement faxed by an aide to the Afghan Islamic Press."
http://www.tribuneindia.com/2001/20010918/main1.htm

The non-hand-over was the justification for the invasion.

You are linking to reports from the same MONTH as 911? How many major events in history are totally defined and explained within days? These are initial reports, for Christ's sake!

And even so, you believe what the Taliban said?

Lots of things changed in the months and years following the attacks. Lots of evidence was uncovered. Gravy's links pretty much lay it out as public record.

damien pastaume

28th September 2007, 09:48 PM

You'll find them here, as well as several of his admissions of involvement in the 9/11 plot: http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/linkstoterrorism%2Calqaedainfo

I've had a look through a few of these links. 'wtc7lies' is an interesting title - seemingly designed to put off those who are skeptical of the official story. No matter.

I took a look at the US Department of State page (http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005/Jan/14-610042.html). Notable was the fact that although it linked to the 2004 video, it did not link to even a still frame of the November 2001 'confession' tape.

Not to worry - I had already seen this elsewhere - and come to the inescapable conclusion that it's a fake. And if it wasn't, the FBI would indeed have the 'hard evidence' they claim is lacking for inclusion in their 'most wanted'. And there's the problem - like the Atta passport (which the FBI understandably don't tend to talk about much these days), once serious doubt has been cast on the credibility of the information it's hard to believe subsequent claims.

I notice that there's something of an echo chamber element to the site, referring back as it does to the jref forum. To your posts, in fact. That's a little off-putting.

You can't say I didn't try!

pomeroo

28th September 2007, 09:54 PM

And yet no criminal investigation into the greatest crime ever commited on American soil? Are you really okay with that?

A gigantic, comprehensive, multi-agency investigation and willfully ignorant agenda-driven liars are still trying to pretend that there was no investigation? Are you really okay with that?

damien pastaume

28th September 2007, 09:57 PM

You are linking to reports from the same MONTH as 911?

Correct. The subject at hand was the discourse between Bush, Pakistan and the Taliban.

And even so, you believe what the Taliban said?

I don't 'believe' what anyone said. I'm stating the facts of the exchange.

Lots of things changed in the months and years following the attacks.

But not what was actually said.

beachnut

28th September 2007, 10:06 PM

The largest criminal investigation in history = no criminal investigation.

Twoofer logic never fails to fascinate. :not_ripe:
I guess they missed the fact the idiots who did it confessed after the facts with video since they are DEAD! Why are truthers so challenged to use the grey matter I am trying to deaden with wine!

pomeroo

28th September 2007, 10:12 PM

I've had a look through a few of these links. 'wtc7lies' is an interesting title - seemingly designed to put off those who are skeptical of the official story. No matter.

I took a look at the US Department of State page (http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005/Jan/14-610042.html). Notable was the fact that although it linked to the 2004 video, it did not link to even a still frame of the November 2001 'confession' tape.

Not to worry - I had already seen this elsewhere - and come to the inescapable conclusion that it's a fake. And if it wasn't, the FBI would indeed have the 'hard evidence' they claim is lacking for inclusion in their 'most wanted'. And there's the problem - like the Atta passport (which the FBI understandably don't tend to talk about much these days), once serious doubt has been cast on the credibility of the information it's hard to believe subsequent claims.

I notice that there's something of an echo chamber element to the site, referring back as it does to the jref forum. To your posts, in fact. That's a little off-putting.

You can't say I didn't try!

I noticed that your rather ambitious effort to portray yourself as an objective observer suffered a setback when your substance-free response to my critique of your fantasies was relegated to Abandon All Hope.

Let's talk about Osama and the FBI. The agency contends that he is not specifically "wanted" for his involvement in the jihadist attacks of 9/11/01 because he admits only to an advisory role. Yes, obtaining "hard" evidence of Osama's direct involvement might be tricky, unless al Qaeda decides to let us examine their laptops. But, you already knew that.

You should explain why the FBI is not on the same page with the rest of your imaginary, mathematically impossible conspiracy. Tell us why that agency doesn't include Osama's role in planning the attacks in their list of his crimes. Perhaps they misplaced their instructions from the NWO?

Regarding your insinuation about the FBI and Atta's passport--I'll bite: why is it "understandable" that they don't talk about it these days? Where should they be doing the talking, and to what purpose? What do you understand, and how did you come to understand it? You don't seem to know much about anything. What do you know about this?

Tell us about the "serious" doubts your fellow conspiracy liars have cast on the real evidence. Show us one piece of evidence your side has produced in six years of screaming that supports its fantasies.

We await your sneers and lighter-than-air evasions.

Jonnyclueless

28th September 2007, 10:26 PM

Surely you jest. I suggest you review the mainstream news footage from the weeks that followed 9/11.

Wrong. The Taliban declared they would turn OBL over if proof of his culpability was shown. None was.

Nope. That was just good material for gags for a while.

I don't think i have laughed that hard in a long time. The proof o OBLs crimes are not debatable and are known by everyone in the world, including the Taliban. They refused to hand him over. This was not simply about him being involved with 9/11, but him being the leader of Al Qeada who had already been proven beyond any doubt responsible for many terrorist attacks and had even openly admitted to it.

Now, I recommend you take your own little advice and go read the news articles from the time. Not the ones that the Woo tabloids tell you, but the REAL ones.

Off you go now.

Jonnyclueless

28th September 2007, 10:33 PM

I've had a look through a few of these links. 'wtc7lies' is an interesting title - seemingly designed to put off those who are skeptical of the official story. No matter.

I took a look at the US Department of State page (http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005/Jan/14-610042.html). Notable was the fact that although it linked to the 2004 video, it did not link to even a still frame of the November 2001 'confession' tape.

Not to worry - I had already seen this elsewhere - and come to the inescapable conclusion that it's a fake. And if it wasn't, the FBI would indeed have the 'hard evidence' they claim is lacking for inclusion in their 'most wanted'. And there's the problem - like the Atta passport (which the FBI understandably don't tend to talk about much these days), once serious doubt has been cast on the credibility of the information it's hard to believe subsequent claims.

I notice that there's something of an echo chamber element to the site, referring back as it does to the jref forum. To your posts, in fact. That's a little off-putting.

You can't say I didn't try!

Once again, you DO realize that OBL did NOT mastermind the 9/11 attacks do you not? You do realize that someone else did and that person has been caught right?

It sure seems odd that you would make an implication that the FBI is blaming OBL for masterminding 9/11 and claiming they have no proof when they aren't even doing such a thing. OBL is the head figure of Al Qeada a terrorist organization that has admitted and proven to have made many attacks against US interests as well as many other countries around the world and has killed many innocent people in these attacks. I guess it sickens me that people such as yourself are trying to defend the actions of these groups and try to pretend they are innocent of these crimes.

But I guess that's to be expected from someone who talks about the biggest criminal investigation in the history of mankind as not being a criminal investigation.

The first step is to stop using WooWoo tabloids for your information. That way you wouldn't be making abusrd statements such as there not being a criminal investigation in regards to the biggest one ever.

Gravy

28th September 2007, 10:33 PM

You can't say I didn't try!Wrong again, damien. I say exactly that, and support my statement with your posts on this page.

I don't want to dismiss you too soon, though. Can you describe, in as much detail as possible, who would comprise the independent investigative body you seek, what evidence that's already been gathered would be acceptable, and how the investigation would be run? I ask this with the assumption that you're asking to use taxpayer dollars to fund this investigation.

And I don't recall you answering my question: do you still claim that no criminal investigation was done? If so, on what basis?

damien pastaume

28th September 2007, 10:41 PM

And are you sticking with your claim that no criminal investigation took place, damien? If so, on what basis?

Clumsily put - I'll freely admit. Numerous agencies did indeed conduct investigations - although along an essentially pre-ordained path. That may well have been the correct path, but it leaves a small mountain of questions; specifically the 70% that Kleinberg and Van Auken cite in their FSC rating sheet as 'not adequately answered' or 'generally ignored in or omitted from the Report'.

Although it's not hard evidence as such, there is also a considerable catalogue of highly questionable behaviour on the part of key players, such as:

The 441 days it took the 9/11 widows to force any investigation to take place.

The appointment of Henry Kissinger as the original overseer of the Commission (recused himself due to conflict of interest).

The subsequent appointment of Bush insider Philip Zelikow to oversee the Commission.

The 'miraculous' appearance of incriminating evidence at or near crime scenes.

The non-appearance of Colin Powell's promised white paper, showing irrefutable proof that the hijackers were who we have been told they were.

Just to name a few. These issues do much to undermine many people's faith in the official story. A full, open criminal investigation in the form of a grand jury and special prosecutor would have nipped these troubling aspects in the bud. It would have been big, long and expensive - but ultimately there would be no need for these deeply divisive and festering debates.

Time to hit the sack, now. More tomorrow if I can.

pomeroo

28th September 2007, 10:48 PM

Clumsily put - I'll freely admit. Numerous agencies did indeed conduct investigations - although along an essentially pre-ordained path. That may well have been the correct path, but it leaves a small mountain of questions; specifically the 70% that Kleinberg and Van Auken cite in their FSC rating sheet as 'not adequately answered' or 'generally ignored in or omitted from the Report'.

Although it's not hard evidence as such, there is also a considerable catalogue of highly questionable behaviour on the part of key players, such as:

The 441 days it took the 9/11 widows to force any investigation to take place.

"Any investigation"? Seriously? Is this not an outright falsehood? Are you really trying to pretend that no investigations were conducted for over a year?

The Bush administration resisted the demands for a special investigation on the grounds that it would be superfluous, expensive, and a political sideshow.

damien pastaume

28th September 2007, 10:54 PM

I don't want to dismiss you too soon, though. Can you describe, in as much detail as possible, who would comprise the independent investigative body you seek, what evidence that's already been gathered would be acceptable, and how the investigation would be run? I ask this with the assumption that you're asking to use taxpayer dollars to fund this investigation.

I think it's rather too late for that. The damage is done. All we can do now is live with the consequences.

Gravy

28th September 2007, 11:27 PM

And yet no criminal investigation into the greatest crime ever commited on American soil? Are you really okay with that?

The largest criminal investigation in history = no criminal investigation.
Twoofer logic never fails to fascinate. :not_ripe:
Questions for you, damien:

1) Was the 9/11 Commission a law enforcement body?

2) Who did most of the investigating: U.S. and international law enforcement and intelligence agencies, or the 9/11 commission? (Hint: try comparing the number of FBI agents involved to the number of 9/11 commissioners and staff).

And are you sticking with your claim that no criminal investigation took place, damien? If so, on what basis?

Clumsily put - I'll freely admit.

...The 441 days it took the 9/11 widows to force any investigation to take place.Thanks for clearing that up. You are claiming that no investigation into the 9/11 attacks took place until 441 days after September 11, as opposed to the world's largest criminal investigation beginning while the hijacked planes were still in the air. That's all I need to know. Goodbye, damien, and good luck with your problems.

Corsair 115

29th September 2007, 02:31 AM

The 441 days it took the 9/11 widows to force any investigation to take place.How does that neccessarily prove a conspiracy was at work? It seems to me you are missing a much more likely and reasonable explanation:

The administration dragged its feet on a 9/11 commission because it was afraid of having its and several government agencies' failures brought out into the public for all the world to see. You can see how that might be rather embarrassing, yes? Can you cite even one example of a government or agency which willingly produced evidence which demonstrated its own failings and/or incompetence?

Dave Rogers

29th September 2007, 04:11 AM

like the Atta passport (which the FBI understandably don't tend to talk about much these days), once serious doubt has been cast on the credibility of the information it's hard to believe subsequent claims.

I've pulled out this sentence fragment because it's a classic example of the intellectual laziness that characterises the more intelligent truthers. You've commented on a piece of evidence that you feel serious doubt has been cast upon, and implied thereby that you have researched and considered this piece of evidence carefully. Yet, somehow, you haven't even discovered, in the course of your research, that the passport found wasn't Atta's, it was Satam al-Suqami's. You don't know the must basic fact about this piece of evidence, yet you think you know enough about it to cast doubt on its provenance. I think you need to learn a lot more before you start to make judgements.

Dave

GT/CS

29th September 2007, 07:19 AM

I think it's rather too late for that. The damage is done. All we can do now is live with the consequences.

Then why are you whining about imaginary faults with the investigation?

damien pastaume

29th September 2007, 08:42 AM

How does that neccessarily prove a conspiracy was at work?

Read my post again. My line you quote was immediately preceeded by the following:

"Although it's not hard evidence as such"

I'm not even claiming it's hard evidence, let alone proof.

The administration dragged its feet on a 9/11 commission because it was afraid of having its and several government agencies' failures brought out into the public for all the world to see. You can see how that might be rather embarrassing, yes?

I can see how a government's 'embarrassment' pales next to the murder of several thousand people and the need to restore public confidence. Care to address the rest of the issues I raise?

Can you cite even one example of a government or agency which willingly produced evidence which demonstrated its own failings and/or incompetence?

Strange logic, indeed. They failed to be open and honest in investigating themselves - so they get a pass?

damien pastaume

29th September 2007, 08:54 AM

Yet, somehow, you haven't even discovered, in the course of your research, that the passport found wasn't Atta's, it was Satam al-Suqami's. You don't know the must basic fact about this piece of evidence, yet you think you know enough about it to cast doubt on its provenance. I think you need to learn a lot more before you start to make judgements.

Dave

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Even such established news sources such as London's Guardian got this wrong. Database updated.

Pardalis

29th September 2007, 08:56 AM

Damien, why doesn't the truth movement start that damn independant investigation already? What's with the stalling?

ETA: have you started raising the money yet? If the movement is growing so much it shouldn't be too hard.

damien pastaume

29th September 2007, 09:11 AM

Then why are you whining about imaginary faults with the investigation?

"Is it luck that aberrant stock trades were not monitored? Is it luck when 15 visas are awarded based on incomplete forms? Is it luck when Airline Security screenings allow hijackers to board planes with box cutters and pepper spray? Is it luck when Emergency FAA and NORAD protocols are not followed? Is it luck when a national emergency is not reported to top government officials on a timely basis? To me luck is something that happens once. When you have this repeated pattern of broken protocols, broken laws, broken communication, one cannot still call it luck. If at some point we don’t look to hold the individuals accountable for not doing their jobs properly then how can we ever expect for terrorists not to get lucky again?" Mindy Kleinberg, testimony to the 9/11 Commission

damien pastaume

29th September 2007, 09:18 AM

Damien, why doesn't the truth movement start that damn independant investigation already?

What kind of 'independent investigation' are you referring to?

Pardalis

29th September 2007, 09:18 AM

The one you're whining about.

GT/CS

29th September 2007, 09:36 AM

"Is it luck that aberrant stock trades were not monitored? Is it luck when 15 visas are awarded based on incomplete forms? Is it luck when Airline Security screenings allow hijackers to board planes with box cutters and pepper spray? Is it luck when Emergency FAA and NORAD protocols are not followed? Is it luck when a national emergency is not reported to top government officials on a timely basis? To me luck is something that happens once. When you have this repeated pattern of broken protocols, broken laws, broken communication, one cannot still call it luck. If at some point we don’t look to hold the individuals accountable for not doing their jobs properly then how can we ever expect for terrorists not to get lucky again?" Mindy Kleinberg, testimony to the 9/11 Commission

Here is your quote
I think it's rather too late for that. The damage is done. All we can do now is live with the consequences.

If it too late to do anything about it why do you prattle on? You sound like one of these people who just likes to complain but is too lazy or too much of a coward to do anything. Take your own advice and live with the consequences.

Remember, we are on this earth only once so every day you spend worrying about fake government conspiracies is a day lost forever. Wouldn't you rather spend that time doing something fun or being productive. Speaking of that; I need to go adjust the valves on my GT/CS.

damien pastaume

29th September 2007, 09:46 AM

The one you're whining about.

Not very descriptive.

Pardalis

29th September 2007, 09:54 AM

Not very descriptive.

You're the one who is asking for another investigation, you tell me.

damien pastaume

29th September 2007, 10:02 AM

Remember, we are on this earth only once so every day you spend worrying about fake government conspiracies is a day lost forever. Wouldn't you rather spend that time doing something fun or being productive.

Productive I can do. Ignoring the creeping authoritarianism of my government, I can't. The "don't worry - be happy" mentality borders on the cretinous and simply invites all manner of abuses.

Speaking of that; I need to go adjust the valves on my GT/CS.

No need to prove you can take your own advice. Enjoy your valves.

Jonnyclueless

29th September 2007, 10:19 AM

damien pastaume

29th September 2007, 10:32 AM

There are people who simply cannot mentally handle the complexities of the world and therefore need to pretend that a single all controlling entity is responsible for everything.

I'm sure there are. Just as there are people who subscribe to the bizarre notion that the World's events are a series of haphazard effects with little or no definable cause.

Some people need there to be a reason for bad things to happen and therefore have to pretend that everything bad is done intentionally and with purpose and order.

9/11 was pure accident? Who'da thunk it!

"In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way." FDR

Corsair 115

29th September 2007, 01:42 PM

I can see how a government's 'embarrassment' pales next to the murder of several thousand people and the need to restore public confidence. Care to address the rest of the issues I raise? So you'd have been happy to have a commission look into such things if you were President without even the slightest worry that perhaps such a commission might find incompetence on the part of you or your subordinates?

"CYA" is an old and powerful motivation. It's all the more powerful when something really bad happens. Who wants to be the one left holding the bag then?

I'm "In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way." FDRSo 9/11 wasn't an attack by terrorists, it was a political act? Does that mean EVERYTHING that happens is secretly engineered by politicians in some way? Or can some events happen and then merely be manipulated by politicans after the fact?

damien pastaume

29th September 2007, 03:09 PM

So you'd have been happy to have a commission look into such things if you were President without even the slightest worry that perhaps such a commission might find incompetence on the part of you or your subordinates?

Is such a position acceptable to you? It's one thing to explain what may have happened - another entirely to excuse it.

"CYA" is an old and powerful motivation. It's all the more powerful when something really bad happens. Who wants to be the one left holding the bag then?

So you at least agree there has been something of a cover-up?

GT/CS

29th September 2007, 04:01 PM

Ah, runs much better now.

Damien, my friend, you continue to whine but offer no proof of what you are whining about, nor do you offer any alternative theories.

If there is something about 9/11 that bothers you do some research, develop a theory that is supported by your research, then post it here. We'd love to have someone come up with something no-one has yet thought of and can be proven. Heck, a lot of your research can be done right here since these people have disected almost every aspect of the events on that day.

That is much more productive than just moping about how unfair the government is regarding 9/11.

Seriously, learning about the truth from evidence is a lot better than being consumed with hate from listening to a group of paranoid misfits who talk in generalities instead of with facts.

Zlaya

29th September 2007, 04:09 PM

wow, no to a new investigation?

i didn't expect that from a 'education foundation' forum, which claims that they are based on science and logic

i guess you're happy with lack of released evidence and insane limitations to the research. for example, WTC 7 investigation was limited not to look at event below floor 7 and above floor 42...

independent investigation would obviously be unlimited in it's scope, and you guys say it shouldn't be done?

DGM

29th September 2007, 04:28 PM

Zlaya

29th September 2007, 04:41 PM

Try some unbiased researched some time if you dare. Maybe you'll learn what bellow the floor 7 was about.

absolutely, and some say that this is OK and the original investigations were sufficient.

DGM

29th September 2007, 04:59 PM

It's OK to look on your own into why a contract would be specific. But that won't fit your "movements" agenda. Don't do anything the "movement" won't like or they'll kick you out.

Corsair 115

29th September 2007, 05:17 PM

Is such a position acceptable to you? It's one thing to explain what may have happened - another entirely to excuse it. You didn't answer my question.

As to your comment above, what I find acceptable or not is entirely irrelevant to the point I was making. The fact is, covering one's posterior has a long and prominent history, and not just in politics. No one wants to be the scapegoat for something bad that happens.

So you at least agree there has been something of a cover-up?No. My point was entirely about your supposing the 441 delay in the creation of a 9/11 investigation was somehow indicative of something nefarious.

I was merely pointing out that other explanations are possible. Indeed, I would say the other explanation I proposed is far more likely to be the true cause for any foot dragging by the administation in regards to setting up a commission to investigate 9/11.

omegablue

29th September 2007, 05:42 PM

pomeroo

29th September 2007, 05:58 PM

I'm sure there are. Just as there are people who subscribe to the bizarre notion that the World's events are a series of haphazard effects with little or no definable cause.

9/11 was pure accident? Who'da thunk it!

"In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way." FDR

So, Damien, you took the staggeringly fatuous position that there was no investigation of the jihadist attacks for over a year. You have neither acknowledged the error nor attempted any sort of clarification. Do you still promote the myth that the 9/11 Commission led the first and, presumably, only investigation?

omegablue

29th September 2007, 06:16 PM

LashL

29th September 2007, 06:16 PM

pomeroo

29th September 2007, 06:18 PM

Among the hard facts to believe on that day was the collapse of the building 7, come on. That´s an implosion, the building was brand new, as the other smaller ones that were really hammered by huge steel clusters, had all its core -structures intact. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Wow! We've never discussed the collapse of building 7 on this forum, omegablue. Tell us something about it.

Do you you think the fact that this structure was blown up means that the imaginary conspiracy is real?

CptColumbo

29th September 2007, 06:26 PM

An independent investigation MUST take place as soon as possible. It´s amazing how the naivety of some people goes far and far. Duuuh, it´s just conspiracy man, movies stuff.

U-huh, like your gvrnmnt is open, honest and transparent about all its actions and investigations.

There is only lunacy, and a free country!

Among the hard facts to believe on that day was the collapse of the building 7, come on. That´s an implosion, the building was brand new, as the other smaller ones that were really hammered by huge steel clusters, had all its core -structures intact. HmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmI'm not sure whether you are being serious, as your style of writing is, for the most part, unreadable.

omegablue

29th September 2007, 06:29 PM

Whatever helps justifies ones delusions...

There are people who simply cannot mentally handle the complexities of the world and therefore need to pretend that a single all controlling entity is responsible for everything. Some people need there to be a reason for bad things to happen and therefore have to pretend that everything bad is done intentionally and with purpose and order.

In other hand, whatever helps justifies ones delusions about the government being plainly open as the government itself tells you it is. Like there´s no other huge interests going on about issues like 9/11. Let´s pretend folks! There´s nothing wrong with the terrorist act of 9/11, now get back to your offices! It was just an evil guy, enemy of freedom that hijacked some planes and made a perfectly synched attack that anyone can do, even me! Not only that, the pilots, perfectly trained they were , made the jaws of most skilled aces in america to fall on the floor, for hitting their planes in the right spot, in such a perfect precision that the buildings had to fall!

Let´s not forget also, that there is grandeur on refuting all conspiracy theories, makes it appear that you are intelligent, skeptical, bulldroppin-proof.

omegablue

29th September 2007, 06:30 PM

I'm not sure whether you are being serious, as your style of writing is, for the most part, unreadable.

What do you want to believe about me and my style?

omegablue

29th September 2007, 06:42 PM

Wow! We've never discussed the collapse of building 7 on this forum, omegablue. Tell us something about it.

I´m pretty sure you discussed it before, and as a matter of fact, even without reading the entire and painfully extensive posts , arguments, and so on, i just know what did you conclude:

-The hypothesis of demolition is false!

isnt that it?

Do you you think the fact that this structure was blown up means that the imaginary conspiracy is real?

Well...sorta, not necessarily. As for example, the owner of the buildings wanted they all down for receiving billions over his few millions of initial investments, perhaps it would not be impossible that they wanted to blow it anyways, regardless of whether they did or did not. The building was ok, no need to demolish it, not until perhaps all the documents and papers were moved to safety. But according to this consp. theory, they had to demolish it as well for receiving full insurance returns. Another famous side theory, about the demolition of building 7, as mentioned above, is that there were tons of papers and docs that they (powerful, influential and rich institutions) wanted to get rid of. I searched for a strong debunking argument for this, and could not find it. Care to help me on those? Please do not ask me to read a 100 page or more thread on JREF for this! :)

pomeroo

29th September 2007, 06:43 PM

CptColumbo

29th September 2007, 06:51 PM

What do you want to believe about me and my style?That at some point you will receive an education, that will allow you to be able to express yourself in a clear and concise manner.

damien pastaume

29th September 2007, 06:52 PM

You didn't answer my question.

Did I really need to? CYA is a daily practice in government. So sure, it's a possibility - and one of the first I considered.

As to your comment above, what I find acceptable or not is entirely irrelevant to the point I was making. The fact is, covering one's posterior has a long and prominent history, and not just in politics. No one wants to be the scapegoat for something bad that happens.

But the implications should be obvious. If that really is your take on what happened, the obvious question is: how do you feel about that?

No. My point was entirely about your supposing the 441 delay in the creation of a 9/11 investigation was somehow indicative of something nefarious.

Whether CYA or otherwise, I consider the prevention of an exhaustive investigation into the murder of thousands of citizens nefarious. What's more important here - the pride of politicians and agency personnel or the whole truth about what really happened that day?

I was merely pointing out that other explanations are possible. Indeed, I would say the other explanation I proposed is far more likely to be the true cause for any foot dragging by the administation in regards to setting up a commission to investigate 9/11.

We shouldn't need to debate this. We should know the whole truth, or as close to it as can be reasonably expected. We're not even close. A 30% satisfaction rate from the victim's widows is completely unacceptable.

pomeroo

29th September 2007, 06:56 PM

Did I really need to? CYA is a daily practice in government. So sure, it's a possibility - and one of the first I considered.

But the implications should be obvious. If that really is your take on what happened, the obvious question is: how do you feel about that?

Whether CYA or otherwise, I consider the prevention of an exhaustive investigation into the murder of thousands of citizens nefarious. What's more important here - the pride of politicians and agency personnel or the whole truth about what really happened that day? ...

So, you continue to maintain, against reality, that extensive, multi-agency investigations were not undertaken immediately following the attacks?

omegablue

29th September 2007, 06:59 PM

Not that it will do the slightest bit of good, but as you have read nothing whatever about the piloting skills of the hijackers, I refer you to Giulio Bernacchia's paper, "Not Another Expert!", available on 911myths.com, in the section "Investigations, more." Conspiracy liars tend to ignore Bernacchia's work for understandable reasons: he is an experienced pilot and flight instructor.

What makes you believe Bernacchia´s arguments over Sagadevan´s ones?

omegablue

29th September 2007, 07:01 PM

That at some point you will receive an education, that will allow you to be able to express yourself in a clear and concise manner.

Like a trophy to me, this stupid statement of yours just tells me i´m progressing as good as I wanted to, on my English studying. Being judged as if I had to know a foreign language as I know my main one, is for me a gift! Thanks mister! Made my day.

pomeroo

29th September 2007, 07:06 PM

What makes you believe Bernacchia´s arguments over Sagadevan´s ones?

Bernacchia specifically addresses Sagadevan's arguments and refutes them. Has Sagadevan responded? What does that suggest?

http://911myths.com/Another_Expert.pdf

(Sigh.)

stateofgrace

29th September 2007, 07:06 PM

An independent investigation MUST take place as soon as possible. It´s amazing how the naivety of some people goes far and far. Duuuh, it´s just conspiracy man, movies stuff.

U-huh, like your gvrnmnt is open, honest and transparent about all its actions and investigations.

There is only lunacy, and a free country!

So what makes you believe that the attacks of 911 were only an attack on the US and not an attack on the entire planet? What makes you think that America and America alone should investigate this crime? Does it not involve the rest of the planet?

I am curious as to why you would keep demanding a country that you clearly feel is in some way responsible for this act should "reinvestigate" itself. Would the international community not be better placed to do so?

You do want a truly independent reinvestigation do you not?

CptColumbo

29th September 2007, 07:11 PM

Like a trophy to me, this stupid statement of yours just tells me i´m progressing as good as I wanted to, on my English studying. Being judged as if I had to know a foreign language as I know my main one, is for me a gift! Thanks mister! Made my day.So, you don't want to be understood in the English language?

omegablue

29th September 2007, 07:12 PM

So, you don't want to be understood in the English language?

Huh?!?!? :)

CptColumbo

29th September 2007, 07:13 PM

Huh?!?!? :)Exactly.

Corsair 115

29th September 2007, 07:19 PM

But the implications should be obvious. If that really is your take on what happened, the obvious question is: how do you feel about that? Once more, I point out that my reply was in direct response to YOUR comments about the 441 day delay. You implied something nefarious as being the root cause for that delay: I pointed out there is a more likely ordinary explanation.

Whether CYA or otherwise, I consider the prevention of an exhaustive investigation into the murder of thousands of citizens nefarious. They didn't prevent it, they delayed implementing it. In the end, it was implemented. A final report was issued. Government wheels never grind quickly at the best of times.

We should know the whole truth, or as close to it as can be reasonably expected. We're not even close.So what is missing then? Hijackers took over four aircraft and smashed three of them into buildings and crashed the fourth. That's the basics of what happened.

omegablue

29th September 2007, 07:21 PM

Bernacchia specifically addresses Sagadevan's arguments and refutes them. Has Sagadevan responded? What does that suggest?

http://911myths.com/Another_Expert.pdf

(Sigh.)

I´ve read it, both of em. Hmmm, now judging that Sagadevan was debunking is a little...hmm... biased? Just cuzz he tells it was debunked , tells us that it really was? Are you going to let everything just being thought and concluded by who is in the scene? So it follows that no one can argue politics without being a politician, that would be nonsense I think. So could we say: Lets leave politics to the politicians?

About Sagadevan not responding meaning a victory for the other part, is a dangerous way of thinking about taking conclusions, I would say. Like everyone has to public respond for any criticism? I´m more than inclined to disagree with that.

As an exampleof the above, if I am a lay or a less known expert on a field, and I write a paper debunking a well known professional with sloppy reasoning and stupid arguments, would I win over the attacked person just because he did not answer?

omegablue

29th September 2007, 07:22 PM

Exactly.

rrrriiight teacher, class is over? Dismissed?

omegablue

29th September 2007, 07:45 PM

So what makes you believe that the attacks of 911 were only an attack on the US and not an attack on the entire planet? What makes you think that America and America alone should investigate this crime? Does it not involve the rest of the
planet?

Where did I say such things? Now that I was asked, yes, there should be an international investigation about the acts. But perhaps after 6 years it should be a hard thing to do. America has to be the most interested country in the world as to demand a reinvestigation, as many many issues that are being raised against the official statements, are from americans of every kind, be it demolition specialists, eye-witnesses, firemen, engineers, many of them, with enough credentials to make the old rhetoric technique called "appealing to authority" to give way on this discussion. Some arguments of the CT´ers are not so lame , like the speed of which the buildings fell, like encountering no resistance from the levels below. And like the signs of burning termites on places that are way less likely for the fuel to had leaked and melted the steel. Not mentioning countless witnesses that were there and hear explosions, many of them coming from the basement. Not mentioning that power outage days before the attacks. That was weird.

I am curious as to why you would keep demanding a country that you clearly feel is in some way responsible for this act should "reinvestigate" itself. Would the international community not be better placed to do so?

Like I said above, international wise would be better, but even inside of America we could have an independent investigation as we clearly see that the population and the experts are divided between two sides of the history. Conspiracy or plain OBL terrorism. But there is a central issue about this discussion that it´s way hard to think about. That is: independent JUDGING. As far as conspiracy takes place, could we have a really impartial judge body? Even internationally? Again it would be better if judged by an international body, but honestly I can´t see that happening. I think that the further something like an alt investigation can go, is raising more doubts about the truth behind the acts, rather than being able to prove it in law. If the conspiracy is considered, no one can tell, if who is behind the conspiracy is not above Law , be it nationally or internationally wise. Anyways, I think this issue is not gonna be resolved, so pick your side if you want, it´s all about subjectivity.

Jonnyclueless

29th September 2007, 08:09 PM

Unfortunately blue all the examples you give as evidence have all been proven to be completely baseless and have been repeatedly explained by the *real* experts. They are basically a list of major conspiracy cliches. If you want answers to those issues you don't need an big investigation. Just search this forum and you will find the answer to every one of the issues you bring up.

stateofgrace

29th September 2007, 08:15 PM

Where did I say such things? Now that I was asked, yes, there should be an international investigation about the acts. But perhaps after 6 years it should be a hard thing to do. America has to be the most interested country in the world as to demand a reinvestigation, as many many issues that are being raised against the official statements, are from americans of every kind, be it demolition specialists, eye-witnesses, firemen, engineers, many of them, with enough credentials to make the old rhetoric technique called "appealing to authority" to give way on this discussion. Some arguments of the CT´ers are not so lame , like the speed of which the buildings fell, like encountering no resistance from the levels below. And like the signs of burning termites on places that are way less likely for the fuel to had leaked and melted the steel. Not mentioning countless witnesses that were there and hear explosions, many of them coming from the basement. Not mentioning that power outage days before the attacks. That was weird.

Like I said above, international wise would be better, but even inside of America we could have an independent investigation as we clearly see that the population and the experts are divided between two sides of the history. Conspiracy or plain OBL terrorism. But there is a central issue about this discussion that it´s way hard to think about. That is: independent JUDGING. As far as conspiracy takes place, could we have a really impartial judge body? Even internationally? Again it would be better if judged by an international body, but honestly I can´t see that happening. I think that the further something like an alt investigation can go, is raising more doubts about the truth behind the acts, rather than being able to prove it in law. If the conspiracy is considered, no one can tell, if who is behind the conspiracy is not above Law , be it nationally or internationally wise. Anyways, I think this issue is not gonna be resolved, so pick your side if you want, it´s all about subjectivity.

This is good and actually refreshing to see, because I put great value in the international community. I cannot imagine for one moment they would stand by and allow the attacks of 911, an attack on the entire planet to not be thoroughly investigated. So I am curious as to what you make of this.

RECALLING the murderous attacks perpetrated against the world’s citizens in the United States of America on 11 September 2001,
SHOCKED by the loss of and injury to thousands of innocent lives from over 80 countries, including scores of police officers, firefighters and other public servants called to the scene to aid those in need,
DETERMINED that this abhorrent violation of law and of the standards of human decency must be condemned by every civilized person,
CONSCIOUS of our special responsibility as upholders of the laws of almost every nation of the world,
BEARING IN MIND the consistent record of Interpol at past General Assembly sessions in opposing all acts of terrorism, most recently at the 67th session in Cairo (http://www.interpol.int/Public/ICPO/GeneralAssembly/AGN67/Resolutions/AGN67RES12.asp) (1998) and the 68th session in Seoul (http://www.interpol.int/Public/ICPO/GeneralAssembly/AGN68/Resolutions/AGN68RES2.asp) (1999),
CONDEMNS these attacks as cold-blooded mass murder;
CONSIDERS that they constitute a crime against humanity;
COMMENDS the General Secretariat for its swift and decisive response to the 11 September tragedy in establishing an immediate and permanent 24-hour capability to respond to all Interpol member countries’ needs;
HONOURS the memory of the law enforcement officers, firefighters, emergency workers and private citizens who selflessly gave their lives to save others;
SHARES in the grief of all those who have been touched by this tragedy and other tragedies caused by terrorism;
REITERATES its unwavering commitment to the 'Cairo Declaration against Terrorism' (AGN/67/RES/12 (http://www.interpol.int/Public/ICPO/GeneralAssembly/AGN67/Resolutions/AGN67RES12.asp)) and calls for enhanced international police and judicial collaboration to tackle terrorism and organized crime more effectively, for example by exploring all opportunities to co-ordinate legal, judicial and operational approaches;
EMPHASIZES the importance of making full use of the services available through Interpol to secure the arrest of fugitive offenders, to improve information sharing between member countries, to develop analysis of the threat more effectively and to facilitate the timely sharing of good practice;
REQUESTS that the General Secretariat afford the highest priority to the issuance of Interpol Red Notices for terrorist offenders whose arrest is sought by member countries and to accelerate the creation of an international database of counterfeit, forged and stolen identity documents;
URGES member countries to develop robust systems for the monitoring of suspicious financial transactions linked to terrorist activities in order to improve the ability of competent authorities to freeze such assets and so disrupt the funding of terrorism;
SOLEMNLY PLEDGES that the Organization and each of its Members endorsing the present resolution will collaborate without reservation, to the fullest extent permitted by law, in identifying every individual who assisted in committing these acts and bringing those who were responsible for them to justice.
Adopted.

http://www.interpol.int/public/ICPO/GeneralAssembly/AGN70/Resolutions/AGN70RES5.asp

I have bolded the important bits. See this was adopted by 186 countries, a solemn pledge to bring everybody involved to justice.

Makes you wonder why these countries are not investigating US involvement in 911 doesn't it ?

Makes you wonder why a group like the TM who continually demands a reinvestigation, a truly independent investigation, does not get in touch with these people and tell them all about it, doesn't it?

Jonnyclueless

29th September 2007, 08:20 PM

In other hand, whatever helps justifies ones delusions about the government being plainly open as the government itself tells you it is. Like there´s no other huge interests going on about issues like 9/11. Let´s pretend folks! There´s nothing wrong with the terrorist act of 9/11, now get back to your offices! It was just an evil guy, enemy of freedom that hijacked some planes and made a perfectly synched attack that anyone can do, even me! Not only that, the pilots, perfectly trained they were , made the jaws of most skilled aces in america to fall on the floor, for hitting their planes in the right spot, in such a perfect precision that the buildings had to fall!

Let´s not forget also, that there is grandeur on refuting all conspiracy theories, makes it appear that you are intelligent, skeptical, bulldroppin-proof.

Who said they believe the government is open? Oh right, you just pretend that people who don't go along with baseless conspiracies believes that because it makes it easier than having to actually address the issues at hand. And how open does the Government claim to be? Could you show us a quote form the government about how open it is? This government you speak of, is he a nice guy? Does this government also play tennis perhaps?

You make it abundantly clear that you don't follow world events because your understanding of the investigations have nothing to do with what actually happened. They are simply your attempt to pretend there was no investigation and that the whole thing was simply summed up to a single evil guy. Maybe in some cartoon, but the rest of us here in reality cannot make pretend like you are. What's funny is that you make up these things in a claim that the rest of us are pretending. Is that not ionic. You sit here and pretend what is going on while accusing others of doing that.

The only jaws that dropped from the skills of the pilots are the idiots at pilotsfortruth who clearly don't know the first thing about flying. Kind of funny how they cannot perform the maneuvers, yet the average person who has never before even used a flight simulator can perform them on the first try.

And hitting their planes in the right spot?? How are we not supposed to laugh at such a comment. They hit the biggest targets they could possible find. That's like throwing a football on a football field, hitting the field and saying you hit the right spot. Wow, great effort there.

omegablue

29th September 2007, 08:21 PM

Unfortunately blue all the examples you give as evidence have all been proven to be completely baseless and have been repeatedly explained by the *real* experts.

Ah have they? Unfortunately I could not find it. What I find was just opinions vs. opinions. Now That I just know what do you call proving, it can be a little annoying discussing these matters with you. So if you care pointing me the specific and just the parts of the debunking of the arguments, I would gladly read. But don´t tell me to go through every bitching and personal fighting that happened on these long and boring threads.

They are basically a list of major conspiracy cliches. If you want answers to those issues you don't need an big investigation. Just search this forum and you will find the answer to every one of the issues you bring up.

Give me a single example. Pick one of the examples and show their debunking counterpart. Let´s analyze it.

twinstead

29th September 2007, 08:23 PM

Give me a single example. Pick one of the examples and show their debunking counterpart. Let´s analyze it.

Be careful of what you wish for...

But seriously; you DID search this forum to find out the alternative viewpoint to the conspiracy issues before you started posting, right? Also, I'd like to see your response to stateofgrace's post above, if you don't mind.

Jonnyclueless

29th September 2007, 08:25 PM

You are the one bringing up all the issues, you pick one of your little favorites and I will be glad to assist. but for you to say on this conspiracy site you have not found anything, pretty much says it all. It seems pretty obvious that what you consider to be opinion is anything you simply don't want to accept. because these "opinions" you so speak of are mostly by experts and many based on peer reviewed papers and studies.

yet isn't it funny how no one from your camp making the claims you make has ever been able to present a single peer reviewed study that actually backs up these claims? I mean it's sop obvious right? And you seem to claim experts right? So why can't these experts present an expert case? Those arguing on the opposite side of you seem to have no trouble doing so. But you just pretend it's all simply opinion.

Talk about pretending?

damien pastaume

29th September 2007, 08:43 PM

They didn't prevent it, they delayed implementing it. In the end, it was implemented. A final report was issued. Government wheels never grind quickly at the best of times.

Here's this, from senator and original commission member Max Cleland:
"First of all, as someone who co-sponsored legislation creating the 9/11 commission, against great opposition from the White House, this independent commission should be independent and should not be making deals with anybody. I start from there. It's been painfully obvious the administration not only fought the creation of the commission but that their objective was the war in Iraq, and one of the notions that was built on was there was a direct connection between al Qaida and 9/11 and Saddam Hussein. There was not."

The Bush administration fought it every inch of the way. If not for the grim determination of the 9/11 widows it would not have happened at all.

Cleland later resigned in disgust, pronouncing: "It's a national scandal" and "If this decision stands (to restrict access to briefings), I as a member of the commission cannot look any American in the eye, especially family members of victims, and say the commission had full access," he said. "This investigation is now compromised".

When it became obvious to the administration that at least some kind of investigation would have to happen, both Bush and Cheney took the unprecedented step of calling then Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, insisting that the investigation be limited to 'intelligence failures'.
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/01/29/inv.terror.probe/

The entire history of the creation of the commission is one of stonewalling and interference. It was a farce - and the truth never stood a chance.

pomeroo

29th September 2007, 08:44 PM

I´ve read it, both of em. Hmmm, now judging that Sagadevan was debunking is a little...hmm... biased? Just cuzz he tells it was debunked , tells us that it really was? Are you going to let everything just being thought and concluded by who is in the scene? So it follows that no one can argue politics without being a politician, that would be nonsense I think. So could we say: Lets leave politics to the politicians?

About Sagadevan not responding meaning a victory for the other part, is a dangerous way of thinking about taking conclusions, I would say. Like everyone has to public respond for any criticism? I´m more than inclined to disagree with that.

As an exampleof the above, if I am a lay or a less known expert on a field, and I write a paper debunking a well known professional with sloppy reasoning and stupid arguments, would I win over the attacked person just because he did not answer?

Omegablue, your substance-free response reminds me of "damien pastaume." If you truly read Bernacchia's paper, you should be prepared to tell us what flaws you found in his arguments. He critiqued Sagadevan point-by-point. What mistakes did he make? If you were tasked with defending Sagadevan against Bernacchia's criticisms, how would you begin?

pomeroo

29th September 2007, 08:45 PM

Here's this, from senator and original commission member Max Cleland:
"First of all, as someone who co-sponsored legislation creating the 9/11 commission, against great opposition from the White House, this independent commission should be independent and should not be making deals with anybody. I start from there. It's been painfully obvious the administration not only fought the creation of the commission but that their objective was the war in Iraq, and one of the notions that was built on was there was a direct connection between al Qaida and 9/11 and Saddam Hussein. There was not."

The Bush administration fought it every inch of the way. If not for the grim determination of the 9/11 widows it would not have happened at all.

Cleland later resigned in disgust, pronouncing: "It's a national scandal" and "If this decision stands (to restrict access to briefings), I as a member of the commission cannot look any American in the eye, especially family members of victims, and say the commission had full access," he said. "This investigation is now compromised".

When it became obvious to the administration that at least some kind of investigation would have to happen, both Bush and Cheney took the unprecedented step of calling then Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, insisting that the investigation be limited to 'intelligence failures'.
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/01/29/inv.terror.probe/

The entire history of the creation of the commission is one of stonewalling and interference. It was a farce - and the truth never stood a chance.

You forgot to tell us if you maintain the fiction that no investigations were undertaken for over a year after the attacks.

omegablue

29th September 2007, 08:47 PM

Who said they believe the government is open? Oh right, you just pretend that people who don't go along with baseless conspiracies believes that because it makes it easier than having to actually address the issues at hand. And how open does the Government claim to be? Could you show us a quote form the government about how open it is? This government you speak of, is he a nice guy? Does this government also play tennis perhaps?

Everyone who believes the official accounts, thinks that the government, and the institutions linked to the official investigations, are being honest and open to the masses. I´m not saying that everyone involved on building the official story is involved in the supposed conspiracy, but rather, it would be reasonable to think (if we assume the conspiracy) that their "pro official reports opinion" would fit like a glove to the needs of the ones leading the conspiracy plot. We have two distinct sides on the story being discussed by equally skilled and capable professionals, now if you chose to accept one of the sides over the other, have in mind that you just made a choice based on subjectivity, no harm done though. On the other hand, if you are pretending anything was proven, in the real sense of the word, you are just being a plainly lame lamb.

Oh and about the evil guy, or guys, dunno if they are nice, but they have some charisma, and i suspect they play golf! :)

You make it abundantly clear that you don't follow world events because your understanding of the investigations have nothing to do with what actually happened.

Ahaaaa, YOU know what actually happened!! Man...I envy you!! Not only me, but every investigator in the world, belonging to and trained by the most wicked intelligence agencies throughout the globe. Hell, you´re special! You know the truth!

They are simply your attempt to pretend there was no investigation and that the whole thing was simply summed up to a single evil guy. Maybe in some cartoon, but the rest of us here in reality cannot make pretend like you are. What's funny is that you make up these things in a claim that the rest of us are pretending. Is that not ionic. You sit here and pretend what is going on while accusing others of doing that.

I can say blah blah blah blah too ! :)

The only jaws that dropped from the skills of the pilots are the idiots at pilotsfortruth who clearly don't know the first thing about flying. Kind of funny how they cannot perform the maneuvers, yet the average person who has never before even used a flight simulator can perform them on the first try.

Ahaaa so the entire thing was debunked. Where can I see it? Not mentioning that they were not skilled with planes, they are lucky as hell as to synch a hijack with a plastic knife, so there would be perfect timing for them to take over the cockpit and easily as it is, driving a huge airplane, to hit a huuuge building right on a place where it could go down completely. Man, quit watching those Hollywood lame action movies. Real life is not that exciting.

And hitting their planes in the right spot?? How are we not supposed to laugh at such a comment. They hit the biggest targets they could possible find. That's like throwing a football on a football field, hitting the field and saying you hit the right spot. Wow, great effort there.

The bigger the buildings were, it was no easy task. Someone might say it was, some others might say it was not. Bla bla bla, where is the proof?

omegablue

29th September 2007, 08:49 PM

Be careful of what you wish for...

But seriously; you DID search this forum to find out the alternative viewpoint to the conspiracy issues before you started posting, right? Also, I'd like to see your response to stateofgrace's post above, if you don't mind.

I did, but I did not read allllllllll the posts, as I was seeing opinion wars only. If something is important to this discussion, bring it on from the other threads and we take a look.

twinstead

29th September 2007, 08:50 PM

The bigger the buildings were, it was no easy task. Someone might say it was, some others might say it was not. Bla bla bla, where is the proof?

Oh, so you don't think we are responsible to show 'proof', huh?

Exactly who do you think has the burden of proof here?

twinstead

29th September 2007, 08:52 PM

I did, but I did not read allllllllll the posts, as I was seeing opinion wars only. If something is important to this discussion, bring it on from the other threads and we take a look.

Well, then I hope you bring some serious qualifications to the table then. Argument from incredibility won't work here.

omegablue

29th September 2007, 08:55 PM

This is good and actually refreshing to see, because I put great value in the international community. I cannot imagine for one moment they would stand by and allow the attacks of 911, an attack on the entire planet to not be thoroughly investigated. So I am curious as to what you make of this.

http://www.interpol.int/public/ICPO/GeneralAssembly/AGN70/Resolutions/AGN70RES5.asp

I have bolded the important bits. See this was adopted by 186 countries, a solemn pledge to bring everybody involved to justice.

Makes you wonder why these countries are not investigating US involvement in 911 doesn't it ?

Makes you wonder why a group like the TM who continually demands a reinvestigation, a truly independent investigation, does not get in touch with these people and tell them all about it, doesn't it?

Neat reading, but does it add any weight to this discussion? Everyone wishes to bring the true culprits to justice. What is so special about it and about this link? The fact they did not get in touch and the investigation never took place, does not mean that one is not needed, or they do not want it.

omegablue

29th September 2007, 08:57 PM

Oh, so you don't think we are responsible to show 'proof', huh?

Exactly who do you think has the burden of proof here?

Nobody, as long as no one says things like: "you do not know what really happened, I do..."

If you say something like , "imo I think you do not know the truth." It is ok, no proof is needed but just the plain why you think this way. A conversation you know? Not rhetoric wars.

twinstead

29th September 2007, 08:58 PM

CptColumbo

29th September 2007, 08:59 PM

Nobody, as long as no one says things like: "you do not know what really happened, I do..."

If you say something like , "imo I think you do not know the truth." It is ok, no proof is needed but just the plain why you think this way. A conversation you know? Not rhetoric wars.So, you're after neither facts or opinions. Why are you posting at all?

omegablue

29th September 2007, 09:01 PM

Well, then I hope you bring some serious qualifications to the table then. Argument from incredibility won't work here.

Are you in for an old and boring rhetoric war?

Again, I said I suspect the truth wasnt found yet. You say it was because you already discussed it. So it may follow that you know where the proofs are. So I say, ok, bring it on, I cant find it. Want some credibility? You back up your claims with evidence. I did not say the conspiracy is proved. You say that it is disproved. Can I see it?

twinstead

29th September 2007, 09:03 PM

Are you in for an old and boring rhetoric war?

Again, I said I suspect the truth wasnt found yet. You say it was because you already discussed it. So it may follow that you know where the proofs are. So I say, ok, bring it on, I cant find it. Want some credibility? You back up your claims with evidence. I did not say the conspiracy is proved. You say that it is disproved. Can I see it?

Games. You have an issue with the official story? YOU present it. My position is out in the public domain for all to see.

So?

stateofgrace

29th September 2007, 09:04 PM

Neat reading, but does it add any weight to this discussion? Everyone wishes to bring the true culprits to justice. What is so special about it and about this link? The fact they did not get in touch and the investigation never took place, does not mean that one is not needed, or they do not want it.

Oh I see, so the resolution adopted by 186 countries carries no weight and no investigation took place, so how come Spain, who happens to have adopted this resolution, did this...........

MADRID, Spain (AP) - Spain's leading investigating judge issued the first known indictment against Osama bin Laden in the Sept. 11 attacks yesterday, accusing al-Qaida of using the country as a base to plot the devastating strikes on New York and Washington.

Are you saying the international community are wrong, should not be trusted or are not aware of all the facts?

http://media.www.michigandaily.com/media/storage/paper851/news/2003/09/18/News/Spain.Indicts.Bin.Laden.For.Attacks-1418654.shtml

Please remember you did say

Now that I was asked, yes, there should be an international investigation about the acts

So are they wrong ? Are you now saying you do not want the international communities help? You do not want them to assist you in finding the truth?

omegablue

29th September 2007, 09:04 PM

So, you're after neither facts or opinions. Why are you posting at all?

Ah, where did I say that im not after neither of them? I just want them promptly identified as such. "This" is a fact, and "that" is an opinion. Labeling opinions facts and the other way around is what I want not to see here.

twinstead

29th September 2007, 09:07 PM

omegablue

29th September 2007, 09:08 PM

Games. You have an issue with the official story? YOU present it. My position is out in the public domain for all to see.

So?

As long as you named the above as a game, how could I take it seriously. You have an issue with the conspiracy theory? YOU present it. What I have said is that the truth probably has not been found, based on all the conspiracy archives, and based that there was no independent judging for any independent investigation. You said that the truth is the official story! And what do you position does to prove the official story?

twinstead

29th September 2007, 09:12 PM

pomeroo

29th September 2007, 09:13 PM

twinstead

29th September 2007, 09:17 PM

omegablue

29th September 2007, 09:18 PM

omegablue quit playing rhetorical games.

The 'official story' is the commonly accepted narrative of 911. If you have a problem with it, then state it here.

Chiding us to prove what is already a matter of public record is just playing games.

I´m not playing rhetorical games. Is the official story commonly accepted? By who? Any statistics? And yes I have a problem with that you know, I have not seen the conspiracy theory being taken seriously by any competent organ and it was not brought to justice and proved wrong. If I see it, the main myth builders uncovered as liars under justice, and having the Law applied to them, I would accept the official story. The accusations are more than serious, perhaps attacking the reputation of both Govt, CIA, Military, FBI, Stock Market, Insurance Companies, The owners of the buildings, and the list goes on. You could say, well no one does nothing to them because is their right to think this way, it is freedom of speech. But no, I would disagree, their freedom ends where the rights and legality of others begin to be concerned and threatened. So instant attention and justice would have to be applied and made public to everyone. It is my opinion, do you have a different one? Fine with me, but if you have any facts, bring it on, for a closer look.

omegablue

29th September 2007, 09:20 PM

Okay, the official story is out in the public domain for all to see.

Please define the 'conspiracy theory' in as much detail, and perhaps then you can get away with the horrendous shift in the burden of proof you are playing...

The conspiracy theories are all about too. Don´t tell me you do not know it. And quit pretending that I have something as a burden of proof, this is what you accused me of, playing rhetorical games.

omegablue

29th September 2007, 09:21 PM

I think we've figured out that you haven't read Bernacchia's paper, or anything else, for that matter. Stop wasting our time.

Another rhetoric crap. How in nine hells can you say I didnt read the paper? Just because I did not agree with you? Try again.

pomeroo

29th September 2007, 09:22 PM

I´m not playing rhetorical games. Is the official story commonly accepted? By who? Any statistics? And yes I have a problem with that you know, I have not seen the conspiracy theory being taken seriously by any competent organ and it was not brought to justice and proved wrong. If I see it, the main myth builders uncovered as liars under justice, and having the Law applied to them, I would accept the official story. The accusations are more than serious, perhaps attacking the reputation of both Govt, CIA, Military, FBI, Stock Market, Insurance Companies, The owners of the buildings, and the list goes on. You could say, well no one does nothing to them because is their right to think this way, it is freedom of speech. But no, I would disagree, their freedom ends where the rights and legality of others begin to be concerned and threatened. So instant attention and justice would have to be applied and made public to everyone. It is my opinion, do you have a different one? Fine with me, but if you have any facts, bring it on, for a closer look.

Visit 911myths.com and debunking911.com and tell us what facts they get wrong.

omegablue

29th September 2007, 09:23 PM

It is painfully obvious that omegablue has NO idea what the official story is, nor does he have any coherent idea what any competing theories might be.

It is also painfully obvious that omegablue couldn't be convinced of anything that doesn't support his world view no matter how compelling the evidence was.

So, why bother?

Indeed.

Its becoming even more painfully obvious that you are a meaningless rhetoric hoe, ASSuming things, and is not about having any good conversation or discussion if it infringes your points of view. You simply cant accept that people think differently than you do. Painfully sad but true.

CptColumbo

29th September 2007, 09:27 PM

As long as you named the above as a game, how could I take it seriously. You have an issue with the conspiracy theory? YOU present it. What I have said is that the truth probably has not been found, based on all the conspiracy archives, and based that there was no independent judging for any independent investigation. You said that the truth is the official story! And what do you position does to prove the official story?I think the issue that you are finding hard to grasp is that the "official story" is a title given to the generally accepted account. It is usually called this by those who wish to promote conspiracy theories that contradict it, in order to demonize it by associating it immediately as solely the work of government investigators. In fact the generally accepted theory of the chain of events before and after 9/11/01 is the work of many independent researchers (including University professors and investigative reporters) in addition to the investigations carried out by the US government on a federal state and local level. For the most part, the findings of these independent researchers were either submitted for peer review or fact-checking. Independant investigations have been going on for 6 years, and those that are willing to have their research scrutinized have agreed with the "official theory."

Since you are unwilling to present any evidence that contradicts the "official story" I see no reason for the tax-payers to foot the bill for more investigating, just to satisfy the fringes of society.

pomeroo

29th September 2007, 09:29 PM

Another rhetoric crap. How in nine hells can you say I didnt read the paper? Just because I did not agree with you? Try again.

I've been trying, but you keep ignoring me.

Okay, let's try again:

Bernacchia critiques Sagadevan POINT-BY-POINT. Listen closely, now:

TELL US WHAT BERNACCHIA GETS WRONG.

omegablue

29th September 2007, 09:40 PM

I think the issue that you are finding hard to grasp is that the "official story" is a title given to the generally accepted account. It is usually called this by those who wish to promote conspiracy theories that contradict it, in order to demonize it by associating it immediately as solely the work of government investigators. In fact the generally accepted theory of the chain of events before and after 9/11/01 is the work of many independent researchers (including University professors and investigative reporters) in addition to the investigations carried out by the US government on a federal state and local level. For the most part, the findings of these independent researchers were either submitted for peer review or fact-checking. Independant investigations have been going on for 6 years, and those that are willing to have their research scrutinized have agreed with the "official theory."

Since you are unwilling to present any evidence that contradicts the "official story" I see no reason for the tax-payers to foot the bill for more investigating, just to satisfy the fringes of society.

You like to make it appear that is just me that believes that the truth was not found. I call official story the government one. The Govt was the one in charge of investigating and making public their results. Yes there are many independent scholars, and other kind of investigators that cope with the govt story. And on the other hand , a lot of professionals, scholars, engineers, that are roughly equally skilled like the ones who cope with the official story, but that think differently. And not surprisingly they cannot formulate any theory about what might had happen, they just say Xwas impossible, Y was less likely, that they heard explosions, that the building could not collapse at free fall speed, and bla bla bla.

Now are you demaning that the ones who do not accept the official story come up with a COMPLETE THEORY about what was really going on? And so it should be hammered like a physics theory should be hammered in order to be accepted. And if it has a single possible hole, then it´s fake! Isnt that a little too much?

omegablue

29th September 2007, 09:48 PM

I've been trying, but you keep ignoring me.

Okay, let's try again:

Bernacchia critiques Sagadevan POINT-BY-POINT. Listen closely, now:

TELL US WHAT BERNACCHIA GETS WRONG.

You want me to tell you my opinions on every topic on the article? Ok , if so, I think I can do it. It will require some time though . Unfortunately I have no time for today, but I´ll sure do it tomorrow if you want to. I will present MY OPINIONS, and would like to see YOURS. But at any rate if you think one of then has been unquestionably debunked, let me see how, it is of my interest also.

good night

omegablue

29th September 2007, 09:58 PM

Oh come on. It means they don't think another investigation is necessary. It means they don't suspect the investigation already done.

What exactly do you have to add that might change that?

It´s not unreasonable thinking this way, no harm at all! But imo, it does not imply that the investigation is not needed. Have they published their position about the how the buildings did collapse? Or did they only say nothing at all?

pomeroo

29th September 2007, 10:55 PM

You want me to tell you my opinions on every topic on the article? Ok , if so, I think I can do it. It will require some time though . Unfortunately I have no time for today, but I´ll sure do it tomorrow if you want to. I will present MY OPINIONS, and would like to see YOURS. But at any rate if you think one of then has been unquestionably debunked, let me see how, it is of my interest also.

good night

Fair enough. It isn't necessary for you to address every point Bernacchia makes. Just show us a few examples of what he gets wrong.

gumboot

30th September 2007, 01:16 AM

And if it has a single possible hole, then it´s fake! Isnt that a little too much?

This is why Conspiracy Theorists are morons. Because the above is precisely their attitude towards the accepted account of events. If it has a single possible hole, it's fake.

-Gumboot

Jonnyclueless

30th September 2007, 02:06 AM

Everyone who believes the official accounts, thinks that the government, and the institutions linked to the official investigations, are being honest and open to the masses. I´m not saying that everyone involved on building the official story is involved in the supposed conspiracy, but rather, it would be reasonable to think (if we assume the conspiracy) that their "pro official reports opinion" would fit like a glove to the needs of the ones leading the conspiracy plot. We have two distinct sides on the story being discussed by equally skilled and capable professionals, now if you chose to accept one of the sides over the other, have in mind that you just made a choice based on subjectivity, no harm done though. On the other hand, if you are pretending anything was proven, in the real sense of the word, you are just being a plainly lame lamb.

Oh and about the evil guy, or guys, dunno if they are nice, but they have some charisma, and i suspect they play golf! :)

Ahaaaa, YOU know what actually happened!! Man...I envy you!! Not only me, but every investigator in the world, belonging to and trained by the most wicked intelligence agencies throughout the globe. Hell, you´re special! You know the truth!

I can say blah blah blah blah too ! :)

Ahaaa so the entire thing was debunked. Where can I see it? Not mentioning that they were not skilled with planes, they are lucky as hell as to synch a hijack with a plastic knife, so there would be perfect timing for them to take over the cockpit and easily as it is, driving a huge airplane, to hit a huuuge building right on a place where it could go down completely. Man, quit watching those Hollywood lame action movies. Real life is not that exciting.

The bigger the buildings were, it was no easy task. Someone might say it was, some others might say it was not. Bla bla bla, where is the proof?

So by "government story" you mean the scientific explanations presented by the scientists and backed up with the needed mathematics and scientific testing. You mean the data presented by the experts and the data to back it up and the peer reviewed papers shared with the scientific community and agreed upon by the general scientific community.

As opposed to the anti-government theorists who say it's all wrong and implausible, yet are completely unable to provide any examples of how this is so or any kind of papers or calculations to back up these claims. I got it.

See, we DONT have two equally skilled sides. You simply wish there were. You have one side that presents scientific information, and one that presents rhetoric. And you refer to the scientific side as "opinion" and the rhetoric side as factual.

I know what happened? YOU are the one making the claims of what is and isn't possible. YOU are the one laying out the worn out conspiracy cliches. YOU are the one who is denying the data presented by scientists and calling it merely opinion. The scientific community has done REAL research and found the most plausible and credible scenarios and ones that fit ALL the evidence. As opposed to the camp you support who does nothing more than try to find any wholes which are inevitable in any investigation what so ever and exploiting them. One ca find holes in the most basic laws of physics. One could find holes in gravity, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

YOU are NOT a researcher or an investigator. Investigators put together the entire picture and make everything fit. Charlatans sit there and poke holes in other people's work while pretending that that is actual research

Let me guess, you're just asking questions right? You're jsut looking for truth right? You think you aren't the 1000th person to come on here and pretend to make everyone think you are clever because you avoid the actually issues and pretend everyone else is simply going along with things because they were told to do so. This is scientific forum my friend. This kind of nonsense may work on the Woo forums, but not here.

yes you can say blah blah blah, as you have been all along. So far what have you actually presented? A long series of conspiracy cliches that have been discussed to death on this forum because you are too lazy to actually do a search. No worries there, just pretend you did and write it all off as "opinion". Maybe people will be dumb enough to fall for that one?

Again, if you would bother to do a search, then you would see that your cliche claims have most indeed been debunked. They weren't skilled enough to fly planes? Let's see YOUR source on that. Let me guess, you're going to start with Hani right? You're going to look at some interviews form the Woo sites about how inexperienced he was and ignore the fact that they edit out the parts where the instructors go on to say how well he progressed. And of course you're going to ignore the fact that he was already a pilot before he even came here and was picked because he already knew how to fly a plane. you're going to ignore that he had more flight training hours than many people and that the maneuvers he did required no skill. You're going to ignore that early on instructors didn't think he was a good pilot simply because he didn't work on landing, a feat not needed for his goals.

Plastic knives? excuse me: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!

let me get this straight. You refer to yourself as an investigator, and write off scientific research as "opinion" and you think these guys used plastic knives? Are you ***** serious? How do you not laugh at your own comments???? First of all, they weren't plastic knives. They were box cutters. Knives that can cut through your skin like butter and were used to slice the throats of many people. And if you had REALLY done any research on the most basic level, you would know that they also had pepper spray to fend people off and used fake bombs to keep people in line. You also would know that at the time the standard mentality during a hijacking at the time was to simply obey orders because it was the best possible chance to live.

If you DID research the issue, you would not be making absurd claims such as the planes impact locations being the determining factors in causing the buildings to collapse. That claims is outright laughable, yet you refer to yourself as a researcher. What research have you really done? Apparently absolutely none what so ever.

The bigger buildings are the harder they are to hit? HAHAHAHAHAHHA!!!!

now next time before you come into a scientific forum and start accusing people of blindly accepting things, of not doing research, and of watching too many movies, maybe you might want to think of actually doing it on a subject that you have at least the slightest bit of knowledge about. because that way you won't make a fool out of yourself.

I mean to think, you're coming here and accusing the scientific community of watching too many hollywood movies, yet you claim that the impact points of the planes were the only spots that could cause the buildings to collapse if hit. While I am not sure you understand now, eventually one day you will look back on these claims you are making and have just a good laugh as the rest of us.

Still waiting for you to bring up one of your favorite points so we can see if it has been brought up on this forum.

CptColumbo

30th September 2007, 02:53 AM

You like to make it appear that is just me that believes that the truth was not found. I call official story the government one. The Govt was the one in charge of investigating and making public their results. Yes there are many independent scholars, and other kind of investigators that cope with the govt story. And on the other hand , a lot of professionals, scholars, engineers, that are roughly equally skilled like the ones who cope with the official story, but that think differently. And not surprisingly they cannot formulate any theory about what might had happen, they just say Xwas impossible, Y was less likely, that they heard explosions, that the building could not collapse at free fall speed, and bla bla bla.I can only guess that you've never read anything outside of conspiracy sites, and are hopelessly ignorant of the studies that have been done by people who use scientific method to prove their theories. Otherwise you are basically saying "facts, schmacts." Do you know how the generally accepted by the scientific community theory was arrived at, or would you rather let conspiracy sites do your thinking for you?

Now are you demaning that the ones who do not accept the official story come up with a COMPLETE THEORY about what was really going on? And so it should be hammered like a physics theory should be hammered in order to be accepted. And if it has a single possible hole, then it´s fake! Isnt that a little too much?I believe you are not reading very carefully. What people are asking for is the opposite. What do you find factually wrong with the prevailing theory surrounding the events of 9/11/01?

Start with the one pomeroo has asked you several times. If you are incapable of that, admit it and move on to something else. Just start with one thing. Take your time, show your work, and be sure you have the scientific data to back it up.

Corsair 115

30th September 2007, 11:49 AM

"First of all, as someone who co-sponsored legislation creating the 9/11 commission, against great opposition from the White House, this independent commission should be independent and should not be making deals with anybody. I start from there. It's been painfully obvious the administration not only fought the creation of the commission but that their objective was the war in Iraq, and one of the notions that was built on was there was a direct connection between al Qaida and 9/11 and Saddam Hussein." And that's exactly what we've been discussing, yes? Reasons for such stonewalling? The CYA motive still makes vastly more sense than the "we cannot have a commission because it would uncover our secret plans to destroy the WTC and kill thousands of our own citizens" motive since the latter lacks anything even remotely conclusive in the way of evidence.

The entire history of the creation of the commission is one of stonewalling and interference.And you think stonewalling and interference unusual in Washington politics? Did you miss earlier this week the political theatre and grandstanding involved in the GAO's report on the question of security at the U.S.-Canadian border presented to a Congressional committee? It was pure politics from start to finish, and had little to do with actual security.

omegablue

30th September 2007, 01:49 PM

This is why Conspiracy Theorists are morons. Because the above is precisely their attitude towards the accepted account of events. If it has a single possible hole, it's fake.

-Gumboot

Not only their attitude. A person who want to make holes in any conspiracy theory that could come up, would also pick for holes in the given theory to make it appear fake.

Jonnyclueless

30th September 2007, 02:03 PM

lol!

omegablue

30th September 2007, 03:17 PM

So by "government story" you mean the scientific explanations presented by the scientists and backed up with the needed mathematics and scientific testing. You mean the data presented by the experts and the data to back it up and the peer reviewed papers shared with the scientific community and agreed upon by the general scientific community.

Wow, now the government report simply became “the scientific explanations presented by the scientists and backed up with the needed mathematics and scientific testing.” rule 12 WOOOW the general scientific community agreed. Is this Mr. General Scientific Community a nice person? Does he play golf? Where are the proofs? Cut the crap, you chose to agree with the government version, your plain lame choice.

As opposed to the anti-government theorists who say it's all wrong and implausible, yet are completely unable to provide any examples of how this is so or any kind of papers or calculations to back up these claims. I got it.

Where are the papers about the possibility of the buildings going down that strange way? Show me everything, the physics behind it. Was it reviewed by who? Let´s check on the reviewer´s backgrounds? Put it up.

See, we DONT have two equally skilled sides. You simply wish there were. You have one side that presents scientific information, and one that presents rhetoric. And you refer to the scientific side as "opinion" and the rhetoric side as factual.

You are ASSuming that we don’t have. Again, scientific information? Helloo? Show me the conspiracy arguments debunked one by one! Show me at least one that is an important and relevant one, come on , put it up, rule 12 . We will take a look.

I know what happened? YOU are the one making the claims of what is and isn't possible. YOU are the one laying out the worn out conspiracy cliches. YOU are the one who is denying the data presented by scientists and calling it merely opinion. The scientific community has done REAL research and found the most plausible and credible scenarios and ones that fit ALL the evidence. As opposed to the camp you support who does nothing more than try to find any wholes which are inevitable in any investigation what so ever and exploiting them. One ca find holes in the most basic laws of physics. One could find holes in gravity, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

rule 12

YOU are NOT a researcher or an investigator. Investigators put together the entire picture and make everything fit. Charlatans sit there and poke holes in other people's work while pretending that that is actual research

YOU are NOT a researcher or an investigator. Investigators put together the entire picture and make everything fit. Charlatans sit there and poke holes in other people's work while pretending that that is actual research

No, I didn’t wrongly pasted your comment, it´s my answer to the comment!

Let me guess, you're just asking questions right? You're jsut looking for truth right? You think you aren't the 1000th person to come on here and pretend to make everyone think you are clever because you avoid the actually issues and pretend everyone else is simply going along with things because they were told to do so. This is scientific forum my friend. This kind of nonsense may work on the Woo forums, but not here.

HAHAHAHAHAHAH this is a scientific forum?!?!?! How is that? Everything that is discussed here, is discussed in a scientific way? Now YOU LOSE ALL CREDIBILITY I would still give to you. Sincerely Randi forums,,scientific? What a freakin laugh my friend, rule 12
yes you can say blah blah blah, as you have been all along. So far what have you actually presented? A long series of conspiracy cliches that have been discussed to death on this forum because you are too lazy to actually do a search. No worries there, just pretend you did and write it all off as "opinion". Maybe people will be dumb enough to fall for that one?

Ahh so I got it. According from your above nonsense, after a topic is discussed here, on the SCIENTIFIC FORUMS ( ROFL!!!!!!!!!), the truth was found!!!! OOHHhhh now I see. I told you that I would not read all that threads, and what I see there and challenge you to prove me wrong, was just OPINIONS, many of them disguised as facts. But nevermind, perhaps you´re too blind to see that.

Again, if you would bother to do a search, then you would see that your cliche claims have most indeed been debunked.

Ah yeah? Where?

They weren't skilled enough to fly planes? Let's see YOUR source on that. Let me guess, you're going to start with Hani right? You're going to look at some interviews form the Woo sites about how inexperienced he was and ignore the fact that they edit out the parts where the instructors go on to say how well he progressed. And of course you're going to ignore the fact that he was already a pilot before he even came here and was picked because he already knew how to fly a plane. you're going to ignore that he had more flight training hours than many people and that the maneuvers he did required no skill. You're going to ignore that early on instructors didn't think he was a good pilot simply because he didn't work on landing, a feat not needed for his goals.

http://www.venusproject.com/ethics_in_action/911_Impossible_Flying_757.html

Incidentally a funny Italian pilot who you might know, because you proclaim yourself as a well informed person about these “facts”, did answered to that arguments, picking on every sentence and making it appear that every statement of his is nonsense. My position is that the funny Italian did not debunk the first link info just on this personal little ego-war like he thinks “he´s the one when speaking of flying”. Come on, give me a break. Opinion vs opinion. Pick your side and make sure to say it is your opinion! Facts that debunk that arguments? Where? Put it up, rule12

Plastic knives? excuse me: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!

Err.. do you prefer no knives at all? Barehands? Begging “please let me take over”? No hijackers at all?!?!?!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1559151.stm

The funny thing is how readily the government gave a list on the involved! Remember U.S. did not accuse OBL officially by the time. But they promptly accused these guys. Has it been debunked ? Where? Put up or shut up.

let me get this straight. You refer to yourself as an investigator,

Oh I do?? Paste it! Or you are speaking through your rear end?

, and write off scientific research as "opinion" and you think these guys used plastic knives? Are you ***** serious? How do you not laugh at your own comments????

rule 12

First of all, they weren't plastic knives. They were box cutters.

Yes? Were you there to speak with this certainty? Or are you linking me to the Official Report now?

Knives that can cut through your skin like butter and were used to slice the throats of many people.

HO HO HO HO HO Do you believe in Santa Clauss also? Can you PROVE they slitted people´s throats? (now it is becoming exciting).

And if you had REALLY done any research on the most basic level, you would know that they also had pepper spray to fend people off and used fake bombs to keep people in line.

U-hu, they find the pepper spray on the plane debris, and were able to analyze the digitals on it huh? And then they realized that indeed was the hijacker´s possession.

You also would know that at the time the standard mentality during a hijacking at the time was to simply obey orders because it was the best possible chance to live.

Fine, so what?

If you DID research the issue, you would not be making absurd claims such as the planes impact locations being the determining factors in causing the buildings to collapse. That claims is outright laughable, yet you refer to yourself as a researcher. What research have you really done? Apparently absolutely none what so ever.

As far as the conspiracy is concerned, that´s not important, the buildings do not need to be hit by the planes at special locations, anywhere would be fine, they ´re going down anyway, like we could see with building 7. There was a staggering <insert the building number here> billion dollars insurance to be paid, contracted days before the acts. the beneficiary is a guy who owned a night club that was linked to many crimes. Again, I refer myself as a researcher? Where did I say that? rule 12

The bigger buildings are the harder they are to hit? HAHAHAHAHAHHA!!!!

I did not say this, I did say that even if they were big as they were, it was no easy task. See how you can make make-ups? The only one you are fooling is yourself.

now next time before you come into a scientific forum

<insert a vomit emoticon here>

and start accusing people of blindly accepting things,

Wow, i´m accusing people here!! Man I did not realize that…Who and when did I accuse? Answer: <insert accusation here>.

of not doing research, and of watching too many movies, maybe you might want to think of actually doing it on a subject that you have at least the slightest bit of knowledge about. because that way you won't make a fool out of yourself.

So the recipe for being smart as you is:

-Take Randi´s forum as scientific;

-Accept the Government Version, because “the scientific community corroborates such report.

U-hu, but no, thanks.

I mean to think, you're coming here and accusing the scientific community of watching too many hollywood movies, yet you claim that the impact points of the planes were the only spots that could cause the buildings to collapse if hit.

LOOOOL, so now you have gone too far. The Hollywood thing I said was to the scientific community?!?!?! Or, in other words, by saying this here on Randi´s Show Forums, I´m saying that to the scientific community?? rule 12

While I am not sure you understand now, eventually one day you will look back on these claims you are making and have just a good laugh as the rest of us.

Blab bla bla for you too. PROOFS?

Still waiting for you to bring up one of your favorite points so we can see if it has been brought up on this forum.

So if it has been brought, it follows that it has been debunked yeah? You are sooo, sooo… <wait , I do not want to be banned>. Get a life.

omegablue

30th September 2007, 03:26 PM

About what Pomeroo asked me to do. I simply say that there is nothing to do other than say we have two different oppinions. The italian weird guy did not comment on how can he assume that every mentioned pilots had the skills to use the cockpit devices of the planes, as to make them hit the WTC specially by making sudden manouvres such as a turn that would hit the towers.

The Italian weird guy even links us TO THE OFFICIAL REPORT for us to take as face value that the pilots were skilled enough to take over a boeing and hit them on buildings, just because it was written in the official report!!!!! UTTER AND COMPLETE CRAP!!! I think the old Italian job was better than this one. The most important point to debunk about Sagadevan´s article is that testimonials on how bad the pilots were. Come on, will the crap be cut off?

He ranted and mumbled and showed some vanity also, but did not address the problem technically, he masked a few bla bla blas about simulators in which he did disagree with Sagadevan, and done, it has been debunked.

Sigh.. again, opinion vs opinion.

A)They could have done that!
B)No, they could not!

Any visible proofs here? Has anything been debunked? Hello?

HereticHulk

30th September 2007, 03:32 PM

So lets add up all the factors here.

Lies and misleadings of the neocons and Bu$hco

WMD’s - check
Iraq war would pay for itself
Tax cuts would pay for themselves
No Child Left Behind working marvelously - check
Katrina Response - check
Pat Tillman - check
Jessica Lynch - check
Iraqi bodycounts - check
Quality Medical care for veterans - check
Didn’t out a CIA officer and her cohorts - check
Enron - check
Election fraud - check
Federal Prosecutors scandal - check
Black Water Scandal(s) - check
Iraq (no bid) contractor fraud - check
(recently ruled) Unconstitutional Patriot Act to make us safer - check

9-11 - We got the truth on this one.

omegablue

30th September 2007, 03:36 PM

LOL!! The patriot act. I was there at U.S. The population was hopelessly freaking out. I was almost shot one time and menaced a number of other times, because we were handing flyers of a friend´s pizzeria on FL. Lotsa people were freaked out man, that´s insane. There were a number of sane examples though. :)

The patriot act was one of the most funniest jokes on earth.

omegablue

30th September 2007, 03:48 PM

from: http://www.venusproject.com/ethics_in_action/911_Impossible_Flying_757.html

Not one of the hijackers was deemed fit to perform this most elementary exercise by himself, in fact, here is what their flight instructors had to say about the aptitude of these budding aviators:

Mohammed Atta: "His attention span was zero."

Khalid Al-Mihdhar: "We didn't kick him out, but he didn't live up to our standards."

Marwan Al-Shehhi: "He was dropped because of his limited English and incompetence at the controls."

Salem Al-Hazmi: "We advised him to quit after two lessons."

Hani Hanjour: "His English was horrible, and his mechanical skills were even worse. It was like he had hardly even ever driven a car. I'm still to this day amazed that he could have flown into the Pentagon. He could not fly at all."

This is where the BEEF is. Has it been thoroughly debunked?

Gravy

30th September 2007, 04:02 PM

from: http://www.venusproject.com/ethics_in_action/911_Impossible_Flying_757.html

This is where the BEEF is. Has it been thoroughly debunked?What beef? They didn't have to be good pilots to do what they did. Five of the hijackers had pilot licenses. Three had earned commercial, instrument-rated licenses. At least three (including Hani Hanjour) rented small planes for practice flights. Four had time on commercial large jet simulators.

This information is in the 9/11 Commission report. You should read it. Will you?

pomeroo

30th September 2007, 04:04 PM

pomeroo

30th September 2007, 04:06 PM

Corsair 115

30th September 2007, 04:06 PM

Lies and misleadings of the neocons and Bu$hco

WMD’s - check
Iraq war would pay for itself
Tax cuts would pay for themselves
No Child Left Behind working marvelously - check
Katrina Response - check
Pat Tillman - check
Jessica Lynch - check
Iraqi bodycounts - check
Quality Medical care for veterans - check
Didn’t out a CIA officer and her cohorts - check
Enron - check
Election fraud - check
Federal Prosecutors scandal - check
Black Water Scandal(s) - check
Iraq (no bid) contractor fraud - check
(recently ruled) Unconstitutional Patriot Act to make us safer - checkIf you think that's the first time an administration has been involved in scandals or other unsavoury activities, you clearly haven't studied your American political history.

omegablue

30th September 2007, 04:08 PM

What beef? They didn't have to be good pilots to do what they did. Five of the hijackers had pilot licenses. Three had earned commercial, instrument-rated licenses. At least three (including Hani Hanjour) rented small planes for practice flights. Four had time on commercial large jet simulators. This information is in the 9/11 Commission report. You should read it.

Are you saying to me that I have to take the official report at face value on analyzing the possibility of a conspiracy? Rather, show me more statements of THEIR FLIGHT INSTRUCTORS, which corroborates the government version. Could the freaking man do pilot at all or not? We have serious evidence if that is the INSTRUCTOR saying that they could not fly, that they were crap as pilots. They were utter and complete ridiculed by the instructors!!! Did they have a license? Ok, did they buy it?

Are you buying the hypothesis that it was easy task smashing a boeing on WTC after hijacking it, it´s your problem man! I can´t see many evidences towards the official report other than the official report itself.

omegablue

30th September 2007, 04:11 PM

You are a very silly liar.

ahahahahaHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Yes? What did I lie? Care to elaborate man. Or are you just being the average Randi Forum _ _ _ hole?

SDC

30th September 2007, 04:13 PM

Are you buying the hypothesis that it was easy task smashing a boeing on WTC after hijacking it, it´s your problem man! I can´t see many evidences towards the official report other than the official report itself.

Cuts, my bolding:

Wait, wait, I've almost remembered it... No, that's not right: "There is none so blind as he who will not see many evidences..." Close, but... "There is none so blind as he who will not" something. Oh well.

omegablue

30th September 2007, 04:14 PM

I will assume, to be charitable to you, that you did not attempt to read Bernacchia's paper. If you actually read it, and your post reflects your level of comprehension, well, I will strain to be polite and say no more.

Seriously, aren't you embarrassed?

I read that crap, care to ask me about a single point and I show you that he was either evasive, a jerk, nonsensical , that he selected what to comment, or just being plain wrong.

negativ

30th September 2007, 04:14 PM

I would support an independent 9/11 investigation only if it could be headed up by Hugo Chavez, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Alex Jones, Kim Jong-Il, Hassan Nasrallah, Cindy Sheehan, Ayman Al-Zawahiri, Rosie O'Donnell, and Jason Bermas.

Just as suicide is the most sincere form of self-loathing, such an investigation would be the most sincere form of Send One Dollar.

Bell

30th September 2007, 04:15 PM

ahahahahaHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Yes? What did I lie? Care to elaborate man. Or are you just being the average Randi Forum _ _ _ hole?

I would like to buy a vowel :rolleyes:

omegablue

30th September 2007, 04:15 PM

Cuts, my bolding:

Wait, wait, I've almost remembered it... No, that's not right: "There is none so blind as he who will not see many evidences..." Close, but... "There is none so blind as he who will not" something. Oh well.

So paste it up.

SDC

30th September 2007, 04:16 PM

So paste it up.

Sorry, I don't get it. Please explain. I like odd phrases.

omegablue

30th September 2007, 04:17 PM

omegablue

30th September 2007, 04:19 PM

Sorry, I don't get it. Please explain. I like odd phrases.

Am I not seeing the evidences everywhere?

Corsair 115

30th September 2007, 04:21 PM

Yes, You are right, the Government Reports are the most sincere possible.Does your disdain for such reports include reports and studies from NASA? CDC? USGS? NOAA? SEC? Census Bureau? EIA?

pomeroo

30th September 2007, 04:21 PM

ahahahahaHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Yes? What did I lie? Care to elaborate man. Or are you just being the average Randi Forum _ _ _ hole?

Here's what you lied about:

"LOL!! The patriot act. I was there at U.S. The population was hopelessly freaking out. I was almost shot one time and menaced a number of other times, because we were handing flyers of a friend´s pizzeria on FL. Lotsa people were freaked out man, that´s insane. There were a number of sane examples though. :)"

Your incoherent babble about the Patriot Act, a piece of legislation you know nothing about, reveals your agenda. The "population" wasn't "freaking out." It was repulsed by the audacity of a non-American slandering members of the American government in order to promote insane and baseless anti-American myths. You weren't "almost shot." There are no laws against stupidity in this country.

The patriot act was one of the most funniest jokes on earth.

How would you know?

SDC

30th September 2007, 04:24 PM

Am I not seeing the evidences everywhere?

OK, I get it. You meant "paste up" the evidence. I was hoping I had stumbled into an expression I'd never encountered before; like when someone referred to "old Bill" on another thread. Nuts.

You said you didn't see the evidence to support official reports except the reports themselves. I responded by playing off, "There is none so blind as he who will not see," clearly rather clumsily.

Others have addressed the evidence which underlies, supports, and confirms the theories and conclusions in the official documents and reports. Not for me to repeat their statements. Rather, it's for you to read them. Good luck.

twinstead

30th September 2007, 04:26 PM

Arrogance and ignorance is a dangerous combination, omegablue. Perhaps you should find some conspiracy forum and preach to the choir.

pomeroo

30th September 2007, 04:39 PM

I read that crap, care to ask me about a single point and I show you that he was either evasive, a jerk, nonsensical , that he selected what to comment, or just being plain wrong.

Okay, let's do it. Here is a passage from Bernacchia's paper. Who is the charlatan and who knows what he's talking about. By the way, what are your qualifications to make that judgment? Do you bring anything but an empty head and a hatred of America to the table?

(Sagadevan writes)
Now let's take a look at American Airlines Flight 77. Passenger / hijacker Hani Hanjour
rises from his seat midway through the flight, viciously fights his way into the cockpit
with his cohorts, overpowers Captain Charles F. Burlingame and First Officer David
Charlebois, and somehow manages to toss them out of the cockpit (for starters, very
difficult to achieve in a cramped environment without inadvertently impacting the
yoke and thereby disengaging the autopilot). One would correctly presume that this
would present considerable difficulties to a little guy with a “box cutter".

(Bernacchia responds)
Pilots are strapped in their seats, unable to move quickly. A very determined,
suicidal guy (but he wasn’t alone, was he?) would just have to enter the
cockpit and slash two sitting ducks’ throats. For those who don’t know, in the
world pre-9/11 the Captain’s procedure in case of hijacking was to do
whatever the bad guy said, explain him what the plane could or could not do,
and don’t make him angry. The idea was to avoid all risks of an escalation of
violence while in flight, appease the bad guy, and land the plane A.S.A.P. , so
some SWAT Team sniper could put an end to the whole business. All this was
based upon the assumption that the bad guy wanted to see the next dawn, so
you can see that it works backwards if the guy is suicidal. Starting 9/12,
notices in various forms circulated worldwide instructing all to lock the
cockpit door, NEVER let anyone in the cockpit in flight, and resist forcible
entry at all costs. Well, those hijackers sure were able to think outside the
box, and knew us much more than we will ever know them.

(Sagadevan writes)
Burlingame was a tough, burly, ex-Vietnam F4 fighter jock, who had flown over 100
combat missions. Every pilot who knows him says that rather than politely hand over
the controls, Burlingame would have instantly rolled the plane on its back so that
Hanjour would have broken his neck when he hit the floor.

(Bernacchia responds)
You can’t “roll the plane on its back”, because such a manoeuvre performed
at altitude would bring the plane to a stall much before it was halfway
through. But let’s consider it a figure of speech, an understandable
exaggeration. After 9-11 there was considerable discussion, among the flying
community, about the idea of devising “incapacitation manoeuvres” meant to
throw the hijacker off balance. Finally they were considered to pose a higher
danger than the risk posed by the hijacker. And that was AFTER 9-11! So I
consider very unlikely that any pilot pre 9-11 would consider yanking the
column to make the bad guy fall. But anyway this would go against the
accepted procedure, which called for trying to avoid making 6 terrorists
angry by having them bang their heads somewhere. What assurance could

Cpt. Burlingame have that a manoeuvre would incapacitate
all of the
terrorists and not snap the plane’s back? He was no fool, and played the
cards he had been dealt as well as he could.

(Sagadevan writes)
But let's ignore this almost natural reaction expected of a fighter pilot and proceed
with this charade.
Nonetheless, imagine that Hanjour overpowers the flight deck crew, removes them
from the cockpit and takes his position in the captain's seat. Although weather reports
state this was not the case, let's say Hanjour was lucky enough to experience a
perfect CAVU day (Ceiling And Visibility Unlimited). If Hanjour looked straight ahead
through the windshield, or off to his left at the ground, at best he would see, 35,000
feet - - 7 miles - - below him, a murky brownish-gray-green landscape, virtually
devoid of surface detail, while the aircraft he was now piloting was moving along,
almost imperceptibly and in eerie silence, at around 500 MPH (about 750 feet every
second).
In a real-world scenario (and given the reported weather conditions that day), he
would likely have seen clouds below him completely obscuring the ground he was
traversing. With this kind of "situational non-awareness", Hanjour might as well have
been flying over Argentina, Russia, or Japan he wouldn't have had a clue as to where,
precisely, he was.

Bernacchia responds)
The hijacker probably did something different: he killed the pilots, he made
sure the plane was nice and trimmed, he made sure the autopilot was still
on, (just a switch, its operation can easily be learned on MS Flight Sim), he
made sure the speed and altitude were stabilized (again, the autopilot will
take care of that, with a little fiddling learned from basic school and Flight
Sim), he produced a piece of paper from his pocket, were he had written
down the coordinates of some waypoints (like the WTC or DC Airport); he
inserted such coordinates in the Flight Management System (if you can send
an SMS or navigate through your cell phone menu you can manage THE
BASIC functions of an FMS, Flight management System), then he sat back
and started praying, while his acolytes were keeping the passengers at bay.

(Sagadevan writes)
After a few seconds (at 750 feet per second), Hanjour would figure out there's little
point in looking outside - there is nothing there to give him any real visual cues. For a
man who had previously wrestled with little Cessnas, following freeways and railroad
tracks (and always in the comforting presence of an instructor), this would have been
a strange, eerily unsettling environment indeed.

(Bernacchia responds)
It’s right, he figures there is little point in looking outside: he’s flying on
autopilot, to a navigation point whose precision is determined by the GPS
onboard system. Hell, I rarely looked outside when flying at altitude!!! (for
any real pilot reading: just kidding, I always did my midair-prevention
lookout)

(Sagadevan writes)
Seeing nothing outside, Mr. Hanjour would be forced to divert his attention to his
instrument panel, where he would be faced with a bewildering array of instruments.
He would then have to very quickly interpret his heading, ground track, altitude, and
airspeed information on the displays before he could even figure out where in the
world he was, much less where the Pentagon was located in relation to his position!

(Bernacchia responds)
Mr. Hanjour was probably praying that his God give him the strength to carry
out his terrible and “sacred” mission, he was probably not worrying about
parameters which were being held rock-steady by the autopilot.

(Sagadevan writes)
After all, before he can crash into a target, he has to first find the target.
It is very difficult to explain this scenario, of an utter lack of ground reference, to non-
pilots; but let it suffice to say that for these incompetent hijacker non-pilots to even
consider grappling with such a daunting task would have been utterly overwhelming.
They wouldn't have known where to begin.
But, for the sake of discussion let's stretch things beyond all plausibility and say that
Hanjour - whose flight instructor claimed "couldn't fly at all" - somehow managed to
figure out their exact position on the American landscape in relation to their intended
target as they traversed the earth at a speed five times faster than they had ever
flown by themselves before.
Once he had determined exactly where he was, he would need to figure out where the
Pentagon was located in relation to his rapidly changing position. He would then need
to plot a course to his target (one he cannot see with his eyes - remember, our ace is
flying solely on instruments).

(Bernacchia responds)
Mr. Hanjour, having picked, months in advance, during the planning phase, a
suitable waypoint, knows were he is going, and where to start the descent.
By now he is probably starting to look out trying to acquire his target
visually. A likely point could be Ronald Reagan Airport, easy to see from a
distance and very near to the Pentagon. The flight path, from the moment the
hijackers take control, points directly to the airport area. So, no need to
know much about navigation, no need to look outside, just few sequences of
button pushing.

(Sgadevan writes)
In order to perform this bit of electronic navigation, he would have to be very familiar
with IFR procedures. None of these chaps even knew what a navigational chart looked
like,

(Bernacchia responds)
Says who? The hijackers really didn’t care about entering reserved airspace,
flying down the proper corridors, cutting terminal areas or going up against
one way airways. Just point A to point B. And by the way, you can mail order
all the charts you want.

omegablue

30th September 2007, 04:43 PM

Your incoherent babble about the Patriot Act, a piece of legislation you know nothing about, reveals your agenda. The "population" wasn't "freaking out." It was repulsed by the audacity of a non-American slandering members of the American government in order to promote insane and baseless anti-American myths. You weren't "almost shot." There are no laws against stupidity in this country.

You are full of crap also friend, I was accused of survelling people´s properties and menaced, the patriot act was cited by the people. Anything could be classified as terrorism by the time, anything a stupid brainwashed mind would conceive as terrorism, so cut your crap silly one. And of course u.s. could not have any laws against stupidity or there would be no more than 10% americans out of jail.

I think that you are those poor people who mindlessly accept everything that the government and law institutions say to you. Why am I discussing with such a type?

gumboot

30th September 2007, 04:44 PM

Not only their attitude. A person who want to make holes in any conspiracy theory that could come up, would also pick for holes in the given theory to make it appear fake.

Well personally I don't do that, and I've never heard a cohesive theory to pick holes in.

I look at the component facts within said theory, and ask if they're true or not.

For example, I could pick holes in the CD theory, but questioning the practicality of wiring a building with explosives. Or I could simply look at the facts and point out that the facts indicate it was not a CD.

Conspiracy Theorists do not look at the specific facts of the accepted account and point out how these facts are wrong. They point out gaps between the facts and demand that they're filled.

That's the difference.

I have never, in one and a half years, seen a single Conspiracy Theorist identify even one specific aspect of the accepted account and prove it demonstratively false. In contrast every single specific aspect of every single conspiracy theory ever presented has been proven demonstratively false.

-Gumboot

pomeroo

30th September 2007, 04:46 PM

omegablue

30th September 2007, 04:46 PM

Arrogance and ignorance is a dangerous combination, omegablue. Perhaps you should find some conspiracy forum and preach to the choir.

Some people was asked to get arrogance back to them. About ignorance, explain me more. Too vague a statement. I´m not buying it.

Go YOU there on ct forums and see if you can alone demolish the evidence and argumentation given by the ct nuts.

Gravy

30th September 2007, 04:47 PM

pomeroo

30th September 2007, 04:47 PM

You are full of crap also friend, I was accused of survelling people´s properties and menaced, the patriot act was cited by the people. Anything could be classified as terrorism by the time, anything a stupid brainwashed mind would conceive as terrorism, so cut your crap silly one. And of course u.s. could not have any laws against stupidity or there would be no more than 10% americans out of jail.

I think that you are those poor people who mindlessly accept everything that the government and law institutions say to you. Why am I discussing with such a type?

You're a liar. NOBODY mentioned the Patriot Act if you were caught peeping in windows. Who do you think you're fooling?

omegablue

30th September 2007, 04:47 PM

We certainly got no truth in your post. What a farrago of leftist crap!

Says who? The Right wing hoe?

pomeroo

30th September 2007, 04:48 PM

Says who? The Right wing hoe?

Nothing on that list had any relevance to the jihadist attacks of 9/11/01. It was a tired litany of loony-left myths.

omegablue

30th September 2007, 04:50 PM

Since you refuse to read the 9/11 Commission report, which describes their extensive training, licensing, and flying experience, you will not learn.

Why do you continue to argue about a subject but refuse to learn about it? Do you really expect to have such an infantile attitude towards learning and be taken seriously by anyone?

You are ASSuming I did not read what the official reports say. But can that reports from the instructors and what is written in the official report coexists side by side friendly? I doubt it. Has it been addressed? Did the instructors lie?

omegablue

30th September 2007, 04:51 PM

Nothing on that list had any relevance to the jihadist attacks of 9/11/01. It was a tired litany of loony-left myths.

Ahhh so it was a jihadist attack? Do you think it was or you are telling me it was? Ah I know I know, it says were jihadist on the official report! :)

omegablue

30th September 2007, 04:59 PM

You're a liar. NOBODY mentioned the Patriot Act if you were caught peeping in windows. Who do you think you're fooling?

You are getting everything wrong again. And WOW you were there by my side and saw that NOBODY MENTIONED THE PATRIOT ACT. Why do you say that? Because that is what YOU WANT TO. You are such a hopeless creature man.

One man even chased me after on a SUV and stopped by my side saying that I would be lost if I came near his house again, because his wife and son became fearful of a stranger on their lawn as that terrorist waves of attacks were happening, even if handing a pizza flyer.

All the fearful reactions of these people were told to me by other americans there, as fear of terrorism, and because of this patriot act lunacy going on. And it makes sense!! It served to raise concern and fear on the population as to become alert and suspicious of ANYTHING THAT WOULD BE CONSIDERED TERRORISM. So cut your hopeless crap again man.

Why are you picking this much on this little detail? Are you a patriot act bitch? Don´t tell me so, I dont wanna barf.

gumboot

30th September 2007, 05:00 PM

Are you saying to me that I have to take the official report at face value on analyzing the possibility of a conspiracy? Rather, show me more statements of THEIR FLIGHT INSTRUCTORS, which corroborates the government version. Could the freaking man do pilot at all or not? We have serious evidence if that is the INSTRUCTOR saying that they could not fly, that they were crap as pilots. They were utter and complete ridiculed by the instructors!!! Did they have a license? Ok, did they buy it?

Are you familiar with Marcel Bernard? He was interviewed in Loose Change. He was the chief flight instructor at Frewway Airport in Bowie, Maryland. Hani Hanjour attempted to rent a Cessna 172 from them in August 2001, but he was declined. Here's what he had to say in the film Loose Change:

BERNARD: Hello, my name is Marcel Bernard and I'm the chief flight instructor here at Freeway. Hani Hanjour, well basically what happened with him is... he showed at the airport and wanted to get checked out in the aircraft you see, he was already certified, he didn't come to us for flight training. Yeah, he already had a pilot's license. He already earned a - it was private, instrument, commercial at a school in Arizona - I don't remember the name of the school. He already had certificates in hand and we sometimes occasionally have pilots who come to us that don't want flight training, but just want to rent our aircraft.

INTERVIEWER: Which is the case of Hani Hanjour?

BERNARD: This was the case of Hani, he wanted to get "checked-out" as we call it to rent our aircraft. And our insurance requires that he flies with one of our instructors to be found competent to rent. And that was the process that he was going through. And consensus was, he was very quiet, average, or below average piloting skills, English was very poor, so, that's about the best description I can get, give you for his demeanor. At that time very uneventful from my perspective.

The odd thing is Loose Change had a chance to really nail it here. All they had to ask was could Hani Hanjour have hit the Pentagon and of course Bernard would have said "no", because as you said, he was such a poor pilot. That would have been a really killer argument for the Truth Movement crowd. What a wasted opportunity!

Or perhaps there's another explanation. Perhaps they did ask the question, but just didn't like the answer...

Despite Hanjour's poor reviews, he did have some ability as a pilot, said Bernard of Freeway Airport. "There's no doubt in my mind that once that [hijacked jet] got going, he could have pointed that plane at a building and hit it," he said.

Source (http://www.pentagonresearch.com/Newsday_com.htm)

Oops!

Finally, here's some amateur non-pilots achieving precisely what the terrorists achieved:

ZPXGc7u6Z6Y

Px4bpFnemGY

-Gumboot

omegablue

30th September 2007, 05:01 PM

Okay, let's do it. Here is a passage from Bernacchia's paper. Who is the charlatan and who knows what he's talking about. By the way, what are your qualifications to make that judgment? Do you bring anything but an empty head and a hatred of America to the table?

(Sagadevan writes)
Now let's take a look at American Airlines Flight 77. Passenger / hijacker Hani Hanjour
rises from his seat midway through the flight, viciously fights his way into the cockpit
with his cohorts, overpowers Captain Charles F. Burlingame and First Officer David
Charlebois, and somehow manages to toss them out of the cockpit (for starters, very
difficult to achieve in a cramped environment without inadvertently impacting the
yoke and thereby disengaging the autopilot). One would correctly presume that this
would present considerable difficulties to a little guy with a “box cutter".

(Bernacchia responds)
Pilots are strapped in their seats, unable to move quickly. A very determined,
suicidal guy (but he wasn’t alone, was he?) would just have to enter the
cockpit and slash two sitting ducks’ throats. For those who don’t know, in the
world pre-9/11 the Captain’s procedure in case of hijacking was to do
whatever the bad guy said, explain him what the plane could or could not do,
and don’t make him angry. The idea was to avoid all risks of an escalation of
violence while in flight, appease the bad guy, and land the plane A.S.A.P. , so
some SWAT Team sniper could put an end to the whole business. All this was
based upon the assumption that the bad guy wanted to see the next dawn, so
you can see that it works backwards if the guy is suicidal. Starting 9/12,
notices in various forms circulated worldwide instructing all to lock the
cockpit door, NEVER let anyone in the cockpit in flight, and resist forcible
entry at all costs. Well, those hijackers sure were able to think outside the
box, and knew us much more than we will ever know them.

(Sagadevan writes)
Burlingame was a tough, burly, ex-Vietnam F4 fighter jock, who had flown over 100
combat missions. Every pilot who knows him says that rather than politely hand over
the controls, Burlingame would have instantly rolled the plane on its back so that
Hanjour would have broken his neck when he hit the floor.

(Bernacchia responds)
You can’t “roll the plane on its back”, because such a manoeuvre performed
at altitude would bring the plane to a stall much before it was halfway
through. But let’s consider it a figure of speech, an understandable
exaggeration. After 9-11 there was considerable discussion, among the flying
community, about the idea of devising “incapacitation manoeuvres” meant to
throw the hijacker off balance. Finally they were considered to pose a higher
danger than the risk posed by the hijacker. And that was AFTER 9-11! So I
consider very unlikely that any pilot pre 9-11 would consider yanking the
column to make the bad guy fall. But anyway this would go against the
accepted procedure, which called for trying to avoid making 6 terrorists
angry by having them bang their heads somewhere. What assurance could

Cpt. Burlingame have that a manoeuvre would incapacitate
all of the
terrorists and not snap the plane’s back? He was no fool, and played the
cards he had been dealt as well as he could.

(Sagadevan writes)
But let's ignore this almost natural reaction expected of a fighter pilot and proceed
with this charade.
Nonetheless, imagine that Hanjour overpowers the flight deck crew, removes them
from the cockpit and takes his position in the captain's seat. Although weather reports
state this was not the case, let's say Hanjour was lucky enough to experience a
perfect CAVU day (Ceiling And Visibility Unlimited). If Hanjour looked straight ahead
through the windshield, or off to his left at the ground, at best he would see, 35,000
feet - - 7 miles - - below him, a murky brownish-gray-green landscape, virtually
devoid of surface detail, while the aircraft he was now piloting was moving along,
almost imperceptibly and in eerie silence, at around 500 MPH (about 750 feet every
second).
In a real-world scenario (and given the reported weather conditions that day), he
would likely have seen clouds below him completely obscuring the ground he was
traversing. With this kind of "situational non-awareness", Hanjour might as well have
been flying over Argentina, Russia, or Japan he wouldn't have had a clue as to where,
precisely, he was.

Bernacchia responds)
The hijacker probably did something different: he killed the pilots, he made
sure the plane was nice and trimmed, he made sure the autopilot was still
on, (just a switch, its operation can easily be learned on MS Flight Sim), he
made sure the speed and altitude were stabilized (again, the autopilot will
take care of that, with a little fiddling learned from basic school and Flight
Sim), he produced a piece of paper from his pocket, were he had written
down the coordinates of some waypoints (like the WTC or DC Airport); he
inserted such coordinates in the Flight Management System (if you can send
an SMS or navigate through your cell phone menu you can manage THE
BASIC functions of an FMS, Flight management System), then he sat back
and started praying, while his acolytes were keeping the passengers at bay.

(Sagadevan writes)
After a few seconds (at 750 feet per second), Hanjour would figure out there's little
point in looking outside - there is nothing there to give him any real visual cues. For a
man who had previously wrestled with little Cessnas, following freeways and railroad
tracks (and always in the comforting presence of an instructor), this would have been
a strange, eerily unsettling environment indeed.

(Bernacchia responds)
It’s right, he figures there is little point in looking outside: he’s flying on
autopilot, to a navigation point whose precision is determined by the GPS
onboard system. Hell, I rarely looked outside when flying at altitude!!! (for
any real pilot reading: just kidding, I always did my midair-prevention
lookout)

(Sagadevan writes)
Seeing nothing outside, Mr. Hanjour would be forced to divert his attention to his
instrument panel, where he would be faced with a bewildering array of instruments.
He would then have to very quickly interpret his heading, ground track, altitude, and
airspeed information on the displays before he could even figure out where in the
world he was, much less where the Pentagon was located in relation to his position!

(Bernacchia responds)
Mr. Hanjour was probably praying that his God give him the strength to carry
out his terrible and “sacred” mission, he was probably not worrying about
parameters which were being held rock-steady by the autopilot.

(Sagadevan writes)
After all, before he can crash into a target, he has to first find the target.
It is very difficult to explain this scenario, of an utter lack of ground reference, to non-
pilots; but let it suffice to say that for these incompetent hijacker non-pilots to even
consider grappling with such a daunting task would have been utterly overwhelming.
They wouldn't have known where to begin.
But, for the sake of discussion let's stretch things beyond all plausibility and say that
Hanjour - whose flight instructor claimed "couldn't fly at all" - somehow managed to
figure out their exact position on the American landscape in relation to their intended
target as they traversed the earth at a speed five times faster than they had ever
flown by themselves before.
Once he had determined exactly where he was, he would need to figure out where the
Pentagon was located in relation to his rapidly changing position. He would then need
to plot a course to his target (one he cannot see with his eyes - remember, our ace is
flying solely on instruments).

(Bernacchia responds)
Mr. Hanjour, having picked, months in advance, during the planning phase, a
suitable waypoint, knows were he is going, and where to start the descent.
By now he is probably starting to look out trying to acquire his target
visually. A likely point could be Ronald Reagan Airport, easy to see from a
distance and very near to the Pentagon. The flight path, from the moment the
hijackers take control, points directly to the airport area. So, no need to
know much about navigation, no need to look outside, just few sequences of
button pushing.

(Sgadevan writes)
In order to perform this bit of electronic navigation, he would have to be very familiar
with IFR procedures. None of these chaps even knew what a navigational chart looked
like,

(Bernacchia responds)
Says who? The hijackers really didn’t care about entering reserved airspace,
flying down the proper corridors, cutting terminal areas or going up against
one way airways. Just point A to point B. And by the way, you can mail order
all the charts you want.

Has all this crap any use? Isnt better actually specify which part do you think the italian wierd guy was right? And what YOU qualifications to make any judgement on this? Is this plain appealing to authority? I cant see any point on this apparent useless post.

Matthew Best

30th September 2007, 05:01 PM

The 'miraculous' appearance of incriminating evidence at or near crime scenes.

Er, where were you expecting incriminating evidence to appear?

:confused:

Gravy

30th September 2007, 05:07 PM

You are ASSuming I did not read what the official reports say.You seem to think you're dealing with fools here. Had you read the 9/11 Commission report, which addresses your concerns, you wouldn't be making a fool of yourself here.

But can that reports from the instructors and what is written in the official report coexists side by side friendly? I doubt it. Has it been addressed? Did the instructors lie?Of course they can. For instance, here's what Loose Change has Marcel Bernard saying. He ran the flight school where Hani Hanjour tried to rent a plane. Bolding mine.

"Hello, my name is Marcel Bernard and I'm the chief flight instructor here at Freeway. Hani Hanjour, well basically what happened with him is... he showed at the airport and wanted to get checked out in the aircraft you see, he was already certified, he didn't come to us for flight training. Yeah, he already had a pilot's license. He already earned a - it was private, instrument, commercial at a school in Arizona - I don't remember the name of the school. He already had certificates in hand and we sometimes occasionally have pilots who come to us that don't want flight training, but just want to rent our aircraft."

Avery: "Which is the case of Hani Hanjour?"

"This was the case of Hani, he wanted to get "checked-out" as we call it to rent our aircraft. And our insurance requires that he flies with one of our instructors to be found competent to rent. And that was the process that he was going through. And consensus was, he was very quiet, average, or below average piloting skills, English was very poor, so, that's about the best description I can get, give you for his demeanor. At that time very uneventful from my perspective.And here's what Loose Change leaves out. Bernard, quoted in the Greenbelt, Maryland Gazette:The standard evaluation consists of one-to-one-and-a-half-hour flights east over the Chesapeake Bay area. Hanjour paid $400 cash and provided a valid pilot's license from Arizona, Bernard said. He failed because he showed problems landing the airplane and the flight instructor had to help him, Bernard said. But Hanjour's problems were nothing unusual, Bernard said. "There's no doubt in my mind that once (Flight 77) got going, he could have pointed that plane at a building and hit it."If it doesn't work out at one place, go to another. That's what they did. A few of the many, many facts about their piloting training and experience in the 9/11 Commission report. From page 242:

Shortly thereafter, Hanjour switched to Caldwell Flight Academy in Fairfield, New Jersey, where he rented small aircraft on several occasions during June and July. In one such instance on July 20, Hanjour-likely accompanied by Hazmi-rented a plane from Caldwell and took a practice flight from Fairfield to Gaithersburg, Maryland, a route that would have allowed them to fly near Washington, D.C. Other evidence suggests that Hanjour may even have returned to Arizona for flight simulator training earlier in June.135
Ziad Jarrah
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879047002bf582267.jpg

You would have known these things if you had read the reports, but you don't care. Good luck with that.

twinstead

30th September 2007, 05:09 PM

Has all this crap any use? Isnt better actually specify which part do you think the italian wierd guy was right? And what YOU qualifications to make any judgement on this? Is this plain appealing to authority? I cant see any point on this apparent useless post.

And exactly what are YOUR qualifications to make any judgments at all about 911? I'm surprised that you refused to address ANY single point in his post.

No, I take that back; I'm not surprised at all.

HereticHulk

30th September 2007, 05:14 PM

If you think that's the first time an administration has been involved in scandals or other unsavoury activities, you clearly haven't studied your American political history.

You helped proved my point, thank you.

Not much we can do about political history related scandals and lies now though. Lets focus on the deceit that is happening now w/ this admin.

gumboot

30th September 2007, 05:17 PM

Has all this crap any use? Isnt better actually specify which part do you think the italian wierd guy was right? And what YOU qualifications to make any judgement on this? Is this plain appealing to authority? I cant see any point on this apparent useless post.

Are you going to actually identify what Bernacchia got wrong, or just spew more meaningless rhetoric?

-Gumboot

stateofgrace

30th September 2007, 05:18 PM

You are full of crap also friend, I was accused of survelling people´s properties and menaced, the patriot act was cited by the people. Anything could be classified as terrorism by the time, anything a stupid brainwashed mind would conceive as terrorism, so cut your crap silly one. And of course u.s. could not have any laws against stupidity or there would be no more than 10% americans out of jail.

I think that you are those poor people who mindlessly accept everything that the government and law institutions say to you. Why am I discussing with such a type?

So what actions should be taken to counter the threat of international terrorism?

twinstead

30th September 2007, 05:20 PM

You helped proved my point, thank you.

Not much we can do about political history related scandals and lies now though. Lets focus on the deceit that is happening now w/ this admin.

This thread is about presenting enough evidence that the current administration is lying about what happened on 911 to warrant a new investigation.

So far, regardless of the quality and honesty of the current administration, none has been presented.

This issue is SO much larger than just the Bush administration. Is the NIST and others involved in the first investigation, including Purdue University and many other scientists from around the world wrong?

omegablue

30th September 2007, 05:37 PM

You seem to think you're dealing with fools here. Had you read the 9/11 Commission report, which addresses your concerns, you wouldn't be making a fool of yourself here..

Again you are Assuming that I did not read THIS PART of the 500+ pages report. Was this Bernard the same instructor Sagadevan mentioned on his article?

Of course they can. For instance, here's what Loose Change has Marcel Bernard saying. He ran the flight school where Hani Hanjour tried to rent a plane. Bolding mine.

And here's what Loose Change leaves out. Bernard, quoted in the Greenbelt, Maryland Gazette:If it doesn't work out at one place, go to another. That's what they did. A few of the many, many facts about their piloting training and experience in the 9/11 Commission report. From page 242:
Ziad Jarrah
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879047002bf582267.jpg

You would have known these things if you had read the reports, but you don't care. Good luck with that.

I would only be satisfied with an independent investigation about this. Back to where did they get their licenses. How did they perform the tests and etc. If "he could not fly at all" , why it makes he think that if he would get control of the plane, he would be able to "aim it on a bulding and hit it". Which building, a random one? Or a specific one?

I think that : "not being able to fly at all" and "having a federal pilot license" won´t match very much, dont you?

Not mentioning that if one is about to think about conspiracies, the fact that the pilots had or had not the skills to do it is unimportant. It could be for example, that they (u.s. security) already knew that the attacks were going on (as some report they could be aware) , and not only did avoid intercepting and stopping it, but got the advantage of making sure the buildings were bring to dust for a full insurance payment. Who knows? As you see, these are not the core problems on the oficcial story, but how did the buildings came down. Someone here chose to pick up this unresolved pilot skill dispute as being the argument to be beaten in order to prove the conspiracy theories wrong. And here I am being dragged to this idiotic discussion about the unresolved dispute of opinions about if they could or could not hit the buildings.

omegablue

30th September 2007, 05:41 PM

Are you going to actually identify what Bernacchia got wrong, or just spew more meaningless rhetoric?

-Gumboot

Basically he did not address the central problem, i dont give a **** to his opinion whether they could or could not do it, I even give a **** to Sagadevan´s opinion on this issue. As a matter of fact I dont give a considerable **** to this skill discussion. It could have happened anyway or the other. What is most entertaining is the way the buildings were demolished er... i mean, the way they came down.

omegablue

30th September 2007, 05:44 PM

Is the NIST and others involved in the first investigation, including Purdue University and many other scientists from around the world wrong?

Err... could they never be wrong? What about that qualified engineer from the team built the WTC saying it was nonsense that the building could be taken down that way? Has it been thoroughly debunked? Where?

twinstead

30th September 2007, 05:45 PM

the core issues with the official story, IOW how the buildings fell down, has been answered to not only the satisfaction of this layman, but to the satisfaction of the vast majority of experts in relevant fields on Earth, for God's sake.

You are right, omegablue, this thread has nothing to do with the core issues of the NIST report, or the 911 commission report.

You want a new investigation. If your evidence is so compelling why are you wasting your time on a relatively obscure internet forum? There's got to be some reporter somewhere in the world who wants a Nobel prize.

'cause a Nobel prize awaits the reporter who breaks this story of the century. I say your movement has nothing. If my government was involved in the murder of 3000 innocents, and you have compelling evidence that a new investigation needs to happen, then GET IT DONE.